Page 22 of 37 FirstFirst ... 121314151617181920212223242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 660 of 1089
  1. - Top - End - #631
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck View Post
    I was a professional gambler; I know what over/under is. I don't understand how it applies to the question "Was Durkon's line about who he would marry in the party just a throwaway joke?" It's a yes or no question; there's no total number to bet over or under against.
    You can call it a variation on a theme, or a colorful usage. It for sure is not literal usage.
    As I explained, "betting the under" indicates "not likely" and "betting the over" indicates "likely" ... in this usage (idiomatic?)
    It has bloody fork all to do with gambling in that context.
    Other colorful phrases you may be familiar with:
    Putting something in the oven, and then "nuking it."
    No actual nuclear reactions are in play.
    Being so mad at someone than one exclaims "I'm gonna kill 'em."
    No actual intent for homicide exists.


    FWIW: It is quite possible that this bit of slang is unique to some parts of Texas ... it is certainly where I picked it up.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2019-01-11 at 06:48 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Player agency doesn't mean they get to roll for everything. Agency means that they control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) or so I am told ... by 2D8HP

  2. - Top - End - #632
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Are people unfamiliar with the game “sex marry kill?” It is a juvenile game in which 3 random people are chosen by another, and regardless, you have to choose which one you would do each of those things to. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s a just a silly game (that I have never played, but observed several youngins on my block play) that people play for fun. Based on Belkar’s reaction to Durkon, which was not “I now question your sexual preference,” but actually “heh,” I would heir on the side of “meant to be an offhand joke.”

  3. - Top - End - #633
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Skyron, Andromeda
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by hroþila View Post
    Well, I could either mention a feature that would mean more charts, or mention the T-V distinction, and I couldn't hope to steer the conversation towards the awesomeness of Old English by doing the latter.
    We could also steer the conversation towards Quenya, which, if my memory doesn’t fail me, has dual plurals.

    I think it has 4 plurals actually, I just don’t recall the last one.


    Peelee’s Lotsey

  4. - Top - End - #634
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Oct 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalFailure View Post
    I don’t find “he’s not implied to be straight if you ignore all the times he expresses interest in women and disinterest in men” convincing tbh, and I’m mostly confused why people seem to be indignant about others not ignoring the implications of those scenes
    All the times? You mean the ONE time he showed disinterest in ONE man, because NOBODY is arguing that he isn't attracted to women.

  5. - Top - End - #635
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    hroþila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Caerulea View Post
    I know little of Old English. Any particularly interesting facts you'd like to share?

    (Also, I learned the actual name for the T-V distinction today! Is the etymology tu-vous in french?)
    I imagine they took it from tu-vous, yes, although according to Wikipedia it was taken directly from Latin tu-vos. Which is funny.

    As for Old English, gawd, I'm not sure where to start, but lately I've thought a lot about how Modern English is relatively atypical in that it has a set of standardized contractions that have not only their own pronunciation but also their own spelling, and they're pretty distinct from the full forms, so there's typically a contrast in formality or emphasis: has not vs hasn't, was vs wasn't, is not vs isn't, would not vs wouldn't, you are vs you're, etc. The funny thing is that all those contractions are modern, but Old English had its own set of contractions, none of which survived into Modern English: ne hæbbe vs næbbe, ne wæs vs næs, ne is vs nis, ne wolde vs nolde, ne wat vs nat, ne ah vs nah, ne ic vs nic, etc. Although obviously we don't know so much about the exact nuances of using these contractions as opposed to the full forms.

    So English has been relatively atypical in this particular way twice during its history, which is kinda cool.

    (There's also many words that were contractions from a diachronic point of view but which shouldn't be considered contractions anymore from a synchronic point of view, like nawðer~naðor < na hwæðer, nealles < ne ealles, nawiht~noht < na wiht, nænig < ne ænig, etc.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Sure it does, look: II
    I hate that I laughed.
    ungelic is us

  6. - Top - End - #636
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by hroþila View Post
    I hate that I laughed.
    A legionary walks into a bar, raises his pointing and middle finger and orders five beers.
    "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    Gehm's corollary to Clarke's Third Law



    Forum Wisdom

  7. - Top - End - #637
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Caerulea's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    United States

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Cool. Taking the name from tu-vos makes no sense though. (vos is plural, tu is singular, but you probably knew that.)
    Non caerulea sum, Caerulea est nomen meus.
    x
    I'm not a humanoid. Come be one too.

