Saturday [1 to 4]

4.  The decadence of coffee

What's your decadence for elevenses today?  Mine was again shavings of choc and cinnamon.

3.  Naughty of me, couldn't resist it

This is from an account named Cornishview

Just had 2 days in Birmingham. 4 shootings - 1 dead - 3 seriously injured - not even a mention in #MSM.

They let a Kernow man across the Tamar?  Surely just asking for trouble. :)

2.  That map

This was not just an insight into things long gone or even to push a new book - if I've not pushed it yet, I'm hardly likely to now.  It was because there is a connection between this particular lie and the one today - plus who knew, who knows, and why, knowing this, they continue to play out this charade?

Why are biblical scholars not setting people straight on the matter?  Youtubers are:

Now - Toodles's questions:

Of course she, as a biblical scholar, knows the answers to those questions and if she really didn't, I could answer them for her but again - of course she knows and is making a point about calling something a temple.  

Who has temples?  Christians have churches and cathedrals [there's a quiz question in there].  The answer is that only a non-Christian faith has them.  Especially the mystery religions when one refers to them in a Euro peoples context.

1.  You'll know where this is from from its format

• The social media giants are still flush with cash, convinced they are righteous and enlightened, and, most of all, are exceedingly arrogant. They believe they will continue to define and influence society – and they may – but only half.

• The nearly consistent claim from established social media companies against their start-up competitors is that they are guilty of some "ism." Take your pick: racial, ethnic, political, religious, sexual, whatever. Some crime, syndrome, or deplorable belief – some "ism" – is usually attached to any platform other than themselves.

• This is not the stuff of right-wing conspiracy theorists. It touches on press freedoms and landmark legal cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan. In that 1964 case, the Supreme Court established that a plaintiff in a defamation case concerning a public figure must prove "actual malice" in reporting false information. Actual malice is the publication of a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.