This really is beyond the pale.
Impus Major is back in school, on campus full time.
Doesn't matter. As I mentioned, one of his instructors assigned a quiz over the Presidents' Day holiday. Today he got not one, but TWO take-home exams, due tomorrow.
I literally cannot express how much this frustrates/enrages me.
Guess that was without an iota of warning and likley not documented on the exam schedule for the class? Man, college has changed since I was in it...also, teaching is not punishing students professors...cripes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Today the client is asking to get admin rights to the SharePoint they're going to migrate... because they're busy building new sites in it.
I finally got around to checking. He already has the very admin rights he's asking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess that was without an iota of warning and likley not documented on the exam schedule for the class? Man, college has changed since I was in it...also, teaching is not punishing students professors...cripes.This really is beyond the pale.
Impus Major is back in school, on campus full time.
Doesn't matter. As I mentioned, one of his instructors assigned a quiz over the Presidents' Day holiday. Today he got not one, but TWO take-home exams, due tomorrow.
I literally cannot express how much this frustrates/enrages me.
It's just like last semester. "Oh, I'm a day behind on my lectures, so instead of you taking the exam in-class I'll turn it into a take-home exam. Today. At the last minute, because I feel like it."
Impus Major's physics instructor is at least mostly in agreement with me on this point. "The exams on the syllabus are a contract between me and you. I will give the exams on those dates at those times. No exceptions. You will be there on those dates and at those times. No exceptions. We are both bound by this contract."
Back when I was an instructor I had a similar policy: "The exams will be on these dates, and two weeks before each date I will give you a complete list of topics for the upcoming exam."
EDIT: My issue is the assumption that the students have no lives outside of that instructor's particular class. I taught at an inner-city community college. Most of my students were working at least 30 hours a week to be able to afford to live and go to community college. Sending them home with a take-home exam would have put them in a serious bind: Skip work, lose a paycheck, and risk getting fired, skip the exam, or give up on sleep for the night?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.
It would be interesting to explore whether this phenomenon occurs in Hogwart's, but in our Sunday game our, "No taking 10, roll for every interaction," GM has led to at least two players refusing to do or say anything out of combat.
Some of the more "amusing" moments.
Cleric: I report the status of the possible invasion to my superior officer.
GM: Roll Persuasion.
Cleric: A natural 2 gives me a total of 4.
GM: He ignores you and moves away.
GM: It's cold and you're traveling for 4 days, so everyone make 4 Constitution saves each.
Party: What about those of us native to the area? And those who bought winter gear? Or those who have both?
GM: Just make your Constitution saves.
With 20 rolls we of course got one player with a natural 1, so we ended up spending nearly half of the 5-hour session trying to help her recover from frostbite and describing how we were going to survive camping overnight in the snow because she collapsed exactly halfway between two inns.
GM: The stream is either difficult terrain, or you have to make an Acrobatics check to cross it.
Cleric:
GM: Make an Acrobatics roll.
Cleric: But I was taking two squares per square!
GM: Yeah, but you're in heavy armor. Roll anyway.
Cleric: A 5.
GM: You fall face-first into the stream.
There are a multitude of other examples: Having to make Survival rolls to get back to the party if you step off the trail for any reason, having to make Persuasion rolls to be able to buy even mundane items such as cold weather gear, having to make Perception rolls to find the town guard, etc.
After Sunday's fiasco we gave up: We're all going to intentionally fail this Sunday and see where we end up. Should be hilarious.
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.
I hate it when GMs do that.
In the situation of the superior officer, if he's willing to ignore you making a report that should be cause for a Sense Motive or some other check to find out why he's distracted, not a roll to get his attention in the first place.
The other two are literally just ignoring extant rules and/or making up new rules solely for the purpose of fishing for failures. It's spiteful if it's not oblivious.
|
In semi-unrelated news, I'm looking (distantly) to run a modified Reign of Winter for my NWN server one day, using a Spelljammer crew who have made semi-regular guest appearances and been part of small-scale "let's go travel to this other planet and do a one-shot quest for funsies!" stuff.
