Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

From apotheosis to arrest – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,032
edited January 8 in General
imageFrom apotheosis to arrest – politicalbetting.com

If a year ago you had told me in 2023 Nicola Sturgeon would resign as Scottish First Minister & SNP Leader and then her husband and later herself would be arrested regarding the SNP finances I would have chastised you for drinking too many eggnogs but that’s what happened.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,367
    This first is as genuine and honest as India losing 6 wickets for no runs in a test match.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,871
    Of course Yousaf is less electorally appealing in polls than Sturgeon or Salmond were which also helps the Unionist parties
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,413

    This first is as genuine and honest as India losing 6 wickets for no runs in a test match.

    You mean it's never happened before in all of history ?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,743
    Does anyone think (as opposed to wish) that charges will eventually arise from this performance, and, if so, when? My guess is yes, and shortly after the GE date is announced.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459
    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,367

    Does anyone think (as opposed to wish) that charges will eventually arise from this performance, and, if so, when? My guess is yes, and shortly after the GE date is announced.

    From what the head of Police Scotland said last summer it could be a while as the investigation has branched out into areas outside the original allegations.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,845
    FPT: The other day I saw someone carrying a poo bag, but they did not have a dog with them.

    So either they were collecting the poo from their garden to put in a bin down the street or they had collected the crap that an inconsiderate dog owner had left behind. The latter being an example of Lord Cameron's Big Society.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,143

    Does anyone think (as opposed to wish) that charges will eventually arise from this performance, and, if so, when? My guess is yes, and shortly after the GE date is announced.

    From what the head of Police Scotland said last summer it could be a while as the investigation has branched out into areas outside the original allegations.
    I was talking about this yesterday with some colleagues.

    They mentioned various rumours. But what makes absolutely no sense is the bizarre, impossible to conceal actions, that led directly to this result. Buy a camper van on party funds and then never move it? Not provide party accounts? Stop the officers of the party from seeng the books?

    No one could work out how any of this made sense - it just seems so certain that it would end badly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,413
    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,525
    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Should be '*a* domestic group' Shirley?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,143
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    It's the sort of sentence you can only write - based on absolutely zero (arguably less than zero) evidence - if your mindset is such that you think Israel might conceivably have a finger in anything that happens anywhere in the world.

    I am led to believe there are lots of historical examples of such people, some of whom are quite well-known.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,143
    edited January 3

    Does anyone think (as opposed to wish) that charges will eventually arise from this performance, and, if so, when? My guess is yes, and shortly after the GE date is announced.

    From what the head of Police Scotland said last summer it could be a while as the investigation has branched out into areas outside the original allegations.
    I would think that Police Scotland would like to kick the can down the road until after the election - at least.

    Imagine the following -

    1) They present damaging allegations/charges before the election.
    2) The SNP manage to be at least part of the next government of Scotland.
    3) The relations between Police Scotland and members of the government could be a tad frosty.

    I suspect that they will report after the enquiry on the ferries is completed, but before the enquiry on the trams is done.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Should be '*a* domestic group' Shirley?
    Yep I should have put a [sic] in it but ran out of edit time.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/03/dead-in-blasts-at-memorial-for-assassinated-iranian-commander
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    On Topic - Actually, what Dwight Eisenhower (allegedly) said was:

    "I would rather have a lucky general than a smart general.... They win battles, and they make me lucky."

    I say "allegedly" because while several so-called "quotation" websites list above quote, they do NOT provide any attribution, so methinks they are garbage.

    However, still makes more sense than "lucky politician" seeing has how Ike had very little respect or use for politicos, as opposed to generals.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132

    Does anyone think (as opposed to wish) that charges will eventually arise from this performance, and, if so, when? My guess is yes, and shortly after the GE date is announced.

    I think criminal charges against Sturgeon are unlikely.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,051

    On Topic - Actually, what Dwight Eisenhower (allegedly) said was:

    "I would rather have a lucky general than a smart general.... They win battles, and they make me lucky."

    I say "allegedly" because while several so-called "quotation" websites list above quote, they do NOT provide any attribution, so methinks they are garbage.

    However, still makes more sense than "lucky politician" seeing has how Ike had very little respect or use for politicos, as opposed to generals.

    David Brent: "Avoid employing unlucky people by throwing away 50% of the job applications without even reading them."
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,200
    edited January 3
    FPT

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Endillion said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

    Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

    Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
    Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

    They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
    You see youre obsessed.

    Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
    So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

    Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
    Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

    You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
    Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
    No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
    It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

    AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

    Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
    We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

    In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
    This is the entirety of the woke debate.
    I think this
    I am right
    Other people are wrong
    Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
    No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"

    You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
    The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.

    Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67869624

    BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
    The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.

    A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism
    detector.

    A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
    The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
    A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
    There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)

    You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)

    However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress

    All three women should have resigned next day
    AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
    No, that's complete bollocks. US universities generally have little interest in protecting free speech, and Harvard is among the worst in this respect. In particular, see here:

    https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings

    ...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.

    The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary:
    - disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead)
    - sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media
    - hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor

    If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
    John Gray made a good observation to the effect that freedom of thought at university is being replaced people seeking freedom from thought.

