Posts by MaitairoaOff
13 results on this page.
More options
Search results
Excessive abbreviations
For "big five" the worst is that very often, these people can't even name the famous five big ones... !! to me B.F. = stupid expression for dumb Americans
No doubt: calling them the very French "gros cinq" won’t make you sound "superior" either! 🤪
No doubt: calling them the very French "gros cinq" won’t make you sound "superior" either! 🤪
Excessive abbreviations
... I’m begging for mercy for the noobs 😕 !
Discussion for June 2025 theme: a series
A photo is 10% technique and 90% perspective.
Oh wow! Whether unintentionally or completely on purpose, you’re dangerously dusting off a debate that regularly and fiercely shook VF back in the "good old days" 😉! Some here must remember !
@Kate,
As part of our "side discussions," a technical question is totally fair game (especially since I’m the one hosting ). I was just curious about how you went about it.
But what if there was no technique involved at all—what if Kola, like she tried to explain, simply captured a unique composition by chance in a particular moment?
@kola
these 3 shots—taken on the fly with a basic smartphone—
…something like you’re walking, you stop because you think you saw something, you grab "the decisive moment" (copyright « Ottobani », look it up on the site), then you sprint to catch up with the person who didn’t slow down? …that’s pretty much it ?
Oh wow! Whether unintentionally or completely on purpose, you’re dangerously dusting off a debate that regularly and fiercely shook VF back in the "good old days" 😉! Some here must remember !
@Kate,
As part of our "side discussions," a technical question is totally fair game (especially since I’m the one hosting ). I was just curious about how you went about it.
But what if there was no technique involved at all—what if Kola, like she tried to explain, simply captured a unique composition by chance in a particular moment?
@kola
these 3 shots—taken on the fly with a basic smartphone—
…something like you’re walking, you stop because you think you saw something, you grab "the decisive moment" (copyright « Ottobani », look it up on the site), then you sprint to catch up with the person who didn’t slow down? …that’s pretty much it ?
Why do we always think that "ELSEWHERE" is better than our own country?
Mixed-race like me?
Do you also descend from Neanderthals like many people on Earth? It seems we partly descend from Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.
... but some people descend even more from one than the other :( !
Do you also descend from Neanderthals like many people on Earth? It seems we partly descend from Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.
... but some people descend even more from one than the other :( !
Why do we always think that "ELSEWHERE" is better than our own country?
It wouldn’t have what you call a "lesson" if there weren’t an overproduction of "angelic" material! !
Why always think that "ELSEWHERE" is better than your own country?
"... it's not really South America I would've turned to..."
Given your obvious (and barely contained) sympathies, South America would actually make a wonderful welcoming land—Italy too, which was its cradle, after all!
Given your obvious (and barely contained) sympathies, South America would actually make a wonderful welcoming land—Italy too, which was its cradle, after all!
So where are they and what are they doing?
The specialist is meant to study and understand, but has no legitimacy to impose on the public what they believe should be the societal consequences of their knowledge—even less so in the form of a "scientific committee" that prescribes to politicians and the executive.
I think you’ve got the "hierarchy" backwards here... and that, between the specialist and the politician, the one who "imposed" on the other isn’t necessarily the one you’re pointing at instead of showing us the moon...
...didn’t you realize that the so-called "scientific committee" only existed because the political/executive branch wanted a screen, an alibi, an excuse, a cover—a "straw man committee," if you will... to make the country accept the worst missteps we’ve endured? 😕
I think you’ve got the "hierarchy" backwards here... and that, between the specialist and the politician, the one who "imposed" on the other isn’t necessarily the one you’re pointing at instead of showing us the moon...
...didn’t you realize that the so-called "scientific committee" only existed because the political/executive branch wanted a screen, an alibi, an excuse, a cover—a "straw man committee," if you will... to make the country accept the worst missteps we’ve endured? 😕
But where are they and what are they doing?
Please don’t hold me responsible for what you don’t understand, misunderstand, or only interpret through the lens of your personal analysis.
I don’t see how trying to educate people could take anything away from them!
I don’t see how trying to educate people could take anything away from them!
But where are they and what are they doing?
Right back at you, sir, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying hello either!
So where are they and what are they doing?
... just because there are other stinky situations doesn’t take anything away from the one we’re talking about here! 😐
But where are they and what are they doing?
