Search results

*Cugel will be ready to jump in if anyone gets hurt by the hobgoblin (if he can get there, I'm not sure).*

Too situational, which is the number one problem with bad cards. I do think Chime is significantly worse, though.

I don't know about that. Each set is, for now, only getting one winner for the hall of shame. How many cards get nominated is definitely not a metric showing how many cards in the set are actually hall of shame material. For example, First Edition saw several nominations, but probably all of...

No. Of course I'm immune. :rolleyes:

No, but I know that. Yes, but if it's something that's practically impossible for them to discover your lie on or actually illegal for them to even make an attempt to do so, they wouldn't even try. You saying something that is wrong, does, however, automatically make you wrong.

I never cared for turkey meat.

Did you read my post? I really don't see how you could be asking this question if you did. Oh well, I'll try more time. For example: of the many people who are NOT diabetics, it is true that people who eat a lot of calories are at a higher risk for becoming diabetic than people who don't. If...

I second the nomination of Leeches. I could nominate something else, like Apocalypse Chime, but I already know I'll be voting for Leeches anyway and I honestly consider it to be just that much worse than every other card in this set. And there are some bad ones. Leeches is a potential candidate...

Mmm... Insurance companies do a lot of things that many people would say are not OK. But legally they can and do get away with it. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it seems to be how things have been and will probably continue to be. Oh yes, definitely. Actually, it would be several...

First question: No, not necessarily. Second question: Good for that person. Third question: Yes, if I'm trying to make a point that deals with said area. If I'm trying to make a point about history and I'm talking with a history major, I can't plead ignorance about what s/he says in response and...

Of course I remember Jigglypuff. One of the original 151 pokemon, it evolves into Wigglytuff, which is unfortunately not very useful in battle. Oh wait, wrong Jigglypuff... Of course I remember Jigglypuff. You used to sign your posts with "Steve."

With combo decks.

But genetic differences ARE biological. "Does not" is quite different from "should not." And "definition" is a pretty broad category here. We've got colloquial definitions (which won't always be the same), historical definitions (those depend on context), legal definitions (vary with region)...

Might as well complete the playset on FoW. Not sure what else to do. I like milling decks, but I don't care for this centerpiece. It might work out well though. Who knows? Jace Beleren Planeswalker - Jace Loyalty: 3 1UU +2: Each player draws a card. -1: Target player draws a card. -10: Target...

Uh, I'm not saying that civil unions are separate from civil unions or something like that. I'm saying that civil unions are separate from marriages. It was tongue-in-cheek. Come on. How much more obvious did I need to make that? 1. "Biologic"? That word is a noun that used to denote...

I'll come up with something...

They quite clearly are separate. Are you planning on making an actual point or just dismissing everything as "silly"?

I don't think it's a ridiculous extreme. Polygyny has been the default for most of human history (something that the "we just don't want marriage to be redefined" crowd should keep in mind). It still is the default in many cultures. It seems to have worked for all those people. The problem...

So you would disagree with this guy: Right? "Any two people being with each other is different from any other two people being with each other. So what?" What word? It's not "marriage" if that's what you're thinking. The text that was added to California's constitution was "Only marriage...

So you'd disagree with someone who said, "there is nothing 'equal' when comparing a same-sex couple to a heterosexual couple"? But we're not talking about changing or not changing biology. We're talking about changing or not changing law. And that's language, not law. If we were making a new...