[GRIMDARK] Fallout Equestria: Project Horizons Discussion

Kippershy wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Kippershy wrote:You were born in the 90's?
I thought Sombers whole team were like, 30+?

Not that it really matters, just surprising if true.

Nope. I can't speak for the others, but I'm twenty-one at present.

Mind if I do the whole day/month thing? I gotta find out!

12th March.

?

O. Hinds wrote:

Kippershy wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Kippershy wrote:You were born in the 90's?
I thought Sombers whole team were like, 30+?

Not that it really matters, just surprising if true.

Nope. I can't speak for the others, but I'm twenty-one at present.

Mind if I do the whole day/month thing? I gotta find out!

12th March.

?

You're supposed to let me know whose older out of the two of us so the other can lecture the other on how they should respect their elders

O. Hinds wrote:Ah, thank you!

Quick question for all of you: do you think that the portrayal of miniguns in PH is acceptable?

- Quite welcome, I had my story folder open already looking at other things, and I knew where to look for it, so it wasn't too much effort.
- I haven't had any problem with them at all. I didn't know there was a problem.

Somber wrote:Hi folks. Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I really
should pop in and talk more but... um... I'm really bad at that. Sorry.
Anyway, 46 is almost done. One more scene to do tonight. Hopefully
we'll be able to brush tomorrow. It's a shorter chapter than usual as
I'm splitting high tower in two.

Thank you for letting us know, sir. I hope you're doing as well as is possible, and I hope the brushing goes well.
*hugs*

SilentCarto wrote:

WavemasterRyx wrote:

Ice Crystal wrote:HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG

Forgive me Luna, for I have sinned: I have taken the life of another.

*falls down giggling*

(Lacunae) I
blame DotRook. Though BJ's initial confusion of Lacunae for Luna
suggests a bluer coloration, so maybe that's where it came from.

- *smiles happily*
- Well I wouldn't say "blame" exactly, but I was borrowing his colors to draw her. Though, since the only Lacunae I've done in color was her as a filly, I don't think I'll let it get to me too much.

RoboRed wrote:Someone drank my rum, Admiral. I was going to finish it off for my birthday tonight...I am sad....

Oh... no one should be sad on their birthday... happy birthday Robo!

WavemasterRyx wrote:

RoboRed wrote:Someone drank my rum, Admiral. I was going to finish it off for my birthday tonight...I am sad....

Oh... no one should be sad on their birthday... happy birthday Robo!

You are simply amazing, you know that?

O. Hinds wrote:
I'm not that familiar with Argentina, I'm afraid.

Don't read past the spoiler tags. It'll put you in some sort of mood, and I doubt it'll be a good one. There's really no reason to know about this. Plenty of human rights violations in the modern world to take an interest in.

Spoiler:

Sorry for the tone of the piece. It gets hard to feel things properly when talking about this. So I get sort of snarky and matter-of-fact, in lieu of feeling what I actually feel. This is an explanation, not an excuse.

I'm going to go look at some Boo now.

Kippershy wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Kippershy wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Kippershy wrote:You were born in the 90's?
I thought Sombers whole team were like, 30+?

Not that it really matters, just surprising if true.

Nope. I can't speak for the others, but I'm twenty-one at present.

Mind if I do the whole day/month thing? I gotta find out!

12th March.

?

You're supposed to let me know whose older out of the two of us so the other can lecture the other on how they should respect their elders

Ah. Well, if you mean that you were born on 1990-3-12, you're older. If you mean that you are also twenty-one now and that your birthday is March 12th, I'm older.

Overlong Analysis Cobalt wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:
I'm not that familiar with Argentina, I'm afraid.

Don't read past the spoiler tags. It'll put you in some sort of mood, and I doubt it'll be a good one. There's really no reason to know about this. Plenty of human rights violations in the modern world to take an interest in.

Spoiler:

Sorry for the tone of the piece. It gets hard to feel things properly when talking about this. So I get sort of snarky and matter-of-fact, in lieu of feeling what I actually feel. This is an explanation, not an excuse.

I'm going to go look at some Boo now.

Ah, yes, the grand old practice of preventing Them from establishing one of their horrible dystopian puppets
somewhere my putting one of our horrible dystopian puppets there first.

Well, Somber has sent us the chapter. I've done no real brushing or reading of it yet, but I openapple-f'ed "missile" and requested/suggested the (fortunately few) corrective wording choices. I'm not sure whether this will be another postponement of the explicit statement or whether it will actually be the Big Day, but I am still really nervous about what's going to happen. It doesn't help that there is also in this chapter, right next to the missile corrections, a [REDACTED] that I think could be improved and am worried about a clash and/or a loss over.

I'm off to bed now; hopefully the worries about the new chapter shan't interfere with my sleep.

Kippershy wrote:You are simply amazing, you know that?

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do try my best when I can, thank you Kipper.

FeatherDust wrote:
We are not saying that this is without a doubt the facts. We're saying that it is reasonable to suspect the door could have had a physical lock that was used to intentionally invalidate the "door test". Your argument seems to say that you think it is IMPOSSIBLE that the door in question had a manual lock, which seems like a very odd claim to me.

Allow me just to say that a door doesn't need any kind of lock to be rendered quite hard to open with a small tube of superglue or with a small woden wedge and a hammer. I really don't get you people who keep insisting you need a key and a lock to keep a door closed.

Is everyone feeling good today? Anything I can do to help?

Kippershy wrote:You're supposed to let me know whose older out of the two of us so the other can lecture the other on how they should respect their elders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kctX5_oyMG4

RandomBlank wrote:Allow me just to say that a door doesn't need any kind of lock to be rendered quite hard to open with a small tube of superglue or with a small woden wedge and a hammer. I really don't get you people who keep insisting you need a key and a lock to keep a door closed.

Eh, tunnel vision. I did make the point a while back that you could do the same with a tube of wonderglue, if you didn't mind the seal being difficult to break later.

O. Hinds wrote:
I keep learning things from you; thank you. The only potentially-nuclear-tipped torpedo I was familiar with was the Shkval.

On another forum I frequent there was a member who was forever posting things he had dug up at the Library of Congress and eagerly awaited each new declassified report from the 50s. We used nukes for everything. Or we wanted to at least, we had nuclear torpedoes, nuclear ABM, we had nuclear tanks (Designs only), nuclear mobile power plants (The Soviets actually built one for a Arctic war), nuclear depth charges, the infamous but inaccurately described briefcase nukes, dial a yield nuclear artillery shells, even the now famous Davy Crockett hand portable nuclear rockets that could be fired from most of our Korea era recoilless rifles. That's aside from all the stuff we ended up actually using nukes and nuclear power for. His interest spurred my interest and when I went into the Navy I got to pick all sorts of tidbits from the lifers like the bit about the MK 45 carry from an Old MCPO who talked about how much fun inventory was when they had nukes onboard and having to inventory them every single watch cycle which meant physically touching the things and reading off the serials every single watch every single day despite the fact they were in a submarine with no place to go and the torpedoes never ever moved out of their storage, all the other torpedoes they got to eyeball but for some reason the Navy had taken the same checking requirements for surface based MK 45s where it WAS quite possible to accidentally load it during a training exercise if you were blind to a submarine which does not do training exercises with nukes on board but Navy ships do due to different manning and training rules.

O. Hinds wrote:
I think we must be talking past each other here. Yes, in a Zebra first strike, every strategic missile in the network would go up. In an Equestrian first strike, there'd hopefully be enough missiles left to retaliate with. But… you are starting to talk me around to adding mobile launchers to the network…

Mobile only for a certain quality of mobile, you only need to be able to strap it a transport and be able to move it around several different launch areas. Most mobile launchers don't move more than thirty miles from a central point except in a nuclear firing war. So if it's mobile enough they can take the thing stick it in a cradle and load it on a rail car which also doubles as a firing platform then that's mobile enough for second strike purposes.