    This observation is probably true of both sides , the right and the left; but those on the left cannot be shocked when the right enact its own version of cancel culture. It is a product of universities being so weak on free speech and caving in to "woke" mobs as they have done for the last decade or so. The correction was inevitable and probably necessary but the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side.
    This is the usual narrative that the Left is at fault and the Right are just reacting, and possibly over-reacting, to that. Which is nonsense.

    There is a long debate about who should get to say what. We didn't live in some free speech utopia and then the Left came along and corrupted it. The Left and Right have both spent years going back and forth on what is a difficult matter. I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives introduced laws in the UK that meant Gerry Adams' voice had to be replaced by an actor's.
    It is a long debate and the howl of 'free speech' is usually a tactical one by the losing side. But instances of overreach by the left in academia over the past few years are well documented, for instance in 'the coddling of the American Mind' by Haidt and Lukiankoff. It was inevitable that the right would eventually popularise this and find a way of using it to their political advantage, even if the eventual outcome has little to do with free speech, it probably sets its cause backwards.

    Ultimately something like 'critical race theory' should be studied, not censored (as is the case in florida), but without the influence of grand politicised assumptions about 'social justice'. But if universities redefine their mission as seeking 'justice' rather than 'truth' then the situation can easily get confused.
    Saying the Right did "eventually popularise this and find a way of using it to their political advantage" is ahistorical. You write as if the Right hadn't ever entered the arena before. We can go back to 2001 and the first laws trying to curtail the teaching of evolution, including the ironically named Academic Freedom Acts in Alabama. Then jump back to 1911 and the four professors forced out of Brigham Young University for teaching on evolution. Or there's the firing of Edward Ross from Stanford in 1900. We can talk about McCarthyism and fears of communism being smuggled in through academic freedoms.
    The problem is that the right are now popularising this with success. It is not ahistorical, it is just what is going on. The sacking of this harvard dean is evidence of it. The 'takeover' of New College in Florida is another. It is a response to a chain of events that go back about a decade where the left 'ousted' professors who held views that did not follow the emerging 'woke' zeitgeist and universities went along with it. The protests about free speech and academic freedom were received with apathy and inaction so now unsurprisingly we get this. It doesn't really matter that the left were using familiar tactics to the right when you look back twenty or a hundred years, it is what is going on now. It may hopefully reinforce the value of genuine free speech and academic freedom and that the more effective universities will use it to defend such values from opponents left and right.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,637
    It would never happen to a Prime Minister... or his chief of staff.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,055

    FPT: The other day I saw someone carrying a poo bag, but they did not have a dog with them.

    So either they were collecting the poo from their garden to put in a bin down the street or they had collected the crap that an inconsiderate dog owner had left behind. The latter being an example of Lord Cameron's Big Society.

    Might just have run out of bog roll? Think I only have about 6 months left from my covid supplies.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,504
    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,051
    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Endillion said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

    Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

    Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
    Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

    They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
    You see youre obsessed.

    Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
    So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

    Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
    Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

    You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
    Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
    No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
    It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

    AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

    Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
    We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

    In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
    This is the entirety of the woke debate.
    I think this
    I am right
    Other people are wrong
    Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
    No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"

    You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
    The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.

    Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67869624

    BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
    The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.

    A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism
    detector.

    A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
    The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
    A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
    There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)

    You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)

    However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress

    All three women should have resigned next day
    AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
    No, that's complete bollocks. US universities generally have little interest in protecting free speech, and Harvard is among the worst in this respect. In particular, see here:

    https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings

    ...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.

    The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary:
    - disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead)
    - sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media
    - hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor

    If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
    John Gray made a good observation to the effect that freedom of thought at university is being replaced people seeking freedom from thought.

    This observation is probably true of both sides , the right and the left; but those on the left cannot be shocked when the right enact its own version of cancel culture. It is a product of universities being so weak on free speech and caving in to "woke" mobs as they have done for the last decade or so. The correction was inevitable and probably necessary but the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side.
    This is the usual narrative that the Left is at fault and the Right are just reacting, and possibly over-reacting, to that. Which is nonsense.

    There is a long debate about who should get to say what. We didn't live in some free speech utopia and then the Left came along and corrupted it. The Left and Right have both spent years going back and forth on what is a difficult matter. I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives introduced laws in the UK that meant Gerry Adams' voice had to be replaced by an actor's.
    It is a long debate and the howl of 'free speech' is usually a tactical one by the losing side. But instances of overreach by the left in academia over the past few years are well documented, for instance in 'the coddling of the American Mind' by Haidt and Lukiankoff. It was inevitable that the right would eventually popularise this and find a way of using it to their political advantage, even if the eventual outcome has little to do with free speech, it probably sets its cause backwards.

