I think it’s totally fine I was just trying to find a suitably hetero response to that Facebook post haha.
1 Like
Do I call him out or shrug?
Shrug and keep it moving. Life’s too short.
3 Likes
I think there’s a correlation between gammon levels and meme jpeg compression
2 Likes
Nah. Start aggressively beefing with the prick. Michael Fabricant thing to post.
2 Likes
There’s your problem. My life has been infinitely better since I ignored and deleted that shite.
9 Likes
Got to love local Facebook. This petition is doing the rounds by someone atm to stop houses being built. The whole spiel is about the environment.
I think the true reason might be contained in these brackets of her latest post
1 Like
Everyone is so sympathetic when they are in a struggle but as soon as it’s sorted it’s quick to shut the gate behind them. People are Michael Fabricants, all of us!
1 Like
Tell her not to worry, the whole area will be underwater due to sea level rise within ten years 
1 Like
I was off there until i got added to a big electronic music group, the admin guy regularly bigs up my choons and brings a load of listeners/ buyers which are hard to come by. So yeah i sold out to Zuckerberg for a few good reviews
5 Likes
Fb marketplace is an absolute boon for the identity thief. Arrange a pickup and you’ve got nearly all someone’s details and photos, including birthday if that’s public. And if you do a “funny” what’s your pornstar name type thing, likely your first pets name ie password
2 Likes
Anything like that is info harvesting. That’s not even conspiracy shit, just obvious catching the stupid.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the ice bucket challenge was used for ai to recognise people in drastic expressions, much like the idea that the pandemic was used to help ai recognise faces from just the eyes.
Not saying I believe any of this but interesting ideas nonetheless. I don’t think I care enough for my privacy to think about it. Most of the time I think that the people at the top are just as stupid as the rest of us and there is no plan but certain situations must have benefits for them to take advantage of. There are some clever people around and lots of greedy Michael Fabricants so… Who knows.
2 Likes
Or, more constructively, post this in response @jimvo
6 Likes
Grammatical inconsistency. It would be less pie, or fewer rights. You can’t have fewer pie. I wonder if I can find who made that I feel some mansplaining coming on.
1 Like
But ‘fewer rights’ is correct. You can’t say ‘less rights’.
2 Likes
I see no issue.
Obviously it’s pedantry but the second sentence uses an implied subject ‘rights’. It is probably just about grammatically acceptable but it implies that there is fewer pie for you.
You ‘could’ actually use “less rights” if you take the word rights to mean a group of liberties in the sense of ‘freedom’ instead of a countable list of rights as in legal rights.
But then rights seems more like pie, which spoils the metaphor.
Easiest way to fix it would be to avoid an implied subject and to write ‘Equal rights for others doesn’t mean fewer rights for you. Equal rights are not pie.’
1 Like
The illustration of a pie is counter productive here i feel
But if the pie is separated into defined slices, which it is, then it works. It works better like this, with the graphic, than it would with clumsier - albeit arguably ‘correct’ - copy.
No, it helps. We’re all slices in a great big pie.
1 Like
