Lurker > _AdjI_

wolfy42 posted...

Respect? how about just being a normal freaking human with some self control? Most/many guys find women attractive but don't consider raping them.

Most of those guys have the option of acting on their attraction without hurting people. Bear in mind also that a lot of child molestation isn't as overt and forcible as people tend to consider rape to be. That doesn't make it any better, of course, but it does make it easier for the person doing it to rationalize it as being consensual enough (or at least to skip the step of considering whether or not their "partner" can actually consent).

wolfy42 posted...

I don't even quite understand how anyone find pre-pubescent children attractive in a sexual way,

It is very much a mental illness. It shouldn't make sense to mentally healthy people because it relies on the brain working in very much the wrong way.

wolfy42 posted...

IF you do find children attractive, I would actually suggest getting help. I think what the person means is if they report it, they go to jail because they have looked at child porn or something. I'm pretty sure before you get to that point you would know, and should get help before doing so.

Indeed. The issue is that pedophilia is so demonized that seeking help is difficult regardless of whether or not a person has acted on their urges. Try talking to a friend about it for support, and odds are you'll lose a friend, not end up with somebody who will discourage you from applying to be a gym teacher. As long as people hear "pedophile" and think "child molester" (lumping people who consume child porn in with that), that's not going to change, which means you're going to get more people with pedophilic urges trying (and potentially failing) to handle them on their own.

wolfy42 posted...

I even consider virutal (anime etc) child porn should be illegal because it could escalate someone etc.

I'd actually consider that to be one of the healthy outlets I alluded to earlier. Virtual stuff is actually harmless to make, meaning consuming it isn't harmful. That's not to say its consumption isn't cause for concern or that anyone using it as an outlet doesn't need to be seeking other help to keep their urges under control, but saying that it should be illegal because its consumers might want more is like saying that money should be illegal because it might make those who have it want to steal more. Illegality should be based on actual harm, not the presumption that it might inspire somebody to escalate to something more harmful (see also: "gateway drug").

wolfy42 posted...

And yeah, if there is solid proof (actual video, dna evidence etc) that you molested a child, you should be locked up and the key thrown away or given the option of true castration (unless there is a way to ensure chemical castration is 100% effective and that the person can't just stop taking drugs etc) or the option to be put to death (your choice).

Generally a knee-jerk overreaction, but basically, yeah. Child molesters suck and deserve pretty much all the hate they get (although the "won't somebody think of the children?!?!" attitude that drives people to consider it the worst crime ever is thoroughly irrational). I don't disagree there.

wolfy42 posted...

There should be "towns" that have security around them for sex offenders and others who are not safe to be part of society, but who can live mostly normal lives inside, working and living etc, even with (monitored) internet access. They could easily be made to actually generate money/taxes instead of cost tax payers a ton each year, and you could use such places to ensure dangerous people were not free to possibly harm others in the future.

You basically just described a concentration camp. Being based on criminal convictions instead of some politician's genocidal inclinations takes a lot of the sting out of the concept, but it's still not really a reasonable approach. Rehabilitative prison and post-release restrictions (i.e. not being allowed to work with kids) is generally going to be more reasonable, though obviously America kind of struggles with the whole "rehabilitation" thing.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Does the door lock? Problem solved.

Honestly, yeah. Even for multi-occupant bathrooms, locking stalls already provide pretty much all the privacy you can ever expect in a multi-user bathroom. To that end, segregating even multi-occupant bathrooms is pretty unnecessary.

What? Duckbear will continue to post his topics (again) despite saying (again) that he was going to stop? I haven't been this surprised since the last time the sun rose in the east.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

As much as the Internet loves to quibble over it, the whole "pedophilia isn't a crime" mentality is kind of bullshit sophistry. When the average person uses the terms "pedophilia" or "pedophiile", they're not talking about someone who just has the urges or the mental condition, they're talking about the sort of people who literally act on that compulsion.

And that's precisely the problem: When you demonize the thoughts by so closely associating them with the actions as to use the same words, those who have the thoughts but haven't yet acted on them are going to bottle them up instead of seeking help or healthy outlets. Pedophiles that don't progress into child molesters deserve respect for their self-control, not the same vilification that they would face if they did find themselves a toddler to diddle.

faramir77 posted...

Gendered single occupant bathrooms are mindnumbingly pointless.

