Dikiyoba

I know, I should be able to keep track of this myself, but when you've changed out every PC you work on within a single year, and I mean Every one of 6 PC's, And then the hassle of half my credit accounts changing ( Thanks Target hackers )

Plus a house fire, plus ....

 

Never mind. Not your problems. But I am not above accepting a quick kick to shin to bring me out of 16 levels of subroutine calls to do a simple renewal.

Dikiyoba thinks the problem is that we are unlikely to remember to remind you.

why does the egg have to be as big as the current baby size? if we're popping out eggs just make them a bit smaller and have smaller babies.

 

i mean im not an expert on babies but they already appear to be useless and helpless for several years, whats like six more months of growth thrown on top of that

Human babies are already about as undeveloped as they can get without problems. Premature babies require special care and have a much higher mortality rate than full-term babies.

Dikiyoba.

Photos for reference:

Occasionally Dikiyoba is haunted by a question too strange and horrible to fully comprehend. Yet it is persistent, hiding in the troughs of Dikiyoba's thoughts, tormenting Dikiyoba with the impossibility of an answer and the mere fact of its existence. Like a chain letter, the only way to be free of this abomination is to pass it on.

When I quoted Kel, Randomizer's quote disappeared. How do I work the fell magic of the quote-within-a-quote???

You have to add the quote back in manually, whether through copy-pasting or by quoting the original post as well as the reply.

---

Why of course! Anything for a moderator of... wait... Diki? Is that you?

In case it isn't clear, I am no longer a moderator and haven't been one for months. So my request was a personal quest, not an official request from the forum moderators, and was not an attempt to mini-mod. Feel free to ignore it if you want. I'm just pointing out that your posts come across as spammy or confusing to me and probably to other people as well.

Yeah and that, I also tried splitting up the thread with the Sunhallowed Elven Arrows, unfortunately, Trintan isn't online to help me spread the plague.

See, I don't know what that post was supposed to mean. Triumph obviously got the reference, but I didn't (by which I mean, I get that it's a reference to an Elder Scrolls game, but I don't know how it is supposed to relate to the thread). Maybe some additional explanation or context would make your posts less confusing, especially in a serious discussion or debate where tolerance for silliness is low (and people's patience are potentially already strained).

Dikiyoba.

Hey Nightwatcher/M'ike the Liar, your posts are often so apparently irrelevant and cryptic they're spammy. Could you make them more relevant to and engaged in the conversation please?

---

Well, by reading this, I realise I should of either thought through my original post a bit better or not at all seeing as this turned out a bit messy. That being said I was happy with Thuryl's explanation but Diki's reaction I found was confronting.

Lilith. She's been Lilith for years now.

Dikiyoba has really got to stop hitting the like button instead of the quote button. Whoops.

As an aside, since the patterns thread has too many things going on in it already, the ability to "like" other people's posts certainly adds to the complexity and general weirdness to debates like this one.

Whether it's a good thing or not, Dikiyoba doesn't know. But it's definitely interesting.

Linnaeus' view is egregious, considering that our number exhibit a surprising lack of genetic diversity.

In fairness to Linnaeus, he was working a few centuries before DNA and genes were discovered. And taxonomy is notoriously unstable. When entire families can come and go, getting subspecies wrong is a small error (which is not to say that the Western classification of modern humans in general wasn't tainted by racism, because it very much was).

Dikiyoba must point out that, to Dikiyoba, your post contains the word "naïveté." Oh, where would SW be without obscure uncorrectable bugs?

In terms of WoT, I do not think that the female characters are any worse than the male characters. And the female characters do grow and change and have female mentors which was one of the complaints at the start of this thread.

That's somewhat true, the male characters are also pretty awful. But the female characters are definitely worse. The male characters don't spend time obsessing over their clothing, or getting naked to perform magic rituals.

---

I read an article in a Jewish monthly paper that explained that Jewish men leaving school usually spent a few years getting established in a job before considering getting married. The interest in being financially stable or at least the prospect of it happening after debts were paid might account for it in some cases.

Don't most college graduates do that, though? So that doesn't explain the age gap, because there are large numbers of women and men with college degrees. Besides, a lot of those graduates find long-term relationships before graduating and just wait until after college to get married.

Anyway, realism is kind of a silly excuse in the fantasy-romance genre when there are other factors going on, like very unequal ages and levels of ability. Realistic fantasy relationships are like those found in Harry Potter, when there's a bunch of people of roughly equal ages and abilities getting into relationships with each other. Novels like Twilight, for instance, feature things like a 100 year-old vampire falling in love with a ordinary 17 year-old human. (Or a twenty-something werewolf falling in love with a vampire-human baby, for that matter)

Dikiyoba.

Geneforge uses roughly the same engine and interface that the second Avernum trilogy (4-6) and Avadon do, so you should be fine. Download the demos for G1 and G4. If G1 is too clunky for you, skip to G4, which has a smoother and more modern interface.

