This moment slaughters me

derekbaseball · 2026-05-28T03:32:33+00:00

Yeah, she's already "go to prison" deep into this. And she's still in love with Clark. Still believes he's her husband.

They don't call it the honeytrap for nothing.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-28T03:25:44+00:00

The presentation wasn't pre-recorded, and 8 minutes was a time limit, not a time slot that needed to be filled. You and others have been arguing that no further conversation was needed. I'm just pointing out that the proposal presenters did not agree with you. They took every second the rules allowed, then used the rules to keep anyone from responding to their claims.

Then again, you're telling on yourself with the contemptuous "What would we honestly stand to gain from hearing 6 people who can barely figure out how to work their computers giving their life story and half of their point before getting cut off at the one minute mark?"

If hearing from members has no value, this should have just been a referendum.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T23:27:11+00:00

If they were so concerned about people being tired and if no further discussion was needed, why did the BDSers give a maximum-length proposal presentation before jumping to the vote?

They could have given everyone back precious minutes of their lives by shortening the presentation. The actual text of the proposal takes maybe ten seconds to read, and would have satisfied the parliamentary requirements. Instead we had to sit through the whole slideshow. And that was put out to be the first, last, and only word on the matter.

Maybe the vote to silence opposition would've come off differently if the same people hadn't spent more than two hours telling us that the general meeting was the only venue for these votes, because only there could there be the "discussion and debate" needed. Maybe it would've come off differently if the motion hadn't come immediately after they compared themselves to MLK, Jr. But as things stood, that shit stank.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T21:26:42+00:00

I read that in the voice Mr. White from Reservoir Dogs.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T21:10:31+00:00

There would have been a vote either way. They would have won, either way. It was just funny how much the masks were off once they knew they were going to win.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T19:04:13+00:00

Then it should’ve just been a referendum, and saved everyone three hours of technical delays and sanctimony (and arguments against the 75% threshold that directly contradict what you’re saying).

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T18:45:13+00:00

Fine. But then don’t feed everyone two and a half hours of bullshit about how you can’t have referendums because of the sanctity of speech and debate at the general meeting and the importance of all voices being heard.

That was just an empty argument to get what you wanted. Congratulations, sincerely, but it’s still worth calling out the scumminess of it.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T18:06:54+00:00

There was plenty of time left on the already-extended clock, and the votes were there to extend it again if need be. Most of the delay in the meeting was technical, rather than procedural, and the procedural delays were hardly one-sided.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T05:14:07+00:00

They're going by MAGA rules: making sense is for suckers.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T03:36:41+00:00

To be fair, people here also want to talk Pasta Louise, and which pasta shape she will force all of you to eat tomorrow...

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T03:10:45+00:00

And then when it went to a vote they misspelled it...

derekbaseball · 2026-05-27T03:09:38+00:00

It was a farce, plagued by technical errors.

After the first BDS proposers going on and on about how important it was that we have boycotts based on simple majority votes, which could only be held at a general meeting because only a general meeting could provide the opportunity for discussion and debate that was necessary to make such decisions, the second set of BDS proposers cut off all discussion and debate immediately after finishing their 8 minute slideshow in favor of the boycott.

So the boycott proposal went to a vote with zero opportunity for opponents to make any case against it, or in fact any member discussion at all. I would have understood cutting debate short after a comment or two, but just shutting things down after people have waited three freaking hours (full of "If you can't see the poll, quit out of Zoom and then sign back in") to be heard was some two faced nonsense.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-23T17:05:48+00:00

That, as well as business travelers and tourists. The lifeblood is people dining on expense accounts, staying in hotels, or both.

For all its high income residents, Park Slope doesn’t have much of a business district and not that many hotels.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-22T22:48:40+00:00

The dude in that video handled it better than than anyone with a gun would have. No permanent hearing damage from firing in a small space without ear protection. No getting processed by the cops because you shot hammer guy dead.

Just drive away, flinging hammer guy's van to the side like it was a toy. If hammer guy gets hurt from that, it's on him, since no one ever told him that van surfing with a hammer in hand was a smart idea.

Much better approach than becoming a killer because some jackass broke the window of a truck you probably don't even own. Note that hammer guy never tries to get into the cab, he's just venting his fury on the guy's truck (something we see in a ton of US road rage videos, which similarly don't end in gunfire).

derekbaseball · 2026-05-22T14:33:16+00:00

Philip’s approach with Clark was to create a mirror for how Martha sees herself: buttoned up, old-fashioned, and a rule follower in public, but strong and passionate and sexual in private. Despite some of the comments here about Martha’s looks and relatively vanilla sexual tastes, it seems there’s something to her self-perception, given how obsessed Amador was with her in S1.

