If I'm remembering right it was:
PILOT: Headset volume is unbelievably loud.
MECHANIC: Headset volume has been set to a more believable level.
A few more I remember from way back when:
PILOT: Mouse found in cockpit.
MECHANIC: Cat installed.
PILOT: Something loose in cockpit
Mechanic: Something tightened in cockpit
PILOT: Friction locks cause throttle to stick.
MECHANIC: Good, they're supposed to.
(How did you get a new line without a blank line between them??? Formatting shouldn't be this hard.)
My apologies, my initial comment was heavy-handed because I was writing with the apparent "lacks reading comprehension" demographic in mind, and I wanted to be sure they'd understand my scorn.
Now onto the "please just stop" portion of this: I think you're lacking some critical background here. VOA, though obviously incredibly biased from charter to name to office carpet, has a great deal of journalistic integrity. You can be a propaganda outlet and have a commitment to truthful reporting. If you want an example of that look to NPR, another openly biased news outlet, albeit one with a liberal-leaning bias towards the internal American issues it reports on most of the time. Both are propaganda, both do very good work reporting on US news and interests. That you don't know enough about VOA to be aware of this speaks to the notion that maybe your understanding of the subject is not nearly as comprehensive as you seem to think.
I imagine that, if you sat down and asked people "Is voice of america propaganda" you would get a whole bunch of people saying "is it? I didn't realize!". People are dumb about applying specific definitions, and propaganda is largely viewed as the stuff that comes out of leaflet bombs, or that gets played on loudspeakers in dingy german factories that Captain America is about to blow up. But, if you asked "Is VOA Biased" 97% of people will say "well yeah, duh, its called 'Voice of America'".
I truly do not believe your premise that there's huge swathes of people unaware that "Voice of America" is biased towards American interests. People are dumb, but they aren't so dumb as to be unable to read the damn name.
Wow you sure saw through our clever deception. What tipped you off, was it when we slipped up and called it "Voice Of America"? I knew people were gonna catch that...
(Jack Kimball isn't a real person. But the answer is still "very")
I will bet you one shiny silver nickle it's not.
It's nice that praise kinks are starting to get accepted (because man, they sure werent taken seriously for a long damn time), but to characterize this as "a lot" of the bdsm community is just comically wrong. It'd be like saying "a lot" of the community is into heavy rubber or petplay or ABDL - all very popular, but still minute fractions of the broad community.
Uh... No. No this is just wrong. I'm glad they've found enough outlets for their praise kink that they think the whole subculture is this, but man. No. Not even close.
This is either completly sincere or next-level trolling, but regardless of which one it is it's absolutely magnificent.
Well yeah its blocked off, thats where you park the tanks! Jeeze, it's like you've never heard of AFV flight deck deployments before.
If you watch olympic sprinters, they're bent over to the same extent. I'm pretty drunk so this explanation might suck, but the front-heavy weight distribution that comes with it means its much easier to propell yourself forwards while sprinting.
Of course, you can't hold your arms like that, it was just for ease of animation. But it's not 100% totally and all-consumingly bullshit. Just like. Mostly bullshit.
That... this doesn't change anything, because he vetoed it, so it's not a requirement for anyone?
I've been told this was done mainly to steer the boat away from the side of the tunnels while the people in the rear used a pole to actually propel it. I'd love to know if this is true or not, there's precious few resources about the subject.
Yep that's all true, but they'll pump it into the ground anyways because "venting nuclear fusion byproducts into the atmosphere" is going to go down really poorly with the "I hate and fear the things I don't understand" "anti-nuclear" crowd.
The amount of helium produced is truly miniscule, in the order of a few cubic centimeters. They'll just pump it into the ground somewhere, assuming we ever get fusion working
"I̡̖̝͔̯͌̄̈́ ̧̙̮̈̈́H̥̫̭͈̖̐̆̒̂̓̾A̼͚̘̦̼͂͌̇͒̏̌͝Ṽ̡̡͙͙͌́̽Ȩ̮̝̪̞͖̍͆̋͋̄̒͝ͅ ̳̙͝R̥͕̱̠̱̈̈́͜I͎͒͌̋͗̈̑͜͝S̨͙̻͍̺̟̾Ẹ̳̖̖̼̥̊̓̆Ǹ̡̳͍̏͒͛̉̃̀,̳̅̋͑ ̡̡̠̗͈́͑̌A̡̧̛̦͛̅̎̄͒͂Ṅ̨͕͈͍͎͆̑̕D̻̑̾̔̊̉͊̚ͅ ̧̳̙̳͗̈́͊͊̓͝Ḭ̻̗̻̥̙͉̀̒̂͛̈́ ̢̡̯͖̩̻͍͛D̰͔͇͉̪̆E̛̝̻͇͚̼̤͗̊̑̀͋͜M͕̯̠͎̳͌͛͐͒̋͑Ä̹̺̥̤́̓̾̕N̝͎̓̓̆͋͐D͇̺̮̠̏͊̌͐̍̚͠.͓̼̰̈́͛̈̈͊.̺͎͖̰͔̻̇̂̉̈́̌.̢̮̣͖̳͖̜́͌ ̫̰̗͋P͔͗̑͆O̳͛͌̂̎̀Ṅ̦̣͖̭Ḭ̱̖̊̂Ė̛̠̺̭̓̉Ś̞͔͍̠̟͓̦̿̈́̆"
But for a child that is ready, who wants to know, what I mean to find out is why you would reject them.
Ah, I see. While I think you've got a really rose tinted view of childhood that very much is at odds with what I understand childhood development to look like, that's probably just because I'm a very jaded bitch. But that said, I've been under the impression you think it should be the job of panelists or strangers to educate children. If we're talking about a child I know, that I could reasonably judge would be able to understand the concepts and not be freaked out by them, then sure that would be fine.
But there is no way for me to judge that about somebody else's kid - and it's ridiculous that someone would think other people should be comfortable being forced into that situation (ie, the people bringing their children to these kinds of panels). I'm sure glad their parents might think they're ready to face concepts from Paw Patrol After Dark, but so many parents are just neglectful bastards, or assume that their kids are ready for mature topics when they are clearly not. Hazbin isn't exactly 'toybox killer tapes' levels of fucked up, but it's certainly got some content that could really mess up a kid's perspective of the world if they weren't careful, and those topics are absolutely discussed at panels like this, hence why the panelists in question are uncomfortable having children in the audience.
I guess my point here is that while I do broadly agree with your point, and that I am (and even have been in the past) perfectly comfortable talking to kids about my scars (most of them now just emotional, yay), I'm not comfortable talking to every/any kid about that, and that's been what I've understood you to be arguing in favor of. Sorry for that!
(Imo, the role of a parent should be to regulate when self-directed discovery should be and is encouraged, and when it should be curtailed until the child in question is ready to experience a given topic. A difficult line to walk, yes, but a pretty important one. Children are notoriously bad judges of what they are actually ready for, and you can't build up an immunity to emotional trauma Dread Pirate Roberts style....)