Walsingham

Too many people agreed with the conspiracists. Made me and GD go apoplectic. Played Red Orchestra a lot tonight, having promised myself only ten minutes. I got suckered into playing for longer because my first hour was as a huge run of luck with sniping. Some hilarious long range shots and lucky grenades. There are few things more pleasing than seeing some SS wannabe proudly mounting a hillock in a tiger tank, unbuttoning and putting the binoculars to his face to scan for prey, then WHALLOP shoot him with a rifle. The tank just sits there with a dead nazi hanging out of it.

It's an interesting question. I agree it's great to see the devs actually responding. My own reaction would be that games writing seems to fall into two disciplines. You have dialogue creation, which is often pedestrian, but in complex games needs to serve a variety of ethical viewpoints. Perhaps philosophy might help a bit, but doing verbal sketches of people you see might be more fun. I had a girlfriend who used to do motion sketches of people she saw whenever she had a free minute. Just line drawings. She said the key was to use impressions. So maye you could try 'sketching' people with one or two words or phrases. Just a thought. The other discipline is story crafting, but increasingly this means allowing players some freedom. I don't know what makes a good story crafter. But they definitely exist.

Back off my padawan, man.

I just heard about this new comedy film by genius Chris Morris. Four Lions satyrises Jihad, following extensive research by the man himself. I have to say it sounds like he's really tapped into the dark comedy of the phenomena as far as I'm concerned. Bang on.

Fair enough then. If it's merely assisting you in your existing dislike.

"the most complicated thing an animal can do is chomp."

Sure. They're just savages, right? I thought I was the one wearing the pith helmet.

I'm not disagreeing with you about smoking being a pointless and dangerous activity for the individual. I don't promote it. I don't condone it. But we're not talking about smokers, we're talking about tertiary smoke effects. I don't even mean to attack you personally. Like I tried to say, but maybe didn't, I'm angry that you have been shahoozled into getting concerned about this.

Maybe it's just a sort of "I'm mad as hell and I'mnot going to take this any more"

I think it must be something about brothers. My brither, who I would trust to buy a second hand car and not get gipped can conned into thinking ANYTHING is true provided it's against the government.

I wouldn't say you are totally out of control when you are being mugged. You certainly don't have the initiative, but ther are a lot of different ways to act, any of which may be appropriate depending on the person assaulting you.

Mate, you're being pretty reasonable, but that's just making me more angry at the total scare this is on you. You make it sound like tertiary smoke is like mustard gas, and you should learn CBRN drill whenever handling your baby. There's necrotising bacteria in the soil, and a high percentage of healthworkers have the same and worse on their skin. I'm not saying nothing will happen to your baby because of second hand smoke. I'm saying that once you dial your threshold that low you are going to go bat**** insane. And yes, I'm also saying not to indulge in the guilt free hatred of smokers. It's like health is the new secular fundamentalism and we're a restless stoning mob.

They don't have to use the damn knife to defend people. Look at Sukwinder Singh, that fellah who intervened in a street robbery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8500404.stm Not sure what my point is. I'm just appalled.

An example of the terrifying threat posed by an armed sikh:

There's no functional hypocrisy here. As I already mentioned we accept that individuals with given training can be allowed to carry offensive weapons. The police do so routinely, yet as the recent court case proves the police are hardly saints across the board. The average workman also carries an array of sharp edges, bludgeons etc. I do not defend the Empire, I defend the every day principles of Britain which is that certain liberties are consistent with the possession of an honourable disposition. I believe that sikhism constitutes a determined, structured, and largely successful attempt to inculcate just such an honourable disposition. I do not pretend all sikhs are honourable. Merely that being a sikh should be grounds to extend the benefit of the doubt over their intentions in carrying an object which need not be considered a terribly effective weapon. It's not like they are asking to carry around a Glock 17. Moreover as you may have noticed I BEGAN THIS THREAD by suggesting a compromise. So you might consider the possiblity that I am not talking about compulsory arming of all sikhs either.

So if you have a problem with smoking, you're not a real man? You're ridiculous. I admit I was... exuberant with the joys of fine wine last night, but I stand by the spirit of my objection. Yes, I do say that the risk represented by passive smoking is miniscule compared with risks we accept every day. Surely I don't have to list chapter and verse for all the other risks in life generated 'unnecessarily'. What about dog and cat ownership, when the faeces and parasites upon those animals spread diseases? The car issue has already been mentioned. This is important in two ways: 1) Interference creep. Given the nature of legal precedent there is a real risk that having established the significance of risks at this level and in this way other activities we all enjoy will be targetted. 2) We are all either people who are suffering from stress and depression or know people who are. Every one of these pointless flaps is another straw on the camel. As a culture we HAVE to escape the constant vigilance overload. 2b) Most people routinely ignore important issues because they are distracted by the plethora of false alarms which they scramble to meet. Meaning that when we get genuine problems we are paralysed in frenzied dissipation. ~~~ If you wish to convince me otherwise feel free to do so, by producing (respectively) 1) Evidence that these risks are significant compared with other routine activities 2) Evidence that mentioning something like this does not evoke a significant stress response, and 2b) ideally that several such comments produces inaction towards any of them

This is a flap about bugger all. Second hand smoke, third hand smoke, grow a pair of balls. At the point where second hand smoke - at the rate you are ever likely to be exposed these days - is a problem you have life issues which need addressing. Death by car crash, war, famine, clinical dpression, by all means worry about them.

Excuse me, but how exactly that justifies it? If someone decides to pull out a gun and shoot his brains out, then okay, that was his decision. But if that bullet hits me after it travelled through his head, I'm going to be pissed, you know? I believe every single human being has the right to do what ever they want to them selves, as long it doesn't affect other people in a negative way. So as far I'm conserned everybody has the right to smoke, but they lose that right where my goddamn lungs begin. Hey whoah there. Let's not get into the fake panty-twisting smoke affects me bollocks. Second hand smoke has a fraction of the impact on my chances of getting cancer compared with eating red meat and bacon, and getting stressed. I do all those things. I get in a rage and I stress my employees. Is that OK? We live a life of risk culminating in a cerainty of death after a really very short time. i don't promote smoking. I don't likesmoking. but I draw the line at persecuting someone for having an addiction when their sins are simply a different shade of my own.

Is it really? I'm going to be annoyed if its mediocre. Please confirm.

I take your point, but then if we're out to protect our culture, why give in to others? We never needed to carry knives before. Do we have to bend over backwards to every religion? What's more important, preserving common sense or appeasing a few bearded people that happen to believe in nonsense (hey but good luck to them)? If it's no big deal for them to carry knives, then I say maybe it's no big deal for them not to. I'm glad I made some kind of sense, but i'm saying that our culture is to side with the sikhs, not against them. Our culture is one of honour and special circumstance. All this piffle about everyone equal before the law... Man to man, is everyone actually the same? Of course not. If the principle of equality is untrue how can it be justice? Surely justice is the search for truth? We may be speaking to the same spirit but crossed purpose. You say nonsesne is to give in to bearded chaps. I say the real nonsense is to give in to pasty faced law nerds.

I don't think you're generally a whiner, Hirlshot, but I feel this is you having a pet peeve. We all affect each other and not everything we do is good. BUt equally we have a ... a... duty to allow others to take risks and to have problems. NOthing a smoker does to you is worse than they are doing to themselves, after all. For the record I had terrible asthma when I was a kid. In hospital, nearly died. But I still put up with smokers. Instead I worry about REAL arseholes viz white-supremacists, talifascists, paedophiles etc. Leave the smokers be, man.

'They' don't need Nitetsche for that. They just need to move beyond primitive social structures. Which is as much economics as anything else. Although I admit that economics is generally healthier in region where one isn't as likely to get exploded. On a more serious vein, surely the principle here is the elimination of 'certainty' from politics. Religious zeal of any form is antipathetic to discussion, and thereby precludes any alternatives but slavery and violence. The zealot dreams himself both your master and your conqueror.

If it comes to that, why allow a plumber to carry a knife? Or a chef? We accept as commonplace that certain individuals are - by reason of profession or assumed temperament - unlikely to commit acts of violence. Yet surely a committed sikh, who has received some instruction in honour and self-control should be acorded the same?

President. Icon. Peacemaker. Amateur sword swallower.