Here's a RT-23

During the war the rail cars would have held launching facilities plus two to four cars of security personnel, the missile and launch cars would have been painted and decorated to look like standard transport cars. This in part because they were standard transport cars except completely hollowed out with a detachable roof. During the 70s it was possible to find these mixed into special trains that ran on the same tracks as passenger cars. The security forces were either uniformed and the entire train made to look like a train convoy (They would have flatcars with tanks tied down to look like it was a army move) or more rarely the security forces would be disguised as normal passengers with the weaponry just out of site to casual observation.

This is what I'm referring to as semi-mobile. They are limited to the railroads but you can hide them in plain site and reserve them for second strike purposes the way nuclear submarines are used today.

O. Hinds wrote:
…Ah. Yeah, like I said, I'm learning a lot from you. In this case, I've learnt that I need to shove my opinion of human nature down a bit more.

War.... War never changes
Cept when we get to fight Nazis, but the only real Nazis in political power are in Greece and one of their elected MP's just attacked two women on national TV for insulting him. So we won't get to fight Nazi's anytime soon.

O. Hinds wrote:
Hm… I don't think so, I'm afraid. I got the impression, though, that C1 wasn't something that Twilight had been personally working on anyway.

Another area where we must make an assumption to make an assumption... drat.

O. Hinds wrote:
That would work, more or less, but I doubt that the existing missiles would have quite the right characteristics for the mass strategic deterrent role. Not quite fast enough to launch, not quite long enough range, not quite low-maintenance enough, that sort of thing.
I'd imagine that the SACI was already extant as a niche long-range missile and selected as the best candidate, and then it had lots of money and resources thrown at it and was quickly developed into the purpose-built (but still flexible-warhead) SACII design.

Better for security purposes if they developed and instantly started using it conventionally. The Russian don't start launching nukes every time a Tomahawk flys over their territory to blow something up in Afghanistan because even though the Tomahawk CAN carry a nuclear warhead we use it all the time conventionally and in great numbers.

O. Hinds wrote:
A note that's also important above, though: I very much doubt that they were actual Equestria-style targeting talismans, since those would use gems. (Who knows, though; maybe the Zebras developed biocomputer targeting systems based on relatives of poison joke?)

I'll assume that I do have your support, as that does seem to be where the trend is pointing.

This has been a very fun and educational conversation; if you want to talk to me about anything else in the future, feel free; the forum ought to even let you email me.

Happy to help, this little conversations are great time wasters for my sad but vital job of waiting for something to break or stopping people from looking at pron at work on the company dime. (Yes that's right I'm THAT guy in your company).

Kippershy wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Kippershy wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Kippershy wrote:You were born in the 90's?
I thought Sombers whole team were like, 30+?

Not that it really matters, just surprising if true.

Nope. I can't speak for the others, but I'm twenty-one at present.

Mind if I do the whole day/month thing? I gotta find out!

12th March.

?

You're supposed to let me know whose older out of the two of us so the other can lecture the other on how they should respect their elders

So old, why must all the grandkids make me feel so old, everything after twenty one is downhill, sure you can rent cars from the nicer places at twenty five but between twenty one till you get your AARP card there are no happy milestones.

Cptadder wrote:On another forum I frequent there was a member who was forever posting things he had dug up at the Library of Congress and eagerly awaited each new declassified report from the 50s. We used nukes for everything. Or we wanted to at least, we had nuclear torpedoes, nuclear ABM, we had nuclear tanks (Designs only), nuclear mobile power plants (The Soviets actually built one for a Arctic war), nuclear depth charges, the infamous but inaccurately described briefcase nukes, dial a yield nuclear artillery shells, even the now famous Davy Crockett hand portable nuclear rockets that could be fired from most of our Korea era recoilless rifles.

You left out "nuclear surface-to-air missiles". The Bomarc SAM was supposed to carry a 10 kt warhead, with the intent of wiping out an entire bomber formation with one shot.
And then the advent of ballistic missiles made that idea kind of outdated.

Cptadder wrote:Happy to help, this little conversations are great time wasters for my sad but vital job of waiting for something to break or stopping people from looking at pron at work on the company dime. (Yes that's right I'm THAT guy in your company).

They should look at Pony instead!
...maybe you can set the Net Nanny to perform that redirect...

SilentCarto wrote:[q
You left out "nuclear surface-to-air missiles". The Bomarc SAM was supposed to carry a 10 kt warhead, with the intent of wiping out an entire bomber formation with one shot.
And then the advent of ballistic missiles made that idea kind of outdated.

Nuclear surface to air missiles are still in the inventory however. I split that little talk into things we tried but gave up on and things we actually did. And our current nuclear strategy still relies in part on bombers. Something people forget is that bombers can be hidden everywhere. For instance we still have plans on the books to let us turn the highway system as backup airfields so we can disperse the bombers or provide emergency landing areas. They are not long term areas we had thousands of private airfields that are designated as such. Airfields in the middle of nowhere exist to support our bomber fleets. We built the F-22 in part to take out air defenses to let us take out the air defenses so our bomber fleets could get in range to nuke the silo fields.

Cptadder wrote:On another forum I frequent there was a member who was forever posting things he had dug up at the Library of Congress and eagerly awaited each new declassified report from the 50s. We used nukes for everything.

Not quite :) Russians used nukes for sealing undersea oil leaks. Quite successfully.
The recent disaster near Florida prompted many voices that Americans should try that too. There was just one caveat. The ocean floor is somewhat different there, with enormous deposits of methane gas. Now if the explosion failed to seal the breach and instead allowed the methane to escape, it would have been an Extinction Scale Event.

SilentCarto wrote:

Cptadder wrote:Happy to help, this little conversations are great time wasters for my sad but vital job of waiting for something to break or stopping people from looking at pron at work on the company dime. (Yes that's right I'm THAT guy in your company).

They should look at Pony instead!
...maybe you can set the Net Nanny to perform that redirect...

What about clop? It's porn, but it IS ponies!

RandomBlank wrote:

Cptadder wrote:On another forum I frequent there was a member who was forever posting things he had dug up at the Library of Congress and eagerly awaited each new declassified report from the 50s. We used nukes for everything.

Not quite :) Russians used nukes for sealing undersea oil leaks. Quite successfully.

I did not even go into the "Why not we got nukes" area? For example we knew in 1955 we had to give Panama back some day... so why not simply dig a new canal using forty six specially engineered one hundred kiloton devices to dig ninety two miles of canal in a day across Costa Rica? The best parts of the plan were the lack of locks required as the new nuclear canal would be two miles across (roughly) and two hundred meters deep and the ocean itself would do most of the cleanup work for us in clearing the debris once we breached the retaining walls. The problem came in both cost, the fact we could not trust Costa Rica to let us use the canal for free forever (The only way the nuke canal could pay for itself) and because by the time we did hand Panama back the idea of digging a really big trench with nukes was unacceptable for some reason.

Also you know... we never asked Costa Rica what they thought of the idea.

RandomBlank wrote:
The recent disaster near Florida prompted many voices that Americans should try that too. There was just one caveat. The ocean floor is somewhat different there, with enormous deposits of methane gas. Now if the explosion failed to seal the breach and instead allowed the methane to escape, it would have been an Extinction Scale Event.

Not quite, the ecological damage would have been massive on the local scale, but the area was deep enough that your not talking about an entire Gulf dieing. And nukes were not required when convetional explosives could have done the job.

RandomBlank wrote:

SilentCarto wrote:

Cptadder wrote:Happy to help, this little conversations are great time wasters for my sad but vital job of waiting for something to break or stopping people from looking at pron at work on the company dime. (Yes that's right I'm THAT guy in your company).

They should look at Pony instead!
...maybe you can set the Net Nanny to perform that redirect...

What about clop? It's porn, but it IS ponies!

No, bad people, all re-directs go to our generic "you can't look at this website" page. I'm not allowed to send people trying to look at Pron to Ponies unless I also set those looking for Sportcenter to Ponies and explaing such things is tough enough as it is.

Besides Ask Molestia is borderline.... not sure what it borders on but there you go.

Kippershy wrote:

Sindri wrote:

Kippershy wrote:I'm gonna be absolutely fine, if not a
'little' bit fucked out of my head... for 12 hours or so, I
hope.

Twelve hours? Partner must have stamina.

She may as well be Blackjack... speaking of... wouldn't mind tha-
WHAT?!? WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?!?!

Just best be careful she doesn't go and snap your neck...she was still fighting her problems while going at it with Styggie...

WavemasterRyx wrote:

RoboRed wrote:Someone drank my rum, Admiral. I was going to finish it off for my birthday tonight...I am sad....

Oh... no one should be sad on their birthday... happy birthday Robo!

You...you are just way too awesome for your own good. Thank you!

Here, have a shotgun-toting Wastelander Wavey.

swicked wrote:Oh, I must have missed that post. Happy Birthday, Robo, belated as that might be!

Thanks!

old guy wrote: So old, why must all the grandkids make me feel so old, everything after twenty one is downhill, sure you can rent cars from the nicer places at twenty five but between twenty one till you get your AARP card there are no happy milestones.

Turning 21 is a happy milestone?
I must be out of the loop on something here...
Anyways, I don't really focus on age at all since in the end it doesn't really matter to me.

@Rum: What's that sandwich? Kill them all?

@Robo: It's your birthday? Grats, have a ... I dunno, feel free to ask anything (anything) and I'll answer?

@Kipper: My mind is not the only thing on me wide open...
I feel like doing bad dirty jokes right now... XD
... just to "ew..." myself a bit with this one: I could fix so you could have waffles/tact at the same time you had shrooms...
also, on about age: I'm not even above 25 :P (or you meant the editor team?)

@Sindri: Thank you. It's xenophilia, not zoophilia like many say. It's no different from wanting to bang an elf or asari or something... cept the more notable anatomy difference ofc.

@Night: ! ... no wait, behave brain, behave...

Kattlarv wrote:@Rum: What's that sandwich? Kill them all?

@Robo: It's your birthday? Grats, have a ... I dunno, feel free to ask anything (anything) and I'll answer?

@Kipper: My mind is not the only thing on me wide open...
I feel like doing bad dirty jokes right now... XD
... just to "ew..." myself a bit with this one: I could fix so you could have waffles/tact at the same time you had shrooms...
also, on about age: I'm not even above 25 :P (or you meant the editor team?)

@Sindri: Thank you. It's xenophilia, not zoophilia like many say. It's no different from wanting to bang an elf or asari or something... cept the more notable anatomy difference ofc.

@Night: ! ... no wait, behave brain, behave...

Editor team. Though now you mention it, how old are you? Not that it really matters, just interesting is all.
and oh, I'm sure there's more about you that's open -wink- not meaning that in the bad way though.
Mmmmm, waffles and tact eh?
Come here and teach me?

Cptadder wrote: No, bad people, all re-directs go to our generic "you can't look at this website" page. I'm not allowed to send people trying to look at Pron to Ponies unless I also set those looking for Sportcenter to Ponies and explaing such things is tough enough as it is.

You're no fun at all.

WavemasterRyx wrote:

Kippershy wrote:You are simply amazing, you know that?

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do try my best when I can, thank you Kipper.

I would. I really look up to you ^__________________^

RoboRed wrote:

Kippershy wrote:

Sindri wrote:

Kippershy wrote:I'm gonna be absolutely fine, if not a
'little' bit fucked out of my head... for 12 hours or so, I
hope.

Twelve hours? Partner must have stamina.

She may as well be Blackjack... speaking of... wouldn't mind tha-
WHAT?!? WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?!?!

Just best be careful she doesn't go and snap your neck...she was still fighting her problems while going at it with Styggie...

Puh-lease. I'm the size of a bear compared to her - yes even flutters managed to out-wrestle a bear and BJ is augmented, but I'm sure there could be fun... somehow!

Cptadder wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:
I keep learning things from you; thank you. The only potentially-nuclear-tipped torpedo I was familiar with was the Shkval.

