Riobard

Yes, the ‘contract’ notion seems to be the common denominator for the contingency practice. Still, eyeroll, can’t not. I think it lacks relatability for me because it’s arbitrary, rigidly paint-by-numbers. Imma have a good time whatever comes up. Others may rain on their own parade. No dick in the suite is letting me down. On rare occasions, if I’m the sole man attached to an erect member it’s not a chore to adapt. You’ve lost your power if anxiously fretting about a few ounces of intracavernosal tissue swindling you. Such projection is a repetitive vibe here. I may be outnumbered. Last-ish point: I’ll never get the reason for detailed report blow-by-blows on this aspect of programas. It’s such a basic simple concept, albeit a partisan approach that has the flavour of entering brothel enemy territory. Why the pressing need to descriptively check off each and every box? It’s as if a visit report could be performatively lacking. Extreme transactional detail does not seem to have assuaged the general anxiety, for many here, of being backed into a corner over penile rights. I do get that omissions prompt harassment-grade inquiries about costs. Perhaps an obsessionality trickle-down reflective of a visible distressed minority. Unfortunate if the visit report template is unduly influenced by a lack of mind over matter.

Flaccidizing. This next part’s tailored for you because I’ve read your room and you’re intelligent: I note that some punters, predominantly cheap-ass gringos, will impose a paradoxical bind on you by stratifying remuneration according to genital function and bossily attempting to hold you to their playbook. That’s crap and a deficient organizational principle for MSM transactional sex. What comes next, the inevitable cliché consequence, is a parallel bind that you drop on the payee; you walk right into the biggest detractor of reliable tumescence known to sexology, a stop-loss dynamic. But if you really believe cash is physiologically arousogenic or want to reinforce that type of batshit crazy link, you do you, unabashedly.

Welp, you sure told him.

There’s a sloppy error of some significance in the probable cause document. Anyone pick it out yet? It may tax attention span but conceivably worth an entire emoji.

Welp, I tapped out of the workout early. A short trip, you say? Are you sure there’s no part of your exhaustive diary you left out? On the bright side, you’ll probably never be short an alibi if needed.

Just so the 3rd party blog readers know and can be appropriately warned: there are no genuine boundaries here in terms of keeping to a topic. The content may drift out, the agenda may move back from offside to town. If you hate interference there may be better places to visit.

Correct. Two rudes makes it the right time for pizza. And the trap door labelled Ignore.

You could lighten up on the heavy lifting. Tangents can be tiring.

I tried with Snivellese, tailored to your needs. The result is boilerplate and rude but that may make it relatable for you.

Dude. The opening sentence. I can’t even. So … one can be born immoral? No tabula rasa? Freud’s out, then? You also chose a photo that lacks neutrality, one that goes for a particular symbolic effect. Don’t try so hard to entertain with an attention-grab, and don’t be a juror non-juror in the same breath. His name is the only up-front draw necessary. The rest of the essay is pretty good. No major issues or notes.

Hard to not be a part of a universe that has inevitably and only wronged somebody in particular.

I am not familiar so much with USA procedures. A jury trial? Yes that would explain plea trends in this criminal law category. The choices and waiver options are varied, in fact convoluted, where I am. I have only ever given sexual abuse expert testimony before a judge, an adjudication tribunal for victim restitution/ compensation in generic terms, or worked clinically in legal diversion cases. I have not nearly seen it all. I wasn’t thinking that a convincing argument could be made about the distinction between real and simulated wrt to the central example depicted in the probable cause complaint narrative. Rather, reasonable doubt over the question of realistically tracking/vetting a ‘bottomless pit’ of combined legal and illegal material that arises from occupational factors, or over having viewed the example specifically. Sometimes I think that I myself should not follow or write in a platform that contains an array of thousands of images that I have not personally viewed in an assortative manner through the lens of acceptability but could contain cringeworthy examples. The Spanish-titled file is illustrated in the possession category and may have not been referenced prior to search/seizure in exchanges with the agent that utilized the account of the alleged offender naming him. That communication seemed geared to corroborating identity and there wouid likely have been a circumspect tone to it so as to avoid giving away the subsequent step. The sequential iterations of investigation, co-opting, “sting”, and arrest - wash rinse repeat - do portend something more arising from the two-month gap between raid and apprehension.

There seems to be a popular trend in which folks fuse notions of culpability and associated prospective conviction sentencing scope with the reality of porn content creator role. This understandably emanates from indignation and the idea that a deterrence example is more robust the greater the prominence, as well as the false belief that true diagnostic pedophilia is central to all charged. This case stands out due to “celebrity” within some 12,500 cases annually, many of which exceed possession by virtue of actual production and monetization, neither of which is included in the current charges. In actuality, I think that the erotica commodification role will be mined for potential exculpatory factors at the defense level, a rigorous attempt to uncouple the entities of legal porn and child pornography. This did not work supporting bail but house arrest is not governed by reasonable doubt. The media narrative suggests detention was ordered partly as a result of the prosecution sensationalizing open legal content … the temerity of simulated thematic erotica content in tandem with charges having occurred due to alleged behaviour that is legitimately censorable via severe punishment. Word to the wise: keep in line whether a subsequent formal adjudication were to be valid or fraught with bias. So far it appears that the charges will be refuted although the majority of offenders plead guilty. This may seem to be paradoxical. The exculpatory aspect is obviously not related to giving a hall pass to a pornographer, but the reality, for example, of a content creator’s greater likelihood of flooding of communication and material from hosts of followers of licit erotica that is simulated, suggestive, what have you, to satisfy unique arousal templates. Still, it is true that the upper range of sentencing is not impossible on either of the two charges.

