Bartimaeus

Maybe if s13ep hadn't changed the font color of the entire post to a searing white for no reason, I would actually bother trying to read the entire thing...I hate it when people change their entire posts to a different size/font/color. There should really be a rule against doing this...for, uh, the sake of the children and everything. (e): Wait a second, aren't I calling myself a child by saying that, since it'd be for me? ...Whatever.

That's only...sort of true. There's no way to do it via the actual control panel, but you can manually edit some text profile...uh, file somewhere or another in your appdata directory: I know this because I messed around with mine a while back trying to unlock lower clock speeds for my 3D clock speed settings, and found the 2D settings as well as the "half speed" settings...and it annoyed me that, for the 2D settings, the memory clock speed was set to 157MHz instead of just 150MHz (making my OCPD flare up a bit, ), so I changed that, too.

Hey, it's not my fault it's not as funny or "ironic" as it initially seemed after a few moments of reflection, . It is my fault for actually bringing it to attention, though, so you got me there.

I don't know Lincoln's gun policies (or whether he had any at all to begin with) off-hand, but...not really? Because I support the U.S.'s particular brand of free speech, and for...say, for example, extremist Muslims and Christians to be able to verbally support what I would consider to be barbaric and/or otherwise awful policies and actions...doesn't mean I support those actual policies and actions, nor do I want them to follow me around and harass me by constantly shouting their support for those things at me, either. Just as I'm sure Lincoln could've supported the right to bear arms without supporting lunatics shooting other people in the face, nor miscreants who would do other forms of harm with firearms, or other false equivalencies such as the image above implies.

I mean, I'm about as bad aiming in an FPS with an analogue stick as I am with a touchpad...I'll never play a shooter on a console because of how uniquely, truly terrifyingly awful I am at using an analogue stick for aiming. Give me a mouse or I ain't playing.

Well...if Brady sues, then at least we'll know as to whether or not he was actually cheating. If he doesn't sue, that'd be almost as bad as an open admission of guilt at this point...but if he's willing to going through the more thorough investigation in an actual legal battle (than the NFL could put up outside of one), then it seems likely he isn't.

The restored edition of Metropolis (1928). Last night, I was looking at the selection of my cable's on demand "all free" movies category, not knowing what to expect (having never actually looked before now), and was surprised to see Metropolis sitting in there...so I figured, why not give it a shot? The following is mostly spoiler-free (except where marked, basically), in case you're planning on ever watching it. The film was just a few minutes under two and a half hours...felt fairly long, particularly for a silent film. Not truly silent, mind you: the movie had a pretty decent score, which definitely helped maintain my interest. The cityscape imagery - both the artwork meant to look like the city as well as the actual upper world set pieces - was usually pretty cool looking (though those shots were far and few in between the rest of the movie...), and the machinery imagery was pretty neat, too...wasn't as impressed by the lower world and catacombs areas, particularly when... ...a poor choice to make on the part of the filmmakers, among a few others IMO, that gave me immersion whiplash, with the world at any given moment feeling either large and city-like or small and obviously set-piece-like. It is a 1928 movie, though, so I'll cut it a little slack in this regard. Acting had its ups and downs, of course...it's a silent film, so by necessity, lots of acting had a tendency to feel a bit overwrought. It was mostly okay, though...besides, ironically (I think), the two main protagonists as well as a lot of the main antagonist (main by the end of the film, at the very least: it is two and a half hours long, remember). I especially didn't like the job done by the second protagonist we meet when they're...not themselves, I guess you could say (to remain essentially spoiler free). Like other silent films, all the chase scenes looked pretty weird and silly... I also didn't really understand why they didn't slightly tone down some of the acting in favor of more of the neat little text screens...but this all may just be my modern sensibilities talking. In regards to the plot and general narrative...it was followable, at the very least, if perhaps a little high-minded for my tastes, especially for how far along the filming industry was in terms of how much money and skill there was to be had in creating filmmakers' visions, in addition to just the general level of film-making technology at the time. Do I really think it deserves a 99% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with an average critic review score of 9.1? No, not really. But it is a movie from 1928, and I'm not exactly an enthusiast of that era of film-making, so it's probably best I don't have a say in its rating. Overall, I did watch all two and a half hours, and it wasn't actually an all-too-terrible experience, so it couldn't have been that bad, right?

I don't think Bruce ever comes in here.

Couldn't we start on the grass or something else before each other?

Seems like someone watched a little too many X-Files episodes...

You may be thinking of Kramer's Dominican cigar rollers...and not Cuban like he initially thinks....but I don't think they ever actually mention that particular myth.

Hey, I like...um...mechanical women...as much as the next person, but the least she could do is put on some clothes...at least for the title card, doggonit...and not make the game look so silly. Steam reviews have their use...namely, telling if a game is completely broken or completely terrible: anything at or below "mixed" and it almost always means at least one of those. Beyond that, it seems like they don't really usually mean much...particularly when it comes to indie games, where users have an odd tendency to give overwhelmingly positive reviews to games that have neat premises, but are executed in such a boring and/or repetitive manner that there's no way you'd want to actually COMPLETE the game. Be sure to post in the "what are you playing" topic if you ever get around to it.

