Open Bar: We hacked the DNC and all we got are these lousy emails

[trix]

I really like the business card!

[Trivial]

Guys!  I just learned the NRA was the reason why the North ended the war and stopped slavery!   

what the what

So a black co-worker of mine posted an article about how open carry is effectively only for white people and one of his friends posted that in the course of the argument.  His first statement was specifically that the NRA was founded for black people's protection.  I posted the "About" section of NRA.org.  He then said ok, it was about marksmanship and that was what allowed the Union to win and that I should use sources other than wikipedia.

I commented about time travel.  I'm not sure if I'm dealing with an idiot, or some sort of troll.  Mostly posted because there's another guy that frequently posts on my coworker's page with similar talking points, just not nearly as dumb.

[Cain]

Yeah, marksmanship let the North win the war.  Not vastly superior numbers, a strong navy encforcing a blockade and a stronger industrialising economy.

It was being able to pew pew just that little bit more accurately.  And as we all know, shooting in your spare time against tin cans is completely transferrable to shooting in massed combat.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Yeah, marksmanship let the North win the war.  Not vastly superior numbers, a strong navy encforcing a blockade and a stronger industrialising economy.

It was being able to pew pew just that little bit more accurately.  And as we all know, shooting in your spare time against tin cans is completely transferrable to shooting in massed combat.

Having objectively superior firearms helped, and did improve their accuracy. Civil War letters bitching about Union weapons are kinda hilarious.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Guys!  I just learned the NRA was the reason why the North ended the war and stopped slavery!   

what the what

So a black co-worker of mine posted an article about how open carry is effectively only for white people and one of his friends posted that in the course of the argument.  His first statement was specifically that the NRA was founded for black people's protection.  I posted the "About" section of NRA.org.  He then said ok, it was about marksmanship and that was what allowed the Union to win and that I should use sources other than wikipedia.

I commented about time travel.  I'm not sure if I'm dealing with an idiot, or some sort of troll.  Mostly posted because there's another guy that frequently posts on my coworker's page with similar talking points, just not nearly as dumb.

People have an amazingly powerful ability to believe what they want to believe, no matter how ridiculous it is or how easy it is to disprove.

Eventually our species will diverge into a species of human that checks facts, and a species that doesn't.

[Cain]

Yeah, marksmanship let the North win the war.  Not vastly superior numbers, a strong navy encforcing a blockade and a stronger industrialising economy.

It was being able to pew pew just that little bit more accurately.  And as we all know, shooting in your spare time against tin cans is completely transferrable to shooting in massed combat.

Having objectively superior firearms helped, and did improve their accuracy. Civil War letters bitching about Union weapons are kinda hilarious.

Oh, it certainly didn't hurt (except the Confederate soldiers).

But Germany's an object lesson in what happens when even a technologically adept and militarily well trained state without the industrial/population/resources picks a war against states with those attributes.  Unless the technological disparities are massive, the training doesn't matter massively either, and so things go down to the numbers and resources.  Germany's probably a more extreme example, given it was the economic and population might of the Soviet Union, British Empire and USA ranged against them, but there are some similarities (in particular the weak economic base, combined with unrest within the territory and inability to effectively use all their population in the war effort.  An important difference is that the Confederacy could've played defensively, whereas that was not an option for Germany.  Without conquest and slave labour, the German economy would collapse entirely).

Of course, the main similarity is that both were really fucking racist.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I really like the business card!

Thanks! I ordered off Moo because they offer the 50 different backs deal. Came out really nice

[The Wizard Joseph]

I'm back. All my plans to go west are no more. Perhaps next year, IDK. My dad has encouraged me to write after seeing some of my stuff, so I'm going to get a simple job and do that for myself while I figure out my life. Figure I'll finish the Genesis of Eris first, but after that it's going to be "The Assault on Christmas". I may send some things to folks in PM about "the plot" and have questions before I get to that.


But it would seem someone said something about ORANGES?

.... urge to mark all as read intensifies.

ORANGES?!  Where?

NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

I haven't caught up on The Bar thread entirely, but I've a cautionary tale I'll post to the ORANGES' thread.

[Trivial]

Yeah, marksmanship let the North win the war.  Not vastly superior numbers, a strong navy encforcing a blockade and a stronger industrialising economy.

It was being able to pew pew just that little bit more accurately.  And as we all know, shooting in your spare time against tin cans is completely transferrable to shooting in massed combat.

The main problem with his statement was the Civil War ended in 1865, the NRA was founded in 1871.

[Cain]

There's also that.  But pew pew!

[Freeky]

https://pima.bibliocommons.com/list/share/324530247/707736609?_ga=1.32996286.1478290541.1474987019&from_login=true

I went to the public library's website to reserve some books, and there was a thumbnail that caught my eye: Martha Reads Banned Books and one of the books featured in the thumbnail was Harry fucking Potter and the god damn Sorcerer's Stone.  So I looked to see what was on the least and lo! thirty books were on the list, with a comment about each.

Apparently, the first book of the Hunger Games trilogy is "occult/satanic," and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee just says "If there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it."

I facepalmed so hard, you guys.

[LMNO]

I guess human sacrifice could be seen as "occult"?

[Cain]

Principal wants to visit and have a talk with staff tomorrow.

I'm contemplating being suicidally honest, but the email suggests it is a group meeting, and my manager may well be there.  Not that this bothers me on an interpersonal level, I've already told him what I think of him, but it would no doubt be deemed "unprofessional" by the children-reading-corporate-strategy-guides who make up management.

[Freeky]

I guess human sacrifice could be seen as "occult"?

If they missed the entire point of the sacrifice, I suppose?  Sort of like how 1984's comment was "pro-communism?"  Way to reading comprehension, bros.

[LMNO]

They don't READ them, of course. They get an inaccurate plot summary, and ban it based on that.