Messages

Hey, I loved this game. The music was great and really added to the immersion, the graphics were cute and the puzzles were creative and offered at least a little bit of challenge. Please make more.

Thanks!

I also liked your puzzles, Mandle, so I hope you don't get discouraged from posting more.

Spoiler

Green?

[close]

That was quick! Good work

For anyone wondering how to get to the solution:

Spoiler

Shorten "Hashtag one chocolate donut for two blueberry" to #1cd42b, which is a hex code for green.

[close]

Here's one (hopefully I'm not breaking any rules):

Donut exchange! Which one do you want? Hashtag one chocolate donut for two blueberry

BINGO!!! Well done! And, yeah, the hints in the initial puzzle post were the phrases "this thread" and "page by page".

Okay, cool! I'll post a new puzzle later today.

Old but gold.

Is it:

Spoiler

MOPED?

The first letter of the first post on the first page, then the seventh letter of the first post on the third page, and so on.

If that's the solution, I would never have gotten it without seeing Cassiebsg's attempts. 

[close]

Wow, the graphics and animations look adorable. I remember you working on this game back when I was still active, and that was ages ago, so good on you for bringing it this far. Best of luck with the final touches!

I call this the happy beer. It's kinda strange but I always get put in a better mood after I drink it.

Long time no see!

Here's a rather long one.

Thanks, Mandle

I don't care that Jack 'labelled' Clinton female - she is female. I object to him calling her the "most openly corrupt female politician in history."

Yeah, the insertion of female in there changes the context of the sentence entirely, since we are now comparing "female politicians",and not politicians x3 Its not even about being politically correct, but just regularly correct, if Jack had meant to compare her to all politicians.

I can agree with that, but I don't think we're talking about the same things here.

She is widely regarded as corrupt, and she is a woman. It doesn't matter so much how corrupt she is on a greater scale of things, it's just that she's a bad choice for a candidate, and her being a woman doesn't help the cause for women empowerment but rather hinders it. Why would women want to be represented by a female who's considered corrupt in the first place when there are other female politicians out there who are considered less corrupt than her? Okay, I know that a lot of Hillary hate stemmed from right-wing propaganda, but that's still the picture a lot of the people were seeing as reality, and they voted accordingly.

But anyway, it doesn't really matter. I'm just nitpicking at semantics and pragmatics here.

I don't mind you singling me out, but I don't see anything bigoted in dactylopus's quote.

Maybe bigotry wasn't the best expression, but I think it's a bit of an arrogant proposition to expect all women should follow this line of thought where they have to act offended by someone who gives sexist remarks. Okay, I acknowledge you can rightfully get offended by things like that, and you can get fucking pissed off when it affects you personally, but then don't get upset when somebody else doesn't. It's not the only way to look at the world, and some people simply feel like they have more important things to do in their life than fight for ideologies that don't affect them.

But the left and Jonathan Pie are beating themselves up for demonising Trump supporters. The names we used, the labels we threw around are to blame for his victory.

I didn't think that was about labels at all. More like our unwillingness to look out of our ivory towers and even acknowledge the idea that there could be actual reasons for someone being racist, or anything else that we consider inherently wrong.

Or as he puts it: 'We don't debate anymore because the left won the cultural war'.

But if we can't name bigotry for fear of causing offence, for fear of 'labelling' someone, then where does that get us?

That was supposed to be my line.

They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history.

The key word in this sentence is 'female'.

It was you who said that Jack should not refer to (= label) Hillary as female in such a context. I'd say being female is a rather noticeable trait, and still very much ingrained in our culture, whether you like it or not. It's also kind of noteworthy, especially considering no female has ever been a US president before. It wouldn't be bad to leave the word out, but it's not so bad to use it either. It's just so utterly irrelevant, if you ask me. It won't change anyone's opinion on women's level of corruption in general.

Besides, maybe Jack implicitly tried to argue that Hillary was set up as a candidate because she was a woman, which the DNC thought would get her extra political points from the "PC crew". But no, you decided that his use of the word is somehow bad, and that he "absolutely should remove the word female from that sentence".

That said, I feel bad for singling you out like that and droning on about this particular example. I think this passage makes for a worse case of accidental bigotry in this thread:

True, but when your choice is to vote for either the establishment, experienced woman versus the anti-establishment, inexperienced misogynist, one would think there's a clear winner.  What's more important to these women?  I guess voting against the establishment is more important than their own rights as human beings.  I guess voting for a hateful rapist is more important than someone who can actually identify with you and the struggles of all American women.

Yeah, that should teach these stupid women!

I'm sorry, Scavenger. I kind of wanted to specifically mention none of this was directed at you. I hope you're doing alright, wherever you are right now.

I agree it's a shame that political correctness and SJW came to mean what they mean today, and I probably shouldn't be using these terms so casually. It's just that I think it's hard for a number of people to keep track of what's okay to say and think and what isn't, and they can get frustrated to the point where they're altogether put off defending a cause they might have defended in the past.

What I meant by political correctness, personally, was things like Ali saying that Jack shouldn't use the word female when refering to Hillary being corrupt. I mean, I get it's a label, and her gender shouldn't have anything to do with being corrupt, but from a pragmatic point of view, someone who demonizes such labeling could do more harm than someone who casually uses it. Don't get me wrong Ali, I am definitely on your side in the bigger picture, but maybe it's not just people like me who should be more careful with their words.

Yeah, I'm also kind of surprised at all the political correctness radiating from this thread.
Just for the record, I think the guy is a delusional jerk who should never end up becoming president, but what can you do.

I am disappointed to see people using the term SJW on these forums. On the internet, of all places.

Social JUSTICE Warrior. If that sounds like a bad thing to you, you should strongly reconsider.

'Social justice warrior' is a sarcastic expression. Arguing why anyone sees it as a bad thing is like arguing why 'smartass' isn't a compliment. I wanted to reply to this bit earlier, but I didn't want to be labeled as a "racist misogynist" who should strongly reconsider.

I think this satirical sketch, or whatever it may be, could offer an interesting point of view to everyone who's completely baffled by Trump's supporters.
(Be warned though, it's really offensive and full of swearing.)

Thanks guys!

Well, what I meant was: if he says "My nose will grow now," and his nose takes a few miliseconds to process that information, he may as well be telling a lie when his nose starts growing - as "a few miliseconds" into the future wouldn't have to be understood as "now", technically speaking - and so he wouldn't be causing a paradox.

Well...If you said "My nose will grow 3 seconds from now" then potentially Pinocchio would have time to tell a lie in the meanwhile in which case the original statement would have been true and no paradox.

That's assuming he does, but what if he doesn't?

Sorry, I didn't mean to rush you or anything.

So I think Cuiki got the closest...

Naah, I really didn't. I think we were pretty much all there - just variations of one and the same idea.
Besides, if Pinocchio's nose is allowed to take a few moments to buffer before it does anything, "now" probably isn't the right word either...

The nose is a lie!