Jump to content

Shadowe

Members
  • Posts

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Shadowe

  1. Well I would go with the one that has a wealth of primary sources objectively proving its claims, but in your case I'm going to guess you meant the one that repeats a number of objectively disproven falsehoods which agree with your prejudices and preconceived notions.

  2. If I split a single article, item, or tangible event into twenty links does that make it twenty citations or does it make it just one? CHx cited a number of seperate tweets made in a running string as part of a single event within a very short time period. I think more than anything else you've said so far trying to play that off as the "unusual scope" of "only two sentences" goes to show what I would interpret to be a disingenuous intent, for someone so obsessively concerned with semantics and form you've just profoundly misrepresented something. By your standards you may as well split up this post into one sentence per quote and claim you're quoting as many posts as there are sentences.

    By doing light (or heavy) research on what backs up your claim, in a way they would be ultimately strengthening your argument (really, they'd be furthering their contextual knowledge so that they better understand your argumentative stance, but... it's similar). In reference to the beginning of your post, apparently, what I said was not a straw man, because you just made it more explicit that it was relevant, even if you say you didn't say it earlier. By not citing sources for what you say, you make your statements remain as statements. If people choose not to cite for you, that's how the statements will remain. Whoops!

    You keep using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. I cited sources. CHx chose to take citation to the level of spoonfeeding and handholding. And you've now veered into the complete silliness of trying to represent taking a citation and viewing the cited material as "doing light (or heavy) research" for someone else. By your standards it's impossible to ever not do "light (or heavy) research" for someone else. The sheer absurdity of that speaks for itself.

    You are right about getting back on topic though, we're getting bogged down in different academic schools of thought about citations rather than substantive issues here. Feel free to PM me if you care enough to keep going on that otherwise I think we're both going to just go in circles over metadiscussion. The FTC just issued updated policies on affiliate linking and advertisements in direct response to gamergate supporters' lobbying, so far Gawker's been going back and retroactively adding Affiliate Disclosures to at least some of their articles.

  3. No, that isn't true. You would have to find the part of the ACA and specify what part you are referring to. It's over 11000 pages. I already did a 9-page essay on it, got a nice grade on it from my professor, and it still confused the both of us. No one's going to sift through it or any other complicated source (or diverse set of sources from the wide-as-hell internet) finding what could possibly support your statements; that's your job, if you want to make your argument stronger. There are some things you can say without proof, like self-explanatory ideas or things we should know as citizens of our own nations, but what you had been saying was desperately in need of sources. There's a reason why when putting citations of academic journals in research papers, you're supposed to specify the exact pages. I just don't get why CHz had to jump in and find sources for you, but what a nice guy. :grin:

    Since you like fallacies you should consider the fallacy of the Straw Man, which you've just given a great example of. I said "mentioning the ACA", not citing a specific paragraph. If I were to point out the ACA by name as one of Obama Administrations major legislative acts and a major legislative act pertaining to healthcare that is a sufficient citation. What you've just come up with about 11000 page documents is a straw man.

    As is...

    A citation is a reference, but no, it's not someone else's obligation to strengthen your argument, it's yours. If you don't want to support your argument, it becomes a mere opinion, and one that doesn't really need to be taken seriously in the midst of other strong, well-supported arguments. If someone calls your source a weak one due to its irrelevance, poor writing, or otherwise, that's fair. It just means your argument would then be either weak due to poor support, or too hard to support due to its unreasonable scope (or other alternatives that I may have missed). Either way, it would be a huge fallacy (burden of proof) to say "your source is weak. If you can't back up your argument, it's wrong." All the other person ought to think is, "your source is weak and not credible, so I currently don't think I should believe your argument. Are there any other sources that you can find, or should I just move on and not believe you?" (calling an argument wrong and calling it weak are not the same thing). If someone does indeed ask for citations of your claims, then they're giving you a chance. Take it.

