The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2013, 09:01 AM   #151
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,034

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I couldn't imagine being so immature and embittered that I feel the psychological need to put words in other peoples' mouths, words I know for a fact they never uttered.
Lol,you can't? Try reading some of your own posts.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:04 AM   #152
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,583

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I couldn't imagine being so immature and embittered that I feel the psychological need to put words in other peoples' mouths, words I know for a fact they never uttered.
Don't kid yourself, you are plenty immature. Did you still want to sell me a kidney?

And I guess you just forgot what you said to W*GS and wanting his picture so you knew what he looked like so you would never save him.

Not only are you pathetic, but ridiculously petulant and petty. We will call you Triple P.

Last edited by Requiem; 03-26-2013 at 09:06 AM..
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:06 AM   #153
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
I personally have no issues with ARs, I wouldn't mind owning one,do I need an AR? No. I'm simply pointing out,that ARs or any version of an AR,can be constitutionally be banned/regulated. A point you're not comprehending.
So you don't mind that the government wants to ban guns it can't define are a threat, have no statistical evidence are a threat and in fact chooses to ignore statistical evidence that shows the guns are only rarely used in gun murders.

Are you normally this blindly trusting?

The media and liberal politicians are currently defecating in unison about the AR 15 issue. They previously defecated about the same issue, only then they called them Bushmasters. These a-holes can't even accurately name the gun in question, even while they're trying to push to ban such guns. Instead, they come up with a common catchword that they use as a pushbutton word. The flavor of the week is "AR 15."

Of course, they can't tell the truth about other things, either, such as about what James Holmes was wearing. Want to see a big media lie? Watch this. CBS News claiming Holmes had a "bulletproof vest" on when the very receipt they showed proved he purchased a flipping utility vest with magazine storage pouches.

Start asking why the government wants to ban guns with such thin pretexts and stop going along with the hype.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:09 AM   #154
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Don't kid yourself, you are plenty immature. Did you still want to sell me a kidney?

And I guess you just forgot what you said to W*GS and wanting his picture so you knew what he looked like so you would never save him.

Not only are you pathetic, but ridiculously petulant and petty. We will call you Triple P.
You actively pick fights with people and recoil like a child when it backfires. That's not my problem. Your behavior with instigating against people has gotten you permanently banned from at least 2 Broncos forums. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else you've chosen to attack.

As usual, when unable to respond to something, you resort to pubescent slur-hurling. But then again, you're a liberal, and I already know liberals cannot uphold the very standards they claim to have.

Wog has said plenty of abusive filth to me on this thread and elsewhere. On this thread alone he said he'd use me as a shield against James Holmes and I heard not a single squeak of protest out of you, now suddenly you play Mr. Moral Outrage? Cut the ****. I don't think saying one thing in return makes me a 'hypocrite' in spite of that you have a psychological need to twist it into that to justify another of your juvenile chimping episodes.

So please, chimp away.

Last edited by nyuk nyuk; 03-26-2013 at 09:18 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:13 AM   #155
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
OH clearly.
...cute picture...
... with a camera running @ full aperture, 1/8 second shutter, and ISO800.

See how washed out the picture looks (particularly the screen)? See how grainy the picture is? That's because of those settings, and those settings are also why the photo makes it look like there's decent visibility. Too bad your eyes have to collect light continuously and don't have 1/8 of a second to do so for every 'frame'. Not to mention your eyes won't be running at 'full aperture' (i.e. fully dilated) nor be dark adjusted (cones adapted to darker conditions) after starring at the screen.

Entirely unimpressive vapid one. Do you think no one here has any experience with cameras either? It's pretty damn easy to make a camera 'see' more light than the human eye in the dark. I do it all the time (I do astrophotography).

However, this time you had your GPS on, so at least we have some idea that the picture was actually taken at that theatre!

One thing I will give you, though, is that it does look like that particular theater has installed very unusual lights, probably because of the shooting. Anyone know what's up with that light?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:42 AM   #156
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
... with a camera running @ full aperture, 1/8 second shutter, and ISO800.

See how washed out the picture looks (particularly the screen)? See how grainy the picture is? That's because of those settings, and those settings are also why the photo makes it look like there's decent visibility. Too bad your eyes have to collect light continuously and don't have 1/8 of a second to do so for every 'frame'. Not to mention your eyes won't be running at 'full aperture' (i.e. fully dilated) nor be dark adjusted (cones adapted to darker conditions) after starring at the screen.

Entirely unimpressive vapid one. Do you think no one here has any experience with cameras either? It's pretty damn easy to make a camera 'see' more light than the human eye in the dark. I do it all the time (I do astrophotography).

However, this time you had your GPS on, so at least we have some idea that the picture was actually taken at that theatre!

One thing I will give you, though, is that it does look like that particular theater has installed very unusual lights, probably because of the shooting. Anyone know what's up with that light?
No, it's because it was a cellphone and I had to lighten it to make it look more like it looked with the naked eye, otherwise it comes out way darker than it looks.

Simply visiting there yourself will put a stop to all of this silly speculation.

I actually figured I'd get called a liar about having been there, and am quite surprised I haven't been.

Yes - theater 9 has some new stuff, but I was also in theater 8 yesterday which looks more like pre-remodel 9 did, just a mirror image. Some of the stray slugs from 9 went into 8 next door and hit people. You can still see people coming up the stairs and identify moviegoers from staff. You can see their Monsters, Inc. tshirts and the walkietalkies on their waistbands.

If you wanted to see ticket stubs, just ask. Theater 9 is now known as XD and theater 8 is Auditorium H (H being the 8th letter of the alphabet).



Other pics I've taken:

Remodeled entrance of Theater 9



Out front



The Denver comPost has a picture spread of the place when they had the reopening ceremony. Theater 9 is in pictures 4, 9, 10, 17 (front entrance like my picture), 27 (great view of seating area), 31, and a whole-theater birdseye view in photo 32.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:43 AM   #157
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,583

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
You actively pick fights with people and recoil like a child when it backfires. That's not my problem. Your behavior with instigating against people has gotten you permanently banned from at least 2 Broncos forums. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else you've chosen to attack.
You've been shelved at other forums too, so don't act like I'm the only one. Lmfao. I got banned at Broncomania like 8 years ago and Tned's site because I willingly crossed a line he didn't want me to, but I did anyways. The outcome was what I had hoped for. So don't think you are on some moral high ground, because you really aren't.

Quote:
As usual, when unable to respond to something, you resort to pubescent slur-hurling. But then again, you're a liberal, and I already know liberals cannot uphold the very standards they claim to have.
I don't think you know much about where I stand politically on most issues. Calling you out in this thread isn't slur-hurling. It is the facts. You recently purchased a gun, don't even have a conceal and carry and limited experience in a firearm, yet have the audacity to think that you could have changed the outcome of a tragic event and even save the lives of others if such a scenario presented itself.

Protip: You cannot.

What is even more funny is the fact that you state I can't have an opinion on the issue at hand because I don't live in Colorado and my experience with guns comes from using them primarily for sport and living in "the middle of nowhere." I'm sorry, but I will take my experience with those weapons over yours any day. Like I said, posting a picture of your shiny new toy over a Manning jersey doesn't impress anyone here.

Quote:
Wog has said plenty of abusive filth to me on this thread and elsewhere. On this thread alone he said he'd use me as a shield against James Holmes and I heard not a single squeak of protest out of you, now suddenly you play Mr. Moral Outrage?
Didn't see his comment. Probably well-deserved.

Quote:
Cut the ****. I don't think saying one thing in return makes me a 'hypocrite' in spite of that you have a psychological need to twist it into that to justify another of your juvenile chimping episodes.
Of course you don't. Anything to absolve any personal responsibility for the actions you have taken on this forum. You like to make a lot of assumptions on not only myself, but a lot of members here. It's quite silly. The fact that you are desperate enough to go to the theater in order to try and prove whatever points you think you are is just plain silly. Nobody here takes you seriously, so why bother?

