Comic Fury Webcomic Hosting - Forum search

You are not logged in. Log in, Register, More info
Forum > Search results
Pages: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [108]

Yesterday, 10:36 PM #1
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Seems like I mostly agree with your other respondents. I won't say what that means in terms of categories because it could bias future responses.

Some general comments about things:

First, grinding. My knee-jerk instinct is hate it with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns.

But... the last few months I have been addicted to (single player) ARK, which is a pseudo-RPG survival game. (It's not meant for you to RP in it really, but nothing prevents it and it has all that one needs to RP.) There is tons and tons of somewhat to mostly optional grinding in that game and I not only don't mind it but I actively love it. I think somehow ARK cracked the code for someone with my tastes, in terms of grinding.

Here is why ARK's grinding works for me and why I did not pick the most negative response for grinding (though I still didn't say that I generally like it).

First, grinding largely optional. Since literally everything you do in ARK (combat, crafting, harvesting, hell even standing around) gives you XP, you choose which you do to level up. This allows someone like me to do a little of everything so that I am not just harvesting, harvesting, harvesting, harvesting to get XP. Basically you get XP for playing the game, so you do what you want and thus it is not unpleasant.

Second, the XP gain rate is user-defined. That is, it defaults to "1x" but you can tweak that with sliders in your solo game (not on a live server of course -- I would hate ARK on live servers). I actually turned this XP gain *down* to 0.5x because I was leveling too fast. Thus, I actually forced more grinding on myself. What world are we in that I have done this? But the secret to this is that it lets any player set the rate of gain that is comfortable to that person, and so you can tweak the game to YOUR desired level of grinding (or not). This will not work in a traditional RPG where quests are level-based or things like that. Level is largely meaningless in ARK except for determining what you can craft.

Third, what you are doing while grinding is, to me, fun. I enjoy taking a giant beaver out into the forest and felling trees to get wood. Or riding on the back of an Ankylosaur to swipe at rocks and obtain flint and metal. Or going out with my raptor pack and ordering them to kill one helpless herbivore after another to harvest meat and hides. Heck even taking a pick to some crystal nodes or oil nodes and hacking away is oddly soothing.

Fourth, ARK's grinding has a purpose beyond itself. When I take that beaver out to harvest wood, yes, it levels the beaver. But also, I am harvesting the wood for some reason. Maybe I need more firewood to cook up the meat my raptor pack just brought home. Or maybe I need wood to make a new raft. Or to build more walls for my base. So while the wood levels me, it is also accomplishing something. I made an insanely, wildly unnecessarily large base for one single player (really all you need is a hut surrounded by stone walls and some farming plots), which essentially forced grinding on me. I did not mind all the harvesting because I had a goal, a purpose. I was not collecting it for no good reason. Especially -- *I* decided what my base floor plan would be, not someone else. I find this very different from when, say, an NPC tells me to go out and kill 10 harpies. This is the game telling me what to grind, instead of me deciding I want to harvest 10,000 stone and 20,000 wood to make a giant lighthouse on the rocks over there because I think it would look cool.

Anyway... I normally oppose grinding in games, but I think if it is possible but not forced, if it is decided by the player but not imposed on him, then I am OK with it. At least, that is the only explanation I can come up with for why I hate grinding in most MMORPGs and not only don't mind it but am freaking addicted to it in ARK.

Dunno if any of that information helps you from a design perspective since ARK is not really an RPG but there you go.
_______________________
image
Result in thread: new management!!
2 days ago, 12:46 PM #2
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Well I am late to the ball game since I just took a look at the management page, but I like it much better. The old one wasn't bad but I find this much easier to use and navigate and so on. Very nice.
_______________________
image
Result in thread: OK now this is crazy...
6 days ago, 12:42 PM #3
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
I don't own a modern 4K console nor do I want one. But I am sure someone will want it, if I can figure out how to transport it.

Fun update -- we are having a major winter storm and they are predicting wide-spread power outages. This time I am not taking chances. I unplugged the TV completely from the wall last night (didn't bother with the 4K player or the cable box -- those are not as expensive to replace if something happens -- and they are still on a new surge bar).