    ...your thorough and well written attack on points I never actually made. I did not, at any point, say it was someone else's job to support my argument. What I said was it's someone else's job to actually take a citation and go procure and read the material cited. To what lengths each person is expected to go in this situation depends on the context. In a thread specifically about a specific topic which is itself an ongoing current event citing major relevant aspects of that ongoing event by specifically naming them is reasonable. If you were to tell me "X major thing happened to Y person yesterday morning" it would be my duty to take that citation and procure the material it cites. Now you seem to be having extreme difficulty responding to what I actually said. Perhaps you're being disingenuous, or perhaps you simply can't understand me. In either case I will restate the point I ACTUALLY made for you on the chance you are posting in good faith:

    There needs to be a new informal fallacy named for the recent trend in disingenuously demanding ever more exhaustive and unreasonable efforts under the guise of "citations" before finally terminating them with the "that source disagrees with me therefore it's not credible" line.

    I was specifically referring to a dishonest tactic of making increasingly unreasonable demands under the guise of asking for "citations" and then, having had everything exhaustively spoon fed to them and every hoop jumped through, the demander declaring sources or citations unacceptable by fiat because they disagree with the information presented or who is presenting it.

    To rephrase it in a third way: It is increasingly common for people to make bad faith demands for "citations" which are in fact nothing more than a means of attempting to exhaust someone by forcing them to comply with increasingly arbitrary and difficult demands. First references to something by name are dismissed as insufficient, then direct references to content are insufficient, then direct links are either insufficient or dismissed. If not dismissed and someone goes to the trouble of reformatting and representing the excerpted information it is finally dismissed as invalid due to arbitrary reasons.

    Expanding what's being cited here (for zircon in particular I guess):

    Leigh Alexander has said some unfortunate things on Twitter: talking negatively about "hood" people a few times and an "Irish people drink a lot" joke (sorry that Encyclopedia Dramatica is somehow the best reference for this). The tweets are 2+ years old and I'm honestly unsure if there are any more recent remarks than those, but every time I've seen a "Leigh Alexander is a racist" comment it's been referencing one or more of those five tweets.

    About Steve Sawyer (@RevueMage): http://i.imgur.com/qsUhEWX.jpg. He was crashing with his girlfriend a few days while looking for his own place, and by his own admission the relationship was not going particularly smoothly. About a week later, he's physically forced out of the apartment by his girlfriend's friends because they found his Twitter account, decided he was a misogynist due to GG activity, and wanted to remove him from his girlfriend's lifeHe doesn't think they're involved with opposing GG in any way, but were acting on whatever they found. He's said he was going to file a police report.

    I wasn't aware there was such a short half-life on racist statements. Regardless of such a half-life however I would argue that her recent spearheading of a group of people who have gone out of their way to target minorities and women for everything from racial slurs to large scale harassment and so on is proof enough her views haven't changed much.

    About Steve Sawyer (@RevueMage): http://i.imgur.com/qsUhEWX.jpg. He was crashing with his girlfriend a few days while looking for his own place, and by his own admission the relationship was not going particularly smoothly. About a week later, he's physically forced out of the apartment by his girlfriend's friends because they found his Twitter account, decided he was a misogynist due to GG activity, and wanted to remove him from his girlfriend's lifeHe doesn't think they're involved with opposing GG in any way, but were acting on whatever they found. He's said he was going to file a police report.

    You realise that's the whole point, right? The sheer level hate and bigotry coming from GJP members and those supporting them is so great, the rhetoric so dehumanizing and inflammatory, that people have been incited to outright violence just from reading it. I'm Jewish mate, I've lived with racial violence before. I've watched as people spread lies that my people were behind the September 11th attacks, I've watched the hate grow, I've had to fight for my life when someone finally got pushed over the edge and came for me.

    The underlying theme of all blood libel is that someone tells incredibly inflammatory lies, usually involving blaming us for some local tragedy, and stirs up a mob to violence.

    I have seen this before. I have lived this before.

  4. Not really interested in getting too involved with this debate but I need to reply to this because I've seen it happen elsewhere on this forum and other places.

    When someone asks you for a citation with regards to some argument you're making, it's not enough to simply just say "it's a matter of public record" or that a quick Google search will yield the results a person is looking for. You can't assert something and then say "just look it up yourself, you'll find it." You're making an assertion that something is true, and someone is calling that into question, so it's on you to provide links to credible sources that verify your assertions.

    Even in the top levels of academia there are limits to what is reasonable expected to be cited, and even then a citation does not hold your hand to the point of spoonfeeding you... you're given the name of the particular journal article and you are expected to do your diligence in actually procuring and reading it. What you are arguing right now is the equivalent of claiming, in a thread specifically discussing the debate on recent healthcare reform in the US, that mentioning the Affordable Care Act by name is not a valid citation. A citation is a reference. It's YOUR job to go and check out that reference when it's given.

