Bird Walk

"If you are wondering: yes, I DO hope to live to be as old as my jokes."
You'll have to send them on a relativistic journey first.

That line is based on an old Vaudeville heckle, criticizing the 'freshness' of a comic's material. "May you live to be as old as your jokes." I guess a modern version of the heckle would be to say that I tell 'grandpa jokes.'

I never claim my jokes are original, and I live my the maxim "If you're gonna steal, steal from the best." So I go to Vaudeville's corpse often and flip it over, looking for some joke I can use that has aged well. Some jokes don't too well because times have changed and removed the reference: "We're with the census." "What?" "The census, the census!" "Hayes?" (Back then, Hays was in charge of the still-new motion-picture fating commission, he was the head of the CENSORS.) Others don't do well because the old 'acceptable targets' are no longer acceptable: You will not find me telling jokes about ethnic stereotypes, for example, since those are now considered unfunny and offensive. But still, minimg for old jokes can be fun; sometimes you come across a 'lost classic' that has languished in obscurity for so long it seems fresh to younger ears.

Mine wasn't original either...

"I would tell my old jokes (some rachel, some sleazy), but then I only have to outrun adreasler, not the angry audience."

Hey! I resemble that remark!

(So good to get back into tired, lame jokes and away from all that political nonsense that was poisoning my thoughts.)

Yeah, see how it made you look? Get some sleep this weekend.

What? This is how i normally look after a good cup of Joe.

Are you saying I drink too much coffee?

Because I DON'T drink too much coffee, THIS GUY drinks too much coffee.

Yeah, but at least that old bean seems to be a happy one!

I had a couple of chili-cheese dogs and some greasy french fries for lunch today. Now I need toothpicks - for my eyes.

?

Hi James

Killing birds (other than magpies, pigeons and gamebirds) would be a dangerous (to you) activity over here, particularly if they were not on your own property. Does the grackle rank with our magpie as a pest (e.g. as a habitual egg and fledgeling destroyer)?

But that's not the main reason I'm writing: can you translate "worm clatches" into UK English for this ignorant foreigner?

Thanks

Fyz

Grackles- they often devastate crops, and are a far worse threat to corn fields than crows - these birds cause millions of dollars in crop losses every year. They are also attracted to any food source including garbage, and are extremely resourceful hunters, known to hunt other smaller birds, raid nests, and wade into water to catch small fish. They dominate other birds at bird feeders and can and do cause them harm.

Being James is from the Great State of Texas with open carry gun permits and with lots of agricultural within the State, he'd be considered a hero of sorts.

"can you translate "worm clatches" into UK English ...." I'm not sure how James would define "worm clatches" but this might come close,

Thanks all round

Environmentally your grackles sound like a cross between a flying rat (translation: wood pigeon) and a magpie.

Regarding their hunting practice: does the Texan attitude to grackles extend to cats (probably the most environmentally damaging predator through most of the UK)?

Not around my house. My wife would be the shootist for anyone harming one of her at-large cats she cares for and watches over. They all have names, and records of the psychological behavior. Cats are about as neurotic as human females, just not quite.

No harm meant to human females, it is only a comparison, not to disparage. Human females, like cats can be particularly charming at times, even welcome.

We are host in our home to six pet birds (four parakeets, one English budgy, and one black-crested conyure) not all in the same cage, five cats who live within the confines of the home and garage, and four dogs. Amazingly everyone gets along (except me and the wife, who argue and bicker back and forth constantly).

The only irksome thing about our local animal enforcement officers (and they are also law enforcement officers of a type), is they will arrest anyone shooting foxes within the city limits. I say zoro (Mexican for fox) had better watch his backside! We had stray dogs killing cats (my wife was having laser eyes over this), and foxes also killing cats, and when animal control told me we could not place a trap for the foxes living on a neighbors (abandoned) estate, I told them I would just shoot the damned thing and put it on his doorstep at the dog pound. He didn't catch my humor, and really I don't think those people have a sense of humor at all. I suppose one would have to dispose of the dead carcass (fox) most carefully lest New Scotland Yard, Interpol, and the FBI, and Homeland Security all be called in on the investigation.

Trapping foxes in a live trap is a true art form. If anyone on here has mastered the tricks, please fill me in, as zoro around here is a very cagey animal, wise to the ways of mankind. Cute, but destructive. As it states in the Holy Bible: "...the small foxes spoil the vine."

