Stack Exchange
log in

Pryftan

 Discussion on question by Oron: Why d…

Imported from a comment discussion on cooking.stackexchange.co...
Pryftan
Mar 2, 2020 10:26
Tip: Use onlineconversion.com. Great resource. It's not only for cooking. This is just on the subject of measurements.
 

 Discussion on question by Nevi: Is tr…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Pryftan
Mar 2, 2020 09:18
As someone with a medical background (and been asked by multiple doctors if I was one) I will say that this is a difficult question to ask. This borders on medical advice and you shouldn't ever take that from someone esp online. Including me (I myself will never offer any however except for things like seek medical help). That being said there are so many variables from person to person to really know. Is it really worth the risk? I've seen too much death and near-deaths over the years but I suspect you already know the answer you just hope for better news.
 

 Discussion on question by Henning: "T…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Pryftan
Jan 7, 2020 14:01
@jamesqf Maybe it's rude to you but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way. I don't. And rude has a variety of meanings though some of them maybe you don't know - it seems that you're American but if not then maybe you will know these and apologies. Still I don't find it rude at all to use someone's surname to address them directly. It's how it's said that really matters. It's the tone, it's the attitude, it's the context. You can use someone's given name and make it sound ruder than if you use their surname. Surely you must see how this is possible?
Pryftan
Jan 7, 2020 14:01
Just because a phrase is a British phrase does not mean it's not used elsewhere. I've heard Americans use Britishisms plenty; other things they had no idea what I was talking about. Think also of where it might originate. You might also find the website phrases.org.uk very useful and interesting! It will show some of what I just noted too.
 

 Discussion on answer by ghoti: Why is…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Pryftan
Dec 5, 2019 01:56
@Patrick Well I won't argue with that at all. I interpret them to be more or less the same thing but perhaps there are subtle points I'm not aware of. I would also add that when it comes to something like this there will typically be emotion involved. I am an atheist and I am by no means suggesting I would have these subtleties in mind for I do not know what they are (nor admittedly does it matter to me). As for the latter point I don't see the relation but I'm far too tired to try either. Anyway my point is that both are against and that's what I was after (and is the problem as I see it).
Pryftan
Dec 5, 2019 01:56
@Dan No. You can be against Israel and not hate Jews. The torture and various other things like settling and boarding ships in international water, kicking survivors out of their homes even those are things I'm against. But not the people. No. Anti-Semitism says it clearly though one could also say Anti-Judaism too of course. Anti- is an important part of the construct.
Pryftan
Dec 5, 2019 01:56
@Juhasz Yes although it's interesting to note that at least one Jew (I'm too tired - okay and lazy - to check who) did say the Jews had some part to play in the persecutions. If I'm thinking right it was particularly to do with the financial sectors. But absolutely it's important to have the anti-. But then there are forms of hate that do not have anti- and that is unfortunate. But the definition of anti- should say it all.
 

 Discussion on question by Nigel J: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Pryftan
Dec 5, 2019 01:56
Better question would be why they call the hate of Islam a phobia but when it comes to Judaism it's 'anti-'. I'm afraid I already know the answer but hate is hate. Yes people do often hate what they fear but one is a euphemism so it's dishonest too. We're all human beings though. Not an answer but: anti- means opposed to or against much like 'an' and 'an' can mean without, no in e.g. analgesic (pain killers) or agranulocytosis ('without/decreased granulocytes'). Another example of anti: antiemetic (anti-nausea).
 

 Discussion on question by DT Cooper: …

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Pryftan
Oct 15, 2019 21:13
@srini Would this be the best place? :) Might as well dive right in. But hey, time travelling is dangerous itself but then to travel back to a place that's going down seems to me absurd.
Pryftan
Oct 15, 2019 21:13
Get off the boat before it's too late. But then..since you're meddling with time...That complicates everything and dangerously so. If you're meddling with time then you shouldn't expect anything to go as planned. Philosophically this could be said to say that maybe you' ll survive but I don't think so. @Logan Hilarious. Thanks for that.
 

