Lurker > ParanoidObsessive

Years ago, someone did a contest on all of the social boards to find the hottest girl and guy on GameFAQs, and PotD won both of them.

Unfortunately, the girl was mostly a lurker who rarely posted, and is probably long gone at this point, and the guy only ever shows up to make topics about his karma milestones.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Money can actually do a pretty good job of renting happiness, though. As well as buying off various stressors that take happiness away, thus effectively engendering happiness.

Or as many people have said in the past, "Anyone who says money can't buy happiness has never been poor."


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Insight posted...

it's all in how you word it, gurl >_>

Hey, you're talking to the person who used to insult people by implying their parents were related, and never once got modded for it - so I know that a lot of not getting modded is just being clever about being an asshole (something most of the current assholes can't get into their heads).

I probably did that dozens of times, too. It was my go-to insult until I got even more subtle about shitting on people.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

It's not IN the Bible either though, and a straight forward reading of Genesis gives the impression that God just went *poof* there's a doggy. God spending millions of years pushing DNA around doesn't get a mention, and would probably be worth noting.

To be fair, it's not as if the people writing the stories would have any capacity to understand that as a concept, and the people they wanted to read it certainly wouldn't.

Imagine yourself traveling back in time and trying to explain what a cel phone is and how it was made to a caveman, without resorting to "ehh, umm... okay, it's sort of like magic" to explain away some concept that they're thousands of years away from ever understanding.

That's actually one the arguments in favor of at least the Old Testament having more roots in reality than most people are willing to admit. Most of the Leviticus-flavored prohibitions people always love to whip out when they're trying to attack religion had relatively rational reasoning behind them ("Don't eat pork because there's no refrigeration and trichinosis is a thing"), but you'd literally never be able to EXPLAIN the logic behind it to people who only just finished inventing the concept of cities and irrigation in their Civilization tech trees. So "Don't do it because it makes God mad" is as useful an explanation as anything else, and probably helped save quite a few lives over the years.

It's really only later, after Paul had a seizure and bolted Jewish history and backstory onto insanely metaphorical Greek mystery cult logic that things start to get a bit more esoteric, but even then he (and other early Church leaders) didn't necessarily see the world the way you think they did (because all we really know about his views comes from the Bible, but the prevailing theory is half the books in the Bible he supposedly wrote weren't written by him anyway, just like none of the Gospels were written by any of the Disciples, in spite of you clearly being meant to think they were).


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

The better question to ask is, why do people believe that every word of the Bible is and must be literal truth, when it doesn't actually make that claim, and Judaism itself has always acknowledged that at least some of those stories were either allegorical or metaphorical?

I mean, it's pretty obvious that people from that era were capable of not taking everything literally, considering that's more or less the entire point of Jesus teaching via parable. You're not supposed to assume that every story he's telling is literally true, as much as you're supposed to understand the moral point he's making via a tangible example.

Keep in mind, there are plenty of Christians who consider most of the "God made the world in six days" narrative to itself be a metaphor for millions of years, with "evolution" being perfectly acceptable as one of the tools God used to create life over the long term. It's really only the more extremist/fundamentalist fringe who tend to argue the "No, it's exactly six days as we know them, and everything was magicked into being instantaneously."

Especially since, if you actually READ Genesis, and attempt to understand it in context, the beginning isn't even a single story as much as it is two separate related stories that have been interwoven in an attempt to represent different viewpoints.

It's also why the early parts of the Bible use multiple names/titles to describe "God" (at least in the original translations, English versions tend to steamroll over all the subtlety and just use "God" or "The Lord"). Different versions of the story referred to God by different names, and someone thousands of years ago basically just took all those stories and tried to turn them into one coherent narrative.



TheCyborgNinja posted...

Then there's the "earth is 6000 years old" BS.

That's not actually in the Bible. That was literally one asshole doing the math himself and then extremists taking it at face value. I'm pretty sure even the Catholic Church doesn't accept that as factual at this point.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Insight posted...

never.

