It's the Wood Booger in Virginia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Printable View
It's the Wood Booger in Virginia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Where I'm from, if a badger sees you it will run towards you, not away from you. They're mean as fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The only other dangerous creatures we had there were rattlesnakes and black widow spiders. Both were rare, thankfully.
I guess our badgers are slightly more intelligent and slightly less ferocious.
I forgot about the Canada goose. We have those savage bastards. Not sure who'd win in a fight between a Canada goose and a badger, but it's possible that's what actually killed the dinosaurs.
Sasquatch and Yeti may be synonyms. Both are "hairy big ape-man" with white fur / polar bear color fur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Bigfoot has either black or brown fur.
I'm pretty sure Bigfoot is associated with the Appalachian mountain area, as they guy who said "I'm gonna go make some fake Bigfoot videos" at a diner just prior to the "discovery" of Bigfoot captured on VHS was in Appalachia at the time.
Never heard that one, before.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I thought Sasquatch and Bigfoot were synonyms for the North American ape man, with Yeti referring to the Himalayas.
I'd never heard of the wood booger either, found it funny when glancing at the Wikipedia page. I guess it comes from wood man and booger man.
Same. Think Abominable Snowman is synonymous with Yeti, but Sasquatch = Bigfoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Maybe I got it mixed up. I'm not the best a cryptozoology, but I know the word cryptozoology, so that's something, I guess.
https://i.imgur.com/QOpwMK1.jpeg
Oldie goodie.
"looks like"
That American badger does look rather nasty, I must say. But I wouldn't be going for tea in a Euro badger's burrow. They don't look so cute when they're snarling at your dog.
I had heard Abominable Snowman before, but I didn't know it meant Yeti until it came up on this season of Celebrity Jeopardy. Andy Richter knew it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
On Rigel 4 it's called a Mugato.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.wired.com/wp-content/upl...s/tmmugato.jpg
That's a deep cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not too familiar with Yetis tbh. I feel much more confident about Bigfoot lore. Mostly thanks to reruns of Harry and the Hendersons.
Why is "pear-shaped" like... bad?
What's bad about the shape of pears?
I think the phrase refers to something metaphorically changing from a sphere to a pear shape, as though it's not supposed to be pear shaped.
We also have another term that means to go bad... "it's all gone tits up". Presumably that refers to the idea of a woman slipping over so her breasts briefly rise up before the inevitable fall. That's the only reason I can think that phrase makes any sense. It's a great phrase though.
Pretty sure tits up means dead, laid on your back, supine in a coffin.
That makes sense from a language pov but we use the term to describe chaos, not death.
She tried to warn us...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiwgOWo7mDc
:lol:
:highfive:
Looks like they found the culprit in balloon-gate.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/16/p...ing/index.html
Forget All Quiet on the Western Front, this is going to be the best film of the decade!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuWEEKeJLMI
Or if you do, make sure you bring cookies.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-wa...rrorising-sea/
SMH
I hope this poor fella doesn't get hurt. Walking around being weird and insulting is generally not the best move for personal health.
At least the police in this story were civilized. He hasn't done any crimes *here*, even if he is creepy, so whatev.
I can't help but suspect that the way our culture treats mental health as a personal problem is part of this. The way I hear people talk about furries online is disturbing. Especially since the furries I know have explained to me that 99% of furries are on the aspie spectrum, and that socializing through a fursona is about the only way they can get over their anxieties to actually socialize. Yes, there's a fair amount of weird sex stuff going on with furries, but they are consenting adults... and consenting adults tend to get up to weird sex stuff, so...
I'm pretty sure the bear can take care of himself. Also, it's just a movie Mojo, don't worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Bless the studio that signed off on that script... though I have a vague feeling that we already saw every scene with that bear in that trailer, and the rest of the movie will consist of people walking through the woods. I'm still going to watch it.
Got offered a free $10 sit n go ticket if I load up $20, fuck it I'll bite, spin $50, win, now have $70 bankroll.
