HarJIT

I love this!  I've always liked thinking-outside-the-box solutions to problems; the happy look on the Block's face makes it even better!
There's a song with a line about how "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table," and it always makes me want to tell the singer, "So turn the table on its side!"

On this page, Dan is making use of some (basic) cinematography that I don't remember paying attention to the last few times I read it. (Panel 1 and 9 in particular)
I'm not sure why I feel the need to point it out (most of you are probably thinking "well, duh"), but it just kinda proves to me even further than Dan is an awesome storyteller. And knew how to use his panels even back in 2005 ^_^;

Given the original script had ben kenobi rolling his eyes at han when he said that, (you can find it online, check google) I think it was meant to be wrong on purpose, at first. like a "you idiot, you don't even know what you're saying, do you?" moment.
I blame Lucas.

From wookieepedia:
 

I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember someone mentioning that the 12 parsec thing was more of a distance traveled rather than time, and referred to Han Solo possibly cutting a lot of corners and going through more dangerous territory.

Well,they are still the same species, so you might say that was metamorphosis not evolution. 

https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Mail_daemon

In the land of fiction and imagination, the laws of physics really do count for nothing. And that is a wonderful thing.

I usually have the same gender identity that Dan states. It wobbles a bit. If it wobbles far enough in one direction, I get mild dysphoria - I've had that for a few hours total, and even that sucks, making me very glad I am not trans. I have no similar guide to how far it wobbles in the other direction, but I suspect my normal range is fairly symmetrical.
Sexual (and romantic) orientation, though, I am very solidly - perhaps unusually solidly - gynophilic.
Hot-wing sauce, medium-mild. (On most shops' 5-star scales I go for 2 stars.)

We have that much in common, then. This is really all about being considerate, and for me at least that often involves a certain amount of trial and error. :/

I know some places have the option of "muting" people so you don't see their posts, but never heard of an "I don't want this person seeing my posts" option, seems like something that could be abused like a person giving themself the ability to trashtalk another person, moderators would have to be immune to such an option though.

.... hmmm ... by the way, why there is no "inverse ban" option on forum (or at least, on most forums), meaning a way to make specific person not see your posts?

I honestly don't understand why we are discussing this. What use is it to get up in arms over the term 'trigger warning'? If it's not applicable to you it should be easy enough to ignore, and if it's applicable then it filled a purpose. Just remind yourself that 'you' are not 'everyone'
I usually don't do trigger warnings, but then I'm usually not discussing the most common trigger subjects. I do also try to adapt to the local customs for whatever forum I'm in. So if I'm posting on a suicide forum I will take a good look at my post and try to include trigger warnings that fit the site, the sub-forum and the thread. If I'm posting here though, you are not likely to find a trigger warning unless it's in a thread where some one expressively asked for it.
All in all I don't see the problem or the need to argue about them. If you think someone is spamming trigger warnings just ignore them. If someone gets in your face and demand you use trigger warnings then look at what they write and decide for your self if you think it's valid. Don't just assume that they are full of it because you're unable to see the problem, so don't be an ass, and if someone goes 'full retard' on you I suggest you seriously considers just moving on or blocking them if the site supports that option.
This isn't in any way the perfect way to treat this subject, just what I've found works for me. You can't please everyone, and you don't want to, but you should at least try  to not be an ass about it.
 

Note: this post wil bring up subjects like rape, abuse, and torture.
People do misuse the term.  Usually either people who don't care whether someone else suffers, and don't think they should have to be courteous or respectful either, and therefore should be able to say anything they want to anyone they want; or people who enjoy seeing someone else in distress, and deliberately troll them.  Putting "Trigger warning: Food" likely is someone who is deliberately trying to distress people for whom the term is an important tool in coping with their trauma.  Or, perhaps, it's somone who know that there *is* someone within the group they're talking to who is recovering from anorexia nervosa or bulimia, both extremely serious life-threatening illnesses.
Why on earth would you assume they're not "trying to fix their problem"??  Do you honestly think that someone  who has been raped, or abused, or a veteran with PTSD, is going to be able to learn how to cope with their problem while shut away, and shouldn't be allowed out in the world unless they somehow achieve perfect mental health first?  I hope you're prepared to pay a heck of a lot more in taxes to pay for all these people you want locked away for the rest of their lives!
A trigger warning isn't a way to avoid a problem completely, it's a way to get yourself mentally prepared for having to cope with something that might cause serious distress if you come across it without warning.  It still causes distress, but it's easier to cope with if you have some sort of warning it's coming.  If someone's story involves describing how they were raped, there are likely women in the audience who were themselves raped, and for some of them, it was recently enough or bad enough that they need that chance to prepare themselves mentally, or even remove themselves from the situation, before the description starts.  No one it doesn't apply to is harmed by including the trigger warning, so why are you so offended by them?
And what business is it of yours?  You have the right to demand that someone dealing with a trauma has to tell you all about it before you'll believe that they were traumatized?  Sometimes people aren't ready to share their private mental health issues with the entire world.  Some people are so freshly traumatized by what they saw and did in the war that they can't talk about it except with their therapist(s).  And some people haven't told anyone that their father raped them every night from age six to fourteen, and they certainly shouldn't have to start wth you!
Putting a note like "Trigger warning: rape, incest" or starting a radio program with "This program contains graphic descriptions of torture" is not so heavy or unreasonable a burden that anyone has the right to dismiss and ignore it just because they don't feel like bothering.
It's like people who think they should have the right to light up a cigarette in the middle of a crowd any time they feel like it, and anyone with allergies, emphysema, COPD, or other respiratory problems, or who just wants to avoid getting cancer, well, that's just too damn bad for them, even if the smoke puts them in the hospital or the morgue.  (And yes, there are people with medicalconditions that bad, and they should be able to enjoy life just as much as anyone else.  I attended a convention back before the ban on smoking indoors or near doorways was quite so universal, with Wil Wheaten as a guest, in which he mentioned that he had a lung problem that serious, that tobacco smoke could kill him, and that was why the venue would be enforcing especially strict smoking rules.)
Now, if someone really does reply with "I'm triggered that you're triggered," then that person is a troll and a jerk.  It's that person you should be directing your ire at, not people who are doing their best to live with horrors in their past.