But that's just because you're our resident time pilot. If you DO get warned, you can just travel back in time and undo it before it actually happens.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Arguably that's not even true. A thing doesn't actually need to exist so long as the PERCEPTION of the thing exists.

If I could absolutely convince everyone on Earth that there was a potent virus that was going to kill off 99% of the population within the next year, and that I was the only one who could produce the proper vaccine to save everyone from it, I could become a multi-millionaire in spite of the fact that no such virus (or vaccine) really exists.

When it comes to scams in general, it's often far easier to convince people that you have the only solution to a problem that doesn't exist than it is to latch on to a problem that does and pretend you're fixing it.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Far-Queue posted...

And your point on Native American monuments is just silly.

To be fair, plenty of them fought against their "their" country (and/or vice-versa) because many of them never considered it THEIR country in the first place (and/or vice-versa).

We could probably lump the Mormons in there too, considering most of their early leadership were blatant separatists and we had to force them into the US more or less at gunpoint, and the only reason it didn't turn into a major war was because they were fully aware of how outnumbered and outgunned they were (which still never stopped minor guerilla actions or more passive resistance).

People wanted to build a massive monument to Crazy Horse in South Dakota to act as a "counterpoint" Mount Rushmore, and he's got multiple smaller monuments and honors named after him (and he even had a commemorative US stamp at one point), in spite of the fact that he was responsible either directly or indirectly for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers.

Regardless of whether or not you agree that the Confederates had the "right" to secede in the first place, whether the secession itself was a valid act or if on a technical level the South never actually stopped being part of the US and was merely "occupied" by "hostile insurgents", or what you might think about the underlying motives of the "rebels", the fact remains that very few of them would have considered themselves rebels or traitors at all, and if the South had won the war, every single one of those political and military figures would be viewed VERY differently through the lens of history.

History is subjective as hell. And even people who UNDERSTAND that to some degree rarely ever really think about just how subjective it is. Most of our history prior to the last few hundred years is very much written by "the winners", and even history that is more seemingly "politically neutral" is still being written by people with axes to grind and agendas to push (and unconscious biases of their own coloring their perception).

And perception absolutely tends to change over time. How Americans see a lot of political, social, and historical issues today isn't how they were perceived a hundred years ago, and likely won't be the same way they're perceived 100 years from now. Humans in general tend to be ethnocentric as fuck so we're programmed to always think of our own perception of things as the "right" one, but that's never been how the world really works.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

FrisbeeDude posted...

PO still posts here?

No.



knivesX2004 posted...

Calling PO a troll basically just means he hurt your feelings with a lot of words and you aren't capable of replying.

So am I the only person who read this:

SkynyrdRocker posted...

are all good posters.

...and assumed he was making a joke, wherein he mentioned having updated his ignore list, but then made a list of posters he actually thinks are worthwhile, who AREN'T on his list?

Because that's how I read that post. But from multiple replies in this topic I feel like I'm the only one who took it that way.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Probably like 10 years ago.

I think I've only been modded once in the last year or so (a 3kl), and I got that one overturned almost immediately.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

RCtheWSBC posted...

I'd outbid y'all and pay a prostitute directly for her time to save her from having to go near him.

You'd basically have to dedicate the rest of your life to paying for all of the available time for every prostitute within a 20+ mile radius of him, because if you miss even one crack-addict hood-rat streetwalker the faction paying to get Ico laid still wins.

Though maybe that's the end-game - outbid them on every classy escort or otherwise worthwhile local prostitute, so he winds up with a terrible lay that gives him Ultra-AIDS or something.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

That's a terrible drawing of Giganta, and it's not even an original joke.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

ungubby posted...

Herd behavior is ruining society

Herd behavior is arguably the only reason society exists as a concept in the first place.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Judgmenl posted...

To be quite honest, Final Fantasy V is the best Final Fantasy game

You certainly might believe that, yes.



darcandkharg31 posted...

It kept my interest better than 4 and 6 anyways.