I was so lucky. Get dealt trash, get HU as 2:1 dog, get dealt more trash, eventually jam 6bb or so J7o, snapped by A2o, he flops bottom pair, turn gives me pair, river gives me two pair. Few hands later I flop top pair with Q2o on bb after he limps, I trap, c/r jam turn, he folds, now I'm 2:1 chip leader, few hands later jam A4s, he snaps ATo, flop Axx, turn 4 wrecks his world.
Skill.
Taking notes, here.
Open shove J7o.
Trap with Q2o if you hit top pair OTF.
Never call with Ax heads-up.
Think I got it. Thanks for these hot tips.
Shit tips you mean. I played badly and got lucky.
Obviously I don't want to jam J7o but when it's the best hand I've seen for ten hands or so and I'm being blinded out then it's fine. I just want him to fold so I can stem the bleeding for a couple of hands, but even when he calls he's usually only 60/40 favourite. I wouldn't say it's a standard shove but in that specific case it seemed like it was the least worst option. That doesn't mean it's a good option.
Q2 on Qxx HU is a huge hand, definitely trappable in a limp pot bb vs bu. I mean it's literally the bottom of any real trapping range but still, it's fine to either bet or check this flop. He tank folded turn so I suspect he picked up 2nd pair (tens) for his b/f, but he could have been hollywooding his king high. Probably the c/r was a pretty big mistake, better to c/c with intent to call off stacks on river. If he's folding 2nd pair and calling his top pairs, I have the worst hand possible to c/r turn with. It's neither a value bet nor a bluff. So while the trap is fine, the application was not.
Ace high is a fine jam and call in that spot. His short stack was something like 8bb, I'm obviously never open folding an ace and I'm never raise folding vs his stack so might as well just jam and give him no chance of calling and outplaying me post flop. He can call tons of hands as a 40% dog. I get it in dominated and suck it for the win. Pretty awesome rungood for $50.
:lol:
Poker? I barely know 'er!
We're in the commune, ong. And is it possible my sarcasm went over your head, there? I mean... I haven't played in a while, but I still know the basics.
I figured you were being sarcastic, it's just something to talk about!
The very next game I played, I had another where I basically blinded out until I got lucky HU, then I picked up KK vs 88 to double into the chip lead, very next hand AA vs 88 to finish the job. Crushing souls and wrecking worlds.
That was just a $0.25 SNG for fun though.
I'd imagine it doesn't take much to beat 0.25 SNG's, but always nice to run good at the end.
Geez, I'll see you in person in less than 3 months, now.
Time flies when you're busy,
and old, heh.
The 25c games are obviously very easy to beat if you have a lot of patience, the problem of course is the ludicrous variance caused by people playing so crazy.
Yup ten weeks, which will be tomorrow very soon. I suppose I should start thinking about entertainment, have a look what's going on in the area when you're around.
Time does indeed fly, I've been at my new job now for six months, that time has flown by. Didn't think I'd last a month cleaning toilets but I surprise myself sometimes!
Cool, cool. We're going to visit you and spend time doing whatever you want, so don't stress about being a tour guide, unless that's what you want to do.
We'll have spent the prior 3 days in London doing touristy things and may or may not be tired from the constant activity. We don't need to be "out" or "doing stuff" to have a good time. Most nights, we entertain ourselves at home, anyway. If your plan is to sit around the house of an evening and play some poker, or any other game, or just watch a movie or TV, or whatever, we'd be stoked.
That said, we'll be happy to pay for whatever meals drinks and events you want to do, so I mean... within reason feel free to plan on spending our money doing whatever. Also, I'll have a rental car so anywhere nearby within like an hour or so drive is fair game.
***
Hard to believe this semester is already half-way finished. I'm in that mid-semester blues phase where I am ready for a break already... I always get a bit burned out just before Spring break. But Spring Break is on its way. And then an awesome vacation to see friends abroad.
Having things to look forward to always helps with the blues.
Did you all talk about Gary Lineker already? I don't always agree with Owen Jones, but a recent YouTube video hits the nail on the head. 1-2 senior cheeses at the BBC need to go.
The whole affair is ridiculous.
I doubt it's news in USA, so for Mojo's sake here's the tl;dr
Tory immigration policy gets criticised by Gary Lineker on Twitter, comparing the language used to 1930s Germany.