Are you in the People's Republic of Europe? Who would present the danger to me? They have to catch me first. In our city, it is illegal to use a firearm for vermin, pests, predator animals, and anything else, other than dodgy English trying to break in and invade (just kidding about the dodgy English, it applies to all nationalities trying a home invasion). People have been known to go ahead and kill them in the driveway, and drag them up over the door threshold, so the castle defense applies, but a smart detective will see the drag marks, and blood trail, so it's no good.

A pellet gun works by compressing air in a chamber, or by compression of a spring-loaded piston that pushes out the air in high velocity (mine is up to 750 ft/sec with a 0.125 caliber pellet (AFAICT)). It is not (sic) as lethal to humans as would be a 0.22 caliber rifle, since the round has a lot less energy.

By the way, anyone wanting to protest my killing of the pest bird (grackle) is welcome to come get in my driveway for a test spin of my new Italian made shotgun.

Here in Texas we have few qualms about shooting arseholes, and other vermin.

Now about worm clatch, that is the grackle female equivalent of human females out for tea and crumpets. Grackles ranks above magpie as pest. Magpie song is even pleasant compared to grackles. Grackles are smart, resourceful birds, but they are no better than a flying rat IMHO. They do prey on fledgling doves, and others, and I saw this same bird attack and kill a robin in midflight, the day before I shot him.

So, yes there is no love lost between me and these birds. I don't make a habit of killing God's creatures, because I revere life, but I refuse to let wild predators take over my back yard, be it fox, grackle, coyote, or mountain lion. I would protect my dogs with my own life, to the death. I have no particular reverence for mankind when they are so stupid, they insist on committing a violent crime, and would be delighted to end of them in the midst of their act. Crimes against persons should be extended to crimes against dogs, maybe even domestic cats.

Part of the heavily modified ecosystem"

houses, gardens, farms, roads, bird feeders, lack of predation and competition*. Like it or not, you and yours are already a major influence-on and part-of this ecosystem. It's your nest, so you can within reason make it as you want.

Nevertheless, I too wouldn't welcome an offering of urban maggie bake.

You can also proivde sheltered feeding areas close enough to hedging that the predators don't have enough time to attack your preferred species in transit. Wire netting with appropriate mesh size can be effective (wire is relatively visible).

*as an example: crows, rooks and jackdaws are significant disruptors of magpie breeding. We never have an issue with magpies when rooks are breeding nearby.

Sheltered areas are good, suitable shrubs etc. Trouble is, the magpies are very clever at stalking the smaller birds.

I'm dubious about raising the game to other flying critters. though a berkut holds some attraction.

I didn't intend to suggest you reintroduce the competition. I was merely commenting that the ecosystem was already so far from what you might consider natural that any legal anti-maggie action you might take should not be regarded as harmful.

Nevertheless, I think the best bet for feeding areas is to make them inaccessible to maggs, and provide cover (potted shrubs?) inside near exits. If you get it right maggs will look for easier pickings elsewhere (just like burglars the world over).

Well stated, and I agree. The mention of a hunting eagle was a mild joke. In actuality my neighbous favour clapping loudly. It makes for a slightly absurd situiation ( a handful of old fogies seeming to aplaud magpies), but it does keep all the birds safe.

♪In and around the lake, marlins come out of the sky, and they STAAND THEEEREE.♪

(Sorry, that image of old people applauding at birds just but that verse right into my head, and it wouldn't leave until I shared it.)

My wife will clap loudly for certain collared dove males when they do the "hop" after other birds, or when they dominate the feeding trays. It does work, and oddly, only the bad actors like "Nacho" will take off and fly away. Or she will throw my dog's ball at them. It usually results in him frantically trying to catch the ball on the first bounce.

Does one of your neighbours keep chickens? If so it would not surprise me if they got the hawk (attitudes vary).

In answer to your other post:
Yes, indeed. I live in the UK, currently part of what you see as the PRE*. Nevertheless, some of our politicians have proved capable of licking GWB's privates and joining his crusades.

Go figure [just to prove that I know a little (archaic?) American English].

*Apart from that, we have this strange idea that it's good to respect the property rights of the neighbouring castle (=Englishman's home). Weirder yet, some people here actually try to get on with their neighbours.

