KanchanaburiGuy

And where exactly will find that apology from bkk brian? I mean, I said, "You post it......... you repeat it........ you own it!" And he said he was happy to own it. So, he either needs to prove that Jordan DID say that the 10-year old girl is a liar.......... or........... as you say......... he should apologize for passing on this lie. Come on now, no trying to have it both ways! Lol

And usually in a different color, and with enough separation from the regular text that it doesn't look like a stand-alone, declarative sentence. And I dont believe I've EVER seen them used to HIDE an attribution. The attribution is always declared, then a hyperlink is used to link to the source. It's used in addition to.......... not instead of! Seriously, ozimoron, why don't you spent your time defending someone who is in the right. Not someone who is half a dozen ways in the wrong!

Do I "condemn him?" Hmmm. Did you know that in 2019, right after the unenforceable "6-week" law passed in Ohio......... there was a story published in Ohio (by CBS News) about an 11-year old girl who had been raped by a 26-year old man. A girl who "would have been" unable to get an abortion......... if the new Ohio law had been enforceable? https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/443687-pregnant-11-year-old-rape-victim-in-ohio-would-be-unable-to/ So........... Right after the abortion law gets passed in 2019.......... there's a story in Ohio about an 11-year old pregnant girl that has been raped and needs an abortion. Right after Roe v Wade gets dismantled in 2022.......... there's a story in Ohio about a 10-year old pregnant girl that has been raped and needs an abortion. As it turns out, both stories are apparently true. BUT! If you live in a political world where stories seem to magically appear with what seems like truly amazing timing........... might you not look at these two amazingly timed........ nearly identical......... highly-emotionally-charged and extremely rare events........ with a fair bit of, shall we say, skepticism? "Condemn him?" Not sure I'd go that far. Not when......... in this severely divided, highly charged and cynical world.......... there was a pretty good reason for him to at least be skeptical!

Visually, it is an underlined sentence, nothing more. Even when I went back to see if he actually HAD attributed this as a quote when I didn't remember that he had.......... I didn't recognize it as a link. It just looked like an underlined sentence. It was only as an afterthought that I said to myself, "Hmmm, I wonder......." (And only because he had said something about it being a quote a couple of times, in later posts.) Indeed, in a later post of my own, I described it as a "sentence you underlined, for emphasis." [paraphrased] So no, even in this day and age, it is not "obviously" a link! Not when it lools like something normal, that ISN'T a link! (Note: The word "isn't"........ isn't a link!) As for that other silly thing you said.......... Writing presented as your own.......... is assumed to be your own. You don't have to attribute yourself as the author. LOL But when you use someone else's exact words........ their imagination, their creativity, their knowledge, their effort............ that's when it's appropriate to give credit where credit is due (whenever that is possible, at least). When Biden got caught plagiarizing other people's work a couple of times.......... it was only because he failed to identify other people's work as theirs. It wasn't because he failed to identify his own work as his own! Ozimiron---"Did he actually claim those words as his own or merely quote them?" It was the "sin of omission." He DIDN'T credit other people's work as theirs. In so doing, he left only one impression remaining.......... that the words were his!

It's not "torturing" the point. Calling the story a lie......... and calling the girl a liar......... are completely different things! One happened, the other did not! (Always mystifies me when someone defends the false over the true. I just dont get that.)

Clearly you do.

By the way......... There is nothing here that attributes what you say as a quote. Yes, it turns out the underlined portion is a link. But there's nothing that identifies it as such. As far as I could tell, it was nothing more than an underlined sentence, for emphasis. And since....... as you published it........ it is not identified as someone else's words......... I'd call that plagiarism. In my opinion, a hidden attribution........... really isn't one! This is literature, of a sort, not a video game. We are not pre-conditioned to scroll over all the scenery looking for hidden "jumps" and "rewards!" Making someone discover your attribution......... is the same as not making one, at all!

Two wrongs don't make a right. What you should have done is question what Swalwell said........... in exactly the same way I've questioned you: "Please show me where Jim Jordan said THAT." * You repeated something that wasn't true. * You've defended repeating it because it was said first by someone else. * When the incorrectness of it was pointed out, you've continued to defend it. And now, apparently, your best argument is to suggest that Two-wrongs DO-make-a-right! Pffft! Not buying what you're selling....... as no one with morals should!

