>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^smooman:
>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^smooman:
when the commentators/comedians were like "what the hell is all that about? no idea" i had an epiphany: i'm fluent in a second language!!
85 smf orc warrior main, full season 11 gear (diehard PVPer). fury since vanilla. still have my tony-the-tiger zg claws with double crusader i dps'd with back in classic. fury or go home
if you understood that, you too, are fluent in wowgeek =D

I dig the proc on those zg claws.

before they changed dual wielding from being a class skill to being a spec ability at the end of wotlk, i used to dual wield em but as arms for fun and when they proc'd i'd hit bladestorm and it did the most intense animation youve seen. lightning everywhere!

Reminds me of the VERY OLD windfury proc's, so sad they killed the timing of the sound and animation--I have NO CLUE why they did that it was PERFECT as working!?!? Maybe they thought the newbies would get scared off by the pretty lights and sounds, I know I run for a ditch and /cover.
Second, as is said elsewhere in a different fashion, I'd like to point out that once they really start talking I have no idea what language they are talking in. It sounds like Sumerian, but I don't specialize in languages that old and dry...


oh god, i remember the original windfury totems when it didnt increase melee haste but instead gave a chance to proc a second attack. it was crack for fury warriors. i'll never forget one zg run we did and windfury proc'd during a huge trash pull on a whirlwind.....after i had popped recklessness....giant yellow crits filled my screen, i pulled mass aggro, and promptly died. but it was badass

not long after i completed the claw set i met a failadin out in epl, they proc'd halfway through the fight, and he bubble hearthed lol

I really really liked the story of the original movie. Because they make it superclear that it really is a dream, everything that they speak of when he goes into the Recall offices happens exactly in the rest of the movie, including images of the Melina character. Also, even though it is not quite as good or clear, everything the psychiater sent in halfway in the movie predicts happens as well.

And still as a stupid movie goer you keep on thinking, 'so is it real or not'.

I don't think we have to expect that from this movie, it's nice that they do seem to have some homages to the old one (like the switching faces).

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^longde:
Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?

Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.
It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.


This is how many people feel. I have argued with someone about it repeatedly in the past week. I find the split on this issue comes to down to gun owners who carry and on the other side you have gun owners who don't carry or non-gun owners.

I keep saying that the law should not be whose alive to claim whatever. The law should be applied in order of events. Because Zimmerman survived the encounter does not mean he didn't start it, and the first evidence of this is him chasing Trayvon on foot.

I can't imagine a person in the world that feels getting chased by a complete stranger for no reason thinks that guy has your best intentions at heart. So, you could make a reasonable claim that Trayvon Martin felt he needed to defend himself.

And the evidence backs it up. Hell the recounting of events is something like this: Zimmerman follows in the vehicle, then gets out and chases on foot, 911 tells him not to, and he loses Trayvon. While returning to his vehicle (which could be the way Trayvon had to go to get home) Trayvon confronts him and asks if he has a problem, Zimmerman says no and (here's the important part) *reaches for his phone*, that's when he claims Trayvon says "yeah you do" and hits him.

Hell if I had someone chase me down the street and then reach for their pocket after they got me close, I'd assume ill intent in the form of a weapon or something.

So, in a non-insane law environment. The law would first apply to Trayvon. He would be covered under SYG and Zimmerman would be the aggressor and have to follow the parts of the SYG law covering that on how to disengage. If he didn't follow those or admit to following those, then he's fucked.

If he did follow those, then he still isn't covered under SYG because his stupid ass started it. Perhaps he felt in danger of his life, but it doesn't say aggressors under SYG also covered under SYG.

But a law without language telling you to not retreat or de-escalate is a stupid fucking law. You just find a place that has no cameras and no witnesses, then kill everyone. Create the confrontation if you need to, just make sure the other guy is dead at the end. And you are immune, no one can sue you for anything regarding those events once you've been cleared under SYG.

Yeah, sometimes I'm surprised he hasn't been given a medal of valor.>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^longde:
Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?

Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.
It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.

