NiHaDuncan

Not to mention the fact that you can force single-factor authentication using Skype for business despite requiring MFA across the board. Just had to patch that hole recently.

So your comments aren’t actually sarcastic? Got it.

Oh yeah, well his comment was also sarcastic, dumbass. Maybe get out a dictionary flip the pages until your well past the S section, then start back tracking until somehow you’re all the way back to the Fs, then find your way finally to the S section again and lookup the basic bitch word that is spelled ‘sarcasm’.

This comment and all others in this thread are also sarcasm btw. /ns

Having lived in a few many venomous-spider rich areas, I bang my shoes together while holding them upside down to prevent this. Only had a spider come tumbling out once but that reassures me that it does the trick.

To be pedantic: It’s not necessarily an equal amount of mass, it just has to accelerate (this includes deceleration which is acceleration opposing a component of a vector of travel) any amount of mass along and opposite to the vector of the plane’s acceleration due to gravity so long as the amount of mass (and the averaged amount of that mass’ acceleration in the aforementioned direction i.e. force) is in ratio with the planes mass and it’s acceleration due to gravity.

There’s a lot of other pedantic caveats but they’d make this comment far too long. The main thing I want to convey is that mass doesn’t necessarily matter but rather force (m*v) and also that the “suction” and thereby acceleration that a plane’s airfoil experiences is also it causing an acceleration on the air around it by decelerating it along the path that it wants to flow. It all depends on frame of reference.

I suck at explaining things, this video might do a better job at getting the idea across.

That’s moving the goal posts and completely irrelevant; of course it’s case-by-case when it comes to what constitutes a ‘uniform’, or else no clothes would be considered non-deductible as anything could be a part of a uniform.

Also, the assumption that SA victim = female. The article only ever says minor and any gender can be a victim.

Not everything has an answer and not everything needs to be answered. Given that you think subjective opinion is either objectively right or wrong, it’s incredibly obvious that the idea that someone would give opinion for consideration rather than argument is lost on you.

Your idea that mental disorders, and one’s opinion of it, constitutes a personality might have something to do with it.

Luckily nothing was asked, no answer was sought.

So the bar for you is generally knowing a non-zero amount of things about mental disorders but for others in this thread it’s having to know the person from the article?

Setting yourself up for an easy win by default there, smart. What’s not smart is apparently assuming you’re the only one in this thread that is even faintly familiar with mental disorders and therefore others must bow to your subjective opinion.

You don’t have to know any particular person to know that having a mental disorder doesn’t magically un-asshole them or shield them from all criticism; origin from disorder is an explanation, not an excuse. I know I’d never expect, or frankly want, anyone to suffer my presence if one of my many oddities caused them some kind of significant distress.

She’s probably just a braggadocious blaggard.

If the application of an idea is both in-line with its definition and shown to be inconsistent in foundation or correctness then the idea is either wrong, not sufficiently defined, or both. In lieu of a redefinition, it can be presumed wrong.

These are the natural shocks that test hypothesis and theory.