Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community

In an attempt to divert back to the subject, here's one that ought to get some shunning:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Oh My God! Yes please! with a bucket full of cherries on top!

I think we will get shunned together.

Um, as far as I can tell, politics get votes not by being bigoted, but by making a show of fighting against bigotry.

It is like the gun laws. Listening to the news you'd think there was nothing but gangsters buying and using guns for crime. Truthfully, there are many tales of people using guns in self defense, but those stories don't drive the controversy. (also, most crimes committed with guns were illegal guns, so why are the legal gun owners being even further punished when that isn't how the bad guys are getting guns in the first place?)

Politics makes a stink about anything they think they can manipulate to get votes for them, and then they marginilize those things they can't get votes from.

Lbgt etc, is just another one of these issues to them. I seriously doubt it is anywhere near as bad as the politicians/newsies (same thing really) make it sound. Not to say it isn't bad, just that it's likely blown out of proportion.

Also, everything you said was wrong with nonstandard seems to apply to any label if you ask me, hence my suggestion for something simple and more inclusive than a bunch of random letters.

I've got a great idea, how about we give them all symbols to wear on their clothes, so you can identify your "nonstandard" folks from a distance?

How about we round them up into their own special section of town, so you can know where they all are?

Better yet, how about we take all the "nonstandards" and ship them off to a camp by train, so you don't have to deal with them at all?

Hell, while we're at it, how about we gas them, shoot them, work them to death, experiment on them, and torture them?

"Nonstandard"

We've heard talk like that before.

Never again.

Well, that escalated quickly.

What is wrong with you?

That talk wasn't about standard or even conformity. That was a supremist on a power trip who didn't value life at all.

Standard just means the stereotypical default. For example, USB is a standard connector between electronic devices, because it is the expected, unless you have an apple.

I feel that a standard that elevates "cis white male" as the default is not something we should be pushing for.

Also, that "supremist (sic) on a power trip" couldn't have done it without peoples' support... which he accomplished by othering and marginalizing the victims.

Finally, USB cables aren't people, with emotions and psyches vulnerable to this sort of emotional corrosion.

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that sh!t down (after a gentle reminder or two is ignored) should be applauded.

What is wrong with you?

That talk wasn't about standard or even conformity. That was a supremist on a power trip who didn't value life at all.

Standard just means the stereotypical default. For example, USB is a standard connector between electronic devices, because it is the expected, unless you have an apple.

If you can reclassify a group of people as nonstandard, there is nothing you cannot do to them.

History shows what happens when you designate a different class of people.

Every time it has ever happened, it inevitably lead to bloodshed.

You just did it, you just equated people with objects.

You've already done the dehumanizing yourself.

Scythia wrote:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that s~~+ down should be applauded.

At the very least, I would ask them to save it for a more appropriate campaign.

I have to go to bed, and I'll be very busy this weekend.

Try not to get the thread locked while I'm away, please. <3

Jaelithe wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that s~~+ down should be applauded.

At the very least, I would ask them to save it for a more appropriate campaign.

Too quick for me, K. I added a qualifier 45 seconds later, and you'd already posted.

I gotta stop editing after initial post. You guys are like gunslingers. :)

TheAlicornSage wrote:

What is wrong with you?

That talk wasn't about standard or even conformity. That was a supremist on a power trip who didn't value life at all.

Standard just means the stereotypical default. For example, USB is a standard connector between electronic devices, because it is the expected, unless you have an apple.

If you can reclassify a group of people as nonstandard, there is nothing you cannot do to them.

History shows what happens when you designate a different class of people.

Every time it has ever happened, it inevitably lead to bloodshed.

You just did it, you just equated people with objects.

You've already done the dehumanizing yourself.

You serious right now?

There's a big, ocean wide f~%@ing gulf of difference between calling someone "nonstandard" and dehumanizing them.

Nonstandard means exactly what it says on the tin. You are not quite the usual.

This is not new. If not wanting to be acknowledged as being different was a thing, terms like gay and trans would not exist.

Is it the best term? No. But it's not really incorrect either. LGBTQ people, even taken collectively from all those initials at once are still a pretty small minority in the grand scheme.

They are nonstandard, where the standard is defined as cis and straight. That's not discrimination, it's simple math. Assuming someone is straight when you first meet them is going to give you a correct answer 90% of the time.

You assume a lot about a person when you first meet them. That's natural, and it's silly to expect human nature to change to such a drastic degree as to not make assumptions about people before they get to know them. Having the expectation that most people I meet in the US speak English is not discriminatory against people who don't. Having the expectation that most people I meet are cis straight people is likewise not discriminatory against people who aren't.

If the norm were swapped, I would expect the same thing.

This is not some slippery slope that leads to Holocaust 2.0, it's how people think, always have thought, and likely always WILL think.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Because the exception in this context is generally portrayed as a negative. When people use terminology like homosexual-versus-normal they're not suggesting gay people are just "exceptions to the norm" - there's generally a negative judgement being made.

Even when the individual in question isn't making that judgement, our society imputes it.

I don't think it has anything to do with the specific term used. Whatever term you use, it will still sound that way, because anytime you actually need to refer to that group, you are almost certainly discussing a rather negative topic.

Yeah, I agree. It's not the specific terminology, in my opinion the problem stems from trying to declare what's "normal" - and by extension labelling others not normal.

I'd be much happier if the world would stop trying to measure people on some kind of scale. Whatever standard one chooses to use as the measuring stick is subjective anyhow.

Scythia wrote:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that sh!t down (after a gentle reminder or two is ignored) should be applauded.

I tend to prefer conversation to condemnation in that case as well. Ask what they like about the seemingly incompatible concept, and see if a setting appropriate equivalent can be arranged.

The first question I ask myself isn't "what's wrong with that player?", it's "can we both have fun?". As the DM, I can control the world, being inflexible seems so much smaller.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

What is wrong with you?

That talk wasn't about standard or even conformity. That was a supremist on a power trip who didn't value life at all.

Standard just means the stereotypical default. For example, USB is a standard connector between electronic devices, because it is the expected, unless you have an apple.

If you can reclassify a group of people as nonstandard, there is nothing you cannot do to them.

History shows what happens when you designate a different class of people.

Every time it has ever happened, it inevitably lead to bloodshed.

You just did it, you just equated people with objects.

You've already done the dehumanizing yourself.

You should read what I posted beforehand. Then you would notice the fact that I mentioned that any label will be negative.

As for comparing USB, I was comparing relationships between types, not the types themselves.

Quit reading so far into things.

Also, absolute aggression is the factor that leads to all that bloodshed. Issues like this are simply a direction for that aggression to go. You want to end the bloodshed, than stop the aggression. Besides, less anger will reduce your stress.

Jaelithe wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that sh!t down (after a gentle reminder or two is ignored) should be applauded.

I tend to prefer conversation to condemnation in that case as well. Ask what they like about the seemingly incompatible concept, and see if a setting appropriate equivalent can be arranged.

The first question I ask myself isn't "what's wrong with that player?", it's "can we both have fun?". As the DM, I can control the world, being inflexible seems so much smaller.

But the DM isn't being remotely inflexible in this case, despite your implication.

A previous agreement to remain within parameters has already been made, and the other participants are doing so. The idea that this player cannot have "fun" within that which has already been established is a specious one. Exercising creativity within certain constraints requires even more creativity, in many cases, and is thus ultimately more rewarding.

Your point about a setting-appropriate equivalent is reasonable, of course. I thought it self-evident, though. There's never a reason not to say, "Well, that doesn't work, but what about this similar but not campaign-verisimilitude-damaging concept?" I was referring to a case in which someone, knowing the setting, brings in "wildly inappropriate" and is totally inflexible about it—which does, unfortunately, happen.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Because the exception in this context is generally portrayed as a negative. When people use terminology like homosexual-versus-normal they're not suggesting gay people are just "exceptions to the norm" - there's generally a negative judgement being made.

Even when the individual in question isn't making that judgement, our society imputes it.

I don't think it has anything to do with the specific term used. Whatever term you use, it will still sound that way, because anytime you actually need to refer to that group, you are almost certainly discussing a rather negative topic.

Yeah, I agree. It's not the specific terminology, in my opinion the problem stems from trying to declare what's "normal" - and by extension labelling others not normal.

I'd be much happier if the world would stop trying to measure people on some kind of scale. Whatever standard one chooses to use as the measuring stick is subjective anyhow.

Except you don't 'decide' what is normal normal is a statistical fact. Statistical facts aren't biased.

It doesn't make the people, who aren't normal or standard worth any less but they are not standard or normal by definition. Part of the problem a lot of people have is the insistence on certain shibboleths on what you are allowed to say or call things which constantly keep changing. As soon as you get used to using one the entire quiltbag is dumped over, the words changed and you become a bad person again unless you learn whatever the new term of the moment is. Most people aren't going to bother to keep up with that. Sorry, however much you might want them to, it isn't going to happen.

Getting rid of blatantly offensive terms is one thing starting to declare everything offensive and trying to wholesale change the language is something entirely different.

