Aristes

Okay, Oner, that sounds like academic double speak to me.

Oh, you have to pay for the sex in 'romance.' Just look at having that harpy Jaheira in your party. Might be the number one reason I despise romances in my computer games. Bitch. I eventually stripped her buck naked and sent her forth into glorious battle.

I always liked I liked the old BIS boards, but they were complete chaos. The Interplay boards were fun. I didn't have a single post for either.

Okay, went to a little seminar/open house/reception/whatever that Glendale law hosted to talk about the LSAT. I expected it to be a recruiting thing for their school, which it was, but the dean talked mostly about the LSAT. I found it useful because I had a couple of questions about recommendations. Now, Glendale is a CBE school, which means it's accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners. Long explanation that basically means the school is accredited within California. It's not a prestigious school, but it's cheap and the classes are spread out over four years instead of 2 or 3. Some might call it 'seedy,' I suppose, but I'm not sure I care. It won't be a shoe-in for employment the way one of the ABA So Cal schools would be, either UCI, UCLA, or USC, but it would probably work just fine for California. Now, the biggest drawback I can see is that I keep thinking of moving to Nevada permanently. CBE schools don't give you a lot of flexibility. I don't know if I'd be forced to work for some years before taking the Bar Exam in Nevada or not. So, right there it's not as good of a deal. It's considerably easier to get into a school like Glendale University School of Law. *shrug* I doubt I persue it, but it's always on the back burner. Meanwhile, the competition to get into one of the larger schools is fierce as I understand it. Now, I graduated with Highest Honors with a degree in History and Classical Studies, so that helps, and my practice tests seem to indicate I should expect to do well enough to get into one of the ABA schools in the area. The biggest advantage of the nearby ABA schools is that it would make it easier to move out of the state and it would make searching for a job much easier. I might split the difference and apply to the University of La Verne, since it's ABA accredited and a hell of a lot closer. It's no UCLA, which is my sister's alma mater, but I don't really care. I don't want bragging rights. I want to do something productive for a while and I figure my background is fairly well suited for law. I don't even care if I make a lot of money doing it. Choices Choices Choices. I'll probably apply to a bunch of places at any rate and then decide what I'll do based on my responses.

To be honest, I don't really know all that much about Confucius. I mean, I have the rudimentary sort of information one receives for an undergrad degree, but that's about it. I'm not much of a Chinese history buff, and the period of Japanese history that interested me the most doesn't really focus on Confucius. If I'd pursued more Asian history, even so far as to India or Japan, I'd undoubtedly have to learn more. From what I understand of him, though, he had some quite good ideas. That's probably why he still has so much influence today even though he's been dead for thousands of years. ... I don't, however, see hierarchies as good in and of themselves. They are simply attendant on the good things. I mean, if individualism were entirely bad, then we could simply call it that and embrace hierarchies. We need freedom and we need structure, which is true for all societies. Even the most desperate despot cannot control every single aspect of the individual and there is no one so free that he can live in complete chaos. After all, if nothing else, we must satisfy the basic needs of our existence and we must therefore establish sufficient order to secure food and shelter and sleep and protection. See, this is why I can't hate lord of flies. Yeah, he's over board and off the deep end and whatnot, but I've enjoyed several conversations in this thread and it wouldn't even be here without the lord.

I think DLC with a price is a horrible thing to happen to gaming. I hate it. I mean, not in theory, but as a business model it's undermining the sorts of games I like to see. I'm glad that Dragon Age is going to be big and I hope Bio doesn't put out a bunch of small DLC instead of making a proper expansion or a new game.

