It doesn’t make sense to me that people with too much time on their hands love to accuse asexuals and demisexuals and grey-asexuals of just wanting to be ~special snowflakes~ who are ~unique~ and ~not like anyone else~
… when the reality is that almost every member of the asexual community that I’ve ever known has been relieved to find they’re not alone.
sometimes i feel so bad for lucifer
imagine you’re a little kid and you have the coolest dad in the whole world like he takes you to baseball games all the time and teaches you how to drive an ATV and sits up on friday nights with you eating pizza rolls and watching cartoons
and then one day he brings home a thousand fucking ferrets or something
and they smell and they’re shitting all over your house and he just sits around playing with the ferrets and ignoring you and you’re like “dad what the fuck” and he’s all “aren’t these ferrets gr8 i want you to do whatever they tell you to do and you have to love them you have to love them"
and you’re like “dad have you gone off the deep end you gotta get rid of the ferrets man”
and then he kicks you out of the house
I read somewhere that this character had a really long and hard to pronounce name, but John Cleese couldn’t say it so he just said Tim instead and they ran with it.
Female privilege is getting to claim a headache to avoid sex.
Female oppression is having to claim physical illness to avoid sex because men won’t take a simple fucking “no” for an answer.
Female oppression is men being so entitled that they think being denied sex is oppressive.
Contrary to popular belief, there wasn’t a single unifying code for pirates; talk about logistical nightmare. But most pirate ships ran with a sense of code that has been found to be fairly universal. Though the nuances were different, the basic rules were common enough to categorise them. Pirates were pretty much all democratic, had rules for who got paid what (a hierarchy of payment when a ship was taken, as well as assigning special bonuses: in many cases, the first man to spot a ship that they decided to take on would get the finest pistol aboard. Bravery and daring was always rewarded as well), had organised shifts, ran trial by jury, had limits on punishments, rights for the accused, a code for fighting between the crew, rules about those that had wives/mistresses/girlfriends, and there was even religious tolerance in many cases.
They also killed pillaged, robbed, tortured, raped (that one varied greatly on the crew and their captain actually), cheated, lied, etc.
But they had some cool stuff too man
the 104th training squad wasn’t allowed to haze new recruits after that
you’ve seen eren hold paper but have you seen him read
i hate it when people call me defensive, WHAT THE FUCK?? I AM NOT FUCKING DEFENSIVE
no mom you don’t understand you can’t see it it’s so very private that only thousands of strangers in the internet can see it
how many times do i have to tell you
it’s ‘billiards’ if haruka’s in earshot
now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes
The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.
But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.
The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!
Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.
BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.
Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?
Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo?
So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.
Thank you for your time.
Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.
Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.
And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.
So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.
hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.
I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe
Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.
The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog?
On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.
Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?
Actually, Mr. Godot!!
Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…
If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!
Aah… these M&M’s droplets
So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!
the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*
I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!
This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s… The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.
This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.
It is clearly a fraud!
You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat.
To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..
With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!
Hold it right there everyone.
A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.
I’m seriously trying to figure out if this was intentional or