• Last Seen: 8 yrs ago
  • Old Guild Username: mbl
  • Joined: 13 yrs ago
  • Posts: 3648 (0.80 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. mdk 13 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

Recent Statuses

11 yrs ago
new leg today. I AM TERMINATOR REBORN
3 likes

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

If, in a universe of fiction, you have spirits that can interact with the physical plane, and ones that can't, which of the many synonyms for spirit would you label each kind?


You could just call them whatever works best, and if they can interact with the physical plane, they're 'corporeal wraiths' instead of just 'wraiths.'
Seriously. How the fuck do souls mismash their way through wobbly timey limey stuff?


Okay, so there are infinite variable timelines with infinite possibilities (or thereabouts), right? Now in one of those timelines, your parents shacked up on a Monday, but in another, they didn't do it until Thursday. The person born is still you, but the age and time isn't spot-on. That makes sense, right? But what if instead of a few days, it was a few years? And what if instead of just you, it's every generation stretching back to the first multi-celled organisms.

What I'm saying is, there's a lot of variables in play. "You" might have been born under entirely different circumstances -- entirely different -- in an infinite number of universes.

Is it still 'you,' if your parents never evolved past coelcanths? Possibly. Not necessarily -- but possibly. Your 'soul' is that indivisible part of yourself, your memory, your ambition, your dreams. It can exist in other worlds, and sometimes, when you sleep, it communes with itself.

TIME is a human construct. Your soul is what truly marks your existence, unbound from the laws of matter and energy and space. You exist now and then and in the past and in the future in a billion different worlds, and with practice, you can remember them all. Except for the versions of yourself which never evolved a brain, like probably whichever version of you is posting in Spam.
R + L = J for King.


So what you're saying is you're a wight supremacist.
<Snipped quote by mdk>

>Stannis was good.

Too bad literally ever piece of character development went down the tube when he burned Shireen.

Season five deserves every piece of hate it gets.


That was part of his development. This was a guy who had to be king -- didn't want it, didn't ask for it, it was his duty. He gave everything he cared about because that was his duty, and it broke him and everybody around him.

BUT IT DIDN'T KILL HIM HE'S STILL ALIVE BRIENNE SUCKS AT EVERYTHING HE'S GUARANTEED TO COME BACK
<Snipped quote by Shorticus>

I decided to look up if there was a game that used biblical history as a source, and now I'm seriously considering getting a few packs of Redemption cards.


Don't. Some of the cards look cool but it's just not a fun game to play.
I don't like the way they handled Stannis. It came off as... I dunno, anticlimactic.


Only because Stannis LIVES MANNIS IS STILL ALIVE GET HYPE MY LORDS!!!
you're all doing it wrong.

Everybody hates word.
<Snipped quote by mdk>

>Season Five
>Good

pick one.


The Wall was good. Tyrion-JBear was good. King's Landing was good. Brienne-Pod was good. Stannis was good. Boltons were good.

Dorne sucked ass and the battle in the snow was (appropriately) a depressing letdown. Mereen kinda sucked but it was better (and shorter) than the books, so I'll take it.

Overall it gets more hate than it deserved.
A serious question...

Would a fantasy or futuristic setting count for the "Snapshot in Time" thing if we try to paint a proper picture (with words or real paint), or should we focus on real-world history?


Sure why not. It was conceived as 'period piece,' which is traditionally past history -- but if you do a good enough job fleshing out the setting, why not future? It's a tall order though. Someone writes anything Victorian and you'll have a hill to climb for that award. But if you wanna try it, go for it!

Art-wise the ball is more in Roman's court. But I imagine the same principles apply.
As per always, whatever your interpretation of "snapshot" is, we count it. I suppose if you wanted to write a hockey story about a guy with a wicked-fast shooting motion he calls 'snapshot,' we'd count that too. "Image into story" is an old favorite of mine, personally, so I certainly wouldn't argue with that!
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet