Scale

Gallo's page

599 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 599 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Pathfinder is to 5E what BMW is to Toyota. Sure BMW looks at what Toyota does but isn't going to be overly concerned about how well the new Corolla sells provided BWM's latest 5 series is a quality car.

Passive edition warring codswallop, 5th Ed is not the lesser vehicle, in fact, it would seem, as Willy Wonka says: "Strike that, reverse it."

Zardnaar is on point here (as usual), and I feel PF2 is going so far out of its way not to be like the world's most popular RPG, that they seem to be stumbling around. I want PF2 to tap that area between 3rd Ed/PF1 and 5th Ed, and really bring this Legendary action they were on about, that could be key to distinguishing it from 5th Ed.

If you think my comment was passive aggressive or edition war you completely missed the point of my analogy. It was simply noting that as long as PF2 does well enough for Paizo to be happy with sales then the performance of its competitors won’t make them lose any sleep.


Pathfinder is to 5E what BMW is to Toyota. Sure BMW looks at what Toyota does but isn't going to be overly concerned about how well the new Corolla sells provided BWM's latest 5 series is a quality car.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smurf finder


Playing in the early 80s I rolled a level 1 fighter with 18(00) strength (the dice loved me for a few minutes). First encounter of his adventuring career he rolled poorly for initiative. A giant spider bit him (very first attack roll of campaign), failed saves back then meant death...... I went from very excited 12 year old to very sad 12 year old very quickly :)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gallo wrote:


One of the first lessons in learning a language would cover what races speak the language you are learning. Why else would you be learning the language?
To talk to the other thing that talks the language?

Exactly. So you'd find out what races speak the language as part of learning the language.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Invest in knowledges. Leaning the language of draconic should tell you that it's used by.. well. dragons. But kobolds? Not so much.

One of the first lessons in learning a language would cover what races speak the language you are learning. Why else would you be learning the language?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

BTW statistics based on race or ethnic group are illegal in France

I think both are a reaction against the racial paradigm used by Nazis when they occupied France

I think there is also an element of France not wanting to acknowledge its indigenous ethnic minorities as being anything other than French. For example, the Basques, Bretons, Alsatians, Corsicans, Catalans, Flemings, Occitans etc. The government's policies towards those groups and the teaching of their languages has not been conducive towards their maintaining their cultural identity.


Based on this paragraph from the OP, why is anyone even suggesting talking to the guy when he has yet to change his ways after the issues have been raised multiple times? He's done the same before, he has individual goals not aligned even remotely with the party goals in a game which is a cooperative one, he has anger issues, no one is having fun and don't want to continue.

Just contact the rest of the group and arrange the next game session. Tell them the problem player is not being invited back and you can all continue the campaign. If the problem player contacts you just tell him his play style does not match the group's and he is no longer welcome.

The game is meant to be fun for all involved. Don't waste your time trying to fix things with someone who continually makes it not fun.

OP wrote:
This player... does this. This was my first time GMing, but I've played with him in other games and other systems, and he's threatened to ditch the party when people don't follow his plans at least once per game (He's got other problems too. His characters are always better than everyone else's by a lot, they always have a long-term goal of assassinating the most important NPC around and usurping their power, and he always gets really angrily dramatic about being 'completely useless' when another PC comes across an encounter that's suited to making them shine). The other players (when they've been GMing their own games) have talked to him about his problems, but it doesn't seem like it's doing anything, and I'm sure as heck not just going to sit idly by. People were having fun, and then with one sentence he made a game crash and burn. Now nobody wants to go back to it, and I don't really feel like I want to run or play any more games with him in them.


Blymurkla wrote:
Rob C wrote:
By Rules as Intended / Rules as Played, I think Gaseous Form can be dismissed if cast on yourself. In my mind I look at creatures such as Vampires who can go into a gaseous form. They should have some way of coming out of it at will.

Just so everyone is on the same page:

PRD wrote:
Gaseous Form (Su): As a standard action, a vampire can assume gaseous form at will (caster level 5th), but it can remain gaseous indefinitely and has a fly speed of 20 feet with perfect maneuverability.
No language in that ability to allow the vampire to dismiss its gaseous form. There might be a general rule on how supernatural abilities work that allows creatures to shut them off, but my brief search failed to turn it up.