I would also think that if someone were to say "I'm triggered by this." then they're more likely to be a troll. Someone who is actually bothered by something should state how and why it bothers them. Just saying "I'm triggered" tends to be followed up with "I'm triggered that you're triggered!" and any sense of there being any real discussion becomes lost.

I thought all of the books had some merit, but they suffered from 1) too much graphic violence and other misery, which I'm not opposed to in general but found wearing given so much of it, and 2) a desperate need for a good editor to tell GRRM to quit adding so many new characters, places, etc.  The later books reminded me of the later Harry Potter books, when J. K. Rowling was so in demand that no one could tell her what to do any more.
A good editor is vital to help a writer tighten up their story.  To tell a writer "I know you put your heart and soul into every one of these characters, and this new one is a particular favorite, but you've got too many characters already -- give the action here to these other characters you already have who you haven't used in half a book, and cut the page count for this section in half."  "Got that page count cut in half?  Okay, let's see.....hmm, I think you can lose another twenty pages, and these two scenes are redundant, take out one of them and put the good bits in the other."  "Four more Greyjoys?  You don't really need that many, combine them into two at most.  And why on earth are you sending a total stranger fake-Stark to Winterfell when you aren't really doing anything with one of the real Stark girls for this huge section here?"
That's one thing I've really appreciated about the TV series, the writers have done a lot of the editing to bring down the character count to something a lot more manageable and reassign plots in ways that make a lot more sense.

Even though I disagree strongly, I respect the courage Dan has shown here.
I was raised to believe that those who claimed to prefer "mild" seasoning were culinary wimps.  I may have been wrong about that broad generalization.
But I still contend that those in the highest levels of the food service business have done a disservice to their customers by not including Spicy AND Sweet as a standard option.

Yeah, both of these. I give benefit of the doubt on this stuff, especially for allergies. I am allergic to shellfish in an unusual way: my body can't handle the iodine contained in the sea bugs and it rejects it. Violently. (I basically end up vomiting for hours). One of my relatives decided this couldn't possibly be a real allergy (because shellfish allergy results in anaphylactic shock, nothing else, y'see), and that I merely had only ever had shrimp that'd gone bad. So in a meal they didn't inform me that it contained shellfish, thinking they'd prove their point about me not knowing what I was talking about. Hours later I was still vomiting every few minutes.

Isn't she?  Abby is already adorable, so it's hard to cross anyone with her and not get an adorable result.
I'm just wondering on what basis you make that conclusion.  How do *you* know whether a given person is actually prone to genuine psychological harm?  Must you actually *see* them have an externally visible panic attack before you'll believe them?  If so, that seems like a rather harsh requirement; if not, then how do you decide who you believe and who you don't?  Because frankly, I see an awful lot of people whose criteria seems to be either whether they like or dislike the person in question, or whether they themselves are bothered by the thing that the other person is triggered by.  And if you are disbelieving people who have genuine psychological harm, that's probably causing them even more harm.
Again, how do *you* know whether someone is actually allergic to something or they "just strongly dislike it"?  Do you only count people who have an *immediate*, visible, life-threatening anaphylaxis to have "real" allergies?  Or would someone who is, oh, just for an example, allergic to tobacco smoke but suffers scratchy throat, itchy eyes, and clogged sinuses for a couple of *days* after exposure but doesn't actually collapse in front of you turning blue, count as an "allergy" in your book?
I missed those tweets!  I had to avoid Twitter for a bit until I could catch up with GoT, and even at the best of times I'm a sporadic tweet-reader.  It's a pity no one seems to be keeping up the Word Of Dan thread, which was designed to collect stuff he says elsewhere....

drives in on a forklift carrying a steel drum labeled ClF3
One order of unquenchable fire?

Diane seriously needs to learn Nerd is not a thing to be ashamed of, especially in this day and age.
D'aww, I think this would be Elliot and Ashley's first kiss as boy/girl.
Strange thing is, even though Sirleck is a detestable parasite, feel like that last panel makes me far more disgusted with this creature now more than ever. 

Well, it would be his actual neck, except for the fact that he doesn't have a neck.

Ashley has some similarity to Akiko.
Nanase is reacting as if her little sister was throwing herself at her ex.

I don't think it has safeties against being used as a bludgeoning implement. Or of the form it gives someone being weaker, letting them get killed more easily by a bludgeoning implement.