Irene
My feedback
10 results found
-
2nd ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Today, there was an article titled "Am I a Fetish or the Prettiest Girl In The Room? Why Attractive Black Women trigger White People" The article claimed that the painting "A Pair of Broad Bottoms" had been made to objectify black women, resulting in the expectation that black women have large bottoms and twerk. When I pointed out that the two people in the painting were actual people at the time (Sarah Baartman and Lord Grenville), who looked the way the painting had depicted, the moderator kept removing my comment. Apparently, he can't be bothered to do a google search before determining if my comment is factual enough to be posted.
The same is true for a later comment I tried to give explaining that only a small fraction of white Americans descend from ***** owners. This is a fact that has been attested to by several experts, including Nell Irvine Painter, an African American black studies professor and historian at Princeton University, in her book "The History of White People". Even snopes tries to exaggerate the percentage by pointing out that Adam Rothman, a historian at Georgetown University, claims 7.4% of white Americans owned slaves. Well, that's still a small fraction. Snopes takes issue because this number includes non-*****-holding states, but my comment never claimed to be only about *****-holding states and, further, ***** ownership came nowhere close to the majority of white households even in the South. Some states were worse than others, but I didn't specify I was discussing any specific state. Rather, I clarified I'm discussing white Americans today, the majority of whom, as I said, "do not descend from *****-owners". As widely known as this fact is, when I tried to post it, the Yahoo moderator blocked me from making any more comments and threatened to remove my yahoo account. Am I supposed to lie and claim the bulk of white Americans DO descend from ***** owners? Because your "terms and conditions" claim we're not supposed to lie in the comments section. If we are only allowed to post "facts", how come both your articles and the comments section are filled with leftist inaccuracies that we will have our Yahoo accounts removed for trying to correct?
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
I know you posted this 4 years ago, and all they've done since is remove the comments section so they can misquote Trump and we can't call them out anymore. Today, Ben Werschkul, who is apparently Yahoo's Senior Producer and Writer at Yahoo Finance, claimed Trump had called Mexican immigrants "rapists". In reality, what Trump said was "I speak with border guards, and they tell me what we are getting. Some are criminals, some are rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but we aren't getting Mexico's best and brightest". In other words, Trump clarified that he is quoting border guards regarding which Mexicans are coming here ILLEGALLY (border guards don't deal with legal immigration), and that some of those (surprise, surprise) are criminals, so we do better to stick with LEGAL immigration in order to get Mexico's best and brightest. Naturally, though, Yahoo has removed our ability to correct their misquote on their site, so I am left no choice but to do it here instead. They've forced us into their echo chamber and then they wonder why their audience is leaving.
-
13th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Today, there was an article titled "Am I a Fetish or the Prettiest Girl In The Room? Why Attractive Black Women trigger White People" The article claimed that the painting "A Pair of Broad Bottoms" had been made to objectify black women, resulting in the expectation that black women have large bottoms and twerk. When I pointed out that the two people in the painting were actual people at the time (Sarah Baartman and Lord Grenville), who looked the way the painting had depicted, the moderator kept removing my comment. Apparently, he can't be bothered to do a google search before determining if my comment is factual enough to be posted.
The same is true for a later comment I tried to give explaining that only a small fraction of white Americans descend from ***** owners. This is a fact that has been attested to by several experts, including Nell Irvine Painter, an African American black studies professor and historian at Princeton University, in her book "The History of White People". Even snopes tries to exaggerate the percentage by pointing out that Adam Rothman, a historian at Georgetown University, claims 7.4% of white Americans owned slaves. Well, that's still a small fraction. Snopes takes issue because this number includes non-*****-holding states, but my comment never claimed to be only about *****-holding states and, further, ***** ownership came nowhere close to the majority of white households even in the South. Some states were worse than others, but I didn't specify I was discussing any specific state. Rather, I clarified I'm discussing white Americans today, the majority of whom, as I said, "do not descend from *****-owners". As widely known as this fact is, when I tried to post it, the Yahoo moderator blocked me from making any more comments and threatened to remove my yahoo account. Am I supposed to lie and claim the bulk of white Americans DO descend from ***** owners? Because your "terms and conditions" claim we're not supposed to lie in the comments section. If we are only allowed to post "facts", how come both your articles and the comments section are filled with leftist inaccuracies that we will have our Yahoo accounts removed for trying to correct?
