Gromnir

am one o' the not completion folks. we got a bit more than sixteen minutes into the first episode before pausing indefinitely. were a bit cringey. will come back at some point after the full season one release and if we get folks we trust saying it were worth the effort. HA! Good Fun!

if kingmaker is any measure, wotr will never be fixed. is just a matter o' it being fixed enough to be playable, which is an admitted highly subjective threshold. don't hold your breath waiting for fixed. that said, am not sure how one guesses as to whether or not the game is stable enough to be playable. playability, we would argue, is also extreme build dependent. most o' the major quest bugs has been addressed, which is a pleasant shock. however, a few builds is hurt more than a little by bugs which has been 'round since at least the first beta. at some point waiting is gonna be offering severe diminishing returns, unless yours is a build which is crippled by bugs and if such is the case, you may never see a real fix. but am gonna repeat, 'cause am genuine surprised by the admission, most major quest bugs has been addressed by owlcat. new bugs do indeed pop up with each patch, but wotr quests is in a far better place than we woulda' imagined for late november if you had asked us to prognosticate in the month pre-release. HA! Good Fun!

the thing is, you people is actual talking 'bout avocado oil. not the same thing as avocadoes. millennial happens to be out o' avocados, so she gets avocado oil outta the pantry and drizzles over her toast? nope. out of avocado oil for that pan seared ribeye, but got guacamole and kinda smear that on the steak before throwing it into the pan? nope. oil+vinnegar+egg+water+lemon juice salt and possibly pepper. maybe mustard. you end up with dressing. *shrug* store bought stuff messes with expectations. can be delicious. HA! Good Fun!

"Fixed the mechanics of the Pillar of Life spell to match the description. Playful Darkness is watching you!" p00p. HA! Good Fun! ps pillars should remain a good tactic for playful darkness, but the repeatable damage were an extreme nice bonus though were admitted exploitable.

store bought mayonnaise is kinda like store bought white bread in that it looks approximate like what it is mimicking and it functions the same, but shelf stable wonder bread, or even better varieties, still don't taste like a slice from a loaf you made yourself. as for mayos, have had dukes and has a nice vinegar tang to it. primal is a decent avocado variety, but has a kinda unique flavor perhaps attributable to the inclusion o' rosemary extract-- mayhap you don't want your mayo to taste like pine. hellman's/best foods is... inoffensive. sir kensington's is what am likely to buy if am not willing to pull out the stick blender and just make our self, which is what we usually do. the problem with homemade is not so much the effort as it is the amount and the shelf life. one egg's worth o' mayo is usual far more mayo than we need at a given time and then we have a bit less than a week before the remainder goes bad. ingredients for dukes: Soybean oil, eggs, water, distilled and cider vinegar, salt, oleoresin paprika, natural flavors, calcium disodium EDTA added to protect flavor. Contains: Eggs ingredients for sir kensington's avocado oil mayo: Avocado Oil, Organic Certified Humane Free Range Egg Yolks, Water, Distilled Vinegar, Salt, Lime Juice Concentrate, Citric Acid, Lime Oil. ingredients for sir kensington's classic organic: Organic Sunflower Oil, Organic Certified Humane Free Range Egg Yolks, Water, Organic Distilled Vinegar, Salt, Fair Trade Organic Cane Sugar, Organic Lemon Juice, Citric Acid. btw, am as likely as any to mock californian gastronomical peculiarities, however if am grabbing a neutral oil to make mayo, avocado is gonna be a far more obvious choice than would be soybean. am not a fan o' canola for mayo. peanut is a good choice and if am on a stir fry bender, then chances are we got decent peanut oil at hand. sunflower is near top o' the list. regardless, a neutral oil is what you want for your mayo and avocado is an obvious and not particular californian option. HA! Good Fun! ps grapeseed oil might be the most tasteless/neutral oil and and as such is a good starting place for a homemade mayo effort. peanut is decided less neutral but we like it. sue us. in fact, have frequent used some light olive oils which add flavour to a mayo, though is obvious not gonna work for everybody. regardless, we would recommend grapeseed as kinda the "best" neutral oil for mayo... with the acknowledgement grapeseed oil will add a green hue to your finished product which may be disconcerting to a few o' you.