  8. - Top - End - #638
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Caerulea View Post
    (Also, I learned the actual name for the T-V distinction today! Is the etymology tu-vous in french?)
    maybe the first person to write it down meant T-Y but had terrible calligraphy and everybody rolled with it?
    "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    Gehm's corollary to Clarke's Third Law



    Forum Wisdom

  9. - Top - End - #639
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    This ranks up there in my most favorite OotS comics. I spent several minutes chuckling while guessing the three most likely candidates that beat out Belkar and why. Thanks Rich for making me work: lol. Also love the (possible) commentary on our nation's punitive system

  10. - Top - End - #640
    Titan in the Playground
     
    zimmerwald1915's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxzan Proditor View Post
    We could also steer the conversation towards Quenya, which, if my memory doesn’t fail me, has dual plurals.

    I think it has 4 plurals actually, I just don’t recall the last one.
    Afaik, the Quenya numbers are singular, plural, partitative plural (for some of a group), and dual (for a natural pair like eyes or arms).
    You, who have nothing at all to believe in; to you, whose motto is "money comes first;" who are you, to tell us that our lives have been wasted? That all that we've fought for has turned into dust?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    I'm jumping on the Zim bandwagon.
    Human stick-figure Twilight Sparkle by me. Find more here.

  11. - Top - End - #641
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo360 View Post
    All the times? You mean the ONE time he showed disinterest in ONE man, because NOBODY is arguing that he isn't attracted to women.
    He also looked appalled at Roy's nudity after Roy was raised, so that is the second instance.

    The fact he's been shown multiple times to be interested in women is relevant because it contrasts with his lack of interest in (or clear aversion to) men.

    I understand some people want representation of non-hetero characters, which is fine. But that doesn't mean every character has to be interpreted that way.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2019-01-11 at 08:19 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #642
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Skyron, Andromeda
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Afaik, the Quenya numbers are singular, plural, partitative plural (for some of a group), and dual (for a natural pair like eyes or arms).
    Thank you, those make sense. It’s been forever since I attempted to learn the grammar and now I’m filled with a sudden urge to try again.

  13. - Top - End - #643
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Oct 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    He also looked appalled at Roy's nudity after Roy was raised, so that is the second instance.

    The fact he's been shown multiple times to be interested in women is relevant because it contrasts with his lack of interest in (or clear aversion to) men.

    I understand some people want representation of non-hetero characters, which is fine. But that doesn't mean every character has to be interpreted that way.
    I forgot about that Roy scene, but if you actually look at the page, Haley has the same reaction as Durkon, so I take that your interpretation with a grain of salt. (And don't say that Haley's reaction is because she's already in a relationship, we're both probably smart enough to know that's not how sexuality works.)

  14. - Top - End - #644
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Larre Gannd View Post
    Are people unfamiliar with the game “sex marry kill?” It is a juvenile game in which 3 random people are chosen by another, and regardless, you have to choose which one you would do each of those things to. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s a just a silly game (that I have never played, but observed several youngins on my block play) that people play for fun. Based on Belkar’s reaction to Durkon, which was not “I now question your sexual preference,” but actually “heh,” I would heir on the side of “meant to be an offhand joke.”
    Has anyone been doubting that the statement was a joke? I mean, regardless of Durkon's general sexual preferences, I have a hard time imagining he would ever seriously consider marrying Haley, Elan, Belkar or V (Roy I can kinda see, they don't say "marry your best friend" for nothing).

  15. - Top - End - #645
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ironsmith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Larre Gannd View Post
    Are people unfamiliar with the game “sex marry kill?” It is a juvenile game in which 3 random people are chosen by another, and regardless, you have to choose which one you would do each of those things to. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s a just a silly game (that I have never played, but observed several youngins on my block play) that people play for fun.
    My fiance and I have been known to dabble in it, along with a variation that has a fourth person and activity, "serve jail time with", and the condition that you would have to personally carry out the "kill" part in that hypothetical scenario. Yes, we are a straight couple. Yes, we've handed each other full sets of people who are the same sex as us. Yes, we laughed. It's all good fun.
    Who're you? ...Don't matter.

    Want some rye? 'Course ya do!


    Here's to us.
    Who's like us?
    Damn few,
    and they're aaall dead.

