• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!

Drachefly

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    178

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Drachefly

  11. Posted

    23 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

    So what sort of things were you betting on?

    Who got the genderbend cutie mark magic mark?

    When (real life date) will the current arc end?

    Will Sarah and Sam agree to a (specific) date before the end of 2016?

    That kind of thing.

  14. Posted

    On 6/22/2017 at 1:47 AM, Don Edwards said:

    My observation on the Georgia race is that as long as the Democrats thought they would win, they tried to make it all about Trump; but as soon as it was apparent they had lost, very few of them would admit that there had been any such effort. (And those few were mostly those who had been criticizing the Democrat leadership for focusing so much on Trump instead of trying to fix the party's internal issues.)

    Hmm. Well, the race as it was done locally, was about local issues. Trump and national issues, of course, are the reason the rest of us cared.

    So most people talking about the race around the country were interested because of Trump. That does not mean that the race itself was actually about Trump, and still less does it mean that Ossoff's message was at all about Trump.

  15. Posted

    So, neither special election in GA nor SC managed to flip deeply red seats blue. No surprise there. The margins were as close as you might expect given the popularity of congress, of the president, and the amount of money poured in. Most surprising was the South Carolina race, which was quite close indeed and did not attract anywhere near the attention of the GA race.

    Given that these seats were chosen to be vacated, it is reasonable to suppose that they were chosen partially for their safeness. These did not look like safe-seat races.

  17. Posted

    Whoa. This is a lot like an idea I had back in 2000, for a fantasy setting in which two wizards from not-too-divergent branches of the Homo branch wanted to have kids, and created a female-only hybrid who could (in principle) reproduce with either side (though as of the events of the book, they were still being debugged, not yet considering having children - indeed, much of the book is centered on a certain extreme method of debugging).

    In that case, though, males would be the same species as the father, while females would be the hybrid.

    This real-life system is a considerably more involved process.

  18. Posted

    On 4/8/2017 at 11:39 AM, mlooney said:

    Of course like most double ended weapons, the Bat'leth is rather silly.  Weapons that you hold at that center of mass mean that you are going to smack it into your self.  Yes, I know there are methods of using it so you don't, but some one with a traditional sword of the same length is going to out range the Bat'leth user by several feet.  And let's not even get into the range advantage some one that uses a pointy bit as it's offensive end.  Some one with a rapier would nail a Bat'leth user before they could get their first "Your mother has a smooth forehead" off.

    And, yes, I've seen some one that claimed he was a "master" of a Bat'leth vs a middle of the road SCA light weapon user "spar".  If spar is what you call a fencer using a fanboi as a moving target.

    Okay, so this is really old…

    Reminds me of the argument I had about this yeeears ago back on StarDestroyer.net. Jeez. Looking for that has reminded me why I left.

  23. Posted

    Action would hobble and hamstring us, yet without doing any of that, we'll still be reducing more than China's going to? That sounds very doubtful. Compare China's goal of 64% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030 to the goal you just said would hamstring us, to reduce by 28% from 2005 levels. So either China has to not just fail a little but completely in reducing, in which case Paris wasn't actually bad to be in anyway - or we utterly clobber our Paris goal without trouble.

    Which is it?

    http://www.climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

    http://www.climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html