On 1/18/23 2:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7.68517@fx04.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99.11562@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>>> escape.
>>>>
>>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>>
>>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
>>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>>
>>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>>
>>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not enjoy).
>>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>>
>> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
>> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
>> preclude 'penalty'.
>
> But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
> non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.

Fer sure, the "penalties for noncompliance" are something the Taliban
are known for, said nobody in his right fucking mind. Imposing bullshit
on women is what they do best, how they enforce it can vary by region.
The Oath Keepers have eaten your brain.

In article <5rngsh9tevk063b69cf2aiqp87cq4vo3hb@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:33:06 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1bpdshh75e3hup7heq144cb9lcv4irputm@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> ><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:34:53 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Private schools see these events as fundraising opportunities, so
> >> >there's a lot of emphasis on them and a push to go to them. In
> >> >contrast, my wife went to public school. Someone (the former class
> >> >president, maybe?) tried to organize a picnic for their 50th, but there
> >> >was a notable lack of interest, so it didn't happen.
> >>
> >> For me that is scheduled for next September and since I was on crew
> >> for the last one I expect to be asked as the time approaches.
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure it will go ahead - we had about 200-300 (from a class
> >> of 600 and some of that 200-300 were significant others) but we had a
> >> good time. On the other hand we had a 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th but
> >> no 45th and 2018 was of course pre COVID. I would expect many of us to
> >> be grandparents now though probably weren't 10 years ago.
> >
> >
> >I was appalled recently to find myself on the school's (rather short)
> >list of distinguished graduates. (It must be a pretty low bar.) I
> >assure you and all in the name of God Almighty that I had nothing to do
> >with it.
>
> Lucky you - I graduated first in my class and have NEVER been referred
> to that way though I have my minor accomplishments that have gotten me
> honored by the mayor during a municipal council meeting. But NEVER
> from my old school.
>
> On the other hand I choked back tears the last time I was at the
> school as I knew the school had been renovated in the early 2010s but
> there was a bronze plaque outside the office saying the school had
> been rebuilt in 2012 and that nothing of the original school (i.e. the
> one I attended) was left presumably excluding the parking lots. The
> only thing in fact remaining that I could see was the original 1966
> dedication plaque.
>
> (Alas my late wife who had wanted to attend her old school's
> >centenary< exercises had them postponed due to COVID and I've not
> heard they've been rescheduled. Being 2000 miles away from where I now
> live I'm not keen to make a special trip there just for her sake - as
> opposed to my old school I'll be within two blocks of later today)
>
> All this was done in the name of "earthquake preparedness upgrades"

That last bit sounds like a ruse in order to get the money. Smart.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 22:13:08 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <5rngsh9tevk063b69cf2aiqp87cq4vo3hb@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>> On the other hand I choked back tears the last time I was at the
>> school as I knew the school had been renovated in the early 2010s but
>> there was a bronze plaque outside the office saying the school had
>> been rebuilt in 2012 and that nothing of the original school (i.e. the
>> one I attended) was left presumably excluding the parking lots. The
>> only thing in fact remaining that I could see was the original 1966
>> dedication plaque.
>>
>> (Alas my late wife who had wanted to attend her old school's
>> >centenary< exercises had them postponed due to COVID and I've not
>> heard they've been rescheduled. Being 2000 miles away from where I now
>> live I'm not keen to make a special trip there just for her sake - as
>> opposed to my old school I'll be within two blocks of later today)
>>
>> All this was done in the name of "earthquake preparedness upgrades"
>
>
>That last bit sounds like a ruse in order to get the money. Smart.

In Canada education is a provincial area of jurisdiction and no
question south west BC (essentially anywhere within 100 miles of
Vancouver) has experienced earthquakes north of 6.5 with a 7.2 in the
late 1940s. They're also worried about weakened foundations due to
both tremors and flooding.

Me - I live on the coast about 240 meters above sea level so if MY
place is likely to be flooded out we'll first be seeing animals going
by two by two Noah-style.

