Posts made by tek

@Thenomain said in Dead Celebrity Thread:

Leonard Cohen.

):<

Was just coming here to post this. Fuck everything forever.

Jack Chick!

Hold up. Historian here.

The art of studying history isn't about empiricism. It's about interpretation and being able to draw from the sources to support your interpretation.

@Lotherio If you want to avoid a lot of the religious tension while still maintaining historicity, why not focus on the Convivencia and set it in Toledo or Granada?

@Misadventure said in Coming Soon: Supernatural: Lost & Found:

How about modern sexism and other -isms.

Like the show perpetrates on a regular basis? Seems like it would be in-theme.

@GangOfDolls said in RL things I love:

This site:

Worst of McMansions

I love you

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Zombie/Apocalypse Survival Game?:

MUSH of the Dead exists, though I can't speak for it, apart from its existence.

http://www.mushofthedead.com/wiki/Main_Page

It's a pretty dead game, no pun intended.

@surreality !!!! Chick tracts are my favourite!!

I collect evangelical paraphernalia. Anything you can get from a street missionary, from any religion.

@WTFE said in RL things I love:

Whereas I'd always heard it in the context of performances where it was a way of registering disapproval with something.

Language is weird.

I think someone was confusing catcalling and heckling?

@ThatGuyThere The above example by @surreality is something I'd consider abusive. Someone going "everyone is saying X about you and I think you should know" is being abusive. Someone making you feel like you have to walk on eggshells around them is being abusive. Exclusion sucks, but I still don't think that falls into the realm of abusive or unethical. Yeah, I went with the nuclear option because I wanted to fight hyperbole with hyperbole and I probably went a little too hard, but I stand by my intent.

Edit: Yes, I am publicly acknowledging that the part about just being able to log off was wrong and shitty. That was me being a fuckface. But I feel the rest of what I have to say stands.

@Sunny Okay, that's fair. That wasn't right or okay at all, and I deserved a fuck you for that part.

Edit: But thanks for letting me respond before you started shitting on me for things I hadn't even said yet, nor were planning on saying!

@Sunny If they were hurting people emotionally OOC, that's abusive. If they were controlling and pitting people against each other, that's abusive. Making a private sandbox? That's not. Sorry.

@Sunny If it was real power that impacted people in a way they couldn't avoid, I might agree with you.

@Sunny If you're going to use words like "abusive" or "unethical", the burden is on you to define and explain those terms. they don't mean "things I don't like".

@Ghost You're bringing out the dictionary! How quaint.

Please read what I actually write, dumpling.

@Ghost I'm not "triggered". I'm pointing out that words have meaning. Nice try, though! If you actually read what I was writing, I was expanding on that definition and still not finding a parallel. But please go on with your condescending bullshit. It's almost cute.

I'm also not seeing it as unethical. You've yet to define your terms coherently. All I'm seeing is "I DON'T LIKE THESE PEOPLE" and that's getting really, really weird.

But seriously. Making a sandbox, even if it did revolve around staff's players, that's invite and opt-in only as abusive? Seriously?

Maybe if they were super controlling about theme and kept retconning RP arbitrarily and started randomly killing off PCs they didn't like, or...

Gotta retrieve my eyes. They rolled across the room.

@Ghost said in The 100: The Mush:

@tek ...seriously?

That's what I've been asking for like the past six pages.