Eedo Baba

Stoneflesh and similar spells basically ramp up your armor value for 30-60 seconds. Those are very useful in combat.

Loch-n-load is good against actual enemies in more open combat. It's much less effective against sentries and in tight maps. The +25% self damage is brutal some days. It's most effective against sentries really. If you can get 2 quick shots on a sentry, you can take it out easily. Only a level 3 requires more damage than that, and that's what sticky bombs are for.

I generally go with Loch n Load, Sticky launcher, and a nessie's nine iron. Loch n Load is a very underrated solution for crowd control.

ztVMib1T4T4

I agree somewhat. Once you get to level 40~ perk points become extremely rare, because you're leveling up so infrequently. It reaches the point where you simply can't expect to fill perk trees any more, because leveling takes too long.

Actually the shortstops scatter is much less than the other ones, which is why I've taken 60-70 damage shots from ranges that would other wise do about 20-40 from the regular scattergun I think you're mistaken. For one thing, the Shortstop does 20% less base damage than the Scattergun, and only maxes out at 70 damage at absolute point blank range. If you think that you got hit by a non critical shot at medium range, and took 60-70 damage, you're probably mistaken due to lag. Here are the damage ratings on the TF2 wiki for the Shortstop. For comparison, here's the Scattergun.

Seems like a reasonable, sane, educated man. That's probably why he'll never be elected.

You realize the most the shortstop can do at long range is 6-15 damage?

I partially agree. I just think the nerf should be tied to the set so it's not a blatant upgrade. Also, I don't really see what's wrong with the Backburner. I never use it, but I'd still like to know. Well, the set bonus I think is fair. I think the downside to any set bonus is forcing you to use items you might not want. Though sure, if they wanted to put a small downside on the set, like -10% random crit frequency or something, I wouldn't object. About the Backburner, it's just generally accepted to be overpowered. For the general mindless "spray and pray" pyro, it has no downsides. It does more raw damage and uses an easily exploitable crit system. The airblast cost is completely irrelevant because these are the kind of pyros that generally ignore airblasts anyway.

-vZ2OMh-YkA

Played some TF2. It's been months but I'm still pissed they nerfed the Shortstop. Why not nerf the weapons that deserve it, like the backburner?

Sure. I've certainly gotten my point across by now.

Again, I don't mean to attack you personally. My criticism is of society and religious thinking at large. I think it damages intellectual discourse and sets a sad precedent for backwards thinking and baseless beliefs. If you take that as a personal attack, it's only because you happen to take part in such thinking.

I'd say that communal criticism is necessary to come to an informed conclusion. But sure, I'll concede the argument is over.

I'd want to know what your own beliefs are that somehow trump mine. I wouldn't be offended, if that's what you mean. My only firm belief is in the scientifically proven. I'm confident enough in that belief to not be offended by being called an idiot. If you tend to be offended for the sake of your beliefs, you may want to consider their tenuous nature.

Because it's fraudulent. Understanding the world for the way it really is can be very satisfying. It saddens me to see someone reject the real world like that, bargaining enlightenment for blissful ignorance. I mean no offense in my arguments, I simply wish to get across my own perspective. Sometimes it takes more than passive explanation to do so.

Let's say I'm stating my opinion that her entire religion is a sham. Good compromise. Seriously though, I'm mostly just answering questions with my own objective answer. Otherwise, she occasionally says things that I find blatantly objectionable, and have to respond to. I hold no ill will, it's simply a conversation. I simply believe that seeing things as they truly are requires the removal of personal bias. If that means acting like a machine, then that's what it means.

There does not need to be a reason. You're looking at the universe from the perspective of the "creator and created", the cause and effect, as you know it in everyday life. This perspective is a human invention and doesn't apply to the origin of the universe. No, it's not. It doesn't need to be. It's just a law of nature. If you wish to simply believe anything you want with disregard to the facts, because you find it philosophically pleasing, then even science cannot help you.

DNA as a molecular structure started as a simple collection of atoms which was able to create copies of itself. These copies, like all DNA afterwards, were capable of random mutation. These mutations were extremely basic, because the DNA molecule at the time was very small and simplistic. Over an extremely long time, natural selection in these copies led to more efficient DNA molecules, incorporating more elements from the environment. Some DNA molecules eventually incorporated a simple cellular structure. At the same time, many different lines of this evolution were occurring. Things like mitochondria were mutating the ability to power themselves using chemical energy. Many of these lines of evolution would eventually come together in a complex system that would evolve into complex single celled organisms. By "world", I assume you mean the Earth. The Earth was formed from the collection of dust orbiting the sun soon after it's formation. The dust coalesced into particles larger and larger over time, eventually gravitating together to form planets. Earth was one of these planets. Trees filter carbon dioxide into oxygen using water, nutrients, and sunlight. This feature evolved from rogue chloroplasts which evolved in the oceans of primordial Earth. The Earth has good conditions for the life that lives on it because we are adapted to the Earth. Life on Earth evolved under the Earth's own conditions. Forms of life that could not survive died out. Forms of life with beneficial mutations managed to survive and prosper. Over billions of years, these mutations led to creatures very well adapted to make use of the environment, and be protected from it's dangers. Organisms employ many different types of energy to operate. The human body employs chemical energy from nutrients to fuel reactions in the body's cells. Some of this energy is used in the brain and nervous system, where electrical and chemical energy is used to transmit information through neurons. Complex forms of neurons allow calculations and connections to be performed. These calculations and connections form the consciousness.

Gods and religion generally don't need to be disproved, because the people involved generally think that their belief in god is a result of righteous faith. I feel personally compelled to reject something like faith. It's a romantic notion that has no place in a person's world view. It's based entirely on personal bias and cultural tradition, and should simply be disregarded when looking for the truth. That's my opinion.

What evidence do you know of that actually supports this? I'm actually really curious to know. Was doing some research a while ago on the Old Testament, interested to find out when it was actually written. Turns out best estimates say all the parts of the Torah were slowly compiled from around 1000 BCE to 500 BCE. The first part (including the first parts of the torah, like genesis) is believed by some scholars to have been commissioned by Persian kings to give theological justification for the king's actions. Still, it's a field that lacks a lot of hard evidence. All of this was happening in a time and place when there were little to no historical records.

Big pile of money fell into my lap just recently (art contest). Trying to decide how to spend it.

It's just how I see the world. I don't think I understand your thought process. Do you accept that it's not true, but just choose to live your life by those values?

Sent a message to my representatives, who are both pro-SOPA: TL;DR : TkxmMPCVogc

There's actually evidence to support the idea that the Old Testament was commissioned by the Persians as a book of moral law. I feel no reason to follow the teachings of Persian rulers 3000 years after the fact. You don't seem to have any reason to think these things, which is why I can't take your beliefs seriously. If your only reason is faith, then I advise you to take a close look at what faith is, and weigh that information with the knowledge that your own mind is not infallible. It has subconscious desires and can make illogical assumptions, like all people.