Polymarketno, to use on some old tools, hardware workshop stuff
no, to use on some old tools, hardware workshop stuff
Sir_Iahim参与话题 8消息总数 202
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 202 条，显示第 101-150 条I still have a Dell from 2007, Windows XP SP2, use it to run Chinese software that would not run on anything else today:))))
I still have a Dell from 2007, Windows XP SP2, use it to run Chinese software that would not run on anything else today:))))
win 95 ?
win 95 ?
iran target shipp 27
iran target shipp 27
14 k
14 k
Some guy on the deck pressed buy on poly and then threw a grenade on the deck. It's called a retirement plan!
Some guy on the deck pressed buy on poly and then threw a grenade on the deck. It's called a retirement plan!
<@524122609764401174> wake up man, you're on fireeeee!!!
<@524122609764401174> wake up man, you're on fireeeee!!!
miauuuu.... that was not god's hand, some iranian RPG:))
miauuuu.... that was not god's hand, some iranian RPG:))
I'm pretty sure it already happened but we wait for news, it's not like they are gonna send relie6 after 1 July:)))
I'm pretty sure it already happened but we wait for news, it's not like they are gonna send relie6 after 1 July:)))
not really
not really
The Argument for "NO": Maj. Gen. Jarrard and his immediate logistical staff entered the country under an official, formal request by the interim Venezuelan authorities to coordinate international disaster relief. Because it is a high-ranking service member acting as a liaison with a foreign government for a non-combat mission, a strong case can be made that this constitutes entry for diplomatic/humanitarian purposes and is disqualified under the "entourage" clause. The Argument for "YES": If SOUTHCOM deploys standard, active-duty US military engineering battalions, medical units, or specialized disaster troops to physically work on the ground in Caracas (beyond just the General and his immediate staff), they are no longer just an "entourage for a high-ranking service member" or "advisors"—they are active operational forces executing physical relief.
The Argument for "NO": Maj. Gen. Jarrard and his immediate logistical staff entered the country under an official, formal request by the interim Venezuelan authorities to coordinate international disaster relief. Because it is a high-ranking service member acting as a liaison with a foreign government for a non-combat mission, a strong case can be made that this constitutes entry for diplomatic/humanitarian purposes and is disqualified under the "entourage" clause. The Argument for "YES": If SOUTHCOM deploys standard, active-duty US military engineering battalions, medical units, or specialized disaster troops to physically work on the ground in Caracas (beyond just the General and his immediate staff), they are no longer just an "entourage for a high-ranking service member" or "advisors"—they are active operational forces executing physical relief.
lesson learned, reality doesn't matter, written words do.:)) And wtf is Scotty doing? keeps buying no
lesson learned, reality doesn't matter, written words do.:)) And wtf is Scotty doing? keeps buying no
no way that PSD or AUR will vote for this guy
no way that PSD or AUR will vote for this guy
Can you take a joke if you're Jewish?
Can you take a joke if you're Jewish?
now at 34 but i give it a 80 min
now at 34 but i give it a 80 min
yes, 35C today in Munich if you're into weather...
yes, 35C today in Munich if you're into weather...
if Aliens come and bring Jesus that's a doppelgenger?
if Aliens come and bring Jesus that's a doppelgenger?
So few scams lately that you're debating an alien abduction that has really happened? You infamous bunch of dumbocats...
So few scams lately that you're debating an alien abduction that has really happened? You infamous bunch of dumbocats...
As shown in the breakdown from image.webp, an insult and a reprimand/warning are two different things. image.webp correctly points out that an insult calls someone a bad name or demeans their intelligence ("You're an idiot"), whereas saying "watch your mouth" is a strict directive about behavior. So, if it's not an insult, why does it count as an attack for the market rules? Here is the simple breakdown of why this statement crosses the line into an attack, rather than just being an insult: 1. An insult is a name; an attack is an action An insult is passive name-calling. An attack is an aggressive act meant to hurt, dominate, or force someone into submission. When Trump says a foreign leader "better watch his mouth," he isn't calling him a name—he is executing a verbal offensive. It is an aggressive demand to shut down the other person's speech. 2. It targets their professional conduct The market rules state that a statement counts if it "attacks any non-fictional individual personally or professionally in a clearly negative manner." By publicly telling a head of state that he "better watch his mouth," Trump is directly striking at that person's professional fitness and diplomatic conduct on the world stage. It is a hostile, public reprimand meant to humiliate the individual's professional standing. 3. The context turns the warning into a threat As image.webp notes, "watch your mouth" is a behavioral warning. But look at the full sentence Trump used: "He better watch his mouth . . . or we will take over the rest of the country." When a warning is tied to a massive consequence (military invasion), it ceases to be a polite "mind your manners" reminder. It becomes a hostile geopolitical attack on that leader's right to speak for his country.
