Zompist Bboard Again

US Colleges usually bring such cases to the attention of municipal courts, not their own authorities, because in some places (even whole states), nudity is a crime.

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:24 am US Colleges usually bring such cases to the attention of municipal courts, not their own authorities, because in some places (even whole states), nudity is a crime.

How prudish of you!

But on a more serious point, it's not so much a matter of whether the college could prosecute her, because if they so desired they could choose to, for instance, strip her of her fellowship. But they probably wouldn't do that, mainly because they probably don't care all that much. She mainly does this in conferences or, in this case, a radio broadcast. So long as she's not getting naked in one-to-one supervisions with students I wouldn't think they give much of a toss. It does also fit into a certain stereotype of Oxbridge academics - "Oh look, a Cambridge professor got naked because she's annoyed at Brexit, *chortle*". And compared to some of the stuff tht's running around Cambridge right now, like institutional racism, massive economic inequality both within the university and between the university and the town, ongoing failure by the university to act on climate change and of course, you know, Brexit, the college and university administrations have a lot more on their plate.

American universities don't have it so bad, just most of the same problems as Oxbridge plus people literally shooting at each other and high crime rates near some campuses (like Rutgers at Camden, brrrr). And I'm still only talking about the good unis.

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:24 am US Colleges usually bring such cases to the attention of municipal courts, not their own authorities, because in some places (even whole states), nudity is a crime.

How do people reproduce in those states? Or bathe?

In other news, Home Secretary Amber Rudd can no longer conceal from herself the fact that people are having to use food banks because of the way Universal Credit has been introduced.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:27 pm

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:24 am US Colleges usually bring such cases to the attention of municipal courts, not their own authorities, because in some places (even whole states), nudity is a crime.

How do people reproduce in those states? Or bathe?

In a bathing cap, duh.

anxi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:24 pm

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:27 pm

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:24 am US Colleges usually bring such cases to the attention of municipal courts, not their own authorities, because in some places (even whole states), nudity is a crime.

How do people reproduce in those states? Or bathe?

In a bathing cap, duh.

Heresy! Haven't you Europeans ever heard of bathing suits?

Vijay wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:32 pm

anxi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:24 pm

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:27 pm

How do people reproduce in those states? Or bathe?

In a bathing cap, duh.

Heresy! Haven't you Europeans ever heard of bathing suits?

Ah, of course. And I guess as long as both partners wear lingerie, sex is also fine... I guess socks would also work, but naked with socks isn't something mere mortals can or should pull off.

lol
I meant nudity outside the house. Apparently in at least one state you can't even be naked on your own property outside of the household.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm

Vijay wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:32 pm

anxi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:24 pm

In a bathing cap, duh.

Heresy! Haven't you Europeans ever heard of bathing suits?

Ah, of course. And I guess as long as both partners wear lingerie, sex is also fine... I guess socks would also work, but naked with socks isn't something mere mortals can or should pull off.

That judgement is, in the case of at least some mortals, very incorrect.

It is, however, I imagine, to return the topic to the topic, very much correct of Theresa May.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:09 pm It is, however, I imagine, to return the topic to the topic, very much correct of Theresa May.

Not even when running through a field of wheat?

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:35 pm

Vijay wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:32 pm

anxi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:24 pm

In a bathing cap, duh.

Heresy! Haven't you Europeans ever heard of bathing suits?

Ah, of course. And I guess as long as both partners wear lingerie, sex is also fine... I guess socks would also work, but naked with socks isn't something mere mortals can or should pull off.

"Naked"? Daaaafuq is dat shit, bro? "Lawn-zhur-ray"?? Oh, you're trying to say "laundry" in a Southern accent? Aw, y'all greenhorns really ain't got no clue, do ya? I'll try to say it slower...LAWN......DRAY!

This is how to have sex. Of course, Murkans are the only people in the world that matter, so nobody gives a fuck how y'all do it. WARNING! This is graphic stuff, kiddies! 18 and over only even though sex is legal at 17! Don't even think about clicking on that link without getting your permission slip signed by both parents. That means your mom and your dad, just to be clear. If you don't have two parents, and they're not of different genders, you're going to hell anyway so what do you care?
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/20 ... =540%2C304
MAGA!

Okay, sorry, I'm done. Anyway, so what was the latest political gaffe from over on y'all's side of the pond now? Something about Theresa May? Uh-huh, uh-huh.