The Shackled Hut is possibly best to stay on Golarion - meaning the portals that appear in Snows of Summer will need to take people from Toril to Golarion, simple enough - to explain all the backstory stuff. What's still undecided is what to do with the other two chapters. My knee-jerk reaction is to revamp the one that's all about dragons to be set on Krynn somehow, and to plonk down the remaining one on Oerth somewhere there can be a guest appearance by Tashonna/Tasha/Iggwilv. I'm not quite familiar enough with Dragonlance (outside the barebones of the first few books) or Greyhawk to know right off the top of my head where those should go.
The alternative is to put The Shackled Hut instead on a different world somewhere, then revamp Witch Queen's Revenge to go to Golarion to tangle with either Elvanna or Baba Yaga - depending on which side in the conflict the PCs choose - rather than solely into the depths of the Hut, going through Elvanna's backdoor portal there and into Irrisen proper. This adds a third adventure that needs a location, if Shackled Hut isn't set on Golarion; could bring Eberron into the mix somewhere there, as either that adventure or one of the other two (though probably not the dragon one, given the near-complete absence of dragon interaction with humanoids in Eberron).
... I should probably cross-post this over to the RoW subforum to get feedback there, huh.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.I hate it when GMs do that.
In the situation of the superior officer, if he's willing to ignore you making a report that should be cause for a Sense Motive or some other check to find out why he's distracted, not a roll to get his attention in the first place.
The other two are literally just ignoring extant rules and/or making up new rules solely for the purpose of fishing for failures. It's spiteful if it's not oblivious.
It's terrifying obliviousness. He's a long-time Runequest GM (a 1d100 system), where the only way you progress skills is to use them successfully (roll on them), and the chances of catastrophic failure are 1 in 100.
He's applying the same principles to a game where "catastrophic failures" are commonplace if you ask for too many rolls, and he wants people to roll for everything. It was cute at first (everyone's convinced my cleric is a blonde bimbo because I never managed to roll over a 5 on any Knowledge checks), but now it's become dangerous to the party members (roll Survival to get back to camp or die of frostbite).
We've complained at the table multiple times and he isn't listening, but he's whined about two sessions that were completely derailed because of our rolls (he didn't like the frostbite day at all).
So this Sunday we're intentionally going to choose the worst person for every job and try for either a complete derail or TPK. Sometimes, you just have to use a sledgehammer...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.I hate it when GMs do that.
In the situation of the superior officer, if he's willing to ignore you making a report that should be cause for a Sense Motive or some other check to find out why he's distracted, not a roll to get his attention in the first place.
The other two are literally just ignoring extant rules and/or making up new rules solely for the purpose of fishing for failures. It's spiteful if it's not oblivious.
It's terrifying obliviousness. He's a long-time Runequest GM (a 1d100 system), where the only way you progress skills is to use them successfully (roll on them), and the chances of catastrophic failure are 1 in 100.
He's applying the same principles to a game where "catastrophic failures" are commonplace if you ask for too many rolls, and he wants people to roll for everything. It was cute at first (everyone's convinced my cleric is a blonde bimbo because I never managed to roll over a 5 on any Knowledge checks), but now it's become dangerous to the party members (roll Survival to get back to camp or die of frostbite).
We've complained at the table multiple times and he isn't listening, but he's whined about two sessions that were completely derailed because of our rolls (he didn't like the frostbite day at all).
So this Sunday we're intentionally going to choose the worst person for every job and try for either a complete derail or TPK. Sometimes, you just have to use a sledgehammer...
. . . . .
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.I hate it when GMs do that.
In the situation of the superior officer, if he's willing to ignore you making a report that should be cause for a Sense Motive or some other check to find out why he's distracted, not a roll to get his attention in the first place.
