You is all a bunch of poofs!

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10681

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Okay, the video loaded at a higher rez this morning (my bandwidth constraints), and indeed all three shots are by Junior with the shotgun. Senior looks to have dropped his phone but is still racking the slide?? of his pistol as the second shot is fired. At that instant there is a sun dazzle artifact which I mistook for an ejected casing.

I took a lot of screen caps with time stamps, but won't post unless specifically asked for one.

Notable:
- While Arbery is still several yards from the truck, Junior alters his stance: advances one foot forward, points barrel at Arbery, gun held at the hip. This is concurrent with the verbal challenge;
- Junior charges to meet Arbery coming around the front of the truck. They meet in front of the engine. First shot there, at very close range. Fired from the hip;
- Second shot is off camera to the left, fired to the right;
- Final shot, pointblank, fired to the left, from the hip. Arbery has two hands on the barrel, but takes his right off to punch Junior in the head, yielding more control of the gun to Junior.

Shotgun has a standard stock -- it's not one of those Terminator-on-a-motorbike pistol-grip thingies. I won't critique the failure to effect a proper shoulder mount, given how quickly the situation developed, though it's interesting to note this resulted in two misses and/or non-incapacitating shots.

I will opine that this is highly damning evidence that it was Junior who initiated a physical altercation by aggressively pointing a firearm -- an unmistakable and immediate deadly threat -- at an unarmed jogger. Given that the citizen's arrest seems to not have been properly conducted (and one may not even have been valid under the circumstances*), I believe Junior committed murder; Senior, manslaughter.


* cf. local lawyer believes deadly force never an option for citizen's arrest: https://www.pagepate.com/ahmaud-arbery- ... r-charges/

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10682

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Tara Reade rapes horses:

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10683

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote: Tara Reade rapes horses:
So... that makes Joe Biden... the Joe Exotic of pregnant horses?


ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10684

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 8:12 am
Tara Reade rapes horses:
The Krassensteins rape more horses. A pair of "resistance grifters" who'll do anything to generate publicity. Don't know if what they say is true, couldn't care, but I won't be taking their word for it. A Rolling Stone writer called their story debunked after Deborah Messing referenced it, but then debunked means "don't want to hear it" these days. What I do know is that there is documentation of Reade's complaints contemporary with alleged events.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10685

Post by jugheadnaut »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:

The Krassensteins rape more horses. A pair of "resistance grifters" who'll do anything to generate publicity. Don't know if what they say is true, couldn't care, but I won't be taking their word for it. A Rolling Stone writer called their story debunked after Deborah Messing referenced it, but then debunked means "don't want to hear it" these days. What I do know is that there is documentation of Reade's complaints contemporary with alleged events.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10686

Post by free thoughtpolice »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 8:12 am
Tara Reade rapes horses:
The Krassensteins rape more horses. A pair of "resistance grifters" who'll do anything to generate publicity. Don't know if what they say is true, couldn't care, but I won't be taking their word for it. A Rolling Stone writer called their story debunked after Deborah Messing referenced it, but then debunked means "don't want to hear it" these days. What I do know is that there is documentation of Reade's complaints contemporary with alleged events.
I had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10687

Post by jugheadnaut »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
I took a lot of screen caps with time stamps, but won't post unless specifically asked for one.

Notable:
- While Arbery is still several yards from the truck, Junior alters his stance: advances one foot forward, points barrel at Arbery, gun held at the hip. This is concurrent with the verbal challenge;
- Junior charges to meet Arbery coming around the front of the truck. They meet in front of the engine. First shot there, at very close range. Fired from the hip;
- Second shot is off camera to the left, fired to the right;
- Final shot, pointblank, fired to the left, from the hip. Arbery has two hands on the barrel, but takes his right off to punch Junior in the head, yielding more control of the gun to Junior.
Alright, you forced me to go full Zapruder frame-by-frame on the video. You have to be careful with frame grabs, because they obscure the full context such as the direction the subjects are moving in. A very common frame grab used in media reports looks like McMichael Jr. striding purposefully toward Arbery with gun in front of him aimed down. It's usually shown first, to imply this was the opening of the struggle for the gun. In actuality, the frame is from just after the fatal shot, when Arbery releases the gun and McMichael is actually stepping backwards. It's as if an editor demanded to find the most incriminating frame, truth be damned. That's why these sort of cases anger me so much.

Here's a summary of my analysis. Because the video is taken from a dash mounted camera (presumably a smartphone) the reference is dependent on where the car is pointing, so when the principals are in frame, it's happenstance. It's lucky it captured as much of the particulars as it did, although the subjects are frequently off screen. It's 30 fps for reference.

Frame 423-428: As the camera car moves closer in in the opposite lane of the 2 lane street, the McMichael's truck is parked on the right side of the road and we see Arbery perhaps 20 yards behind the truck just right of the centerline of the road with his weight shifted to the left,as if he's going to try move to the left to evade.

Frames 429-442: McMichael Jr. comes into view, about a yard into the opposite lane probably in line with the open door of the truck. Likely, the plan is to use the truck, the door, and McMichael's body to obstruct as much of the road as possible to get him to stop. Was McMichael's plan to try to grab him if he attempted to evade on the little channel of road available to him? Maybe, but we'll never know. As we get to frame 440, they are going off camera as the hood of the car is dropping, and Arbury still looks like he's going to go to his left into McMichael's path.

Frames 453-488: They reappear on the video, and Arbury is already beginning his cut to go to his right and pass the truck on the right. At frame 470, McMichael Jr. sees his plan and starts shifting towards the door of the truck. McMichael goes offscreen on frame 481 and Arbury goes offscreen on frame 487 at about the centerline of the truck perhaps 2-3 yards behind it, as the camera car changes lanes to the right.