>> ^longde:

Curious; can you outline your friend's argument?


Well, first off, you have to imagine that he is very charismatic, and I was drunk and halfway through a game of Eclipse. Anyway, the argument (and this has already been said before) was just that the "stand your ground law" is flawed. All Zimmerman really would need to do, is prove that he felt his life was in danger. Any circumstances before that might not even be taken into account depending on how the judge feels the law applies. And Zimmerman is the one with an eye witness to back him up.

It sounds pretty flimsy, I know, but I would prepare myself for the possibility that Zimmerman will walk. There's no reason it can't end that way.

booooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrring

>> ^robbersdog49:

Watch any halfway decent gymnastics competition and you'll see girls with more precision, and power than this. I know he's doing things which I could never do, that's a given. But I just don't understand why when you take gymnastics - and remove the grace, timing and precision - people become more impressed. Any half decent gymnast could do all of this if they didn't worry about their lines and timing and the planned routine. He's just saying 'look at me, I'm doing these things sloppily, aren't I great!'
No. No you're not.

Bro, you have never seen a floor performer who has done two double backflips in a single series, nor one who can front flip while spinning horizontally as well. I don't ad hom often, but I call a fat steaming pile of bullshit on you.>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^Sepacore:
>> ^robbersdog49:
Watch any halfway decent gymnastics competition and you'll see girls with more precision, and power than this. I know he's doing things which I could never do, that's a given. But I just don't understand why when you take gymnastics - and remove the grace, timing and precision - people become more impressed. Any half decent gymnast could do all of this if they didn't worry about their lines and timing and the planned routine. He's just saying 'look at me, I'm doing these things sloppily, aren't I great!'
No. No you're not.

The point here as i read it is "if you're not the best or if you're a little off center from a high standard, then there's no reason to be impressed".. well i disagree.
The fact that he can do something that i can't grants me reason to be impressed, even if he's not doing it as well as a highly trained professional could.. who, if we're honest, couldn't do it better than a well drawn cartoon could due to limitations of physics and all. Point is rather than just enjoying the highest visual and perfectionist quality being the cartoon, I'd enjoy this guys level of ability, your gymnast's level of ability and the cartoon's level of ability.

Ok, I see where you're coming from, and if someone just showed me this video and said 'what do you think' then I'd say yeah, he's pretty good. It's the build up, the fact that his skills are supposed to be 'outrageous'. This is the bit that really bugs me, as well as the people in the video reacting like he's doing things no-one has ever done before. He has a lot of skill, but it's not outrageous, and it's nothing that hasn't been done before, and done better, with more style and more control.
If the video had been titled 'This guy can do some pretty good tumbling' then I'd have watched it and moved on. My issue isn't with what he's doing, but rather confusion about the reaction of others to what he's doing.

>> ^Sepacore:

>> ^robbersdog49:
Watch any halfway decent gymnastics competition and you'll see girls with more precision, and power than this. I know he's doing things which I could never do, that's a given. But I just don't understand why when you take gymnastics - and remove the grace, timing and precision - people become more impressed. Any half decent gymnast could do all of this if they didn't worry about their lines and timing and the planned routine. He's just saying 'look at me, I'm doing these things sloppily, aren't I great!'
No. No you're not.

The point here as i read it is "if you're not the best or if you're a little off center from a high standard, then there's no reason to be impressed".. well i disagree.
The fact that he can do something that i can't grants me reason to be impressed, even if he's not doing it as well as a highly trained professional could.. who, if we're honest, couldn't do it better than a well drawn cartoon could due to limitations of physics and all. Point is rather than just enjoying the highest visual and perfectionist quality being the cartoon, I'd enjoy this guys level of ability, your gymnast's level of ability and the cartoon's level of ability.


Ok, I see where you're coming from, and if someone just showed me this video and said 'what do you think' then I'd say yeah, he's pretty good. It's the build up, the fact that his skills are supposed to be 'outrageous'. This is the bit that really bugs me, as well as the people in the video reacting like he's doing things no-one has ever done before. He has a lot of skill, but it's not outrageous, and it's nothing that hasn't been done before, and done better, with more style and more control.