I can't even rank it in my top 9 Final Fantasy games for keeping my interest.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zeus posted...

How retro.

To be fair, I made it like 10+ years ago.

I made three different ones when YTMND was actually a trendy thing. Usually I completely forget any of them exist for years at a time, but occasionally someone says something that reminds me of them.

Like this one:

POyes.ytmnd.com


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

http://polist.ytmnd.com


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

JoanOfArcade posted...

Plus the plane crashes I think there was two.

One of which broke his back in three places, when he was in his 20s.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Lightning Bolt posted...

Rangers still get things for tracking and hunting specific targets in 5e right?

Yes. Both stuff like general "favored enemy" bonuses which give you advantage on all rolls versus your enemy type, as well as more specific stuff like Hunter's Mark, which allows you to track and deal extra damage to targets for a short period of time.

Just a generic "evildoers" might be a bit too broad a category to apply favored enemy to, though.



Lightning Bolt posted...

Rogue/Wizard because nothing is more infuriating than a sly bastard who knows magic

That one is arguably canon - it was more or less the basis of the Arcane Trickster class in older editions.

Same for combining Wizard and Ranger - that's the Arcane Archer (sort of).



shadowsword87 posted...

Oh right, that's why people don't play bards, the GM demands singing from the player.

I'd never demand it, because I always feel like players shouldn't be forced out of their comfort zone. If a player WANTS to speak exclusively in first-person character voice, all the better, but if they're self-conscious and would prefer to say "My character says this, my character does this" or even something like "Bob the Mighty swings into the room and then says that he's there to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and bubblegum hasn't been invented yet", then that's fine, too. Same for singing.

Though I might not entirely welcome singing even if the player WANTED to do it, if only because I have sensitive ears and a string of sour notes and off-key bellowing would probably have me wincing and grinding my teeth the whole time. Though I could probably put up with it better if it was a mostly comedic style of game and the lyrics were funny, if the player was just so bubbling up with musical creativity that they felt like they absolutely HAD to do it.

I've always sort of thought about making a bard who has zero aural component, though (ie, no singing, no storytelling, no musical instruments, etc), and who channels everything through physical motion. Basically like the Dancer class in Final Fantasy Tactics or the Macabre Dancer class in .hack. Where they're basically just a bellydancer (maybe a Vistani?) who moves sinuously and generates the same effects as bard song (with maybe the sole concession towards sound being castanets used to keep rhythm).

I have no idea if that's ever been published as an official version of the class (I'm dead certain there's probably a dozen different web-original homebrews, but I don't really care about any of those sorts of class write-ups), but I know there was no option for it in the old AD&D Bard's Handbook (which I own).


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Mario_VS_DK posted...

I don't really know a whole lot about 5e, so I can't really comment on what I'd do.

It shouldn't really matter, since I'm more asking which two classes seem to go together well for flavor reasons than how well they mesh mechanically.



shadowsword87 posted...

Bard Warlock. I like the idea of someone making some sort of pact with the devil for ultimate power

Nah. You'd clearly have to play them as a 1980s heavy metal vocalist who sold his soul for ROCK.

Also, they obviously travel with a Bard Barbarian who has a guitar made out of a battle-axe, which they can use to cleave people, but which also shoots lightning out of the neck.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Yeah, just heard about that a few hours ago.

It's sad, though unfortunately inevitable for all of us eventually. And considering his lifestyle up to this point, it's not entirely surprising that he'd go now that he's almost 70.

Though considering how his life started, it's kind of mind-boggling that he managed to accomplish all that he did in the first place:

http://www.cracked.com/article_22634_5-famous-people-with-mind-blowing-connections-to-evil-crimes.html (entry #3)


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

darcandkharg31 posted...

You could kill every person but there'd still be things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Damn it, you're right. We have to wipe out ALL life on Earth to really be sure.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

We generally use these sorts of topics as general D&D/RPG topics above and beyond their actual initial purpose, so here's a question for everyone just because I was bored and sort of thinking about the idea.