I'm not "supporting Jordan." I couldn't give a fig about Jordan. But I do care about the truth. And claiming Jordan called the 10-year old girl "a liar"............ when it was THE STORY he called a lie........... simply isn't true. Was the story a lie? No, it wasn't. Was Jordan wrong to call it a lie? Yes, he was. But that's not what bkk brian accused Jordan of doing! He accused Jordan of calling THE GIRL "a liar!" And that appears to be completely false. It was wrong for Jordan to wrongly cast aspersions about the story.......... and it's wrong for bkk brian to wrongly cast aspersions about Jim Jordan! I DON'T care about Jim Jordan. I DO care about the truth........... even if it happens to be about Jim Jordan!

You post it.......... you repeat it.......... you own it. And still........ the things you just posted to SUPPORT your post.......... all say THE STORY is a lie......... NOT that the 10-year old girl lied! Y'know, now's the time an honorable person would say, "Yeah, I screwed up. What I said about Jim Jordan wasn't true. He didn't say that." Doubling-down and dodging...... on the other hand......... is what a different sort of person would do! But please, do carry on!

Where is the place where he calls HER a liar? That is, after all, what you claimed: That he called HER a liar. You even underlined it, for emphasis. As for your apparent inability to understand this important distinction.......... yeah, there are certainly board-inappropriate things I would call you for that. Lol

Could you please share a reputable-source quote of Jim Jordan calling a 10-year old rape victim a "liar?" As far as I know, the 10-year old has not spoken out about her situation. How, then, could she be labeled a "liar?" And if you've gotten this wrong.......... as I'm almost certain you have.......... what does that make you? [HINT: Calling a story about a 10-year old rape victim "a lie"............. is nowhere near the same thing as calling a 10-year old rape victim "a liar!"]

Actually, no. There is another thread about that. THIS thread is about the 27 y.o. man who's been accused of committing the rape being arrested and charged.

People complain when the prices go up. People complain when the portions get smaller. And people will complain when their favorite restaurant goes broke and closes because they could neither raise their prices nor shrink their portions to survive! Restaurants have to charge prices based on the portions they serve............ or serve portions based on the prices they charge. That's it! Those are the only two choices! And when inflation hits their food cost just as hard as it hits your own grocery bill at home........... maybe just a little understanding is in order? Maybe? Just a little? ---------------- But regardless of that.......... How is one example......... from a single order......... from a single location......... a story? Maybe the person filling the order was having a bad day or not paying attention. Maybe they just made a mistake with that ONE order! Did THAT ever occur to anyone? Of course not. Because, just as the poster herself said, she was "too lazy to go out," the storytellers here at AseanNow.......... were too lazy to find out if there was actually story behind this story! Sheesh! At least find out if what the woman had been delivered was the "new normal" for that restaurant......... or merely an abberation, eh? But nooo....... that'd be too much like work. Or......... say........ journalism! Crikey!

Uber is a logistics company that makes connections between "Independent Contractor" drivers and people who want/need a ride. The drivers work WITH Uber, not FOR Uber. Because the drivers do not work FOR Uber and their status as "Indepedent Contractors"............not "Employees"............ has been upheld in California, I expect this suit will get tossed by the courts. In this case, Uber is being sued only because they are the "deep pockets." But Uber cannot be held liable for something done by another business. Each "Independent Contractor" driver operates their own separate and distinct business from Uber, and, as an independent business, is responsible for their own actions. --------------- The very first criteria the government uses to determine whether a person is an "Independent Contractor" or an "Employee" is whether the company has control over when and how the worker does their job. * Does Uber decide when a driver can work? No. They merely inform available drivers that work is available, and the drivers themselves decide whether they want to do it. * Does Uber dictate to drivers how the work must be done? No. Uber has established miminim quality standards only, which they maintain and reinforce through customer satisfaction ratings. Ultimately, Uber is more like an advertising medium than "taxi company." They make a connection between customers and businesses, letting the customers know a service they want is available. Newspaper advertsing, magazine advertising, radio and T.V. advertising, etc., all help businesses find customers. That's what Uber does, too. They help customers find rides, and help independent businesses find customers. But no one would think to sue CNN because they found cockroach eyelashes in their Choka-Cola, just because Choka-Cola happens to buy advertising on their network, would they? Nah, Uber is just an easy target with deep pockets. But they are not responsible for the actions of drivers who are not employees, who work for themselves. Look for this case to get tossed.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives specific guidance that makes it much easier to hang an argument on. The Ninth Amendment is basically a directive to protect a philosophical perspective: "There are more Rights than have been mentioned. These must be protected, too." The Ninth provides all the justification the Supreme Court needed to decide Roe v Wade the way they did. And their decision could have been said in a simple declarative statement: "We recognize the existence of a Right to Privacy, and the decision to have an abortion is a private decision protected under that Right." That's all it probably would have taken. But by arguing the point based on the Fourteenth Amendment instead, they were able to go into more detail about specific aspects of the decision, while also laying out certain applicable guidelines and limitations based on that Amendment. The Ninth is really all they needed. But the Fourteenth allowed them to craft a better argument for explaining and justifying their decision. -------------- But doesn't this just make the claim "But it doesn't say that in the Constitution!" look even more ridiculous? Refuted by not one but TWO of the Amendments? Lol!