perhaps indulging in an unnecessary ego stroke, seeing as how this repeats much o' our earlier observations save for a bit o' unnecessary complication, am gonna wholehearted agree with the assessments and conclusions, though 'course he bothered to delve and we just couldn't bring our self to care. HA! Good Fun! late ps: while it were noted in the vid how on a macro level the case is interesting as it is yet another statistic which shows how different defendants is treated based on their race, sex and whatnot, am thinking the commentator left out a detail which Gromnir also failed to mention save in the same tangential manner-- money. the rittenhouse defense was robust sourced via crowdfunding. is unlikely anybody regular posting on this board coulda' afforded the rittenhouse defense and defendant money is not one o' those common collected data points. poor people get public defenders, who are actual quite competent in spite o' many tv portrayals. rich people get the best defense money can buy. ordinary folks get the best defense they can afford, which as often as not, is mediocre.

no, you were noticeable quiet regarding those individuals, which is why we asked what makes this incident different? as to imputing non-verified characteristics, ordinarily we would assume an attempt at irony, but the obvious lack o' self awareness on your part, given your current efforts, is just too rich. so again, since you chose not to answer and instead attempted to deflect, what makes darrel e. brooks different? why does dp choose to make assumptions 'bout motives and regarding how "they" will label? regardless o' the lack o' information regarding mr. brooks, as you already admitted you were silent 'bout previous accused mass killers while now you is posting machinegun style 'bout mr. brooks. you is making assumptions 'bout motives and behaviours w/o information to support conjecture. so again, what is different 'bout mr. brooks given what you actual know as 'posed to guessing? btw, it don't matter what mr. brooks eventual motivations is. at this point we is left to wonder why you fixate 'pon mr. brooks given a previous record o' reticence. HA! Good Fun! ps just an aside, complete unrelated to the topic at hand, is noteworthy the boulder shooter were originally identified as a "white male" suspect by numerous media sources. were a few pundits who, after the fact, apologized for their hasty generalizations. regardless, initially, the shooter were described by police and media as caucasian.

something about this accused mass killer has caught dp's attention. unfortunate, there is typical one or two mass killing events every year in the US, but this one is somehow special for dp. pittsburgh synagogue killer? el paso supermarket shooter? no accusations 'bout how "they" will label the suspect from dp then, yes? ordinarily we wouldn't indulge such speculation, but seeing as how dp is clear doing so, he has kinda opened the door, yes? so what might be different 'bout darrell e. brooks that, given dp's posting history, might explain a curious fascination and need to indulge in whataboutism even before he gots any info worth sharing? it's a mystery... or is it? am just asking questions. ... we mentioned tucker carlson earlier. gotta love his transparent just asking questions shtick. am wondering if dp is a fan? HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

of course, which is exact why fox is successful. they sell you what you want to hear. you mistake the tucker's ability to play his audience for insight. as already noted, is possible to find ways to hear the message o' both sides o' a debate w/o supporting the overt liars and unabashed charlatans. HA! Good Fun!

the biggest mistake villeneuve made in his dune is the failure to recognize the pug factor. a couple minutes o' scenes with pugs coulda' changed the whole tone o' the film. maybe not. HA! Good Fun!

