bruinsstrong:

This story keeps on getting better and better

bruinsstrong:

This story keeps on getting better and better

myers briggs as anime type

cinderpelt:

ISTJ - slice of life

ISFJ - hetero romance

INFJ - drama

INTJ - psychological anime

ISTP - horror anime

ISFP - shoujou

INFP -  something shity

INTP - fantasy

ESTP - hentai

ESFP - magical girl anime

ENFP - naruto

ENTP - comedy

ESTJ - sports anime

ESFJ bishounen

ENFJ - pokemon

ENTJ - adventure

jeevasmanxiii:

DIGIMON ADVENTURE IS GETTING A SEQUEL!!!!!!!!!

AND WHAT’S MORE, IT’S GONNA BE THEIR HIGH SCHOOL DAYS!!!!!!

grlmdarkness:

i made that scarf

grlmdarkness:

i made that scarf

How NOT to treat an INFP
I swore I'd never do one of these but what the fuck, here goes:
Don't: be fake with them. INFP personalities are most comfortable when they know people, so that they can get along with others more easily without getting anxious about stepping on toes. If you tend to hide your feelings, don't be surprised if your INFP friend stops talking to you. They just don't know how to read you, and won't try at the risk of pissing you off.
Don't: assume you know them, and don't tell them shit about themselves unless they ask you. Nobody knows an INFP better than they know themself. Chances are whatever amateur psychoanalysis you have to offer them is something they've already figured out about themselves time and time again.
Don't: ignore them if you're mad. Again, INFP personalities are most comfortable when they know people. They can read people well, but don't like to just assume they know what's wrong because they will assume the worst possibilities. Open, honest communication is always essential.
Don't: guilt them into talking to you or going out. INFP are introverts by definition and they will communicate/go out on their terms. As well, they are sensitive to their friends' desires as they are people pleasers, and exploiting this is manipulation that they will see right through. Pushing will make them uncomfortable and they may stop talking to you altogether.
Don't: tell them their goals are unrealistic. INFP are idealists by definition and no matter how unrealistic their goals may seem to even them, a bigger part of them still believes it's possible. Telling them otherwise will not help them "wise up," it will only cause them to sort you into a box labeled "people who have no faith in me."
vaporware-femme:

theragin-cajun:

ultrafacts:

Source For more facts follow Ultrafacts

ok this annoys the crap out of me, firstly the font in question costs a fortune, secondly no link to something that can change a persons life as it did mine, so here lemme fix both of those:http://opendyslexic.org/Open Source Dyslexia is a FREE font that is designed in a similar fashion as in weighting the letters, it is also being constantly updated, yer welcome

Hi for all of my disability friends, please bookmark opendyslexic this is a really great project! Tell your friends c:

vaporware-femme:

theragin-cajun:

ultrafacts:

Source For more facts follow Ultrafacts

ok this annoys the crap out of me, firstly the font in question costs a fortune, secondly no link to something that can change a persons life as it did mine, so here lemme fix both of those:

http://opendyslexic.org/

Open Source Dyslexia is a FREE font that is designed in a similar fashion as in weighting the letters, it is also being constantly updated, yer welcome

Hi for all of my disability friends, please bookmark opendyslexic this is a really great project! Tell your friends c:

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada
someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!
We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)
once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.
(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.
She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.
So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case
obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement
it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing
watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.
She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.
The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.
Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.
The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

#don’t fricking get me started on Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants the level of misinformation floating around is staggering#I know that it’s an older case but it still makes me really mad that people treat it as this big dumb thing?#the fact that the media took a serious case and turned it into what it is to us today should piss people off#the level of distortion of facts is astonishing and upsetting and nobody seems to hear about it?#sorry I’m done I just#it upsets me when a legal travesty like this is just dragged out for some#’haha americans are sOOOOOOOo dumb!!1!’ humor#I MEAN GODDAMN IF YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE FUN OF AMERICANS AT LEAST MAKE FUN OF US WITH FACTS OKAY

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada

someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!

  1. We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
  2. We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)

once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.

(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.

She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.

So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case

obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement

it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing

watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.

She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.

The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.

Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.

The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up

moarofdog:

imagineyouricon:

imagine your icon trying to be your parent for a week

///////Rant Time\\

It really sucks for me when these things come around because my icon is my icon primarily because I like the design. I have seen every episode of Log Horizon, the anime my icon is from, and he is only featured in a few episodes and has spoken maybe 3 lines.

He is very much a side character, and I know almost nothing about his personality or how good he would be as a parent. I know nothing about his personality. I know nothing about how he would react to any catastrophe other than one.

I can’t do the icon things because my icon isn’t an OC or a main character or even a main side character.

In other news I probably need to finally commission a picture of my OC, which also means figuring out my OC.

These posts are hilarious to me, because my icon is my fucking homestuck land.

A huge fucking server-planet.

Being my parent.

Just imagine the planet trying to be responsible.

IMAGINE IT.

neopetcemetery:

ladoddsy:

streetlightarson:

perfectperfidy:

boxlunches:


The Iron Throne as described in the novels, officially endorsed by GRRM on his blog as the most accurate artistic representation thus far. By artist Marc Simonetti.

Oh

What the fuck that isn’t safe

No, it’s not. The histories talk about how the throne is cruel to unworthy kings. Jaime would talk about how Aerys Targaryen would constantly be covered in scabs from sitting on the throne carelessly. 

'No man should sit comfortably upon the throne'
It is meant to be an ugly, monstrous beauty. And several times during the books Joffrey cuts himself on throne.

they even say in the book that they keep on adding swords to the throne.. not to mention GRRM said that it is supposed to be the sword of everyone who has fallen.

neopetcemetery:

ladoddsy:

streetlightarson:

perfectperfidy:

boxlunches:

The Iron Throne as described in the novels, officially endorsed by GRRM on his blog as the most accurate artistic representation thus far. By artist Marc Simonetti.

Oh

What the fuck that isn’t safe

No, it’s not. The histories talk about how the throne is cruel to unworthy kings. Jaime would talk about how Aerys Targaryen would constantly be covered in scabs from sitting on the throne carelessly. 

'No man should sit comfortably upon the throne'

It is meant to be an ugly, monstrous beauty. And several times during the books Joffrey cuts himself on throne.

they even say in the book that they keep on adding swords to the throne.. not to mention GRRM said that it is supposed to be the sword of everyone who has fallen.

Katie: Will there be any queer characters on RWBY--any bi or--lesbian--
Matt: LGBT.
Katie: Yes.
Monty: Sure. Absolutely. The best part about that is, you know, maybe they're there now because they're kids. We're on a path to try and help them discover themselves, so, I mean, I don't even think we need to make that decision right away because as we write these characters, we learn about them and help them figure themselves out. They're very real to us. We're definitely not opposed to it. I--a lot of us are for it, even. I have some cast members and some crew members who are like 'this would be really cool' but the thing is we can't just shove it out there. It has to be earned, which is the better way to do it, and a lot of these characters we try and look at them outside of their genders. We'll want to do what's natural for them and best.