@bamo90.bsky.social
Outlaw Star, Trigun, s-CRY-ed, Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit.
April 18, 2025 at 2:19 PM
Outlaw Star, Trigun, s-CRY-ed, Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit.
I just started Arena last week (new to MTG too), because I caught a few of your streams over the last month. It's been fun, but I just unlocked Alchemy ranked after Spark, and now I have the daunting task of figuring out deck building.
April 10, 2025 at 9:08 PM
I just started Arena last week (new to MTG too), because I caught a few of your streams over the last month. It's been fun, but I just unlocked Alchemy ranked after Spark, and now I have the daunting task of figuring out deck building.
That's because that's the dream for so many of them. They want reap the maximum amount of profit while putting in minimal effort as fast as they can.
February 28, 2025 at 6:38 PM
That's because that's the dream for so many of them. They want reap the maximum amount of profit while putting in minimal effort as fast as they can.
I was going say they won't see where it ends up because of everything that's being done to prevent oversight and hide what they're doing, but then I remembered the embarrassing level of arrogance and incompetence Musk brings to everything he touches.
February 6, 2025 at 6:42 PM
I was going say they won't see where it ends up because of everything that's being done to prevent oversight and hide what they're doing, but then I remembered the embarrassing level of arrogance and incompetence Musk brings to everything he touches.
I haven't read Locke & Key, so I can't compare, but I just finally read Priest and Thief. They were both amazing. I loved the pacing, the reveals, the character development, everything. Your style scratched an itch I didn't know I had until your books revealed it.
February 1, 2025 at 3:46 PM
I haven't read Locke & Key, so I can't compare, but I just finally read Priest and Thief. They were both amazing. I loved the pacing, the reveals, the character development, everything. Your style scratched an itch I didn't know I had until your books revealed it.
Also, you keep invoking "Journalism 101" like that's supposed to be meaningful. I don't know you as an authority on journalism, and it comes off like the people saying only men have XY and women have XX chromosomes and claim it's "basic Biology," as if it's the end point, rather than the start.
January 2, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Also, you keep invoking "Journalism 101" like that's supposed to be meaningful. I don't know you as an authority on journalism, and it comes off like the people saying only men have XY and women have XX chromosomes and claim it's "basic Biology," as if it's the end point, rather than the start.
This is a weird response. Why would you claim I'm trying to read your mind? It was just how you wrote back that made it seem angry. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but based on your previous arguments, isn't that your fault?
January 2, 2025 at 7:48 PM
This is a weird response. Why would you claim I'm trying to read your mind? It was just how you wrote back that made it seem angry. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but based on your previous arguments, isn't that your fault?
You are way too angry over this. I'm going to have to disagree with you and it there, as it seems we have a difference of opinion regarding whether or not a reader has a responsibility toward to the material they are engaging. Communication is a give-and-take. Always.
January 2, 2025 at 3:36 AM
You are way too angry over this. I'm going to have to disagree with you and it there, as it seems we have a difference of opinion regarding whether or not a reader has a responsibility toward to the material they are engaging. Communication is a give-and-take. Always.
Also, the listener/reader absolutely has a duty to make sure they aren't misunderstanding something the speaker/writer communicated. That's how communication goes. And as a reader of an article, you shouldn't rely solely on the headline to understand the article.
January 1, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Also, the listener/reader absolutely has a duty to make sure they aren't misunderstanding something the speaker/writer communicated. That's how communication goes. And as a reader of an article, you shouldn't rely solely on the headline to understand the article.
That still doesn't mean that people are correct if they misinterpret an unclear statement. People make mistakes. Sometimes they think they're being clear and direct when others don't. You also don't get to be indignant when someone says they had a different interpretation and why.
January 1, 2025 at 10:57 PM
That still doesn't mean that people are correct if they misinterpret an unclear statement. People make mistakes. Sometimes they think they're being clear and direct when others don't. You also don't get to be indignant when someone says they had a different interpretation and why.
I said the words weren't clear. I agree there's an issue with the word choice. Just because a bunch of people agree, doesn't make them right, though. We are a functionally illiterate society. Maybe stop and don't assume your first interpretation is correct.
