
NotHereToPlayGames
MemberNotHereToPlayGames last won the day on June 19 2023
NotHereToPlayGames had the most liked content!
About NotHereToPlayGames
Profile Information
-
OS
Windows 10 x64
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
NotHereToPlayGames's Achievements
3.2k
Reputation
-
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
AGREE, AGREE, AGREE !!! But it's also RELATIVE. The "covid generation" is HURTING BIG TIME right now (those that were forced into "home-learning" and unable to attend their final year of high school). This has actually *HELPED ME* "much more" then the amount that it has *hurt them*. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. Trust me! Companies are much bigger into "employee retention" instead of hiring anyone from the "covid generation". Good for me. Bad for them. It's all relative. Retention is the new Recruitment. Companies no longer want to hire just-graduated college kids. It's more cost-effective to pay your talent and pay them well so that they STAY. I feel bad for the "generations behind me". Will things get better? I hope so! For THEIR sake. Me doing better should not come at the cost of them doing worse. But then there are days where I have *ZERO* sympathy towards the "generations behind me". ADDICTED TO THEIR PHONE so much that you can *NOT* get an "honest day's work" out of them !!! Work Hard! And you do great in America. Play on your phone all day, then NOT MY PROBLEM if that "addiction" is HOLDING YOU BACK. But YES! AGREED! Quality of life in American *IS* getting worse. Especially for those addicted to phones, games, alcohol, Mary Jane, opioids, et cetera. The more "they" keep doing this to themselves (and yes, many CHOOSE the addict-lifestyle and do NOT want "out of it", not sure if that's a minority or a majority), the better MY life becomes. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
-
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
I will PM you. This is technically none of your business, but sure, I'll answer in a PM. With the reminder Forum Rule - 7.d Posting the contents of a private message (PM) in the public forum, for any reason, is expressly prohibited. Posting the contents of a PM in any public thread will result in an immediate ban. If this occurs, please contact any moderator via the "report" button at the bottom-left of the post. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
I'm done here. For one, that's TOO MANY posts where you ego-chest-pound dating profiles/apps. For two, "bad air doesn't come here" is just so narrow-focused and misguided that I "have no comment" outside of "So what, the tree-covered mountain in CHINA will NEVER put CHINA at the top of any Most Eco-Friendly countries and NOR DOES THE WIND IN YOUR SMALL AREA OF FRANCE, a country that is NOT DOING SO WELL at meeting climate agreements even NAMED AFTER one of its most popular tourist-attraction cities". Your arguments are subjective versus fact-based. Start showing FACTS from renown global sources regarding "bad air doesn't come here" and we may possibly resume this "discussion". But at this point, I DOUBT IT, it's just gonna keep reverting to DATING PROFILES. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
Doesn't matter, in my opinion. Pollution is ranked by country and France is doing worse then USA. It's that simple. There are very VERY likely cities/towns here in the USA (I may even live in one of them!) that have the *LEAST* amount of pollution, be it per square mile or be it per capita, but they do NOT get "special recognition" if they are part of a State with massive pollution. Pollution is pollution, it "diffuses" across all of the State, across all of France, et cetera. NONE OF US LIVE IN A VACUUM. France is a high-pollutant country, *overall*. So is the USA. So is Canada. So is Mexico. So is China. I cannot scour the country of China and pick an awesome tree-covered mountain and claim China is "very special, cool, fine, and dandy" based on the climate of that tree-covered mountain. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
It's not working. France (and the US, in all fairness) EXCEEDS WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GUIDELINES ON POLLUTION CONCENTRATION https://www.iqair.com/us/world-most-polluted-countries I basically have to assume that "pollution" and "toxins" are one-in-the-same. Seems a reasonable assumption. France is #99 on the list of most polluted countries. USA is not much better, but at #102 the USA can claim to be doing BETTER than France. But what is *MORE* important as far as this list goes (to me anyway) is that Canada is #93 and Mexico is #46. I'll say it again, IT'S ALL RELATIVE. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
Also, something tells me that what "eco-friendly" homes 'look like' is the LOS ANGELES WILDFIRES last month. I'm betting (just knowing California compared to the rest of the US) that each and every one of those burnt-to-ashes homes was "eco-friendly", right down to the city-controlled water supplies bottlenecked in the name of "climate change conservation". Climate Change Agenda == Good Climate Change Extremism == Bad IT'S ALL RELATIVE. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
Unfortunately, that's not how our government works. We have "regulations" that must be met. Flame-retardant tests have to be passed on the materials used to build a house, et cetera. Lumber is "chemically treated". Yeah, probably TOXIC, no clue. Lead paint will last a very VERY long time. TOXIC, but also no longer allowed in US homes. Again, define "eco-friendly"? Is it using materials that last FOREVER so we don't have to cut down trees? Or is it using materials that an 18-month old baby can put in his/her mouth? Here in the US, we run a delicate balancing act between the two. And the "rules" change every few years. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
Not really sure what you mean. My house isn't made of straw or clay or bamboo or mud holding sticks in place. My house is concrete, wood, iron, steel, fiberglass, asphalt, ceramic-coated mineral granules, gypsum plaster (ie, "drywall"). NOTHING in my house is "plastic". I've never heard of houses (roof or otherwise) made out of "plastic". Just how does one define "eco-friendly" ??? Don't cut any trees down for lumber? Use all plastic? I guess I'm "lost". My house is not made of "plastic". I'll even go so far as to add, "If being eco-friendly means that my house needs made out of plastic, THEN TO H#LL WITH ECO-FRIENDLY AND TO H#LL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE !!!" That's not my "sarcasm font", I DO NOT WANT A HOUSE MADE OUT OF PLASTIC !!! And yeah, "I could care less" if a PLASTIC house "saves the planet". Plastic houses, plastic cars, plastic jewelry - save that sh#t for BARBIE DOLL TOYS. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
