[–] 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Who said anything about original? It was an example of one of the types of cheats devs used to play test because it's probably the most recognized of all cheat codes, not because there's aren't others that came before it.

The fuck is wrong with you?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    It doesn't say the food you are given is for you either. You could be given a month's supply of food for the Trex that you can't eat. Can't be here clipping people's assumptions, this question is more of "yes and" situation

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child)

    A lot of people are assuming the rex has no food. It also says you will be provided with food but doesn't say how or what or whos. There could be a month's supply of food in an inconvenient arrangement/format that might also serve as food to Rexy T Rex. And we can probably eat some of the same things a T-Rex could eat to stay alive for a month

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    Your goal is to convince those people to rethink what they’re doing.

    Not it isn't. When I make a comment under someone I think is wrong I am not trying to change their mind. I am simply stating for anyone else who might also disagree with them that they are not alone in that. I have no interest in recruiting and allying with liberals

    Have you considered that making them rethink what there are doing didn't need to recruit them? In terms of strategy against the enemy, sowing seeds of doubt, mistrust, concern, alarm, is a time and battle tested strategy to weaken them.

    The advice you are so against didn't suggest you turn them into an ally, they can be tools to make it harder for the enemy to act in unison, which makes your true goals easier to achieve.

    Seems like you are actively avoiding listening to a methodology that you would benefit from.

    Just an opinion based on this exchange.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›