If the video had been titled 'This guy can do some pretty good tumbling' then I'd have watched it and moved on. My issue isn't with what he's doing, but rather confusion about the reaction of others to what he's doing.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Watch any halfway decent gymnastics competition and you'll see girls with more precision, and power than this. I know he's doing things which I could never do, that's a given. But I just don't understand why when you take gymnastics - and remove the grace, timing and precision - people become more impressed. Any half decent gymnast could do all of this if they didn't worry about their lines and timing and the planned routine. He's just saying 'look at me, I'm doing these things sloppily, aren't I great!'
No. No you're not.


The point here as i read it is "if you're not the best or if you're a little off center from a high standard, then there's no reason to be impressed".. well i disagree.

The fact that he can do something that i can't grants me reason to be impressed, even if he's not doing it as well as a highly trained professional could.. who, if we're honest, couldn't do it better than a well drawn cartoon could due to limitations of physics and all. Point is rather than just enjoying the highest visual and perfectionist quality being the cartoon, I'd enjoy this guys level of ability, your gymnast's level of ability and the cartoon's level of ability.

Watch any halfway decent gymnastics competition and you'll see girls with more precision, and power than this. I know he's doing things which I could never do, that's a given. But I just don't understand why when you take gymnastics - and remove the grace, timing and precision - people become more impressed. Any half decent gymnast could do all of this if they didn't worry about their lines and timing and the planned routine. He's just saying 'look at me, I'm doing these things sloppily, aren't I great!'

No. No you're not.

Guessing Zimmerman is from a powerful family in that area. Because it could just as easily be about which family has more strings to pull.

If the teenager were white, wealthy but not as wealthy as 28 year olds family.....cops wouldn't do shit to the guy especially if his family had ties to high up police force, etc and he could make some halfway credible claim that everyone could grab hold of and use like a shield to respond to all questions.

Ice tea in his pocket = bulge thought to be gun....he said something, reached for his pocket and I defended myself.

Should look into more than one angle than just the race angle. Yes, the black/white situation is one possibly explanation, but I don't think it totally explains it. Unless where this took place white people are still living with the "white is right" mentality, and if they were..black family in their paid for gated neighborhood would not be going over well with that crowd. In which case, they would have more ammo to use against the police department.

And the fact that the guy called the cops and didn't stay in his fucking house when approaching a guy who was not actively trying to break into a house or car.......I just think something other than race related stuff is going on. I suspect a family who lives above the law as a rule in that area, guy probably could have shot an old granny dead on her own yard with no witnesses and not been taken in.

Some sort of spending policy was needed, but the bailout as it was put forth was pretty dismal in it's results. The companies that received it were the ones who created the mess for the most part (banks), and we really still haven't addressed punishing them OR putting laws in place to either:
A) Punish them if it happens again, really the laws now should be sufficient.
B) Make it impossible to happen again....all those acts, they repealed over the last 20-30 years.
C) Prevent some of the more insanity driven investing, such as over abundant speculation and similar cost creating but non-value creating (Call it a Private Tax, if you will) things.

Really the more I look back on the bailout, and look at the attitudes of most of the politicians at that time...they were saying let the auto industry fail. But the bailouts to the auto industries have at least halfway been paid back. Chrysler is likely going to short the government 1.3 billion last I read. GM gave the government stock and 22 billion. Stock is worth about 13.5 billion. They borrowed 50 billion. So 28 billion is what we have to get out of that stock to recover fully. And as far as I know there is no interest accumulated, so losing money in those deals is a kick to the crotch considering.

I think the auto industries might have been able to enter bankruptcy and come back out of it with some lessons learned. But vehicles like the "Volt" show that......they don't really know who they are selling to. Chrysler ended up being taken over by Fiat. And Ford handled it's own business. The one in the worst shape was GM, and I can't say that they probably didn't have it coming. And they still ended up pretty much killing the economy dead in my area despite the bailout when they shut their plants down that they really hadn't "kept up" in DECADES...place was really dumpy looking. No one would take it over because it was just utter trash when they left. I'm more against than for the bailout of the auto industries, but I can see that they were probably beneficial there although GM seemingly learned nothing of note from it.