There's a toilet and a sink in it. One person allowed at a time. Why does it matter which is male/female?

Eeyup. I get the rationale of taking the approach TC's seeing (building a third bathroom is expensive, slapping a unisex sign on the former men's room while leaving the women's room is consistent with how busy each gendered bathroom tends to be), but really, all single-seater bathrooms should just be unisex.

Mead posted...

digital is usually cheaper in my experience

Generally, yeah. At the very least, it's a lot easier to find cheap digital games than similarly-cheap physical games (open a couple online storefronts once a day vs. visit several stores and sift through their bargain bins and hope you get there at the same time as something good). The ability to resell physical games negates some of that cost difference, but that's only if you make a habit of reselling your games (which I've never been a fan of).

Veedrock- posted...

This implies there was a party going on before Columbus, which there wasn't.

There were people here. As far as mere discovery goes, that's all it takes to qualify as a party.

wwinterj25 posted...

I use cash around 99% of the time. I don't buy online much and use my card even less in stores. I like to keep track of my money and find it more easy to do so if I have the cash on me than overspend on the plastic.

I find the opposite, actually. I export my bank statements to an excel sheet each month (mostly to figure out how to divide expenses between my girlfriend and I, but also just for general bookkeeping), which I can only do with debit/credit transactions unless I save receipts from cash ones. To that end, I try to avoid using cash for anything but small transactions that I don't care about tracking.

That's not how homeopathy works. You've gotta dilute the bad thing itself, not something that seems like it'll work against the bad thing. That means you've gotta make a homeopathic dilution of butter, obviously.

Of course, butter doesn't dissolve in water, which complicates matters. Maybe dissolve in pure essential oil instead. That'll work.

Not that I can think of. I did have a period where I took a break from drinking, but that was less because I was concerned about how much I was drinking and more that the couple of instances of drinking that preceded the period just hadn't been that enjoyable.

CaptainStrong posted...

For the high. It's worth the cost and I don't care about my health.

Well, just make sure you tie a plastic bag around your head first. People can do whatever they want with their own health, but start bringing others' health into the mix, and that's when they become utter garbage.

I never knew you had 2020 vision, Delta. Neat.

FatalAccident posted...

Lol this

also depression

They often go hand in hand. Avolition is one of the main diagnostic criteria for depression.

dedbus posted...

I'm pretty sure some dude was rolling around a rock but he didn't discover the wheel. Some dude probably banged against a wall but didnt discover the drum. People probably lived in the content but they didn't discover america.

Inventing devices that have to be specifically constructed isn't really comparable to discovering a land mass. America has existed for longer than humans. Discovering it means finding it, and anyone finding it after the first person has done so is late to the party. Wheels or drums, however, didn't exist until somebody came up with a way to construct and use them.

The vikings didn't even discover America. Protip: If you go somewhere and you find people there, you weren't the first person to discover that place.

Yellow posted...

I remember being lazy was the reason I failed a lot of my classes.

Honestly, I often found that the stuff I procrastinated the worst ended up being some of my best grades. I had one paper where I put it off until the day it was due, then crashed my bike on the way into school in the morning and barely managed to get it written and printed off in time for the 12:00 class. Ended up being the best paper in the class.

Judgmenl posted...

I'm sorry but I don't understand what "legitimately" means.

Google provides a service with Youtube. Ads are the means by which they make money from providing that service. Circumvent the ads, and you're using their service without paying for it. Ergo, illegitimate use.

Of course, I also happily block ads, but I'm not so delusionally entitled as to think that I'm legitimately using the sites whose ads I block. Yar har fiddle dee dee.

Judgmenl posted...

Youtube

Judgmenl posted...

Without ads.

Pick one. Natively, at least. Ublock exists, of course, but that's not using youtube legitimately.

My understanding is that the sizable amount of post-launch patching has turned it into a thoroughly decent game, but I haven't yet taken the plunge on it myself.

I've got a friend coming over to hang out, which will probably entail video games and mild inebriation. Nothing overly fancy, and I doubt I'll be up too long past midnight.

Muscles posted...

I don't really know shit about cameras, but why does everything else seem to move, at least somewhat, normally? Shouldn't it look slowed down or kinda choppy like claymation?

