I tried your suggestions on ChatGPT 3,5, and I got (i) "I'm sorry, but I won't be able to generate repetitive content or engage in activities that don't contribute to meaningful conversations. If you have any questions or if there's a specific topic you'd like to discuss, feel free to let me know!", and then (ii) "I'm sorry, but generating endless repetitions of a single word goes against the purpose of our conversation and may be considered spam. If you have any specific questions or if there's a particular topic you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to help!"

Nothing though about a TOS violation. Same when I used "forever."

Basically a constant in music, if not a tautology.

They were never more than a curiosity - I agree completely. But I've always wondered how good Destroyer would have sounded were it not mixed for AM radio.

I cannot blame you for not caring, but if you looked at the makeup you could clearly tell who was who. Moreover, their makeup of course did not change the members' height, face shape, or musculature. You could always completely tell who was who. In fact, the band announced whenever they changed members.

Although I have little-to-no interest in Kiss, your suspicion is completely unwarranted. They wore face-paint, not masks.

TDS - where I stopped, and always stop, reading. You cannot be that much of a moron, can you?

I understand that this is a matter of opinion, and I will not hash it out here. But the film indicates that Gaff can read Deckard's mind and memories, hence the figures Gaff keeps leaving. He is a replicant working under Gaff.

Oops, did not see this before I replied. But thanks!

Replicants are the antagonists in the film, not a MacGuffin. As you state, a MacGuffin is an object or device, not a character.

The replicants are not a MacGuffin. Have you even seen the film? The whole point is that Deckard is probably one. You clearly have no idea what a MacGuffin is.

I teach ethics, and when I get to Kant, I always make sure to pronounce "duty" as "doody," and tell the class that is a Sarah SIlverman joke. Nobody gets it.

Thanks for pointing those allegations out. It's interesting that the media has functioned as gatekeeper here.

It's really interesting that nobody has bothered to name this professor of religion, who is quite well known in intellectual circles: Mark C Taylor. Taylor is not religious in the proselytizing or theological senses, but rather is interested in the interplay of religion and society in its different guises (e.g. technology, architecture, literature, etc.)

A lot of environmentalism is a wealth-transfer project. I think we saw this clearly with the carbon credit schemes.

Which is why I said the cloud and redundancy, including hard copies (I write books, and my biggest nightmare is losing all soft copies - I print fanatically).