Steersman wrote: ↑
2003 Chevy Malibu here. Which - I've been informed at my recent maintenance check-up - has a problem with oil getting into the coolant, apparently a "fatal flaw" of the breed, which will require some $4 K to fix, and which doesn't seem at all justified. Curious though how that can happen, and why there wouldn't also be coolant in the oil - which was also on the low side.
Not being personal here, but it sounds like you need a new head gasket.
Welll, I've certainly been about to blow a gasket many times in the last while, mostly while reading of Trudeau riding roughshod over the laws of the land, shooting himself in the feet repeatedly and stopping only to reload ... ;)
But a good thought - did a search on that and it certainly seems a possiblity. Though my maintenance shop guy suggested there was a problem at the metal fitting on the block connecting the hose to the radiator. The repairing of which would supposedly cost me $4k.
Guess I'll have to look into a bit further - maybe get a second opinion as I sure don't want to shell out that dough, particularly when it might be better spent on a new or newer vehicle. But not sure how much I'll be able to drive it in the interim - repair shop suggested I might get another year or so out of it.
Steersman wrote: ↑
2003 Chevy Malibu here. Which - I've been informed at my recent maintenance check-up - has a problem with oil getting into the coolant, apparently a "fatal flaw" of the breed, which will require some $4 K to fix, and which doesn't seem at all justified. Curious though how that can happen, and why there wouldn't also be coolant in the oil - which was also on the low side.
Not being personal here, but it sounds like you need a new head gasket.
Welll, I've certainly been about to blow a gasket many times in the last while, mostly while reading of Trudeau riding roughshod over the laws of the land, shooting himself in the feet repeatedly and stopping only to reload ... ;)
But a good thought - did a search on that and it certainly seems a possiblity. Though my maintenance shop guy suggested there was a problem at the metal fitting on the block connecting the hose to the radiator. The repairing of which would supposedly cost me $4k.
Guess I'll have to look into a bit further - maybe get a second opinion as I sure don't want to shell out that dough, particularly when it might be better spent on a new or newer vehicle. But not sure how much I'll be able to drive it in the interim - repair shop suggested I might get another year or so out of it.
I had a vehicle that was close to being sent to pasture as you traditionalists like to phrase it.. You live in the city, you can get BCAA? Or if you are getting to your sunset years, and live in a city? Get rid of your car.
Cheaper to get taxis and buses. Cars are expensive.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:43 pm
by Brive1987
Steersman wrote: ↑
Brive: ICYMI, and in case you're not blocking me, here's a little something for you to get your teeth into ... ;-)
Though one might reasonably suggest that we kind of pay soldiers to be killers. Some are maybe unclear on that concept ...
I don’t have anyone blocked.
I’ve already replied to this cheap alignment to Erdoğan‘s libel that we invaded to kill muslims. Though my granddad probably didn’t care for the nuance between sand jockey and German ally.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:02 pm
by Brive1987
This is Christchurch aligned agenda is progressing smoothly.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:38 pm
by Brive1987
Found this chart I did a couple of years back; prep for a paper.
It shows month by month what our three main Divisions did in WWII
The embarrassing truth is that after mid to late 1943 there wasn’t much for us to do. We probably could have left the Divisions in the Middle East and let the Yanks (re)take New Guinea.
We only reactivated in 1945 to make sure we had a seat at the peace conference. Bought with blood for pointless campaigns.
This has nothing to do with anything posted recently, but do collagenated lips make for better or worse hummers?
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:47 pm
by Service Dog
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
This is Christchurch aligned agenda is progressing smoothly.
Wow! What an innovative idea! Why didn't anybody ever think of this before?! We could have just banned everything we don't approve of, all along! So many problems solved, with no downside or trade-offs! An easy answer to an simple problem!
Wow! What an innovative idea! Why didn't anybody ever think of this before?! We could have just banned everything we don't approve of, all along! So many problems solved, with no downside or trade-offs! An easy answer to an simple problem!
The social network said that it didn’t apply the ban previously to expressions of white nationalism because it linked such expressions with broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — such as American pride or Basque separatism (which are still allowed).
But civil rights groups and academics called this view “misguided” and have long pressured the company to change its stance. Facebook said it concluded after months of “conversations” with them that white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organised hate groups.