The word "indefinitely" is what indicates a vampire can end its gaseous form whenever it wants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Second place prize is a one hour scenic flight around the city of your choice flying on Ventnor's scaly back.


Sissyl wrote:
One summoned creature at any time is effectively shutting down the summoning strategy. Whatever floats your boat, though.

I guess my boat is floated by a play style that doesn't clog up the combats with a bunch of summoned critters that take up too much time to run and detract from the time the rest of the party gets to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you have a party of 5, irrespective of how many critters the druid summons, there should be no need for each player to take 1-2 minutes for their turns. What are they doing while other players are having their turn, let alone the time the DM takes to run the monsters? That is 4-8 minutes, plus DM time, for them to think about their next turn.

If they are getting distracted and talking then the best thing you can do is cut their time. Either use a timer of some kind or just say "Druid Dave is unsure of what to do - he is delaying" or "Druid Dave is taking too long to decide what he is doing, that is a full round action gone". The players will get the idea and everything will speed up. Druid Dave might get grumpy but I bet the other players will be pleased.

My group uses a portable whiteboard for an initiative chart so it is easy to tell when each player's turn is coming up.

As for the problems of the summoning. Simply tell the druid that he can only summon creatures that he has pre-prepared stat blocks for in front of him - either printed out or on index cards. If her can't be bothered spending the time to prepare his character outside of game time then he should not be allowed to slow down the game and waste everyone else's time.

I fully agree with other suggestions above like only allowing one summoned creature at a time or limiting the "deployment pattern" for any multiple summons.


Canberra, Australia. The most pleasant city in the world to bring up a family.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diminuendo wrote:
I really hope this is the year AusPost goes bankrupt, so we can get private postal services in

I run an online toy and game store. If you think Australia Post are bad, try dealing with some of the private courier companies. AP has its issues but they are generally the best of a bad bunch.

The main problem I find is with the delivery of parcels I send out. Nowadays most of the parcel delivery drivers are contractors who get paid per delivery - an item that they card for collection at a post office does not count. If a delivery address is out of their way they often don't even bother to try to deliver it or don't spend the few seconds it takes to write a "sorry we missed you card".

My advice:

- have items addressed to your work address (admittedly not always an option) or someone you know will be home.

- if an item arrives damaged take a photo of it in the letter box, or better still video the process of getting it from your letter box all the way through opening it.

- take the item and video to an Australia Post shop (not a AP sales agent like many local post offices are nowadays) and kick up a stink (in a polite but firm way).

- use the Ombudsman as suggested above

- ringing AP over the phone is a process guaranteed to drive you mad. It seems they have internal rules that dictate you must be transferred to at least three different areas whenever you call. I push over $50k of business to them each year and I still get a runaround whenever I have an issue.

If you purchase using Paypal (unfortunately not an option with Paizo), immediately raise a dispute with Paypal and email the sender for a replacement. Include lots of photos to both parties. Paypal invariably refund your money and it is up to the seller to provide it was sent properly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Retired Diviner (Scryer) Wizard, now Expert (Profession:merchant)

former SIGINTer, now toy and game store owner.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gol Zayvian wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:


What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.
This is the nail being struck soundly on the head.

Using an alias to agree with your own post is really, really lame.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chromnos wrote:
Can we please have a game developer put this to bed?

They are probably too busy rolling on the ground laughing or banging their heads against a hard surface.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Just checking in, has anyone won the thread?

I think we are looking into forming an International Panel of Experts to consider both sides of the "win conspiracy". But first we need to have a committee to review the currently available evidence to see whether we can pre-bunk the predicted outcome lest debate get caught up in a pointless round of de-bunking and, in some extreme cases, re-bunking.

And trust me, it is humanity who loses when things degenerate into re-bunking of the debunking, particularly where the bunkified issue should clearly have just been pre-bunked..