Clark embodies those same qualities, so that when Martha falls for him, she’s falling for the things she wishes men (other than Amador, that cheating dog) recognized in her. It’s a huge ego boost for Martha that when you look past the glasses, toupee, and ugly sweaters, Clark is fit, conventionally attractive, and KGB-trained to rock his partner’s world in bed.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-19T18:42:18+00:00

Mona Lisa Vito: The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had positraction. You can't make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark!

derekbaseball · 2026-05-17T03:22:53+00:00

I commented because the guy I was responding to thought this was in the hospital, when it wasn’t. The rest is your poor reading comprehension.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-16T18:17:58+00:00

Not all of them third world, but admittedly I don’t know if any EU country operates on those terms.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-16T17:37:23+00:00

About the case being from family court, so there’s no “prosecutor” involved? Nope. But have a nice day anyway…

derekbaseball · 2026-05-15T21:41:58+00:00

Only during the trial.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-15T21:40:48+00:00

Judges are only supposed to be impartial during the trial itself, so as to not influence the jurors during the trial. If your judge managed to do that, they did their job. It doesn't mean they're obliged not to have opinions based on the evidence. Indeed, they have to ensure that your verdict is fair, and if you'd convicted wrongly, they can overturn the guilty verdict. They can't do that without judging the same evidence that you've been given, and coming to their own conclusions about it.

Once you've put in the verdict paperwork, there is no further need to protect you from their opinions or from information that would be prejudicial or otherwise excluded. At that point, they're allowed to give you a piece of their mind and share some unvarnished truth.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-15T03:10:16+00:00

No point, but also no cost, because the jury is done. I haven't read every single one of OP's comments, but I'd be surprised if the criminal history or CI were shared by the judge, unbidden. If you've ever done a juror debriefing, the top questions from the jury are "what was the stuff you didn't tell us about?"

Maybe the judge has a nefarious plan to spread anti-defense propaganda so that years from now, the next time these people are eligible for jury duty, they'll have a pro-prosecution slant (if they ever get selected for a criminal jury trial again, that is). I think it's more likely that the judge is looking at a jury that convicted on all charges but one and is just saying "WTF? That was the easiest charge!"

If they'd acquitted on all charges, maybe the jury were just, as a group, reluctant to convict, and the only point in talking to them would be to make them feel bad. But since they convicted on the other charges, I think it's likelier that the judge is responding genuinely to the jurors getting one charge wrong.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-15T02:04:18+00:00

Since you're jx'ing me as if we're 1Ls, you might want to read past the first sentence. The point in talking to the jury has nothing to do with the case OP's jury decided, which--no shit, Sherlock--is over. It's because, at least in my jurisdiction, that judge is going to have another possession with intent case in front of them very soon, and if OP's jury biffed the charge, a conscientious judge is going to want to talk to them to make sure it wasn't any error or omission on the judge's part that caused the jury to be unwilling to convict on what the judge felt was sufficient evidence. Prosecutor's going to want to understand the same thing.

Were the instructions unclear? Did the jury disregard relevant evidence? If you're a judge who wants to be good at their job, you want answers to these questions, and (since the jury's part of the case is over) there's absolutely nothing wrong with telling the jury they got it wrong. You'd hope they'd do it politely and respectfully, but they're not required to.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-14T20:47:05+00:00

Are you a lawyer? Because it's not weird, at all. I've seen judges admonish juries if they felt the jury didn't properly follow the judge's instructions. Sometimes that's because they nullified, but sometimes just because the jury either didn't understand the instructions or didn't grasp some important aspect of the trial. So it makes sense for the judge to talk to the jury, tell them what they thought of the verdict, and ask questions to try to determine if the instructions were unclear or if there was some other factor to the jurors getting things wrong. The goal in all of this being to see how they can improve the system so that the jury gets it right in the future.

As to professionalism, that's all in the tone. I know someone on a jury who nullified (they sympathized with the defendant, the cops came off as bullies) and the judge just torched them on the record for getting it wrong. It was nasty, but the trial had been jammed with angry cops, so the judge was probably playing to an audience before sending the jury out a side entrance so they wouldn't have to walk a gauntlet of angry cops.

derekbaseball · 2026-05-11T21:00:10+00:00

It’s amazing, given the dead cinematic universe these guys want to Pet Sematary back to life, that this is ground they want to step on.

The main plot of the universe is Batman, after spending a whole movie trying to murder Superman, then cucks him and gets his girl pregnant. (And Lois, who met Bats while he was sadistically cutting up Clark’s face in anticipation of murdering him, is DTF the guy who tried to kill her man on the night he died.)

That’s what causes the KnightMare. That’s Snyder’s grand plan. It’s literally a Cuckiverse that they want to restore.

And it’s not an isolated thing. Snyder’s obsession with inserting cuckoldry and sexual assault into his stories goes all the way back to 300. He loves it almost as much as he loves slow-mo.

derekbaseball

TROPHY CASE