Dikiyoba.

You weren't involved in the argument in any way, so Dikiyoba doesn't know why you feel the need to apologize? Past Lilith's post, it's a continuation of an unresolved debate that occurred on CalRef (which is part of the reason it escalated so quickly).

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time;

Uh... the Wheel of Time's female characters are really bad.

Anyway, The Sharing Knife series by Lois McMaster Bujold might be a good choice for anyone who likes the combination of fantasy and romance. Dikiyoba hasn't read it, but the books Dikiyoba has read by Bujold were good. Anyone have more information on the series?

That would be nice, but literally the only place I've ever heard the term asexual - actually heard in real life, and not in some of the queer-heavy places I frequent on the internet - is in biology classes, where it is indeed a technical term about reproduction. I wouldn't expect anyone to be familiar with its use in another context, or assume that the definition they've learned is wrong. That is an issue of "common sense and politeness", if anything is.

I don't expect anyone to be familiar with the term outside of biology either. But it's pretty clear in context that the word is being used to mean something else besides the biology definition. So a person can either choose to look it up and/or ask a question about what it means, they can choose to ignore it because it's none of their business and the context mostly makes sense without knowing every word means, or they can choose to complain about it being used to mean a new thing without knowing or caring what the new definition is. Only the third choice belittles people and is wrong, and only the third choice will get a snippy response from me. If you don't want me to post a frustrated response at you, make choices that don't harm other people.

Dikiyoba.

You don't have to walk on eggshells or Legos. Just use some common sense and politeness. "Oh, someone has used a term I'm not familiar with. I guess I should look that up." It's not like it's hard to find the answer; it's the Internet. If you can't find it, then you make a post about it: "Hey, I've never seen asexual used in this context. What does it mean?" To do otherwise is to step on other people and expect them to be happy about it. "lol, asexuality is for amoebas, not people, lol, look at me blithely repeating a misconception any asexual person has had to hear and deal with ten thousand times before." *step, stomp*

Now get off Dikiyoba's back. Seriously. You're being just as sensitive and complaining over an issue that doesn't even affect you.

You should have started with Geneforge 1. It doesn't matter your personal preferences before the games, after you've played Geneforge 1 for like 5 minutes, it automatically becomes your favorite game

Fixed your typo.

Looks like you missed a spot, don't worry, I fixed it.

Where are all these typos coming from? You'd think three edits would've been enough.

Geneforge 4 and Avernum 2 are also acceptable answers; Dikiyoba isn't picky.

Being snappy about reasonable misunderstandings is only a regular jerk move, and that wasn't a reasonable misunderstanding. Just because you have a high tolerance for language use and privileged ignorance doesn't mean we all have to feel that way.

Dikiyoba.

I've only known asexual as what I've mentioned. The only thing I can think of as it being implied otherwise would be referring to androgyny, or celibacy, or both.

Then take five minutes to educate yourself and don't whine about the terms marginalized groups use to describe themselves. It's a supremely jerk move.

Dikiyoba.

One thing that gets me is people being referred to as asexual. It's not like I'm gonna have kids by mitosis or anything

Does this imply that you identify as the sexual orientation commonly known as "asexual?" If so, what term or label do you prefer instead of "asexual?"

Dikiyoba.

Raising Steam: The latest Discworld novel is surprisingly fun to read, and it's better than Unseen Academicals or Snuff, but the characterization of species and characters is falling apart.

It's also brimming with unintentional cissexism and racism (of the real-world human sort). The shark has definitely been jumped, and I hope Pratchett stops writing Discworld novels now. Maybe that's his plan, because it does feel like a conclusion. It's slow-paced, there are lots of call-back minor characters, major characters are noticeably old with older-age concerns, and steam power is the traditional break between the fantasy and steampunk genres. It's also noticeably soft and non-satirical. If you've read most of the rest of the series, it's probably worth reading once, but not more than that.

Bird Sense: What It's Like to Be a Bird: Short, non-technical, and very interesting. Dikiyoba usually likes Tim Birkhead's work, and this is no exception. Dikiyoba recommends it, if only anyone else ever read natural history on these forums.

why does it matter if dumbledore is gay

 

what does it add to the story

 

how does that change his character in any way whatsoever

Pretty much what Nalyd said. If he's gay, bi, pan, or otherwise romantically interested in men, then Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald is drastically different than if he is heterosexual, asexual, or otherwise not romantically interested in men.

But all we can do is speculate, because Rowling doesn't tell us until after the fact. The series is about love and equality and relationships and discrimination, but she doesn't tell us anything about how the wizarding world views sexual orientations. She writes frankly (though avoiding direct references to sex) about all sorts of heterosexual relationships and families, from the ideal to the seriously messed up, without ever including a same-gender pairing or non-heterosexual character until we get one after-the-fact token gay character. That's a pretty glaring absence.