Critics have “raised these issues to the highest levels at Facebook (and held) a number of working meetings with their staff as we’ve tried to get them to the right place,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington, DC-based legal advocacy group.
... we’ve tried to get them to the right place,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington, DC-based legal advocacy group.
As part of the change, people who search for terms associated with white supremacy will be directed to a group called Life After Hate, which was founded by former extremists who want to help people leave the violent far-right. Ms Clarke called the idea that white supremacism is different than white nationalism or white separatism a misguided “distinction without a difference.”
So when you search for white supremacy it will broaden the field to white nationalism and take you to a nanny.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:32 pm
by Brive1987
Or vice versa
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:40 am
by SM1957
While white separatism is to be abhorred, 4 countries in the world proudly proclaim that the very name of their country shows that it is an Islamic country.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:57 am
by Kirbmarc
SM1957 wrote: ↑
While white separatism is to be abhorred, 4 countries in the world proudly proclaim that the very name of their country shows that it is an Islamic country.
Those countries aren't particularly known for their respect of human rights or civil freedoms. Quite the opposite, indeed.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:14 am
by ConcentratedH2O, OM
SM1957 wrote: ↑
While white separatism is to be abhorred, 4 countries in the world proudly proclaim that the very name of their country shows that it is an Islamic country.
You are conflating race and religion.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:31 am
by Brive1987
I think the principle is the definition of country via an apparently chauvinistic exclusionary categorisation. Why is one form of identitarianism OK and other is not?
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:02 am
by Bhurzum
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I think the principle is the definition of country via an apparently chauvinistic exclusionary categorisation. Why is one form of identitarianism OK and other is not?
A mandate from heaven?
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:15 am
by ConcentratedH2O, OM
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I think the principle is the definition of country via an apparently chauvinistic exclusionary categorisation. Why is one form of identitarianism OK and other is not?
Because one is an unchangeable characteristic (race), while the other is an identity which individuals choose for themselves (religion). So therefore one could choose to become a muslim and join in the fun in a muslim country (as a surprising number of white ginger men seem to want to do), while a black man could never be a citizen of a white separatist state.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:00 am
by Bhurzum
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑a black man could never be a citizen of a white separatist state.
Why would he want to? I mean I've heard of masochism but that's taking the piss... ;)
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:10 am
by screwtape
Trudeau continues to reveal how shallow his ideals actually are. The latest attempt to discredit Jody Wilson-Raybould (the ex-Attorney General who refused to cave in to political pressure to avoid a prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a giant Quebec engineering firm that has allegedly spent millions on bribes to win contracts in Africa) involves a semi-official leak, probably straight from the Prime Minister's Office. As in most countries, the appointment of judges is a confidential process that is generally performed discreetly, although in recent years it has been made a bit less word-of-mouth-old-boy-network than it used to be. Appointments to the SCA are in the gift of the prime minister, and the Attorney General advises on suitable nominees. At the end of it the PM decides. It is still seen as taboo to discuss details of any appointment. So in order to make JWR look bad, the leak stated Trudeau was already displeased with her reliability as Attorney General after she had suggested a candidate to replace the retiring Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.
Her suggestion was for a senior judge who had expressed concerns over the extent to which the Supreme Court of Canada (SCA) had become intricately concerned with legislative policy matters through interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. Few will remember that in the mid-80's there was a huge concern that Charter causes would clog the courts, cause enormous backlogs in the dockets, and hand a good deal of legislative clout to the SCA that would interfere with parliament being able to conduct business, and once written into the Constitution it would be irreversible. All of those fears proved to be real, and Charter cases often result in legislation being struck down, or having to be passed at the insistence of the Court. Not all of that is a bad thing: Charter cases have resulted in Canada having no abortion laws, in having medically assisted suicide for the terminally ill, and having gay marriage. These things are all seen by the majority of the public as good and sensible.
The leak has been taken up and amplified by the Liberals as being proof that JWR's nominee would have worked to reverse all that, simply because he did not feel the SCA ought to have so much influence on legislation, which is properly the function of parliament. The man has never uttered a public word on gay marriage or abortion rights, but the innuendo is that he would have done dreadful damage to these great Canadian values, and thus JWR was a fool for nominating him. Hoary old Liberals like the crusty Sheila Copps have come out of the woodwork to insult him on Twitter, and to criticise JWR for being hypocritical in decrying this leak when she had revealed the conversations (after solicitor-client privilege was waived) she had with the boy wonder over SNC-Lavalin:
"Homophonic"? A convenient typo, as calling him 'homophobic' might be slanderous. So here we have a government leaking highly confidential information to make the ex-Attorney General look like she was in favour of putting some sort of rabid nazi on the supreme court. Beautifully, they decided to over-egg their pudding, and said that her nomination was part of "a larger plan" to then appoint an indigenous judge to replace him on the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. "Larger plan" has an whiff of conspiracy about it, and one designed to promote an indigenous judge? - let's just let that thought hang in the air and assume Canadian voters will get our drift. We might say we want to heal relations with indigenous people, but let's not get carried away and place them on the bench, seems to be the subtext.
Fortunately we are used to the inept PR campaigns of this government, and now it is rather clear that our own dear drama teacher is willing to walk all over indigenous people as well as women in order to continue practicing politics in the oh so familiar Liberal way. Time to have a refresher course in Tory corruption, just to clear the palate.
Facebook still hosts White Guys Connect... a group JUST FOR WHITE GUYS ONLY... founded by the mysterious & suspicious "Todd"...
who maybe probably definitely is involved in Christcrutch...
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:47 am
by Bhurzum
One of the most interesting podcasts I've seen in years.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:54 am
by Service Dog
Jussie Smollett's lawyer connects Nigerian Brother Trump Supporters to Heath Ledger's Death and Racist Blackface Whiteface Controversies!
Joker Halloween costumes now same as using N-word (Nigger with an "r")
GUTRIE: “But it's the Osundairo brothers, what are the chances that that’s the case, that he saw somebody with light skin?”
GLANDIAN: “Well, you know, I mean, I think there’s — obviously, you can disguise that. You can put makeup on. There is, interestingly enough, a video. You know, I think police had minimal investigation in this case, it took me only five minutes to Google. You know, I was looking up the brothers, and one of the videos that showed up actually was of the brothers in white face doing a joker monologue with white make up on him. So, it's not -- it's not implausible.”
I see why the prosecutor dropped the case! Such bombshell proof that Jussie Dindu Nuffin!
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:59 am
by Service Dog
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:00 am
by Kirbmarc
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I think the principle is the definition of country via an apparently chauvinistic exclusionary categorisation. Why is one form of identitarianism OK and other is not?
I don't think that any form of identitarianism should be OK, and indeed muslim identitarianism has hurt the rights of non-muslim minorities in those nations, so if you coherently care about human rights, you shouldn't consider it OK.
The problem is that there isn't much that people can do to change the nature of many of those identitarian islamic states, short of invasion (which is likely to cause a lot of collateral damage). In the case of white identitarians, thankfully, they haven't managed to take over a nation state, so their attempts of power grabs can be more easily nipped in the bud.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:07 am
by Kirbmarc
Very recently an identitarian muslim state was defeated in Syria. It took years of fighting and plenty of losses.
The white identitarians are comparably small fry and can be taken down even by regular law enforcement officers.
I don't think that any form of identitarianism should be OK
There would be no USA without identitarianism, right? But again, it was based on a self-chosen characteristic, not an inherent and unchangeable one.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:21 am
by SM1957
Service Dog wrote: ↑
Jussie Smollett's lawyer connects Nigerian Brother Trump Supporters to Heath Ledger's Death and Racist Blackface Whiteface Controversies!
Joker Halloween costumes now same as using N-word (Nigger with an "r")
GUTRIE: “But it's the Osundairo brothers, what are the chances that that’s the case, that he saw somebody with light skin?”
GLANDIAN: “Well, you know, I mean, I think there’s — obviously, you can disguise that. You can put makeup on. There is, interestingly enough, a video. You know, I think police had minimal investigation in this case, it took me only five minutes to Google. You know, I was looking up the brothers, and one of the videos that showed up actually was of the brothers in white face doing a joker monologue with white make up on him. So, it's not -- it's not implausible.”
I see why the prosecutor dropped the case! Such bombshell proof that Jussie Dindu Nuffin!
I think the claim that many racist attacks are actually hoaxes can be laid to rest.
What is happening is that black guys are putting on white make up, getting a noose, and go wandering around Chicago in the freezing cold looking for random black guys they can shout 'This is MAGA country at'.