Let's say you were going to play in a 5e D&D game, and the DM told you that the premise for their game was that every player would play a dual class character. You'd start the game at level 2, taking the first level of two separate classes, and with each successive level up, you'd have to choose one of those two classes to level (but you also have to keep them balanced, so every time you level one, you have to level the other next level up - basically, you'd pick one of your classes every odd level, and the other would get leveled up every even level).

The DM suggests that they'd LIKE you to choose two classes for story reasons and combine them to make an interesting roleplaying character concept (like, say, making a Fighter/Mage who is a combat battlemage or a Cleric/Paladin who is a militant church-knight for their god), and not just power game and choose two classes that synergize best for optimal combat utility mechanically, but they can't straight up stop you from being a filthy munchkin if that's what you really want to do.

Given the traditional starting classes to choose from
(Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard), which two would you choose to combine, and what would your overall character concept be?


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

darkknight109 posted...

I'm not on Facebook, ergo I don't unfollow anybody.

---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

JOExHIGASHI posted...

7 ate 9

Someone had to do it

http://nonadventures.com/2017/03/18/sequential-thwart


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zeus posted...

I'm sure most of us have some nobility if you trace it far enough back.

Well, true. If nothing else, there's apparently at least a few million people of Irish descent currently alive today whose DNA traces back to King Niall.

(And if you really want to get philosophical, all of the matter currently part of all of our bodies was once part of the inside of a star, which in a way is a hell of a lot more impressive than who your ancestors were, and whether they were shoveling shit or sitting on a throne.)

But I meant in a more immediate sense. Part of my personal tree traces back into Germany (technically, I've got two different branches, one Prussian and one Bavarian), and prior to WWI the Prussian family was minor nobility (and one of my great-great-great-whatever-granduncles was part of the Kaiser's personal guard).

And there's other stuff in my tree that's pretty impressive (like my grandfather being a Golden Gloves boxing champ and beating an Olympic gold medalist in a fight), or kind of interesting in its own way (like someone farther up my tree who was a German spy during WWII who defected to Canada mid-war). None of which I'm bringing up to boast (I'm sure most people can start cherry-picking awesome stuff that people in their family did in the past if they really wanted to, especially the farther back you're willing to look), but to point out that I'm more than willing to let all of that heritage and history come to a dead stop in my own person, because I have absolutely no desire to ever have kids.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

/co/ on 4chan used to be pretty good for discussing comics and picking up links to digital downloads to almost any comic released in a given week, but then it stopped being that.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Or we could just kill literally everyone on Earth, and then there'd be no more prejudice or discrimination of any kind.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

ClarkDuke posted...

America did it to the Japanese as well.

Well, to be fair, there's a difference between "internment camp" and "death camp", but yes, we've proven that we can be shitty to people in all sorts of ways as well.

Especially since we did it to the Germans as well, during both wars. And then there's always the usual topic of how Native Americans were treated pretty much right from the beginning until today.

And then you have thornier questions, like why we object so strenuously if a foreign power attempts to destabilize a government or uses the threat of military force in an attempt to get their way politically, when we've acted to destabilize multiple governments over the last 70+ years and use the threat of military force in an attempt to get our way politically extremely often.

On a smaller scale, you see it all the time online, when people from one side of the political spectrum (Right OR Left) scream about how they have Freedom of Speech rights and should be allowed to say whatever they want, but also want to classify what the other side is saying as hate speech or dangerous talk or insensitive or offensive or politically sensitive or whathaveyou, and believe they should be silenced, punished, and prevented from saying things in the future.

The moral highground is always convenient when you can use it to bludgeon your opponents, but most people never really see the hypocrisy when they condemn someone else for things they claim are perfectly acceptable when THEY do it.

Humans in general are nothing if not mind-bogglingly hypocritical, and we almost ALWAYS paint the world into "US" versus "THEM". We just disagree about who the US is, and who the THEM is.





