• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Stature

NP Wednesday March 28, 2018

Recommended Posts

"I thought you were doing your revision, but no, I find you having a proper think!"

I wonder whether Susan has settled on an appropriate baseball equivalent for herself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Elliot saw Ashley like that, he might be stunned by the hotness.

No check that, if he saw most of the transformations Ashley and Susan had during the game, he might die from the hotness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

So it's confirmed, Catalina and Rhoda are both switches.  :-)

Pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mlooney said:
Just now, CritterKeeper said:

So it's confirmed, Catalina and Rhoda are both switches.  :-)

Pretty much.

Possible, it's been discussed numerous times whether Rhoda is sub or domme didn't think it applied as easily to Catalina though.

Although, Rhoda could just be indulging in the fact that Catalina is currently wearing a crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Susan was willing to play the game, at least in part, because the transformations that would happen to her would be outside her control.

But now she must chose a temporary transformation.
She must make that choice knowing that it is her choice alone.
She must make that choice knowing that the others around her know that it is her choice alone.

If you go into someone's home for a meal, you eat what you are served.
If you go to a pot-luck or buffet, your choices are limited to what has already been prepared and presented.
But if you are handed a menu, then the servers, the kitchen staff, and anyone who sees your dishes being presented knows that you have asked for that specific meal.

It can, at times, be difficult to publicly admit "I want this".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, partner555 said:

If Elliot saw Ashley like that, he might be stunned by the hotness.

No check that, if he saw most of the transformations Ashley and Susan had during the game, he might die from the hotness.

He has simple way to save himself in situations like that: switch to party form.

19 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

My guess: Susan's trying to figure out if she has the courage to ask for the cow form again.

My guess is she's thinking about mind-bending transformation.

Energize ... or pony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Susan was willing to play the game, at least in part, because the transformations that would happen to her would be outside her control.

But now she must chose a temporary transformation.
She must make that choice knowing that it is her choice alone.
She must make that choice knowing that the others around her know that it is her choice alone.

If you go into someone's home for a meal, you eat what you are served.
If you go to a pot-luck or buffet, your choices are limited to what has already been prepared and presented.
But if you are handed a menu, then the servers, the kitchen staff, and anyone who sees your dishes being presented knows that you have asked for that specific meal.

It can, at times, be difficult to publicly admit "I want this".

It's also moving from a safe, controlled, private setting into a more public, out-of-control venue.

Some kinky people only feel safe giving over control to one specific person, but do it in privacy and isolation, meaning that the person in control could abuse it if they chose to.  Others prefer to play in a "dungeon" or "playspace", where there are monitors and rules and they know if they call out the safeword everyone will make sure their wishes are honored, and everyone else there is also kinky in some way, but those other people also get to see them vulnerable.  It's a whole 'nother level to participate in kinky dress, activities, protests etc. out in public, where outsiders who don't already understand kinkiness will be seeing and judging.  Some people can be real jerks, whether due to malice or ignorance, and that sort of attack is not a "good pain"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

A common element in the vast majority of human problems.

It is one reason we are glad to have you around, old friend. As a god among men you are many things, but one thing you are not is a jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find eighty pounds of white chocolate macadamia cookies this late at night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ijuin said:

I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find eighty pounds of white chocolate macadamia cookies this late at night?

There are a number of 24-hour grocery stores....   

(obligatory protest that "white chocolate" isn't chocolate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CritterKeeper said:

(obligatory protest that "white chocolate" isn't chocolate)

Depends on what is being passed as "white chocolate".  There is cocoa-butter white chocolate is uses the byproduct of chocolate processing, so it's certainly of the chocolate family even though it has none of the nutritional value of dark chocolate (though if the cocoa-butter isn't processed further, it does have lots of vit-E but it also has a very strong taste).

There's a lot of "white chocolate" knock-offs that use hydrogenated vegetable oils and animal fats which of course isn't anywhere near related to chocolate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty said:

Depends on what is being passed as "white chocolate".  There is cocoa-butter white chocolate is uses the byproduct of chocolate processing, so it's certainly of the chocolate family even though it has none of the nutritional value of dark chocolate (though if the cocoa-butter isn't processed further, it does have lots of vit-E but it also has a very strong taste).

There's a lot of "white chocolate" knock-offs that use hydrogenated vegetable oils and animal fats which of course isn't anywhere near related to chocolate.

I was curious to see how Subway labels their cookies with "white chocolate chips" and was impressed to see that there is no false advertising in their name or ingredient list:

Quote

WHITE CHIP MACADAMIA NUT Enriched flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), sugar, white confectionery chips (sugar, palm kernel and palm oil, nonfat dry milk, soy lecithin, vanilla extract), palm oil, macadamia nuts, eggs, water, butter (cream [milk], natural flavor), contains 2% or less of: molasses, salt, baking soda, corn starch, natural flavors (contains milk). Contains: eggs, macadamia nuts, milk, soy, and wheat.

So, they don't apply the word "chocolate" to their chips, in the ingredients list nor in the cookie name.  People probably don't even notice.  I like the idea of calling them "white confectionary chips" personally.  Perhaps that's a rule now, that only chips with actual cocoa butter are allowed to use the word "chocolate" in their name?  Let's see.....per Wikipedia:

Quote

Regulations govern what may be marketed as "white chocolate": In the United States, since 2004, white chocolate must be (by weight) at least 20% cocoa butter, 14% total milk solids, and 3.5% milk fat, and no more than 55% sugar or other sweeteners.[6] Before this date, American firms required temporary marketing permits to sell white chocolate. The European Union has adopted the same standards, except that there is no limit on sugar or sweeteners.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

I was curious to see how Subway labels their cookies with "white chocolate chips" and was impressed to see that there is no false advertising in their name or ingredient list:

So, they don't apply the word "chocolate" to their chips, in the ingredients list nor in the cookie name.  People probably don't even notice.  I like the idea of calling them "white confectionary chips" personally.  Perhaps that's a rule now, that only chips with actual cocoa butter are allowed to use the word "chocolate" in their name?  Let's see.....

 

Ahh, I had assumed you were laying a blanket claim that white chocolate wasn't chocolate, and I thought I was trying to correct that, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So we appear to be in agreement.

Though honestly, I was thinking that "as long as it's made with cocoa butter, it's still chocolate" but apparently by Canadian standards, even if it's 20% cocoa butter but sweetened with aspartame, it's no longer chocolate. I guess it matters what extras you add to it, but that also applies to dark and milk "chocolate" where any cocoa butter is substituted by vegetable or animal fats or oils.

Quote

The use of cocoa butter substitutes in Canada is not permitted. Chocolate sold in Canada cannot contain vegetable fats or oils.[18]

The only sweetening agents permitted in chocolate in Canada are listed in Division 18 of the Food and Drug Regulations.[19]Artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame potassium, and sugar alcohols (sorbitol, maltitol, etc.) are not permitted.

Products manufactured or imported into Canada that contain non-permitted ingredients (vegetable fats or oils, artificial sweeteners) cannot legally be called "chocolate" when sold in Canada. A non-standardized name such as "candy" must be used

As long as it has at least an appropriate amount of cocoa butter, no vegetable fats or artificial sweeteners, it's considered chocolate. Otherwise it's a knock-off and must be called something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

 

Quote

Regulations govern what may be marketed as "white chocolate": In the United States, since 2004, white chocolate must be (by weight) at least 20% cocoa butter, 14% total milk solids, and 3.5% milk fat, and no more than 55% sugar or other sweeteners.[6] Before this date, American firms required temporary marketing permits to sell white chocolate. The European Union has adopted the same standards, except that there is no limit on sugar or sweeteners.

If they hit the minimums given, and the maximum for sweeteners, there is still 7.5% not accounted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:
3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

Regulations govern what may be marketed as "white chocolate": In the United States, since 2004, white chocolate must be (by weight) at least 20% cocoa butter, 14% total milk solids, and 3.5% milk fat, and no more than 55% sugar or other sweeteners.[6] Before this date, American firms required temporary marketing permits to sell white chocolate. The European Union has adopted the same standards, except that there is no limit on sugar or sweeteners.

If they hit the minimums given, and the maximum for sweeteners, there is still 7.5% not accounted for.

... I suspect that you need some water in that mix if you want it to keep shape and not turn into heap of powder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... I suspect that you need some water in that mix if you want it to keep shape and not turn into heap of powder.

Bollocking dihydrogen oxide. It gets everywhere and no-one seems to do anything about it. Do you realise that it is so prevalent that people are actually born dependent on it? It is so addictive that you can barely go without it for a few hours before you start to notice. It's a planetary crisis and the governments don't even care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Bollocking dihydrogen oxide. It gets everywhere and ...the governments don't even care.

The current governments, maybe.

We who governed the Ancient Lands of Egypt tend to avoid water.

Ramses II, for example, hasn't touched a drop in over four millennia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Ramses II, for example, hasn't touched a drop in over four millennia.

Good for him. That stuff is lethal. My great-uncle died from it.

Granted, that was because the ship he was aboard sank after hitting a mine, but you could with some justice call it an overdose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
9 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Ramses II, for example, hasn't touched a drop in over four millennia.

Good for him. That stuff is lethal. My great-uncle died from it.

Granted, that was because the ship he was aboard sank after hitting a mine, but you could with some justice call it an overdose.

Actually, he most likely died on withdrawal symptoms of another nasty stuff, oxygen. You think dihydrogen monoxide with several hours until you notice is bad? With oxygen it can be even less than minute!

On the other hand, there are organisms not addicted to oxygen. Single-cell, but still. Everything is addicted to water. It's so universal scientists are not even bothering to search for life unless there is water it can be addicted to around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now