Frames 577-597: As the camera car parks on the right hand side of the road, Arbury appears again completing his arc on the right side of the truck. He goes out of view obscured by the front of the truck at frame 597. McMichael Jr. is off frame.

Frame 607: McMichael Jr. is back in frame at the front drivers side of the truck. He is mostly obscured by the truck, but you can see the back of his head to the left of the front driver side pillar.

Frame 608: You can now see more of McMichael. He's standing at the front driver's side corner of the truck with one foot in front of the other and moving slightly backward from the previous frame, as he likely sees Arbury charging him. Arbury is still obsured by the truck.

Frames 609-615: McMichaels lead foot is stepping back and he winds up a yard or so left of the front pillar of the truck, finishing with his feet together on the centerline of the road. The first shot takes place here, likely around Frame 611 as Arbery is fast approaching him. It's impossible to tell the disposition of the gun, but most likely he's holding it in front of him with the muzzle slanted down. He's not aiming and this appears to be a panicked warning shot. Arbury remains obscured during this sequence.

Frame 617: The tip of Arbury's foot emerges from the driver's side of the truck.

Frames 619-629: Arbury reaches McMichael. They are being obscured by the open door or the truck, so no details can be seen at the start of the scuffle

Frames 630+: They both fully emerge from the door and you can see Arbury has his hands on the gun and the fight continues.

I'll try to do the same kind of detail for the fatal shot, but for now I was just focusing on the beginning of the fight.

The "altering of stance" you mention is likely McMichael moving back towards the door of his truck when he sees Arbury do his surprise cut and realizes his plan has failed. During the 3-4 seconds he is offscreen, he has moved a few steps from the driver's side door to the front driver's side corner of the truck. There is zero evidence of him doing a charge, and in fact he is edging backwards when he comes back on screen, likely in response to seeing Arbury charging him. They definitely do not meet in front of the engine as you stated, although Arbury was in front of the engine when the first shot was taken. They meet in front of the driver's side door.

Without massive prejudice against McMichael, I can't see how this can possibly support a murder charge. Heck, even with the burden of proof reversed, the evidence seems strong enough to support McMichael, at least for the murder charge. But if you want to dispute any of this analysis, feel free to do so and I'll respond.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10688

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

jugheadnaut wrote: *snip*
You seem wedded to the idea that the ex-cop's son was acting in self-defense. That's not what I see at all. I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...

...here the story splits into two likely acts

1) ...so the runner decides to make his last stand and fight for his life. The runner ignores the man in the truck bed, with the high ground, and runs around the truck to fight the man with a shotgun. He throws solid head punches, which scares the other man - he realizes that this negro will not go quietly, and in fact is quite capable of becoming a big problem. So, he shoots and shoots again.

or

2) ...so the runner decides to try and run his way out of trouble. He swerves right, to go around the truck on the opposite side to the gunman on the ground. He hopes to buy seconds and get a head start on the bullets, but the gunman spots him and moves to block him. Faced with a shotgun, the runner starts throwing wild, terrified punches. The gunman enacts his merciless plan.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10689

Post by justinvacula »

Hopping in here, hi everyone!

I recently chatted with David Silverman about his #metoo allegations and much more. This turned out much better than our Brave Hero Radio chat in 2013ish :)



#denouncetheshit

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10690

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 1:51 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 8:12 am
Tara Reade rapes horses:
The Krassensteins rape more horses. A pair of "resistance grifters" who'll do anything to generate publicity. Don't know if what they say is true, couldn't care, but I won't be taking their word for it. A Rolling Stone writer called their story debunked after Deborah Messing referenced it, but then debunked means "don't want to hear it" these days. What I do know is that there is documentation of Reade's complaints contemporary with alleged events.
I had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?
Sorry, I tend not to bookmark stuff. I think I learned about it from The Hill. I definitely recall that her ex testified in court in 1996 that she had made an accusation. I may have heard of more evidence from The Hill, but with my memory I can't be sure. I have limited storage capacity nowadays so I ration the space.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10691

Post by free thoughtpolice »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 5:29 pm
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 1:51 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 8:12 am
Tara Reade rapes horses:
The Krassensteins rape more horses. A pair of "resistance grifters" who'll do anything to generate publicity. Don't know if what they say is true, couldn't care, but I won't be taking their word for it. A Rolling Stone writer called their story debunked after Deborah Messing referenced it, but then debunked means "don't want to hear it" these days. What I do know is that there is documentation of Reade's complaints contemporary with alleged events.
I had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?
Sorry, I tend not to bookmark stuff. I think I learned about it from The Hill. I definitely recall that her ex testified in court in 1996 that she had made an accusation. I may have heard of more evidence from The Hill, but with my memory I can't be sure. I have limited storage capacity nowadays so I ration the space.
I'm getting old too. It's the shits. It gets easier to make mistakes all the time.
The court document that, from what I've seen was several years after the alleged event when there was a divorce action happening. Her ex-husband was accused of abuse and he countered that she had also made claims against Biden that he believed was also false.
When I read through the Medium article it was quoting either what Reade wrote or others were writing about her.
She seems to be hung herself by her own petard also by other strange stuff.
But we agree to disagree. :)

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10692

Post by jugheadnaut »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
You seem wedded to the idea that the ex-cop's son was acting in self-defense. That's not what I see at all. I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...
Earlier I stated "Stereotypes about armed Southern white guys chasing young black men in pickups have no probative value here." But that's not true in your world. I'm genuinely grateful for this example of how truckloads of prejudice can make nonsense seem "clear as day". Let's go through this

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: 1) ...so the runner decides to make his last stand and fight for his life. The runner ignores the man in the truck bed, with the high ground, and runs around the truck to fight the man with a shotgun. He throws solid head punches, which scares the other man - he realizes that this negro will not go quietly, and in fact is quite capable of becoming a big problem. So, he shoots and shoots again.
Where's your evidence that his life was in danger? Have any shots been taken at him, or the guns even pointed in his direction? Is this in the video, or is it something you're bringing in.

