4771
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Word association game 2^15.57: exponential wordin'
« on: October 06, 2017, 12:31:56 pm »
What a bunch of Jokers
April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Granted. But it causes no loyalty in the lich, and they can break out whenever they want. Congratulations, you just pissed off an undead wizard.It may be a translation error, but in czech translation, tolars are mentioned in Snuff.
I wish Sir Terry Pratchet was still alive, without dementia and Alzheimer's, and continued to write good Disc-world books.Granted. But these discs are serrated and he frisbees Puppyguard with them.What are Tolars? I'm pretty sure there are no Tolars in Discworld.
I wish to teleport to Ankh-Morpork, not telefragging anything, nor being telefragged. I am to understand whatever language they use, and any money I have on me is to be converted to it's equivalent (based on cost of bread) in AM Tolars.
Well, I am 3 hours east of you, but yes. I was wrong at that accusation and you did not edit that post later than I responded to it.It is, that editing what you said while someone else is answering you will make them look bad, but it is cheating. While the page warns you about new posts, it does not warn you about edits to old ones.
I'm not sure how this is even relevant however. Repeating this point just seems like you're accusing me of doing this. The original post with almost all the information in it, which is the one you've mainly cited was last edited at 7:44:50 pm. You started making remarks at around 9:15 pm. So any suggestion that I retroactively edited my main original post to make you look bad is ... not very rational.
In fact you were the one who brought up variable fetus survival rates before I ever mentioned it:While I would believe that "girl" fetuses have higher survival rate than "boy" fetuses when the mother is not healthy, I do not get how that would skewer the demographic in the other direction in the other direction when the mother is healthy.
So that was your point at 9:15, a good 90 minutes after I last edited the previous post. So, it's just what I said, you introduced the idea of "variable survival of male vs female fetuses" as a concept into the discussion, then a bit later ... you mischaracterized my whole argument as being that, and used a fairly dismissive tone towards it. When it was in fact a construct that you'd created.
What's the point of your argument? Clearly because I wrote 1 in 5 girls later, that's what I meant. You're not really arguing against anything now, just nitpicking semantics of the posts.
The only impression it gives is that you don't have an actual point to make. At least not one that's relevant to the subject matter.