unicorn

Well, what do you think they do with the big bottles? They have to be refilled often as well. I don't see this as distasteful in any way.

There used to be some politicians, even in the Republican party, that I could respect, such as John McCain. Those are becoming a dying breed. I'll never forget the 60 Minutes story which showed that Congress members, who used to spend most of their time in their offices, now spend most of their time in their party's campaign buildings drumming up support.

I've noted with chagrin most hotels have dropped offering individual shampoo bottles and mini soaps in favor of big dispensers. I guess the switch reduces plastic waste, but I prefer the old way. How about you?

I agree. Trump's MO has always been to hire unscrupulous people to perform illegal and immoral acts, then throw them under the bus when they're caught. Choosing to work for someone like Trump shows both poor judgment and poor moral character, even if Trump's the bigger sociopath.

That article's behind a paywall. Can you summarize it? I wish I knew someone who really understood the actual military situation. My sense is that if Putin started using nukes, that it would end up more horribly for Russia than for the West. By West, I'm including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ. If he goes too kooky, Japan might even get the southern Kuril islands back...

Biden is already showing signs of cognitive decline, and should not run again. My choice would be Klobuchar. Yes, if Biden ran again, I'd have to vote for him. There don't seem to be any intelligent Republicans left.

So what if Turks feel Russia is a "necessary partner"? They're right in that Turkish sanctions against Russia would hurt the Turks, probably pretty badly. They did shoot down a Russian plane a few years ago. "Necessary partner" doesn't mean friend. And, yes, China would suffer as well if it sanctioned Russia. Not as much as the Turks, though.

There's a difference between condemning a country's actions and applying sanctions. Obviously the latter is both hostile and costly to the country applying the sanctions. Turkey is obviously not a wealthy country, and it has a lot of trade with Russia. Only wealthy countries can afford a direct confrontation such as sanctions. Just because a country doesn't apply sanctions doesn't mean it's neutral in the matter.

I'm not sure that's factually correct. Most countries have condemned the attack. Only the countries in orange expressed the opinion that the attack was justified: the usual suspects of Syria, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea, Nicaragua, and Iran... Countries is dark gray expressed neutrality, light gray have remained silent. Countries in green condemned the invasion in the UN General Assembly resolution. Those in red voted against. Those in yellow abstained, and blue didn't vote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a marked drop in activity helps the owners or advertisers. Yes, having your members go elsewhere does mean less work for the moderators, but is that the only goal? Business which aren't forward-thinking will end up being lonely. And maybe out of business.

It sounds as if a continuous stalemate is what China wants. They don't want Putin to win, nor the West and Ukraine. They're more than happy to sit back and profit from both sides. 😉

I'm not so optimistic. I don't see either side giving in. As long as they have our support, Ukraine will probably insist on having all of its territory returned, including Crimea, plus compensation for its injuries. Putin is too hard-headed to return those territories. I suspect our best hope is that Putin dies, one way or the other.

Depends what one means by that. I don't have the statistics, but overall I think traffic there has decreased by a good 3/4 since they took down the politics forum. The website should serve its members, not its moderators. Ignoring this reality will lead to members voting with their feet.

Doesn't Thailand allow people to apply for asylum?

I was talking to the partner of a friend over dinner the other day, and he mentioned that he sometimes goes to bathhouses and orgasms multiple times a day. I can't really understand that. I can't really ejaculate more than once a day. If I get super turned-on, I can probably orgasm several hours later, but nothing, or only drops will come out, and the orgasm therefore isn't that satisfying for me. In fact, for me to have a really great orgasm, I have to leave 2 days between orgasms (though I can have a perfectly acceptable one every 24 hours). What about you? Can you do it multiple times a day? Does much come out if you're not rested? Is it really satisfying if you do it multiple times a day?

But somehow he's still there (though may not choose to participate much longer), and you're not. In my experience, what pissed off the moderators, and what was reasonable to get pissed off about, was calling the poster names, rather than ridiculing what they said. I always tried to ridicule the post, not the poster. Did you repeatedly engage in name-calling? BTC did post some stupid stuff, but I think the difference was that he was careful to ridicule the post, not the poster.

