BillyClark

My criteria is (1) whether I think people watching only the anime will enjoy it enough to keep making the rest, and (2) that the parts they animate don’t actively destroy the important parts of the story.

I understand there will always be people who read the book first, and then will find many things to be disappointed with in the adaptations, but I’ve always been the person who reads the books first and then still enjoys the movie or show, as long as the adaptation is good on its own.

I loved the Harry Potter movies. I loved the Lord of the Ring movies. I loved the first few seasons of Game of Thrones, until the last few seasons where everybody agreed it went to shit.

For Bookworm, I actually watched the earlier anime first, and wasn’t too impressed, just thinking it was above average. Then, I read the LNs, and the next time I watched it, it seemed so much better.

My biggest complaint about this season is how they didn’t even address after Wilfried was dragging around Rozemyne’s unconscious body except that he apologized later. I think that’s jarring for anybody.

I don’t know what other people think, but despite a few hiccups, I’ve been pretty happy with this season so far.

I can’t say anything about the general culture of Spain or the Netherlands, but I am an American who lived in Japan for a while and I have had similar thoughts.

My advice is to stop worrying about integrating like this. I’m not saying to stop integrating more. You’re a human so that is almost inevitable. It is the worrying that is the problem, not the integrating.

I don’t know how legit this is, but I heard that datacenters also where people store their catalytic converters when they change to electric vehicles.

Whenever capital punishment comes up, I am reminded of the hypocrisy of American Christians.

Pretty much every Christian claims to believe that killing is prohibited by the ten commandments. In a democracy, if you vote for a politician who supports the death penalty, you are asking them to kill a person on your behalf. A Christian should not be able to vote for a politician who supports the death penalty.

Compare that with abortion. The bible says virtually nothing about abortion except how to pray for one. If you vote for a pro-choice politician, nobody is being killed on your behalf.

Compare these two, and it’s obvious that a Christian who votes for a pro-death-penalty and anti-abortion candidate is voting against their own religion. But they claim to be voting for Christian values, which is pure hypocrisy.

Boss starts looking worried.

…because he thinks you’ve discovered his fetish.

The person in the comic is making a snarky comment to another person on the phone to show their disapproval. It may not be much, but it is something. After reading your other comment, I wasn’t expecting much from you, but I still thought any person with at least toddler-level intelligence would have the capacity to tell the difference between “something” and “not something.”

It’s just like Jesus said: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto me all of that cash in that inexplicably bulging wallet over there.”

I realize the UK isn’t seen as part of Europe by many following Brexit, but I’m reminded of a British person who said, after hanging out with Americans, that what they call “Going to the pub after work,” Americans would call “a serious drinking problem.”

They are doing something. The problem is that there are also other people, very powerful people, working against them.

I imagine you’re the kind of person who, if they watched sports, would be saying, “Why don’t they just score more points and win?”

Maybe they’re rubbing it in that spelling isn’t so important?

Same as the other polar extreme dogma.

My friend, after reading the rest of your comment, I suspect this is just a very unfortunate choice of words. Because you go on to talk about totalitarianism and although totalitarian regimes can force people to get abortions, it’s not a commonly held political view, at least among Westerners.

I suspect you meant to say “other extreme dogma.” But your use of “the” and “polar” would make every native English speaker think you intended to say “same as the extreme polar opposite dogma,” which means you’re talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.

I can’t be sure that you didn’t intend that meaning. If you did intend to mean pro-choice extremism, then you brought the response upon yourself. But if you didn’t, may I suggest you be more careful with wording, especially in your first sentences?

Anti-abortion is a position exclusively for unreasonable or irrational people.

I remember the first time I worked at a restaurant, it felt very wrong to start the dishwasher even though there were still dirty dishes not in the dishwasher.

But once I learned that lesson, it really helped me to become more lazy at home. Dishwasher missing a bunch of silverware? IDGAF. A half load of laundry? Start her up.

In my experience, things actually get cleaner if the machines aren’t totally full, as well.

One thing I learned while living in Japan and teaching English is that people who speak foreign languages might hear things differently from you.

The most striking example was that my students often couldn’t even hear the difference between “she” and “sea” unless I was pointing it out in isolation. The difference is obvious to English speakers, but subtle to Japanese speakers.

And yes, there are examples the other way, but they’re harder to explain here. Often, it’s the difference between vowel sounds. Japanese are more strict, but an English speaker might not distinguish between an ‘i’ and an ‘e’ sound at speed. And have a bigger tendency to slur their pronunciation in this case.

But anyway, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were similar things in French and English.

So how can you know if you’re speaking perfectly unless you check with a native? Only when you’re nearing fluency can you start to understand.

They’re both huge. This is medieval King Kong vs Mothra.

Lately, whenever I read an headline like this one, I start to feel like I’m losing my mind.

This can’t be the way things are supposed to go. It’s like I’m living in the Biff future in BTTF.

I don’t know if I’m smart or not, but I think part of the joke is that the husband doesn’t recognize that his now-wife is his former best friend, and that unlikely circumstance kept me from understanding the joke even though I read the explanation. (Not the explanation in this thread but the more ambiguous one in the other thread.)

I’m confused because you seem to think I am arguing with you, but I am just trying to make sure that we all understand what was actually said. Because I think if you look at what I said, and look at what you and other people said, you’ll see that there’s not much to argue about.

Here is what OP said:

It wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious.

You seem to have interpreted that to mean “It wouldn’t be as funny if it was obvious.”

Since OP said that their joke “wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious,” I thought they meant that the joke doesn’t work if they make it obvious.

A lot of double-entendre jokes are like that. But as you can probably tell from my original reply, I didn’t think this was that kind of joke. I never intended to disrespect anybody or anybody’s joke. I thought this joke was a sort of “I lost my wife” one-liner joke that Rodney Dangerfield might tell, but with the punchline played down. If it was that sort of joke, I have heard funny versions that were obvious.

You said that you disagreed with the assertion that most funny jokes are obvious after the punchline. It is the first sentence in your reply. And it is on that basis that I believed that is what you were talking about.