alanschu

Death's Head for the win!

Well, here's hoping STALKER comes out, for yours and my sake

Been a while since I played any of the FO games, so I don't remember that.

Why not?

A typo

No doubt because I had threatened it at gunpoint! Or something EDIT: Booo, no more microtext? EDIT: Boooo, no more unhappy face :sad:

Wait...what?

Rant post by me here Basically it involved Cory Cross and the retarded mistreatment he got here from moronic Oilers fans who found a way to blame the Oilers woes on a #6 defensemen that played 10 minutes a game.

I have the feeling my warped sense of humor caused me to read this really wrong, but it sure made me LOL. I love pets but if I had kids I probably wouldn't let them have one until they were fairly old. Well, maybe a hamster... Oh please, do share the comedic interpretation because I just don't see it Are you implying that I think kids are pets? I do expect acquiring pets for my kids at some point in my life. Heck, I used to enjoy the family dog when I was growing up as well. I figured I "outgrew" it.

I'm not a pet person. It's something I do not look forward to upon having children.

I was thinking he was being less than serious when he made his post.

I concur.

Is he still dating Elisha :sad:

I believe you're taking a quote out of context. Tsk tsk tsk. EDIT: Apparently I had not been to the page for quite some time, but this was directed at Hades who quoted specifically "I don't give a ****" from Shadowstrider.

I think that might be Ultima VII (didn't play much of VIII), but this would sort of make sense. Given a universe where a magic spell can kill everyone on the planet, there's no reason why this same spell would not protect the caster as well. At the same time, it seems odd that such a spell was included, since as far as I know it has no useful purpose in the game.

No doubt Stilletos give a +1 to Attack and +1 to Defense.

At least you learned something actually applicable to reality with that one.

Hahaha Though I don't typically hear of muggings and whatnot taking place without at least the threat of a weapon being present. Unless maybe the guy was a tank. The thing is, despite my sleight frame, a gun could still make me an effective mugger. With a knife, maybe. Though I suspect that if I was to take a random sample of a thousand people, I'd get more people attempting some sort of retaliation had I had a knife rather than a pistol.

Because I expect a group of individuals (say a family) to act at least somewhat selfishly, for their own needs. I do not expect government to act selfishly on its behalf, but rather on behalf of the people they represent. Hey, my Aunt (a French teacher) spoke French with her exchange student from France when they were alone, so it's not like it's impossible. Since only my brother spoke French (and our exchange student was fluent in English), we spoke English. Also, since the only language I know fluently is English, if I were to decide to become an exchange student, I'd request that my hosts be proficient in English. If the host country I was interested in didn't have anyone that met that criteria, I'd look elsewhere. Just like how a Spanish speaking immigrant (illegal or legal) can find places in the United States where people know Spanish. In any case, it's the people that a person interacts with that will determine the need for whether or not someone will learn a language, not the government. If someone works and lives with people that predominantly speak a different language, they will learn that language, as people are inherently social creatures. I'm sure some don't. I'm sure some legal immigrants don't either. Many foreigners do see America as "The Land of Opportunity" though. And given subsections of society in the United States (and Canada) that sprout up reflecting (and preserving) various minority cultures, it's easier for them to take advantage of said opportunities. I know that when I go to Chinatown, I no longer expect English to be the primary language spoken, despite Chinese being none of the two official languages of Canada. Now Guard Dog commented about how he's fine with people doing their own thing outside of government interactions, in allowing people to behave this way will only lead to a situation where a government agency will conclude that it's best to offer multilingual service. Refusing to do so could be doing a diservice to the community that the government is trying to serve. And yes, it is selfish. You were expecting people to behave in a different way? That would certainly explain why cultural segments of cities sprout up so frequently. Chinatowns, Little Italies, and so on. How is it a strawman? It's simply a situation where a concession would be made. And it's still an issue of scale and circumstance. If the host family was multilingual and happened to know English as well, it's actually not unreasonable that interactions with them would occur in English (especially since I have seen it happen). I was kind of all over the place as I posted this message, so hopefully it's coherent and I didn't leave any unfinished sentences lying around.

I think it would be wise to temper thine expectations a few notches.

Since I have actually had a gun pointed at my face by a criminal who is now doing hard time for that act I can tell you that the experience was very overrated and not all that fearsome. And I'm sure everyone in the world reacts just the same as you in that situation. If that's the case, why do criminals bother using guns period? All the need are their fists.

Let me turn this around then, would the Nazis have been able to effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if the Jews were armed to the teeth? First off, what exactly are you "turning around?" I've not stated any opinion on gun control, and the text of mine that you quoted had nothing to do with gun control, but rather was addressing Hades' comments that the weapon type is irrelevant, but only the intentions matter, since if someone wants to do something, they'll do it. I call bull****, because if a criminal really wants to do commit a crime, in almost any situation he'll be better equipped with a handgun than he will with his bare fists. For you to "turn this around" on my point, you'd have to be talking about the gun being less effective of a tool than the knife. To answer your question, no, they wouldn't. In fact, you could have brought up that the Gun Control Laws in Nazi Germany allowed for such a thing to happen. If you'd like, you could also bring up the hypothesis that part of the reason why Germany initially overlooked Switzerland was that its armed population (in combination with the unfavourable Alps) would have made it a bitch to take. Although this would be irrelevant, as I doubt that Jewish prisoners inside concentration camps would be "armed to the teeth."

Haha, give him the MVP because Evil Rex is what won it for the Colts? :D

If it were the truth of it, then I wouldn't have called it a simplistic view. It wasn't "simplistic" in the Occam's Razor sense, but simplistic in that it's not wholistic. A criminal can have all the desire to commit a crime he wants, but if he's less equipped than the other person, it's a stupid ass thing to do. If they break into a house and have a 100% chance of getting a fat score with no chance of getting caught, then they will do it. If breaking into a house means swimming across a piranha infested moat, dealing with lions in the front yard, the chances of them attempting the crime may be somewhat less than 100%. If all the bad guys are armed with nothing but their fists, and all the good guys have guns and are trained in their use, only the most desperate of bad guys are going to try to do anything, because the odds are stacked against them. Since I'd hate to see Godwin's Law not be correct, do you think that the Nazis would have been able to so effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if they were only armed with knives. The gun has an increased ability to main and kill someone compared to a knife, especially in the hands of an assailant that is not particularly well trained in either. I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

This is the "aweseome" thing about gun control.