SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
Perhaps. But they were in business for years and years with the lunch special, so I have a hard time envisioning that it was that which did them in.
I mean, there aren't that many threads which get posted. I think it's ok to have more than one weekly thread on a given day.
This post is one giant strawman. Nobody said that it's immoral to have sex for pleasure, people said that sex is "the pregnant-making thing". Which it is.
At any rate, I love biryani lol. Without peas. We used to have a great biryani place here in town - if you went for lunch you could get biryani, the curry of the day, some boneless chicken appetizer, naan, and gulab jamun, all for only $12 or so. Truly the restaurant of the gods. Unfortunately they went out of business, and I've yet to find anything on their level since. Probably good for my body, but less good for my soul.
Biryani shouldn't really be like fried rice. The texture is different (biryani rice is less likely to stick together than fried rice), and of course the flavors are very different. What they have around me (I'm in Denver) is mostly Hyderabad style biryani, which is spicy and has a delicious fragrance that fried rice never really would have. My general advice on where to find good biryani is to see if there's anywhere that tends to have lots of Indian immigrants eating there. It might not be the best on the planet, but immigrants tend to eat at restaurants that are doing the cuisine correctly in my experience.
That looks like some pretty legit biryani. Could I trouble you to write up a recipe?
Man... who the fuck serves biryani with peas? I'm not even Indian and I know that's a food crime. It reminds me of the SNL black jeopardy skit where they talk about a white woman making potato salad, and say "she probably put something unnecessary in, like raisins". You have my sympathies.
It doesn't require a shred of Christian belief to recognize that sex is the pregnant making thing. That is basic biological fact. We enjoy sex because it was advantageous (from an evolutionary POV) for us to do so, but that is not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is to reproduce.
Also, complaining that someone's post was recognized as a QC when you don't think it deserved to be is churlish. Disagree privately and move on. I certainly don't think every QC is quality, but you don't see me complaining about them.
I do think that the lack of the Scouring of the Shire is a major weakness in the Peter Jackson adaptations. Yeah it takes time, but it's an essential part of the story. Without that, we never get to see the heroes come home, changed by their adventures in the wider world, finding that their home is a bit smaller than they remembered it being. I definitely think that it should've been in the extended edition of ROTK even if it got cut from the theatrical version.
The biggest weakness, though, was his willingness to flat out ignore Tolkien's story themes in an attempt to drum up cheap drama (as you mentioned). I remember once watching the commentary on The Two Towers, and someone (I think Fran Walsh) said that they had the whole Faramir detour because Tolkien's account of the character undercut the story they were trying to emphasize of how potent the Ring is, and how much of a threat it is. Which, to me, sounds like they missed Tolkien's point entirely. Yes, the Ring is powerful, and yes, it's a threat. But it can be resisted, and there are virtues in the world which are stronger than the temptation that the Ring offers. This is seen most clearly with the Frodo/Sam changes in ROTK: in the book, the Ring tempts Frodo but the deep friendship he and Sam share is enough to overpower the Ring's influence. But in the movie, Jackson had to have a dramatic moment, so he guts one of the major themes of the book in order to gin up conflict. It really rubs me the wrong way.
I have long been of the opinion that, whatever their virtues as movies (and to be fair, I think they are excellent in their own right as movies), the Peter Jackson LOTR movies are pretty flawed adaptations of the source material. It's a real shame, because we are unlikely to ever see better than that, as people consider them definitive. C'est la vie.
I was trying to make a joke, since you said you defer to the RCTs as correct over your own experience. But whatevs, joke didn't land I guess.
I don't think it did anything for me, but defer to RCTs over the anecdotes of a very lazy man
To be fair, it could both do nothing for you and also be very effective for the average person. Now you can claim hipster points for not being like the great unwashed masses.
Meal wise, nothing fancy. I might make a sandwich. But I am currently working on some banana bread, which ought to be quite delicious.
My dislike of Dawkins is summed up nicely by a line from the South Park episodes which made fun of him: "he decided that logic and reason wasn't enough; you also have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you". Because that is how he always has acted. The man just drips with contempt for anyone who has religious beliefs. I don't much care if someone is an atheist, that's fine. But when someone is an atheist and his every moment in the public eye is declaring that my views are stupid, that I'm stupid for believing them, and that it should be illegal for parents to teach children about my beliefs... then I have a problem.
