zapatos

That may be true but that is not necessarily how we saw it portrayed in the US. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60190452 https://theconversation.com/how-canadas-freedom-convoy-was-overtaken-by-a-radical-fringe-176111 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/world/canada/trudeau-truckers-anti-vax-protests.html I also just recently heard a story on NPR talking about Canada's gun problem. I didn't know they had one but was not surprised that a large part of it had to do with the smuggling of handguns from the US. Here is a related article. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-canada-has-a-real-gun-violence-problem-but-its-mostly-not-the-one-the/

What I meant is that they are not segregated if they play together. "Segregate: set apart from the rest or from each other; isolate or divide." 'Mixed' is the opposite of 'segregated'. When blacks were segregated from whites in post-Civil War America, that did not mean you had water fountains for whites, water fountains for blacks, and water fountains that would be used by both blacks and whites.

They are not interested in this thread. They spend day and night visiting every nook and cranny of the web, building their index so that when someone Googles (or any other browser) "come from nothing", Google can show them the 200 million places that appears on the web.

Today I learned that mole day is celebrated each year beginning at 6:02 am on October 23rd. Life keeps me smiling! 😄

More likely it has been viewed by a great number of web crawlers.

Arguably the worst video on Youtube with over 161,000,000 views. Perhaps "views" is not a good measure of the kind of history you wish to make.

I think you are mistaken about this claim. These are exactly the types of problems the Democrats are trying to address through legislation. Again, this is simply not true as has been pointed out time and again over the last 16 pages.

It's happened before. https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

To be fair, they are also the weapons of choice for the brave and stable.

Correct. Don't pretend you don't know the definition of "domestic". WTF is wrong with you?!?! Who, anywhere in this thread, made any such implication? I don't have an issue. You do. Clearly for some reason you've decided to troll everyone here. Since this thread has not been argued in good faith I'm hopeful the moderators will see fit to close it. I'm sure if someone wants to discuss domestic abuse they will open another thread. This one has moved beyond anything useful.

That's never been an issue. The issue had to do with your initial claim about domestic abuse.

I'm okay with calling it abuse. But this is a video of how he felt when he heard what Heard said about him in the article. That was well after the marriage.

Would you mind telling the time on the video he begins talking about how she abused him in the marriage?

I know. Hence my request for you to expand on it. Unfortunately rather than address why it is plausible as I asked, you continue with Red Herrings... And tap dancing... I'll get off the carousel now.

But that was irrelevant to my dialogue with Peterkin, which was not about the truth of who did what to whom, but about relevant evidence at trial. I found Peterkin's statement that he "wouldn't expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways", in a trial regarding the veracity of the claim that one litigant was victimized by the other, to be implausible. I was simply seeking a further clarification of his statement; either an argument supporting the supposition, or an acknowledgement that upon further consideration the supposition may not be correct after all. Unfortunately I received neither.

You've fallen so far koti. I hope you'll rejoin us at some point.

Pro Tip: As you appear to be new to posting on this site, the expectation here is that if you make a claim, you are expected to support it with links, documentation, etc. You cannot expect others to do your work for you.

There are also additional threads with the same theme. I once contributed to one but it is not the one you linked to.

Har! 😆

You seem to be having issues following our conversation. Either that or you abhor having to acknowledge that you are not an expert on every topic under the sun and someone may have a valid counterpoint. You stated: To which I responded: Ever since then you've been tap dancing around my queries, setting smoke screens, tossing red herrings about, and generally obfuscating. Once again you dropped a big pile of poop on the ground and I was naive enough to step in it, assuming you would discuss in good faith. My fault, again, for failing to recognize the real Peterkin behind the curtain.

It was not limited to the "specific utterance". It was limited to the truth of the specific utterance. It is not illegal to make a claim that is true. What is the jury supposed to do? GUESS whether or not the utterance was true without hearing any testimony about the specific allegations made? I didn't follow the trial either but with my very limited knowledge of the law it seems obvious that there would be allowed testimony to enable the jury to make a determination as to the veracity of the claim. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-lawsuit-shocking-moments-testimony/

Then why wouldn't you expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

But it was a public utterance about domestic violence. How do you determine whether or not the utterance was defamation without admitting evidence regarding whether or not Depp victimized Heard?

Personal attack. Perhaps you can address the content of the post rather than the motives of the poster.