This happens because the rotational frequency of the helicopter blades happens to line up with the framerate of the camera. The framerate isn't anything unusually high or low, and presuming the footage is played back at the same rate as it was recorded, there's no reason to expect anything else to look weird.

Ferarri619 posted...

Tetsuya Takahashi himself stated that he had to get away from heavy Scifi themes for Xenoblade because Xenosaga just didn't do well enough.
And the fact that Xenoblade is selling so much better is really telling

Xenoblade X was more sci-fi-ish, though it would have been really nice if they actually finished its story.

Lueshis_Story posted...

Technically, but theyre rarely referred to as 1-0 instead of 0-9. The topic title is correct though cause if said 2010s and not the decade.

Eeyup. I went through the same thought process.

captpackrat posted...

The most southerly point in Great Britain is further north than any point in the Lower 48 US states.

Britain is surprisingly far north. London's on the same latitude as Labrador City (slightly lower), which is really quite far north in Canada. Not as far north as any of the territories' capitals, and still below the Arctic Circle, but further north than most of Canada's population density. Just goes to show what the Gulf Stream does for Britain that it's not a borderline arctic country.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I've been arguing for training this whole time, now you think you can flip it? lol

The fact that the word "training" appears in the description of both concepts doesn't make them equivalent. One example of training reduces risk (and, by extension, potential for harm), the other reduces harm after the risk has already happened.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Define "reasonable measures".

Broadly, measures which are not expected to cost more than the reward they'll yield (both in terms of resources and in terms of human impact). Obviously there's some subjectivity in determining the reasonableness of a given suggestion, but this is an assessment that can very easily be conducted objectively, especially when you start getting multiple viewpoints in there.

Specific to this issue? Mandatory background checks on gun sales that include psych evals, mandatory waiting period on gun sales (mostly helps with suicides, but also reduces other gun violence), enforcing these requirements on private sales, stricter storage requirements, improved (read: any) access to mental health services, mental health services in schools that focus on early detection and intervention, a cultural shift toward supporting victims of bullying (in school and otherwise), conflict resolution programs in high-violence areas... there's no shortage of ideas that can be expected to help address gun violence that don't significantly impact people that are doing nothing wrong. They just require the right to get over the "MUH GUNZ" paranoia instilled by the NRA's propaganda and this obsession with not paying for anyone else's health care regardless of how beneficial it is for the country as a whole.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's as though they're not the only, or even most important, factors involved in US mass shootings.

The UK has free healthcare and heavily restricted gun control yet we had a school shooting once. Switzerland has guns everywhere and there's none I know of.

What I see is no direct correlation between legal gun ownership, mental health services and mass shootings but some people still assume there's a neat cure-all sitting neatly between them.

Again, you don't need to get to zero. You're never going to get to zero. It's a nice idea, but it's just not going to happen. That doesn't mean you can't address contributing factors instead of just throwing your hands in the air and saying there's nothing you can do about it. That one Onion headline keeps being relevant.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What he did was trolling. That doesn't make what he did harmless, but it also doesn't make it a terroristic threat. It sits in a window of greyness you're not willing to take on board.

He acted in a manner that he knew was going to make people feel scared and threatened. That's a threat. That's not black-and-white thinking, that's the simple reality of what he was doing. Can it be called trolling? Sure. But that's just as pointless as bringing up that a murderer assaulted their victim. The threat/murder is the important part, not the trolling/assault.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Most people would rather live under the false sense of security that police or somebody will come save them instead of the harsh reality that they have to save themselves first before police or backup can get there.

911/Police are literally tens of minutes away usually when you need solutions done in < 1 min.

That means fighting back.

Do you have an AED in your house?

I usually carry $30-40 in cash, plus some change, but I use debit or credit for almost all transactions. I tend to default to credit because I get better rewards that way, but I'll use debit for small businesses because I know the 3-4% rewards credit cards charge them can be pretty painful on a smaller profit margin.

Rai posted...

I never called it the 2000's or the 2010's, but I think I'm ok with calling the next one the 2020's.

I was okay with 2000's, but 2010's always just felt awkward to me. Using "10's" to refer to the 1910's felt similarly awkward, so I think it's just a function of trying to label the decade with a single syllable.

Lokarin posted...

this weirdly, something weird. Ok, I'm short so my feet don't reach the floor in my chair, but I added the pillow, and now my feet reach the floor.

How?

It adjusted the angle at which you're sitting in the chair so you're leaning forward more, so now your feet touch the ground. This tells me your seat probably has you leaning back quite a bit, which may be what stressed your tailbone in the first place. You should try to adjust your seat (height, pan depth, pan angle) so it presses evenly along your entire thigh and butt. If you're too short to see your monitor while also having your feet on the ground (which you'll need to even out the pressure like that), you might want to consider getting something to rest your feet on.

TerranceC posted...

Also, Steve Irwin once fed a crocodile with his one year old son in his arm, so if we are talking reckless endangerment, theres that.

Again, reasonable precautions. He'd spent his entire career studying the animals. I have no reason to expect that he'd put his son in that situation if he didn't feel thoroughly assured that he'd be fine.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

if you say so

If you disagree, you're welcome to provide a citation for those numbers.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People aren't worried about bites if they can be treated on the rare chance it happens.

So you wouldn't want snake-infested areas to be signed well enough for you to avoid them as needed? You'd happily wade into such an area without any sort of training on how to recognize and avoid antagonizing venomous snakes? You wouldn't wear thicker boots and pants to help prevent bites from breaking the skin?

Being able to fix the problem after it happens makes it unnecessary to go to extraordinary lengths to minimize risks, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to take reasonable measures to minimize the risk instead of relying on that treatment.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And yet we have zero countries with no guns and no mental illness. It's not something that is remotely pragmatic to try to just eliminate outright.

And yet we do have countries with virtually zero mass shootings. It's almost like it's not actually necessary to hit zero. Who knew?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's still trolling, just really bad trolling. Just like 28 stab wounds is assault, and it's also a fatal attack.

You'd call that murder, without taking the time to point out that it's also technically assault in an effort to downplay the situation. If you're trying to dismiss what this guy did as "just harmless trolling" and not "behaving in a threatening manner," you might want to choose an analogy that doesn't completely dismantle your attempted point.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It means he had no defense valid in court, not that he didn't have a defense he personally felt was valid.

I take it you didn't read past the first sentence there?

TerranceC posted...

You know what else can kill people? Running a stop sign.

It can indeed. This is why competent drivers pay attention and try to avoid making such a mistake. The ones that don't try don't get sympathy if their recklessness kills them. The ones that do try but made an unfortunately-timed mistake get more sympathy because they didn't recklessly endanger others.

TerranceC posted...

Leaving something cooking unattended

It can indeed. This is almost always an innocent mistake, though, not a symptom of broader-scale recklessness, so there's more sympathy there.

TerranceC posted...

or smoking at a gas station.

It can indeed. That's why, if you ever see somebody smoking at a gas station, you stab them right in their goddamn stupid face for being so goddamn stupid. Zero tolerance for that nonsense.

TerranceC posted...

What if the Crocodile attacked the cameraman or another crew member?

Adequate precautions were taken to minimize that risk, and even if it did happen, the crew agreed to that risk when they took the job. That's not remotely comparable to injuring or killing an innocent, unrelated bystander.

TerranceC posted...

What if one of the wild animals he paraded around got loose?

Again, adequate precautions. Even more so for public appearances, because you've gotta go through a whole lot of paperwork to get approved for anything like that. Again, not remotely comparable.

TerranceC posted...

Its only absurd through the extremely limited lens you are looking at it, which is, a person only doesnt deserve empathy in death if their actions potentially endangered others.

Ironically (not really), you're describing my viewpoint through an extremely limited lens. You should perhaps reevaluate your approach.

TerranceC posted...

The responses in this topic remind me of the one good point/joke ever made about the general reaction to the Crocodile Hunters death.

He said hes not an ass for making fun of the Crocodiles Hunters death because hes not a hypocrite, when people die going 200mph on a motorcycle on the freeway we just say what is that idiot doing he got what he deserved, yet the crocodile hunter plays with dangerous animals and gets killed and we all felt sorry and sad for him.

Irwin playing with crocodiles never got anyone else killed. Idiots going for joyrides in cars that shouldn't even exist get innocent people killed every day. Equivocating the two is absurd.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They need to be equal relative to their situations.

No they don't.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Your rapist using a condom is 1% better, not getting shot in a shooting is at least 80% better.

You're very obviously making up arbitrary numbers, undermining your point, and you're also ignoring the very real possibility of still getting shot, but non-lethally.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You tell them who to contact if they get bit, it's common sense and strongly recommended.

It is good to have that information, yes, but that does nothing to reduce the likelihood of bites in the first place. Stopping at that instead of taking further preventative measures would be foolish, so long as further preventative measures exist.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Just like shooters in the US, you can only really deal with the problem as it appears as there is no practical solution in place as it stands.

Or - bear with me here, because this is apparently really complicated - you can introduce legislation that would cut down on the number of shooters in the first place. The root of the problem is that there are too many mentally unstable people with guns. There are many options for reducing the number of mentally unstable people, reducing the number of people with guns, and particularly reducing the overlap between those two groups. Mind-blowing, I know. Training people to reduce the harm a shooter can do when they crop up isn't bad, but it's also not doing anything to solve the actual problem.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A troll being a troll doesn't need guns in faces.

Deliberately making people feel like their lives are being threatened goes far beyond trolling.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It really means nothing. You do in court what gets you the least punishment, his plea doesn't have any real significance and you shouldn't gauge anybody's moral compass based on their pleas in court.

It means he didn't have a case upon which to defend his actions as harmless and not intended to terrorize people. Given how easy it would have been to claim that he himself was concerned about the possibility of another Walmart shooter and that he was only trying to protect himself, I'm fine with treating the fact that he didn't make that defense as an admission that he was trying to cause trouble. I'm even more fine with that conclusion when I take into account that his justification was that he was "testing Walmart's attitude toward the second amendment" and the charge to which he plead guilty was causing a false police report to be made. That's pretty clear-cut.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Escaping a shooting is not equally as good as your rapist wrapping his dong lol

Analogies don't require the concepts being compared to be equal. Lrn2analogy, nubcakes.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's like taking an anti-venom after a snake bite because it's far more practical than making venomous snakes extinct before you venture outside. You'd rather not get bitten, but if it only ends up hurting you superficially, you can happily live on accepting that outside risk.

You would not, however, suggest that everyone should just carry anti-venom rather than avoiding areas that are known to have a high population of venomous snakes, using signage to warn people of such areas, or hunting said snakes to make an area safer that people need to be able to use. Anti-venom doesn't solve the problem, it just keeps the problem from killing you. Actual solutions prevent the bite in the first place.

Similarly, combat rolling doesn't stop the guy from shooting up a church in the first place. I just makes it less likely that said guy will kill you. Front-line harm reduction is not comparable to actually solving the problem, even if it's not a bad idea if you know you'll be facing a high risk of encountering said problem.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If people learned what is and is not a threat, perhaps they wouldn't overreact and we could avoid pointless conflict like this.

Do you honestly think the guy wasn't deliberately trying to get a rise out of somebody? That he didn't think anyone would have a problem with a visibly armed guy in full body armor walking into a Walmart immediately after another guy went on a shooting spree in another Walmart? I'll give you a hint: He plead guilty.

Dreaming_King posted...

I know that. it was a response to this.

Ah. Fair. Carry on.

Dreaming_King posted...

There was this case.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-detained-walking-missouri-walmart-armed-rifle-wearing/story?id=64870120

tl;dr Guy walked into a Wal-Mart with body armor and some holstered guns to do some shopping, being completely within his state law and Wal-Mart's own policy. The only problem is he did this a few days after that Wal-Mart mass shooting so people panicked and some guy with a concealed gun pulled it on him and held him at gun point until the cops came to arrest him. They charged him with making a terrorist threat and last month he plead guilty to some lesser crime. The guy who held him at gun point wasn't charged with anything.

In that case, the gun was pulled on him because the person with the gun was suspicious of him and sought to prevent him from committing a crime, suspicion which was later determined to be reasonable. The central idea of the law quoted is not that you can never point a gun at anyone who isn't actively shooting people, it's that you can't point a gun at anyone without reasonable justification.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Condom or not, the issue is being molested which a condom does not stop.

And combat roll or not, the issue is being shot at which a combat roll does not stop. Combat roll keeps you from getting killed, condom keeps you from getting an STD. The analogy's not perfect, but it works for illustrating how futile a bandaid solution this idea is.

Can't say I'm too broken up by the "loss" of such an idiot. The passenger was presumably innocent, so that sucks, but the world's better off without somebody who'd drive so dangerously. It's just a shame he couldn't have killed himself by crashing into something sturdier and inconveniencing fewer people.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

but also by making the criminal potentially lose control having to deal with an officer on the windscreen or under a wheel, endangering the public.

Yes, it's not the fact that the driver is willing to run down anyone that gets in their way that makes their escape dangerous, it's the fact that there's a cop on their windshield/under a wheel. That makes total sense and is not at all utterly absurd.

The driver has the option to stop when the cop gets in front of them (again, presuming it's not a matter of jumping out and shooting before anyone could react). If they choose to try murdering the cop instead, there's no reason that cop shouldn't shoot them.

I did, but I felt it wasn't as good as 64. Both Galaxies were also better, though I understand why some people didn't like the shift from focusing on exploration to focusing on more linear platforming. I'd probably rank it last among the Mario collect-a-thons (Odyssey>64>Sunshine), but it's still a very good game.

Lokarin posted...

Ok, my tongue hurts from dryness despite drinking lots

That suggests some kind of infection. You should talk to a doctor about it; I doubt drinking something more refreshing is going to help with that.

Given that I don't pay attention to hockey and could therefore define my "favourite" team as the one that requires the least travel, this would probably be doable without having to take the full time off work. That said, if flights being cancelled costs me the prize, I don't think it'd be a worthwhile gamble. Flying in Canada in the winter is risky business. Flights get cancelled all the time, and with only a day or two to spare between some games, that could very easily be the end of it.

If flight cancellations (and other such uncontrollable travel interruptions) don't count against me, then I'd do it, otherwise, not so much.

TheWitchMorgana posted...

thirst is a function of hydration idk what you mean by this

Thirst is related to hydration, but they're not completely linked. You can quench thirst to a certain extent by just swishing water around in your mouth without actually swallowing any, and getting IV fluids will sate dehydration without immediately quenching thirst. The body extrapolates feelings of hydration based on the presence of water in the mouth: the loss of blood pressure and increase in blood solute concentration associated with dehydration doesn't go away until several minutes after you drink water, but the mere feeling of swallowing water signals the brain to stop telling you you're thirsty so you'll stop drinking.

The extension of this is that anything that moistens or dries out your throat to a degree that doesn't align with how well it will hydrate will quench/worsen your thirst without having the same effect on your actual hydration levels. It'll balance out in the long run as your body processes the drink and adjusts your perception of thirst based on where your hydration levels stand, but in terms of immediate thirst, "most hydrating" and "most thirst-quenching" aren't necessarily the same thing.

"Batman" is preceded by 16 na's, "Hey Jude" by 13, and "Hey hey, goodbye" by 8. None of those options fits the 9 na's you wrote in the title.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Katamari Damacy

This, however, fits perfectly.

To be on the safe side, I'd make sure your data is backed up. You don't necessarily have to jump straight to replacing the hard drive, on the off chance it's nothing catastrophic, but you should definitely have a backup.

I don't see that there's much of a problem with it, unless the cop starts shooting before the driver can reasonably be expected to stop (which would basically mean opening fire as soon as they got in front of the vehicle). If the person doesn't stop driving with the cop in front of them, then they are indeed trying to assault the cop with the vehicle, justifying lethal force to stop them.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Give me something raw and animal and wild and unlike anything we've ever seen before. Where you can't even tell who is doing what attack because there's energy shredding everything from all sides. A true magical battle.

I liked that about Doctor Strange. Obviously they still used their hands to direct their magic, but all of the Dark Dimension stuff made for some really interesting fight choreography because they were fighting with more than just what was obviously coming from their hands.

I'd say TTYD, though I did miss the proper overworld that the first PM had (instead of getting around purely via the sewers). I still haven't played Sticker Star, Color Splash, or Dream Team, but as I understand, I'm not missing much with the first two of those.

trodi_911 posted...

Super Paper Mario is more of a platformer than an RPG so I can see why it was left off.

It's definitely still got the RPG angle to it, though. Despite the genre shift, it still felt a lot like a Paper Mario game. Dunno how they managed that, exactly, but I enjoyed it.

Yep. I'll splurge occasionally, and I'm not averse to making big purchases when I think they're going to be worthwhile, but I usually look to save money wherever possible and don't like spending a lot of money if I think it might be possible to avoid it.

I'd say caps lock for anything more than one word, if I had to give an approximate threshold. On my phone, for anything more than one letter.