Sign In

Jay

User Group
Administrators
Join date
22-Feb-2003
Last activity
17-Oct-2017
Posts
3356

Post History

Post
#1039041
Topic
The Death Star trench run
Time

http://fxrant.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-death-star-and-final-trench-run.html

Star Wars fans pride themselves on knowing each and every detail from the original trilogy. But there’s one little detail from “Star Wars” (1977) that might surprise a lot of fans, and the reality of this detail is different than our collective head canon.

At the end of the original film, Rebel ships fly along the Death Star trench in an attempt to blow up the space station. Look at the photo of the Death Star at the top of this post: can you point to the trench that Luke and the Rebels flew down to fire upon the exhaust port that would ultimately destroy the space station?

Nearly everybody points at the equatorial trench of the Death Star. I asked dozens of die-hard fans, including many co-workers at Industrial Light & Magic, and nearly every single person pointed to the equatorial trench. If you asked me, I would also have said the equatorial trench.

I can see how people make this mistake, despite the indicators in the film to the contrary.

Post
#1037796
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

Attacking my person over the meme was not rational debate. Disappearing your personal insult against me, after you complained about me deleting something you said got me what I deserved (which I reinstated of my own volition because you quietly blocked another members ability to edit their post), are those rational too Jay?

For the record, here’s my original post (the last paragraph is the part I removed):


Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does. It becomes clearer every day why you support Trump; he’s a low-information candidate for low-information voters.


Everyone is free to make of that what they will. I take ownership of everything I wrote. Also for the record, yes, I believe you got what you deserved for starting a thread wherein you told an unspecified group of members that you hated them and that ot.com Off Topic was the worst forum section you’ve ever been in. It was clearly baiting.

I believe Hillary Clinton to be just as guilty as Edward Snowden, of what they’re accused of, breaking Federal Law.

You’re reframing the debate to mask your original comparison of the two.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1037774
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

Post
#1037752
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

Trump has had so many chances for graciousness yet hasn’t taken advantage of any of them. He’s just an asshole, plain and simple, nothing’s going to change that. Hard to respect him as the president if he doesn’t know or care about knowing the first about being presidential.

Trump is only gracious when the other party is gracious and strokes his ego first, which is the exact opposite of being gracious.

Post
#1037749
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1037596
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1037569
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

The last two couldn’t be more reasonable.

There’s nothing reasonable about about the birther movement and the Birther-in-Chief. Thanks for this and previous posts; makes it easy to jump past anything you post from now on.

Post
#1037560
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

False equivalency at its finest.

Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.

Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.

Hillary Clinton stole classified information, fled the country, and intentionally disseminated it to news organizations?

You consider their alleged crimes to be “just as illegal”. This is a false equivalency because 1) if Hillary were guilty, it would be of some form of negligence (willful or not), not treason, and 2) Hillary hasn’t been charged with a crime even after extensive FBI investigation, no matter how much you wish she had been.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

False equivalency at its finest.

Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.

Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.

Did you try to misinterpret what he was saying? I don’t know where any of that came from.

Yes. This represents a pattern of behavior. I don’t know if it’s a debate tactic to shift the goalpost and therefore his argument or just an obtuse misreading of the facts.

How do you know it represents a behavior if you don’t even know whether it’s a debate tactic or an obtuse reading? We differ in opinion on their matter of guilt and this is what you come up with?

Your motivation is irrelevant. This is your debate style. We’ve all seen it before. You say something wonky, you get challenged, you claim to have meant something other than what you said, and you respond to any further challenges by claiming that the misunderstanding is on the challenger’s side. Whether it’s obtuse or gaslighting, both indicate willful misdirection.

And we don’t differ on their matter of guilt, we differ on the facts. Snowden intentionally disseminated classified material to unauthorized individuals for the purpose of leaking it to the public. Clinton used a private e-mail server that may or may not have exposed classified material to potential hacking. These simply aren’t the same crimes, wouldn’t receive the same charges, and wouldn’t carry the same sentences. And I’ll remind you again that the then-head of the FBI found Clinton to be negligent, but not criminally so.

We can have different opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

Post
#1037428
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

False equivalency at its finest.

Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.

Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.

Hillary Clinton stole classified information, fled the country, and intentionally disseminated it to news organizations?

You consider their alleged crimes to be “just as illegal”. This is a false equivalency because 1) if Hillary were guilty, it would be of some form of negligence (willful or not), not treason, and 2) Hillary hasn’t been charged with a crime even after extensive FBI investigation, no matter how much you wish she had been.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

False equivalency at its finest.

Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.

Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.

Did you try to misinterpret what he was saying? I don’t know where any of that came from.

Yes. This represents a pattern of behavior. I don’t know if it’s a debate tactic to shift the goalpost and therefore his argument or just an obtuse misreading of the facts.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1036633
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Handman said:

I just can’t believe we’ve gotten to this point as a nation. It’s a dystopian nightmare, and I’m not sure when it began.

It began when we elected our first black president and half the country lost its collective shit.

Post
#1035948
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

ferris209 said:

That is a mere opinion that a lot of people would disagree with. Not me necessarily, but a lot of people.

