Bartimaeus

I could be talking out of my butt here, but I also think MMOs were, initially, a genre that was difficult for kids and teenagers to get into - very complicated, and often required a monthly subscription. So generally speaking, the average age of a player was likely to be higher...as opposed to MMOs later, where it seems like players are nothing *but* children and teens (...or people who act more or less the same) with way too much time on their hands. World of Warcraft seemingly made the genre much, much more accessible than it previously had been...which, yes, means making it accessible to younger gamers, too. A double-edged knife, as it were. I'm sure Blizzard was happy with that. I kind of turned my back on MMOs a couple of years after World of Warcraft released, and I haven't really looked back since, so I don't really know how the communities are for them anymore outside of what people say. I imagine they're like most online gaming communities these days: toxic.

Huh, that's unexpected. What was their problem? There was just a general negativity toward healers. There were threads on the Guild Wars fan forums about how people who played healers were entitled and elitist for reasons that had little to do with reality, and there was a general dislike of the fact that it often took a very long time to find a healer when doing missions, because few people played them, because they were treated like rubbish when they did. The worst abuse I've ever experienced in an online game came from playing a healer in Guild Wars, and I love to play healers. I was never treated that badly in WoW, City of Heroes (not technically a healer but support that provides damage prevention), Star Wars TOR, or The Secret World. Guild Wars 2 might be better about that, but I haven't played it enough to say either way and the character I am playing right now is a necromancer. Meanwhile, in the original EverQuest, healers were treated like royalty, while DPS were at the bottom of the rungs...

Jon Stewart (2015): It is not okay to shoot people you disagree with.

I actually looked up more about CTS last night after you mentioned it, and it actually did sound a bit like it. Maybe they just didn't tell me that was what it was.

I could never really get into AoE1 because of how screwy the unit power progressions were. Units that you get in the first and second age are absolutely freaking useless the second you or other players get out of that age, and there's not really any room to upgrade them. AoE2's system was a little more simplified, but definitely better balanced and provides at least an argument for starting mass unit production early, whereas you'd only really want to do it to either rush/harass early or defend yourself in AoE1.

carpal tunnel syndrome? it's a very light operation that can even be done with just local anesthetics while you are awake... of course i don't know if that is a good idea in your case. and it does not heal itself, so waiting it out was pointless suffering on your part. It's actually not carpal tunnel syndrome. From what I understood the doctor say, something in there is just bent out of shape, and it's causing a sort of chain reaction of pain between bones and nerves (...or at least, this is what I was told after I had xrays on it). They're actually going to put me under to fix it, which seems a little excessive, but I guess it's better than being awake through it... They said that a local anesthetic would be too risky because they apparently need it to be absolutely still. And yes, it really was totally pointless suffering, as it clearly did not heal itself. On the plus side, I'm that much closer to being ambidextrous after forcing myself to be left-dominant for the past few years...

Reminds me of the silly "what're you thankful for" type-gatherings you'd do in the first couple of years of school, and maybe during Sunday school as well. They were kind of weird back then, but for kids, it makes a little sense to do it: supposed to encourage you to think about what you have and help you realize that you should have some appreciation for it. For grown men that are supposed to governing our country, on the other hand...and furthermore, to direct most of it towards Trump...

Um...that's a...novel idea, but I think I'll have to pass, based on the description.

Another E3, another year I realize the modern triple-A gaming industry is not really for me...Maybe the new Metro won't be as bad as Last Light, at least.

Learned yesterday that I'll need surgery to fix something in my wrist that's been causing debilitating pain for the past couple of years. Of course, I had previously decided to just become left-handed (including totally re-learning how to use a mouse and keyboard) in order to not deal with it and attempt to let it heal itself over the past couple of years, but since it still hasn't, I guess I'm finally going to deal with my phobias of anesthetics, knives, and being cut open. (e): fixed

It sounds like you may be a form of Christian agnostic (not what you might think it would be if you're looking only at the "agnostic" part). I'd say I'm halfway between that and just agnostic.

Thanks. That would've been very good context to have about 2 pages ago, so thank you for digging it up. I still stand by my previously stated general position, but given that what he said was at the very least in a mostly theological context, it would be extremely silly to hold those statements to that general standard, and I am disappointed that Sanders did, especially providing virtually no context for it as he did (just a nondescript footnote at the beginning). (e: context context context)

