zalgotext

I don't think the claim is that Trump/Epstein did the murder themselves, but that the murder was done by someone to cover up their rape.

All of these answers are either nonsensical or based purely on non-standard personal experience.

I'm genuinely not irritated, just incredibly confused. Why haven't you listened to or left any voicemails in the years? Why do you think voicemails are unreasonable? Why don't you see that they're a perfectly reasonable way to communicate important things when someone doesn't answer their phone? What rock are you living under to where you disagree that spam/scam calls are more prevalent than ever? What makes you think that if you think spam/scam calls are more prevalent, that you shouldn't give your number to potential employers? Like how are those things related at all?

I just have more questions with every comment man. Confusion, genuine, heartfelt confusion. Not irritation.

Eh, Jim Beam is generally considered cheaper, kinda bottom-shelf stuff these days. Fine for a bourbon and coke, but not really intended to be sipped neat. I wouldn't really be surprised by a bourbon-lover turning their nose up at it, regardless of who owns the brand.

What do you think I think you're arguing? I've read your responses in our thread. It seems like your position is that one must always answer their phone, regardless of whether they recognize the number or not, if they have provided their number to a potential employer. To me that seems like a totally unreasonable position, because

1. There are several very valid reasons for not answering your phone outside of not recognizing the number

2. Not answering your phone for unrecognized numbers is best practice nowadays, since the amount of spam/scam calls people receive has never been higher

3. If a caller wants a response but can't reach a person with their initial call, leaving a message is the widely accepted next best course of action, as it clarifies to the recipient that even though the call came from an unrecognized number, it's a legitimate call and a response is expected

Again, I'm just baffled that you're arguing against any of this.

It's really really really easy to have this outlook, if you consider a house to be more a thing you live in, and less an investment opportunity.

Sure, and if those calls are important, if those callers expect a response, I expect them to leave a message. Giving my number to a potential employer doesn't mean I must answer every single call I receive on the off chance it's an employer that's received my resume, and it's frankly confusing that you seem to be arguing that.

You can't be possibly this dug in about this, so I have no choice but to believe that you are a troll. A bad one, at that

So, I shouldn't put my phone number on my resume?

And if it's like any other government education program, it will produce solely negative and crappy results and just be weaponized against students and teachers both

This is how I know you're just being grumpy to be grumpy. This is extreme hyperbole at best. No public education system is perfect, far from it, but to claim every government education system ever has only produced negative results is insane.

Yes, it's a bad, clickbait headline. That's why it's important to read the articles.

I think you're making some leaps here. Nothing in the article is suggesting that all boys are evil, or that they're going to be socially isolated. Granted, the article doesn't exactly give specifics about how it'll be enacted, but I feel like you're filling in the gaps with the worst stuff you can imagine, and then getting mad at that.

From my reading of the article, it seems like they're just adding topics like pornography, deep-fake/image abuse, consent, coercion, peer-pressure, online abuse, etc. to the curriculum, coupled with training for teachers to be able to recognize and address misogynistic behaviors. Again, I'll grant that the article is missing some important details like how they're going to teach those various topics, how they're going to empower teachers to identify problems, the checks and balances they'll use to prevent teachers abusing the system, what they're defining as misogyny, etc. But I feel like those details are a little too in-the-weeds for this type of overview article, and until we do know what those details are, I don't think filling those gaps by assuming the worst is productive.