Your thoughts about what is going on in McMichael's head are tendentious in the extreme and, of course, not evidence based. Arbery made the wide arc to confront McMichael and immediately focused on taking the gun. As anyone who's ever had any combat training knows, in a fight for a gun, your first, second, and third priorities ares to not lose control of the gun. As much as you may enjoy your fantasy about the black kid heroically fighting for his life and giving the crackers a little punishment before he goes down, McMichael was rightly keeping both hands on the gun and allowing his head to be open for punches. The shooting at this point, if it wasn't accidental due to Arbery pulling on the muzzle, was clear self defense. The question then becomes was it a legally valid use of self defense, since an initiator of a fight can't legally resort to self defense. That's why I've been focusing more on how the fight got started.
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: 2) ...so the runner decides to try and run his way out of trouble. He swerves right, to go around the truck on the opposite side to the gunman on the ground. He hopes to buy seconds and get a head start on the bullets, but the gunman spots him and moves to block him. Faced with a shotgun, the runner starts throwing wild, terrified punches. The gunman enacts his merciless plan.
It couldn't be clearer, both from the full speed video and frame by frame analysis, that the gunman did not block him and was no where near getting in his way. He just moved to the front drivers side of the truck. Arbery, on the other hand, did a nicely executed first base style arcing turn starting almost from the moment he began passing the truck on the right around to the front left. It's also perfectly clear from both the full speed and frame by frame video, that he didn't start throwing 'wild, terrified' punches when faced with the shotgun. He went immediately for the gun, and when he couldn't grab it from McMichael, resorted to trying to get it by holding onto it with one hand while punching with the other. "The merciless plan", of course, is entirely a product of your imagination.

I should point out that, probably like many here, I am mostly revulsed by the Southern Redneck culture. But my instinct in cases like this isn't a chance to punish a hated out-group. I take the classic civil libertarian "let the Nazis lawfully march in Skokie" approach of realizing fundamental rights need to first and most vigorously be defended for those who would be first denied them, namely the most hated.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10693

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

justinvacula wrote: I recently chatted with David Silverman about his #metoo allegations and much more. This turned out much better than our Brave Hero Radio chat in 2013ish :)
You mean he didn't rape your sacrum this time?


Sorry, what I meant to say was, Hey -- welcome back, stranger!!

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10694

Post by Brive1987 »

Australia’s dick-head pirate has formed a low opinion of the wonderful United States.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10695

Post by Brive1987 »

Matt Christiansen does his normal fair minded analysis of shooter-Gate.

Starts 23:50



Citizen’s arrest is seemingly off the scorecard. And pointing a weapon at someone is a crime. Who exactly was acting in self defence?

When Blonde can’t even muster enough momentum to support the shooters, well you know you have a problem.


Parody Accountant
.
.
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10697

Post by Parody Accountant »

Did Dave tell you the GOOD NEWS, Justin?

Thats wild. Im going to tune in

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10698

Post by Brive1987 »

Pretty much why I’ve been pissed off for two years - captured on one screen.

Grrrr.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10699

Post by Brive1987 »


ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10700

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 6:29 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 5:29 pm
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 1:51 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 8:12 am
Tara Reade rapes horses:
The Krassensteins rape more horses. A pair of "resistance grifters" who'll do anything to generate publicity. Don't know if what they say is true, couldn't care, but I won't be taking their word for it. A Rolling Stone writer called their story debunked after Deborah Messing referenced it, but then debunked means "don't want to hear it" these days. What I do know is that there is documentation of Reade's complaints contemporary with alleged events.
I had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?
Sorry, I tend not to bookmark stuff. I think I learned about it from The Hill. I definitely recall that her ex testified in court in 1996 that she had made an accusation. I may have heard of more evidence from The Hill, but with my memory I can't be sure. I have limited storage capacity nowadays so I ration the space.
I'm getting old too. It's the shits. It gets easier to make mistakes all the time.
The court document that, from what I've seen was several years after the alleged event when there was a divorce action happening. Her ex-husband was accused of abuse and he countered that she had also made claims against Biden that he believed was also false.
When I read through the Medium article it was quoting either what Reade wrote or others were writing about her.
She seems to be hung herself by her own petard also by other strange stuff.
But we agree to disagree. :)
It isn't that I disagree with you. I haven't formed any opinion on the matter and even if I were to form an opinion it would be an opinion as to whether the evidence were strong enough to warrant derailing Biden's campaign to force him to address it rather than an opinion on his guilt. I don't have the time to devote to diving down this bunny hole. There are so many bad actors in the major and minor media that very little can be trusted. The point I do stand by is that the Krassenteins are grifters and not to be trusted. I'd wait for a while to see what comes out after the dust settles.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4711
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10701

Post by John D »

As usual... the Roo makes a video three times longer than it has to be.... but if you have an hour to kill this is not bad.

These hicks are going to be freed and we will get to watch some more riots. :popcorn:


Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10702

Post by Gumby »

justinvacula wrote: Hopping in here, hi everyone!

I recently chatted with David Silverman about his #metoo allegations and much more. This turned out much better than our Brave Hero Radio chat in 2013ish :)

#denouncetheshit
Hey Justin. Listened to the interview. Wow, what a difference 7 years makes huh? It was fascinating listening to hear Silverman's complete turnaround. Now he's finally at where the Pit was back in 2012, lol. It really doesn't mean much now though, the mortal blow has already struck the atheist community. Too bad it took him receiving what he used to dish out to pull his head out of his ass and finally understand what we understood years ago. He could have made a positive difference back in the early days. Oh well.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10703

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Brive1987 wrote: Pretty much why I’ve been pissed off for two years - captured on one screen.