  16. - Top - End - #646
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Oct 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironsmith View Post
    My fiance and I have been known to dabble in it, along with a variation that has a fourth person and activity, "serve jail time with", and the condition that you would have to personally carry out the "kill" part in that hypothetical scenario. Yes, we are a straight couple. Yes, we've handed each other full sets of people who are the same sex as us. Yes, we laughed. It's all good fun.
    I mean, fair enough, but this is at least a little different; rather than sticking to a predefined ruleset, Durkon is deliberately escalating Belkar's comment and creating the list of people to choose from when one was not presented to begin with. I could still see a straight person making that joke, in theory, but I also think that it's a little on the specific side, considering Belkar was only asking about himself, for it to be nothing more than a spontaneous joke.

  17. - Top - End - #647
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mightymosy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    @Fyra; Oh my, me misspelling names is gonna become a running gag, isn't it? :-)
    I thought I had corrected it after I had posted, now didn't I?? Too slow appearantly

    I still don't find the version GW is using
    Censeo Carthago delenda est
    The closest I have been finding is
    Censeo, Carthago delendaest
    By my read, it sounds strange without conjunction or a comma.
    Think this way: Censeo and est are both fully declinated predicates, one the first person, one the third person. I don't think that works in one sentence unless you make one a dependant sentence.
    Last edited by Mightymosy; 2019-01-12 at 02:47 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #648
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ruck's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    You can call it a variation on a theme, or a colorful usage. It for sure is not literal usage.
    As I explained, "betting the under" indicates "not likely" and "betting the over" indicates "likely" ... in this usage (idiomatic?)
    It has bloody fork all to do with gambling in that context.
    Other colorful phrases you may be familiar with:
    Putting something in the oven, and then "nuking it."
    No actual nuclear reactions are in play.
    Being so mad at someone than one exclaims "I'm gonna kill 'em."
    No actual intent for homicide exists.


    FWIW: It is quite possible that this bit of slang is unique to some parts of Texas ... it is certainly where I picked it up.
    Yeah, I didn't read closely enough and see that it's more colloquial. It still drives me nuts because from my perspective "I'll take that bet" is perfectly good, and more accurate, in this situation. Also, my wife has been similarly incorrectly using over/under, probably because she heard me using it a lot.

    (And, for the record, I was a longtime Texas resident until very recently.)
    Last edited by Ruck; 2019-01-12 at 07:28 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #649
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    hroþila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Mightymosy View Post
    @Fyra; Oh my, me misspelling names is gonna become a running gag, isn't it? :-)
    I thought I had corrected it after I had posted, now didn't I?? Too slow appearantly

    I still don't find the version GW is using
    Censeo Carthago delenda est
    The closest I have been finding is
    Censeo, Carthago delendaest
    By my read, it sounds strange without conjunction or a comma.
    Think this way: Censeo and est are both fully declinated predicates, one the first person, one the third person. I don't think that works in one sentence unless you make one a dependant sentence.
    Commas are not a thing in Latin, though, so it's up to the modern editor. Personally, I think a comma between censeo and the rest of the phrase would be weird, just as a comma between I think and a comma would be, but every language does this differently - Finnish for example would use a comma. "Carthago delenda est" is the most popular wording around here too, for what it's worth.
    ungelic is us

  20. - Top - End - #650
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Ohhhkay.

    There are two separate clauses here:

    "Ceterum censeo" and "Carthago delenda est".

    Ceterum cenceo -> Carthago delenda est.

    No, there is no need for a comma, because it works just as it does in English:

    "I think Carthage should be destroyed", not: "I think, Carthage should be destroyed".

    Oddly, it doesn't work that way in Portuguese, where we must add a "that" between the two clauses. But the comma isn't necessary for Latin and wouldn't make sense for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by factotum View Post
    Oh Lord, somebody said "The_Weirdo" three times into a mirror again, didn't they?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster View Post
    Weirdo... I'm not sure you're entirely clear on how an 'alliance' works.

  21. - Top - End - #651
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Afaik, the Quenya numbers are singular, plural, partitative plural (for some of a group), and dual (for a natural pair like eyes or arms).
    Sometimes I start thinking that I’m an obsessive Tolkien fan. And then I go on the internet and realize I’m not even close.

  22. - Top - End - #652
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Aquillion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo360 View Post
    I mean, fair enough, but this is at least a little different; rather than sticking to a predefined ruleset, Durkon is deliberately escalating Belkar's comment and creating the list of people to choose from when one was not presented to begin with. I could still see a straight person making that joke, in theory, but I also think that it's a little on the specific side, considering Belkar was only asking about himself, for it to be nothing more than a spontaneous joke.
    While I'd lean towards it being a throwaway gag, I also think it's important to remember that sexuality isn't a simple straight-bi-trans trinary any more than it's a binary - as I mentioned above, it's possible that eg. Durkon is a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale, recognizing that Roy is hot but still having an overall preference for females.