yeah, but you specific failed to mention iwd2, where story elements got worse than the original... or poe2, which even if you like the game (as does Gromnir btw), am gonna suggest you are taking liberties if you claim narrative qualities improved compared to the original. of particular note, as referenced earlier in this thread, josh benefitted by having excellent writers for poe2 and unlike iwd2 we weren't talking 'bout a rush job. iwd were a major rush job btw, and still impresses us how beautiful that game looked and sounded... and still looks and sound. david ogden stiers narration coupled with the storybook slides as 'posed to clunky cgi effors, advanced a story which we has on numerous occasions observed exceeded bg1 even if iwd had no companions and were so much more limited in terms o' storytelling opportunities. twelve man team for penitent? then compare to honest hearts, 'cause josh ain't gonna be able to rely on others or be able to focus on mechanics to cover for his narrative limitations. 'course maybe you are right, and josh, final getting creative freedom shows he has always been a game design poet limited by the misunderstanding o' others and the realities o' o' constant being asked to direct a sequel or dlc as 'posed to genuine designing a title one may attribute almost entire to josh, though how many developers ever get such an opportunity, eh? no more excuses. after decades, penitent is the title josh fans has been waiting for, yes? more than were ps:t chris avellone's baby ('cause that were still 2e d&d rules with which to contend and the nameless one's tale were set in the planescape universe, requiring wotc approval for so many things) penitent is josh's creative progeny. josh gets credit if penitent is a win, but please recall this thread and this post following release. no excuses--not microsoft or advertising or sunspots. josh. HA! Good Fun!

... it's as if you didn't even read the linked material. as for tucker, if you applaud him 'cause he says stuff you already agree with, that is hardly a meaningful. also, you are demanding scorn from Gromnir if you are seriously balancing tucker's pandemic and january 6 lies with his interview o' jordan peterson. how 'bout the ed gavin interview? or but no doubt bruce agrees with tucker's take on blm. HA! Good Fun!

add enough qualifiers and anything is true, and am not sure if "drastic" is appropriate. nwn weren't s'posed to have a narrative, not full game narrative at least. the lizard queen stuff was not part o' the original plan. were other issues, but nwn story, as a whole, had significant hurdles and is justifiably criticized. use as measuring stick is curious. fallout nv is a project josh admitted he were more removed from narrative. while he were project lead, he admitted that he were far more involved in the mechanics o' the game than the story, with the exception o' ceaser's legion, which predictable were forgettable and reminded us o' dealing with yxunomei in iwd for good reason. that is what set honest hearts apart as josh took lead on story. am not gonna once again get into criticisms o' honest hearts. in fact, honest hearts is likely your best predictor for what pentiment is gonna play like given how josh were the genuine driving force behind story and deign o' that dlc. personally we do not find such to be reassuring. HA! Good Fun!

Why We Are Leaving Fox News "Over the past five years, some of Fox’s top opinion hosts amplified the false claims and bizarre narratives of Donald Trump or offered up their own in his service. In this sense, the release of Patriot Purge wasn’t an isolated incident, it was merely the most egregious example of a longstanding trend. Patriot Purge creates an alternative history of January 6, contradicted not just by common sense, not just by the testimony and on-the-record statements of many participants, but by the reporting of the news division of Fox News itself. " HA! Good Fun!

