Gromnir

that were 'posed to be a funny? well, we agree that there were a "sense of humour failure." poking fun o' junai takes so little effort, but you make it look difficult. in any event, is doubtful that the folks from 30 rock ask for walsh to join the writing team anytime soon. HA! Good Fun! This put down would be a good deal more cutting if you ever updated your own act. you think? well, if you says so, then we definite ain't updating... kinda a negative barometer as it were. regardless, am not sure what lack o' updating our schtick has to do with your failed attempt at a funny. have mentioned a few times that the Gromnir bit ain't 'posed to be funny or clever: is a ponce detection device. congrats. HA! Good Fun!

that were 'posed to be a funny? well, we agree that there were a "sense of humour failure." poking fun o' junai takes so little effort, but you make it look difficult. in any event, is doubtful that the folks from 30 rock ask for walsh to join the writing team anytime soon. HA! Good Fun!

... uh. ... *scratches noggin* ... what are you talking 'bout? a "forward-looking" and "positive" message is equaling a tacit admission that al-qaeda didn't carry out 9/11 attacks? ok, we can play too. statement: let us focus on rebuilding in libya. actual meaning: oby/lof (and to a lesser degree #) were right that colonel Q were actual a swell guy and a victim o' muckraking by western media. statement: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. actual meaning: clearly mlk were advocating gay marriage. ... nuts HA! Good Fun!

you don't have to scroll back in this and the other libya threads to be seeing that we thinks that things is gonna be better for the west with Q gone. he active sponsored terrorist activities in multiple parts o' the world. he used fear to control his own populace... which is no doubt why he had to rely on mercenaries during the recent fighting. etc. a libya without Q will eventually be a better place. regardless, there is gonna be many stories coming outta libya in the near future that is gonna present atrocities and horrors. more than a few o' those stories is gonna be true. eventually things will be better, but is best not to expect anything other than chaos for the near future. chaos in libya ain't necessarily a bad thing for the west. however, keeping the chaos completely limited to libya is a best case scenario that seems mighty unlikely. there is gonna be some... spillage. HA! Good Fun!

oby/lof is a nutter... but her/his brand o' insanity is actual appropriate in the present context. the one good thing that Q offered the world were stability. Q could make reliable contracts and keep oil flowing. Q could maintain a monopoly on force within his own boarders. #'s laundry list o' what ifs may not all come to fruition, but until late in 2010, we knew that Q could prevent those what ifs. 'course Q's control o' his own country were dissolving months before the first european or American plane dropped ordinance on libyan soil. ok. now what happens? personally, we got no certainty regarding the future o' libya save that for the near future we predict chaos. lots o' bad things can happen before the chaos dissipates. sure, oby is posting every wacky conspiracy theory and bs faux news drop she/he can find, but the truth o' the matter is that chaos will reign for the near future. bad things is gonna happen in libya. weapons will be smuggled out o' libya by bad folks. criminal elements that has been non-existent in libya for decades will sudden become very active... just look at post soviet russia for examples. there will be rapes, murders, thefts and all matter o' evils perpetrated by libyans and against libyans. come up with every terrible scenario you can imagine and we expect that there will be some real atrocities occurring within the days, weeks, and months ahead that will exceed the most nightmarish conjectures of even oby. things is gonna be bad in libya for some time to come. oby may be a little addled, but whatever nonsense she/he posts, worse will actually be happening somewheres in libya. it would be callous and inhuman to sit back and simple accept the horrors that is forthcoming, but am thinking it is equal naive to believe that things is gonna be better any time soon. HA! Good Fun!

well, speaking on behalf o' oppressed minorities everywhere... huh? ... oby/lof has heard o' the non sequitur? HA! Good Fun!

