Hey, you're supposed to post a warning when it's a daily mail link. Sorry, not reading it.
You can get the gist of it by reading the url when you mouseover. Otherwise it's just photographs and footage.
The last sentence is:
The exact location of the fight is not yet known.
So maybe they know the exact momentum of the combatants?
That is some shitty quality control by the Daily Mail.
The story (ha!) is about a fight in Texas. The page title says British tourists in Benidorm. There is one picture that is used twice (one version cropped) and the captions are Texas on one and Spain on the other. Another picture is captioned: Shocking footage shows the moment British tourists massive brawl breaks out between at a hotel in Spain's Costa Blanca. One man is sent tumbling into the pool after a savage punch (pictured)
The story (ha!) is about a fight in Texas down the street from Hawaii and Pokey's school.
I wouldn't worry. I'm sure they make a formidable tag team.
In the quiz about fighting kindergarteners assume Pokey is one of the kids. Now how many can you fight?
I assume the post is just an excuse for someone to link the song, which is great, so here you go.
Actually, that sounds like pretty good quality control by Mail Online standards. Also I think the website's main audience is American these days.
That really doesn't qualify as a "brawl."
11: To qualify as a proper brawl, someone has to break a chair over someone's head and the big ornate mirror behind the bar needs to be smashed.
Wrong, moron. A true brawl also needs somebody to smash a beer bottle and then use the jagged-edged half-bottle as a weapon.
13: Your brawl risks losing its PG rating people start shedding blood.
"if people start shedding blood".
"If you give the Daily Mail a story about people shedding blood..."
It's the Daily Mail.
re: 13
I have a small scar in my right eyebrow which is from that.*
* slight** artistic license, they hit me with the bottle, but they didn't actually break it first.
** quite a lot
No disrespect intended, but why are British tourists going to San Marcos, TX? Are they hoping for a flood or something like that?
They're probably just trying to figure out where it is.
Ahimsub, I have a friend who's working for the Daily Mail -- it's a steady job but she wants to be a paperback writer real journalist again. I don't usually inquire about this kind of thing, as I figure she already knows and regrets it.
San Marcos is the new Benidorm! (God help you.) Because Spanish.
Hopefully they can make Lubbock the new Ibiza.
Hopefully they can turn Lubbock into the new Ibiza.
It's like your Enter key is stranded in Lubbock
21: Maybe Buzzfeed could serve as a half-way point?
OT: I hadn't read Crooked Timber for a while, because it's full of despicable idiots at the best of times, but Jesus -- it seems to have a full run of folks who have gone for real left-Trump backers. What the fuck. Since I know some people who operate the thing occasionally read here, listen up: your site is a fucking cesspool of morons and you should shut it down. Delete your account.
The trick with Crooked Timber is not to read the comments.
But a blog where you can't read the comments is basically worthless. A blog post is the start of a conversation, not the end.
But a blog where you can't read the comments is basically worthless an old fashioned print magazine. But I don't see what the powers that be at CT can do if their comment section attracts undesirables who are not actually active trolls. They ban those all the time. Also people who are directly rude to them.
But a blog isn't like an old-fashioned print magazine. It's more colloquial, more off-the-cuff, more open-ended. Part of the appeal of a good blog is that you can see what the skeptics say in the comment section.
A blog is a technological platform that you do what you damn well please with. I read and have read several that don't enable comments at all, and more that do, but actually get a comment about once every six weeks, usually correcting a broken link.
What ogged and unf and Labs and everybody did here, and have managed to keep doing up to a point, is very remarkable and extremely entertaining, but it's by no means the only legitimate approach to blogging.
CT used to be pretty readable, even the comments. Every now and then, like RT, I dip into the comments. It's the perfect way to remind you that even if people are gobsmackingly wrong, trollish, supercilious, rude and illiterate that does not mean you should respond to them.
A stint in the CT comments is like a tetanus booster shot.
Right, it causes autism.
The thing about CT is that if you ask the CT-istas they will tell you how much effort they make to moderate it - the foul soup is actually what's left after they filter the biggest turds. This is why I don't comment there any more and don't often read it any more.
32: That's the exact kind of moral relativism that led to 9/11, and will lead to the election of Trump in the fall. Some things are not worth doing -- and a blog without a comment section is one of them.
35: another way of putting that is "the foul soup is actually what they regard as acceptable and welcome discussion". Because, if you're really going to that much effort to moderate, you're pretty much reading every comment anyway, and it doesn't take more effort to read a comment and then delete it than it does to read a comment and let it stand.
I was first linked here from CT and never go there anymore. It's just overeducated people complaining and trolling. Whereas Unfogged is overeducated people complaining and making cock jokes.
Some things are not worth doing -- and a blog without a comment section is one of them.
Since she doesn't have comments, I shall have to find some other way of relaying this to Digby.
37: I think maybe they make a distinction between "accept" and "welcome".
36: Are you really equating the Trump campaign to a blog without a comments section? It's much more like a comments section without a blog.
37: That's unfair to the CT bloggers, I think. You can't turn a horrible conversation full of annoying trolls into a good one by deleting all the bad comments, you need an underlying good conversation. Part of the problem is that the marginal comment -- not quite bad enough to delete -- is going to piss everyone off. All your plausibly worthwhile commenters are going to look at it and either think "If the moderators will leave that, there's no point to moderating at all" or "If that's the worst thing you're allowed to say around here, I'm next on the chopping block, I say worse things than that twice a week."
I'm not saying they've done a successful job of moderating their comments, but there isn't something easy and obvious that would have kept them from going bad.
I'll leave that open sewer of discourse to Ellickson.