January 1, 2025 at 10:27 PM
I said the words weren't clear. I agree there's an issue with the word choice. Just because a bunch of people agree, doesn't make them right, though. We are a functionally illiterate society. Maybe stop and don't assume your first interpretation is correct.
Is it what they're implying or what you're inferring? "After" just signifies an order of events. I could say basically the same thing as you, but switch "despite" with "after/because." More direct language would be better, but reading the article provides the clarity that "after" seems to lack.
January 1, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Is it what they're implying or what you're inferring? "After" just signifies an order of events. I could say basically the same thing as you, but switch "despite" with "after/because." More direct language would be better, but reading the article provides the clarity that "after" seems to lack.
As evidenced by two days of snow April.
December 31, 2024 at 10:55 PM
As evidenced by two days of snow April.
From the headline: "Thankfully, Y2K didn't live up to the hype after years and billions of dollars were spent on painstaking preparation." They're saying that the years and money spent on prep prevented it.
December 29, 2024 at 10:37 PM
From the headline: "Thankfully, Y2K didn't live up to the hype after years and billions of dollars were spent on painstaking preparation." They're saying that the years and money spent on prep prevented it.
I feel like this was meant for someone else you were talking to, because I can't figure out how this relates to what we were talking about.
December 17, 2024 at 7:19 PM
I feel like this was meant for someone else you were talking to, because I can't figure out how this relates to what we were talking about.
Right...that's the point. They learned they were playing a girl after they beat the game, and nobody was upset.
December 17, 2024 at 11:43 AM
Right...that's the point. They learned they were playing a girl after they beat the game, and nobody was upset.
I took the point as "nobody knew or cared Samus was a girl. She was just a character in a suit, and people were having fun."
December 16, 2024 at 5:12 PM
I took the point as "nobody knew or cared Samus was a girl. She was just a character in a suit, and people were having fun."
Yeah. He won. What's your point? Or are you that uncreative? Why do you keep suffering me if I'm so insufferable?
November 25, 2024 at 10:42 PM
Yeah. He won. What's your point? Or are you that uncreative? Why do you keep suffering me if I'm so insufferable?
Oh now you've moved on to insults. Not a fan of your own tactics thrown back at you? Be honest, you have no interest in a real conversation, because you have no intention of considering you might be wrong. You're here to be smug. Why would I meaningfully engage with you? You're a smug bully.
November 25, 2024 at 10:22 PM
Oh now you've moved on to insults. Not a fan of your own tactics thrown back at you? Be honest, you have no interest in a real conversation, because you have no intention of considering you might be wrong. You're here to be smug. Why would I meaningfully engage with you? You're a smug bully.
I'm just riffing off you. Isn't it frustrating when people just say unproductive things and don't engage in an actual conversation? You could have pointed to those specific people and stated why you think they're qualified, but you didn't. You offered snark. So no, you don't deserve more.
November 25, 2024 at 10:03 PM
I'm just riffing off you. Isn't it frustrating when people just say unproductive things and don't engage in an actual conversation? You could have pointed to those specific people and stated why you think they're qualified, but you didn't. You offered snark. So no, you don't deserve more.
Somehow, it doesn't seem that a mere two people are enough to make it hyperbolic. Again, reactionary and trying to distract from the point. Be better.
November 25, 2024 at 9:36 PM
Somehow, it doesn't seem that a mere two people are enough to make it hyperbolic. Again, reactionary and trying to distract from the point. Be better.
1. Lazy response, stop playing dumb. He would be implying; you would be inferring.
2. Makes it clear point one is rhetorical and you actually understand his statement, as it is clear and direct. Reactionary and trying to distract from the point. Just stop it.
2. Makes it clear point one is rhetorical and you actually understand his statement, as it is clear and direct. Reactionary and trying to distract from the point. Just stop it.
November 25, 2024 at 9:13 PM
1. Lazy response, stop playing dumb. He would be implying; you would be inferring.
2. Makes it clear point one is rhetorical and you actually understand his statement, as it is clear and direct. Reactionary and trying to distract from the point. Just stop it.
2. Makes it clear point one is rhetorical and you actually understand his statement, as it is clear and direct. Reactionary and trying to distract from the point. Just stop it.