On another forum I frequent there was a member who was forever posting things he had dug up at the Library of Congress and eagerly awaited each new declassified report from the 50s. We used nukes for everything. Or we wanted to at least, we had nuclear torpedoes, nuclear ABM, we had nuclear tanks (Designs only), nuclear mobile power plants (The Soviets actually built one for a Arctic war), nuclear depth charges, the infamous but inaccurately described briefcase nukes, dial a yield nuclear artillery shells, even the now famous Davy Crockett hand portable nuclear rockets that could be fired from most of our Korea era recoilless rifles. That's aside from all the stuff we ended up actually using nukes and nuclear power for. His interest spurred my interest and when I went into the Navy I got to pick all sorts of tidbits from the lifers like the bit about the MK 45 carry from an Old MCPO who talked about how much fun inventory was when they had nukes onboard and having to inventory them every single watch cycle which meant physically touching the things and reading off the serials every single watch every single day despite the fact they were in a submarine with no place to go and the torpedoes never ever moved out of their storage, all the other torpedoes they got to eyeball but for some reason the Navy had taken the same checking requirements for surface based MK 45s where it WAS quite possible to accidentally load it during a training exercise if you were blind to a submarine which does not do training exercises with nukes on board but Navy ships do due to different manning and training rules.

Neat!

Subterranes also come to mind; as far as I know, America never built one, but the Soviets did. It apparently worked pretty well, too... until the reactor blew. Again, Soviet engineering: just good enough to be really spectacularly bad.

Cptadder wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:
I think we must be talking past each other here. Yes, in a Zebra first strike, every strategic missile in the network would go up. In an Equestrian first strike, there'd hopefully be enough missiles left to retaliate with. But… you are starting to talk me around to adding mobile launchers to the network…

Mobile only for a certain quality of mobile, you only need to be able to strap it a transport and be able to move it around several different launch areas. Most mobile launchers don't move more than thirty miles from a central point except in a nuclear firing war. So if it's mobile enough they can take the thing stick it in a cradle and load it on a rail car which also doubles as a firing platform then that's mobile enough for second strike purposes.

Here's a RT-23

During the war the rail cars would have held launching facilities plus two to four cars of security personnel, the missile and launch cars would have been painted and decorated to look like standard transport cars. This in part because they were standard transport cars except completely hollowed out with a detachable roof. During the 70s it was possible to find these mixed into special trains that ran on the same tracks as passenger cars. The security forces were either uniformed and the entire train made to look like a train convoy (They would have flatcars with tanks tied down to look like it was a army move) or more rarely the security forces would be disguised as normal passengers with the weaponry just out of site to casual observation.

This is what I'm referring to as semi-mobile. They are limited to the railroads but you can hide them in plain site and reserve them for second strike purposes the way nuclear submarines are used today.

Thanks for the data. I've already updated the missile page, by the way, saying something along the lines of "the capsule design allows a wide variety of launch options."

Cptadder wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:
…Ah. Yeah, like I said, I'm learning a lot from you. In this case, I've learnt that I need to shove my opinion of human nature down a bit more.

War.... War never changes
Cept when we get to fight Nazis, but the only real Nazis in political power are in Greece and one of their elected MP's just attacked two women on national TV for insulting him. So we won't get to fight Nazi's anytime soon.

Ah, fighting Nazi's...
As Blackjack said:

Somber wrote:“Do you have any idea how many times I’ve had to fight a monsterpony only to guilt and whine and angst about it afterwards? But you? You’re a complete monster, Brass!” I said as I slashed the sword in front of me. “Do you eat foals? Tell me you eat foals and rape helpless little ponies. That’ll be the icing on the cake!” I laughed in mad glee, doing a shuffling little dance with my taped up legs. “Woo woo! No regrets… no sir… no regrets… not for me… woo woo!” I sang as I danced around in a strutting trot.

Cptadder wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:
That would work, more or less, but I doubt that the existing missiles would have quite the right characteristics for the mass strategic deterrent role. Not quite fast enough to launch, not quite long enough range, not quite low-maintenance enough, that sort of thing.
I'd imagine that the SACI was already extant as a niche long-range missile and selected as the best candidate, and then it had lots of money and resources thrown at it and was quickly developed into the purpose-built (but still flexible-warhead) SACII design.

Better for security purposes if they developed and instantly started using it conventionally. The Russian don't start launching nukes every time a Tomahawk flys over their territory to blow something up in Afghanistan because even though the Tomahawk CAN carry a nuclear warhead we use it all the time conventionally and in great numbers.

Yes, but if a huge number of SACIIs all go up at once, aimed at Equestria, there's not going to be much doubt about what's going on. I think that maybe I'm not properly understanding your meaning here.

Cptadder wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:
A note that's also important above, though: I very much doubt that they were actual Equestria-style targeting talismans, since those would use gems. (Who knows, though; maybe the Zebras developed biocomputer targeting systems based on relatives of poison joke?)

I'll assume that I do have your support, as that does seem to be where the trend is pointing.

This has been a very fun and educational conversation; if you want to talk to me about anything else in the future, feel free; the forum ought to even let you email me.

Happy to help, this little conversations are great time wasters for my sad but vital job of waiting for something to break or stopping people from looking at pron at work on the company dime. (Yes that's right I'm THAT guy in your company).

Ah. I wish you luck in dealing with stupid people. Or do you have underlings to take care of the really bad "problems"?

Kippershy wrote:

Puh-lease. I'm the size of a bear compared to her - yes even flutters managed to out-wrestle a bear and BJ is augmented, but I'm sure there could be fun... somehow!

Kipper seems to like it rough...

Ice Crystal wrote:

Kippershy wrote:

Puh-lease. I'm the size of a bear compared to her - yes even flutters managed to out-wrestle a bear and BJ is augmented, but I'm sure there could be fun... somehow!

Kipper seems to like it rough...

That I do. Who wants to know?

Kippershy wrote:

RoboRed wrote:

Kippershy wrote:

Sindri wrote:

Kippershy wrote:I'm gonna be absolutely fine, if not a
'little' bit fucked out of my head... for 12 hours or so, I
hope.

Twelve hours? Partner must have stamina.

She may as well be Blackjack... speaking of... wouldn't mind tha-
WHAT?!? WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?!?!

Just best be careful she doesn't go and snap your neck...she was still fighting her problems while going at it with Styggie...

Puh-lease. I'm the size of a bear compared to her - yes even flutters managed to out-wrestle a bear and BJ is augmented, but I'm sure there could be fun... somehow!

Well, I'd ask if you have a deathwish, but your response has made that quite evident...

swicked wrote:

kattlarv wrote: @Robo: It's your birthday? Grats, have a ... I dunno, feel free to ask anything (anything) and I'll answer?

Ooh! Ooh!
Ask what her credit card information is!

Ehh...asking Kim a question is a Pandora's Box I'd prefer not to open...

Kippershy wrote:

Ice Crystal wrote:

Kippershy wrote:

Puh-lease. I'm the size of a bear compared to her - yes even flutters managed to out-wrestle a bear and BJ is augmented, but I'm sure there could be fun... somehow!

Kipper seems to like it rough...

That I do. Who wants to know?

Regardless of whether we wanted to know or not, we do now.

O. Hinds wrote:
Yes, but if a huge number of SACIIs all go up at once, aimed at Equestria, there's not going to be much doubt about what's going on. I think that maybe I'm not properly understanding your meaning here.

Not if your tossing around two hundred per battle as it is, the oh crap moment comes when it passes the border, but being cruise missiles, if they are cruise missiles you get all sorts of twisty track possibility.

O. Hinds wrote:

Ah. I wish you luck in dealing with stupid people. Or do you have underlings to take care of the really bad "problems"?

I am my own underling, my own henchman, I am the Captain and Commander of a ship of one.

Cptadder wrote:
I am my own underling, my own henchman, I am the Captain and Commander of a ship of one.

Which are you, Captain or Commander? (I really hope you were referencing what I think you were...otherwise I'm gonna look like an idiot)