Gromnir

governments do lie to folks. we get that. people is suspicious o' governments, and the race to the moon were a scientific, economic and political battle being waged by cold war superpowers. am getting why folks would be suspicious o' the soviets and americans claims circa 1969. moon landing, however, were not some kinda covert black ops mission. ... is funny, but if there had never been a moon landing and some handful o' conspiracy nutters were arguing that the US had actual been to the moon and had a secret base there along with a the moon is a harsh mistress style space catapult that could be aimed at moscow, that is the kinda conspiracy we could understand enduring. "prove that it doesn't exist," kinda nonsense? sure. not hard to show that US had rockets capable o' reaching the moon, but they sudden, and for no good reason, stopped trying to do so? why? show documents revealing inexplicable and massive government expenditures... 'cause such always exists. show articles explaining the feasibility o' space catapults. then hypothesise that the real reason the soviets gave up the cold war is 'cause they knew o' the lunar space weapons. whatever. that is the kinda stuff we expect from conspiracy, 'cause it thrives best in the absence o' proof. start with very reasonable suspicion, then imagine a nightmare into reality? sure. but the moon landing were different. too much bad understanding o' science is needed to make a fake moon landing plausible. HA! Good Fun!

... if you can't see the difference 'tween believing moon landing conspiracies and recognizing negative proof problems, then am having no basis to start a correction of the mistakes. *shrug* honest. o' all the popular held conspiracies, the manner in which this one endures is perhaps the most inexplicable to us. is not as if this were a surprising or inexplicable event. is not as if we lack tangible evidence and is arguing backwards looking for the explanations o' how and why. you got the best minds from many nations watching and observing an event that were carried out in most public way possible. the moon thing baffles us. to make the moon landing conspiracies work, you needs have nasa in possession o' super-science bordering on magic AND you need many scientists and engineers to be in on the conspiracy. we s'pose that part o' the problem is that modern science is too close to magic. so many amazing things is achieved with such ordinary regularity w/o average people genuine understanding how such stuff works. turn on your flat screen tv and you get pictures displayed in full hd or even 3d, but how many o' us actual understand the science and engineering required to make such magic happen? also, MODERN visual chicanery is commonplace. surely the best and brightest o' 1969 could manufacture a visual hoax capable of fooling onlookers, no? ... but even so, the Faithful congregation o' moon conspiracy belief is either complete ignorant o' the science, or too lazy to look for answers. HA! Good Fun!

Oh, I'm not convinced it was faked, this is simply a discussion. As for your answer, well they could have done all of that and launched the rocket, to have it just stay in the orbit around earth. That would still mean that only the astronauts, the people who helped fake it and the people who ordered it would need to be in on it. you have no idea how much more complicated is your solution. load rocket with fuel needed to get to moon and back, but then go elsewhere is gonna be difficult to fool any number o' engineers. fake trajectory o' rocket that would otherwise take to moon rather than put in orbit (is a rocket, not an airplane) then somehow hide the giant arse rocket from international tracking capability? is a famous quote that sir isaac newton were the guy flying the apollo 11 rocket. within moments o' the rocket lifting off from launch pad, physicists the world over knew exactly where it had to be headed, but nasa fooled 'em all? etc. HA! Good Fun! ps but again, am not telling you anything you can't discover easily for yourself. is a test.

*shakes head sadly* 10,000 scientists and engineers. is not simple the astronauts. these folks all worked together and needed share information. load up a rocket with exact amount o' fuel needed to get to moon and Back. have the rocket launch and be tracked by international sources. somehow come up with a hollywood sound stage w/o benefit o' cgi that can recreate light sources that is functional infinite remote and fool the folks who understand the way light actual behaves. dust trajectories. retroreflectors behaving exact as a scientist would predict. and so on and so on. fool the fumbducks requires little, but to expend ridiculous amounts o' money to stage a moon round trip and fool the 10,000 scientists and engineers working on the project requires a whole different scale o' conspiracy. rather than ask here, and convince self with youtube videos, do a little leg work and try and refute the conspiracy. once you have information from reputable sources as well as the conspiracy theorists, compare. all your questions will be answered. HA! Good Fun! ps the only way to be convinced by the conspiracy videos is if you watch and then quit. is a litmus test.

again, rather than arguing from a place of ignorance, look for the folks who refute and answer the nonsense and then compare. upwards o' 10,000 scientists and engineers woulda' needed to be in on the conspiracy? HA! Good Fun!

