kgambit

I thought the following paper raised some interesting points about viewing rape as a form of bias-motivated hate crime. Much like wife beating but the expression of the power domination is physical in nature as opposed to sexual in the case of rape. It's about establishing Power or domination with sex as the instrument of exerting that power. Sexual release is not the intended goal. http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/publications/vawg/documents/VAW1.pdf I've seen this notion presented in multiple papers. It classifies bias motivated crimes into categories which are defined by the victims race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation and gender.

I used to be a big S. King reader, but since the early to mid-90's I started to get tired of his increasingly predictable, long-winded novels and haven't read many of his things since then. And I couldn't get into the Dark Tower line. His older stuff I still love and re-read. I can be picky about TV/film adaptations - the only adaptations that I think are great are the films Misery, Shawshank Redemption, and Stand By Me. Everything else varies between "pretty watchable with good parts/aspects" to "torturous". I did like The Stand for the most part, liked Storm of the Century (without having read that book) and found the kids portions of IT decent but the grown-up sections pretty awful. I'd agree with your wife that Langoliers and Tommyknockers were trash. Langoliers the story I loved to death so that was particularly disappointing. Anyway, I haven't read Under the Dome, but the series is so-so. It starts off pretty well actually, but the longer I watched the more eye-rolling and annoying it became. Felt like a pretty by the numbers "King cliches" TV treatment. Could be that part of the problem is turning it into such a long series, instead of just 3-5 episodes. That and the actor playing Dean Norris' character's son. I'm not sure if she has read the book, but based on the points of comparison I'm pretty sure she won't enjoy the series. Thanks for the feedback.

But you'd know they were there, even if covered in some titanic sweater. Like Kazhakstan. Or the Himalayas. The first thought that popped into my mind? "My God Ollie - look at the prow on that Steamer!"

Rangers 7-1 Ogando and bullpen combine on a 4 hitter Wash needs to sit Berkmann, preferably in Round Rock (Ranger minor league reference) - guy is just a massive liability on the base paths and at the plate.

I prefer to think of it as reviving a discussion from a coma.

LOL True but I did state that at the top. Given that it took 5 days before the UN team was able to access the impact area, I think the timing of the UN teams presence isn't really important. I won't belabor the point because the significance is mostly conjecture and I think the hard evidence overrides this issue. I combined #2 and #4 because they basically are intertwined re: the issue of the area's importance. The importance of the area to the opposition is many faceted: it provides local support, it is a reasonably large area that allows for internal redeployment and it's fairly firmly in opposition hands. As such, the rebels might dig in their heels and fight extraordinarily hard to maintain control of it. An urban setting that has been partially reduced to rubble by prolonged air and artillery attacks provides an excellent basis for a defense and a protracted siege is more than likely. The rubble restricts tank movements, provides excellent cover for hunter killer AT teams and excellent positions for snipers and infantry. Ask the Russians how that worked for them at Stalingrad. The inability of Assad's forces to root out the rebels may be more a matter of him not being able to do so, rather than not wanting to do so. And he or one of his commanders could have decided that chemical weapons provide one excellent tool to root out a dug in defender (which they do). The importance of the area to Assad does not need to extend past the presence of a rebel force that he has to destroy to justify its importance. There does not have to be a significant regime military target in the area )a base that needs to be recaptured etc) to justify the regime attacks. Both sides need not see the same strategic value in the area. The continued air and artillery attacks by regime forces against the area speaks to Assad's desire to eliminate a dug in foe while the length of the struggle attests to the opposition's determination to not let that happen. The fact that multiple situations like this exist not only in Damascus but further to the north may speak to the fact that Assad's forces are stretched thin, I've just answered the military significance question from #2 and #4. The issue of why there is easy .... that's where the rebels are and apparently that area has been a hotbed of opposition activity for over a year by your own reckoning. Activity against that area has been ongoing for a long time. Why then? Ah now that's trickier and a lot more difficult to answer without eyes on the situation. One possible answer is the commander on the ground was getting frustrated by lack of progress. The hazmat argument "we got attacked y the rebels" won't fly - because it would require a some extraordinary luck for a usually rear deployed unit to just happen to redeploy to the front in the exact same area and at the exact time that it gets hit by an unexpected chemical attack by the rebels. "Wow that was really bad bad luck boys. Say what were you guys doing at the front anyway?" That won't sell in Peoria. Deploying chem weapon units in forward areas is usually a good sign that they are prepping to exploit a chem weapon attack. At least that's the method behind Soviet army doctrine. Again I'm assuming that you want to exploit the attack immediately and that does require hazmat. I'm going to bypass this one for the time being. I could use a link or some details on what was alleged to have taken place at the other sites. I know there were numerous back and forth charges on both sides. Just off the top of my head, the arguments that speak the loudest against a rebel frame are items 1, 2, 4 and 5 below. Item 3 I have to think about - my gut tells me that trying to plant a couple of rockets to fake impacts and impact craters is not something that can be done on the fly. A couple of points you didn't address. There are some significant points of data that are difficult to explain away: 1) The sarin mixture is not a home-brew version but something significantly more advanced likely putting it beyond the capacity of the rebels. 2) One of the rockets was a 330 mm Falaq-2 launched rocket. The rebels have never used one like that, nor would they have access to the Iranian produced launcher. 3) The rocket trajectories all point back to launch sites in military compound still in regime hands. 4) One of the 330 mm rockets was estimated to contain 56 litres of sarin - that's 5 times what the Tokyo terrorists produced and that was from 1 rocket. 5) The German intercepts caught regime forces discussing their involvement in the attacks. Similar intercepts from other countries confirm the substance of those intercepts. Explaining those so that no blowback falls on the regime is a tall order. 100% conclusive? No, probably not but I think there's always a little bit of doubt in anything. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Ahhhhh, now that might not be such a hard sell. I don't think of Assad as a thug .... a conniving president, yeah, but heck I'm used to those.

