6494 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The lore support it. I showed you a scene showing lore, and then I linked you to stated lore. That's the point.

How many doors does the Port cargohold have?

dreman9999 wrote...
2. Here's a quetion? What's the final point. What were your trying to stop in the end of ME1. Why were your revived in ME2? And what are you facing in ME3?

We were discussing a scene in Mass Effect 2, that has nothing to do the Reapers.

dreman9999 wrote...
3.They want Shepard, last time they blow up his ship to get to him, they lost him.

They wanted to kill Shepard, at every encounters they inexplecity open fire, they tried blowing up our ships three times.

1.One.
2.What cut scene? We are talking about the point of mass effect story. Now a ask again.
What were your trying to stop in the end of ME1. Why were your revived in ME2? And what are you facing in ME3?
3.
They want his body. They don't care that he's alive. They can bring him back if he dies.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Are you really telling me that processors don't use data to run computers?

I'm not.  If you had a clue about the topic you're going on about, you'd understand how that's not what I'm telling you. 

Yes, the processor performs operations based on the data stored in the computer's permanent and temporary memory devices.  

That does not make "a database" part of the processor, and more to the point, it does not make the goof in Legion's lines at that point in the game go away. 

Then you not understanding what I'm saying. HE got the data out of the processer..... Point being, he got software out of hard ware. I understand database reside in hardrives, but a processer still uses the data in the harddrive any way. The data has to go through the processer to beable to be used. The hard drive and the cou working together to make the computer work is just like ther espiratory system working with the circulatory system to kep the body alive. The systems are shared.
As I said before, all legion is saying is that he got sofware out of Hardware.
You saying it wrong because it not stored in the cpu, I'm saying it right because it still goes thought the cpu any way.

It's ironic that you accuse people of not reading.

Go back, look at what I said.  I'm talking about what Legion says. 

Tali says "Are these databases?"  Legion says "No, these are processors".

Then the cutscene starts, and the first thing Legion says is "These are databases".  

From 3:58 to 4:20 of this video:   


AND YOU DON'T CALL A PROCESSOR "A DATABASE" OR A DATABASE "A PROCESSOR" NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY!


The simple fact is that Bioware missed a goof here, they screwed up in production -- or they didn't do five minutes of homework and used sloppy terminology. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The reason I made the claim that practical radiation would make it like venus is because practical radiation made Venus the way it is..... Are you saying that Venus lack of magnetosphere did not make it into a heavy atmosphric presser cooker planet? If so then it's clear that you don't understand what your taking about. It lacks a magnetosphere, which protects from practical radiation .  Saying particale radiation does increase planets heat is like saying  ionizing radiaton does not generate heat, with is what paritcal radiation is onizing radiaton....
Just compare earth and venus, we have a magnetsphere , Venus does not. Look at our environment, look a venuses......Is it not clear what a planet without an magnetosphere would look like?
If Haelstrom is truely a planet heavilly effect by practical radiation, as you feel it should....It would be like Mercury.
My point is that Haestrom is not at the level to be heavily effected by practical radiation yet because it doesn't have a thin atmosphere. That takes millions of years to do, and it only been less than 300 years.

I'm telling you flat out that particle radiation does not make a planet's atmosphere a "presser" cooker through direct heating.  Simple as that.  Go do your homework and stop making simplistic assumptions.

Also, take another English class. 

*Looks at Venus and the way Weather works on Earth.*
Yes, it does.

If you believe that it does not your saying Ionizing radiation does not make Non-ionizing radiation amnd heated and highly radiatedelements don't expand and rise.

What you're doing is looking at Venus, looking at Earth, and saying "one has a magnetic field, the other doesn't, therefore it's the lack of a magnetic field that causes Venus' atmosphere to be different", and concocting a causal mechanism to explain that difference based on that your original bad assumption. 

You're simply wrong, and I've run out of ways to explain to you how you're wrong.  Particle radiation simply doesn't induce direct massive heating in the way you're imagining it does.  The energy goes into ionizing events, etc. 

