Cycloneman

Number one is a bit iffy and probably context-sensitive, so I can't really answer that, but... There are three basic options that you are given at all times: Suave, Professional, and Aggressive. Context obviously changes the specific text, but each emotion is tied to a particular button on the controller (or, I guess, key on the keyboard). As far as I'm aware, if you pick one, it will remain selected until you pick another one, so you could pick Aggressive and then not pick anything for three options and your character would be Aggressive three times.

Hey guys, so I figured out the technical side of things and was curious if you guys would be interested in a Let's Play of Hidden Agenda? Basically, the plot is that you're the newly-appointed leader of a Latin American country, immediately following a bloody revolution. You have to balance the far left and the far right elements of your new government, keep your people happy, and get aid from the USA, the USSR and Cuba, while trying not to piss any of them off. It's an old, more-or-less text-based game, with a pretty rudimentary user interface. It is abandonware, though, so anyone could play it. If you would be interested, how in-depth should the audience participation be? Near-total choice on everything, a selection of general trends and important decisions, or a more-or-less hands off "whelp, that's how the Presidente of Chimerica was overthrown in a bloody coup by far-right insurgency"? How much extraneous, Cyclone-originated BS would you prefer? A healthy bit of purple prose, or just the basic facts, gameplay, stuff like that?

Just FYI, this will happen in 2010 or some such. Seriously, it's going to take at least until June.

Actually that's probably about the only reason one should declare war upon another country. If only the US actually did that, the world would be a lot more peaceful.

Nuclear weapons are really hard to get, just FYI. Even for the CIA. Saddam did have "weapons of mass destruction" in the form of leftover chemical and biological weapons from the Iran-Iraq War, so there was no need for them to get any of those.

Okay... don't see how that counters my point. Also, who do you think supported the 2002 attempted coup in Venezuela? Hmm... a coup of a Latin American democratically-elected government because of their economic policies? I wonder who could be behind it?

Remember when we (the USA) were all like "Iraq has first-strike nuclear capabilities!!!"? Who do you think produced the documents which "proved" this? That's right. The CIA.

Burn Notice is an awesome show! Do you mean to imply that the CIA does not do those things? Because it's pretty well known that it does.

Reasons we should prosecute the agents who tortured people: 1) ignorance of the law is no excuse when that law is something a reasonable person might expect it to be. 2) obedience to a superior is no excuse for breaking the law. 3) their use of torture colors and brings into question all the testimony attained via torture, thus making it much less likely we can prosecute these people for their role in the war on terror. 4) their use of torture was ineffective in attaining information in general. 5) they ****ING TORTURED PEOPLE, YOU SOULLESS PIECES OF ****. Reasons we shouldn't prosecute the agents who tortured people: 1) if we made CIA agents obey the law, what would they do? I mean, what other laws might they have to obey? Don't overthrow foreign governments? Don't create false documents? Don't assassinate foreign officials?

"I believe that they need to move forward and not try and go on a witch hunt over what was done in the past. The line is being established that the suppression of unions and the murder of union-workers will not be tolerated in the future, and that should be enough. Throwing Pinkertons under the bus for something that was clearly in a legal grey area is terrible." - Hurlshot, circa 1900 Pre-Edit Post: "I believe that they need to move forward and not try and go on a witch hunt over what was done in the past. The line is being established that genocide and illegal human experimentation will not be tolerated in the future, and that should be enough. Throwing nazis under the bus for something that was clearly in a legal grey area is terrible." - Hurlshot, circa 1945

BREAKING NEWS! OBAMA EMPLOYS NUREMBERG DEFENSE!

Welcome to modern videogames.

It's a still frame from the GTTV episode on Alpha Protocol (pretty sure, but not totally). I cut it out with Print Screen and MS Paint.

This is actually an unedited screenshot. All I did was save and crop it.

Looks like I beat Funcroc to this pic! Here it is, the new screenshot: Apparently there IS gay sex in this game! I think we're all much happier knowing this. I know I am.

Here is a graph that paints a picture wherein the only culprit is discrimination: I win! Your previous suggestions are now IRRELEVANT to this graph. Women who leave the workforce aren't counted. Women who worked less are shown with men who worked less. They work the same job, with the same degree.

Here's the problem with this argument: Name one statistical deviation between males and females in the USA (for example) in terms of psychology that is equal to or greater than the % difference in pay between the two sexes. It's about a 30% difference. The deviation in terms of, say, liberalism between the sexes tends to be around 10% (for most of the stats I've read). The deviation in terms of pay grade is ****ing vast. See also, this graph, which demonstrates that the difference is not caused by the level of education: Do women spend ~30% of their time being pregnant? Are they ~30% less aggressive than men? Are they ~30% less interested in the jobs they worked for?

First three points don't matter because Malta is in there and has <5% discrepancy. I don't think they've magically eliminated anything about what women your stereotype of women are like. Oh wait, the first three points were all your points. Sorry.

I agree. I mean, they have a lower tendency to instantly degrade any thread that touches on feminism into a big fat "feminists are the REAL sexists"-fest. Jesus Christ, there's so much male privelege in this topic it hurts. To all of you going "heh, sorry women, we here in the west have ended sexism, no complaining!!!": What is a "radical feminist"? I'm genuinely curious as to what you guys thing is a "radical" belief for a feminist to hold.

Oh, is it Mass Effect hating time again? Well, let me get started, with a little play in three acts called "Mass Effect Designers Are Big Dumb Babies": Act 1: Worldbuilding sucks. hey guys check it out we wrote an entire encyclopedia with all this cool **** in it. enjoy reading it, because it will never ever come up in the game. Act 2: Gameplay is unbalanced hey soldiers, i hope you enjoy a maxed out pistol being better than all other weapons! heh heh, owned, your class is rendered useless since everyone else gets pistol skills too. Act 3: Characters suck hey guys, we really wrote in a character who is a nerdy, shy but hot girl who has magical powers far beyond the scope of normal people, and she isn't a self parody! and you can have sex with her! even if you're a girl! also our other characters are half-baked stereotypes (warrior race warrior, rogue cop, hey guys did i tell you i'm a space gypsy? girl, soldier girl, military-conducted childhood abuse boy).

Well, to be fair, that was created by one "fethwit;" however, there is not much in the way of criticism on the Talk Page. Why you one register to discuss something that stupid?Well, people who disagree with Andy are generally banned, heh heh, conservatism is fascist, heh heh. But seriously, Conservapedia is a growing source of disinformation and is surprisingly popular (and not just amongst the liberal trolls).

Well, to be fair, that was created by one "fethwit;" however, there is not much in the way of criticism on the Talk Page.

Conservapedia exists because Andrew Schlafly got pissed at Wikipedia for using CE and BCE instead of AD and BC. It is basically made up of conservative bull****. Some quotes:

Looks fake, though nonetheless probably representative of the extremely sexist society that existed (and still exists, to some extent) in the English-speaking world. Source?

Look, I know we all like to call eachother trolls here on the internet, but Krezack is not a troll. I have trolled this fine internet many a time, and while it can be hard to determine the difference, Krezack is not a troll. In fact... many trolls attempt to deflect suspicion by calling others trolls. Hmmmm....