Editorial Page editor Adam O ‘Neal testified that he doesn’t have a Bluesky account, and doesn’t regularly check social media in the mornings. But he did receive messages from various individuals about my posts. Individuals whose names and identities he then could suddenly not remember.
Sounds like Bezos got butthurt that not everyone was mourning his darling little Charlie lol
Well good for her! All she did was point out that Charlie Kirk said hateful things and she wasn’t sad he was gone, which is about as tame as an opinion piece gets. That firing had ‘butthurt white people’ all over it.
The same fantasy world where feeding ducks makes them forget how to eat grass and touching a baby bird will make it smell too much like humans so the parents reject it lol
That one’s got two competing theories. Either from Petre, the Latin word for ‘rock’, or Peter (that is, St. Peter).
One goes that ‘peter’ most likely referred to saltpetre, the main ingredient in gunpowder, which was the explosive of choice in early gold mining. Seems the term ‘peter out’ was first widely used by US gold miners in the 1800s describing veins that had run dry.
On the other hand, there is some colloquial evidence to trace it back further, and to England, and a type of fishing boat called a ‘peterboat’ (which picked the name up from St Peter). Those were long low boats that once oft plied the Thames, and were narrow and pointed at both ends so they could easily go either way in the current. ‘Peter out’ referred to the thin sharp double-taper of the boat-ends.
But—but… the Libertarians told me that a free, deregulated market was the bestest thing ever! They’d never lie to me!
Seriously, though, anyone who unironically says free markets are a good thing is an idiot, an ass, or both.
If we’re going by Stoker’s rules, they can, but can only leave the ship for land at certain parts of the tide.
If you have, I don’t see it.
I would just like to point out that ignoring evidence and stating ‘I’m right’, without showing any supporting evidence, is no better than ‘basing politics on fiction’. Just because the ‘I’m right’ vibes are in your head doesn’t make them any less of a fantasy.
We were talking about the fights Gandalf was in and how many he killed. I was referencing the fights in the book, you know, the source material, and how may he killed. How is quoting sources ‘embarrassing’? If you disagree, then perhaps post references from the book proving your assertions, instead of doing an ad hominem?
And I dunno, the Vimes Boots Economic Theory works just as well in the real world as on the Disc as far as I’ve seen.
Just because someone dresses up political commentary with wizards and witches and the Night Watch doesn’t mean the policies they’re expounding on are any less valid. Sometimes is all escapism, yes. But sometimes it’s actual political points looked at from a different perspective, like how Star Trek took on issues of the day by disguising it as ‘visiting those crazy aliens’.
Those are really nice! I especially like in the first one how you captured the city lights on the water and filled in that potential darker space on the left with the bridge span.
Of course, there’s scenic photography, which is basically having really good composition skills, knowing good locations, and timing, and then there’s people photography, which is… extra. I don’t blame photographers for charging more for that shit lol
‘I want our wedding photos to be the two of us on a cliff at the beach at sunset with really pretty clouds behind us!’ And you’re thinking, okay, drive time, waiting for a good colorful sunset instead of a cloudless or too cloudy or foggy one (always a fun game of roll-the-dice in Oregon at least), and they want their backs to the sunset, so that’s extra lighting (that you’ll have to carry to the location) and extra time in photoshop to be sure you can still see their faces clearly…
In this case it was a stylistic choice.
I felt it would look too spaced out otherwise.
I’m going by what the book said, dude. It’s called reading. It’s not as if Tolkien was afraid to talk about his heroes killing, either; for heaven’s sake, Gimli and Legolas even have a contest counting kills at one point!
And again, Gandalf was only in two battles (Helm’s Deep and Morannon) and in Helm’s deep it’s not said that he killed anyone.
Why are you so desperate to believe Gandalf is out there whacking everyone with a sword, never mind what the book says?
On an unrelated note, earlier you said that you ‘moved on’ from fantasy to nonfiction, as though that somehow makes you more mature? Or something? Why? What makes you see fantasy as lesser than biographies and history books?
‘Tell him we will pray for him.’ ‘He needs your prayers.’ ‘Is he, then, an unhappy man?’ Poirot said, ‘So unhappy that he has forgotten what happiness means. So unhappy that he does not know he is unhappy.’ The nun said softly, ‘Ah, a rich man…’ Poirot said nothing—for he knew there was nothing to say…
I have. He didn’t.
He did find Erkenbrand and lead him and his men to Helm’s deep, but his presence alone drives the hillmen to collapse in fear; he never lays a hand on them. Erkenbrand and his troops rout the orcs and hillmen, and kill quite a few (mostly orcs, as the books note that at that point thanks to Gandalf many of the hillmen lost the will to fight and surrendered, and the Rohirrim accepted that surrender).
So I guess if you want to stretch the definition of ‘kill’ to ‘told an army their king needed help and showed them where to go’ then I suppose you could lay those deaths at Gandalf’s feet? Although I would argue he actually saved lives there, since if they had continued fighting Erkenbrand’s men and Theoden’s men would have torn all the hillmen apart.
At the battle of Minas Tirith he holds the broken gate the whole night against the leader of the Nazgûl (by parking himself in front of it and refusing to move), but then once backup arrives he has to turn and run for it to save Faramir from being burned alive, so he doesn’t get into a fight then either.
At the Battle at the Gate him killing, specifically, isn’t mentioned either way. One could assume from the writing that he at last drew his sword and finally killed people in support of being as big a distraction as possible, but Tolkien never explicitly said, like he did for some of the other characters. All he says is:
Upon the hill-top stood Gandalf, and he was white and cold and no shadow fell on him. The onslaught of Mordor broke like a wave on the beleaguered hill
Which could just be him intimidating people again, although I doubt it. But even then, given how humans in the employ of the Dark Powers fear him so much, it’s more likely he was just fighting orcs.
Man, when you look at it that way seems the whole family is cursed
Nearly a quarter? Wow much high numbers wow
So basically just saying that over 75% of his base still loves him more than their own family. How is this news?
Technically yes. It basically just makes your skin crazy itchy for a few days.
The real threat is that in North America, they’re an introduced species, and so have no natural predators. Big infestations can denude large chunks of forest.
Because ‘orange’ was covered by the word ‘yellow’ until that pesky fruit made it to England and became fashionable.
In Japanese it’s the reverse; ‘blue’ is used for blue and green; designating green as the different color is relatively recent for them
JFC even Michael’s (which is a crafting store) doesn’t have their Christmas stuff out yet! And if you’re hand-crafting Christmas gifts for the whole family, sooner is better than later to start lol