"But does the presence of the mirror really mean that it was placed there by a human hand?" ​am not sure you are considering just how complex a task it is to calibrate such a mirror given the distances and relative motions o' the heavenly bodies involved. is a litmus test. look at the moon landing conspiracy theory videos and is convinced, in spite o' all the data, evidence and global expert opinions that refute such videos, is litmus test o' fumbduckery. serious. honest, why not look for credible sources that refute such nonsense, then compare. sheesh. HA! Good Fun!

aloth is having the non-firing issue similar to our priests. the issue began after using wall of fire for the first time. am suspecting that the non-firing issue for aloth is related to wall o' fire. HA! Good Fun!

"Gorecki used the words etched into the walls of a Gestapo prison by an 18 year old girl." HA! Good Fun!

well, the onion is the vegetable that has made more folks cry. am suspecting that it is a potato. the spud is almost nothing but starch and they turn green and poisonous when exposed to sunlight. you sure it ain't a leprechaun? tv and movie crazy is typical more amusing that the real thing. HA! God Fun!

-- apologetically altered to match Gromnir's pov. am suspecting that aod were actual written by the south park goth kids. HA! Good Fun!

am embarrassed to say that we know next to nothing 'bout antidepressants. our sister, who we took care o' for a number o' years, were prescribed various antidepressants, but other than carrying around her meds list, we never educated our self. that being said, our sister described them thusly: antidepressants don't make you feel good. antidepressants don't even keep you from feeling bad. my life is just as depressing while on antidepressants as it is absent of medications. however, while on antidepressants, i don't need to suppress the urge to hit the gas pedal and drive into a tree or oncoming truck. for the most part, antidepressants remove my extreme emotional lows, while taking out the few highs as well. am doubting it is the same for all. HA! Good Fun!

Mine hasn't watched Arrow and I don't think she's going to like The Flash but she likes AGENTS of Shield, Agent Carter, and Gotham. FWIW, she thinks Lucifer is terrible. can't figure out why women would hate lucifer. ........ If you knew her in RL you could ask her directly instead of theorizing about the reasons; but you don't. If you like the show, fine. She doesn't. Neither do I. End of discussion. end o' discussion? HA! thanks. we don't like lucifer. so? *shrug* and no, we ain't theorizing 'bout your significant other. we noted Gromnir's lack o' surprise that women would dislike lucifer. we got no idea what prompted your SO's dislike and in light o' your most recent comments, we don't s'pose we wish to know more. we made a generalization based on feedback we has received from other women regarding lucifer. am not sure what got your shorts in a twist. HA! Good Fun!

Mine hasn't watched Arrow and I don't think she's going to like The Flash but she likes AGENTS of Shield, Agent Carter, and Gotham. FWIW, she thinks Lucifer is terrible. can't figure out why women would hate lucifer. oh sure, the male protagonist is an unapologetic womanizer who is only interested in the female lead 'because she is immune to his charms. and yeah perhaps female audiences might be offended that lucifer's superpower (in addition to immortality) is that people reveal their innermost desires and secrets in his presence, and apparently, all women (save the aforementioned lead) desire lucifer to a comical degree such that they would willingly ignore all common sense or ethical responsibility just to have the chance to do the nasty with the fallen angel. maybe women would be less bothered if the female lead weren't a cliché: the no-nonsense single mother and cop who manages to look like a supermodel in every scene and claims to be annoyed by the womanizing male lead. ... that being said, if lucifer were tortured and damaged, avoiding all meaningful human contact until the doe-eyed female protagonist manages give him a reason to live, we bet your wives would absolute love the show. HA! Good Fun! ps if Gromnir were lucifer, we would be mighty cheesed off. in the bible, lucifer is the daystar. is only one mention o' lucifer in whole bible and not even in all translation. gotta stretch to make sinister. at some point in middle ages, folks began reading lucifer=satan. what the hell? talk 'bout bad press.

