viivaux

17 ms·

1.
by viivaux 7y ago
An online poll. Huh. What did I 'call him' that you disagree with?
2.
by viivaux 7y ago
Are you talking about Corbyn? The guy with broad support despite an unremitting smear campaign from every single corner of the media from The Grauniad to the Beeb, never mind the tabloids? The guy who has been astonishingly effective standi
3.
by viivaux 7y ago
Wasn't a personal attack - it was a statement of fact. Please learn the difference.
4.
by viivaux 7y ago
Seconded. Meanwhile, there has been a simultaneous attack on outlets that might actually spit the truth out there: the recent "changes to Facebook's algorithm" resulting in outlets like MPN, Democracy Now, and Wikileaks go fr
5.
by viivaux 7y ago
>therefore Not really. In a whole number of ways. I actually have no idea how you can say this with any honesty. I mean, are you really arguing that national identity is the major stumbling block in integrating to a tribe in Papua New Gu
6.
by viivaux 7y ago
> "The lack of transparency around new policing tools such as mobile phone extraction is a serious cause for concern. There are no records, no statistics, no safeguards, no oversight and no clear statement of the rights that citizen
7.
by viivaux 7y ago
>I think that my stand on this issue should be respected. But I don't think it's remotely worthy of respect. You want to live in a society like that, go somewhere with no public schools or roads or firefighters.
8.
by viivaux 7y ago
If Apple wants to do business in one country in a way that upsets people in another country, then they have to face the consequences of that contagion. I honestly don't know what you expect to be different; people aren't rule-foll
9.
by viivaux 7y ago
Seems everything I want to say here is likely to end up as [flagged]. If only I wanted to cast vague and unsubstantiated aspersions; then I'd be fine.
10.
by viivaux 7y ago
Would you mind telling me the gist of his comment? Was there a good reason for flagging it? I could have sworn that you used to be able to still read [flagged] comments here. When did that change, or am I misremembering?
11.
by viivaux 7y ago
There is much more objectionable content in the original post.
12.
by viivaux 7y ago
Except, I wasn't creating arbitrary unfounded discourse, or attacking one side or another; but questioning the idea that the guys supposed to remove the President if he lingers can have their Director fired and replaced by that same gu
13.
by viivaux 7y ago
Article states James M. Murray, a "career member" of the Secret Service, will take over. He was head of the Washington field office when Guccifer was announced to have been identified, and other than that there's very little
14.
Trump Is Removing US Secret Service Director(edition.cnn.com)
8 points by viivaux 7y ago|6 comments
15.
by viivaux 7y ago
Are you from an upper middle class area of Dublin / well-to-do family in the shtix? In the nicest way I can say this, might you be in a bit of a bubble? For example, did you pay your Irish Water bill and assume everyone else did too?
16.
by viivaux 7y ago
Historical dominance coupled with a captive media owned by a billionaire (Denis O Brien, good friend of the Clintons) who despite being proved corrupt after a €200+ million tribunal continues to get (highly legally questionable) contracts a
17.
by viivaux 7y ago
And what pray tell have you done?
18.
by viivaux 7y ago
He's not a guest in Moreno's home. He's a political asylum seeker in a sunless room in a sunless country, where he's been for seven years despite a UN panel ruling that he was being unlawfully detained. Further, politica
19.
by viivaux 7y ago
> "Look... We (ireland) manipulate our tax rules for all sorts of gain^. How can it be ok for the country but not U2?" I'll answer that Bono - because no one in Ireland asked for us to be run by leprechaun economics; that
20.
by viivaux 7y ago
Levity is commenting at a 12yo performing nuclear fusion for using ever-so-slightly more eloquent than average language? I think I'll skip the new humour update defining that as funny.
21.
by viivaux 7y ago
Sure, I get it. Kinda like how I'm gonna call this conversation "with a moron", and move on.
22.
by viivaux 7y ago
> Everyone in this story All two of them.. It's like they're related or something... And also; not really.
23.
by viivaux 8y ago
Your entire argument works just as well for shamans as psychiatry; except the drugs shamans use have far fewer and more benign side-effects, with thousands of years of history instead of 20-40. Many of the psychiatrists I have encountered &
24.
by viivaux 8y ago
>In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. In theory (though tbf not in reality) everyone has the right to an attorney. AFAIK there is no corresponding right to a paid Wikipedia editor. &
25.
by viivaux 8y ago
That Was a substantive comment, which added to the original. And it Was cowardly to downvote the original comment, which was documentably factual. It's more than a little prudish to come at me a day later and threaten me with a ban. If
26.
by viivaux 8y ago
Integrity :is: good judgment.
27.
by viivaux 8y ago
You're reading the headline wrong.
28.
by viivaux 8y ago
Pretty ballsy of the WaPo to suggest such a thing, considering their utter lack of interest in the heinous acts carried out there at the time.
29.
by viivaux 8y ago
A, that doesn't actually explain :how they work:. And B, that hasn't stopped these guys from coming out with ridiculous stories as to how they work, speaking them with the utmost confidence, which is what I took issue with there s
30.
by viivaux 8y ago
Patients have been saying this for literally decades. I remember blogs written by people who learned to do this themselves without any support from their medical professionals, networking and sharing info with each other on the best way to

More ›