Krazikarl

Nope. I had a streak of bad teams. I completely and totally was dominating in general from jungle (well, when my adc doesn't steal my blue when I'm playing jungle Udyr...). But Riot was putting me on teams tonight that were simply inferior to the other teams. This meant that I lost 5 in a row. Its just stupid. It game after game my team is simply incapable of getting a kill without me - I'm having 90%+ kill participation rates in pretty much

Hey, I actually managed to win a game where every one of my lanes were worse than theirs. At one point we were down 9-24 where I had 8 of the 9 kills for my team. Luckily we had 2 dragons, where both of them I solo'd with 0 help from my team. Luckily their team went for a really bad dive, which kind of let us back in the game. Then their Teemo got caught, so we went for a baron and I am a better smiter than their jungler. Then their Teemo threw again.

And again, I get my team way ahead, we lost because every lane they have is better than mine. I get 3 of the first 4 ganks, which leads to the first 2 towers plus a free early drag. Doesn't matter. Their lanes are better. I'm not playing a carry. Free loss.

Welp, looks like Riot has decided I will not be making Plat this season. They are pairing me with openly incompetent teams every game. I win my position by a lot every game, but its not enough to win. One game I dominate as Rammus. Our team starts 20-4, up 2 Dragons, with a Baron buff on us, and their mid inhib is exposed. We lose. Pretty badly. We just refused to group as a team. One game I start 8-2-7 as WW, but our top super feeds their A

The best part of the Hunny video was that they didn't even get the tower due to the chase (that we sacrificed two bot towers for). Then he got upset because I wasn't listening to his calls enough. Oh well, I don't think we will be duo queuing much, lol.

Hmm, I'd probably do some in house games tonight since I could use a break from getting trolled in ranked. I'll be on right about 8pm tonight.

Right now there is A LOT of trolling right around the promo level. Some people have hit their season goal and just don't care. They aren't going to get to Diamond, so whatever. They do things like Jinx support or just outright troll. You also have people who paid somebody to ELO boost them to Plat but still want to play ranked. They usually volunteer to play support on the theory that they think they can still support at plat even though they are really a

I really enjoy getting trolled in promo games. The classic Jinx/Draven bot lane combo (it went as well as you would think). Then the next game where the support started with 1 ward...the free one you get from masteries (gotta get that crystal flask as support). And that doesn't even count the game where one guy actually announced he was trolling in champ select and then proceeded to do so (he had hit just hit plat V, so he didn't care any more about losing).

Its entirely possible - sarcasm is tough on the internet. I'd like to think that people who take Anthony Watts seriously are being trolls/sarcastic, but I know a lot of them aren't...

A number of different parties have carefully modeled the atmosphere of Venus. It turns out that if you dump a bunch of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, you get increases in temperature. Random bloggers on the internet might disagree, but this little bit of physics is so set in stone that I'm not even going to get into it. Disagreeing with basic physics is just stupid - Anthony Watt should have really just taken an intro physics class at some point when he briefly a

OK, I used to do this stuff for a living, so I'm going to correct some of the physics that is a bit off. psychoak is so far off that I'm not even going to bother, but a few people were 99% right but just a bit mistaken on a few things: [quote who="GeomanNL" reply="911" id="3408633"]I've never tried that, but you'll probably burn your skin as well as your eyes, for the same reason that a bright laser beam will burn you. Your eyes are more sensitive to light b

I'm pretty sure that Bloodrazer will only work on monsters (meaning neutral jungle things) and not creeps in general. At least thats what I picked up last night reading the forums.

Switching over to FotM champs is probably a bad idea. IMO you just need to play A LOT fewer champs. There is no doubt that somebody like Fizz is a bit better than Brand. But the difference really isn't that great. It will matter to a pro who practices a lot, but a guy who has 100 games played as Brand will generally beat a guy who had 10 games played as Fizz (all other things being even). So, unless you plan on practicing FotM champs quite a bit in normal

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="145" id="3406986"]Eventually, people just start to tune out their posts (which I am most certainly guilty of doing, eventually I just stop reading when I see that person's name).[/quote] It's fine if you tune out my posts. I tune out other people's posts too. Its the internet and thats your right. But don't directly ask a question and then intentionally tune out my response after I take the time to respond. Then acc

[quote who="Kantok" reply="142" id="3406940"]No offense, but your definition of extreme sucks. It essentially says there is only one non-extreme position on any issue and that position is that of the sitting government. [/quote] In a democracy, or at least a representative system like a republic, the current sitting government represents the people in some sense. Therefore, if your views strongly contradict those of the vast majority of the entire government over a long pe

[quote who="Kantok" reply="140" id="3406884"]They are not, however, the ultimate arbiter on right and wrong. Unless of course you think Dredd Scott deserved to be a slave? [/quote] Correct. However, they ARE the ultimate arbitrator on what is Constitutional and what is not Constitutional. This is an argument about what is and is not Constitutional, not what is right and wrong. There may very well be a huge range of valid opinions on what is right and wron

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="136" id="3406866"]That is a very interesting way of looking at it. Essentially, France was selling land and the US signed a treaty to obtain it in exchange for X. As long as the treaty was confirmed by the senate that would be fine. So the question is, is that how the Louisiana Purchase was done?[/quote] W...T...F I already said that the Lousisiana Purchase was done by Treaty negotiated by the president and ratified by th

[quote who="Kantok" reply="134" id="3406838"]The fact remains that constitutional interpretation is a discipline founded and based upon ideology and opinion. It's not science. It never will be, despite how much "experts" like to try to construe it otherwise. [/quote] Yep, I agree. Brad is the one who has tried to present it in terms of absolutes. He listed the absolutes in his OP that could not be violated and tried to list the things that abs

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="131" id="3406813"]People can and will have debates in such things. I don't, however, like it when somorone tries to marginalize or trivialize so some else's interpretation with ad hominems (bizarre, extreme, weird, strange, etching.). That has no place here[/quote] You have to differentiate between somebody criticizing your views and personal criticism. Also, you have to realize that I first showed that the vast majority of

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="129" id="3406788"]I'm sorry you think thst linking to a single example somehow demonstrates a very broad assertion. I don't think, at this point anyone is going to be able to help you. [/quote] You don't just get to waive away facts that are inconvenient to your arguments. That is everything that is wrong with the world today - people are so partisan and biased because they stubbornly refuse to see anything that doesn't fit their

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="127" id="3406717"]Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory. [/quote] I've already done this. We've encountered this problem with you in the other thread. When you don't want to see something, you simply refuse to read/comprehend it. In the case of the Global Warming thread, you literally rep

[quote who="Kantok" reply="119" id="3406541"] Quoting Krazikarl, reply 118 extreme I don't think that word means what you think it means. Please, point out the extreme statements in his OP list. [/quote] Why must we arbitrarily constrain it to the OP? For example, maintaining that the Louisiana Purchase was illegal is a fairly extreme position. I've put my reasoning and support for that statement above.

[quote who="Kantok" reply="113" id="3406482"]Brad disagrees with the vast majority of scholars on what, exactly? The Louisiana Purchase specifically? Or his original post? [/quote] I was referring to the Louisiana Purchase specifically here. With that being said, a lot of his positions are fairly extreme even by the standards of strict constitutionalists. Yes, I'm aware of Scalia and the like. But the simple fact is that the history of Supreme

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="103" id="3406060"]My bizarre view on the constitution came from Jefferson himself. Having an interest in this period of history I've read a number of biographies including ones on Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton not to mention founding brothers. It was pretty clear that the consensus was that the Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional. But our interests in getting it so strong that we looked the other way. Would you knock off the qu

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="84" id="3405001"]It is true that history is replete with examples of the government defying the constitution and getting away with it. That doesn't mean that those exceptions were the rule. The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. The Central Bank is probably unconstitutional (the federal reserve almost certainly is).[/quote] You have a really bizarre view of the Constitution. I'll just take the Louisiana Purchase. From wikip