It has nothing to do with what I "believe". 

You not understanding. You never read my post before.
Let me make it clear.
.......
http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs........
........
Cosmic rays, which are a form of particle radiation that comes from solar wind, helps eat away are ozone layer that protect use from uv rays. The reason why it does not do this even more is the fact that earth has a strong magnetosphere the reflex most of the particle radiation.
Now what would happen to a planet like ours that lacks a proper magnetosphere that we have? It's solar protection will be eaten away and the planet will be super heated. And we already know what happens to heat elements.

So me point to Venus as an example has a point. It has no magnetosphere to protect it.....So most of it's solar protection is gone...Meaning radiation and heat are going to charge the element of the planet and the element are going to expand and rise. Say this will not happen is like saying heat in an area with lots of water does not cause rain. This is how an exosphere works.

You're taking a bunch of mostly true things and a few utterly untrue things, and then making up your own goofball conclusions from it all.  You're making connections that don't actually exist, and mistaking correlation for causation. 

And really, is English your second language, or are you under the age of 12, or in terrible school district, or what?  I can't even tell what you're trying to say about 1/4 of the time. 

It' not mostly true. It all true. This how thing work in a  pressered enviornment. For you to tell me it does not work like that is to tell me that element don't expand and rise when heated, the cosmic ray does not change, desort and destroy planet protection planet protection, That a magnetosphere does not refelx partical radiation, which is what cosmic rays are. That heat water does not rise up and make clouds.

Are your really telling me that an overwhelmed magnetosphere would not start losing it's ozone layer when it's stated that comic ray destroy ozone layers? That the lack of an ozone layer would not heat up the planet and make elements rise and expand into the atmosphere? And that will not thicken the atmosphere to the point of no sun light getting to the surface?

I'm telling you that your assumption that particle radiation directly causes significant heating or thickening of an atmosphere is completely wrong.  That is what I am telling you. 

Stop trying to make this about anything else that I'm not telling you, that's all part of your pathetic guesswork. 

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The reason I made the claim that practical radiation would make it like venus is because practical radiation made Venus the way it is..... Are you saying that Venus lack of magnetosphere did not make it into a heavy atmosphric presser cooker planet? If so then it's clear that you don't understand what your taking about. It lacks a magnetosphere, which protects from practical radiation .  Saying particale radiation does increase planets heat is like saying  ionizing radiaton does not generate heat, with is what paritcal radiation is onizing radiaton....
Just compare earth and venus, we have a magnetsphere , Venus does not. Look at our environment, look a venuses......Is it not clear what a planet without an magnetosphere would look like?
If Haelstrom is truely a planet heavilly effect by practical radiation, as you feel it should....It would be like Mercury.
My point is that Haestrom is not at the level to be heavily effected by practical radiation yet because it doesn't have a thin atmosphere. That takes millions of years to do, and it only been less than 300 years.

I'm telling you flat out that particle radiation does not make a planet's atmosphere a "presser" cooker through direct heating.  Simple as that.  Go do your homework and stop making simplistic assumptions.

Also, take another English class. 

*Looks at Venus and the way Weather works on Earth.*
Yes, it does.

If you believe that it does not your saying Ionizing radiation does not make Non-ionizing radiation amnd heated and highly radiatedelements don't expand and rise.

What you're doing is looking at Venus, looking at Earth, and saying "one has a magnetic field, the other doesn't, therefore it's the lack of a magnetic field that causes Venus' atmosphere to be different", and concocting a causal mechanism to explain that difference based on that your original bad assumption. 

You're simply wrong, and I've run out of ways to explain to you how you're wrong.  Particle radiation simply doesn't induce direct massive heating in the way you're imagining it does.  The energy goes into ionizing events, etc. 

It has nothing to do with what I "believe". 