No...no, they really don't. I had to stick through with it, though, because there wasn't anything else even vaguely interesting-seeming on...and I didn't feel like turning on a movie just for while I was making food. Rotting dumpster corpses it is!

I didn't realize Cradle was made by former Stalker devs. I'm a huge believer of "judging a book by its cover", and I have to say, the title card artwork is really off-putting to me. Looks like some unbelievably terrible indie sci-fi game.

Yes...that would usually be the normal thing to do for someone who actually wants to support and convince others of their outlandish claims, wouldn't it...if the person actually had evidence and didn't instead just blow off anyone who dared question their asininity. I watched an episode of Dirty Jobs about dumpster diving for rotten, half maggot-devoured corpses while preparing food. An ill-advised choice on my part.

It was O.K. until the vocals kicked in. Gosh, I hate growly vocals.

On these forums?

Here: Now that makes sense, I get that 100 % and its interesting Put it all together, Bruce... It's just English, after all.

I never, ever, even sort of said any of those things, though, or even vaguely referenced them. I said what effect increasing polarization was having upon issues like the one we were discussing...you know, the one that this topic is about...and you went off on a completely unrelated tangent while also engaging in the very behavior you were complaining about in your original post in the topic?

Didn't I already pretty clearly spell out what I meant in my first two replies to you? I don't think I much left anything I wanted to say unstated (e: at least, in regards to this topic: I very clearly stated how increasing polarization is, in my opinion, affecting an issue like this).

Well, that's simply not how a "discussion" works: has anyone, when coming from an opposing viewpoint, ever just flat-out accepted and agreed with what you said, Bruce? I would need...heh...proof of it if you said they had. I also doubt, from what I know, that I would ever concede the issue, because all evidence I've ever heard points to the U.S. becoming increasingly polarized, and so far, you haven't said anything that empirically suggests otherwise...but hey, if you can conjure up evidence, I'll gladly hear it. Polarization: "Noun: a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions" is essentially what I going with.

If you want to disagree with somebody without getting into an argument with them, a good first step would be to not make wild assertions that they're incorrect, and then only use anecdotal evidence to back yourself up...and then say that logic and evidence are anathema to a so called "friendly discussion". That is the very opposite of the normal behavior of someone that just wants to have a friendly discussion: that is being anti-intellectual and anti-reason, which will never, ever, in a million years ever make for a "friendly discussion". If your evidence is purely anecdotal like theirs, you read their post, and then you say, "Really? I've only had opposite experiences in regard to this issue...", and then the other person can expound upon what they were saying with more anecdotal experiences...OR, if they wish, bring in actual evidence and logic. Communication is a two-way street...and you only control one of those two ways, Bruce: if someone wants to bring in logic and evidence, and you can't argue or cope with it, the normal thing to do - that is, the thing most reasonable people would consider the normal thing to do - would be to bow out of the discussion instead of obstinately going on and on and on and on about points - points that others have either already disputed or conceded were valid either directly or indirectly* but were still not enough to actually convince them of your position - like you do without hardly ever actually bloody adding anything new to the discussion. If you do want to say somebody is actually wrong - like you seem to so much of the time - you had best be prepared to back up what you're saying to an at least slightly greater degree than they can theirs (i.e. NOT anecdotal evidence vs anecdotal evidence). That's the important bit. *If one does not have a counter to a point, then it's usually because one can not counter said point or it is deemed irrelevant to the discussion at hand: one must use discretion in the latter case, depending on how central of a point it actually was to your discussion/argument, and what exactly the other person is arguing against must then be re-evaluated.

There was a really, super, extraordinarily way of doing that that I have been "alluding" to in about my last half dozen posts or so: don't directly contradict what somebody else says if there isn't evidence or a logical argument to be found either way - or if you can't be bothered to actually field one yourself - whether it's in support of or in opposition of yourself. What you're doing is highly anti-intellectual* and, not to mention, just plain insulting and, yes, condescending. What did you expect me to say in return to you contradicting me? "Nuh-uh, my anecdotal experiences disagree with yours!"? I already said my piece in regards to my own thoughts: the only thing left to discuss was where you get off on of telling people they're wrong without you being able to form any sort of respectable argument as to why you think that somebody is wrong. I never contradicted your personal experiences and perspective, because I can't logically do so in good faith without actual evidence that suggests that you're wrong. You, on the other hand, seem to have no issue in doing exactly just that. (e): The only other thing I could've done is actually given proper evidence...of which there is plenty of for my original point of increasing polarization in America, such as here...but of course, you don't want to go to evidence and logic-based arguments, because...what, that would make it difficult for you - and I do mean specifically you - to continue arguing your own "points"? *noun: a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality; noun: a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-intellectual