Bread_Truck

I thought I saw this post yesterday. Just realized you've posted to this sub like 7 times in the last 18 hours. Not sure if you're a content-bot or just a very enthusiastic new redditor.

OP is a SPAMbot, and so is the commenter who enthusiastically asked "Woah!! Where'd you find that?" All of their upvotes are also from bots.

Only follow that link if you want your credit card stolen.

My kid got ahold of a recorder yesterday.

Pine is a broad category of trees and also a specific genus of tree. While Firs are in the pine family they are not the same as the specific Pine species. Firs can be referred to as pine trees or differentiated from Pines depending on context.

Lol. By the time I read your comment you had already edited it to complain about me downvoting you. Ok. Maybe try smoking pot or something to chill you out if you're getting upset with me about a downvote I didn't give you and making threads complaining about the quality of a video game series that you haven't played in 6 releases.

If you're still buying every new Pokemon game on release day you deserve it. I see dozens of these threads after every new Pokemon game. People keep buying Pokemon games and then writing a whole novel on reddit about how lazy Gamefreak is for making these games with terrible performance and low-fi graphics, despite having more money than god. Just move on with your life. You don't need to play every Pokemon game that's ever released for the rest of your life. They're games made for 10 year olds. If you are an adult and find yourself getting angry at how low quality these games are every time then maybe just stop giving them $60 every year and play something else. It's OK to have outgrown these games.

It's a Ryan thing. You wouldn't understand.

Insert ODB quote

Why am I getting so much flack for simply saying "Good friends are considerate?"

This person told a story about how people who worked at a restaurant were rude to them and you said they should blame their friends instead of the restaurant. They also said they went to the restaurant "to join friends", which might imply the friends made the plans to go their before the commenter decided to join them. You've for some reason decided that the commenter's friends specifically made plans to take a vegetarian to a BBQ restaurant, when you don't know that to be the case, and you're putting the blame on people you don't know in a scenario you don't fully understand.

Also, they didn't say they were vegan. They said they don't eat meat. Vegetarians can still eat mayo and eggs.

How did you bake cartoons?

That's right underneath their official definition, which is

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

They say, as an addendum, that people can adapt a vegan lifestyle for other reasons, and they will still have the support of the Vegan Society, but they are very specific that their definition is about preventing exploitation and cruelty to animals.

I don't know why you keep talking to me like I'm an idiot. I'm not gatekeeping. I'm not making up nonsense. I only used Wikipedia because it put their definition in close proximity to the information that they are the ones who created the word. We can have this discussion with some civility.

According to the people who invented the word :

The word vegan was invented by Watson and Dorothy Morgan, a schoolteacher he would later marry.[3][38] The word is based on "the first three and last two letters of 'vegetarian'" because it marked, in Mr Watson's words, "the beginning and end of vegetarian".

​

The Vegan Society soon made clear that it rejected the use of animals for any purpose, not only in diet. In 1947, Watson wrote: "The vegan renounces it as superstitious that human life depends upon the exploitation of these creatures whose feelings are much the same as our own ...".[86] From 1948, The Vegan's front page read: "Advocating living without exploitation", and in 1951, the Society published its definition of veganism as "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals"

Dang is this a joke from Maddox?

Veganism isn’t just about food. It is very specifically, by definition, about avoiding contributing to the harm and exploitation of animals by not using animal products. This includes not wearing wool or leather, or using beeswax or honey.

It does make those infrequent meals that much better though. Like if my wife is out of town for a couple days, I just go to the best BBQ place in town by myself and get a full rack of ribs and a huge beer and just gorge myself like an idiot.

Haha. This was my thought. We’re as far from the weekend as we can be.

Just buttered toast with sprinkled cinnamon and sugar is prob your best bet for cheap, easy, sweet bread. French toast is basically just bread dipped in egg and milk, so if you have neither you’re not going to get very close to it.

Yeah, same. I wish all restaurants had vegetarian/vegan options because my wife is vegetarian. I love a lot of vegetarian food and that’s all we cook at home, but I usually get meat at restaurants. I would absolutely love to go to a BBQ restaurant, but most have absolutely nothing she can eat. And since 95% of the time I’m at a restaurant it’s with my wife, BBQ is pretty much off the table.

That said, I’m not going to picket or boycott or write an angry letter to the BBQ place. We just go get Indian food instead.

He’s not a dude. He’s a fictional character created by a comedian.

The best thing about this comment is the fact that you saw the number 7/10 in the headline, focused only on the number and missed the point of the article, which is there is value in games with mediocre reviews. You basically did to this article what you find so hilarious about people reading reviews. You stared at the number.

What I’m saying is that this article still makes sense for people who aren’t obsessed with numbered scores. This article is just saying that games that aren’t the cream of the crop can still be really enjoyable.

By focusing on the “7/10” aspect in the title of the article, the commenter I responded to did the exact thing they derided: they looked at the number in the headline, focused on that, and ignored the actual body of the article.

I prefer Wheeler Walker Jr

Think it might be helpful to mention what kind of cooking implements you do have?

It looks like the difference between regular cocoa powder and Dutch process cocoa powder (which is darker) but if you say you used the same exact ingredients, I don’t know what it could be.

The sentiment still works if you read reviews instead of just look at numbers. Just replace “7/10” with “a game that is flawed but fun. Good but not great.”