A lot of people start their day with fast food breakfasts and are dying of obesity and early onset diabetes, and they think that’s just fine. Their opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

I’ve seen no evidence to suggest Donald Trump has strong character (quite the opposite) and deep convictions (ha). I challenge anyone to produce any examples at all that Trump has done anything in public to demonstrate strong character and conviction as they relate to any issue, political or otherwise.

ferris209 said:

In honor of President Barack Obama’s very very last day, and hours as President, please share your memory of his greatest speech. You know the one, that one on par with “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!,” “Four score and seven year ago,” “Ask not what your country can do for you…,” “a date which will live in infamy,” and “I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

You all know that speech President Obama gave that made us all shiver in patriotism, share your memories of it. You know where you were at when you heard it, just share.

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

Tyrphanax said:

ferris209 said:

Tyrphanax said:

I’m going to be very interested to read these posts again in four years.

I still maintain that Trump will not turn out to be the next Hitler nor will he be the great savior. I think when it’s all said and done he will probably be a “meh” president with liberals upset that he wasn’t the catastrophe they rant and rave about and everyone who believed what he said upset that he failed to live up to 95% of his campaign promises.

I more or less agree with regards to Trump himself… I think he’s a bad person, but I doubt we’ll see anything truly groundbreaking one way or the other from him during his time in office (though we will continue to have at least one ridiculous drama or scandal or controversy per day). I’m more interested about his cabinet picks and the Republican-controlled congress.

The right wing has a chance to prove they know what they’re doing with regards to America, and we’ll see if they truly do (or not) in these coming years. They face very little opposition in congress and from the President as well as eventually the supreme court, so it’ll be interesting to see their agendas at (mostly uncontested) work.

Intersting is not the word I would use.

Fascinating. And where were you on the day that President Obama delivered his timeless historic speech?

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

Which one

sigh The one! You know that speech that Obama gave that changed history. You know, that one. You surely remember that day he gave it!?!?? You’d totally remember it if I said just three words of it. Because it was historic.

I’ll give you a tip, he said “I” “my” and “me” in it. Surely you remember it?!!? It was historic!!!

History judges speeches. There are very few people capable of knowing what speeches will be remembered/quoted in the moment they’re delivered. And my guess is that if you belonged to any marginalized group, you would’ve found something beautiful/motivating/“historic” about any number of Obama’s speeches, which have largely been quite good even though he didn’t kiss all the traditionally untouchable, irreproachable asses. Like the police, for example.

Human “memory” is subject to deep corruption; any written quote referred to as “historic”, any sound bite played endlessly, any video recording played in documentaries that we’re raised watching…any of those things lead to memories and impressions of what’s historic. Lots of what you and I believe to be historic has more to do with what we’ve been told is historic by historians. We actually reconstruct and rebuild memories on the fly, so if we’re told often enough that something is important and historic, we’ll believe it and even construct memories around it if we were alive at the time. The only historic moment I can remember with any accuracy or vibrancy is the Challenger explosion because we watched it happen live in my elementary school cafeteria, and I still question my exact memories because I know how fallible they are.

If Trump is smart, he’ll avoid trying to be historic and stick to petty insults and fascist rhetoric since those are the things that inspire his supporters.

Post
#1035833
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

generalfrevious said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

He was a reality star but his claim to fame comes from his business empire much more than his tenure on Celebrity Apprentice. It’d be like referring to Robin Williams as the star of Patch Adams. It isn’t wrong, but it is leaving out what he’s actually known for and implies that that is all that he was.

my point is no one that has anything to do “reality” tv show, should be anywhere near the Oval Office. It is not a place for clowns.

Bill Clinton was a clown and he made it in, LOL.

Bill Clinton at least had experience in running a state as governor before he became president. Our new president questioned wether or not Obama was even born in the US.

On the other hand, being on a reality show doesn’t automatically mean Trump was unqualified to run for office- it’s the lack of any political experience that should disqualify him.

A lot of people asked the same question, some even asked knowing it didn’t matter. Being that HIS MAMA WAS A U.S. CITIZEN = HE’S A U.S. CITIZEN!!! No matter where he was born!

and of the two of us, which one of us voted for the guy that questioned Obama’s citizenship?

Me. Still better than Hillary to me.

And as far as the lack of “political experience,” I patently reject that the President must be a career politician.

You’d put in a rookie to play QB in the Superbowl.

How much experience did George Washington have? Ulysses S. Grant? Herbert Hoover? Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Lack of experience can be balanced by an abundance of conviction and character, of which Donald Trump has none.

Post
#1035036
Topic
New rules/thread rules possible conflict?
Time

I’d defer to the OP, but if you see a clear violation of general forum policy, please report it.

I think I need to clarify the rules regarding OP intent. The purpose behind General Guideline #3 was to cover “topic” and “tone”, not to encourage thread starters to draft strict rules of conduct for individual threads.

Post
#1034723
Topic
Video Game Thread
Time

Tyrphanax said:

ray_afraid said:

The Nintendo Switch looks great.
Breath of the Wild looks fantastic even though I don’t like the voice acting in the trailer.

Yup to all.

I haven’t been excited about a console in about 20 years.

Got my preorder in on Amazon for the Switch and BotW before they ran out. I should be wrapping up with Skyrim SE just in time to start Zelda.

It’s a great time to be a gamer.

Post
#1033854
Topic
Subscription
Time

On desktop, click on your avatar in the top right corner to see your account menu.

To the top