Lurker > LinkPizza

MetalGarurumon posted...

it's a lot easier to do it in a smaller country than a country with cities bigger than that country

This is probably true

CinderLock posted...

They're all in the wild in one of the trailers so you'll be able to get them.

Then I guess Cydaquil. I think it was sort of like this for BDSP, right? Like after you finish. I was recently talking about this to a friend. About how its weird you only cant get them from the Professor

Normally, I pick fire. So, Cydaquil. That said,
Oshawott is adorable. And Rowlets cool. All three would be the best case scenario. Which I would do if I knew someone with the game

Gaawa_chan posted...

fae

Kind of like fairies? That could make things pretty interesting...

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I thought they already remade snow white as snow white and the huntsman

That wasn't Disney, though, was it?

I loved the first one. So, I'm super excited for the second one...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

adjl stated "there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". Most of the people are peaceful. Why would he need to say there is no grounds for arresting them when no one was talking about arresting them?

The reason he said that is because he saying not to arrest the peaceful protesters since most of them would be peaceful in that scenario. And hes talking about arresting the non-peaceful ones. Thats how most people would read that because thats how its meant to be read. You have already shown to not understand how to read anything not directly told you you already. So, that should make things clear for you So, again, he never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

How it should work is a subject for debate. How it does work is not since you can just look at the reality of what has happened. The reality being that there was public support for the violence.

How it should work is not up for debate at all. People should absolutely not eat a free pass to commit crimes just because they are in a group of other people who are not committing crimes. Anyone who thinks that isnt thinking at all There was also not public support of violence. Some people wanted violence. Those were the bad people. Most people were just protesting, though. And people were supporting the protest, but not then on-peaceful ones. So, again, thats not how it works, or how it should work

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I have given examples of society expressing that they shouldn't be. Which adjl is either unaware of or intentionally ignoring.

And those examples have been shit. He explained why it was hard to actually arrest them. Most people actually want the non-peaceful ones to be arrested. Especially since it makes it harder for their protest to actually work

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Which he didn't. He stated nothing to demonstrate why his interpretation is right and mine is wrong. He's not even on the same subject. I'm talking about social forces blatantly showing approval for the violence. He's talking about logistics. Which is something that you don't seem to understand.

Except he absolutely did correct you. What you said was wrong. And what he said was right You were wrong for thinking non-peaceful protesters should get a free pass just because the protesters around them were peaceful. He was right that the peaceful shouldnt be arrested, but the non-peaceful ones should be arrested And the subjects are the same, even if youre talking about different parts of the same subject, which is something that you dont seem to understand

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We have two statements.
Violent people in a protest don't get arrested.
There is no reason to arrest the peaceful protesters.
Both statements are about not arresting someone. This much is accurate.
What is not accurate is that the second statement corrects or has any bearing on the first statement.

The whole statement is correct. You have to start using your common sense to see that both things are talking about the same thing. Of course, you seem to have been trolling throughout this topic, so youll probably still pretend to not understand

Based on numbers from 2018 (which may have rose since the number has been going up for a while, IIRC), this would be about 10% of drivers. Which isn't that bad. Especially when you consider that many of them might not actually go through with everything since this could cost them a lot. Like their job. I won't say it will be easy to replace them. Some deliveries will be late or delayed. But they'll probably eventually get back on track...

Person106 posted...

That's the idea. I think it could maybe refuse to leave the ball under those circumstances.

Found this on Reddit

One last thing to note is that in at least one episode its been shown that Pokemon can refuse to leave their Pokeballs. The one episode I know this happens in is Dig those Diglett (it might have happened in others, but I can't think of any off the top of my head). In this episode several Pokemon refused to leave their balls and battle because they didn't want to fight a group of wild Diglett. And I don't mean one or two, I mean literally every trainer's Pokemon refused to fight. Now admittedly, I'm not sure if this happened in other episodes, season 1 in general had a lot of early installment weirdness, and the episode had its own... questionable moments. So take that as you will.

So, maybe it would just stay in

faramir77 posted...

The first answer seems simple, but I can't think of a counter example to it, so I'll stick with that first answer.

