On 3/25/2022 5:07 PM, Rickster wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:07:19 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
>> From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>>
>> How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>>
>> Female
>> Noun
>> an adult female human being.
>>
>> Woman
>> adjective
>> of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
>> distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
>> which can be fertilized by male gametes.
> I suppose you think this definition is clear? You do understand it requires you to define "male" first, right? If you define "male" or "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which fertilize the female gametes.
>
> Seems rather circuitous.
>
It seems you are confused and don't know the difference between a man
and a woman?
                          Mikek

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 3/25/2022 7:57 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:44:53 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 8:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> bitrex wrote:
>>> ===========
>>>>> ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
>>>>> ( except for language crossover versions)
>>>>>
>>>>> The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
>>>>> Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
>>>>> The reader has to sort that out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
>>>>> Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
>>>>> Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.
>>>>>
>>>> I called a liquor store a "packie" and he thought I was being a bigot,
>>>> doesn't have any connotation that way in New England it's short for
>>>> "package store" but pronounced the same as "Paki"
>>>>
>>> ** There is an Australian dictionary - " The Macquarie Dictionary" .
>>> My edition has over 2000 large pages.
>>> One entry is for " turd strangler ".
>>>
>>> Guess what it means ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Ahh, is it the opposite of something that's a "piece o' piss"?
>
> ** No, it's Aussie slang for a plumber.
>
>
> ...... Phil
>
 I was leaning towards Sphincter.
                Mikek

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 26-Mar-22 12:07 am, amdx wrote:
> From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>
>  How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>
>  Female
>  Noun
> an adult female human being.
>
>  Woman
> adjective
> of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
> distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
> which can be fertilized by male gametes.
>
>                            Mikek
>

Dictionaries just tell you how words are used by native speakers of a
language. They cannot help you make judgements about real-life issues.

Sylvia.

Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > amdx wrote:
> > > From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
> > >
> > > How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
> > >
> > > Female
> > > Noun
> > > an adult female human being.
> > >
> > > Woman
> > > adjective
> > > of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
> > > distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
> > > which can be fertilized by male gametes.
> > >
> > > Mikek
> > Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
> > woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
> > biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
> > understand why you have trouble understanding that.
>
>
> Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:52:21 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t1mk85$fm2$1@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

hIBoJohiRHmp

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:52:33 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t1mk8g$fm2$2@dont-email.me>.

rSgbtEOXOkTb

Jerfoff Dope wrote:
------------------------
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> > Dictionaries just tell you how words are used by native speakers of a
> > language. They cannot help you make judgements about real-life issues.
>>
> Real judges use dictionaries every day all day
> to help make judgments.

** Bullshit.

> Semantics is their thing,

** Bullshit.

> Judges must be language experts because they must understand the meaning of
> written laws.

** Legal jargon is nothing like ordinary language - fuckwit.

FOAD .

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 10:44:10 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t1mqpq$rq2$1@dont-email.me>.

VdnBgUZoCS74

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Sat, 26 Mar 2022 10:44:58 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t1mqr9$um0$1@dont-email.me>).

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

kUskknrtb+y+

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 10:45:09 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t1mqrl$um0$2@dont-email.me>.

srgHdgwZHjST

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Sat, 26 Mar 2022 10:55:39 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t1mrfa$um0$4@dont-email.me>).

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
> except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
to USENET has been 55.7% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

o6x0yDhxz5nw

bitrex wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
>>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
>>> most people.
>>
>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>> Excellent technique.
>
> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
doesn't need to be considered.

--
Defund the Thought Police

bitrex wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
>>>>>> question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
>>>> most people.
>>>
>>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>>> Excellent technique.
>>>
>>
>> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
>
> Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
> the same as the Holocaust

Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
world problems of the average person.

--
Defund the Thought Police

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:07:12 -0500) it happened amdx
<amdx@knology.net> wrote in <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me>:

> From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>
>  How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>
>  Female
>  Noun
>an adult female human being.
>
>  Woman
>adjective
>of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
>distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
>which can be fertilized by male gametes.

You need the right spice model.

On 3/26/2022 7:10 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> bitrex wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
>>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
>>>>> most people.
>>>>
>>>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>>>> Excellent technique.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
>>
>> Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
>> the same as the Holocaust
>
> Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
> humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
> harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
> world problems of the average person.
>

The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority in
2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death, a direct
lineage of right-wing fascist philosophy. Nothing changed...

On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> bitrex wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
>>>>>> question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
>>>> most people.
>>>
>>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>>> Excellent technique.
>>
>> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
>
> It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
> connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
> doesn't need to be considered.
>
>

With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some seem
to still be fighting it

On 3/26/2022 9:04 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:10:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> bitrex wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
>> humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
>> harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
>> world problems of the average person.
>
> Galton invented the term in 1883 - 139 years ago.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
>
> It wasn't a harmless theory. It motivated some thoroughly evil US legislation in the early 1900's, and Hitler doted on it.
>
> By 1945 it had a great many critics - the Nazi enthusiasm for eugenics had been noticed, even if you have missed it.
> The practical implementation of eugenic ideas was carried out by people who didn't know enough about genetics to have achieved the effect they wanted . People who did know about genetics never though well of the idea, even when Galton first articulated it.
>
> It was always pernicious nonsense, and you don't seem to realise quite how pernicious it was.
>

Tom seems like the type of guy who figures that Jim Crow laws never had
any applicability to whites which is definitely not true; there were
certainly ways the state exercised control over whites also and in that
vein it doesn't take too much thought to figure out what they were.

