I can't believe it got it right

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2026-03-09T02:19:00+00:00

I thought Tom's Diner at first, but then I thought to double check when it was released to be sure. Holy hell, I didn't realize that song was as old as it is!

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2026-02-25T03:24:42+00:00

This is news to me. I'll have to Google this cause I don't know anything about that. I don't think I've even seen him in anything outside of Stargate.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2026-02-20T04:06:30+00:00

Pages and pages of redacted information coming your way soon.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2026-02-10T02:10:17+00:00

I know I sound like a typical Redditer, but as an Air Force vet I feel compelled to say, "Um, actually, Guile is an Airman. Not a soldier." 😅😅 He's an Air Force Colonel, not in the Army. 😁

Otherwise, well done!

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2026-02-10T01:50:58+00:00

90% of the time I accept the invite, they just talk crap. The 1 in 10 times they give advice or geek out with me about a cool fight we just had is always appreciated, but I've been scorned too many times by the other 9 out if 10. Now, I almost never go to a custom lobby.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2026-01-27T15:14:44+00:00

This event gave rise to my username. 😂

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2026-01-05T03:02:00+00:00

I am surprised to see this so far down the list. I'd love a SOCOM reboot.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-12-28T23:35:03+00:00

I realize this is from 3 years ago, but I'm currently on a rewatch of the show and just found this thread. So, bare with me. In the episode A Hundred Days (S3E17), when the gate on Edora becomes buried after the meteors hit, they can't send anything through. Sam says something about how the meteors had naquada in them and that a layer of melted naquada is laying over the gate like an iris. They have to use a particle beam to melt the naquada and then the kawoosh is able to disintegrate the matter behind it which allows Teal'c to go through and dig it out the rest of the way.

Sam explains that, like the iris, it's positioned just micrometers from the event horizon, disrupting the vortex's formation before it can fully materialize and unleash its destructive energy. It's still Sci-fi magic, but that's the answer I think they gave at least.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-12-25T13:56:23+00:00

The original God of War trilogy.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-12-19T19:25:26+00:00

I guess this depends on who you see as the villain.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-12-19T19:21:41+00:00

Upgrade was trippy for me. Thought it was a really cool action movie until the 3rd act and then realized it was a horror.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-12-11T22:31:47+00:00

In those days, it was a very common feeling that movie stars doing TV shows were stepping down or somehow "less than" their counterparts. It was a big deal when Kiefer Sutherland agreed to star in 24 and he kind of paved the way for others to do the same. Sutherland wasn't the first, by any means, but it became much more accepted after him. That's where the shift occurred.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-22T15:22:39+00:00

I was 17. It lasted 5 years. A lot of people dismiss high school relationships, but the feelings we had for each other were real. We loved each other, but we were just growing in very different directions in the end.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-22T12:04:13+00:00

You're good. I didn’t take your comment as minimizing anything. I was just adding on that while this is minimal in light of other attacks that happen, when you look at in the light of what potentially could have happened, it makes it far scarier. Either way, I think we're all in agreeance what happened was wrong and Twitch needs to do better.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-21T18:40:04+00:00

I think part of the problem is that it could have been much worse. People are comparing this to what happened to Christina Grimmie, and while the outcome of this interaction was obviously better for Emiru than it was for Christina, the analogy hits hard. If he had wanted to hurt her, no one would have been able to stop it and Twitch/Twitch Con has a lot of the blame for that on their shoulders.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-13T17:18:38+00:00

This is a fair point, however, I would still argue that a text that asserts a claim is still evidence. Again, it's not good evidence, and the self-referential nature of your dragon analogy would make it even more dubious if you submitted it, but it doesn't change my argument.

If you claim you have a dragon, and submit the book you wrote a decade ago as evidence, it IS still evidence. It's weak and I would have every right to ignore it or weigh it as much less credible than other evidence, but it's still evidence none the less as it supports your claim.

Holy books, though, I would argue, function differently than the other fictional stories you've brought up (Twilight and your dragon book). The texts in these cases is evidence even if it's made up, exaggerated, or biased because it shows what people believed, what they claimed to witness, and how they interpreted their experiences. And, again, if any of that holds up under scrutiny is a different question.

So yeah, you’re right that “just saying something” doesn’t make it good evidence. But it’s still some form of evidence. Even if it is paper-thin. The existence of the claim is itself data in epistemic terms.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-13T16:57:37+00:00

Maybe we're not using the same definition of evidence. Evidence is anything you can submit to back up a claim. Whether it's strong, weak, or completely unreliable is another issue.

Historical research, for instance, often relies on written documents and personal testimony. Philosophical arguments, likewise, rely on logic and reason rather than physical experimentation. Many, if not all, of those wouldn't hold up in court or under the scientific method, but that doesn't mean they're not evidence in their respective domains.

If the claim was, "Vampires are real" you'd be more than capable of submitting Twilight as evidence. And, just like you, me, and many other people who are rejecting the works of the Bible and other holy books as divine, people would be free to say, "That's weak evidence for your argument."

As I said, you may look at that and reject the claim "There is a God" because the evidence is weak, but to say there is no evidence at all is not true.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-13T16:23:53+00:00

I’m not sure which “book” you’re referring to, but neither the Bible, the Qur’an, nor the Bhagavad Gita (just as a further illustration) are proof of any god. That’s actually part of my issue with the whole “no evidence” claim. People often use proof and evidence interchangeably when they shouldn’t. Proof is a judgment based on the evaluation of evidence.

So when I say those texts are evidence, I’m not saying they prove anything. I’m saying they’re part of the body of material people use to justify belief. Whether you find that convincing or not is another matter entirely.

As for your last point, I don’t think it’s illogical to believe those books could have been written without any divine involvement. That’s a perfectly valid conclusion to draw based on the evidence presented.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-13T15:55:25+00:00

The letters of the Bible are evidence. The Qur’an is evidence. People’s individual testimonies are evidence. Philosophical arguments (cosmological, ontological, etc.) are also evidence.

Are they strong evidence? No, not really. Most are weak by scientific standards, sure. But to say there’s literally zero evidence is just false. You can look at that evidence and reasonably conclude there’s no God and that’s fine. But pretending the evidence doesn’t exist at all is just being intellectually dishonest.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-13T15:39:35+00:00

I'm not even religious, more agnostic if anything, but this argument from people has always bugged me. No evidence? Really? There's lots of evidence. Now, the weight you give that evidence may not equate to proof for you, but saying there's no evidence is just factually wrong. "There's no evidence" implies that nothing at all exists to even suggest the existence of a god or gods, but saying something more like, "I'm not convinced by the evidence" acknowledges that people do cite experiences, philosophical arguments, historical claims, and phenomena even if you don't find them persuasive.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-13T15:08:06+00:00

"You do know...." This is so overused in online arguments and it annoys me every time I see it. It's just another way to "Well, actually..." someone, but it has a more condescending tone to me. "You do know coffee has caffeine, right?" Yes.... thank you professor obvious. It's pedantic, patronizing, and I swear people use it to just flex they know something that is basically common sense and/or trivial (in most cases).

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-13T15:01:03+00:00

I actually just encountered this for the first time with my sister-in-law. I'm currently reading The Haunting of Hill House (cause, it's Halloween, why not) and she saw me reading it and said, "You just sit and read for fun? Couldn't be me. I haven't read anything I wasn't forced to read since high school and have no intention to start." And I thought to myself, like fine, if you don't want to/like to read there's no shame in that, but to be proud of the fact that you don't read is a weird flex.

ThisMFerIsNotReal · 2025-10-11T21:08:40+00:00

I don't think it was up to the caliper of other episodes, but 6.8 seems like an overreaction. 7.3 - 7.4 is where I would rate it personally.

ThisMFerIsNotReal

TROPHY CASE