palordrolap

"Sugar free" on things that are mostly sugar because the serving size given isn't great enough to overcome a rounding down to zero.

VLC.

But then I'm one of those strange people who doesn't listen to music much, so maybe I'm missing a trick.

I think the point is when it came to secular things pertaining to Christmas, the church would have said "No", and the state would have gone along with that, even if most people weren't religious.

The same happens everywhere, regardless of religion or how prominent it is. If you attempt to do something that the elders of a religion say are offensive to that religion, the state will discourage it, and so people don't bother in the first place.

In Britain, especially from the 1970s to 2000s, there was always a race to be the #1 charting song at Christmas, and songs with a Christmas theme often won out, even if they were otherwise secular pop songs. This means that over the years, we've ended up with probably a hundred of them ranging in quality from terrible to great.

America have followed suit. Or else, they might argue they started it with songs like "White Christmas" and "Silver Bells".

This is largely down to the more permissive secular and Protestant Christian societies where irreverence is tolerated if not encouraged.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches are less tolerant of those sorts of things, so people in countries with heavy influence from those churches - like yourself - won't have had anything like it.

The French word is more akin to the English C word, at least etymologically, which makes me wonder how high it ranks in terms of French profanities.

I think most English speakers know where the B word falls with respect to the C word (and say, something like the worst racial slur), but I have no idea where on that scale the French word falls.

Either way, I've definitely heard both English translations be called misogynistic, and I think that would qualify those words for "slur" status. I can't imagine the French word is thought of any differently.

Well, the Celts got distracted by the influx of Germanic tribes and as such had more immediate things to worry about and hate than the Romans, but I figure if the Franks, Saxons, Vikings, et. al. decided to stay home, the modern Britons would still grumble about the Romans occasionally.

I mean, the Germanic invasions started over a millennium ago and dislike of that's still on a low boil, so I figure two millennia isn't out of the question.

On the other hand, the Romans did go home. The Saxons, not so much.

I'm a hoarder who refuses to buy more stuff because I can't bear to part with the stuff I've got. So all of it, I guess?*

But if you want a simpler answer, there are a couple of old stuffed animals that I'd mourn as much as I would a living pet, so probably those. They're a lot lower maintenance than an actual pet though, which is a big plus.

* Actually I can think of a few things that I don't want, but they need to be disposed of properly (broken electrical; dead batteries) and I don't really have the means to do that.

Explain please. All the ones I see in the image are shaped like four adjoined letter L's which is the same way around that the Nazis used. Or are you referring to the fact that most of them aren't stood on a corner, diamond-wise?

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to bring the court case forward, and when he inevitably doesn't turn up (not that he would have if everything ran to the original timetable), make the finding in absentia, presumably "guilty" but at least worse than it would be if he'd bothered to turn up, and then...

Sanctions? Heck. What else do we have to hold him to account? An ever bigger tariffs war? Forcibly close US embassies and consulates? Seize US assets?

It'd be a fine line to prevent the Big (cutter of) Cheese from bugging out and declaring war.

People with a serious criminal record. Murderers and worse. Those who leave their victims alive but scarred mentally or physically.

Then those with less serious criminal records. Fraud. White collar crimes. That sort of thing.

Then other "undesirables" depending on who isn't liked by whoever's in charge.

And then the goalposts for what's desirable will start to move.

And the scope won't just be limited to social media. Websites will be categorised further. Some might remain open access to all people (except the ever increasing list of those to be protected and those who shouldn't have access) but others? No. Those sites themselves are undesirable.

Who's next to be blocked?

I mean, now that the infrastructure and policies are in place, it's only a matter of time.

4'33" by John Cage

Preferably with me as far from the stage as possible. In fact, I'm staying home. Enjoy.