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
The Yahoo moderator has repeatedly turned benign words in my posts to cuss symbols in order to give the false impression I used a racial slur in my comment merely because I'm conservative. Here is the latest example:
On the article “Charmed Star Holly Marie Combs Slams Trump For Her Grandfathers’ COVID-19 Death”, a commenter pointed out the media has blamed Trump entirely for the coronavirus. Somebody responded by asking if the commenter would give Obama a free pass. The word "free" was not turned into cuss symbols in his question. So I pointed out “The media has given Obama a free pass for his expansion of the national debt and handling of the H1N1 flu”.
The yahoo moderator turned my comment into “The media has given Obama a #$%$ pass” to give the false impression I had cussed or used a racial slur. Why is the Yahoo moderator turning the word “free” into cuss symbols, and why only in MY posts? Oh, I know: Because I’m conservative, so Yahoo’s moderator wants people to think I’m using racial slurs.
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Today, the Yahoo moderator decided I could not comment on, nor post links to, reports from the Center for Disease Control or US News because the reports state that a record number of American children have died from this year's flu. It's still flu season, but the Yahoo moderator won't allow me to warn anyone! It's apparently because these links also admit it is the H1N1 flu strain that has returned to kill so many kids. There is not a news source that admits how deadly this season's flu has been for children without admitting the virus strain. What can I do when children are dying? How do I warn people? He is the moderator right now as I am typing this. Please replace this yahoo moderator with one who likes children. Here are the links I can't post or make relevant comments about:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-03-20/coronavirus-pandemic-overshadows-a-deadly-flu-seasonIf you have a child who dies from this year's flu, please sue Yahoo for blocking the information I tried to post in my attempts to warn you.
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
I know how you feel, Rodney. Today, the yahoo moderator refused to post this comment:
"I have a twin and we were both physically abused by our mother because she was jealous that we were twins. My grandmother had indulged my mother, trying to ensure my mother never had to experience jealousy, so my mother grew jealous of others easily. She found an excuse to beat us every month of our lives just to ensure our childhood wasn't any happier than hers had been because we were twins."
The yahoo moderator refused to post it, so I took out the part about my mother being indulged and tried to post it again with no indication of this, but he still wouldn't post it. I have enough evidence to fill a library that my mother was spoiled, but I don't see any other commenters having to prove their opinions in the yahoo comments just to get them posted. If your moderator doesn't think spoiled children grow up to be bad parents, then what type of parents does he think they grow up to be?
-
11th rankedIrene
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Today, there was an article titled "Am I a Fetish or the Prettiest Girl In The Room? Why Attractive Black Women trigger White People" The article claimed that the painting "A Pair of Broad Bottoms" had been made to objectify black women, resulting in the expectation that black women have large bottoms and twerk. When I pointed out that the two people in the painting were actual people at the time (Sarah Baartman and Lord Grenville), who looked the way the painting had depicted, the moderator kept removing my comment. Apparently, he can't be bothered to do a google search before determining if my comment is factual enough to be posted.