The other two are literally just ignoring extant rules and/or making up new rules solely for the purpose of fishing for failures. It's spiteful if it's not oblivious.
It's terrifying obliviousness. He's a long-time Runequest GM (a 1d100 system), where the only way you progress skills is to use them successfully (roll on them), and the chances of catastrophic failure are 1 in 100.
He's applying the same principles to a game where "catastrophic failures" are commonplace if you ask for too many rolls, and he wants people to roll for everything. It was cute at first (everyone's convinced my cleric is a blonde bimbo because I never managed to roll over a 5 on any Knowledge checks), but now it's become dangerous to the party members (roll Survival to get back to camp or die of frostbite).
We've complained at the table multiple times and he isn't listening, but he's whined about two sessions that were completely derailed because of our rolls (he didn't like the frostbite day at all).
So this Sunday we're intentionally going to choose the worst person for every job and try for either a complete derail or TPK. Sometimes, you just have to use a sledgehammer...
I can confirm that using sledgehammers is fun and they aren't used often enough. Hammer away, Garth!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.
It would be interesting to explore whether this phenomenon occurs in Hogwart's, but in our Sunday game our, "No taking 10, roll for every interaction," GM has led to at least two players refusing to do or say anything out of combat.
Some of the more "amusing" moments.
Cleric: I report the status of the possible invasion to my superior officer.
GM: Roll Persuasion.
Cleric: A natural 2 gives me a total of 4.
GM: He ignores you and moves away.GM: It's cold and you're traveling for 4 days, so everyone make 4 Constitution saves each.
Party: What about those of us native to the area? And those who bought winter gear? Or those who have both?
GM: Just make your Constitution saves.
With 20 rolls we of course got one player with a natural 1, so we ended up spending nearly half of the 5-hour session trying to help her recover from frostbite and describing how we were going to survive camping overnight in the snow because she collapsed exactly halfway between two inns.GM: The stream is either difficult terrain, or you have to make an Acrobatics check to cross it.
Cleric:
GM: Make an Acrobatics roll.
Cleric: But I was taking two squares per square!
GM: Yeah, but you're in heavy armor. Roll anyway.
Cleric: A 5.
GM: You fall face-first into the stream.There are a multitude of other examples: Having to make Survival rolls to get back to the party if you step off the trail for any reason, having to make Persuasion rolls to be able to buy even mundane items such as cold weather gear, having to make Perception rolls to find the town guard, etc.
After Sunday's fiasco we gave up: We're all going to intentionally fail this Sunday and see where we end up. Should be hilarious.
They fixed that in 2nd edition.
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.I hate it when GMs do that.
In the situation of the superior officer, if he's willing to ignore you making a report that should be cause for a Sense Motive or some other check to find out why he's distracted, not a roll to get his attention in the first place.
The other two are literally just ignoring extant rules and/or making up new rules solely for the purpose of fishing for failures. It's spiteful if it's not oblivious.
I'm all for rolling, but not for the routine. I also don't have auto-fail or auto-succeed rules in place. "Can you fail a DC 5? No? Great."
Edit: Also see the entire reason for the Take 10/20 rules.
My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.I was wondering if VP stood for Visible Panty and SVP for Slightly Visible Panty, but clearly not. What a pity.And speaking of debilitating:
Manager: What do you think of this project this other SVP proposed?
"Congratulations on your promotion! Right this way to the VPL!"
"Oh, I say! Really?"
"To the Vice Presidents' Lounge"
"Aww."
My one weakness at work is paperwork.
Unfortunately this is the time of year that we renew our lease and I have to do our taxes.
But I don't have to start all that madness until Monday, so I'm going to spend the next few days living a carefree life without signing a g&*$~+n thing.
Whoo hoo! Spring break!!
My one weakness at work is paperwork.
Unfortunately this is the time of year that we renew our lease and I have to do our taxes.
But I don't have to start all that madness until Monday, so I'm going to spend the next few days living a carefree life without signing a g!$@*%n thing.
