Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[prabe]

After watching way too many bail revocation hearing videos...

Defence attorneys, please. Your client is not flaunting their bail conditions. They are flouting them. If they were flaunting them they wouldn't be in trouble.

I'd expect the prosecutors to be talking about defendants flouting the conditions of their bail, not the defense attorneys. Though I might be failing to grok some context, here.

 

[J.Quondam]

After watching way too many bail revocation hearing videos...

Defence attorneys, please. Your client is not flaunting their bail conditions. They are flouting them. If they were flaunting them they wouldn't be in trouble.

That's one of those errors that's become so prevalent (and in sufficiently elite contexts) that the wrong usage is mutating into correct usage.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

After watching way too many bail revocation hearing videos...

Defence attorneys, please. Your client is not flaunting their bail conditions. They are flouting them. If they were flaunting them they wouldn't be in trouble.

Along those lines: If you are truly nauseous, you are making other people throw up. If you want to throw up yourself, you are nauseated.

Obviously, in some cases, both can be true simultaneously.

 

[payn]

I think that it had trouble finding a wider audience, in theatres, because it was a "D&D movie." Now that it's on streaming platforms, where subscribers feel like they can watch it for "free", it's finding a wider base.

It didn’t do so bad at all it’s budget ballooned during Covid which raised the bar just a little too high.

 

[MarkB]

After watching way too many bail revocation hearing videos...

Defence attorneys, please. Your client is not flaunting their bail conditions. They are flouting them. If they were flaunting them they wouldn't be in trouble.

It's when they're flaunting the fact that they're flouting them that they really get themselves into trouble.

 

[Ryujin]

I'd expect the prosecutors to be talking about defendants flouting the conditions of their bail, not the defense attorneys. Though I might be failing to grok some context, here.

"I'm sorry, Your Honor, my client wasn't flaunting their bail conditions." If that's stated that way it's true, but not in context or intended meaning. That sort of thing.

 

[Autumnal]

Elsewhere - Walking away from a discussion because several people don't seem to understand that "knowing" something, without any evidence supporting it, is more accurately referred to as "belief."

Well, now you’ve done it. That distant rumble is from a veritable army of angry Gnostics heading this way. When it comes to you versus their direct experience of the pleroma, well, I hope not to get caught in between.

 

[Deset Gled]

I look at it as analogous to the show Veronica Mars. The fandom for that series was strong enough to generate a movie plus a new season of the show, which is about all I can realistically ask for.

Unfortunately, that requires a fanbase that supports the creators. As opposed to the fanbase of D&D which, well, doesn't.

 

[TiQuinn]

Unfortunately, that requires a fanbase that supports the creators. As opposed to the fanbase of D&D which, well, doesn't.

okay.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

After watching way too many bail revocation hearing videos...

Defence attorneys, please. Your client is not flaunting their bail conditions. They are flouting them. If they were flaunting them they wouldn't be in trouble.

And if they’re flauting their bail conditions, they’re just tooting their own…