Story Tuesday, June 14, 2016

[mlooney 3,417]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Are you sure it's just coincidence?

 

 

Pretty sure. The order of weird stuff

Hit by lightning (1980)

Bitten by rabid dog

Near death experience via electric shock

Falling of rope while doing a fast rope exercise from helicopter

1st mental breakdown

Long pause in weirdness

Became on call tech support for most of the strip clubs in town

Dated several dancers, ending with marriage to one

Started running "Amateur style" bondage websites

Got job as a programmer due to bondage websites

Surfing for porn part of my job description

2nd breakdown

Poly relationship

3rd breakdown, separation of marriage and end of polyship. Pretty much all at once. And in that order.

Started reading EGS

Put on disability. (2015)

 

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Similarly to Archie, Grace may take physical closeness very differently than humans. ESPECIALLY with how screwed her "home life" was. On the other hand, where exactly are the boundaries? The story with Archie was extremely short, we are not really sure what was the problem.

Yeah we don't know everything about Archie, but what we did see suggests that Archie was more interested in a non sexual relationship which is why his relationship with second life Ellen failed.

Like ... it's possible that it was the ROMANTIC part of relationship he didn't liked. I'm not sure where exactly are boundaries between cuddling and sex (for Archie) and how much against sex he is (and how much he just doesn't care). Ellen thinks he break up with her because of the sex, but she also said it was doomed from the start ... maybe it was something else. Maybe she started to be possessive or something and THAT was the reason he wanted out.

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

Grace may also not be interested in actual sex at the moment or her and Tedd agreed to wait

Yeah sure ... I mean, while I personally don't believe that, yes, based on canon information it is possible.

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

but she's certainly more romantically active than what was suggested with Archie, her and Tedd kiss frequently

Her romantic interest is certain and yes, it's true we didn't saw Archie kissing anyone ... on the other hand, she also kissed Sarah and we are not sure how much it meant for her.

It's really hard: our only other example being Archie, we can't really say what's normal for her, what could be influence of her childhood and what she might just pretend.

(On the other hand, it's not as easy as people usually think for humans either, based on how often are guesses like this wrong.)

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

I'm not sure if she would strip search anyone of the other main characters looking for magic marks like she did with Tedd

Based on what they said, it seems SHE didn't take that as "sexual activity", while Tedd sort of did ...

2 hours ago, mlooney said:

Hit by lightning (1980)

Bitten by rabid dog

Near death experience via electric shock

Falling of rope while doing a fast rope exercise from helicopter

1st mental breakdown

Long pause in weirdness

Became on call tech support for most of the strip clubs in town

Since the tech support part, everything makes sense. But this start really looks weird.

[Scotty 1,061]

59 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Like ... it's possible that it was the ROMANTIC part of relationship he didn't liked. I'm not sure where exactly are boundaries between cuddling and sex (for Archie) and how much against sex he is (and how much he just doesn't care). Ellen thinks he break up with her because of the sex, but she also said it was doomed from the start ... maybe it was something else. Maybe she started to be possessive or something and THAT was the reason he wanted out.

The way Ellen described it, her second life counterpart was more interested in a physical relationship, while Archie was more into mental connections and cuddling. That's why it was doomed from the start. I think if we were to draw parallels here, what Ellen and Archie did would basically have been what could have happened with Elliot and Sarah but Elliot was afraid of giving into lust with Sarah because of not only the possibility of getting Sarah pregnant at a young age (like what happened with his mom) but also the possibility of ruining their friendship. Ellen's second life counterpart thankfully regretted her descisions and so her and Archie were able to remain friends.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Yeah sure ... I mean, while I personally don't believe that, yes, based on canon information it is possible.

Yeah, I can talk about possibilities and such in regards to this but I'll admit Dan's been very vague about whether Grace and Tedd gone that far. It's canon that Grace can't get pregnant in her half squirrel form so it's really a matter of whether Grace wanted to or not, I think we know Tedd's answer if asked though.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Based on what they said, it seems SHE didn't take that as "sexual activity", while Tedd sort of did ...

Yeah, but her relationship with Tedd allowed her to suggest doing a search like that, she didn't try that with Justin and likely wouldn't with Rhoda and Catalina, though I'm sure she wouldn't be opposed to it if they asked her to help look.

[mlooney 3,417]

6 hours ago, hkmaly said:

 

Since the tech support part, everything makes sense. But this start really looks weird.

Wartime isn't the only time that being in the army is dangerous.

Granted I was more unlucky than most. The hit by lightning through the near death experience all happened in the same summer/early autumn.  Best year of my life and I an not being sarcastic.

[Matoyak 51]

8 hours ago, mlooney said:

9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Are you sure it's just coincidence?