---

Jumping back to the very first post, Warrior Cats is a popular series that initially starts out with female mentors: Bluestar, Yellowfang, and Cinderpelt. Then the viewpoint character cast expands until there's no room for a protagonist-mentor dynamic. It's aimed at preteens rather than teenagers, though, with (at least initially) more male protagonists/viewpoint characters than female ones. And although the series starts off strongly, the quality of writing erodes quickly. Then again, quality matters much less to most people than it does to Dikiyoba, and it remains dramatic and fun to read for much longer than it remains well-written.

In her own terms, though, Hermione is extraordinary. We see the seeds of this germinate in the first and second books when Hermione is intentionally kind to Neville and takes major offense to Draco calling her a "Mudblood." It's not until she starts the unfortunately named SPEW (Society for the Prevention of Elvish Welfare) that it becomes severely obvious that Hermione is the only true social justice advocate in the corrupt Wizarding world. Even progressive heroes such as Dumbledore only care about the blood quantum issue, leaving the mistreating of goblins and elves under the rug. Not to deride Dumbledore, who did advocate for the centaurs, but that's the only place he shines. Hermione is the leader of a new generation of socially conscious magical folk.

Wasn't it Ron who took major offense to Draco calling Hermione a mudblood, while Hermione's reaction was more restrained? (I don't remember how she reacted, actually.)

Dumbledore did allow a werewolf to be educated and then become a teacher at Hogwarts, unlike most wizards who fear and hate werewolves.

Dikiyoba is conflicted on Dumbledore's characterization. For the first third the series, he's mostly a wise, benevolent, fairly generic leader. He becomes more interesting in the middle of the series, when he is actively challenging both Voldemort and the Ministry of Magic and apologizing to Harry for the mistakes he's made. For the final third of the series, his characterization is a bit of a mess of mistakes and overcomplicated machinations (kind of like the entire plot of those last two books) that Dikiyoba doesn't remember very well. Then you add Rowling's announcement that he is supposedly gay even though she didn't bother to write it into the series which is all about the power of love and focuses heavily on romantic relationships. And then you realize that despite his supposed kindness, he allows Harry to be abused repeatedly by the Dursleys and by Snape,

I hate debates, and have no interest in them.

Then stop generating and participating in debates?

By all means shoot down my proposals, but 'goalpost shifting' is an irrelevant charge. I am trying to pin down some vague ideas. Shifting the goalposts is the goal.

Then announce when your original proposal has been met and that you have a new goal in mind, and describe all your goals clearly! If you aren't trying to win a debate, then don't use methods that encourage confusion and derailment rather than clear communication. Your behavior runs counter to your stated intentions.

I really don't see your complaint even in debating terms. I said there were no memorable and original female characters; I later clarified this to mean, memorable and original to the degree that Snape and Dumbledore and so on are.

Your "and so on" includes Hagrid and Voldemort, who are also "also-rans" in the lists I posted, and are consistently ranked near Luna and Bellatrix, as well as being ranked significantly lower than Hermione. It's important to note that Luna and Bellatrix don't even show up until the second half of the series, unlike Hagrid and Voldemort who show up at the very beginning.

Dikiyoba.

Oh, I see what you are getting at. You aren't implying that all damsels in distress experience character growth as a characteristic of the trope, but that the subset of characters who are both damsels in distress and fleshed out enough to experience character growth (so that by the end of the story they are no longer damsels in distress?) is interesting to certain audiences. Is that right?

If so, Dikiyoba doesn't get it, but Dikiyoba can't argue against it.

Oh, Diki. So strict about semantics. So I'm not allowed to qualify my use of the phrase to angle its meaning towards a character that would learn and grow? How is anything to be discussed if we can't add to the meaning of given concepts?

 

If the Rapunzel in Tangled is not a damsel in distress character, what is she?

 

Really Diki all I want is an honest discussion. There are so many other good things to debate here besides a perceived misuse of language.

Pretty much what Slarty said. It's impossible to have a good debate unless people are debating the same things. That requires clear communication, and two components of clear communication are using well-defined terms and explaining things in a precise, thorough way.

Dikiyoba has never seen Tangled and does not know what sort of character Rapunzel is. She might be a damsel in distress, or she might not be. Being a damsel in distress doesn't prevent Rapunzel from also being a character who exhibits character growth. It's just that almost all protagonists and most major characters with any number of other characteristics in any genre exhibit character growth. Character growth is one of the basic components of any story. It's like saying that Tangled or Twilight or any other example is popular and relevant because it has dialogue or a plot. They do, but so do all the unpopular stories, or stories in completely different genres that target completely different audiences. It's not a valid distinction.

The damsel in distress trope is well-known and well-defined. If that's not the trope you want to discuss, don't use that phrase!

Dikiyoba.

The question then becomes: How many attractive women do you know what to do with?

Given Enraged Slith's last thread, the obvious but rather mean answer is "zero."

Dikiyoba.