StringJunky

They eat plant stuff.

I imagine most native speakers would give them the same meaning, but I had a look - in muscle training terminology, not physics - and 'strength' is force without a time component, whereas 'power' is force with a time component. For example, a strong person can take a long time to move a heavy object but they wouldn't be called "powerful" unless they could do it quickly, compared to some reference. To be powerful you need to be quick as well as strong.

I was just saying what it looks like to me.

No such thing. They both knew the right people to suck up to. As the old saying goes: It's not what you know, it's who you know.

This is true, but if you are angry and flustered, things can cause you to do things in the wrong order.

It doesn't look like that to me because he doesn't seem to take his eye off that lad at any point up to firing. If you pretend to hold a gun as though aiming it, the trigger mechanism/safety is obscured and I would expect to move the gun away to look, thinking there was something wrong. My guess is no better than yours though.

It looks like to me that he takes aim, then thinks differently, evidenced by lifting up the gun up before firing as a warning shot instead

The best way to do it I think is like this: Copy text > Hit the quote button (speech mark ") in the bar above in the text box > Paste text in > Copy url from that page, make a space and paste at the bottom. Double tap your cursor out of the box at the end of the line or try clicking outside the box to escape... can be one or the other. Also, don't quote a whole page if there's a lot; just post the important bits and the link can be followed if someone is interested enough.

Probably water.

It's even got Taylor Swift out telling people to vote Democrat. Must be serious.

Right. That makes sense. It occurred to me that MS would preempt anyone trying to gain unauthorised access, so I thought of that but your thought achieves the same security objective.

I've read (on the internet) fructose, which includes sucrose, is associated with visceral fat, which is not particularly good to have.

I don't think you can reinstall with file saving without logging in first but you can do a full reinstall and lose everything.

What is the OP asking, apart from lecturing?

I don't lean that way as far as he does but I'm obviously more tolerant of his position in that discussion. Within the context of that particular thread, I find myself looking at the subject in an emotionally disaffected way, as I think JCM and MigL are too. Other times, I am committed in a discussion, along with the emotional side effects, but not this time. I'll have to ponder on Swansont's post for a bit.

Maybe I'm not 'with it' but I think he is airing his unfiltered view in his own way. I would call it ''sharp' rather than offensive... but maybe that's just me. Yes, it's true that there will be outsiders looking in and passing judgement; I've not really taken that into account. I do think though, by and large, we are keeping it around the bounds of civility...just. Some peoples views might be seen as offensive but I'm seeing them as having a different but sincerely held view. Because it diverges so much from the 'popular' view (of women) it's seen as "offensive".

OK. But I just think, in this case, it's better to articulate rather than just reflexively hit the button. I could have chucked out a shed load of reds in that thread.

The neg brigade is out again. I wonder if it might be time to knock this thread on the head until another time. Some people are thinking with their hearts rather than their heads.

The same could be said about Kavanaugh. The difference is you've made up your mind, along with others.

I meant that I concur. Damned ambiguous language.

This is my thought.

I think mistermack is just a bit more blunt but he''s not saying anything that hasn't been suggested earlier.

Yes, I stand corrected.

But that's their opinion. We shouldn't 'shout down' peoples legitimate opinions with negatives; better to express it with a written response.

Cheers. I shall remember to invoke Article Five when someone witters on about the sanctity of gun rights. It sets a rather high bar to change anything though, doesn't it?