The one you play as the most? Really?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

adgl stated "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". I don't know how you interpret this to refer to anything other than the peaceful ones. I didn't say they should be arrested. Yet he had to explain why they shouldn't be?

I don't know how you don't interpret it the way I interpreted it. I think .most people would interpret the same thing. Most likely, he meant to arrest the ones who are non-peaceful. And I believe he even mentioned that later on. If you are interpreting it differently, that sounds like a you problem. But I think you're just pretending to not understand what he said. To most others, it makes sense that he was most likely saying to arrest the non-peaceful protesters. I think you actually understand that, but are pretending to be dumb, and saying you don't understand it...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I'm having difficulty applying it to the larger conversation because of the reasons I already gave.

Again, a you problem. I've explained it enough that a child could understand it. So I don't know what else I can do to help you understand a basic conversation...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He implied that he thinks the non-peaceful protesters should be arrested.
He implied this by talking about arresting the peaceful ones too.
Have I got these details correct so far?

What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested.

You claim my response to adgl didn't address what he said in the quote. His response didn't address what I said when he quoted me. Which is a habit of his.

He never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones. That's your made up delusion... So, no. You have not gotten the details correct so far...

And it wrong to think that just because the non-peaceful protesters get a free pass just because there were in a protest where most protesters were peaceful... That's not how that should work, nor is that how it works... The non-peaceful one should definitely be arrested... And adjl (you seem to have trouble with spelling his name even though it's only 4 letters) is correct that it can be very hard to actually find them... And it was implied that they should be arrested for being non-peaceful. But I understand you have trouble with basic concepts like implicationa and context clues...

His quote was never to address what you said, but to correct it since it was wrong... Which I mentioned multiple times already...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I was talking about how the right to protest applies to the story. adgl appears to be talking about how difficult it is to arrest a large number of people. So far I don't see how he's connecting the one to the other.

Because his post was correcting you post. As I've mentioned multiple times. You said, "as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Which was incorrect. He said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is correct. You're saying to not arrest anyone, even if they're non-peaceful. He's saying not do that. And implying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. They're both talking about who to not arrest. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. They are talking about literally the same thing. You seem to have trouble seeing that, though...

Craaaaab People! Craaaaab People! Craaaaab People! Craaaaab People!

I though Dwarf was an ok word. As others say, they are mythical creatures, right? Whatever. Most people are probably still going to call it Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs for a while, at the very least

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You said you were going to say it clearly so I'll understand. Since you were being so clear I assumed that was exactly what you meant.

No. You were acting like a child pretending to think I was talking about people not protesting when it was obvious to anyone who knows how to have a conversation that I was talking about non-peaceful protesters... Since our conversation was about protesters...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's how it was presented through news coverage. If it's not accurate then don't blame the public for being misinformed. Blame the news media for misinforming the public.

That is not how it was presented in news coverage. But everyone in this conversation probably understands that you might have trouble understanding that. You can barely follow a conversation. So, it might be hard to understand that the news never made it seem like criminals should get away just because they are protesters. Unless you're watching some weird news that I've never seen... It's also possibly you didn't understand what they were saying. Or understand any context they gave with it...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why is anyone talking about arresting the peaceful protesters?

No one is. What I'm saying it you said to not arrest any protesters if the majority is peaceful. He's saying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. I'm saying what you're saying is false, and what he's saying is correct. If you really don't understand common sense, that's a you problem...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What was implied? As far as I can tell I said one thing and adgl said something contradictory to it. But I don't see an understanding on his part of what lead me to the conclusion I've reached, nor do I see any arguments to dissuade me from my statement. That is why I say he didn't address what he quoted.

You really have that much trouble reading the part you replied to? I said, "You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters..." You said, "Again, this is where we disagree and what was not addressed in the post." And I said, "It was heavily implied, though." So, I'm probably saying that the part you said wasn't addressed in the post was implied. And that part would be the part about arresting the non-peaceful protesters. Unless you were talking about something different... He implied to arrest non-peaceful protesters when he said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present. Therein we arrive at one of the major challenges in arresting troublemakers in large protests: finding them." He was saying how finding them to arrest them was hard. This seems to imply that he thinks they should be arrested. But gave a reason as to why it's hard to... Which he goes on to explain in future posts...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Rather strange that adgl focused on them then.

You seemed more focused on them then he is, tbh...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This bit is not clear. You want to arrest the peaceful majority?

Obviously a typo. Which should be obvious based on my other post. And the fact that it wouldn't make any sense to split them up from the non-peaceful protesters if I thought both groups should be arrested...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This bit is not clear. You want to arrest people who didn't protest?

Oh. So you're pretending to be dumb, I see... The one who are protesting, but not peacefully should be arrested. We are talking about protesters. But I didn't realize you needed people to actually talk to you like you were a child. But I now realize that now... Sorry for the confusion...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This is where we disagree. And this is what adgl failed to address. News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests. It holds significance.

What the majority does doesn't matter when talking about who to arrest, though. You keep trying to say if the majority is peaceful, no one should be arrested. And that's false. The protesters who are protesting, but not peacefully, should be arrested regardless of whether or not the majority of protesters are peaceful or not. What other people are doing doesn't matter. What the non-peaceful protesters are dong does...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My post didn't say to arrest the peaceful majority. Talking about arresting the peaceful majority isn't the subject. It's whether to arrest or not the remaining people that we're talking about.

I didn't say you post said to arrest them. I was saying that his post was different from yours. Your post said to not arrest anyone if the majority was peaceful. That's wrong. Hs post said to not arrest the peaceful protesters, but implied that you arrest the non-peaceful protesters... Which is correct...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Again, this is where we disagree and what was not addressed in the post.

It was heavily implied, though. You seemed to have trouble understanding that, though. So, its not wonder you have trouble understanding what he implied...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You talked about the majority participating in the protest. When I ask you about the remaining people, those not in the peaceful majority, they're also peaceful?

I'll say this clearly so you understand. The majority doesn't matter. At all. The ones who are peacefully protesting are doing so peacefully, so they're should get arrested as long as they aren't breaking the law. The ones that are not peacefully protesting should be arrested. Whether the majority is peaceful or not doesn't matter...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He didn't correct it. He went off on a tangent that ignored what I said.

He did not...

You said, "Nah, as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Which is incorrect. (Again, not sure if sarcastic or not). And his response was, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is the correct statement. He was basically saying, there's no grounds for arresting the peaceful protesters, which corrected you post, which said you don't arrest protesters if most of them of peaceful. Which is false. You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And the remaining people?

The remaining peaceful protesters have nothing to do with the ones that weren't peaceful. So, they can continue to peacefully protest...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, exactly. He responding to a point about no one getting arrested by talking about the people for whom there is no reason to arrest. Rather beside the point I was making. Meanwhile there is a reason to arrest some people. But my point is they shouldn't be arrested either due to the precedent that was set. His response didn't address that point.

He response was to correct your response, though. You're the one who said, "Nah, as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Whether you were sarcastic or not, he corrected you and said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present.", which is a perfect valid response to what you said...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He used specific words which didn't apply to what he responded to.

What I'm saying is this...

You said, "Nah, as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter."

He said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is a response to your statement.

And you somehow thought he said, "So long as the protest as a whole is mostly peaceful no one participating in the protest can get in trouble." Which is not what he said at all...

What he said was that you wouldn't arrest most of people present if they were mostly people. Based on that, it sounds like he's saying to arrest the ones who aren't peaceful... And based on his post where he says, "If you have a crowd of 1000 people and 6 of them are causing trouble, arresting those 6 entails identifying them", it sounds like that's exactly what he's saying...

People in the military get fat. So, its not surprising they do once they get out. Especially since they dont have to worry about PT anymore

mrduckbear posted...

Military personnel are trained to the core every day at dawn and are given strict diets to keep the muscular physique.

Me there if these are true. Maybe in BMT and Tech School They keep taking away group PT at my base because it was cutting into work too much where they had to allow people to go to work out. And the diet isnt strict. At my base, the choices are more plentiful now. But not everything is healthy

Cacciato posted...

the military lives on fast food. Wtf are you talking about

This is true Very true

Zeus posted...

When you go from a heavily regimented life to an unregimented one, there's going to be massive adjustments.