while less significant than in the past, priest and paladin Main Character benefits from aligned dispositions tend to drive us to play one o' those classes. with that admission in mind, we will note that you can play a sneaky-stabby priest of skaen who will be far more capable in melee combat than most poe veterans suspect, and you will have the rather substantial priest spell-casting catalog as well. priest o' skaen with prey on the weak and weapon focus: ruffian gets accuracy with stilettos equal to a fighter, plus a minor sneak attack bonus as well. can go dual weapon or single and in either case you is gonna be able to deal some serious stabby damage. we like orlan for skaen priest, but is good arguments for other choices. the offensive spell selection for priests is very much underappreciated, and if you like to burn things, taking scion o' flame talent as it combines well with the plethora of highly efficacious burny spells at a priest's disposal. warning: at the moment, seal spells is broken with the 3.0 beta. as the problem were known before 3.0 were actual released, we suspect that it will be one o' the first things fixed. that being said, priests is current handicapped a bit. regardless, a stabby priest o' skaen gives you everything you want, albeit not necessarily what you expected. HA! Good Fun!

or don't play it. you not need interact with tombstones/grave markers or the easily identified backer npcs, however, if the mere knowledge that such things exist prevents you from becoming, "immersed and lost in the world," then don't play it. 'course bg and bg2, inspirations for poe, had numerous chuckle-worthy grave markers, and more than a few npcs that depended 'pon pop culture references to makes their low-brow humor work. so, am guessing you will wanna avoid those games as well. HA! Good Fun! Comparing the minor instances present in the BG series to this is folly, Al Swearengen would be ashamed of such foolishness. al would have zero sympathy for you. not only were al clear a caveat emptor kinda guy, he would mock your rage. that being said, the instances o' that which offends you in poe is universal avoidable, so surely the comparative numbers o' such instances is pointless. a hundred such characters in poe that you will never interact with? so what? the bg games did not signpost their immersion killing (HA!) humor near so well as does poe, so as 'tween a hundred such npcs in poe or a dozen in bg, which would actual be more offensive to a reasonable person? al would reach across the table and give you a serious smack. HA! Good Fun!

or don't play it. you not need interact with tombstones/grave markers or the easily identified backer npcs. however, if the mere knowledge that such things exist prevents you from becoming, "immersed and lost in the world," then don't play it. 'course bg and bg2, inspirations for poe, had numerous chuckle-worthy grave markers, and more than a few npcs that depended 'pon pop culture references to makes their low-brow humor work. so, am guessing you will wanna avoid those games as well. HA! Good Fun!