You not understanding. You never read my post before.
Let me make it clear.
.......
http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs........
........
Cosmic rays, which are a form of particle radiation that comes from solar wind, helps eat away are ozone layer that protect use from uv rays. The reason why it does not do this even more is the fact that earth has a strong magnetosphere the reflex most of the particle radiation.
Now what would happen to a planet like ours that lacks a proper magnetosphere that we have? It's solar protection will be eaten away and the planet will be super heated. And we already know what happens to heat elements.

So me point to Venus as an example has a point. It has no magnetosphere to protect it.....So most of it's solar protection is gone...Meaning radiation and heat are going to charge the element of the planet and the element are going to expand and rise. Say this will not happen is like saying heat in an area with lots of water does not cause rain. This is how an exosphere works.

You're taking a bunch of mostly true things and a few utterly untrue things, and then making up your own goofball conclusions from it all.  You're making connections that don't actually exist, and mistaking correlation for causation. 

And really, is English your second language, or are you under the age of 12, or in terrible school district, or what?  I can't even tell what you're trying to say about 1/4 of the time. 

It' not mostly true. It all true. This how thing work in a  pressered enviornment. For you to tell me it does not work like that is to tell me that element don't expand and rise when heated, the cosmic ray does not change, desort and destroy planet protection planet protection, That a magnetosphere does not refelx partical radiation, which is what cosmic rays are. That heat water does not rise up and make clouds.

Are your really telling me that an overwhelmed magnetosphere would not start losing it's ozone layer when it's stated that comic ray destroy ozone layers? That the lack of an ozone layer would not heat up the planet and make elements rise and expand into the atmosphere? And that will not thicken the atmosphere to the point of no sun light getting to the surface?

I'm telling you that your assumption that particle radiation directly causes significant heating or thickening of an atmosphere is completely wrong.  That is what I am telling you. 

Stop trying to make this about anything else that I'm not telling you, that's all part of your pathetic guesswork. 

So your telling me that cosmic rays don't deplet the ozone layer?


http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs.[citatio
.....
Your telling me this is wrong?

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm telling you that your assumption that particle radiation directly causes significant heating or thickening of an atmosphere is completely wrong.  That is what I am telling you. 

Stop trying to make this about anything else that I'm not telling you, that's all part of your pathetic guesswork. 

So your telling me that cosmic rays don't deplet the ozone layer?


http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs.[citatio
.....
Your telling me this is wrong?

First, I'm betting that you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means.  But you keep doing it. 

Second, going back to the actual point, the lack of a planetary magnetosphere is not what caused Venus' atmosphere to go into runaway greenhouse mode.  End of story.  Your guesswork that it did, won't ever make it so. 

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm telling you that your assumption that particle radiation directly causes significant heating or thickening of an atmosphere is completely wrong.  That is what I am telling you. 

Stop trying to make this about anything else that I'm not telling you, that's all part of your pathetic guesswork. 

So your telling me that cosmic rays don't deplet the ozone layer?


http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs.[citatio
.....
Your telling me this is wrong?

First, I'm betting that you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means.  But you keep doing it. 

Second, going back to the actual point, the lack of a planetary magnetosphere is not what caused Venus' atmosphere to go into runaway greenhouse mode.  End of story.  Your guesswork that it did, won't ever make it so. 

Again, your forgetting the fact that heated elements can cause that and CO2 and other molecules are effect by heat as well. CO2 is the results of the heated elements rising and expanding. The high levels co2 came about  because of the lack of protection Venus has. Point being Haestrom has alot of co2 on it as well as earth, and the fact the we are adding way more co2 in the atmosphere is causing the same effect of venus through global warming. We have a magnetosphere in place that stop the sun from global warming the planet. Venus does not. The result of that are element rising in the atmosphere and basic molecules produced in mass.

My point is the the high amount of co2 is just an effect of the lack of protection. Beside the cloud on the planet are made of sulfur dioxide and droplets of sulfuric acid any way. http://en.wikipedia....mosphere#Clouds

[Xeranx]

Tonymac wrote...

Personally, I found Smudboy to be a bit of a pain in the keister. I see ranting and raving, tons of foul language, and not a lot of hardcore fact.

He's fun to watch when you need a good laugh, though.