This is true. But depending on the branch, and a bunch of other stuff, they might not be heavily regimented

Mad_Max posted...

There are women in almost every MOS in the military

Some of the job at my base have more women than men, too

Mad_Max posted...

And hookups while on deployment are definitely a thing. So people who deploy can cheat while on deployment... It's not just "lonely Jodys" at home in the States.

Also true. I hear about them all the time

Mad_Max posted...

Maybe Link and Ironborn and Cacciato can weigh in on that. Curious what they think.

I agree I think many civilians have this weird idea of what they think the military is like But dont really know

The_tall_midget posted...

I personally believe that someone who has a job in which physical fitness is a crucial aspect of it (police, firefighters, military, etc.) should be required by law to keep a certain level of physical fitness to keep their job. And no, I don't care about the "I HAVE A GLANDULAR PROBLUM" scenarios.

Like Mad_Max said, waivers are a thing. Not only that, but some of those big boys can run Ita crazy

BigRhinoX posted...

Your country pays. Your taxes pay. You pay. Do you believe that Pfizer is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you not realize theyve made more this year than any year before?

BigRhinoX posted...

You know the government isnt supposed to be your parents, dont you? They arent giving you a free dose of cough medicine to keep their sweet little baby safe. Theyre making money off you. And youre making it way too easy.

Maybe I should make myself clear. Im talking about literally lying out of pocket. My taxes pay for lots of things, but Im not talking about taxes. Im talking about I walk into place, get the shot, and never have to use my own money out of my wallet or bank account Didnt realize I would need to explain that But I guess I do

zebatov posted...

No it isnt.

You has to pay? In Canada? Im in the US and didnt have to pay

Nichtcrawler X posted...

May be a region thing

Might be. Disney Stars are very popular in the US. And more searches here might involve them. More than other places, probably

Nichtcrawler X posted...

I reverse image searched all of them and listed which gave me zero results.

Idk. When I get back home, I can send you the pics of the image searches. But they absolutely worked for me

Either way, image search for those for me

I just capitalize 2 letters that didnt need capitalization. Not like I butchered it or anything

And she was in Thats so Raven Thats where I know her from, at least. Dont know about any movies/shows in your country, though

6 is Annaliese Van Der Pol apparently

Anyway, after getting their names, I also searched just their name is Google. And the pictures were found on their search in images and found them, so

Nichtcrawler X posted...

3, 5, 6, 7 and 10 were not found by a reverse image search. 3 has her name in it so that one is also obvious. All the ones that can be reverse image searched (+3) are in their 30s (or at the very least, listed in online profiles as such).

Leaving 5, 6, 7 and 10 as the possible candidates.

Using reverse image search, I believe found all 4. I can upload the image searches when I get home. Imgur on my phone will not currently upload

4 is Lalaine Vergara-Paras

5 is Shanica Knowles

7 is Monique Coleman

10 is Ashley Tisdale

Edit: 3 also worked

HornedLion posted...

The one that looks like a statue from Easter island with a mustache. Has like a red nose or something.

Nosepass?

BigRhinoX posted...

Like I said, Im not telling you that you cant be scared. You can wait for the tv to tell you youre safe again.

Not everyone is scared. Its about being safe, and being able to keep others safe. And continuing to make money in the case of work.

Though, the same could be said to you. You can be scared of the vaccine thats going to help, but theres no reason to be scared of it

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Usually not in Duckbear topics, but for 4 it did.

If youre talk about image search, if almost always works for Duckbear topics like these. I search a few from his other topics afterwards (after answers), and usually found the picture. Even for some of the ones in this topic, I looked up names of the few I knew. Some of the images were on the first page of images normally Or sometimes, on their wiki page, in the case of video game characters

3 or 7.

1 - Weirdly, not this. Sometimes, games let you switch between main and side character often. And some people like the side characters more. Or if the main characters are very strong, they might be trying to strengthen the weaker characters

2 - Sometimes, the person who narrates isnt even part of the story

4 - They could just be the strong guy

5 - This is usually just the character people like the most or something. If a character is entertaining, then they usually get more screen time

6 - There have been many side characters who claim its their story

For 3, normally the story follows the main characters. But like 7 also says, its usually based on game/context

And thats before you get into games with multiple main characters

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I thought the military required people to have short hair.