EDIT: Apropos of the above, I tracked down this old video clip I've posted a number of times before in a number of different conversations, but which never stops being relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXxXjKmYyt0&t=8m57s


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Questionmarktarius posted...

Zareth posted...

We should round up all the white supremacists and put them into camps. Fucking subhuman scum.

Let's think about this, for just a little bit.
Replace "white supremacists" with pretty much anything else, and you're looking at a nice little vacation from GameFAQs.

You cannot defeat hatred and oppression with hatred and oppression.

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic as fuck.

Because, you know, putting people into camps is what the Nazis did. So suggesting we do the same to people we identify as Nazis implies that a lot of the people screaming about how white supremacists should all be strung up or shot or how it's perfectly acceptable to drive cars into them at rallies because fuck 'em are just as shitty as the people they're criticizing.

"It's okay when we do it to THEM" has pretty much never at any point been a morally justifiable position to take.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

If you're not genetically related to your parents, you aren't actually carrying their lineage into another generation anyway. You'd just be passing along a completely meaningless name with no real continuity to the people who wore in the past.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I've spent most of my life deliberately preventing the birth of my first child, so I'd happily pay to ensure it never happens, let alone pass up a million just to SEE it.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I'm deliberately killing mine. And I've got actual nobility in my bloodline if you trace it back far enough.

I was functionally an only child, and my father only had a sister (whose only child was a son who is gay), and my grandfather only had one brother who didn't have kids, so you basically have to go back to my great-great-grandfather before you see a branch you can take to potentially continue our line (and I'm not even sure it does, I stop following the tree after a certain point because I don't really care).

But if it makes you feel any better, at some point in universal history every human who has ever lived will be dead, so every single family that has ever existed will eventually come to an end. If you get to be the end-cap to yours that actually makes you MORE special than all of the other schlubs who worked to futilely continue it, because there's loads of THEM, but there can only be one YOU.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I_Abibde posted...

the game shop had received a trade of a very old copy of Ironclaw (i.e. the tabletop RPG for furries)

Reminded me of a time long ago and far away, when this was a thing and I almost kinda-sorta played it, except none of the people involved could maintain their interest past the character creation phase:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_%26_Other_Strangeness

Which in retrospect is kind of a shame. Because that happened during a period when one of my friends was actively trying to get into GMing games (because up to that point, I was the one running 99% of the games anyone was playing in our immediate area), but he kept picking game systems that everyone thought were terrible (either because the system itself was bad, or because the setting was meh, or whatever), so none of his games ever really got off the ground and he eventually stopped trying.

Had he succeeded, he might have established himself as a good GM and run games that I could actually have PLAYED in (rather than almost always being the GM myself), and I might be more comfortable as "just a player" today. Instead, because so much of my RP has always been me as the one running things, I always feel a bit out of my comfort zone when I step down and let someone else take the reins.

Then again, that friend sort of became an asshole to everyone about six years later anyway, so it might not have mattered much in the long run.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Actual music-wise, I don't hate it. But then again, I've always been into catchy pop, and I like stuff like Ace of Base and the A-Teens.

The lyrics are bollocks, but the lead singer is actually pretty good in a very 80s club pop sort of way.

The multiple breaks in the middle of the song are annoying, though.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

ArvTheGreat posted...

why are they building nukes everyone should be building giant megazords and battle it out that way

Because the 1980s movie Robot Jox was terrible, and it ruined the idea for everyone.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

dioxxys posted...

did you pick any of the extremely shitty romance options?

Blackwall is obviously the only viable choice.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Zeus posted...

You know, I can't bring myself to bother watching wrestling these days but I still wind up listening to a lot of wrestling content.

I listen to Cornette, WrestleTalk, and WhatCulture wrestling on a regular basis, but it's been like 16 years since I've actually watched a single episode of Raw or Smackdown. And I'll occasionally catch a video here and then of Alverez or Meltzer ranting about how terrible the WWE is these days.

