StringJunky

It was a low-ball analogy.

That was because she was black, not a woman.

What is offensive or not is arbitrary, depending on ones belief system.

One of the lads then.

I find it offensive because it's sexist. I'm not just saying that for effect. If the shoe was on the other foot and the BBC emphasised the gender of men, there would be uproar. Equality is not about turning the tables 180o.

This was on the BBC site today. Emphasis not mine. Comments? This is not a one-off on the BBC.

Yeah, like they are going to plead guilty for crimes they didn't commit!

Then that means you are behaving mischievously with them.

Everybody's using "collusion" because it's the buzzword. As for it not being a synonym, just Google 'collusion synonym'. If two people collude, they conspire, and vice versa.

Collusion is conspiracy, and conspiracy is covered under 923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

You can't send a bottle of champagne or other forms of 'appreciation' in a book.

Yeah, looks good. I can't find anywhere to put a chisel in that and it''s not negatively provocative.

I think we need @CharonY

I think Mueller is building as water-tight a case as possible. Another little nugget out today:

It seems that both your parents probably carry the gene, which is necessary for it to be expressed in their children. If you read this link, it should start you off on enlightening you about it and give you a springboard for looking into it: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/oculocutaneous-albinism#diagnosis It has an autosomal recessive inheritance pattern, which is where both parents are carriers. The genetic transfer distribution of such a condition amongst in offspring goes something like this picture from my link: Please be aware that we can't give advice. Save that for when you see your doctor.

I don't know what you've been reading.

Can't you turn them off? Phones are a PITA for this stuff I reckon. It's so clunky to go back and correct. I don't want to distract the thread but just wanted to say it really messes up your posts sometimes.

Your quality control in your writing appears non-existent. Don't you ever check it?

I think the maximum familial separation in DNA terms is 14 generations then it disappears. You have about 20,000 genes which halve in number every generation, in a direct line. Mitochondrial DNA is passed on indefinitely I think but that doesn't carry our information. You can't have more than a 14th great grandmother, cousin etc and it be measurable because there's no common genes to find. If it's recorded historically then that's the only way you'll find out.

But this could be your real self because the personal cost of no-acceptance is minimal, and that's possibly why you are the way you are on here.

Yeah, when Coca Cola was the real thing.

Braille, audio...

If it's the stuff I'm thinking of, it's highly flammable.

As CharonY said: The point being, one is looking for depressed ability in specific tasks, not geniuses. It doesn't work the other way because it becomes difficult to quantify and define high intelligence. When you are working with the basic cognitive attributes/deficits it is easier to measure because disabled people's ability to function normally is directly affected. There is a presumption that the person taking a chemistry test has learnt the requisite material; it's not equivalent.

nanosecond steaks or suntans.