nevertheless is a valid point. as stated previously, while am knowing the law, the facts o' the case and the case itself interested us not at all. unfortunate, looking further into facts does not improve our opinion o' kyle. "Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn't get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/02/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-dominick-black-first-witness/6258860001/ so when kyle retrieved the ar-15 from the black residence, he likely believed he were breaking the law and the reason he were acquiring the rifle were not to protect his father but to confront protesters who might be damaging personal property: cars. kyle's judgment is even more suspect knowing what we learned 'cause we bothered to check eye-roll inducing facts. as we keep repeating, far too many conservatives is pretending as if legal = righteous. this became a binary us v. them issue all too quick and so those defenders o' kyle cannot accept that legal exoneration don't make kyle anything less than a punk who willing engaged in reckless behaviour which all too predictable ended bad. there should be universal condemnation o' kyle's behavior, 'cause is no good argument for defending rittenhouse behaviour. even if you believe rittenhouse shoulda' been found not guilty o' murder, is no way to defend his behaviour as anything other than wrong. can be wrong or bad and nevertheless not deserve to go to prison. 'course is also worth noting the charges 'gainst black is still valid, which makes the judge ruling on the weapon possession issue all the more baffling. is illegal, unquestionable illegal, to buy an ar-15 for a seventeen-year-old, but judge says is perfect legal for a minor to own such a weapon. however, am gonna also observe how more than a few liberals is not learning from this anymore than similar incidents from the past + half decade. the ps from the above is the relevant portion. the extremist right groups is organized. individually the proud boys and similar folks is, with few exceptions, morons. organization makes 'em more effective than the educated dorks running around in black outfits and claiming to be fighting fascism. the rittenhouse verdict is not some kinda new thing or a signal to militia they may confront protesters. *snort* people have not been paying attention to the extremist play book for at least the past six years. this is why our military not need geniuses to be effective. disorganization may protect a group from government censure, but it also makes far more difficult to achieve goals. on the other hand, organization and training effective replace and is frequent superior to native intelligence. too many liberals is gonna read news stories 'bout the rittenhouse verdict which align with their own beliefs and feel justified in being outraged. explain as white privilege or just another example o' a broken justice system. those folks will post something on facebook or retweet a story they believe is insightful, then go back to watching "grownish," or whatever. what happened with the rittenhouse verdict, as we keep saying, should not have been a surprise. if you got multiple armed people in an inherently tense situation and somebody ends up getting shot and killed, then expect that w/o compelling evidence to the contrary, self defense is gonna be an option. we got a well armed society and as such situations such as were prevalent in kenosha during the protests is gonna result in reasonable people being afraid... or at least believable afraid enough to exceed burden for criminal prosecution, a burden which is the not insignificant beyond a reasonable doubt. am not concerned proud boys is gonna change their tactics based on rittenhouse, 'cause the proud boys has been doing as rittenhouse (and worse) for at least 6 years. you'all realize the proud boys want armed conflict, yes? they has been showing up to protests armed and hoping for confrontation for years. should be more concerned that disorganized protesters don't learn from the situation and in light o' rittenhouse more o' them decide they too should be armed to protect selves... 'cause is no way that leads to more corpses, right? HA! Good Fun!

you are not paying attention. re read our posts. am not surprised by the verdict and we keep pointing out how once it were apparent guns were possessed by both rittenhouse and the protesters, self defense was likely. if rittenhouse had been the victim, instead o' the killer, the assailant likely woulda' been able to raise self defense in this situation. notice we didn't address your verdict comments and we specific noted that a reason for being in wisconsin were immaterial to the verdict. you aren't getting it. rittenhouse done wrong. he aquired a gun illegal in illinois and took it to wisconsin to protect cars. he were not standing outside his father's home with his ar-15 when the shooting took place. he were on the streets at night most assured not defending his father when the shooting occurred. am most assured not talking 'bout the verdict, 'cause the verdict don't matter when asking whether kyle were a tool bag for taking an ar-15 to wisconsin to confront protesters. why is anybody defending that behaviour? why are you finding excuses? oh, and biden supports a jury verdict-- he supports the system and is asking for calm. he is saying the right things. serious bruce, try and stay focused. HA! Good Fun!

what? did he have a reason to be there with a gun he acquired illegally, at night, confronting protesters? you are looking for excuses not to condemn kyle's behaviour. why? having a "reason to be their(sic)" is irrelevant to the jury verdict, but it does speak to whether or not kyle were reckless. HA! Good Fun!

seems like an innocuous enough query until you consider what the actualization o' a carnivorous bovine might entail. HA! Good Fun!

