Lurker > foreverzero212

Ruvan22 posted...

I don't remember the phone number bit (seems like something I *would* remember) but no way to be certain now I guess...

I *think* I agree with your "expected sequencing" description though "she went to a bar and flirted with guys" still carries a different image from "she went to a bar and a guy flirted with her", especially as reactionary CE can be (agree there).

Accepting a phone number isn't even always a bad thing in a vacuum. It's a safer/polite way to diffuse and escape a situation you're not actually going forward with.

I understand and agree with what you mean here about it carrying a different image. My bad being uncharitable with phrasing due to it being brushed aside while other minor offenses get lambasted.

But at the same time we can't be naive when realistically: If you're away from your spouse on a trip, you go to a bar, get approached by an attractive person and your answer isn't an immediate "sorry I'm married" but instead you bat around with the person and then post about how cool it was to the sweatiest group of 90s forum gamers on the internet... that's functionally going to a bar and flirting with dudes. And possibly entirely made up.

Ivynn posted...

I mean...just being there is the bare minimum and a lot of guys out there don't even do that...sadly, Cleo's husband seems to be among them.

I've worked at every level of elementary education the last 15 years and can assure you, society's expectations of a father are more than "ezpz nothing." Sadly a lot of parents, all genders included, can't do that either. Especially when we dive into what being there should mean.

Ruvan22 posted...

The topic I remember was her getting attention from one guy at a bar but not taking the phone number or initiating the flirting/interaction... CE was split over how she should feel (good versus guilty)

Said she was attracted to him, enjoyed it, and thus briefly entertained it enough to get offered a number and an invitation out of the bar which she says she didn't follow up on. She didn't initiate, but initiating isn't expected sequencing even for interested single women at bars. Also commentary about not wearing a ring.

No one's a bad person for this specifically. But CE's so wildly reactionary towards the slightest hint of pseudo-cheating under any circumstance and would destroy a dude for this.

WatsonX

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

blonde guy blinking gif

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It was a big topic a few years back. It stuck out in my memory because there was a big split in who thought that was appropriate, given that as you noticed, most posts are about grievances she has with her husband.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And nearly 3k karma. I've posted a ton here over the years and recently.

You're a 2000 account that's too old to be acting this tough. All I did was further clarify on what you thought were "baseless assumptions."

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You're lookin real tough here man hope she sees this.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Maybe you had trouble reading my post, so I'll simplify it.

I'm not making baseless assumptions.
I'm telling you what Cleo said.
She posted about going to bars on her work trips away from her husband. She said she would be flirting with guys she thought were hot, get their numbers, that it felt nice.

To the crowd saying he cheated even if all he did was be coy about texting a long distance friend, I'm certain they'd also consider it cheating if he did what Cleo said she did.

My only assumption is that this entire saga is made up because it's gamefax. But that also isn't baseless.

Nice tc. I just paid off 36 million in student loans. Feels good.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I could see him being sussed out by the postings if he knew she spent years documenting even his most minor daily flaws on a site like this. She'd also brag here about mingling with hot guys at bars while away from her husband on work trips. Getting their numbers, etc.

They were prob both cheating but knowing this site it's also probable none of these people exist.

Weirdos so quick to say he needs supplements just cuz he's not eating hotdogs anymore. He said vegetarian not vegan.

I love baked beans but... no.

Mizznox posted...

"There's no defense" is a lazy criticism and usually feels like it's coming from someone who isn't actually watching closely or understanding what they're seeing. Defense has become harder for various reasons, but it sure as hell is still being played.

There are defensive rule tweaks that could be made that I'd be on board with. There's a lot of contact initiated by the offensive player that was called an offensive foul long ago, eventually became a no-call for much of the 90s/00s, and has now shifted to being a defensive foul more often than not. Defenders have lost some of the right to occupy their space, and I wouldn't mind seeing them get that back.

But then there's the simple fact that having more players on the court who are capable of shooting and handling the ball well makes it a lot harder to deny offenses. Defenses have to chase, scramble, cover more ground than ever because there are fewer offensive liabilities and stiffs on the court than ever and offenses spread out and move off-ball more.

I agree with all of this. So much. It's what I've been trying to say.

But if the offense gets better and playing defense gets harder, that literally means there's less defense.

I'm aware defense is still being played. I don't think anyone is saying the opposing team leaves the arena when they don't have the ball.

rynobot posted...

You just don't get it. Please return to the NFL board or wherever.