I am so ****ing pissed off it isn't even funny. Well... to be fair it will make a funny story later. Right now, I'm just so disenheartened! Rat Bastards. So, I'm reading through one large book of LSAT logic games. It has a few errors, but not enough so far to irritate me too much. Just have to be careful. I think I need a little more help, though, so I start reading the Curvebreakers books "Conquering LSAT logic games, 2nd ed." Okay, guys, let me tell you, these people are a legend in their own minds. I mean, they had me convinced. I was like, yeah, they say they're the ****, and they allegedly scored in the top percentile and they walk on water. I almost immediately ran into a logical error in a test question. I thought I had made the mistake, but I put it aside rather than spend two hours on that particular game. I go on to the next one. Okay, so far so good. it makes sense. Then, *BAM* the exact same logical error. These mother ****ers are mixing up the causal direction. So, I'm thinking, either I've gotten the entire concept wrong, in which case I'm screwed, or these guys have mixed up their own formal logic tenets. Their method is good, but their actual answers are wrong. I looked it up and, yep, they've literally published a book with the wrong answers for several of the questions. I think I can make use of the books, but it's just tough to be saying up literally all hours of the day and night studying only to find out I can't even trust my study materials. My scores on the other sections allegedly put me in any school to which I'd apply. The logic games are kicking my ass so far. I guess I'm improving just by getting the proper procedure, but I'll have to triple check the answers because numbnuts and company were too busy lauding their own accomplishments to check the answers in their book. BTW: Thanks for the input Enoch. I honestly appreciate the feeling that someone out there has even a fleeting interest and understanding about this ordeal. I wish I'd done this at 20 instead of 40. ****.

I disagree. I think we naturally form hierarchy's then we struggle to do away with them and then we form them again. Individually, I will agree with you. However, collectively we form them every stinking time. Even groups that get together loosely in opposition to formal hierarchies end up forming them. They are pervasive throughout our entire history. Humans create society because of the benefits and societies form hierarchies. The only real question is whether the hierarchy will be rigid or loose and that really depends on a lot of factors. Since the individuals within society tend to struggle against the rigidity of the hierarchy, I'm sure they'll push out the boundaries. However, at some point, the structure become threatened and pushes to re-assert itself. If the formal hierarchy is destroyed, then another takes it's place. It's the whole struggle between the individual and society. There must be volumes dedicated to this stuff, but I haven't actually read it. I have, however, cracked a history book or two and I simply cannot escape from this logic. It's not exactly confucian, since he was concerned with establishing a specific hierarchy whereas I simply see some form of hiearchy as inevitable.

So, some of you folks never sleep, do you? I liked the NPCs from KotOR. I even liked Carth Onasis, or whatever his name is. Llyranor, if you pop out of the woodwork, I'm chasing your skinny ass down! Anyhow, back to regularly scheduled programming. *shrug* I liked them all. I felt sorry for ol' emo Carth.

2 hours of studying logic problems, which is clearly my biggest weakness on the LSAT, then a short break followed by more studying. This place is stone cold silent in the wee hours of the morning, but I find it hard to sleep during the day. I mean, I fall asleep quickly, but then I get up after a few hours and I'm awake. It's maddening. But I think I'm making progress. I'm taking the LSAT on the 26th of September and I'm thinking of scheduling another test for October. That way I can do a sort of dress rehearsal and then the full blown run. I'll use whichever score is higher on my application. I just need to make sure that's feasible from an administrative standpoint.

Damn these things seem so much funnier at 3am. I think I'm getting punch drunk.

*Exits, stage left*

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? You're one of the nice guys compared to a some folks around here.

Is GM short of Guildmistress by any chance? Were you a moderator? I'm sure I would have run afoul of the moderators if I had ever posted.

Capelworth springs to mind. Great guy. I enjoyed reading his posts.

I think we can tell a lot about Deionarra by the evidence. We rarely hear about her in her own words, but we can take what others say and do, as well as the situation itself, as bits of information to flesh out her character. What do we know for sure? She was powerful enough to keep the Nameless One's company. Since the evidence is fairly strong on the point that the Nameless One used her, she was gullible enough to follow him. She had some abilities that the Nameless One thought would be useful in his failed attempt in the Negative Material Plane. She had sufficient force of will to remain faithful to the Nameless One, and the dedication or stupidity to stay faithful to him even after the evidence was clear that she'd been used. How do we know she has the knowledge that she'd been used? We don't know for sure, but she has some special insight without which the Nameless One cannot prevail in his struggle. We know that she was a local of Sigil and that her father is a clerk in the city. We know that she had the foresight to put away somethings that would be helpful to the Nameless One later. She was a sensate in real life which, I contend, does tell us something of her motivations beyond the Nameless One. No, she's not completely fleshed out, but she's not completely opaque either. We learn a lot about Deionarra simply from adventuring. Even if we follow the main quest path, we'll learn something about Deionarra. Not only that, but we learn a lot about not only the previous Nameless One, but we learn something about ourselves. Do we have regret over how we treated her? Do we want to console her father? Do we simply want to continue using her as we did before? Deionarra is a strong character and just because we only see a certain side of her doesn't mean there isn't evidence of more behind the facade. This isn't some sort of Gogolesque Caricature. EDIT: it's amazing to me how I can skip entire words while writing a post. It's maddening.

I disagree. Deionarra is fleshed out not by her own person but in the memories and other information the Nameless One receives during the game. It's kind of like a character in a novel who is actually rarely in the scene but commands attention through other characters. The game refers to Deionarra quite a bit, and that is something that makes her intriguing even if she doesn't deliver the lines herself.

I agree about Deionarra completely. I don't think of voice acting unless it is either very good or very bad. If I cringe every time I hear voice over work, it detracts from the game. If the scene is particularly well done, then I'm probably going to remember it quite fondly. In particular, Blizzard has fine voice over work. Say whatever else you will about them, the folks at Bliz know how to put together a cut scene. I'm a fan, and therefore quite biased, but the voice over work in PS:T was awesome. I think Annah is one of the few voices that I actually found sexy, and she really didn't have many lines as I recall. Wonderful voice work though. I've said everything I have to say about romances in some AP thread. I don't want to go into rant mode here. Suffice it to say that I want a good mix of tactical combat and role playing, but romances distract me but don't add to my role playing experience. However, if we must have romances, why not homosexual ones? *shrug* HNPL is a very nice woman, I'm sure. I just hope Boo was wrong about the nipples thing. Yikes! Finally, now that I'm sure I'll buy the game, I just want it to come out. I still don't know if I'll go human noble/mage or elven mage. There's a good chance I'll go elven wanderer on a second playthrough. I might go human or elven commoner, but I doubt it. You dwarves can pound sand, and you know why!

Hello Gina. I'll try to be nice to you. I'm mean on very rare occassions. You know... full moons, early mornings, late nights, petty slights, dog days of summer, bitter winters, religion, politics, sports, etc. Have fun, bro and welcome to the peanut gallery! BTW: I used to lurk on the old Interplay and BIS forums. You were GM there also? I can't remember, but that happens with old age, I heard somewhere. Forgot.

I'm thinking specifically of the moves to occupy the Rhineland and annex Austria and Checkoslovakia. In my mind, those were bold moves that required a lot of instestinal fortitude. Also, I've always looked askance at the argument that the person in charge is a bumbling fool but the people around him were so good they kept him afloat. If someone maintains power for over a decade, especially someone not born into that power in the first place, I think citing luck or his lackeys is the ultimate cop out. Clearly, Hitler was by and large self taught and I think his reasoning was quite erratic, but he wasn't a bumbling fool nonetheless. More to the point, I don't want the fact that Hitler rightfully deserves condemnation for his long list of crimes to detract from the fact that he enjoyed amazing success. Now, I can accept what the leet one says because it's clearly an argument. I contend that Hitler is 'briliant' for these reasons. Numbers says that Hitler is not brilliant because, while these reasons exist, those other reasons make a different case. That's much better than: Hitler is evil, therefore he must be stupid as well. I still think he was far too shrewd for folks to discard him out of hand as nothing more than a raving lunatic. The danger in that, of course, is that we figure we can always tell the evil folks because they're raving lunatics, whereas there are many many accounts of Hitler acting quite urbane and making his arguments in a well ordered and reasoned manner. Isn't that worse? I mean, if he were nothing more than a raving lunatic, wouldn't that be so much easier to swallow than realizing that he was a human being? Because, if he were demon, he'd be just a demon. Born and bred evil to act evil. If he's a human being like the rest of us, then whatever he had inside him that allowed him to commit his acts is the same thing we all have inside of us somewhere. I don't cite Hitler's shrewdness to praise him, but to condemn him. I admit, I'm not really a World War II buff. Most of my education, self or otherwise, is in classical times, but have read as much as most other folks not directly involved in the field. It seems to me that we can't get around the fact that Hitler managed to carry out some daring and decisive victories in domestic and international politics. I think these victories ultimately cost his country and the world greatly, but we can never understand Hitler if we refuse to see past his monstrous side. Hitler the monster is a story book character, fit to scare children. Hitler the person, terrible as it is to contemplate, is a lesson. The lesson that Hitler the person teaches us is that there could a Hitler born today. There could be a Hitler among us, sitting in our classes, walking down our streets, watching the same television shows, because whatever Hitler had that made him a monster is the same thing every other person on earth has in potential.

Remember that it's not completely about Hitler going down. These countries also had to contend with each other. The United States and the United Kingdom still saw the Soviet Union as essentially hostile. They were uneasy bedfellows who allied together for survival. The United States and England undoubtedly didn't want the Soviet Union to take everything in Europe. What use would it be to have Europe completely in the hands of the Soviets rather than the Germans? On the other hand, Ros is right. It was hard enough to supply through the United Kingdom and the wester allies still had to make their way into Europe. The primary reason that the brunt of the war fell on Russia rather than the United States and the United Kingdom is because the Russian was simply proximity. It's also one reason the United States suffered far less than Russia. The United Kingdom has always had a relatively small population by comparison. The idea that they would be able to bear the brunt of the fighting alone was simply never in the cards. I'm convinced, however, that the English did more than their share to ensure an allied victory. They bought a lot of time and tied up a lot of men. Sure, you might look at the numbers on the eastern front and think that the troops England engaged or otherwise drew from the east were negligible, but I am convinced that it simply not the case. Getting men and material ready and in place and moving rapidly in modern warfare is essential.

haha Now I would love that. In fact, I can very well see feeling that way about someone. Has a woman ever treated you nasty and then suddenly gone nice on you and you just want to slap her? I don't know if that's the situation, but it would be great. By the way, it's equal opportunity. I'm sure women want to slap men all of the time. I have no idea what all of the cartoons mean, MC, but I find them oddly unsettling.

Looks good enough to me! Let's get to crackin', alan! *waves at RPGMasterBoo*

He still would've mass murdered millions of Jews.. I wouldn't exactly call him nice or brilliant, even if he had "only" conquered one country. Remember everyone.. That the point of this thread is not to discuss whether Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Truman or Churchill were evil/brilliant or not.. but rather if Germany could've won the war. Really, this simply must be a language thing with folks or something. First of all, we should separate Hitler's mental acuity from his twisted moral compass. I don't, in any way, mean he was intelligent in his philosophical outlook. I am a true believer in democracy, so I find fascism repugnant. Not only that, but nazi fascism is particularly evil because it revolves around racism and genocide. Hitler was not a brilliant moralist. However, if we remove his twisted philosophy from the question and focus on his ability to foresee possible events, assess the situation, and then form plans accodingly, then we can give a better answer to the question of his mental abilities. For example, if Hitler had died before Kristallnacht, would the country have been in worse shape or better? That's an honest question, since the country was better than when Hitler had taken office, but he had already ushered in changes that would have long term, and I believe disasterous, effects. The other thing we should do is look at his actions in terms of their short-term goal and judge them separately from Hitler's long term objectives. Hitler was undoubtedly hell-bent on a course that would involve Germany in war. He finally ended up in a war with Poland. If his belief that the French and British would back down had born true, as it had so often by that time, then his plan was apparently to hold fast and consolidate these new areas into Germany. Now, some folks will undoubtedly scream murder at that. Please keep in mind, he was certainly evil enough for having annexed his neighbors and attacked Poland. Saying he would have stopped for some years after Poland is not my way of excusing the wickedness of his previous actions, either domestically or internationally. Nevertheless, since the lands he took, from the Rhineland in the west to Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Prussia in the east, were apparently his primary objectives. I personally think that he would have stopped for some time to consolidate. Thank God that the British, particularly the British people, decided to hold the line where they did. Hitler most assuredly had larger goals in mind, and a later war with the Soviet Union would have been quite different, in my mind, had Hitler been given enough time to consolidate his greater reich. So, let's change the word from brilliant. I have no regret using the word and I still believe that, in these terms, it applies, but maybe it would be easier to digest if I instead substitute 'shrewd.' Hitler had a viable plan that hinged on west European leaders remaining docile. Luckily he was wrong, but we'd undoubtedly be having a different conversation if Hitler had been right. ...And there was ample evidence to suggest that he might have been. Frankly, I have long been an admirer of Churchill. He is certainly one of the greatest men in history, but I've often had folks, particularly in academic settings, who challenge that idea. Still, I have always felt quite at home facing off against folks who did not appreciate Churchill's greatness. Hitler had some spark of brilliance, but it was accompanied by an evil and twisted nature. Certainly most folks would have no troubles seeing that Churchill was a great man with some shortcomings (as all people have) and that Hitler was an evil man possessed of some positive attributes (which he unfortunately employed for the sake of his evil plans).