Lurker > LinkPizza

papercup posted...

21 years after the death of King Charls III's last living descendant. He has a grandchild that's like 2 years old, so the agreement effectively lasts for over a century lol

Yeah. We were talking about this yesterday, and then today, one guy mentioned the two year old Haha.

Prestoff posted...

So you can go into this movie without knowing a damn thing about DnD... I assume.

You definitely can. Knowing it can make it better for some. But not knowing is also fine

I think most of my family knows It also helps having a gay cousin

That seems like a lot of extra shit Might as well go to a place where you can take a shower nude, and not have to have a towel around you to change

I very much enjoyed it. Went with my DND group, actually

MICHALECOLE posted...

Ill see it one day. Definitely not in theaters

Dont like theaters?

It doesnt matter to me. I just need to get 80 hours every two weeks. How I want to split it up is up to me So, I never really worried about when I have work Haha.

BeerOnTap posted...

why would a brand new overworld not make sense for a brand new game?

Because its the same world It makes no sense for a game that takes place in the same place to have a competely different overworld

BeerOnTap posted...

Majoras mask re-used assets from OoT, but it got an entire new overworld.

Because Majoras Mask didnt take place in Hyrule. It took place in Termina, which was like an alternate universe. Same people with mostly the same names, but different people because they werent in the same universe (Though, I believe the reasons for using them when making the game were different). Either way, it had a different overworld because it took place in a different place I thought most people knew that

BeerOnTap posted...

An actual brand new overworld. Re-using the same exact overworld and charging $70 for it feels a bit like a cheap shot.

The re-used overworld makes sense, though And they still added the sky islands And possibly underground stuff, as well And there are still other possible differences A brand new overworld doesnt make sense for the game

I see no reason to do that

MightBeOverSoon posted...

Mostly I don't want to lose an entire conversation chain if the one person that I will put on mute gets involved. He can spend as much time banging on that keyboard as he wants.

Yeah. It you want to keep the conversation, on you advanced settings, change hide ignored quotes to no. That will allow you to see the conversation, even if an ignored person has been quoted. If you choose yes, then anyone who quotes them will also be invisible

MightBeOverSoon posted...

Doesn't that make quoted text disappear? Or does changing that setting still fix it.

Also, I'm fairly certain I've got 2 days for that, but it's cool as is. Just weird that he can, weird that he did.

You can change the setting so that you can still see quotes if you dont mind seeing their quotes

ConfusedTorchic posted...

no

your opinion is bad

Not bad Just different

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it doesn't matter what it's been changed to, it's still pure utter garbage.

I disagree... But to each their own...

Revelation34 posted...

Oh so it's not a day one buy since they left the weapon durability in.

While they left it in, it seems like its kind of different. You can use a weapon until its almost broken, and then fuse it with something. Which seems to raise attack and durability And possibly refills durability, as well Though, we wont know the extent until its fully out

When my dog was a puppy, he did this to my box spring I only found out when I was looking for him, and he came crawling out

Im super excited about it! I never really had an issue with weapon durability, but the fusing thing looks really cool and interesting Especially with arrows And literally going though the ceilings is crazy. Having more enemies would be cool, but the enemies using fused weapons already can change how you have to fight them in some cases Like with the enemies with the fan thing and whatever Either way, Im pretty excited about it

captpackrat posted...

I saw "I got my cat a backpack" and immediately thought:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/7/7/AAQwHjAAEVEd.jpg

About the same, tbh

Krazy_Kirby posted...

didn't use the app, it's what little caesars uses for delivery

Oh. I see I havent had delivery from there before. They are around the corner, so I can just go get it

I refuse to use the delivery apps I will use store deliveries for places that have them like some pizza places and stuff, though

Krazy_Kirby posted...

too bad tips are given before the order.

They call it a tip, but its really a bid

They should figure out a way to make the court system (at least for that) go faster

BADoglick posted...

I've thought about doing that but I think my cats are too old to learn that now. They're very active and in good shape for ten year old cats but I just don't think I could do that without them freaking out the whole time

My cat would absolutely hate it And would hate me for the rest of the day if I subjected her to it

Makio posted...