The same is true for a later comment I tried to give explaining that only a small fraction of white Americans descend from ***** owners. This is a fact that has been attested to by several experts, including Nell Irvine Painter, an African American black studies professor and historian at Princeton University, in her book "The History of White People". Even snopes tries to exaggerate the percentage by pointing out that Adam Rothman, a historian at Georgetown University, claims 7.4% of white Americans owned slaves. Well, that's still a small fraction. Snopes takes issue because this number includes non-*****-holding states, but my comment never claimed to be only about *****-holding states and, further, ***** ownership came nowhere close to the majority of white households even in the South. Some states were worse than others, but I didn't specify I was discussing any specific state. Rather, I clarified I'm discussing white Americans today, the majority of whom, as I said, "do not descend from *****-owners". As widely known as this fact is, when I tried to post it, the Yahoo moderator blocked me from making any more comments and threatened to remove my yahoo account. Am I supposed to lie and claim the bulk of white Americans DO descend from ***** owners? Because your "terms and conditions" claim we're not supposed to lie in the comments section. If we are only allowed to post "facts", how come both your articles and the comments section are filled with leftist inaccuracies that we will have our Yahoo accounts removed for trying to correct?
-
10th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Today, there was an article titled "Am I a Fetish or the Prettiest Girl In The Room? Why Attractive Black Women trigger White People" The article claimed that the painting "A Pair of Broad Bottoms" had been made to objectify black women, resulting in the expectation that black women have large bottoms and twerk. When I pointed out that the two people in the painting were actual people at the time (Sarah Baartman and Lord Grenville), who looked the way the painting had depicted, the moderator kept removing my comment. Apparently, he can't be bothered to do a google search before determining if my comment is factual enough to be posted.
The same is true for a later comment I tried to give explaining that only a small fraction of white Americans descend from ***** owners. This is a fact that has been attested to by several experts, including Nell Irvine Painter, an African American black studies professor and historian at Princeton University, in her book "The History of White People". Even snopes tries to exaggerate the percentage by pointing out that Adam Rothman, a historian at Georgetown University, claims 7.4% of white Americans owned slaves. Well, that's still a small fraction. Snopes takes issue because this number includes non-*****-holding states, but my comment never claimed to be only about *****-holding states and, further, ***** ownership came nowhere close to the majority of white households even in the South. Some states were worse than others, but I didn't specify I was discussing any specific state. Rather, I clarified I'm discussing white Americans today, the majority of whom, as I said, "do not descend from *****-owners". As widely known as this fact is, when I tried to post it, the Yahoo moderator blocked me from making any more comments and threatened to remove my yahoo account. Am I supposed to lie and claim the bulk of white Americans DO descend from ***** owners? Because your "terms and conditions" claim we're not supposed to lie in the comments section. If we are only allowed to post "facts", how come both your articles and the comments section are filled with leftist inaccuracies that we will have our Yahoo accounts removed for trying to correct?
-
5th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Today, there was an article titled "Am I a Fetish or the Prettiest Girl In The Room? Why Attractive Black Women trigger White People" The article claimed that the painting "A Pair of Broad Bottoms" had been made to objectify black women, resulting in the expectation that black women have large bottoms and twerk. When I pointed out that the two people in the painting were actual people at the time (Sarah Baartman and Lord Grenville), who looked the way the painting had depicted, the moderator kept removing my comment. Apparently, he can't be bothered to do a google search before determining if my comment is factual enough to be posted.
The same is true for a later comment I tried to give explaining that only a small fraction of white Americans descend from ***** owners. This is a fact that has been attested to by several experts, including Nell Irvine Painter, an African American black studies professor and historian at Princeton University, in her book "The History of White People". Even snopes tries to exaggerate the percentage by pointing out that Adam Rothman, a historian at Georgetown University, claims 7.4% of white Americans owned slaves. Well, that's still a small fraction. Snopes takes issue because this number includes non-*****-holding states, but my comment never claimed to be only about *****-holding states and, further, ***** ownership came nowhere close to the majority of white households even in the South. Some states were worse than others, but I didn't specify I was discussing any specific state. Rather, I clarified I'm discussing white Americans today, the majority of whom, as I said, "do not descend from *****-owners". As widely known as this fact is, when I tried to post it, the Yahoo moderator blocked me from making any more comments and threatened to remove my yahoo account. Am I supposed to lie and claim the bulk of white Americans DO descend from ***** owners? Because your "terms and conditions" claim we're not supposed to lie in the comments section. If we are only allowed to post "facts", how come both your articles and the comments section are filled with leftist inaccuracies that we will have our Yahoo accounts removed for trying to correct?