 Discussion on answer by Arcanist Lupu…

Imported from a comment discussion on scifi.stackexchange.com/...
Pryftan
Aug 12, 2018 23:49
@Randal'Thor That wasn't in the slightest bit my point. Fine you copied it over; that's good if you're going to move them over. But that wasn't what I was getting at. Whatever though. I'm not doing well and it's an exercise in futility because the answerer is ignoring - well seemingly everything that points out how the point made is wrong.
Pryftan
Aug 12, 2018 20:14
One more piece of evidence is this; just before the quote I cited - actually the same quote but earlier on - Dumbledore says this: Once a champion has been selected by the Goblet of Fire, he or she is obliged to see the tournament through to the end. So even if you find ambiguity in the quote I gave first this one has absolutely none whatsoever. As I was saying.
Pryftan
Aug 12, 2018 20:14
@RDFozz Such is life when it comes to law. Like it or not those under any jurisdiction are obligated to do - and not do - certain things. The fact it put Harry's life in danger doesn't change that fact. And thus JohnP is absolutely correct. Edit: real life parallel: conscription.
Pryftan
Aug 12, 2018 20:14
@ArcanistLupus Rubbish. Sorry but that's just rubbish. You're also forgetting that it's in addition to what Crouch says. Bottom line is it isn't suspect whether you say it is or isn't. You're actually adding the ambiguity to it; there really isn't any at all. Also the quote you added: are bound implies a contract. That's directly stating it's a contract. To clarify: as an adjective it means: Obliged by law, circumstances, or duty to do something
Pryftan
Aug 12, 2018 20:14
@ArcanistLupus Sorry. I almost added that - have had a lot going on. I was referring to the fact that Barty Crouch was under the Imperius Curse and so the claim it's a magical contract is suspect. Because Dumbledore also said it's a magical contract. So it's not suspect. And FWIW I'm not the one who down voted you; I commend you for taking the time and effort etc. to post.
Pryftan
Aug 12, 2018 20:14
Irrelevant. Dumbledore also said it was magically binding. 'The placing of your name in the goblet constitutes a binding, magical contract. There can be no change of heart once you have become a champion. Please be very sure, therefore, that you are wholeheartedly prepared to play before you drop your name into the goblet.'
 

 Discussion on answer by Mithrandir: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on scifi.stackexchange.com/...
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@KonradRudolph Alternatively if she were to describe every single thing it'd never end... But all of us contradict ourselves from time to time and sometimes we appear to contradict ourselves to others but we simply don't explain ourselves well. Then you have imaginary worlds... well you can imagine where that goes. In the end though I fail to see how any of this is relevant to the answer...
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@Morgen I think actually we do: Read the chapter 'The Final Hiding Place' for more information on it; maybe too much to quote here and I'm dead tired. Either way all he finds out - and he questions them rather than probe their mind - is that the trio stole the cup. He - Voldemort - was suddenly in denial but he had to be sure. All he did though was kill the goblins after they told him what was stolen. And he said to them also that he thought they had ways to protect etc. But they were betrayed by Griphook and his lust for the sword, of course.
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@Morgen Maybe you forgot that he murdered all the goblins - everyone who told him what was stolen? :) And I agree on weapon versus spell for snake; because he held non-magic in contempt. But even so there's a reason he put her in a protective cage!
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@KonradRudolph But she didn't contradict herself in this. She's always said that Harry wasn't a Horcrux but she had Dumbledore say it out of convenience. So Good old Mith is correct and you're incorrect.
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@BobJarvis Voldemort took in Harry's blood. That tethered Harry's life to Voldemort's. That's why. Nothing unusual in the slightest.
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@Morgen He did yes. But nevertheless there's a reason he had the protective cage: because there was a risk whatever the case. Yet I don't think he did think Harry would ever try the Killing Curse; not only was he under Dumbledore's tutoring (and remember that Harry was there when Dumbledore flat out said to Voldemort about not trying to kill) but also Harry knew about the splitting of the soul. And he's a better person i.e. weak in V's mind. Even so he would have known he used Crucio but I don't see how he would have known about Imperio.
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@AlexanderKosubek Unless you think it's like a certain infamous chicken that lived for 18 months without a head... bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34198390 But it must be remembered that Voldemort had a protective shield around Nagini exactly because of the risk. For all Voldemort knew the Sword of Gryffindor wasn't impregnated with basilisk venom. So I would say it's actually not relevant in the slightest.
Pryftan
Jun 28, 2018 14:06
@anaximander It was stated by Dumbledore though that having a living creature as a Horcrux is a certain risk; he also did say though that Voldemort had a rather powerful control over Nagini - even for a Parselmouth. As for the locket another thing is Harry had to open the locket in Parseltongue before it would have been destroyed (or so we can perhaps presume since he did do that first). There's a reason after all that Voldemort had a protective cage around her: he knew the risk and I fail to see how a snake even magical could survive without its head (okay..there's that chicken...).
 

