Which I guess circles me back to ...
If you produce a gun in a non-lethal scenario then it’s up to you to ensure the scenario remains non-lethal. A difficult undertaking when unpredictability and shotguns = *boom*
Which I guess circles me back to ...
So... that makes Joe Biden... the Joe Exotic of pregnant horses?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ 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.
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.
I had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?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.
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.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.
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...jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ *snip*
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 wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 1:51 pmI had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?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.
I'm getting old too. It's the shits. It gets easier to make mistakes all the time.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 5:29 pmSorry, 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 wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 1:51 pmI had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?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.
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 thisConcentratedH2O, 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...
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.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.
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.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.
You mean he didn't rape your sacrum this time?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 :)
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.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 6:29 pmI'm getting old too. It's the shits. It gets easier to make mistakes all the time.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 5:29 pmSorry, 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 wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 1:51 pmI had not heard of any evidence Reade has that was contemporary with the alleged events. Do you have a link?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.
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. :)
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.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
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.
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.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.
I think you are misquoting what Tara Reade's ex-husband's statement said.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑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.
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.
China is not the only Asian sweatshop farm. Companies are already taking steps to shift manufacturing to other Asian bases.screwtape wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 6:24 amIt'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:
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.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 4:24 pmYou 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...jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ *snip*
...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.
Brett from School Sucks Podcast made a similar assessment, back at the height of Black Lives Matter: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 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: ↑
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.
Many congratulations! My fondest hopes for at least several happy anniversaries more.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).
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.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 think they want Evergreen style tenure & benefits.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.
jugheadnaut wrote:It couldn't be clearer ... that the gunman did not block him and was no where near getting in his way.
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...
No, I meant what’s depicted above.jugheadnaut wrote:The "altering of stance" you mention is likely McMichael moving back towards the door of his truck ….
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.
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 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.
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.
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.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑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.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑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.
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: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
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.
Which is exactly what I was referring to.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑No, I meant what’s depicted above.jugheadnaut wrote:The "altering of stance" you mention is likely McMichael moving back towards the door of his truck ….
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:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Arbery_shot.jpgjugheadnaut 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.
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.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
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.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?
I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I 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...
==
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.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑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 ==, 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 wrote: ↑I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I 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...
==
Thanks for (hopefully) clearing that up. Matt doesn't often agree with my bullshit!! So I thought it might be Fry's doubtful eyes.jugheadnaut 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 wrote: ↑I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I 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...
==
Arbery dodged to the right cuz Junior was standing in the middle of the road pointing a shotgun. I think that qualifies as 'blocking'.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑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.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Arbery_challenge.jpgjugheadnaut wrote:It couldn't be clearer ... that the gunman did not block him and was no where near getting in his way.
Last time I checked, that's a sequence.The frames you show are not in sequence.... The first is frame 437 ... 439 ... 457 ... 461 ... 468.
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.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.
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.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.
I quoted CH2O cuz I did agree with zir summation.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑It's ==, which in many computer languages is used to indicate equality, so I'm guessing Matt actually agrees.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑I'm assuming that + indicates that you're not entirely in agreement with my comment? What was wrong (incorrect) with what I 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...
==
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.
God defend our free land.
You couldn’t give them away.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.
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.Keating wrote: ↑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.
Don't get me started on that dirge.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:
You couldn’t give them away.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.
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.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.