Banks on the other hand......they took in 1.2 trillion. And a bunch of the borrowed money went to European firms. Along with other financial institutions. And many kept taking loans into 2010.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/that_federal_bank_bailout_in_2008_was_bigger_than_we_knew_a_lot_bigger.html

Has lots of info on it. I haven't taken the time to confirm every last portion of it, but we know the bailout/loans of 2008 that were announced ended up being MUCH larger than they told us. So the information is kind of hit and miss since they kept it hush hush for awhile.

But, the money was to help keep the banks off people's backs about foreclosures. It hasn't, in fact they took the money and foreclosed anyway to get both the cash to make it possible to allow the person to keep the house AND the house. That should be criminal.

The bailout of those institutions probably did stop a economic meltdown, but I think that bailout still should be criticized. The people who caused it suffered no punishment by law, financially, or by failure. And they have been fighting have regulations and such put in place to stop it from happening again and from practices like speculation being allowed in such quantities. It's affecting the oil prices and they are using it as a argument for "foreign oil" ALL the time.

Sure the bailout saved us from financial meltdown, but we aren't safe from it happening again. In fact we're probably even more precariously perched at the edge than we were before, and people are making money off that instability. If they could have made money during the total collapse, I don't think they would have gotten bailout to all those institutions.

So, we should criticize the bailout, simply because it has made it possible for the people who control the money to continue making money, and no one has corrected the conditions that caused the collapse in the first place. The people who caused it keep on keeping on, the politicians get some money stuffed in their pockets, and the people who got hurt most by the crash whether you lost your house, job, savings, pension, etc are just lined up to be knocked down again and no one is trying to fix it. The people who had money to weather the crash, are recovering and the people who didn't are still hurt by the crash they had no way of avoiding.

Too big to fail institutions are still too big to fail. Now they know that they can leech all the money from the government whenever they start to lean a little as a collective. Nothing was learned by anyone there, because nothing ended up happening to them besides some bad press...when they should have gotten a major investigation that was more like a full cavity search to determine wrongdoing.

Officer:
The dog mouth's was slathered in saliva, it was obvious it saw me as food as it charged at me. So I drew my gun and fired to protect my life, that dog was going to eat me! I shouted clearly No! No! No! but it did not stop.


Owner:
My dog named Mo drools like crazy, and he will come to anyone who calls his name with a big canine smile on his face. I don't know how the officer knew his name or why he shot him after calling him 3 times.


It'd be like shooting a horse dead because it ran at you when you went to it's typical feeding location. I acknowledge there are times when dogs are trained to be rabid and vicious, but treating them all like that and instilling this fear of animals into cops is setting the stage for it to happen more and more and it to be justified under any circumstance.

I mean hell they are shooting dogs that don't even come halfway up to their knees in some circumstances... I mean you have to be some kind of coward to think something non-poisonous and small like that is life threatening. It might hurt you, but you might bump your head getting into your car...but you don't see them shooting the cars.

I'm 'bout halfway through Dance o Dragons and considering the scope/vastness of the Books, I'm surprised you guys can tie any of plot lines to their respective novels.

There's WAAAY too much going on all at once for me to keep track..

edit: I actually sat down and watched an episode of season 1 the other day, all I kept thinking was..

"OH MY GOD! SO MUCH HAPPENS!!"

>> ^yellowc:

It's not impossible to miss but really, he shouldn't have.
What made him miss was pressure or lack of awareness of where exactly he was standing.


Or he could have not given up halfway through the play. In the slow-mo closeup you can see him hesitate after the ball bounces off the post -- He's so shocked that his shot didn't go in that he fails to block the rebound. Sure, heat of the moment blah blah blah, but if he had followed the ball until it had gone in instead of thinking he was done after he touched it, he still would have made that goal.