Grrrr.

Brive1987 wrote: Pretty much why I’ve been pissed off for two years - captured on one screen.

Grrrr.

The West dropped the ball on China. The CCP/PLA have been allowed to worm their way into academia, industrial research, weapons research, computer networks and to pocket politicians. They are buying up whole Pacific states and threatening trade routes. They are buying up chunks of Africa and may well put themselves into a position to control the supply of some minerals. The Obama admin and security services were obsessing about Russia while this was becoming evident. Look at 4:20 in this clip.


The quote from Susan Rice about General Flynn:
General Flynn's focus was on China as our principal overarching adversary. He had many questions and concerns about China and when I sought to elicit his perspective on Russia.....he downplayed his assessment on Russia as a threat to the United States. He called it overblown. He said they're a declining power, they're demographically challenged...they're not really much of a threat, and then re-emphasized the importance of China...I had seen enough at that point and heard enough to be a little bit sensitive to the nature of General Flynn's engagement with the Russians.
Check what's between the ellipses if you will, but I think this indicates where Obama's interests lay and why, in addition to the refusal to lie about Benghazi and his knowledge of the state security apparatus, Flynn was so detested.

Just in case anyone is buying the media bullshit about the Flynn case being normal procedure and just part of the adversarial system (which would be hair raising), this is a lawyer summarising the important facts in sequence.
► Show Spoiler

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10704

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Viva Frei, whose Flynn vid I just posted, also discusses the Arbery case with lawyer Robert Barnes.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10705

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 5:29 pm
there was a divorce action happening. Her ex-husband was accused of abuse and he countered that she had also made claims against Biden that he believed was also false.
I think you are misquoting what Tara Reade's ex-husband's statement said.

During their divorce, she got a restraining order against hubby.

In 1996 Hubby filed to have the restraining order removed-- arguing that he was no threat to her.

Hubby's statement to the court mentioned her accusation against Biden, as well as even-earlier abuse she claimed.

Hubby said those past-experiences "color" her "perception and judgment” of her relationship with Hubby.

It's possible that Hubby secretly-thought the claims against Biden were bullshit.

BUT-- that's not what hubby told the court.


screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10707

Post by screwtape »

Brive1987 wrote:
It's past time we all told China to fuck off. Thought what that will mean for our underclasses that survive on their shitty hourly rates only by buying diabetogenic food from dollar stores and everything else from Walmart (ie the lowest of the low Chinese exports) I do not know. Maybe restart manufacturing things here and paying people to do so, which means the prices of said things go up, and we have to get some portion of our population, possibly a large portion, to feel that they are no longer, and once again, not part of a consumer society driven by transient desire, but back in the subsistence economy.

And on an ostensibly happier note, two days ago I passed through my ruby wedding anniversary. I had thought ruby weddings came after the 50 year golden ones, but I was wrong and now I feel about twenty years older for my error. Oddly, the thought it engendered was one of self-congratulation for tolerating the pisco-ovo-lacto-vegetarian and her ways for 40 years. Fourty four, in fact, with the first four being lived happily in rather joyful sin (and we seemed to be happy to repeat that sin rather frequently). I still cannot imagine any logical reason for not exploiting resources properly or responsibly, and I am still amused to see a vegan taken down as a soi-disant superior prick:


ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10708

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

screwtape wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 6:24 am
Brive1987 wrote:
It's past time we all told China to fuck off. Thought what that will mean for our underclasses that survive on their shitty hourly rates only by buying diabetogenic food from dollar stores and everything else from Walmart (ie the lowest of the low Chinese exports) I do not know. Maybe restart manufacturing things here and paying people to do so, which means the prices of said things go up, and we have to get some portion of our population, possibly a large portion, to feel that they are no longer, and once again, not part of a consumer society driven by transient desire, but back in the subsistence economy.

And on an ostensibly happier note, two days ago I passed through my ruby wedding anniversary. I had thought ruby weddings came after the 50 year golden ones, but I was wrong and now I feel about twenty years older for my error. Oddly, the thought it engendered was one of self-congratulation for tolerating the pisco-ovo-lacto-vegetarian and her ways for 40 years. Fourty four, in fact, with the first four being lived happily in rather joyful sin (and we seemed to be happy to repeat that sin rather frequently). I still cannot imagine any logical reason for not exploiting resources properly or responsibly, and I am still amused to see a vegan taken down as a soi-disant superior prick:

China is not the only Asian sweatshop farm. Companies are already taking steps to shift manufacturing to other Asian bases.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10709

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 4:24 pm
jugheadnaut wrote: *snip*
You seem wedded to the idea that the ex-cop's son was acting in self-defense. That's not what I see at all. I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...

...here the story splits into two likely acts

1) ...so the runner decides to make his last stand and fight for his life. The runner ignores the man in the truck bed, with the high ground, and runs around the truck to fight the man with a shotgun. He throws solid head punches, which scares the other man - he realizes that this negro will not go quietly, and in fact is quite capable of becoming a big problem. So, he shoots and shoots again.

or

2) ...so the runner decides to try and run his way out of trouble. He swerves right, to go around the truck on the opposite side to the gunman on the ground. He hopes to buy seconds and get a head start on the bullets, but the gunman spots him and moves to block him. Faced with a shotgun, the runner starts throwing wild, terrified punches. The gunman enacts his merciless plan.
Arbury and the father knew each other through Arbury's previous encounters with the legal system. That he knew he'd been identified running from a crime scene may put things in a different light.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10710