PRE - I forgot what that acronym stands for, so I should not guess for the likelihood of offending one or two of my remaining friends over there.

How come your politicians didn't like a bit higher up the food chain. They seem pretty good as kissing Obama's boots and the like? They could have licked one of GWB's sergeants, maybe even a lieutenant. If GWB had wanted a crusade, we would have invaded Israel, not Afghanistan. I think Brits are somewhat bitter since the Afghanis kicked their butts out once before. But trust me Iraq was no crusade. It was not about oil, or we would have risked and lost many lives preventing Saddam Hussein from lighting off all the fires. I think it was a Texan, and his boys that put the fires out, though. Red could put the fire out in hell if he was sent there, but God loves him.

I get a bit touching when people start picking on George W. Bush, maybe he isn't Abe Lincoln, but he did respond to the cowardly attacks on 9/11, and did keep anything else major from hitting on our homeland.

I don't know if you got the news over there on east side of pond, but over here we are hearing how top leadership at CENTCOM has been editing intelligence reports to skew the status of the war against ISIS. Obama is a damnable liar, and so is his bitch Hillary.

If it is the "People's Republic of Europe" it will surely use that acronym?

Re GWB "war on terror".
Strange and inappropriate phrase, and sometimes the language affects the action. Hence (presumably) the little matter of arresting non-US-nationals whose alleged activities were embarassing, but known not to be connected with terrorism (e.g. suspected Israeli spies). Presumably also the attack on Saddam's Iraq, which for all its manifest failings was demonstrably an enemy of Al-Quaeda.

On that basis, I'd say large parts of the response would have given those opposed to our ways of life more than a little quiet satisfaction.

I'm no lover of extremists, but historically our countries have described its citizens who went on suicide missions as heros. Showing such double standards merely makes these people think you are morally weak. IMO these people are at best deluded. If their objective is to weaken democratic governments they are certainly misguided, as shown historically by the backstiffening effect of bombing in WWII. If their objective was to reduce our freedoms, then I would say they have somewhat succeeded.

CENTCOM: I assume you are referring to the house of representative report on the US Central Command Intelligence Analysis?
Over-optimitic interpretations of intelligence for public consumption are almost universal, unfortunately; governments of all hues and levels of morality seem to have regarded this as being good for national morale. If you read the detail of the report, I think you will find that the report is in no way concerned with this sort of distortion. The problem that concerns the house of representatives is where over-optimistic distortions affected operational decision-making. From what I can see, it is (probably unconscious) optimistic bias of inexperienced managers and related incompetencies that lies at the heart of the specific criticisms in the report. BTW, there is a lot else in this report that makes interesting reading, and gives a very different impression than much of the reportage I have seen - it is well worth a few minutes to read the whole of the published summary.

Also: when it comes to diplomacy or politics, the willingness to lie is a basic requirement - we (the long-suffering electorates) just have to get over it. Things really go wrong when they start to believe their own lies (e.g. Blair, Bush IMO) or their lies are truly vicious (e.g. Nixon). Personally, I think Obama's heart remains in the right place, though I doubt all his initiatives will lead the way he might wish. (I will refrain from comment on Hilary, as I cannot even imagine the enormity of dealing with the departments she was working with).

That depends on the war. Hitler was the penultimate terrorist. Those brave Brits who flew the humble Hurricane in B.o.B. were heroes, those who flew the gunless Mosquito to mark the bombing lanes with smoke in the night raids over Germany were heroes, those who flew them to Norway to blow up the Nazi heavy water plant were heroes, and those who flew the Lancasters were heroes wherever and however they went. Many did not return.

It is a well-documented fact that some of the radical islamic terrorists of 9/11 did in fact train with Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq right under Saddam's nose and with implicit approval. I am not drinking the leftist Kool-Aid on this, and I never will.

Where do you really think that moron in Syria that keeps gassing his own people got the nerve gas? It was seen by satellite being trucked out of Iraq, but no, we keep sweeping that story under the run because it is not convenient to the agenda of the leftist media.

The allies in WW2 were in practice fighting for the good, but I'm not entirely convinced that all those fighting on either side were aware of the issues. On this basis I believe that here would be heroes on both sides. I write this as one of the greatest debtors to the allied sacrifices, but coloured by the fact that my families were involved on opposing sides of WW1.