Whoo hoo! Spring break!!
As I've mentioned before, way back in my "poor grad student" days I did contracting work for a book company, failed to report self-employment income, and got audited and penalized for more than I'd made in income.
Since then, I've paid an accountant. For the first few years, I compared his work to the Mac version of TurboTax and he routinely found us more than enough extra money to pay for himself, so I'm a convert to going to private CPAs. (NEVER use a tax firm like H&R Block for politics and subpar work.)
But then comes the pain of waiting. He makes sure we get a refund of a few thousand every year, as "buffer" in case of tax law changes (Trump's tax revisions cost us an extra $10,000 a year or so, but fortunately with the buffer we ended up owing only a couple thousand.)
But first he has to finish the taxes. Then send them to us. Then we sign them and send them back. Then he submits them. Then our refunds take weeks.
So I'm sitting around every day, eagerly awaiting the FedEx truck so I can even get started on getting my refund. Not as much fun as doing my own taxes, but at least I know I'm getting the best refund I can get and I'm not spending any time on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.I hate it when GMs do that.
In the situation of the superior officer, if he's willing to ignore you making a report that should be cause for a Sense Motive or some other check to find out why he's distracted, not a roll to get his attention in the first place.
The other two are literally just ignoring extant rules and/or making up new rules solely for the purpose of fishing for failures. It's spiteful if it's not oblivious.
I'm all for rolling, but not for the routine. I also don't have auto-fail or auto-succeed rules in place. "Can you fail a DC 5? No? Great."
Edit: Also see the entire reason for the Take 10/20 rules.
Yep. Which half the problem is that NH's DM refuses to let people take 10/take 20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. Which half the problem is that NH's DM refuses to let people take 10/take 20.I'm all for rolling, but not for the routine. I also don't have auto-fail or auto-succeed rules in place. "Can you fail a DC 5? No? Great."
Edit: Also see the entire reason for the Take 10/20 rules.
GothBard specifically chose a bard path that allowed her to take 10 on all her Performance and Social rolls, specifically to avoid the embarrassments my cleric has had to suffer.
It's a nice indictment of the d20 system: You can't make 1s and 20s "special" because they happen far too often. I tried a house rule that a 1 imparted an additional -5 and a 20 imparted an additional +5, allowing PCs to achieve near-impossible feats.
The players hated it and we scrapped it. They still want +5s for rolling a 20, of course, but the -5 for rolling a 1 resulted in a lot of stupid failures. "No, you can't climb that ladder."
We had a session back in December where we had to make four Riding rolls to make it across the country. I failed all four. I made all four Fortitude saves. So somehow I was a terrible rider but I could manage the pain.
My cleric is a scary, scary woman according to the dice...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea for you: The, "You need to roll for that" GM, leading to inevitable failures in even routine day-to-day tasks.I hate it when GMs do that.
In the situation of the superior officer, if he's willing to ignore you making a report that should be cause for a Sense Motive or some other check to find out why he's distracted, not a roll to get his attention in the first place.
The other two are literally just ignoring extant rules and/or making up new rules solely for the purpose of fishing for failures. It's spiteful if it's not oblivious.
It's terrifying obliviousness. He's a long-time Runequest GM (a 1d100 system), where the only way you progress skills is to use them successfully (roll on them), and the chances of catastrophic failure are 1 in 100.
He's applying the same principles to a game where "catastrophic failures" are commonplace if you ask for too many rolls, and he wants people to roll for everything. It was cute at first (everyone's convinced my cleric is a blonde bimbo because I never managed to roll over a 5 on any Knowledge checks), but now it's become dangerous to the party members (roll Survival to get back to camp or die of frostbite).
We've complained at the table multiple times and he isn't listening, but he's whined about two sessions that were completely derailed because of our rolls (he didn't like the frostbite day at all).
So this Sunday we're intentionally going to choose the worst person for every job and try for either a complete derail or TPK. Sometimes, you just have to use a sledgehammer...