    There needs to be a new informal fallacy named for the recent trend in disingenuously demanding ever more exhaustive and unreasonable efforts under the guise of "citations" before finally terminating them with the "that source disagrees with me therefore it's not credible" line.

  5. You're going to need a pretty big citation on that one.

    Leigh Alexander's repeated racist tweets are a matter of public record, as is Steve Sawyer (Revenuemage) getting beaten by a violent mob and forced into homelessness because they found out he supported gamergate.

    Why do people - like you - insist on ad hominem? Besides the fact that such a theory is baseless (lest we forget, Anita was writing about these topics as a college student), people like Dave and many others have done a great job of deconstructing and arguing against her videos without comparing her to anti-semites or accusing her of being "in it for the money". Her motivations are wholly irrelevant to the content of her videos and her arguments.

    So just to be clear do you also have a problem with the people screaming racial slurs at women and minority gamergate supporters, calling them klansmen, worse than ISIS, and the like or is this a double standard? Also metaphors are not ad hominem, nor is questioning whether someone is just a con artist or not after they bilk people for over $150,000 and then have a handful of largely inaccurate, misleading, and repeatedly plagiarized videos to show for it.

    As to motivations that's an oversimplification. Factors like this are VERY relevant when someone is specifically (and almost totally) relying on holding themselves up as a moral crusader who should be viewed as a pillar of justice and moral righteousness. That person's history of plagiarism, theft, and dishonesty are all directly tangible issues in cases where they're creating a cult of personality through the manipulative use of social justice rhetoric.

    Really, when you post things like that it just enforces the (perhaps well-deserved) stereotype that many pro-gamergate folks care more about attacking women like Anita than actual issues of ethics in game journalism. Anita isn't a journalist. She's a person that shares opinions on feminist issues in gaming. Jack Thompson is a guy that actually, literally tried to get the government to censor games... this is the actual definition of censorship.

    Anita/McIntosh have repeatedly shown they believe videogames make people both violent and misogynist and want to get rid of them as well. The only difference is where Jack Thompson sought to get the government to do it Anita/McIntosh and her ilk are relying on blacklisting, yellow journalism, and vicious mobs to get it done.

    The argument that she's "not a journalist" is right up there with the constant shell game of these individuals claiming alternatively to be bloggers or journalists depending on whichever is more convenient at that moment.

    As far as "attacking women" goes that's ironically a statement born of misogyny. It's been repeatedly statistically disproven, and with gaming journalists being overwhelmingly white males what you're actually doing is paternalistically demanding that women simply be off limits.

    I find it ironic you present yourself as caring about women given the obscenely disproportionate number and severity of attacks inflicted on women (and minorities) supporting gamergate. The situation is so absurdly lopsided as to be comical if it weren't so terrifyingly similar to how blood libel works.

    Going after advertisers is simply an entirely different beast. It's bypassing the public sphere entirely. It has a much more chilling effect on free speech because it's disproportional to the number of people that actually care about the topic at hand. If 5000 people total theoretically would not buy a game because of an offensive character, then at most, Twitter shaming can only expedite the process of informing those people.

    But there isn't really a limit to the damage that can be done by email carpet bombing advertisers & sponsors. 10 million people can read a site and all but 500 might have no problem with the content. 500 out of 10 million don't approve of a viewpoint, that means 9,999,500 DO approve (or don't care) - and normally we would expect that those 500 people would simply not visit the site, which would have a negligible effect. On the other hand, if those 500 people carpet bomb advertisers they can cause damage FAR far exceeding the normal impact that 500 visitors/readers would have.

    Calling for an advertiser boycott IS the public sphere acting, and is a tactic which has been repeatedly publicly supported by those purporting to be on the side of "feminism" and "social justice". But potential double standards aside if you really want to talk about chilling effects and disproportionality lets talk about a handful of individuals that own and operate those websites using them as tools to carry out blacklisting and bullying, as confirmed through the leaked GJP emails. Lets talk about a handful of individuals leveraging such disproportionate institutional power that they can make or break entire careers through racketeering and collusion.

  6. I take the impression that you're pro-GG. Let me tell you this:

    Gamergate has made me afraid of making games. I'm literally scared of writing in any kind of professional context about gaming, or literally making a game, even under this pseudonym, for fear of some mouthbreather deciding that "disagreement == dox" and ruining my life.

    Since the last time I posted in this thread a black man was beaten by a violent mob and forced to flee his own home, someone was threatened by a literal domestic terrorist on a watchlist for downloading pipebomb schematics, and two people were almost murdered by SWATting. That is in addition to the now thirty plus people who have not only been doxed but also had their bank accounts hacked, income held up by fraud, utilities turned off, multiple people have lost their jobs, and gotten knives, syringes full of god knows what, and dead animals sent to them in the mail. All of which has been encouraged and condoned by leading figures in gaming journalism.

    And you want to try to play the "I'm afraid" card? People have lost their jobs to racist harassment campaigns and even been beaten and driven into homelessness because of the smear campaign spearheaded by a blatant racist that just so happens to have publicly called for exactly this kind of violence against black men before.

    No, I'm not buying it. It's cheap emotional manipulation.

    Which... wasn't really that good a thing. She does genuinely earn the criticism she gets (the kind that's legal and acceptable, I mean, not the other kind) and she inspires just as much hatred as she does support for the right thing, instead of just doubling up on support for the right thing like a pundit of her unearned level has gotten to.

    At this point, I'm thinking I should compile a list of better gaming feminists for people to champion instead of Sarkeesian. She's the Jerry Falwell of feminism and I know there's better out there.

    Sarkeesian's a former "handwriting for success" saleswoman, she's just a classic seminar scammer that was picked up to be a vaguely ethnic pretty face. Jonathan McIntosh is the actual writer feeding her all of her material and as far as anyone can tell he's a trust fund kid that's spent his life after highschool traveling from one "revolution" to the next.

    I read a great quote online about Sarkeesian/McIntosh versus Jack Thompson: ""The relationship between Thompson and Saarkesian is that of David Icke and Bilderberg Anti-Semites. David Icke accuses various royal families, financial leaders, state heads, etc, of being lizard people. So do Bilderberg Anti-Semites. The latter are using the lizard accusations as a screen, code or metaphor for the old "Jews running the world" narrative. The former genuinely believes his targets are lizards. I would want neither in my living room."

    While McIntosh may well believe his own nonsense, at least until he finds his next fad, I'm pretty sure Sarkeesian is mostly in it for the money. I'd recommend feminists like Aayan Hirsi Ali but her entire opinion about things like videogames and scientist's shirts can be summed up in her recent statement that it's "trivial bullshit" being obsessed over by "idiotic women".

    Then again maybe that kind of swift kick to the head is what people need to realise that this is all just a cheap FUD used to control people via fear and moral panic.

  7. Here's a meta-irony for you, then:

    Often, those fighting for equality fail to realize that they've really already achieved it: they have become equally as convinced of their opponents' lack of humanity & worth as vice versa.

    You're a more charitable person than I am if you believe these people are honestly fighting for equality instead of merely using the appearance of such as a political weapon.

    Then again when you've got something like 30 people (primarily women or minorities) losing jobs, having their bank accounts hacked, income held up by fraudulent reports, and even getting syringes, knives, and dead animals in the mail it would take the zeal of a true believer to stand by the mostly rich white men cheering that on and call it "feminism".

    I'll call it right now: I don't think the GJP side of this is going to be happy until they've stoked the fires enough for one of their more unhinged followers to murder someone. They've already escalated their rhetoric to the point a 16 year old kid thought being a "good feminist" meant doxing someone and threatening his 7 year old cousin with rape and murder, and when she regretted it later her friends tried beat the hell out of her in her own home.

    Bell Hooks this shit aint.

  8. No, she's getting exposure because she has valid points, and partly because of the way people reacted (i.e. death threats, rape threats, etc). I've not seen any evidence of Anita insulting and antagonizing people, do you have any specific examples? Anita and other women, on the other hand, have been repeatedly harassed and threatened. I really don't understand how anyone can accuse Anita and Zoe of insulting people, when they are the ones who were targeted.

    By the way, gamergate started with harassment of mostly women who were critical of sexism in gaming culture, and people attempted to change the subject to "ethics in game journalism". It's strange to me that so much anger was stirred simply because some women want more diversity in video games, and have spoken out against harassment of women by some in the gaming community.

