RicOlie_2

danny_boy said:

just saying. 

Hey, how did my little brother end up on this forum!?

I also like that we no longer have to keep the centre hex constantly covered to prevent powerful pieces from promoting or kings from winning their side the game. None of our pieces are stuck protecting one hex 24/7 when they could be put to more effective use elsewhere.

That being said, I quite liked Kokusai Sannin, though less so when there was an alliance. I'm a fan of slower games, as you know, so I'm quite happy with it taking a little while to get into the action.

I don't think you read my comment....

But canonically snow and Star Destroyers are blue, and 3PO is green, because that's how it is in George's wonderful original vision!

S-f6

I hope I'm not making a mistake by going way out in the open.

TV's Frink said:

Chris Bores said:

Hi, I would like this thread deleted as I have gotten word that a certain someone would like to take it down and I will admit I am a sock.

 I know who you are now.  You've got a lot of nerve coming back yet again.

 Who is it?

Mitch said:

I am going out on a limb and say that the GIF Falcon shot is a fake. 

Just have to wait....lol

emanswfan said a couple posts above yours:

Not too long till the stupid gif and the idea of a finished trailer is supposedly debunked.

http://www.starwarsunderworld.com/2014/11/source-force-awakens-gif-footage-uk.html

Not much of a limb...

TV's Frink said:

Lol, it's "your cans of beans."

 I'm not hearing the "of" which is probably why my brain didn't interpret very well.

Does she ever say "Theed" in TPM? If so, it would probably be easy to turn that into "weed."

LOL, I need to get my ears checked...

N-f4

I thought I heard a company name (Verican or however it's spelled) before the beans. My "derp" was because I thought I had called a company name a brand name. I seem to not be hearing it properly.... :P What is he really saying that I am apparently badly misinterpreting?

darklordoftech said:

RicOlie_2 said:

This isn't the "Anyone else optimistic about the New trilogy" thread!

This isn't the "force people to stay on topic" thread!

 This isn't the "Off Topic" forum!

Silly, don't you now that it's spelled "night," meaning that it should be abbreviated as "N"?

This isn't the "Anyone else optimistic about the New trilogy" thread!

TheDoctor1987 said:

I would say blu ray but its a bit pricy way better than the 2004 set Adywans Star Wars is my new favorite version of A New Hope but downloading the better set of the Definitive Collection now can't wait to see how the theatrical versions look. 

 So is it better than the 2004 set of Adywan's Star Wars, or is the 2004 set of Adywan's Star Wars your favourite version? I'm confused. Also, why can't Downloading the Better Set of the Definitive Collection wait to see how the theatrical versions look?

unamochilla2 said:

Show the teaser at only 100 theaters that are currently unannounced? I'm not sure if I'm buying this rumor quite yet.  Also, there's another discrepancy,  a few rumors from supposed different sources prior said the teaser was a little over a minute.  And now it's 90 seconds.  I guess that's to be expected with rumors.

I think a little over a minute and a minute and a half are close enough, don't you? Maybe the extra few seconds is due to company logos and whatnot at the beginning. 

S-g5

No, no, you've got it all wrong. It's Ric...Ric Olie.

skyjedi2005 said on page 1 of 50:

There will be little to nothing to post.  This film will be even more tightly controlled than the last star trek film.

I would be surprised if they even post pictures of the cast in costume.  Like they did of Ford on Crystal Skull.

I doubt the plot will ever be known up until release day.

Since return of the jedi even if there is lets say a novelization or comic book adaptation it won't come out in advance of the film like they did on star wars or empire.

Any social media whether tweets or facebook will probably be false leads from the studio.  The modern day Blue Harvest.

 ;)

S(e2)-f4

generalfrevious said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I don't mean to cut you off, but the truth is that what you see happening in the future doesn't jive with reality. Pessimism is not intrinsically wrong, but you go overboard. You need to start looking on the positive side, and realizing that the world is no worse than it ever was, and is in many ways better. Overall, people have a better quality of life than they used to. There are things that have gotten worse, but they are cancelled out, if not outweighed, by the things that have gotten better. Make a conscious effort to be positive, possibly seek therapy, but do not allow yourself to remain trapped in your dystopian view of the present and future.

 Didn't I read this conversation before? (NOT TROLLING)

 I believe that is at least the third time I've written something of similar nature directed at you, yes. I can't help you much more beyond that, but it's still true and relevant. You need to find some help outside of the internet, because you just aren't living with a sold grip on reality.

I don't mean to cut you off, but the truth is that what you see happening in the future doesn't jive with reality. Pessimism is not intrinsically wrong, but you go overboard. You need to start looking on the positive side, and realizing that the world is no worse than it ever was, and is in many ways better. Overall, people have a better quality of life than they used to. There are things that have gotten worse, but they are cancelled out, if not outweighed, by the things that have gotten better. Make a conscious effort to be positive, possibly seek therapy, but do not allow yourself to remain trapped in your dystopian view of the present and future.

TV's Frink said:

Oh good, this again.

 Don't worry, I'm done. I don't know why I bothered arguing with gf in the first place.

Please name your source that says the temperature has risen 10 degrees in less than 300 years. I've consistently seen just over one degree in the past century. Assuming fossil fuels have something to do with it, one can safely assume that it was less in the century before that, and still less before that. Thus we can probably place the rise in temperature at less than 2.5 degrees. You also have to keep in mind that there was a mini-ice age in the Middle Ages. Also keep in mind that we are still recovering from the ice ages of 10,000 years ago and earlier. The world is normally warmer than it is now. We're stuck in a giant cold spell, and I doubt leaving it will kill us all.

Perhaps the 10 degrees in 300 years is for the U.S.A. only. In that case, the rest of the world has less cause for concern and has likely warmed even less than the 2.5 degrees I estimated above since the U.S.A. is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases.

Also, if the world has indeed been warming by a significant amount from at least 300 years ago, which is before the Industrial Revolution, then humans cannot take all, or even most of, the blame for global warming. This means that it's probably part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling that has been going on for billions of years. I would also like to point out that climate change is included among the theories of the causes for some of the several mass extinctions that have occurred throughout earth's history, indicating again that this is nature at work, and humans cannot be blamed for it all. Of greater concern is probably the clear-cutting of forests and inefficient use of space.