Pretty sure. The order of weird stuff

Hit by lightning (1980)

<time potentially passes>

Poly relationship

And how certain are you that you aren't a time traveler?

[mlooney 3,417]

1 hour ago, Matoyak said:

And how certain are you that you aren't a time traveler?

About 85% sure

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 hour ago, mlooney said:

About 85% sure

I don't care if you are a time traveller. NO summoning Elder Gods, you hear? Not by you and not by your hardware. If I wake up to news headlines that OK has been consumed by an awakening nightmare from beyond time and space, I am SO giving your ass a warning point.

[ijuin 572]

I think that ought to be worth two points, actually.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

Just now, ijuin said:

I think that ought to be worth two points, actually.

Hush you. You are not a moderator. As long as it is a first offence and not too large tracts of land are involved, only one warning point.

[mlooney 3,417]

44 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I don't care if you are a time traveller. NO summoning Elder Gods, you hear? Not by you and not by your hardware. If I wake up to news headlines that OK has been consumed by an awakening nightmare from beyond time and space, I am SO giving your ass a warning point.

 

21 minutes ago, ijuin said:

I think that ought to be worth two points, actually.

If either of you knew what Oklahoma is really like you would not be making threats about me or my dish washer sending it beyond time and space.  Would be an improvement for the most part.  Mainly.

[Scotty 1,061]

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Hush you. You are not a moderator. As long as it is a first offence and not too large tracts of land are involved, only one warning point.

There's something....funny...about this post.

Can't quite put my finger on it.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

50 minutes ago, mlooney said:

 

If either of you knew what Oklahoma is really like you would not be making threats about me or my dish washer sending it beyond time and space.  Would be an improvement for the most part.  Mainly.

It's a matter of principle. If I start letting my posters randomly demolish parts of the Earth's surface, all the other moderators will laugh at me.

[Cpt. Obvious 73]

12 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

It's a matter of principle. If I start letting my posters randomly demolish parts of the Earth's surface, all the other moderators will laugh at me.

“You are vain and wicked- as a genius should be."
 

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

 

1 hour ago, mlooney said:

If either of you knew what Oklahoma is really like you would not be making threats about me or my dish washer sending it beyond time and space.  Would be an improvement for the most part.  Mainly.

In as much as it is possible for people to truly comprehend the suffering of others with a dissimilar background, we do appreciate and understand the trouble of living in Oklahoma.

Having said that, we have very selfish reasons for keeping the Sooner State where it is.

Oklahoma is a vital keystone that holds Texas in place.  Were it to be removed, Texas would immediately expand to fill the vacuum.  Swelling far faster than Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, or Kansas could spread into the void.  That small burst of expansionist momentum could quickly lead to a Texas Bang (similar to a Big Bang, but since everything in Texas is "Big", including that word in the description would be redundant).

All the safe red states between the Rockies and the Smokies would become Texas counties, and those of us who don't know anything about cattle or oil would be forced to wear Stetson knock-offs in a vain attempt to fit in with ya'll.

[mlooney 3,417]

1 minute ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

 

In as much as it is possible for people to truly comprehend the suffering of others with a dissimilar background, we do appreciate and understand the trouble of living in Oklahoma.

Having said that, we have very selfish reasons for keeping the Sooner State where it is.

Oklahoma is a vital keystone that holds Texas in place.  Were it to be removed, Texas would immediately expand to fill the vacuum.  Swelling far faster than Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, or Kansas could spread into the void.  That small burst of expansionist momentum could quickly lead to a Texas Bang (similar to a Big Bang, but since everything in Texas is "Big", including that word in the description would be redundant).

All the safe red states between the Rockies and the Smokies would become Texas counties, and those of us who don't know anything about cattle or oil would be forced to wear Stetson knock-offs in a vain attempt to fit in with ya'll.

Y'all NOT ya'll.  It's a contraction for 'you all' and it always means plural.

 

[vvaivi 2]

Is the population of Greater Seyunolus (say-un-oh-lus?) great enough to provide statistically significant data on the % of asexual and polyamorous Greater Seyunolus?

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

12 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Y'all NOT ya'll.  It's a contraction for 'you all' and it always means plural.

See, this is exactly what I mean.  The rest of us will have no place in the new society if Texas is allowed to expand unchecked.  Our outsider status will be beyond obvious.

In this eventuality, there was a contingency plan for counter attack that would launch from the Indianapolis 500.  But it seems implausible now since NASCAR loyalists have overtaken the Indy Car Tories.

[ijuin 572]

3 hours ago, Scotty said:

There's something....funny...about this post.

Can't quite put my finger on it.

I think it's the usage of "two large tracts of land".

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

4 hours ago, mlooney said:

Y'all NOT ya'll.  It's a contraction for 'you all' and it always means plural.