(I’m not mentioning embezzlement of funds but rather the immediate execution for possible disruption of public order and cessation of the offense by someone who is no longer a European MP)
... but who could very well become one again, whatever she says today!
The decision, which you claim to have read and understood, says nothing else:
"The existence of ongoing mandates, or even the intention to seek such mandates, is likely to perpetuate a risk of fraudulent use of public funds... and due to the disruption that would arise in this case from the fact that someone who has already been convicted at first instance—particularly to an additional penalty of ineligibility—could run for office, for example and notably in the presidential election, or even be elected."
So I don’t understand what you don’t understand...
... or perhaps I understand it all too well: your side and your sympathies have little regard for honesty, even intellectual honesty!
... but who could very well become one again, whatever she says today!
The decision, which you claim to have read and understood, says nothing else:
"The existence of ongoing mandates, or even the intention to seek such mandates, is likely to perpetuate a risk of fraudulent use of public funds... and due to the disruption that would arise in this case from the fact that someone who has already been convicted at first instance—particularly to an additional penalty of ineligibility—could run for office, for example and notably in the presidential election, or even be elected."
So I don’t understand what you don’t understand...
... or perhaps I understand it all too well: your side and your sympathies have little regard for honesty, even intellectual honesty!
But where are they and what are they doing?
“No one asked the people to decide whether Marine Le Pen could run for office.
In our country, which is certainly still far from perfect but is trying to get by as best it can, and in the name of a certain vision of "democracy," we already give the right to vote to the people—that is, to everyone... including that category of people who have no education/culture/political awareness or who still don’t understand the rules and principles by which justice is carried out!
... you wouldn’t seriously want, on top of that, to ask these people to write the law and dispense justice, would you?
"We only know that a court ruled Le Pen ineligible in its reasoning. The real question is: is that reasoning legitimate?"
In the Le Pen case, where the misuse of public funds has been proven (we know that too!), and even if it’s just hot air to you, court decisions only ever legitimately rely on the laws that define justice, which stipulate that, depending on the circumstances of the case, it’s up to the judges to decide whether or not to enforce the sanction immediately.
Whatever! 😎
What you’re doing, as is now both obvious and regrettable, is grossly and unfortunately confusing the concept of "justice" with that of "democracy."
Justice clearly isn’t made for you...
... hey, you should try economics—a fascinating field whose brilliant representative, John Maynard KEYNES, once said this truth: "You can’t make a donkey drink if it isn’t thirsty."
... it’s no coincidence: this specialty is made for you! 🙂
In our country, which is certainly still far from perfect but is trying to get by as best it can, and in the name of a certain vision of "democracy," we already give the right to vote to the people—that is, to everyone... including that category of people who have no education/culture/political awareness or who still don’t understand the rules and principles by which justice is carried out!
... you wouldn’t seriously want, on top of that, to ask these people to write the law and dispense justice, would you?
"We only know that a court ruled Le Pen ineligible in its reasoning. The real question is: is that reasoning legitimate?"
In the Le Pen case, where the misuse of public funds has been proven (we know that too!), and even if it’s just hot air to you, court decisions only ever legitimately rely on the laws that define justice, which stipulate that, depending on the circumstances of the case, it’s up to the judges to decide whether or not to enforce the sanction immediately.
Whatever! 😎
What you’re doing, as is now both obvious and regrettable, is grossly and unfortunately confusing the concept of "justice" with that of "democracy."
Justice clearly isn’t made for you...
... hey, you should try economics—a fascinating field whose brilliant representative, John Maynard KEYNES, once said this truth: "You can’t make a donkey drink if it isn’t thirsty."
... it’s no coincidence: this specialty is made for you! 🙂
François Boucher
Hello François,
You’re no longer here—the life you left behind has let you go.
The time has come for you, all too sadly and too soon, for a new journey toward unknown lands, to travel alone toward the great prairies—those of eternal and happy hunts—or perhaps those that guide the most dreamy cloud chasers toward the high-altitude valleys of a Himalayan Shangri-La, where you know just how happiness shines in the eyes of those who visit, where once the summit is reached, one continues to rise even higher...
Of course, we had our misunderstandings, of course, I left behind a few VF lives... but none of that matters now compared to the countless hours of suspended time I spent on this extraordinary and wonderful agora, which you will forever remain the brilliant, inspired creator of!
Thank you!
Goodbye, François...