comrade being comrade as usual. him and betsy devos perhaps hang out at the same club? we all need guns to protect us from all the other people who have guns... oh and we need protect from grizzlies too. obviously not recognizing the circular logic. *shrug* however, reality is we got the second amendment. don't like the law? change the law. is all kinda stoopid laws which cause more harm than good. pretend such laws don't mean what they clear say is not helpful. solution is to change the laws and complain that legislators ain't doing their job is hardly a compelling reason to expect SCOTUS Justices or some other source to swoop in and magic change the law. as for the rittenhouse case, we did mention earlier how we had not followed the case and had almost zero interest in the outcome. got multiple armed people, at night, during a protest and somebody ends up dead? why is anybody shocked? were a whole lotta stoopid which predictable resulted in people dying. take same situation as happened, but if rittenhouse had ended up as the corpse, is likely his killer woulda' been able to claim self-defense as well. is so not surprising. however, we read that the weapon charge were dropped and so we did delve a bit 'cause is an area o' the law 'bout which we is not uniformed. Disqualification Based on Age Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon. [ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.] top o' page 5. before the rittenhouse case, lawyers, judges, congressmen and residents o' wisconsin all pretty much knew that minors weren't allowed to carry fireamrs save for a few exceptions. one judge changed the law? quick explanation as to what happened-- wisconsin has a law which as stated 'bove made illegal for anybody under 18 to possess a firearm save for hunting, military service and target practice. however, a few years after passing the wisconsin law, youngsters linked with gangs started carrying sawed-off shotguns and when stopped they were always on their way to the shooting range or to go hunting... with their sawed-off shotguns? so the idjits in wisconsin does what legislators do and instead o' making a simple fix, they complicate a bit. a sub-section to the law preventing minors from carrying firearms were added to address the sawed-off shotguns, but for whatever reason, the age were lowered for those kinda weapons. the subsection most assured did not nullify the law regarding the prohibitions o' firearms for minors. all it did was remove the exceptions for military service, hunting and target practice for sawed-off shotguns... but it lowered the age limit for such cases. *eye roll* the judge in the rittenhouse case read the subsection as if wisconsin statute 948.60 were either non existent or invalidated by the short-barrel rifle/sawed-off shotgun sub-section, which is ludicrous. in illinois, where rittenhouse acquired the ar-15, he were breaking law, 'cause while folks his age could possess such a weapon, they needed be registered to do so. rittenhouse were not registered. so rittenhouse acquires illegal in illinois and takes his ar-15 to wisconsin where the law is even more strict regarding weapon possession by minors and the judge somehow reads statute in a way most improbable. as an aside, if we were defending rittenhouse we woulda tried to do same and suggest the legislation created a conflict o' interpretation. such conflicts is indeed decided in favor o' a criminal defendant. the thing is, we woulda' expected to lose. however, as we observed regarding SCOTUS fixing american gun laws in absence o' legislative action, most o' the liberals offended by the rittenhouse judge behavior need be self aware o' the potential hypocrisy. if is bad for judges to make or change law for rittenhouse, why is ok to do so regarding guns or taxes or speech? many laws is bad, but is not a judge's role to fix bad or harmful. the rittenhouse judge ignored any kinda ordinary legislative interpretation. Justices ignoring the Constitution to fix a problem is no more admirable. gonna repeat we did not follow the rittenhouse case and we got little interest in learning more. a derpy teen from illinois illegal acquired a weapon (again, this ain't a question as kyle admitted on stand he were aware he didn't have the permit needed to posses such a weapon in illinois) and he took the weapon to wisconsin where before trial everybody save a handful o' militia members and apparently one judge were aware it were illegal for a minor to posses such a weapon for the purpose o' defending cars from protesters. cars? once we heard at least one of the folks confronting rittenhouse were also armed, we assumed there would be a good chance kyle would successful raise self-defense, but as we keep observing time and again, not being sent to prison for murder is hardly a judgment on kyle's character. dumb. reckless. callow. the actual case, viewed micro, is uninteresting. macro is a different matter. change rittenhouse age, race and whatnot and view as a statistic is worthy o' consideration, but the individual case is not worth your effort (edit: this is our opinion--you may disagree and is no reason to accept our pov as more valid) to spend additional time questioning the hows and whys o' the verdict. HA! Good Fun!