Hopefully the power will stay on but with my area's track record I am not going to assume....
_______________________
image
Result in thread: OK now this is crazy...
6 days ago, 3:11 AM #4
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
It may not have been the power fluctuation that killed the TV. Maybe it was a coincidence and it was just that TV's "time." No way to know for sure.
_______________________
image
Result in thread: OK now this is crazy...
One week ago, 4:08 AM #5
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
The old TV. It is a Samsung. That model, at least, has a glowing red LED dot when it is off, no light when it is on.

The power came back on, and that red dot immediately came on flashing instead of solid. This is a common sign with that model of a dead circuit board in the internals. It costs a lot to fix. Not worth it on a 2008 model TV. I got my 10 years out of it.

So no, I didn't "reset the surge protector before trying the TV" because the TV died when the power came back on, before I even tried it. Now, yes of course I tried various things like plugging/unplugging stuff and whatnot. The blue-ray player and the cable box and roku attached to that same surge bar worked fine (and still work, well not the BR player because I upgraded to a 4K player, but the other two still work fine).

I have since bought a newer surge bar. Those things have a lifespan and that one was probably as old as the TV so it was time to replace it.

Anyway not the point -- the point is that now that I bought a 49" TV to replace the 32, my work gave me a free 43" TV. LOL.
_______________________
image
Result in thread: OK now this is crazy...
One week ago, 1:35 AM #6
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Yeah that or give it to someone around here, I guess.

I have to see if I can fit it in my car and if so, if my sister even would want it.
_______________________
image
Result in thread: OK now this is crazy...
"OK now this is crazy...", One week ago, 1:26 AM #7
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
About 2 months ago, a hurricane hit my area and the power went out (no other damage locally). It was out for a few hours, and then came back on. Somehow when it came back on, despite the surge protector, my old 32" TV got fried and stopped working. Now, I had wanted a newer, bigger set for a while, but since the old one worked, I just did not do anything about it.

So I got a company in here and they came up with a new modest sound system to go with a nice, brand new 49" Sony Bravia 4K TV. The thing is awesome. I have been enjoying it since just before Thanksgiving.

Two weeks ago, for the fist time, I signed up for the charity campaign at work (normally I just do all that donating through my church). I just told them to take $5 a month ($60 total) out of my paycheck to give to our departments fund for things like buying flowers for someone's funeral, birthday cards for employees, etc.

Today I was notified that I won some sort of drawing. Everyone who donates (regardless of how much, I guess) has their name entered. I have won a brand new 43" LG 4K TV.

Great timing right?

I have no idea what I'm going to do with the damn thing.

My first thought was to give it to my sister and her family for Christmas but they are like 500 miles away and I dunno how I'd get it to them.

The whole thing is just wild...
_______________________
image
13 days ago, 4:01 PM #8
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
In most of my stories lately I have had female protagonists. I don't set out to consciously do this, but it's just what comes to me.

The last 2 stories I have come up with (LL and a newer one that will become a novel not a comic) have a teen female protagonist and a younger brother sidekick about half her age. Not on purpose. It's just how it worked out.
_______________________
image
23rd Nov 2018, 12:18 AM #9
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
DrFurball:THIS. I hate the idea of the Chosen One. And the concept of destiny. I like seeing characters have agency and having the ability to change their path in life.


I don't mind "chosen one" characters if they are chosen due to an action they took. For example, Matrix Supergirl, under the Peter David reboot, earned her right to be an Earth-born Angel by giving her life to save another person. She became one of three "chosen ones" as a result, but all 3 "earth born angels" earned their wings by saving another person. So she wasn't just born Chosen, but rather, she was chosen because of actions she took. So there is your agency and ability to change the path in life.
_______________________
image
22nd Nov 2018, 5:13 PM #10
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
James P Hogan did the combo of time travel + alt universes really well in the Proteus Operation, but the difference is, Hogan was a nuclear physicist, he understood quantum mechanics, and he worked out all the rules of how alternate universes and time travel would work before starting to write his story. Most of the time today, especially in comics, the writers don't know or care what the actual physics says and they just make up whatever rules they need to get the story to come out the way they want.

