rober2 Posts

Uhhhh...really? Both of which capitalize on the internal cumshot thing?

Anyways, I personally don't mind the modern way of censorship in eromanga that much, which is often very benign to begin with.
What really irks me is when the genital area is completely removed/left blank.

voted keep because that's how I found a lot of translators: through tiny credit notes/watermarks on random pages posted on image boards. I can well imagine people finding fakku the same way, and as such, I regard the watermarks as a feature.

now that was rude.
"that guy" is the OP, elfen lied.

29th of April (4) = 29-4 = 2294

https://www.fakku.net/viewmanga.php?id=2294
JACKPOT

Concur.

Seph: With all due respect and my personal sympathy for you, please note that this is just a forum on the internet. The discussions here yield little to no consequences in the real world, so there's really no reason to get worked up. Simply don't visit threads about religion, if they irk you. I do the same with all the bullshit "manly" threads, and it works just fine.

I'm pretty much genre-agnostic. Can't stand hip-hop and metal for the most part and chart-sludge makes me laugh at best, but generally I try to keep an open mind. Nearly anything goes, so long as it's high quality.

taken, but for what it's worth:
TEN-FOUR:
common ground, creativity, emotional intelligence, trustworthiness, self-confidence, a pretty face.

POLLICE VERSO:
lability, passiveness, hyperactivity, noisiness, naivety, insecurity, puritanism, disfigurement.

Sorry, nope ^.~
Entirely different continent in fact.


What I meant is: Part of the blame goes to the guy for letting the girl use him as an emotional trashcan. And part of the blame goes to the girl for being too cheap to seek a paid listener. There are trained professionals who will take your emotional ballast and respond with sage (or not so sage) advice in exchange for money.
If the guy however does take the role of that listener-slash-emotional-dumpster, free of charge, then that's clearly an abusive relationship. He should just realize that and give up his hopes and get the fuck out of it, instead of dithering and then confessing some day, deluding himself into thinking he's still got a chance.


And sometimes these hints get pretty obvious, and in my observation you then get two basic scenarios with the stereotypical "nice guy":
a) He doesn't notice. Or pretends not to, because he doesn't want to be seen as "aggressive" and wants to "bide his time". That can be pretty grating to watch from a distance, actually. I had a total "nice guy" co-worker who behaved like that, and it made me want to grab him by the shoulders and yell at him.
b) He's got the machismo stereotype of "flirtatious guys are studs, flirtatious gals are sluts" so deeply ingrained that he reacts with distress because she's not the pure and unstained princess he demands. Seen that, as said, happen too many times; and that's not grating, it's simply sickening.

It's O.K. for the guy to fill the passive part, but he at least needs to send out clear signals that he's interested. When flirted with, he needs to respond; when she shows interest, make it clear in at least some way that he is too, instead of trying to come off as noncommittal and harmless and "simply nice with no ulterior motives". You can't really blame the girl if she otherwise assumes that he's not interested, and moves on.

Aye. First I thought, "oh man, another weak-sauce troll", but by now I like how it managed to coax some people out of their shell. Unsightly, but amusing to no end.

Yeah, I know you were trying to be helpful, and I'm sure it's appreciated ^.~

None taken. And likewise no offense, but the "boo hoo waah, I want to continue my self-perceived nice-guy shtick and have girls drop into my lap" litany does smack of self-righteousness and BS to me.
It's o.k. if you value "being something you are" higher than leading a relationship; I won't look down on you for that. But then to go ranting that you don't succeed with this "something you are" in your pursuit of a relationship and blame the girls for it - that's fairly laughable to me.


Didn't say they would. Quoted selectively on purpose in my previous post.


Like I insinuated in the other thread: If you don't want to slide into the role of the friend-as-therapist, be staunch in your refusal of that role. Of course it is possible to blame the guy, too. Takes two to tango in this "dilemma".


Shrug. Heard more than enough of those whiny rants, myself.

I always found the "nice guy complaining about girls digging assholes" routine hilarious. What a lovely way to shift the blame onto the girls.
If girls really were only into assholes, what's stopping you from being an asshole and have all the females in a five hundred miles radius go nuts over you? Not like it's hard to be an asshole, I can attest to that.


Oh, they do. It's just usually so that the "nice guy" is either too absorbed with wallowing in his self-inflicted misery to notice - or shies away, labeling the girl a "slut".

Wait till you get the first job where arguing in staff meetings makes the future of your project/department/... depend on it.
You'll get to argue with plenty of assholes. Ohhhh, you will love that.

Don't worry, I won't stop pestering if I should happen upon more bugs ;p

What irritates me most are appeals to emotion and diversion - when someone ignores your argument and focuses on something completely besides the point.
Right behind that comes dogmatism. I've gotten into scholarly debates where the hon. member opposite suddenly went "oh, scientific rigor does not apply to me, because it contradicts leninist dialectics". Thaaaanks. Or when someone says "no matter how much sense your argument on fruit flies makes, the latest quarterly business report from enron says otherwise", alluding to an authority that has no say in the matter.
That makes me just throw my hands to the ceiling and give up on the argument and the person in question, forever.

Off topic:

Again rbz beats me to the punch. Rbz, you interested in a job?

I'll take the liberty of quoting my previous post:


I addressed your other points nonetheless, because I felt it would be impolite not to:

It was jest, because I don't get the whole "5.2% french 0.5% jewish 3.085% spanish 2.66% sioux" genealogy rage.

Even so, what they are bought for is besides the point; there are people who buy lawn-mowers to cut their hedges with and then wonder what the fuck when they lose their fingers. The point was the primary design purpose, and in guns and ammunition that commonly is, as stated, to wound and/or kill. You can like that or not, you may intend to use it differently, but that's the principal idea of a gun: To inflict wounds over a distance. The principal idea of a car is not.


Kill? No, because not every shot hits, and not every hit is lethal.
Shoot at? With the possible exception of hunting rifles, yeah, to some degree. Crime = opportunity+motive. A loaded gun is the opportunity, and knowing humans, motives may well come along sooner or later. What you then make of that expectation is a completely different question and depends on your taste for either authoritarianism or liberalism. But expected to shoot they should be.