    Ultimately something like 'critical race theory' should be studied, not censored (as is the case in florida), but without the influence of grand politicised assumptions about 'social justice'. But if universities redefine their mission as seeking 'justice' rather than 'truth' then the situation can easily get confused.
    Saying the Right did "eventually popularise this and find a way of using it to their political advantage" is ahistorical. You write as if the Right hadn't ever entered the arena before. We can go back to 2001 and the first laws trying to curtail the teaching of evolution, including the ironically named Academic Freedom Acts in Alabama. Then jump back to 1911 and the four professors forced out of Brigham Young University for teaching on evolution. Or there's the firing of Edward Ross from Stanford in 1900. We can talk about McCarthyism and fears of communism being smuggled in through academic freedoms.
    The problem is that the right are now popularising this with success. It is not ahistorical, it is just what is going on. The sacking of this harvard dean is evidence of it. The 'takeover' of New College in Florida is another. It is a response to a chain of events that go back about a decade where the left 'ousted' professors who held views that did not follow the emerging 'woke' zeitgeist and universities went along with it. The protests about free speech and academic freedom were received with apathy and inaction so now unsurprisingly we get this. It doesn't really matter that the left were using familiar tactics to the right when you look back a twenty or a hundred years, it is what is going on now. My hope is that I think it will ultimately reinforce the value of genuine free speech and academic freedom and that the more effective universities will use it to defend such values from opponents left and right.
    I take your point that this is an area of concern. I don't believe, however, that it "is a response to a chain of events that go back about a decade where the left 'ousted' professors who held views that did not follow the emerging 'woke' zeitgeist and universities went along with it." I think the Right would be targeting academics even if that hadn't happened (and we can debate your characterisation of events)!
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,637
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    Well, Israel attacked Beirut yesterday, and are currently in a very tense position with Iran's allies in Lebanon, and have a history of attacks on Iran too (Stuxnet), so it is hardly a bizarre line of inquiry.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,413
    edited January 3
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    One could equally say that critiquing the Guardian's reporting, while omitting the context for their comment that it's Iran which posited Israel as responsible, is a fairly blatant piece of spin in itself.

    The meaning of "it's not immediately clear" is very different when read along with those paragraphs. It's not as though you yourself are unacquainted with mild irony.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,637
    Like, it probably wasn't Tuvalu.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,143
    EPG said:

    Like, it probably wasn't Tuvalu.

    Have you any proof of that?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    One could equally say that critiquing the Guardian's reporting, while omitting the context for their comment that it's Iran which posited Israel as responsible, is a fairly blatant piece of spin in itself.

    The meaning of "it's not immediately clear" is very different when read along with those paragraphs. It's not as though you yourself are unacquainted with mild irony.
    Yeah whatever. If you are determined to not get the point no amount of people posting about it will help you to enlightenment.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,411
    Most wickets in the first day of a test since 1902.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,845
    EPG said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    Well, Israel attacked Beirut yesterday, and are currently in a very tense position with Iran's allies in Lebanon, and have a history of attacks on Iran too (Stuxnet), so it is hardly a bizarre line of inquiry.
    Terrorist attacks on Shia targets are more often carried out by Sunni terrorists.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    Anthony Greene's [Australian] Election Blog - Northern Territory Redistribution Finalised (and a Chief Minister Resigns)

    The resignation . . . of NT Chief Minister Natasha Fyles is bad news for the NT Labor government. It already faces a difficult re-election campaign in August 2024, and starting election year with a third Chief Minister this term is bad news for NT Labor, and good news for the Country Liberal opposition.

    Thinking back through the last 50 years, I can think of three cases of government’s with three Premiers in a term. Queensland had three between 1986 and 1989, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Mike Ahern and Russell Cooper. NSW had three between 2007 and 2011, Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally. Both governments were thrashed at the next election. The NSW Coalition had three Premier between 1973 and 1976, Bob Askin, Tom Lewis and Eric Willis. It lost narrowly at the 1976 election. . . .

    The Northern Territory’s current situation concerns a Chief Minister retiring and another resigning over failure to disclose a pecuniary interest. . . .

    But it is a bad start to an election year for a government that after two terms in office was starting to look old and ragged. And losing a Chief Minister, whatever the gravity of the transgression, is a negative for Labor, and a huge boost for . . . the Country Liberal Party [opposition].

    https://antonygreen.com.au/

    SSI - Sound a wee bit familiar?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,413

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,972
    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,413
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    One could equally say that critiquing the Guardian's reporting, while omitting the context for their comment that it's Iran which posited Israel as responsible, is a fairly blatant piece of spin in itself.

    The meaning of "it's not immediately clear" is very different when read along with those paragraphs. It's not as though you yourself are unacquainted with mild irony.
    Yeah whatever. If you are determined to not get the point no amount of people posting about it will help you to enlightenment.
    I get the point - and it's a dishonest one.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,538
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    One could equally say that critiquing the Guardian's reporting, while omitting the context for their comment that it's Iran which posited Israel as responsible, is a fairly blatant piece of spin in itself.

    The meaning of "it's not immediately clear" is very different when read along with those paragraphs. It's not as though you yourself are unacquainted with mild irony.
    Yeah whatever. If you are determined to not get the point no amount of people posting about it will help you to enlightenment.
    Oh come on. Read the piece (by diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour). It says that there are a number of potential suspects. It notes that some Iranian officials are blaming Israel. It then says some analysts have pointed out this attack does not have the hallmarks of an attack with Israeli involvement. It then goes on to discuss other potential actors. Given current events there is bound to be the question of whether this attack is linked to the wider conflict between Israel and Iran and its proxies. The quick take of the article seems to be that this is unlikely.
    Take your permanent outrage machine elsewhere.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,025

    On Topic - Actually, what Dwight Eisenhower (allegedly) said was:

    "I would rather have a lucky general than a smart general.... They win battles, and they make me lucky."

    I say "allegedly" because while several so-called "quotation" websites list above quote, they do NOT provide any attribution, so methinks they are garbage.

