JonsJava @ JonsJava @lemmy.world

Posts

26

Comments

329

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I like the idea, but they are generally added in batches.

A president nominates a bunch of people, them they go through the betting and approval process.

Example: the 234 judges put in place by Trump.

The lion, the witch, etc.

• speed run impeaching Biden
• Do the same for Harris
• Trump can point to her impeachment

^ GOP plan, prolly

The distance will be open source day one. As to the other question: still in the planning phase

We are looking at a composite rating, of many sources.

Almost all my followers came from me responding to their posts. I them also explore hashtags to find content and people.

Not wrong. Actually, if they don't, that's the easy way to dismissal for Disney. "Can't be that bad if the chef and waitress weren't sued"

It's the one where they are in the future, and have aliens, and a bunch of greedy people. It has a hero in it, that makes a stand for what is right, killing a bunch of aliens.

Battlefield Earth, right?

(/s, please don't kill me, Corbin)

The estate should file the claim. They wronged her, not the husband. By having the estate file suit, that would negate anything the husband may have done.

Thanks! Isn't that a pay-per-month? If not, I'll give it a look!

I'm going to ban you for misinformation, gaslighting, and trolling.

Before I do, I wanted to explain why you're so completely wrong.

ADR Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 - the rules, state, in short,

2.1: Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s sample

When trying to understand if the rule was breeched:

It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.

2.2: Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

Clarifying subsection:

It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

...and that's it. There's more, but nothing else defines what constitutes doping.

If someone produces the chemical, they are not introducing it to their system willingly or knowingly, therefore not doping.

they can, but the title doesn't violate any rules.

The title is the original title that NYT published. They updated it after backlash (rightfully so). Please don't report this post again.

You're evil. I approve!

I didn't set restrictions on the type because that gives everybody the chance to respond how they like.

Wow. Great idea! You get to enjoy a great meal again, but without getting overfull

Reporting the bot will not get you what you want/expect. If you don't like it, you're welcome to block it.

This stops now. You're both assess here.

I think you have communities confused. Your rule 3 removal is politics, which neither Jeffw nor myself moderate.