I wonder how hard it would be to determine the reliability of using extraneous punctuation as a signal of unhinged prose.

Can you address his point?

I've never understood the drive toward some notion of commercial-free purity the gaming world seems to embody. Is it due to the heavy teenage boy presence that underlies so many other unsavory aspects?

The endpoints in question are not typically used by humans driving a browser, so these objections don't seem applicable.

This is such a crappy suggestion: That we are all just acting in our own self-interest. I'm privileged enough that this is not the case, and I despise the implication. It's like voting for Trump just because of the huge tax cut I will get. Not everyone thinks this way.

Death of the open web. It isn't google per se, it's that there is no knowledge/interest of the things outside of the Facebook garden.

Google sends you to other websites, Facebook tends to keep you within their walled garden/echo chamber.

Now, I am not saying google is the perfect answer, but I consider it a hell of a lot better than facebook.

This. I don't know if the parent was asking a serious question or trolling, but my response is an "anti-Facebook" one, not a "pro-Google" one. Facebook has demonstrated that it is willing to exert much more editorial control, and is much more interested in "controlling your experience". Google seems focused on attempting to provide you with the most quality content that addresses your query.

Maybe that's what it is. "Quality content" and "Facebook" in the same sentence sounds absurd.

I guess it depends on how you see things. I see Google wanting to exert their own power and control on you as well. See all of their own property integrations into search results, quoting the first result as an "answer" whether it be right or wrong, snippets in news, Amp, Yelp and other suing Google for preferring its own placements, Google recommending you install a modern browser called Chrome when you're using Firefox (not sure if they do this anymore. I'd assume not).

Google also linking to the web after ads or their own stuff is a benefit over FB of course. But I don't see that being Google's focus.

Yet Google keeps adding things to their results pages to keep you either on Google or within Google properties. See for example Yelp and others suing.

Your argument would be a lot more plausible had Trump not done absolutely everything in his power to look guilty as hell on a daily basis. This whole thing could've been shut down months ago with the barest modicum of transparency, integrity, leadership, and honesty from the administration.

Trump could have cleared this up in an instant if he had made even a token effort to behave like a responsible, competent, sane adult professional who cares about his his country and the people who live in it. Instead he has escalated this situation at every opportunity, culminating in this moment, which so far is the low-water mark for how low Trump is willing to sink.

None of what I wrote above has anything to do with whether or not Trump is guilty of treason- if he were 100% innocent and the victim of a political witch hunt, every scrap of the criticism above would still apply to him. However, if Trump is as guilty as he appears to be, this whole situation is infinitely worse- not just for Trump himself but for all Americans. I have often disagreed with aspects of my country's governance (under leadership of both parties), but the last 6 months and this moment in particular is a level of shame, embarrassment, and disgust that I have never felt in my 45 years as an American citizen. I love America and the principles upon which it (at least in theory) was founded, and this is just a fucking disgrace.

It was never getting shut down. This story is never going away. Regardless of the veracity - and I'm not taking sides - the alternative to the Russia narrative isn't up for discussion. HRC, etc. will never answer for having lost an election they had won.

That would apply if we were talking about a general in a war and his philosophy for dealing with his enemies. It might also be applicable to a metaphorical general in a metaphorical war, like when people use this quote when discussing competition in business. However if a public servant is thinking in these terms about his interactions with his own constituents and his colleagues after taking office, something is seriously wrong with that person. Running for office is a completely different activity than executing the responsibilities of that office after winning it.

When we're talking about not just a public servant, but arguably the public servant with more responsibility on his shoulders than any other human being in America if not the planet, the same principles apply a million times over.

They are not remotely similar; Benghazi was investigated multiple times by republicans and each they time found nothing. It was a fake scandal. Dems are merely trying to have an investigation of something that actually happened; we all saw Wikileaks interfere with the election in a partisan manner only releasing things to damage Clinton. It warrants an investigation, it's not fake, it's not being investigated repeated times, they are not comparable situations.

Whether or not they're above it, there isn't any evidence that they've done it.

The problem is the response from the man himself. This could all have been resolved with the release of his financials and being open regarding his business dealings when he made the decision to step into the role of public servant.

This is a complete guess but I think by the nature of the man and his history of bankruptcy and lying, that making those documents public would start even more controversies, even if they would put the Russia ties to rest (if that were truly the case). I'm guessing that he has been advised by the people who know this to not disclose them at any cost.

No-one has published _direct_ evidence of collusion, but there's plenty of _circumstantial_ evidence.

I would like to think that if there were solid, credible, _direct_ evidence of collusion then even the House "Freedom Caucus" would be voting for impeachment.

But you're incorrect, and the word "instead" in your original post is what makes you incorrect. We did get "Shakespeare to the masses" for whatever that's worth in general. It's not like his work is some objective benchmark of qualitative excellence - people just assert it is because they learn it from adoring fans during formal education.

I missed this at the top of the Wiki article:

"The Guinness Book of Records lists 410 feature-length film and TV versions of William Shakespeare's plays as having been produced, making Shakespeare the most filmed author ever in any language."

We didn't just get it - it's the definitive thing we got!