yes and no. Congress is actual having the potential to be very powerful. however, Congress is a collection o' disparate personalities who typical is most interested in being reelected. the things most Americans blame on the President is, as often as not, actual the result o' Congressional law making. also, in spite o' the fact that a large % o' Congressman is lawyers, federal laws are very often intentional ambiguous (leave to judges or bureaucrats to fix problems) or insane complex and convoluted. these clowns should know better. also, if one were to look at the Constitution with a more jaundiced eye and question the powers afforded by the commerce clause, 14th amendment due process, etc., then perhaps Congress would be having even less power. even so, Congress could be powerful. even so, is not weakness so much as inefficient. the power is available, but procedural and practical considerations tends to make the process inefficient. the Prez is very important in setting domestic agendas, but is Congress that is creating law. nevertheless, 'cause the Prez is so recognized by all Americans, we typical blame the Prez for most big problems. some has actual suggested that the US should adopt a parliamentary form o' govt with a prime minister... would be more efficient. after all, the world moves much faster today than it did in 1787. furthermore, the fed govt has far more responsibility today than it did when the Constitution were first penned. there is some very compelling arguments that the US system is too inefficient to tackle 21st century problems. the Chinese gots a Constitution too. on paper it would appear to actual be more protective o' individual freedoms than the US Constitution. is our personal opinion that our Constitution ain't designed to foster weakness, but it is structured so that tyranny becomes extreme unlikely. dunno. faced with economic issues it is easy to see the need for more efficient govt, but am thinking that at such times it is easy to forget some o' the lessons o' history. more than one great nation has voluntarily given up freedoms in the name o' necessity. HA! Good Fun!

lord knows we never questioned the effectiveness o' the business practice in play. sure, we likened to a drug dealer stringing out a junkie, but that don't mean the business approach is flawed. is very effective even though perhaps Gromnir indulges in a smidgen of hyperbole... but not too much. additionally, am imagining that if obsidian decided that the dialogues for some o' the joinable npcs were indeed kinda weak and created a $4 dlc just to fix shortcomings o' core game joinable npcs, (and the honest hearts joinables?) we suspect that there would be some raised eyebrows, no? HA! Good Fun!

brings us back to cost. Gromnir applauds the redux: fix the inequities 'tween base game weapons. is bad when there is clear win weapons, and if the dlc fixes such, then we thinks that is fantastic. am simply wondering if such fixes deserves a price tag that is equivalent o' 40% o' the gameplay dlcs. perhaps is quibbling on our part. yeah, josh efforts looks commendable (whether it works as planned or not,) but the commercial aspect o' paying for what amounts to a fix is kinda greasy. and yeah, we used lame "fix" pun purposeful, and we won't apologize for doing so. HA! Good Fun!

This is reflected by the fact that GRA costs 40% of what any of the previous four DLCs cost. dunno... isn't that precisely the point? didn't josh makes some relevant comment 'bout failings o' crpg design at the recent gdc? sorry, we didn't actual read, but there were some lifted quote at a magazine site 'bout largely empty and meaningless numerical improvements o' weapons and abilities. all the mass effect minor mods improvements were silly, right? well, typical these weapon packs result in a handful o' new super-weapons that is effective just providing some minor statistical improvement or difference over all the weapons in the base game. is no additional gameplay offered in the weapon/armor dlcs... is just a way for folks who has already exhausted everything in the game to feel even more 1337. 'stead o' kill everything save legendary deathclaw in .6 seconds, with the dlc now you manage in .4. *shrug* 40% seems far too high for something that not actual add anything. am just not seeing the point o' juicing the weapons a tad. by the same token, the dlcs is optional, so is not as if you gotta buy. no harm save that it would seem to be pandering to the crpg junkie mentality... needs their new fo:nv fix, and anything, no matter how trivial, will gets the addicted to pay. HA! Good Fun! ps the weapon dlcs is kinda insta-fails... is almost a no-win. if you make small improvements to weapons, then you got the mass effect problem wherein the improvements is so negligible as to be pointless. however, if you makes genuine observable improvements to existing weapons in a game in which it is already pretty easy to kill everything...

