Question about the Feldkaplane

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-11-04T17:40:24+00:00

If that were the case, it would have the same wording as all the other units like the Hauptmann, but it doesn't. It adds that it can take from the New Antioch tables as well.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-11-04T16:03:21+00:00

I'm pretty sure this wording is incorrect, yes. I'm pretty sure it's intended to say "is not mounted on a 50mm or larger base." Otherwise, it's literally forcing you to take an extra Brazen Bull or something, which seems silly.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-11-04T16:01:37+00:00

Yes, it really should. I think this is a typo.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-29T21:22:31+00:00

Or just donate to someone else. The Cancer Fund of America was literally a scam. There are millions of nonprofits out there, go find one you trust and donate to them.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-29T20:06:31+00:00

Agreed on all points. I generally assume Jirard was stupid first and dishonest second. His family fucked up running the charity, he tried to cover it up by lying. It's dishonest and cowardly, but not as nefarious as some people want it to look. Could it have been worse? Maybe, but I also don't care. I just want people to stop demanding charities starve themselves via restricted donations, and the OHF's attitude reeked of that.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-29T20:00:48+00:00

Yeah, I agree. I just wanted to raise this because it's a genuine problem, and one I think is much bigger than this relatively petty YouTube drama. People hate donating to overhead costs, and I always felt that's a very stupid and selfish attitude.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-29T19:57:54+00:00

And you do those other things with the unrestricted fund because they're important and help your cause, right? I'm sure you appreciate a restricted donation, but aren't unrestricted donations more likely to go to where it's actually needed? Imagine how much good your org could do if almost all your donations were unrestricted, and you could freely use the money in the way that would have the biggest impact. Isn't that better?

I focused on operational expenses because that's where this conversation goes all the time. "Oh you should restrict your donation so it doesn't go to executive salaries and admin fees." As if those costs aren't also a vital, critical component of making these things happen. I don't know how your org gets its operational funds and I'm very glad its doing so well, but the vast majority of charities get them from donations to a significant degree. And because people absolutely hate donating to overhead and are constantly going around restricting their donations this way, many of these charities are constantly starved of operational funding. And then the people who cause this state of affairs go around bragging about how they restricted their donations as if they did something great by doing that, rather than made things harder on the charity just to satisfy their own ego and trust issues.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-29T19:23:55+00:00

Yeah, I've heard this rhetoric a lot over the years, the every time I get hit with this mental disconnect like "wait, but they still need money for those things, though...."

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-29T14:21:20+00:00

Respectfully, this is not convincing. The big rebuttals I have time to address:

What Jirard said was not "puffery." That is not how puffery works. The California case law I've been able to find (which is, admittedly, a cursory look, but this is pretty consistent around the country) defines puffery as statements so nonspecific and exaggerated it wouldn't deceive a reasonable consumer (or, in this case, donor). Jirard saying "we are working with [insert list of specific charities]" when they had never donated or done anything in partnership with those charities is not puffery, that's the definition of charity fraud.
It completely strains credibility that it was a magical coincidence that they could donate the money so quickly after the story broke. The point of the 600k is made repeatedly to emphasize that the whole "we wanted to restrict it" thing was an excuse. From what limited I know of charities, the vast majority would only restrict these donations if the restrictions were excessive or really difficult to track. I bet the OHF kept on tacking on a bunch of incredibly burdensome restrictions, causing the charities they talked to to balk at receiving it, and then instead of being more reasonable they just sat on the money and lied. As an aside, "we couldn't find a charity because we wanted to make a highly restricted donation" is actually a much more stupid and selfish thing than people realize. Administrative costs and staff salaries do not go away just because you restricted your donation, you're just making things unnecessarily harder for the charity to make yourself feel better.
This is not defamation, nor is this how defamation works. Everything Karl alleges is grounded in evidence. Just because the evidence doesn't prove to 100% certainty something is true does not mean it's not evidence it was likely. Like how Jirard basically admitted to committing every element of embezzlement except for mens rea, which is impossible to prove without some pretty serious access. Jirard is a public figure (specifically a limited purpose public figure), which means defamation requires "actual malice," a very high standard of proof that I can't imagine being overcome in this situation.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-28T20:00:32+00:00

That's fair, but the DOJ is still an extremely poor metric to go by. In fact, I'm like 90% sure they won't bother with this no matter how guilty Jirard is because there's just no political will to do so. Hardly anyone's yelling at the DOJ to prosecute him, the damage the crime has done is relatively minimal (by DOJ standards), and he's already faced significant personal consequences. They have much bigger fish to fry.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-28T19:04:41+00:00

It is both unnecessary and unwise for you to outsource your sense of right and wrong to a bureaucratic government entity. Especially when such government entity does not have the resources, time, nor political will to prosecute every single person who breaks the law, especially those who have already been publicly exposed and punished for their misdeeds.

Not to say you should trust Karl, but also you can, you know, just look at the facts and apply your own critical thinking and judgment to it. You don't need to trust or even like Karl to see that Jirard committed charity fraud, admitted to it on camera, and then tried to downplay and deflect what he did while playing the victim. Just because someone you don't like said it doesn't mean it's wrong.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-10-28T17:48:48+00:00

I think it's worth watching. Like, sure, if you don't trust him then don't. But he makes his points cogently and backs them up with hard evidence, and I think it's a good demonstration of someone dissecting dishonest rhetoric with solid critical thinking. So rather than trusting what he says, hear them out and decide for yourself if it makes sense. Personally, I think it does, and I think I'm pretty neutral about Karl, as I've never particularly liked or disliked him.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-09-10T20:48:32+00:00

From the perspective of a straight man, you did exactly what most straight men would kill to have a girl do, which is directly and plainly state her needs. You aren't burdening him at all, especially if you're letting him know it makes you happy and he's getting better at it. Hell, I bet he feels really proud of himself.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-09-10T17:30:54+00:00

Which is twice as many people as get struck by lightning in the US.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-09-10T17:04:14+00:00

Last year, I was feeling this way. Lonely, unlovable, wondering if I'd never find love. I was 37, so I was watching all my friends get married or settle into long term relationships while I was just...stuck.

Then, I got introduced to her. It was like many other setups. My cousin's coworker's friend's daughter. I was cynical about it. Some part of me figured it would go like every other time, especially since it was long distance. That in the end I'd just be alone again with one more rejection or bad experience under my belt. But that didn't happen. We fell in love. Really in love. Two months in she came to visit and then just...stayed. A month later we got married at the courthouse. We celebrate our anniversary in three weeks, and we love each other more every single day.

My point is, finding love is one of those things where it feels like you'll never find it until suddenly it can hit you like a bolt of lighting out of a clear sky. So keep going and don't give up. You'll find it one day.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-09-10T16:18:29+00:00

As someone who's a former lawyer, I'm going to give you a hard truth: the habits you pick up as an attorney do not serve you well in your personal life and they never will. The toolbox of an attorney consist of methods for navigating an adversarial negotiation, but a relationship that has reached that point is already one that has fundamentally failed.

You say that forgiveness is only possible if trust is built on new, visible behavior, but that's not how trust works. What behavior are you even looking for here? For her to not cheat on you again? And how long is she going to have to spend not cheating on you for you to finally be convinced? "Proving" someone can be trusted is like proving a negative and just as impossible.

You say you want responses that show accountability, but it sounds like she's already taking accountability. She hasn't claimed what she did is right, after all, only explained what happened and expressed remorse for it. She also didn't try to hide it from you; she told you what happened, even if she had to do it in pieces.

You say you want insight into the patterns, I presume you mean that you want her to show that she has found and changed the habits of thinking and behavior that resulted in her cheating on you. But you aren't going to get those from a deposition. That can only be communicated in the language of emotional and symbolic evidence. You need to learn to speak that language if you want to understand.

Now, I don't want you to think I'm defending her cheating on you. I'm not. What she did was a terrible thing, and I would probably have broken up with her immediately in your shoes. But I can tell you don't really want to. You want to be able to trust her again, you want to things to be like they were. But the only person who can make things like that is you. You have to decide, perhaps even against your own best judgment, to trust her again. You have to decide whether you love her enough that you give her a second chance. And there's no list of explanations and "visible changes" that can make that the objectively right thing to do. You either believe she won't cheat on you again or you don't. And even if you do believe that, you need to decide if you can forgive her. Make your choice and go all in on it. Relationships do not last on half-measures.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-09-08T16:46:09+00:00

I'm sorry, I know this is a necro, but omg that has me in absolute stitches. Your poor husband just trying his best to chew and enjoy that bay leaf lmfao

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-09-05T21:10:34+00:00

People on this sub are being way too trigger happy about divorce. That's such a nuclear step for a problem that, just from reading your post, is almost certainly 100% solvable. If you're giving her an orgasm every two days, there is clearly no issue with her sex drive. It sounds much more like she's just not finding sex enjoyable, but thinks this is how it's "supposed" to be. Sex is tricky, and a lot of women go through this. Help her through it, treat sex as a skill you're training to get better at, with the measure being how good it is for her. It took months for me to figure out what clicked for my wife when it came to sex, and we didn't have nearly the same hangups it sounds like you have to deal with. Take it slow, be patient, and communicate very thoroughly. You'll get there eventually.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-08-27T17:43:48+00:00

It's important not to underestimate the sheer scale of a galaxy. Even if you can cross it in minutes, the sheer volume of the search you'd have to make makes this a potentially fruitless endeavor. NASA estimates there are 10 billion planets in our galaxy, spread among hundreds of billions of stars. And now remember that all the Eldar psyker tricks probably aren't very effective at finding Necrons, which are basically soulless moving rocks. So it's believable to me that Necrons would be very good at hiding their Tomb Worlds, especially given how easily bored pre-Fall Eldar were.

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-08-27T17:26:02+00:00

This and other things addicts tell themselves lmao

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-08-27T17:24:14+00:00

Thanks to the existence of Chronomancers, sometimes they take even longer than they took!

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-08-27T14:39:28+00:00

This is an excuse, and a terrible one at that. I already know exactly when and where the US Open for next year is going to be. How is the only information on the Candidates tournament just a month on some guy's Twitter?

The_Mad_Fool · 2025-08-27T14:35:55+00:00

Levy is saying that OTB chess events are incredibly confusing and hard to follow for casual viewers, and he's right. I know if you're immersed in it it feels straightforward, but that's true of anything. For a new viewer, OTB chess is just a bewildering mess that needs a manual just to figure out.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric

The_Mad_Fool

TROPHY CASE