Gary Lineker is former England footballer, very famous in UK, now he presents Match of the Day and is the highest paid employee on the BBC's books.
BBC presenters are supposed to be politically impartial.
BBC pull Lineker from MOTD until they come to an agreement on is social media use.
Co-presenters such as Ian Wright and Alan Shearer, also former England footballers, along with commentators and others, boycott this weekend's MOTD and Radio 5 programmes.
BBC air MOTD without any analysis or presenters, just the football, and pull their radio programme. BBC in meltdown.
And the funniest part is... people enjoyed MOTD more without "experts" talking bollocks.
Owen Jones is the biggest hate baiter in the country. I don't care if he's on the right side of this debate, I'd rather poke my eyes out with a rusty fork than watch him talk on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
I agree, Jones is unbearable.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
As far as the Lineker "scandal" goes, it's gotten so much coverage I can't help but feel it's being used as a distraction bomb by the Tory media. "Oooh look, this woke lefty ex-footballer is tweeting something true about the gov't that makes it look as bad as it is. How dare he?!?! Arrrrgggghhh!!"
And lol that it means the BBC is biased. Two of their most senior managers are Tory donors, and one of them even arranged a giant loan for Bozo Johnson that just happened to coincide with getting appointed. And in the past, their presenters tweeted shit about Corbyn and Labour and no-one ever told them to stop.
The only interesting thing about the whole saga is that it's detracting attention from how godawful a bill that is. Stripping human rights from refugees - yeah sure, that's how to stop the boats. I guess it's not much worse than paying the Frenchies to build a giant detainment center.
99% chance that bill never gets passed. The Tories are just desperately seeking approval from far-right voters now, they've conceded the center ground to Labour and are just trying not to lose too many votes Reform UK or EDL or Racist Skinhead Neo-Nazi party or whatever it's called these days.
Also, pretty sure this belongs in the MEGA thread, given what started it all off was the MEGA-ist bill in the history of the UK...any hope that Fishi Sunak would be a sensible PM just went down the drain.
Bring the lettuce back.
Sounds like a shitstorm, but I'm really not a fan of the way people with public-facing jobs aren't allowed to have opinions in private.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So what if the dude tweeted something while he wasn't on the clock for the BBC. That's his free time. He's speaking in a semi-public forum, sure, but so what?
Seems to me like not expressing political opinions in the course of your professional job is 1 thing, but a full ban on expressing a political opinion in public is kinda BS.
It's not so simple when it comes to the BBC, and complicated further by the fact that Lineker is technically freelance.
I agree people should be allowed their opinions and to voice them. But with that said, BBC journalists are expected to be politically unbiased. Of course this concept is a joke, but they go about their bias with a degree of subtlety. They produce propaganda rather than telling the world what they think.
People have a civil responsibility to honour contracts. If somebody signs a contract that limits their free speech, that is a choice they have made. You can't sign that contract and then say it's not fair. If it's not fair, don't sign it. If it's illegal, escalate it. If it's acceptable, sign it and honour it.
Lineker is no doubt contractually obliged to remain politically impartial. So he is very probably in breach on contract. The BBC are likely well within their rights to pull him.
Lineker is paid £1.3m a year. I'd agree to not talk about politics on social media for that kind of money. If I felt so strongly about a topic that I felt a moral obligation to breach my contract, I would resign my position.
That's the moral thing to do. You are saying "I no longer accept the terms of this contract". You activate exit clauses and free yourself from the civil responsibility you are bound by when you sign a contract.
It's also important to note that the concept of contracts is absolutely 100% integral to our societies and economies. If people could breach contracts with impunity, we'd live in a very different world. So if you want to maintain moral high ground, you have to release yourself from the contract, rather than breach it and carry on like you did nothing wrong.
It also must be noted that there is an assumption that Lineker is obliged to be impartial, since that's the standard for BBC employees. However, given Lineker is freelance, he might not have agreed to remain impartial. The details of his contract are private, so there's a whole lot of assuming going on.
If he isn't bound by such terms, if he negotiated a contract that says nothing about political impartiality, then the BBC are well out of line.
