Posts made by eobox91103

@bi4smooth I very much like your chronological staging of these events. If one takes my view that one lies if and only if one "knows" that what is being said is false (which is not the only way of defining lying), then indeed it would seem that Mr Trump would not have been lying on November 3 or 10, as there was still some (shrinking) ambiguity about the actual election result. By late November, it would be difficult for a rational person to not believe that Mr Biden had won, so assertions by Mr Trump of victory at that point are close to being lies.

But applying the analysis here needs to assume that Mr Trump is being rational. It's possible that he actually believes, even today, that we won the election, even though state and federal government processes have declared and finalised otherwise. If he does actually believe the (irrational and untrue) proposition that he won the election, then by my narrow definition of lying, it wouldn't be a lie for him to say "I won the election." But if he were to say, "I know that I won the election," then that would be a lie, because to "know" that he won means he has justification for believing that--and clearly there is none. Perhaps I'm stretching the analytical framework beyond where it works. It's not easy to apply rational categories to someone as "unique" as Mr Trump.

@bi4smooth I like the Swanson's dinner vs. BBQ image--thanks for sharing it.

The issue of lying vs. truth-telling gets muddled in political circles: The classical definition of "knowing something" is that one "knows" a proposition for which one has (1) justified, (2) true (3) belief. ("Belief" here means intellectual assent; it has nothing to do with religion.) All three ingredients need to be present for one to know something in the strict classical sense. I could say, "It is sunny in Paris," which might be true, and I might believe it, but I haven't looked it up and thus I have no justification for believing it...thus I don't "know" that it's sunny in Paris. Conversely, your BBQ-smeller has justification for believing that "dinner smells wonderful," but it happens to be false, and thus strictly speaking he doesn't "know" the proposition that he has made...but as you note, he's not a liar.

The question arises whether someone (such as a politician) is lying if they make statements about which they have no justification. They might not know that they are false, but they have no justification to believe that they're true. Such a thing might not count as a lie, but it's still not responsible to make the assertion. Most sources assert that Mr Trump lied 30,000+ times whilst in office, but there's likely a chunk of those in which he wasn't willfully being deceptive--he just didn't know what he was talking about and said something that was politically expedient. I'm not apologising for him, just focusing the terminology. I think government officials--especially a head of state--have a responsibility to have justification for what they say. Speculating that coronavirus would simply "go away" or that it could be cured by injecting bleach is irresponsible because such statements had no justification--and also happened to be be demonstrably false.

People sometimes refer to Mr Trump's continued assertion that he actually won the 2020 election as "the Big Lie." I think that's only a lie if he knows that it's false, and it's hard to assess what's actually going on inside his dysfunctional toddler's brain. It's possible that he believes it, but since it's (a) not true and (b) he has no justification for it, he cannot be said to "know" that he won the election. But he is certainly well-versed in the Goebbel's Principle (named for Hitler's propaganda minister) that says, I think accurately, that if you tell people something enough times, be it true or false, many will believe it.

A quick search shows that "Joy Reid" is a talk/news host on the cable network MSNBC. I don't watch her programme as I don't have cable TV, and I don't know if that channel is even offered where I live. (I get television the old-fashioned way--with an antenna--and it's free!)

Perhaps I'll prepare some BBQ this evening...

@joego24 I'm not familiar with how OnlyFans sets things up. There might be an elegant software solution that records their material directly on your computer.

Some sites, like Facebook, take tremendous effort to make their content non-downloadable, and a brute force approach is needed. I'm helping a non-profit organization migrate their content from Facebook to YouTube, and seemingly the only way we can do that is to use a "video capture card.". I use one from AVerMedia that takes HDMI output from a computer and stores it as a .mp4 file on a removable flash memory card. I can then edit/manipulate that file as I choose. (The card I use is their "AVerMedia Live Gamer Portable 2 Plus" which is about $120US on Amazon.) This works for me given the general nastiness of Facebook, and fortunately I have a spare 2014-vintage Dell workstation laptop with a full-size HDMI output to feed the external capture box.

But perhaps another Gentle User has a simpler solution. There is a lot of OnlyFans content on this site, and I hope the folks who share it don't go through the machinations I've described above. Best wishes to you on your project!

@raphjd So do I presume that somebody with an "administrator" icon next to their name counts as staff? You no doubt inferred who I wanted to block.

Very well then, I'll just step away from the Forum (which is much less useful now given the redesign), It's clear that you want it to be your own litter-box designed to hold your own droppings.