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Watching the Robert Barnes assessment of the Arbery case I posted and he's just said something about these high profile racialised cases I'd never heard proposed before. He's noticed that cases where racial discrimination is clear and should become high profile are ignored by the political grifters. The cases that are elevated tend to be ones based on an incorrect press reading of the facts. The goal is to create divisiveness. When the courts enact the legally justified acquittal there is outrage. Organisations like the BLM deliberately choose contentious cases because they know the "victim's" case is unfounded.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10711

Post by Service Dog »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Watching the Robert Barnes assessment of the Arbery case I posted and he's just said something about these high profile racialised cases I'd never heard proposed before. He's noticed that cases where racial discrimination is clear and should become high profile are ignored by the political grifters. The cases that are elevated tend to be ones based on an incorrect press reading of the facts. The goal is to create divisiveness. When the courts enact the legally justified acquittal there is outrage. Organisations like the BLM deliberately choose contentious cases because they know the "victim's" case is unfounded.
Brett from School Sucks Podcast made a similar assessment, back at the height of Black Lives Matter:

A clear cut case (such as cop caught on his own bodycam planting drugs on an motorist) is open-and-shut. The news story goes-away.

But when partisans champion a dubious case with an unreasonable degree of certainty--
they troll the opposition into engaging. The opposition expects to 'correct' a factual misunderstanding.

Then both sides redouble their efforts. Those who exploit conflict benefit.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10712

Post by jugheadnaut »

screwtape wrote:
It's past time we all told China to fuck off. Thought what that will mean for our underclasses that survive on their shitty hourly rates only by buying diabetogenic food from dollar stores and everything else from Walmart (ie the lowest of the low Chinese exports) I do not know. Maybe restart manufacturing things here and paying people to do so, which means the prices of said things go up, and we have to get some portion of our population, possibly a large portion, to feel that they are no longer, and once again, not part of a consumer society driven by transient desire, but back in the subsistence economy.
I wonder what would happen if China loses the lawsuits that are currently popping up, with a judgement in the hundreds of millions range against them, and countries follow up by removing the judgement from the national debt owed to China. Normally, voluntary default of international debt is an act of war, so things could get dicey.
screwtape wrote: And on an ostensibly happier note, two days ago I passed through my ruby wedding anniversary. I had thought ruby weddings came after the 50 year golden ones, but I was wrong and now I feel about twenty years older for my error. Oddly, the thought it engendered was one of self-congratulation for tolerating the pisco-ovo-lacto-vegetarian and her ways for 40 years. Fourty four, in fact, with the first four being lived happily in rather joyful sin (and we seemed to be happy to repeat that sin rather frequently).
Many congratulations! My fondest hopes for at least several happy anniversaries more.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10713

Post by jugheadnaut »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Watching the Robert Barnes assessment of the Arbery case I posted and he's just said something about these high profile racialised cases I'd never heard proposed before. He's noticed that cases where racial discrimination is clear and should become high profile are ignored by the political grifters. The cases that are elevated tend to be ones based on an incorrect press reading of the facts. The goal is to create divisiveness. When the courts enact the legally justified acquittal there is outrage. Organisations like the BLM deliberately choose contentious cases because they know the "victim's" case is unfounded.
I've long concluded that the race hustler group's primary goal is to foment social discord, hoping to instigate massive outbreaks of Evergreen style mob rule. What's disturbing to me is that they seem to have the mainstream media as full allies.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10714

Post by Service Dog »

jugheadnaut wrote: I've long concluded that the race hustler group's primary goal is to foment social discord, hoping to instigate massive outbreaks of Evergreen style mob rule.
I think they want Evergreen style tenure & benefits.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10715

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

jugheadnaut wrote:It couldn't be clearer ... that the gunman did not block him and was no where near getting in his way.
Arbery_challenge.jpg
(36.67 KiB) Downloaded 146 times

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...

==

jugheadnaut wrote:The "altering of stance" you mention is likely McMichael moving back towards the door of his truck ….
No, I meant what’s depicted above.

jugheadnaut wrote:During the 3-4 seconds he is offscreen, he has moved a few steps from the driver's side door to the front driver's side corner of the truck. There is zero evidence of him doing a charge, and in fact he is edging backwards when he comes back on screen, likely in response to seeing Arbury charging him. They definitely do not meet in front of the engine as you stated, although Arbury was in front of the engine when the first shot was taken. They meet in front of the driver's side door.

Arbery_shot.jpg
(86.01 KiB) Downloaded 134 times

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10716

Post by jugheadnaut »

Another interesting thing from the Viva Frei video is that Georgia's Citizen Arrest Law is quite a bit broader than we've previously discussed. It's not a requirement that the crime at issue be a felony with direct witness. It can be a misdemeanor with direct witness. If it's a felony, it only requires probable cause.

And since today is Arbery YouTube video day:

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10717

Post by screwtape »

Frankly, the most encouraging thing about you Americans is that some small subset of you is discussing on one weird internet forum whether it is justified for an ordinary citizen of one skin colour to shoot and kill another ordinary citizen of a different skin colour. Evidently, skin colour is a confounding factor in that debate. Perhaps, well, perhaps lots of things, but maybe there should be a debate about whether people can legally kill each other outside of government direction? I knew the answer to that in the UK, and it seems to be the same in Canada.

Murder used to be defined as unlawfully depriving the KIng of a subject.* If we replace "King" with "The (Head of) State" it still makes sense. Killing people might be wrong in anyone's ethical system, however abstruse, but depriving a nation, state, or monarch of the labour, and/or the taxes paid by a subject or citizen is clearly an economic loss that ought to be discouraged. American law still seems to live on the wild frontier, and perhaps it ought to be updated to reflect reality. Stealing deserves a fine, or maybe some jail time, but not the death penalty, and especially not the death penalty as adjudged, decreed and carried out by some fat fucks in a truck. Self-defense does not seem to be a factor at all in this case. I love my firearms. I drove for three hours this morning to acquire a 30 gun safe to comply with what The Boy Wonder will do next to get re-elected. But I would not dream of grabbing any one of those (theoretical) 30 guns to enforce a law about pilfering with deadly force! Such excesses are hard to defend, and from my point of view lead directly to new laws that curtail my lawful and responsible ownership of firearms. So please stop mucking things up for the rest of us!

