Gromnir

again, you have revered 'cause such should be our line. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

you don't understand what you are posting. you weren't attempting to ridicule the analogy with an exaggeration. in the present exchange, Gromnir woulda' been the one who coulda' used as metaphor 'cause it woulda clear been sardonic. *shrug* you see word hyperbole and metaphor as being possible to use simultaneous and then again complete ignored how you actual used. the internet is so damned dangerous. people frequent post links to articles without reading. even worse, folks make a cursory read o' a subject and thinks they have actual knowledge. baffling. HA! Good Fun!

... am genuine wondering if our leg is being pulled. .6 to 1.1C were an estimate o' reduction o' the expected global increase as 'posed to the expected global increase. HA! Good Fun! ps added gif... 'cause.

what was .3 a measure of? what is .6 to 1.1 a measure of? not need Gromnir to explain. you already commented 'bout .3 so you should know what the .3 were referencing, yes? the answer to what "0.6 to 1.1 C" represents is clear stated in the relatively brief quote we included from the scientific american article. our post. is not same stuff being measured. why would you even think such were possible? 'cause is numbers and is related to climate? HA! Good Fun!

0.3 degrees in the next 87 years! We think! Oh noes! ... you can't possible be reading the numbers as representing identical outcomes. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure you understand metaphor. perhaps you intended hyperbole? again, the media includes breitbart and fox. the media, including more liberal sources, clear didn't have an agenda in-tune with the democratic party or hillary or the DNC (which were your specific example) when those liberal media sources were ruthlessly attacking the dnc and its leadership during an election year. clearly the agenda weren't "in-tune." suggest many major media sources tend to be liberal would be pointless as is not something any would deny. suggest those liberal media sources would have a tendency to advocate for liberal candidates would also be a kinda pointless observation as is axiomatic. "The media is the propaganda arm of the Democratic National Committee." utter nonsense and is far different than simple recognition o' general alignment o' interests. hyperbolic nonsense. HA! Good Fun!

doesn't change the fact the media were pretty ruthless as they went after debbie wasserman schultz and the dnc itself. sure, much o' the media has a liberal slant, but the notion o' the media working as a propaganda arm for the dnc is utter nonsense and clear refuted by history both recent and long term. and let's not be hypocritical, eh? from the politics 2016/2017 threads it is clear possible for folks to defend grade A morons w/o any sense o' shame or regret. HA! Good Fun!

am hesitant to ask. *shrug* which numbers from last week are you comparing? HA! Good Fun!

debbie wasserman schultz is no doubt wanting restitution. have her own "propaganda arm" public eviscerate her last year and then go after the dnc as a whole almost immediate after hillary wins the nomination? folks in the media (whatever the hell is the media, 'cause it clear don't include fox, breitbart and many other organizations) clear didn't get the memo... or their check. HA! Good Fun!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/factcheck-shows-trumps-climate-speech-was-full-of-misleading-statements/ “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of 1 degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.” White House officials said this figure came from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Researchers from the Climate Interactive project, which collaborates with MIT, quickly refuted Trump's point. In fact, the MIT research to which the president referred showed that the Paris Agreement could lower the expected temperature increase by 0.6 to 1.1 C. is easier to pick out the few trump accuracies from his climate speech than to identify all the alternative facts. HA! Good Fun!

more tiny desk goodness and HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. the conan bit is a quote attributed to genghis khan. as such, am betting trump actual has a stash o' khanp0rn he drools over... while eating fried chicken and donuts as he sits on his golden toilet. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531558813/trumps-latest-tweets-on-travel-ban-could-raise-new-legal-hurdles look at what trump left on his desk this morning. another steamy pile o' wtf. *shrug* attempting to come up with reasonable explanations for trump impulse control blunders is becoming increasing difficult. the only explanation we got is if trump were convinced the travel ban is doomed, it would be better to face inevitable defeat with a show o' strength. core constituents appear ok with trump ineffectiveness as long as he continues to act tough and talk big. so IF the executive order is a lost cause, it would be better for trump to defend vigorous and then blame Court for failure. is no other reasonable explanation for the latest trumpism. HA! Good Fun!

kp brought up Mummy in the genesis post. with the new universal monster movies being released, we cannot help but lament the metaphorical death o' the traditional mummy. no longer is the mummy a revenant punishing those who defile a tomb, but is a demigod/god with apocalyptic intent. blame the brendan fraser rachel weisz films? to keep this political, we can throw out a more sinister (ridiculous) possibility. given the middle-eastern origin o' the mummy, is the transformation from a singular and limited threat to a danger directed at western culture entire represent transparent and insidious islamophobia on the part o' the movie producers? muahaha. c'mon. you has seen crazier stuff from breitbart, no? HA! Good Fun!

am developing bad habits. 'tween jump jets, lrm and ac2/5, after a dozen hours, Gromnir has kinda fallen into a rather predictable battle pattern. am almost exclusive using a defensive run and gun approach, which am suspecting won't be viable for many o' the actual campaign missions. have not yet tried death-from-above, but on most maps jump jets provide a major tactical advantage which the computer ai doesn't appear to exploit. metaknowledge is also (too) advantageous. hunchbacks, for example, has a big ac (which is op at the moment) and is heavily armoured. 'course hunchbacks has paltry rear armour. most new players is gonna be unaware o' such details, which could cause frustration. seeming invulnerable hunchbacks with evasive mowing through your squad could induce predictable rage quit. a few o' the pilot skills might need balancing and inspire can be exploited. evasive skill feels a bit wonky. being able to consistant dodge in a heavy or assault mech is peculiar and powerful. inspire is kinda cartoony. when activating inspire, the mechwarrior should yell, "by the power of greyskull!" suddenly you got a 95% accuracy and do increased damage. okie dokie. oh, and it took us more than a few skirmishes to figure out how to turn a mech w/o moving from the current hex. might put such in the manual. am gonna play a bit less in the coming days as we don't wanna burn our self out on battletech, but if anybody has questions, am unlikely to have answers... but will try and respond anyways. HA! Good Fun!

