Doug

And Robert Duncan McNeill was not-Tom Paris before he was Tom Paris.

Or was he Nicholas Locarno before later being not-Nicholas Locarno

Also a Hirogen in Voyager, Smallville, SG-1, Chuck, you've seen him a lot probably regardless of what you usually watch.

He's also the voice of Venom in the most recent Spider-Man game

That's just a side effect of early warp testing

My suggestion is move it up. I don't know where on your list it is but higher is probably better.

It's a fantastic game. There's still bugs, sometimes even major ones. Still easily worth your time though.

Not to just keep replying to you but it's also very doable online if you can't find players where you are

You can't. You can do better sometimes but there will still be hiccups. As far as I'm aware the groups most likely to be actually consistent have been playing together since they were in school.

This isn't meant to be discouraging at all! The opposite in fact. Don't let those hiccups, common or rare, stop you. Just be aware of their possibility and ready to adapt. Ability to adapt is the most useful tool in the GM toolbox at the table and approaching it.

While reading this comment I had the thought of a stoic warrior type that was very much an outsider to the society he was mostly operating in but very open to learning about the things that are new to him. Occasionally he would really embrace some part of that culture and make his own references to it.

I'd probably call him Jaxson and get away with it until he said indeed.

Let's not forget that space station was made by the people who he fought in the war. That's got to figure in to those unmentioned psychological scars.

No, but I'm gonna run his code anyway

Spent years in exile on a desert planet while being hunted by former apprentice

Dealt with two generations of whiney Skywalker men (mostly joking)

You sound really upset about this.

If you're reading tone into my text, that's a you problem. I doubt I can to anything to affect that, but text doesn't carry tone, we add it ourselves based on ourselves.

Originations, at the time of origination

Sure. But if one is new the other is old. The fact that, for you, one is always new and the other is never old, says something. Perhaps you consider this reading tone in as I just talked about.

is the only thing that dictates the pronunciation of a new word.

I thought understanding dictated pronunciation. If I make up a word on the spot it means nothing because you don't know my definition. If I write it here you will use the rules of English as you understand them to work out a pronunciation. If I had a different one this brand new word with only two people who know it has two distinct pronunciations. If you tell another person it now has three with two of them understanding the "new" pronunciation. Your own rules don't agree.

We have all been "told by the creator" because he wrote it down for everyone to avoid confusion. Confusion followed anyway

Is that because he wrote it down and the rules indicate a different pronunciation as sensible, or because there are no rules and writing it was a futile exercise?

in part due to the absurd lies people shared online (including yourself) about non-existent rules of English linguistics.

Just because they are inconvenient for you, as well as inconsistent, does not make them non-existent or lies. The rule of law, so to speak, is inconstant but still exists. Breaking the law and getting caught at it comes with repercussions, except when it doesn't. English has rules that are not always followed. In some cases the exceptions may even outweigh the rule, but we still consider it when entering unknown territory. I will again point to the logic we use when sounding out a word we have only seen written and add looking up a word we have only heard spoken. G makes a sound as in go, except when it doesn't. This is a rule and an exception.

New and old are not value judgements

Correct, but new and original, used consistently, when it's been repeatedly pointed out that "new" is functionally the same age yet that's not been acknowledged, are.

I am listening to you, you just aren't saying anything of value.

Something of value and something you value are not necessarily equivalent. Referring to someone else's statements as lies because you don't agree with them demonstrates a personal lack of value in their statements, but not an objective one. I hope you can see that difference.

You're attacking me because you don't like that I haven't adopted your preferred pronunciation of a word.

My "attacking you", which I'll wager is far more limited than you believe, is because you're doing the verbose equivalent of "nu uh, I'm right" and it's exhausting.

You don't like me because I haven't changed to fit your preference.

No. I think you're odd because you pronounce a word in a counterintuitive way and refuse to change. I don't like you because you appear to have a penchant for acting superior and say that's not what you're doing.

I don't care about you

Then you've spent an absurd amount of time here for a person and a topic you don't care about.

because you're the sort of person who makes value judgements about a person based on their pronunciations of a word.

Everybody in the world makes value judgements about others for something others think is ridiculous. We are all flawed humans. Many of us seek to do better than we did before.

Your entire argument is that I should change because you don't like the way I talk.

And here you prove that you haven't listened. In all this time and all these words that hasn't been my argument at any point.

I'm not asking you to change the way you talk.

No, you're just giving the impression that my way is the inferior way because yours was first and handed to us by the creator. Mine is based on lies. You're not asking me to change, you just want me to feel bad if I don't so you can tell yourself that you're enlightened.

I'm pointing out the flaw in your thinking, and asking you to think for yourself.

It's funny how often people who don't want to say they want people to agree with them say they want others to think for themselves. I couldn't have come to the place I am by thinking for myself? Which places can I get by doing so?

You also have a difficult time getting someone to accept flaws in their thinking by using visibly flawed thinking.

Don't listen to internet experts who make shit up.

Like you, who says English has no rules? Or the creator of the gif, who made up a word spelled gif and pronounced jif? Does it matter if they're not on the Internet because all the way through high school they spent a lot of time on English rules.

That's a path to ruin

Seems a bit hyperbolic. Will the way I choose to pronounce words just be my downfall, all of society's, or something in between?

while we're talking about something silly and inconsequential, your attitude towards reality and dissent

I know I cut off a couple words here, but I needed to highlight that anyone who says someone's attitude toward reality is inconsequential perhaps needs to consider some introspection before continuing a conversation.

This is all an exercise in futility. You can't even agree with yourself on basic things (there's no rules, the only rule is being understood, the creator decides pronunciation) so there is no hope you'll care enough time try and understand someone you have decided is lying and not thinking for themselves. I hope the people who deal with you day to day get a better version of you than the one you present here, and that at some point you can really dig in to yourself and see the parts of you that are on display in this exchange but you insist aren't there. I'm sure they extend to other parts of your personality and that you'd be better off without them.