He defiantly said.

I believe @eric3579 is using "defiantly" in the sense that she is defying common sense....

99% of the time, when someone says "defiantly" on the internet, they really mean "definitely." Why is this so common? It's not hard.

Mom should have defiantly got a dousing also. I think half and half would have been appropriate.

Well the comment voting thing has defiantly been fixed. Snappier then ever.

@lantern53

"The world is on fire and this funny man spends his time slamming the country that's making him rich. So what else is new?"

Yeah... we defiantly shouldn't be holding ourselves to any kind of standards or accountability lets just focus on the insanity elsewhere in the world. USA USA USA!!!!

You seem to be implying that this somehow makes it less of a threat. I disagree, simply quoting another persons threat does not make the statement un-threatening.
I'm still flabbergasted by the "no evidence he ever owned a gun" comment...he's a veteran, so he defiantly owned a gun (while on active duty if not afterwards).

Oh defiantly... which is why we needed to spend trillions of dollars, thousands of american soldiers and untold tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, to accomplish... what exactly?

COME ON GUYS!!! It was funny until I noticed at the end it was a 12 year old little girl...he most defiantly should have gone first!!!

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

Same story but defiantly not a dupe.

I am really depressed over this (really, this kind of ruined my day).
I wish he would have been defiant to the end, but I can only guess he's had several years of people regurgitating the same message to him in captivity; "you were wrong", etc.
I hope this is just a plea for a lighter sentence, and I hope he knows how right he was in doing what he did. He's sacrificing his life for higher morals.

I do feel like the video combined with the words insane and crazy, which were used in the title and description to describe this mentally ill women, defiantly gives more of a pointing and laughing feel then anything to do with empathy, compassion or understanding for this women. I don't necessarily agree with chings strong opinion but I can see where hes coming from.

I'm boring? It took you the equivalent of a book to answer a few simple questions. Did I as for a lecture on the oath of office? No. Did I ask for a lecture on the forth estate? No.

You used one as an excuse the other as a reason but nether answered the questions.

Finely after all the dogma I get an answer. A piss poor answer but its better than you rehashing the same thing for a forth time.

So Lets look at what you provided.

First Article.
Shit.. An article repeating the same dogma again for a forth time.....

Second Article.
FINELY! Examples! was that so hard? Really?
and it shows. Nothing that was not already known. (My Opinion)

"A Pentagon spokesman told the New York Times this week that under its procedure, when reports of Iraqi abuse were received the US military "notifies the responsible government of Iraq agency or ministry for investigation and follow-up".

If you know a better way?


So what did his leaks really do?

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert who submitted written testimony, said that upon reviewing the information Manning released, he discovered that it included techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, names of enemy targets, names of criminal suspects and troop movements, according to The Guardian.

Navy Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Hoskins also reviewed the documents and found potentially damaging information, including codewords, tactics and techniques for responding to roadside bombings, weapon capabilities, and assistance the U.S. military had received in tracking down suspects from foreign nationals, The Guardian reported.

These are just some of the reasons I consider him a traitor. This put people at risk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-prosecution


He should of just released documentation on what he thought were the crimes or corruption. Not all of it and defiantly not that information.