Bartimaeus

Yeah, my grandpa is a crazy (becoming actually literally a little crazy at this point: dementia runs in the family) Christian fundamentalist and I tell you, every few months I see him, the "gays" are the bloody end of the world and the root of all evil in our nation according to him. I'm dreading a family bonfire in a few nights...

This is still my personal GOTY. My biggest complaint was that by the time I got to Poseidon (the area that I did last), I felt like I should've been heading on up towards Olympus already...and Olympus (e: Poseidon, not Olympus) was a fairly big area, so I had to take a few days break to get motivated into finishing it.

Uh...wouldn't that be more discriminating based on sexual preference...of which both sexes had opposite but a sort of equal rights (a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man)? I guess that's basically discriminating based on sex...hmm - probably not the type of discrimination originally considered by legislators, though...but I suppose that hardly matters. Yeah...that's good in theory...but not so much in practice when getting along with others is pretty much required for your time to be constructive.

...I always forget that I'm not supposed to talk in political topics so I don't make myself look like a bigot and make everyone hate me. Shoot. Oh well.

From my point of view, it's because de facto, same-sex marriage has never been legally accepted except on a state-by-state level before. To quote Gromnir, "marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage." If the (now previous) legal definition of marriage had legal issues, they should've been solved a long, long time ago by judges who are very much dead at this point. But they were not: either the previous definition was judged to be acceptable, or it was not directly judged at all (but found to be acceptable either way, otherwise they would've(/should've?) reached judges to be dealt with at some point if not). Technically speaking, I think you are correct in saying that the legal intention of the judgement of the Court is to simply render any direct bans on same-sex marriages to be invalid: actual forthright legal bans on same-sex marriages are recent enough (mid-90s, I think?) that I'm not TOO bothered by that...but, from what I understand (maybe I am wrong - happy to be so in this case if I am), this directly makes same-sex marriage actually legal on an all-state level. This makes absolutely no sense to me, because while the direct bans should be rightfully knocked down (I THINK - I will be honest in saying that I am not too familiar with the legal aspect of this, but I'm assuming such bans should not exist - someone please set me straight as to why such bans should not be prohibited if they are legally sound), it should not change what was previously accepted to be the legal definition of marriage before these bans came into place...which held that same-sex marriage, de facto, is not accepted without actually making a direct change to the law. By that line of thought, I think it should be up to legislators to actually legalize same-sex marriage - whether on a federal or state level, I care not. I agree with the theoretical intention of the court to strike down direct bans of same-sex marriage, but I don't like that it has the actual effect of directly reversing the previous status quo. (e): coherency + fleshing out my thoughts (e): Seems like Gromnir is on a somewhat different brain wave than I am. His arguments seem better.

Eh, I'm originally from Minnesota, anyways. Moving a little more north would hardly make a difference. Unless I actually have to watch hockey: I can't make myself do that. And while we're at it, I don't particularly like maple syrup or voting, either...

Though I disagree with Bruce's..."logic", perhaps so. Nevertheless, the state of our legislative branch's inability to resolve these issues - and the Supreme Court going outside its intended purpose and redefining the law according to the whims of nine semi-politically-motivated appointees (who, by the way, could've very easily decided the opposite way, Bruce!) - is something still very much worth bemoaning. (e): actual english, like usual

I'm (we're?) ignoring it because your point has absolutely nothing to do with my point (that is, though yours is a point in general for the legalization of gay marriage, it does not at all deal specifically with the problem of the judicial branch overstepping its boundaries and doing the jobs of our legislators). It's very well for you to have the ends justify the means, but clearly, some of us place some value in the latter, too, particularly when there are alternative means that should've been used to begin with before it ever reached this point. "So all the judicial appointees are doing is implementing the will of the majority of the American people" This is not the judicial branch's job. This is the exact problem we're complaining about: it is our legislators' - our representatives, you might say - jobs.

