Aristes

Cats have a sort of internal compass, as I understand it. That's one of the reasons they can realign themselves to the ground given enough time. So, even if she gets lost, she can always find her way back. My sister's cat ran off a few months ago and I figured she'd be gone for good. I was quite happy to hear that she returned some three days later, so don't give up yet, bro. I hope she makes it back.

I don't mind if it's dark and gritty, but can I bathe at least? I don't like grit between my toes. About the large weapons, I dislike them also. The thing is, these huge ass weapons are so common in games these days that I don't see any difference will be in ignoring them while paying DA as opposed to WoW or other games. Looks kind of cartoony, I'll grant you.

Awesome, Nightshape! Congrats, man.

I don't want to do a point by point answer to your questions, DI. I'll just give a big answer and you can cut it up into smaller quotes for one word snippets as you like. Of course I have to trust the courts up in Scottland. No, I'm not at gunpoint, but I also lack any options. Am I going to fly to Scottland and do an investigation? Am I going to verify the facts myself? The Scotts have a system in place and, frankly, even if I don't like the system, I really don't have any choice. Even if I completely agreed that they're either corrupt or criminally incompetent, I don't have any choice. I guess I could call up my homies and invade? Furthermore, why should I trust you or any other member of this forum more than the Scottish court system? Because you can make angrier posts? The courts in Scottland might have their own peculiarities, but I would imagine that they are not all that dissimilar to courts in other western democracies. That is to say, you might be able to point out huge differences between individual western democracies, but all of them are probably closer together than, say, a strong arm junta. Since every system contrived my humanity has been subject to the failure of humans, we can only hope that there is something in place to correct wrongs. Would it be better if someone were convicted by a magistrate and there existed no way to appeal? The fact that the system can correct for mistakes, particularly grave mistakes, is certainly a good thing. Unless you build your courts in fantasy land where no one ever makes a mistake. In fantasy land, there are no shady convictions. In Scottland, where they make mistakes like every other country, there is a process by which these mistakes can be corrected and seeing those corrections validates the system. Frankly, I think there are two wrongs, assuming that the conviction is overturned. First of all, an innocent man went to jail. Second of all, the guilty parties went unpunished. I'd point out that I'm not an angry American, so if the goal were to piss me off... well, I'll try harder. Maybe if we angry post with each other? I'll agree that you're right! Screw the Scottish. What do I care about them anyhow? Off to Idaho with me. Second right! We need no stinkin' lib'rals. Hey, we do need conservatives.

Wouldn't it be funny if the Dollar was the prime currency for the foreseeable future... the Australian Dollar? hehe Good for you guys! :haksthumbsup:

I just think he'll end up being exonerated if he didn't commit the crime. With something this high profile, it's got to come out. ...And if it does then it validates the system. I'm not hostile to him being set free, I just can't look at all the evidence and I trust the court to sift through it. I must trust them. I don't have a choice. At some point, unless you want to create your own compound in Idaho, you have to buy into society. ...But I'm not hostile to your position. I'm just more conservative about how I look at it. We need 'liberal' and 'conservative' folks. One group to keep things stable and the other group to shake things up.

What a bunch of sickies we have around here. You guys going to live or what?

"There was no doubt he was going to get his conviction quashed." I don't take that for granted. Because the appeals court agreed to review the case does not mean that the appeal would succeed. *shrug* I don't mind accepting that Megrahi's appeal could have succeeded. What I'm saying is that his conviction was never overturned. There is always the possibility of pursuing justice and exonerating him posthumously. Anyhow, Walsh's source is suspect but you've got the inside scoop? My big question is, why is it always the governments of the western democracies that allegedy have these big conspiracies? Why is it that I never hear of other countries conspiring? lol Anyhow, I don't doubt that Megrahi might not have been guilty, but the sorts of attacks on his conviction that you present are the exact same sorts of attacks people use to cast doubt on legitimate as well as questionable convictions. Libya has as much at stake as Megrahi ever did. If the conviction were tainted, I have no doubt that people will continue to pursue it. If Megrahi and Libya are exonerated, I'll be happy to accept it. However, I'm not going to take the word of any member here. It will have to come down from the court. Otherwise, why believe anything? I want the information to be verified by the court. If we can't trust the courts in Scottland, then we sure as hell can't trust the regime in Libya either.

Hmmm, interesting thread idea. I might come up with a defense of MotB or one of the other games I've played over the more recent years.

I'd be interested to see what the Scottish appeals court ruled in regards to this. Since the whole thing went down last year, it might not have ruled yet. Until the appeals court has its say, I simply won't take second hand information and newspaper articles as the final word. Let me say, however, that I don't refuse to accept that Mehari was not guilty. He may be innocent, and I'm willing to accept if he is. The problem is we have the courts and the people. Usually, the buck stops at the courts, at which point the people can accept it or change the laws. We can't decide that we're going to throw over a ruling lightly. If we don't like a ruling, either because we are involved directly in the issue or because we feel that there is some sort of judicial infringement on legislative or executive power, then we should act. Otherwise, we have to trust the system until it shows some sign of breaking our trust and then we have to investigate the trouble and punish the folks who broke that trust or rewrite the laws that created the situation. ...Or find out that we were wrong, in which case we just wish we hadn't spent millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars investigating and holding hearings. Now, the articles contain serious allegations about the criminal proceeding, and so I take them as seriously as an outsider can. I would be almost certain to take the appeals court decision no matter what it said. Should the court say that the conviction was solid, I'll believe it. Should the court rule that there was a miscarriage of justice, I'll believe it and regret that Meghari ended up in a Scottish prison for years of his life. If I were a family member, I would probably try to find out the truth and be keenly interested that the responsible parties were punished. If I were involved in the case, I would try to uphold my obligations regarding it. As an outsider, I refuse to pass judgement as long as the courts continue to work to resolve these issues. If there is some clear evidence of wrongdoing, then we should investigate it, which the Scottish court appears to be doing at any rate.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I didn't even follow links for a while, but I've read a couple of things. I think it's silly to say that "we can't like them all." Of course we can like them all, and I would think Bioware would want us to like them all. That aside, the more origins you craft, the more likely someone will find one they don't like. Nevertheless, it seems to me that folks will try the origin to which they are most drawn first. I mean, if you think elves are nothing but a bunch of pointy eared snobs, then you're probably not going to play them first. I still don't like the elf angle, but they essentially look human with pointy ears as MoC says, and so I don't mind looking at them. That's really probably my problem with the dwarfves. I just think they tend to look homely. Find one that's not so hard on the eyes, and I'll play him. ...Or her. I'm a bisexual character creator.

I'd never heard any of that information, Zoraptor. I'm sceptical, but I'm always willing to look at new information. That is, as long as it's not some convoluted long drawn out bits of evidence tortured to 'prove' what someone wants it to say. Now, that might make me appear biased against you, and to a certain degree, I suppose I am, but I'm also willing to look at new facts and I have no problem admiting mistakes. I do that around here all the time. The problem is that there is so much 'information' going around the internet. Some of it is true and some of it is false. For example, there are conspiracies, both by government and individuals and between countries and individuals from different countries. Nevertheless, the threshold for accepting claims of conspiracy is and must remain high. After all, I've seen a lot of 'evidence' of things relating to Sept 11. Folks make the most outrageous claims and some of those claims have been contradictory between different groups. As far as Meghari goes, he was convicted. I'm sure it was in the interests of certain individuals, and most certainly in the interest of Libya and Gadhafi, to cast doubt on the conviction. Of course, the conviction might not have been legitimate also. It might. Sometimes, we just choose our lies and live with them. I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage in that I never followed the trial. I believe I was overseas when the incident took place though.

I'll play some sort of mage and then jump on over to an elf probably. Since I know I want to try all three races, I'll have the dwarf be whichever class I hadn't chosen and probably play him last. I don't mind the little runts, but I like being higher off the ground.

Yeah, that's true. It's not.

For good or ill, I trust juries. That's true even when a lot of folks don't like the verdict. For example, OJ Simpson. That's why we have juries. Now, the one thing I don't know is if Meghari were convicted by a jury. I would think he had to be, but I never followed the case much at the time. EDIT: Of course, where there is proof of jury tampering or some other factor, then of course that changes things.

Yes. ...And, Rostere, bro, we're naive? I think a lot of us are entirely realistic about the situation. It might have been a quid pro quo, but it might not. If this really is a matter of a public official acting in accordance to his role in office, then the law should definitely account for folks who kills hundreds of people. This isn't some guy who killed someone else in a fit of rage. it's not even someone who murdered his family before being caught and convicted. This is a someone who killed many families worth of people. The sheer number of people killed in the attack puts it on a different level than ordinary crime. I think terrorist acts should be handled differently by the system. Of course, I'm not from Scotland and I'm not related to any of the victims, so I don't have a stake in the fight other than to observe that it is not, as taks said, justice. Meshugger is right about forgiveness. It is better of us to forgive that to condemn. However, balanced against that is justice. I believe sincerely that everyone with a repentant heart deserves forgiveness, but I also know that justice does not always demand forgiveness and it is sometimes beyond our human powers to forgive. If he repents of his crime, then someone will forgive him, perhaps even among the family of his victims. Since he denied his crime the entire time, even when convicted, I don't think he had a truly repentant heart, but that's not for me to judge, thank God.

Too bad. It was a comedy preview thing and the part about the sausage looked like the main bit. They said the part about two games so seriously I thought maybe it was like a costco special or something like that. Ho hum. No biggie.

I had seen some sort of weird pre-order CE thing that led me to believe that there might be a special that included two different copies of the game. If such a thing exists to where I can get two copies for less than double the price, I'll probably pick it up and send one to one of my friends as a gift. Christmas is coming, after all. Any word, oh oracles of Dragon Age?

The biggest is that they keep talking like it was England when, in fact, it was Scottland -id est the Scottish Government or, correctly, the Scottish Executive (if I remember correctly)- and not London who released him. Now that might have been at England's bequest but until that is proven, or at least strongly supported, it groundless. That simply is one of the most grasping arguments I've seen in a while, bro. The basis for the article seems perfectly solid. I mean, we could nitpik small items that are part of common language usage all day, but does it really matter whether I say "the government of the United Kingdom" or "the English?" How about Great Britain? Aside from that, I don't really care. In principle, I think sending the terrorist back to Libya is wrong, but we gave the Scotts the right to prosecute him and, in so doing, we have no further hold on him. I disagree with E in that motivations that seem ridiculous or naive or shallow to one person, especially when they relate to global politics, might still be important to world leaders. I think it was a huge boon for Libya and, most importantly, Moammar Gadhafi to have Meghari released. After all, it does elevate the nation and its leader in the eyes of other middle easterns countries. Since both the country and Meghari have always claimed innocence, they can claim this as a sort of moral victory, even though the move on the part of the Scotts really does not indicate that they doubt Libya or Meghari's guilt. All that said, as I understand it this sort of clemency is fairly common in Scottland. So, I agree with the families for protesting and I think it's perfectly legit for folks to hold Scottish, UK, and US leaders' feet to the fire, I also agree with Enoch that it is probably in the best interest for everyone. It just plain sucks, but it would be good to have Libya rejoin the world community and not feel compelled to act as a terrorist state.

So the moral is, post your thoughts even if you think they're stupid?

I just find it confusing when folks have these exclusive claims. If they say that their decions regarding LAN play are tied to the DRM, what is it if not piracy? I mean, okay, tournaments. In that case, I would argue that they consider running non-sanctioned tournaments as a form of piracy and wouldn't find it surprising if their EULA didn't make that explicit. I'm not really arguing for or against their stance on LAN play, as I don't have a horse in this race, but it all seems tied to piracy in one way or another.

See, now ME looked boring to me. One of the few Bio games I haven't bought. I like the modern spy game approach and I'm looking forward to Alpha Protocol. I haven't read a lot of previews but the ones I've seen have looked positive. *shrug* I guess different strokes for different folks.

I think the point is that Fallout 3 was plenty enough open ended in terms of dealing with the main quest. You weren't forced to love your dad. You were forced to work with him in order to finish the game, but you could play and do whatever you wanted, accumulate massive wealth, and get to the highest level all without finishing the main quest line. Saying that you're forced to love your dad or that the game assumes you must sounds pretty hollow to me. Every game I've ever played has had assumptions about character motives. That's ten years ago. That's twenty years ago. That's this year. So, let's not chase our tails, bro, I agree. ...But let's not hold it against Fallout 3 for committing a sin shared by all games.

Wow, that actually is much better. I mean, it's still a rant, but the columns work quite nicely.

Hell, in Fallout 1, you had a time limit. If you didn't save your vault and do what you had to do, then the timer ran out. In Fallout 3, you can completely ignore everything and go out and explore. I don't remember the game using a time for the main questline. You could literally go explore the wasteland until you got tired of exploring and then retire.