Tale

This is why we can't have nice things.

@Tale, I have this self destructive behaviour problem. Sand, being proven wrong about something does not necassarily mean you lied about it to begin with. If you were absolutely certain I was harboring space aliens in my garage because some educated people presented good evidence of it. And I added fuel to the fire by refusing to let you see inside, then if you kicked down my door and barged in, if I did not have them would that make you a liar? Or just wrong? Oh come on, man. They new Iraq didn't have WMDs. The intelligence office altered the raw data and presented it so that we would go to war. Even I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs at the time of invasion. It was blatantly obvious that Saddam was simply posturing. Either Bush and his administration was lying or they were incompetent. @Tale: Whoops, okay. I was wrong. how do you know that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? Also Have you ever thought about their connection to Syria? And Also how to cover a paper tales? Maybe there were other reasons than just WMDs in why we are in and staying Iraq. Plural? Are you calling me fat? What do I have to do with this anyway?

I still have fond memories of combining the tufts of sasquatch hair with the collected tar, the suit, and my partner.

Whaaaa? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl..._George_W._Bush Those people are not Bush's friends and family. Bush did pardon people before "one of his own was in trouble."

Such as? WHY did you ask that question? WHY DO YOU HATE THIS FORUM?!

I don't think its bias. Clinton didn't get the requisite number of votes for removal from office. Libby isn't President. If you're trying to expose bias, is your ultimate point that everyone who perjures, obstructs justice, and lies to the investigators should get away without a jail sentence or that both Libby and Clinton should have gone to jail for it? And I don't think people thinking the spirit of the offense being applicable even if the law disagrees is a bias, either. Which is what Walsh and Pop are talking about. I think people saying this should be used as evidence for Bush's impeachment might be a bit biased, however.

Wannabe director or not, he doesn't flow with the waves, he has it's own idea where "interactive entertainment" (note he doesn't like to use the term "games") should go. At least we won't get another shallow "oh I've seen that 1000times before" game from him. The industry needs more brave men like him, and less necrophiliacs like Llyranor! Yes. Sometimesthe guys not going with the flow are just using a different stream than you think. So many people got excited about Indigo Prophecy like it was something new and revolutionary. I think they've just never played an adventure game before. About all he did was introduce movie-style cinematography into an adventure game.

Because people aren't still going to the Mafia to get their beer and whiskey. The majority of consumers of these type of illicit goods would really prefer to purchase from more reliable and legal sources. Instead of that one twitching kid with a bag at the party. Yeah, but booze is widely accepted and consumed. That causes it to be dirt cheap to produce in massive quantities. Hard drugs on the other hand will always only cater to a relatively small niche of society. So you take the facilities, people to run them and then the always popular "tax the hell out of it" (read: the government) and I can easily see it being more expensive the the twitching kid. Oh, it'll certainly be more expensive. But that doesn't mean people will go exclusively to the cheaper option.

It does not go full circle at all. An direct attack against life is not the same as supressing media, ideas, and expression. This was recognized by many long ago. This is a belief that established the "free world." Many of these are because they are a direct risk to others or reasonably used as an illegal weapon. Ridiculous slippery slope argument. To this end, to those campaigning for 'censorship', why stop there? Should the government (the one you support every time you work, pay for something or vote) have control over EVERYTHING you can or can't do? Your argument is essentially 'the government knows what is best for everyone without flaw', but this can be applied to very little, and in a world of seemingly ever decreasing civil liberties, this is just one more nail in the coffin. To think it is not worth mentioning is to be ignorant of the bigger picture. A crappy and totally anti-social game is banned from a country most of you don't even live in and you cry yay, and yet, are quite happy to keep on living in anything other than a state of complete socialism where the government tells you what you want when they want you to want it. After all, the government knows best. Your entire argument is based around the idea that control is necessary and ignorant of any concept that can achieve the same effect without limiting expression. Namely, education. "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers, which are cited to justify it." President John F. Kennedy False. Governments responsibility is not to keep them safe from themselves. Governments that proclaim that they know what is best for their people without educating and asking their people are doing only what is best for the politicians. It is not necessary. Education is necessary. That is a good question, where do we draw the line? What can't be censored? If you want to argue specifically about what the game represents in being banned, then you're going to have to rewrite your entire post. You are being far more general than just Manhunt 2. I think it's ironic that someone who supports censorship, which is forced ignorance, can call others blind. You're saying that people should be blind, yet declare that anti-censors are blind as an insult. To promote censorship, a form of control, over education is the true extent of being blind and promoting stupidity. I have nothing against the UK deciding to ban Manhunt 2. My entire argument in this thread has been against those who claim that censorship is necessary. Censorhip is only necessary to control others. That's all it exists to do. To prevent ideas and expression. If someone is afraid of anti-social ideas and expression hurting society, then it is their responsibility to educate on the benefits of pro-social ideas and expression, not simply censor them. It is anathema to growth and the so-called "bigger picture." Europe has a different mindset in regards to freedom than America. Too many of the countries there have histories that involve fascist dictatorships. Something the US has appalled since it was created.