Sorry, but this isn't quite right. It ignores a mindset that existed at the time; a mindset that......... in their minds......... made it all okay. You see, they DIDN'T say they could "treat other human beings as if they were not human beings." They believed they WEREN'T "Human Beings!" They believed they were nothing but a higher form of monkey or gorilla-----one that could be taught higher levels of useful tricks! Birds could be taught to talk. Dogs could be taught to fetch and follow. Horses and oxen could be taught to pull a wagon or a plow. Cats could recognize sights and sounds and respond to them. And then there were these Useful Animals............ these upgraded Monkeys/Gorillas ......... that could do all of these things, and more! For someone to "treat other human beings as if they were not human beings"............. first they have to believe they ARE Human Beings! And sorry, for many people involved in the Slave Trade........ they simply didn't! To the people involved in the Slave Trade, these were nothing more than particularly useful farm animals! Unquestionably, there were many people back then who believed these WERE "Human Beings." But there were many people who did not. (Thus, conflicts raged!) And, you can't really blame people for not treating them as "Human Beings"........... when they truly didn't believe they WERE "Human Beings," can you? It was an ugly time, no doubt!

What IS "specifically stated" is the Ninth Amendment, which affirms that Rights exist that have not been "specifically stated," but still deserve the recognition and protection of the United States Government. It constantly amazes me that people think they know enough about the Constitution to declare "It doesn't say that in the Constitution"............ (or variations thereof)......... and then prove they don't know it at all.......... by ignoring the Ninth Amendment, which makes that whole argument moot! The Constitution is not........... and was never meant to be........ a document that itemizes ALL the Rights possessed by the governed. Its object......... particularly with the Bill of Rights.......... was merely to highlight a few that the Founding Fathers believed deserved particular focus and attention. The Ninth Amendment exists to make sure our Government respects ALL Rights......... and not just those few that were selected to appear in the Constitution. Sheesh!

I recommend the British crime series Line of Duty (available on Netflix still, I think) to get caught up on British criminal and "copper" slang. Lol Lots of Brits here on AseanNow, so getting a primer on British slang might prove useful! I'd put the show in the top 5% of English Language cop shows. It's a winner! (No need to thank me, mate......... 555!) Cheers!

* "Published in one local media outlet." The Indianapolis Star is not an insignificant media outlet. It is one of the strongest publications in the midwest. * "That outlet is not answering questions or any requests for follow up information." You couldn't possibly know this. There could be a great deal going on behind-the-scenes that you know nothing about. * "There is no due diligence happening." You couldn't possibly know this, either. * "The only person in the story, Dr. Bernard, is not answering questions." This could simply be explained by doctor/patient confidentiality. Besides, are you sure the doctor is not answering ANY questions......... or just certain ones? I've seen this same thing said in the past---"They're not answering questions!"--- when someone refuses to answer questions that were point-blank none of the questioner's business! Then suddenly, "They're not answering questions!" becomes what gets reported! Fact is, sometimes people don't answer questions......... because they shouldnt! * "There is no corroboration by law enforcement or anyone on the Ohio side of things." Once again, this may be no more difficult to explain than confidentiality. (Confidentiality due a minor. Confidentiality due a victim of abuse. Confidentiality due a victim of rape. Et cetera.) Law Enforcement (or some other agency) might say, "No comment" or "We cannot confirm or deny"............ and that may be reported as "we have received no corroboration." But that doesn't mean that nothing has been reported, or that no case is being investigated! ------------------ Personally, I find just a little intellectual curiosity goes a long way. It keeps me from jumping too fast to accept as gospel seeing only what I want to see, hearing only what I want to hear. I start with.......... "Is there ANOTHER explanation for this?" It's amazing how often I find there is!

