RPGmasterBoo

Yeah, what the hell is going on? What's behind this actually? Amok: I know its an asian thing, but even so its a bit much.

To remind himself as to where his allegiance truly lies? You know, with all those lobbies, special interest groups and campaign donors, it's easy to lose track... However, if a man came into my house doused in kerosene, no matter why I still wouldn't offer him a cigarette. Right, but running around and jumping on fuses all the time before they blow in your face, like Wile E. Coyote isn't actually going to solve anything. Just sayin'

[devils advocate mode on] I guess if you're a true believer that sort of stuff is unforgivably offensive. [/devils advocate mode off] On the other hand, its sad that this is the best retort Europe can offer. Because that's all that this garbage is - "payback" for what happened before. I would have organized a massive joint military parade, but I guess you'd need to have a military for that.

So, its not tantrums anymore?

I don't see that as too relevant. Every other Renaissance painting is a crucifixion - without a wealth of options for interpretation. Yet only a handful of painters are considered the best, while others have faded into obscurity. Interesting point. I'm not sure if that contradicts me or merely reinforces me. After all, aren't the really famous ones the ones with loads of interesting stuff happening in the background? Uh, no. Its definitely not the amount of content that sets them apart, though I suppose if you drew Jesus as a stick man you could hardly complain at being left out of art history. The point was, the reason games "aren't" art probably does not reside in their content.

I never said it was free, just there's (presumably) a lesser degree of corruption. Course I was just saying what it looks like from the perspective of someone knee deep in the bs of the proportional system. Given that more or less the same people would comprise the political scene regardless of the voting system, its all the same anyway. I wouldn't trust them with a hunk of bread, let alone with the running of state affairs.

This is it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A965036 I'm no beer expert

All parties in Britain are minority parties. Where does that leave you? Fat and pompous. But still magnificent. You remind me of Napoleon.

I think that the government has a pretty high priority on that one. The possibility of a german female being gangraped by a gang of men wishing to cure their aids-decease could be a spark to something really nasty. Despite the "white flight", South Africa is keen on establishing themselves as a Rainbow Nation. I'm not questioning how keen the government is to get the foreign money. I'm questioning the ability of the society itself to deliver. South Africa is ****ed. Very few jobs going, massive corruption. The police are chronically overstretched, under-equipped and under-skilled. On top of that you have the nihilistic atmosphere engendered by a 30-50% HIV infection in many areas. It's like setting up a Disneyland Hades attraction. Drugs of all kinds are endemic. I'm not saying that everyone is suddenly a criminal. Far from it. Indeed it's a testament to how fundamentally decent most people are that there isn't even more crime. But the demand for crime is there in poverty, hunger, drugs, and despair. And realy there's **** all the authorities can do to stop it, short of cordoning off entire neighbourhoods. The thought has crossed my mind since I lived a for a few years in Botswana, SA neighbor. Also, the native population seems unable to handle alcohol well, I've seen them stone drunk from a few beers (the local kind sold in milk type cartons with like 1.5% alcohol). There could be hell.

You want to make an omelette you gotta break a few eggs.

Okay, but why should they be pissed off in this concrete case? They can't justify "being disrespected" unless they covertly hate the US or something.

Found it:

Roger Ebert, I think he's become an internet troll in his old age. You're kidding? I like reading the man's reviews but I didn't know he could be so shallow

You pointed out the inherent corruption on your own. An MP in the proportional system isn't really accountable because he owes his position to the party that put him on the list, not to the voters. The average voter is not likely to know anyone beyond the top 10-20 names in the list, with everyone else on it being party fodder. So, the voters who supposedly picked him/her likely have no idea who they actually picked. On the other hand he/she has no idea who his voters are, since everything about his political career developed through internal party politics - which is how he got on the list in the first place. @Walsingham: I dunno, Earthworm Jim says all lawers go to hell.

I don't see that as too relevant. Every other Renaissance painting is a crucifixion - without a wealth of options for interpretation. Yet only a handful of painters are considered the best, while others have faded into obscurity.

