Has Jon not the stronger claim because he's male (presuming his parents married)?

You said John Oliver said one thing; I said he didn't. That was the disagreement we were having.

I understand why people take exception to the precipitates of the vote; that is not what John Oliver takes exception to in the clip above.

No, he doesn't. Nowhere in that clip does he make that point. What *you're* saying is true; what John Oliver is saying is "they might be screwed because a pig-fucker called for a vote". For, y'know, the citizens of the country to exercise their democratic will with.

His whole schtick nullifies itself if you don't take his targets as axiomatically ridiculous. How funny you find it is directly proportional to how righteously indignant it can make you and nothing kills righteous indignation like a patient examination of why your target does what it does.

Because only a small number of viewers will work out how John's parentage complicates Dany's claim of succession and they want to work that out when there is more romm to tell that story?

That situation is so massively complex I hope you'll forgive me if I make a handful of points that don't aggregate as a perspective: the Greek political establishment accepted the bailouts because the Greek people don't want to leave the Euro and their only other option - default - would have lead to that; a…

London has the largest banking sector in Europe because financially, it's the wild west. You can leverage money to infinity in the City of London and the exceptionalism the political class extends to financial services, by the likes of Boris Johnson, reflects that.

I was only referring to the train of reasoning proceeding from the Doctor Who comment.

wookietim, you are making no sense so concisely that I feel like we should preserve the thread as an illuminative reference for all future no-sense-making.

It's a pretty conventional response to market uncertainty and things are at their most uncertain now. Which isn't to say that the UK didn't bone their economy; it's just to say the drop in the pound isn't something to derive far-reaching consequence from.

He said that as part of a critique of nineteenth century positivism, not as an attack on the concept of truth and he didn't distinguish between truth and objective truth or the validity of personal views free of facts. That just wasn't his bag.

He didn't think that. He had very definite ideas of what constituted truth; he was just critical of ways he say it constituted poorly.

I realise that I might as well be talking to a wafting cloud but: I have no particular investment in Cox or Daredevil and refer you to my previous post for the beginning, middle and end of my reason for contributing as I did.

Is 'fairly conventional decency' still a motivation for human behaviour? Let me check.

Thanks man.

It is the worst promotional image I have ever seen and that is saying something.

Didn't she drink the water and heal herself at the end? Oh, I don't know.

The direwolves and their symbolic functions in the novels were Martin writing at the very limits of his abilities. They were pure-bred, podunk corn.

I just assumed that Bran had met the White Walkers somewhere in the (recent) past, just like all his other travel-by-root.