Bartimaeus

Alexander the Great would like to have a word with you. (edit): Never mind: I guess this is supposed to literally refer to the modern day countries, not the region/land itself. Turkey being blue also makes zero sense. Carry on!

From the previous topic. Why not make your own topic? (edit) Look, if you're hesitant to post your own thread because it will not receive its due notice or whatever...consider the fact that other posters often make semi-ridiculous threads with very limited scope/focus, and are still able to get some replies at the very least. You think yours is better than that at the very least, right? Maybe you won't get the replies you want...but after like 3 or 4 posts in this topic (and the previous iteration of it) without any real discussion on what you're posting, you clearly aren't getting that in here, either. (e): I also hate feeling like I'm being mean and trying to mini-mod or something...but I just don't feel like your posts are appropriate for this topic. If others disagree, speak up and start discussing now!

I thought italicizing would be sufficient, but alas, I should've stuck with my initial instinct to bold instead.

I cannot even begin to fathom why your posts, if they're anything like the ones you post here, might get downvotes on reddit.

Oh, that's funny, now that you mention it! I went through about 99% of the game without a single crash...but then once I got to Olympus, I started crashing...happened probably a good ten times over the last twenty to thirty minutes of the game. Drove me insane.

Me Games: I own many, but I'm not playing any right now. So unless you actually wanted to talk to me, I'm probably currently a no-go to add for purposes of playing games with.

If that is the policy I took here, you'd never see me in these forums again.

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...