For males. And its not that is has to be short. But has to fit the rules set

HornedLion posted...

Google keeps trying to push some Australian soccer player down my throat.

Maybe you should let her in, then

Yeah. We did. A while ago, I believe. I said I wanted it. I had even choose a husband Or a few of them

I hope they also release for it Switch. If not, I guess I could get it on PC

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So long as the protest as a whole is mostly peaceful no one participating in the protest can get in trouble.

Thats not what he said, though He used specific words

Some have the symptoms and still dont check. Its not like everyone with symptoms check. A lot of people still dont even believe its real

As for me, Im not terrified. And Im 32. And the reason I got the vaccine is its dumb not to. Its free and will lessen the symptoms. So, why wouldnt I get it

I probably wouldnt listen to the CEO of Coke unless they had professionals that also agreed So, I dont know what kind of metaphor that was

BigRhinoX posted...

The CEO of Pfizer has come out and said himself that everyone knows that 2 doses of the vaccine is ineffective, so he suggests a 3rd dose (aka the booster) but says that that will give minimal coverage.

It sounds like its wears off like the yearly Flu shots, but faster

BigRhinoX posted...

If the vaccine is preventing people from catching and spreading it. How come the vaccinated are still catching it at crazy rates?

There could be lots of reasons. Like maybe some places have more vaccinated then unvaccinated. Or the unvaccinated not actually checking to see if they have it

party_animal07 posted...

Why do you guys think being nice keeps people from fucking with your food? They could be having a bad day and hate making whatever you ordered, so they fuck with it.

I've just come to terms with the fact that it could happen and just hope it doesn't.

I don't think being nice will cause it not to happen. Like I said, people could do it for any reason. But being nice means it would have a lesser chance of happening than if you were mean to them...

I do worry about it. I'm super nice to waiters and stuff. And try not to bother them too much. Always give them thanks and stuff. But I still worry. Like what if someone (cook, waiter, etc...) mistake you for someone else? Or think you said/did something you didn't say/do? Or someone was just mean or something... But it's really just an irrational fear...

Who knows?

I did some Wiki reading. It's seems to just be a drama. And people love those. I probably won't watch it, though...

captpackrat posted...

If it's the Naked Football League, definitely.

Now this sounds like something I would watch...

Mad_Max posted...

My wife watches it and every episode I've watched with her is a fucking bummer I don't see the appeal

What sort of stuff happens in it?

Hard to tell... I recognize a few. But I'm so old that I don't recognize many of them...

Flappers posted...

McD fries are stupid skinny and way too salty.

The salt is what makes them good...

Zeus posted...

Generally no. Although I've heard about people getting fast food orders where people took a bite out of it.

Like the delivery services?

Nope...

And penis...

Dikitain posted...

That is the exception rather then the rule though, the intent of the place is not to make customers wait for them to cook their food, they just happen to need to make them wait at that time.

Maybe. But again, I dont think something isnt fast food because its add to order. Thats how I see it. Many others, as well Not to mention, as Bugmeat said, fast food will also make things to order

Dikitain posted...

I honestly don't know why people would consider In-N-Out fast food given that 5 Guys does the exact same thing. They both cook burgers to order. If you consider them fast food then really any restaurant is fast food at that point.

Most people consider it fast food. Even on the internet. You look up top however many fast food places, and its on the list with other fast food places. It literally like every other fast food place except the line is long. The wait time for the food is about the same wait time as other places. But because the line is long, it can make the wait time longer So, there are different. And many people also consider five guys fast food, as well, tbh But In-N-Out is literally fast food Theres no doubt in my mind that it is

Dikitain posted...

They still pre-cook everything though, so they are fast food.

For example, Chippolte, even though you choose everything that goes into your meal, is fast food because you don't need to wait for the ingredients to be cooked/prepared.

You do have to wait at some places considered fast food because they could be out. I don't think that alone really makes a place fast food or not...

Dikitain posted...

It isn't, thought that was kind of a given.

I'd 100% call In-N-Out fast food... I don't know many people who wouldn't, tbh...