chyron8472

Handman said:

chyron8472 said:

Don’t come on too strong. Seriously. Yes, talk to her, but don’t let your emotions or hormones or whatever run away with you.

How do you recommend I approach this situation?

I suggest being gentle about it, and letting her have the chance to respond. Like, if you’ve ever seen the movie Hitch, you come 90% of the way and let her come the last 10%. Give her the chance to show you some of her cards before you show all of yours. Dumping all of your feelings in her lap all at once has the potential to be overwhelming and maybe creepy.

You can lead the conversation, but let her follow. And… and I’m really serious about this, don’t take the relationship too fast even if your hormones want you to, because leaving mystery for later makes it better and more memorable. Going fast can be exhilarating on its own, but that feeling can disappear like a flash in a pan. You want a slow burn, not an explosion.

Don’t come on too strong. Seriously. Yes, talk to her, but don’t let your emotions or hormones or whatever run away with you.

chyron8472 said:

Currently going through:

The Land: Predators, Chaos Seeds book 7, by Aleron Kong

The Land series is on book 7, and I find that I don’t really care how long it takes to finish. I’m just enjoying the adventure. I do wonder how the series might end, but Aleron Kong can take 7 more books to carry on with the adventures of Richter and the Mist Village, and I’d be okay with it.

SilverWook said:

I wish twitter would be more specific about whether a suspicious login was actually successful or not. I’m going to be all paranoid about that for a while.
And yes, I’ve just changed my password.

I make all my passwords super-hard gobbledygook that only my password manager can remember.

I’m of two minds about that. On the one hand, I think it’s similarly arrogant to blanketedly attack any and all dogmatic principles as ludicrous and worthy of scorn. One might say that to hold that no principles are incontrovertibly true is, itself, a principle one can hold to be incontrovertibly true, and is therefore hypocritical.

On the other hand, specific dogmatic principles are indeed harmful to the self, the culture, and to society. Also, being a devout Christian myself, I’m well aware of the dogma that Jesus personally railed against and turned on its head because they completely missed the point.

I suppose it comes down to an issue of who is challenging certain dogma, their motivation for doing so, and their approach at doing it.

oojason said:

Mrebo said:

That’s great, oojason. But of course you’re just a humble tailor now 😉

Do you know what the sad part is, Mrebo? I’m a very good tailor.

😉

I think the analogy would work better if you were an exiled mod from theforce.net.

Why was Possessed banned?

He swore at Warb but that was 2 days ago.

paja said:

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver.

I’ve played the first Soul Reaver game at least three times from start to finish, having originally bought it for the Sega Dreamcast.

dahmage said:

Ha

dahmage said:

Ha

dahmage said:

Ha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFR5oZQrIVc

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

chyron8472 said:

so combining the weight of all the buildings everywhere would still be a laughably small drop in the bucket comparatively.

I’m going to start using this rational but for dessert.

allol

I agree with mfm.

…About slavish devotion to the anthem, not that he can go f*ck himself.

 
Well, maybe mfm can also do that, if he so chooses and is flexible enough to, but that’s none of my business. 😃

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

What I’ll never understand about this debate is that kneeling is literally a form of respect.

Not when it is done during the Nation Anthem which is a clear violation of the proper protocol.

Proper protocol my ass. The same people complaining the loudest are the ones who have the American flag on their underwear.

I don’t have the flag on my underwear.

I never said you did. I’m sure you follow the rules to the letter.

Following protocol and showing respect aren’t necessarily the same thing.

When the rules say you should stand at attention and you kneel, I have having hard time seeing how that is not disrespectful.

What you described is them being disrespectful to the rules. Not disrespectful to the flag/what it stands for (not that I’d have a problem if they did, but they aren’t so). Unless you think it stands for “the rules”…

Anyway following the rules has no direct correlation with actual respect. They’re on different planes.

If you can’t see that kneeling when it is clear you are supposed to stand is disrespectful, that protesting the Nation Anthem is disrespectful, I don’t know what else to say to you.

They’re not protesting the anthem.

In your opinion.

It’s not an opinion. Their target of protest is police brutality, not the anthem.

paja said:

You ever realize that buildings don’t make the earth any heavier because the materials were already on it?

Nevermind that the Earth itself weighs about 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (13.170 septillion) pounds, so combining the weight of all the buildings everywhere would still be a laughably small drop in the bucket comparatively.

You like her, and she likes you? I don’t see the problem.

Is the problem that she’s with someone else? Because I’d advise against getting too close in that case.

CatBus said:

* For extraordinarily loose definitions of popular.

Well, I don’t know how popular this particular boycott is, because idgaf about it really, but people often seem to enjoy bitching about this or that to the point that bitching about whatever-it-is becomes a bandwagon.

Personally, I think boycotting Nike is misdirected outrage, and that this outrage is just a fad. So many consumer boycotts come and go, and next year no one will remember this one. Being angry at Nike is just the recent popular thing to do.

Warbler said:

unbelievable.

Okay, you’ve known mfm for a long enough time now that you shouldn’t be surprised.

snooker said:

chyron8472 said:

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

newt

tauntaun

Needlegawp

Penguin

Niffler

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

newt

tauntaun

Needlegawp

Warbler said:

It looked to me like he was trying to politely tell you to shut up about Frink.

I just said I’m not sorry he’s gone. Maybe that’s too critical for the mods, or maybe it just opened the door for other people to be critical. I assumed the latter, but I took no offense because I won’t get banned or even harshly chastized by the mods for saying that one thing. So I was content to leave it at that and not worry about it.

Now, I’m assuming they would prefer we change the subject, so…

 
I’ve been hungry a lot in recent days. My family has been on this “intermittent fasting” thing lately, which basically means only eating within an 8-hour period each day. I’m trying to get back down to fitting into some of my pants that are now too small, but I’m not losing weight very fast, if at all, which is bothering me.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

NeverarGreat said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Even for the Trumpster fire, this is big.

I actually find this a bit disturbing. Trump won the election, and with the help of these people. Seems like they want their cake and eat it too. Also, it’s the Trump supporters always claiming that there is some sort of Democrat-led “deep state”, when actually if this article is to be believed, there really IS a deep state and it is entirely Republican. If they were truly patriots, they would come out in the open and say what’s right, not quietly benefit from something they know is sick.

Trump just called it “gutless”. He’s right.

Hard disagree. The person who wrote it is just letting America know that “there are adults in the room”, which while small comfort, is still a comfort that Trump isn’t allowed to completely ruin the executive branch of government. And the press is constitutionally given the right to not tell Trump who wrote it, despite Trumps protestations.

Warbler said:

The point is, is that is is unfair to allow positive comments about X but yet not allow legit criticism of X.

But it’s not unfair. The reasoning why they don’t want active users to criticize banned users is because said banned users can’t personally rebut to defend themselves. It’s not a blanket rule against criticism in general or against people in general. It is with regard to specific people for specific reasons.

And SW was not telling me off. He was giving fair warning in advance of anything actionable that we might say, while trying to be civil and friendly about it.

To brand it as “X” suggests that all negative criticism is created equal, that their reasons are unimportant, and that allowing non-negative conversation makes them hypocrites, which is not true. Therefore, attacking “criticism of ‘X’” instead of specifically criticism of banned users is a strawman.

Then the house exploded

For the record, a strawman is when you create a caricature of someone’s argument, so you can then attack that caricature and make your position look more reasonable by comparison to it.