Part of the problem is people being too easily offended. Almost anything said or created will be offensive to someone, somewhere.

In fact, there was a whole art movement about trying to not be offensive to anyone. Such art basically amounted to art with no subject matter, such as a canvas with a black square painted on it (which hangs in the museum across from the Kimball art museum). Of course, then you get the people that find it offensive to call a black square art.

So really, I think people should not be so easily offended regardless of the topic. Instead I think offense should be taken or not based on whether it seems the other intends to be insulting. Lots of problems would go away with that simple fix.

Steve Geddes wrote:

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Because the exception in this context is generally portrayed as a negative. When people use terminology like homosexual-versus-normal they're not suggesting gay people are just "exceptions to the norm" - there's generally a negative judgement being made.

Even when the individual in question isn't making that judgement, our society imputes it.

I don't think it has anything to do with the specific term used. Whatever term you use, it will still sound that way, because anytime you actually need to refer to that group, you are almost certainly discussing a rather negative topic.

Yeah, I agree. It's not the specific terminology, in my opinion the problem stems from trying to declare what's "normal" - and by extension labelling others not normal.

I'd be much happier if the world would stop trying to measure people on some kind of scale. Whatever standard one chooses to use as the measuring stick is subjective anyhow.

Except you don't 'decide' what is normal normal is a statistical fact. Statistical facts aren't biased.

It doesn't make the people, who aren't normal or standard worth any less but they are not standard or normal by definition. Part of the problem a lot of people have is the insistence on certain shibboleths on what you are allowed to say or call things which constantly keep changing. As soon as you get used to using one the entire quiltbag is dumped over, the words changed and you become a bad person again unless you learn whatever the new term of the moment is. Most people aren't going to bother to keep up with that. Sorry, however much you might want them to, it isn't going to happen.

Getting rid of blatantly offensive terms is one thing starting to declare everything offensive and trying to wholesale change the language is something entirely different.

I don't see how that relates to my point (I'm not trying to change anything, nor am I offended).

The question was why is it bad to be considered not normal and the answer was because its not presented as a "statistical fact" it's presented as a negative thing - as less than normal, not just different from the norm.

As for being objective - as I mentioned, the average value in a given population may be a statistical fact, but it's the choice of what we measure and what values we think are desirable which are subjective. There's nothing objectively determining that a particular "value" of sexuality matters and should be measured - we've decided it matters.

You serious right now?

There's a big, ocean wide f%&@ing gulf of difference between calling someone "nonstandard" and dehumanizing them.

Nonstandard means exactly what it says on the tin. You are not quite the usual.

Nothing means "exactly what it says on the tin". Words and names come with connotations as well as literal meanings. "Normal", "standard", "default" all have implications beyond just "there are more of them".

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I think it spoils the point of an unkillable enemy if the players know it. It's metagaming at the very least.

I don't think it spoils the point at all.

Really, an unkillable enemy that is not easily recognizable as such is more a "Gotcha!" from the GM than anything.

Say your character likes to talk s!~# in the tavern or whatever, and some guy picks a fight. You would reasonably assume he's like everyone else in the tavern, your level at highest, whether his arms are thick as beer kegs or not (after all, yours very well could be too).

So you start a tavern brawl or what have you and the guys a 16th level Brawler or some nonsense and accidentally (or not) kills the PC.

Not exactly fun for anyone.

An unkillable enemy should be both rare and easily recognizable, serving a purpose rather than just being there.

It may be metagaming, but that's not really a bad thing all around. There is a certain amount of metagaming expected in any game ("Why hello kind sir, I see you are skilled and have tons of gear. Would you like to travel with us?").

Highlighted your problem, there. Assumptions like that are problematic in the real and gaming world. I don't play that garbage.

I flagged you all, you all should be ashamed of yourselves:-(

So really, I think people should not be so easily offended regardless of the topic.

Ironically, the direction much of American society has taken, in my opinion, is to take offense, ofttimes where none is intended ... and even seek out opportunities to find it, the better to indulge a growing penchant for self-righteous indignation.

Except that, by defining yourself by your sexuality you have decided the 'value' of sexuality matters. Once you choose to define yourself by those aspects, they are going to, full stop, be compared to differing sets around them. It's what people have done, do, and will always do. If you make your gender/sexuality/lack of gender/lack of sexuality/fluidity of sexuality/fluidity of gender/anything else I failed to say but will surely offend someone horribly because it was left out your defining characteristic, then people will define you by it.

Take it f~#$ing elsewhere! G+@&$*n it!

I flagged you all, you all should be ashamed of yourselves:-(

I stopped pages ago, man. I almost fed the beast, but your implorement got to me. I even had stuff to say about that quagmire of a topic, but I was like, "nah, hold it back man, the captain asked nicely."