You couldn't even defend your point. No wonder you don't understand defense.

VeggetaX posted...

There is defense. A lot of casual fans who think they're "true" fans laser focus on a guy like James Harden and thinks everyone plays like him. It's very obvious you only want to see the bad and don't want to see the good. Nostalgia blinds you.

James Harden style flops haven't been a major issue in years, the refs stopped taking the cheese a long time ago. Harden himself hasn't even been a thing in a while. This sounds like a casual fan convo from years ago.

The way I see it, they've taken bullyball out which years later resulted in more and more lighter/athletic/skilled athletes to flourish unchecked, which is one thing, fine. Then analytics noticed chucking from 3 with these talented shooters is optimal. Then they shortened the shot clock for more possessions per game.

It is an impossible task to defend all I mentioned above on a nightly basis. Especially the passing and perimeter shooting. You will ruin your body expending the kind of effort it would take.

VeggetaX posted...

That's simply a lesser hyperbole and doesn't make your argument or point anymore valid LMAO. Last year's average, which was the highest its ever been, was at 114. Stop trying to spread misinformation. This is just nostalgia simply blinding you.

Does no one itt know how averages work.

rynobot posted...

To say there is no defense is hyperbole. Players are more skilled and talented then ever before.

You're just justifying why there's no defense, not countering that there is defense.

If players are too skilled to be contained by defense that hasn't equally scaled, then there is no defense.

VeggetaX posted...

Someone tried to say 150 points is normal which is a hilarious hyperbole so of course you're going to get statistics and the beyond to prove that point wrong.

At least TC saying 120-130 happening on a nightly basis isn't hyperbole though. Which is what started the discussion.

Tyranthraxus posted...

You can't post a link immediately after a quote. You have to stick some useless text in between.

ah ty

pauIie posted...

it's up recently yes. if anyone denies it's up compared to the mid 90s and 00s, sure. did people deny it's up compared to mid 90s-00s, or just in general? because it's not up when considering the entire history of the nba, including the era that saved it. it's just a fact. you caring about your favorite era is your nitpick.

It's up from the 90s.
It's up from the 00s.
It's up from the 2010s.

Someone didn't like the high scoring seen today. Countering with the 1970s is not a relevant point. We had 30 years of a certain range and it hasn't reverted back to the 1970s ball. It's something entirely new. It's not just about the scores, it's how it's happening. "Unwatchable, defense is different" You're not capturing the complaint with a single metric from a distant era.

And even if it was, where's the line? If we got 3 million years of 90-2010s scoring and it changed, would you still cite the 1970s to deny that there's been a change?

pauIie posted...

my point is the nba has had 110 scoring averages in multiple decades, so it's not some crazy flat earth ignoring facts thing to point it out. it's higher than your favorite era, and you don't like it. that's fine. everybody has a favorite era.

Which is a bad point to make. Using a single metric to compare scoring from 50 years ago to deny that scoring is up now from recent years is either flat earth crazy or irrelevant nitpicking.

Scoring is up recently. People aren't wrong to say that because of league averages in the 1970s. They aren't hypocrites either because 1. The people complaining now were not watching in 1970. 2. The reasons for higher scores in the 1970s are not in any way related to the reasons for higher scores today.

rynobot posted...

Your nostalgia for those years makes you blind.

Possible. I yearn for the last 30 years of the NBA.

pauIie posted...

if you don't care about certain eras, fine. but comparing it to flat earthers when the nba has factually had equivalent league average scoring decades ago is you being the flat earther.

If people say "I don't like that scoring is up recently" what is the point of trying to deny that by bringing up the 1970s? Not only is that not recent but those years have no relation to what's happening with scoring today.

Tyranthraxus posted...

What are you talking about the link fits just fine.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/netflix-announces-price-hikes-ahead-holidays

Sometimes a link will work and sometimes it won't. I've never understood what triggers it. Like the same link. Only thing I've noticed is quoting someone can affect it.

pauIie posted...

i picked last year, and a few years. 3 years 110 league average, 1978 is 108.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/average-score-nba-in-2022
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-league-average-points-per-game-1984
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-league-average-points-per-game-1985
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-league-average-points-per-game-1978

I'm not old enough to care about cherry picked years from the 1970s. And league averages can be deceiving with how many have-nots there are. Plenty of games you're going to actually watch these days are getting like 125 ppg.

I grew up watching 90s-2010s ball where it was considered a high scoring game if both teams were firmly in the triple digits. 150 points wasn't just "ok that happens but not the norm" it was a "no that never happens."