As shown in the breakdown from image.webp, an insult and a reprimand/warning are two different things. image.webp correctly points out that an insult calls someone a bad name or demeans their intelligence ("You're an idiot"), whereas saying "watch your mouth" is a strict directive about behavior. So, if it's not an insult, why does it count as an attack for the market rules? Here is the simple breakdown of why this statement crosses the line into an attack, rather than just being an insult: 1. An insult is a name; an attack is an action An insult is passive name-calling. An attack is an aggressive act meant to hurt, dominate, or force someone into submission. When Trump says a foreign leader "better watch his mouth," he isn't calling him a name—he is executing a verbal offensive. It is an aggressive demand to shut down the other person's speech. 2. It targets their professional conduct The market rules state that a statement counts if it "attacks any non-fictional individual personally or professionally in a clearly negative manner." By publicly telling a head of state that he "better watch his mouth," Trump is directly striking at that person's professional fitness and diplomatic conduct on the world stage. It is a hostile, public reprimand meant to humiliate the individual's professional standing. 3. The context turns the warning into a threat As image.webp notes, "watch your mouth" is a behavioral warning. But look at the full sentence Trump used: "He better watch his mouth . . . or we will take over the rest of the country." When a warning is tied to a massive consequence (military invasion), it ceases to be a polite "mind your manners" reminder. It becomes a hostile geopolitical attack on that leader's right to speak for his country.
how much Uma rocks holds now? %
how much Uma rocks holds now? %
Watch your mouth!
Watch your mouth!
Jess on insult P1, translate?
Jess on insult P1, translate?
what is FOMO?
what is FOMO?
If uma votes this no then sky is the limit for whatever comes up in the future..
If uma votes this no then sky is the limit for whatever comes up in the future..
Personal/Professional Attack: Telling a foreign head of state that he "better watch his mouth" is a derogatory, condescending public reprimand of an individual's personal and professional speech. It goes beyond a standard policy disagreement or a state-to-state military warning by explicitly targeting the individual's personal conduct ("his mouth").
Personal/Professional Attack: Telling a foreign head of state that he "better watch his mouth" is a derogatory, condescending public reprimand of an individual's personal and professional speech. It goes beyond a standard policy disagreement or a state-to-state military warning by explicitly targeting the individual's personal conduct ("his mouth").
what a dumbocrat, ignores that this is an attack!!!!
what a dumbocrat, ignores that this is an attack!!!!
U funny:)))) Not an attack:)))))
U funny:)))) Not an attack:)))))
Alooo! All debate on INSULT and MOCK but all forget there is the third: ATTACK .
Alooo! All debate on INSULT and MOCK but all forget there is the third: ATTACK .
ouchhhh
ouchhhh
Dumbodegenocrats! should make it in the vocabulary officially:)))
Dumbodegenocrats! should make it in the vocabulary officially:)))
in around 2 hours
in around 2 hours
now this is an insult!
now this is an insult!
inside him?
inside him?
funny as f...
funny as f...
If you have an emergency, poly is the place to come and die:)))
If you have an emergency, poly is the place to come and die:)))
Miau!
Miau!
Yes for sure
Yes for sure
It's called democracy, you can have a referendum on tearing down your neighbor's house if you want here
It's called democracy, you can have a referendum on tearing down your neighbor's house if you want here
I can't vote, don't have the citizenship
I can't vote, don't have the citizenship
Then you are welcome!
Then you are welcome!
Don't come, we are expensive and to many already here
Don't come, we are expensive and to many already here
Adamsin Effendi
Adamsin Effendi
Until somebody proposes it's all dust in the wind discussion here .. I think the reality we all see is that, even though not stated explicitly, there wouldn't have been any deal or MOU without US accepting a limited enrichment in whatever form would be but was definitely accepted by Trump, the wording of the mou is for sure calculated so that it saves face by not explicitly stating this, and as future info will show, it will be an acceptance of the program with a lot of technicalities...
Until somebody proposes it's all dust in the wind discussion here .. I think the reality we all see is that, even though not stated explicitly, there wouldn't have been any deal or MOU without US accepting a limited enrichment in whatever form would be but was definitely accepted by Trump, the wording of the mou is for sure calculated so that it saves face by not explicitly stating this, and as future info will show, it will be an acceptance of the program with a lot of technicalities...
We're enriching
We're enriching
At this point you can be right and wrong. We are just sharing personal views as has been confirmed so many times before. Me personally taking in consideration the whole situation I do believe there will be talks and more things will be cleared as well as a final deal signed, the mou will not give a status quo of nothing, it's like a white handkerchief hoisted up so they don't shoot each other until they reach a deal
At this point you can be right and wrong. We are just sharing personal views as has been confirmed so many times before. Me personally taking in consideration the whole situation I do believe there will be talks and more things will be cleared as well as a final deal signed, the mou will not give a status quo of nothing, it's like a white handkerchief hoisted up so they don't shoot each other until they reach a deal
Yes for sure, there's no deal for trump if they do not accept this, of course with the limitations etc etc to save face
Yes for sure, there's no deal for trump if they do not accept this, of course with the limitations etc etc to save face
Overall view is that there will be enrichment accepted by US, and this will be clarified this week or next week for sure..
Overall view is that there will be enrichment accepted by US, and this will be clarified this week or next week for sure..
Correct! This will clarify naturally until the market deadline, why propose now and have days of dispute for nothing. There's not enough compelling evidence for neither P1 or p2
Correct! This will clarify naturally until the market deadline, why propose now and have days of dispute for nothing. There's not enough compelling evidence for neither P1 or p2
you are confusing dates and quotes, the reed remark is on 16 and that is not an insult, on 17 today he did on social
you are confusing dates and quotes, the reed remark is on 16 and that is not an insult, on 17 today he did on social
<@524122609764401174> against a pathetic failed Dumocrat Senator, Os(jerk!)off, who is a joke in D.C. Nobody even knows who he is!!! This is an insult. No way 16 was
<@524122609764401174> against a pathetic failed Dumocrat Senator, Os(jerk!)off, who is a joke in D.C. Nobody even knows who he is!!! This is an insult. No way 16 was