I don't remember there being foul language in any of his videos or tons of it for that matter.  Maybe I missed it.  Could you point these occurrences out to me please?

[Iakus]

Xeranx wrote...

Tonymac wrote...

Personally, I found Smudboy to be a bit of a pain in the keister. I see ranting and raving, tons of foul language, and not a lot of hardcore fact.

He's fun to watch when you need a good laugh, though.

I don't remember there being foul language in any of his videos or tons of it for that matter.  Maybe I missed it.  Could you point these occurrences out to me please?

Indeed.  He's not exactly Jack.  I've seen language every bit as bad if not worse right here.

Heck he's more respectful in these videos than certain posters have been on this very thread!

[100k]

Xeranx wrote...

Tonymac wrote...

Personally, I found Smudboy to be a bit of a pain in the keister. I see ranting and raving, tons of foul language, and not a lot of hardcore fact.

He's fun to watch when you need a good laugh, though.

I don't remember there being foul language in any of his videos or tons of it for that matter.  Maybe I missed it.  Could you point these occurrences out to me please?

He didn't really watch the videos. He just checked them out quickly because its one of the topics that people talk about here. Just ignore people who make comments like this, Xeranx.

Modifié par 100k, 12 septembre 2011 - 07:16 .

[111987]

@dreman9999 and Killjoy Cutter...this is clearly a debate that can't be one by either side cause neither of you have shown any sense of agreement. And the things you are debating are so small and insignificant I'm astounded this has gone on so long...

Just a crazy thought.

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

@dreman9999 and Killjoy Cutter...this is clearly a debate that can't be one by either side cause neither of you have shown any sense of agreement. And the things you are debating are so small and insignificant I'm astounded this has gone on so long...

Just a crazy thought.

You all should just agree to disagree, really.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm telling you that your assumption that particle radiation directly causes significant heating or thickening of an atmosphere is completely wrong.  That is what I am telling you. 

Stop trying to make this about anything else that I'm not telling you, that's all part of your pathetic guesswork. 

So your telling me that cosmic rays don't deplet the ozone layer?


http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs.[citatio
.....
Your telling me this is wrong?

First, I'm betting that you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means.  But you keep doing it. 

Second, going back to the actual point, the lack of a planetary magnetosphere is not what caused Venus' atmosphere to go into runaway greenhouse mode.  End of story.  Your guesswork that it did, won't ever make it so. 

Again, your forgetting the fact that heated elements can cause that and CO2 and other molecules are effect by heat as well. CO2 is the results of the heated elements rising and expanding. The high levels co2 came about  because of the lack of protection Venus has. Point being Haestrom has alot of co2 on it as well as earth, and the fact the we are adding way more co2 in the atmosphere is causing the same effect of venus through global warming. We have a magnetosphere in place that stop the sun from global warming the planet. Venus does not. The result of that are element rising in the atmosphere and basic molecules produced in mass.

My point is the the high amount of co2 is just an effect of the lack of protection. Beside the cloud on the planet are made of sulfur dioxide and droplets of sulfuric acid any way. http://en.wikipedia....mosphere#Clouds

What the clouds are made of has nothing to do with what you're trying to make up here. 

You're just making up convoluted excuses to avoid the simplest answer to the observed phenomena and the codex entry for Haestrom.   The lack of a planetary magnetosphere didn't cause the CO2 buildup on Venus, and no amount of you trying to throw random references at the wall will change that.  Particle radiation wouldn't cause Haestrom to go into runaway greenhouse effect or directly superheat the atmosphere, either, and no amount of you trying to throw random references at the wall will change that.


Whatever, I'm done.  Anyone with a clue reading this exchange has long since figured out that you're just pulling things out of your arse based on half-understood wiki links. 

[Xeranx]

iakus wrote...

Indeed.  He's not exactly Jack.  I've seen language every bit as bad if not worse right here.

Heck he's more respectful in these videos than certain posters have been on this very thread!