I mean, of course I'd be mad that someone was just out to use me. Who wouldn't?

Depends. If all I wanted from the guy was just sex, I wouldnt get mad The only think that probably sucks is not having another fuck buddy But if both parties just wanted sex, then who cares, right?

BeantownHero posted...

Find a server who went to their bosses and asked them to make up the difference on a slow week...

the naivet is wild ITT

You think a server (who more times than not is living in the margins) is gonna even risk that shit? Talk to any vet in the game (i myself have over 15 years in various positions in the restaurant industry) and they'll tell you of times it cost them to go into work.

The one good thing about the pandemic were the scores of people with talent in the industry getting out and doing something else. the average American diner deserves high school level service. The ignorance is baffling.

By law, the employer has to pay the difference to make minimum wage They dont have to pay more than minimum wage. So, if its a slow week, the employer wont pay the the amount they would make in tips. But they do pay them enough to make minimum wage Minimim wage sucks, but servers are special compared to other minimum wage workers Which is the point many people are trying to make Sure minimum wage sucks. But servers arent the only job that gets paid minimum wage. And, more often than not, servers are still making more than minimum wage, anyway A ton of them dont even want their paycheck to be bumped up because they make good tips

True love right there

potdnewb posted...

ps5 and series x are made for gaming it can just do gaming and other things better than the switch except for being portable...and not every one wants portable gaming...

The other are made for gaming, but they like to be made for more than just gaming They are basically being used as pseudo-computers But Nintendo systems are usually made just for gaming instead of a bunch of stuff And its true that not everyone wants portable But lots of people do like it. And like being able to undock it to play at home Basically, nothing in my posts changes Its not like anything in the response refutes anything Thats what I mean, as least

potdnewb posted...

you dont buy a console to have a pc you buy one to avoid annoying pc issues but you still havent defended you laughable comment that only nintendo is producing anything other a baby specd pc...l oh fing l

I dont think he was saying switch was strong J think he was saying that the other two consoles were basically making PC with baby specs, where Nintendo was just making a console for gaming I could be wrong, but thats how I read it. It didnt sound like he was saying switch was strong to me

Even in his other posts, it doesnt ever sound like hes ever saying switch is strong

Ive enjoyed both my Switch and PS5, so Id say it hasnt been a flop But thats just how I feel

potdnewb posted...

switch is barely a tablet...

But they have their own IPs that they make the most out of Which can push them past the other systems And with it being portable, many of the indie games I have on steam are now on there, too And I can play on the go

Philip027 posted...

I was just answering a poll question, man. Not my problem if you don't like or are insecure with the answer provided. I never claimed to be particularly "normal"; as an asexual I'm already well aware that I'm far from normal.

Im not insecure And if anyone here is, its be you That said, its true I dont believe your answer And while its true youre not normal, its not because youre asexual That doesnt even come in to play here, AFAIK Most of the asexual people I know can recognize attractive qualities since they can usually see They just arent sexually attracted to those people

Philip027 posted...

What word am I not using correctly? Do you think someone isn't straight if they only experience attraction to the opposite sex? Because that's what it sounds like you're implying, in which case I have to wonder if you're the one that doesn't know how to use certain words correctly.

Its more of the way you use the words. For example, in most cases, heterosexual and straight both mean heterosexual and heteroromantic unless stated otherwise Where heteroromantic usually just means that. Yet, you treat straight and heterosexual as two completely different words (even though they are interchangeable most of the time), but treat straight and heteroromantic as the same words, even though they have clearer difference between them You also seem to have an odd definition of straight As Ive said before, sexual orientation is based on who youre sexually attracted to. A straight man would be a guy whos sexually attracted to women. But him noticing a guy with attractive qualities doesnt have any bearing on his sexuality Though based on what you said(if I did, I wouldn't regard myself as straight anymore), you would disagree Bot only that, but you keep missing the definition of attraction, too At least, used in this context. By noticing attractive qualities, its not talking about being attracted to people Thats the whole point. Straight people are only sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. But noticing someone of the same sex having attractive qualities doesnt mean youre attracted to them. It just means you noticed and attractive quality Thats all. So, I know how the words here are used, and how they are suppose to be used You obviously dont, though

potdnewb posted...

dont think suggesting homosexuality isn't a natural occurrence is offensive...

Not when its just a joke

Jen0125 posted...

No I don't make those. I don't wait for a new year to make changes in my life

wwinterj25 posted...

Didn't bother making any as it's pointless. IF I wanted to make a change to my life and try to stick to it I don't need the start of a new year to tell me that.

These

Philip027 posted...

Cool. But I don't, and if I did, I wouldn't regard myself as straight anymore, because to me that isn't what the term entails. I don't experience this whole "attractive but not attracted" thing; I don't understand it, and therefore I have to use my own rubric. I don't care if other people define it differently; that's just what it means to me specifically.

Not sure what else there is to say. At this point I feel like the "debate" (such as it is) is getting quite circular and repetitive.

And that's why it's weird. You say you can't consider yourself straight just because you see attractive qualities in men... It's not exactly normal... And whether or not it's true, it makes you seem less sure of your sexuality. Like you're trying to prove to others that you're straight... Almost like you're lying to yourself or something... Whether or not that's true, that's how people will probably see it... And whether that's what the term entails to your doesn't actually matter as much when considering what the term actually means. You can come up with different ways to describe a term, but that doesn't mean that's what the term actually means. Words have meaning, and making up your own doesn't change the actual meaning of the word... So, while it can mean whatever you want it to mean to you, don't be surprised when people don't understand what you mean since you aren't using certain words correctly...

Yeah. I guess this conversation has reached it end...

Philip027 posted...

I mean, to me, that's what it sounds like other people are doing; mixing "straight" and "heterosexual" together like they are inherently the same thing. And I happen to think that's what sends the actual "bad message". Heterosexuality is not the only way to experience being straight.

You say people are mixing straight and heterosexual together like they are the same thing. But arent you doing the same for straight and heteroromantic? Like I said earlier, straight and heteroromantic are as similar to each other as straight and heterosexual If anything, straight is usually used to describe someone are heterosexual and heteroromantic If anything, acting like straight is closer to heteroromantic is a worse message that acting like straight and heterosexual mean the same thing Especially since in the way its commonly used, they are effectively the same thing You said you just had a different understanding of the word (probably because you learned it when you were young) But the word in most situations is used differently than the way you use it And you say heterosexual isnt the only way to experience being straight. But the same goes for heteroromantic (Especially when you have a ton of bisexual people who are bisexual and heteroromantic) And in the end, being a straight male still doesnt mean you cant see attractive qualities in men Seeing attractive qualities doesnt change you sexual orientation

Philip027 posted...

You are talking about how I experience attraction as being problematic (in that it "sends a bad message" or whatever), like it's my fault that my experiences deviate from what's apparently the norm. I found that offensive and responded accordingly. How else would you expect someone to respond to that?

Im not saying how you experience attraction is problematic Im saying that you mixing to things together that arent the same thing And I think that sends a bad message to the younger generation Its basically going back to the old way of thinking where straight men couldnf see attractive qualities in other men without being labeled as bisexual or gay Neither of those things are bad, but would be a misrepresentation based on being able to see and say whether someone of the same sex/gender has attractive qualities. Just because you see attractive qualities doesnt mean youre attracted to them yourself. It just means you see attractive qualities So, I dont see it as offensive at all

Philip027 posted...

Yes, heteroromantic is the term I've come across (and adopted). But as far as I'm concerned, that still makes me straight. It just also makes me not heterosexual, which is what I mean when I say the two terms don't entirely mean the same thing.

Yeah. Most people use the terms straight, still. That said, straight and heteroromantic are as similar to each other as straight and heterosexual Hence why it could end up confusing people

Philip027 posted...

