Hornshire

Of course. We will always be human. It's just that what it means to be human will change, as it always has.

We experience reality through perception. We are not qualified to make judgments about what is or is not there. Though it does strike Us as, for lack of a better word, funny that you should worry so much about discening things that are not there, when compromised faculties just as easily permit you to not discern the things that actually are. But perhaps that's just Our phobia of invisible semi-trucks working its magic. To your presumably separate point, We enjoy them on occasion. At the very least, should Our presumption prove faulty, We believe that We do.

We read somewhere (can't remember where, so take it as you will) that it's not uncommon for trans people in Iran to not actually identify as trans, since the state coerced them into it because a male/trans woman relationship is acceptable while a male/male one is not.

We're going to eventually. No hurry at the moment though.

Kay. But this isn't going to be like last time. No hotels and no video taping.

It is as it does. What can you do?

If you're going to try and correct someone's English, you may want to learn it first. One is the subject, which is singular. "of you guys" is a modifying phrase and does not affect the verb. "is" is correct.

Pretty sure Voldemort could apparate. In other news, the Toronto van murderer was a fan of Elliot Roger.

Doesn't matter. His health was quite poor and he wouldn't have lasted much longer regardless. We will say that with the amount of people wanting his head, it's unlikely that he could have slipped past them all.

Not sure We have the capacity to be lonely. Beyond that, We're likely to be two of the remaining three at any given moment.

That goes without saying. Because atoms are made up of pizza.

æsel endetarmen The market will end up setting the price, but We imagine starting some where around $77

There is nothing but atoms and the void.

No way, this thread is totally amazing. It could well be the greatest thread ever made on these boards. On, dare We say, any boards. You're just jealous.

Just because people are idiots, doesn't give you the right to stab them.

You are dieing. Such is life.

Tangent: https://www.dailywire.com/news/18729/study-uranus-opens-and-closes-daily-release-solar-amanda-prestigiacomo

Eh. Thinking that they can (be taught, that is) is really the bulk of their problem.

Oh, what a terrible thing it is to be liked. You poor thing.

No. You should not. You probably shouldn't have even asked if you should, but what's done is done. More importantly, though, You probably wouldn't worry so much about what other people think of you if only you realized how seldom they do.

Oh, good. Now We need not worry about who will wipe the blood of us, or what water there is to clean ourselves.

Yes, We recognize that is the standardly accepted name for boys' dolls. And while We don't typically find Ourselves conversing on the subject, that is the word We use should the topic arise. But it doesn't change the fact that they are functionally equivalent. We kind of figured this to be the case, but it still strikes Us as odd that the modifier is used in the instance of what should be standard. Meaning that suit implies pants, and that when women started wearing suit-like attire that did not include pants, it would seem more logical to refer to that as a skirt-suit or the like. But alas, language is dictated by the whims of the populace that uses it, and logic is not a priority among that populace all too often. The days where literally meant not figuratively are soon to be behind us.

No, that would be the entirety of what We are attempting to make it. See, a thread implies that there is a series of posts wherein people respond to previous posts- generally by addressing the content within said previous posts that interest them. If you find such responses an affront to your delicate sensibilities, then perhaps this is not the appropriate forum for you to be sharing them?

So it's like when boys play with dolls, we don't call them dolls, even though that's exactly what they are. Your assertion, then, is invalid. Because you are claiming the pantsuit verifies her womanhood; but it would only be a pantsuit because she is a woman, and therefore you are simply begging the question.