danielthegrey
danielthegrey
danielthegrey

No, this sounds perfectly reasonable. My son, at only 19 months, is already coordinated and coherent enough to pull this off, and so are most babies his age. Now, whether she was actually taking the cards because she wanted them but didn't want to pay for them? It's harder to say.

My son will often do things he's not

Um... Who doesn't eat sitting down usually?

He's right there! How'd you miss him?

This artwork is unfinished, obviously, since it depicts a team of heroes published by Marvel and yet Wolverine is nowhere to be found.

I feel like exposing Please Don't Tell on a website like this is somehow going against the original intentions.

Moondragon is missing, too.

A key element regarding item 8 was lost in the paraphrased list: sexualizing female enemies (specifically enemies) in games is a problem because the way we deal with enemies in games usually involves violence. From what I've read and heard Sarkeesian say, it's not the sexualization of female characters per se that she

All of these things are fair and rational requests to make. Can't see any reason anyone would have a problem with any of them.

Why is the entire article about a game that is NOT a board game, but the headline mentions boardgames? Very few actual boardgames have this level of vague fudginess to them - this is miniatures war-gaming with elements of roleplaying -whole different thing. i love boardgames - an infinitely superior hobby to

But that's not the question. The question is not whether or not he occupied the same spot, the question asks if he occupied the same spot at PRECISELY THE SAME TIME.

That doesn't mean they both reach the same point at the same time, though. They might cross paths when one was at 5:00 and the other at 3:00

Are people misreading the question or in stupid. The question seems to ask if at any time they were at the same point. Like at 12:45 he stood at 450m up on both days... Not whether he crossed paths.

I would just add (and I think you're acknowledging this) that Moore was toying with a particular contrivance of prior comic book stories - particularly Superman stories, particularly in the '50s and '60s. Take a look at "The Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told," you'll see some prime examples of stories that were

I think everyone is missing the original context. In pre-Crisis DC Comics, "Imaginary story" was the label for stories that were deliberately outside canon. It might be a story of the future (say, Batman and Superman each had a son challenged to carry on their legacy), or an alternate world (what if Superman's rocket

Once upon a time, a stepfather took his child aside and pointed to yonder article scripted upon this web of nets. The child followed while Peter explained what it meant and bullet-point presented it to his stepson. After a moment, the boy spoke up: "that's stupid. They're spoiled, dad."

The only thing uglier than the bedroom will be the nature of the young adult molded in that household.

It's funny how he's latched on to exactly the things that made it such a success - that it relied on a classic hero's arc and an old-fashioned style - and painted them as negative traits.

This just looked silly to me.

If you have Netflix, do yourself a favor and binge watch Freaks and Geeks.

Fuck the books, fuck Martin, and fuck the king.