# Forum > Discussion > Friendly Banter >  Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes

## Ionathus

Do you have a rant you need to get off your chest? A rant about something *small*? Something so unimportant that you're flabbergasted it's still on your mind? Something that's so bafflingly non-polarizing that you yourself are shocked by your possession of an opinion on the subject? 

Well, so do I. Welcome, friend. 

Two rules:
You must share a hot-take. A rant. It's got to be a bold claim and you've got to feel strongly about it.Your rant MUST be terminally unimportant. Like, Ryan Gosling's SNL Papyrus sketch levels of unimportant. Bonus points if nobody else can even _understand_ why it upsets you.No dissecting other people's rants. Helpful observations or discussion is encouraged, but please don't turn it into a full-on debate! Hopefully these things are already too inconsequential to be worth debating...Yes I am aware of how naïve that sounds on this forum :DI'll go first.

*Spoiler: RANT - Avatar: The Last Airbender*
Show





> Ozai: And how was it Great-Grandfather Sozin managed to win the battle of Han-Tui?
> Young Zuko: Great-grandfather won...because...
> Young Azula: Because even though his army was outnumbered, he cleverly calculated his advantages. *The enemy was downwind and there was a drought.* Their defenses burned to a crisp within minutes. **Extremely smug smirk**


Everyone in the room is a firebender. Literally the only distinguishing weapon they have is fire. "The enemy's defenses were flammable" is not a realization you have when you _cleverly calculate your advantages_: it's a realization you have when all you have is a hammer and the room is full of actual freaking nails. 

Zuko struggling with the answer makes sense because he's shy and hesitant and intimidated by 3 of the 4 ppl in the room. But Azula sniping it and acting like she'd aced a hard question really gets under my skin. It's like being quizzed "how did the Blue soldier kill the Green soldier?" and being smug and satisfied when you deduce "the Blue soldier had the only gun and _cleverly calculated_ that the Green soldier was not immune to bullets."

----------


## tomandtish

*Spoiler: The Meg*
Show

The research station. They have a theory that what people think is the bottom of the ocean is actually a layer of gas (methane IIRC). They want to see if this is correct, and then explore/exploit it (depending on whom you ask).  

Now, logic would suggest that you take one of your deep-water submersibles, put it on a boat, go out to the site, and see if the theory is correct. Instead, they build a 1.2 billion dollar facility, and only then do they bother to see if the bottom is not actually the bottom. And they are very clear that if the theory is wrong then the money has been wasted. 

Before someone says tax write-off, my understanding is that unless youre being shady it only affects taxable income. So, losing 1.2 billion means you dont have to pay taxes on that 1.2 billion. Youre still out the money. You can carry over a loss to the next year, but it still only affects how much tax you pay.

----------


## animorte

> *Spoiler: RANT - Avatar: The Last Airbender*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone in the room is a firebender. Literally the only distinguishing weapon they have is fire. "The enemy's defenses were flammable" is not a realization you have when you _cleverly calculate your advantages_: it's a realization you have when all you have is a hammer and the room is full of actual freaking nails. 
> 
> Zuko struggling with the answer makes sense because he's shy and hesitant and intimidated by 3 of the 4 ppl in the room. But Azula sniping it and acting like she'd aced a hard question really gets under my skin. It's like being quizzed "how did the Blue soldier kill the Green soldier?" and being smug and satisfied when you deduce "the Blue soldier had the only gun and _cleverly calculated_ that the Green soldier was not immune to bullets."


You dont get bonus points because I understand this faaar too well. But that bonus point is neutralized by the fact that its one of my favorite shows.

Also brilliant concept for a thread. Ill provide my own input at a later time about what ridiculous thing really grinds my gears.

----------


## Murk

In the Dutch language there are two words for "brother in law". 

One of these is a bit archaic, but both words are still valid words. 

There are also two _types_ of brother in law: the brother of your partner, and the partner of your sibling - two very different connections. 

So we have two words, and two meanings.  
And yet, _both_ words have _both_ meanings. The two words are synonyms _and_  homonyms. 

That's... it _bothers_ me. When you have two words and two meanings, you might as well give one word one meaning, and the other word the other meaning. Right? That's efficient use of your words!

But I haven't ever managed to convince anyone that this is a pressing issue that needs to be solved.

----------


## animorte

I remember years ago taking French class in high school. It's such a romantic language, they say. It sounds so beautiful.

We start learning the alphabet and get to the letter R, which is apparently pronounced: _"airchcgcjchgg"_

Did I pronounce enough phlegm in that?

----------


## Mystic Muse

The existence of the phrases

'Needless to say" 

"It goes without saying" 

And other such things are just word vomit. If it were needless to say, or it went without saying, you would not add 3 or 4 additional words.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Fyraltari

> The two words are synonyms _and_  homonyms.


They mean the same thing and are written and pronounced the same? Are you sure they're two different words?




> That's... it _bothers_ me. When you have two words and two meanings, you might as well give one word one meaning, and the other word the other meaning. Right? That's efficient use of your words!


Efficiency is anathema to linguistics




> I remember years ago taking French class in high school. It's such a romantic language, they say. It sounds so beautiful.


I think they meant "romance language". Italian is the romantic one.




> We start learning the alphabet and get to the letter R, which is apparently pronounced: _"airchcgcjchgg"_
> 
> Did I pronounce enough phlegm in that?


No, it's pronounced "r".

----------


## Peelee

> It's such a romantic language, they say. I


It is a romantic language! *Roman*tic. Latin derivative. People love to say it's kissy kissy romantic but it's Latin romantic.



> I think they meant "romance language". Italian is the romantic one.


You misspelled "German".

----------


## animorte

> You misspelled "German".


I actually work at BMW and we take turns attempting to read the various German words, but we never seem to sound angry enough. So this comment was hilarious to me.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

There is absolutely one article on the entire Transformers Wiki that actually bothers me, and it's this one.

The Predacon ship is not named over the entirety of _Beast Wars_. At no point during the show does a character state the ship's name. It's not entirely clear if it even has a name. But in one episode, Terrorsaur says, "Welcome to the dark side!" before shooting at Cheetor as he was trying to infiltrate the ship. This is very obviously not a place name but an observation that the ship has become the base of a group of antagonistic criminals, and indeed no one else over the entirety of the series calls it by any name. It's just... the Predacon ship.

Some people, being exceedingly literal and stupid, assumed that Terrorsaur must have been referring to the name of the ship. This is obviously wrong. But then some paratextual material made by fans-turned-pro, named it the Darksyde. On _every other topic in the franchise_, the wiki treats things like convention-exclusive stories and the like as interesting supplementary material that does not supercede existing information or the lack thereof. (To continue using _Beast Wars_ as an example, the wiki does not treat a scene that was animated and intended to be included in the finale without actually being included as being part of continuity.)

But in this case? The page is named after a fan name based on a shockingly stupid misreading of a line that is clearly not meant to indicate a name for the location. It's a stupid misunderstanding and validating it was stupid! The ship just doesn't have a name! If the writers wanted to give it a name they had plenty of opportunities!

----------


## Murk

> They mean the same thing and are written and pronounced the same? Are you sure they're two different words?


No, it's not one homonym, they're both homonyms. One word with two meanings, and then another word with two meanings, so two homonyms. Both sets of meanings are the same, so also synonyms. Two homonyms that are synonyms. I find it very stupid.
Surely there are other words for which this applies. Those would be stupid, too.




> Efficiency is anathema to linguistics.


Exactly!

----------


## Bohandas

The director of the movie _Ad Astra_ said "What Im trying to do is the most realistic depiction of space travel thats been put in a movie". I don't think he could have failed worse if he tried.

----------


## Rynjin

> The existence of the phrases
> 
> 'Needless to say" 
> 
> "It goes without saying" 
> 
> And other such things are just word vomit. If it were needless to say, or it went without saying, you would not add 3 or 4 additional words.


Those phrases actually serve a very useful purpose.

What they essentially mean is "You should know this already, but I know at least some of you dumb mother****ers weren't paying attention last time it came up, so I'm going to waste my time AND yours going over it again."

----------


## Keltest

> No, it's not one homonym, they're both homonyms. One word with two meanings, and then another word with two meanings, so two homonyms. Both sets of meanings are the same, so also synonyms. Two homonyms that are synonyms. I find it very stupid.
> Surely there are other words for which this applies. Those would be stupid, too.!


That just sounds like one word with two spellings then?

----------


## Amidus Drexel

> That just sounds like one word with two spellings then?


Not necessarily - the two could very well have different origins and entirely different pronunciations - which you could (in theory) argue are still the same "word", but I wouldn't. 

I don't think we're looking at something like the difference between the words 'colour" and 'color', but instead like the difference between the words 'vermilion' and 'crimson' (let's pretend for the sake of argument that vermilion and crimson aren't referring to specific dye ingredients, and just talk about the resulting colors).

----------


## Peelee

> That just sounds like one word with two spellings then?


Imean, that's kind of like saying "help" and "assist" are one word with two spellings.

----------


## Keltest

> Imean, that's kind of like saying "help" and "assist" are one word with two spellings.


They've been described as homonyms, IE having the same pronunciation. The explanation has been more than a little roundabout, but as best I can tell, theyre basically the same word already.

----------


## Peelee

> They've been described as homonyms, IE having the same pronunciation. The explanation has been more than a little roundabout, but as best I can tell, theyre basically the same word already.


And I've taken from context that "homonym" is likely being used incorrectly due to the fact that homonyms are also spelled the same, which we know is not the case here.

----------


## Metastachydium

> No, it's pronounced "r".


It's not pronounced /r/, however. (You can't fight IPhA!)




> No, it's not one homonym, they're both homonyms. One word with two meanings, and then another word with two meanings, so two homonyms. Both sets of meanings are the same, so also synonyms. Two homonyms that are synonyms. I find it very stupid.
> Surely there are other words for which this applies. Those would be stupid, too.


The word you're looking for is _polysemy_ (rather than homonymy).

----------


## Fyraltari

> It's not pronounced /r/, however. (You can't fight IPhA!)


Depends on the accent.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Depends on the accent.


No, no, no, accent goes on _vowels_, not consonants!

----------


## Peelee

> No, no, no, accent goes on _vowels_, not consonants!


The loudest band in England disagrees. And they go to 11.

----------


## Fyraltari

> No, no, no, accent goes on _vowels_, not consonants!


_Touché._890

----------


## Hagashager

I harbor a deep and intense hatred for the Blade Runner theory that Decker is a replicant.  The twist utterly undermines the point of the film and the source material of  _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ 

Seriously, the point is humans have a precious gift.  Replicants get 4 good years and they die.  Humanity takes our 70+ years for granted and get intimidated when a far less lively creation calls us out on it.  Decker is a bridge between humans and replicants.  He's a human capable of love for a replicant and willing to give replicants a fleeting chance at life.

Take that away and you're left with a bog-standard Robots rip-off.  

The fact that people take Decker being a replicant so persionally also irks me.

----------


## Mr.Silver

> I harbor a deep and intense hatred for the Blade Runner theory that Decker is a replicant.  The twist utterly undermines the point of the film and the source material of  _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ 
> 
> Seriously, the point is humans have a precious gift.  Replicants get 4 good years and they die.  Humanity takes our 70+ years for granted and get intimidated when a far less lively creation calls us out on it.  Decker is a bridge between humans and replicants.  He's a human capable of love for a replicant and willing to give replicants a fleeting chance at life.
> 
> Take that away and you're left with a bog-standard Robots rip-off.  
> 
> The fact that people take Decker being a replicant so persionally also irks me.


Depends on the reading, really. Decker being a replicant reinforces the underlying point that the replicants are not, in fact, less 'human' than the humans in any meaningful way (worth noting that during the film's planning stages, the idea that basically every named character in the film was actually a replicent, up-to and including Tyrell himself). It also adds a little nod to the overal 'social' themes of the film, since under it Decker is also, literally, a creation of the film's society in the same way the replicants, even if his (apparent) longer lifespan affords him a privilege Roy's crew and (presumably) Rachel are denied. So if you're looking at _Blade Runner_ through that kind of lens, then Decker being a replicant makes a lot of sense, reinforcing the film's themes rather than undermining them.

This does run contrary to the conceit of _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_, but then so does all of _Blade Runner's_ depictation of the replicants in the first place. In the book, the androids are inhumanly sociopathic, even if they're not actively malevolent, and you're eventually left with the idea that they're a symptom of an increasingly dehumanised, artificial society, rather than the victims of one.

----------


## Hagashager

> Depends on the reading, really. Decker being a replicant reinforces the underlying point that the replicants are not, in fact, less 'human' than the humans in any meaningful way (worth noting that during the film's planning stages, the idea that basically every named character in the film was actually a replicent, up-to and including Tyrell himself). It also adds a little nod to the overal 'social' themes of the film, since under it Decker is also, literally, a creation of the film's society in the same way the replicants, even if his (apparent) longer lifespan affords him a privilege Roy's crew and (presumably) Rachel are denied. So if you're looking at _Blade Runner_ through that kind of lens, then Decker being a replicant makes a lot of sense, reinforcing the film's themes rather than undermining them.
> 
> This does run contrary to the conceit of _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_, but then so does all of _Blade Runner's_ depictation of the replicants in the first place. In the book, the androids are inhumanly sociopathic, even if they're not actively malevolent, and you're eventually left with the idea that they're a symptom of an increasingly dehumanised, artificial society, rather than the victims of one.


Now see that' a thoughtful take.  Most of the conversations I've had all revolved around Decker being a Replicant because it furthers some narrative that humanity is irreedemably evil, or in one particularly shallow case "because it's a good twist."

I can understand the whole Replicant syatem being a creation of the Replicants themselves as a commentary on humanity and what makes us human, the mind or the guts?

----------


## Bohandas

> It is a romantic language! *Roman*tic. Latin derivative. People love to say it's kissy kissy romantic but it's Latin romantic.


Why did people feel the need to add a suffix to turn it into an adjective when it was already an adjective

----------


## gomipile

> Why did people feel the need to add a suffix to turn it into an adjective when it was already an adjective


Well, Roman would imply "still part of everything Roman." That would seem like too restrictive of a category for the languages, or too expensive of a category for "everything Roman." So, I can understand the desire for a suffix to imply a looser relationship.

And I suppose Romantic sounds better than Roman-ish. And it's easier to write and say than Roman-derived or Latin-derived.

----------


## Peelee

> And I suppose Romantic sounds better than Roman-ish.


Romanesque?

----------


## Fyraltari

> Why did people feel the need to add a suffix to turn it into an adjective when it was already an adjective


I think the correct term is romance language.

----------


## Metastachydium

> It is a romantic language! *Roman*tic. Latin derivative. People love to say it's kissy kissy romantic but it's Latin romantic.





> And I suppose Romantic sounds better than Roman-ish. And it's easier to write and say than Roman-derived or Latin-derived.





> Romanesque?


I'd recommend Romance or Romanic instead; Romantic is more commonly used to refer stuff associated with the (roughly) 19th century current of thought.

----------


## Peelee

> I think the correct term is romance language.





> I'd recommend Romance


While the phrase doesn't really fit, the mechanism behind it isn't that far off - the euphemism treadmill kind of took "romance" in a different direction to the point that I, for one, would not mind a different variation of "roman-[suffix]".

----------


## Fyraltari

> While the phrase doesn't really fit, the mechanism behind it isn't that far off - the euphemism treadmill kind of took "romance" in a different direction to the point that I, for one, would not mind a different variation of "roman-[suffix]".


Isn't that true of romantic as well?

In any case, how about "romane"?

----------


## Peelee

> Isn't that true of romantic as well?


Yep. 



> In any case, how about "romane"?


Let us.

----------


## sktarq

Inconsequential hot take. 

The US Customs help and even damage desk (as in customs crushed your stuff not as part of a destructive inspection) is easier to deal with and less emotionally draining than the UPS damage desk (of we dropped your stuff and it went snap type) because they are deeply tied to an inflexible electronic system that if it doesn't work (it got overloads just after Ian) it just can not handle anything or correct itself. Not to say the US Customs help is good by any means, just less awful. 




also I am out of spoons. and currently hate the very concept of looking at my email or calling these people again






> Well, Roman would imply "still part of everything Roman." That would seem like too restrictive of a category for the languages, or too expensive of a category for "everything Roman." So, I can understand the desire for a suffix to imply a looser relationship.
> 
> And I suppose Romantic sounds better than Roman-ish. And it's easier to write and say than Roman-derived or Latin-derived.


Also you need a second adjective as Roman language could be taken as "a language spoken in Rome/Roman empire" like Ventic, Oscan, or Umbrian (which as fellow Italic Languages would be similar) but as Coptic, Punic, German/Gothic, Celt, and lots of Greek were also spoken there/then so Roman Language would have a very different meaning than a Romantic language.

----------


## Bohandas

> Also you need a second adjective as Roman language could be taken as "a language spoken in Rome/Roman empire" like Ventic, Oscan, or Umbrian (which as fellow Italic Languages would be similar) but as Coptic, Punic, German/Gothic, Celt, and lots of Greek were also spoken there/then so Roman Language would have a very different meaning than a Romantic language.


I suppose that makes sense. Although it still leaves the wuestion of how the letter "t" got into the word

----------


## hewhosaysfish

> While the phrase doesn't really fit, the mechanism behind it isn't that far off - the euphemism treadmill kind of took "romance" in a different direction to the point that I, for one, would not mind a different variation of "roman-[suffix]".


Romey
10 character minimum

----------


## ZhonLord

I absolutely adore the band Rush. Their complex highly demanding music, the philosophical nature of their lyrics, the sheer power of their presentation..... It's wonderful. But some of their songs also have a trait that infuriates me over and over again: they're formatted in such a manner as to make attempts to sing it, PAINFULLY easy to mess up verses. 

Take Chain Lightning for example. The first two sets of verses: 



> energy is contagious, enthusiasm spreads,
> Tides respond to lunar gravitation, everything turns in synchronous relation.
> 
> Laughter is infectious, excitement goes to my head,
> Winds are stirred by planets in rotation, sparks ignite and spread new information!


I know these words by heart, and yet the tempo and musical notes to sing them to are so perfect a repetition that I find myself using the wrong words and combinations at times! On one of my favorite Rush songs, and I have to deal with this risk of fumble every time I want to sing it!

WHY?! WHY DID THEY DESIGN SOME OF THEIR SONGS TO BE SO EASY TO SWAP VERSES ON OR LOSE YOUR PLACE DURING?! Did they want singing along to be a challenge for their audience? Were they just cranking out album filler that just so happened to result in their better songs? I don't know! I DON'T FREAKING KNOW!

----------


## Peelee

> I absolutely adore the band Rush.


If you haven't already, you should check out the movie _Fanboys_. It's about Star Wars, but trust me on this, I think you'd like it.  :Small Amused:

----------


## sktarq

> Romey


Will get mixed up in the Romany (Gypsy) ethnic group and slurs attached. 



Also hot take:
the movie _Rush_ is massively more difficult to sell to someone as something worth watching than getting them to watch it a second time. And I think this centers on the idea of movies being "about" something. 
Saying it is about a 1970's car racing rivalry doesn't do it justice and gets dismissed as a "sports movie" 
Saying it is about the bonds of rivalry and respect that can occur between deeply different people and acts as a character study just gets it dismissed as navel gazing mumblecore.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Will get mixed up in the Romany


I'm not sure I have ever seen that spelled with a _y_ before.




> Romey


You are dead to me, hewhosaysfish.




> Also you need a second adjective as Roman language could be taken as "a language spoken in Rome/Roman empire" like Ventic, Oscan, or Umbrian (which as fellow Italic Languages would be similar) but as Coptic, Punic, German/Gothic, Celt, and lots of Greek were also spoken there/then so Roman Language would have a very different meaning than a Romantic language.


But seriously, what's wrong with Romanic? It's very much an established, real word and so far as I can tell, it doesn't have the plysemy issues that plague Romantic.

----------


## theangelJean

> But seriously, what's wrong with Romanic? It's very much an established, real word and so far as I can tell, it doesn't have the plysemy issues that plague Romantic.


Depends, is Romania still a country?

----------


## animorte

> If you haven't already, you should check out the movie _Fanboys_. It's about Star Wars, but trust me on this, I think you'd like it.


Oooh, excellent suggestion. I second this.

----------


## tyckspoon

> Also hot take:
> the movie _Rush_ is massively more difficult to sell to someone as something worth watching than getting them to watch it a second time. And I think this centers on the idea of movies being "about" something. 
> Saying it is about a 1970's car racing rivalry doesn't do it justice and gets dismissed as a "sports movie" 
> Saying it is about the bonds of rivalry and respect that can occur between deeply different people and acts as a character study just gets it dismissed as navel gazing mumblecore.


Tell 'em it's Talladega Nights played straight.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Depends, is Romania still a country?


De jure? It certainly is. Why?

----------


## Ionathus

Thank you everybody for your inconsequential rants! So happy to see this thread still kicking after I dropped it and just...wandered off, I guess  :Small Big Grin: 




> Did they want singing along to be a challenge for their audience? ... I don't know! I DON'T FREAKING KNOW!


With only a passing knowledge of Rush's whole "brand", I wouldn't be surprised if yeah, they wanted enjoying their songs to be a frustrating experience  :Small Cool: 

*New hot take:*
We watched the _Legend of Vox Machina_ animated series awhile ago but this one is still irking me. There's a fight scene where they're trying to kill Percy's former tutor who betrayed the family in exchange for magic powers (specifically a magic tongue which, by the way, *ew*).

And the tutor is using all this scary magic and creating golems and dominating the party members into fighting each other, and there's lots of nice drama and cool fighting, but...Percy is a *gunslinger* and the tutor is just standing across an empty hall from him. He has a hilariously clear shot at the dude. Tutor also clearly doesn't have any magic armor or shield spell or anything - he ultimately does get dusted in a single shot. Percy doesn't have any conflicted feelings about killing this dude - he's already vowed to get vengeance on him through bloody, bloody murder.

*I cannot come up with a single good reason Percy didn't just raise his gun and shoot the dude.* And there were so many easy ways they could've framed that up: have him shoot and it deflects off a magic barrier. Have a minion immediately attack Percy and pressure him so he can't get a clear shot. Make him more focused on saving his sister. Have his gun jam or get knocked away. Hell, have the tutor try to charm PERCY and watch as he tries to fight it off and ultimately does, turns, and kills the dude. Anything. 

It's a LONG fight scene. And again, it's very cool. But I was just sitting there the whole time yelling at the TV "Shoot him! Shoot him fatally!"

----------


## thorr-kan

> The director of the movie _Ad Astra_ said "What Im trying to do is the most realistic depiction of space travel thats been put in a movie". I don't think he could have failed worse if he tried.


Alas, you're not wrong.

I really wanted to like Ad Astra, in the vein of The Martian and Gravity.  Alas, I can never get those two hours of my life back.

----------


## ZhonLord

This qualifies as inconsequential from an everyday person's perspective, but may be a shared rant for fellow foodies:

WHY DO GROCERY STORES ONLY CARRY ONE VARIETY OF GARLIC?! Even garden markets like Michigan's Horrocks store chain only carry two! But if you have ever been to a farmer's market, you can find up to twenty different varieties! And each one has a different impact on what you're cooking:

Spanish roja is effectively a "true" garlic that has a mild/sweet combination that's great for cooking in frying pan dishes.

German white has a strong lingering flavor that lets it hold its own in soups and stews. 

Asian Tempest has a creamy texture when minced/crushed and a smooth sweet flavor that enhances dishes that use a sauce or glaze. 

But no, grocery stores only carry the basic of the basic,the commonplace white elephant. The sheer offense to cooking is beyond an insult, and so many people don't even know it's a problem! ADD VARIETY, GROCERY STORES! ADD MORE KINDS OF GARLIC TO YOUR SHELVES!!!

----------


## Keltest

> This qualifies as inconsequential from an everyday person's perspective, but may be a shared rant for fellow foodies:
> 
> WHY DO GROCERY STORES ONLY CARRY ONE VARIETY OF GARLIC?! Even garden markets like Michigan's Horrocks store chain only carry two! But if you have ever been to a farmer's market, you can find up to twenty different varieties! And each one has a different impact on what you're cooking:
> 
> Spanish roja is effectively a "true" garlic that has a mild/sweet combination that's great for cooking in frying pan dishes.
> 
> German white has a strong lingering flavor that lets it hold its own in soups and stews. 
> 
> Asian Tempest has a creamy texture when minced/crushed and a smooth sweet flavor that enhances dishes that use a sauce or glaze. 
> ...


Chances are its because the other varieties are niche enough that they would lose money keeping it in stock. There are plenty of items that my store can get that we just dont, because we end up pitching more than we sell.

----------


## Ionathus

> This qualifies as inconsequential from an everyday person's perspective, but may be a shared rant for fellow foodies:
> 
> WHY DO GROCERY STORES ONLY CARRY ONE VARIETY OF GARLIC?! Even garden markets like Michigan's Horrocks store chain only carry two! But if you have ever been to a farmer's market, you can find up to twenty different varieties! And each one has a different impact on what you're cooking:
> 
> Spanish roja is effectively a "true" garlic that has a mild/sweet combination that's great for cooking in frying pan dishes.
> 
> German white has a strong lingering flavor that lets it hold its own in soups and stews. 
> 
> Asian Tempest has a creamy texture when minced/crushed and a smooth sweet flavor that enhances dishes that use a sauce or glaze. 
> ...


TIL there's more than one kind of garlic! Now I gotta try these - thanks for the pairing recommendations!

----------


## Ionathus

> In the Dutch language there are two words for "brother in law". 
> 
> One of these is a bit archaic, but both words are still valid words. 
> 
> There are also two _types_ of brother in law: the brother of your partner, and the partner of your sibling - two very different connections. 
> 
> So we have two words, and two meanings.  
> And yet, _both_ words have _both_ meanings. The two words are synonyms _and_  homonyms. 
> 
> ...


I understand this annoyance even if I don't understand Dutch! 

I'm no prescriptivist but it seems like a lot of heartache could be saved by just standardizing which of those two words is used for which distinct meaning. I am sorry it's so vague. Reminds me of the difference between "a few" "a couple" "several" and "a handful".

----------


## ZhonLord

> TIL there's more than one kind of garlic!


Exactly my point!

----------


## Devils_Advocate

> When you have two words and two meanings, you might  as well give one word one meaning, and the other word the other  meaning. Right? That's efficient use of your words!


Another instance of this linguistic phenomenon is how "choice" and  "decision" are both used to refer to the process of selecting something *and* to the outcome of that process, rather than each word having only one of the two meanings and vice versa.

There are probably lots of other examples.




> The existence of the phrases
> 
> 'Needless to say" 
> 
> "It goes without saying" 
> 
> And other such things are just word vomit. If it were needless to say,  or it went without saying, you would not add 3 or 4 additional words.


Yeah, not only are obvious things obvious, but it's obvious that they're obvious, so that doesn't need pointing out either!

So it goes without saying that "needless to say" is needless to say. ;)




> But I was just sitting there the whole time yelling at the TV "Shoot him! Shoot him fatally!"


Hardly unusual, although that's typically more of a villain thing.

----------


## Stonehead

> Another instance of this linguistic phenomenon is how "choice" and  "decision" are both used to refer to the process of selecting something *and* to the outcome of that process, rather than each word having only one of the two meanings and vice versa.


Oh man, why'd you explain it? Now it's bothering me too.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Oh man, why'd you explain it? Now it's bothering me too.


You don't know lucky you are. French uses the same word for _both_ "guest" and "host" (_hôte_) even though they are opposite and it's driving me crazy.

The same goes for "to rent" _(louer_), without context, I can't tell whether you're taking or receiving money! (This one also works in English somewhat.)

----------


## Peelee

> Oh man, why'd you explain it? Now it's bothering me too.


English is famously cluttered. Don't let it bother you.

----------


## Bohandas

> The same goes for "to rent" _(louer_), without context, I can't tell whether you're taking or receiving money! (This one also works in English somewhat.)


Technically English doesn't use different words for that either it just adds a word in one case (rent vs. rent out)

----------


## Ionathus

> Technically English doesn't use different words for that either it just adds a word in one case (rent vs. rent out)


Yep. I've heard "rent" used for both sides of the equation in American English.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Technically English doesn't use different words for that either it just adds a word in one case (rent vs. rent out)


Hence "This one also works in English somewhat."

----------


## theangelJean

> You don't know lucky you are. French uses the same word for _both_ "guest" and "host" (_hôte_) even though they are opposite and it's driving me crazy.
> 
> The same goes for "to rent" _(louer_), without context, I can't tell whether you're taking or receiving money! (This one also works in English somewhat.)


I've just realised that Cantonese is _full_ of these, including "hire" as well as "borrow/lend".

I am not sure if it's the same in other Chinese languages, because they use different grammar and vocabulary. I have noticed some places where Standard Chinese adds a second specifying character, while Cantonese would just go for a single character and leave you to rely on context and surrounding grammar.

Edit: forgot to reply to this:



> But seriously, what's wrong with Romanic? It's very much an established, real word and so far as I can tell, it doesn't have the plysemy issues that plague Romantic.





> Depends, is Romania still a country?





> De jure? It certainly is. Why?


Just speculating that "Romanic" could be mistaken for implying an association with Romania. Regardless of political standing, now that I think of it.

----------


## Bohandas

If someone complwins aboug the word "literally" being misused then they should also have the same problem with "really" as that has the same literal meaning (break it down: real- -ly)

----------


## gbaji

> Alas, you're not wrong.
> 
> I really wanted to like Ad Astra, in the vein of The Martian and Gravity.  Alas, I can never get those two hours of my life back.


Yeah. Couldn't stand Ad Astra. Loved The Martian though. Er. Wanted to love Gravity, but honestly while not as mind numbingly terrible as Ad Astra, if you're going to actually name your film "Gravity", you should maybe get some basics of how gravity works correct.

First one: Objects in orbit at the same altitude *must* be traveling at the same relative speed. Period. Yet, they had some orbital debris strike them (possible for different orbits to intersect of course), and then *hit them again the next time around*. Er. That's not possible. Ok. It's possible but incredibly highly improbable to happen in the time frame in which it occurs. One would have to be in a crazy erratic orbit, with the odds of intersecting another object in a different (stable) orbit so incredibly unlikely that you may as well have just hit them with some other completely unrelated objects or something. Dunno. I mean, it's possible, kinda, but the sheer improbability of just happening to have been hit with the first set of debris is low (but the story is based on it happening, so that's fine). But having them deal with it a second time? Like it just looped around the planet and hit them again? This is more of a peeve, but it still bothers me because their explanation for how this happened is pretty poor.

Second one (and the one that really annoys me): They're trying to grab onto some space station to get to the capsule inside. Ok great. She's hooked onto a rope attached to the station. He's on a rope attached to her. They fly past the station and then come to a stop "hanging" at the end of the rope. But the rope is straining and looks like it's going to break, so he cuts his end to save her, and falls to his death. It's a classic "two people hanging off a cliff, and one cuts the rope to decrease the weight and save the other" trope. Except that's not how things work in free fall. The moment they both hit the end of the rope, one of two things happens: The rope holds and they both snap back towards the station *or* the rope breaks and they both continue flying on. It's only their velocity relative to  the station that matters, not gravity pulling on them (it's pulling on them and the station equally). There's just no such thing as "hanging at the end of the rope" here. There's no "weight pulling on the rope" either, since weight is a measure of force and there isn't any. The scene is just... wrong.

If they wanted to do that scene properly, it should have been Bullock's character hitting the end of her rope first, and damaging the rope (but holding by a thread), leaving her floating freely, and then have Clooney's character flying by, noticing that her rope is nearly broken and realizing that the force of him hitting the end of his rope will pull on hers, and likely break it, so he cuts his to prevent his mass + velocity causing that effect. He'd then just sail on by with the ropes detached, maybe with a tearful explanation as to why he had to do it, while he floats away. Of course, Hollywood couldn't do this because then they wouldn't get the long dramatic period of time while they're "at the end of the rope" and he decides he must cut it to save her. Gah. Terrible. If you've waited until both lengths of rope are fully extended and you've "stopped" relative to each other (and the station), then it's too late. It's either broken at that point, or it has not. There's nothing "pulling on the rope". 

Yeah. Sorry. I really wanted to like the film, but other than "being in space", it had nothing at all to do with any real science involving gravity or how it actually works. I mean, they had things that have to do with gravity in the story, but got almost every single detail of how those things actually behave in a free fall environment wrong. The sad part is that they apparently did have a bunch of rocket scientists advising them, but in typical Hollywood fashion still put "rule of drama" ahead of pesky things like basic laws of physics.

----------


## Bohandas

My problem wasn't even anything as subtle as that, it was the utter _Plan 9_-esque absurdity of the inciting incident, (as well as the scene where he climbs into the spaceship through the rocket nozzle and then there's a weird gunfight that doesn't need to happen inside the spaceship, in zero-g, even though it shouldn't be zero-g because they're accelerating, and somehow the ship doesn't depressurize from all the bullets being shot around)


EDIT:
NVM, I somehow missed that most of your complaint was meant to be about _Gravity_ rather than _As Astra_

----------


## Khedrac

In English the word "rent" is misused in place of the word "let" a lot.
One doesn't rent a house to someone else to live in, one lets it (they rent it from you); but this is one of those distinctions being eroded by common use and will probably vanish before too long.

Alistair McLean in the novel "Floodgate" claimed that the one word in English with two precisely opposite meanings is "nyctalopia" but that isn't quite right - "night-blindness" and the "inability to see clearly except by night" aren't quite full opposites.

To get true opposites we have to go back to works hijacked from the French - "liege".
One's "liege" is one's lord or master (or lady) - i.e. the one to whom one owes fealty.
One's "lieges" are one's servants - i.e. those who owe fealty to you.
Which goes to show that properly done the Feudal system acknowledges the responsibilities of the lord to the people, it's just the old axiom "all power corrupts" applying that leads to those in power forgetting, ignoring and abusing the relationship, hence it is not a good system in practice.  This may be why it is so popular in fantasy - it ought to work, but doesn't because of people.

----------


## Bohandas

I don't think "let" in that sense is used in American english at all (unless you count american legal jargon, which is really a completely different dialect entirely, in addition to being a pidgin of English and Latin)

Edit:
I call for a writ of _mea navis volantem plena anguillarum_ and a movement to _nostra raedarius ictus fulgur_

----------


## Peelee

> In English the word "rent" is misused in place of the word "let" a lot.


No, it's used correctly, since it has both meanings. You might be thinking of an archaic use of "rent" which did not have that meaning.

----------


## tyckspoon

> I don't think "let" in that sense is used in American english at all (unless you count american legal jargon, which is really a completely different dialect entirely, in addition to being a pidgin of English and Latin)


In most usages (at least in my region of American English) the form that survives is 'Lease' - you pay rent in order to satisfy the terms of a lease - although that generally specifically applies to the contract that specifies the terms of the renting and usages of the thing being leased. Colloquially, at least, both providing money to get usage of a thing owned by somebody else and the practice of offering a thing you own for somebody else to make use of are referred to as 'renting.'

----------


## Metastachydium

> Just speculating that "Romanic" could be mistaken for implying an association with Romania.


I'm not sure how or why. I've never seen it used for anything even remotely resembling that and Roman isn't the same word as Romanian _in Romanian_.




> :
> I call for a writ of _mea navis volantem plena anguillarum_


_Volans_. Nothing warrants an accusative there.




> and a movement to _nostra raedarius ictus fulgur_


And I'm really not sure what that's even _supposed to_ be.

----------


## Peelee

> And I'm really not sure what that's even _supposed to_ be.


Its supposed to be Latin.

----------


## Bohandas

> _Volans_. Nothing warrants an accusative there.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm really not sure what that's even _supposed to_ be.


They're supposed to be "My hovercraft is full of eels" and "our postillion has been struck by lightning"

It was meant as a commentary on legalese being far removed from both the english and the latin it is based on. It was much funnier when I was half-asleep.

----------


## Peelee

Legalese actually tends to be as understandable as possible. The biggest reason it's not is because of legal systems need to deal with complex issues, but even then, they strive for ease of understanding.

As an example, in IP law, there is a fairly famous legal rule of thumb that can be applied to see if a person could reasonably be misled by a product's branding. This is called the "moron in a hurry" test.

----------


## animorte

> It was much funnier when I was half-asleep.


The humor in the concept of, its funnier in Latin was not lost on me here.

----------


## Vinyadan

As it turns out, "romantic" has a -t- in it because, while the word originated in English, it comes from Old French "romant", the oblique case* of "romanz", the name of a long written composition in a language that wasn't Latin and that was meant to delight the reader though heroic adventures.

*Old French kept some elements of Latin's declension, with two cases: a subject (nominative) and an oblique case, that however could only be told apart in masculine nouns.

----------


## Peelee

> As it turns out, "romantic" has a -t- in it because, while the word originated in English, it comes from Old French "romant", the oblique case* of "romanz", the name of a long written composition in a language that wasn't Latin and that was meant to delight the reader though heroic adventures.
> 
> *Old French kept some elements of Latin's declension, with two cases: a subject (nominative) and an oblique case, that however could only be told apart in masculine nouns.


Pft. The French call potatoes "apple of the earth". I vote we don't listen to them on wordage.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Pft. The French call potatoes "apple of the earth". I vote we don't listen to them on wordage.


How are your German lessons going?

----------


## Peelee

> How are your German lessons going?


Terrible. I keep accidentally learning French.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Pft. The French call potatoes "apple of the earth". I vote we don't listen to them on wordage.


Also, when it comes to calling fruits and vegetables wrong, I don't think the "pineapple" crew gets to act all mighty.



> Terrible. I keep accidentally learning French.


_Loustic, va._
Wow, I think that might be the most opaque joke I have ever made on these forums.

----------


## Peelee

> Also, when it comes to calling fruits and vegetables wrong, I don't think the "pineapple" crew gets to act all mighty.


I'm American, acting all high and mighty is our whole shtick.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I'm American, acting all high and mighty is our whole shtick.


_Oh, vraiment ?_

----------


## Devils_Advocate

> You don't know lucky you are. French uses the same word for _both_ "guest" and "host" (_hôte_) even though they are opposite and it's driving me crazy.
> 
> The same goes for "to rent" _(louer_), without context, I can't tell whether you're taking or receiving money! (This one also works in English somewhat.)


Ah, yes, autoantonyms! Whereas an ordinary antonym only has a meaning opposite another word's meaning, an *auto*antonym has two meanings opposite *each other*.  "Dusting" something can mean removing dust from it *or* covering it in powder. "Tabling" a  motion can mean putting it forward for consideration *or* removing it from  current consideration. Etc. This seems like this comes up mostly with  verbs in English, even when the same words are far more well-behaved as  nouns.

*In fact*, I once accidentally bought a bag  of soybeans with their shells still on, because I assumed that  "shelled" meant "in shells" and "unshelled" meant "with shells removed",  instead of the other way around! In that case I think that the usage on  the packaging was the standard one, but it strikes me as pretty  counterintuitive.

True story.

(I don't know why they even  sold them like that, as the shells were inedible even after being  boiled. Who wants to buy such a thing, I ask you? Pah!)




> Don't let it bother you.


Well, I doubt that anyone is *seriously* perturbed by semantic ambiguity that's effectively eliminated by context the considerable majority of the time. That said, I kind of take issue with the above sentiment in general. Like... Does deciding not to be bothered by something often actually work for you, or is this more of a troll response? Honest question.




> If someone complwins aboug the word "literally"  being misused then they should also have the same problem with "really"  as that has the same literal meaning (break it down: real- -ly)


There's  a qualitative difference between only one word having a particular  meaning and zero words having that meaning. The latter is annoying in a  way that the former is not. Indeed, the former is rarely even going to  be annoying. "Literally" working exactly like "really", including  serving as a synonym for "especially", means that now there's two words  that work like that and no word for literally literally. That's not  efficient use of your words!

I suppose that we can use  "non-figuratively", although I can't help but suspect that that will  also be adopted as a synonym for "especially" if it comes to be widely  used.




> No, it's used correctly, since it has both  meanings. You might be thinking of an archaic use of "rent" which did  not have that meaning.


Huh? I'm pretty sure that "rent" is still used to mean "pay for temporary use (of)". That's not "an archaic use".




> Also, when it comes to calling fruits and  vegetables wrong, I don't think the "pineapple" crew gets to act all  mighty.


"Grapefruit" is nearly as bad.

----------


## Peelee

> That said, I kind of take issue with the above sentiment in general. Like... Does deciding not to be bothered by something often actually work for you


Yes. I find it an incredibly useful tactic.



> or is this more of a troll response? Honest question.


Regardless of how "honest", asking this is against the rules, especially to a moderator. I would advise you to not do so (to anyone) on these forums.



> Huh? I'm pretty sure that "rent" is still used to mean "pay for temporary use (of)". That's not "an archaic use".


I could have been more clear. The archaic use is the sole definition of temporarily paying for use, while the modern use has both that and also offering temporary use for pay.

----------


## Bohandas

> There's  a qualitative difference between only one word having a particular  meaning and zero words having that meaning. The latter is annoying in a  way that the former is not. Indeed, the former is rarely even going to  be annoying. "Literally" working exactly like "really", including  serving as a synonym for "especially", means that now there's two words  that work like that and no word for literally literally.


Three. There's also "very"

----------


## Vinyadan

> Pft. The French call potatoes "apple of the earth". I vote we don't listen to them on wordage.


But English is just a dreamer that never stopped trying to be French  :Small Cool:

----------


## animorte

> But English is just a dreamer that never stopped trying to be French


Or a borderline offensive smattering of every language its ever come in contact with.  :Small Tongue: 

I also hail from the young country. Our roots spread far and wide.

----------


## Keltest

> Or a borderline offensive smattering of every language its ever come in contact with. 
> 
> I also hail from the young country. Our roots spread far and wide.


I think its really unfair to blame English for that given how many times different languages came in and just told English to start using their words. Looking at you, Norman French.

----------


## Bohandas

> *In fact*, I once accidentally bought a bag  of soybeans with their shells still on, because I assumed that  "shelled" meant "in shells" and "unshelled" meant "with shells removed",  instead of the other way around! In that case I think that the usage on  the packaging was the standard one, but it strikes me as pretty  counterintuitive.


It could also mean that artillery's been shot at them

----------


## Metastachydium

> It could also mean that artillery's been shot at them


But conventional, rather than rocket artillery!

----------


## Vinyadan

> Originally Posted by Peelee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Fyraltari
> ...


OK, that's a very appropriate answer  :Small Big Grin:  (from German lustig > French loustic)

[I noticed the white text after posting  :Small Wink:  ]

----------


## Fyraltari

> OK, that's a very appropriate answer  (from German lustig > French loustic)
> 
> [I noticed the white text after posting  ]


Thanks, I try.

----------


## sktarq

> I think its really unfair to blame English for that given how many times different languages came in and just told English to start using their words. Looking at you, Norman French.


My running jest in this matter is that English is either three or five dwarf languages all sitting on each others shoulders in a long trenchcoat.
(it is either French, Celtic, and AngloSaxon German or the above with the addition of Dane/Norse and Latin)




> It could also mean that artillery's been shot at them


I would assume then that the shockwave of the shelling would have deshelled the produce in question.
Okay I can't think about this too much as I feel a Limmerick coming on.

----------


## Iruka

> Pft. The French call potatoes "apple of the earth". I vote we don't listen to them on wordage.


So do the Germans. Except when they call them "pear of the earth". Or just "truffle".

----------


## Keltest

Europe in general has a long and storied history of inexplicably comparing potatoes to apples for no good reason.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Europe in general has a long and storied history of inexplicably comparing potatoes to apples for no good reason.


It's pretty easily explicable. _Pomum_ is latin for "fruit", but the meaning drifted towards "apple" over the centuries. _Pomme de terre_ doesn't mean "apple of the earth" it means "earth-fruit".

----------


## Hagashager

> Pft. The French call potatoes "apple of the earth". I vote we don't listen to them on wordage.


100% behind this.  I will take any opportunity to disenfranchise the French.

----------


## Peelee

> 100% behind this.  I will take any opportunity to disenfranchise the French.


My jokes come from a place of love. I rather like the French.

----------


## Fyraltari

> My jokes come from a place of love. I rather like the French.


It's the European in you speaking.

----------


## Peelee

> It's the European in you speaking.


Actually it's very much the American, but that's probably the farthest I can take it on here.

----------


## Khedrac

> It's the European in you speaking.


Please not all dragons eat people (thinking it better to assume Pelee is a dragon from his avatar rather than assume you are suggesting he's a cannibal).

----------


## Fyraltari

> Please not all dragons eat people (thinking it better to assume Pelee is a dragon from his avatar rather than assume you are suggesting he's a cannibal).


How did anthropophagy ccome into play in this conversation?

----------


## Rater202

> How did anthropophagy ccome into play in this conversation?


Were I to hazard a guess? Taking the "in you" in the phrase "it's the European in you speaking" to mean that there is physically a person from Europe inside Peelee's body.

----------


## VoxRationis

> I actually work at BMW and we take turns attempting to read the various German words, but we never seem to sound angry enough. So this comment was hilarious to me.


Well, the funny thing is that the "angry" guttural R is common to both languages (if not universally due to different regional dialects), on account of the French being Germans with a fondness for Latin culture but no proficiency in the Latin tongue.

On an unrelated note, one of my perennial petty complaints is that the heat dial on toasters go far too high. What situation have we ever found ourselves in that requires the maximum setting? Even frozen bread becomes overcooked if set so high.

----------


## Rynjin

> On an unrelated note, one of my perennial petty complaints is that the heat dial on toasters go far too high. What situation have we ever found ourselves in that requires the maximum setting? Even frozen bread becomes overcooked if set so high.


Bagels, mostly.

----------


## Velaryon

I will go to my grave insisting that The Fellowship of the Ring would have been a better book without Tom Bombadil, and that the single greatest editorial decision Peter Jackson has ever made was not including Bombadil in the movies.

----------


## Bohandas

I don;t know about better or worse, more like not changed in any way. Bombadil was pretty inconsequential.

----------


## Jophiel

Modern fortune cookies suck. They used to have fun little divinations like "You will go on a trip soon" or "Romance lies in wait for you this weekend".  Now it's all dumb little sayings like "Humility is a treasure" or "Cooperation makes the hardest task possible".  Those aren't fortunes!  Tell me to watch out for a stranger or that I'll soon see a secret revealed!  I haven't seen a real fortune cookie in probably a decade or more.

----------


## Vinyadan

I think Bombadil was useful as an added layer between the English countryside of the Shire and the Nordic-tinged high fantasy of Middle-Earth. By the Hero's Journey instead he probably would be qualified as a mentor figure. Like e.g. Obi-Wan, he shows up to save the protagonists lives and hands them the swords, but he'll have a limited role in the later parts of the story (here the fact that Obi-Wan won't just stay dead makes the comparison more difficult). But, of course, Bree also is a layer, Frodo will get a new sword from Bilbo, and Aragorn and Gandalf also are guides and mentor (and Gandalf also dies and won't stay dead).

----------


## Khedrac

> I think Bombadil was useful as an added layer between the English countryside of the Shire and the Nordic-tinged high fantasy of Middle-Earth. By the Hero's Journey instead he probably would be qualified as a mentor figure. Like e.g. Obi-Wan, he shows up to save the protagonists lives and hands them the swords, but he'll have a limited role in the later parts of the story (here the fact that Obi-Wan won't just stay dead makes the comparison more difficult). But, of course, Bree also is a layer, Frodo will get a new sword from Bilbo, and Aragorn and Gandalf also are guides and mentor (and Gandalf also dies and won't stay dead).


This bit is more important than I think most people recognise.  Without the Numenorean blade Pippin's strike at the Witch-King would not have interrupted the Witch-King's actions and he (it) would have killed Eowyn and changed the force of the battle for Minas Tirith.  I think the line is something like "no lesser blade could have disrupted the forces that bound the Witch-King's sinews to his will".

----------


## sktarq

I always figured Bombadil was kinda a marker for "There are more stories going on in this world than the Fellowship, the Rings etc" in the form a major distraction that was never seen again. 

He was the Chekhov's gun that never fired, but life is like that. 




Still glad he was dropped from the movie.

----------


## Bohandas

I think the mayor from _Nightmare Before Christmas_ is a juggalo

Look at how his face is done up in this screenshot:

https://i.insider.com/5f807bbcea7482...00&format=jpeg

he's got the white facepaint and stuff

----------


## Tyrant

> Modern fortune cookies suck. They used to have fun little divinations like "You will go on a trip soon" or "Romance lies in wait for you this weekend".  Now it's all dumb little sayings like "Humility is a treasure" or "Cooperation makes the hardest task possible".  Those aren't fortunes!  Tell me to watch out for a stranger or that I'll soon see a secret revealed!  I haven't seen a real fortune cookie in probably a decade or more.


The last one I got told me it was a good idea to invest in seafront property.

----------


## The Hellbug

> The last one I got told me it was a good idea to invest in seafront property.


Oh boy, you're going to love this, then.  I got one a few months back that said 'one day, you will hold a dollar for the last time' and my brain immediately went to 'oh cute, a reflection on mortality.'  Then my friend opened one and it was also suspiciously currency-related.  Checked the back and it turned out some cryptocurrency-related business had supplied the fortunes for the cookie as an ad.

----------


## tomandtish

> Modern fortune cookies suck. They used to have fun little divinations like "You will go on a trip soon" or "Romance lies in wait for you this weekend".  Now it's all dumb little sayings like "Humility is a treasure" or "Cooperation makes the hardest task possible".  Those aren't fortunes!  Tell me to watch out for a stranger or that I'll soon see a secret revealed!  I haven't seen a real fortune cookie in probably a decade or more.


Remember that it is always best to add "in bed" to the end of any fortune. 

Of course, we've started a version where we add "except in bed" to them.

Either way they become much more entertaining.

----------


## Peelee

> Remember that it is always best to add "in bed" to the end of any fortune. 
> 
> Of course, we've started a version where we add "except in bed" to them.
> 
> Either way they become much more entertaining.


I see you've managed to avoid finding the crypto fortune cookies. That tactic does not work at all with those.

----------


## Vinyadan

I really like this one. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... in bed." "The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall in bed." "It's fun to do the impossible in bed."

EDIT: "You forget your worth. Don't run from who you are in bed."

"Once you realise your worth, you tolerate less and require more in bed."

----------


## Stonehead

> I always figured Bombadil was kinda a marker for "There are more stories going on in this world than the Fellowship, the Rings etc" in the form a major distraction that was never seen again. 
> 
> He was the Chekhov's gun that never fired, but life is like that. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still glad he was dropped from the movie.


Strictly speaking, Tom Bombadil was a holdover from before The Lord of the Rings was a novel, when it was some stories Tolkien would tell to his children. If I remember correctly, one of them had a doll named Tom Bombadill, which Tolkien wrote a short poem about. He referenced the character in his stories, and kept him in when he eventually wrote them down. At the time though, he didn't have the details or the tone of the series fully planned out yet, and he kept Tom in when the first book was published.

People have legitimately written thesis papers about Tom Bombadil, but _why_ he was kept in is still speculation.

I do agree the movies are better without him.

----------


## Vinyadan

> Strictly speaking, Tom Bombadil was a holdover from before The Lord of the Rings was a novel, when it was some stories Tolkien would tell to his children. If I remember correctly, one of them had a doll named Tom Bombadill, which Tolkien wrote a short poem about. He referenced the character in his stories, and kept him in when he eventually wrote them down. At the time though, he didn't have the details or the tone of the series fully planned out yet, and he kept Tom in when the first book was published.
> 
> People have legitimately written thesis papers about Tom Bombadil, but _why_ he was kept in is still speculation.
> 
> I do agree the movies are better without him.


The Lord of the Rings isn't a series, it's a single novel published in three volumes, but made of six books. When the Fellowship was published, the rest was already done and ready; breaking up LotR in three volumes was just a decision his publisher made for economic reasons, and I think it still has a negative effect on the perception of the novel (the six-book structure feels much more balanced and respectful of the connections between parts of the novel).

It's true however that the poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" is from 1934, so before The Hobbit was published, and twenty years before the Lord of the Rings came out. A letter from 1937 where Tolkien proposes a sequel to The Hobbit has Tom Bombadil as an option: "Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story? Or is he, as I suspect, fully enshrined in the enclosed verses? Still I could  enlarge the portrait."

Personally, I have a suspicion, and that's that Tom and Willow Man are what a protective or evil entity can look like in the Shire. The Elves, the Nazgul, those are a different deal, more Nordic, but Tom is the spirit of the Oxford countryside, and the Hobbits seem like they belong there.

----------