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Ever since the Capitol riot, Yahoo has brought us photos and videos focused on each individual involved, claimed we need to remove free speech from the internet, and encouraged family members to turn eachother in: none of which Yahoo did during the much deadlier BLM riots over the summer. Yahoo gives us all of the info: name, occupation, history, etc. of each and every person there, but they didn't think we needed any such coverage regarding looters and arsonists in BLM. Today, they brought us this ridiculous video analyzing the "hate symbols" worn in the Capitol riots: "This guy made an 'OK' hand signal, this guy appears to be wearing a Bugs Bunny tattoo, lots of people wearing yellow", sort of thing. "We're not sure if the protestors understand the significance of their hand signals, tattoos, or colors" yada yada. Yahoo's bias has always been rather maddening when they aren't busy being laughable.
-
3rd ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Irene
commented
Today, there was an article titled "Am I a Fetish or the Prettiest Girl In The Room? Why Attractive Black Women trigger White People" The article claimed that the painting "A Pair of Broad Bottoms" had been made to objectify black women, resulting in the expectation that black women have large bottoms and twerk. When I pointed out that the two people in the painting were actual people at the time (Sarah Baartman and Lord Grenville), who looked the way the painting had depicted, the moderator kept removing my comment. Apparently, he can't be bothered to do a google search before determining if my comment is factual enough to be posted.
The same is true for a later comment I tried to give explaining that only a small fraction of white Americans descend from ***** owners. This is a fact that has been attested to by several experts, including Nell Irvine Painter, an African American black studies professor and historian at Princeton University, in her book "The History of White People". Even snopes tries to exaggerate the percentage by pointing out that Adam Rothman, a historian at Georgetown University, claims 7.4% of white Americans owned slaves. Well, that's still a small fraction. Snopes takes issue because this number includes non-*****-holding states, but my comment never claimed to be only about *****-holding states and, further, ***** ownership came nowhere close to the majority of white households even in the South. Some states were worse than others, but I didn't specify I was discussing any specific state. Rather, I clarified I'm discussing white Americans today, the majority of whom, as I said, "do not descend from *****-owners". As widely known as this fact is, when I tried to post it, the Yahoo moderator blocked me from making any more comments and threatened to remove my yahoo account. Am I supposed to lie and claim the bulk of white Americans DO descend from ***** owners? Because your "terms and conditions" claim we're not supposed to lie in the comments section. If we are only allowed to post "facts", how come both your articles and the comments section are filled with leftist inaccuracies that we will have our Yahoo accounts removed for trying to correct?
Irene
supported this idea
·
-
16th ranked
-
9th ranked
-
12th rankedIrene
supported this idea
·
-
7th ranked
Dylan Stableford is no legal expert so, when Chauvin's trial verdict is guaranteed to cause riots, why do you have an article where he describes 2nd degree murder as requiring proof that "Chauvin caused Floyd's death while assaulting him"? That's the end of his definition! Then Stableford ends his article with "None of the charges requires prosecutors to prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd".
Well, here's Justia's definition of 2nd degree murder: "Second-degree murder is defined as an INTENTIONAL killing that was not premeditated".
It's MURDER. It might not require premeditation, but it most definitely requires INTENT! Only manslaughter is unintentional. Murder also requires proof of MALICE. Chauvin is required to have intended to act in a manner so reckless that he knows it will likely kill somebody, and knows that it is outside the scope of his job duties. He can't have been acting within the scope of his duties and be charged with MURDER! Cops kill criminals all the time (and vice versa)! That's like charging soldiers with murder for killing on the battlefield. Please don't have Dylan play big boy legal analyst anymore, while people's lives and businesses are at stake. He never does sufficient research for stuff like that. I wish somebody would hold Yahoo liable for all of the crime and murder your sloppy misreporting causes. And, of course, no comment section so people might correct Dylan's faulty legal definitions.