That comment was not directed at you. Not even remotely. My apologies if you took affront.

fair enough, the potion speaks for itself line didn't mean to imply that the concept of a temporary boost to a stat, talent or skill was absolutely tied to a liquid in a vial, or any consumable - it could be almost anything

Have you tried using it as a liquid base for rice? That flavor seems ideal for that.

Win win in the sense of hitting both the opposition and their support. Risking Intervention is the downside - agreed. We've talked about the possibility that the ground war may or may not be going his way in a couple of exchanges. I'm not an expert on military tactics but I do notice that Assad has been hitting the same opposition held areas repeatedly for quite some time. Maybe he is at a standstill despite all of his advantages? I don't know and I don't think either of us are capable of profiling Assad or his commanders with any degree of certainty. Almost all of the numbered points involve a lot of speculation, some of it is incorrect and other parts portend to a knowledge of the situation that, respectfully, I do not think either of us possess. That being said, here's my views on those 5+ bullet points: (You can skip down to 5a and then go on from there. The others just offer possible issues that are minor to some degree. #5a is substantive I think) #1 - Incorrect - They arrived 3 days prior to the attack. "The 20-member UN inspection team has been in Syria since 18 August to look into three earlier suspected chemical attacks." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23838900 #2 - it was important as a base for rebels operations with a civilian populace that supported the opposition I don't pretend to know how important but I don't think you can dismiss it either #3 - the inspectors were based in central Damascus (see the bbc link) so the proximity to the attack locations does not matter. The fact that the attack locations were all opposition held and might present access difficulties is far more pertinent and yet the inspectors got into all of the attack zones. #4 - the impact areas were all opposition held - important only as targets for Assad - if it was the rebels I would have aimed for 155/4th HQ, a nearby airport or other targets - something a few km away from positions of my own troops. Errant friendly fire doesn't make sense in this scenario - the weather conditions dispel the notion of a drifting gas cloud #5 - Respectfully you're making judgments that I don't think you are qualified to make. I doubt that you have eyes on the ground to know what level of support the opposition gets from that area or what military targets might have been there. I know I don't. #5a - There was a follow-on HE artillery barrage that may have been intended to maximize casualties and severely damage medical response capability. (kill the first responders scenario) That's conjecture but so is the presumption that a tactical ground follow up was either intended or desired. A follow-up into the area would have required chemical weapon units with specially designed vehicles and protective gear unless you intended to sacrifice them. Nothing would scream WE DID IT more than sending in those troops. One video showing Syrian Chem weapon troops or a dead Syrian Soldier in protective hazmat gear would have been the smoking gun the rebels craved. It would have been positive proof that the regime knew about the chemical attacks and was prepared to exploit them. For maximum deniabilit, you want as little solid evidence tracking things back to you. No special troops, no special gear ... Look into the Russia use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan in 1979, they went in with fully geared chem units and used them after chem attacks. #5b - See #5a - A clean-up only follows if you choose to enter the area. Even with one, the sarin samples would still be retrievable from ground soil samples and human blood testing unless you plan to use a scorched earth and level the area and frankly the continued fighting around those areas indicates that a quick mop-up was not likely. you mentioned maximum effect: Big leap on that. Given the relatively small effects from the previous attacks, this did represent a significant increase in usage. Maximum use? Probably note, but perhaps the target density didn't justify it. Again, speculation on the desired effect doesn't change things. you mentioned maximum stall factor: #6 - the delay in accessing the area is meaningless without a total cleanup, and interviews with survivors and doctors would still be possible and blood samples could still be taken, clean up of soil would be a huge undertaking and likely not feasible so the only evidence that would be at risk would be the rocket delivery systems - again that requires a substantial incursion into the area you mentioned maximum deniability: At the simplest level, I agree that Assad's claim that "he" never ordered the use chemical weapons might strictly be true. It might have been his brother the commander of the 155th/4th who actually ordered the CW use to give Assad plausible deniability. Those German (and Israeli and US) intercepts all detailed conversations that did not involve Assad but do point to regime unit chatter than confirms CW usage. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/german-intel-assad-did-not-order-syria-gas-attack/ The report claims that intercepted messages among Syrian officials indicate Mr. Assad’s commanders went behind his back in launching the chemical weapons. That's STILL regime usage. It does beg the question of who bears the ultimate responsibility. Even if you argue that Assad didn't push the button himself, he still bears the responsibility for those under his command that did. The buck stops here, remember? . Further, had a rogue commander done this, Assad could have made huge hay with a public execution for "a traitorous murderers who violated his commands". Think of how that would have played in the west. CNN would have a media orgasm over that. But I'll concede the point that one would need to re-examine the situation in that light. Especially since that puts the entire issue of how secure those CWs are. (Holy ****e - did we actually agree on something? lol ) Other details: a) Attack trajectories clearly show that the rockets were launched from areas held by regime forces in close proximity to existing military bases. b) The composition of the Sarin gas is definitely not a "shake and bake" brew up implying advanced lab equipment and good quality precursors. c) The 330mm rockets used in some of the attacks have never been documented as being used by the rebels (captured or otherwise) all of those point to regime use

I'll send you a pm, but the examples aren't that hard to find. I simply said some people, not all. I think there is a middle ground that is skeptical and yet remains open minded. I don't think it applies to everyone in this thread. If there was a Chalabi or Curveball source heck yes I would be skeptical - really skeptical. I don't see the bulk of the evidence coming from that type of source. And it looks like multiple intelligence sources are saying the same things in some cases. Fair comment about the UN Report but ultimately the US did submit the question to congress. Whether they would have held off pending the UN Report was made moot by the pending negotiations.

Chalabi has been found guilty of the Petra banking scandal in Jordan and is under investigation by several US agencies atm. Again, that's 2003 ..... At the risk of repeating myself, I understand the skepticism. But if you immediately reject any evidence that is offered without critical examination solely because of past circumstances, that is not skepticism at all. Sticking your fingers in your ears to block out dissenting opinion is not skepticism. Under those constraints there will never be any evidence that you will accept from sources that oppose your already etched in stone point of view. I think I'm starting to beat a dead horse here ..... lol I'm not arguing against using caution when determining a course of action. Even if the evidence was seen by everyone as totally without taint and indisputable I would argue for the use of caution. That's not the issue.