At the link, which is to an article from the UN from 2013, there are some RADICALLY different findings............ https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/10/454182-motherhood-childhood-new-un-report-spotlights-adolescent-pregnancy#.VczdFPlVhur In the article, it describes over 2 million pregancies of girls 14 and under.............. EACH YEAR! Article -- "The State of World Population 2013, produced by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), notes that out of the 7.3 million births, 2 million are to girls who are 14 or younger, many of whom suffer grave long-term health and social consequences from pregnancy such as obstetric fistula, and an estimated 70,000 adolescents in developing countries who die each year from complications during pregnancy and childbirth." ----------- Unfortunately, they only break it down to 10 to 14. They don't break it down by individual ages within that range. (Possibly because a girl could be one age upon becoming pregnant......... and shown as "one year older" upon delivery. So, which age should be used?) And yes, it is from just before the "past 7 years" you cited. But you're going to have to present something incredibly substantial to prove that in a 7 year period when there were likely roughly 14 million 10 to 14 year old girls who got pregnant............ that only TWO of them were 10! (Personally, I think if there were that few 10-year olds getting pregnant, they wouldn't even bother including that age in the range! They'd say 11 to 14 year olds! Therefore, I conclude there must be at least enough 10-year olds getting pregnant to be considered statistically significant.) So, who is your source for this astounding claim? Cuz I couldn't find a source that showed either pregnancies or births for JUST 10-year olds. Everything I was able to find showed only a range: 10 to 13, or 10 to 14. (But they all DID include 10-year olds!)

The fact is, her being 10 years old is irrelevant. It adds to the emotionality of the situation, but adds nothing to the facts. If __xx__ -year-old get raped and becomes pregnant......... that person should have every right and opportunity to abort that pregnancy. The number you use to fill the blank......... is irrelevant! Because at no age should a woman or girl be involuntarily sentenced to 9-months of physical and emotion punishment......... torture!....... because she was raped!

Your quote is, of course, NOT from The Washington Post, but just a snippet from the already posted NYPost article. But even in your snippet, The Washington Post is referenced as an outlet that considers the story "highly dubious.' But the Indianapolis Star is ALSO mentioned, an outlet that obviously doesn't consider the story "highly dubious," since they were the ones who originated it! ------> One for, one against. I'd call that inconclusive, at best! Lol <------ But lastly, let's look at how The New York Post went about it. Did they delve into the story themselves? Did they verify facts and interview actual participants? No, they merely played the "Timmy said........ that Jimmy said...... that Letty said....... that Betty said........" game. Except they did it with their fellow "news" outlets. Did the NYPost say this story was "highly dubious?" Of course not! THEY DONT KNOW! They just said "The Washington Post says 'it's highly dubious..'" [paraphrased] ("Timmy said that...... Jimmy said that.......") This is how second-rate "news" outlets build a story......... without having to do any work! They don't do any research and verification of their own. They just report what someone else said, without ever questioning how much the other guy bothered to research and verify! And they cant even get sued for this because they didn't actually say anything! All they said was......... "This other guy said this!"........ and it's true! They did! (Most egregious example of this is, I think......... and embarrassingly common these days............. is when they confuse reading a "tweet"......... with "doing research!" Aargh! Wasn't it bad enough when the word "google" was confused with the word "research?" Now it's devolved to "tweets!")

And who asked Biden how many reasons he had for believing the story was true? Someone here claimed Biden took the story at face value............ without, of course, having a single shred of evidence that was true. He could have easily had a subordinate dig into it before he ever said anything about it......... or........... he might not have. The only thing we know for sure is true............. is that we dont know. While the only thing we know for sure is NOT true........... is saying it as if you do know, when you don't! I suspect............ anyone who thinks the NYPost is a good source of information........... probably thinks Infowars, OANN, and ConservativeTreehouse are, too!

So, the New York Post ---a tabloid that for decades has published stories like "My Two-headed Baby Was Abducted by Aliens"---is criticizing President Biden for talking about a rape/abortion story "without seeking any evidence that the tale is true." Meanwhile, that same New York Post itself has neither evidence nor proof that the story ISN'T true. They just happen to agree with those who call it "dubious." (And I'll admit that I agreed. When I saw the claim that she was pregnant for precisely "six weeks and three days," I was highly suspicious. But I didn't doubt the story; only the preciseness of the timing being claimed.) Hey New York Post, what's that word again? The one for "Do as I say, not as I do?" Oh, yeah.............. hypocrite, hypocrisy. (And, of course, someone then publishes both stories HERE........... without knowing if either of them are true........... and criticizes Biden for his supposed lack of due diligence! This, of course, is called irony!)