Bartimaeus

Cradle of Western civilization...not the pinnacle. The Renaissance kept moving on without the Eastern Roman (Greek) Empire for a reason, after all. Possibly something to do with a kebab, last I heard...

The only thing Quinn really deserved criticism for, IMO, was her demonization of the Fine Young Capitalists project. Outside of that, she may not have been exactly a lovely-seeming person, but anger should've been more focused at the actual game journalists whom she may or may not have had relations with...who're the ones that actually failed to disclose said relations.

What if you dislike both series equally?

At the start of this whole thing, I was mildly in support of GG: I agreed with a lot of their stated ideals (though not all), but I didn't particularly want to be associated with them due to reputation issues: more specifically, the louder more fringe (in my opinion) elements, but as well as the problem of needless polarization and demonization (again, in my opinion) between the different factions at least partly borne out of what I felt was a combination of both ignorance and obtuseness on both sides. I just did not want to be a part of it regardless of which side I more closely aligned with. There was also the fact that I view the gaming industry as a bit of a lost cause for a variety reasons at this point anyways (and not limited just to GG's stances, I might add: I take at least few from opposing viewpoints, too, though I may have somewhat different thoughts on them...but that's true for GG's stances, too). Nowadays, even though my opinions in this regard haven't much changed, I feel more strongly aligned with GG than before - even though I sometimes still disagree with some of the methods and ideas employed by the movement, I disagree even more with some of what I consider to be the lunacy of the anti-GG. I am still, however, not actually associating with them, though. However...I find it ironic that you're the one asking me this, Bruce, because you're at least partly to blame for that: when somebody mentions "anti-GG", I can't but help think of you as being my sort of mental "representation" for their ideas and ideals and arguments...and your posts on this subject as well as in other political topics are genuinely so infuriating to me (yes, yours specifically: no-one else in these topics that I disagree with - even those I chronically disagree with - has ever gotten even half as bothersome to me so far), that the anti-GG side seems almost anathematic to me at this point. I don't mean this to devolve into a personal attack, particularly because you seem like a mostly genuinely pleasant person outside of these topics (and also you seem to attempt to be pleasant even inside of them, although it mostly seems to have the opposite effect on me)...but every time I enter one of these topics and I see posts like your latest ones in this topic (not necessarily the ones in reply to Amentep - besides the "degrade" one - or the one to aluminiumtrioxid, but the oh-so-condescending ones before in reply to Meshuggah and Orogun), I can't help but consider putting you on my ignore list because I know that there's no way that I can discuss with you in a acceptable manner (in regards to the rules and basic politeness) without at least reverting to extreme passive-aggressiveness...which is still not acceptable to me, seeing as I'm very often not correct/100% on the mark all of the time, which, combined with me likely sounding like a jerk to you and everyone else, is not something I really want to be engaging with. It's also not very healthy/satisfactory for me, either. Again, sorry if this seems mean and overly personal: I really don't mean to be, and I'm trying to make it as polite as possible while still being honest: you just drive me crazy in these sorts of topics, Bruce. I also recognize that this is purely a personal problem. Anyone who wants to criticize me in turn, feel free to take a shot so I can feel better about this post. Alternatively, you can deny me that and make me extra feel like a jerk. It's up to you, readers. (edit): Also, this took me literally like 45 minutes to write out. Don't say I didn't try my best, at the very least.

Amentep edited this in after I already liked his post and refreshed the page (and so it's not possible to change it), so I would just like everyone to know before people possibly start to think differently of me as a result...I really liked that part, too.

Not if one of the groups is wearing hazmat suits. The hazmat suits would get dirty. And in taking them off the people inside might get dirty. And the person who cleans them might get dirty. And the person inside might get dirty if the suit isn't properly sealed... ...what was my point again? The hazmat suit wearers can wipe each other down before taking off their hazmat suits. Crisis averted. (edit): Except for those not wearing the hazmat suits. They're still very dirty.

Not if one of the groups is wearing hazmat suits.

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!?