 Discussion on answer by Aniket Chowdh…

Imported from a comment discussion on scifi.stackexchange.com/...
Pryftan
Jun 4, 2018 19:00
@AniketChowdhury I never suggested the victim's soul is touched. You're responding to the wrong person on that; I was only talking about the caster when it comes to their soul: as in the act of 'evil' is the killing itself and that's what rips the soul apart. Is there any canon proof that the soul is 'removed'? But it's (a) not where I was originally going (iirc) and (b) really not relevant now.
Pryftan
Jun 4, 2018 18:57
@Randal'Thor ..Whatever though. I was just irked because I had finished the conversation and then it was moved. Even so I'm more volatile, stressed etc. And thank you very much for your condolences; it means a great deal to me. I apologise if I was aggressive but context is important to me and I am rather not in the best state. Hopefully that clears things up for you but whatever the case that's where I stand with it.
Pryftan
Jun 4, 2018 18:57
@Randal'Thor It's more like the fact that it's not directly under the answer; and from memory (though it seems not here) it also lumped everyone's comments together as one. This is just how I view it. All I can say on the matter here is this: this feature is often triggered on sci-fi and other communities (if that's what it's called - can't recall) that it seems to me that it's actually not so bad.
Pryftan
Jun 3, 2018 16:15
I said I wasn't going to continue and maybe I already answered this - yet another reason I hate the idea of moving it to 'chat'. Anyway @AniketChowdhury I never implied it did anything to the soul other than it rips it apart. And how do I know that? Slughorn tells us and that's exactly what the Horcrux is doing - split the soul to tether it to an object so it becomes earthbound. Anyway I was more than done and I am now.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@JanusBahsJacquet That’s not at all how I interpret it but as I have shared before: that’s the beauty of the imagination and if you like to see it that way who am I to judge or make you see it differently? That’s depriving you of the magic. So what if I imagine it differently? What matters is we enjoy it and have our imagination remain our own. Even if this was contradicted by canon this is one of the most important realisations I had a long while back. So you see it differently than I do but that’s okay as it really changes nothing in the end! :)
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@JanusBahsJacquet One more thing is that Remus describes the effect of the soul being removed and we see it when it happens to Crouch Jr. so that’s what I was getting at. Sure there could be minor semantics but as far as I can see the only example of the soul being removed is by the Dementors. Hopefully that clears it up but if not oh well, I guess.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@JanusBahsJacquet Simple. That’s what removes the soul. Remus makes this very clear and rebukes Harry wishing it on Sirius. But the site is whining about supposed chat even though it’s relevant so maybe we should stop as moving it to chat removes context as far as I am concerned. I have said all that I can probably anyway.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@JanusBahsJacquet I read that perfectly well but thank you anyway. Not relevant to my point though.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@JanusBahsJacquet There are numerous reasons we could come up with. As for having his soul intact how else could he move on? And are we forgetting what Dumbledore says to Harry about reality versus in his head? It seems some people are.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@NKCampbell Look at it this way: whose soul is split? And what makes you think it has anything to do with the victim’s soul? That’s certainly not implied and I would say any suggestions to the contrary is conflating it with the Dementors and their Kiss.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@user13267 No. That’s the dementor’s kiss. The idea that AK removes the soul is at best conflating the Kiss with murder. Remus also specifies how they become an empty shell with nothing. Not the same thing with AK.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@NKCampbell Yes and I was saying the victim does not have their soul removed if they indeed have a soul (as I expect they do). This is shown when Dumbledore has his soul intact. The point is the same: the victim doesn’t lose their soul for AK is not the same as sucking out the soul. Thus again whether Muggles have a soul or not is entirely irrelevant to Horcruxes.
Pryftan
Jun 1, 2018 23:56
@NKCampbell Whether or not a Muggle has a soul or not is irrelevant to making a Horcrux because it's the wizard/witch's soul that splits. Or are you saying something else? I think it's a stretch to say that the soul splits because the other has a soul. Unless of course you have some evidence to the contrary?
 

