Are you a wombat?

Yeah, but that’s only really a trap is there’s a way to keep him from escaping. Voldemort escaped pretty easily; had Harry not been there, he could’ve tried for some time, figured out the trick and then just left to re-evaluate his options.

While not explicitly stated, it’s possible that that’s actually what he did: If he’d figured out Harry, Ron and Hermione had been snooping around and had found the room with Fluffy, Quirrel might’ve willingly dropped hints so that they’d check, let the music play longer than he needed to so that they’d know someone was trying to take the stone and he could lure them all the way down.

RedStarOS has entered the chat

Aside from the very much sung “why didn’t they use the time turner then”, there’s a bunch of “Why didn’t they stop Voldemort then” that could be inserted at various points of the story; when you consider that:

1- Albus had a spy within the death eaters in the person if Severus Snape.

2- In “the Order of the Phoenix”, while Voldy could take Albus 1 on 1, he retreated when more people arrived, implying they could gang up on him.

3- Sure they couldn’t kill him without the horcruxes, but another important plot point is that they have a magical prison, staffed with creatures that absorb your life force. Sure, Azkaban seems like a joke considering the number of prisoners breaking out of it… But in the case of Sirius he could escape transformed as a dog because they didn’t know he was an animagus and hadn’t taken the relevant measures, and the rest were broken out from outside. Certainly, they could hold Voldy with the right measures. Albus was monitoring Voldemort and the death eaters activity the whole time. In the first book/movie, he even had him within his school, unknowingly sure, but he knew Voldemort was likely to try and get his hands on the philosopher’s stone, and was just like “don’t worry, it’s well protected”, not even trying to set up an ambush, or to pursue Voldemort once he knows he was there.

Whipping out the old classics, I see.

The triangle’s where it’s really at ∇ . Hexagons fanboys are always saying “but what about benzene? Obviously only a superior shape must occur naturally like that!”. But hear this, hexagooner: What about ozone? What about water? Also, don’t you know we can make hexagons by grouping triangles ? Heck, you can make any polygon with enough triangles.The only question is why we’d ever want to do that if we already have triangles, because triangles are the best shape. Δ ∇ Δ ∇

Oh, this reminded me of a story from when I was active on some Facebook groups (somewhat nsfw so I’m putting it in spoilers, feel free to ignore)

Understandable, u and v are originally the same letter, so the words are really “vvvla” and “vvlva”, just a small permutation…

deleted by creator

Woman was already not fine, the first woman didn’t want to be under Adam and demanded wings.

An asterisk is the star punctuation (*); so it makes sense to use another punctuation as the alt’s name. Also, while an obelisk is that pillar-like ancient Egyptian structure with a pyramid on top, “obel” also refers to the dagger punctuation in France (†).

Louder!

I tend to think of Valentine’s day as the hum of a fridge: Easy to ignore until brought to my attention, and soon forgotten afterwards.

Isn’t “thin blue line” one of these pro-cop phrases that resurfaced in reaction to BLM? If so, I think fascism might be a part of the problem.

Not really, anecdotal evidence would be “I used to flush flushable wipes and my toiled got clogged”. Which wouldn’t be entirely worthless, but even assuming good faith it could have been a coincidence, so not worth a whole lot either.

Quoting a plumber, who’d be qualified on the subject, is an argument of authority. It’s a bit more reliable as long as you recognize the authority of plumbers over all things plumbing. There’s also room for error through misquoting, and of course like for all arguments, it could be a plain lie. But

1. This statement seems simple enough to not be easily misquoted.
2. The stakes of this conversation are pretty low, so unless we’re dealing with a compulsive liar, there’s not much point in lying.

I’d give this a solid 76% reliable. If I had some wipes I intended to flush, after reading that I’d probably look for more sources online to confirm before I do.

Oh wow, these are really getting better, I love that one!

I believe you’re wrong to assume the gender is a property of the thing the word refers too, it’s a property of the word itself. Synonyms can have different genders, like “vélo” is masculine and “bicylette” is feminine, both mean “bicycle”. “Vagin” is masculine. There’s no 100% consistent mean to determine a words gender, but helpful patterns that are right most of the time would be more in the word’s ending.

To take the example of “machine”, I can’t think of any word ending in “-ine” that isn’t feminine, safe for some Russian names.

Also, if a noun doesn’t end in “-e”, it’s most likely masculine. But the reciprocal isn’t true!

Just get into the shower and use water and soap at this point…

Je ne pense pas que ces scénarios soient très probables. Déjà les admins… Je ne pense pas que Musk soit super populaires parmis les admins du fediverse, comme il représente une vision de l’internet opposée de la leur, et que c’est souvent un peu plus de gauche par ici.

Pour le reste… Ça ne serait techniquement pas impossible que Musk attaque quelqu’un en diffamation, mais d’une part; ça serait plutôt pour des célébrités qui s’expriment sur des médias de masse comme la télévision, les sites comme ça n’attireraient même pas son attention ; d’autre part, je ne pense pas qu’il gagnerait un tel procès.

Pourquoi ne pourrait-on pas dire ça ? Tu crois que Musk va se plaindre à Trumpi et faire envyer la CIA contre toi ? Ou bien que les admins trouvent Musk tellement sympathique qu’ils vont le défendre ?