The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[Guest 7030100]

Sometimes I get @prabe and @payn confused.

I wonder if each sees the other in the mirror?

 

[Cadence]

Is there a way to write up pizza maker traits so that if a member of that school of pizza making repeats something ad nauseum to a customer that the customer is more likely to just give up and order the ed pizza being pushed instead of what they really want? Or is that indistinguishable from anyone having a higher CHR and persuasion?

 

[payn]

Is there a way to write up a D&D racial trait so that if a member of that race repeats something ad nauseum that the listeners are more likely to just give up and agree to make it stop? Or is that indistinguishable from anyone having a higher CHR and persuasion?

Its called a Nilbog.

 

[Cadence]

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding EN-etiquette.

Say person A is interacting with people B and C about point X, but the posts of B and C haven't really crossed. Further, say person A has agreed on something with person B. Is it true that person A should act like none of their interactions with B ever happened corresponding with C, and they should make person C attempt to relitigate the same thing?

For example:

A: All uses of pineapple are bad

BtoA: What about shish-ka-bobs?

CtoA: All the time always?

AtoB: Ok, that's one exception

AtoC: Yes, all the time always, prove me wrong

<insert B being flabbergasted to this and each of the following>

CtoA: How about pizza or tacos

AtoC: Yuck! No reasonable person thinks that. Try again.

CtoA: You can't mean that!?!? What about on ham.

<go up to the Yuck again, and have C say anything else except shish-ka-bobs>

 

[Guest 7030100]

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding EN-etiquette.

Say person A is interacting with people B and C about point X, but the posts of B and C haven't really crossed. Further, say person A has agreed on something with person B. Is it true that person A should act like none of their interactions with B ever happened corresponding with C, and they should make person C attempt to relitigate the same thing?

For example:

A: All uses of pineapple are bad

BtoA: What about shish-ka-bobs?

CtoA: All the time always?

AtoB: Ok, that's one exception

AtoC: Yes, all the time always, prove me wrong

<insert B being flabbergasted to this and each of the following>

CtoA: How about pizza or tacos

AtoC: Yuck! No reasonable person thinks that. Try again.

CtoA: You can't mean that!?!? What about on ham.

<go up to the Yuck again, and have C say anything else except shish-ka-bobs>

I really think this just comes down to your feelings about casserole.

 

[Cadence]

That really needs a colon.

 

[CleverNickName]

That really needs a colon.

Most foods usually involve a colon at some point.

 

[CleverNickName]

Ah man, are we really going to restart the Libation Wars? Start arguing again about which whiskey is the One True Booze?

Surely we can all agree that whiskey is awesome in all its wonderful flavors and origins? There's plenty of room at this table for the peaty, aged, single-malt scotches....the caramel-toffee-toasty bourbons...the pungent and smoky ryes...the blended whiskeys from Canada...even Hibiki or Akashi has its place. Splash of soda with that? Maybe a bit of water? A rock or two? It's all good, baby.

Why do you care so much about what the folks at the other table are sipping, anyway?

 

[dragoner]

I bought the mystery pineapple at walmart the machine did not recognize it said to call a human.

 

[prabe]

I bought the mystery pineapple at walmart the machine did not recognize it said to call a human.

Mystery Pineapple is the name of my next band.