Except that the ones harvesting cocoa beans in central Afrique have mostly no idea of what we Westerners do with it (add sugar to the max) before producing (hot) chocolate ...wouldn't want to taste it without.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Oct 22, 2024 - 7:03am
Beaker wrote:
It is the season for hot cocoa. No marshmallows are in stock though. My sympathies to you as you head to warmer climes where such a beverage is likely not known.
You having a rough morning? It's okay to have another hot cocoa, you can even put extra marshmallows in it if it will help you.
It is the season for hot cocoa. No marshmallows are in stock though. My sympathies to you as you head to warmer climes where such a beverage is likely not known.
May be this isn't the proper place for what I believe. Which, if true, isn't a judgement. I'll just quietly leave.
A thoughtful voice is always welcome here, from what I've seen over the past decades. You'll meet people who disagree with you, usually respectfully. There are a few trolls and you'll learn to skim past whatever they say quickly enough. They just need their ego feed, like they impacted someone's life, but that's not on my to-do list.
And, the only way to have a nice place is for the nice people to be more prominent than the goofballs. So don't leave - unless you want to. Some of us do that periodically and then sneak back in later, when it's time. Whatever floats your boat.
Nothing in your post the other day where you made easily provable false claims about Musk could be described as "arguing in good faith" or "principle of charity". You were dead wrong, on all accounts, and that was quickly proven to you - and anyone reading along. If you were in fact "arguing in good faith", your proper response should have been to retract your comments promptly and acknowledge your error. Instead, you claim to already know your opponent, and then accuse me of 'arguing in bad faith' - and laughably try to issue your own customized version of a TOS applicable to anyone engaging with you on this site.
Charitable version: What colour is the sky in your world?
Non-charitable version: Are you fucking delusional, or just stupid? Could be both.
To my recollection, this was our first joust. If you wish that we "respect each other in our disagreement", you'll need to be offering respect by default, and be willing to behave with some degree of reasonableness - especially so when you are shown to be grossly in error of your understanding of available facts.
And if you're unable or unwilling to behave reasonably, you best have a very thick skin, as you're likely to be mocked and derided at every opportunity. Leave or stay, that's up to you.
YMMV HAND OFFS
*Terms & Conditions apply. Offer not available in Quebec
"Sounds like this is gonna be your fate," the goat said laughingly to her butcher, "I will be human next time."
May be this isn't the proper place for what I believe. Which, if true, isn't a judgement. I'll just quietly leave.
You and I have had a few disagreements, I believe. I'm not sure how those disagreements were received on your end. But, I was disagreeing with you from a place of kindness.
i did my best to assume you were arguing in good faith. And, I did my best to disagree with you in a way that didn't insult your dignity as a human.
May be it's dumb of me to believe that we can continue such a dialogue where we respect each other in our disagreement. May be I'm really naive for trying.
I'm happy to engage with people on this site who are also interested in the principle of charity. I'm happy to even disagree about what the principle of charity is.
To tie all is this back to the relevant topic of this forum, I'm sure that many politicians in the US can be accused of not following such a principle, but easily Trump has never been anything close to such a concept.
This principle is of recent invention, but I know all the Founding Fathers of this country read Plato. And, thus they all understood that the American Experiment can only succeed if we find a way to reason with each other about our deepest disagreements.
Nothing in your post the other day where you made easily provable false claims about Musk could be described as "arguing in good faith" or "principle of charity". You were dead wrong, on all accounts, and that was quickly proven to you - and anyone reading along. If you were in fact "arguing in good faith", your proper response should have been to retract your comments promptly and acknowledge your error. Instead, you claim to already know your opponent, and then accuse me of 'arguing in bad faith' - and laughably try to issue your own customized version of a TOS applicable to me (but really anyone) engaging with you on this site.
Charitable version: What colour is the sky in your world?
Non-charitable version: Are you fucking delusional, or just stupid? Could be both.
To my recollection, this was our first joust. If you wish that we "respect each other in our disagreement", you'll need to be offering respect by default (which by your own admission, you did NOT), and be willing to behave with some degree of reasonableness - especially so when you are shown to be grossly in error in your understanding of available facts.
And if you're unable or unwilling to behave reasonably, you best have a very thick skin, as you're likely to be mocked and derided at every opportunity. Leave or stay, that's up to you.
YMMV HAND OFFS
*Terms & Conditions apply. Offer not available in Quebec
This is where you have to wonder if the Democrats just don't want to win...
In the article, you have a statement from the family that Palmer hated Trump:
Arnold Palmerâs daughter told The Sporting News
in 2018 that the golf legend was so incensed by what he saw as Trumpâs
lack of civility that he made noises of disgust when Trump appeared on
the television âlike he couldnât believe the arrogance and crudeness of
this man who was the nominee of the political party that he believed
in.â She added, âMy dad had no patience for people who demean other
people in public. He was appalled by Trumpâs lack of civility and what
he began to see as Trumpâs lack of character.â
The dems should make a commercial with 10 seconds of Trumps speech, and then 20 seconds of his daughter saying "my father hated what Donald Trump stands for". In Western PA, Palmer remains a God-like figure. Stop letting Trump associate with him, and tell anyone who will listen that this isn't what Arnie would want....vote Harris.
May be this isn't the proper place for what I believe. Which, if true, isn't a judgement. I'll just quietly leave.
You and I have had a few disagreements, I believe. I'm not sure how those disagreements were received on your end. But, I was disagreeing with you from a place of kindness.
i did my best to assume you were arguing in good faith. And, I did my best to disagree with you in a way that didn't insult your dignity as a human.
May be it's dumb of me to believe that we can continue such a dialogue where we respect each other in our disagreement. May be I'm really naive for trying.
I'm happy to engage with people on this site who are also interested in the principle of charity. I'm happy to even disagree about what the principle of charity is.
To tie all is this back to the relevant topic of this forum, I'm sure that many politicians in the US can be accused of not following such a principle, but easily Trump has never been anything close to such a concept.
This principle is of recent invention, but I know all the Founding Fathers of this country read Plato. And, thus they all understood that the American Experiment can only succeed if we find a way to reason with each other about our deepest disagreements.