Well, a major issue is that there is little place in Russia for anyone to hear anything critical of Putin. Any reporter who would say anything critical of Putin would be either murdered or to a Siberian work camp. If Fox News were the only source of news in the US, I'd hate to think of the level of support Trump would have--probably also around 80%. Even individual protests are dealt with severely in Russia. When all you hear over and over again is what a brilliant and wonderful man Putin is, what else is there to think? At least he didn't make his whole country suffer with the "Zero Covid" policies of Xi.

On your first statement, I think the key is to attack the statement, not the poster. We've had mild disagreements, but never anything serious. There are some posters, such as L2P and E2G, who often posted stuff which was stupid, but I would always say "What you're saying is stupid," not "You're stupid." I didn't even think they were stupid people, just that they posted a lot of dumb things, especially out of their fields of knowledge. I could respect them, even if they made dumb statements in areas such as science or medicine. Yet when they attacked me, it was often personal, with their calling me names such as "Dr. Seuss" (instead of trying to refute data I provided with alternative data or alternative explanations for the data). And you're also correct that Bill was quite obsessive and neurotic when it came to children. I once posted a photo of a model from the model's Facebook page, and didn't even notice that one of his clothed children was in the background. I think I was banned for 3 months, and told I'd be banned permanently if there were any photo of any children in anything I posted. This was super-neurotic and nonsensical. Absolutely no one except a nut would have interpreted that in a childhood sensual way. I also remember how he pitched a fit just when someone mentioned one of his childhood experiences. One had to scan every photo to make sure there were no children in the background, and go over every post to make sure there wasn't even a tangential mention of childhood. At least that got better quickly with the new management, but the "off-topic" obsession replaced it. This latest obsession may result in the website losing its relevance.

Most countries seem to apply departure fees/taxes. I just looked this up on wikipedia. It seems Thailand's the only country to have both a departure and an arrival tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departure_tax

Well, I know that a number of moderators from that website had a meeting last week in Florida. I suspect it was decided at that meeting. Although I enjoyed that politics forum, I don't even know the scope of the problem. The owner said they were spending "hours" each week with moderating duties in the political forum. Given that they have at least 6 moderators, that time commitment doesn't seem unreasonable, in order to keep the forum alive. Of course, as other of their members pointed out, there were probably some smarter ways to go about the problem, such as at first temporarily, then permanently barring particularly troublesome members from the politics forum. Another issue with that website has been an obsessive compulsion to weed out any posting which was considered "off-topic." Until about a year ago, going "off-topic" was only forbidden if the original poster specifically asked that only on-topic discussions occurred, and that had to be in the poster's original (first) post. This obsession, which was applied to some but not all posters, became weaponized, as any tangent would lead to complaints from people who were losing arguments. I suspect that most of the time spent was in dealing with complaints and weeding out of postings which drifted from the original subject. In my opinion, it is the sign of an interesting string when subjects drift. Also, if the posts drifted too much, they could have just removed them without applying "points" to members, which can quickly add up and leading to the person being banned. I have a feeling that this heavy-handed moderation is going to lead to people drifting away from that website. There was actually a whole string discussing interesting posters who'd been chased away. Any hint of criticism of moderators' actions on that string ended up being dealt with severely. Well, a website should exist for the benefit of the members, not just the moderators. There may be few left there after some time, and the moderators can then rejoice at not having to do any work, since they'll be the only ones left.

Unicorns!

And now that site has banned any political discussion whatsoever. I guess I'll be spending more time here. I guess their moderators don't know how to function?

Certainly an extremely important factor, probably the most important one, responsible for China's current bad state of affairs is that Xi refused Western offers for Western vaccines. It's obvious the Sinovac didn't perform as well.

Why wouldn't the proposed treatment be evaluated in a clinical trial, if it purports to have any merit?

Like any treatment for any serious illness, one should only accept treatments which have been subjected to scientific scrutiny, including randomized controlled trials conducted at reputable cancer centers.