The whole Lineker kerfuffle is definitely not worth the headlines it's received. Sure, you can argue he shouldn't voice an opinion because he works for the BBC, but he's a sportscaster not a newsreader. Basically they should have just quietly had a word with him to clarify what their policy is, and then let him get on with it.
The real story here is the gov't trying to bring in legislation that they themselves admit is probably illegal, that deprives people of their basic human rights, and that is a sop to the swivel-eyed loons who occupy the far right of their party (I'm including Cruella Braverman in this - I never thought we'd ever have a worse Home Sec. than Patel, but she's managed to smash that record), and other racists and assholes.
No-one with any humanity is trying to defend it, and a lot of people are condemning it (like the UN, for one), but here we are discussing whether a sportscaster should be allowed to have a public voice or not. I really don't see why we need a weeklong public debate about that.
I'm saying that I feel like legally, an employment contract that stipulates what you can and can't do when you're not working should be slapped down. Especially so when the stipulation is such a bad faith move.
People have political opinions. Suggesting that you only hire people w/o political opinions is dumb.
Accepting that all people have political opinions, then forcing people to not talk about those opinions, ever, is oppressive, IMO.
Pretending that if someone doesn't talk about their opinions, then they don't have them is stupid. Pretending you have no bias is a great way to be ignorant of how that bias actually affects you.
It's ok poop, we've moved onto the morals of contracts instead. A more interesting discussion than either Lineker or Tory policy.
That depends. If you work for McDonalds, are you free to spend your spare time working for Burger King?Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
The point here is simply to demonstrate that it's reasonable for an employment contract to limit freedoms, even when not on "work time". Whether political opinions are a reasonable thing to limit, that's another matter. It depends how extreme that opinion is, but it's subjective. From a capitalist point of view, I'd say it depends how bad that opinion is for business. In this case, it's not that bad for business. Everyone already knows Lineker is a leftie Tory-bashing wokelebrity (I just made that word up). Nobody is shocked or surprised by what he tweeted. So I'm not sure why the BBC felt the need to flex over this. Maybe it was the final straw and they felt it was time to draw a line.
It's definitely been blown way out of proportion.
I do agree with this. However, contracts are inherently oppressive. They make demands, with consequences for not meeting those demands. The main thing to remember here is that contracts are also voluntary. People accept a degree of oppression in return for a salary and job security.Quote:
People have political opinions. Suggesting that you only hire people w/o political opinions is dumb.Accepting that all people have political opinions, then forcing people to not talk about those opinions, ever, is oppressive, IMO.
Usually when someone breaks their employment contract, they're the one who ends up showing contrition, not their employer. Here the BBC has apologised and Lineker hasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And he's still tweeting about refugees today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GaryLinek...21458661285889
Cue the Telegraph and Daily Mail to keep losing their minds.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-live-latest/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...apologise.html
The BBC have apologised either because they feel they're on the wrong side of public opinion (likely) or because he doesn't have an impartiality clause in his contract (possible).
Tweeting about refugees isn't the problem, btw. Tweeting about government policy is. Subtle difference.
They apologised because they were in the wrong and they knew it, not because he broke the rules of his contract as you suggested before. If he had broken his contract and been slapped down for it, he'd be the one apologising, not them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Lawyers said the BBC couldn't sack him without paying him off a sum in the millions. That would make the BBC look even dumber than they do now. So you're right there's an element of public perception involved.
The fact he brought up the same topic that got him suspended before and made no effort to apologise for and/or withdraw his previous statement, is a sign he did nothing wrong the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Possibly the two sides met and came to some kind of gentleman's agreement about what he could and couldn't say about politics in future. Or, he may have just told them to fuck off and in the future he's going to say what he thinks whether they like it or not. Only time will tell. My guess is he didn't just repeat his earlier comments because he didn't want to humiliate his employer.
We don't know that. Apart from his salary, Lineker's contract is private. So we don't know if they're apologising because they're actually in the wrong, or because they think the public think they are in the wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
The BBC initially demanded he did apologise, when he refused that's when they took him off air. They've only decided they're in the wrong after seeing the reaction.Quote:
If he had broken his contract and been slapped down for it, he'd be the one apologising, not them.
So my take from that is that the BBC were contractually in the right, but didn't expect the reaction that followed and have subsequently backed down.