No, I agree the concept of special prosecutors has been much abused in recent years. However, let me turn this around on you. Clinton would never have committed the crime if there had not been an investigation into an matter unrelated to the crime. Can we not say the same for Libby? The DOJ began the investigation KNOWING it was Armitage who leaked Plame's ID. So does that not make the whole investigation unnecessary? And if there had been no investigation Libby would never have had the opportunity to commit the crime. So I ask again, and please answer this: If Libby deserves to go to prison for perjury, doesn't Bill Clinton deserve to go for the exact same offense committed under the exact same circumstances? I don't know if my sources are right or not, but Clinton had: 1 count perjury 1 count obstruction of justice Libby has: 2 counts perjury 1 count obstruction of justice 1 count of making false statements to federal investigators Maybe in Florida "perjury is perjury" but everywhere else 2 counts and 4 total charges is not the same as 1 count and 2 total charges. You're also not turning Walshingham's statement around. He's not saying "if there hadn't been an investigation." He's saying that the two crimes the perjury were meant to conceal are drastically different in the seriousness of offense.

The only problem with that is that you could end up getting stuck for not picking the right skills if done to early on in the game. Later on you'd just add someone useful for that task to your party, then get rid of them after you've opened the door/console etc unless they stop you from changing party members when away from the hawk....which could also lead to you getting stuck if you didn't select the correct party member. *Thinks* I guess you could have situations-say a locked door-where one of your party members tells you who you need to open the door, and you have to keep them in your party afterwards for some reason- 'Well, looks like you're going to need my help so I'll stick around for a while'. Exactly, a lot of reality bending will be needed to do any of this...sigh... Maybe having more of the situations like where you're force to have other people or specific people... I didn't like the Atton cantina scene. I actually don't much like the idea of forcing players to juggle characters. It seems to much like a strategy game instead of an RPG like that. I say just limit the number of Jedi. The player, of course, and a second (either the player's apprentice or master), plus one or even two party members. They should be able to swing a 3 person party because there are only 3 archetypes.

What's the sentencing recommendation for obstruction of justice? Your opinion of federal sentencing recommendations is wholly irrelevant. I suspect they exist only to support your bias.

30 months is beyond the federal sentencing recommendation for perjury. I believe that has been stated already in this thread.

I'm still curious as to why they dropped Sverf from that encounter.

ATTN: OBSIDIAN RE: QUESTION Did you fix ranged touch attacks not applying sneak attack damage?

Because people aren't still going to the Mafia to get their beer and whiskey. The majority of consumers of these type of illicit goods would really prefer to purchase from more reliable and legal sources. Instead of that one twitching kid with a bag at the party.

The same problem occures in the film Return of the Jedi, when Leia tells Luke that she remembers her mother-even though Padme dies just after naming her children. GL did have a line added to the book Revenge of the Sith where Leia is looking around and taking note of everything in the room, and I *Think* there is a brief scene in the film where you can see baby Leia's eyes open and looking around. Yes it is a rather lame explination, but at least they noted the error. I thought the better explanation was that she remembered her adopted mother. She probably never even knew she was adopted.

Once again, what do children have to do with it? If we just assume children will get their hands on everything, we shouldn't have R-rated movies or pornography of any kind. This has nothing to do with children except to the ignorant who automatically think video game = toy. And you're underplaying the meaning of education. Education doesn't mean a "a healthy dose of fatherly "be careful now."" Read what I said, I talked about teaching it like we teach math and science. We don't educate people on copyright either and we see a massive tons of ignorance about what that FBI warning means. Teaching social responsibility needs to be more than just a warning label. We can expect people by the time they're 18 (assuming they don't drop out) to add 2+2 and spell 'house' we should be able to expect them to act with a remote amount of intelligence and social responsibility.

Prior to the prequal trilogy's release it was believed that all Dark Side force users exploded when they died, a la Palpatine down the shaft. You can see this in books such as The Courtship of Princess Leia.

That's where education comes in.

Are you sure? I am the only person to vote for bat country.

I suspect they may be afraid to. Much like the church of old, when people do not challenge their beliefs, they fear they may not stand up to challenge. There may be a fear that by teaching social behavior intelligently they may introduce concepts that are a more appealing anti-social alternative. Ignorance is a breeding ground for doubt and fear. Hence why I detest censorship. Under it ignorance grows. An educated and intelligent belief or feeling is held to far stronger.

We have classes in elementary, middle, and high school over science, math, and english, why none on pro-social behavior? Are we afraid we can't justify the benefits?

Wow, no one called this obviously lie? I guess no one questioned Limbaugh, Russert, O Reilly, etc when they say it either. Sigh. I looked it up and couldn't find anything to contest it. Maybe I didn't look hard enough. wikipedia cites 113, with 4 commutes. The 113 are supposedly people who served their time, as well.