Colour me surprised, Bloomcole with another shit-tier take. I only don’t block them because they by far have my lowest Voyager tracked user score, -83 as of this comment, and I’m curious to see how low it’ll go simply by incidental Bloomcole exposure.
It would have been loads better if they used the plot from the book instead of using a plot loosely inspired by the book.
You need a /s, I’ve actually seen people honestly make arguments like this.
It’s just mildly acidic sugar water. There’s not enough of anything is an entire can of coke to kill a bird. Unless this bread was soaked in a fast acting poison, this story is 100% bullshit.
You do realize you’re on the internet, right? You can look things up first instead of spouting bullshit.
No, you didn’t because they don’t. Birds don’t explode when fed anything that produces gas as they will simply vomit. This lie is up there with lads who “did some cow tipping in their day”. Stop spreading misinformation.
Also, it was the left that didn’t want to abolish slavery or give women rights.
I simply cannot imagine how anyone could be so stupid that they’d read or hear this and repeat it without looking into if it’s true or not (it’s not), yet there are so many idiots, typically Americans, just as stupid or possibly stupider than you on the internet spouting obvious propaganda that this level of idiocy must be pretty common in the States.
They’re a troll, don’t feed them.
Coulda fooled me since you’re spouting conservative American propaganda.
ROFLMAO. This bloke. Fucking Americans.
We absolutely see lots of news about these violent communist uprisings. Definitely not something you’re imagining. Not at all.
You’re responding to a follow-up comment from a different user who is disagreeing with the first comment as if they’re the author of the original comment and their clear dissent is actually them agreeing with themselves somehow. Of course, you’re arguing with anyone who points out you’re confused.
Literal fucking insanity, mate.
Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:
Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can’t access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.
I challenge you to show where it suggests a “want for uncompromising privacy is a US only thing.” Then point out where they show support for government access to communications.
I’m telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it’s not
But their comment doesn’t say or suggest that.
and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.
And they don’t say anything about the compromises except that they’d be used for spying on citizenry.
This isn’t my fight, I saw you were confused and thought I’d help. My mistake, you really are one of those double down or die types.
Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens, a fictitious device used for government spying, doesn’t make any sense. Either you don’t know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you’re a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.
I think you do, you just misread their comment.
Give it 52 years and we’ll have more cool stuff, plus 300% more ads.
We all float down here 💩💩💩
This madlad frequently responds to his own moderated comments. I’ve officially become a follower, it’s like watching a train wreck. He’s just so fragile.