Posts made by Coin

@tragedyjones said in An open letter to Fallcoast:

I'm beginning to think @ThatOneDude doesn't like me.

Man, you could make jerky just by holding a slice of meat in his vicinity.

@Ganymede said in Are MU* videogames:

I'm in my mid-to-late 30s now. I have twins and a partner. I have a full-time job, and my character on RfK eats up time like a motherfucker. If that were my friend, I'd ghost on him right quick.

It doesn't really sound like it's a matter of judgment though, just opinion.

I don't think @Arkandel's friend considers him a horrifyingly bad person or a loser because he doesn't play what the guy considers "video games".

@Arkandel said in Good TV:

BrainDead is so good.

That's all.

Yes it is.

TAX PROM.

No.

@Apu said in An open letter to Fallcoast:

So what are they doing? Rewriting the Oath or getting rid of it entirely?

There was only one part of the Oath that had anything to do with werewolves fucking werewolves, and it just got altered a little. In 2E, they are encouraged to cleave to the human, but it doesn't necessarily have to be sexually--it's just socially, mostly because you don't want to swing too hard towards spirit--but then, you don't want to swing too hard towards human, either. And you can pretty much fuck anyone or anything you want without endangering your Harmony.

@Admiral said in An open letter to Fallcoast:

Touchstones suck and beats suck.

[snrk]

@ThatGuyThere said in An open letter to Fallcoast:

I think the second edition mechanics are superior for the most part the story parts for 2nd leave me totally cold.

Which story parts?

Also I am somewhat biased because the character I am playing now is not possible in 2nd ed changeling at least not the stuff we have seen of it.

How so?

That said, gawd, @tragedyjones, you masochist.

@Arkandel said in RL things I love:

@Coin My parents never really had any idea what I studied and/or do for a living.

"He does computer stuff".

lolz.

My mom only really knows I like to write. All the other shit I do is... not a mystery, but certainly a confounding series of facts.

@Arkandel said in RL things I love:

I'm witty as a wet noodle but either way I hadn't heard of the pop reference before (let alone what it was referencing).

I had to go ask @Coin's mom.

So you still don't know, then? Since my mom is only slightly less ignorant of Star Wars than she is Hamilton...

@Cupcake said in RL things I love:

@Arkandel The shirt, or the pop culture reference?

(As witty as you are, I'd honestly be surprised if you did not know the reference.)

Wit and pop culture knowledge don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, though. @Arkandel doesn't strike me as the sort who'd be enthralled by Hamilton.

Anyone who's seen Kingdom (MMA-based drama on Direct TV) will know how fucking perfect Jonathan Tucker is as Low-Key Lyesmith.

@Arkandel said in Random links:

@Coin said in Random links:

@Arkandel said in Random links:

Which brings us to Independence Day: Resurgence-level kind of woes. Wtf cares what's gonna happen to Thor's little brother?

Anyone who's ever read American Gods.

Btw, am I wrong or did I hear they're making a TV series out of that?

You're wrong.

They're making a brilliantly cast TV series with Gaiman's fingers all up in the mix.

@Arkandel said in Random links:

Which brings us to Independence Day: Resurgence-level kind of woes. Wtf cares what's gonna happen to Thor's little brother?

Anyone who's ever read American Gods.

@Arkandel said in Random links:

A blog post about why second acts are disappearing from blockbuster movies.

He's not wrong--but he also mentions Deadpool as a story missing a second act (I don't think it does, it's just differently placed) and then says "some stories change the format to work better", but fails to draw the comparison between the two. What's up with that?

Anyway, he's not wrong, but his view is limited--he touches upon the reasons but not the ramifications.

@HorrorHound said in RL things I love:

@VulgarKitten

https://youtu.be/Y9B9pvdtuns

... this is fantastic.

@Arkandel said in Good TV:

@Coin said in Good TV:

As seen on Twitter:

who run the world
GIRLS
who sit on thrones
GIRLS
who make the speeches
GIRLS
how bout the library
NO WOMEN NO CHILDREN

When I first read your comment something was nagging me about it but I couldn't place it...like I had read something else similar recently.

It finally came to me this morning! It was in Ian Mortimer's excellent The Time Traveller's Guide To Elizabethan England where he was discussing the real life historical period.

In one of the book's chapters Mortimer was going over the respective rights of either gender back then and was rather dryly pointing out that although Elizabeth herself was the absolute monarch of the time, feared and respected throughout the realm - there were several rebellions to challenge her reign of course but they didn't end well for those leading them - women had very few other opportunities to rise to any position at all. They couldn't be magistrates or judges or, of course, priests - hell, even physicians other than nurses. They could be scholars (translators, etc) but that was about it.

So even in real life! ABSOLUTE POWER in the hands of a woman with the literal (and often demonstrated!) power to be rid of officials and members of parliament at will, disgracing or chop-chopping their heads if they nagged her? Sure thing! But A WOMAN as small town mayor? lolno.

