digehode

I'm not sure there is. It's pretty much a perfect reply. Actual useful advice and a play on words that is simultaneously very apparent but not forced or detracting.

I also had this fear. It lasted later than six years old, too. I don't like the sound even now as an adult. I never questioned it until recently when discussing sensory issues. It was pointed out that while I keep saying I have none, there's actually a a list of things I've mentioned that are what other people call sensory issues.

Hmm. I really struggled to type that and now I know why. Clearly my brain knew something was wrong but my conscious mi d was not seeing it

But also fantasfuckingtastic seems fine, to me. Just one letter moved.

I agree with you on the ending. It felt like they intentionally left a lot unresolved to encourage calls for a second season, at the expense of the story. It would have been much better if there was some resolution to a few aspects and/or a hint at the fallout of the actions in the season.

Good subtle world building, too.

B

Might be underwiring they need, instead.

Ah, I see. We don't tend to put it to the mouth. It's more "fuck you". Apparently comes from demonstrating to the French that you still have your bow-drawing fingers and intend to use them. British archers captured by the french would have their first two fingers removed to prevent them launching arrows.

In the UK two fingers up is a rude gesture and it comes from battles with the french. If they caught a British archer they removed those fingers so they couldn't fire a bow. So sticking them up at the enemy and gesturing was showing they had them and would use them to fire arrows at them. I am not an historian, though, and this could just be one of those tales that sounds so true everyone believes it and passes it on.

We do? Can you describe the gesture? Maybe it's so ingrained I don't even recognise it. Or I need to learn it. Then I can use it at everyone today.

The phrasing was "you get fault points for" which strongly suggests assigning fault rather than listing out "points at fault".

Also I think the term would be "points of failure" for the way you read it. At least that's howbive heard it used and used it myself.

Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to clarify the intent of the comment.

But also I think that's the point of that line of debate. It is an attempt to show a religious stance from an atheist perspective in which belief is a while load of possible strange things accepted as true. It's not really much use other than when you're faced with someone who things your lack of theism is the opposite of their particular brand of religion and frames the discussion around which bits you have issue with, as if they might prove to you that you're wrong. Or to show that their belief that their religion is correct and all the others, including atheism, are the wrong ones, isn't really the other side of what an atheist thinks.

More a thought experiment than meant to characterise the entirety of atheism.