That's not really my problem to resolve for you or any "younger generation". I cannot tell when people I am not attracted to are "attractive", because to me, if I'm not attracted to them, they are not "attractive". Simple as that. That seems absurd for me to have to explain, but here we are.

Maybe that'll hurt a few fee-fees out there, but they'll just have to learn to get over it.

Actually, the younger generation is everyones problem, since they would be looking at the older generation to understand how the world works So, if you want to be kind of of a dick and make things worse, I guess you could do that But I think its a deeper problem if you cant understand how people can find someone attractive without being attracted to them Its something most of the world has come to understand, at this point Since those are two different things It seems absurd tk others to have to explain what I explained, as well But like you said, here we are

I think its less about hurting a few fee-fees, and more that people dont understand That said, the way this last post was written makes it seem more like maybe youre just not that good of a person While I wont base you based on this one topic, it does help when trying to understand as much as you can about a user when on a site like this

Philip027 posted...

To me, straight means just what I said, you are attracted to the opposite sex with regard to relationship partners. Again, that was what I was initially taught it meant.
Heterosexual means the attraction is sexual in nature. Pretty obvious from the name.

Do you think I cannot be straight if sex is not involved? If not, what do you think my experience should be called, instead?

In actuality, straight is usually just used as both heterosexual and heteroromantic. But unless stated otherwise, heterosexual means the same thing. Tbh, the only time I usually hear heteroromantic is from bisexual men and women, as its can be somewhat common for them to be bisexual, but heteroromantic That said, straight and heterosexual basically mean the same thing

As for be straight without sex, thats pretty easy. There are many asexual people who are still considered straight when it comes to sexual orientation. Many might go into more detail by saying heteroromantic (or whichever one they are) and asexual. But their are plenty that also say straight asexual Though, I dont hear it as much If you are just talking about romantic, though, then heteroromantic is probably better if sex is not involved

That said, it still doesnt mean you cant tell when people or any sex or gender is attractive as mentioning whether someone is attractive or not doesnt deal with sexual orientation or anything else If anything, it sends a bad message to the younger generations

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Oh shit Ohhhja got purg'd again what for this time?

The meme topics have a way of getting us all in trouble, it seems

Philip027 posted...

To me, "straight" is just a term that basically meant you gravitate toward the opposite sex for relationship partners; that's how it was taught to me when I was introduced to the term (possibly because it was at a young enough age that they didn't want to explicitly mention the whole heterosexuality thing, now that I think about it) so it's what makes the most sense to me. People seem to regard it as synonymous with heterosexuality, but I've never felt like they meant entirely the same thing. I don't regard myself as heterosexual, but I do regard myself as straight.

What do you think is the difference between the two? Because AFAIK, I see no difference in the words

As for straight, it basically means what you think about gravitating towards the opposite sex for relationships But that also means that saying someone of the same sex is attractive has nothing to do with being straight, gay, or bi in that case

Phoenix Wright: Justice For All had a Circus murder

Philip027 posted...

Again, I don't understand what the difference is supposed to be. If I found someone "attractive", that means I'm attracted to them. If I wasn't attracted to them, I wouldn't say they were attractive. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

I've regarded myself as straight because I am capable of attraction to the opposite sex (even if it isn't sexual in nature). If I experienced this same sort of feeling toward people of my own sex, I personally wouldn't find "straight" to be an accurate descriptor of myself anymore and I would be compelled to use a different label. That doesn't mean anyone else has to follow suit... that's just how I view things for myself.

The difference is how you perceive the other person. For example, I would say my mom is an attractive women. But I don't wan to have sex with her. Or when people get dressed up really nice, I might say they look attractive in something. But that doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. It just means they look really attractive in something. I'm really not sure how to explain something simple like this to a person, tbh... But there is a very clear difference between people saying someone is attractive vs. being sexually attracted to someone... So, finding someone attracted doesn't always mean you're attracted to them. It just means you think they are attractive. You can be, or you just might think they are attractive... That's what seems straightforward to me...