Couldn’t we do our part by encouraging all young Thai men to divert their semen?

So much for the element of surprise.

Nice to have something to B Positive about on the topic.

I think it’s the Autism spectrum awareness jigsaw ribbon.

“Goodest” is real neck & neck with “bigly”. Eeesh.

It’s like a Battle of the Lears, inn’t? Some individual personal biophysiological and characterologic components unique, others in common. A close and elusive hard predictive call on the lesser of two possible tragedies. I hope that JB’s being pinned into a hero complex works for him and all. Would that the team goes over Cole’s Notes at the least. I think there are more sophisticated, paradoxically more gentle, ways to stimulate the opponent’s publicly perceivable decompensation. —— Say, “George, look, nobody should be old before they’re wise.” Even if abstract, the pundits will unpack it all the live long day.

My take is that the discussion, topic, what have you, is linear, multi-faceted, both-and. If it were circular there would be no conclusion; there will be one. The problem you identify (IMO irrefutable) is entrenched. Surely some of the noise you perceive to be extraneous around the signal requires attention. If the focus is to be removed from cognitive competence, a course correction in which sociopathy is allowed to speak for itself is in order. Biden is not intelligent enough and trained sufficiently to persuade anybody about his opponent’s shortcomings beyond views already held. He’s shitty at mudslinging, like most empaths, and it comes off poorly, indeed, whiny in tone. Exasperated is not presidential. He does not score the denigration points many posters here are able to rack up. A dumb-looking grin does not cut it. He should never have tried to speak if DJT was blathering over a cold mic a few feet away. The debate was not a discussion. A debate should be somewhat of a discussion not a verbal UFC octagon match, not overlapping speeches (DJT’s offputting strategy). Why couldn’t Biden have politely held his opponent to task and appeared to ‘go high’? Example: pause: “You may do better here if you actively listen. In my experience interaction goes well if talking over the other person is held in check. What say you, mods?” Drop some of the recitation of hard facts, struggling to cover off all kinds of complex data and figures. No presenter with common sense will attempt such without (eg) PowerPoint. KISS. Extensive info retrieval diminishes the desired countenance. Why was there no forecasting and strategy for dealing with anticipatory acting out? These skills can be taught to undergrad med students barely out of their teens, in short periods of time, even though more science-y book-smart and comparatively short-changed in relationship-centred care concepts required for inevitably difficult patients.

I’m not American and my exposure to Biden, Gupta, etc, is limited, my impressions cursory. But perhaps a one-week transverse outsider view counts for something as adjunct to extended info flooding. I watched Biden on ABC. I think he would score perfectly on Mini Mental State Exam testing, often the first step in screening. Its items can be altered to mitigate rote exposure bias. I think he’s a nice guy but naïve. Irrespective of cognitive function he’s not particularly smart and insightful. He knows stuff; that’s nice, an experienced and relatable politician. Higher office and advanced intelligence are not well correlated. Worse yet, his advisers are not smart and cannot read the room. I wish I had been able to coach him on what was obviously going to be a pivotal question on openness to evaluation. There would have been a better short and simple way to decline without the tone of oppositionality and pre-Fall pride, and/or reporting having been concretely screened at least at a rudimentary level with illustration beyond ‘well, my clinicians handle that’ [non-sic]. Goode Lawd A’mighty, doesn’t VP Biden (🤔😉) have an EdD? Gupta’s idea about baseline standardized cognitive paper+interview testing is not terrible. Annually is not appropriate for a lot of reasons. Follow-up at particular junctures over time could be useful. Normative score value references are as useful as within-subject longitudinal comparisons.

Gupta means well and I liked his personal account of evaluation, but slow your roll, Dr Ben Casey. To my way of thinking it would be imperative to establish a priori score and other results cut-off points for determining acceptable President role capacity if such testing is to be used in credential terms. Such an endeavour would be a monumental task hardly attainable over a short time. The battery of tests could have utilitarian merit, however, as the subject and inner circle would be provided with a breadth and depth of potentially more objective data to consider in his appraisal of his own fitness. As I suggested earlier, practice / rehearsal on many cognitive tests introduces recall bias influencing results favourably. In contrast, being an impromptu evaluative curve thrown at the Jessica Lange character in The Great Lillian Hall (Broadway production insurance the context) yielded a more damning result. Interestingly, standardized scores on the widely used assessment tool employed in the film reflect cognitive impairment for the majority of adults of any age with less than Grade 12 education. No age group scores within that variable match those of folks age 70-80 with post-secondary education. Age and education just examples of several demographic variables associated with score variance above and below normative cut-off values. Try to establish an arbitrary binary cut-off of fitness when several extenuating factors that highlight flaws within tried and true tests will inevitably enter the mix. (Parenthetically, speaks to voter legitimacy.) There is a huge array of factors to consider over a limited period of time in integrating formal assessment with the already existing demands for meta-synthesis of information over which there already exists discord about what credentials are arbitrarily essential and what salutary qualities and context merit consideration in spite of isolated deficiencies. Gupta is certainly on to something. It needs to be realistically planned, not on the crash-cart. He executed his own pursuit of testing for a special. Repurposing it precipitously in the way now proposed? Not so sure.