BruceVC

: lol: Seriously that must be one of the most funniest and brilliant interviews I have ever seen, epic win He really put those crossfire guys on the spot, you can see how annoyed they got...especially the younger one Was he ever invited on crossfire again..was he ever friends again with those 2 guys?

Yeah the arrival of PoE is imminent, its been an amazing rollercoaster ride being part of the KS and seeing the progress. I'm confident that the game will deliver

It's a bit like the old idea of letter of the law and spirit of the law (or business statistics, which may an even better allegory). You can have facts represented "creatively" to further an agenda. It's entirely possible that a piece of fact gets out from some area and all news agencies jump at it, reporting it in each their own way, confirming their own bias. Hypothetical example, Ukraine: Ukrainian leaders claim Russian troops are operating in the east. Russians deny russian troops are operating in those areas. Most likely scenario, Russian troops have been encouraged to "volunteer", leaving their official trappings behind and support the rebels where they. Both sides are right, none of the are lying. The full truth just being something that neither side has told, because both sides have an interest in also pursuing the media/PR war. Most news media, I would expect to act in the same way. They may have access to facts, but sometimes how those facts gets delivered and in what context can make it a completely different story. Honestly? None. I read BBC for general coverage, Al Jazeera to get a second opinion, CNN for the "Poular Science Magazine" approach to the news and on rare occasion Fox News if I'm bored and need a good laugh. The trick in my opinion is to know what the presenters bias is, then see if you can filter out the noise. Even better when getting alternate versions of a story and see where they overlap/differ. Thats a good example about Ukraine but I do feel that Russia has been extremely disingenuous and cavalier around the truth about their active involvement in Ukraine. What makes it worst in regards to media houses is that they control, not influence, the narrative of RT. So even though Western media houses may not always present a story as accurately as it should be presented they are not as selective as RT in portrayal of the facts and what is really going on. And there are large numbers of people who only have RT as a reference, they don't have access to other sources

This is a reasonable post about the integrity of media houses The one thing that people seem to ignore or not to be aware of is that there has a huge push in almost all media houses to make news more interactive and multi dimensional . The days of the classic news presenter telling us the news are only part of the spectrum when it comes to how stories get told. Nowadays you have guests and live interviews with people on the ground and then you get panels of people who represent different angles of the news. Shows like Dateline London on BBC and the superlative Fareed Zakaria show on CNN are examples of how media houses are changing with how they convey information

Gorthfucius !!!! It worries when you represent the soothsayer of doom and gloom around the integrity of media houses Two questions What should concern all of us are not the board of directors that control the various media houses but rather can media houses present us with objective and accurate news stories. If CNN, Sky, Al-Jazeera and BBC all have the same story, and they often do, does this not mean that the story is credible ? If you don't believe media houses can be trusted who do you personally trust for accurate news stories?

Yes he is actually He has a show called Larry King Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_King_Now And RT broadcasts his show, I have never watched it so I'm not sure how good it is

And Jon Stewart Vals, are you sad to see him going?

Sure, I'm not suggesting that Western Media is perfect but I am trying to raise the point that most Western media houses are independent of governments and do try to present news in an objective way. That does not mean there aren't ideological loyalties, like Fox News and there support for the Republicans. But we constantly hear accusations around how all Western media houses are biased and no worse than RT. In other words they cannot be trusted, I obviously don't support this view. The fact that Williams was suspended confirms this and I don't believe its just because the story couldn't be swept under the rug. I believe its because he mislead the viewing public in several cases and NBC needed to take punitive steps

Thats cool, I like it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/jon-stewart-leaving-daily-show-quits_n_6656996.html So.....its a sad day. Jon Stewart is leaving the Daily Show after 15 years of providing us with hilarious, accurate and sobering news updates presented through parody . I think the guys is a legend and will be sorely missed Then we have the opposite side of the coin where Brian Williams is being suspended for 6 months without pay for misrepresenting certain news articles from his personal coverage in various military events like Iraq http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nbc-news-anchor-brian-williams-suspended-6-months-without-pay/ But why the Williams story is significant is it shows us the that Western media does indeed regulate itself and is concerned with the veracity of its stories and the integrity of its news presenters. Despite what some people on these forums will tell us where they compare Western Media with the propaganda of RT which is state sponsored

The game does sound compelling on a number of levels, I would like to see what people think about it after playing it for 20 + hours If its still enjoyable after that then its well worth the money

You right, that could have worked. Her light ball could have in fact reversed the Vampirism in Bill. That would have been a better ending because they both would have ended up living there lives as human but been together