There is a substantial difference with the suicide bombers. Whichever side the above people were fighting for, they were not doing so simply for their own personal benefit. In contrast, the suicide bombers believe their action will take them directly to a heaven that is defined in the most self-centric terms; I don't see this as heroism, but I don't see it as cowardice either.

Regarding 9/11 terrorists training in Iraq "with implicit approval". I would appreciate guidance to the "good documentation".
On the other hand, I believe it likely that Bashar tried to manipulate Al-Quaeda to his own ends, on much the same principle (and possibly with a similar level of success) as the West with Saddam.

Nerve gas being trucked out of Iraq: it wouldn't surprise me too much if Saddam used the border-lands as hiding-places for his weaponry, but I'm far more doubtful about supplying Bashar's regime, even though I know that Saddam was supported by Syria while in exile, and that both regimes operate(d) under the Ba'athist banner.
However, I'd still be interested to see the evidence (including that the trucks' contents were nerve gas). Also, given the relative simplicity of Sarin manufacture, it's a little hard to see why Bashar would need to import the stuff from Iraq.

BTW, re "moron": it's never a good idea to under-estimate your enemies. I realise that it's not a reliable indication, but Bashar's qualification as a doctor is far from being a sham.

Bashar: a doctor of doom, perhaps.

WWI: the war that never should have happened, due to an assassin's bullet (he was an anarchist, as I recall). Apparently, Austria-Hungary were itching to attack the minorities in these and neighboring countries. There were alliances between the different crown heads of Europe that dictated who joined the fray on what side.

Simply stupid, just like "going over the top".

Some people have interpreted the Quran as mentioning 17 virgins for martyrs (suicide bombers), others have interpreted that passage as 17 grapes. To the radical islamic terrorists: Enjoy the 17 grapes (carefully) in hell, as they will become raisins and overcooked rather quickly. Because that is all you will receive.

WWI: the war that never should have happened
True of all wars, of course, but humanity is good at digging holes for itself (reference intended), and is also capable of evil.
As regards WWI, I think you are saying that the the assassin's bullet was just the occasion; if it hadn't happened then they would have found another excuse. BTW, the philosophy of Young Bosnoa was anti-tyranist*, not anarchistic; however, this particular subgroup did take on some of the methods of the anarchists.
You talk of treaties, and looking at WWII I'm hard-pressed to find any country that entered the war other than as a treaty responsibility, or as a result of a direct attack.
The biggest positive was the action of the USA in mainland Europe following the end of the war. IMO we might be in a very different place had similar philosophy been followed in Iraq.

Did the Quran specify the gender of the Virgins? If not, a group of 18 Jihadists springs to mind.

I'm still interested in the evidence you cite.

*They and some of your Bostonian founders would have had more in common with the movement than you might imagine.

Well, one can't out revise the historical revisionists. He was an anarchist in the history book I was taught from, sorry.

No, actually, Bostonians and other American colonists had legitimate grievances (which they published against King George. Taxation without any Parliamentary representation comes to mind, and also having to put up with boarding of British soldiers when and where demanded, not out of the kindness of their hearts.

These Jihadists are not colonials, they live in their own sovereign nations, and have no legitimate grievances against the west, other than we do not subscribe to their stone age mentality. Enough of it, already, the horse has been led to water, if he refuses to drink, that is his problem.

If I read this correctly, you appear to have conflated "Young Bosnia" of early c20 with the present groupings of fubdamentalist Jihadists. Young Bosnia was a revolutionary movement of youthful Bosnians, Serbs and Croats* operating in this period largely in response to the Austria-Hungary annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As with most subject nations, they were indeed taxed, and did not even have the token representation 'enjoyed' by the Austrians themselves. Hopefully you now see the resemblance?

I don't know whether it is coincidence, mistaken identity, or a deeper misunderstanding of the empire's power structure, but the puppet installed to rule Bosnia was King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, and the man shot was Archduke Ferdinand, the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne.

* Muslims, Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, respectively

Current Jihadists.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/archduke-franz-ferdinand-assassinated

Ok, Princip was a Bosnian Nationalist, not necessarily an anarchist. His actions were useful to the Emperor to start the war.