Now I'm actually PF talking!

Take it f#!%ing elsewhere! G$@%*%n it!

Whoa dude, smurf down bud. You know they're gonna delete and warn at the least with your flags, but probably lock altogether if you get curse happy. Silly nonsequitors are your protest. Remember who you are!

Now am I gonna see my happy go lucky buddy, or do I need to make a therapist alias?

That's why you're the only one I didn't flag :-) well you and rynjin:-)

Just pisses me off when supposedly smart people are so stupid they can't listen to simple directions....

Except that, by defining yourself by your sexuality you have decided the 'value' of sexuality matters. Once you choose to define yourself by those aspects, they are going to, full stop, be compared to differing sets around them. It's what people have done, do, and will always do. If you make your gender/sexuality/lack of gender/lack of sexuality/fluidity of sexuality/fluidity of gender/anything else I failed to say but will surely offend someone horribly because it was left out your defining characteristic, then people will define you by it.

If you don't "define yourself by your sexuality", but just happen to walk down the street holding hands with your partner of the same gender, you're going to be defined by it anyway. And quite possibly get stomped into the ground for it, though the chances have dropped over the years. Not that long ago, you could be arrested at least if anyone thought you'd been doing more than holding hands.

Much of the self-definition and the focus on defining yourself that way comes from attempts to band together in self-defence, precisely so that the world can be changed so that your sexuality can be whatever it is without it being someone else's defining trait for you.

Ugh. Almost forgot the reason I loathe political threads. No more. You can presume you are right 100% anyone else, and beat your chest and give a Tarzan yell. You respond to the above political related/social issue related posts, I won't re respond.

Back to original thread ...

I like limiting campaign worlds based on what is needed for flavor in my mind. I do not apologize about this.

F&#+ you all if you can't read....

Rynjin wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I think it spoils the point of an unkillable enemy if the players know it. It's metagaming at the very least.

I don't think it spoils the point at all.

Really, an unkillable enemy that is not easily recognizable as such is more a "Gotcha!" from the GM than anything.

Say your character likes to talk s!~# in the tavern or whatever, and some guy picks a fight. You would reasonably assume he's like everyone else in the tavern, your level at highest, whether his arms are thick as beer kegs or not (after all, yours very well could be too).

So you start a tavern brawl or what have you and the guys a 16th level Brawler or some nonsense and accidentally (or not) kills the PC.

Not exactly fun for anyone.

An unkillable enemy should be both rare and easily recognizable, serving a purpose rather than just being there.

It may be metagaming, but that's not really a bad thing all around. There is a certain amount of metagaming expected in any game ("Why hello kind sir, I see you are skilled and have tons of gear. Would you like to travel with us?").

Highlighted your problem, there. Assumptions like that are problematic in the real and gaming world. I don't play that garbage.

As long as such hidden, blatantly superior enemies only show up in situations where it's reasonable not to pick a fight with them, I'm okay with that.

That's why you're the only one I didn't flag :-) well you and rynjin:-)

Just pisses me off when supposedly smart people are so stupid they can't listen to simple directions....

You're not the boss of me!

Edit: And someone was wrong, WRONG I SAY, and it DEMANDS a response RIGHT NOW!

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I think it spoils the point of an unkillable enemy if the players know it. It's metagaming at the very least.

I don't think it spoils the point at all.

Really, an unkillable enemy that is not easily recognizable as such is more a "Gotcha!" from the GM than anything.

Say your character likes to talk s!~# in the tavern or whatever, and some guy picks a fight. You would reasonably assume he's like everyone else in the tavern, your level at highest, whether his arms are thick as beer kegs or not (after all, yours very well could be too).

So you start a tavern brawl or what have you and the guys a 16th level Brawler or some nonsense and accidentally (or not) kills the PC.

Not exactly fun for anyone.

An unkillable enemy should be both rare and easily recognizable, serving a purpose rather than just being there.

It may be metagaming, but that's not really a bad thing all around. There is a certain amount of metagaming expected in any game ("Why hello kind sir, I see you are skilled and have tons of gear. Would you like to travel with us?").

Highlighted your problem, there. Assumptions like that are problematic in the real and gaming world. I don't play that garbage.

As long as such hidden, blatantly superior enemies only show up in situations where it's reasonable not to pick a fight with them, I'm okay with that.

If the guy in the bar was the one picking a fight with the PC and kept pushing until the player's choice was to knuckle under or get killed, that's too far. If he shows up in a villainous role and the PCs do the heroic thing and jump in to try to help his victims and he stomps them into the ground without warning, that's not cool either.