Note, I am talking here mostly about Marvel and DC, not webcomics. Because most webcomic writers actually care about their universes and do a much more thorough job of worldbuilding and rule making than DC and Marvel do.
_______________________
image
22nd Nov 2018, 3:46 PM #11
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Dodom:
- The villain that's blinded by idealism. You can make a good story from the idea that bad things can happen out of good intentions, but right now it's become the standard and authors don't even seem to ask themselves how the villains' good intentions lead to a complete lack of restraint in the methods. If one shows how the villain's personality or circumstances leads them down that path, ok, but usually it's just taken for granted.
In fiction, bad actions derive from good intentions a lot more often than, well, bad intentions. But I promise that selfishness, carelessness, apathy, cynism, fear and other mortal sins are entirely good at motivating bad actions! If I steal your cake, it's not because I care about your carb intake, it's because I want your damn cake!
For now I'm overexposed to the cliché and would rather write bad actions as coming from actual character flaws or mistakes.


I agree with all of yours but especially this.

In particular, I dislike when they take formerly evil characters and re-do them so they are now just "good but misunderstood" or "good but went a little too far" etc.

This *is* real evil in the world. People like Mussolini and Hitler prove this (yes, they are cliche examples but no one would argue either of these two were good people who just went a little too far).

There is also insanity in the world. Several thriller writers like Dean Koontz and Steven James make their villains sociopaths, for instance.
_______________________
image
17th Nov 2018, 7:02 PM #12
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Wolves were reintroduced 20+ years ago in Yellowstone, after having been purposely purged from the continental USA a half-century before that. The reintroduction has been successful, according to the research I've seen. Consequently, there is no reason to continue under the reintroduction regs, which is what this bill is partly targeting.

Just because they aren't being given special protection doesn't mean we're going to purge them again. As long as we don't do that, the wolves should do OK naturally.
_______________________
image
17th Nov 2018, 2:01 PM #13
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
I will second some already mentioned.... Silver, Data Chasers. If it hasn't been mentioned before (not sure I saw it), Heart of Keol. Also, Art of Monsters is awesome, plus just about anything else Leafa does.
_______________________
image
17th Nov 2018, 12:23 PM #14
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
I'm going to echo a few people; here are mine. Before I do, though:

Trigger warning. I know there are some people who think I sometimes try to claim that my opinions are facts. So, to be clear: everything below is an opinion, no matter how firmly I have worded it. But if you don't like firmly worded opinions I suggest you just skip the rest of this post.

Guardians of the Galaxy - don't like them at all. Didn't like the 1st movie, didn't see the 2nd movie, thought their presence in the 3rd Avengers movie (Infinity War) made it worse. I can't say "ruined" it because it was a lousy movie all-round, but their overwhelming presence in every scene all over that movie didn't help.

Thor: Ragnarok - Good basic idea, but I did not like the execution at all. People often think I'll say there were too many jokes. But I think the problem wasn't that there were too many jokes, but that most of the jokes failed to land. I dunno if it was timing or what but none of the jokes made me laugh.

Avengers Infinity War - hated it. And no, not because of the ending, although I thought the ending was dumb (because you know that those characters cannot possibly be dead, so it is just an obvious head-fake). I had already hated it before the ending, though. Not going to get into why.

Speaking of the MCU...

The MCU, now -- I loved the early movies but IW was the whole thing all the movies were building up to and it didn't do anything for me. So, I will watch part 2 just to see how it all ends, but after that I am done with the MCU, probably forever. I'm not going to care how "great" other people tell me the rest of the MCU movies are because I didn't like a lot of them like GOTG, AIW, T:R, in the first place that other people loved so... why would I listen to that. Exception: I probably will see BP 2 because BP was really good and I feel like it earned my next ticket. AIW, Thor, etc., did not.

Song of Ice and Fire - Never saw the GOT show, but I read the first 3 books and part of book 4 before I gave up. Ugh. The show might clean it up but as far as the books go, Martin has no idea how to write a story. It's a mess. He's even (obliquely) admitted it.

The Walking Dead - again, never saw the show. The comics -- ugh. Kirkman might well be the worst writer in comics that I have ever read, and that is saying something. Worst. Dialogue. Ever. Again, might have been cleaned up in the TV show but 1 TPB was all I could get through of the comics.

Invincible - same problem with dialogue (same writer as WD), and beyond that Kirkman proves in Invincible that he is what I call a "shock jock" writer. He puts stuff into his story just to shock and awe you, not because it makes sense or is actually any good. Combine that with awful dialogue and... just no.

I'm persnickety so there are a lot of other things I could probably mention but I'll stop there. Those are some of my bigger ones of more recent popular media.
_______________________
image
Result in thread: College ...is it worth it?
13th Nov 2018, 4:46 AM #15
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
BUMBLEBEE:YOU SHOULD GO TO COLLEGE. Where the hell is Steven Vincent from Liberty Lass? I'm sure he'll back me up.


You're not going to like my answer...

As a college professor, I see dozens of young people each year who should not be in college, but they go at the age of 18 because they are told that it's what they "are supposed to do." These young people, still kids really... Hate to read. Hate to study. Think classes are boring. Don't like any of the subjects they are taking or any subjects period. Don't even want to do the things their degree in biology or chemistry or whatever will set them up to do.

They are wasting 4 years of their lives. They will get out with a degree that is useless to them because they didn't learn anything while they were in school.

Studies have shown this at my school. Students who barely graduate (which is the category in which most of these folks end up), with 2.0 or 2.1 or 2.2 GPAs mostly end up back in their home town working at Wal-Mart. And not as a manager either -- but as a cashier or something. They could have done that without the 4 year degree and the tens-of-thousands of dollars in debt.

College is an academic pursuit. But because "everyone has to go to college", the halls are crammed full of "students" who mostly don't have any academic or intellectual interests. They will complain about reading or lecture classes and say they "want to work with their hands." If you want to work with your hands instead of reading books, go be a brick-layer. Or a roofer. Carpenter. Plumber. Auto mechanic. All professions that pay about as well after 4 years on the job as you will get from a starting salary walking out the door in more than half the majors in college.

Doctor? Yeah, I'm a biology professor. 90% of the kids I see want to be doctors. While they're getting Cs and Ds in their chem and bio courses, are reduced to tears at the mere thought of having to take "Organic II," and take stats instead of Calculus I because that is an option now (unlike when I was in school) and it's "easier." Because med schools are dying to take people who like the easy road and can't cut it in standard undergrad courses like organic chemistry.

Now, I'm not saying there are no good students. There are -- outstanding, amazing ones who make my own achievements (as someone headed to an eventual Ph.D.) pale by comparison. But that's maybe 50% of the student body -- the half that should be there. The half that years ago, would have been the only students in my classes because all the others would have gone to work for a living after H.S. The proof of this is in the numbers. Years ago my school had about 2,000 total students. Now it's 5,000. That extra 3,000 kids per cohort? Those are the ones who wouldn't have gone to college at all years ago. Some, yes, because of lack of opportunity despite wanting to read and study and learn. But most, did not like to read, or study, or learn, in the first place -- and those people should do something else instead of trying to force themselves through the university system.

So... should you go to college? Is it worth it? That depends on you. Are you eager to study? Are you going to buy all your text books and read them? Are you going to go to class every single time, and never cut or skip out to do something "more fun?" Is learning your drug of choice? If yes to those things, then college is a wonderful and amazing place, like it was for me -- you will learn and the more you learn the more you will want to know.

But if your'e going to whine every time the teacher assigns a reading because "reading is boring" or if you're going to come to class without doing the homework because "you have more important things to do" then don't go to college. You're not doing yourself any favors; you will make yourself miserable for four years; and unless you are very unusual you will come out having not really learned anything except how to (barely) pass a test without actually having learned anything.
_______________________
image
12th Nov 2018, 1:58 AM #16
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Sigh.

