Pattern Ghost

Black Skimmer, credit: https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/black-skimmer

I read that the original creator of the character wanted to call him "Captain Thunder," but the editor/publisher thought that would be too frightening to children. That would be an awesome and entirely appropriate name IMHO.

I hope he had fun being a racist edgelord online because his life is going to be very different now.
 

Honestly, I found her tone offensive even while agreeing with the content of the paragraph, so I can see where Scholastic is coming from. On the other hand, the book seems to be widely acclaimed, and a publisher should have the cojones to handle a little bit of controversy. Especially one with Scholastic's clout.
 
 

Pretty much all English actors except for Pine and Rodriguez as the leads.
 

I agree. Stand your ground is often misapplied. Abbot is a clown. None of that is what I was talking about. I was merely critiquing the logic of a specific portion of an essay. I'm a pedantic sort of person sometimes, and I like to analyse these sorts of details. 

Read that guy's post. While I agree with him on the racism, he's wrong on the stand your ground aspects. Stand your ground laws were not misapplied in either case. Just because the governor is squawking about stand your ground laws in this case, or because the press was in Zimmerman doesn't mean the laws were really relevant. Here's the crux of both cases: Self defense does not apply if you provoke the conflict that leads to the killing.
 
This was correctly applied in both cases, according to the evidence at hand. In the Texas case, given the evidence of intent and the fact that the moron was driving through a crowd, it was very clear the killer was seeking to provoke a confrontation. It doesn't matter if the victim did point his weapon at the shooter. The killer provoked the confrontation. In the Zimmerman case, simply following his victim was not illegal. Zimmerman was attacked, regardless of the size disparity, with physical evidence that supported that part of Zimmerman's story (being on his back with the victim on top of him, smashing his head into the ground. (And the weight advantage is a non-starter when the smaller guy is fit. Martin was the same size I was when I was in the Army, and I could have easily overwhelmed Zimmerman when I was that age.) The missing piece in the Zimmerman case was a witness to Zimmerman provoking the confrontation. I firmly believe he provoked the confrontation and should have been severely punished, but the law was not misapplied, nor was it "wrong." The system sometimes lets human filth loose because there are strict standards of proof. That's working as intended, no matter how distasteful the results often are.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Read that guy's post. While I agree with him on the racism, he's wrong on the stand your ground aspects. Stand your ground laws were not misapplied in either case. Just because the governor is squawking about stand your ground laws in this case, or because the press was in Zimmerman doesn't mean the laws were really relevant. Here's the crux of both cases: Self defense does not apply if you provoke the conflict that leads to the killing.
 
This was correctly applied in both cases, according to the evidence at hand. In the Texas case, given the evidence of intent and the fact that the moron was driving through a crowd, it was very clear the killer was seeking to provoke a confrontation. It doesn't matter if the victim did point his weapon at the shooter. The killer provoked the confrontation. In the Zimmerman case, simply following his victim was not illegal. Zimmerman was attacked, regardless of the size disparity, with physical evidence that supported that part of Zimmerman's story (being on his back with the victim on top of him, smashing his head into the ground. (And the weight advantage is a non-starter when the smaller guy is fit. Martin was the same size I was when I was in the Army, and I could have easily overwhelmed Zimmerman when I was that age.) The missing piece in the Zimmerman case was a witness to Zimmerman provoking the confrontation. I firmly believe he provoked the confrontation and should have been severely punished, but the law was not misapplied, nor was it "wrong." The system sometimes lets human filth loose because there are strict standards of proof. That's working as intended, no matter how distasteful the results often are.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Read that guy's post. While I agree with him on the racism, he's wrong on the stand your ground aspects. Stand your ground laws were not misapplied in either case. Just because the governor is squawking about stand your ground laws in this case, or because the press was in Zimmerman doesn't mean the laws were really relevant. Here's the crux of both cases: Self defense does not apply if you provoke the conflict that leads to the killing.
 
This was correctly applied in both cases, according to the evidence at hand. In the Texas case, given the evidence of intent and the fact that the moron was driving through a crowd, it was very clear the killer was seeking to provoke a confrontation. It doesn't matter if the victim did point his weapon at the shooter. The killer provoked the confrontation. In the Zimmerman case, simply following his victim was not illegal. Zimmerman was attacked, regardless of the size disparity, with physical evidence that supported that part of Zimmerman's story (being on his back with the victim on top of him, smashing his head into the ground. (And the weight advantage is a non-starter when the smaller guy is fit. Martin was the same size I was when I was in the Army, and I could have easily overwhelmed Zimmerman when I was that age.) The missing piece in the Zimmerman case was a witness to Zimmerman provoking the confrontation. I firmly believe he provoked the confrontation and should have been severely punished, but the law was not misapplied, nor was it "wrong." The system sometimes lets human filth loose because there are strict standards of proof. That's working as intended, no matter how distasteful the results often are.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Read that guy's post. While I agree with him on the racism, he's wrong on the stand your ground aspects. Stand your ground laws were not misapplied in either case. Just because the governor is squawking about stand your ground laws in this case, or because the press was in Zimmerman doesn't mean the laws were really relevant. Here's the crux of both cases: Self defense does not apply if you provoke the conflict that leads to the killing.
 
