Auspol June - Can't Afford the Education to Think of a Witty Thread Title

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol June - Can't Afford the Education to Think of a Witty Thread Title

«‹›83 »

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Chris Pynes Knob posted:

I had a dream last night that I was on holidays with Clive except up close his skin is an amazing bronze tanned, and he was hitting up girly bars and trying to get me to come with him

Is this a weird new avshalom gimmick?

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 21:38

Ragingsheep: Nov 7, 2009

Hypation posted:

BTW - Tim Flannery got his budget cut and then the community gave it back to him, now what's that say about government funding priorities and policy outcomes?

It says that the government has its priorities wrong when they can afford to spend $1m on ballerinas.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:26

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

Hypation posted:

They should have the right to collectively bargain which means the ability to choose whether to accept a default agreement/award/whatever for that position / industry, collectively bargain for a different deal with that one employer or individually negotiate a contract. The choice of the option should be up to the employee.

Except that making it the choice of the employee will make it the choice of the employer, so your answer is "yes." The fact that there are still people who think the US system works is just mind-boggling to me.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:26

plumpy hole lever: Aug 8, 2003; ♥ Anime is real ♥

Gough Suppressant posted:

Is this a weird new avshalom gimmick?

No this is actually true

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:28

Mr Chips: Jun 27, 2007; Whose arse do I have to blow smoke up to get rid of this baby?

Hypation posted:

I am not, nor have I ever been IWC. I never even claimed to be.

Only the true IWC denies their IWC-ness

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:37

hambeet: Sep 13, 2002

Hypation posted:

Have you not seen my posts on the Climate thread in D&D...

(a) Ripping into people for not understanding what science is - "where's the scientific proof" Umm, Dude, Proof exists in mathematics not science. "science is not consensus" - ah, well how are theories accepted then?

(b) Generally nuking arguments against anthropogenic climate change in favour of the scientific consensus;

(c) Suggesting climate policy and renewable energy (such as solar PV, Solar therm, distributed grids, generally not nuclear unless its Thorium MSR);

(d) Sometimes I can appear on the other side of the debate when someone raises a secondary effect argument that is not supported with a weight of evidence. Edit: These guys are more dangerous than the likes of Plimer because they take the focus off the main problem and give the 'do nothing' easy wins.

BTW - Tim Flannery got his budget cut and then the community gave it back to him, now what's that say about government funding priorities and policy outcomes?

But iwc wouldn't do it only in the climate thread.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:43

Hypation: Jul 11, 2013; The White Witch never knew what hit her.

Ragingsheep posted:

It says that the government has its priorities wrong when they can afford to spend $1m on ballerinas.

Ballerinas need fashionable dresses, hmmm it is all making sense now.

Those On My Beet posted:

But iwc wouldn't do it only in the climate thread.

Oh yes well OK, I think we should adopt a 10 to 20 year emissions target of zero carbon from standing energy generation. Frankly anthing that is not ZERO for standing energy generation is a waste of time. You've got solar, nuclear (yes I know you will get upset but zero emissions is zero emissions), wind, geotherm and other things that are not nuclear - for a start; No coal, CSG and other gas should be reserved for small scale emergency generation if that.

In addition aim for a 50% reduction in non-heavy automotive reductions via aggressive intervention to bring in electric cars; powered by zero emission standing energy.

And the targets need progressive milestones so no sitting on axxes while you run down the clock and then say 'can't possibly be done.' Then a carbon tariff on all imports that fail to meet our standards.

So that's me arguing climate policy.

Yes and if we can turn back the boats coming down from Indonesia then we can do the same with those coming from Japan. They should be turned back too.

Hypation fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jun 3, 2014

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:51

Bifauxnen: Aug 12, 2010; Curses! Foiled again!

Hypation posted:

You've got solar, nuclear (yes I know you will get upset but zero emissions is zero emissions), wind, geotherm and other things that are not nuclear - for a start; No coal, CSG and other gas should be reserved for small scale emergency generation if that.

I think you'll find that a fair percentage of us here are actually in favor of nuclear. We just don't bother bringing it up in the thread anymore since absolutely no one in Australia wants to do it, regardless of party. I try and plug thorium to my greenie friends at any opportunity, though.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 06:59

KennyTheFish: Jan 13, 2004

That is an aggressive climate policy.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:00

Ol Sweepy: Nov 28, 2005; Safety First

Let's make Hypation the largest word in the June cloud like Mills before him!

Saw this just before:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...x-1226941623583

quote:

Mr Nicholls said last night he was not surprised Queenslanders preferred taxing big companies and �sin� industries, like gambling.

However, he said these options risked damaging jobs and growth while the Government had to do what was in the best interests of the state.

�Ultimately, the Government will have to make its decision on the best economic advice and the impact of those decisions given we have already moved to increase gambling taxes and raise (mining) royalties,�� Mr Nicholls said.

The results come as the Government�s attempts to promote the positives of privatisation were dealt a blow yesterday when freight operator Aurizon announced up to 480 jobs would be slashed at its facilities in Townsville and Redbank, near Ipswich.

Premier Campbell Newman said the losses at Aurizon, formerly a part of Queensland Rail before it was sold by the Bligh government, were a symptom of privatisation.

�I think people know that these things happen with privatisation, it is very much part of the debate,�� he said.

�But I say to people that the thing we are doing as a government is ensuring that the economy grows.�

Raising gambling taxes, which would reap $2.7 billion according to the survey, was the most popular debt reduction option with more than 35,000 respondents indicating their support.

This was followed by raising mining and gas royalties (31,804) and increasing the impost on first-home buyers (26,166).

Newman Government spends $6 million to ask QLD how they want the budget balanced... Then disregards everything the people asked because "gently caress you, Sell assets, acquire money."
Because "Tax = Job loss" then cites an exact case where job losses are a result of privatization but it's okay because 'economy'

And LNP are still somehow ahead in the QLD polls :negative:

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:08

Jonah Galtberg: Feb 11, 2009

Bifauxnen posted:

I try and plug thorium to my greenie friends at any opportunity, though.

do you realise how many years and decades thorium is away from being a viable energy source on a commercial scale (by which time the world will be fukt if we haven't already made the switch to renewables)

do you realise that it suffers from the exact same issues as uranium including a finite supply and the terrible impact actually getting it out of the ground has on the environment

seriously, "I support Greens policy (except being anti nuclear energy)" is the new "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:11

Hypation: Jul 11, 2013; The White Witch never knew what hit her.

KennyTheFish posted:

That is an aggressive climate policy.

But it is doable. NBN is harder to do. It had a 10 year rollout. The basics of my plan require reconfiguration of existing plant - not distribution networks.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:12

webmeister: Jan 31, 2007; The answer is, mate, because I want to do you slowly. There has to be a bit of sport in this for all of us. In the psychological battle stakes, we are stripped down and ready to go. I want to see those ashen-faced performances; I want more of them. I want to be encouraged. I want to see you squirm.

Ragingsheep posted:

It says that the government has its priorities wrong when they can afford to spend $1m on ballerinas.

There's a Murdoch on the board of the Australian Ballet, sounds like the perfect priority to me :smuggo:

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:19

Jonah Galtberg: Feb 11, 2009

Are we now acting like spending on the arts is a bad thing?

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:22

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

We should be grateful that even this breadstick was available.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:23

Bifauxnen: Aug 12, 2010; Curses! Foiled again!

Jonah Galtberg posted:

do you realise how many years and decades thorium is away from being a viable energy source on a commercial scale (by which time the world will be fukt if we haven't already made the switch to renewables)

do you realise that it suffers from the exact same issues as uranium including a finite supply and the terrible impact actually getting it out of the ground has on the environment

seriously, "I support Greens policy (except being anti nuclear energy)" is the new "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"

I'm pretty sure anyone who bothers to listen to me mentioning thorium and actually remember any of it is not going to be any less interested in renewables from hearing it exists, though.

As for the impact, I was under the impression that thorium was vastly more plentiful than uranium, and already being currently wasted when it's dug up as a result of mining other things, then just put back in the ground. But I could easily be wrong about that.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:24

Execute: Apr 25, 2014; *Insert Electric Noise Here*

Hey, Im fairly new to SA, just wanted to introduce myself to fellow Aussies.

That said have any of you seen this fine video of a glorious overlord?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3IaKVmkXuk

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:28

Ol Sweepy: Nov 28, 2005; Safety First

Jonah Galtberg posted:

Are we now acting like spending on the arts is a bad thing?

Spending on the arts is great, when the only reason is because a Murdoch is on the board it's a little less noble.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:30

CROWS EVERYWHERE: Dec 17, 2012; CAW CAW CAW; Dinosaur Gum

Jonah Galtberg posted:

Are we now acting like spending on the arts is a bad thing?

I think it's more the cutting arts in every other area except - coincidentally! - when one of Tony's BFFs is on the board, in which case it gets more funding. Because he's a very cultured man and patron of the arts, you see. No ulterior motives whatsoever.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:31

Vladimir Poutine: Aug 13, 2012

Execute posted:

Hey, Im fairly new to SA, just wanted to introduce myself to fellow Aussies.

That said have any of you seen this fine video of a glorious overlord?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3IaKVmkXuk

Yes, but it deserves a repost.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:32

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Jonah Galtberg posted:

do you realise how many years and decades thorium is away from being a viable energy source on a commercial scale (by which time the world will be fukt if we haven't already made the switch to renewables)

do you realise that it suffers from the exact same issues as uranium including a finite supply and the terrible impact actually getting it out of the ground has on the environment
New reply

Uhh, you do realise solar and wind have similar problems to nuclear with regards to getting poo poo out of the ground? In fact some of the metals are produced alongside uranium :ssh:

All that steel, concrete, heavy and rare-earth metal isn't exactly carbon free.

There are pro's and con's to all technology. Hell even Concentrated solar isn't commercial off the shelf technology. Its still got a few years worth of engineering to toil over. Yes, thorium isn't short term, but that alone isn't a good reason to rubbish further development. Renewable's are full of nascent technologies, it doesn't mean we need to stop development and mass deploy polysilicon cells.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:39

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

Execute posted:

Hey, Im fairly new to SA, just wanted to introduce myself to fellow Aussies.

That said have any of you seen this fine video of a glorious overlord?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3IaKVmkXuk

Execute you are self :confused:

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:41

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Bifauxnen posted:

I'm pretty sure anyone who bothers to listen to me mentioning thorium and actually remember any of it is not going to be any less interested in renewables from hearing it exists, though.

As for the impact, I was under the impression that thorium was vastly more plentiful than uranium, and already being currently wasted when it's dug up as a result of mining other things, then just put back in the ground. But I could easily be wrong about that.

You're half right. Thorium's abundance isn't really known because nobody has really wanted it. With an atomic number of 90 and an enormously long half life it is fair to guess there's lots of it out there. In theory it is being discarded as a result of the extraction of rare earths but to refine it requires a reasonably specific process that uses hydrochloric acid. Even the most optimistic proponents put the commercial implementation out to at least 2020. Much of the ultimate implementation is still considered an open question.

But most tellingly there is no party with a hope in hell of implementing any nuclear energy plan in Australia as of 2014. So there is no point in discussing it in AusPol.

Cartoon fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Jun 3, 2014

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:41

BogDew: Jun 14, 2006; E:\FILES>quickfli clown.fli

ehehe, the essential poll has Pyne down at -1% for best leader for the libs. Turnbull ranks at 31%. Abbott at 18%

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:42

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Execute posted:

Hey, Im fairly new to SA, just wanted to introduce myself to fellow Aussies.

I'm sorry for your loss.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:44

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Execute posted:

Hey, Im fairly new to SA, just wanted to introduce myself to fellow Aussies.

That said have any of you seen this fine video of a glorious overlord?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3IaKVmkXuk

Condolences for being trapped in South Australia.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:48

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

WebDog posted:

ehehe, the essential poll has Pyne down at -1% for best leader for the libs. Turnbull ranks at 31%. Abbott at 18%

Scott Morrison:
Vote ALP - 2%
Vote LNP - <1%

So ~2% of Labor are Klan Members?

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:50

evilbastard: Mar 6, 2003; Hair Elf

Someone needs to take the checkbook off him, now.

quote:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's order to examine turning the navy's amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers for jump jets will require a major rethink by Defence, top military brass have indicated.

Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister.

Under questioning by Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy, defence chiefs confirmed for the first time that Mr Abbott had asked them to look at the merit of buying the F-35B jump jets under the forthcoming Defence White Paper and accompanying Force Structure Review.

Under the proposal, they would be flown from the navy's two Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ships, which are due to come into service over the next 12 to 18 months.

Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the force had not asked for the F-35B but added the idea should be examined along with all other credible options.

"Like all things when you have a new White Paper, you should always examine all sorts of options ... It wasn't something the air force has particularly pushed," he said.

He said significant changes would be needed for the LHD ships to accommodate up to 12 of the fighters.

"One of the big issues with having fixed-wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you've actually got to get them back in poor weather, so there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems, so there'd be some extensive modifications around that."

Chief of Navy, Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, said further modifications to the ship would include making the deck heat resistant, and changes to fuel storage and fuel lines, weapons magazines and classified compartments for storage.

"This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship."

Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, said it was too early even to say how the F-35B would fit into the Australian Defence Force.

Much work was needed to decide even how useful they would be, how much they would cost and what sacrifices would be needed to buy them.

"I think we're in a situation where a new government has come in, there's a White Paper been evolving for a while ... The Prime Minister has ... a view about a capability he ... thinks might be relevant to the ADF. He's asked us to look at that.

"We have a process in place at the moment that will allow us to have a look at that and depending on where we come out on that process, we would then go into all those technical decisions about nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF."

The F-35 is a dog, because the standard plane is supposed to have a substantial inter-changability with the F-35B. The F-35B was to replace the 35-year old A-10 Thunderbolt, only to have testing reveal the A-10 had a higher sorte rate, could carry more ammunition, had a longer loiter time and was much cheaper to operate.

But the real killer for this is that the F-35B's engine exhaust is downward-pointing and 1000 degrees celsius. It literally will crack concrete, and requires special airfields to be built if it wants to do a vertical take off or landing. We would need to refurbish our brand new carriers to include special platforms made of Thermion - bonded ceramic and aluminum so the planes don't set fire to the carrier as they land. And before landing on a normal airfield, you need to send a force in to build an aluminium runway matting to prevent damage to the airfield and the plane.

Why Can�t America�s Newest Stealth Jet Land Like It�s Supposed To?

quote:

The F-35B�the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that the Marines and the British are buying�is designed to take off in a few hundred feet and land vertically, like a helicopter. Its advocates say that will allow the Marines to use short runways worldwide as improvised fighter bases, providing air cover for expeditionary forces. But to do VL, the engine thrust must be pointed straight downward, and the jet is twice the size of a Harrier. Result: a supersonic, pulsating jackhammer of 1,700-degree F exhaust gas.

In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. (�Spalling� occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.)

...

Navfac ignored Lockheed Martin and commissioned high-temperature-concrete VL pads at four sites. At the Navy�s Patuxent River flight test center, F-35Bs perform VLs on a pad of AM-2 aluminum matting, protecting the concrete from heat and blast. Why didn�t the January 2010 tests result in a change to the specifications? How were those tests performed? The Navy has referred those questions to Lockheed Martin, which has repeatedly failed to answer them.

...

And what Navfac calls �standard airfield concrete� is military-grade, made with aggregate and Portland cement. Many runways are asphaltic concrete�aggregate in a bitumen binder�which softens and melts under heat.

The Marines could use AM-2 landing pads. But AM-2 is not a friend to the agility that justifies the F-35B over other forms of expeditionary airpower. An Air Force study calls it �slow to install, difficult to repair, (with) very poor air-transportability characteristics.� A single 100- by 100-foot VL pad weighs around 30 tons and comprises 400 pieces, each individually installed by two people.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:50

Ragingsheep: Nov 7, 2009

WebDog posted:

ehehe, the essential poll has Pyne down at -1% for best leader for the libs. Turnbull ranks at 31%. Abbott at 18%

Less than 1%, not negative 1% as funny as that would've been.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:51

Hypation: Jul 11, 2013; The White Witch never knew what hit her.

WebDog posted:

ehehe, the essential poll has Pyne down at -1% for best leader for the libs. Turnbull ranks at 31%. Abbott at 18%

Pyne is at 'greater than 1%' not negative 1%. (but they used the wrong sign or have him at the wrong spot in the table more likely used the wrong sign).

Also when looking at these kinds of stats you should be comparing the decided results only. ie 21% undecided means Turnbull is 39% and Abbott is 23%.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:53

Jonah Galtberg: Feb 11, 2009

Tokamak posted:

Uhh, you do realise solar and wind have similar problems to nuclear with regards to getting poo poo out of the ground? In fact some of the metals are produced alongside uranium All that steel, concrete, heavy and rare-earth metal isn't exactly carbon free.

Whoa thanks I had no idea of these things, thanks for the headsup guy with a fusion-related username. I'll be sure to keep them in mind for future debates.

Tokamak posted:

Hell even Concentrated solar isn't commercial off the shelf technology. Its still got a few years worth of engineering to toil over. Yes, thorium isn't short term, but that alone isn't a good reason to rubbish further development.

Firstly, it's really dishonest to try and make out like these renewable technologies are even remotely as far off as commercial thorium energy.

Secondly, yes it is a good reason to rubbish further development. By the time thorium is viable we'll either be completely and irreversibly hosed or we'll have already switched to a combination of renewables alongside a reduced and sustainable consumption of energy.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:53

Jonah Galtberg: Feb 11, 2009

CROWS EVERYWHERE posted:

I think it's more the cutting arts in every other area except - coincidentally! - when one of Tony's BFFs is on the board, in which case it gets more funding. Because he's a very cultured man and patron of the arts, you see. No ulterior motives whatsoever.

I agree with this but that's not the implication in Ragingsheep's post.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:54

Ragingsheep: Nov 7, 2009

Jonah Galtberg posted:

I agree with this but that's not the implication in Ragingsheep's post.

My implication was that they're willing to throw $1m at a mate's hobby but aren't willing to fund other more important things.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:58

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

WebDog posted:

ehehe, the essential poll has Pyne down at -1% for best leader for the libs. Turnbull ranks at 31%. Abbott at 18%

Confirmed: Malcolm Turnbull more popular with Labor than his own party.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:58

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Hypation posted:

Also when looking at these kinds of stats you should be comparing the decided results only. ie 21% undecided means Turnbull is 39% and Abbott is 23%.

Why?

# ? Jun 3, 2014 07:58

Contra Duck: Nov 4, 2004; #1 DAD

Ragingsheep posted:

Less than 1%, not negative 1% as funny as that would've been.

But the margin of error is ~3% so he could be as low as -2%!

# ? Jun 3, 2014 08:00

webmeister: Jan 31, 2007; The answer is, mate, because I want to do you slowly. There has to be a bit of sport in this for all of us. In the psychological battle stakes, we are stripped down and ready to go. I want to see those ashen-faced performances; I want more of them. I want to be encouraged. I want to see you squirm.

Jonah Galtberg posted:

Are we now acting like spending on the arts is a bad thing?

That's not at all what I was suggesting. But given a choice between "money to the arts" and "not cutting welfare", I know which one I'd prefer.

Did they manage to find money as well to help redevelop Brookvale Oval (home of the NRL team in Abbott's electorate)?

# ? Jun 3, 2014 08:00

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

evilbastard posted:

Someone needs to take the checkbook off him, now.

Oh, god, I hadn't realised we were getting the B version.

A is for the Air Force, so probably is the 'best' one as an actual plane.

B is for the Marines to operate off short amphibious assault ships (Baby carrier) but is basically a failure in every way possible.

C is for the Navy to operate off their regular Carriers, and it looks like the airframe isn't actually up to the stresses of the catapult takeoffs and arrestor landings.

And we're getting the bizarro incompetent version that ruined the program, designed for the Navy's Army's Airforce which Australia doesn't have the capabilities or reason to use :psyboom:

# ? Jun 3, 2014 08:04

Hypation: Jul 11, 2013; The White Witch never knew what hit her.

Tokamak posted:

Uhh, you do realise solar and wind have similar problems to nuclear with regards to getting poo poo out of the ground? In fact some of the metals are produced alongside uranium All that steel, concrete, heavy and rare-earth metal isn't exactly carbon free.

Can be dangerous as it invites consideration of the mining / recycling costs of eg copper required for Solar PV.

Tokamak posted:

There are pro's and con's to all technology. Hell even Concentrated solar isn't commercial off the shelf technology. Its still got a few years worth of engineering to toil over. Yes, thorium isn't short term, but that alone isn't a good reason to rubbish further development. Renewable's are full of nascent technologies, it doesn't mean we need to stop development and mass deploy polysilicon cells.

Thorium is a long way from grid parity, but arguably solar PV is not - some say it reaches grid parity within 2 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Why?

Because you cannot make a conclusion as to their preference one way or another. They may have a preference but also simply refused to comment. For whatever reason it is like they were never polled.

Also if you exclude undecideds from the outset then over time as they decide their votes you can build them into the tally without discontinuities. Otherwise your analysis would indicate increased popularity when that is not what is going on.

In presenting this you'd notate the number of undecideds and then you'd asterisk your calculation to show how you got it.

# ? Jun 3, 2014 08:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 21:38

webmeister: Jan 31, 2007; The answer is, mate, because I want to do you slowly. There has to be a bit of sport in this for all of us. In the psychological battle stakes, we are stripped down and ready to go. I want to see those ashen-faced performances; I want more of them. I want to be encouraged. I want to see you squirm.

Please nobody tell Cartoon about grid parity

# ? Jun 3, 2014 08:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol June - Can't Afford the Education to Think of a Witty Thread Title

«‹›83 »