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/the-unresolved-mystery-of-syrias-iraqi-chemical-weapons/?_r=0

The above link mentions Saddam's secret stockpile of WMD, also well-known was the use of chemical agents to murder his own countrymen (Kurds), during the Iraq-Iran war. Also, of note, is the mention of truck convoys (unmarked and unapproachable by regular traffic on the route) in the run-up to war 2003. Also, James Clapper has made mention of suspicious cargo appearing in satellite photos heading to Syria.

It should be obvious that a man like Saddam Hussein would resort to any form of deception to achieve a sought end. He was the strong man of Iraq, and Turkish government warned the U.S. that this war would destabilize the entire region, and the present U.S. Administration's policies have just about fulfilled that prophecy in spades with the troop pull-outs.

I see virtually no hope for the Iraqis on their present course, and less than no hope for the poor Syrians oppressed by al-Assad and by ISIS.

Interesting that more wars in the last one hundred years have been actually started by Muslims than any other group. Why do you suppose that is?

Fighting back does not count, by the way, I am speaking of whomever "throws the first punch, or fires the first salvo." Crashing airliners into skyscrapers counts as a salvo.

Even the writer of what you reference doesn't regard it as strong evidence.

However, assuming that these convoys were seen as suggested, it is conceivable that surrounding circumstances might well have caused a rapprochement between Saddam and Bashar (following the Kuwait-borne rift). But there are two (to me) more-convincing alternative explanations. Saddam could have been using the border areas to hide the weapons in case inspection regimes were later relaxed. The other relates to Saddam's political manoeuvrings: several reports of hidden WMDs and manufacturing sites were found by the inspectors to be fakes that Saddam created for internal political reasons; highly visible movements with security preventing the detail being seen is entirely consistent with this explanation.

You say that “crashing airliners into towers counts a salvo”: on this basis you would equally argue that Austria-Hungary did not start WW I. My view is that the attacked countries in both cases extended their responses way beyond the groups implicated.

As to why Muslims have started significant numbers of wars over the last hundred years, I would cite some basic reasons: early Islam regarded conversion by conquest as being legitimate (a strong contrast with the Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Tao religions); the religion is the same age as Christianity during the turbulent century; and its schisms are even more fundamental; then there is the little matter of the Arabic countries having been being artificially created following multiple broken promises, and the placement of a Jewish state in an already populated area (without compensation to the inhabitants. However, I suggest that the main reason would be that conflict begets conflict (cf. the Balkans for conflicts at different times started by groups with grudges).

Recommended reading on the subject of conflict and cultures (from my Balkan specialist history teacher of many years ago) included the Norse sagas and the Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. All I am saying is that the Jihadists declared war on the United States a before we were thinking war, although ridding the world of stinking murdering liars as Saddam pleases me. More should follow his steps off the gallows.

I'm with you on ridding the world of large-scale murderers, though my preference is for due process and life imprisonment.

However, I deprecate unproven additional accusations that are not needed (they can all too easily be based on others' lies). Above all, it seems I'm much more concerned than you about unintended consequences.

I did note the warning from Turkey about destabilizing the whole area in the Middle East. The problems in the present era do not arise as much from placing Israel smack dab in the place where Israel historically existed, but rather the parceling up of land by the powers after WWI, where Great Britain and France squabbled over who got what.

The whole dividing up was a really bad idea.

Saddam may have been a stinking murdering liar, but under his rule, Iraq was actually a very progressive country for the middle east. Women were allowed to go to school and have jobs, for example.

I know, this is like praising Mussolini for getting the trains to run on time, and 'very progressive for the middle east region' is an incredibly low bar. But between his death threats and his saber-rattling, he was building a 'secular Arabic state' that was looking like it could grow up into a halfway decent Democracy, if properly nurtured.

Then he tried to annex Quaiit, and the UN-led coalition bushed him back to his own boarder. Then he kept up his saber-rattling trying to goad Clinton into starting another war, but Bill wouldn't inhale- er, I mean bite. Then Dubya got the reins and charged in to 'finish what ma daddy started,' even though Bush Sr. was advising him against it.

And now we've got an unstable Iraq, our enemies are no longer agents of a foreign nation, but 'nationless' terrorist groups that cannot be negotiated with, or even fought in the conventional manner⁽¹⁾. I'm not saying Saddam was a great guy, but as in many cases, it seems like 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.'