Human beings, right?

Kind of like how we live in a world where women can now lead their countries as elected presidents, for example, but there is still a large wage gap between genders in most work sectors? I mean, patriarchy, bro. S'a thing.

@Vorpal said in RL Anger:

Hello, guy sunning himself on his lawn in a speedo. Yes, you're pretty damned hot. Unfortunately that speedo is way too small. Your Weinerschnitzel clearly thought the same thing and decided to make a break for freedom when you fell asleep on your lawn chair while you tanned. I didn't need to see that during my walking break.

Maybe it was a little raw and he wanted to cook it a little...

@Arkandel said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

I don't know if that's a valid comparison though @surreality. A new, previously unknown kind of canine or bear invading an ecosystem might spawn rumors and even under certain conditions produce legends but it's still ultimately something relatable; even truly mythical creatures like Bigfoot or Nessie would, after all, creatures. Different, unique, sure... but ultimately nothing that's actually new under the sun.

... And yes I suppose it depends on the definition of what's 'supernatural' for the purposes of whether they'd be included under that umbrella or not but that's probably a different discussion.

But something like ghosts, spirits, or even true double-blind test verified precognition would be things utterly different. They're like nothing we already accept exists and would constitute true departures from the sphere of what's 'natural'.

An underwater creature might be weird as fuck but it's still natural within its own environment. There are all sorts of weird shit at the bottom of the ocean as it is.

Stop copying me.

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Coin We're getting into semantics again, but I was pretty specific there: I'm saying they believe it is possible.

A lot of this conversation has focused on starting from a point of believing something is impossible until it's proven to exist.

That difference, it's pretty big.

That's not believing something is absolutely there and must be disproved, or absolutely isn't until it is proved. It's believing it's possible for it to be there, and we don't know if it is or not until we go look and try to find out.

Well, it's also because science has proven that it is possible, in some way or another. can a creature like Nessie--let's say a pleisiosaur--exist today? Sure. It probably can't exist in Loch Ness, because we've done indepth sonar investigations and dives and haven't found jack or shit. But could a pleisiosaur exist today? Well, the coelacanth survived, and sharks are millions of years old as a species, so sure, it's possible, from a scientific point of view, even if we haven't found it.

Can people move things with their mind? Do ghosts exist? Nothing science has proven leads to even a remote possibility. There's the difference.

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

I think it depends on the thing, though, that someone's lending credence to, because the number of things that can fall under this heading is tremendously broad.

Religion... is a sticky wicket. I am not going to touch that one with a bargepole personally, but that's partly because I have a very dim view of religion on the whole.

Compare that to someone who believes it is possible for unknown animals to exist, for instance. (Yes, I keep going back to that example -- but it's an example with a lot fewer intangibles at work.) Outside of a few sensationalist or urban legend examples (The Beast of Bray Road, The Jersey Devil, etc.) these tend to be things people eventually find (and like the old bestiaries of yore, their weird and/or mysterious elements generally are some unusual natural feature if they had such elements in the accounts of their existence), they're identified as a previously locally unknown invasive species (which is important for people to be aware of as this can be damaging to an ecosystem, see apple snails and snakeheads for examples) or something 'else'. And by something 'else', I mean anything from 'a new species' to 'a hoax' to 'a sloth with mange', not 'a beast with anatomically impossible qualities or magical powers'. While we (general entire human race we) don't find large new animals more than about once a decade these days, we do find small ones, especially in the ocean and areas like the Amazon basin, pretty regularly, from insects to birds to small mammals.

Is a Nessie realistic? Probably not. The general field of study, however, when even a minimal level of common sense is applied, is actually a real thing, and it's one that's providing useful and productive data.

Right. But there is a key thing here and it is: these things are not believed in so much as they are suspected by scientists who go out and either prove or disprove them, but they don't believe them without proof. Those that do are typically labeled quacks for good reason.

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

Go listen to the video embedded here:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/stephen-hawking-says-pollution-and-stupidity-still-biggest-threats-to-mankind/ar-AAhKWsa?li=BBnbfcL

And then, wince when the narrator calls "AI": "A-one."

Stupidity is a huge threat.

"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever. " -- The Emperor's Club (2002).

@Lotherio said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

I'd argue that anti-scientific thought doesn't truly hurt scientific progress. Creationism isn't stopping the scientific evidence of evolutionism, its just letting some people stay in a happy place that denies that science, or the empirical evidence. Take the Amish, them using a horse and buggy did not stop the automobile or its wide spread use today. Are they hurting themselves, some modernists might think they are fundamentally at ends with leading comfortable lives, but some would say they lead productive and even happy lives. Their belief hasn't hurt me any and I certainly don't agree with them.

It is sure as fuck slowing us down, man. Especially when those people end up in power.