chyron8472

a mouse farted and

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

Handman said:

When is Frink coming back?

I assume the ban is lasting at least a month, looking at the date of last activity. That would mean 9 more days at least.

*shrug* I’m not really sorry he’s gone, though. As unpopular a position as that might be.

A gentle reminder not to knock on people who aren’t able to respond here.

I understand having limits on what one can say about someone who is banned or otherwise unable to respond and defend themselves. One certainly shouldn’t be allowed make fun of, personally attack, or name call such. But if you are going to ban all negative opinions about such, positive opinions about such should also be banned(imagine if you will how unfair we would all think it would be if mods on a forum said you were allowed to give positive opinions about Trump or some other politician but not negative opinions). Besides, if the person can’t respond be the person is banned, the mods must either agree that it is the person’s own fault that they can’t respond or that they banned someone that didn’t deserve to be banned.

Hence the gentle reminder so it doesn’t reach that level. And comparing a banned forum member to a politician is an apples and oranges argument if I’ve ever heard one.

It is not apples and oranges in the way I made the comparison.

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

No it isn’t. That statement ignores the reasoning of why criticism of X may not be allowed. Among other things.

You’re creating a strawman, Warb.

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Meanwhile, we’ve had a major staff departure, and it seems a good lot of you haven’t even noticed yet. 😕

I have no comment.

Yes you do.

moviefreakedmind said:

Very few scientists are devoutly religious because faith isn’t based in rationality.

First, citation needed.

[looks up the word “rational”]
ra·tion·al
adjective
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Also your statement assumes that most scientists don’t deign to believe that which is not scientifically provable; or that one can not use logic and reason to back up one’s faith.

Handman said:

When is Frink coming back?

I assume the ban is lasting at least a month, looking at the date of last activity. That would mean 9 more days at least.

*shrug* I’m not really sorry he’s gone, though. As unpopular a position as that might be.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

It is ironic that a highly educated scientist is less certain about his knowledge than is an uneducated but devout religious person. That is the nature of faith, and what in my mind fundamentally distinguishes atheism, agnosticism, and science from religion.

Unclear whether that is an observation or a criticism. It also suggests one can not be both at the same time.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Handman said:

it’s called having a concussion.

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

and there are many practical reasons one might decide to form such a union.

The tax breaks?

That’s part of it sure, but there are plenty of benefits, from big things like health coverage, to things you’d never think of like dry cleaning discounts (if Seinfeld is to be believed).

Being in a relationship merely for financial discounts… what an emotionally hollow, unfulfilling farce. Might as well change one’s vows from “til death do us part” to “until my field of fucks runs out.”

Ridiculous.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The only fun part about weddings is thinking about how meaningless all those sappy, lovey-dovey vows will be in four years when the bride and groom get divorced.

That man could depress a hyena.

DominicCobb said:

Divorce isn’t “giving up.” If one’s marriage isn’t working, there’s no good reason to stay to together and be miserable (unless there’s kids involved, but even then there’s a point at which it’d be worse to stay together).

But why isn’t it working? My being married isn’t just about me and what I want. If I’m selfish about what I want, that’s not fair to her.

If one is miserable, there are ways to try to remedy that. Go on a date. Go on a weekend road trip just the two of you. Figure out what your spouse is interested in and inject yourself into it. Get involved in what they’re doing. In my view, it’s not just about loyalty to my spouse—it’s about loyalty to my vow. I stood up in front of my extended family, hers, and our mutual friends from college, and made a promise to her to stick together whatever happened. And I don’t take that promise lightly. It’s extremely important to me.

I’m just saying if one’s marriage isn’t working, they better damn well try to make it work before giving up on it, because otherwise that means they gave their word and so their word isn’t worth spit. There’s no excuse for the divorce rate being as high as it is, other than that people don’t understand what being married actually means.

moviefreakedmind said:

The only fun part about weddings is thinking about how meaningless all those sappy, lovey-dovey vows will be in four years when the bride and groom get divorced.

I don’t understand that. I’ve been married for coming up on 14 years, and I don’t understand how, apart from abuse or infidelity, someone wouldn’t (figuratively) fight tooth-and-nail for one’s marriage. My wedding day is still considered by me as the best day of my life. I love my daughter, but I still vividly remember the feeling of standing up in front of everyone I know and telling them how much I love my wife. So I don’t understand why people would be married for 5 or 10 years and then just give up because life is hard.

Not that my life is all sunshine and roses. We’ve had several really serious circumstances, especially recently.

Warbler said:

I think the anti-thoughts-and-prayers thing is stupid.

I think the point being made is that the politicians who offer thoughts and prayers are being disingenuous. Whether or not prayer is helpful is not the point, it’s the fact that they only offer thoughts and prayers when they have the power to do so much more and yet don’t do it.

Ender’s Game and Ender’s Shadow.

 
for the umpteenth time.

JEDIT: …and I just now noticed an error. In Ender’s Shadow, Achilles seems to know that the Buggers have a hive mind, when no one in Ender’s Game (the original novel to which Ender’s Shadow runs parallel) knows about that by that point except Mazer Rackham. It doesn’t break the plot; it just makes no sense.

Possessed said:

Basically just a joke on why the pizza chain (I think it’s called papa Murphys?) is so popular when they don’t even cook your pizza for you. They just make you a custom frozen one (I have heard it’s actually pretty good though). The joke is basically just a callback to the time there was a pages long debate on the legitimacy of such a practice.

The Papa Murphy’s near my house went out of business. Went over there one day to get a pizza and the whole store was gutted with the sign missing.

I guess it wasn’t popular enough.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Smash Mouth wasn’t kidding when they said “my world’s on fire, how 'bout yours?”

That’s the way I like it and I’ll never get bored.

.

So that would make raw pizza lawful good and uncooked pizza chaotic good?

NeverarGreat said:

chyron8472 said:

I seriously don’t see how The Phantom Menace is more watchable than Revenge of the Sith. Nothing happens in TPM that we care about; and Jar Jar and TPM-Anakin’s acting are not more watchable than ROTS-Anakin’s acting.

It depends greatly on our own point of view. If you’re looking at it from the perspective of the overall story of the saga, sure it’s fairly superfluous. But taken in isolation, [TPM]'s a grand, impressive, and weird sci-fi movie that just happens to take place in the Star Wars universe where ROTS tries so much to tie into the OT that it can’t help but be lessened by the comparison.

TPM is better in isolation than ROTS is in isolation because ROTS tries to tie into the OT…?

They’re called Episodes I and III. They’re not in isolation. They, on purpose, are supposed to tie into the OT.
Comparing Episode I in isolation is not the same thing as taking Rogue One in isolation because it’s not supposed to be a standalone film. As such, isolation ought not to be the only metric used. Even if TPM can subjectively be considered a better film by some, it’s definitely not a better prequel.

Regarding The Orville, I recently heard a theory which posited that since Seinfeld exists as a TV show in the Orville universe (the crew was watching it on the main viewer), and Star Trek exists as a TV/Movie series in the Seinfeld universe (Jerry and George talking about Spock’s death in Wrath of Khan), that Star Trek also exists as a TV/movie series in the Orville universe.

Seth MacFarlane was directly asked about it at a panel, but he said he couldn’t answer that in a manner that would satisfy anyone.

dahmage said:

Does using quotation marks indicate mockery?

*trying to find (Colin) Mochrie gif indicating quotation marks.*

Possessed said:

rink? I’d forge

paja said:

Solve this!

aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vd2F0Y2g/dj11RS0xUlBEcUpBWQ==

Convert from binary and it outputs hex code; convert the hex code and it outputs a string of random ASCII characters.
https://cryptii.com/binary-to-english

…looks like a password to me.

I seriously don’t see how The Phantom Menace is more watchable than Revenge of the Sith. Nothing happens in TPM that we care about; and Jar Jar and TPM-Anakin’s acting are not more watchable than ROTS-Anakin’s acting.

Chewielewis said:

I don’t think I would call TPM well crafted. There’s very little story in it. No identifiable protagonist.

Qui-Gon, maybe?

Nothing means anything.

Yep. Because nothing in Ep1 happens that is important to the stories of Eps2-3, that isn’t also explained in Ep2.

AOTC and ROTS are trash but they have actual protagonists who make decisions that affect the outcome of the film. Both these films explore themes and ideas and have a central conflict that is present from begining to end.

The big Gungan v. Droid battle is pointless outside of being a diversion—we have no stake in whether they live or die in the battle because it doesn’t matter to Naboo defeating the Trade Federation. The Naboo pilots are stupid because they could fly right through the hangar and blow up the reactor but they don’t—Anakin does it on accident, to their confusion. The battle against Maul has glaring problems, like why there needs to be multiple force fields or why Obi-Wan doesn’t use Force Speed like he did earlier. Creepy Puppet Yoda’s appearance was a problem with the theatrical release; Jar Jar’s character was overtly racist, extremely annoying, and had no bearing on the plot of TPM; and Ric Olie, aka Captain Obvious, is obvious. And there’s a throwaway scene where they ruin the mysticism of the Force by attributing Force-sensitivity to mitochondria.

Basically, the gungan battle against the droids is mostly filler; the podrace is mostly filler; (at least) one of the characters is annoying and only funny on an immature level; the mysticism and wonder of the Force is undermined; and the story doesn’t matter to the trilogy nor the saga. So no, I wouldn’t call that “well crafted.”