Aristes

Yeah, and all the happiness associated with folks who don't need need that great item for an "offset." Now, it's for one of their two primary sets. personally, I'm not any more unhappy about this decision than I was with some of the decisions in BC, and I still think WotLK has been a great expansion.

It's like they saw the sins of Burning Crusade and completely flipped things over. Burning Crusade made early PvP grueling because overgeared folks, so now there's a battle ground where I get a battleground token when all I do is mine and farm gas clouds on the other end of the map. Heroics and raids used to require folks know the fights and play their character well. Now, my brother cleared a 25 man heroic raid (Obsidian Sanctum) with a character that did not even hit 1k on the dps meter. Yes, they killed all the dragons first, but still...! Getting rid of the lexicons and letting folks place inscriptions anywhere is a good move. It was a pointless burden. However, forcing folks to make decisions about their talent selection made sense. I'm sure it goes a long way towards making Death Knights even more uber, but it just seems like such a cop out. I mean, when they lowered the level requirement for riding to 30, I was never one of those people who complained about the fact that I had to wait until level 40 to buy my horse. That wasn't a choice someone had to make. It was merely a burden. Conversely, I didn't like the premise of the DK class because I thought folks should have to decide whether or not to be dps or tank. Now its even worse. You don't have to choose. You can spec both iwth only a "cool-down?" There's no choice. You can do it all. This dual-speccing is probably the first real gripe I have against WotLK as it stands. Making the game easier isn't such a bad thing, I guess. ...But making our choices meaningless bugs me.

Have they really started production on Diablo 3?a

No no The dragon shotted me on Heroic. ...But I did tank two of a four person group on heroic with just the healer and me. The healer was too close to the ascendant (or initiate, whichever) and was silenced. So the tank and the warrior go down and the mage was turned into a sheep. I finished off the last two people. If I had been similarly geared in Burning Crusade, you know, a couple of beginner epics and a bunch of blues, I would have been shotted by the Steward. Now, sometimes evasion has allowed me to last a long time in fights, but heroics were simply harder in Burning Crusade. I don't really mind. I'm hopeful that this means that we can do all guild heroics. No one was geared well enough before WotLK hit, and the WotLK heroics aren't as brutal in my experience. ...And I did every heroic instance some of the raiding in BC.

Geez, I wonder what's going to happen to raids. I've been putting off doing raids for a while, but I have done some some heroics and I have to say they're ridiculously easy. I mean, my Rogue, who is still wearing his level 70 badge Outlands pants, managed to tank the last two people in a four person fight in heroic Nexus. My rogue, with three epics and a bunch of blues, would not have been able to do that so easily on a Burning Crusade heroic. The only one that I found difficult at all was the last boss in the Oculus heroic. Dragon riding through the last battle is a pain in the ass. Hell, we only wiped one time on the final boss, so maybe even that wasn't easy.

I haven't visiting this thread in a while, so I don't know what I've mentioned. I've read Ulysses by Alistair MacLean in terms of fiction. Other than that, I've read a ton of Late Colonial/Early Republic US history and the attendant biographies.

Every testimony speaks for itself. However, that does not make it true. Whatever. Conspiracies abound and if it weren't for the internet, we would never know our lives are actually controlled by the gnomes of Zurich. Or whatever. Anyhow, the US has paid pirates. However, we negotiated our deal with the Barbary pirates for a time, but the out and out greed of pirates eventually exhausted our patience and resources. ...but I suspect that even the Barbary pirates were more organzied than the Somalian pirates. For that reason, it might not become a war we can 'win' as such, but an ongoing police action. The only real lasting solution would be stability in the region. I don't know what we would need for regional stability, however. Don't throw out suggestions like foreign aid. We need something that works, not more loot for warlords to plunder.

I quite smoking a long time ago, but I still cheat sometimes on trips. Depends. I average maybe a pack or two a year.

I actually agree with you, Enoch, in regards to the initiative process. I guess my point is, the initiative process is the closest thing we have to a direct democracy. So, on the one hand, I resent the abuse of power that attends mob rule. On the other hand, I feel compelled to respect the explicit will of the people. Perhaps that is misguided. Maybe the ballot initiative has promoted my feelings towards the judiciary. I don't tend to view most of the SCotUS decisions with as much ire. Oh, I was unhappy on the eminent domain decision of some years back, but otherwise I think the SCotUS has been reasonable whether it has rendered either liberal or conservative decisions. Reasonable, if not always correct in my view. So, which trumps which? The ballot initiative because it's the clearest expression of the people's will? ...Or the Judicial overview because it provides the safegaurds against mob rule that the crafters so clearly desired in the first place? As for the Iowa decision, I'm glad we have it, but I hate that it's the supreme court that gave us the outcome against the expressed view of the people. Until I get my mind around that, it won't make any difference if the decision regards homosexual marriage or downstream water rights.