I have no problem with his beliefs, per se. If he thinks Islam is barbaric, if he believes all non-Christians are condemned to an eternity of hell - that's all more or less fine. Many people think those sorts of things already, including probably a majority of the people elected throughout this country. The difference, I feel, is when it begins to seep into your actual behavior, how you treat people, and the things you say to them. Biases, prejudices, and stereotypes - moral or immoral, rational or irrational, justified or unjustified - are all things we're subject to, and subconsciously (or consciously) subject other people to. If you stick around certain people or groups/types of people for too long, there's a certain tendency to unconsciously notice patterns with those or other types of people, and that's exactly what biases, prejudices, and stereotypes are born from. I can't blame people for doing that, especially when I know it's something that I struggle with myself. So where I draw the line, personally, is when people start treating people differently as a result of them: in other words, when it stops becoming a matter of "just" thinking and a matter of actually discriminating against or between people in a patently unfair manner. If you're elected/appointed to a position in the public sector, I'm not going to feel particularly comfortable with you if you've previously done things that support the notion of you possibly unfairly discriminating against or between others when you're supposed to be serving a large variety - all varieties, actually - of Americans equally. I feel as though publicly announcing a certain religion as being, again, "deficient" kind of qualifies for that: for me, it clearly signals that it's no longer something that you merely think, but is now instead a prejudice that you're actually acting upon and modifying your behavior as a result of - otherwise, why would you be telling the whole world about it? I don't think we should be subject to a thoughtpolice, but I don't know, this entire sort of public and denigrating proclamation stinks of unfairness to me. (e): Additionally, I think people would be better served by criticizing specific issues involving groups of people, not the entire group in a blanket statement overall, particularly when there are so many different sub-groups who may not even be party to the things that you think are wrong with them. This guy did the latter. I think Bernie put it best when he was running for president: let's focus on the issues.

No, you already said it: in our heads vs. not in our heads. If you make a point to insult and condemn groups of people for no other reason besides that you can, I'm sorry, but I'm naturally (and I think pretty darned justifiably) going to have concerns about your character. No, if he believed Santa Claus was real, I wouldn't have the same type of concern, because it doesn't actually concern anyone but himself (...unless he started announcing to the world that all people who didn't similarly believe in Santa Claus were ignorant fools that weren't going to ever get any presents on Christmas, I guess). The reality of the matter, though, is that he's being appointed to a public sector job, where he's supposed to deal with and treat everyone with the same amount of respect, including the types of people he's called as having a "deficient theology" and "being condemned to hell" - the latter might literally be one of tenants of his faith, but you don't see every other Christian candidate making a point of it to announce it to the world. I just don't know, man - why wouldn't this concern you? If you're saying that you wouldn't be concerned with a candidate who is a militant atheist that publicly announces that all Christians are ignorant, then O.K., that's fair: clearly you're much more concerned about them doing just their job competently rather than any beliefs or ideology they may or may not have that may or may not affect how they look at and treat people on a basic level, and I can respect that. For me, this theoretical candidate would appear ill-intentioned and no, I don't want them anywhere near a public sector job where they're supposed to treat all Americans equally. Their previous treatment of certain types of Americans (even if it's just verbal!) calls that part of their job into question for me. Can you explain to me why it wouldn't for you? That is not a sarcastic question: I'm genuinely curious. (e): various fixes

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis - if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions, or a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever - and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...", it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally. I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion. As you literally just put it yourself a few posts ago, "[We] are heading down a dark road when [we] start judging people on what is going on in their heads." That's exactly what this candidate did, and it's why some of us would feel uncomfortable with him when it concerns a not insignificant amount of people on a total non-basis. He's the one that's making the public statements of condemnation, right? Maybe it actually doesn't have any bearing on his ability to do his job in a fair and competent manner...but nevertheless, it is rather gross and ill-appearing.

It feels like we're arguing the same thing here.

I would disagree with that, and would say it's not really the fundamental problem here. If an atheist exuded the same sort of hostility, this sort of superiority complex where they're looking down upon other groups and calling them "deficient" simply for their religious affiliations - not even ideological, just religious, which varies so much from person to person! - I'd say that's unbecoming of your office and your ability to represent and serve all types of Americans equally, just as much as the man in that video. This whole tribalism mentality really needs to go out the window...

It was actually a joke. He's not really a whistleblower or leaker, because they were his private (and unclassified) memos that he can release however and whenever he feels like it. It might be arguably in poor taste to publicly share the private conversations between him and the president, but he's certainly within his rights, especially seeing as executive privilege was not claimed prior to him sharing those conversation. In regards to Sanders, I have no real issue with what he said and would expect him to take similar issue with any candidate that publicly and repeatedly claimed a proportion of their constituencies were straight up "condemned" on no real basis*. If he didn't, then I would also lose respect for him. Has there been any such example? *On a side-note, if the candidate really wanted to be consistent with their beliefs, shouldn't they have mentioned atheists and agnostics and Jews (this one being brought up by Sanders himself) and all other non-Christians in his statement? Why single out Muslims? Perhaps he did and it simply wasn't included here?

I believe the term is "whistleblower".

Thanks for the additional context. And then there's the additional problem of Brexit and there needing to be a free border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and yet the EU requiring a border between the EU and non-EU countries. Seems like Britain is currently stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Raithe, is there any credence to the idea that a Conservative/DUP coalition is in violation of the Good Friday Agreement? As I understand it, a coalition with one side of the Northern Island issue (nationalists vs. unionists) is, in its necessity, an unlawful "supporting"/empowering of one side when Britain has very strictly agreed to remain neutral on the issue of Northern Ireland independence. (For anyone that doesn't know, the Good Friday Agreement is the treaty between the UK and NI and Ireland that ended the Troubles, the nationalist/unionist conflict between these three parties, and was the basis for the end of the IRA.)

Yeah...serious mental illness often leads here. I'd rather have broken bones than chronic depression - the former will at least heal.