We are all laughing at you.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:45 AM   #158
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
OH clearly.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=118

I already addressed this last month.

The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:45 AM   #159
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,583

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

More pictures of the theater. Wee!
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:48 AM   #160
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,583

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=118

I already addressed this last month.

The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.
Like you have any knowledge of how theaters work, you liberal kiddie.

Lol. I have gone Burt Wonderstone and the new Oz movie in the past week and while the lights on the sides are up during the previews, as soon as the feature film plays, everything dims. I have seen a zillion movies in my life (always a friday night tradition back in HS and now back home with friends) and there has never been an instance where there were big lights on (like in her picture) when the film was playing.

Do you think it is possible that some of the lighting and set-up in that theater changed since the shooting?

Either way, her posts are ludicrous.

You know what feels the greatest when you are beating your head against a brick wall?

STOPPING.

Yet, she is going hard. HAAAAAAAAAARD.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:49 AM   #161
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
No, it's because it was a cellphone and I had to lighten it to make it look more like it looked with the naked eye, otherwise it comes out way darker than it looks.
LMAO. So we can add 'doesn't know **** about cameras' to your description. Doesn't matter if it's a crappy little cell phone or a $10,000 professional gear, the artifacts (particularly the graininess) I point out are a direct result of having a high ISO setting.

Would you like me to demonstrate later tonight with my $1,800 camera?

Oh, and nice to see you admit you were digitally manipulating the image too. Good job!



Quote:
Simply visiting there yourself will put a stop to all of this silly speculation.
Been to hundreds of movies in dozens of theaters. Looks nothing like your manipulated image.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:52 AM   #162
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
... with a camera running @ full aperture, 1/8 second shutter, and ISO800.

See how washed out the picture looks (particularly the screen)? See how grainy the picture is? That's because of those settings, and those settings are also why the photo makes it look like there's decent visibility. Too bad your eyes have to collect light continuously and don't have 1/8 of a second to do so for every 'frame'. Not to mention your eyes won't be running at 'full aperture' (i.e. fully dilated) nor be dark adjusted (cones adapted to darker conditions) after starring at the screen.

Entirely unimpressive vapid one. Do you think no one here has any experience with cameras either? It's pretty damn easy to make a camera 'see' more light than the human eye in the dark. I do it all the time (I do astrophotography).

However, this time you had your GPS on, so at least we have some idea that the picture was actually taken at that theatre!

One thing I will give you, though, is that it does look like that particular theater has installed very unusual lights, probably because of the shooting. Anyone know what's up with that light?
They're just common sconce lights. From the picture (it's pretty grainy) it looks like a common design that has two 60 watt bulbs (one up one down) with reflectors pointing up and down to shine on the wall and provide extra light on the stairs (notice the treads on the steps have a reflective paint on them), and a translucent glass or plastic cover to provide ambient light when at full.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:54 AM   #163
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.
I don't remember exactly when I took it. The lights were down and the screen was playing. I'll see if I can give it another go again next time. Unfortunately the time stamp my camera puts on pictures is jacked up and not accurate, it adds several hours. But dishonest? No. And no, the sconce lights weren't all the way up, either. I do remember lights were dimmed.

And there were people in the theater - just about 25 of them, mostly to my left.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:54 AM   #164
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=118

I already addressed this last month.

The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.
Thanks, didn't occur to me it wasn't actually the movie playing.

So, now we have:

Lying about when the pictures were taken and digitally manipulating the images (more lying).

Look at that conservative integrity being demonstrated!
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:55 AM   #165
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
LMAO. So we can add 'doesn't know **** about cameras' to your description. Doesn't matter if it's a crappy little cell phone or a $10,000 professional gear, the artifacts (particularly the graininess) I point out are a direct result of having a high ISO setting.

Would you like me to demonstrate later tonight with my $1,800 camera?

Oh, and nice to see you admit you were digitally manipulating the image too. Good job!





Been to hundreds of movies in dozens of theaters. Looks nothing like your manipulated image.
Yep. It's that dark on a lightened photo, and the feature isn't even playing yet and all the lights are still up.

PERFECT VISION!

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:57 AM   #166
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
LMAO. So we can add 'doesn't know **** about cameras' to your description. Doesn't matter if it's a crappy little cell phone or a $10,000 professional gear, the artifacts (particularly the graininess) I point out are a direct result of having a high ISO setting.

Would you like me to demonstrate later tonight with my $1,800 camera?

Oh, and nice to see you admit you were digitally manipulating the image too. Good job!





Been to hundreds of movies in dozens of theaters. Looks nothing like your manipulated image.
My cellphone - at least - doesn't take good indoor pictures. Unless the lighting is extremely bright, you have to adjust it to get a picture more like you see with the human eye. If you wish to call that a plot, well knock yourself out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:57 AM   #167
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,926
Default

Fed has completely schooled nyuk.

Congrats, sir.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:58 AM   #168
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Yep. It's that dark on a lightened photo, and the feature isn't even playing yet and all the lights are still up.

PERFECT VISION!

Such perfect vision it took a 1/8 of a second exposure @ ISO800 to get a picture that still needed to be digitally lightened to make it "look like what was seen'.

And hell, there wasn't even any tear gas and smoke.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:59 AM   #169
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,583

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

OM never lets me down.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:02 AM   #170
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
My cellphone - at least - doesn't take good indoor pictures. Unless the lighting is extremely bright, you have to adjust it to get a picture more like you see with the human eye. If you wish to call that a plot, well knock yourself out.
Not calling it a plot, calling you stupid for not understanding the basics of low light photography and dishonest for lying about when the picture was taken and being further dishonest by digitally manipulating the resulting image.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:02 AM   #171
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I don't remember exactly when I took it. The lights were down and the screen was playing. I'll see if I can give it another go again next time. Unfortunately the time stamp my camera puts on pictures is jacked up and not accurate, it adds several hours. But dishonest? No. And no, the sconce lights weren't all the way up, either. I do remember lights were dimmed.

And there were people in the theater - just about 25 of them, mostly to my left.
No. It's a ScreenVision ad for a fish taco, not part of the movie. The lights don't go to low until after the trailers are done playing. If you took a picture of that sconce light while the movie were playing, you wouldn't barely be able to make out what it is at that distance on a cell phone.

And I wouldn't post a picture while an actual film is playing, if I were you, and I'm dead serious. The FBI investigated a 13 year old girl at my theater who took a picture of her friends in front of the Jonas Brothers movie. Don't think someone won't call them if you do.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:04 AM   #172
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,583

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Nyuk nyuk on the Aurora incident: --link removed by moderator-- Read her awesome thoughts.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:06 AM   #173
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Yep. It's that dark on a lightened photo, and the feature isn't even playing yet and all the lights are still up.

PERFECT VISION!

And here's a picture I took a couple seconds previous to the other one. The movie is playing like I remembered. This picture is just more blurry.

North Korean insurgents speak Korean in the movie, thus the captions.

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:10 AM   #174
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
And here's a picture I took a couple seconds previous to the other one. The movie is playing like I remembered. This picture is just more blurry.

North Korean insurgents speak Korean in the movie, thus the captions.

K, dude!



Hold on then, let me go call the theater and tell them they need to check the cues on their print of Olympus Has Fallen in Theater 9, because they're way off.

That light is on full.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:12 AM   #175
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Nyuk nyuk on the Aurora incident: --link removed by moderator-- Read her awesome thoughts.
If you wish to try - again - to stalk someone, do a better job.

By the way, considering how much you choose to harass people online, I'd suggest refraining from posting your personal info everywhere.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 PM.


Denver Broncos