such scenario is one reason we avoided having a family o' our own. working at a juvenile detention facility had a profound impact 'pon us. hard to believe it were 17 years ago, but much o' what we saw changed us. one such lesson we learned is that regardless o' parenting or environmental influences, some kids have... issues. most common and least scary were the impulse control problems. many kids we "counseled" down in j-unit (high security for rapists, murderers, 'n such) were nice kids, good kids. 'but they had a metaphorical switch that could be flipped. relative innocuous comments or actions could turn otherwise good kids into uncontrollable rage monsters. the terrible part is that some o' the kids with the impulse control problems knew they had lack o' self control and they felt genuine terrible 'bout what they had done while in their curiously altered state. wasn't always a rage thing neither. these kids simple didn't have the capacity for reflection and consideration before they acted in response to stimuli. we met the parents o' these kids during visiting. we talked with the kids and anybody else we could speak to who might have insights. yeah, most o' the time, the kids came from difficult backgrounds and broken families... but not all. were terrible to see loving and obvious concerned parents and their otherwise good natured kids enduring yet another visiting day in juvenile hall. actual worst juvenile hall experience we had were with the young kids. the hall where we worked housed kids as young as 8-10 years o' age, and they were horrible. am not gonna get into all such details, but suffice it to say that the only time we would want to work in the little kiddie unit were at night, when they were asleep. the savage stoopidity o' the crumb-snatchers prompted us to do a bit o' research and we discovered, to our surprise, that all kids are psychopaths. am not kidding. kids may be taught the differences 'tween right from wrong, but to know right from wrong is a different thing entirely. what amounts to the conscience and capacity for empathy is not inherent qualities that all kids got from the moment they is birthed. most kids develop empathy and conscience by ten, but others take til early teens. most kids simple don't have the brain chemistry to feel bad 'bout doing wrong til they is X years old? we never wanted to have kids after we worked juvenile hall. we gotta deal with a psychopath for near a decade, at which point there would be a chance (albeit small) that regardless o' parenting choices, the child would be... broken? sorry, but no thanks. also, while our grandparents did the majority o' our personal parenting, Gromnir's actual parents were kinda terrible at the job. the possibility that we might inflict our parent's mistakes onto a child o' our own scared the notion o' child rearing right outta us. good luck to oerwinde. you got our sympathies... and our sincere hope that you never have a fire during the night which would makes the locked door solution a larger tragedy. am genuine not missing having kids o' our own. spoil our relative's kids is more than enough for us.

or slurm. HA! Good Fun!

up until a couple years ago, our main vehicle were a 1988 ford ranger. our mechanic skills is rudimentary, but the pre-1989 models o' the ranger were simple by modern standards. hell, we even had a distributor. we could work on our own car... time permitting. now we got a bmw x5 as our primary "car." we hate it. we fill it with gasoline and change windshield wipers. virtual every other maintenance or repair task is beyond our abilities. even to replace the battery requires us to remove the spare tire and disconnect a half dozen connections and braces. buying that vehicle has unmanned us a bit, but we ain't so stoopid as to try and fix stuff on the x5 when it goes wonky. HA! Good Fun!

so, evil government, uncaring of a depressed and poor population, put people at risk to save a few bucks? *eye roll* things is rare so easy and simple. who is to blame? decades o' fiscal mismanagement led governor to appoint people to fix flint's monetary crisis. so, governor or local? 'course, the mass exodus o' folks leaving flint after the loss o' thousands o' local auto industry jobs kinda made it impossible for any local elected official to act responsible and get reelected. is any number o' local, state and even fed political creatures who have resigned amidst the flint crisis, so am doubting "they" (each o' you conspiracy theorists gots a different notion o' "they," so am gonna leave up to your imagination) is tipping back champagne flutes over this mess. nobody denies that the river water were less appealing than lake water, which is why flint were gonna be getting lake water in in 2016 via a new $18 million dollar pipeline-- the river solution were a temporary fix. 'course, clearly folks at state, local and fed thought that the river water could be made safe for consumption or nobody in their right minds woulda' ok'd the plan... save in the nightmare scenarios conjured up by michael moore and a few o' our resident wingnuts. so, how did flint get lead filled water that were brown? the linchpin mistake were that state and local folks took insufficient measures to deal with the corrosive nature o' the river water. the river water, once treated, were not unhealthy for human consuption. the problem is that the water, run through antiquated lead pipes after it had been treated, became unhealthy and destroyed pipes. in point o' fact, those pipes were so old that it sounds as if folks weren't certain how extensive were the lead problem. is not as if all o' flint were using the lead pipes, so initial testing o' random sources in flint were not revealing measurable lead. prolonged failure to realize that the corrosive nature o' otherwise healthy water were destroying lead pipes were the fault o' many, but the initial failures were hardly sinister or self-serving. is any number o' folks at the state, local and fed level that screwed the p00ch, and a few such individuals has resigned because o' their failures, unfortunately, the wrong folks is typical being identified as the cause(s) o' flint's original water problems. as is so predictable in these kinda situations, the initial mistakes were, in retrospect, trivial. that being said, if folks at state, local and fed hadn't been more concerned with covering up the problem, it coulda' been fixed. the initial decision to switch to "toxic" river water were not evil. the attempt to cover-up mistakes? yeah, as is all too common, the cover-up were far worse than the initial (non)mistake. HA! Good Fun!