    (edit: changed wording a bit)

    You can remove literally every single mention of Zoe, Anita, FemFrequency, feminism, misogyny, and anything close to that from the metrics of the #gamergate hashtag and it barely moves at all.

    Furthermore merely screaming profanity and slurs at people, accusing one of the most diverse and inclusive groups on the planet of being universally white male unattractive virgin losers, is not being "critical of sexism". Especially when this is done in defense of a woman multiple feminists have pointed out is clearly a domestic abuser, who has in the past lied to start a horrible raid against suicide risk individuals, who tried to kill a feminist game jam, after her gaslighting and emotionally abusive behavior was revealed by her victim.

    Also these people are NOT speaking out against harassment of women, they've repeatedly condoned everything from rape and death threats to hacking people's bank accounts and sending them knives and syringes in the mail. You're talking about people that see no issue with calling women "house n**" and attacking them as long as they have the "wrong" views.

    If you really care about how women are treated you're very much on the wrong side of this.

  9. The Southern Poverty Law Center is keeping its eye on Gamergate as a hate group.

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/10/16/hatewatch-headlines-101614/

    It took 7,000 people to get the SPLC to stop taking money from Cathy Brennan and even after that they still won't classify Gender Identity Watch, an organization that exists only to attack trans* people, as a hate group.

    Let me repeat that: The SPLC took money from, and continues to give a free pass to, a literal hate organization run by someone convinced that trans* people are a threat to womankind and who has gone so far as to lobby against their basic human rights at the international level.

    And you seriously think these people have any credibility left.

    Regardless of what GG is *now*, the Zoe "controversy" IS actually what prompted gamergate. The person who actually created the #gamergate hashtag, Adam Baldwin, coined it while linking to the InternetAristocrat videos. Let's not revise history here.

    Again: Nobody is arguing against ethics in game journalism. But the GG movement comes across as petty, obsessive, and, dare I say a bit misogynist, when it obsesses over people like Anita (not a game journalist), Leigh (who writes opinion pieces), Brianna (not a game journalist), or Zoe (not a game journalist) while seemingly ignoring the far larger ethical issues at hand.

    Zoe "prompted" gamergate in the sense that everything from the deplorable wizardchan raid to gaming journalists refusing to report honestly on the attacks against TFYC's game jam and mass censorship of anything to do with her lit a powderkeg that was already there.

    As for allegedly obsessing over those three womenHard Math simply doesn't support that. Less than 10% of gamergate's tweets have gone to Anita, Zoe, Brianna, Kotaku, Leigh, Grayson, and Totilo combined. Even then 85-90% of the tweets to them were neutral, and Zoe, Anita, and Leigh got the least amount of negative tweets.

    Compare that to the tweets against gamergate where Leigh, Zoe, Chipman, Chu, and other major figures publicly condone and sometimes even take part in doxxing, filing false police reports, and as of the last day or two escalating to attempted SWATting. If you want misogyny and racism you need look no further than the tweets of people screaming slurs like "house n**" and the something like thirty odd people that have gotten knives and syringes in the mail, had the police sent to their homes, their income or internet cut off by fake reports, and even lost their jobs. Most of them weren't white, weren't cis or straight, or were women.

    The idea that they're ignoring larger issues is also simply not true. Even the Shadow of Mordor issue had the whistle blown by gamergate supporters and was a significant issue of discussion. Asking why gamergate isn't doing more about AAA companies right now is, basically, asking why they aren't doing gaming journalists' jobs for them even as said journalists obstruct every attempt at doing so.

    Which segues into the rest of your post...

    This explains why there is such concerted effort to attack and punish Gawker. Surely otherwise intelligent people realize that doing this isn't really going to effect positive change; Gawker has responded to their tactics with hostility. But GG doesn't care about that - they care about "winning the war" and punishing an organization they don't like. If they DID really care about ethics in journalism, the focus would be very different... say, for example, by creating and/or promoting sites that have stronger policies, or by appealing to journalists reasonably, as opposed to attacking Kotaku by carpetbombing its advertisers.

    Objections to that analysis?