An update n the Dr Bateman vs. JRM situation; she has appeared on Good Morning Britain, again naked, but this time with blur because morning TV, and has once again challenged JRM to a debate, but this time has dropped her demand for JRM to be nude like her, much to everyone's relief.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:11 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:09 pm It is, however, I imagine, to return the topic to the topic, very much correct of Theresa May.

Not even when running through a field of wheat?

Running through a field of wheat is a terrible time to wear socks but no shoes. In the morning, or the evening, or on a hill, or after rain, the socks will get all wet. And if it somehow is a field of totally dry wheat, then you definitely need hard footwear and ideally leg-protection of some kind, because dry tall grasses get spiky.

Frislander wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:10 am An update n the Dr Bateman vs. JRM situation; she has appeared on Good Morning Britain, again naked, but this time with blur because morning TV, and has once again challenged JRM to a debate, but this time has dropped her demand for JRM to be nude like her, much to everyone's relief.

Am I the only one with a totally morbid curiosity about what JRM looks like in the buff? I mean, obviously he must be sexually attractive to at least his wife, on account of them having done the deed at least six times (although this could just be Stockholm syndrome?). Mentally, and I hate myself for even having contemplated this, I picture him as being pale, skinny and with the kind of concave chest that would have had him bullied at Eton for being a wimp. And probably circumcised, on account of being posh.

dewrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:28 pm Am I the only one with a totally morbid curiosity about what JRM looks like in the buff? I mean, obviously he must be sexually attractive to at least his wife, on account of them having done the deed at least six times (although this could just be Stockholm syndrome?). Mentally, and I hate myself for even having contemplated this, I picture him as being pale, skinny and with the kind of concave chest that would have had him bullied at Eton for being a wimp. And probably circumcised, on account of being posh.

I imagine Gollum with more hair on his head and glasses, personally... the complexion isn't far off at least. Of course, LOTR never enlightened us on what Gollum's genitals are like, so JRM could fill an important hole in Middle Earth lore.

dewrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:28 pm

Frislander wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:10 am An update n the Dr Bateman vs. JRM situation; she has appeared on Good Morning Britain, again naked, but this time with blur because morning TV, and has once again challenged JRM to a debate, but this time has dropped her demand for JRM to be nude like her, much to everyone's relief.

Am I the only one with a totally morbid curiosity about what JRM looks like in the buff? I mean, obviously he must be sexually attractive to at least his wife, on account of them having done the deed at least six times (although this could just be Stockholm syndrome?). Mentally, and I hate myself for even having contemplated this, I picture him as being pale, skinny and with the kind of concave chest that would have had him bullied at Eton for being a wimp. And probably circumcised, on account of being posh.

I had a friend in college who looks almost like the twin brother of JRM, and successfully dated. I am inclined to suspect JRM is attractive enough on this basis. My impression is that my friend and JRM have very similar political views and hobbies although my friend has significantly less money last I knew. When we were in college, I pointed out that he looked a lot like Urho Kekkonen but he looks even more like Rees Mogg.

dewrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:28 pmAnd probably circumcised, on account of being posh.

TIL

dewrad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:28 pm And probably circumcised, on account of being posh.

Now that's the kind of remark that'll get you thrown out of the Labour Party!

Anyway, a couple of points...


- as mentioned before, the PM has delayed the vote from this week until the end of the month
- Grieve has warned that this is getting close to the last possible date. Under UK law, any proposed international treaties must be considered for at least 21 days before ratification, so if the PM is still 'negotiating' into March, it may not be possible to ratify the agreement before B-Day
- the PM, however, has said that the government will instead just pass a new law that allows instant ratification. This will enable her to keep negotiating until March 27th, so that Parliament can ratify the agreement on the 28th before we leave on the 29th.
- the Cooper-Bowles group, however, are suspicious of this, and have threatened that if the vote doesn't happen before the end of this month, they'll reintroduce their measures to force debate on their own agreement, and sod whatever the goverment has negotiated
- the PM's top civil servant for EU matters, Olly Robbins, has retorted that MPs will have an unambiguous choice between the agreement and no deal, and that the only way they can stop no deal is by agreeing to the PM's terms
- unrelatedly, the PM's top civil servant for EU matters, Olly Robbins, has been overheard in a bar explaining that the government is bluffing, and that instead, if MPs don't accept the PM's deal, the goverment will just delay Brexit for a long, long time
- this has been reported as 'blackmail', as it deprives us of the favoured 'no deal' option. It's assumed that the government is indeed lying about being willing to accept no deal. However, it's also possible that this 'leak' was intentional, and that the government is instead lying about being willing to accept a delay to Brexit...