Rangers lose 6 - 2, losing streak is now at 7 straight; KC beats the Tribe 7-1, LAA rips Oakland 12-1 The wild card in the AL is a clusterf**k Tampa is a game up on the Rangers who are a half game up on Clev who are 1 1/2 games up on Baltimore and 2 up on the yanks and KC That's 3 1/2 games total that separates 6 teams with 12 or 13 games to play In the National League only Washington has any chance of snagging a wild card and they are 5 games back The race is for the Central division lead

No, it's more the sheer boredom from seeing the same horse dragged out without variation and beaten to death time after time after time ..... Y'all? You from Southern Canada?

Really ? It's just a lack of trust. Recall the last time there was a 'bad guy' with scary weapons in that part of the world That and they're no friend to Syria and have seemed pretty eager. True except the last bad guy had invaded two of his neighbors, had used chemical weapons against one country and against parts of indigenous population and despite being under economic sanctions after the second invasion attempt was still making attempts to circumvent UN inspections and improve his WMD programs. I don't want to restart the entire Iraq discussion again. In spite of all that, surprisingly I do actually understand how people might be skeptical based on events as they played out in Iraq. So a certain amount of skepticism is healthy and probably called for. But skepticism is a far cry from a steadfast refusal to consider any other possible options. To be blunt about it, I think it goes way past a lack of trust and I see a number of people who are using it as a convenient excuse to block out any possible debate.

Point about the Quds conceded. I think calling a country a "rogue state" and an outlier might be viewed as redundant so I would have reworded that if the edit function was still available. If I remove the term "rogue state" does that significantly alter the argument around how we should view the use of chemical weapons? I don't think so since the fundamental issue is whether the weapons are actually used not how you label a country for that use. YMMV. (I used the term because I intended it to be pejorative and to emphasize that Syria is acting outside international norms, imo.) I think what you are saying is that actions and circumstances dictate when or if intervention is justified, not labels. If so, I agree. I think the issue of intervention by the west has to be linked not only to the regime's use of chemical weapons but also to the outside intervention on behalf of Assad. It's not a one off decision and I respectfully disagree with the notion that knowing who was responsible for chemical weapon use does not change the equation.

I would have suggested this bad boy (McLaren MP4-12c )

Just curious ... are you a huge fan of Stephen King or not? My wife devours most of his stuff but I'm not sure if she will like Under the Dome or not. It sounds underwhelming to me. She loved the TV versions of The Stand, Storm of the Century and Rose Red; was lukewarm about IT and hated both the Langoliers and the Tommyknockers.

Just finished watching Star Trek into Darkness last night. This pretty much summed it up for me. I thought Benedict was fine but overall the movie didn't really deliver. Not a total waste of an evening by any stretch just felt like something was missing.

He's wearing a mask. Is it something about all actors being weird? Because that's definitely true. Hmm haven't we seen a variant of that with a bear wearing a stalin / putin / lenin / khruschev mask or something similar? This thread is so much more palatable with the "ignore user" function activated. That way I can filter the chaff ...... Makes the threads shorter too .....

Yeah like that was going to fool anyone. Oh wait ...... There are simply some situations that defy logic. I think a third possibility is that Assad's offensive is not going nearly as well as people think it is. He supposedly has total air superiority with fixed wing and helos, ground support from Hezbollah, and Iranian and Russian logistical assets. It's entirely plausible that he resorted to chemical weapons to try to gain a dominant upper hand that he has been unable to achieve prior to this. Plus he gets the added benefit of killing the opposition civilian support base. It's a win-win. I don't know Rostere, but I just find the level of resistance to even the concept that Assad is to blame by people who are clearly very bright totally stupefying. Edit: My apologies - that last bit was over the top. If chemical weapons had not been outlawed by almost the entire world, I would probably agree with your first point. it would be significantly harder to make a case against a country for chem weapon use when you or your neighbors still possess them and aren't already actively engaged in destroying them. But when a rogue state is an outlier in that community it does become a pertinent question imo. Even more so when the country in question has shown a proclivity for the use of those weapons. Your second point is well taken. I find it laughable that Assad objects to other nations supplying the rebels or in proposing intervention when he has accepted, ne solicited tacit support from Lebanon, Iran and Russia.