*And if you have an underclass who do not labour, do not earn, and do not pay taxes: shall they be protected against murder?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10718

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

jugheadnaut wrote: And since today is Arbery YouTube video day:
Dork Boy there uses far too many words to say not much at all. I gave up -- briefly summarized, what are his points, if any?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10719

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

screwtape wrote: Stealing deserves a fine.... a law about pilfering....
It still hasn't been established that anything was stolen from the house. To me, it looks like Arbery is fascinated by the construction site. Heck, one Summer when we were kids, we ran -- barefoot -- around inside every site in an entire housing development under construction.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10720

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: to be updated to reflect reality. Stealing deserves a fine, or maybe some jail time, but not the death penalty, and especially not the death penalty as adjudged, decreed and carried out by some fat fucks in a truck. Self-defense does not seem to be a factor at all in this case. I love my firearms.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
screwtape wrote: Stealing deserves a fine.... a law about pilfering....
It still hasn't been established that anything was stolen from the house. To me, it looks like Arbery is fascinated by the construction site. Heck, one Summer when we were kids, we ran -- barefoot -- around inside every site in an entire housing development under construction.
Still leaves the question of what he was doing trespassing in a building so far from his home. The jogging story doesn't add up unless he was training for a marathon. Apparently items had gone missing from the site.

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10721

Post by BoxNDox »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
screwtape wrote: Stealing deserves a fine.... a law about pilfering....
It still hasn't been established that anything was stolen from the house. To me, it looks like Arbery is fascinated by the construction site. Heck, one Summer when we were kids, we ran -- barefoot -- around inside every site in an entire housing development under construction.
We regularly did the same thing as kids, to the point of getting in trouble several times. One thing I noticed is that girls were almost always bolder than boys when it came to ignoring signs, climbing ladders, getting close to edges, etc.

And bare feet were the norm. Not that the shoes we had would do squat to stop a nail or whatever.

It also isn't just kids, and hasn't changed all that much. When our house was under construction a few years I was on site on weekends doing my own network wiring. Quite a few people stopped and wanted to look around. (Being mistaken for a construction worker when you're the owner can be pretty funny.)

Construction sites are cool.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10722

Post by Service Dog »

screwtape wrote: Murder used to be defined as unlawfully depriving the KIng of a subject.* If we replace "King" with "The (Head of) State" it still makes sense...
...to a serf.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5044
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10723

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote:
Meh. We told the USA to piss off, and we'll do the same with China. Meanwhile Australia will bluster and then kiss Trump and Xi's respective arses.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10724

Post by jugheadnaut »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote:It couldn't be clearer ... that the gunman did not block him and was no where near getting in his way.

Arbery_challenge.jpg
You have my quote completely out of context. In that quote, I was referring to when Arbery had dodged to the right of the truck. Please be more careful. The frames you show are not in sequence, which can exaggerate the apparent movement. The first is frame 437 followed by 439, then a big skip all the way up to 457, then 461, then 468. Here's how I described it:
Frames 429-442: McMichael Jr. comes into view, about a yard into the opposite lane probably in line with the open door of the truck. Likely, the plan is to use the truck, the door, and McMichael's body to obstruct as much of the road as possible to get him to stop. Was McMichael's plan to try to grab him if he attempted to evade on the little channel of road available to him? Maybe, but we'll never know. As we get to frame 440, they are going off camera as the hood of the car is dropping, and Arbury still looks like he's going to go to his left into McMichael's path.

Frames 453-488: They reappear on the video, and Arbury is already beginning his cut to go to his right and pass the truck on the right. At frame 470, McMichael Jr. sees his plan and starts shifting towards the door of the truck. McMichael goes offscreen on frame 481 and Arbury goes offscreen on frame 487 at about the centerline of the truck perhaps 2-3 yards behind it, as the camera car changes lanes to the right.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote:The "altering of stance" you mention is likely McMichael moving back towards the door of his truck ….
No, I meant what’s depicted above.
Which is exactly what I was referring to.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote:During the 3-4 seconds he is offscreen, he has moved a few steps from the driver's side door to the front driver's side corner of the truck. There is zero evidence of him doing a charge, and in fact he is edging backwards when he comes back on screen, likely in response to seeing Arbury charging him. They definitely do not meet in front of the engine as you stated, although Arbury was in front of the engine when the first shot was taken. They meet in front of the driver's side door.
Arbery_shot.jpg
I don't know why you chose to quote a different post rather than the original frame analysis which is consistent with that but goes into more detail. These are frames 609,611, and 613. What I said:
Frame 607: McMichael Jr. is back in frame at the front drivers side of the truck. He is mostly obscured by the truck, but you can see the back of his head to the left of the front driver side pillar.

Frame 608: You can now see more of McMichael. He's standing at the front driver's side corner of the truck with one foot in front of the other and moving slightly backward from the previous frame, as he likely sees Arbury charging him. Arbury is still obsured by the truck.

Frames 609-615: McMichaels lead foot is stepping back and he winds up a yard or so left of the front pillar of the truck, finishing with his feet together on the centerline of the road. The first shot takes place here, likely around Frame 611 as Arbery is fast approaching him. It's impossible to tell the disposition of the gun, but most likely he's holding it in front of him with the muzzle slanted down. He's not aiming and this appears to be a panicked warning shot. Arbury remains obscured during this sequence.
Frame 617: The tip of Arbury's foot emerges from the driver's side of the truck.

