Bartimaeus

Yes...Germany and France's shared heritage goes back at least as far as the Carolingian Empire, IIRC. That's why (at least) both share the general term "Franks", from what I remember. If you want to make the argument that the concept of nationality as we know it today was little to nonexistent back then, and therefore almost all nations have trouble tracing their heritage back very far (with maybe a few exceptions), well...I can accept that more readily than just the argument against Germany, so fine.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Most people around here have been relatively tame...besides maybe a few (...regardless of what side they're on), so I'm not really so concerned about that.

This entire thing stinks of slimy politics. Dig up everything a person has ever been involved with, latch onto anything juicy sounding regardless of the actual evidence (note: I'm not actually necessarily placing a value on the evidence in this specific case - just that it hasn't really mattered for these controversies), regardless of what it's about or how it relates to their job or cause or anything else, and demonize them and make sure that everyone will know them for that controversy for the rest of their lives. It's what politics has devolved to, and it's what GG and anti-GG have been doing to each other for some time now, it feels like. It's why even though I lean towards the ideals of GG, I'm never gonna get personally involved with this crap or definitively support anyone involved either way. When something becomes as dirty and flagrantly stupid as politics have become, nobody wins.

Of course not. But the issue with her character has very little to do with actual GamerGate, and everything to do with...just that: her character. So why does it seem like GamerGate is acting like she's the Devil incarnate and that the entire anti-GG movement is lesser because of it? Isn't that exactly what anti-GG has done to GG when there have been less than savory individuals involved with GG...like that guy from just a few days ago that was pretending to be anti-GG, and was instructing people how to make bombs or whatever? Why are we still involved in this kind of nonsense? Express your disgust with the person as it relates to *that* actual issue (instead of something completely unrelated, i.e. GG), and the people whom are defending her, and move on.

I'm not sure how that or your last few posts relate to the current controversy about Sarah Nyberg (which the post you quoted, Amentep's, was almost entirely about (e): or at least relating to, I guess I should say (/edit)), but O.K., I guess.

I think it's silly to say that where "wasn't a Germany" before 1814: that's like saying there wasn't a Turkey before 1920, when Turkey is clearly an evolution (of sorts) of the Ottoman Empire. Germany may not have existed as a solidarity before then, but German peoples and states (particularly as part of the Holy Roman Empire) certainly did.

What are you even talking about?

It's essentially become an ad hominem attack on a massive scale. Yeah, what's being said in the attack might actually be true...but that really doesn't matter as it relates to your movement, particularly when your movement is supposed to be about ethics in the gaming industry and NOT harassing the people whom disagree with you. Not that I'm defending her character or the anti-GGers defending her in her pedophilia - based on the evidence so far, it does all seem rather messed up. ...But you just do not help your reputation as a bunch of women-haters by getting so incredibly fixated on stuff like this. Unfortunately, I think it's just the nature of people that once someone's character is effectively assassinated, we feel like absolutely nothing they say or do is of consequence, unless they work for years and years trying to fix their reputation, and even then, a good percentage of people will still automatically discount them for forever. So...character assassination will likely continue on in and outside of GG, as it always has. (edit): Oh, and furthermore: when someone who was prominently correlated with something has their character assassinated, it feels natural to believe that what they stood for and what they were working on and what they believed are all automatically discredited or "lessened" because of it. Which is completely ridiculous...but again, that just seems to be our natural tendency.

I tried watching the 1942 version of the Jungle Book a few years back with a friend. It was pretty bad. Think we got about halfway through before we turned something else on. In regards to Disney live-action movies in general...eh. I've seen Cinderella, Maleficent, Alice in Wonderland, and John Carter (...is this even a remake of something?), and only Maleficent was even a quarter way decent. And I really do not like Angelina Jolie (...as an actress - she seems like a swell enough person, from what I've heard), so that's saying something.

Live action movies with CGI animals like this and Life of Pi and others always fall so incredibly flat to me for some reason, and this doesn't look like an exception.