Yeah, unfortunately his only real success has been internationally. The two wars, while still moving at a snails pace, haven't gotten worse. He has had much better interactions with foreign powers than the previous administration. The revolutions that have forced changes in the Middle East and Africa can also be spun as a positive for him. But none of that really matters, because the economy is effed up, and he hasn't been seen as handling it well at all. He can't bridge the two parties, and his approval ratings are in the dumps. He's going to need a miracle, or a Republican party that gives their ticket to a moron. The latter is unfortunately very likely. am thinking that obama's biggest problem is gonna be overcoming the perception that he is a pushover. is not limited to domestic or foreign policy. republicans don't respect him 'cause they thinks they can walk all over him and democrats hates the big talk from the white house followed by half-measures. the president gets far too much credit for success, and receives disproportionate blame for failure, but obama has exhausted his ability to blame all current problems on the previous administration. the average american don't believe that things are marked better today than they were 4 years ago, and most believe that obama is a weak president. ... the only thing obama gots going for him is that the republican party candidates does not exactly inspire confidence neither. we liked mccain (not mccain & palin), but we were convinced that a conservative approach would not be able to fix debt and health care issues. btw, when we says "conservative" we don't mean it synonymous with republican. is gonna take some extreme measures to fix problems, and am doubtful mccain woulda' advocated extreme. is why we is so cynical 'bout the upcoming election. the democrats is stuck with obama, and the republicans is not gonna go with nobody extreme as they not need to do so to win. HA! Good Fun!

Those aren't really worst-case scenarios, we've seen them elsewhere so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that Libya could see a repetition of any number of those. As for Q's connections to terrorism and the notion that removing him will lead to less terrorism as opposed to more... that was then and this is now. Funny, too, because depending on who you listen to, the rebels are in fact connected to Al-Qaeda. We'll see if this revolution eventually amounts to anything in terms of real change for the people -much less what was advertised as- which shouldn't be too difficult as Q really sucked as far as statebuilding goes, but if things go wrong down the road, who is going to take the blame? Heh. mention al-qaeda ties o' rebels is pretty weak, no? any large enough group o' gun-toting rebels in the mid east is probable gonna have some al-qaeda ties. the transitional government is gonna be peopled by a broad variety o' characters both admirable and shady. regardless, the rebels is gonna be working on rebuilding libya for some time. organized terrorism that might impact the west coming from libyan sources is not likely to be occurring anytime soon. sure, eventually the new libyans may get organized, and they may decide to pick up where Q left off, but that is gonna be some time in the future. for the time being, the rebels is gonna be relying on westerners to rebuild, so is unlikely they spark up new terrorist activities in the west. heck, one reason why Gromnir were hoping (maybe not entire genuine) that the libyan fighting would continue in perpetuity is that while the rebels and Q were killing each other, they would be far too busy to kill us. however, these regional disputes tend to be difficult to keep complete contained, and the US, in spite o' refusal to commit ground troops, were making a huge investment in the campaign. letting libyan tribals exterminate each other were all well and good, but it were getting inordinate expensive. as for worst case scenarios... *shrug* true, is very plausible that your laundry list o' misfortunes will come to pass. however, those is hypothetical eventualities that may come never to pass, as 'posed to the certainty o' Q opposition to western interests. also, as has been noted numerous times already, the rebels is gonna need western experts and contractors and bankers n' such for the near future. the west is gonna, for better or worse, have influence in libya where they had very little influence previous. "Okay, so then, other than the obvious lucrative reconstruction, weapons and raw materials contracts, how exactly is that a success? A success for whom, anyway?" am not thinking that your questions is difficult to answer. the west loses the stability provided by a west hating despot. there is admitted risk that any abrupt and violent regime change will result in a frying pan-to-fire scenario, but am thinking that such a risk seems slim considering what were the original state o' relations 'tween Q's libya and the west. HA! Good Fun!