Yes...legislation...I'm glad we are in agreement for once, Bruce: I, too, think it should be up to our elected legislators - not a very few judicial appointees - to legislate and revise our laws.

Oops, didn't mean to post this here. Where's the delete button!?

Why do you keep calling the Total War series an RTS? It's a turn-based strategical map game a la Civilization first - the RTS bits are completely optional! I mean, unless you're gonna be playing it for the quick skirmishes exclusively...

Apotheon. Great 2D sidescrolling ARPG. Cool art style, pretty decent combat mechanics (that are a little frustrating to control at first, but you should get used to not too slowly)...simple plot, but decent enough and complimented well by some pretty good voice acting. A little too easy at times, though: I recommend playing on the harder difficulty, where most of the additional difficulty comes from the fact that when you're hit mid-attack, your attacks are interrupted just as normal enemies are (which is not how it works on the normal difficulty, where you keep swinging even after getting hit). Game also lasts a little longer than I felt it should've...but that's fine, really. Overall, I had a pretty good experience.

Sure...but those ancillary consequences shouldn't (and don't) at all affect the validity of his case: if it were a completely different lawsuit that you did feel has great validity...would you still say the case is "unreasonable" or should be dismissed simply because of the potential consequences it may have upon the company? If your answer is still yes...well...um, okay, I don't understand you, but at least you're consistent in placing the value of the corporation above the value of the (potentially) wronged individual(s) and I can sort of respect that...if your answer is no, then you shouldn't be using that as your (stated) reason, as it would demonstrate that you're inconsistently applying it dependent upon the biases you have towards the parties involved. Which is why I don't think it's a particularly logical reason in the case of the latter.

That is what I was trying to ascertain from you, since your previously stated reason for wanting him to lose the lawsuit had absolutely nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of his case, which I thought was rather weird and illogical.

What does that have to do with the legal merits of the lawsuit?

Why does the reason you hope he loses the lawsuit have nothing to do with the lawsuit itself? Shouldn't the merits of the lawsuit be evaluated before saying you hope he loses?

Well, Amentep is like the coolest person in general on these entire forums, so that's only natural, really...

I guess I don't disagree with your points...but I still found the entire movie unbearable.

Well...it worked. They seemed to do pretty much the same thing for Throne of Bhaal, but for some odd reason, nothing else ever materialized after that...

The Tales of the Sword Coast content kinda sucked anyway, to be honest, ...BG1's writing was already really basic, but TotSC went a step further and became downright amateur. Durlag's Tower is probably the best of it.

No, not at all. The problem wasn't that she was a good character (ok, maybe it's a little bit of the problem, as Mary Jane characters aren't usually that relatable to, but...there are different degrees of Mary Jane, ok): the problem was that the film makers were hitting you upside the head with her goodliness at every possible opportunity they're presented, and it got really old really fast. It was like that to very end...where I was hoping - or really, I was PRAYING - that as she was leaving the house with the prince, she wouldn't say anything to her stepsisters or stepmother...just leave, and let them go, as you should. But no, her character had to go that extra mile to be that much more perfect, as she had been doing the rest of the previous hour and half of the movie, and she told them (well, the stepmother at least) that she forgave them. There's being a genuinely wonderful person whose qualities we can appreciate...and then there's being an extreme Mary Jane case who the writer(s) force into being perfect in every way they're presenting the character in virtually every moment they're on screen...whose pure, unabating goodness defy our suspension of disbelief. There's no real sense of taste or subtlety or restraint in how she's portrayed. If anyone's ever read any of the absolutely dreadful Rhapsody: Child of Blood series by Elizabeth Haydon (that book in particular being the worst book I've ever read the entirety of in my entire life thanks to the recommendation of a friend), Rhapsody and Cinderella are the same character. No thank you, I am good. (e): coherency (e): Although the idea of Cinderella shanking somebody does have desirable qualities, I must admit...

