If You See This You’re Legally Obligated To Reblog And Tag With The Book You’re Currently Reading

Cue to me realizing only now that as a kid I’ve mixed up pergament (animal skins) and papyrus (plant stems) and since then have been assuming that’s that. Therefore, my issue has always been that papyrus I have tried making as a kid was a shit surface to write on and fell apart easily (duh) so why on Earth no-one ever complained about that? To be fair, as a kid I knew of papyrus because of Egypt, and I’ve never questioned why people in UK used Egyptian (for me) stuff.

I don't think about Harry Potter all that much these days but sometimes I just randomly remember that these kids were writing on parchment. Like I know they have an aesthetic but WHY are these children writing their essays on ANIMAL SKINS in this day and age. It just isn't practical. At least go with old-timey paper or something.

It's actually so funny because just today I read a post about why Putin did not meet up with an important social media guy (the one who created Russian VK and after it was taken over by the government to spy on people he moved away and created Telegram with the specific intention of it not being possible to use to spy). The message quite literally read "it's because Putin is an old-school KGB agent and simply does not comprehend how important Durov (the guy) is; it is incorrect to compare him with Trump, who uses Twitter, interacts with bloggers and had organised a takeover online". And then I go here and read this. The perspective decides everything, heh? 😁

(just to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth: I am not saying Trump is some sort of Internet guru or something, but expressing my amusement at the comparison of the two posts with completely opposite opinions that, however, do not actually contradict each other)

((I also am not sold on Putin being ignorant about Durov but that's neither here nor there))

HuffPost

Trump Falls For AI-Generated Taylor Swift Fans In Kooky Endorsement Claim: 'I Accept!'

The former president shared a number of fake "Swifties for Trump" pictures including one that's clearly labelled "satire."

Donald Trump had a “love story” for fake photos indicating that Taylor Swift fans are backing the Republican presidential nominee on Sunday.

The former president took to Truth Social to share screenshots from social media accounts that depict women wearing “Swifties for Trump” tees, however, a majority of the pictures appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence.

Ugh, I know, right?? When I (age ten, probably) first got my hands on the book I read the first and the second volumes in a day? Maybe two, can't recall. I loved it. I loved it for years and was perplexed when I told my father about it offhandedly and he said he really thought Mowgli was a much better take. Book of Jungle was cool, but I read it far earlier in my life and was convinced it paled in contrast.

So of course I reread Tarzan about a year ago, and it was awful. Oh, the sweet time when I would read a book and be amazed by a man swinging through jungles, jumping over great pits, battling both man and nature, and carrying inconceivably heavy gold bars (though even then I realized it made no sense because it didn't even look pretty as jewelry does, and unlike rich American Colonists Of British Ancestry kids and guys raised by X-Men style apes do not value gold for itself, at all). This is why I try to not reread books - or rewatch movies - that I liked for physical prowess of the main characters. Most of them turn out to be painfully macho and with weird sexual content that both went over child-me's head, while what I want is the description of how well that dude climbs a tree or catches a certain scent. Heartbreaking.

You know what Tarzan isn't actually what you could call a "good" man.

Yes I can expand upon this point if asked.

Dracula!

Kiss or kill

What if,,, Ryuk came to Earth to watch murder clownery but halfway through decided he preferred star-crossed lovers slow burn romance. And then spent like ten episodes trying to get Light and L together, completely fucking over both of their plans because what can they do against him?

umm, canon

It would be very helpful for people that want to hire this kind of goons, though. Imagine during a cliché warehouse interview somebody going "We also were given three and a half stars by Damian Wayne - AND we've improved on the tracker removal since, like he suggested".

the daily planet: “it’s been 0 days since last kidnapping’ how the Wayne family is coping with Damian Wayne’s recent abduction”

damian treating the interview like a yelp review: the use of handguns was idiotic, their ransom note lacked inspiration, their negotiation tactics were terrible, the food they gave me was of horrible nutritional value, 1/5 stars.

And then a bunch of people will start fighting over whose "hear me out" is truly the most non-conventional. Also you'll probably feel either slighted or invalidated about your own favourite fuck-up.

I am, apparently, the only person that has thought "oh, a giant Kinder Egg" and expected exactly that. Was unable to catch up ever since the third detail 😂😂

forget MuskBot behold Chocolate Robot Chef! 🦾

Acceptance, cookies, bro love. What else one can wish for? Especially since at least one of them I can make come true without relaying on fate at all!

2021 looks bright!!!

The Suicide Club, or the Adventures of a Titled Person, 1981 has this exact thing and the effect is just as good as described.

Concept: Sherlock Holmes adaptation with Watson providing film noir style voiceover narration, except it’s soon apparent that Watson is a somewhat less-than-reliable narrator.

Though the tone and content of Watson’s voiceover is broadly consistent with the original stories, when compared with the accompanying on-screen events it becomes clear that Watson-the-narrator is frequently, at the very least, delicately understating how things really went down, and occasionally lying through his teeth, particularly when the on-screen “truth” would make Holmes or himself look foolish.

While neither the version of events given by the narration nor the version of events concurrently depicted on screen are particularly comedic in themselves, the combined effect of juxtaposing the two is often outright farcical.