Is this whole instance like this? Like, is this another hexbear?
Is this whole instance like this? Like, is this another hexbear?
That shit is still everywhere where I am. Vote as if he’s a popular as he ever was, because in some areas he sure seems to be.
I don’t think that is generally the intent of ending a sentence with lol. It is sometimes, probably, but most of the time it is for trying to convey a light hearted, friendly attitude - like a polite chuckle in real life. Millennials do it a lot.
I actually am genuinely interested in that fellow’s reasoning behind believing both that his job of managing people is successful, and also that all the people he managed do not like being managed by him.
Anecdotally, I have encountered workplaces containing a manager or employee that was universally disliked, and it was never because they were doing an awesome job. They did appear to think that people disliked them personally but benefited from their results. Often they seem to also believe those results would be unachievable in ways that do not produce the distaste. I am not sure these contradictions are entirely defensible.
I have never encountered a posting like that, but I’d be interested to see an example of it if you have one. Happen to have a link to one?
Edit: So that’s a no then. That’s a… problematic thing to make up.
I would guess that it’s all about emphasis.
Kinda like:
I never said we should kill him
I never said we should kill him
I never said we should kill him
Etc etc. Each emphasized word changes how that entire sentence is read, regardless of which one is emphasized.
I have a little orange kitty that drools if he purrs hard enough. He first showed me this tendency as a kitten by drooling on my face when I was asleep, hahaha.
What, and I mean this sincerely, the fuck.
I see. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your point of view. Still not my preferred method of engagement, but I understand better where you were coming from, and that’s what I was trying to accomplish!
Okay, fair. I asked that in that way because I believe that politicians listen primarily to corporations, sure, and secondarily to reliable voting blocs. My thought was that by proving to be an unreliable voting bloc, there’s a reasonable risk that instead of trying to court that bloc to make it turn out more, they would just go after other blocs that already are reliable.
But! You don’t think the democrats would try to court the right instead of the left if the left proves to be an unreliable voter bloc. Fair! What about the rest? We punish them via withholding of votes, they lose, and then… by what mechanism are they pushed to the left? By the loss, or is there more to the idea? What if they don’t, or don’t do it good enough? Withhold votes and make them lose again? Is there ever an adjustment to the plan, or is it just an unfortunate helping of our ideological opponents for however long it takes for the Democrats to get it right?
I’m not asking you to read minds. Just to explain how this works in your mind. I understand the frustration, and desire to express it, and the expression I’m, possibly incorrectly, assuming you have is to not vote for them. What is the process by which this accomplishes more than making Republicans win elections, and pushing the Democrats to the right?
Okay, so we punish the Democrats and the Republicans necessarily win as a result. Hopefully that’s not a controversial assumption.
How many such intentional losses should be planned on so that we can get the Democrats try to move left to recapture support? How are we going to ensure they try to better court the left instead of moving to the right?
That game is one of my favorites. I have over a thousand hours in it. Good choice!
What’s outrageous about what I said that I read in an article?
Fairly confident he’s calling you a liar and suggesting the things you claim to have seen in an article you never really saw, and are instead offering a claim of your own under the guise of it having been in an article.
Pretty cool way to interact with another human being, if you think about it.
I have the guy he had responded to tagged as the guy with the piss voice. Good times.
Better be careful. He sounds like he means business. You don’t wanna be on the receiving end of the piss voice.
I feel you, I don’t have a lot of time either - more than that, but not a huge amount. That’s why I prefer having more viable builds. I could play Path of Exile, for example, but I don’t want to spend hours trying to learn how to even play the game this particular season so that I can make a character that won’t be a giant ball of crap. If there’s more build diversity, you’re more likely to do okay just doing whatever you want to do, without needing to research builds ahead of time.
D3 has builds that are far superior to everything else, but I don’t think D4 is any better - nerfs mid-cycle or not. Using a bad build is punished less in D4, but you’re still going to be on struggle street if you pick a shitty build. With D3 and D4 if what you want to do doesn’t just happen to be one of the good builds your character is gonna suck. It matters less in those games though, since gear is absurdly easy to get in D3, and respeccing is fairly accessible in both games.
In fairness to your point though, back when D3 was new and its hardest difficulty was borderline impossible, I found a mage build that could do it, and when I had finally gotten the gear I needed (NOT easy back then) it got nerfed the same day I was able to use it. That was super frustrating. I would argue they did that to help push the real money auction house though, not promote build diversity - don’t need to buy gear if there’s a class that doesn’t need you to. That’s the cynic in me I suppose.
He’s on a .ml instance