|
|||||||
BS: Roe v. Wade |
Share Thread
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 22 - 04:14 PM If one lived here they would know the outrage. If one claims that clear concise English makes no sense to them, there are 2 possible explanations, prejudice or dementia. |
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Sep 22 - 04:28 AM Nine seems about right (but pushing the limit) for a committee to have a range of opinions but to be of approximately one mind; any more, and you start getting factions, even in the absence of political leanings. I can back that up with arguments based on Parkinson's research and Dunbar's Numbers if you like, but Herself's waxing sarcastic about helping with the house cleaning. |
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 22 - 06:23 AM "You can't understand American politics or other goings-on unless you live here." What tommy-rot. We get all the same news as you do. I even read the NYT! |
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 26 Sep 22 - 10:51 AM I can't understand English politics, and I *do* live [t]here. |
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Sep 22 - 11:11 AM Shifting the argument about US news to a new thread? Time to drop it. There's an interesting interview in the New York Times yesterday with Elizabeth Banks, who made the film Call Jane before Roe was overturned. That event thrusts this film into the spotlight (it's due to be released in late October).
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 22 - 11:41 AM 'Twas your friend who did it Maggie. Have a word... |