This is a fair point against the quoted section specifically regarding the water chip stuff, but, for what it's worth, I actually was trying to make this very same point when talking about the Dynaheir quest in BG. . (I was making a very specific different point when citing the water chip chest timer... sorry for the confusion). I think if a time limit's that broad, it doesn't really generate urgency. And, since everything in the game is created from nothing, you end up making sure that you set the time limit far enough to be able to do whatever you want. But then, people who drag their feet a bit, for whatever reason (maybe, despite their best efforts, they simply aren't as efficient at completing all the tasks and stuff as other people?) get screwed a bit. Whereas, if you tell someone, short-term, when it's relevant, "Hey, we probably really need to do something about THIS situation right now, or it's going to worsen or progress without our intervention to whatever end," they feel the weight of a decision of urgency. OR, like I said, if someone says "They're not going to last very long in that church! Haste is our priority!," then actually have a time limit for when people holed up in the church of this assaulted settlement start dying, you've also got urgency. (Granted, you've got to make it pretty clear, however you do it, that "We can't dilly around here!" isn't just flavor text, and that time is ACTUALLY functionally passing, as far as the situation's outcome is concerned). But, I think there's almost no reason for over-arching "You literally only have this much time, as a resource in the game world, for a whole playthrough, and it's constantly ticking," because it almost never works like you want it to. Again, in a book or a story, purely, it works, but then... the whole thing's written to only go one way, and the time limit always affects things in precisely the way you want it to. I definitely agree with the last point regarding an entire playthrough. As for individual timed quests, I think we both agree that the timer would probably be generous enough to prevent failure as long as the player doesn't go walkabout and avoids having multiple timed quests all active at the same time. With judicious save game reloads, (doesn't everyone save before entering a village?) the "Ooops, three timed quests all active at the same time" scenario could be easily avoided. So the timing aspects shouldn't present a problem. Does the church quest you presented really create a sense of urgency or just an artificial one? I think it's more likely the latter. I believe that the only way to create a true sense of urgency in a quest or plot line is if the consequences for failure are severe and force the player into quick action or risk some game defining consequences. A simple, "oh please hurry and save the townspeople in the church or the ogres will eat them and you won't get a reward" is not going to cut it for creating urgency. That might likely elicit a "Oops too late, too bad, so sad" reaction and the party would be on their merry way. So you have to up the stakes. The more you increase the consequences for failure, the more likely it is that the quest results will interweave into the main plot. Suddenly that simple side quest starts to take on main quest relevance and ceases to be side quest. The success or failure of that quest starts to resemble a plot fork more than a timed quest. It starts to look like the dilemma that will be presented in Wasteland 2. You will be given a choice of responding to two radio distress calls and given the time constraints you can not respond to both. The immediate consequence of that choice is that one plot branch will be totally closed off to you for the entire game. So while the time constraints are there, that's really a plot fork. That I have no problems with. But I think describing that situation as a "timed quest" is inaccurate. In a different genre I can see how an imposed time limit could be a powerful game play device that reinforces terror, horror, or urgency .... (I'm thinking of mystery games here mostly).

It will if you enchant the heads with Magic Mouth spells. Intruders! Intruders! Call out the guards! No way... this is the only way to go: Loud yes, but the talking heads on the spikes is such a great image.

It is impossible to gauge the accuracy of those claims with no links provided. Yeah funny how those appeared miraculously. LOL

It's almost like a trope that everyone just liked. "OBVIOUSLY, magical effects come in ingestible liquid form! What OTHER form would they come in?!" Well the term potion is kind of self-descriptive isn't it? I find the prohibition against potion use in combat to be artificial; so much so that it appears that it's simply been offered as a punitive restriction. For example, why would a mage at the rear of a combat formation be prohibited from chugging a mana potion if needed? Or an archer using ranged attacks? Or why is it unreasonable for a fighter to say "I'm need a boost, and I'm taking the risk that my opponent gets a free swing"? I don't see anything "silly" about those options in the least.