I wasn't specifically comparing those individual movies to Hitchcock's. I know they are different genres. I was writing my post late at night, and I know about what year I started watching Hitchcock movies (it was either 2002 or 2003), and I was wracking my brain to try and come up with 1990s big-name hit movies that would be familiar to people, which I had seen in the theater and liked. I have a whole wall of movies, many of them from that era, downstairs but I did not feel like going down to check on them and come up with more genre-similar examples. The point was not the specific names of the movies I chose -- not even a little bit.

The point was, I saw a bunch of more modern movies before I watched Hitchcock and I found that I liked Hitch's stuff better anyway. This is not the same kind of behavior as the implied "stuck in your ways" attitude that people on this thread seem to think anyone who likes the older stuff better must have.

The actors, directors, and stories I like best are, frequently, from the past, but as I was a modern-entertainment enthusiast until around the time I graduated college, I came to all those things late. Thus whatever other descriptor you may want to choose for my preferences, "stuck in the old ways" is not accurate.
_______________________
image
11th Nov 2018, 4:20 AM #17
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Caley Tibbittz Collopy:Personally, I'd really hate to reach a point in my life where I was immune to the charms and powers and creative verve of the new sound, and the new art, and the new writings.


I'm not immune to new things. I just haven't seen, for example, any director since Hitchcock with as consistent an ability to tell good stories. Or any singer with a voice that I like better than Patti Page's.

I'd also like to point out that I found Patti Page very late in life -- I had only ever heard her Tennessee Waltz in the movie The Right Stuff, which I saw in late high school or early college (when it finally came on TV and I taped it). I loved the movie, taped it, and watched it many times. Finally one time not long ago -- well into my 40s, mind! -- I watched it again and I could not get Tennessee Waltz out of my head for days afterward. I finally googled it and had to try multiple versions (it's been covered over and over since it was written) before I tracked down that the one I liked was Patti Page. Having liked it, I bought one of her albums on iTunes, her "Greatest Hits," and then I fell in love with her voice.

So, in a very real sense, I found her by being open to new things. I had no knowledge of Patti Page nor had I even HEARD of her until I went looking for the Tennessee Waltz version found in the Right Stuff in my 40s. So she was new to me at the time. Why should the fact that my discovery of her music occurred recently and marks a "new favorite" for me be negated by the fact that it happened to have been recorded a long time ago? Are you saying that if I found a 21st century artist in 2010 or so, that would be me "trying new things," but that stumbling on a 1940s artist in 2010 that I had not known about before, it wasn't trying something new? That seems like a very odd way to tally things. I mean sure, it's not new historically, but it is new to me.

I also discovered Hitchcock late. I saw Rebecca in high school and loved it, but I didn't watch any other Hitch until I was a post-doc, in the early 2000s. Thus my first watching of movies like The Birds and Psycho occurred years after I saw movies like The Matrix or X-Men or Home Alone. Thus Hitch's movies, by my personal watching chronology, were "newer" to me than the more recently made ones that I had seen already. But having watched them, I was able to see that in terms of acting, structure, just about every metric you would care to name, the Hitch movies are superior.

You seem to have assumed that I came encountered movies, books, TV shows, and the like, in the order in which they were originally produced. I did not. When I was young, I stupidly refused to watch anything black and white because it was "old". My whole English class groaned when our teacher brought out Rebecca and made us watch this old 1940s movie. By the end of the first period, though, we were hooked and we moaned worse when the bell rang because we wanted more. I didn't realize it was a Hitch movie back then -- I must have missed it in the opening credits (probably not watching carefully enough). Only years later when I was at Blockbuster and saw it (in my 30s, mind), did I realize it was Hitch and, after re-viewing it and still loving it, decide to try more Hitch.

So just because I like something that was made before The Matrix or Home Alone doesn't mean that I saw it first, and that, as you seem to assume, I then became calcified in what I like to see and never accepted change. Quite the contrary, the Hitch style of movies was the change for me.