Brawler's Close Weapons Mastery wrote:
At 5th level, a brawler's damage with close weapons increases. When wielding a close weapon, she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower instead of the base damage for that weapon (for example, a 5th-level Medium brawler wielding a punching dagger deals 1d6 points of damage instead of the weapon's normal 1d4). If the weapon normally deals more damage than this, its damage is unchanged. This ability does not affect any other aspect of the weapon. The brawler can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of her adjusted unarmed strike damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made.

How do you think this interacts with Pummelling Style? A specific ability designed to link weapon damage with unarmed strike damage and for a class for which Pummelling style would appear to have been designed?


Wynter Ignatius wrote:
Calypsopoxta wrote:

I found this before: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kqan&page=2?Adventurers-Armory-Questions#5 1

Basically Emei Piercers were the only weapons that MIGHT squeeze by.

It is for unarmed strikes only now, just to clear that up.

Pummeling Style

The FAQ still doesn't clarify weapons like the cestus that allow your unarmed strike to do certain types of damage. When is an unarmed strike not actually an unarmed strike? Or is an unarmed strike always an unarmed strike?

PRD wrote:
Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

So does an unarmed strike that does piercing damage courtesy of a cestus qualify? What about when using Snake Style?

Can you use Pummelling Style when another style feat makes your fingers pointy sharp, but not when you wear what is effectively a glove with sharp, pointy bits on it?


You'd want to be playing with a generous GM to get the number of free actions per round that you'd need for this to work.


Secret Wizard wrote:
@Gallo: thankfully, paizo only needs to care about fixing stuff that's broken if they want customer satisfaction. It's good they just publish stuff for love, right

If Paizo doesn't think something is broken then why would they fix it? Just because they don't "fix" something doesn't mean they haven't looked at it. Or they have decided it is just not a priority in allocation of their resources. There have been sufficient FAQs and the like to show they do respond to player feedback. But that doesn't mean they will make changes every time. And applying a fix that some people want does not automatically lead to improved customer satisfaction - Crane Wing being a good example.

Not every view on an issue deserves equal attention or, in some cases, any attention at all. Climate change denial anyone?


Rynjin wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Honestly if Paizo can't manage their resources well enough to prevent these problems or start addressing them then maybe they need to seriously rethink a few of their business practices. Clearly what they're doing right now just isn't working.
Or maybe Paizo just doesn't think it is that much of an issue….. Just because they don't respond to every "I think this is broken, therefor Paizo sucks" thread doesn't mean they haven't seen the thread or given it a few brief moments thought before ignoring it.

If they were seriously ignoring the thread that lists every single one of their mistakes in that book you could rest assured they'd never get another g~% d+&n red cent from me.

Thankfully they don't seem to be that shortsighted.

There is a big difference between a thread that lists issues with flaws in a particular book and a thread that says " Paizo's business model is flawed". Especially when the particular issue that is apparently not clear has been clearly explained and relevant rules cited by a number of posters


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Honestly if Paizo can't manage their resources well enough to prevent these problems or start addressing them then maybe they need to seriously rethink a few of their business practices. Clearly what they're doing right now just isn't working.

Or maybe Paizo just doesn't think it is that much of an issue….. Just because they don't respond to every "I think this is broken, therefor Paizo sucks" thread doesn't mean they haven't seen the thread or given it a few brief moments thought before ignoring it.


Evilgm wrote:
It's important to remember that you won't generate an Evil Aura until you have 5 HD, so by then you will probably be able to better protect yourself. On top of that, the usual way a Paladin will use Detect Evil is as the Move action, which only focuses on a single target. So as long as you do nothing obvious to cause him to 'scan' you after level 5 you'll both be fine.

Regardless of what measures the character takes to prevent the paladin from identifying him as evil, eventually the paladin will get suspicious. There is no way the character will be able to keep up misdirection or some other way of hiding their alignment 24/7. As the character goes up in level and may have better ways of hiding their alignment, so too will the paladin likely have greater access to ways of seeing thorough any such protection.

I just can't see things ending up as anything but bad in game and out.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
how far away he was sitting from the air defence training during his military training

In the same building.But then,i asked questions during that time a lot,and also read like five conspects,because my military speciality is pretty close,and i hoped sometime in the future WW3 to stab one of the operators and take his place.

Because i'm obviously better qualified,you see.
It was some time ago,but in the conspects there were pictures,and in one case even colored.

Very droll.

PS. What is conspect?


JohnLocke wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


As for the wreckage of MH 17 - I wasn't aware we had so many experts in our midst!

I'm no expert,but in Soviet Russia either you obtained military degree in college,or you were drafted.As a private.

You do sound knowledgeable, my friend. I was just surprised Jeff and Gallo would grace us with their considerable knowledge in this field, as well.

Given Vlad claims at least part of his "knowledge" from what can best be described as osmosis based on how far away he was sitting from the air defence training during his military training, I'd prefer to go with my own experience as a army intelligence officer and defence intelligence analyst, as well as a couple of interesting chats with a former air defence officer and a retired F-111 pilot.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Which is what fragmentation warheads are designed to do.
I'm starting to suspect that you are actually do not know what you are talking about.

As opposed to you, who has repeatedly demonstrated you don't know what you are talking about…...

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
There are 40something kilograms of explosive,and not of black powder kind in that warhead,and it detonates within 15 meters from target(you know,the nose of the plane in this case). Fragmentation is for fast,maneuvering,and speeding away targets.

Point in case.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the "secondary" fragmentation effect would not have an effect on a civilian airliner because they fly slower?

I am seriously suggesting that damage from the blast wave looks differently than described.It not "multiple high-energy penetrators",it's "ENTIRE nose of the plane crushed to pulp in the blink of an eye from a single,powerful blast,oh,and maybe there were some shrapnel".

Should i really describe difference between piercing and bludgeoning damage on THESE forums?
Gods...

Nice try, fail. Look at the pictures of the damage to the cockpit. Fragmentation damage.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
HE, yes, but the fragments do the primary damage.

No,that would be blast wave with secondary damage of fragments.Fragments are useful for high-speed targets(not civilian airliner at cruise speed less than 1m)

And while i'm personally do not have SAM operator degree,they were taught more or less the in same building.

Are you seriously suggesting that the "secondary" fragmentation effect would not have an effect on a civilian airliner because they fly slower?


I once ran a twisted fairy tales adventure where the party had to find and destroy the source of the "twistedness". The three billy goats gruff were in cahoots with the troll under the bridge extorting money and robbing travellers. The seven dwarves were duergar purveyors of illegal substances - Druggy, Thuggy, Cranky, Boozey and so on. Snow White was their evil gang leader. Hansel and Gretel had taken over the witch's kidnapping racket. And so on.


JohnLocke wrote:
Is Germany free? Is Japan? South Korea? All are occupied nations, and all act as antagonists (proxies) for American aggression.

Oh those poor oppressed masses in Germany, Japan and South Korea suffering under the oppressive jackboot of military occupation.

I'll go get some more popcorn and sit back and watch the ongoing politico love-fest that you and Vlad have got going on.

Ps. Agree completely on the vulture funds.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Soviet famine of 1932–33

I'm still having a hard time envisioning the Holodomor as an act of genocide when the famine, apparently, stretched all the way to Siberia.

[Shrugs]

And i thought i dispelled that Holodomor fake a hundred pages ago.Yes,it's never occurred.Unlike soviet famine of 32-33.

But,good news for me:i never had peasants in lineage for at least six generations,so my family was totally unaffected:)

No, you said that the famine did not occur and that the Soviet regime had no role. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

@Comrade - the famine did indeed affect more of the Soviet Union than just the Ukraine. The Soviet regime's response/actions/inaction in the Ukraine is what made the event(s) into a genocide. The fact that terrible things happened in many parts of the Soviet Union does not in any way lessen what happened in the Ukraine.


JohnLocke wrote:
And it's good you support the Kiev government and their tame fascists in their attempt to wipe out the ethnic Russians - nothing like an old-fashioned try at genocide after a foreign-backed coup, right? You sound very fair and balanced, you being left wing and all.

I am curious about people throwing around the term genocide to describe the current conflict. It seems a very convenient term to throw around to attack the Ukrainian government's actions. Exactly how is the government committing genocide? Is it anything like the Ukrainian genocide of 32-33? I know at least one person in this thread thinks that never occurred.

What triggered this so-called genocide? How is this genocide occurring? You're big on evidence, so where is it?

The saddest irony of current claims of genocide is that the two regions where the conflict is occurring were among the hardest hit in the real genocide in 32-33.


JohnLocke wrote:

So, you support a western-backed coup which put into power an array of neo-nazis and oligarchs? Sure, you sound like a real neo-con hater, Gallo. Is it okay if I use your username? Or am I trying to be hard and make a point if I do? You're very touchy about such subjects. And it's good you support the Kiev government and their tame fascists in their attempt to wipe out the ethnic Russians - nothing like an old-fashioned try at genocide after a foreign-backed coup, right? You sound very fair and balanced, you being left wing and all.

You say Vlad is longing for this to turn into a full scale war - are you sure you don't mean your pals in Kiev? The rebel forces now have the upper hand, and still they desire to negotiate - what does that tell you? What have Putin's repeated calls for dialogue told you?

And no links to all the "evidence" you purport to have. Post some links re: the legions of grieving Russian mothers, just as an example. Please note I've seen the story published by the independent.co.uk website; I found it funny that it quoted the Novaya Gazeta as a source for its story. Guess who owns both? Good ol' Alexander Lebedev, avowed foe of Putin and western toady. You're going to have to be more convincing, Gallo ol' buddy! Ooops, there I go using your username in vain again! Darn me to heck!

You can use my forum name all you like. It is not as though it is my real name, nor would I care if you did use my real name. In fact, feel free to use it - Andrew. If your debating technique is such that you feel the need to throw my name in all the time, then fill your boots. So, not touchy at all about my name.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
For starters, no-one on "your side" is asking for incontrovertible proof because they know there isn't any. And that lack is what kills your narrative cold.

So you keep saying despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Putin and co aren't stupid. They aren't going to be overt in their support. At least not yet. Bit by bit, deniable, unprovable. When evidence does point towards clear involvement we get things like "oh, silly them, they accidentally crossed the border". It's the same playbook that plenty of countries, the US included, have used over the years. If Russia wasn't supporting the separatists their cause would have shrivelled up and faded away not long after it surfaced.

For many years I closely followed East Timor and the Indonesian annexation. Similar tactics were used by the Indonesians - "we're not involved", "it's just patriots fighting against those communists who took over power in East Timor" (not that they were communists), to "we only have volunteers there" up to "our troops were invited in by the rightful leaders of the country" and so on. Despite evidence to the contrary (and a fair amount of turning a blind eye by the west). Back in 1975 there wasn't anywhere near the same degree of coverage of the issue compared to what there is of the Ukraine - yet the truth of Indonesian involvement got out easily enough - Indonesian protestations to the contrary and Western indifference and/or connivance notwithstanding. But with the amount of coverage of the Ukraine from the MSM, amateur bloggers, citizen journalists, UN reports, aid groups, even utterances by groups of mothers of Russian servicemen and so on, the overall picture is not hard to gauge - even if the specific details are less clear.

JohnLocke wrote:

I did a search on a Canadian "news" magazine's website re: Putin and it came up with this:

Link here

Look at the titles of the articles, the pictures used. Read the articles and all you'll find are emotional appeals to stop "evil" and "murder" and spend more on military pursuits. No hard facts, no pictures of the Russian military in action, no interrupted radio chatter, zilch.

Poor Canadian MSM. Apparently they don't have a newsfeed coming out of CSE.

JohnLocke wrote:
Look, I'm asking you to THINK. How can any reasonable dialogue be held if s%&! like this is what's feeding the average person's mind? Is it feeding yours? Is this where your opinion is being formed? Not Maclean's specifically of course (God, I hope not...) but one of the dozens of other media outlets putting out the same crap over and again, hoping it will stick?

What is it with capitals? Is it supposed to MAKE ME ALL OF A SUDDEN COMPLETELY CHANGE MY MIND? Hmm, apparently not. Nice try though.

Compared to some of the crap that people like Vlad are quoting then it's as much a question of who wins a race to the bottom as anything else.

JohnLocke wrote:
These people - the western governments and their tame media - are trying to direct you into war with Russia. Think about that, about how insane that is. Put aside your hatred and your news stories telling you how weak Russia is and think about that. Look how quick everyone was to accuse Russia and the rebels of shooting down MH 17. Now - silence. No black box recordings released, no radar logs, nothing. How many invasions have been alleged? How many thousands of troops does Russia have staged at the border? Incontrovertible proof is required because the stakes are very high. War with Russia would be serious business, perhaps the end of our civilization.

I don't think there is much chance of me getting into a war with Russia. I completely demobilised my military capabilities years ago when I left the army. My country's current PM, well he's another matter. But I guess he figures playing the big man from 10,000 miles away will make him look good in the eyes of the 50.5% of the population stupid enough to vote for him and his bunch of lying, class warfare warrior, neo-con halfwits. See, I can be left wing and still lean towards supporting the Ukraine over the separatists and Russia. What a crazy world we live in.

JohnLocke wrote:
They're all the same lies, told by the same people. I've already agreed that Russia must be providing support and intel - and no-one has been able to prove more. You sure haven't. As for pulling a Vlad - I'm honoured. He's provided news reports and information of far greater relevance than anything you've put forward.

I'm not here to match Vlad news report for news report. I just like pulling him up for his oft dodgy sources, inconsistency, contradictions and, most of all, his palpable longing for the war to turn into full blown conflict.


JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

Are you claiming that "some of us" are overlooking evidence that exists right now? Or was that just a cheeky comment, alleging a lack of critical thought on the part of some of the commentators here?

I like to think I'm open minded and a realist; so any evidence you think we need to see is something I'd appreciate having brought to my attention.

Heaven forbid that some people in this thread are showing a lack of critical thought. There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore it and cite your own evidence to support your position. Apparently when certain media supports your case then they are reliable, but if they don't they are Western stooges of the supposed Nazi Ukrainian regime.
Then do share with us this incontrovertible evidence the msm has given and I have ignored. Certainly I have no good reason to distrust your mainstream media sources - they've never tried to cheerlead us into war with lies and fabrications before, have they?

I have never disputed that the MSM are not always impartial or accurate. But compared to some of the sources some posters have used in this thread I know which I would find more reliable. As for evidence, I think there have been enough posts linking to various sources to suggest there is more than a little truth in reports that Russia is more involved in the fighting in the Ukraine than you and a few others would have us believe. Given the evidence I have seen I think it is beyond contestation that Russia is intervening in the Ukraine.

PS. You are doing a Vlad by asking for "incontrovertible" evidence. No one is demanding incontrovertible evidence from your side, yet suddenly those who disagree with you are expected to display a higher standard…...


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

There are no russian tanks in the war zone now,there are soviet tanks,and Oplot MBTs.

What's the difference between russian and ukrainian soldier,visually?
Russian flag costs a few dollarz.
So,yes,it will not be enough for me.
Ballistic missile strike against key installations before assault will convince me,though.

My irony aside, your second last sentence pretty succinctly sums up why it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion on this issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

Are you claiming that "some of us" are overlooking evidence that exists right now? Or was that just a cheeky comment, alleging a lack of critical thought on the part of some of the commentators here?

I like to think I'm open minded and a realist; so any evidence you think we need to see is something I'd appreciate having brought to my attention.

Heaven forbid that some people in this thread are showing a lack of critical thought. There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore it and cite your own evidence to support your position. Apparently when certain media supports your case then they are reliable, but if they don't they are Western stooges of the supposed Nazi Ukrainian regime.


JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.


JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
it's how Americans know they won in Vietnam

Wait,WHAT?!

The only winners of war in Vietnam were a)people of said Vietnam and b)
USA's military manufacturers.
Everyone else lost.
Sarcasm, my friend, and a dose of reality for neocon a-holes.
So are you suggesting those of us who disagree with you are neo-cons?
Nope. But I am impressed that you found neocon to be more offensive than a-hole!

I found it nothing. I just ignore such terms as unnecessary to a discussion.


JohnLocke wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
it's how Americans know they won in Vietnam

Wait,WHAT?!

The only winners of war in Vietnam were a)people of said Vietnam and b)
USA's military manufacturers.
Everyone else lost.
Sarcasm, my friend, and a dose of reality for neocon a-holes.

So are you suggesting those of us who disagree with you are neo-cons?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
and fanatical devotion to the Pope.
While russians have stupid amounts of chief weapons,this,sadly,is not one of them.Eastern Ortodoxy and all:)

You are a gamer and didn't get the classic Monty Python quote? There are uncontacted tribes in the Amazon who know that one.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:

Not all capabilities are revealed, only ones that everyone already knows the US has.

No offence,but US can't control even it's own border,much less one half a world away between two(three?four?) threat countries.

See, you have done it again. Make a counter claim to someone's argument where you answer something that was not said.

Where did I say anything about controlling a border? I was commenting on your claim that the US could not know anything about Russian military movements on the Russian-Ukraine border.

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Plus just because a country knows another country is doing something doesn't mean that they a. are willing to demonstrate all they know; and/or b. are willing or able to do something with what they know.
They don't know.They say they know,but when they try to demonstrate any evidence,they fail harder then me in pinball.

There you go. I completed the quote for you. Wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression about what other posters say would we now Vlad?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
As for your response, you really have no idea about the US intel community do you?

And you ever heard about counter-intelligence?

No-one was ready in.08,no-one knew anything about Crimea,so what makes you think that anything is somehow changed in five months?This leaves satellite surveillance.Which can be misdirected pretty easy.
It's not like it even needs misdirection
I need to remind you,this little photo was released as evidence that these
dastardly russians fire on loyalists from beyond the border.

You really have an incredibly naive and simplistic view of US capabilities. Not all capabilities are revealed, only ones that everyone already knows the US has.

Plus just because a country knows another country is doing something doesn't mean that they a. are willing to demonstrate all they know; and/or b. are willing or able to do something with what they know.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
US does not have the means to monitor troop and equipment deployment

Yep.Because,you see,Crazy Ivans know when satellites are flying over.

If they wanted to stage stealth invasion,they could do it.
For example,sats have no means to distinguish real armor from decoy.
And yes,russians have decoys of most mechanized units.

Vlad, you may want to fully quote me rather than selectively quote me to make what I wrote sound like the complete opposite of what I actually said. I would hate to think it was deliberate because that would be setting new lows even by your standards.

As for your response, you really have no idea about the US intel community do you?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:

Russians,go home!.

You see,loyalists didn't yet finished destroying rebel cities.
I especially like this bit:
" Rear Adm. John Kirby....said the Russian build-up on the border "needs to stop. It just needs to stop.""
So,you see,Pentagon's chief spokesman tells Russia(!)to stop alleged build-up(existence of which Pentagon can't possibly verify)at the border of third nation,which is not in NATO.
I lost a few points of IQ just from typing that.

You really think that the US does not have the means to monitor troop and equipment deployment on the Ukraine-Russia border? I think you already had lost more than a few points of IQ.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Angstspawn wrote:
It's funny to see that Russians forgot they lost the Cold War so pitifully they had not enough of money
You do realize that cold war had literally nothing to do with Crazy Ivans economic problems in 80-90s,right?

Really?


Coriat wrote:
Gallo wrote:
That could be, by some literary definition at least, be considered "glorious".
Sweet and fitting, too, no doubt.

Indeed. I doubt Wilfred Owen would describe what is happening in the Ukraine as glorious.

I think the third and fourth last lines are very fitting.

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
I'm being ironic, or maybe sarcastic. They can be so similar sometimes
That would be sarcasm.

Well done. You finally didn't misinterpret, wilfully or accidentally, something I posted.

1 to 50 of 599 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>