zapatos

Not to mention that keeping potatoes in the fridge is frowned upon as it makes the potatoes taste sweet and leads to increases in acrylamide, a cancer causing chemical, when cooked.

I think you meant to post this in a different thead.

I really don't know what you are going on about. I tried. I'm done here.

I am being nice. I simply asked you to provide some data to support your assertion/belief. That is basic. If you file an expense report at work your boss will ask to see the receipts. If you tell the police you were at the movies when the bank was being robbed they'll ask to see the ticket stub. It is not that they aren't being nice, it is how the world (and especially science) works. I even said "please". 😊

Excellent. Let's talk about the "data". Please provide data of at least one person who has effectively screamed in terror and gone insane after reading your post or any similar type post.

I think our point is that we don't we don't believe that to be true. While I'll not say "never", I believe the chance of someone reading your post then screaming in terror and going insane is nearly zero.

Lots of things are obvious. Like the sun going around the earth, that the cause of disease is "bad vapors", and that the universe is static. We can do better than that. This is a science site. Evidence and reason are to be embraced, not ignored for the expediency of a shortcut named "obvious".

Please continue with your line of reasoning. If the price he's paying has gone up tenfold, why is he now going to fight for more? Why doesn't he cut his losses and get the hell out? If you thought you could get me to hand over my wallet and all it would cost you is a sprained finger but you've ended up with two broken arms, are you now going to try to get my wallet AND my car? How much is THAT going to cost you? And if you couldn't even get my wallet, what makes you think you can get my wallet and my car? You need to beef up your argument a bit to be convincing. You can't just say you are "sure" and leave it at that. Provide some evidence or reasoning. There must be a reason why you are "sure".

Why? So he can get his highest offer now. Why turn it down? He could claim 100% victory and get everything he wanted from the beginning. All the more reason to take what he wanted all along then. Seems like he'd have pretty good bragging rights too, by saying he FORCED them to give him everything he wanted.

You are making a pretty big assumption that all Putin wanted was a pledge of neutrality. If that were true Putin could grab it now and withdraw. Owning a land bridge to Crimea, the Donbas region, and all the natural resources of eastern Ukraine are a pretty prize.

You probably shouldn't be so dismissive of the topic when I post on it if you are going to continue posting on it yourself.

I agree, depending on how you define "directly involved" (and of course 'significant'). Award winners following the slap probably found it significant. Probably significant for the families of those involved. The people in charge at the Academy were certainly impacted to a significant extent. Friends probably found it significant. The press of course. I'm sure others too.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/smith-resigns-academy-over-chris-224558418.html

Har!

I was wondering when I'd see my first April first article. 😄

Yes. Someone cheats or violates a rule, which means that what SEEMED to be a winning score was not actually valid. Pete Rose does not get the honor of being admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame due to his gambling on baseball games (a violation of the Standards of Conduct), but no one is claiming he didn't actually get 4,256 hits.

NO ONE IS CLAIMING OTHERWISE! That's right. It is taking back the HONOR bestowed upon someone by an organization that doesn't approve of their behavior. You are not reversing the facts of what happened. It is akin to taking back an honorary degree from someone who later turn out to be a real shithead. They still did the things that caused you to give them the honorary degree in the first place, you just no longer feel justified in bestowing an honor upon them.

No one is suggesting they take back the Oscar because he did not win "fair and square". It is being considered because he struck another man, which is a violation of the Academy's Bylaws and Standards of Conduct, and California Law. Yes, reminds me of "very fine people on both sides".

Who suggested he didn't??? We can continue this discussion after you've actually read my posts.

I think the point is that it is not necessary that NO ONE be offended before we tell a joke. If our standard is that NO ONE be offended by our speech, then we'd all better stop talking altogether as someone somewhere will take offense no matter what we say. Well it's a good thing that's not what Chris Rock did then. I guess I should take offense at you referring to hair loss as a "disability".

As I said, "the punishment they have outlined." Your implication that joking about the death of a man's wife and a man's wife shaving her head due to hair loss are comparable, is hardly reasonable. I've wondered if their tumultuous relationship influenced his reaction.

I hope the academy follows their rules and metes out the punishment they have outlined. I don't think an apology should absolve Smith given the impact he had on the many people affected by what he did, including the award winners who had their hard-earned moment over shadowed by Smith's actions. Unless Chris Rock walked into the audience and smacked Will Smith I don't think "bad people on both sides" is an accurate depiction of events.

I happen to agree with you that the Chris Rock joke did not cross some red line. On the other hand, I can see why some do not like those types of jokes. But just like I stay away from horror movies, those who do not like that type of comedy are free to avoid venues where those jokes are told. And if you don't want people to talk about you in the news, or take pictures of you in public, or tell jokes at your expense during awards programs, then don't put yourself in the public eye. Celebrity is not a one way street where you get to decide how the public responds to you once you put yourself up for display. You are knowingly taking the risk that someone will publish an awkward picture of you eating a hamburger, or tell a joke about you that you don't care for. We all have a point at which we think a joke has gone too far, but unsurprisingly that point varies from person to person.

That's quite a stretch. They apologized for him being struck, which was unacceptable under any circumstances, and independent of the quality of the joke. I doubt the Oscars might have said, "Well, it was an offensive joke, so him striking you was acceptable to us."

I think Will's response speaks to whether or not he felt the joke was offensive. Not to mention his apology, where he stated "Jokes at my expense are a part of the job, but a joke about Jada's medical condition was too much for me to bear and I reacted emotionally,"