StringJunky

Emoticons send out more information about intent than rep points. That device came about for a reason, namely to address the limits of the written word in online social interactions. Not everyone has your language skill set.

Did I bring violence into it? That appears to be a needless distraction and red herring. I'm more focused with the principle. Feminists appear to be complaining that their, implied, territory is being trodden on. Read CharonY's post again and reverse the genders, with respect to 'womens spaces' that my post was refering to as a counterpoint. The issues are two-sided. Too many people are 'fighting for a cause' when discussing contentious subjects, when displaying the indifference and emotional detachment of a scientist might be more fruitful in finding a solution.

I don't think we are looking in the same direction.

OK.

Like when feminists feel their 'territory' is being trodden on by trans-females.

Then you need to open your mind a bit to possible other POV's and how they might interpret a particular post. Telepathy is not in the human sensory repertoire AFAIK.

OK. In the absence of Democratic exampless, it did look like you were using precedence as a defence.

In my defence, I did propose a like-only format.

I see no strawman: iNow 15 hours ago He's listed here things passed by GOP administrations as a means of rebuttal. I can only interpret that as "They did it, so we can".

If people feel that no system is better, then I'm up for it. Even if it's predominantly outsiders doing it, it's looking more and more like graffiti, in effect, to me. Removing it will remove suspicion between the core members.

It has been on my mind a while, and seeing a comment by studiot about the number of neg reps in a thread, prompted me to say something. I feel quite strongly now that it is causing harm and resentment amongst highly intelligent and thoughtful members.

I think it's been a long time since we last discussed rep points, specifically negative reps. Originally, I thought they were a useful tool, but now think they cause more harm than good. This is because people seem to be using them more and more as arrows to reinforce their position in a discussion, and when several posters do it to someone in a minority position, it appears they are being subjected to mob justice. This is happening between long-time members who know each other well. It's striking me now as a petty weapon, rather than a device to moderate uncivil behaviour and other social negatives by generally less comitted newer posters. Nothing will be lost just having a like-only system because persistently uncivil, intransigent posters are banned anyway.

Has it occurred to you that the apparent 'significant' rise might be due to scientists eyes being opened to see clearer, with better instruments and processes? This is what John Tyndall had to work with mid-19th century: You can't put that in your bag of tricks and go roving around for data.

Ive used it since about 2005. Extremely reliable.

A menage a trois. Marriage of three. I'm reporting.

Probably the best metric is to look at the combined legal skillset of the incumbents, and see what particular skills/knowledge are missing or in short supply. It should be a given that a candidate has broad experience/overview of the legal landscape, besides having some depth in a particular area.

Russia and China are publicly cosying up together:

Just in:

Yes, that as well. Bullies, thieves and other miscreants judge others by their own standards of conduct... it's all they know.

If you look at this map and turn Ukraine to the NATO colour, that's a big extra chunk of direct border with Russia, hence their likely concern, even if the effect is just psychological. https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2022/01/image-9.png

Someone is being very disingenuous in this rising conflict, it is not hystera. Putin is trying very hard to reverse the blame. He's probably doing that to justify any future Russian actions to his domestic audience, who are blinkered news-wise by government design.

The leaders are sparring on the advice of their respective military experts, we can't expect our news or their words to reflect their true positions... BS, omission and bluff is necessarily very much on the menu atm, methinks. oooh! That's a very hawkish comment from you. Has the dove flown? I agree, generally, you can't keep walking backwards to keep the peace.

I thought iNow said something directly it about as a riposte to a comment of mine, but I seem to be mistaken. It was earlier in the day. Looking back now, it might have been this comment from Phi, bolded: Anyway, thanks for all your views. This was just a learning exercise and I'm not really defending a view. The US system is what is, and I agree, reservations aside, that, in practice, a a black, female SC judge will improve representation of the wider US population.

It's wrong, whichever side it comes from. The selection of Kavanaugh was a stinker, as we all know. I'm becoming less enamoured of the Dems, and they seem to play by the same playbook as the GOP. Same old shit, different actors in each successive administration. I agree, it['s a sad state of affairs, the US judicial selection system being so political.

It's not a 'GOP concern' per se, Lindsay Graham, for instance doesn't mind, which surprised me. The GOP don't appear to be monolithic on this. My possible concern, and Sen. Collins, is more for the principle of selection. She's not a closed-minded Republican. I'm an outsider looking in, maybe that makes a difference. MigL is an outsider also and seems to see the same angle. It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will." Is that a good way to think in the long term, and keep the principled upper hand against the other side? If anything, it demeans the ability of the affirmatively chosen candidate because the goalposts were moved in their favour for them to get the job.