Posts made by Ganymede

Part of me believes that Arkandel put this up because I'm beating him in the popularity contest of votes.

The other part of me knows that it is because I predicted that Lonzo Ball would suck.

@sunnyj said in Mutant Genesis (X-Men):

People want to socialize but not necessarily RP.

It is uncommon that I connect without being ready to or wanting to RP.

And I'm one of those folks that, given a few minutes and a wiki page, I can figure out reasons to RP with people.

Just saying. (You don't RP with me anymore!)

@magee101 said in Shadows Over Reno (Threeboot?):

Too bad it isnt 1e. Not that I dont want to learn 2e just havent been able to find any bootleg copies and poor af

If you really want to learn 2E, let me know.

@secretfire

Themiskyra and the Amazons are products of Grecian imagination based on Scythian women.

I don't know what happened to him, but the one nifty scene I had on M1963 was with him.

A high school friend of mine has published a book on fairy tales in the media and cultures around the world. I think it is a fascinating compendium, even if it is very pricey.

I mean, just have a look at the cover.

https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Companion-to-Media-and-Fairy-Tale-Cultures/Greenhill-Terry-Rudy-Hamer-Bosc/p/book/9781138946156

Looks awesome. I'm going to get myself a copy once I pay off these new tires I'm getting this weekend.

@lotherio said in Coming, sooner or later: Valorous Dominion:

Much thanks to Ganymede, I look forward to seeing the system devised on Dark Ages.

I'm still working with the team on that one. We've hit a snag of sorts, but we hope to have something in written form sooner rather than later, so that changes may be proposed from those interested in the game.

@thenomain said in Real life versus online behaviors:

The medium is the message.

Shut up, Marshall.

@taika said in Descent Reboot:

Going to be running a big Neutral Court scene tomorrow at 8:30p EST. Two Princes, Wolves, Spirits hijinks.

Two Princes?

@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:

That's why I think there's a decent chance he stays in Cleveland. There's no great fit for him in terms of his age, goals and salary cap space out there.

The King is literally the King of the Cleveland area.

He could still move, but I doubt it. He wants those rings. And he knows that, if he's in Cleveland, everyone will credit him for it.

I would not be surprised if he took a lower price to stay in Cleveland on a year-by-year basis.

@admiral said in RL Anger:

All over a haircut.

You mean, all over a sister who had the nerve to disrespect family.

Either Brando or Pacino would've had her head stuck into your parents' bed.

I'll admit, I'm painting in broad strokes here, but, let's be fair: lots of people judge magazines like Cosmopolitan because it is tailored to a particular gender. Not everyone, yes -- but lots and lots and lots, to the point where it's almost meme-worthy to say "this is good advice ... but it came from Cosmo, so take it with a grain of salt."

Regarding the article you cited to? The veracity of the advice depends entirely on the reader and the subject. Yet the thrust of the article is, if your guy becomes secretive, changes his habits completely, or offers really detailed explanations where he didn't before, he may be hiding something ... and that something might be cheating. This isn't bad advice, but it's not 100 percent accurate -- nor should it be considered so.

If Cosmopolitan is to be judged on its basic (I mean this in a derogatory way) relationship advice, then go ahead and judge the advice so. But if you're going to go out and say "well, that sounds like great words to live by, but since it came from Cosmo, maybe not so much, ha ha", that rings in my head -- and maybe mine alone -- like saying "well, that sounds like a great investment advice, Becky, but since it came from you, a woman, I think I'll go with what Jim Cramer has to say, ha ha."

I don't mean to say that ThatGuyThere went that far, but I'm stepping in to say, hey, let's not disregard something or treat it as lesser simply because it comes from Cosmo.

@thatguythere said in Real life versus online behaviors:

I like it less knowing that it comes from Cosmo given the quality of a lot of their advice.

I know you probably did not mean it so, but this is sexist bullshit.

A maxim should be evaluated on the message conveyed, the clarity of that conveyance, and the power of the words used. It doesn't matter where you find it. It does not even matter who says it. If it's a cool quote or anecdote, then it's cool no matter how you come across it.

Magazines like Teen Vogue are trying very hard to change themselves into something more than what it has been in the past. In fact, Cosmopolitan won a GLAAD award for outstanding coverage in 2015. They have been fighting the general bias you're espousing for a while now, while they probably shouldn't have to.

It's okay to like Cosmo.

@auspice said in RL things I love:

There have been incredibly clear violations of privacy.

Have there?