Frames 619-629: Arbury reaches McMichael. They are being obscured by the open door of the truck, so no details can be seen at the start of the scuffle
Were you attempting to dispute what I said with those frames? Seems pretty much exactly right to me. They do meet in front of the engine, although the first shot takes place when Arbery is in front of the engine. There is no charge from McMichael.

If we're going to continue to discuss the video in detail, you'll need to use some proper video editing software where the frames you post in sequence are actually sequential and you can refer to frame number. Otherwise, it's too tedious. Also, when posting pictures, it's best to use image links so the picture appears in quoted messages. As is, it will be very difficult for others to read and understand this message, so I'm probably wasting my time.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10725

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

screwtape wrote: Frankly, the most encouraging thing about you Americans is that some small subset of you is discussing on one weird internet forum whether it is justified for an ordinary citizen of one skin colour to shoot and kill another ordinary citizen of a different skin colour. Evidently, skin colour is a confounding factor in that debate. Perhaps, well, perhaps lots of things, but maybe there should be a debate about whether people can legally kill each other outside of government direction? I knew the answer to that in the UK, and it seems to be the same in Canada.

Murder used to be defined as unlawfully depriving the KIng of a subject.* If we replace "King" with "The (Head of) State" it still makes sense. Killing people might be wrong in anyone's ethical system, however abstruse, but depriving a nation, state, or monarch of the labour, and/or the taxes paid by a subject or citizen is clearly an economic loss that ought to be discouraged. American law still seems to live on the wild frontier, and perhaps it ought to be updated to reflect reality. Stealing deserves a fine, or maybe some jail time, but not the death penalty, and especially not the death penalty as adjudged, decreed and carried out by some fat fucks in a truck. Self-defense does not seem to be a factor at all in this case. I love my firearms. I drove for three hours this morning to acquire a 30 gun safe to comply with what The Boy Wonder will do next to get re-elected. But I would not dream of grabbing any one of those (theoretical) 30 guns to enforce a law about pilfering with deadly force! Such excesses are hard to defend, and from my point of view lead directly to new laws that curtail my lawful and responsible ownership of firearms. So please stop mucking things up for the rest of us!

*And if you have an underclass who do not labour, do not earn, and do not pay taxes: shall they be protected against murder?
Exactly. As I've said, I think it's embarrassing for the US that there needs to be a frame-by-frame analysis of 3 hicks in pickups chasing down a man, and hopping out with shotguns, to decide if that's legal or not. This is Afganistan type behavior.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10726

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:


ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...

==

I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I wrote?

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10727

Post by jugheadnaut »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote: And since today is Arbery YouTube video day:
Dork Boy there uses far too many words to say not much at all. I gave up -- briefly summarized, what are his points, if any?
It's only 18 minutes, and it's very clearly stated. If you're interested in this case, you can do it. I'm not going to watch it again to summarize it for you, but it covers a lot of ground around this case, including the politics, law, and facts of the case. In a nutshell, he says the media is grossly misrepresenting the video, and the video is not showing a targeted killing. One piece of new information in the video that provides some support Arberry's family's claim is that he actually lives about 2 miles from where the incident occurs, not 10 miles. He also says that at this point, it has not been confirmed that there were actual past robberies in the home under construction. The video has similar informational content to the Viva Frei and AIU videos. If you want something more authoritative and with more detail, watch the Viva Frei video. If you want something more entertaining, and of course far more incendiary, watch the AIU video.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10728

Post by mordacious1 »

BTW Dr Screwtape, if you make it to the 90th wedding anniversary, the traditional gift is granite. Not much you can give that’s granite, so either a countertop or a tombstone.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10729

Post by jugheadnaut »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:


ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...

==

I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I wrote?
It's ==, which in many computer languages is used to indicate equality, so I'm guessing Matt actually agrees. This part of the post was OK, except you're again injecting the 'chasing' and 'friend of the gunman' part, which very well may be true but it's not at all evident from the video. The main issues are later in the post, which I was not shy about pointing out.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10730

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

jugheadnaut wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:


ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...

==

I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I wrote?
It's ==, which in many computer languages is used to indicate equality, so I'm guessing Matt actually agrees. This part of the post was OK, except you're again injecting the 'chasing' and 'friend of the gunman' part, which very well may be true but it's not at all evident from the video. The main issues are later in the post, which I was not shy about pointing out.
Thanks for (hopefully) clearing that up. Matt doesn't often agree with my bullshit!! So I thought it might be Fry's doubtful eyes.



Yeah, I was playing a sort of prosecutorial role. I have no personal experience of that by the way, but it was fun to write it out as it could be presented to a jury.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10731

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

(+ was just a typo on my part)

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10732

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

jugheadnaut wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote:It couldn't be clearer ... that the gunman did not block him and was no where near getting in his way.
Arbery_challenge.jpg
You have my quote completely out of context. In that quote, I was referring to when Arbery had dodged to the right of the truck. Please be more careful.
Arbery dodged to the right cuz Junior was standing in the middle of the road pointing a shotgun. I think that qualifies as 'blocking'.


The frames you show are not in sequence.... The first is frame 437 ... 439 ... 457 ... 461 ... 468.
Last time I checked, that's a sequence.


They do meet in front of the engine, although the first shot takes place when Arbery is in front of the engine. There is no charge from McMichael.
Call it a 'leisurely stroll' for all I care. Fact is, Junior advanced quickly to his left to intercept Artery in front of the truck. And fired. And missed, apparently.

Which was shitty tactics, btw. You've got a long gun, so why are you closing the range, shotgun at your hip, all banzai style? Stay in place, effect a proper shoulder mount and cheek weld, draw a bead and wait for Arbery to appear. The nigger can then choose to either surrender to the self-appointed posse, run in the opposite direction, or continue charging and take a well-aimed load of buck.