Is there a way to selectively block a user, so I don't see either lots of spam topics generated by somebody, or his responses in a comment thread? I'm not proposing that the user be banned from the boards (although in some cases that might be a nice idea), but just that I don't have to see his stuff.

@raphjd Jeez, you really need to get a clue.

OK: Democrats controlled the house from 2007 to 2011, and again from 2019 to the present. But your beloved Republicans controlled the House and the Senate from 2011 to 2019.

And Epoch News (and I use that last word with irony) is not absolved from quoting incorrect numbers just because they got them from another crapsheet. The "debt" reported by their source includes an estimate for payments due for Social Security and Medicare for many years into the future. They are not current "debts" of the US government. Perhaps checking the source was too much effort for you.

I'm not going to read any of your crap any more...it's like smearing feces in my eyes. You're lucky, I suppose, that you're a forum moderator...because if anyone else had that job, you'd be permanently banned from the site.

@raphjd And you refuse to admit that MoscowMitch and his Senate approved everything.

Every few months I think I'll try engaging in a "Politics and Debate" topic, thinking perhaps that you've grown up. But no, instead of facts you resort to calling names, which is the last refuge of cowards. Even my 12-year-old knows better.

Go play in your sandbox and pretend that you're superior to everyone else...even though we all know better.

@hubrys All of us who are homeowners know the perils of "deferred maintenance." When bridges carrying national highways literally collapse and fall into a river ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge ), it suggests that there's a backlog of work that needs to be done. The last several US presidents have made note of this, but nothing's happened.

Playing "catch-up" is going to be expensive for Americans, but at least it's spread out over 15 years. This is a different approach from the stimulus program placed after the 2008 "Great Recession," which cost about $800bn but happened rather quickly. It did seem successful at providing employment and doing some infrastructure repair.

@raphjd said in National Debt Exceeds $123 Trillion, or Nearly $800,000 per Taxpayer:

@eobox91103

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/true-national-debt-exceeds-123-trillion-or-nearly-800000-per-taxpayer_3782624.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email2&utm_campaign=mb-2021-04-20&mktids=264a2775d74370d0e4428c91d45154f2&est=sH5xqaqyzXsP75fzFLdPiH3MiIiI7jJb2Rdt1dHV1ite9viv2kEBLYW5IC8i

That's where I got my figure.

Being such a liberal, you clearly are ignoring the Dem controlled House.

Your beloved Dems thwarted Trump at every turn.

Three comments:
First, the "Epoch Times" is not reliable news. The article you cite states that they have inflated the real number, which they correctly cite as $28 trillion.

Second, spending bills in the US have to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Republican-controlled Senate approved all of Mr Trump's extravagances.

Third, for the umpteenth time when you can't make a rational argument, you attack other posters. So I'll do the same: You are the problem. Your ignorance of facts is appalling. Your posts are worthless.

@vmalar I enjoyed the movie--and now that you've reminded me of it, I might watch it again. The YouTube versions are rather low resolution...there are some on this site which are a little better. It would be nice to have it in HD.

@raphjd Fact check: The US national debt is about $28 trillion. See https://www.usdebtclock.org/, or any other reliable source.

That's still a huge number. If only the Americans had elected Donald Trump as President in 2016: He promised to pay off the debt within eight years. (https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275003-trump-i-will-eliminate-us-debt-in-8-years )

Instead, the person who was in the White House from 2017 to 2021, with the consent of a Republican Senate, increased the national debt by 36%.

@vmalar The thumbnail maker will do those collages. There was another application (whose name I've forgotten) would also so collages and had tremendous flexibility, allowing one to select specific frames in the video to appear in the collage, the size of the thumbnails, etc....but it doesn't work under Windows 7 or later. (I don't know about the Mac environment.)

VLC Media Player also permits one to snap a specific frame out of a video at full size. If I'm posting a torrent, I like to use that to give an example of the quality of the video. Some older material isn't very crisp, and this way people can set their expectations accordingly.

@raphjd said in Qbittorrent is now better than Utorrent:

@lololulu19

I still use uTorrent 2.2.1 as that was the last version that was made without the tons of bloat uTorrent is now well known for. I love the features it has and the layout, but it is extremely old and doesn't handle RAM and CPU very well.

I guess I'll give QBitTorrent another try.

I use uTorrent 3.4.8 under Windows 10, and it seems fine to me. I'd be curious to try QBitTorrent, although part of me is saying, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."

On a similar note, I'm also curious about backing up to uTorrent 2.2.1. Is there a link to download that version (and if it should be obvious to me on a web search, I apologise for asking.)

Edit: I just found the link, at [http://www.oldversion.com/windows/utorrent-2-2-1-2](link url) .

@warmtasio And hello back to you. There are many interesting topics in the forum, and of course quite a variety of porn, too

Sometimes in the forum (especially in threads relating to politics or current events), some people will start getting nasty. That's a very small part of our larger community...it's best to just ignore them and move on. Sort of like life....

@trader42 said in OF - do you find it kinda disturbing?:

The problem is the 20 year olds who only make $40,000 from their entire OF career and have to go through the next 10-15 years fielding questions about their past porn acting and potentially being limited in choice of future career (education will be a difficult field to enter, for example). For the less successful OF stars, it may end up being a bad decision to put themselves out like that.

I"ve taught from Year 8 (US 7th grade, 12 years old) through university level, and I've found that it can be very difficult to judge a lad's age by his appearance. I've known guys who were 15 that looked 20, as well as the reverse. The "age estimation by looks" factor isn't helped by film and television that generally cast guys who are five to eight years older than the character they are playing.

It's best to be quite cautious about what porn one downloads and keeps...most countries have very strict--and understandable--laws about such things. And, the laws can seem inconsistent: In several states in the US, the age of consent for sex is 15...but having a photo of that sex partner's genitalia is a US federal crime unless s/he's 18 or older.

Trader42 is spot on regarding the maturity needed to make a decision to go into porn, and how to spend money that comes from it. Very few 20-year-olds have the ability to manage newly-gained wealth of £10,000,

They also may not consider the consequences of having that on their CV: I have a (gay) neighbour who was desperate for money whilst in law school, so at age 25 did a solo photo shoot that is rather vanilla by today's standards--he was nude, had an erection, but did not masturbate or ejaculate. Now, 25 years later, he's still terrified that someone will find those photos online (they've got to be somewhere), recognise him, and damage his career. (I think he can relax now: He showed me the pictures, and he doesn't look like that anymore!)

@flozen said in Watching Colleagues:

Work colleagues... I steer clear of that. In general, these would be guys in my own department, peers who I work alongside on projects, or who I work for, or who work for me.

I think some gay men act under the assumption that sneaky peeks are never noticed, but often enough, they are. In the worst-case work scenario, you don't need your name thrown around the company lunch room, and reaching your superiors, as the guy who pervs at the urinals.

IMHO, of course.

Being 198 cm (6'6") tall, I can make a sideways glance at a shorter guy's unit and not be noticed, and I've seen some interesting sights. But it has to be done very discreetly.

The gym is definitely the best place for a look, but at mine the showers/pool/locker rooms are still closed.

@ricky said in Costly Mistake for Homophobe Actress:

@flozen Wow, that's progress! Looks like her beliefs and her job were at odds.

Ms. Omooba had to be living under a rock if she wanted to be an actress and a homophobe at the same time. There are LOTS of LGBT people in cinema, theatre, music, and dance. Some of them might have been her friends...

This connection problem absolutely must be fixed. I'm sure admins notice that the traffic on the forum has gone way down with the new system, both because of the connection issues and the clumsiness of the interface.

Once connection issues are resolved, I suggest two more fixes:

1. Restore the "mouse over" functionality that lets one read the initial post when mousing over a title.
2. Restore the "frozen pane" at the top of the forum screen so one can go immediately back to the torrent section/search features rather than clicking once to get to the torrents, and then again to select a search option.

Good luck as you work on these issues.

@freakmagnet said in Frequent "lost connection":

Anyhow, it hasnt posed any issues for me (it happened again twice in a comment -and my typing is not that slow!)

I notice this as well. Whenever I compose a post, I always copy it to my clipboard to that if the broken connection loses it, I can easily put it back.

@raphjd said in Scotland officially bans free speech:

@eobox91103

You probably don't realize it, but it makes you look like a hypocrite when you attack me for something, while blatantly ignoring the same thing from someone to who I was replying.

I made no such attack. My whole point is that attacking others is inappropriate for useful discussion. I try not to use the word "you" in a reply unless it's clearly complimentary.

I once heard a proverb that, "If you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that you hit." It is good to think on that...but as staunch dog lover, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the proverb.