some folks may recall the following story FBI raids home of Project Veritas' James O'Keefe as part of investigation into Ashley Biden's 'stolen' diary "The Project Veritas founder then explained that "tipsters" approached his group late last year alleging to have Ashley Biden's diary containing "explosive allegations" about her father, then the Democratic nominee, and that the diary was allegedly abandoned in a room that she had stayed at and that they stayed after. " ... "Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett appeared on "Hannity" Friday and stressed there's a "huge difference" between what Ashley Biden's attorney has alleged that her diary was stolen versus what O'Keefe alleged about it being left behind in a room, saying "one's a crime and the other one isn't."" ""Project Veritas did the right thing," Jarrett told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "They didn't publish this because they couldn't verify the authenticity of the documents, but the other conservative website did publish it but they claimed they did verify it. What is so bewildering about this is why in the world would the feds even involved in it."" first thing, gregg jarrett is talking out his arse in the story. interstate transport of stolen goods makes the situation fed jurisdiction. duh. second, from the first line o' the court response to james o'keefe's request for a special master to review evidence in the case: "The Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence draws a clear and critical distinction “between stealing documents and disclosing documents that someone else had stolen previously.”" translation: the feds is straight up is calling bs on project veritas' claims they came by the diary innocent and is stating in no uncertain terms that there is enough evidence to support the conclusion project veritas were active participants in the initial theft. is the kinda opening line which has a defendant's lawyer's invoking ralphie's famous exclamation from a christmas story. HA! Good Fun! ps added link to court response

am gonna concede am surprised by the alternate reality many democrats have been embracing since the 2020 elections. republicans, particular at state level, made significant gains down ballot. this shoulda' been recognized as a warning sign, but somehow many democrats thought they had achieved a kinda national mandate. when a law and order candidate became the democrat choice for nyc mayor, beating progressives, many democrats still failed to take heed. white women, particular educated white women, helped beat trump. independents in arizona and other swing states helped defeat trump. the thing is, dislike trump is not same as approval of democrats. contrary to comrade's belief, democrats are not holding tenacious to a bankrupt ideology while those who question the party leader are functional banished. the progressives who voted against infrastructure are not being singled out by fellow democrats for retribution. and part o' the problem for democrats is they don't have a leader and is no unified message they can sell to soccer moms, fence straddling independents and the increasingly rare open-minded moderate democrats and republicans. biden were a compromise candidate and not a unifying force. recall that during the 2020 election we had hardcore trumpers posting frequent, and if you listened to them you would think the democrats were bsg cylons, intent on subverting all our institutions from within in an effort to bring about their apocalyptic vision. utter hornswoggle. the thing is, the writers and producers o' bsg would later admit they never had a "plan." making it up as they went along. is the one way in which cylons and democrats is alike. the democrats is still trying to formulate an agenda but most 'o them want to do something to improve the lives of americans, they just can't agree on how to do it. 2021 republicans sell fear, embrace grievance and literal indulge idolatry. they don't have a plan for americans, but unlike democrats, they do have a plan... will get to that in a moment. an f'ing magic wand is so appropriate for their golden calf, 'cause only way to explain how trump would achieve his promises is if you also believed he could magic change the constitution and conjure up a new world economy. democrats can't get their act together? such is disappointing if you are a democrat and reassuring to gd, but is not the kinda thing which leads to insurrections and/or invalidates elections. unfortunate, too many people still haven't realized how close we were to having another 1876 crisis, but the republicans are aware, and they have a plan. a handful o' republican bureaucrats and judges kept faith and so the actual 2020 election results were ratified. obvious response shoulda' been to make sure such could never happen again, yes? never again would fair elections depend on so few to do right instead of doing political expedient. unfortunate, actual response has been an effort to change a handful of laws and to make certain the republicans in key positions are loyal to the party instead of the Constitution. is so not a they are all the same situation. HA! Good Fun!

good one. obviously you are making a funny by suggesting a mirror universe version o' the democrats, 'cause the real world version needed republicans to get infrastructure passed seeing as how progressives wouldn't fall in line and you is obvious referencing an alternate reality if joe biden is the head o' a personality cult. joe biden? ... haven't checked in the last couple days, so perhaps joe is indeed sporting new facial hair. mr. comrade, present your agonizer. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

... our response to senator kennedy and any republican (or anybody else for that matter) not condemning the politician from louisiana this day: