Search results

Seems like people are missing the "An' it harm none" bit.

The one I tend to reach for is "If you only ever tell the truth, you never have to remember anything." Somehow I think that's not the one you're thinking of. :LOL:

Unrelated to the above: Ignorance is no defense, you know.

REJECT THE FALSE DICHOTOMY

Best. Part of that includes knowing when to shut up.

That's a sound review. I'll say that you can leave when you want; anything after the credits start is going to be an epilogue, and it's a reasonable position not to care about those (the first one is probably worth staying for, the second might well not be).

Sure, he was in the audience, not the band, it's right there above the headline. :LOL:

Human definitely are weird. Especially humans who think Shane MacGowan was in The Clash. 😉

It's weird that it's only happened twice, yes.

No, no, that won't work. You might be able to get some agreement on some less-provocative phrasing for now, but the next time there's a discussion even remotely relevant he'll be using that insulting-sounding turn of phrase again, and insisting he's not being insulting.

Oh, people really really liked it, and I expect it to win. I thought it was a cluttered pile that tried to do and say a lot of things, but never really managed to tell a story. I am aware I am an outlier, here. It's the only nominated novel I've read this year, I have no preferred candidate.

Yeah, my money's on The Ministry of Time, as well, though my opinion of it was very much at odds with the overall zeitgeist.

I've been meaning to reread them, haven't gotten to that yet. I'll try to keep that in mind. I'm not sure I read them in order, and I'm pretty sure there were probably at least a dozen novels, between them.

It made perfect sense as a standalone to me. Well, I thought it did, anyway. Then again, even his classic early trilogy seemed really loose to me, more like three books with some overlapping characters.

I very much enjoyed Agency, but it didn't feel like part of a larger thing to me. I'll probably end up needing to read the rest.

I suspect most of the more relaxed people you're describing will not be participating in a thread past the tenth or so page, or whenever it devolves into one of the standard recurring arguments. They'll drop out, and they won't join (though they might look in from time to time, out of morbid...

Ya know, if the vast majority of people doing it manage to make it work, maybe it's not the problem you think it is. I mean, you're probably not so vastly superior to everyone else as all-a-that.

So it's not my thing, but one of the guys I TRPG with collects playing cards, and he sent some things along. My take, before I start quoting him and dropping links: There are several companies whose business model is centered around fancy cards, many of which are themed (the theme idea seems...

That dryly droll approach reminds me of what I've heard/read about Max Brooks (which mostly I haven't seen when I've read Max Brooks).

It seems far easier to calculate your odds for success. I mean, to math your chances in a d20 game, you look at the DC, subtract your bonuses from it, subtract that from 20, then divide (er, multiply) by 5; to do it in a d100/roll-under game, you just look at the number on your sheet (and even...