    However, still makes more sense than "lucky politician" seeing has how Ike had very little respect or use for politicos, as opposed to generals.

    He was so indifferent about politics he hadn't given any thought to a running mate in 1952 so the GOP wiseacres said "how about this ambitious young guy called Nixon?" and Ike said "Why not?".
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,059
    edited January 3
    HYUFD said:

    Of course Yousaf is less electorally appealing in polls than Sturgeon or Salmond were which also helps the Unionist parties

    That's true, but you can't entirely pin that on their respective personal qualities. Yousaf is badly damaged by being Sturgeon's chosen successor in circumstances where her legal problems make that a millstone round his neck. He is also trying to unpick Sturgeon's misconceived and undeliverable approach on IndyRef2 in a way that is bound to make him enemies in the nationalist community without winning him very many unionist friends.

    Essentially, Sturgeon well and truly shat the bed before handing over to Yousaf and, however popular she was in her pomp, that makes it really difficult for her successor to do well.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,845
    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    If you don't, Amazon Sub-Prime.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,338
    Top reporting again:

    Borrowers' pain eased as lenders cut mortgage rates

    Some 1.6 million homeowners will see their current fixed-rate deal expire over the next 12 months, the vast majority of whom could see their monthly repayments rise quite sharply.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67873017
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    edited January 3
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132
    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,337
    Interesting article on election timing and the SNP

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-general-election-snp-scotland-kzfvnvs32

    TLDR; if Richi loses in May and the SNP get trounced, Yousless might face a leadership election. If Richi hangs on longer, Yousless might too
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,845
    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    They used to have a "Short", but ditched it because it was too small.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    edited January 3

    On Topic - Actually, what Dwight Eisenhower (allegedly) said was:

    "I would rather have a lucky general than a smart general.... They win battles, and they make me lucky."

    I say "allegedly" because while several so-called "quotation" websites list above quote, they do NOT provide any attribution, so methinks they are garbage.

    However, still makes more sense than "lucky politician" seeing has how Ike had very little respect or use for politicos, as opposed to generals.

    He was so indifferent about politics he hadn't given any thought to a running mate in 1952 so the GOP wiseacres said "how about this ambitious young guy called Nixon?" and Ike said "Why not?".
    Er, not really

    . . . Eisenhower indicated that if he won the nomination, Nixon would be his first choice for the vice presidency, because Eisenhower believed the party needed to promote leaders who were aggressive, capable, and young. Eisenhower later developed a list of seven potential candidates, with Nixon's name at the top.

    After Eisenhower was nominated, his key supporters met to discuss vice presidential possibilities.[9] Eisenhower informed the group's chairman, Herbert Brownell Jr. that he did not wish to appear to dictate to the convention by formally sponsoring a single candidate, so the group reviewed several, including Taft, Everett Dirksen, and Alfred E. Driscoll, all of whom they quickly rejected.[9] Dewey then raised Nixon's name; the group quickly concurred. Brownell checked with Eisenhower, who indicated his approval.

    Brownell then called Nixon to inform him that he was Eisenhower's choice. Nixon accepted, then departed for Eisenhower's hotel room to discuss the details of the campaign and Eisenhower's plans for his vice president if the ticket was successful in the general election.

    The delegates soon assembled to formalize the selection. Nixon asked Knowland to nominate him, and Knowland agreed.[12] After Taft supporter John W. Bricker declined Nixon's request to second the nomination, Driscoll agreed to do so. There were no other candidates, and Nixon was nominated by acclamation. . . .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

    SSI - Note that Nixon attended 1952 Republican National Convention as California delegate pledged to then CA Gov. (and future SCOTUS Chief Justice) Earl Warren. However, Warren apparently was convinced that Nixon was REALLY working to secure GOP nomination for Eisenhower.

    Addendum - And Ike was hardly "indifferent about politics" quite the contrary. He just had little respect for professional politicos.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459
    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,743

    Does anyone think (as opposed to wish) that charges will eventually arise from this performance, and, if so, when? My guess is yes, and shortly after the GE date is announced.

    From what the head of Police Scotland said last summer it could be a while as the investigation has branched out into areas outside the original allegations.
    I would think that Police Scotland would like to kick the can down the road until after the election - at least.

    Imagine the following -

    1) They present damaging allegations/charges before the election.
    2) The SNP manage to be at least part of the next government of Scotland.
    3) The relations between Police Scotland and members of the government could be a tad frosty.

    I suspect that they will report after the enquiry on the ferries is completed, but before the enquiry on the trams is done.
    I would have thought that Police Scotland would want it sorted well before the Scottish Parliament elections in 2026.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,743
    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    I suspect the Marketing Director of Starbucks has a very large (2”) penis.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,977
    Girl, 10, wins year's supply of crisps after campaigning to get Haggis flavour back on shelves
    https://news.sky.com/story/girl-10-wins-years-supply-of-crisps-after-campaigning-to-get-niche-flavour-back-on-shelves-13041322

    Good news from the spiritual home of the campervan.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,743
    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    Amazon Prime Minister.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    One could equally say that critiquing the Guardian's reporting, while omitting the context for their comment that it's Iran which posited Israel as responsible, is a fairly blatant piece of spin in itself.

    The meaning of "it's not immediately clear" is very different when read along with those paragraphs. It's not as though you yourself are unacquainted with mild irony.
    Yeah whatever. If you are determined to not get the point no amount of people posting about it will help you to enlightenment.
    Oh come on. Read the piece (by diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour). It says that there are a number of potential suspects. It notes that some Iranian officials are blaming Israel. It then says some analysts have pointed out this attack does not have the hallmarks of an attack with Israeli involvement. It then goes on to discuss other potential actors. Given current events there is bound to be the question of whether this attack is linked to the wider conflict between Israel and Iran and its proxies. The quick take of the article seems to be that this is unlikely.
    Take your permanent outrage machine elsewhere.
    Permanent outrage, eh? Not at all - just pointing out bad journalism and, lo and behold, none other than the Guardian itself agrees with me.

    If you re-read the piece right this minute then you will see that magically (sensibly to maintain their reputation more like) the "offending" line has been omitted.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/03/dead-in-blasts-at-memorial-for-assassinated-iranian-commander
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,266
    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    Everyone using Amazon Prime should resign in protest.
  • On Topic - Actually, what Dwight Eisenhower (allegedly) said was:

    "I would rather have a lucky general than a smart general.... They win battles, and they make me lucky."

    I say "allegedly" because while several so-called "quotation" websites list above quote, they do NOT provide any attribution, so methinks they are garbage.

    However, still makes more sense than "lucky politician" seeing has how Ike had very little respect or use for politicos, as opposed to generals.

    He was so indifferent about politics he hadn't given any thought to a running mate in 1952 so the GOP wiseacres said "how about this ambitious young guy called Nixon?" and Ike said "Why not?".
    Nixon was pretty well known in 1952 - he'd been a high profile Congressman and was by that time a relatively new Senator for (then) the second largest and fastest growing state in the union. I'm sure Eisenhower was well aware of who he was picking, and picking an up-and-coming Senator from a large swing state is hardly an odd gambit.

    I know Ike cultivated an outsider appeal - the General drafted to the Presidency somewhat against his will. It had the benefit of being half true... but it half wasn't. He was no fool politically.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137

    On Topic - Actually, what Dwight Eisenhower (allegedly) said was:

    "I would rather have a lucky general than a smart general.... They win battles, and they make me lucky."

    I say "allegedly" because while several so-called "quotation" websites list above quote, they do NOT provide any attribution, so methinks they are garbage.

    However, still makes more sense than "lucky politician" seeing has how Ike had very little respect or use for politicos, as opposed to generals.

    He was so indifferent about politics he hadn't given any thought to a running mate in 1952 so the GOP wiseacres said "how about this ambitious young guy called Nixon?" and Ike said "Why not?".
    Nixon was pretty well known in 1952 - he'd been a high profile Congressman and was by that time a relatively new Senator for (then) the second largest and fastest growing state in the union. I'm sure Eisenhower was well aware of who he was picking, and picking an up-and-coming Senator from a large swing state is hardly an odd gambit.

    I know Ike cultivated an outsider appeal - the General drafted to the Presidency somewhat against his will. It had the benefit of being half true... but it half wasn't. He was no fool politically.
    "He was no fool politically."

    A lesson that Bernard Montgomery learned the hard way.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,525
    edited January 3

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    I think there's often a little more to it than is suggested by this post.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-acknowledges-long-claimed-weapons-supply-to-syrian-rebels/

    Just because they're paranoid, it doesn't mean Israel isn't out to get them.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    I suspect the Marketing Director of Starbucks has a very large (2”) penis.
    You are thinking of Howard Schultz = the most hated man in Seattle.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,051
    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    To be pedantic, you might need to add "since 1948" to your first sentence.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,293
    EPG said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    Well, Israel attacked Beirut yesterday, and are currently in a very tense position with Iran's allies in Lebanon, and have a history of attacks on Iran too (Stuxnet), so it is hardly a bizarre line of inquiry.
    Perfectly possible for it to be ISIS, or internal opponents to the regime. e.g.:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Tehran_attacks
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Shah_Cheragh_attack
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005–06_Ahvaz_bombings

    and quite a few more.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    Everyone using Amazon Prime should resign in protest.
    I mean I have Amazon Prime and I am going to suck it up. No worse really than watching Mr Bates vs The Post Office and in between the most excruciatingly poignant, tragic story unfolding in the breaks there are the trilly, madcap Direct Line "funny" ads (not funny the 52nd time). Prime is all about delivery of its goods & services, not really/only the TV.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,248
    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    Everyone using Amazon Prime should resign in protest.
    I mean I have Amazon Prime and I am going to suck it up. No worse really than watching Mr Bates vs The Post Office and in between the most excruciatingly poignant, tragic story unfolding in the breaks there are the trilly, madcap Direct Line "funny" ads (not funny the 52nd time). Prime is all about delivery of its goods & services, not really/only the TV.
    It's been a while since I watched anything on ITV and I can only conclude from the adverts to which you refer that the advertisers must think their audience is stupid.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't."

    But they DO have "a good reason" - maximizing profits.

    Certainly good for Starbucks, if not for you, me and the deep blue sea.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,051
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    To be pedantic, you might need to add "since 1948" to your first sentence.
    I said "Israel", so "since 1948" is redundant.

