You're not going to split hairs out of this one. Trying to say that these are not Evangelicals because no true Evangelical would do this is pretty much the "No True Scotsman " evasion. When people say, "Evangelicals", this is exactly the group to which they are referring.
The one or two "True Evangelicals" in the US can consider themselves exempt from this thread.
There's a bit of "No True Scotsman", going on here I think. You cannot deny what we all see every day, Evangelicals working every day to suppress LGBTQ and women's rights. That's what they do, that's what they are.
[Edit for typo]
Wordle 1,192 2/6
🟨⬛🟨⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
You should try a Halifax Donair.
I think that the idea is that more Dems use mail-in ballots than Reps. Hand in hand with tactics like restricting the number of polling stations in minority neighborhoods, it's just another component of putting their thumb on the scale.
Back in the 70's and 80's there were "Travesty Generators". You pushed some text into them and they developed linguistic rules based on probabilities determined by the text. Then you could have them generate brand new text randomly created by applying the linguistic rules developed from the source text.
Surprisingly, they would generate "brand new" words that weren't in the original text, but were real words. And the output matched stylistically to the input text. So you put in Shakespeare and you got out something that sounded like Shakespeare. You get the idea.
I built one and tried running some TS Eliot through it, because stuff is, IMHO, close to gibberish to begin with. The results were disappointing. Basically because it couldn't get any more gibberishy that the source.
I strongly suspect that the same would happen with Trump's gibberish. There used to be a bunch of Travesty Generators online, and you could probably try one out to see.
Don't say, "against their students", say, "against their customers". Which makes it sound even more ridiculous.
My question is how much "likely" translates to "voted". It seems easy to respond, "Yes", when asked on the phone, but requires a bit more enthusiasm to actually go stand in line and cast a vote.
Actually...yes. At least for the "war criminal". I think the point is that you can't hide your inner feelings from the feather. So if you genuinely, in the deepest depths of your heart, have no qualms about bombing civilians then you're fine.
I think this points out the fundamental relativistic nature of morality and how the feather copes with it. Everyone has some sort of moral compass, and the feather measures how true you were to it. And really, what more can you ask of anyone? Decide, for yourself, what is right and what is wrong and stick to it.
Putting aside the fact that a toddler probably lacks the intellectual or emotional development to have a truely personal morality, I cannot imagine that someone who "broods" all their life over kicking a kitten when they were three is anything other than the nicest most moral person you'll ever meet. I don't think that have any trouble with Anubis and Thoth.
Also, the final note on the bass is a mistake, but they left it in.
For some reason, the wife decided to pull out all of the amigurumi critters that she's made since she started doing this at the beginning of the year.
So, here you go, the group shot:
She said that the pattern was awful and that she had fudge all kinds of stuff to make it work. The hat needed to be completely redesigned.
The wife has started to make these amigurumi creatures. Here's her latest two.
She uses worsted weight wool (she tells me) which generally results in bigger creatures.
I wanted one of these back in 1980 when I was 16. I remember that they were $1,200, but they might as well have been $1,200,000 as far as I was concerned.
Many years later I had the $$$ to buy one, and this one is a beauty. Koa, with Bill Lawrence pickups.
Look at all the knobs and switches!!!
You might want to think about it a bit more before putting it to work. The comment with the streams example is far, far better.