Why does this become a value judgement? Do you criticize people if they don't cry enough at funerals? Wow, talk about a strawman. I am not talking about how people should behave or show emotion at funerals. No, you aren't. But you are telling people how they should behavie and show emotion (because you complained they didn't show enough emotion to a story you felt they should be emotional about. I'd argue you can't expect people to show empathy the same way you (or I) do. I'll take a quote from the Doctor Who, "The Tenth Planet" here: Polly: But don't you care? Krail: Care? No, why should I care? Polly: Because they're people and they're going to die! Krail: I do not understand you, there are people dying all over your world, yet you do not care about them. This dialogue is actually acutely aware of human nature, and that is that we can't really undersand the scope of very large numbers. Polly represents human compassion - the desire to help the hurt that you know of while the Cyberman correctly points out that as you help that one person there are dozens more in the same situation. The truth of this ladies situation is that it isn't unique but while I read that article there were other people being bullied. And not by just by random people, but by peers, by collegues, by parents or children. I empathise, but there's only so many fights one person can fight at a time. (a) because it is always selective (b) because this thread is about Gamergate and anti-Gamergate and not the larger problem of non-Gamergate related bullying. Which is enormous, particularly with anonymous, disposable identities on the internet. © because the anti-Gamergate group seems to condemn harrasment by Gamergaters but support harrasment of Gamergaters It may be to the larger issue of cyberbullying. It seems relatively unrelated to Gamergate, however, and you made no effort to make a connection. Are you saying the #NotYourShield guy who lost his job because people harrassed his work after he was doxxed and an organized harrassment campaign was created should forgive those who got him fired? Are you saying that, say, Anita Sarkeesian and Briana Wu should forgive the people who harrassed them rather than continuing to use this harrassment as a way to tar anyone who disagrees with them by lumping them into the same group? Are you saying that anti-Gamergaters and Gamergaters should forgive each other for the harrassment that people who may not even be affiliated with their movements have done? Should Gamers everywhere forgive those who lept to say they were worse than ISIS and needed to all die (or worse be killed actively)? I tried to add some details about a place I went to school (particularly, some of the famous people who went there before, during and after I was there) but because I don't have a way to refrence it, its not credible. But if I did an internet article "The Famous People Who Went to [school]" then I could quote that as a source in the wikipedia article. 'Tis silly. Amentep thanks for the detailed response, you have raised some good points as usual. But we will have to agree to disagree on several things. But I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion that clearly isn't important to most people. So I will just leave you with the last word. Until our debate then

Yeah it did seem like a "quick end " to the various characters stories in the last season, I suppose they just wanted to show that some characters did indeed end up having a good life without explaining. Personally I wanted Sookie to end up being a Vampire and marrying Bill and living happily ever after..but I guess it wasn't meant to be

I loved True Blood, its use to be my favorite series of all time but I think the overall quality of the series got less impressive as it went on. I still enjoyed it though, I want to buy the whole series as a collectors item I don't think I have ever seen a sadder moment from a TV series when Godric killed himself, very emotional. The reasons he wanted to die and Eric begging him not to end his life, very evocative

This is a huge problem, some people seem to make promises to get games funded but then don't deliver. And there are no consequences it appears for them ?

Fair enough, maybe my choice of words contributed towards the lack of response I was expecting. I'll be aware of that for next time

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/09/europe/ukraine-conflict/index.html Here is an updated article on the next steps around the Ukrainian crisis. In summary The USA is not going to send weapons to the Ukrainian government yet. Obama is still supporting Merkel with the diplomatic options Merkel feels that the only viable solution is a diplomatic one, in other words neither side can win through military means There is another round of peace talks between Russia ( and the separatists ) and the Ukrainian government on Wednesday. Lets hope they find some common ground and can agree on a tangible cessation of hostilities

Why does this become a value judgement? Do you criticize people if they don't cry enough at funerals? Wow, talk about a strawman. I am not talking about how people should behave or show emotion at funerals. I am merely surprised about the lack of support from some people in this thread for the situation of this women and how she has been the victim of severe internet abuse. Thats all, no need to read too much into what I'm saying There is this view that you can't expect people to show empathy for people that they don't know, in other words " its a stranger, why should we care " yet this whole thread is full of links and examples of people we don't know who have suffered due to their support of GG. And there is constant outrage and condemnation for how these people have been victims of abuse from various anti-GG groups So whats the difference? Why is this support and empathy for strangers seemingly selective. To me its obvious, this woman is vocal in her articles around how women are mistreated and constantly raises the issue of abuse of women on the Internet in different ways. She is very supportive of the feminist agenda and because that is considered something " bad " in this thread thats the reason why people don't want to recognise her own personal story of Internet abuse And the funny thing is the point of her article is not to highlight how she is a victim of abuse but rather how she forgave the person who subjected her to the worst abuse she received. So I question if people actually even read the article before saying things like " nah, this article doesn't resonate with me " Is it too much to ask that we at least recognize the significance of someone showing that type of forgiveness considering how she was made to feel by the troll? That is also why this article should be seen as important and relevant.

She's just some stranger and Something Bad happened to her, what do you want me to do exactly when I read this article ? Get upset ? Malc I understand you have a lack of empathy in certain examples but in this case we should assume the article is real and just give her the benefit of the doubt You can do some research to confirm she is a real person but lets assume this is her life story. I am utterly puzzled that any person cannot be sad about her situation..so yes I would expect you to feel something, sorry to sound critical but sometimes I can't ignore an obvious response Maybe its just me, it would be interesting to see what others think?