And by jolly bad luck, the person the brothers chose just happened to be their employer who wrote them cheques,
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:44 am
by MarcusAu
Bhurzum wrote: ↑
One of the most interesting podcasts I've seen in years.
Ah yes, the two Irish gays: Michael Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:56 am
by Service Dog
EVERY name I know-- tied to the Jussie Smollett story-- is unprofessional, incompetent, corrupt, criminal, brazen, nonsensical... did I leave-out anybody?
Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson
Mayor Rahm Emmanuel
Chicago Police Union Guy
Chicago Cops Who Fucked-Up Their Case With Leaks To The Press
Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx
First Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Joseph Magats
Don Lemon
the Nigerian Brothers
Everyone involved in the TV show Empire
Ellen Page & Jussie's countless celebrity well-wishers
Jussie
the entire weirdo Smollett family
Attorney Mark Geragos
Attorney Tina Glandian
Retarded Black Activist Community and Batshit Crazy Gay Activist Community
Kamala Harris & Cory Booker
Michelle Obama's former Chief of Staff, Tina Tchen (who is also involved in #MeToo/TimesUp & SLPC shitshows)
Jessie Jackson & his Rainbow/PUSH organization
Bhurzum wrote: ↑
Come in, Foshaug, your time is up... :bjarte:
But I've never even been associated with a pedalo.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:46 am
by John D
Service Dog wrote: ↑
EVERY name I know-- tied to the Jussie Smollett story-- is unprofessional, incompetent, corrupt, criminal, brazen, nonsensical... did I leave-out anybody?
Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson
Mayor Rahm Emmanuel
Chicago Police Union Guy
Chicago Cops Who Fucked-Up Their Case With Leaks To The Press
Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx
First Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Joseph Magats
Don Lemon
the Nigerian Brothers
Everyone involved in the TV show Empire
Ellen Page & Jussie's countless celebrity well-wishers
Jussie
the entire weirdo Smollett family
Attorney Mark Geragos
Attorney Tina Glandian
Retarded Black Activist Community and Batshit Crazy Gay Activist Community
Kamala Harris & Cory Booker
Michelle Obama's former Chief of Staff, Tina Tchen (who is also involved in #MeToo/TimesUp & SLPC shitshows)
Jessie Jackson & his Rainbow/PUSH organization
It is so disgusting you would not believe this if it was depicted in a movie. Tim Pool does a good job following all the news stories on this.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:17 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑
Ah yes, the two Irish gays: Michael Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael.
Back in the 90's, our new dept. boss fresh from the UK took us out to a brew pub and told that joke. Dead silence until I broke it with, 'good thing there are no gays or irishmen at the table!' (There were both if you count me as a mick). And our new boss says in all seriousness, 'Oh yes, good thing. I suppose I should be more careful next time, just in case there are.' Dude, this is the San Francisco Bay Area -- wtf were you thinking?
When asked by one student if Anzacs who fought during the First World War should be viewed as murderers, Dr Aszkielowicz said that he didn't see why 'that isn't a viewpoint that shouldn't sit alongside this other version of how we look at the Anzacs'.
'If you go and you kill people, whether it's in a foreign campaign or not, then you've killed people and you're a killer,' he said.
Anne Surma, an English and Creative Arts lecturer, urged her students to read a book by asylum seeker Behrouz Boochani, who she claimed is a 'prisoner' along with other refugees on the islands, a 'prisoner'
I need to look a lot of things up when you guys post though.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:54 am
by free thoughtpolice
Brive wrote:
This is Christchurch aligned agenda is progressing smoothly.
Faith Goldy isn't my idea of a crusader for free speech. I'm pretty certain she rigorously censors her you tube comments. You seldom see anyone that criticizes her and I know that when I did I was banned. There was a channel called Goldy Lips that had 2 videos up that consisted of a few photo shops of her lips that appears to be taken down.
She believes in free speech for herself and censoring those who don't agree with her.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:05 am
by Service Dog
A recent episode of Reason magazine's podcast... features the author of a book about Schisms.
He describes a marriage where the partners are Angry with each-other... as a relationship where at-least they still CARE.
But when the relationship deteriorates to Eye-Rolling at the other partner... then Not-Caring about fixing the problem-- has arrived...
especially in cases where a single characteristic of the opposite side is seen as a valid reason to dismiss that party entirely.
This certainly matches the eye-rolling brigade of Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, & the male=bad feminist-atheists.
But the author is talking about the U.S. cultural climate, as expressed in social media & political grandstanding.
The author also notes that 93% of Americans don't-like the divides which have emerged in this country... but the remaining 7%, he says,
have come to embrace the divisions as A Way Of Life. Part of their identity. That probably describes me.
Some of the author's conclusions are TEDtalk sermonizing pablum... but I found the whole thing worth listening-to-- A nice counterpoint to Mueller & Smollett & Ocasio & Christcrotch & Brexit & Article 11 + 13, & Facebook saying it's not ok to be hhhhwhite... etc.
I don't think that any form of identitarianism should be OK
There would be no USA without identitarianism, right? But again, it was based on a self-chosen characteristic, not an inherent and unchangeable one.
I think that the problem here is one of semantics. By "identitarianism" I mean a form of government/institutions which is explicitly defined along the lines of limiting the rights of people according to their self-identification as part of a social group, whether this is based over a biological or religious/cultural factor. The United States are now explicitly defined (by the 14th amendment) as being non-identitarian: citizenship is defined by birth or naturalization, not by ethnic or religious identity:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Before the Civil War you could make the argument that the US were explicitly defined as an identitarian country (one based on an inherent and unchangeable identity at that). Even after the 14th amendment, it took time (and several important legal decisions) to put the non-identitarian concept into practice.
Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:28 am
by Matt Cavanaugh
My journalism will be intersectional or something something.
Associate Professor Anne Surma
I’m an associate professor in the English and Creative Arts program. I teach undergraduate students in literary studies and professional writing, and supervise several postgraduate students working on writing and literary topics. I have also worked in private industry as an editor and writer, and as a workshop facilitator and consultant, advising on communication strategy and practice. My research interests include critical cosmopolitan orientations to communicating and writing; public communication as ethical discourse and creative practice; writing corporate responsibility; and discursive approaches to dominant and marginalised narratives in public and organisational stories.
Published works include:
‘A critical cosmopolitan approach to writing in neoliberal times’.
‘Pushing boundaries: a critical cosmopolitan orientation to public relations’
‘Caring about public relations and the gendered cultural intermediary role’
‘Challenging unreliable narrators: Writing and public relations’
‘Texts and human bodies: An ethical approach to public and professional writing’
‘Plastic words, public relations and the neoliberal transformation of twentieth century discourse’
‘Online dialogue? Engaging stakeholders on a public health issue through collaborative storybuilding on the Internet’
‘The multi-faceted identities of women working in public relations’
‘Taking time: An ethics of temporality for the discipline of writing’
‘Critical discourses in the culture-public relations relationship.’
‘Discourses of corporate social responsibility in Singapore and Malaysia’,
‘Public relations and corporate social responsibility: Developing a moral narrative’
It's in the hopper - but I've not listened to it yet. Personally, I find the 'Love your Enemies' concept rubs me the wrong way. Though I'm willing to tolerate just about anyone, and am not likely to be joining any campaign to de-platform, censor or get anyone fired. Principled apathy in other words.
Watson is (and was) a nasty, self-centered, piece of work. But perhaps the changes she wrought on the skeptic / atheist conference scene (and related online 'communities' - for want of a better word) were inevitable. There were some signs of smaller disruptions previously. And, I think some of the old school skeptics (Joe Nickel comes to mind) - may have seen the atheists as a group - as having done a bit of entry-ism of their own earlier. (I think that's one of the instruments in the PoMo tool box - ie to emphasize a less dominant narrative).
The short take being Watson, PZ et al are more irrelevant now than they have ever been. And were not as influential as they like to think in effecting any of the changes they like to take credit (or are assigned blame) for.
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑
Ah yes, the two Irish gays: Michael Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael.
Back in the 90's, our new dept. boss fresh from the UK took us out to a brew pub and told that joke. Dead silence until I broke it with, 'good thing there are no gays or irishmen at the table!' (There were both if you count me as a mick). And our new boss says in all seriousness, 'Oh yes, good thing. I suppose I should be more careful next time, just in case there are.' Dude, this is the San Francisco Bay Area -- wtf were you thinking?
Back in school I learned the Scottish version - Ben Doone and Phil McAvity. I never dreamed McAvity was a real name, until I saw it cast into the side of every fire hydrant in Canada.
