薔薇語

Again, what were his purjuous statements? La Rose.

If we are honest with themselves you recognize that we don't know. We don't actually know what those phrases mean we have assumptions. And assumptions about facts required us to show a certain level of humility. the judge and his high school friends agree on the meaning of those terms. At some point we have to ask ourselves which passes the Occam's razor test that a group of 17 year old boys created some stupid phrasing for drinking game 30 years or that all of them are lying now and that actually our assumptions are The are assumptions are the unvarnished truth. La Rose.

Who is the Joe with relevant info here? Has anyone in this proceeding said they have relevant info to the sexual assault we haven't heard? It doesn't Seem any of those people wanting to be interviewed are such a person. Perhaps there is a Jack who knows of a John? That was supposed to be the case with Ramirez until TheNewYorker showes that to be untrue. So who else is like that that we haven't heard from? It doesn't seem any of the 40 are either Johns or Jacks. At some point things are just fishing expeditions. La Rose.

Haha. Okay, Benghazi 8.0. La Rose.

Witnesses to the sexual assualts alleged? La Rose.

"I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. " So he has no info regarding the actually important sexual misconduct allegations. "Judge Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that my account was not credible because “it was a contentious situation” where I “did not like” the third suitemate. He then referenced a prank I pulled on the third suitemate and some redacted portion of his closed-door questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee staff. It’s true that I played a prank on the third roommate. We were not close. But that relationship has no bearing on my ability to observe Kavanaugh’s behavior then and to describe it now." He had an antagonistic relationship with the judge for a lobg time. So, his big issue he can give info on is that perhaps the judge drank to black out status. Nevermind that is a wholly subjective sense and the conversation above regarding the very subjective nature of 'too much' when regarding acceptable levels of drinking. As to the yearbook points, am I a bit confused here? Wasn't the yearbook from Highschool and this man is a college roommate. That leads me to put less faith in that account and especially in light of otger highschool friends supporting the Judge's assessments. So where does that leave us? Exactly where we started. This person could provide no witness knowledge of the real issue of sexual assault and has nothing substantial to say about anything else. So who is the witness we want interviewed regarding the sexual assault case that we haven't seen yet? La Rose.

Ah. Benghazi 2.0. How relieving it would be to have another of those. La Rose.

As to the FBI investigation, who else should have been talk to regarding the Prof Ford allegation? Prof Ford has made her statements and is still in contact with Senator Grassly regarding her reported evidence that she is unwilling to turn over. Are we expecting her to suddenly change her statements and commit purjury? The Judge has made his statements under oath. Are we expecting him to suddenly change and commit purjury? Everyone we have been lead to believe to be at the party has been talked to and denied knowledge of the allegations. What other witnesses do we reasonably expect? The Ramirez allegations has fallen apart by the NewYorker's own doing. She was never a particularly reliable source and the folks pushing some hearsay claims had their originating source flattly deny it. And Pizza Gate 2.0, aka Avenatti's case never had merit. With respect to the allegation of sexual misconduct, which witness are we lacking? La Rose.

I am not so sure it is as cut and dry as you suggest. This does remind me of a popular-ish saying: 'When you disagree with a conservative, they think you're an idiot. When you disagree with a liberal, they think you're evil.' From personal experience, I nor my frienss have ever been called worse things than when we have disagreed with a left leaning individual. This isn't to say the above isn't the case. Folks on the right, especially the religious right, have made absolutely despicable comments about our fellow citizens. We should keep this in mind but in doing so not forget other examples. La Rose.

What are you saying he committed purjury on? What were his words and what was the actual truth of the matter? La Rose.

A Recent NYTimes article by David Brooks. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-partisan-national-disgrace.html "Commentators and others may have acknowledged uncertainty on these questions for about 2.5 seconds, but then they took sides. If they couldn’t take sides based on the original evidence, they found new reasons to confirm their previous positions. Kavanaugh is too angry and dishonest. He drank beer and threw ice while in college. With tribal warfare all around, uncertainty is the one state you are not permitted to be in. This, of course, led to an upsurge in base mobilization. Persuasion is no longer an important part of public conversation. Public statements are meant to mobilize your mob. Senator Cory Booker can’t just sort through the evidence. He has to get Spartacus-like histrionic in order to whip Democrats toward his presidential candidacy. Kavanaugh can’t just dispassionately try to disprove the allegations made against him. Instead, he gets furious and stokes up culture war rage in order to fire up the Republican base. This leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal. This past month we’ve seen thousands of people convinced that they know how Kavanaugh behaved because they know how “privileged” people behave. We’ve seen thousands of people lining up behind Kavanaugh because they know that there’s this vicious thing called “the Left,” which hates them." La Rose.

For me and my games: Long Sword = OAF Obvious because any layman can grasp what it does. Accessible because it can be removed from a character in or out of combat with some version of Disarm. It can not be reasonably hidden in a single phase (Requires a particular set of circumstances to do so) Dagger = Either OAF or IAF. Inobvious would mean it is small and could be concealed in about single phase reasonably. It can also be taken from the user with a Dissrm. An OAF is harder to conceal: it has a peculiar shape, glow, etc. Staff of FireBall that appears like normal staves = IAF A layman would struggle to discern its power at a glance. Even after learning the truth, if it was hidden among other staffs out of sight, a character would require some kind of skill check to find. Staff of FireBall with a burning red orb = OAF It is obvious to even a layman that this is no ordinary staff. They may not know the power wrappes up in it, but can spott it out from others. La Rose.

The disguise kit, however, isn't the thing being concealed. The gun is. That is an import distinction. La Rose.

I can't recall that being a rule but I could easily be wrong. La Rose.

Concealment with OBVIOUS on it is self defeating. Just because a lim belongs on one power doesn't mean it goes on everything in a compound power. We wouldn't put BEAM on both the RKA and Concealment. La Rose.