I DO watch most of the pay-per-views (though I didn't for like a 10 year stretch), but that mostly because my best friend subscribes to the WWE Network, so it's an excuse to hang out at his house every 2-3 Sunday. It's more just about the opportunity for socializing for us and our significant others than it is for really watching the graps in any serious way.

But yeah, the Internet has really helped rekindle my interest in wrestling, when I'd lost interest almost completely years ago.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

For any given person, religious or no, if they only know one single Bible verse completely by memory, it's almost always going to be Psalm 23 or John 3:16.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I feel like this story is lies, because if I remember correctly, sleepwalking and sleeptalking are actually mutually exclusive behaviors, so if you do one you can't do the other, and vice-versa.

If what you're describing happened at all, it was probably more that you were half-awake at the time, then just went back to sleep and forgot it because memory storage is sort of disabled while you sleep.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Mario_VS_DK posted...

I'll say. It normally takes me at least 45 minutes to properly think out and make a character limit post, and you made four of them.

I write stream of consciousness. It probably takes me about 10-15 minutes of typing to max out a post.

Normally, I basically start typing and then don't stop until I get to the end, then I have to go back and break up one massive post into however many it takes to get it all posted within GameFAQs character limits.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

I suspect your roommate feels exactly the same way about you.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Doctor Foxx posted...

I love space and weird shit so why not.

Because there are better space-related games out there?

Even with all of the updates and changes, it's still not all that meaty or worthwhile of a game.

Good for you if you manage to get enough enjoyment out of it to justify the cost to yourself, though. Even bad games can see fun if you don't have a huge buy-in investment in them, or go in with low enough expectations.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

NightMareBunny posted...

i bet that was when it was just Canadien shows too huh?

Yes - THE GOLDEN AGE.



Keep in mind, Nick at Nite existed for like six years before you were even born, and Nickelodeon itself even longer than that.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

RedPixel posted...

Martin's pretty good about poetic justice in his tale so far.

It's WAY more poetic for Jaime himself to be the one who kills her, especially as it would conclude his own redemptive arc, and because she's basically spent most of her life hating Tyrion and loving Jaime, but ultimately all of her hate has been futile (or self-destructive), while her love is essentially the weakness that is ultimately going to destroy her.

The only reason why people shy away from the idea and look for clever alternatives is because it seems too obvious, but that doesn't make it a bad thing (see also, Jon's real parentage, which people called LOOOOONG before it was confirmed).

The only real question is going to be whether Jaime kills her as the ultimate act of turning against her and repudiating what she's done (and by proxy, what he's done for her), or if he only comes to her at the end, when everything is in ruins and she's left with nothing but misery and a hopeless future, and he kills her out of mercy and love.

Like, nearly everyone who assumes Jaime is going to kill her always thinks of it in terms of him turning against her and killing her in anger, or out of a sense of righteous justice (especially when you consider the TV show version of her character, where she's played up to be extremely hateable and "evil"), but it's just as possible her story might end with her pinned under a fallen wall or hideously burned, slowly dying with no hope of recovery or chance of survival, and Jaime the only one there, softly comforting her as he ends her suffering, because, even after everything, he DOES still love her.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

GreenGoblinOck posted...

I doubt it. They probably will do the more popular love interests and side characters later on.

The Marvel MCU films are about half-based on the Ultimate comics as-is, so they're not afraid to radically depart from what most people think of as the "official" versions of characters. And they went out of their way to deliberately turn Peter's entire early supporting cast into a multi-ethnic diversity smorgasbord, so the odds of them deliberately introducing new versions of said characters afterwards and causing modern audience confusion/inviting "whitewashing" backlash are incredibly slim ("Wait, why are there two characters named MJ? How common is that? And why is there a new Liz character in school whose brother is a supervillain? Why is there a guy named Ned Leeds now if his best friend's name is Ned Lee? I'm so confused!")

At BEST, you might get a Sam Raimi Spider-Man situation, where they introduce a character using an established name but with the personality of a different character (ie, Sam Raimi basically called Kirsten Dunst's character MJ, but her personality and history was closer to early Gwen Stacy). In other words, the MCU might introduce a character who acts like MJ and maybe sort of looks like MJ, but who they call Gwen.