Agreed.  And anyone who has actually been around from when Smud began posting on BSN would have to acknowledge that regardless of his attitude he's never come out and attacked anyone without being attacked first.  Any subsequent threads he's posted in thereafter when he's taken shots at people is a result of him holding his perceptions of what came before.

100k wrote...
He didn't really watch the videos. He just checked them out quickly because its one of the topics that people talk about here. Just ignore people who make comments like this, Xeranx.

I'm sure he didn't.  I just want to give him the benefit of the doubt and explain what he's talking about in case someone takes umbrage at me laying into them for being unjustifiably rude themselves, again.  

I mean you have people in this thread who don't come down on people who exhibit the same behavior that Smudboy is accused of just because they happen to be on the same side.  And while that hypocrisy exists on both sides (to an extent as is forgiven by people not commenting on it), the blantant depiction of that hypocrisy by those who dislike or even hate Smudboy is amazing.

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

@dreman9999 and Killjoy Cutter...this is clearly a debate that can't be one by either side cause neither of you have shown any sense of agreement. And the things you are debating are so small and insignificant I'm astounded this has gone on so long...

Just a crazy thought.

If it weren't for the fact that he's just plain wrong about so much basic science, I'd have given up on refuting  his rambling, convoluted, confused nonsense long ago. 

It just bugs the hell out of me to see people so openly, blatantly, and confidently expounding incorrect nonsense on topics they clearly know nothing about. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 septembre 2011 - 07:41 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

@dreman9999 and Killjoy Cutter...this is clearly a debate that can't be one by either side cause neither of you have shown any sense of agreement. And the things you are debating are so small and insignificant I'm astounded this has gone on so long...

Just a crazy thought.

If it weren't for the fact that he's just plain wrong about so much basic science, I'd have given up on refuting  his rambling, convoluted, confused nonsense long ago. 

It just bugs the hell out of me to see people so openly, blatantly, and confidently expounding incorrect nonsense on topics they clearly know nothing about. 

If you think this is bad, just wait until March rolls around!

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm telling you that your assumption that particle radiation directly causes significant heating or thickening of an atmosphere is completely wrong.  That is what I am telling you. 

Stop trying to make this about anything else that I'm not telling you, that's all part of your pathetic guesswork. 

So your telling me that cosmic rays don't deplet the ozone layer?


http://en.wikipedia....heric_chemistry
Changes in atmospheric chemistry
Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the
reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however,
is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs.[citatio
.....
Your telling me this is wrong?

First, I'm betting that you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means.  But you keep doing it. 

Second, going back to the actual point, the lack of a planetary magnetosphere is not what caused Venus' atmosphere to go into runaway greenhouse mode.  End of story.  Your guesswork that it did, won't ever make it so. 

Again, your forgetting the fact that heated elements can cause that and CO2 and other molecules are effect by heat as well. CO2 is the results of the heated elements rising and expanding. The high levels co2 came about  because of the lack of protection Venus has. Point being Haestrom has alot of co2 on it as well as earth, and the fact the we are adding way more co2 in the atmosphere is causing the same effect of venus through global warming. We have a magnetosphere in place that stop the sun from global warming the planet. Venus does not. The result of that are element rising in the atmosphere and basic molecules produced in mass.

My point is the the high amount of co2 is just an effect of the lack of protection. Beside the cloud on the planet are made of sulfur dioxide and droplets of sulfuric acid any way. http://en.wikipedia....mosphere#Clouds

What the clouds are made of has nothing to do with what you're trying to make up here. 

You're just making up convoluted excuses to avoid the simplest answer to the observed phenomena and the codex entry for Haestrom.   The lack of a planetary magnetosphere didn't cause the CO2 buildup on Venus, and no amount of you trying to throw random references at the wall will change that.  Particle radiation wouldn't cause Haestrom to go into runaway greenhouse effect or directly superheat the atmosphere, either, and no amount of you trying to throw random references at the wall will change that.


Whatever, I'm done.  Anyone with a clue reading this exchange has long since figured out that you're just pulling things out of your arse based on half-understood wiki links. 