Seriously, the number of gun nuts with absolutely atrocious gun sense is embarrassing.

If we're going to continue to discuss the video in detail, you'll need to use some proper video editing software where the frames you post in sequence are actually sequential and you can refer to frame number. Otherwise, it's too tedious. Also, when posting pictures, it's best to use image links so the picture appears in quoted messages. As is, it will be very difficult for others to read and understand this message, so I'm probably wasting my time.
Actually, I have a copy of Avid. But what I don't have is a file of the video, so if there's a trick to downloading it, please share. But even then, I'd still reference time stamps, cuz frame numbers are what's tedious.

But honestly, whether we go second-by-second or frame-by-frame is trivial. What matters is, a guy with a shotgun aggressively blocked the path of another guy, then shot him dead when he tried to defend himself.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10733

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

jugheadnaut wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:


ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:I see - clear as day - a man running along the road towards a truck from which a man with a gun has jumped. In the back of that truck is another man, who may also have a gun. The runner is being chased by a second vehicle containing a friend of the gunmen, and so...

==

I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I wrote?
It's ==, which in many computer languages is used to indicate equality, so I'm guessing Matt actually agrees.
I quoted CH2O cuz I did agree with zir summation.

I used == simply to break the post into sections.

FYI, my keyboard is dying, so apologies for the occasional ersatz character.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10734

Post by Keating »

KiwiInOz wrote: Meh. We told the USA to piss off, and we'll do the same with China. Meanwhile Australia will bluster and then kiss Trump and Xi's respective arses.
What terrifies me is the number of people who are prepared to carry water for China just because they hate the United States. I have my own problems with the "Deputy Sherif" role of Australia to the United States, but I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that the world where China is the sole superpower is superior to the one where the United States is. While the US doesn't live up to its ideals as much as I'd like, at least its ideals are good. The CCP's ideals, on the other hand, are actively evil, and they do live up to them.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10735

Post by Brive1987 »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Meh. We told the USA to piss off, and we'll do the same with China. Meanwhile Australia will bluster and then kiss Trump and Xi's respective arses.
God defend our free land.
From dishonour and from shame,
Guard our country's spotless name,
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.


Well may you pray:
In May 2001, the government announced it was scrapping its combat air force. New Zealand states it maintains a "credible minimum force," although critics maintain that the country's defence forces have fallen below this standard. New Zealand still maintains the fleet of A-4 Skyhawk and Aerromacche jets left over from the scrapping of its combat air force. Its attempts to sell the jets have thus far failed.
You couldn’t give them away.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5044
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10736

Post by KiwiInOz »

Keating wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote: Meh. We told the USA to piss off, and we'll do the same with China. Meanwhile Australia will bluster and then kiss Trump and Xi's respective arses.
What terrifies me is the number of people who are prepared to carry water for China just because they hate the United States. I have my own problems with the "Deputy Sherif" role of Australia to the United States, but I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that the world where China is the sole superpower is superior to the one where the United States is. While the US doesn't live up to its ideals as much as I'd like, at least its ideals are good. The CCP's ideals, on the other hand, are actively evil, and they do live up to them.
I don't see them as "evil". They play the long realpolitik game. They control a dragon (1.4 billion increasingly affluent and globalised citizens) by holding the tip of its tail, and need to keep it sweet, and believing that its interests are served by them.

Counter revolution seems increasingly likely as the years go by.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5044
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10737

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote:
God defend our free land.
From dishonour and from shame,
Guard our country's spotless name,
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.


Well may you pray:
In May 2001, the government announced it was scrapping its combat air force. New Zealand states it maintains a "credible minimum force," although critics maintain that the country's defence forces have fallen below this standard. New Zealand still maintains the fleet of A-4 Skyhawk and Aerromacche jets left over from the scrapping of its combat air force. Its attempts to sell the jets have thus far failed.
You couldn’t give them away.
Don't get me started on that dirge.

As for our armed forces, the decision was made to focus on our strengths (peace keeping and special forces) and not trying to match it with the big boys in the air. Autonomous aerial (and submersible) drones may make the decision the right one in the long term anyway.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10738

Post by Keating »

KiwiInOz wrote: I don't see them as "evil". They play the long realpolitik game. They control a dragon (1.4 billion increasingly affluent and globalised citizens) by holding the tip of its tail, and need to keep it sweet, and believing that its interests are served by them.

Counter revolution seems increasingly likely as the years go by.
I don't disagree that they're playing the long game. I'm more sceptical that a counter revolution is likely. Indeed, given how willingly we in the West are willing to surrender our privacy to companies like FaceBook, I wouldn't be surprised if we collapse into the Chinese model.

As I said, it's about the ideals behind them. Do you really disagree that if given the choice between the United States and Chinese overlords, there is no choice? The United States is the only sane option. Sure, I'd rather neither, but that isn't on the table.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10739

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Plaintiffs arguing that transgender athletes are males told by judge they can't refer to transgender athletes as males:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... ys-n389766
I don’t think we should be referring to the proposed intervenors as “male athletes.” I understand that you prefer to use those words, but they’re very provocative, and I think needlessly so. I don’t think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females. That is what the case is about. This isn’t a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls’ events. This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls’ events.

So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as “males”; understood?

What I’m saying is you must refer to them as “transgender females” rather than as “males...." Referring to these individuals as “transgender females” is consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10785
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10740

Post by Lsuoma »

China's de facto control of all the South China Sea is also scary as fuck. That means they control all of SE Asia.

Also, I'm going to raise a glass to SARS-Cov-2 since it seems to a have rejuvenated the Pit to a level of activity not seen in years. Heck, we have PA, JV and others back (#VaculaMustDenounce, of course), and the MC/FTP slanging appears to be more rational than it has been for a long time.

Post Reply