I’m... not really sure what you’re trying to say here, so I’m just going to take a stab at replying.

The idea is that denying yourself the things in life that God denied your ancestors is supposed to be a sign of virtue, adherence to God’s punishment. Or something like that.

To be fair, going by your nametag, most folks would assume you know more about crossing the eighth dimension and unleashing the red lectroids than oncology. Well, some would, anyway.

Yeah, it says it right in the title. And the point of my comment, pointing out a specific subreddit to counter a part of the piece, was specifically a reaction to that part of the post.

I think it’s fair to say that most times a lot of actual valid rhetorical tools are abused by people who aren’t arguing in good faith, right down to accusations of not arguing in good faith! The “devil’s advocate” position is a useful way to test the strength of an argument by finding any potential holes or flaws in…

“Do you know who I am?”

There’s an entire subreddit dedicated to the people who say this phrase in a legitimate way, such as published researchers and reporters told to read their own articles. It’s a legitimate statement when it’s clear the other person knows them by name but not face and is making some bad…

https://www.dosbox.com/wiki/DOSBox_and_Mac_OS_X

That happened after her realization that she did it to herself. He’s complaining because she decided to reject the truth, that she jumped in instead of being pushed, and instead invented her own replacement origin involving Poison Ivy.

Was it? Because that’s not how it was presented. Harley may be an unreliable narrator, but arguing “I was stupid enough to do this to myself” isn’t really an improvement over “you forced me to do this.” Which was the original version. She didn’t get broken by the Joker, she already was broken.

That was retconned in the very first season of the show. In fact, it was a major character development story arc for the first season of the show.

Yeah, no shit. Every single post and the fucking article are about a recall. Maybe you need to learn to read.

This is my job, idiot.

Recalls are for anything that could affect the health of customers, not just diseases, and soy is one of the Big Eight allergens. Recalling the pizzas helps protect the manufacturer and potentially affected customers, so it’s generally a good idea, particularly since 5% of the population is affected by food allergies.

Since you clearly don’t understand how this works, allow me to enlighten you and others who may run across this.

It’s a response to a line in the article. This is a mislabeled product issue; it’s a recall, because soy is an allergen. If it wasn’t a major allergen or other potential health issue, this wouldn’t be a recall, but people would likely still be annoyed because they expected pepperoni but got a three meat pizza instead.

I feel like this shouldn’t have to be said, but experience says otherwise.

If you have a recalled product and the instructions say to discard the product, get photos of the UPCs and any other relevant codes first. This makes it far easier to get the manufacturer to replace the product for you. In the case of food, you…

So, uh, if I may ask, what does the total weight of the pizzas have to do with anything? Wouldn’t the total number of affected pizzas be more useful?

Given how old D2 is at this point, most of the people picking up the remaster are more interested on whether it does its job as a remaster, especially in the light of the WC3: Reforged debacle. This shouldn’t be hard to understand.

Like WC3: Reforged, right?

Given that WC3: Reforged was a shitshow and other “remasters” have not been the same as the original game, yes, it’s a review. It’s a comparison between the remaster and the original.