I actually did a report on this during a Vietnam era history class.

The assignment was to choose a Vietnam era piece of anti-war art, a song about war, or if we could make a convincing argument to the teacher it could be something tangentially related.

I chose this song, even ran the lyrics by the teacher beforehand, and halfway through the song he realized it’s got gasp bad words in it and tried to actively censor it, which I thought was pretty funny.

I’ll lift a lamp by the golden door.

So theft and extortion. I remember when those were crimes.

I suppose my comment could be interpreted as “why are EU countries sending so many poor people”

I figured with the title it was just understood…

Why do they always send the poor?

There’s at least cause for a citizens arrest at that point

Yes, but…

gives a reasonable person fear of imminent bodily harm or death

Driver could shoot the HSI douche in the head and I’d say self defense isn’t murder.

You hop in my car like that, you’re gonna have a bad day.

Well, as long as you do it while driving a car, anyway.

… Kick them over like dominoes.

Half the time when you see someone walking around with the wrong amount of pips, it’s just delicious street corn

Best I can do is clean out half a storage closet, put a broken wobbly chair in it, replace the warm orange-hued light with a harsh fluorescent one, put a security camera pointing directly at the chair, and then lock the closet so you have to ask to get in.

Congratulations on your new “Self-care/Mental Health room” please use it whenever* you need it**.

*on your breaks

**pending management approval

Dude… It’s SALT.

Actually, having been on reddit for over a decade before I left, I’d agree that there is a superiority complex present on reddit when someone asks for clarification on an acronym.

Without fail, if someone used acronyms that might be considered by some to be “common knowledge”, and another user asks what that means, they’ll get down votes and sometimes even a “are you joking? Everyone knows it means blah blah blah” or similar comment.

I once saw a person get over 50 down votes for asking “what does ETA mean?” when the OP meant “edited to add”. I had never seen anyone use it to mean something other than “estimated time of arrival” and was mildly confused by the “ETA” at the top of the comment. Not one single person explained what it meant. Just down votes. I had no idea either at the time, and didn’t care enough to do some light searching.

I’d say the business ones are dependent on where you work. I’ve never worked in a corporate setting where I’d imagine they’re more common, so I can’t really comment on that part.

“Why do you need another warp 5 core? These things are hard to make, you know!”

“Well, we plugged the last two you gave us together… In case you’re wondering, we did NOT hit warp 10, however, we found all kinds of new radiations to study!”

horrified Vulcan stares

I guarentee that if you murdered someone with a flintlock pistol by shooting them, arguing that “technically its not a gun” would not help your defense in any reaonable way.

No, but if you get arrested for having one, you absolutely can argue it’s not a gun.

Plenty of legal cases have been decided on technicalities.

That’s the neat part, they don’t!

I’d argue that a device that also happens to render the user invisible is not inherently a cloaking device.

A flintlock pistol is not legally a firearm in the US, and that distinction matters to quite a few people around here.

Now, ultimately the end result is the same (invisibility/shooty stick go boom) so in the end, the romulans would still consider it a cloak.

Wording is important. It isn’t a cloaking device. It may also cause the user to become invisible, but it is not a cloaking device.

Much in the way that a handgonne isn’t a pistol. And how a flintlock pistol isn’t legally considered a firearm in the United States (as the founding fathers intended)

That said? The romulans would use any excuse they feel like to launch an attack. They won’t care that it isn’t a cloak. They’ll say it doesn’t matter and the intention of the treaty was clear. Ultimately they don’t care about wording over intent, they’ll interpret the treaty in whichever way is most favorable for themselves and hope they’re still standing when the dust settles.

That said, I think any attack they launch would merely be a test of starfleet’s response. “if we attack are they going to let us keep what we take in exchange for ‘peace’, will they fight for its return, or would they press a counter-attack?” kind of thing.

Maybe I’m over thinking it.

I mean, you’re wrong about the intro, but ENT still gets a HELL YEAH from me.

(the intro is a jam, but it’s so out of place for me I can’t enjoy it while binging, I usually listen to it in the car a few times while watching the show)

Damn, I totally forgot about that bit!

Honestly I have only seen the final episode twice. I’ve seen all of season one about 10-13 times.

That is a perfect description of Insurrection.

I’ll be damned if I’m going through a singing episode.

You simply cannot see the wisdom of Mahanit.

I usually don’t like most singing episodes, but I liked the SNW one.

I was also never into TOS but SNW is great.

Lower Decks has become a comfort show.

So far discovery has held my interest, but there are so so many problems I have while watching it… My head cannon is that it’s an alternate time line that diverged thousands of years ago.

I don’t see myself watching Picard. I feel like Star Trek TNG left it at a good point with Insurrection (apologies to people who hated it, but it was my introduction to star trek and has a special nostalgia that I get to laugh about the terrible and/or poorly written parts)

Also I pretend nemesis doesn’t exist.