We should probably more this to a Politics topic, but, as a short note: (1) you only have a reasonable expectation of privacy as it pertains to government intrusion; (2) to the best of my knowledge there is no federal statute authorizing a private cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion, aka invasion of privacy; (3) not all states have created such a private cause of action by statute or recognized such by common law; and (4), even if all states had done so, the federal government has no business in getting involved with what may be best considered a state-authorized private cause of action.

I understand why we are having the hearings, but don't leap to the conclusion that Facebook has done anything unlawful.

@coin said in Real life versus online behaviors:

I don't care if you're a fucking saint in every social interaction offline--if you're a dick online that means you wanna be a dick and think it's funny. The degree to which that's a problem varies widely.

Whether a person is considered a "dick" online is a conclusion often made from too few interactions, and subject to a wealth of biases.

None of us are saints here, for example, but I would not say all of us are dicks online or offline.

I'd like to be as non-judgmental as I can about folks. It's the least I can do. In return, I try to be positive and avoid connecting when I'm in a pissy mood. I'm not perfect in my interactions with folks, but I think very few people would call me a dick, even if I've flown off the handle a couple of times.

@cupcake said in RL Anger:

My paternal brothers are blue collar guys who love Jesus and drive trucks and work with their hands and aren't what you'd call readers and probably voted for Trump. And I know that makes me sound like an elitist intellectual snob. TI don't have patience for their lack of critical thinking a lot of the time, and it shows. As much as I'd like to visit them, I feel like it's going to take enormous self-control to do so.

It might. I want to make it clear that I'm not criticizing you or your choice, though. They're your family, and your business.

But I, like Tinuviel and Coin, just don't buy into the whole "but they are family!" line. I don't really give a fuck if they are. Once you're an adult and you have lost my respect, you ain't going to give it back because we are related; if anything, you're going to have to work harder for my respect because, brother, I know you aren't stupid by birth.

I think my family has been very successful because they are unflinchingly critical of one another. Some people would call it abusive. I prefer to think of it as Solaris VII. My immediate family are some of the strongest, most successful people I know, and we love each other well enough despite our criticisms, but none of our foibles are flat-out stupidity, or harmful to others. So, we may treat each other like shit, but that's just us.

@cupcake

Oh, not you, no. Don't worry about that. But I have been told by family, many times, that I should love someone because they are family.

Fuck that shit.

I love someone because I enjoy their company, I empathize with them, commiserate with them, and so on. I don't love someone if I find them misogynistic, ignorant, unnecessarily combative, or, worse, abjectly stupid.

Family isn't by choice. Stupidity is. Ain't got no time for dat.

@cupcake said in RL Anger:

I love my paternal brothers, I really do, but I lose patients with how, well, stupid they are.

I don't love stupid people.

And I don't like it when people tell me I have to love someone because they are family.

I figure, once I was legally considered an adult I had the ability to pick and choose who I decide to associate with, am friends with, or love. And my criteria is pretty simple.

I'll be the first to tell you if I'm unsure of something, but when I'm pretty sure I'm right I will stop listening and do my own research to confirm or deny my suspicions. If you keep nattering at me, I will throat-punch you, and stop caring about you.

I deal with people's shit every day. I don't need any extra stupid in my life.

To hell with that shit.

@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:

IMHO he'll go to the Lakers if anywhere.

That's a pretty good bet, but he'd be an excellent fit in Toronto, with its deep lineup, offensive-defensive guards, and an entire fucking country rooting for him.

But, it's also Toronto, so.

@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:

The Lakers are very well positioned to take advantage of the new NBA economy; other than Deng they have no bad contracts, and with enough room in the salary cap to max two more players, three promising young stars on rookie contracts (Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, with Randle needing to either get paid or let go this summer) and a huge market to attract free agents... they'll be just fine.

Sure, this may be the case. You and I differ on whether Ball is "promising." .

The Lakers are a great market, but they are going to whiff in the free market this year, unless they miraculously attract James. The problem with that theory is that James needs to go to a place where he is essentially in control, and that's not going to happen with Magic Johnson on top or Luke Walton as coach. The Lakers would be wise to extend a mid-range offer to keep Thomas around, and spend wisely to increase their depth.

Otherwise I'd put my money in either Philly or Boston to emerge as a defacto contender over the next five years.

Philly looks great on paper, and is finally starting to come together, but when payday comes -- and it will come -- the 76ers need to be careful in who they keep as their core. If they were wise, they would ready themselves to shed one of their potential superstars in order to get picks for the future.

Boston isn't a team that I trust to keep it together. I know that Hayward going down changed the entire season, but Irving has shown time and time again that he can't stay healthy. They look like Derrick Rose's Bulls, to be frank: pretty damn good, but crippled by a superstar that just can't stay on the roster when they need him (like the playoffs).