Or they might just go to the deeper well and start pulling out any of the two dozen plus other women Peter has dated over the years (for a "loser", he gets laid more than most guys in the Marvel Universe). Whether someone like Felicia Hardy, Jean DeWolff, or Joy Mercado (or, if Marvel hates us, someone like Carlie Cooper), there are a lot of ways you could reinterpret those older characters and work them into interesting stories.

(And if they were REALLY ballsy - which they aren't, but one can dream - they'd introduce Anna Maria Marconi as a love interest, because "cute sassy science nerd" is a good fit for Peter, and "little person" checks at least one more box on the diversity bingo card.)

Or, more likely, since Marvel's deal with Sony only lasts for two more movies, they'll just have him date the established MJ and ignore the other options. It's distinctly possible the only reason she's "Michelle" and not "Mary Jane" in the movie is because "Mary Jane" is a way less common name in modern times, and is a euphemism for marijuana (something people have commented on over the years with Spider-Man's MJ).


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

NightMareBunny posted...

I'm 27 years old

You are too young to remember when it consisted entirely of 1950s sitcom reruns, so your opinion is invalid.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

Krazy_Kirby posted...

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/992/407/776.jpg

The point is that there are a LOT of different things called a Jacob's Ladder. Like, more than half a dozen different things if you really delve deep into it.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

You're too young to remember when it consisted entirely of 1950s sitcom reruns, so your opinion is invalid.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

The average birthrate for most modern technological nations hovers somewhere around 2 (which means that, for every couple that has three kids, another has 1. For every person who doesn't have kids, someone else is having 4. And so on). It's why nations like Canada and Australia are actually incapable of replacing their lost population, and almost rely on outside immigration to remain stable or grow. The US actually sits pretty firmly on the stability curve.

At the risk of sounding racist (but it's science, so fuck you), that birth rate tends to decrease the "whiter" the population is you're looking at, while certain ethnicities in certain areas having higher birth rates than others.

Affluence and education also tend to skew the numbers - the more money a couple has, the less likely they are to have children. The more educated a couple is, the less likely they are to have children.

So when you're talking about TV shows, which are predominantly about affluent or semi-affluent white families, and which are written by predominantly affluent and educated white writers, one or two kids pretty much IS the norm.

It also works narratively, though - one kid works best if you mostly want to focus on the couple, but have the kid there to have them deal with parental issues. Two kids tend to create a contrast (one older, one younger - and often with one of each gender to allow for both types of stories and to create stereotypical social tension between them). Three kids tend to alter the dynamics even further, but also pull focus off the parents entirely. Anything more than that and you're starting to deal with needless complexity, unless you're specifically trying to make a show with an overly ridiculous number of kids as the main premise, like these shows everyone on this board is way too young to remember:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Is_Enough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_the_Ten_of_Us


Ultimately, in real life, one- and two-kid households are pretty common (nearly everyone I've been friends with in my entire life has either been an only child or only had one sibling), so it's not as if a proliferation of them spells doom for the future population. Especially when countries with declining birth rates are always counterbalanced by countries with excessive birth rates (ie, Canada doesn't produce enough kids to replace its losses, but nearly every single African nation technically produces more kids than they need - Australia has literally pushed for legislation to encourage couples to have more kids, while China actively established laws to limit population growth. And so on).

And again, even in the US, you can see that in microcosm. "White" families are generally producing fewer than 2 kids on average, so they're decreasing as a demographic, but Hispanic families have a higher birth rate (bolstered by immigration) which is expanding their population, which is why so many studies predict they'll be the "majority" demographic in the US by 2050 (give or take).

The world as a whole is still producing enough kids to grow the birth rate (possibly irresponsibly so), but the most affluent and educated areas of the world tend to produce less. At the moment most of Europe is in decline (as is much of Asia, apart from India), while the Americas tend to be more or less balanced, and Africa is pretty much at max production.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family