    To be pedantic.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,139

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,139

    EPG said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    Rubbish. Accusations from Iranian officials about Israel (pope/catholic, bears/wood, etc) should not be influencing the supposed news reporting of an incident hours after it occurred.
    Well, Israel attacked Beirut yesterday, and are currently in a very tense position with Iran's allies in Lebanon, and have a history of attacks on Iran too (Stuxnet), so it is hardly a bizarre line of inquiry.
    Perfectly possible for it to be ISIS, or internal opponents to the regime. e.g.:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Tehran_attacks
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Shah_Cheragh_attack
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005–06_Ahvaz_bombings

    and quite a few more.
    It's also perfectly possible that it's an Iranian group that has receiving funding or other support from the West.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    They used to have a "Short", but ditched it because it was too small.
    Really? Unbelievable. For me they're trying to be smart alecs and taking people for a ride. Eg if they want to avoid any semblance of anything they offer being diminutive, what's wrong with 2 sizes, Regular and Large?

    But there is a life hack available which I can share. If you order a Flat White it short-circuits the entire problem because a Flat White doesn't come in different sizes. Of course this only works if (like me) you happen to like Flat White. Otherwise you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,525
    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,051
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    They used to have a "Short", but ditched it because it was too small.
    Really? Unbelievable. For me they're trying to be smart alecs and taking people for a ride. Eg if they want to avoid any semblance of anything they offer being diminutive, what's wrong with 2 sizes, Regular and Large?

    But there is a life hack available which I can share. If you order a Flat White it short-circuits the entire problem because a Flat White doesn't come in different sizes. Of course this only works if (like me) you happen to like Flat White. Otherwise you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    The guy who founded Starbucks wanted it to sound exotic and Italian, thus "grande", "venti" etc. rather than "regular", "large" etc.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,026
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    Everyone using Amazon Prime should resign in protest.
    It's why I've kept on buying DVDs.

    The number of times Prime just strips off films and shows I want to watch from their site, for no reason.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,026

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    I can't stand Starbucks.

    They impertinently ask for your name and then announce it several times loudly and publicly.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    Re: Starbucks, folks in Seattle are, as a rule, pretty snooty and standoffish when it comes to the Emerald City's most (in)famous* brand name.

    While there are good many SB locations in town and all around Puget Sound, personally do not know a single person who gets their morning/noon/night coffee fix fixxed there (where ever that is).

    There used to be a Starbucks on my street, but no more; however, we do have 7 "independent" coffee shops (at least) within mile & a half of my humble abode.

    NOTE on the other hand, that when out of town - or at the airport - the average Seattleite is VERY likely to turn to Starbucks for caffeination.

    Partly because they are there, and often the only semi-civilized option in the howling wastelands east of Snoqualmie Pass.

    BUT also because, while we scorn Starbucks from the comfort home, in the great beyond Starbucks IS a home comfort.

    BTW, for all you "Fraser" fans out there, the coffee shop were he & etc. imbibe, does NOT exist anywhere withing a hundred miles of Pike Place Market (alleged locale of reputed quasi-original Starbucks location).

    Specifically, in these parts, one does NOT walk into a coffee shop, sit down then have a waiter take your order, deliver it to your table, then come back to give you your check.

    In your dreams, maybe . . . but NOT in Seattle. Not in 1990s, and not today.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,098
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
    It works. Short filter for me, on the rare occasions there isn't a better place nearby...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Yes I thought I recalled that too. I think a typical SB wall menu lists it like this now (in ascending order):

    Tall
    Grande
    Venti
    Trenta

    God knows how big "Trenta" is. It must be like a bucket or something.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    Back when I was infesting your shores, was reasonably impressed (for hard-to-impress-coffee-wiseguy Seattlite) with Coffee Republic.

    Also with Pret for what that's worth (half a wooden farthing?)

    Best place to patronize a Starbucks, is somewhere where Starbuckian coffee kulture ain't ubiquitious.
    Such as Ulaan Bator or Parkersburg WV.

    Why? Because in such places, the baristas tend to be very serious and conscientious when it comes to making your order. And also tend NOT to shout out your name, esp. if you are sole customer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,413
    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    I don't know his you manage to read that into what I wrote, but frankly you can fuck right off with that insinuation of your own.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    edited January 3

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    They used to have a "Short", but ditched it because it was too small.
    Really? Unbelievable. For me they're trying to be smart alecs and taking people for a ride. Eg if they want to avoid any semblance of anything they offer being diminutive, what's wrong with 2 sizes, Regular and Large?

    But there is a life hack available which I can share. If you order a Flat White it short-circuits the entire problem because a Flat White doesn't come in different sizes. Of course this only works if (like me) you happen to like Flat White. Otherwise you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    The guy who founded Starbucks wanted it to sound exotic and Italian, thus "grande", "venti" etc. rather than "regular", "large" etc.
    "wanted it to sound exotic and Italian" - successful marketing raising what average American spent for cup of coffee from say 50-cents or less, to $4.99-plus.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459
    Nigelb said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    I don't know his you manage to read that into what I wrote, but frankly you can fuck right off with that insinuation of your own.
    Here you go, Nige. Graun reports before and after (I pointed it out as being crap journalism). They seemed to have ignored all the bollocks you wrote about it being no issue and perfectly understandable.


  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,055

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    I can't stand Starbucks.