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
It's a nice indictment of the d20 system: You can't make 1s and 20s "special" because they happen far too often. I tried a house rule that a 1 imparted an additional -5 and a 20 imparted an additional +5, allowing PCs to achieve near-impossible feats.
Making 1s and 20s special is tolerable if you actually follow the basic assumption that you only make rolls in situations that are challenging - when getting the dice already means the things are getting serious.
Even then, there remains a big issue with - what constitutes adequate complication when 1 is rolled? There are no real guidelines for a relatively common occurrence...
In comparison, many other systems that use some sort of critical failure/complication use a higher degree of gradation of failures and more examples.
Ars Magica divides rolls in simple (no chance of botch) and stress rolls - where rolling 0 on d10 gives a chance of critical failure. You follow up by rolling one or more d10, either generated by other effects (casting spells using more raw magic, disadvantageous circumstances, character flaws, etc.) and the number of 0 rolled on the second roll determines how bad the situation is (like a wild magic effect with strength based on number of zeros rolled). No zeros on the second roll means no botch, you can even succeed if bonuses added to the roll are sufficient to match the difficulty of the roll without including the die result.
2d20 (Mutant Chronicles, new Conan, Infinity, new Star trek, new Dune, and more) has a rule that rolling a 20 on a d20 includes a complication (though various circumstances can increase range on which complication occur, recently we had a number of rolls witch complication of 17-20). You normally roll between 2 to 5 d20 on each roll, and generally you want to roll as much dice as possible because each dice generates successes separately of others, and excess successes above the required number is key to keeping the momentum of the session going (by generating a player currency called, well, Momentum, that is used to buy extra effects and extra dice for future rolls). The more complications rolled, the bigger issue happens. Or if the GM has no idea for a suitable complication he can simply get two tokens of GM currency Doom, Heat, or Threat (depending on the specific iteration of 2d20) that he later uses to introduce new issues and boost NPC rolls. The rolling section gives a number of samples for small, medium, and large complications, based on the number of 20s rolled.
Yep. Which half the problem is that NH's DM refuses to let people take 10/take 20.I'm all for rolling, but not for the routine. I also don't have auto-fail or auto-succeed rules in place. "Can you fail a DC 5? No? Great."
Edit: Also see the entire reason for the Take 10/20 rules.
GothBard specifically chose a bard path that allowed her to take 10 on all her Performance and Social rolls, specifically to avoid the embarrassments my cleric has had to suffer.
It's a nice indictment of the d20 system: You can't make 1s and 20s "special" because they happen far too often. I tried a house rule that a 1 imparted an additional -5 and a 20 imparted an additional +5, allowing PCs to achieve near-impossible feats.
The players hated it and we scrapped it. They still want +5s for rolling a 20, of course, but the -5 for rolling a 1 resulted in a lot of stupid failures. "No, you can't climb that ladder."
We had a session back in December where we had to make four Riding rolls to make it across the country. I failed all four. I made all four Fortitude saves. So somehow I was a terrible rider but I could manage the pain.
My cleric is a scary, scary woman according to the dice...
Some Game or dungeon masters love seeing the chaos that rolling dice causes, it's basically gambling without consequence (for them).
You can tell by the way their eyes light up every time someone rolls a 1 or 20 (especially a 1!).
The game was originally written by these people and then it sort of propagates itself from there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far, I have had 2 different guests this morning get upset that the breakfast wasn't ready. The first was at 5:50, the second at 6:10. Breakfast starts at 7. I really want to know if they would go to a restaurant an hour before it opens, demand to be served, and get mad if told "no". Because that's how a lot of people treat the hotel breakfast.
Man, when I stay in a hotel, I'm just glad if they have coffee that doesn't taste like it came out of a cat's ass.
And, you know, some link sausage and a bagel are nice, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our choir last night? Two sops, two altos, two tenors, and five basses.
The two altos were me, and a woman who is retired from the Dallas Opera.