lmao @ the idea that national self-determination was some idea that Lenin came up with in 1917 to win power. Firstly, and foremost: the split between Lenin and Stalin that lead to what is now known as "Lenin's Testament," a collection of documents detailing his wishes for the future of the Soviet Union was caused, in large part, by Stalin's russo-chauvinistic involvement in the Georgian Affair; in this document he criticized both Great Russian chauvinism and Stalin. If Lenin did not care about national self-determination, he would not have held to these principles when he was already in (an admittedly fading, but to other communists) position of power. Secondly, he was pro-nationalities all the way back in 1902, when he wrote in the Draft Programme for the RSDLP "For these reasons the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party advances ... a republic based on a democratic constitution that would ensure ... recognition of the right to self-determination for all nations forming part of the state" In fact, the greatest heartland of support for Bolshevism was the urban centers of Russia. In the entire country (i.e. all of the Russian Empire, not simply the RSFSR) it was the second most popular political party going just by bourgeois politics. If you're looking for the policy that Lenin adopted in order to gain power, that would be his support for the peasant communes. Though, of course, Lenin held that the peasantry formed a fellow progressive class alongside the proletariat, so ceding to the progressive demands of the peasantry was also completely in line with his ideological bent. *sigh* yeah, yeah the germans and their gold had no part in it whatsoever.

Which would be the same one we have here. The lists aren't even fixed, so the party isn't obliged to give those people seats in parliament. The plurality voting system is in theory a better way to pick MP's, no doubt about it.

This is possibly the worst thing I've ever read. As for games, after some thought I realized where the people who say they'll never be art are coming from. I'm more or less throwing my lot in with them, but I still hold that everything I played in the last ten years, barring a handful of games - was a waste of time. It might not have been, if I had developed any parallel hobbies... but I let them consume too much of my time. There are many conflicting definitions of art, but a simple one that springs to mind is "something whose aim is beyond mere entertainment". Put that way, no games qualify. Still I can't deny I was affected strongly by titles such as Homeworld, Baldur's Gate II, Alpha Centauri, Planescape Torment and Shadow of the Colossus. Very few though. As for your question: nothing has to be art. Its not like you can force its creation. Games have a priority issue because they aim only to entertain. Also they suffer from repetition that is meaningless in an artistic sense. Overall the question is not bad if you rephrase it: should a game aim to do more than entertain? If it does, its no longer a "game". If it doesn't, it can't be art. So you could argue, that games, by their very nature/definition can't be art.

Uh, they're corrupt and self serving before they come into power. Especially the leadership. The only purpose of a party is to win elections. After that its: not to lose the next elections. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. I'm 22 and one voting was enough for me to decide that they wont be needing my participation in the future. As Emma Goldman said:

Uh, they're corrupt and self serving before they come into power. Especially the leadership. The only purpose of a party is to win elections. After that its: not to lose the next elections. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. I'm 22 and one voting was enough for me to decide that they wont be needing my participation in the future. As Emma Goldman said:

Yeah, pretty much like during "Pax Romana" and "Pax Britannica", and yet those periods are considered by and large relatively peaceful. Consider the first half of the 20th century (and to a lesser extent, the second half), for some context on industrial era militarism and "peace". You can also compare daily casualties in Iraq with violent deaths in Mexico, for some additional perspective on current "wars". I doubt you can find any period in human history that's absolutely devoid of violent conflict. You're right of course, but that's really not what I was replying to. I was just pointing out that the internal peace UK enjoys is dearly bought and like everything else in politics comes at someone else's expense. On that note I really believe that politicians of EU countries, UK amongst them are doing a great job of squandering this "peaceful" period by wallowing in the muck of day to day parliamentary politics and stupidly following the US in its over-extended conquest wars while ignoring the need for an a real EU security policy. The only gains in that area so far have been bullying half-dead Balkan states.

It's a luxury of living in a peaceful state. Boring. Btw you're not peaceful. You're involved in two wars at the moment. Its just that all the shooting and killing is not happening in your back yard.

Just seen this now. Good luck, man - sorry to see you go!

I really hated it, all that marching, learning military tactics, and falling into formation. It really shouldn't be surprising that the State has both emasculated citizens and force unreasonable standards since Americans are living contradictions. You're supposed to hate it.

Your blatant bias and cherry picking has prompted me to respond. I was always sympathetic to leftist ideas but its because of people like you that we are viewed as no better than the taliban. The only reasons Lenin embraced that policy is: 1) because he was sent from Switzerland on a train loaded with gold on a task (given to him by Germans) to incite revolt in the Russian empire. They gave him the funds in exchange for his efforts on the dissolution of the Russian empire. and 2) because he couldn't find enough supporters for his absurd policies. Every other political idea, particularly left anarchism/anarcho communism had more supporters than the bolsheviks. Only by promising every single Tom, **** and Harry their own mini state could he garner enough support for bolshevik policies. These are common knowledge and failing to mention them makes Lenin seem like some sort of patron saint of national liberation, instead of the typical calculating politician he was. His support for that policy stemmed only from the demands of the moment, not out of any sort of conviction.