This was correctly applied in both cases, according to the evidence at hand. In the Texas case, given the evidence of intent and the fact that the moron was driving through a crowd, it was very clear the killer was seeking to provoke a confrontation. It doesn't matter if the victim did point his weapon at the shooter. The killer provoked the confrontation. In the Zimmerman case, simply following his victim was not illegal. Zimmerman was attacked, regardless of the size disparity, with physical evidence that supported that part of Zimmerman's story (being on his back with the victim on top of him, smashing his head into the ground. (And the weight advantage is a non-starter when the smaller guy is fit. Martin was the same size I was when I was in the Army, and I could have easily overwhelmed Zimmerman when I was that age.) The missing piece in the Zimmerman case was a witness to Zimmerman provoking the confrontation. I firmly believe he provoked the confrontation and should have been severely punished, but the law was not misapplied, nor was it "wrong." The system sometimes lets human filth loose because there are strict standards of proof. That's working as intended, no matter how distasteful the results often are.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Well, if we're talking about the movie versions, I have to say that I would have agreed with you before seeing the extended version of Return of the King. In the movies, Gandalf the Grey fought the Balrog at length, and succeeded in killing it, though he died in the process. But the extended RotK has a scene in which the Witch-King of Angmar shattered the staff of Gandalf the White by his magic. Obviously the Witch-King was the strongest of the Nazgul, but still a Nazgul. And he wasn't taken down by a plucky warrior, but by two, one of whom caught him by surprise from behind, and neither of whom were covered by his prophecy of invincibility.
 
Of course, the Nazgul would have been another level of terrifying if their master's Ring was on his hand again.

Here's the Wikipedia article about the case, which summarizes the evidence:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster
 
IMO, while eyewitnesses are unreliable, this guy's Twitter statements are pretty damning evidence of a motive. The prosecutor made a point about the weapon being on safe and having an empty chamber, but that's totally irrelevant, since the affirmative defense was a weapon pointed at the shooter.
 
Here's a video of the incident. Looks like the car is slowly moving into the protest crowd, provoking them. I'd say his actions with the vehicle align with his earlier tweets. Looks like he was trying to provoke a response:
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/texas/video-2217414/Video-Video-shooting-protest-Austin-Texas.html
 
The conviction looks legit to me.

I don’t believe there’s really any conflict there. Talking points aside both parties are extremely FOR federal regulation, just only in the areas they prefer. Oh and “rules for thee, but not for me”.

Funny and odd, I would never think she could get such an honor. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2023-04-06/manga-creator-rumiko-takahashi-knighted-by-france/.196840

I know, but they still chose to put it into the headline, thus showing their bias.
 
I mean, I'm from Florida, so I know what a bad idea it is to arm more Floridians, trust me. I just found the obvious slant funny. It seems like subtlety has been abandoned, and nobody in the media really cares about putting up the facade of impartiality.

Thanks, I didn't know what those little curly marks around words meant. 😁
 
(TBH, I was being a bit unfair to the author, b/c the headlines are often not written by the person writing the article. But the obvious click-baity, biased headline is still annoying.)

Renner's Hawkeye was strongly inspired by the version of the character from the Ultimates comic series.

The bill is here, or search for Florida SB 150
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/150/BillText/c1/PDF
 
Key points:
--a GREAT deal of text about guardian programs in schools.  Lots about the training involved.
--anyone who is licensed to carry a firearm, or who passes the criteria to be licensed, is allowed to carry concealed.  The criteria include passing a gun safety course...but the wording allows just a basic course to be sufficient.  (that's down at line 667.)  
--there is no requirement for a background check before issuing a CC permit.
--anyone may carry concealed into a church...but the church, it appears, can ban guns.  (starts at line 834)
--if you have a CC permit, there is no wait period for buying firearms
 
BTW:  the "shameful" refers to how the White House referred to the bill.  
 
 
 

NATO now surrounds a peace loving country....
that is, Sweden
 
Finland has joined NATO
 
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-set-join-nato-historic-shift-while-sweden-waits-2023-04-04/
 
Sweden is trying to join too so , which is good, then it won't be surrounded
 
 

Its a secret why they even want to do this storyline
 
 
Eternals and Wakanda Forever feel well named

It'd be interesting to see them ranked for how long they feel.

Click bait:
 
"It is also not clear whether those staff members were present on campus when the shooting took place. Police have also not stated yet that any staff members at the school had a gun or fired at the shooter."
 
The headline should read: "A woman who called 911 while hiding under a desk during the shooting said to the dispatcher that one or two staff members carry guns" (Also a direct quote from the article.)
 
I will say that this:
 
“ 'We do have a school person, or two ... I’m not sure ... who would be packing, whose job it is for security. We don’t have security guards, but we have staff.' ”
 
does not strike me as a good idea.
 
It'll be interesting to see if any details come out on whether these armed staff were on campus and what their story was if they were. Hopefully, they exercised good judgement and took care of the students in their classes as their first priority. If they were there, it doesn't seem like any of them were foolish enough to try to hunt down the shooter, at least.
 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/europe/turkey-vote-finland-nato-membership-intl/index.html
 
Finland will be admitted to NATO, Sweden pending approval but hopefully soon.

I still can't embrace that kind of thinking. Garbage laws impact the wrong people negatively, and ultimately solve nothing. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, though I do understand that kind of frustration that drives this kind of approach.