AntiNickname
@antinickname
Law. Film enthusiast. ADHD life. I forgot what else I wanted to put in here.
Apparently a bunch of cool people have mutuals with this person, so I wanted to put out an FYI that this person is an antisemite.
An interesting thing to note: one of the angles Pattie’s team is looking into is any instances of Patagonia *not* defending its mark or how its mark is not distinctive. That should clue you in to why a company might seek to defend its trademark.
You were lightly corrected and you dug your heels in. The same “technicality” off-ramp was offered to you from the start but you wanted to argue with lawyers to prove you were right. People who hate lawyers for this stuff often feel that way bc they have bruised egos and hate being proven wrong.
(I’m adding the center to 17 of these that I will then string together to make a necklace)
They absolutely do because it’s WWII and the SS was kinda sorta a big part of that. Here’s one example from Inglorious Basterds
In 2023 the WHO ended the global emergency. It never said that COVID was no longer a pandemic. But I did misremember an affirmative statement as coming from the WHO instead of the head of the WHO. However, this appears on their international site:
This is a *bad* statement to explain why you’re ok with funneling money into the pockets of a person who has explicitly stated she uses her vast wealth to actively harm trans people. Like what in the actual fuck, @codenamesgame.bsky.social @cgegames.bsky.social ?
It also includes the below, but do you notice anything about this section as compared to the other two?
That’s a broad document covering law and policy, but it does include these excerpts:
The single most telling post I’ve seen in awhile. What a shitty guy.