|
RED-DOG
|
 |
« Reply #24840 on: June 23, 2014, 11:52:30 AM » |
|
Glad you got both my puns.
Er... yes.. both of them... Quite. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 11:54:04 AM by RED-DOG »
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
RED-DOG
|
|
« Reply #24841 on: June 23, 2014, 12:04:56 PM » |
|
Warmer? | Click to see full-size image. |
 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
Tal
|
|
« Reply #24842 on: June 23, 2014, 12:25:51 PM » |
|
I'm getting reciprocally confused.
The subtler one you got: rock.
The picture was of the American goth metal band Evanescence. Amy Lee on vocals might be the only remaining original member (someone in a better position of knowledge to confirm?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"You must take your opponent into a deep, dark forest, where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one"
|
|
|
|
Mohican
|
|
« Reply #24843 on: June 23, 2014, 12:43:28 PM » |
|
I'm getting reciprocally confused.
The subtler one you got: rock.
The picture was of the American goth metal band Evanescence. Amy Lee on vocals might be the only remaining original member (someone in a better position of knowledge to confirm?)
All you need to know- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvanescenceAlthough I liked the music at first, I put off by the fact they were supposedly a christian rock band ( I don't like to be preached at) although they have since stated they are not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cymru am byth
|
|
|
|
RED-DOG
|
|
« Reply #24844 on: June 23, 2014, 12:48:03 PM » |
|
I'm getting reciprocally confused.
The subtler one you got: rock.
The picture was of the American goth metal band Evanescence. Amy Lee on vocals might be the only remaining original member (someone in a better position of knowledge to confirm?)
Ah! I couldn't make the leap from Efflorescence to Evanescence. I'm absolutely fizzing now.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
RED-DOG
|
|
« Reply #24845 on: June 23, 2014, 02:20:28 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
RED-DOG
|
|
« Reply #24846 on: June 23, 2014, 02:30:29 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
Tal
|
|
« Reply #24847 on: June 23, 2014, 02:37:27 PM » |
|
Fairly sure that first one means the area of one block is taken off the top. It looks the same size because it's not joined together and the difference isn't huge.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"You must take your opponent into a deep, dark forest, where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one"
|
|
|
|
RED-DOG
|
|
« Reply #24848 on: June 23, 2014, 02:41:00 PM » |
|
Fairly sure that first one means the area of one block is taken off the top. It looks the same size because it's not joined together and the difference isn't huge.
Are you saying that the space taken by one block is replaced by the long thin gap? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
Tal
|
|
« Reply #24849 on: June 23, 2014, 02:43:33 PM » |
|
Fairly sure that first one means the area of one block is taken off the top. It looks the same size because it's not joined together and the difference isn't huge.
Are you saying that the space taken by one block is replaced by the long thin gap? Yes, plus maybe a combination of that and a little bit at the top. It has to be smaller in surface area after all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"You must take your opponent into a deep, dark forest, where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one"
|
|
|
|
RED-DOG
|
|
« Reply #24850 on: June 23, 2014, 02:46:15 PM » |
|
Fairly sure that first one means the area of one block is taken off the top. It looks the same size because it's not joined together and the difference isn't huge.
Are you saying that the space taken by one block is replaced by the long thin gap? Yes, plus maybe a combination of that and a little bit at the top. It has to be smaller in surface area after all. Yes. Clever illusion though. I'd never have worked it out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
typhoon13
|
|
« Reply #24851 on: June 23, 2014, 02:50:42 PM » |
|
What surprises me here is that the jaguar has not got the croc by the throat, so when re entering the water to swim back surely the croc should of put up more of a fight especially with most of its body immersed |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
typhoon13
|
|
« Reply #24852 on: June 23, 2014, 02:52:46 PM » |
|
I expect an explanation from Tai to the above
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RED-DOG
|
|
« Reply #24853 on: June 23, 2014, 02:58:19 PM » |
|
Perhaps the jaguar crushed the croc's spine and paralysed it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The older I get, the better I was.
|
|
|
|
Tal
|
|
« Reply #24854 on: June 23, 2014, 03:02:44 PM » |
|
What Red Dog said. No way would a Jaguar drag a croc into water without it being sure it's dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"You must take your opponent into a deep, dark forest, where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one"
|
|
|
|
Author