Which is great when you have crippling anxiety and are dead sure that you suck but the choir director isn't kicking you out because he doesn't want to hurt your feelings.
The inside of my head is not a fun place.
Happily, I'm skipping Sunday morning because I have a field trip for my Texas Naturalist course, so I won't have to face anybody.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Marvel Movie Timeline #17: Spider-Man: Homecoming:
Impus Minor stated that I'd finally made it through all the crappy and mediocre movies, and now I was in for a series of "really good ones".
Starting with Spider-Man: Homecoming, holy cow he's right.
This is an end-to-end, excellent, feel-good movie. The high schoolers actually look and act like high schoolers, which is unheard of in film or television. (How old was Luke Perry when he did Beverly Hills 90210? Old enough to have wrinkles, yet he still pretended to be a high school student.)
The villain is low-key and believable. Everyone's actions are reasonable based on their motivations. The action scenes are "realistic" in a "standard comic book movie" way.
In short, I have no complaints at all and I sat there with a smile on my face end to end. One of Marvel's best so far in my re-watching.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tom Holland was 21 when playing in Homecoming (which I haven't seen, but the next two movies are great), and 25-6 when playing in the most recent Spider-Men movie.
Luke Perry was 24 when 90210 started.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Random Musing of the Day:
Impus Major will be legally allowed to drink, and will face massive peer pressure to get drunk on his birthday, and some peer pressure to try to drink 21 shots.
Impus Minor will be legally allowed to have sex, yet will face no peer pressure to have sex on his birthday, and no one would imagine suggesting him trying to have 18 different sexual partners on his 18th birthday.
Sex is a biologically necessary act; without it our species would most likely die out (mass producing test tube babies would be ludicrously expensive). Alcohol is a mild poison.
Yet our society is so hung up that we consider encouraging our peers to poison themselves a rite of passage, but encouraging our peers to have sex to be socially unacceptable. (Yes, there's a whole 'bro culture' that encourages sex, but they are considered vile and deplorable for reasons outside of their openness to sex.)
For my 21st I had a meal with some friends at a restaurant I don't remember then went home and played video games. We didn't even mention it was my birthday at the restaurant, much less that it was my 21st.
My brother on the other hand actually went to a bar and had one drink along with one of our roommates at the time; I, Ebon, and the other roommate got soda. Then we went home and played D&D.
Thankfully none of the people at the bar were pushy about it. The tender got his ID, said congratz, gave him his order.
I imagine a LOT of this comes down to the social acceptability of alcohol versus a lot of other intoxicants, even though it's more damaging and more connected to a lot more situations of injury and harm - even after adjusting for how omnipresent it is - than a lot of things that are currently illegal. Buuuuuut that's a political rabbit hole so gonna leave that be.
I also don't drink or otherwise use alcohol outside cooking and in Ny-Quil, so I'm hardly an unbiased observer.
My twenty first birthday was on a Friday. I got a bottle of rum, set up a tent in the backyard (my mom told me I couldn't enter the house drunk) and then borrowed the neighbor's fire pit, set my shirt sleeve on fire (no burns surprisingly), and then had someone drive me to the 24 hour Walmart so I could splurge on lawn chairs.
It was a good night.
The next night I went out to the clubs with my friends and got even drunker. So drunk in fact that one of my friends had to prop me up when the bouncer searched me for weapons before entering.
I haven't really been that drunk since, I've been buzzed but not so much that I have trouble standing straight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was fortunate in that I grew up with a very "Mediterranean" group of adults, for lack of a better term. Alcohol was something served with dinner every night, and anyone who wanted some could have some. So none of my friends nor I did anything "special" for our 21st birthdays -- my guess is that I likely went to The Metropole with GothBard and had a glass of wine with dinner, but I sure as heck don't remember.