Notes:

1. Conventional warfare, when looked at as a contest, is a 'game' of resource attrition. The attaching nation's 'resource' is "Homeland Support" (Physical supplies and the 'encouragement of the people'), while the defending nation's 'resource' is "Population" (Physical headcount and the 'will to resist of the people'). The 'winner' is the one who does NOT deplete their 'resources' first. This works with nation vs nation, and non-national organization attacking nation⁽²⁾, but not nation attacking non-national organization⁽³⁾.
2. In this case, the 'attacker is typically low in 'resources,' but will take any successful strike as a 'win,' rallying its supporters and earning more 'encouragement' for the next strike.
3. The problem here is that the non-national organization has no clearly defined "Population" to attack. Civilians killed in an aerial bombing raid on a production center are 'collateral damage;' regrettable, but part of the 'horror of war.' Civilians killed in a bombing run on a 'suspected terrorist training village,' are considered a tragedy, and the event is used by the terrorist groups to aid in recruitment. Killing an entire family because the head of the household's brother is a suspected terrorist is Murder, and a War Crime.

"Did the Quran specify the gender of the Virgins? If not, a group of 18 Jihadists springs to mind."

One bit I saw (from Family Guy, if memory serves) had the '72 virgins' all be pimply-faced, D&D playing, teenage nerds. Dental braces, thick glasses, and dorky outfits on each and every one.

The ex-suicide bomber ended the cutaway by screaming Sadam's name in rage to the sky.

Thanks, I didn't know about that one.

Of course, one conceptual punishment might be that they get exactly what they wished for. Imagine being the sole male trying to cope with a harem of normally plotting virgin women without access to sticks or carrots.

"There were alliances between the different crown heads of Europe that dictated who joined the fray on what side."

Yes, all those alliances and mutual defense pacts were the "Nuclear ICBMs" of the day; They started out small; two neighboring countries agreeing to assist each other in war as a way of 'pooling resources,' so each nation could field a smaller standing army than if it were trying to fight alone, and they grew into this interlocking lattice that the diplomats and philosophers thought would make the perfect defense; no nation would invade or attack another because it would set off all these treaties and burn all of Europe to the ground, INCLUDING the nation who started it. It was Mutually Assured Destruction, nobody from within the 'lattice' could 'win,' so there was no point in engaging in warfare. It also had the benefit that if some Non-European nation tried to invade any European country, that invader would be looking at the dangerous end of EVERY rifle, cannon, lance, sword, bayonet, and slingshot in the Old Wold.

Sadly, we had ONE lunatic who managed to 'light the fuse,' with his assassination of Archduke Ferdinand; the equivalent of someone today managing to send forged launch codes to a Submarine and tricking them into launching a nuke at a coastal city. Like an assassin's bullet, that sort of attack is quick, and almost impossible to 'take back' in the short time frame from launch to detonation.

"It is a well-documented fact that some of the radical islamic terrorists of 9/11 did in fact train with Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq right under Saddam's nose and with implicit approval. I am not drinking the leftist Kool-Aid on this, and I never will."

Just as it is a well documented fact that some of the mercenary companies operating around the globe against American interests did in fact train with the U.S. Military right under Regan's, Bush's, Clinton's, Dubya's, and Obama's noses and with implicit approval. Those are mercenary companies who were formed from former U.S. military members, and hire veterans to fill their ranks.

Try to be sure that when you think you are stating a fact, you are not accidentally stating a factoid⁽¹⁾. Without its last sentence, my previous paragraph would be a factoid. I also believe that the majority of people on CR4 already know you don't drink the Blue Kool-Aid, you only drink the Red Kool-Aid⁽²⁾.

Allow me to close with a few words ABOUT words, by the late Sir Terry Pratchett:

"Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.

Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.

Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.

Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.

Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.

Elves are terrific. They beget terror.

The thing about words is that meaning can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

No one ever said elves are nice.

Elves are bad."

Notes:

1. Factoid: A small snippet of text that vaguely resembles a fact, but is in fact missing a key bit of information. Similar to a statistic⁽³⁾.
2. Both sides have their propaganda machines. This isn't a war of black and white, it's a war of reddish grey and bluish grey. Although this year we seem to have a new color added to the mix⁽⁴⁾.
3. And did you know that 98.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
4. We've added Orange: