Okay so you don't get the joke either. Anduril is saying we have flashbacks to almost any year, even toddlers, and making light of that with irony. Rainmace didn't get that and thought he was being dumb and not realising that it's a short time.
The country is relevant because there's a stereotype of yanks being bad at irony. It isn't true, you have brilliant ironic wits, but you also have a lot of loud narcissists who can't reflect on situations to understand irony.

And Great Tits. Hopefully not any blue tits or blue footed boobies though.

No. An invasive species is one that arose in one climate and has due to human intervention come to another where it can outcompete indigenous species. We took ourselves to every place except for somewhere in Africa.

But it doesn't know what it's remembering. Think of your brain like a computer. Your unconscious is looking for any .Regret files, but it doesn't know what's in them until your conscious opens the file and puts it back together.

They don't mistake kindness for weakness, they just are purely transactional in their kindness, and someone they deem weak they don't need to manipulate means they don't have to bother pretending to be human any more.

And as a lesson to see the warning signs of an abuser. Won't catch them all, but every bite they take outta you is one more you can see coming.

To be honest it's very common, just not done like this. It's "ooh that top makes you look fat" every time you go out. Or "Oh you're not still into that are you, when are you going to grow up." Or "I just think it's selfish that you don't pay enough attention to me."
Just constant little niggles from people with control disorders that you can't escape.

No. I'm considering context and intent. You are the ones who want to run from the words, their context and her intent to what you feel from them. As witnessed by your continual refusal to engage her words.

A) I literally did right under: Thank you for proving me right by not interacting with the quote or second guessing yourself because your own interpretation of what I said was more important than context.
b) Nope. If I have to reinterpret beyond the literal meaning of her words, she's a hypocrite. If she wants me to take her words at face value, Bil's a liar. Do you have an alternate explanation or are you witnessing the NPD driven desire to shit on inconvenient truths even if you can't think of a counter explanation.

Nope. It's holding her to her own standards. Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for witnessing she's wrong by doing the opposite of what she said to do with others words to hers: "Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean."

Ironic you'd say that whilst demonstrating your ego to the point you refuse to engage with my words only tyrannise them...

Ironic considering what she said is that when you read someone say something, you should have a strong definition of words in your head and not conclude "Oh they can't possibly mean that."So either she's a hypocrite or you're a liar.
Edit: "Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean."

Yeah this is narcissism, thinking that the meanings you give to words are more important to what someone is saying than the context and intent. It leads to linguistic tyranny where you hold others ideas to your concept of words rather than accepting words can have multiple definitions.

EDIT: Can only people who have read the article and are willing to defend it's words in good faith comment. I don't like wasting my time, even if they are indirectly evidencing my point on this mindset.

It's been a few years mind, but pound shops and home bargains usually have packs of 3 electrics for a quid.

£1 for one isn't bottom of the barrel. Used to be you get 6 ultra cheap flint ones for the same price as 4 ultra cheap small ones, used to work in PoundWorld.

Tell that to the Kurds.

Then they're lying scumbags if they try and make you feel bad about it.

The point of the article is to openly engage in apologetics for Qatar. You knew that when you strategically chose your quotes and wilfully failed to see anything pro Qatar in that. Every single negative quote is framed with an excuse afterwards. The article is entirely written to present Qatari excuses to address criticisms. Each section ends pro Qatari.

Let's start with the title:
"FIFA urges World Cup teams to ‘focus on the football’ in Qatar"
And then we'll move onto the Qatari propaganda it presents without counter:
“The mortality rate among these communities is within the expected range for the size and demographics of the population.”
And then:
"Khaled al-Suwaidi, a senior member of Qatar’s World Cup organising committee, responded to Denmark’s announcement, saying the country has used the World Cup “as a catalyst to drive change” and has reformed its migrant worker laws.

And then: "She later said her remarks had been “misinterpreted“, adding, “It is important to support the country of Qatar in groundbreaking reforms.”"
The whole thing is back breaking apologetics for Qatar with negative quotes you highlighted it then tries to present as unreasonable with every line you just so happened to gloss over.
I'm sure your choice of not citing a single one of the apologetic lines was purely accidental and definitely not motivated by your agenda.

That last article is pro Qatar, framing it as an issue that has been addressed and including more criticism of those opposed to Qatar than Qatar.
Posting that as evidence AGAINST AJ's bias is straight up Goebellian propaganda.