somebody mentioned catwoman earlier in the thread. the only explanation for many/most vol posts is that he is a refugee from star trek's mirror universe. as such, am gonna go with the most unlikely option as being the vol choice. HA! Good Fun!

tis a tv show. Also shot leverage up here Who is Leverage and why did Jonathan Frakes shoot him? maybe leverage is a metaphor? perhaps leverage is the person with blackmail material responsible for keeping jonathan frakes hostage to noah wyle's show? also, as mr frakes is american, isn't there a global assumption o' violence? not need a reason for a shooting if the parties is american. HA! Good Fun! ps had to search to make certain mr. frakes is indeed american. something almost canadian aboot him, no?

can't find our copy of as i lay dying. is a handful o' books we read 'bout once per year, and such works is typical annotated by Gromnir to a significant degree. once we wear out a volume, it is relegated to a box where we may retrieve if needs be. for instance, in the attic we got eight volumes of dubliners which form an unbroken line going back to our university days. got similar for shakespeare's richard iii, hemingway's complete short stories and the aforementioned, as i lay dying. have now spent many hours over the last few days attempting to find our current iteration o' faulkner's novel. might be reaching the terminus o' hope. other folks got works they reread frequent? HA! Good Fun!

I suppose part of my objection is the pulling of numbers out of asses. Planet climate is a terrifically complicated matter that we do not come close to fully understanding yet. Then that lack of knowledge is used to create echo chambers and panicky declarations (even when the statement itself says "worst case scenario"). What? There is absolutely no way to prove that statement. am agreeing in part. .3 degrees is representing a massive impact, but there must needs be guesswork to determine how much change would occur for the next 87 years with Paris v. w/o. assuming current rates w/o matching Paris promises is gonna be fundamental flawed, no? is far too simplistic. is not easy math and kinda feels as if these meteorologists pulled a worst-case scenario outta their arses. even so, the .3 degrees in 87 years is scary big. is +.3 simple for not staying with Paris. is s'posed to be shockingly large number rather than dismissed 'cause is insignificant. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-America-stacks-up-greenhouse-gas-emissions-180963560/ is not per capita totals shown in the linked article. folks here wanna self-applaud for steps US has already taken at reduction? fine, but US is still contributing more per capita than just 'bout anybody, and more total than anybody save china. is kinda like dieting, no? mindy, cheryl and pam all go on a diet. mindy loses 10 pounds. cheryl loses 7 pounds and pam loses 4. have mindy brag 'bout her weight loss compared to the other two ladies is ridiculous when you realize mindy started out at 350lb while cheryl and pam were closer to 130. mindy needs to burn off a few more pounds 'fore she can start bragging or getting complacent 'bout diets. even so, am agreeing much o' the science is speculative. our issue were the curious way gifted criticized. the meteorologists attempted to scare gifted with a crazy-big and scary number given mere decades o' time. weird reaction from gifted. HA! Good Fun!

the question o' how much impact humans have on global temperatures is worthy o' enlightened debate. however, your sneer is perplexing 'cause o' the way you phrase your quip. a couple degrees IS a big deal. period. IF one nation alone were to be responsible for a .3 degree change in 87 years, that would be significant. such a point is not actual subjective or part o' the debate. whether is human activity which is responsible for the change is where experts disagree... although increasing few seem to be dismissive o' the human factor. no, a two degree change will not result in the end o' all life on the planet, but is gonna result in drastic changes for humans. wanna argue that the so-called experts is simple guessing 'bout the 'mount o' impact the USA would have on global temperatures increase or that human action is a main driver o' temp increases? okie dokie. regardless, am admitted baffled by the folks who see a numbers like .3 in 87 years and seem to think such a change is laughable or negligible. unclear-on-the-concept reveal. HA! Good Fun!

0.3 degrees in the next 87 years! We think! Oh noes! ... HA! Good Fun!

fdr at 2 1/2 years. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/ HA! Good Fun!

spent a few hours playing. beta key didn't become available to us 'til after 1pm and other more pressing concerns demanded our attention this afternoon. 3 hours of gameplay. initial observations: -no obvious bugs so far. -enemy ai doesn't appear to make use o' jump jets. -didn't need the manual save for a couple mech positioning issues-- interface is highly intuitive. -got our arse handed to us in our first medium mech skirmish, but such were mostly due to initial misunderstanding o' how to alter how a mech faces at the end o' a move action which sent us scurrying for the manual. -missile and ac has been more effective than we woulda' expected, energy less effective. -bodies of water dissipate heat better than any heat sink, so find a river if you got a high-heat mech. -keyboard controls is superior for us as the mouse has been a bit wonky. am having fun given the limited options available to us. HA! Good Fun!

best thing we have seen today. all the musicians is win. only losers is a few people who made youtube comments. HA! Good Fun!