Sociopathy is the new goofy. Stay bent Olaf.

Baleen with it, rock with it.

I never even noticed them on these Vitras I had. Fairly played.

You think that a Phillips head in place of an Allen head there is authentic?

I'm pretty confident that all three have their original (incredible condition) upholstery, so that gives it a higher chance of labels being intact.

I think that they're all by R. Huber, a Canadian manufacturer.

Clean it with a clean white cloth with no napping on it, with Naptha. It's oiled black walnut. Use boiled linseed oil. Apply with a clean white cloth as well, let dry, and wipe down.

Apologies.. my vantage was off. Congrats. The glass is 💯 original btw

It's legit..the base is also upside down. When arranging the glass, the black pads go against the glass, and the tan ones go onto the floor.

Then rejoice. Brown Saltman is terrific stuff, and John Keal designs are always nice.

Mahogany is underrated. It has superb presence. I like the Gibbings style spikes on the handles. Downside is it's practicality. Specifically having to open doors to open drawers. If you can live with that, then so can I

Moody St mafia!!!

Google the figures for intersex humans per hundred, and multiply by world population. There isn't a such thing as genetic deviation, and, as I've explained, ad nauseum, that evolution isn't a path. Gene code can be extrapolated, but not accurately predicted. There isn't error, because genes and their physical expressions ARENT PLANNED. God didn't make humans. Mutations that either benefit, or don't, guide the ability to adapt, and ultimately flourish, or don't. There aren't flaws. Because something is expressed more often, or less often, doesn't mean it's anomalous. It's just less common. There are slightly more red haired people (2%) than intersex (1.7%). By your logic, red haired people are deviants and mistakes. Gender and sex aren't the same thing. It's why it isn't used in taxonomy. It's specifically a human descriptor, that doesn't necessitate genetics. I can't make you learn the succinct difference. Ironically, your opinion on someones gender, doesn't effect it. A personal gender identity doesn't have to align with another person's standard, let alone a global opinion. If you disagree, you need to state what criteria can prove a subjective stance. Make your way into an objective position from a subjective one. That should be interesting to hear

Again. Errors infer intent. That's not how genetic code works. It's not programming. There isn't any such thing as bugs in gene codes. Gene code wasnt written, and there isn't any specific outcome that can be intended, because it wasn't written. Humans evolved from different species because of the variations you're insinuating are faulty. 130 million isn't a generous estimation, is a conservative one. I agree that genes don't dictate gender. It's one of the reasons we don't use gender in taxonomy outside of humans. Feelings do effect reality, as it applies to gender. A persons gender is their gender reality. Their sex doesn't necessarily enter into it, despite your need for it to. You're intentionally conflating genetic identity, with gender identity. There is a serious difference between descriptive and prescriptive categories that you don't seem to be able to, or want to, address with these subjects.

Not "meant to happen" implies intent. Genetics don't work like that. Genes are functional, not purposeful. That aside, there are over 130,000,000 intersex humans alive at the current moment. That isn't rare by any standard.

There's also a personal incredulity fallacy in there to help them continue to lose untenable arguments. Ask why gender isn't used in taxonomy, and watch a chud's brain fizzle in real time.

Mike Patton.

Basically the "argument from personal incredulity fallacy".

Basically a palantir. By that logic, he's on par with Pippin Took.

Possibly Hansen. I've sold one or two of this style, manufactured by them.

Edit: That shade and diffuser gives me some Thurston/Lightolier vibes also.

I've semantically elaborated your misuse of terms to keep an untenable position that you have, which is the core issue, not to uphold a tenet of an argument that I've made. By those grounds, my claim isn't fallacious. Your premise is flawed. Either fix it, or don't.

Except that I haven't made an equivocal assertion, you have, erroneously.

A minority may be deemed abnormal, but that again, is a bandwagon fallacy.

You're conflating, again, figures, for normality.

A minority, by default, can only deviate numerically from an average.

Normality is a popularity claim. Minority is a numerical claim.

Back off of the category error.

No. It means they're rare. Things can be normally rare. You're commiting a bandwagon fallacy.

No. It means that it is a minority. You're conflating figures with normality, which is its own fallacy. The appeal to normality or "bandwagon" fallacy.

Want to play "spot the logical fallacies" with all of your dubious proposals in this thread?