Finns and Americans are both "they". Everybody who isn't you or me is they.
Keep it up, we'll descend all the way down to pure formal logic this way. Breaking new frontiers of semiotics, I tell you.
Finns and Americans are both "they". Everybody who isn't you or me is they.
Keep it up, we'll descend all the way down to pure formal logic this way. Breaking new frontiers of semiotics, I tell you.
You can caveat it with their perspective all you want, that's an aditional statement that has nothing to do with the original perfectly valid, perfectly understandable statement that you understood.
You absolutely can decide whether something someone else does is "normal" and do all the time. "I can't believe how often people in Finland go to the sauna, man, it's just not normal" is a perfectly acceptable statement nobody would have an issue with unless they were deliberately pretending to misunderstand it to be obnoxious and trolly on the Internet.
That is literally what you do every time you use the word, unless you add "for them" afterwards or you're talking about yourself.
I was going to bring in another copypasta here, but this one is so obviously wrong I kinda need to call it fresh.
It often boils down to that, sadly, and it's gotten to the point where I just don't like using either term anymore.
Oh, we're back to copy pasting and out of the "calling out the real conversation that's happening" tangent? Cool.
I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what's normal, right? That's not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don't like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what's normal when I speak because normal is "the state of being usual, typical, or expected" and I'm the one having the expectations here.
The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.
Nah, I don't think it's malicious.
The term has been muddled from the beginning. There wasn't a concept of "indies vs triple A" until Microsoft started offering digital-only games under servere restrictions for size and feature set. Because that made people assume that indie = small and because some design tropes became part of the common understanding of the term we ended up in a very weird middle ground.
Before that happened nobody really thought about indie vs triple A, it was mostly first party versus third party. Games were mostly gated by storage cost and performance rather than budget, so games from big studios and small studios mostly looked the same. You could definitely have used those terms in the PS1 era to compare massive stuff like Final Fantasy VII or Metal Gear to smaller shovelware, but back then that was just the difference between good games and bad games.
It's not general cocaine, but it approximates the behavior of one for some applications. People are still worried about how many resources are going to making this cocaine now, though.
You have context to define normalcy. I'm the speaker and I'm from a place where it's not normal, so it's not normal.
But of course that's not the point and has never been, because the line isn't about whether the practice is standard in some regions, which it obviously is, it's about whether it makes sense to the general principles of general mores on gender for modern society, which it doesn't.
Which you understand fully and always have. Because this is one of these dumb ones, so we're now on loop two.
Man, social media sucks and is so not normal.
Oh, cool, this is the easy part of these dumb things where we get to just copy paste the original conversation and go down the loop. Hold on:
You added "a lot of places". It's not typical or expected here, so it's not normal here.
So "normalcy" on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?
Told you it was a waste of time.
You're going pretty deep into a rant to say the same thing I'm saying.
Read the previous post again. The point I'm making is that reselling a cartridge is not detectable in itself, but that the same cart being simultaneously found more than once is.
So that'd be the exact same thing you're saying.
As far as anybody can tell, this was a false positive in that process and once the guy provided proof of purchase, even for a used game purchase, his account was reinstated, but you do run the risk of finding yourself in this position if you end up accidentally buying a cart that has been dumped and shared on the Internet.
That is not a sentence.
I mean, I know what you're saying because... you know, but if we're going to do this dick measuring thing you're going to at least have to approximate language.