I thought the reformed troll aspect was interesting. Granted it could be entirely made up, but the idea that there was a rock bottom where said troll realized they had a problem presents an interesting parallel to other kinds of abuse. Heh, almost sense a really backhanded shot here. But good that he had some epiphany and gave her an ego boosting apology. I suppose this new class of troll (where it's harassment rather than winding up) have that issue. I thought the reformed troll aspect was interesting. Granted it could be entirely made up, but the idea that there was a rock bottom where said troll realized they had a problem presents an interesting parallel to other kinds of abuse. I've got to admit I was not particularly grabbed by that article either, like all right thinking people here and in Gamergate such harassment is already condemned, because as moderates simply looking for game journalism that is fit for purpose for this multi billion dollar industry, ethical and consumer driven, such tactics are pointless. The harassers on the SJF side and the more traditional ones are not embraced by GG, or wanted at all. I suppose it might make people like Arthur Chu, Zoe Quinn, Ian Miles Cheong and Geordie Tait who champion harassment, censorship, doxxing etcetera and see it as a valuable, legitimate method of punishing people whom disagree with their ideology think twice, but I seriously doubt it. I don't know guys but I would be concerned with my moral compass if I read an article like that and didn't feel anything? I'm not sure how you can read something like that and at least not empathize with her suffering, I'm not sure what I found more sad her life of constant internet abuse, the way she is forced to accept it or the way her dead father was used to hurt her? Maybe you guys have just become too cynical and you can't relate to anything that is not relevant to what annoys you or you support?

It certainly isn't in the classic sense. Which has some disadvantages but a whole lot of very real advantages. The big contrast for GG would be with the 'Occupy' movement- which failed when it tried to become a classic movement. GG is near completely decentralised and its supporters have a wide range of views, often mutually incompatible but by and large people have been able to express their opinions without infighting because there isn't a real hierarchy and you don't have (inevitably self appointed) leaders saying something others vehemently disagree with as if they're speaking for everyone and thus driving people away, you just have individuals disagreeing; and you also don't have obvious points of attack since there's no one to discredit and take the 'movement' down by association. In essence it's like putting Muhammad Ali (because let's face it, SJWs are generally very good at what they do and have won far more often than they've lost) in the ring to fight someone made of smoke, all he can really do is become the subject of a rope-a-dope. That also makes it very hard for GG to win in a classic sense, but it makes it next to impossible to lose- and in a 'fight' like this in a very real sense a failure to lose is winning. This is a very good assessment of GG. I didn't think you would have had such a perspective Yes SJW have been doing this for years and are experienced at using various mediums to achieve public support. But don't see this as a negative because SJ causes generally have the moral high ground Occupy was always doomed to fail because they had no reasonable end goal for there invective against the banks, I mean what were people going to do? Stop using the various investment banks that contributed towards the financial crisis? GG I actually think is a much more risky endeavor in the sense its objective is unclear and nebulous at times. And there really are a myriad of perspectives around what GG is and most importantly its a not about a topic that is as serious as mismanagement of the financial institutions like Occupy . Its really about gaming which is really just about entertainment

No. Police authority is rooted on and exists to preserve the monopoly on violence. This includes, but is not limited to, deadly force. Therefore, any commands issued by an agent of law enforcement carry implicit a threat of escalating force, up to deadly force. If you fail to put your hands on the wheel when ordered to, you will not be (immediately) shot in most cases. They will force you to comply with their commands by other, increasingly more violent means. If you keep on resisting, including physically standing up to their own use of force to enforce your compliance, probability of you being shot approaches 1. It should be obvious how this is fundamentally different from a teacher telling some kid to shut it or your boss telling you to come to his office. I first thought your link was some pseudo-intellectual justification to basically undermine the work that the police need to do, in fact you may read this and think the writer is being critical of the police but he does say that the usage of this monopoly of violence by the police needs to be legitimate But I still have an issue with the point behind the article, the police have a job to do and work under very stressful conditions and sometimes make real life and death decisions. The last thing they need is some smartass deciding to not follow there instructions but its unfair to say the police have a monopoly on violence. This may be a debate around semantics but the police don't have a monopoly on violence. They sometimes use force to do there jobs...big difference

Sounds like a case of " a bad workman blames his tools " ... There are controls that cause you to jump away from a building if you are climbing..you probably pushing those by mistake ? No, I do nothing other than push the directional button (L3) toward the open window for my guy to hop down off the ledge. Nothing happens. So at that point I press the O button to "drop", but he drops backward and hangs from the ledge. If I press the X button/R2 button to "climb" he jumps above the open window and hangs from the next floor. There doesn't be a simple way to simply drop down from a balcony railing onto the balcony without doing all sorts of quirky acrobatics. Okay that does sound annoying, you playing Unity right?

Volo I can see your point but we should also recognise Hurlshots post, 500 is a very small number. At least this tells us the problem of Police killing civilians is not as widespread as some want us to believe ?