Made my day, Luna, you made my day. Admittedly it's 8 in the morning, so my day just began.
Advertisement
by Lenyo » Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:22 pm
by Agadin » Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:38 am
by Lamebrainia » Sat Mar 12, 2016 12:01 am
You don't just get protein or iron in red meat and if we could make this clearer to everyone with a nationwide 'Getting to Terms with Vegetarianism' programme so the populace learns how to eat healthily we would see a difference.
by Enfaru » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:37 am
by Aibohphobia » Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:20 pm
by Sanctaria » Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:25 pm
Aibohphobia wrote:Option 2 creates no outcome at all.
The "talking point" is present, so are newspaper headlines, but nothing gets changed in the process.
Was it meant to be this way?
by Fin Dovah Junaar » Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:24 pm
by Mahdistan » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:11 pm
by Luna Amore » Sat Mar 12, 2016 10:27 pm
Mahdistan wrote:In issue 493, option three:
"I don't really understand what issue is," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a burly Smalltopian diplomat, from a couch in the executive lounge. "I watch sports to see best compete against best. Who cares if they take drug or drinking chemical to be stronger and faster? Give all athlete drug!" As he speaks, he is rapidly switching between three different sporting events on TV. "Stronger, faster, BETTER, if you ask me!"
Typo
by Mahdistan » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:05 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Mahdistan wrote:In issue 493, option three:
"I don't really understand what issue is," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a burly Smalltopian diplomat, from a couch in the executive lounge. "I watch sports to see best compete against best. Who cares if they take drug or drinking chemical to be stronger and faster? Give all athlete drug!" As he speaks, he is rapidly switching between three different sporting events on TV. "Stronger, faster, BETTER, if you ask me!"
Typo
It's intentional.
by Eluvatar » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:24 pm
Enfaru wrote:Issue 244 appears to come up if you "abolish" the military, but Enfaru hasn't abolished it's military, it just forced it to go after its own funding. Abolishing state funding of the military and actually getting rid of it altogether are two different things. Yet it appears that for the government to "own" something it must "fund" it and that's really a bad way to do things. For example something can be government controlled, yet paid for by the private sector quite easily.
I suspect a change may need to be made. (Albeit I am thankful the issue came up as to be fair, I hadn't wanted to completely wipe out the military funding in the first place...)
by Lenyo » Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:54 pm
Enfaru wrote:Issue 244 appears to come up if you "abolish" the military, but Enfaru hasn't abolished it's military, it just forced it to go after its own funding. Abolishing state funding of the military and actually getting rid of it altogether are two different things. Yet it appears that for the government to "own" something it must "fund" it and that's really a bad way to do things. For example something can be government controlled, yet paid for by the private sector quite easily.
I suspect a change may need to be made. (Albeit I am thankful the issue came up as to be fair, I hadn't wanted to completely wipe out the military funding in the first place...)
by New Glubbdubdrib » Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:40 am
by Bears Armed » Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:52 am
New Glubbdubdrib wrote:In short, it needs an option that doesn't raise Pubic Healthcare and Compassion. Either that, or make it unavailable for nations with non-existent healthcare.
by Trotterdam » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:39 am
"Shalt" is correctly used in the second-person singular ("thou shalt"). These instances should, boringly, be "shall"."If we don't rectify this problem immediately the ground shalt quake, the sky shalt turn blood-red, and the fields shalt turn to offal."
I would think option 2 is the "we don't care about you" option, since it's passing the buck to private industry. Unless you hate veterans so much that you don't want them to get medical help even if they can afford it with money they raised on their own.New Glubbdubdrib wrote:Maybe this isn't what the thread is for, but I have a complaint about the issue 422 (Wounded Veterans Demand A Helping Hand).
There's three options, but very little variation: all options conclude that the nation should be helping the veterans. Which makes no sense for several of my puppets. This one, for instance: it opposes public healthcare and consider soldiers to be renewable resources that can be used and simply thrown away.
Feels like that issue is dictating the policy for me ('you'll have to take care of the veterans'), instead of the player deciding what's the best for the nation.
In short, it needs an option that doesn't raise Pubic Healthcare and Compassion. Either that, or make it unavailable for nations with non-existent healthcare.
by Lamebrainia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:01 am
cries supercentenarian Party member @@NAME@@, who at one hundred and ten years old
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:21 am
Lamebrainia wrote:cries supercentenarian Party member @@NAME@@, who at one hundred and ten years old
Isn't this statement tautological?
by Trotterdam » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:28 pm
by Lamebrainia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:19 pm
Trotterdam wrote:It's a clarification. First you say "wow, he's old!", then you follow with "to be exact, this old".
by Lamebrainia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:22 pm
Option 2 wrote:cos if we don't it'll just come around again
Option 3 wrote:into tests that most likely won't work don't you think?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:28 pm
Lamebrainia wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Tautological would be something like "centadecarian" or "centadecanarian." "Supercentenarian" just means "over 100."
"Supercentenarian" means over 110 years old. And if the age is clarified in the next substatement, then having used the adjective was pointless.
Compare: "The greater-than-ten number is equal to thirteen". Why would anyone put a phrase this way?
Also, it is tautological, because the same bit of information is repeated two times with different levels of clarity. Dictionary entry.
by Lamebrainia » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:29 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I know what a tautology is, thanks. Clearly the only thing I didn't know was "supercentenarian," so thanks (sincere this time) for defining that. In this context, the repetition may be intended to emphasize just how spectacularly elderly the guy is; though if they changed it in the way you suggest I wouldn't mourn heavily, for the exact reasons you've given.
by Lamebrainia » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:31 am
Option 1 wrote:evidence based CBT
by Tecton » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:41 pm
by Phydios » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:45 pm
Tecton wrote:For issue 478, option two has Handel where I suppose handle is supposed to be.
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Famazabalmocraa
Advertisement