I was drunk once until my 30s. I almost never had more than 2 drinks in a day until I was about 40. And the alcoholism that set in from when I was 40 to 50 wasn't so much "get drunk as quickly as possible" as, "Drink too often for your body to process it all." A drink at 9:00 am. Another at 10:00 am. Two more at noon. Another one or two at 4:00 pm. You're quickly up to 6-8 drinks a day without massive binging, and it takes its toll.
But I was never one for getting drunk for the sake of getting drunk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember getting crap about how I spent my 21st, but it was more to do with "you didn't skip your night class/trade shifts to get off work?" than about drinking.
Well, the old mill where I do HEMA on Monday went up in flames today. No-one was hurt, luckily, but the place is a wreck; it remains to be seen whether or not the specific bit where we train has survived or not, but I fear the worst
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Marvel Movie Timeline #17: Spider-Man: Homecoming...
I haven't been a Marvel Cinematic U guy like... at all, at least not since it became extremely clear that they'd keep chugging out 1-4 movies/shows per year, the last time I really gave a grump about them was the GotG movies because that aesthetic really just appeals to me but... Spider-Man, Spider-Man movies just do not miss. Even SM3 which was panned as being not so great was just a blast to watch and I've not seen a single adaptation of the Character on the big or small screen actually disappoint me.
I'm not 100% on this but I THINK Into The Spiderverse is technically MCU canon, but if not, and you haven't watched it/added it to the list yet, I would easily rank that as one of my all-time favorite superhero films of all time. Even if it isn't I'd very much suggest adding it to your list if it's not already on it.
Marvel Movie Timeline #17: Spider-Man: Homecoming...I haven't been a Marvel Cinematic U guy like... at all, at least not since it became extremely clear that they'd keep chugging out 1-4 movies/shows per year, the last time I really gave a grump about them was the GotG movies because that aesthetic really just appeals to me but... Spider-Man, Spider-Man movies just do not miss. Even SM3 which was panned as being not so great was just a blast to watch and I've not seen a single adaptation of the Character on the big or small screen actually disappoint me.
I'm not 100% on this but I THINK Into The Spiderverse is technically MCU canon, but if not, and you haven't watched it/added it to the list yet, I would easily rank that as one of my all-time favorite superhero films of all time. Even if it isn't I'd very much suggest adding it to your list if it's not already on it.
Due to its HUGE popularity, we've already seen it. And I think it was typical: Everyone talked about it as the "best superhero film they'd ever seen", so our expectations were set super-high.
It was a fine movie; I had no complaints. But I still rank Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 (with the train scene) as my favorite all-time superhero movie.
But yes, still a Spider-Man movie.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I could write an entire thesis on the ills of social media, both personally and at work, one of the ones that always baffles me is someone who inadvertently displays their ignorance in a vastly public forum.
Employee on 18,000-person Slack channel: We're all being forced to return to the office! What are you doing to protect us?
Another Employee: Where did you hear that?
First employee:
And there, in big bold letters in the linked article: "Reminder: Returning to an office will be voluntary for the foreseeable future."
So, er... the very article that you linked, the one that got you so upset, states unequivocally that returning to the office is voluntary. But you decided to post to 18,000 people, including your Senior Vice President, that your reading comprehension skills are sub par.
Why?!?!?!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm at the company safety, insurance, and new company manual meeting.
Which is exactly as much fun as it sounds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Filipino oxtail & peanut stew I am eating tonight called for snake beans and banana blossoms.
A) These ingredients are far from common in West Yorkshire
B) Together, they sound like a suppertime jazz duo, appearing twice weekly at 'Bojangles' wine bar and bistro.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BB: Brown and hot and brown and crunchy,
The peanut-oxtail stew is ready,
And when we eat it, each one who eats it goes
SB: {Intestinal saxophone noises}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Former Coworker: Uh oh, they now have a policy for what to do when tools are stolen! That means you won't be able to steal any of the other Captain's shovels anymore!
Me ( pointing to the new dress code): That's okay, if he tries reporting me for taking one of his shovels I'll just report him for not wearing a shirt.