The only lawyers who can say this with any certainty are those who've seen his contract.Quote:
Lawyers said the BBC couldn't sack him without paying him off a sum in the millions.
They'd have to pay him millions if they were contractually in the wrong. They'd have to pay him the full value of the contract, which is £1.3m multiplied by the years left. So yeah, fat sum of money.
If he's in breach of contract, and they fire him, then it's a whole can of worms and it'll likely come down to a negotiated settlement rather than hashed out in court.
There is nothing remotely controversial about his recent tweet. They obviously can't tell him he's not allowed to talk about refugees.Quote:
The fact he brought up the same topic that got him suspended before and made no effort to apologise for and/or withdraw his previous statement, is a sign he did nothing wrong the first time.
This is clearly what has happened.Quote:
Possibly the two sides met and came to some kind of gentleman's agreement about what he could and couldn't say about politics in future.
Lineker isn't stupid. He understands why the BBC has impartiality rules. He understands that in his position he does need to be careful about what he says. So I do expect to see some kind of concession from Lineker. We'll see.Quote:
Or, he may have just told them to fuck off and in the future he's going to say what he thinks whether they like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I like how you go from "we don't know" to "here's what happened."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think it was BBC lawyers who were reputed to have said it. Can't be arsed to look up the story though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They don't need to settle or go to court if he's clearly in breach of contract, they can fire him with cause. Sandwiches wrapped in a road map and all that. If they a) knew he'd breached his contract, and b) wanted to sack him; they could have.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But since they apologised to him and he didn't apologise to them, don't you think it suggests they realised they were in the wrong?
Yeah it will be interesting to see if he tones it down or keeps on being a tofu-eating, Guardian reading, wokelebrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You'd think by now you'd be able to wade through my hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
We're all guessing. All of us. Nobody has published details of Lineker's contract that I'm aware of. This is a statement of fact.
The BBC only deciding they're in the wrong once they see the reaction, that's an observation, an opinion, based on their demand that Lineker apologises. Why would they make that demand if they thought they were in the wrong?
Their position has evolved. What caused that evolution?
Maybe this is what caused their evolution. They thought they were in the right, then their lawyers point out they are not. It's kinda hard to believe that BBC bosses don't know that Lineker is not bound by impartiality rules though, and certainly they should have figured that out before pulling him from air.Quote:
I think it was BBC lawyers who were reputed to have said it. Can't be arsed to look up the story though.
It's never this simple in reality. Generally an employer needs to prove gross misconduct to be able to fire an employee without compensation. This isn't gross misconduct. Again, it depends on the contract.Quote:
They don't need to settle or go to court if he's clearly in breach of contract...
I am under contract. A mundane part of my contract is that I cannot take the master key home with me. If I do, I am in breach of my contract. If it happens, I could be fired. I'll get 1 month pay though because it's not gross misconduct. If I were to make a copy of that key though, well that's a very different story. That is definitely gross misconduct.
Not all breaches of contract are equal. If I did take my key home, I'd get a bollocking and warned that if there was an spot check audit while my keys were off site, I'd be up for a disciplinary. So basically a 1% chance of maybe losing my job, and a 99% chance of my boss being slightly annoyed with me.
Why did they initially demand an apology off him?Quote:
But since they apologised to him and he didn't apologise to them, don't you think it suggests they realised they were in the wrong?
They might have realised they are morally in the wrong, possibly legally, but it seems way more likely to me that they just read the room wrong and didn't expect the lovefest that Lineker got. They probably thought they could bully him into shutting the fuck up, and when they realised they couldn't, were faced with the direct choice of firing him or changing their tune.
That's what I think anyway. I don't believe the BBC has a conscience.
This is what is making them look so bad imo. You'd think they'd consult the lawyers before demanding the apology and giving him the hook. But then again, they did have the Tory press and the swivel-eyed loon wing of the Tory party all screaming at them to do something about this lefty sportcaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hard to claim the moral high ground as an organisation when your bosses are Tory donors and the big boss got his job by arranging a loan for Bodger Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This guy does videos of old boxing matches, with tactics and strategy and all that. Usually very serious.
This one is brilliant satire though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJzFU5Da-ok