Gromnir

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:

am a fan o' beef on weck, which is kinda an outlier as we do like cheese paired with our meats. then again, sloppy joes and pulled pork sandwiches don't ordinarily include cheese and both is gonna rank near the top o' our lists for best sandwich options. we do infrequent add pimento cheese to our sloppy joes and the pairing is delicious. a weird option we almost never get a chance to enjoy is beef tongue on pumpernickel. if you got a decent kosher deli in your area which also makes sandwiches, we highly recommend trying at least once. am realizing beef tongue likely does not sound appetizing, but don't let the name fool you. we make with swiss as often as not, but traditional is meat and spicy brown mustard on rye or pumpernickel. HA! Good Fun! ps found a more appetizing picture. also, if you are daring enough to order, make sure is smoked beef tongue.

absence o' relative scale is also making us "city" maps misleading. show a map o' "chicago" rta which in reality is representing an area 'bout the size of 1/4 of england. illinois is 150k sq km. england is 130k sq. kilometers. most europeans we know has seen maps o' the US and they know it is big in terms o' the raw numbers, but once they live here or spend time traveling in the US they nevertheless express surprise 'bout the distances involved. even so, one thing we do miss 'bout having gone to school and having lived in the bay area is bart, and bart is hardly perfect or even great. the thing is, decent public transportation in a nation as large as the US is expensive. the interstate highways system in 2019 dollars were $530 billion and is widely considered one o' the better investments evar by the fed. talk 'bout costs o' infrastructure is reasonable and is no need to spend foolish or excessive, but often such complaints 'bout costs is painful myopic. tax cuts for the rich (regan and trump) as well as automaker and bank bailouts (obama) are known to be costly and do not result in long term benefits. infrastructure investment, on the other hand, as were the case with land grant universities and the aforementioned interstate highway system, do result in long-term benefits which marked outweigh costs. 'course poor spent infrastructure dollars benefits nobody. HA! Good Fun!

could make him cape cod turkey, but am guessing is not what either o' you would want. HA! Good Fun!

am guessing that is a chili sauce based russian dressing... or a bottle brand such as wishbone? ordinarily, russian dressing is something like a 4:1 ratio o' mayo to chili sauce or ketchup, which is unlikely to result in a sauce quite as vibrant as you have pictured. that said, am enjoying a good reuben. we make our own sauerkraut in the garage (we go a bit heavy on the juniper berries) when it gets cool enough... such as it is current in nor cal. takes 'bout two weeks per batch, depending on temps. is a couple kosher delis where we get nice corned beef. is indeed a fine sandwich choice. HA! Good Fun! ps no criticism meant on store bought dressing if that is what is utilized. if you find something you like, then why not use premade?

first, am thinking more villains is usual a bad choice for a sooperhero movie, especial as dr. strange correct identifies the new spiderman protagonists as scoobies. the new spider-man movie is a big budget cinematic action spectacle, so character development opportunities is gonna necessarily suffer. peter and the scoobies, as well as dr. strange and a large % o' the rogue's gallery needs get their screen time while making certain this movie is more EPIC than previous spiderman films? am not doubting a few villains show up as little more than screen filler, but such a result is also gonna be cause for valid criticism. based on how doc oc's story concluded in spidey 2, am kinda conflicted 'bout him returning as a villain even if is multiverse shenanigans. to a lesser degree am similar concerned 'bout sandman. is not as if am assuming the movie is gonna be bad, but the setup is creating unnecessary storytelling obstacles. am fully aware is much easier to sell spectacle to studios and sequels is frequent indulging the perceived need to be bigger than previous titles, but such realities don't make us less dubious 'bout the direction am seeing from the new spidey film. HA! Good Fun!

new patch. includes the following: "Demonslayer didn't get bonus from progression of favorite enemy, but had bonus against neutral outsider - fixed" finally. has been an issue since the second beta when categories o' demons were split, which ironic made the demonslayer arguable the single worst archetype in wotr. also, while am suspecting nobody else is concerned, though not addressed in the patch notes, shadow spells is now firing proper with nenio and feyspeakers and even with elemental conversion active. has us considering a respec but our current party is built 'round a sorc as 'posed to a druid so we would need respec multiple party members. also, we will note the will dc for resisting shadow spells is now a thing and the dc does not appear to be generated correct, but is nevertheless an improvement. will need to see if areelu's angel cloak is working... edit: angel cloak is still not providing any bonus HA! Good Fun!

while am no fan o' the deluge o' immature edgelords trying to win at misogyny and antisemitism, 'cause that is a thing at codex, our approval o' the post is limited to the inclusion o' cary grant in your post. HA! Good Fun!

could bus in teens from across the midwest and arm 'em with ar-15s to defend property from protesters. 'cause if one kyle is admirable and laudable, then isn't a legion o' heroes even better? ... wait, that would be reckless and kinda insane, no? HA! Good Fun!

thought that went w/o saying, but ok. HA! Good Fun!

one thing which should be kept firm in mind is that if situation had played out different and rittenhouse had been killed by armed protesters, the protesters woulda' been able to claim self defense. gotta get past notions such as who is bad guys or who were more wrong-- those concerns is irrelevant. because o' the second amendment, there is gonna be armed people at protests such as occurred in wisconsin. take a highly volatile situation where multiple people is armed, especial at night, and the chances for a defense attorney to show his client were legit afraid o' being killed or seriously injured when he shot somebody increases. like it or not, the almost presumptive capacity to claim reasonable fear 'cause o' even the possibility the deceased were armed is a contributing reason as to why cops get away with shootings. is not right v. wrong or good v. evil. disabuse self o' such baggage. if you got multiple armed civilians and one o' them dies in a shooting incident, unless you can show actual premeditated intent to kill, the defendant is gonna probable be able to raise self defense. @BruceVC you do realize your linked codex post confirms our observations, yes? kyle were somehow legit in kenosha 'cause he were defending innocents from protesters? and nobody argued the ar-15 were an illegal weapon. kyle possessing the weapon and carrying 'cross state lines were what were illegal. the rests is not relevant to the question o' whether or not kyle were a reckless and/or derpy punk. is no good reason any teen shoulda' armed himself (illegally) with an ar-15 to go 'cross state to protect cars (really bruce?) from protesters. that said, am not gonna fight a proxy battle for you at codex, so this ends here for us, particular as your views o' protesters is known to us and having made little headway over the past few years, am recognizing how doomed is an effort to change your pov. HA! Good Fun! ps also, unless wisconsin is unique, it is worth recognizing that it is not legal to shoot somebody 'cause they is damaging some other person's property. the whole raison d'être for kyle's moronic escapade falls apart at inception and the codex response makes look worse as 'posed to better. as we said, am not following the case so arguable take weapon to protect self is different. take weapon with intent to protect property? gd might agree, but he would be wrong too.