Hey, everyone, happy Easter! I'm heading out to church. I'll go to the inlaws for dinner. Enjoy the day with family and friends. Happy Easter to everyone!

I don't know. In principle, I agree with folks who prefer CD hard copies. In practice, I use STEAM a lot. In fact, I've used both STEAM and Direct2Drive. I prefer STEAM for convenience. The fact is, as long as it's not intrusive, I don't mind either method. In the end, that probably favors online distribution because I can own a game and not have to worry about keeping track of the physical item. On the other hand, I like having the physical item because it has psychological purposes to have my hands on an item I own, even though I don't actually 'own' the software. At the end of the day, I'll lend my vocie to other middle of the road consumers. I don't care who does what as long as my purposes are served. (ie. the game is available to me.) If it's an either/or proposition, however, I went to the online distribution camp a long time ago. I believe my first purchase was Blood Money.

Sao Ganca -- Seu Jorge

Someone mentioned The Fall[/b] somewhere along the line and I put it in Netflicks. Well... I'm a lazy bastard. The wife put it in Netfliks for me. I actually thought it was funny and interesting. Weird, maybe, but well done. I saw 28 Weeks Later and came away mixed. It wasn't terrible, just not as new and refreshing as 28 Days Later. It's so funny how much of an impact previous expectations play in these things. I expected and wanted so much more from 28 Days and was disappointed. I expected so little from 28 Weeks and was gratified. Yet I can clearly state that I found Days better than Weeks. I watched Dark Knight. There was so much about the film running through my mind and so much I expected, both good and bad. I thought the hype concerning Ledger's performance was bias from the homosexual community. When I saw it, though, I was impressed. It shows you not to discount an idea based on a perceived bias or you might just prove your own. My favorite line: "I'll do what you should have did ten minutes ago." Ah hell, I don't know if that's the specific wording or not. We've seen some films recently, and a lot of programs. I have my computer set up to the big flatscreen, so my wife and I have watched episodes we missed of Leverage, including the first episode. I like it. Campy and clever. Good Lord, with all the drama of real life, it's good to watch some clever idiot box every now and then. :D

You know, Maria, I'm curious as to your opinion regarding differences between men and women. Leaving aside the cartoon, which folks continue to despise and cite as proof societal discrimination, I mean the question as a whole. What do you think of the larger argument? I intend not to respond to your answer, so this isn't an invitation to a fight. In fact, I won't even use a third party post as an excuse to surreptitiously respond. I'm genuinely curious. That the cartoon, as satire, should be used as proof of discrimination, when there are so many real examples boggles my mind. Still, I guess that's my parting shot. I'll simply lurk in this thread rather than clog it.

I want you to know that the new inhabitant I placed in your city argues a lot. hehehehe

Let me tell you, the whip is a bad-assed weapon.

I don't feel that biology is the only factor. In fact, I don't even think it is the primary factor. However, the reason I keep asking these questions is because they don't have answers and we won't find them if posing the very question brands you a sexist. I'm actually happy to hear that you're not branding me a sexist. I'd rather be misguided than be a willful bigot. You trivialize color choice, but I see it as part of a larger whole. Why do some people prefer to be the center of attention and some don't? You can trivialize "frilly dresses" all you want, but the point isn't that a girl prefers a particular frilly dress. The point is that girls might naturally want to dress in a way that society dictates as enticing to young men. Society might dictate the specific (ie frilly dress or tight jeans) but nature might provide that urge for the girl to make herself appealing. In terms of people using research for questionable ends, I refer you to my previous post. Legitimate sources of research should have some leeway to ask these questions and get good answers. heh. You know, my wife's left arm hurt recently. Since I've always understood it to be a warning sign for a heart attack. I don't like to panic, and she was marginally worried about it so I didn't want to sound worried also, but I was. I couldn't sleep because I was listening to make sure her breathing was normally. Finally, I went and looked online and found out that warning signs signalling a heart attack are actually different between men and women. Go figure. There are so many things different between men and women, don't you think we can take an honest look at some of the psychological differences without deciding the answer before we ask the question? Going into research with the motive of proving your predetermined position is wrong, no matter which side you favor. Finally, there is all sorts of research that shows different apptitudes for men and women. Previously, folks have thought that the reason was biological in most cases. That position has fallen out of favor, which is fine, as long as the reason it fell out of favor were the supporting facts and not societal pressure. As to you, Gorth, I thought the Oxford article was interesting, but it was too technical for me to assess in a greater sense. I'm reasonably well educated, but not in the field. lol I did read through the article and paid special attention to the summary. It raised an eyebrow to see an entire group was excluded from much of the research.

Haha I didn't do the study. I just thought it was interesting. I did find the left handed part strange. You know, I think you guys misunderstand me in regards to this stuff. I don't deny that discrimination exists. If anything, I've cited discrimination as an effect on society as a whole, and gender relations specifically, from the very beginning. To me, it is clear that there are physiological differences that arise from the disparate levels of hormones. The relationship between testosterone and aggression is largely accepted, even though the jury is still out regarding causation. There are differences between men and women, and those differences transcend body strength and reproductive organs. Should that be used as an excuse to persecute women? Of course not. [Notice, when I ask a rhetorical question, I give an honest answer. Even then, in most cases, I'm willing to listen to a reasonable dissenting answer. In this case, of course, I draw the line at persecution, but I hope you get the point.] I have a wife. I have a mother and sisters. I'm proud of them. They are all productive members of society. They are all intelligent women. My wife has been in her profession for 20 years and my sisters have likewise done well at their professions. I admire them no less than my brothers. I don't want to see women persecuted. However, I simply don't understand why folks are more more willing to accept all sorts of conditions as congenital, such as homosexuality, aggression, and a host of other characteristics that were formally classified as choices, but questions regarding essentially the same sorts of characteristics between women and men are taboo. Not only taboo, but merely bringing up the differences between men and women draws fire as bigoted. Why is that? I'm not saying that men and women should be treated differently. If we have a man and a woman with the exact same education, years of service, and capabilities, of course the woman should not make less. ...But there are factors that political correctness does not allow us to consider. Men are apparently more aggressive than women. Women are apparently more likely to desire to leave the work force to raise a family. Would it be better to have both parents refuse to put aside their profession for the sake of their children? [Notice that this is a rhetorical sort of question, but I will gladly entertain honest answers.] I'm not trying to insult anyone and I understand that alan and cyclone are morally outraged by discrimination against women, but we should be able to ask questions regarding physiological differences between sexes. Yes, some folks have misused physiology as an excuse to persecute people, but legitimate studies that are not conducted merely as a tool to promote bigotry should not suffer repudiation. After all, such questions and the ensuing answers have been quite helpful in, say, treating people with sickle cell anemia.

Well, when you get around to reading the whole thread, please read all my words with more charity than I used in writing some of them.

You're right, Alan. You're being an ass. Not that I mind. I figure folks can't always agree on everything. However, you words, "ince you decided to put words in my mouth..." sound a bit hollow when you say, "[e]ven if you aren't sold it's the primary cause, you're just putting your head in the sand if you can't acknowledge that it's a significant cause." It appears as if you know a thing or two about putting words in someone's mouth. After all, my statement was, "I'm not even sold that it's the primary cause, let alone the sole one." I only suggest that discrimination may not be the primary cause. I'm sure it's not the only cause, but I never suggested that it's not a significant cause. As to your defining the terms, such as physiological... I wish I used the rolling eyes smiley. Sorry, bro. I don't buy it. At all. We take common usage for words in these threads because our ponderously long posts would be even longer otherwise. You want to pull out a dictionary next? Maybe point out a mispelling or typo? [Note, these are Clearly ironical questions] hahaha Okay, fair enough. You needed to point out that men were not "magically stronger" to whom in this thread, man? There are at most five of us engaged in the specific discussion. I get that you're not trying to impress me. I get that you're holding forth for a larger audience. I'm just wondering who the hell it is. For the record, since we're both standing by our statements, I still take my point to be valid. Until we know all of the ins and outs of the issue, we cannot understand it. The fact that we will never understand it entirely is no excuse to stop at certain point and go no further. In fact, I never suggest that we do. It's like global climate change on both sides. Both sides point to a set of facts and make definitive statements. Discrimination is not only the primary culprit. It may also be the only one. How about this, why don't we study the issue. Is it so terribly wrong to study the issue? As I understand it, although the number spread is different, there's very little difference between the intelligence (which is to say the results of intelligence tests) between men and women. If anything, women may be smarter. However, they do not and have not performed equally in specific aptitude tests. As someone who apparently hates discrimination (and I say that without any irony), don't you think that establishing the cause of would be useful. After all, I've entertained the possibility that I could be wrong the whole time. You, by implication at least, have done what so many people have done in the last few decades, branded me a sexist by implication. Oh, you didn't come out and say it, but you sure as hell implied it. My point is, I think there are physiological differences and these differences may impact lifestyle choices. Oh, and I like how I can't pose hypothetical questions because they don't fit how you'd like to frame the debate. If this is a discussion between friendly people of good will, then we're forced to allow ourselves some leeway. So, here's a question for you, is sexual orientation genetic or not? How about transgender? What makes folks prefer blue or red or pink? Just because we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that they might not impact the central question. ...And I don't ask these questions to trick anyone. They're not rhetorical questions. They are honest. If you have a good answer, I'm listening with an open mind. THAT, my friend, is the only time I really thought you were being an ass. You want to win an argument? Fine. You've won. I'd like to have a discussion, and the only thing you've done that irritates me is pretend I'm throwing out questions just to trip you up. I assumed you were a person of good faith. I don't ask a question without being willing to entertain your answer. I did find an interesting article on brain size, though: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/129/2/386

Really? You don't think testosterone makes a difference in psychology? You think the only physiological difference between men and women is strength? Ridiculous. Now, I'm basing this response on your statement: "The biggest thing the hormonal difference contributes, as far as I can tell, is physical strength." I especially have a hard time figuring out how you can say "[t]hat is true, but what effect that has our gender roles and whatnot is unclear." in the next breath you say "[h]owever, I will not buy into the argument that men and women tend to drift towards different jobs based on biological difference (rather than social expectation)." You admit ignorance in one statement and then profess better understanding in one breath. The fact is, we don't know the difference that hormones make between men and women. However, there is clearly a wide variety of differences between men and women based on hormonal levels, most particualarly testosterone and estrogen. The most obvious difference is strength, but citing the most obvious characteristic and then claiming that it's either the only real difference or even the most significant one? How about brain size? I don't, in any way, suggest that men are smarter than women, but the male brain is larger. How would that make a difference? Do we really understand all that is entailed in the human mind and how each and every chemical effects it differently? ...And make no mistake, men and women have different chemistry. Once again, I don't deny that discrimination exists, but if you're trying to sell me on the idea that discrimination is the sole cause for these problems, then you lost that sale a long time ago. I'm not even sold that it's the primary cause, let alone the sole one.

I really liked Portal. Maybe I should pick up Braid.

The best part of the first game is the "between a slave and a man" sequence. Andrew Ryan really is a great villain. However, the footage does look the same. I'm likely going to get the new Bioshock, but I have the same gripe everyone else has, and it seems like such a common gripe: respawns. I wonder if design teams just don't care or if maybe the folks on boards that I read or where I post don't really represent popular opinion. I don't mind respawns in certain areas or at certain segments. ...And my problem with respawns has nothing to do with difficulty and everything to do with boredom. I want to advance the story and see new areas. If respawns are just there to make sure I conserve ammo or don't rush through a particular area, I'm likely to be unimpressed. The reason respawns don't detract significantly from Bioshock is simple. The mechanic is used so pervasively, it doesn't matter. Respawns have become a staple of fpses, unfortunately. Not every title uses them, but so many do you can't get away from them. I don't remember respawns in the latest FEAR, which I take to be a good sign. Even if they did have respawns, then at least they weren't so common that it drove me nuts. Of course, the latest FEAR was so generic in terms of atmosphere and art that it falls far short or Bioshock. Too much to ask that anyone get it all right, I suppose.

Yeah, everyone is stupid in a horror movie. I mean, if the ghosts want it that bad, I say let them have it. Time to get the hell out of Dodge. Either that or call the Scooby crew.

Stop spamming your damned thread! I've been populating your village for you. Just a few more and your people can move out of their huts and into an urban jungle.