Ps Drink room temp water and you won’t even want any cold drinks ever again.
It keeps it moderately acceptable to drink, really.
Wow, folded real quick there, huh?
Wait...
I live in hot Ecuador and no ac in main rooms
So you say room temperature, but really it's warm.
Yeah, they're the bonehead who worded things poorly...
Ah! You got me! I made a spelling error. I concede all on your points now. I guess you're 100% right now. Man, you really got this arguing thing down.
I having a stroke or are you? I'm not sure what her having won the popular vote and lost the EC in states she didn't campaign in has to do with her "elevating trump."
The person you're replying to seems correct to me in that these are excerpts from a plan drafted by her team, but it does seem to be missing evidence they put it into action. Her not campaigning in some states isn't that, right?
And honestly, I can kind of see their point. Sure, in hindsight it's easy to criticize the idea post trump election, but most people would not have taken a trump campaign seriously. Especially in 2014 when this was written. It's a extremely normal and valid tactic to try and prop up what's perceived as a candidate that can be easily beat in a national election to cut out any real competition during the primaries.
But strategy aside, there's still nothing showing the Clinton campaign "elevated" trump. Even reading that article, the most they did was nothing. They just focused their attacks elsewhere because he wasn't a serious target. Again, that's what everyone does. Why waste millions in advertising dollars to attack someone who seems like they're going to lose anyway? Surely you want to work on taking down your actual rivals early? Turns out they were wrong, but so were most of us in 2014.
I worry that the decades that republicans spent demonizing Hillary Clinton worked all too well on even more progressive voters and people will see malice in everything she ever did, and misjudgments that we were all guilty of are viewed as unforgivable when she does it. By all accounts I remember reading, she's not terribly charismatic, but has always been a very effective leader once in position. Nobody like campaigning Hillary, but poles for her when she was in an office were great.
Not a hockey fan, is that because it's too cheap or too expensive?
You can put them in between 2 bowls with their (the bowls) rims against each other to create an oblate spheroid-ish thing, then shake it real hard for a few minutes. It should remove the shell pretty eaily, if loudly.
Edit: Sorry, turns out, that's garlic cloves. Shrimp peeling is really only easier raw. You can rip the legs off and just give a squeeze and it'll pop out of the shell. In my experience, once they're cooked the shell will break up much easier. As someone else said, a stock is your best bet if you really want to avoid peeling. I mean, technically you can eat the shell if you make sure to grind them up completely when you puree them. I've never tried anything with the shell still included, so I can't speak for the taste, but you could try a bisque if you're dead set on not peeling.
I think a lot of people here are pretty spot on with the "cats are just weird, IDK." But more than that, there are a couple things that I think it might be. A lot of cat quirks are just instincts for outdoor activities that don't translate indoors but they still have the pull to do it. IT sounds like she's "digging," which is a thing wild cats would do for a couple reasons.
Sometimes they will dig a hole to poop in, then cover it up, but since she's not then immediately taking a shit in your salad bowl, that's probably not it.
It could be a hunting action. Cats dig for bugs often.
But the most likely, I think, is for fun. Cats are pretty intelligent creatures who's minds require stimulation, which means they just find a thing to fidget with sometimes and get stuck on it, like a small child making toys out of random junk. If she doesn't have enough scratching posts, she could be getting that scratching itch out. Or could do with some more toys. Or, again what I find most likely, she did it once and found that bowl to just be a lot of fun. Maybe it's the texture or she likes the way her paws slip on it differently than other surfaces. Cats are curious, so it being a different surface may have drawn her attention and now it's a fun toy for her.
TLDR: cats are just weird, IDK. 🤷
Also, only really works if they are "attempting to gain a higher moral authority" (as OP says). As if that's the only reason people would argue a point. I think it says something about OP that they take that as a given for arguments. I can immediately imagine scenarios that one can argue against a thing that they themselves participate in.
"Hey, smoking is bad, kid. Don't do it."
"But you smoke! And I look so cool with a cigarette!"
"Yeah, it's a habit that's very difficult to break and it makes your life worse in every way. I know from experience."
"No you."
But I agree with your main point,
But pointing out the hypocrisy is technically “off topic” if you’re arguing whether X is actually bad.
It's considered a fallacy exactly for this reason. When you're debating a thing, you're way off the map if you think that's your winning move if you're arguing in good faith. An argument should be about showing your point is correct, not that you're better than the other person. But Mr. Wang up there may only view arguments as a competition to be won morally.
So.... your source to back up your point is an excerpt from a fictional book written by someone who's expertise is in writing fiction?
Personally, I try not to take the word of someone who is not an expert, or at least versed in that particular area. Just because Pratchett was very a progressive writer doesn't mean his opinions on gun control should be taken for anything more than his own personal position.
And if we're just going to cite his fiction as his opinion, we have to assume he was also pro-police violence. I don't know how much Discworld you've red, but even as Vimes progressed as a character and got better in a lot of ways, he always ended up resolving the issue by skirting the actual law and bending the rules to fit his purpose. Often he would espouse how much easier his job and the city would be if he wasn't restricted by the law. Not everyone else, they still need to follow the law, but Sam Vimes knows better. There were even times when Pratchett would start to push back on that idea like he was going to have Vimes actually understand that police aren't special and should be as answerable to the law as anyone... then the conflict would always be resolved by Vimes going outside the law and taking it into his own hands. He never learned that lesson. Quite the opposite actually.
So for those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so conservative, he was writing about rogue cops taking the law into their own hands before you kids ever heard those words put together.
While it doesn't work as well with or as your joke, the ATF is actually now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. So we need to add the E as well and we can spell FACET, which is less fun. Or use M for Marijuana and spell FMEAT.
So building on this I did some light perusing on the internet and got a little hyperfixated, but found some tiny things.
This was the closest Solingen I could find, but the caps on the end don't match and I doubt the little rivets would be completely hidden by the patina, so that's probably not it.
Then on Etsy I found this posting That has one that looks identical but with no further information on it and listed as "Richards" (Richards, Sheffeild). And This one that just doesn't have the smaller blade but is listed as Solingen.
I went to try and double check that patent number and I'm not finding what they did, but I also don't know what I'm doing. The German patent office has 2 companies with that patent number, one for Naproxen and one for the moving blades on hair trimmers.
But then I found This guy with the exact same patent number on it but marked as Hammer brand. It's very similar but has 3 blades instead of 2.
This leads me to believe that the patent is not for the whole knife but the blade specifically that was made by Solingen and sold to other knife manufacturers who affixed them to their own pocket-knife-pieces. With all this in mind, I'm starting to think it's likely from Richards, so I refined my search again and found this guy as the best bet: knife. But instead of the patent number on the tang they have their own stamp. So my best guess, after a tiny bit of research, is that Richards probably made it, but it's not their top of the line stuff with their branding but something akin to a "store brand" where they used their typical parts but used the blades from Solingen. I'm still assuming it's Richards because they were the only brand I could find that made knives with all the parts (Same end caps, 2 blades, pearl handle with no rivets showing, shape) together. Other brands seemed to have some, but not all parts combined. But with the tang stamp being off, I can only assume it wasn't an "official" Richards brand but put together by them and sold by another party as a cheaper alternative.
If you're still curious, that All About Pocket Knives site seems to have active forums with knowledgeable people who could probably (almost definitely) find or know more than me. I don't know anything about any of this and was just a bit bored this morning while drinking my coffee, so I definitely suggest asking them for legit advice.
You have thin soles so you can tell where you are in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.