User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2017-04-21 at 1:11 AM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?
Originally posted by Bill Krozby yeah well like I just said I get that now, I didn't know alan moore wasn't the creator until a while ago.. you weren't really explaining a lot so I didn't really look It up because you weren't going into detail about the details… anyways..
I don't know when Alan Moore took over the comic, what am I supposed to know everything now? Am I to lead you by the hand and teach you all about everything? Jesus Doug. Let me get this straight, because I failed to mention some minor detail that I didn't even have any knowledge of, in your mind, that's what you think "being vauge" means?
Originally posted by Bill Krozby well what was vague was you just said it had been around since the 70's so I could of been wrong about alan moore making it in the 80's.. maybe he had made it in the 70's.. I don't know you could of told me someone had made it before allan moore.. that's how you were being vague, are you dumb?
Oh, so you really do think I know everything and that I'm supposed to lead you by the hand and teach you all about everything, well you know something Doug? I may be dumb but I'm pretty certain that I am not as nearly as dumb as you are. If you don't know something, why don't you fucking google it you moron. -
2017-04-21 at 1:02 AM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?
-
2017-04-21 at 1:01 AM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?
-
2017-04-21 at 12:55 AM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?
-
2017-04-21 at 12:47 AM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?
-
2017-04-21 at 12:41 AM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?I never said you didn't mention it, fuck face.
-
2017-04-21 at 12:32 AM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?Oh I didn't realize that was just a psa. I was talking about the comic.
-
2017-04-20 at 9:53 PM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?Dude, that show looks like a cheesy rip-off of the real swamp thing.
-
2017-04-20 at 9:45 PM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?There is a red and angry world. Red things happen there.
The world eats your wife. Eats your friends.
Eats all of the things that make you human.
And you become a monster. -
2017-04-20 at 9:27 PM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?
Originally posted by Bill Krozby what do you mean since then? swamp thing hasn't been around since the early 90's… you must be up there.. i guess i just grew up in the 80;s and 90's and new the show, comic, and cartoon, but i've never seen anything that dated all of those.
I am actually a bit younger than you. Also, swamp thing has been around since the 70's, bro:The creature, called Swamp Thing, was originally conceived as Alec Holland mutating into a vegetable-like creature, a "muck-encrusted mockery of a man". However, under writer Alan Moore, Swamp Thing was reinvented as an elemental entity created upon the death of Alec Holland, having somehow absorbed Holland's memory and personality into itself. He is described as "a plant that thought it was Alec Holland, a plant that was trying its level best to be Alec Holland"[5] with the result that he suffered a temporary identity crisis as he tried to surrender to his plant side after the discovery that he could never be human 'again', but he eventually adjusted to his role after a fight with the Floronic Man.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_Thing -
2017-04-20 at 9:10 PM UTC in Anyone here like swamp thing?Alan Moore didn't create swamp thing, but he did take it over and changed it around. That said, I do like his take on swamp thing. The point in the story where Alan Moore takes over, he actually kills the old swamp thing. Swamp thing is then "regrown" and realizes he isn't actually Alec trapped in a different body, he never was, he had always just been a plant that thought it was Alec.
-
2017-04-19 at 9:51 PM UTC in Living in the pastSure, but the idea of "the first people" is not a very good one. We've really always been here, just changed over time.
-
2017-04-19 at 9:43 PM UTC in Living in the past
Originally posted by Sophie Which species of hominid would you consider the first people?
Is there a specific point in time when Homo Sapiens stopped being something else and "became" H.Sapiens? Because as I understand it the evolution of a new species from an older version is very slow and involves some overlapping. It's not like modern people just appeared one day spontaneously with a complete vocabulary. -
2017-04-19 at 9:30 PM UTC in Living in the past
Originally posted by mmQ As in a long time ago, say the 400s or 700 BCs or whenever grunting cavemen were around.
Do you ever really try and envision what life would have been like then? Movies set in these times just show you the "entertaining" parts of the day, not the other 99% where they sit around bored out of their goddamn minds.
