Deadly_Nightshade

The police have, at least from what I've read and seen, said that this was a false report and they've not got anyone in custody.

I'd love to see a KotOR 3 and would pay well above standard price if that's what it required to get one that was developed by Obsidian.

Urg... Please, not that. Personally I found Carth grated on my nerves, particularly after the first couple of times through the game, but then I also mostly played a mix of dark and light or pure dark and thus got all the lectures on morality and how sith are the evils.

It would be interesting to see if there were any peer-reviewed articles on the matter, I suspect there are given that this has been a topic that, to one degree or another, has been in the public eye since women, and, to a lesser degree, men, have run for office in the age of mass media and the internet. The 2008 Presidential Election spurred this to even greater heights given that one of the front runners was Hillary Clinton and the VP for McCain was the infamous Sarah Palin.

In a sense, they would argue that it isn't right for only cisgendered people to be called "normal" hence the insult. Normal: -Skipping to the relevant bits: 2- a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern It would, and this is the counter-argument, seem that, even if you accepted the argument that being transgendered is natural and acceptable -I am not saying it is not, I'm just putting those issues aside for the sake of the argument-, they would, by the very definition of the word, fall outside of 'normal' given that 'normal' is made of the 'standard' and, at least for the time being, cisgendered heterosexuality is just that - the norm. I know that this would not go over well among the 'social justice' apologists and fanatics of Tumblr and other such places, but, as far as I can see, I cannot come up with a scenario, barring a complete demographic shift, where transgendered would be anything but abnormal.

Please tell me this is in jest...

I currently have a Nexus 7 for Tablet-things, a Motorola Milestone X as my phone, and a variety of iPods laying around that I use for music/podcasts (these range from an iPod Mini to an iPod touch). I'll likely upgrade the phone fairly soon, although I'll be buying one outright and not going through a contract as I like the plan I have and want to keep it.

As far as I know it works fine (although you'll want to turn off the auto-patching for KotOR II so it doesn't 'fix' your files for you and break things). Also, as far as LucasArts being closed, I believe that Disney has said that they're more than willing to license Star Wars, they just didn't want to develop anything in-house. The bigger issue would be a lore re-boot that negates the events of KotOR and TSL - something that would make the likelihood of a third game extremely unlikely. That said, KotOR has a fanbase and, provided it doesn't mess with their plans, a proposal might be accepted if there's enough evidence that they would not loose money (although, if the game was kickstarted that might be a non-issue).

You wanted $300,000?! $90,000 is bad enough but the original amount is just crazy.

I support British ownership. Even if you discount the historical arguments, the fact that the islanders was to remain British shouldn't be ignored. Unless Argentina wants another war (because the last one went so well for them).

I'd think so, I know that the community for NWN is still active and, even though it was smaller, a fair number of people who worked with NWN did things for NWN2 as well.

I've always wondered how those discount places got their keys. Figured them more for grey market than black. And unlike Prell, I'd definitely call products bought with stolen cards then resold "black." Some are black and some are grey. And some are legitimate - GetGamesGo and GameRocket are good examples of this. Although I agree you should be careful where you get keys from and avoid the more shady sites (personally I avoid them in favor of security, if slightly higher prices).

Meh, I'd rather see The Black Hound or Van Buren.

Steam = a subscription system with built-in DRM. True, there are some perks but, overall, I'd prefer to buy DRM-free discs or DRM-free digital releases (GoG is wonderful).

I don't remember seeing this, but I probably have. Is there any hope that Sega, or whoever owns the license, would re-visit the project so Obsidian could finish it? I doubt that's the case but...

Meh, I'm rather ambivalent about the holiday this year. While, on one hand, I'd like to do my normal routine of not doing anything and basically ignoring everything until the candy goes on sale, that's a bit harder to do with the recent separation, it's been about a month but it still hurts, and I'm finding all the hearts and things more than a bit annoying (not that I begrudge people being happy, I'd just wish that it wasn't pushed onto everything). I'll likely end up spending the night in, ignoring the world until the display of hearts and nauseating lovey-stuff has subsided. Of, course, that would change if she changed her mind and wanted to get back together - but I'm not holding my breath on that, I might ask her if she's still sure in another month or so but, even then, I'm not expecting a good outcome.

System Shock 2 is coming to GoG tomorrow!

And one was good, Origins, and the other not that great (while both were the intro sequences, DA2's was alot weaker than DA:O's). At least that's what I remember off the top of my head - was there more to the DA2 demo or was it those first few battles?

I'm not positive, but I think it is one of the 'extras' with the GoG copy of Fallout Tactics. I'll double-check later and see if that's the case or not. EDIT: It seems I was thinking of Fallout Tactics: Warfare.

The highest level items being the purple? I think Orange are the highest you can get, with purple being the second highest.