    They impertinently ask for your name and then announce it several times loudly and publicly.
    Just give a random pseudonym instead. Something like Mike Hunt works well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,139
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
    Happy to do a video series :smile:
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,143

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    I can't stand Starbucks.

    They impertinently ask for your name and then announce it several times loudly and publicly.
    Just give a random pseudonym instead. Something like Mike Hunt works well.
    Peter Ian Staker, Shirley?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,845
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    They used to have two sized. Short and tall. They ditched short, and introduced sizes bigger than tall. So now we have a situation where tall is the smallest.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,972

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    I can't stand Starbucks.

    They impertinently ask for your name and then announce it several times loudly and publicly.
    Just give a random pseudonym instead. Something like Mike Hunt works well.
    Hugh Janus drinks there often, I hear.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,098
    edited January 3
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Yes I thought I recalled that too. I think a typical SB wall menu lists it like this now (in ascending order):

    Tall
    Grande
    Venti
    Trenta

    God knows how big "Trenta" is. It must be like a bucket or something.
    As Paul Rudd so memorably quoted, 'venti is twenty, large is large, in fact tall is large, and grande is Spanish for large. Venti is the only one that doesn't mean large; it's also the only that's Italian. Congratulations, you're stupid in three languages'.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132
    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
    It works. Short filter for me, on the rare occasions there isn't a better place nearby...
    Yes but you are a celeb, aren't you? People know when you're in town with your pince-nez and your chequebook. You're like a posh Albert Steptoe.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Nigelb said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    I don't know his you manage to read that into what I wrote, but frankly you can fuck right off with that insinuation of your own.
    OK, I'll make this as simple as I can then:

    - There is a well-known antisemitic trope that Jews are responsible for anything and everything that happens in a geopolitical context (usually bad stuff)
    - The Guardian, in implicitly blaming Israel for today's bombing, were keying into that trope, and "justifying" it by quoting people who are clearly themselves motivated by antisemitism (ie, Iranian officials)
    - You, for whatever reason, are defending their "right" to do so

    I assume your point in response is that you disagree with the second bullet, since the other two are unarguable. In which case we are back to Topping's comment that you're apparently determined not to get the point, and your (incorrect) retort that the point is dishonest.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,055
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
    Happy to do a video series :smile:
    Would it be a mini series?

    And on the coffee, is it definitely both a different size and cheaper? Or more expensive as bespoke perhaps?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    edited January 3

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    I can't stand Starbucks.

    They impertinently ask for your name and then announce it several times loudly and publicly.
    Just give a random pseudonym instead. Something like Mike Hunt works well.
    "I.P. Freely, Vente latte with extra foam! I.P. Freely, Vente!!"
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,132

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    They used to have two sized. Short and tall. They ditched short, and introduced sizes bigger than tall. So now we have a situation where tall is the smallest.
    Yes. We've got to the bottom of it. I'm a wiser man but no happier.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,139

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
    Happy to do a video series :smile:
    Would it be a mini series?

    And on the coffee, is it definitely both a different size and cheaper? Or more expensive as bespoke perhaps?
    Yes and yes.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,137
    edited January 3
    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    I don't know his you manage to read that into what I wrote, but frankly you can fuck right off with that insinuation of your own.
    OK, I'll make this as simple as I can then:

    - There is a well-known antisemitic trope that Jews are responsible for anything and everything that happens in a geopolitical context (usually bad stuff)
    - The Guardian, in implicitly blaming Israel for today's bombing, were keying into that trope, and "justifying" it by quoting people who are clearly themselves motivated by antisemitism (ie, Iranian officials)
    - You, for whatever reason, are defending their "right" to do so

    I assume your point in response is that you disagree with the second bullet, since the other two are unarguable. In which case we are back to Topping's comment that you're apparently determined not to get the point, and your (incorrect) retort that the point is dishonest.
    Concept that even slightest criticism of Israel is ipso facto antisemitism, is ipso facto bullshit.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,559
    There is a simple answer to adverts and trailers. Record everything. Time saved whizzing past the crap is significant.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,139
    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
    It works. Short filter for me, on the rare occasions there isn't a better place nearby...
    I too will avoid Starbucks.

    But there are times when it is the best - or only - option.

    Small Airports in the US, for example. There Starbucks is often the best chance of getting a coffee that isn't flavoured in some weird and deeply unpleasant way.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    I don't know his you manage to read that into what I wrote, but frankly you can fuck right off with that insinuation of your own.
    OK, I'll make this as simple as I can then:

    - There is a well-known antisemitic trope that Jews are responsible for anything and everything that happens in a geopolitical context (usually bad stuff)
    - The Guardian, in implicitly blaming Israel for today's bombing, were keying into that trope, and "justifying" it by quoting people who are clearly themselves motivated by antisemitism (ie, Iranian officials)
    - You, for whatever reason, are defending their "right" to do so

    I assume your point in response is that you disagree with the second bullet, since the other two are unarguable. In which case we are back to Topping's comment that you're apparently determined not to get the point, and your (incorrect) retort that the point is dishonest.
    Concept that even slightest criticism of Israel is ipso facto antisemitism, is ipso facto bullshit.
    The Guardian seems to have thought that it was inappropriate for whatever reason otherwise why on earth would they have edited their report to remove the "offending" line.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,139

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    I can't stand Starbucks.