well, it is a beta... and your issue is one o' the "known" issues mentioned in the notes for the 3.0 beta. that being said, there is no reason why you should be able to identify your issue from the 3.0 beta notes. confused? seal spells and traps are currently broken-- this is a known issue. what the notes fail to inform you is that when a priest sets a seal spell, he becomes unable to take any other action in combat for so long as the (invisible and untriggerable) seal persists. obvious solution: don't use seal spells. reload to a point previous to having used such spells, and then do not set another seal spell until you get the next patch update. that being said, 3.0 is a beta. you can opt out of the beta if you so desire, but bugs such as these is kinda par for the course in a beta, no? it is kinda annoying that 3.0 were released with this as a known issue and that no fix of known issues has been released, but again, it is a beta. caveat emptor and all that, eh? HA! Good Fun!

That's true, but priests and wizards are kinda expected to be intelligent, and they have a much bigger palette of abilities (=spells) to choose from. But in any case, if you don't feel there's a problem, then I can hardly argue with that, can I now? it is not true that poe priests require high intelligence to be efficacious. sure, most folks play 'em that way, but you can build a very effective damage dealing priest that eschews int for might or dex or perception. we built a tank for our all-priest party that has low int and he is marvelously effective in spite of relative low health. see, the thing is that priest have talents AND spells, so is possible to create a powerful niche priest with virtual any stat distribution. is any number of spells that have no duration or aoe, yes? yes. is possible to build a priest around such spells and choose talents to exploit. barbarians... well, as you noted earlier, we simple don't see a reason to play a carnage-free barbarian, and carnage value is diminished w/o high intelligence. it is a peculiarity o' the system that barbarians, being so integral linked to carnage, is all but requiring high intelligence. HA! Good Fun!

is particularly odd as on the character record tab/sheet, under "active effects," our faiths and convictions is described as yielding a base 8.8 for deflection and 17.6 for all other defenses. furthermore, when we cursor over the descriptor, the math is described as follows: "base 8.8, +1 every five levels after 0." even more curious, what appears to be happening is that companion npcs is benefitting from our inexplicable "+1 every five levels after 0," as pallegina and created companion paladins have 2 instances o' faith and convictions modifiers appearing when i cursor over their deflection scores. our level 12 main paladin character receives +8 to deflection for faiths and convictions, but pallegina receives faith and conviction bonuses of +8 total deflection (+6 AND +2) and a created level 7 paladin is receiving +7 (+5 and +2) to her deflection. HA! Good Fun!

am slight ashamed to admit that our magnanni loafers and oxfords cost a wee bit more. that being said, we bought a pair o' adidas trail running shoes for $50 and they literal began falling apart w/i the first 50 days. maybe it ain't 'bout the shoes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhHONpmlxPc HA! Good Fun!

again, is not that cigarettes were unhealthy, but that tobacco KNEW the truth. sure, there were doctors complaining o' dangers o' cigarettes going back to prohibition era and before, but all the while, tobacco were showing studies that marginalized or refuted such findings and all the while, the tobacco industry were very much aware o' the dangers and the health ramifications o' prolonged cigarette usage. again, the conspiracy is when you is active hiding knowledge. is what tobacco knew and hid that were the conspiracy. is any number o' similar situations. dangers o' asbestos were argued for many years. the reason why the us navy and various insulation producers got hit with enormous punitive damages is 'cause those folks weren't just aware o' the possibility o' asbestos hazards, but even after they genuine Knew with a high degree o' certainty that asbestos were crippling and killing folks, they went ahead with business as usual, and took steps to Hide their knowledge. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!