I didn't know about that. That's pretty disappointing. Was there not even a warning that it was going to happen?

what just happened the 49ers are supposed to be garbage this season vikings are supposed to be close to wildcard quality what happened (e): on the other hand, packers are 1-0, and the rest of the NFC north is 0-1. that's a pretty nice change of pace from the past three years, where packers lost their opening game each year.

Bradford's tipped interception made me sad. Reminds me a little too uncomfortably of his Rams days.

I have one of the pretty few copies on Steam, fortunately. (e): ...though I have no idea if it works on Windows 8.1 or greater. What's the problem with the DVD?

I root for a lot of teams. Packers will always be my favorite first and foremost, and I'd never root against them...but I actually like all of the other NFC North teams, too...whenever they're not playing the Packers, of course. Currently like the Raiders, Giants, Broncos, Eagles, Cowboys, Bengals, and Bills all for reasons one or another as well. Most hated are Steelers (most of all others, always, ), Patriots, Seahawks, Buccaneers, Saints, Redskins. Probably a really odd list of teams to like and dislike, but hey, it is what it is. Most others I'm more or less ambivalent about.

I have a strange like for Sam Bradford, so personally, I'm rooting for them. Plus, with how terrible the Falcons defense were last season, a win seems likely, anyways.

On the other hand, Dez Bryant broke his foot...hope that win against the Giants is worth it, Cowboys.

I don't enjoy speculating on injuries enough to bother. Yeah, Giants pulling off some witchcraft in this game. I might as well just go to bed and accept that Dez Bryant ain't gonna get three to four touchdowns to make up for mediocrity of having Peyton Manning, Steve Smith Sr., and Brandon Cooks this week. Oh well: Packers won, Seahawks lost (and in hilarious fashion), and that's all that really matters.

I thought Cutler actually played pretty well...much better than he's played the Packers in years past, anyways. Very competitive until the very end. Peyton Manning, on the other hand...

Well, if the GOP wins the upcoming presidential election, they probably won't really need to work with the Democrats, anyways, as Republicans will control both sides of Congress (unless things really turn around for the Democrats, but the Republicans have a pretty large advantage in the House of Representatives, and a fairly large advantage in the Senate, too, so I doubt the Democrats seize control of either outright in the upcoming cycle, but I suppose it could happen), the Supreme Court, and the White House. That will be...interesting, to say the least, if that does happen (...and though I lean, I think, roughly slightly center-right - or maybe just roughly center - I must say that I don't feel comfortable in all of that happening).

Unfortunately, a lot of those Republican crazies are liked well enough by their constituents to actually be voted in, so I'd prefer the more equal motion of removing all crazies from all phases of the election process in general. ...Of course, one man's crazy is another man's realist or whatever else, I think the saying more or less goes, so there's no way to do that democratically.

Of course they want their preferred candidate to work with the opposition...by having the opposition concede and compromise with their preferred candidate, and never the other the other way around.

I like to keep Hitchen's razor in mind whenever I consider arguing with Bruce about something: perhaps you all should, too. (P.S.: Refer to my signature. )

That's one way to see things. But you see - the crusaders would say that they were overthrowing a usurper and restoring a rightful ruler to the throne. Also they hardly had monopoly on killing fellow Christians. Oh, of course. By modern standards, we'd consider pretty much everything that happened in...well, I was going to say the middle ages, but really, you can pretty much go back as far as you want, and you can go forward a bit too...to be barbarism. Back then, going on at least one of the first three Crusades was the greatest service to God you could possibly do. Nowadays, the goal posts seem to change quite a bit more from decade to decade than they did back then.

Not exactly the strongest condemnation of Christianity there, with all those uncertainities: I'd suggest using the Crusades as examples of acts of barbarism by Christianity if that's what you're looking for, particularly (in my opinion) the Fourth Crusade, which actually did lead to the destruction of the Imperial (Great) Library of Constantinople...among other atrocities, such as besieging and slaughtering their fellow Christians in the name of greed.