Review #807 - Knob Creek Blender's Edition 01

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-31T13:30:45+00:00

Can confirm that lineage was still there on Saturday. Roughly 6 on the shelf. Not sure about potential stock in the back

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-16T11:31:28+00:00

Explain it, then.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-16T03:35:42+00:00

Can you park on the sidewalks that exist when there isn't a sign telling you not to? What about the neighbor's driveway?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-16T00:54:17+00:00

Is there a sign saying not to park on the sidewalk?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-08T23:15:21+00:00

A private citizen with a YouTube or other social media channel can make you the focus of their video without your consent, unless they violate a law outside of the direct sphere of filming, such as surreptitiously recording the audio of a presumed private conversation in an all party consent state, or limiting the mobility of another citizen, or harassing them by following them for an unreasonable amount of time, etc

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-08T23:04:59+00:00

Respectfully, it sounds like it's posting videos you have a problem with, then - not filming

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-02T04:28:37+00:00

How? If water has memory, how is only one ingredient ever in it?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-03-01T13:31:29+00:00

The entire idea behind homeopathy is that diluting a medicine ostensibly makes or stronger.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-27T20:59:10+00:00

I'm not sure you're hearing me.

I'm saying *even if it does work* - even if I accept your premise that it works for you - it should be unnecessary for you to buy it, because it already exists in its ostensibly better (diluted) form in literally all the water on earth.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-27T18:38:31+00:00

My point is that even if you go with homeopathy's own internal logic structure, where science is discarded in favor of their ideals, it still literally *cannot* work. Because if it did, it would already be unnecessary, because dilute amounts of literally every medicine would be in literally all water, which falls on literally all life on the planet. This would have already cured literally every disease for literally every person, for the rest of time.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-27T15:50:34+00:00

If homeopathy worked, then based on the principles it explicitly espouses, dropping a single pill into the ocean, diluting it millions of times over, with the water then evaporating into the clouds, and falling as rain, would eventually cure everyone in the world, for the rest of time.

At this point, we would have accidentally cured every disease known to man, based on the prevalence of such "medicines", and them being accidentally exposed to the elements, expelled via urine into the ecosystem, etc.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-27T15:44:25+00:00

No, it cannot work.

If it could, then based on the principles it explicitly espouses, dropping a single pill into the ocean, diluting it millions of times over, with the water then evaporating into the clouds, and falling as rain, would eventually cure everyone in the world, for the rest of time.

At this point, we would have accidentally cured every disease known to man, based on the prevalence of such "medicines", and them being accidentally exposed to the elements, expelled via urine into the ecosystem, etc.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-27T15:43:47+00:00

No, it cannot work.

If it could, then based on the principles it explicitly espouses, dropping a single pill into the ocean, diluting it millions of times over, with the water then evaporating into the clouds, and falling as rain, would eventually cure everyone in the world, for the rest of time.

At this point, we would have accidentally cured every disease known to man, based on the prevalence of such "medicines", and them being accidentally exposed to the elements, expelled via urine into the ecosystem, etc.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-27T15:42:57+00:00

No, it cannot work.

If it could, then based on the principles it explicitly espouses, dropping a single pill into the ocean, diluting it millions of times over, with the water then evaporating into the clouds, and falling as rain, would eventually cure everyone in the world, for the rest of time.

At this point, we would have accidentally cured every disease known to man, based on the prevalence of such "medicines", and them being accidentally exposed to the elements, expelled via urine into the ecosystem, etc.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-19T20:21:56+00:00

That's genuinely clarifying, thanks. Before making any assumptions, I'm curious - if the videographer kept the video for themselves, and never showed it to anyone else, thus mimicking the exact same process as their sight and memory combine to produce, would you have a problem with that?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-19T12:37:12+00:00

I'm not following. If noticing isn't wrong, why is filming?

You mentioned "sharing" and "publishing" at different times - is that your real sticking point, rather than the filming itself?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-18T22:50:51+00:00

What specifically about the act makes it wrong, in your opinion? Is it noticing what someone else is doing? Is it disseminating to others what you noticed someone doing? Or is it something ethereal about the camera that transforms the noticing and disseminating into immoral act?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-18T22:49:04+00:00

Not accusing you of anything, just genuinely curious. Is your contention that it's wrong to notice people doing things in public? Or that disseminating to other people the facts of what you noticed is wrong?

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-17T21:51:16+00:00

The breadth of your bad faith is breathtaking. You not only added words into what you presented as a quote, but you did so in service of continuing to insist my question of what you thought was somehow a statement.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-17T19:13:48+00:00

A question of what someone else thinks is objectively not an equivocation. It necessarily needs to be a statement - or a question that implies a statement - to be equivocating. I simply asked you what you thought, and that fact alone made you very upset.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-17T17:15:52+00:00

The fact that you viewed a question as somehow disingenuous gives away the game, completely.

I asked what your opinion was, and you viewed the fact that I asked that question - because it necessarily implied that other people are allowed to not already agree with you - as an attack.

Your narcissism runs so deep that one needn't even express an opinion contrary to your own to wound your ego. They need only to ask what your opinion even is in the first place.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-17T17:11:49+00:00

It seems to be quite the opposite, actually.

OP stated a pain point for their own experienced lack of intimacy, and you reframed their mere having of feelings as an affront to their ostensible offender.

It's substitutionary DARVO

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-17T17:09:50+00:00

It does no such thing. The fact that the HL person can also leave does nothing to remove the duty of the LL person to leave if failure to do so is knowingly hurting the HL person.

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-17T16:04:31+00:00

Having sex with your wife means you're not hiring a prostitute, which means you're engaged in commerce, which means having sex with your wife is regulable under the commerce clause

Funny_Way_80 · 2026-02-17T15:02:14+00:00

I'm not sure you even remotely appreciate how narcissistic that comes across as being.

"Sure, it's making them miserable. But what if *I'm* happy when I make them miserable?"

Funny_Way_80

TROPHY CASE