Why spend an hour watching buckets that are meaningless when the final 2 min 50 point blitz decides games. It's felt too easy to score the last few years.

Wife's fam canceled their sub when they stopped the account sharing.

I can't even think of an example of it being the case.

Wait there are people denying that scoring is even up? lol I shouldn't be surprised after flat earth.

Campaigned as a fiery progressive.
Got paid.
Dismantled his grass roots orgs.
Continued getting paid to pretend he thought he could work with Republicans (he's not dumb, this was a business move)
Left office and only comes around to do Netflix deals, squash anything left of center rising within the party, defeat labor strikes, tell young people to stop being woke.

Bad boomer.

What? You guys don't want a rotting pile of wood lathered in lead paint and asbestos for 600k??

Article headline: Musk says that 'X' will replace banks in 2024

Article: Musk says he hopes to launch financial features to X by the end of 2024

So like cash app functionality? His claims are insane enough on their own why we gotta make headlines like that.

If the detail about a user isn't important enough to remember why bother tagging it. The people that say negative tag worthy things switch accounts weekly anyway so it's not like it'll help you remember.

I've never even bothered to check how to tag someone.

I don't consider anything cold to be soup. Gazpacho is just salsa you can eat on its own.

Longterm effects of deplatforming himself to spotify.

Euripides posted...

Who listens to this garbage? It's all awful

The people that still tune into daytime cable tv shows. ESPN's audience.

Damn_Underscore posted...

What does that mean? What will happen to it?

It just gets sore when I walk on it. So I subtly alter my gait to stop that. Which then hurts my leg, which then hurts my hip, then my back, etc.

So now I just tough it out and walk correctly when I can.

I broke my toe like 5 years ago and it was like that. Found out it was broken 3 years ago. It's currently still broken.

yall really still at it over the same points with the same guy a week later

The worst pie vs the best cake.

Someone made fun of my weak handshake as a teen and ever since I accidentally crush everyone's hand.

I could name about half of them. A lot of middle evolutions and newer pokemon will trip me up.

ArtiRock posted...

Dude, WTF are you going on about. Again, you're literally just yammering on. No. You weren't. The first thing I said is that it's obnoxious and disagreed with this. And then tried to say "lololol you're saying it's yuppie Spanish speakers." When that phrase was used by you. Not me. What's more obnoxious is that you keep pointing to post 30 when it even says that's not necessarily the case.

...none of this is coherent. I never said you said it was yuppie spanish speakers - I did. Potentially, based on what we know. But that's just a microcosm of what's wrong with every sentence. We're just not able to communicate and some of the earlier barriers are starting to click, along with others that struggled making sense of your posts. Have a good rest of the night m8 no harm just different wavelengths.

ArtiRock posted...

I was more so talking about the usage of it. Not its origins. Things like that always have dubious origins and things just catch on. It's like trying to figure out where slang hails from.

So we're no longer claiming to know Latinx has a yuppie non Spanish speaking origin? Good. That's all I was pointing out. What little we know factually points to it originating from Spanish speakers. Even if it's potentially yuppie Spanish speakers.

ArtiRock posted...

not hostile. It's just blunt. There's no way that saying "you know people speak Spanish in PR?" Isn't offensive because that assumes almost no knowledge of anything. I didn't assume anything.

>I tried explaining to you several times that the facts we have about its origin are based in PR and Spanish speaking chatrooms.

>Which is a counter to theories about its origin being non Spanish speaker.

>You would not understand that and kept insisting I'm saying PR speaks for everyone.

>No, it means facts point to PR origin, which is a Spanish speaking place, which means not English speaking origin. You didn't understand that until I put the focus on PR being Spanish speaking so it worked. I was out of other ways of getting it through to you.

You can grandstand about how much more important language is than people, whatever idc. I've already said several times Latinx wouldn't be my choice either but I wanted to point out the logically inconsistent attacks on it and did. I also won't cry about whichever words trans people prefer, x or @ or e. Language is ever evolving.

ArtiRock posted...

To be called "Latinx" or wanting to use it when there's already things that can be used.

That's irrelevant to origins of Latinx though. Which was what you've been trying to counter with me.

And plenty of mail carriers still wanted to be called mail/postmen, fire fighters vs firemen, etc. Of course there are people against social progress. I would never argue otherwise.

ArtiRock posted...