No, my point is co2 rise just like any molecule but it has a low heat capacity. The fact you think the cloud make up  are irreverent show you don't understand. The reason the cloud on venus is sulfur dioxide is because of co2 but Earth has  a high co2 rate as well  and could have the same type of atmosphere as venus if it hot enough, hence the worry of global warming. Element have a tendency of naturally combining due to heat. In a environment like venus, mean element and molecules will being in the atmosphere shifting and changing to new compounds. CO2 will rise and change with everything else, like it would if earth global warms itself. The super heated environment  would make  a system of constant creation of compound in it's atmosphere, like rain on our planet, or even acid rain on our planet. Say that Venus is like the way it is because of co2 is redundant because it's one of the most common compound on any planet, on this planet even. What I'm saying is, if we our planet had no magnetosphere, it would be like Venus as well because we also have alot of co2 on our planet as well. Our planet has protection from this stopping this from happening. The only reason we have life on this planet is because of the magnetosphere.
Look  at venus and Mars, they have have not magnetosphere and look at what happened to the planet. Mars is worse of because it barely has any organic element left.

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 septembre 2011 - 08:35 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

@dreman9999 and Killjoy Cutter...this is clearly a debate that can't be one by either side cause neither of you have shown any sense of agreement. And the things you are debating are so small and insignificant I'm astounded this has gone on so long...

Just a crazy thought.

If it weren't for the fact that he's just plain wrong about so much basic science, I'd have given up on refuting  his rambling, convoluted, confused nonsense long ago. 

It just bugs the hell out of me to see people so openly, blatantly, and confidently expounding incorrect nonsense on topics they clearly know nothing about. 

I'm sorry I am using basic sciene to prove my point. You not understanding the details of it. Your stating the only reason that Venus is like the way it it is because it has a lot of co2on the planer....Forget the fact that co2 is one of the most common compounds on this planet...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2
The only reason it not in our atmosphere the way it is on venus is because it's locked in to everything else...... Is the main reason we have greenhouse effects but instead of the sun produing the effect, we are doing it. We are to well protected to gave the sun do it on it's own. Venus does not have this protection.....so it happens on it own. Why it don't have this protection is because of cosmic rays.

[Someone With Mass]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

If you think this is bad, just wait until March rolls around!

Someone, somewhere will always find something wrong, no matter how trivial and nonsensical it might be.

[Arkitekt]

100k wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
Half-baked numbers over half baked numbers without any kind of logical rigorous analysis. I can do this kind of shenanigan too and perhaps I'll sway some people into believing I'm making serious maths, but I'd be merely fooling people.

So you're discrediting not only the person who wrote that, but mathematics as well?

Not sure if trolling.... etc.

Dude, it doesn't matter! Shepard. Fell. From. Orbit. Onto. A. Large. Planet.

It doesn't matter to the brainless. People have fell from 10km and survived the fall. Your ignorant ramblings only expose the little mind that produced them. Go educate yourself before telling me what is possible and what isn't. Arrogance is the worst when coupled with so vicious ignorance.

[Arkitekt]

100k wrote...

Exceedingly impressive, but...

(...)

But I guess it's possible.

Bah. <_<

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Yes it could have been wriotten far better.

Not with your wrioting skills however.

[100k]

Lol at your quotation fail. See what happens when you don't read the entire quote before you start countering it?

Green as grass, I tell ya.

[Arkitekt]

Those were different quotations, 100k. My opinion on your intelligence is falling faster than Shepard was there I gotta tell you.

[100k]

Arkitekt wrote...

Those were different quotations, 100k. My opinion on your intelligence is falling faster than Shepard was there I gotta tell you.

I could care less about your opinion of my intelligence. You've quoted me twice out of context in an attempt to continue a day old argument. You know what that tells me? It tells me that you don't "do your homework" in regards to this thread.

[Arkitekt]

Now you are effectively lying. So there goes any shred of decency from you. I'm just gonna skip your ulterior ramblings as trash trolling. Have a nice life.