PeriodicallyPedantic

joined 2 years ago
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago)

Why are you defending such a turdwaffle?

Dude makes his living by making stupid takes and then playing up his doofus character to apologize like "durrrr sorry I didn't know it was bad to call someone a f*gg*t"

The devil doesn't need an advocate, and he has a hoard of frothing redpills to defend anything he says.

Take me down to the paradise outside
Where the grass is real and the girls are real
Oh won't you please take me hooooome

They'll have more bone in them once I get my hands on some 😏

When the rain washes you clean, ananas

Depends on your priorities.

But if your priority is to get the info out there, then you want both, so that it can't be stopped just by your ISP cutting your service or losing power, nor by the service you're using shutting down or deleting your message

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I can't tell how many layers of irony we're on.
Hopefully they're not like a little baby, because yikes.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Delete this right now 😡

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Last I heard, refugees needed to demonstrate a clear, immediate, concrete, mortal threat, that you couldn't feasibly escape anywhere else in your country.
And if you're rejected you may not reapply and you may even be barred entry.

But I'm not a lawyer, so idk the details or what would qualify as such a danger (it even if I was given the correct information, so take it with a grain of salt).

I suspect that for the most part, probably not.

Sweet gherkin, I guess?
I'm not exactly sure what the category is

Me, working on my personal hobby project, trying to integrate two totally unfamiliar platforms, in a programming language I've never used before.

Naw, I'm sure that wanting to be sad and getting that is the way to happiness... Err... Or...

 

I cum in the shower, instead.

 

Imagine living in a universe where, without even trying, you can run so fast that if you trip, you will die and splatter your body over a couple hundred meters of ground. And if you trip into someone, it'll kill them and possibly an entire pile of people.

Like, in motor racing, the cars get wrecked but the drivers are fine. In the movie Cars, they all die. The race spectators are watching a blood sport.

 

What is a bread roll if not all crust?
What is toasting, if not making the whole piece of bread more crust-like?

 

When toilets try to save money by reducing the amount of water they use per flush, but you end up having to flush like 3 times 🤬

 

What would you put in your second aid kit?

76
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

Be me.
I've started sitting down to pee because it's cleaner.
Stand up after I've finished peeing.
Pull up pants.
Turn around to flush.
There is poop in the toilet.
I forgot that this time I had sat down to poop.

 

In old plays and stories, such as Romeo and Juliet, poisons are depicted as being fairly fast acting.

Would they really have had access to such poison, or was it simply creative license? What would a realistic depiction of a poison of that era be?

 

I'm trying to figure out a ruling for something one of my players wants to do. They're invisible, but they took a couple of seemingly non-attack actions that my gut says should break inviz.

Specifically, they dumped out a flask of oil, and then used a tinderbox to light it on fire. Using a tinderbox isn't an attack, nor is emptying a flask, although they are actions , and the result of lighting something on fire both seems like an attack and something that would dispell inviz.

I know that as DM I can rule it however I want, but I'm fairly inexperienced and I don't wanna go nerfing one of my players tools just because it feels yucky to me personally without understanding the implications.

Is this an attack or is there another justification for breaking inviz that is there some RAW clause I didn't see? Or should this be allowed?

 
 
 

I know I have small hands but c'mon. Flagship phones these days are strait up small tablets, not even what we'd have called on phablets 15 years ago.

I know it's what people buy, but I'm still sad that if I want a phone that small then I have to deal with camera and display a couple gens old

view more: next ›