There is only one thing worse than having comments on your blog and that is not having comments on your blog.
I mean, they should just shut the comments off. The front pagers can and do put out good, sometimes great, stuff and could talk to each other. But at this point the comments appear to be "basket of deplorables, pretend to be on the 'left' and have a Ph.D. edition" and the FPPers should just shut it off.
I have a conference call today. I'm going to try to work in the phrase "basket of deplorables," not in a political context. The more I hear it, the more I want the phrase to catch on.
AND WHY DO YOU THINK YOU'RE ADORABLE
RUNNING ROUND BEING AUDIBLE
COLLECTING YOUR BASKET OF DEPLORABLES
"I have looked at the long list of bidders for this contract, and I've divided them into a possible shortlist, for your approval, and a few with interesting ideas that we may want to consider discussing in presentations. That accounts for about 10% of the responses; the rest go in the BoD."
I love the phrase because I feel like it totally sounds like something I'd say myself (in addition to being 100% correct). #ImwithherbecauseIliketheworddeplorables.
"Regression diagnostics revealed several outliers that were placed in the basket of deplorables and excluded prior to conducting a sensitivity analysis."
It's not person-first language. Politically, it should be "basket of people with deplorability."
I used to participate in CT threads fairly frequently years ago, but rarely do anymore. I succumbed to temptation and commented in the U of C thread and regretted it. The odd thing about that thread was that, after about 100 comments, it was impossible to tell exactly who was arguing for what.
I think my washing machine has a cycle for "Deplorables".
56: No doubt a Victorian washing machine. The other cycles will be "Unmentionables", "Regrettables", "Unthinkables" and "Hats".
There was a point where I was the longest-running commenter at CT (though I never commented all that often). Since this is my only accomplishment in a lifetime of continual failure, I periodically think I should read the comments. And then to my eternal regret I do.
You know that physical exam Trump was having and going to publish? Not so much:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumpers-says-maybe-no-medical-records-after-all
Maybe the lab screen came up positive for ALL TEH COKEZ?
Entire subthread about what shit CT comments are and I missed it. What everyone else said. Belle Waring still has some good comments on her music threads. Bilbo has a few too. That's about it. And 55.last is so true.
Holbo not Bilbo. Autocorrect means to destroy me.
59: Even here, I don't know if drug tests are part of a routine (non-employment) physical. An alternative: STDs.
Easy choice. I'll take the drugs please.
Or, you know, it could be the year both presidential candidates dropped out. KAINE/MCMANUS 2016!
The options aren't mutually exclusive.
He caught it from a dodgy line of cocaine?
48 is correct. A lot of the actual posts are worth reading, and 60 is right that some categories of threads don't seem to attract as many trolls. I get the impression that Belle Waring is a ruthless comment-deleter, which may help in her case.
Agree with 48 as well. I stopped reading CT a year or two ago, but my perception was that it had gotten worse over the last three years before that. I discovered this place from there, though, so it's not all a loss (for me, anyway).
Someone draw me a picture of 56, please.
34: I was prepared to be outraged to hear that Jill Stein is an anti-vaxxer, but apparently she's not.
Are you sure? What does she mean by:
According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of.
Though she doesn't say it, I assume because she knows it's very wrong, she seems to be implying that the U.S. doesn't allow medical exemptions to vaccination. I can't think why she would do that if she weren't trying to appear anti-vax enough to get anti-vaxxer votes.
71: Yeah, that's a weird route to take, especially because the question being responded to was simply asking for her stance on vaccines and homeopathy.
I presume it's intended as dog whistle to the anti-vaxxers, like when more mainstream Republicans talk birther-curious ("I have no reason to believe he was not born in the US").
I thought she was something like a Harvard-trained physician and that's what makes it all the more infuriating that she throws hints to the anti-vaxxers that they're on the right track.
Jill Stein's anti-vaccination flirtation is the least of her bullshit. Bullshits.
I just told a perfect stranger that I'm voting for Clinton. I surprised myself by enthusiastically saying "I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, because she won't blow up the world!" complete with dramatic hand gesture.
Then I invited the poor overheated canvasser-lady in for a drink of water while I filled out the League of Conservation Voters postcard super-duper-promising that I will vote. I'm pretty sure this is the nicest campaign-related interaction I've had with a stranger in the entire nine zillion years of this election season.
With Trump as the alternative, I wouldn't turn my back on Clinton if she hedged just a bit on her not-blowing-up-the-world pledge.
Has Clinton pledged not to blow up the world? I don't remember a clear statement to that effect. What's she hiding?
||
Because I can, I give you the Polish Army Choir performing 'Loch Lomond'.
|>
I'm pretty sure Reagan explicitly refused to rule out destroying all of humanity because he didn't want his hands tied when he dealt with the Russians.
"My opponent has pledged to never actively seek the destruction of the human race. I've known too many humans to fall for that."
Trump admits to....being fat: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/donald-trump-health-dr-oz.html?src=recg
Dr. Robert Sears might lose his California medical license over allegedly bogus medical exemptions to vaccination. I figure he'll get something less than that if it is only one case.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sears-vaccine-20160909-snap-story.html
Could they also sanction Dr. William Sears as a package deal? He might deserve it more for those goddamn parenting books.
Why hasn't Dr Sears sent me a catalog recently?! IMPEACH!!
86: YES. I am in favor of relentless state persecution of all Dr. Searses.
This is some good reportage: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/sep/14/john-doe-files-scott-walker-corporate-cash-american-politics
81. And here is the Red Army Choir singing Sweet Home Alabama.
AFAICS Stein is a completely unprincipled opportunist who will say anything for the chance of half a dozen votes.
Not really. Lots of people running for office are like that.