"5.9 is a pretty decent size, especially when it's so shallow. The February quake in Christchurch was only 6.3 but had around 3 times the ground acceleration (~ practical effect; barring tsunami of course) of the far larger magnitude Sendai one in Japan[sic; later corrected without prompting to Chile] because it was closer and shallower. " ..each of the bolded parts is a factor apart from Richter that influences effects, found both in the selective part and the rest. I selected the quote I did because it was 100% unequivocal in stating that Richter was not the only factor, and that there were separate measures for practical effects. You were the one fixated on Richter strengths and using it as a sole measure. You're being- at best- disingenuous in trying to say anything different. Still you got another response which I guess was the intent. No, I actually did exactly the opposite and implied that there is not necessarily any direct correlation between deaths and 'severity' and, in a rather small logical step, that it is to a very large extent circumstance (sciencey things like... depth, location and ground acceleration; but also whether the bits of church that break off hit people as in Lorca or miss them as in Washington) that determines 'severity'. It seems I should have put it bluntly. Something like "You should refrain from commenting further as continuing to argue over something about which you are ignorant will make you look both foolish and, given your treatment of those arguing with you in similar circumstances, hypocritical". See, I have no need to prove expertise only your ignorance, and that has already been done. That was the point of the Scalia comment, I don't know or care if you're really a lawyer or not as it is irrelevant and the level of authority granted by any professional qualification is wholly unneeded. The only relevant points are that (1) you were right in that case but demonstrably wrong in this and (2) my expertise in this exceeded yours by the required margin when I was aged ten. your first rebut is actual noteworthy. keeping in mind that you didn't provide any such relevant mercalli factors info for the east coast quake related to shallowness and ground acceleration, but mere mentioned richer. so, we can assume you were just hypothesizing. even so, while maybe your guessing game were not particular relevant, it weren't wrong neither. though again, in ca even the shallow 5.8 range quakes appear to be largely ignored based on the limited info available online. of course you still fail to recognize that our initial comment that you took offense at were your compare of 5.8 to a quake that were "only 6.3." maybe you know 10 year old geology, but you clear don't grasp 10 year old physics and math. sure, there are other facturs involved in earthquake severity, but you clear don't understand the enormity o' the difference in force 'tween 5.8 and 6.3. second point is a fail however, or maybe you were being serious instead o' sardonic. "That quake killed nine. Rather a lot of poorly secured Elvises in Spain, it appears. "I'll make a deal with you, I won't try and correct you on matters of US law, you don't try and correct me on matters of science natural." if you were actual agreeing with us 'bout elvis stuff then we retract our observations, but as you quickly followed with the suggestion that you gots superior knowledge o' the incredible broad fields o' natural sciences than Gromnir (*chuckle*). nevertheless, the statements become somewhat contradictory when tied together. agree with Gromnir then deride? hmmm. third point appears like simple bantam. takes considerable arrogance to claim superior knowledge o' natural sciences based 'pon the thread contents above. HA! Good Fun!

Probably no comfort to you, but you are not the only one (having been on the net since it was something "exclusive" used for information exchange to it became something "vulgar") am not sure that we would says that we find your observation to be comforting, but that is quibbling o'er semantics. in actuality we does find it refreshing that others share our view. our first real hands-on experience with the internet were in 1988 during a summer job while at berkeley. we had used commodore 64s and some oldy apple pcs in high school, but those things didn't have no internet access at the time. first time we used internet were kinda intimidating, and not very fun. we were not using windows friendly interfaces and we was sending/receiving pure technical data. was all very impersonal. sent stuff to computer names, not people. lord knows we does not wish a return to ye good old days. we do not miss all the leg work. nevertheless, am thinking folks has lost something now that internet makes knowledge so accessible. is far less discipline. HA! Good Fun!

eh? we got no problem with admitting that we is hardly an expert on earthquakes. we understand the physics more than the specifics o' geology. our point were that 5.8 not get much press in ca, and that 6. 3 not give a genuine notion o' relative strength o' 5.8. 1) you did use richter to make guesstimates 'bout strength o' quake (selective quote aside) 2) you made false correlation 'tween deaths and quake severity 3) you suggested expertise in natural sciences which you has yet to back up btw, you did not offer mercalli for east coast quake, so your initial point is even more suspect. again, please keep in mind that our initial observation that your christchurch 6.3 and east coast 5.8 being a less than useful comparison stands, no? got schooled? *chuckle* hardly. though we did know pretty much nothing 'bout mercali, so thanks for that. HA! Good Fun! ps is complete aside, but am actually recalling one new zealand scientist, though his name escapes us. he were a chemist, but we not recall why he were noteworthy in his field. am only recollecting 'cause he were a nudist. what were his name? oh well. am thinking that that there were also some famous guy at jpl who were new zealand or australian. am recalling hearing an accent in an interview.