 Discussion on answer by TCAT117: What…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Pryftan
May 17, 2018 03:17
@JBH (and the OP) never mind of course his views on Hitler and his letter suggesting the Jews were a gifted people... Oh and his point that the Allies had no right to systematically exterminate the Germans because they have just as much right as the Nazis did - in other words no right whatever they have done.
Pryftan
May 17, 2018 03:17
@JBH You do know about the Kinslaying, right? Do you also know about their folly with wanting to be superior race in the world but also have it like Valinor? And you do know the original Dark Lord came from the North and not the East or South? There's a tactical reason too why Sauron was in the latter: because he had to be far from the West and after Sauron manipulated the Númenóreans to attack the West the world geography was changed drastically. The Elves woke up in the East btw.
Pryftan
May 17, 2018 03:17
@Miller86 He actually in the Letters said that they can't wholly be evil though there are some subtleties so you're right.
 

 Discussion on question by Misha R: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on scifi.stackexchange.com/...
Pryftan
Apr 23, 2018 07:32
@HarryJohnston Young people aren't gullible? Ha. Well even those who aren't they're still easy to manipulate. What's worse is it's harder to undo the damage. I don't know what you might be referring to wrt gullibility but I did want to throw that out there anyway. Personally I agree with Misha - the curiosity can be a curiously infectious thing. And that's usually a good thing. As far as I am concerned being more read is a great thing. But I know some probably disagree there.
 

 Discussion on question by Hawker65: C…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Pryftan
Mar 22, 2018 02:38
chainsaw-like blade evokes the memory of how much I enjoyed the chainsaw in the DOOM games. Something tells me if there are anti-vehicle weapons that there wouldn’t be going back to the old way because how do swords compete against the explosives? Of course maybe in addition for some instances but not on a whole (hell -bicycles were used in the Second World War which might seem silly to some but I and many can see the use of them to complement everything else). I am not knowledgeable enough to even try and answer but those are my immediate thoughts to at least part of your question.
 

 Discussion on question by Peter: How …

Imported from a comment discussion on interpersonal.stackexcha...
Pryftan
Mar 1, 2018 00:25
The game in question is a single player game where being AFK the whole day has no benefit. I've done this plenty with multi-player and single player games - including for the former my OWN... I know many others who have too.
 

 Discussion on question by matcheek: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
Pryftan
Feb 21, 2018 14:19
@MarkC.Wallace matcheek is right; your arguments are absurd. How is wanting to know what defined a Jew problematic? You could replace it with any number of other things and equally have you say the same thing. Is it because anti-Semitism is so deeply rooted in society and you fear that people can't possibly be decent? Well it's true that many can't be but that doesn't mean nobody can - and there is much to learn and read about what classified a Jew during the Second World War; my answer has excerpt of the minutes of the Wannseekonferenz and that's a pretty important historical event.
 

 Discussion on answer by Edlothiad: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on scifi.stackexchange.com/...
Pryftan
Dec 15, 2017 16:06
@Herohtar What quote or chapter? Can you describe any part of it? I can't say I remember it even though I read it every year and the last two years I read it twice - and just a month or so ago at that! Still I think the letter really strengthens the message because Tolkien can elaborate in a way outside the story: as if he's explaining the background of the story.
Pryftan
Dec 15, 2017 16:06
@Edlothiad Ah. Well I just added it. You can search for the following: Shelob's lair became inevitable.
Pryftan
Dec 15, 2017 16:06
@Edlothiad Unfortunately I foolishly forgot to check which letter but I'll edit it into my answer (below it) so you can see what I'm referring to. Give me a few minutes.
Pryftan
Dec 15, 2017 16:06
@Edlothiad The Letters. I could probably find it easily enough. Of course in HoME there are numerous different plots. I'll go take a look at the book and if I can find the letter quickly (I have something I have to do in a bit) I'll take a picture of it and then type it out (my books in my personal library remain there as a rule).
Pryftan
Dec 15, 2017 16:06
@Douglas I seem to recall it's in the letters but I am unsure of that exactly. What is certain is Tolkien noted that had Sam understood the relationship between Frodo and Sméagol better Shelob's Lair might not have happened; furthermore he'd have taken the Ring but understand that he couldn't have had both the Ring and life: Sauron would take him and destroy him (just as he would have for Frodo) and so he'd cast himself into the fire ending Sauron and doing Frodo the best service he could do.
Pryftan
Dec 15, 2017 16:06
No worries on my behalf! I'm a part (though mostly as a user I have contributed as a developer too) the open source community so I strongly believe in this type of thing; and giving credit where credit is due is important to me: but that doesn't mean nobody is allowed to reuse something I've done when it's open. It's about mutual respect as both a programmer and a user (though many users and programmers sadly neglect this) and I'm all for sharing of knowledge; that's something deeply ingrained in me and always has been: besides that's the intent of the world wide web; to share info freely!