You can read , write, talk, draw, sew, play cards depending on if they were invented by your time. What else? Just keep cleaning your house and staying busy that way?
No electricity ever. I mean I understand that if you grow up in certain conditions you are much more acclimated to them, like obviously people can't be frustrated with no electricity if they don't know electricity exists, but just the same it just seems like things would get really repetitive and dull. Reading the same ass books over and over.
What do you think? Thank you.
Remember when you were a kid and when you weren't watching TV or playing with some toy? You were imagining stuff, creating stuff, lost in "your own world" or in your mind. I imagine it would have been a lot like that, except most people probably didn't really get to sit around and "be bored" like that, they were probably too busy living / surviving / learning. -
2017-04-19 at 9:26 PM UTC in Living in the past
Originally posted by Sophie They didn't grunt noob. Homo Sapiens(Us) talked.
Communication via spoken language probably started in a very basic way. One of the first "words" was probably a sound our ancestors made when something scared them, and over time we associated that sound with a more specific meaning like "danger!", "tiger!", or something like that. -
2017-04-17 at 12:44 AM UTC in teh retraded thred herppppp slober fuk glum editshin
Originally posted by Malice Marrying someone and driving them to suicide 2+ years after they sign up for life insurance (I read that it actually does pay out if you suicide, but it has to be after 2 years. Didn't confirm.), if they didn't already have a policy they could add you as a beneficiary to. That or simply making it seem like they committed suicide. The absolute perfect plan, with perfect trust and control of the environment. free access to it. So many possibilities.
This would be the height of psychopathy and parasitism. But, if it was a good payout (I am such a modest man that as little as 1.5K per month would be enough to life what I consider a good life), mmm, the emotional equivalent of the scent of good barbecued meat being carried towards you on a warm wind during a pleasant day, rousing your desire in a manner that causes you to feel warmth expanding from the inside of your core outward towards your extremities.
It would also be relatively simple, easy to get away with. Yes, it would require some investment, you could choose someone you truly enjoy spending time with, ideally that seems eager to marry quickly. And if they planned to have children, that alone would be enough to fully justify the murder, in my view.
Yeah but you would probably have to have sex for that to work. -
2017-04-15 at 10:22 PM UTC in You can't have it all. (Intelligence)
-
2017-04-15 at 4:43 PM UTC in You can't have it all. (Intelligence)
Originally posted by Captain Falcon That's exactly what a low intelligence dummy would say when they're made to look a fool.
The riddle has a simple logical answer within a mathematical framework. But without even introducing the meaning of the concept of a growth plate, the other answer is, by time, at the mid point between its designated full growth and smallest point. I don't see your issue with this answer.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-04-15T07:12:20.424277+00:00
Both answers were pretty obvious, bro. -
2017-04-15 at 4:41 PM UTC in You can't have it all. (Intelligence)
-
2017-04-15 at 4:38 PM UTC in Captain Falcon Explains Everything: Science Edition
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Hmm, I'm not really sure. I suppose it just reinforces the point that this state of being is not permanent, or even important. We are some sort of an island of subjective meaning within a sea of, I don't know, arbitrary noise I guess.
There is a concept called gauge symmetry that I've been trying to grapple with recently. It's very tough to fully understand for me. But my understanding is, to put it simply, that if we were looking at us from, for lack of a better word, a god's eye view… We would look like nothing. When we look at it as some sort of a data stream, it is just nothing. The best analogy I can make is to look at the binaries of a computer program. It looks like jack shit. It requires some sort of a framework to contextualise it and turn it into something meaningful and functional.
So all of this is an interesting pattern and interaction within a crazy sea of constant noise. That's it. But more importantly, it's also possible that we are perceiving an incredibly narrow bandwidth of reality, so to speak. There's no reason we are any more or less real in this context, than if we were to interpret the same soup of noise with another framework. It's possible that we are just one of an infinite number of ways to interpret the same raw data.
This xkcd comic might give you some perspective on this:
And this will tie into my post about multiverse theory.
I don't see a comic.
