Squrlz4Ever

Registered bored user

You lookin' at me?

squrlz4ever wrote:
madduck Thanks, Maddie. Yes, I screwed that up. I found an explanation for the nickname at The Urban Dictionary, of all places. It's pretty much as you said:

"The name was given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye. The Guardian newspaper earned its reputation for lots of misprints in the days of hot-metal printing when it was published in Manchester (it was originally called The Manchester Guardian), and the editions that appeared in London were very early editions brought down by train, before all the errors had been spotted."
squrlz4ever wrote:
*boing boing boing*
squrlz4ever wrote:
trimble There are? LOL... boy, I really mucked this thread up then. Do you have a link?

Addendum: I'll be damned. You're right, Trimble.
squrlz4ever wrote:
layla_wilson Thanks for chiming in, Layla. I didn't know that about The Independent, and I'm sorry to hear it. I think it's a testament to the UK that you're able to keep as many good newspapers in print as you do.
squrlz4ever wrote:
rumham Well, as Punko said, an apology is always good. :)
squrlz4ever wrote:
trimble Sure. Maddie may want to chime in here, but I'd say if you're looking for a good conservative newspaper, The Telegraph would fill the bill. For a liberal newspaper, The Guardian (my personal favorite) is excellent. Two other good UK newspapers are The Independent (liberal) and the venerable Times (conservative).
squrlz4ever wrote:
nokrull You are absolutely right and the data support your claim.

The original article, filled with misinformation, has been shared 186,000 times. The retraction? 291 times. To put that another way, for every one person who's read the retraction, 639 people have read only the original misleading story.

CATAPULTING THE PROPAGANDA. The original story, filled with misinformation, has been shared 186,000 times...

...while the retraction has been shared just 291 times.
squrlz4ever wrote:
That facility looks like something out of 2001: A Space Odyssey. When the technology gets there, I want these people to assemble my sex robot.
squrlz4ever wrote:
Draculya IKR? I couldn't believe how those fellows responded... or didn't respond.  ~Squrlz adopts Russian accent~ "In Russia, no fucks are given!"
squrlz4ever wrote:
daegog I agree completely. It's a matter of what's age-appropriate and what's not. Good college exercise, bad elementary school exercise.

This also reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Little kids' minds are not yet educated enough for this exercise.
squrlz4ever wrote:
dm2754 Agreed. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop our representatives from quoting it on the floors of the U.S. Congress. This very article in fact was referenced by a number of right-wing politicians. That's pretty much what these trash articles are all about: Giving deniers fuel for talking points that turn into soundbites on the evening news and are then absorbed into viewers' brains as fact.

It's a big fossil-fuel-funded propaganda effort and it's been very successful.
squrlz4ever wrote:
Draculya LOL! Hadn't heard the Hate Mail thing before. That's pretty funny.

On a related note, The Guardian (one of my favorite publications, lefty that I am) is sometimes called The Gruniad due to a long history of being rife with typos.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 So I was wrong: While a North Korean artillery barrage on Seoul would be bad, apparently it wouldn't be quite as horrific as I was thinking (not that "less horrific" is a good thing).

The best article I could find on the topic states that the majority of North Korea's artillery can't reach Seoul. Certainly some can, namely the North's Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns and their 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems. But exactly how many of those units the North has is unknown.
squrlz4ever wrote:
I have zero sympathy for this girl. It's a good thing she showed her true colors before being given a badge.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 I did a quick check and it appears some of those 8,000 artillery pieces can easily hit Seoul and some cannot. I don't know the breakdown of how many can and can't. Wikipedia gives a list of the types of artillery in the NK arsenal.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 Yep. It's been a "war on hold," if you will, since 1953.
squrlz4ever wrote:
trimble No, it's not. It's a link to a toxic piece of disinformation.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 True. It certainly gave Bernie Sanders some credit when he was able to state, correctly, that he'd been one of the very few persons in Congress who opposed the Iraq War. (Full disclosure: I'm a big Bernie fan.)
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 Well, I think what you're saying is that in the nuclear age, the superpowers have tended to wage more limited wars that are wars by proxy. That I certainly agree with.

What I'm taking exception to is this dippy notion that America hasn't fought any wars after World War 2. Just because a country hasn't formally declared war on another country doesn't mean it isn't waging war.

The original comment that involved me in this discussion was as follows: "We were never at war with Korea." Nonsense.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 Okay, got it. Good good good. Thank you.

The problem with the War Powers Act (now that you've refreshed my memory here), is that it's politically difficult for Congress to not support troops that are already in combat.

Essentially, the presidential playbook goes like this:
  • Manufacture a crisis that will justify the immediate rush of troops into combat.
  • Approach Congress one to two months later and seek funding for a de-facto war in progress. Messaging to be used goes like this: "Any true American must be willing to support our sons and daughters in uniform who are in harm's way! They need our help now!" Members of Congress who balk at rubber-stamping the president's military adventure do so at their peril, knowing that in the next election, their challenger will loudly claim they "failed to support our troops."
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 [Update: My information here is wrong. Most of the North Korean artillery doesn't have the range to hit Seoul (although some certainly can). Also, there actually are weapons that can destroy incoming artillery shells. See my later comments to Woodyville and Trimble in this thread.]

I'm not worried about missiles so much as artillery. North Korea has over 8,000 pieces of heavy artillery aimed directly as Seoul. It's within easy range and there is not a weapons system in the world that can stop artillery shells.

Consider the scenario after just five minutes of artillery shells raining down on Seoul. By a conservative estimate, that's 120,000 artillery shells (3 shells/minute * 8,000 artillery units * 5 minutes). As good as the U.S. armed forces are, I'd say the likelihood of being able to take out the North Korean artillery in under five minutes is about nil, short of a nuclear first-strike.

So now you've got a densely-packed city of millions of survivors with no water, no hospitals, no infrastructure to speak of. Even if the war was ended 10 minutes in, you'd have a humanitarian crisis on your hands unlike anything we've ever seen.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 Agreed. In point of fact, the U.S. Congress hasn't declared war on any country after World War 2. What this indicates is that for the past 70 years, the U.S. goes about waging wars in a different manner--not that the U.S. has stopped fighting wars.
squrlz4ever wrote:
woodyville06 Can you explain a bit more? It looks like you know more about this than I do. Are you saying it would be harder now for a U.S. president to entangle us in a foreign military conflict via an action similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Thanks.