Educational

Author Topic: how many here are non drivers/? why do americans  (Read 1381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lestat

  • Pharmaceutical dustbin of the autie elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 6345
  • Karma: 333
  • Gender: Male
  • Homo stercore veteris, heterodiem
Re: how many here are non drivers/? why do americans
« Reply #90 on: October 24, 2017, 03:13:59 AM »
Just seen the replies here.

To clarify, I was using a secondary meaning of 'to afford'. Not referencing financial assets, but rather, in the sense of 'capable of being with no consequence to oneself', 'that which one may 'get away with'.

As in 'one would break one's hand if one punched a brick wall, but one could afford to do so with a hammer without injury'

I.e walkie driving about in a tank, SHE isn't going to have any problems. Other people might, and probably would do, if they could neither run like hell for cover, or drive a faster vehicle without impeding traffic slowing a getaway. As would parked cars, trucks, traffic bollards, lamp posts and anything in-between. But walkie, tucked safely away in her tank could afford to take on most obstacles, and those that couldn't simply be overrun and squashed could be blasted out of the way by large-caliber shell-fire or shredded by 50-cal AP rounds (or just riddled with bullets if its one of those tanks that carries only a light machinegun rather than an autocannon/chaingun as secondary armament)
Beyond the pale. Way, way beyond the pale.

Requiescat in pacem, Wolfish, beloved of Pyraxis.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39250
  • Karma: -194
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: how many here are non drivers/? why do americans
« Reply #91 on: Yesterday at 10:07:24 PM »
Just seen the replies here.

To clarify, I was using a secondary meaning of 'to afford'. Not referencing financial assets, but rather, in the sense of 'capable of being with no consequence to oneself', 'that which one may 'get away with'.

As in 'one would break one's hand if one punched a brick wall, but one could afford to do so with a hammer without injury'



I dunno. I'd consider breaking my hand itself as 'injury'.


I'm not sure why a hammer is any better than a wall.