I would say that every strategy game should certainly have defense missions (though not necessarily as the climax), so you should get catered to in that sense. Both defense and attack are part of the strategy game experience.
Fire Emblem players know that a good enemy phase team is a thing of beauty. Just sit back and watch as the enemy breaks itself upon your swole waifus and husbandos.
I suspect people get worked up because they know that a person who presses red is also a person who is very likely to defect in other scenarios requiring everyone to work together for the good of the whole, and they want to get rid of those who would benefit at the expense of others. But as you said, it's a hypothetical and it's best not to get worked up about it.
Yeah, I agree with that. It is only once you face the test in the moment that you truly know how you will respond. There are any number of things where I hope I might handle it in a certain way, but I won't know for sure until I come to the choice for real.
I think that red pressers are unambiguously worse people than blue pressers. Blues are trying to make a better world - maybe they fail, but they're trying. Whereas those who press red put themselves first, even if that means it costs other people.
No, that's not true. You don't get to hand wave a state as being equivalent to the people within it and then claim that it's disproportionate influence on that basis. States are coherent entities by themselves, and are not the same thing as the people living within them. Your argument is like saying that if two families own a business together (split 50/50), the family with fewer children somehow has a disproportionate influence over the business. It is a poor argument.
Whether it's silly or not is a matter of opinion (I don't think it's silly at all), but it is factually incorrect to say that the Senate gives smaller states more influence than larger ones. It gives them the same influence.
There are still AI tells all over the place but they honestly don't distract from the short film itself.
I would say YMMV on that. I personally was pretty distracted by the terrible lip syncing and the overly pale skin tones for Ron and Draco. At one point, Draco is rendered so pale that he looks like the Joker. IDK if the creator had fine enough control over the product that it was a conscious choice on his part, or if it was just the AI sucking at pale skin, but it was jarring.
I would say that it's good for AI content, but still not just plain good. If a human made this by hand in Blender or something, I would be kind and say "that's impressive", but I wouldn't say it was quality work.
I am very much of the opinion that FDR was the worst president we ever had. I won't say it's impossible to persuade me otherwise, but it would be a tall order. FDR was just that bad. A ton of the problems we face today can be traced right back to FDR treating the Constitution like toilet paper and setting the norm that the President can do whatever he wants.
Fair enough. I actually didn't know that about RCIA (I was baptized as an infant so even though my parents left the Catholic Church, the church considers me to have been Catholic the whole time), which means I never got asked to make such a profession. I certainly agree with you that you shouldn't make statements which are not true.
What I would say, I suppose, is that as a devout Protestant
That's interesting to me, in light of your earlier mention of the Eucharist. Which branch of protestantism believes (or which branches, plural, believe) that Jesus is truly present in communion? The Protestant churches I've been a part of (non-denominational churches in Wisconsin) just believed it to be a symbolic remembrance that was honored because it was commanded of us, not that it was a sacrament in which Jesus was truly present. But as you said, Protestants are very diverse so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to find that some branches of the Protestant church believe in the real presence.
Catholicism denies this and therefore requires a convert to consciously pledge to believe doctrines that he or she may not even be aware of. For that matter it requires a pledge to believe doctrines that may change in the future.
As far as I'm aware, it's more "abide by" than "believe in". If you don't agree with (let's say) the church doctrine that extramarital sex is wrong, I believe that's ok as long as you are willing to try to live by the teaching under the basis that the church has the authority, duly delegated by Jesus ("whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven", etc), to definitively interpret Scripture. I realize I'm splitting the hair kind of fine there, but the difference seems meaningful to me at least. There are doctrines I think that the church is flat out wrong in their reasoning about (in vitro fertilization, for example), but to the best of my knowledge that's acceptable as long as I'm willing to abide by the teaching and do my best to wrestle with the arguments with an open mind.
However, one thing which is definitely not true, is that people are required to accept a doctrine which might change in the future. Not everything the church teaches is dogma (priestly celibacy is the usual go-to example of something which might change because it's a discipline, not a dogma), but dogma is held to be divinely inspired and not subject to change. If it did (say, if the pope issued an ex cathedra teaching that abortion was morally acceptable), then I would expect people to leave the church in droves because it would turn out to have been untrue that God was preventing the church from committing error.
- Prev
- Next

Yeah the character in question looks nothing like an adult.
More options
Context Copy link