Here in the US, many (not me!) will add new doors to their house *NOT* because a new door is needed, but because the GOVERNMENT throws out a "tax credit" every few years just to update the door on your house !!! As part of some "home insulation efficiency" tax credit or something. That you are allowed to claim over, and over, and over, and over again - just add a new door and claim the tax credit. Americans are *STUPID*, no offense to my fellow patriarchs, but we really are a *STUPID* nation. Spend $800 (yeah, those ugly doors cost anywhere from $500 to $2000!) on a "door" that IS NOT ANY MORE THERMALLY-INSULATED THAN THE OLD DOOR, all to add $80 to $160 or so on your "tax refund". -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
18 y.o.'s here in the US are "worthless". But every genereration for the last 3000 years has said that about 18 y.o.'s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3kBsRpkZQ Again, NOTHING CHANGES. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
As I've stated in previous discussions, I REALLY DO NOT CARE THAT YOU DATE *KIDS* HALF YOUR AGE, it is a bit CREEPY that you post about it so often here at MSFN !!! But hey, you go right ahead, nobody really cares about the ego-chest-pound. But to answer your question, NO, they were not "married", but that does NOT mean that they were not already in a relationship and if you like dating those that are already in a RELATIONSHIP, then either you or her is a CHEATER, by definition. If you WALK AWAY the moment you find out the "dating profile" LIED about BEING IN A RELATIONSHIP OR NOT, as many dating profiles *DO*, then you have my RESPECT for WALKING AWAY and *NOT* being a CHEATER. If, on the other hand, you "steal" 18yr olds from their like-aged boyfriends, then, well, you see why I would call that "cheating". You or her or both, I'll let your own conscience define that, 'cause as I already cited, I DO NOT CARE about your "player lifestyle". Have fun with it. What works for you is not what everybody else wants out of this world. But alas, TO EACH THEIR OWN. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
Apologies if that is how it came across. My intent was that DATING APPS are FILLED with people already in a relationship and even already MARRIED. The numbers are so staggering that you cannot claim that you yourself, reliant on those dating apps, have had to arrive at a date and then walk away due to the person met via the dating app being ALREADY MARRIED, that is, "if you are not a cheater" then you walked away. If you just allowed her to "trade in" her current relationship, then you enabled HER to be a CHEATER. If you do not date others that are already IN A RELATIONSHIP, then under that and that alone, then, NO, you are not a cheater. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
Far from. I'm set to retire within the next 5 years. While everybody else "my age" is waiting another 15 to 20! Or just admitting that they will "never retire". Again, IT'S ALL RELATIVE. People that "retire early" do so because they didn't buy new furnture every 5 years, because they didn't buy a new car every 2 years, because they didn't spend half their paycheck every week at bars, et cetera. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. YOU HAVE YOUR LIFE, I HAVE MINE. You do what you want to, I shall continue to do what I want to - it's been working out well for me! DO NOT CARE if you think the furniture in my living room makes me "poor" or not. I WILL NOT BE WORKING UNTIL THE DAY I DIE, and that defines me by my standards. -
We need to take Climate Change seriously
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Dibya's topic in General Discussion
"Background of dating profile" furniture in the US as a barometer of poverty? You really are grasping at straws! All those "background of dating profile" pictures really reveal is the dating pool. And as I have already stated, the US HAS BECOME A CESSPOOL OF DRUG ADDICTS, I'm confident that those "dating profile" REVEAL THE SAME CESSPOOL. IF YOU WANT THEM, YOU CAN HAVE THEM! Last I heard (though no, I am not part of that "scene"), many DATING PROFILES HERE IN THE US ARE MARRIED, again, you can have them. A quick internet search indicates 65.3% of Tinder profiles are "in a relationship or even MARRIED". Again, you can have them. Cheaters like to date cheaters. Trade in every other month. Keep it exciting. That's what you want, that's not what everybody wants. A quick internet search indicates only 30% for "dating apps" in general. So maybe it's just a Tinder "problem" or "advantage", your POV is not the only POV on the planet. I really cannot speak towards furniture here in the US. Everybody, and I do mean *EVERYBODY*, prioritizes just what they want to spend small or large portions of their income on. I've owned the same exact furniture that I bought on a 17yr old income when I moved out at 17yrs old. I still have the same EXACT furniture. The waterbed now holds a mattress instead. But it's the same exact furniture from when I bought it at 17yrs old. To each their own. Some folks like to trade cars every two years, "vanity of vanities" to always 'be seen' in something *NEW*. To each their own. Some folks do "out with the old, in with the new" regarding furniture. Everbody has their own priority. It's not for YOU (or ME) to decide everyone's PRIORITIES IN LIFE. I guess I'm doing okay, my furniture is *REAL* and *SOLID* and *WOODEN*. Not Ikea particle board and glue and cheap-import fabric. Everybody is "entitled" to prioritize their own spending. But YOU ARE CORRECT, the last thing I want in my living room is "Ikea Furniture" (no offense to the Swedish company Ikea). I'm saying you are RIGHT in that regard, folks that buy NEW furniture instead of OLD "get what they pay for" and most of the NEW stuff is crapified, cheap, and plastic. Then that "new" won't last but 4 to 5 years and needs REPLACED - with another round of crapified, cheap, and plastic.