Capitalism sucks when your ventures don't go anywhere (which, let's face it, seems like it can be a lot of the time, particularly if you're not an experienced and/or celebrated veteran)...capitalism sure does seem to rock when they do work out, though.

Cinderella (2015). "Cinderella received generally positive reviews from critics." "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an 85% approval rating, based on 194 reviews, with an average rating of 7.2/10." " Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 67 out of 100, based on 47 critics, indicating 'generally favorable reviews'." "In CinemaScore polls conducted during the opening weekend, audiences under the age of 18 gave the film an A, aged 18–24 an A-, aged 25–34 an A, and aged 35 and up an A+, on a scale of A+ to F." "The site's critical consensus reads, 'Refreshingly traditional in a revisionist era, Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella proves Disney hasn't lost any of its old-fashioned magic.'" "[...]anyone nostalgic for childhood dreams of transformation will find something to enjoy in an uplifting movie that invests warm sentiment in universal themes of loss and resilience, experience and maturity." "Scott Mendelson of Forbes admired the film's visual effects, production design, and called the costume design as Oscar-worthy, adding, 'with an emphasis on empathy and empowerment, Walt Disney's Cinderella is the best film yet in their 'turn our animated classics into live-action blockbuster' subgenre.'" I have been mislead. I was assuming that Cinderella would be, at the very least, palatable...perhaps even half decent. Maybe I would actually really enjoy it. I didn't, and it was none of these things. From cringe-worthy beginning to cringe-worthy end, I hated the movie and detested the perfect, beautiful Cinderella and her perfect, beautiful prince. I understand that the Cinderella story is supposed to be the traditional fairy tale princess story...but this was bad. Not quite Alice levels of bad, but...I would have to be paid to see it again. Now, I'm not going to say how MUCH I would need to be paid (because I'm greedy and pragmatic), but I would need to be paid SOMEthing, alright? Cate Blanchett was probably the best part of this movie...but even she suffered the problem as did the entire movie: overdramatic theatrics and overselling their parts. There's oh so painfully little subtlety with any of the characters, with the two selfish stepsisters probably somehow having the most out of all the characters. Cinderella and her prince (and her father and her real mother) were all nauseatingly and overbearingly good and perfect. I didn't relate to a single one of these characters at pretty much any point throughout the movie...and having watched Frozen recently and become a big fan (even with Frozen's problems withstanding), you think I'd be able to, but I couldn't...I just couldn't. Helena Bonham Carter's part in the movie was absolutely atrocious, with her irritatingly soft voice and constant tittering and theatrics...I don't know why she was even in the movie at all. The Prince's "new" scenes (compared to the original cartoon) were absolutely dreadful, going on and on about swordfighting and painting and marriage and...ugh, it was just terribly boring and...meaningless. If his additional parts were supposed to make me be able to relate more with him than in the original cartoon, they really only had the opposite effect. Really, the biggest problem of this movie is Cinderella herself, though: I have the exact same problem with her that I had with Aurora in Maleficent. There's no subtlety in the slightest to her character: she is the perfect, good little girl, with such overstated and we're-gonna-drill-this-through-your-head humility and innocence, that I just find myself unable to like her in the slightest. Every single thing they say and do is done with such an air of inherent perfectness and goodliness and naive innocence...I just can't hack it. Aurora and Cinderella were not very complex characters in their respective movies: this much is absolutely true. However, nor were they usually these manufactured...sweet little portraits of perfection who smack you over the head with their goodliness every chance they can get, either. Cinderella's "worst" act throughout the entire movie was having an entire two seconds of self-pity by saying to the prince, "I am no-one of importance," when he asked for her name, and then refusing to tell him. Pfah.

Wait, seriously? Shouldn't it have a better name than just "Juneteenth"?

I love the concept art for that game every time it comes up on the Steam store...but it really just doesn't look like my type of game. Great work on selling your art for your game, Mr./Ms. Concept Artist...it's just too bad I can't bring myself to get the actual game no matter how many times I've looked at it.