is strange, but whenever we picture or visualize rommel, we almost invariably thinks o' james mason in spite o' the fact that mason didn't genuine look like rommel. we has seen loads o' pictures o' rommel, but he were kinda nondescript, so images not really stick better than mason. is one o' the few historical figures who were born after the advent o' common photography techniques who we cannot help but identify with the actor. now that we consider, karl malden is who we think of when trying to picture omar bradley. huh. HA! Good Fun!

is probable best to assume debunking sites is wrong until proven otherwise. the aforementioned quote is a good example o' why caution is warranted. just so you is aware, we ain't picking on junai. but you know, we were recently contemplating whether we thought the internet were a boon or handicap for education. came to mind initial 'cause we saw multiple online sources that attributed to stalin that which were actual done/said by bukahrin. made us wonder. junai mentioned that his dead-man quote were famous. can you imagine such a questionable quote becoming famous in 1985? before the internet, folks had to actual does research and decide for themselves if info were trustworthy. you would go to library and use electronic and physical search aides to find sources. then you would read sources... not necessarily in their entirety, but you would have the physical copy in your hands, and you could/would read more than simple selected quotes. some questionable quote, authored by a nobody, and attributed to a man who had died 4 years before the quote were first used would become famous pre-internet? maybe. unlikely. again, set way-back machine for mid-late 80's. if somebody on a college campus handed you a cheesy looking pamphlet that did posit some conspiracy theory, how likely would you be to repeat the contained quotes as if they were trustworthy? ... knowledge has become so... cheap. is no longer earned with toil and sweat, and anybody with a website can be an authority. is not necessarily a bad thing. having so much more info available is a good thing... an amazing thing. is hard to explain to folks who has grown with the internet what it were like before such a thing were wide available. even so, am slightly saddened by how the perception o' knowledge has changed. HA! Good Fun!

I didn't, I made the point that Richter was not the be all and end all straight away, to whit: "..only 6.3 but had around 3 times the ground acceleration (~ practical effect.." I've known about Mercalli since I was around 10 (belated thanks due to HS and his social studies lessons, see, I did learn something) and, frankly, that was all the knowledge needed, the rest is just looking up the relevant numbers and basic observation. Personally, I'm happy to concede that there is a fair probability that someone who lives in the US knows more about their law than I do, whether your last name happens to be Scalia or not. *chuckle* you indicated that 5.8 RICHTER, were pretty significant. selective quotes not help you in this matter. you also has implied that you got knowledge o' natural sciences superior to Gromnir and that we should defer... a bold suggestion. based on what you has provided thus far, we ain't so impressed, and we will choose not to offer any special deference to you on matters o' natural science. thanks anyways. am not willing to assume that somebody who lives elsewhere (am guessing new zealand) knows more o' natural sciences than does our self. sorry, no particular famous new zealand scientists come to mind, so we cannot effective parrot the Scalia quip. HA! Good Fun! ps sorry, you actual keep referencing 5.9. not wanna false attribute. the east coast quake were 5.8 'ccording to us geological, but were reported (briefly) as 5.9. even so, we not wanna be putting words in your mouth.

Just read the Wiki version of this...sad. Were you born there? Do you have a Native American birth name? were born in evanston, il, but spent first 12 years of life in the dakotas (mostly pine ridge). name issue is... complicated. HA! Good Fun!

Even if they are only replaced by nominal democracies that work for all intents and purposes like the regimes they toppled? Even if they are plunged into an intermittent state of civil war? Even if living standards take a hit for all but the leading "revolutionaries"? Even if it leads to an anti-Western sentiment across the board? Okay, so then, other than the obvious lucrative reconstruction, weapons and raw materials contracts, how exactly is that a success? A success for whom, anyway? That's the Desert Rats shoulder patch from, you know, way back when Brits actually fought fascism. I think the reference is in kinda poor taste... you offer more than a few worst-case-scenario "ifs," no? and yeah, the stability that some dictators provide should not be dismissed. is very easy for folks in the west to dismiss some simple freedoms such as freedom from starvation. is sacrifice o' freedom o' expression worth a chicken in every pot? *shrug* nevertheless, Q was having increasing difficulty providing basic needs while still denying liberties we take for granted in the west. he were gonna fail eventual, which is why even the oil companies such as bp and eni were willing to support rebels in spite o' the fact that they had contracts with Q. also, am thinking you ignore that removal o' a dictator like Q, who overt funded and provided sanctuary for terrorist operations, is gonna result in a decrease in regional terrorist concerns... at least in the near future. we will concede that there will be an inevitable increase in violent crime perpetrated by citizens following the removal o' a dictator or totalitarian regime. people gets freedom for first time in many years and some elements is bound to use such freedom to do bad. Gromnir is not a Freedom At Any Price guy. pine ridge suffered from what amounts to 3rd world standard o' living; gave us perspective. watch children die o' easily curable diseases and suffer from malnutrition makes stuff like representative democracy and freedom o' speech seems like luxuries. would Gromnir trade liberty for the security? no, but we not have a wife or kids. is easy for Gromnir to be all enlightened and superior, eh? HA! Good Fun!

... who? HA! Good Fun!

That quake killed nine. Rather a lot of poorly secured Elvises in Spain, it appears. I'll make a deal with you, I won't try and correct you on matters of US law, you don't try and correct me on matters of science natural. yes, badly secured elvis is probable a good comparison. a very old church had part o' a roof/cieling drop killing some. similarly, a fragile overhang cornice on an equal old bit o' architecture fell killing 3. etc. lethality o' a quake is frequent a matter o' shoddy construction rather than measure o' severity o' earth movement... is typical why impoverished locales suffer much higher casualties following seeming smallish quakes. 3 little pigs. as for your deal... okie doki, but am gonna observe that you were using richter as the measure. you is kinda being self contradictory, no? use richter to says a quake is significant but then noting that mercalli is a more appropriate measure 'cause richter don't give a true impression? also, am not sure how you is using natural science or the basis o' your expertise. Gromnir not claim to be a natural science expert, in part 'cause we do not know what natural science is... very ambiguous term that can encompass a dizzying array o' disciplines. would be exceeding arrogant to claims expertise in natural science entirety. you gots a masters in geology or geophysics? edit added link for reference: http://www.cam.ac.uk/about/natscitripos/links.html btw, am gonna note that we didn't actual initial boast specific expertise in us law. we did ask why folks like walsh and oro were so certain o' their opinions o' us law. afterwards folks questioned our background to be questioning walsh and oro. sssssoooooooo... HA! Good Fun!

the fact that people died ain't relevant. maybe means that many buildings in spain is quite old and not built with earthquake tolerance in mind? hell, barely perceptible earthquakes is sometimes killers just 'cause o' simple gravity... decorative plate with elvis painting falls off wall and kills earnest dominguez when a 4.0 hits near diablo mountain, ca? *snort* regardless, experience a 6.3 don't give much o' an impression o' what a 5.8 is like. is Exponential different. HA! Good Fun!

just to repeat, 'cause is something most folks not seem to realize, the richter scale is represented by an exponential growth curve. there is a very significant difference 'tween 5.8 and 6.3. HA! Good Fun!

No, you guys just freak out over an inch of snow blue canyon, ca gets something like 240' o' snow per year. is a Big state. however, am gonna concede that most californians seems to be disproportionate spooked by rain and weather in general. even in nor cal where they gets good seasonal rainfalls, many drivers act as if it were hydrofluoric acid falling from the sky 'stead o' water. 'o, and north or south, coast or mountains, ca earthquakes is relative ignored 'less you get at least into low 6's... and keep in mind that seismic orders o' magnitude is not simple linear... is a huge difference 'tween 5.8 and 6.2. that being said, even when we were in so cal, we typical never even woke up for the 5 range quakes. is always disappointing when news announces nighttime quake and we realize we slept through another one. stuff in ca is built with much greater earthquake tolerances, and apparent Gromnir gots some kinda seismic blinders when we sleep. HA! Good Fun!