I agree, hence this part of what you quoted: "...as long as being married is the standard for couples it should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - with both being provided the full rights and privileges that this conveys." I'm not sure if you were expounding on what I said or under the false impression that I disagree with you, but I agree that the real issue is the legal rights and benefits and that they should be extended to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples. I don't care about the religious meaning of marriage, but the gut-reaction of those who do make it harder to achieve equal rights as long as that is the term used (a solution, although not one that would likely get any traction, would be to make civil unions for all - getting the government out of the discussion of marriage and fixing the real issue, the lack of the rights and protection for homosexual couples). That said, if marriage is going to be the term used by the government, then it should extend to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual ones. I feel like I'm repeating myself here... As I've been saying that the entire time.

I would agree, and while I'm not a fan of governments involving themselves with the headache that is marriage politics, as long as being married is the standard for couples it should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - with both being provided the full rights and privileges that this conveys.

I am genuinely interested in the point that gay relationships are not normal and can't receive equal legal married rights You'll have to get TrashMan to respond for, as I have said several times, I am not against gay marriage and the extension of equal rights under the law. My point was more, given that, according to the CDC, only 6% to 14% of people report to be homosexual or bisexual for an average of 9%, that while homosexuals should be given equal rights under the law, they should not expect to be treated 'normal'. They should not expect discrimination or harassment. They should have the same rights. I am simply saying that they shouldn't be catered to (e.g. crys of 'heterosexual privilege' are often things that are true because that is the majority). I feel like I'm not being very clear, and I'm sorry if this is getting confusing. EDIT: Also, when I agreed it was not beneficial - I meant that it is likely not beneficial or harmful, it's just a thing. So, in retrospect, I should not have agreed on both points with TrashMan - I'll blame lack of sleep for that one, sorry if that confused things. I really don't have issues with homosexuality or homosexuals, I just have issues with some of the more radical elements and, because of having to deal with them in my personal life, I'm a bit skittish when it comes to agreeing to normality. EDIT the Second: Here is an example of what I mean, while some are things that should be fixed, the fearing bodily harm and other things of that nature, most of the last are complaints that there is not enough 'gay-ness' in society. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that artificially forcing minority groups into everything is a good idea. Sometimes people need to realize that they're not the majority and complaining about it will not make things any better (and this goes for all people, for example I'm a fairly nonreligious person and the quantity of religious media here in the US of A is sometimes annoying - but then I remember that there's plenty of other things and just because one radio station or movie is that way doesn't mean I cannot find something else to enjoy, or I might enjoy it anyways -even though I disagree with the premise-). The same is true of the assumption complaints, if you're a member of a fairly small minority it's natural that people are not going to assume that you're a member of that minority until there is evidence to the contrary. If you're a Scientologist most people aren't going to guess that, and that's not an issue as long as they accept things when they find out (although, in that case, some questioning might be in order - but I think you'll get what I was trying to say).

Exactly the kind of post that proves my point, everything would be so much easier if we got rid of government marriage and turned, instead, to universal civil unions! I am going to, hesitantly, agree with you on both points. While I don't see, personally, anything wrong with people being homosexual, I have issue when people try to claim that it should have the same status as heterosexuality. I'm not saying gays and lesbians should have less rights or privileges, but at the same time, just as with transgendered people, I do not think that embracing an 'there's nothing abnormal about it' attitude is the correct course of action. They're abnormal, there's nothing inherently wrong with that but it's true - they fall outside of the norm and people shouldn't be coddled into thinking otherwise else they get shocked and pissy later on. Sex-ed in schools, sure - although it really doesn't have to be specific (e.g. teach everyone safe sex techniques and you'll naturally cover oral and anal intercourse, as well as vaginal, so there's not a need to make 'homosexual sex-ed' a class by itself). Marriage, or whatever the government uses, sure. Telling people that they're not a minority and should expect to see homosexuals everywhere, nope - let's not have that. Let's avoid the 'special snowflake syndrome' that makes the most vocal homosexual and transgendered people, and let's not get started on the otherkin and their ilk, feel the need to cry 'privilege' and 'discrimination' everytime they see something they perceive as unfair because they're outside of the norm. I'm actually fairly liberal, but the number of people I know personally who get onto the bandwagon of 'if you're not a minority then shut up because you're privileged and cannot understand or comment on anything' has gotten to the point that I'm tired of it. If people want to claim they're normal, fine. But they shouldn't expect everyone to be happy when they try to cram that belief down everyones' throats... Sigh... I guess this turned into more of a personal rant and got slightly off-topic, but I am just sick of the political correctness and reverse discrimination that is going on when the more radical, and most vocal, members of these groups try to push their agenda onto everyone else (and then cry privilege and discrimination if anyone disagrees). It's also late and I've had a day where I had to deal with said people, so I'm likely being harsher than I normally would be... Although not by much, at least not until I don't have to deal with people like that on a regular basis (and, because of the situation, it's hard to call them out without causing even more drama because, obviously, unless you're a member of the minorities in question you cannot say anything because of your privilege - although that only seems to go one way as they're perfectly fine when someone is supporting them). I'm not sure why I would attack you, you're being rather polite and to the point (plus, if anything was attacked, I would hope people would not stoop to using an ad hominem).