The thing is straight is a sexual orientation that's normally defined be who you find sexually attractive. You can find people attractive, but not sexually attractive. The word "sexually" before the word "attractive" changes things. Hence why they use sexually attractive instead of just attractive...

Philip027 posted...

This. If I did, I wouldn't call myself straight.

I get that people are thinking of "attractive in general" and "personally attracted to them" as two separate concepts, but honestly, I've never understood what the difference is supposed to be.

Just because someone is attractive or good looking doesnt mean youre sexually attracted to them. Youre sexual orientation is based on who you are sexually attracted to. Not who you think looks attractive or even who you have sex with Youre are gay or bi just because you think a guy in attractive Just like Im still gay even though I know when a woman is attractive

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

Jason Momoa

We had a couple Jason Momoas in my last DND playthrough

KainWind posted...

Sounds like you're just being difficult for the purposes of this topic. At least you don't have to announce how straight you are like some people.

This is probably true

AceMos posted...

yes she is so is every one who is underpayesd they are all entitled to more money

At most, shes entitled to a livable wage But that should come from her employers And my original point still stands. She wasnt entitled to more money from the customers just because she wanted more money Plus, even though the percentage was low, the tip itself was still good

AceMos posted...

yes she is so is every one who is underpayesd they are all entitled to more money

At most, shes entitled to a livable wage But that should come from her employers

AceMos posted...

to the ppl saying she is not owed more

waiting staff are treated like crap

constantly have rude costumers yelling at them for things that are not their fault

and all while making crap pay

yes tips are stupid but blame the capitalistic hellhole we live in not the waiting staff

That goes for a lot of people in minimum wage jobs, though Not just waiters Cashiers also deal with that, for example And in the end, she still isnt.my entitled to more money Its great if she gets it

imjusthere4fun posted...

I don't find men attractive at all.

Really? One of those types Even as a gay guy, I can say which women I think are attractive Just because I think they are attractive doesnt mean Ill duck them. Its just acknowledging someone who looks good

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

Reynolds is also just a more fun human being I find. Obviously we don't know either Ryan personally, but Reynolds seems to take way more glee in life.

One guy mentioned meeting him, and said that he was super nice and everything

sveksii posted...

And American cheese (as in the style of cheese, not cheese made in America) is terrible for everything including cheese toasties. The only good thing about it is the meltability, and there are proper cheeses that are actually edible/enjoyable and have functionally equivalent melting capabilities, which takes away the only point American cheese even has.

I mean, in the end, it just depends on what people like Like flavor wise and stuff If you dont like it, thats fine. But that doesnt mean it doesnt have any point or whatever

PK_Spam posted...

A buddy of mine tells me that every single port has fucked up the timing for everything tremendously

Id believe it I think I remember them being fucked up last time I played a port for it I thought they fixed it Apparently not

I was able to get some of the levels, and can even get part of the cooking level But beating the port is somewhat difficult

Having trouble with the cooking chicken lady The timing is kinda weird compared to other rhythm games

divot1338 posted...

Sure thing.

Wait right here. Ill go get it.

I mean, you're the only one just saying seven hours out of literally everyone else here... And it wasn't part of the original tweet...

MightBeOverSoon posted...

I did though. With a fair amount of prodding Ive told you a decent part of what I've done to prepare. If you want a reason why I know society is going to collapse, it's because of all the reasons. Political, social, environmental, pick one.

But thanks for continually dodging all MY questions. I take back the time that I called you nice.

They asked you questions, and instead of answering any of them, you dodged every single one. No answer for any of them. And that right there proves you're full of it... And why should we just pick one at random. If you're so sure everything's going to collapse, and can see the signs, then you should be able to answer the question that was asked...

When did I dodge any of your questions? If you have a question, than ask it. I'll answer if it won't have any identifying stuff in it...

divot1338 posted...

Before I posted days ago. You should try it.

Can you show us proof of where it said 7 hours? Because unless you can, you really do seem to be making shit up ike A_Good_Boy said... There are plenty of articles with the original screenshot of the original tweet. And it just says hours. But if you saw 7 hours somewhere, it shouldn't be hard to find that again, right?