On 1/18/23 10:06 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 17:25:59 UTC-5, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 1/18/23 2:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 2023 at 6:46:08 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/17/2023 7:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ZPBxL.84712$SdR7....@fx04.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2023 1:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 7:12:24 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 11:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <7FoxL.377075$iS99....@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc...@fx33.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc...@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hijabs for all the women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for non-compliance'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which I gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial penalty. That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that in one instance, one has to voluntarily join the body
>>>>>>>>>>> where there's a restriction and can quit at any time. In the other, the
>>>>>>>>>>> restriction is imposed population-wide and there's no escaping it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I then left it to you to determine which is which.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...which reduces to a difference in penalty for non-compliance, as when
>>>>>>>>>> you posted:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't reduce to anything. You asked for a difference aside from the
>>>>>>>>> penalty. I gave you one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you gave me what amounts to a difference in penalty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I didn't. I described a major difference in the voluntariness of the
>>>>>>> restriction. In one instance, a person has to actively choose to become
>>>>>>> a member of the body where the restriction exists and can leave at any
>>>>>>> time if they don't like it. In the other, there's no choice and no
>>>>>>> escape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The (lesser) penalty is that you must abandon your chosen career path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a politician shouldn't be a career anyway. It should be a period of
>>>>> public service after which you go back to your real job.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That you subsequently survive doing so doesn't mean it's not a
>>>>>> substantial penalty strongly encouraging compliance. Force is force.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still a choice (one that those living under the Taliban do not enjoy).
>>>>> That's not a penalty any more than the consequences of any of the other
>>>>> thousands of choices we constantly make are penalties.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, your "choice" is to comply or to pay an artificial *penalty* --
>>>> whether one imposed by a legislature or by a Taliban. 'Choice' doesn't
>>>> preclude 'penalty'.
>>>
>>> But it allows you to decline the possibility of being penalized for
>>> non-compliance, something the women in Afghanistan don't enjoy.
>> Fer sure, the "penalties for noncompliance" are something the Taliban
>> are known for, said nobody in his right fucking mind. Imposing bullshit
>> on women is what they do best, how they enforce it can vary by region.
>> The Oath Keepers have eaten your brain.
>
> You seem fixated on the Oath Keepers.
> By the way, home come riots in which Oath Keepers were involved are insurrections, while riots BLM and Antifa are involved with are simply called, "unrest?"

You seem to be declaring intellectual bankruptcy and hence are unable to
respond to the gist of the post. Have you tried seeking help for your
cognitive problems?

On Jan 16, 2023 at 3:07:50 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>
>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>
>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>
>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>> throughout that region)
>>
>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>
> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?

So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo an
hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
to make the rules for men and woman the same. Men were already required to
wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.

And that's what the feminists supposedly want, right? Equality?

Or like the military draft, is this one of those things were the feminists and
the equality crusaders suddenly are perfectly cool with having a different
standard for themselves as compared to men?

On 1/19/2023 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2023 at 3:07:50 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>
>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>
>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>> throughout that region)
>>>
>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>
>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
>
> So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo an
> hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
> to make the rules for men and woman the same. Men were already required to
> wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
> not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.
>
> And that's what the feminists supposedly want, right? Equality?
>
> Or like the military draft, is this one of those things were the feminists and
> the equality crusaders suddenly are perfectly cool with having a different
> standard for themselves as compared to men?

Maybe I don't understand. Surely you don't mean that women must wear "a
dress shirt, tie, and jacket". But if you're defending the new rule as
simply establishing standards for all, remember that such standards for
women have usually been paternalistic ones about "decency".

In article <2MyyL.405777$vBI8.320148@fx15.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 1/19/2023 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2023 at 3:07:50 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
> >>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school
> >>>>> board right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop
> >>>>> teacher with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an
> >>>>> enormous controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes
> >>>>> Oakville a community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional
> >>>>> reasoning.
> >>>>
> >>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
> >>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
> >>>>
> >>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
> >>>>
> >>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
> >>>> throughout that region)
> >>>
> >>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
> >>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
> >>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
> >>
> >> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
> >
> > So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo and
> > hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was
> > enacted to make the rules for men and woman the same. Men were already
> > required to wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative
> > floor. Women did not have to abide by those rules up until now. This
> > just makes things equal.
> >
> > And that's what the feminists supposedly want, right? Equality?
> >
> > Or like the military draft, is this one of those things where the
> > feminists and the equality crusaders suddenly are perfectly cool with
> > having a different standard for themselves as compared to men?
>
> Maybe I don't understand. Surely you don't mean that women must wear "a
> dress shirt, tie, and jacket".

They have to wear business attire, the same as men, which does include a
dress shirt and jacket. They're still getting a break on the tie.

On 1/19/23 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2023 at 3:07:50 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>
>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>
>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>> throughout that region)
>>>
>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>
>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
>
> So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo an
> hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
> to make the rules for men and woman the same. Men were already required to
> wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
> not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.

But it's not "equal" when trans people participate in female
sports--sound like you've egested a pile o' shit again.

On 1/19/23 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2023 at 3:07:50 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>
>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>
>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>> throughout that region)
>>>
>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>
>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
>
> So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo an
> hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
> to make the rules for men and woman the same. Men were already required to
> wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
> not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.

Oh and men can't get abortions so women shouldn't be able to either.
Equal! Jawohl!

On 1/16/23 5:07 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school
>>>> board
>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop
>>>> teacher
>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>
>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>
>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>
>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>> throughout that region)
>>
>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>
> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?

"Trotsky" is a guy whose first name was Leon, but "Rhino" is too stupid
to get that.

On 1/16/23 9:32 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 1/16/2023 7:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2023 6:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <QklxL.58804$0dpc.1968@fx33.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/16/2023 6:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <aNkxL.77484$rKDc.4986@fx34.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:49:13 -0500, Rhino
>>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton
>>>>>>>>>> school board
>>>>>>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual
>>>>>>>>>> shop teacher
>>>>>>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an
>>>>>>>>>> enormous
>>>>>>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>>>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in
>>>>>>>>> Canada?
>>>>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have
>>>>>>>>> spread out
>>>>>>>>> throughout that region)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state
>>>>>>>> legislature
>>>>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>>>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important
>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One is a voluntary association that one can quit at any time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other-- there's no escape for anyone who doesn't want to comply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll leave you to work out which is which.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll leave you work out how that 'difference' reduces to 'the penalty
>>>>> for non-compliance'.
>>>>
>>>> The penalty for non-compliance for one is a fine or censure. The
>>>> penalty
>>>> for the other is being beaten to death.
>>>>
>>>> The difference doesn't reduce.
>>>
>>> Whether that difference is minuscule or spans worlds, what I asked for
>>> was a difference *besides* the penalty for non-compliance.
>>
>> Which I gave you.
>
> You said that, for non-compliance, there's either slight penalty or
> substantial penalty.  That's a difference in penalty for non-compliance.

Wait, is Oath Keeper/Eunuch Derp being obtuse and silly? That hardly
ever happens!!

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>
>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>
>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>> throughout that region)
>>>
>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>
>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
>
>So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo an
>hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
>to make the rules for men and woman the same. Men were already required to
>wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
>not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.

I noticed in the article (that "trotsky" the failed troll didn;t bother to
read),
that it was initiated by female members tired of the ones who were not
dressing professionally and making them look bad.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <XbmdnQBd_Mnus1D-nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> > "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
> >>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
> >>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
> >>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
> >>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
> >>>>
> >>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
> >>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
> >>>>
> >>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
> >>>>
> >>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
> >>>> throughout that region)
> >>>
> >>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
> >>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
> >>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
> >>
> >> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
> >
> >So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo and
> >hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
> >to make the rules for men and women the same. Men were already required to
> >wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
> >not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.
>
> I noticed in the article (that "trotsky" the failed troll didn;t bother to
> read), that it was initiated by female members tired of the ones who were
> not dressing professionally and making them look bad.

But... but... Taliban!!!

On 1/22/23 10:28 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <XbmdnQBd_Mnus1D-nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com>,
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>>>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>>>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>>>> throughout that region)
>>>>>
>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>>>
>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
>>>
>>> So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo and
>>> hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
>>> to make the rules for men and women the same. Men were already required to
>>> wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
>>> not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.
>>
>> I noticed in the article (that "trotsky" the failed troll didn;t bother to
>> read), that it was initiated by female members tired of the ones who were
>> not dressing professionally and making them look bad.
>
> But... but... Taliban!!!

But but but didn;t Pubie realize his semi-colon is where his brain is kept?

In article <tqk0ed$m8v$2@gioia.aioe.org>, gmsingh@email.com wrote:
> On 1/22/23 10:28 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school
>>>>>>>> board right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual
>>>>>>>> shop teacher with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused
>>>>>>>> an enormous controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes
>>>>>>>> Oakville a community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional
>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>>>>> throughout that region)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
>>>>
>>>> So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo and
>>>> hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was
>>>> enacted to make the rules for men and women the same. Men were already
>>>> required to wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative
>>>> floor. Women did not have to abide by those rules up until now. This
>>>> just makes things equal.
>>>
>>> I noticed in the article (that "trotsky" the failed troll didn;t bother to
>>> read), that it was initiated by female members tired of the ones who were
>>> not dressing professionally and making them look bad.
>>
>> But... but... Taliban!!!
>
> But but but didn;t Pubie realize his semi-colon is where his brain is kept?

"Spelling" "flame" noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
make.

--
Let's go Brandon!

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/2023 5:47 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-01-16 1:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> There is a great deal of "community pressure" on the Halton school board
>>>>>>> right now to adopt a dress code to rein in the trans-sexual shop teacher
>>>>>>> with the enormous fake breasts whose presence has caused an enormous
>>>>>>> controversy in Oakville, Ontario. I suppose that makes Oakville a
>>>>>>> community of Taliban as well by Trotsky's delusional reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean as opposed to the home of the largest Ford plant in Canada?
>>>>>> (The one where my brother in law works?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's well to do but no question has a lot more besides Ford.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (My inlaws are mostly from next door Burlington  but have spread out
>>>>>> throughout that region)
>>>>>
>>>>> That idiot Trotsky apparently sees a dress code in a state legislature
>>>>> as being the same thing as the Taliban mandating hijabs for all the
>>>>> women in Afghanistan. I'm just mocking that parallel.
>>>>
>>>> Besides the penalty for non-compliance, what's an important difference?
>>>
>>> So after all the "ZOMG! This is just like the Taliban!!" hullabaloo and
>>> hysteria, it turns out that this new rule for female legislators was enacted
>>> to make the rules for men and women the same. Men were already required to
>>> wear a dress shirt, tie, and jacket while on the legislative floor. Women did
>>> not have to abide by those rules up until now. This just makes things equal.
>>
>> I noticed in the article (that "trotsky" the failed troll didn;t bother to
>> read), that it was initiated by female members tired of the ones who were
>> not dressing professionally and making them look bad.
>
> But... but... Taliban!!!

It's a shame "trotsky" doesn't put as much effort into being well-informed
as he does trying to get "Taliban" added to Goodwin's law.

--
Let's go Brandon