The same can be said for Dick Van Dyke. As I said in my first post, I came to that show in my 20s, during college. I didn't even know it had existed until one night when I came home late from hanging out with friends and my mother, waiting up for me, had it going on Nick at Night. I said "what's this?" and she told me and I said I didn't know DVD had even had a show. Then I saw Mary Tyler Moore in it -- I remembered her own show but not the DVD show. I stayed up and watched it with her, and we both roared laughing, and then I started recording it and watching it every chance I got. So I did not decide in 1964 (before I was born, btw) that the DVD show was so good I would never consider watching other things. By the the time I found Van Dyke, I had seen Three's Company and The Jeffersons and One Day At a Time and Designing Women and so on and so on. And AFTER seeing those, I tried Dick Van Dyke and said hey, this is even better.

Finally, to the person who said the problem is stating opinions as facts -- that's how I write. I do not qualify every statement I make with "in my opinion" because the fact that I wrote it means by definition that it is in my opinion. I'm sorry if that offends you... but not sorry enough to change my writing style.
_______________________
image
11th Nov 2018, 1:11 AM #18
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
You asked for thoughts, Tib, so here are some of mine.

Not only don't I have any issue with nostalgia or "older things;" in many cases I revel in them. This should be obvious from the fact that I unrelentingly champion the qualities of the print comics bronze age. I stand forever by my assertion that those are the greatest comic-books ever written, and that nothing produced today in print comics can even come close. You don't have to agree of course, but I won't shy away from it. The stories of Bill Mantlo, for example, are far better executed than anything on the stands today.

You mention sitcoms... The Dick Van Dyke show remains probably the greatest sitcom of all time. It had better acting than anything on the air today. The first half of season 1 was a little bumpy as they tried to figure out what they wanted to do with the show but once they realized it was about Rob Petrie's family and not the TV show on which he was a writer, they churned out 4.5 years of pure gold. "Gazundheit, darling" stands to this day as one of the three or four funniest half-hour episodes of television ever written. I never saw this as a kid (it was off the air by the time I was born) but I saw it as a college student 25 years later and I literally fell off the chair laughing more than once. I laughed so hard I thought I was going to have a heart attack. Nothing on the air today is that funny. And it wasn't the only episode to be hilariously funny, just the best one.

Movies... Hitchcock is the greatest director of all time, IMO. Nobody knew how to hold a shot like he did... how to raise tension... how to surprise you by doing exactly what you expected but in a totally unexpected way. Rebecca, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Rope. The list goes on and on.

Music... Patti Page is my favorite singer of all time. She was popular when my father was young. Apparently he liked her too, although he died in 1982 and I don't recall him ever mentioning her. My mother told me a few years ago when I found Patti and she said I was "just like my father." Since he couldn't have influenced me verbally, maybe it's genetic. But her voice is the richest and most capable one I have ever heard. I have probably listened to her rendition of Tennessee Waltz 1,000 times over the years. Even silly songs like "Doggie in the Window," she gave that something extra. And then there are other great singers like Doris Day, Patsy Cline. Again, I would argue that nobody today has the talent and capability of these older singers -- or if they do, I sure as hell haven't heard it. There's too much shouting in music these days, and not enough actual singing.

So... Nostalgia? The "good old days." I say, bring 'em on. I've had some of the greatest times of my life reading Bill Mantlo comics, watching Honeymooners or Dick Van Dyke or Bob Newhart, taking in Hitchcock, or listening to Patti or Patsy. Why should I do anything other than revel in those things?
_______________________
image
8th Nov 2018, 12:29 AM #19
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
I'd have to go with T-Rex too. I mean it is cliche but, there is a reason it is a classic.
_______________________
image
7th Nov 2018, 2:06 AM #20
Steven-Vincent

User avatar
Posts: 2148
Registration date: 28th Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Two people above nailed it for me:

Entertain people and get my stories out of my head.
_______________________
image
Forum > Search results
Pages: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [108]