It's a reference to a story I told way up thread. I'm treating it like a meme.
]]>Have you driven a car built in the last 2 decades? This is how all of them I've been in for the last 2 or 3 decades work. Say he who has owned several SUV's down to compacts and rented a few dozen different models. Only one French.
]]>1250: the last time England and its people were attacked by a fascist regime was in 1940-42 with the Battle of Britain and Nazi dive bombers bombing the civilian population as well as military bases. Hasn't happened since to the best of my knowledge.
Was avenged with dramatic overkill in the terrorbombing of Hamburg and Dresden, where Churchill wanted to make sure that as many innocent civilians were killed as possible, deaths definitely over the hundred thousand mark. Now there was a true massive terrorist atrocity! I don't recall too many English politicians ever speaking up about that, indeed all of 'em, Labour included, were all in favor. So if you want to condemn British politicians for supporting terrorism, that would be where to start. Not to mention Kenya in the '50s, atrocities in Northern Ireland, etc. etc.
As for Corbyn "supporting terrorists," his crime has been to support Palestinians against Israeli state terrorism. Along the way he has occasionally failed to criticize some of your more dubious opponents of Israeli state terrorism, and even been on panels or whatever with them. In other words he acted like a typical politician, just like all the others, but not as badly. Charges that he is "anti-Semitic" are absurd, especially coming from Tories.
]]>That means you're wrong. You fucked up. Get over it. Fantasising that I secretly agree with you but just won't say so is a pretty bleeding desperate way of defending the indefensible.
"an election that was all about Brexit"
You can repeat that sloganistic assertion all you like but it won't change the outcome. Because the outcome is that assuming your method is valid it doesn't give your conclusion from the valid input data. That you can't provide any justification for pretending the many and major differences between a referendum and a general election don't exist beyond the mindless repetition of slogans is merely a subsidiary point of wrongness.
"Your wordiness evidences that you are uncertain of your own argument."
Yeah, you really are scraping the bottom of the fucking barrel here, aren't you, sunshine. Especially with the examples of my long posts on completely unrelated matters in this very thread. Long posts are what I do. If I can't say the whole thing in a couple of sentences I very often can't say it at all unless I go on and on and on. Often the partially-composed post gets to be twice as long as what I do post in the end having edited it to buggery and back. I don't know why, it's just how I write.
Too much certainty can be worse than too little. Your own position is so laden with inconsistencies and contradictions that you can't defend it except by attempts at evasion and misdirection, yet your certainty leads you to keep on anyway until those possibilities are exhausted and the best you have to fall back on is making fucking stupid comments about my posting style. So bollocks to you, mate.
]]>Well quite, and surely any sensible person would have to agree.
Unfortunately, some car manufacturers, at least over here, are not sensible. I know this because of the complaints I've heard about the result. The general theme of the complaints seems to centre around the thing failing horribly at just that exact sort of really basic stuff that a normal parking brake handles so well you never think about it.
It looks like some manufacturer went "what can we make a gadget out of that nobody's done yet? ...I know, the parking brake! A gadgety parking brake, that's the thing!" and then charged ahead and did it without due regard for any practical factor beyond making it strong enough to pass standard annual safety inspections. And then of course once one did it all the rest had to copy them to avoid not looking with-it.
]]>Ditto "terrorbombing" - no different to what was being done to my parents, actually, except that we did it "better" for certain values of better .... ( My father was an ARP warden during "the Blitz" ... until he was drafted to be a scientific civil servant to go & make explosives, in mid-1941. )
Corbyn appeared in public with PIRA people, who were murdering civilians.
I hold no brief whatsoever for Benny Netanyahu - he's a murdering scum ... but that does not justify the behaviour of Hamas/Hizbollah - REMEMBER - the Palestinians & the "Arabs" generally, were offered all of their land back ( excepting E Jerusalem ) for peace, back in 1967 ... & rejected it & rejected it & rejected it ...
And now, they've got Bennie to deal with, because they didn't want peace & security.
Now fuck off.
]]>A commenter there links this piece, which is very related, and detailed and interesting: The unbearable lightness of luck: Three sources of overconfidence in the manageability of nuclear crises (Benoît Pelopidas, 2017, 23 pages) About the failures of French scholarship re the Cuban Missile Crisis. (I was a <2YO very happy tot at the time, and don't remember it.) From the conclusion, Following from the efforts of cognitive psychologists to uncover our tendencies to deny luck retrospectively, further exploration of the politics of luck and how the distinction between risk and uncertainty (as uncontrollability and unknowability even of the boundaries of the possible) has been blurred would be a first critical step towards a reconceptualisation of nuclear controllability, a reconceptualisation that would place luck at the heart of political and ethical action, power and responsibility over time.
[1] The piece mentions the story of the Soviet Foxtrot submarine armed with a nuclear torpedo that did not launch the torpedo when being forced to surface with Practice Depth Charges, or PDCs: The Cuban Missile Crisis (Thanks to 1 Submarine) Could Have Ended Very Differently (July 18, 2018, Sebastien Roblin) Unable to communicate with Moscow, Capt. Valentin Savitsky concluded that war had already broken out. According to Orlov, Savitsky ordered the crew to arm his submarine’s nuclear torpedo and prep it for firing at USS Randolph. “There may be a war raging up there and we are trapped here turning somersaults!” Orlov recalled Savitsky saying. “We are going to hit them hard. We shall die ourselves, sink them all but not stain the navy’s honor!” His political officer, Ivan Maslennikov, concurred with the order. Normally, the approval of these two officers would have sufficed to launch the torpedo. But by coincidence, Arkhipov, chief of staff of the Sixty-Ninth Brigade, happened to be on board—and he was entitled a say. According to some accounts, Arkhipov argued at length with Savitsky before the latter calmed down and ordered B-59 to surface.
]]>Which reminds me, horribly, of Brexit, of course.
]]>