No it's not. You took me responding to you as hostile. If responding and not agreeing is hostile, I don't even know what to say to that.

Responding to someone saying they are speaking out of their ass and they're the worst point ever is definitionally hostile. You can simply state where you disagree instead.

ArtiRock posted...

Yeah. Because it's sad to see languages actually die at. Sort of like seeing "tu" fall out of usage in Brazil because people just don't feel like using it, or Gaelic becoming a dead language in a couple of generations because of things like that. So yeah, it really is. You took an assumption about me and assumed I just have something against transgender people when ... It's not. My opening statement said you can even avoid it in cases.

So you really do care more about the rules of a language than inclusivity and would rather "avoid" trans inclusive language by just being nonspecific. You think trans inclusivity would be the sad death of a language. I'll let that speak for itself.

LordFarquad1312 posted...

The correct but divisive inclusive words end with e, like latine, not with fucking x like some chuds are trying to make happen.

The more accepted terminology uses @, so it would be latin@.

The chuds are next to you pretending to care about what Spanish speakers think to take shots at any trans inclusivity. Look at most low karma accounts.

The latter terms are still far from majority support of Spanish speakers. Which following the logic of others means they shouldn't be pushed for either. I prefer that latter as well but if spanish speaking lgbt advocacy wants x idc

LordFarquad1312 posted...

Not trans though.

So you're like cis English speakers that hate trans inclusive language (they/xir, etc)

ArtiRock posted...

No. You have actual Latin people on a forum also saying "no." But apparently that doesn't matter because you say so.

Saying no to what?

ArtiRock posted...

don't gaslight. I've been anything but hostile. You literally were being completely rude. You kept citing one spot so I spoke out against it.

You came in swinging misrepresenting what I said and saying it was "speaking out of my ass and the worst counterpoint ever" That's pretty hostile.

ArtiRock posted...

New words are introduced all the time. Nothing changes from new words. Example. The word "Stan" does not change how the foundation of the language works. This is not the same.

There is massive pushback from changing the mechanics of how they/them works from unimportant gender/general plural into important gender signifiers.

But honestly, do you really care more about the sanctity of a language rule so much that you cannot have a single word be an exception (of which there are already many) more than inclusivity? Or are you just looking for reasons to justify a reactionary take against change.

ArtiRock posted...

Then bringing it up is a lousy. If you keep bringing it up, then you're giving it more weight than anything else. Chat rooms like that have very little weight.

Can you be anymore condescending? Like what's next, you going to tell me that people in the mainland also speak Spanish? Like goddamn this is so rude.

Okay? But we aren't talking about English right here are we? English even when including trans inclusivity doesn't change how the language works. And it's not dictating how the language works. So it's not even half way comparable.

Chat rooms and Spanish speaking universities are at least something. So far all we have is well I don't like it as proof of non Spanish speaking origin.

You're the one that's been extremely hostile and unable to understand why PR was brought up so I had to explain that PR is a Spanish speaking country, thus it being an acceptable counter to non Spanish speaking origins. You keep taking that as them speaking for everyone so I was forced to break it down.

Trans inclusivity language does change how English works, entirely new terms most people can't pronounce are brought in. And just like in Spanish speaking countries, English speaking countries hate trans inclusivity too. Change/progress can be a hard and slow process.

ArtiRock posted...

Um... no you kept mentioning Puerto Rico. And FYI, a lot of them identify as white anyways. And Puerto Rico still shouldn't dictate how everyone else speaks.

Nowhere did I mention the chatrooms as being Puerto Rican exclusive, just the universities. A lot of them don't identify as white either with strong ties to Boricua/native Tainos. The post I referred to included Mexico's use of x and a few other South American counties.

No one said PR dictates anything other than it being a counter to the idea that non Spanish speakers invented the term. If you're unaware, people in PR speak Spanish.

English speakers find trans inclusive language off putting too. I'm sure other romantic languages will be next if it hasn't already started. I haven't looked into what goes on in France, but I've heard a lot about the topic living in a Spanish speaking area.

Guide posted...

Or it's believable because you can't pronounce latinx without sounding stupid in a language where everything is gendered.

Change often sounds stupid. Especially to the older generation as noted earlier. Just because the language is gendered doesn't mean you have to gender the people and terms don't evolve.

Not long ago being trans sounded stupid enough to the average person that helicopter gender memes were all over mainstream sites.

Again, I think the word is corny. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies and why right wingers will suddenly care what Spanish speakers think when it comes to trans inclusivity bashing.