    (The Kinsey scale itself is an oversimplification or abstraction too, of course. But it's a slightly more accurate abstraction.)
    Last edited by Aquillion; 2019-01-12 at 11:19 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #653
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck View Post
    (And, for the record, I was a longtime Texas resident until very recently.)
    Hope you didn't move to Ohio ... they say that the Mexican food sucks north of here ... anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Player agency doesn't mean they get to roll for everything. Agency means that they control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) or so I am told ... by 2D8HP

  24. - Top - End - #654
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Oct 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquillion View Post
    While I'd lean towards it being a throwaway gag, I also think it's important to remember that sexuality isn't a simple straight-bi-trans trinary any more than it's a binary - as I mentioned above, it's possible that eg. Durkon is a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale, recognizing that Roy is hot but still having an overall preference for females.

    (The Kinsey scale itself is an oversimplification or abstraction too, of course. But it's a slightly more accurate abstraction.)
    That's definitely how I read it; I was using “bisexual”*as an umbrella term, since more specific terminology that isn't a mouthful doesn't really exist and probably never will.

  25. - Top - End - #655
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Thumbs up Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    New comic is up.
    Happy New Year all and thanks for yet another excellent strip of OotS.



    Spoiler: Possible spoiler?
    Show
    A thought - I apologize if this has already been discussed by anybody in a previous forum message, but I have not read them all. I just wonder about the meaning of "Belkar not menat long for this world". As far as I have seen it is being discussed when and how he will die. But what if it actually means that Belkar is meant for the OTHER world, the world of the Snarl?

    I have nothing to based this idea on other than Odin and Thor doesn's appear to know about the other world as well.

    Whay do you think?

  26. - Top - End - #656
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Aside from the implications of Belkar being stranded on a world where Laurin detected no life at all, he'd still need to breathe.
    Spoiler
    Show
    "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This, in a nutshell.
    Yes, exactly.

  27. - Top - End - #657
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Aside from the implications of Belkar being stranded on a world where Laurin detected no life at all, he'd still need to breathe.
    Wait, does she have a range on her life-detecting power? Because I assumed that the "no-life" bit was due to the snarl's approach making everyting in the area bugger off. You know like how forest often get suddenly silent to signify that the monster is near?
    "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    Gehm's corollary to Clarke's Third Law



    Forum Wisdom

  28. - Top - End - #658
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ironsmith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Wait, does she have a range on her life-detecting power? Because I assumed that the "no-life" bit was due to the snarl's approach making everyting in the area bugger off. You know like how forest often get suddenly silent to signify that the monster is near?
    Or possibly it devouring everything in a mile-wide radius. This is an eldritch beast of the apocalypse we're talking about.
    Who're you? ...Don't matter.

    Want some rye? 'Course ya do!


    Here's to us.
    Who's like us?
    Damn few,
    and they're aaall dead.

  29. - Top - End - #659
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironsmith View Post
    Or possibly it devouring everything in a mile-wide radius. This is an eldritch beast of the apocalypse we're talking about.
    Same difference, it got the slow ones.
    "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    Gehm's corollary to Clarke's Third Law



    Forum Wisdom

  30. - Top - End - #660
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo360 View Post
    I forgot about that Roy scene, but if you actually look at the page, Haley has the same reaction as Durkon, so I take that your interpretation with a grain of salt. (And don't say that Haley's reaction is because she's already in a relationship, we're both probably smart enough to know that's not how sexuality works.)
    Sure. Hayley was interested in one naked man, and not another, which suggests to me that she is interested in men, just not Roy. Durkon recoiled from both naked man (in contrast to his reaction to both women) which I think points toward him not being interested in men. Of course it's possible that Elan (despite being widely considered the best looking guy in the comic) and Roy both happened to not be to his liking, and if a third man was naked Durkon would be interested. But I don't think that's the most likely answer.

    And it doesn't really matter for the present question. Even if Elan and Roy just happen to be men who a bisexual Durkon is uninterested in, and Hayley just happens to a female who he is interested in, that is a complete list of all the characters we are trying to rank (other than Belkar and V who I think most people accept are settled).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •