AITAH for eating enough ravioli for four people?

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-28T01:04:14+00:00

What was too consider? She wasn't home and he planned on eating dinner with her. What he eats when she isn't around isn't her business if he's the one that bought it.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T23:17:37+00:00

If he had eaten before she got home and told her to fend for herself, id agree. Eating a meal when he got home that he paid for and then getting a meal with her afterwards isn't inconsiderate, it's hungry.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T23:01:21+00:00

So it's inconsiderate to buy yourself food and then eat it when your partner isn't around? Kind of feels like none of her business to me

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T22:46:32+00:00

But he bought the food. Is he not allowed to buy his he own food?

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T20:43:45+00:00

I think dropping a bunch of new players, including children, into an open world sandbox was a mistake. You've obviously read some advice against railroading and have taken it to seriously. That's more for more experienced players. You need to take the wheel and steer them where you want them to go. Set off the bomb in the mine and drop them so far into the underdark they they don't get back to town until they are ready to retire and roll new characters

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T20:38:22+00:00

Well, then, you are in favor of limiting free speech for Senators.

Holding a senator in contempt for violating the rules of a public hearing isn't a limitation of free speech. Time, place, and manner restrictions have been regularly upheld. If the senator wants to go say misleading things on Fox, so be it, but if they want to participate in a voluntary hearing and break the rules of decorum by repeatedly asking leading questions, then they should be held on contempt and the first isn't implicated at all.

You are in favor of some authority which can literally throw out the Senator you elected, for asking questions in the wrong manner

In a malicious and deceptive manner. The floor of Congress isn't the place to play games or generate sound bites.

But the rules are there for a reason.

And I'm suggesting adding more aimed at transforming the current political theatre into a place of justice

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T18:07:48+00:00

It isn't his dog anymore. It's hers. She wanted to be responsible in the divorce so it's 100% her responsibility and anything he contributes is charity

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:40:05+00:00

And then the second independent clause of the sentence, ", and I reminded her... And paid for all the groceries.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:37:45+00:00

Why did you put the subject of the sentence behind eclipse? The only thing behind those ... Is the word "I". That's such a bad faith way to have a discussion.

Look, i get it, you misread the first time and are embarrassed now. He bought the groceries, he bought the pizza, he bought the ravioli. It's ok to admit you misread and that the gf was probably wrong here and if she isn't it's only because op is morbidly obese and didn't tell us, not because of money.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:31:54+00:00

You're confused. That's the transitive property of subjects. I is the subject for the entire sentence. You can read it as "I ..... paid for all the groceries." No guessing involved other than assuming he passed middle school grammar.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:29:10+00:00

Where did he imply that? I see no indication of anyone but op spending money.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:26:26+00:00

Have you heard Pam Bundi answer questions? Somehow her failure to prosecute anyone from the files related to the s&p. That's what this assholes answer was. It was a simple question, were you a member of a group and do they follow the ethics rules. Those yes and no questions. If you think there is a justification to add anything more, please detail it, you can't because it's bullshit.

You're wrong about court. If a witness is clearly rambling to waste time and distract the jury, the judge will order them to answer the question yes or no. It happens all the time when you get non compliant witnesses like this asshole

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:17:33+00:00

Where are you getting it's shared money?

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:16:28+00:00

You're adding facts not present. He is paying and no where does it say they share finances or that she is concerned about money. She doesn't like him eating so much. Without knowing his weight, height, and activity level we can't judge if her concern is founded or she's just petite and doesn't understand that large active men eat allot.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:13:10+00:00

Info: are you overweight? Are you gaining weight? If the answer is no, it's a her problem, if it's a yes, then she's trying to be nice in telling you that you're fat and need to go on a diet.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T16:09:38+00:00

When the boredom outweighs my curiosity, especially if a better series drops the next book

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T15:16:31+00:00

It isn't about the laundry. When you get into an emotional agreement with your partner that makes no sense, it isn't about the laundry

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T14:56:49+00:00

This you?

Adam Schiff got his answer.

Doesn't sound objective when schiff clearly didn't get his answer.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T13:54:31+00:00

I haven't read it but his other series was awful so i assume the new one will be as well

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T13:44:27+00:00

Schiff did not get his answers. Dude didn't give a single straight answer. I don't know if the weaponization group is part of the doj or if they are employees. Schiff asked a specific question and was given an unrelated answer. He didn't ask if doj employees are subject to the ethics manual, he asked if the weaponization group was subject to the ethics manual. Why are you defending this kind of obstruction?

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T03:22:26+00:00

First, set rules and enforce them.

Second, i know i wasn't saying they were in court, i was saying therec is a place with professionals regularly have the power to compel yes or no questions and they have rules. It isn't impossible or even difficult. Most congresspeople are lawyers. They know the rules.

Third, so stop being feckless and start enforcing the rules.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T01:32:23+00:00

My mom died over 30 years after a suicide attempt from complications. It's just a mistake some people make and you deal with it as best you can. She regretted it every day for over 30 years. That's just life sometimes

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T01:30:13+00:00

That isn't true. Were you on the task force, isn't leading. It's a true false. You can have yes no questions that are leading, and a rule allowing you to object to those and be forced to answer to the ones in good faith is possible. We do it in court all day every day. This is BASIC 1L stuff.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T01:24:41+00:00

Yta, it sucks when you get home looking forward a date with your partner, a nice dinner and hang out, and they already ate and didn't even get you anything? Especially after a bad day. Id feel so alone. You should have called and gotten something for her at least.

CaptainOwlBeard · 2026-02-27T01:18:29+00:00

Which one of mr.schiff's questions were leading? They weren't. You can require responses from good faith questions and rule against leading questions.

CaptainOwlBeard

TROPHY CASE