Then what's "all y'all"?  That might could be plural.

[Matoyak 51]

14 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

4 hours ago, mlooney said:

Y'all NOT ya'll.  It's a contraction for 'you all' and it always means plural.

Then what's "all y'all"?  That might could be plural.

Yeah, this is actually a point of contention. Y'all can be (and is frequently) used on a single individual, with  "all y'all" being used for a group. I personally only occasionally use "all y'all" and instead just use "y'all" as both plural and singular. ~shrug~ Sometimes I also just say "you".

[Circe 32]

1 hour ago, Matoyak said:

Yeah, this is actually a point of contention. Y'all can be (and is frequently) used on a single individual, with  "all y'all" being used for a group. I personally only occasionally use "all y'all" and instead just use "y'all" as both plural and singular. ~shrug~ Sometimes I also just say "you".

The way my Southern relatives explain it is like this:

You - one person

Y'All - one - four people

All y'all - five or more people

 

[Matoyak 51]

 

47 minutes ago, Circe said:

2 hours ago, Matoyak said:

Yeah, this is actually a point of contention. Y'all can be (and is frequently) used on a single individual, with  "all y'all" being used for a group. I personally only occasionally use "all y'all" and instead just use "y'all" as both plural and singular. ~shrug~ Sometimes I also just say "you".

The way my Southern relatives explain it is like this:

You - one person

Y'All - one - four people

All y'all - five or more people

~nods~ It'll depend on the person, and where in the south one is located. Even here in Texas I see wide disagreement on it. (Even words like "Howdy?" have disagreement. Some view it as a general "hello" and others view it as the question it is "How are you doing?". [Guess which one I subscribe to. ])

[Scotty 1,061]

2 minutes ago, Matoyak said:

 

~nods~ It'll depend on the person, and where in the south one is located. Even here in Texas I see wide disagreement on it. (Even words like "Howdy?" have disagreement. Some view it as a general "hello" and others view it as the question it is "How are you doing?". [Guess which one I subscribe to. ])

I can see where howdy would have started off as "how do you do?" then getting shortened to "howdya do?" then again to "howdy?".

[pfc 1]

22 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Many polyamorous people see their whole family, of whatever size, as one relationship.  While you can break it down into elements,  such as (Alice and Bob) (Alice and Charlie) (Bob and Charlie), those are not the whole relationship, any more than hydrogen and oxygen taken separately are all there is to water.

Sure, some poly people view things that way, but many, many people don't. The problem here is that the comic is talking about the definition of poly, and equating it with triads.

Don't get me wrong, those relationships absolutely exist in the poly community, especially when everyone's queer. If you're dating someone, odds are good you'll be interested in the kind of people *they* are dating. I'm poly and I'm dating a partner (D) of my primary partner (B)'s partner (K), and D is interested in dating B-- and I could see myself dating K. So if that went down, we'd all be dating each other. At the same time, just because of the dynamics of our group, that would be a series of separate relationships, even though we hang out together a lot.

But also, including everyone's partners in your "family" can sometimes be downright impossible. When you're talking about a large community, it would be a logistical nightmare. Pretty much everyone I'm dating, or who is dating someone I'm dating, has a long-distance relationship with someone who has their own poly community where they live. Not only am I unlikely ever to meet these people, I'm definitely never going to meet their partners!

So I have no objection to acknowledging the existence of triads... I just think it's important to clarify that "poly" is a broad term for dating multiple people (not necessarily all at once) and that specific types of relationships within that (solo poly, triad, primary, anchor, etc) are just that, subsets. It's frustrating that people assume that because you're poly, you're a. in a sister-wives scenario or b. in a triad relationship!

[Matoyak 51]

50 minutes ago, Scotty said:

55 minutes ago, Matoyak said:

~nods~ It'll depend on the person, and where in the south one is located. Even here in Texas I see wide disagreement on it. (Even words like "Howdy?" have disagreement. Some view it as a general "hello" and others view it as the question it is "How are you doing?". [Guess which one I subscribe to. ])

I can see where howdy would have started off as "how do you do?" then getting shortened to "howdya do?" then again to "howdy?".

That is the etymology as I understand it, yeah. Some people nowadays just use it as another "hello", though.

50 minutes ago, pfc said:

So I have no objection to acknowledging the existence of triads... I just think it's important to clarify that "poly" is a broad term for dating multiple people (not necessarily all at once) and that specific types of relationships within that (solo poly, triad, primary, anchor, etc) are just that, subsets. It's frustrating that people assume that because you're poly, you're a. in a sister-wives scenario or b. in a triad relationship!

Dan mentioned on Tumblr that he was aware of an issue in today's comic related to the definition of polyamory in it, and that he'd be addressing it in the next comic. I suspect this is what he's talking about.