30 out of 48 states in the mid 20th century enforced anti-miscegenation
laws and they applied to whites also. But I suppose the freedom-loving
right is accustomed to the state dictating who they many marry and have
children with. Fur zee good of zee Volk!

On 3/26/2022 4:23 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> amdx wrote:
>>>> From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>>>>
>>>> How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>>>>
>>>> Female
>>>> Noun
>>>> an adult female human being.
>>>>
>>>> Woman
>>>> adjective
>>>> of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
>>>> distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
>>>> which can be fertilized by male gametes.
>>>>
>>>> Mikek
>>> Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
>>> woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
>>> biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
>>> understand why you have trouble understanding that.
>>
>>
>> Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.
>
> Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.
>

Another howler from a former America's Next Top Dipshit:

<https://i.redd.it/jjixgmdd6kp81.jpg>

Pretty much no sharper than 90% of lawmakers in the US either,
anthropologists they are not.

On 3/26/2022 10:07 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 4:23 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> amdx wrote:
>>>>>  From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>>>>>
>>>>> How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Female
>>>>> Noun
>>>>> an adult female human being.
>>>>>
>>>>> Woman
>>>>> adjective
>>>>> of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
>>>>> distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
>>>>> which can be fertilized by male gametes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikek
>>>> Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
>>>> woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
>>>> biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
>>>> understand why you have trouble understanding that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
>>> license.
>>
>> Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.
>>
>
>
> Another howler from a former America's Next Top Dipshit:
>
> <https://i.redd.it/jjixgmdd6kp81.jpg>
>
> Pretty much no sharper than 90% of lawmakers in the US either,
> anthropologists they are not.

"When you die they will.." Who's "they"? Like the state bone-examiner's
department who analyzes the bones of every person who dies? Lol talk
about the "nanny state" I guess they just assume it exists already.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> > amdx wrote:
>> > > From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>> > >
>> > > How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>> > >
>> > > Female
>> > > Noun
>> > > an adult female human being.
>> > >
>> > > Woman
>> > > adjective
>> > > of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
>> > > distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
>> > > which can be fertilized by male gametes.
>> > >
>> > > Mikek
>> > Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
>> > woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
>> > biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
>> > understand why you have trouble understanding that.
>>
>>
>> Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.
>
>Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 12:39:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:07:12 -0500) it happened amdx
><amdx@knology.net> wrote in <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>>
>>  How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>>
>>  Female
>>  Noun
>>an adult female human being.
>>
>>  Woman
>>adjective
>>of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
>>distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
>>which can be fertilized by male gametes.
>
> You need the right spice model.

Some people like the Alternate Solver.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 6:34:47 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 6:07 PM, Rickster wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:07:19 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
> >> From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
> >>
> >> How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
> >>
> >> Female
> >> Noun
> >> an adult female human being.
> >>
> >> Woman
> >> adjective
> >> of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
> >> distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
> >> which can be fertilized by male gametes.
> >
> > I suppose you think this definition is clear? You do understand it requires you to define "male" first, right? If you define "male" or "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which fertilize the female gametes.
> >
> > Seems rather circuitous.
> >
> Every word in this dictionary is defined in terms of other words in the
> dictionary!

The fact that you went overseas on vacation and returned home doesn't mean you are going in circles... even if you are circling the drain at the time.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 4:24:35 AM UTC-4, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > > amdx wrote:
> > > > From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
> > > >
> > > > How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
> > > >
> > > > Female
> > > > Noun
> > > > an adult female human being.
> > > >
> > > > Woman
> > > > adjective
> > > > of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
> > > > distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
> > > > which can be fertilized by male gametes.
> > > >
> > > > Mikek
> > > Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
> > > woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
> > > biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
> > > understand why you have trouble understanding that.
> >
> >
> > Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.
> Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

I suppose you could use a bit of time with a dictionary.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 7:55:16 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
> bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
> > Rickster wrote:
> >> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >>> bitrex wrote:
> >>>> John Doe wrote:
>
> >>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
> >>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
> >>>>> question.
> >>>>
> >>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems
> >>>> of the regular American.
> >>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
> >>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
> >>> people.
> >>
> >> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
> >> Excellent technique.
> >
> > I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
> It was not an analogy.
>
> That's like one of our US representatives on Tucker Carlson misusing
> "hypothetical". She doesn't know or doesn't care what "hypothetical" is...
>
> https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=593
>
> https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=912

The "hypothetical" situation Maria Salazar is talking about was phrases by Carlson when he said, "IF...". She is saying that has not happened and may not happen, therefore is hypothetical according to the definition of the word. collinsdictionary.com

"If something is hypothetical, it is based on possible ideas or situations rather than actual ones."

That's exactly the correct usage.

The second video is the same. Carlson offers the hypothetical situation of there being a choice of closing the US borders "tonight". That is not an option. There is no bill before Congress to vote on, so it's hypothetical.

Seems you are clearly the one who does not understand the meaning of "hypothetical".

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 9:12:48 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > bitrex wrote:
> >> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >>>> bitrex wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
> >>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
> >>>>>> question.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
> >>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
> >>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
> >>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
> >>>> most people.
> >>>
> >>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
> >>> Excellent technique.
> >>
> >> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
> >
> > It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
> > connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
> > doesn't need to be considered.
> >
> >
> With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
> problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some seem
> to still be fighting it

The civil war was just a manifestation of the underlying problems of prejudice and bigotry. Not much different from what we have today. The conclusion of the war was not the culmination of those problems.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209