    They impertinently ask for your name and then announce it several times loudly and publicly.
    That's why I always tell them my name is "Jesus".
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,631
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    So Amazon Prime video is now introducing adverts unless you agree to pay extra….

    If you pay extra, do you get Amazon Prime Prime?
    This reminds me of what Starbucks call their smallest size coffee. "Tall".

    I've always been infuriated by that. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge it. If for some reason I find myself in Starbucks (which sometimes despite best efforts I do) I will make a point to freight my coffee order with "your smallest size" please.
    Standard practice. At McDonalds when I worked there you always asked if customers wanted a large this, that, or the other. There was no small, just medium or large.
    Although there are small and medium options there (eg on the chips) even if the staff are trained to steer you away from them. And on the coffee they describe their smallest as "regular" which is not a complete lie. But this thing of Starbucks, calling their actual smallest available coffee "tall" is just gratuitous mendacity as far as I can see. If they have a good reason for it I'm all ears but I bet they haven't.
    "Tall" used to be the second smallest size and there was a "small", but when they added "venti", they didn't want too many size options and "small" got dropped.
    Starbucks still sells "short" drinks, they're just not listed on the menu. I always have a "short latte".
    Keen to roadtest this but I'm skeptical. Only celebs can usually order off menu.
    It works. Short filter for me, on the rare occasions there isn't a better place nearby...
    I too will avoid Starbucks.

    But there are times when it is the best - or only - option.

    Small Airports in the US, for example. There Starbucks is often the best chance of getting a coffee that isn't flavoured in some weird and deeply unpleasant way.
    The other thing with Starbucks is that if you have to, exploit them. Make lengthy use of their facility. You're paying silly money to support their exciting tax arrangements and twatty naming of product. So get best value by staying a long time.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting Guardian coverage of the explosions in Iran. I mean who could blame them for it but they include the line:

    "It was not immediately clear if the apparent attack was a result of an domestic group or a group directed by Israel."

    Now I am no crime scene investigator and equally I am aware of stuff going on in the middle east right now but I thought that was a bit previous for a news report.

    Only if you omit the following paragraphs.

    ...Iran only recently said it had eradicated a group backed by the Mossad, the Israeli state secret service.

    A representative of Kerman province accused agents of Israel of committing the offence, the first elected representative reported to make such an attribution. Separately, Kianush Jahanpur, the former spokesman of Iran’s health ministry, said on social media: “The answer to this crime should only be in Tel Aviv, Haifa.”

    Some analysts said it was unusual for Israel to undertake a generalised attack on civilians with no high-level military targets and so did not fit a previous pattern of behaviour in what Israel has done to date inside Iran. Israel rarely comments on international operations...
    It is variably standard in a number of middle eastern countries to claim that all opposition groups are funded/controlled by Mossad/CIA/MI6 (sometimes all three at once).

    One of the ways that Israel has been useful to the dictatorships, is in providing a bogeyman to justify the repression in the name of State Security.
    Absolutely - and it's fairly unlikely that Israel is responsible, or even involved, in this case.
    But it's far from impossible, as they do have history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

    I don't think there are any proven - or even reasonably likely - cases of Israel carrying out, or inciting, mass bombing attacks such as this one. All Israel's previous involvement wrt Iran has been in the form of cyber attacks, targeted assassinations or precision guided missiles aimed at military targets. That is very much a hallmark of Islamist terrorist groups.

    But it's okay, we get the message: you don't personally subscribe to the well-known antisemitic trope that everything is always the fault of the Jews, but have zero issues with a major UK news outlet insinuating as such. Well done you.
    I don't know his you manage to read that into what I wrote, but frankly you can fuck right off with that insinuation of your own.
    OK, I'll make this as simple as I can then:

    - There is a well-known antisemitic trope that Jews are responsible for anything and everything that happens in a geopolitical context (usually bad stuff)
    - The Guardian, in implicitly blaming Israel for today's bombing, were keying into that trope, and "justifying" it by quoting people who are clearly themselves motivated by antisemitism (ie, Iranian officials)
    - You, for whatever reason, are defending their "right" to do so

    I assume your point in response is that you disagree with the second bullet, since the other two are unarguable. In which case we are back to Topping's comment that you're apparently determined not to get the point, and your (incorrect) retort that the point is dishonest.
    Concept that even slightest criticism of Israel is ipso facto antisemitism, is ipso facto bullshit.
    A complete non-sequitur, since there is zero evidence linking Israel to this incident in the first place.

    Which is the point.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,459
    edited January 3

    I am very pleased to disclose that Starbucks has had to struggle on without my custom for some 8 years or so. Even way back in my teens when I was into those horrible iced things, Starbucks ones were all gritty and sugary, whereas Coffee Republic they were smooth and tasted of coffee.

    I can't stand Starbucks.

    They impertinently ask for your name and then announce it several times loudly and publicly.
    Just tell them that your name is Costa.
    I always say Tim. It is easy to say and hear, impossible to misspell (and hence time is not wasted in asking and answering) and takes the least time to write on the side of the cup.

    I don't actually mind Starbucks (decaf) coffee. Tall decaf americano leave room for milk is the way I roll.

    I also remember going to the Starbucks in Whistler Village in the mid-nineties and thinking it, and therefore I were impossibly glamorous and I felt like an extra in a Hollywood film.
This discussion has been closed.