    You make two major claims here that are both patently untrue:

    1. Gamergate did not "appeal to journalists reasonably" and

    2. Gamergate did not create/promote sites with better policies

    First off Journalists started this by publishing profanity filled screeds against "pissbabies" "obtuse shit slingers" and calling everyone ugly sexless white men while even reddit deleted over 25 THOUSAND posts on the subject. People TRIED to be reasonable, gamergate happened specifically because journalists refused that. The leak of the JournoList, which even Jimmy Wales himself has said is definitive proof of many of gamergate's claims, gives you a pretty good idea of why.

    Your second point is also objectively wrong. One of the very first things Gamergate did was promote or create alternate media sources with better ethics policies. You can't swing a cat in KotakuInAction or the hastag without someone linking you to multiple websites. They've even given a lot of respect to ChristCenteredGaming for showing exactly how you can review a game professionally and according to cultural/moral issues.

    I'll be honest Zircon I don't actually believe you spent any time on KotakuInAction. There's simply no way you could have missed this stuff unless you were deliberately trying to avoid it.

  10. especially since the game LOOKS like it's made by the team that did Sonic Rush...

    This would not be a good thing. Sonic Rush was easily as bad as Sonic Heroes. Where the latter was bad because of bugs and a horrible basic concept, the former was terrible because the whole game just constantly forced you to either go at mario speeds or play through twice to memorize all the random "HAHA GOTCHA" moments they threw in.

    I was afraid of getting on a spring because I knew it had a 50% chance of launching me at Mach Fuck straight into a baddie that wasn't visible and I couldn't avoid.

  11. Honestly I don't care if they go and cannibalize the original stuff and just run it through HQ4x as long as they don't go New-SMB on me and give me something with the shittiest most unreliable "Meh, Close Enough" clipping and hit detection ever.

    ^^^ That and if they follow after Sonic Rush and make the whole game a lot of "HAH GOTCHA" kills you need to memorize to survive and turn half the levels into gimmicky X-over-bottomless-death shite I'll be dissapointed. Look through all four classic sonic games and bottomless death pits are used quite sparingly compared to being the majority of a level as they are in the newer sonic games.

  12. Well, I think you could say that about alot of the classic oldschool games of that generation. It's personal preference, really. The Sonic games really made full use of the Genesis' sound engine above almost any other game on the system, and I have no problem saying that they easily rivaled the sound produced by the SNES. I think that's why we all love the music from those games in particular.

    On a side-note...I love how this topic went on the tangent of why we loved the old Genesis Sonic games. (and consequently why this new one should really stick to the precedent set by those games)

    I'm glad you put the "almost" in there because I still think subterrania beat Sonic to hell in pretty much every category except level size/length when it comes to technical impressiveness.

  13. you are probably an idiot in other ways since you are 16 but you're taste in movies is unhindered

    Mruphy's law: It is astronomically more likely that when pointing out grammar/spelling mistakes in someone's post or otherwise insulting their intelligence that you will make some of your own.

    The thread is a big tldr, but I really liked the movie. It was unashamed. You sat down, and the movie walked up and introduced itself. It says "Hi, I'm Trans-fucking-formers 2. So lemme lay it out for ya. I don't have a plot. We're gonna blow shit up for 2.5 hours, and when we aren't blowin' shit up, you'll be seeing Megan Fox a LOT. Like it, love it, or shove it."

    I've already said I'm cool with a movie whose main selling points are Megan Fox and giant robots beating the hell out of each other.

    That being said, I still want the third one to have intelligent plot and motherfucking UNICRON.

    And this time lets not go fantastic 4 and make it an evil cloud (oh no! Quick, someone get a desk fan). When I say Unicron I mean "that's no moon" with freakin tusks trying to eat the planet Unicron.

  14. Dude for $100 you can get sennheiser HD555s or ATH-AD700s both of which are open. ATH-A700s are the closed version.

    Its not just noise leakage btw, open headphones don't fatigue the ear as much for lack of air circulation and don't have quite the emphasis on bass but better overall balance.

    [edit]

    Who changed the sonic avatar? He's supposed to have green eyes in the older games.

  15. Anyone else get body horror dreams, or at least truly feel what they dreamed even when waking up? I mentioned lovecraftian horrors on Page 2, specifically I meant aside from seeing things that can only exist in dreams (impossible biology etc) I also get tortured in them.

    I mean it feels like a low blow that aside from the waking up in a cold and terrified sweat thing AND actually still feeling the second degree burn from getting your arm scalded while you were asleep.

×
×
  • Create New...