One thing I've done before is have clearly underpowered people pick fights with the PCs. It's interesting to see how they handle being on the other side of the stick.

Confession: When I GM a game, I'm particular about the world in general. I want to see players running around exploring my world. When I play a game, I don't want to be a storyteller, I want to experience the GM's story or world. In general, I'm not so big on cooperative storycrafting.

F~#+ you all if you can't read....

Sorry if you felt angry, I tend to skim until something catches my eye, and I missed your earlier requests. I apologize about that.

Can... Can I stop rampaging now... one must be ever vigilant in the capitol wastelands...

Just pisses me off when supposedly smart people are so stupid they can't listen to simple directions....

Which directions?

If you can't read the various people and times where politics and other issues weren't welcome in this thread, even by management, those.

Can... Can I stop rampaging now... one must be ever vigilant in the capitol wastelands...

You can keep on rampaging if you want, right off behind you where those raiders are. Just stay out of my vault, okay?

I think Fallout Equestria is better story though. :)

Except that, by defining yourself by your sexuality you have decided the 'value' of sexuality matters. Once you choose to define yourself by those aspects, they are going to, full stop, be compared to differing sets around them. It's what people have done, do, and will always do. If you make your gender/sexuality/lack of gender/lack of sexuality/fluidity of sexuality/fluidity of gender/anything else I failed to say but will surely offend someone horribly because it was left out your defining characteristic, then people will define you by it.

Sure. If that was directed to me then I have no idea what you think I'm saying - I presume you've had these sorts of conversations before and are assuming my position matches others you've spoken to (?)

There is a reason people don't like "normal" and "exception from the norm" and it's because the latter is used negatively in these conversations. That was my point.

If you can't read the various people and times where politics and other issues weren't welcome in this thread, even by management, those.

I'd pay attention to management. I don't pay much attention to "on topic police" though (I regard message boards as conversations and they tend to wander)

Steve Geddes wrote:

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Because the exception in this context is generally portrayed as a negative. When people use terminology like homosexual-versus-normal they're not suggesting gay people are just "exceptions to the norm" - there's generally a negative judgement being made.

Even when the individual in question isn't making that judgement, our society imputes it.

I don't think it has anything to do with the specific term used. Whatever term you use, it will still sound that way, because anytime you actually need to refer to that group, you are almost certainly discussing a rather negative topic.

Yeah, I agree. It's not the specific terminology, in my opinion the problem stems from trying to declare what's "normal" - and by extension labelling others not normal.

I'd be much happier if the world would stop trying to measure people on some kind of scale. Whatever standard one chooses to use as the measuring stick is subjective anyhow.

Except you don't 'decide' what is normal normal is a statistical fact. Statistical facts aren't biased.

It doesn't make the people, who aren't normal or standard worth any less but they are not standard or normal by definition. Part of the problem a lot of people have is the insistence on certain shibboleths on what you are allowed to say or call things which constantly keep changing. As soon as you get used to using one the entire quiltbag is dumped over, the words changed and you become a bad person again unless you learn whatever the new term of the moment is. Most people aren't going to bother to keep up with that. Sorry, however much you might want them to, it isn't going to happen.

Getting rid of blatantly offensive terms is one thing starting to declare everything offensive and trying to wholesale change the language is something entirely different.

"Normal" isn't a statistical term. "Average" is. "Normal" is a value judgment.

[Nitpick]Normal distribution is a statistical term.[/nitpick]

"Normal" isn't a statistical term. "Average" is. "Normal" is a value judgment.

[pedant]Technically normal is a statistical term. It just isn't the one he's using it for. [/pedant]

Edit: Ninja'd.

Once you've decided what "normal" is, whether someone is in that class is a statistical fact. The judgement (what's worth measuring) has already happened once the measurement is made.

Normal is a town in Illinois :-)

New confession: it gives me a strange sense of karmic retribution to see captain yesterday yelling at people to stay on topic. There's almost enough molten irony there to destroy a T-1000.

You'll notice I only do it when it's a light hearted topic and people interject politics or social issues :-)

And if you're using the word Ironic in a sentence aren't you legally required to link it to Alanis Morrisette:-D

You'll notice I only do it when it's a light hearted topic and people interject politics or social issues :-)

And if you're using the word Ironic in a sentence aren't you legally required to link it to Alanis Morrisette:-D

No, because she used it wrong in almost that entire song.

In any case, I'm surprised you don't have some Galactus the thread-eater or J Robert Oppenheimer destroyer of threads alias yet.

I sing in a Ladies Barbershop Chorus...