BruceVC

I was thinking a similar thing around the spell selection, but the way I see it is you really only have 4 basic elements and when you think about spells, especially offensive spells, you can create for a new IP you will always have similarities to what we are familiar with due to our exposure to D&D.

I've never understood why people would want to play games on Linux when they can play on Windows, where is the real advantage with Linux? For some people (/points to self) it's their preferred operating system. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now. The only reason I even have a Windows partition is for gaming, it's the only thing I ever boot into Windows for. I like being able to surf the web without a virus protection program and not have to worry (though that will change if Linux ever becomes popular in the mainstream). I like having a plethora of choices on what desktop environment to use (currently XFCE). I like being able to tinker with the operating system to my heart's content and instead of having roadblocks thrown up in my face, I have tools readily available. I like knowing my operating system will never cost me a red cent. When I build my new rig later this year, it won't even have a Windows partition. If a game won't have native Linux support I'll either have to run it through wine or (far more likely) I won't buy it at all. Okay you make some good points, but I assume you wouldn't advocate Linux coexistence at the expense of PC gaming integration and advancement from a development perspective ? specifically for playing games? probably nowhere. but maybe You can help me, because i've never understood why people would want to play games on windows when they can play on linux. Thats an easy one actually, Windows has more interoperability than Linux and more games and gaming paraphernalia is designed for Windows than for Linux

I've never understood why people would want to play games on Linux when they can play on Windows, where is the real advantage with Linux?

I agree, its amazing how he is so comfortable to utterly stretch the truth to the point of dishonesty. I watched his live interview in Moscow now, he said many things I disagreed with. One of the many questionable comments he made " Russian troops didn't invade Crimea, we were always there " Yeah right, so we didn't see movements of large numbers of Russian troops and military hardware crossing directly into Crimea ...

And I specifically pointed out why that is not a good gauge. You ask the question that way because it will give the answer you want, I answer the question that should be asked. To take an extreme example, I could not prove that there is significant political dissent in North Korea either, but that doesn't mean that there either isn't, or that people willingly support the status quo. It just means that they cannot do so overtly. Here, let me help: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4049949.stm Personally, I wouldn't bother with Magical Volo V2.0. The guy is so disconnected from reality that he'll dismiss peer-reviewed journals as "random links on the internet", so it's just not worth the effort. In life we should always be prepared to debate with someone, lets not get to the point where we end up stifling debate or refusing to partake in debate because of someone else's different opinion. I know this is true because you taught me that 2133 when you pointed out the apparent pointlessness of the famous " BruceVC ...we agree to disagree" way to end a debate politely You see I do listen to you

Sarex are you at a point yet in this discussion where you are prepared to accept that Serbia committed atrocities during the Bosnian War?

Sorry I meant to say " I would love to go if I lived in San Francisco"

I would love to, if I lived in LA

@ Mor I wouldn't get into debates with Zora around this topic. He has clearly explained his position. Its okay for Russia to illegally move troops into Crimea, to hold a referendum that has no international credibility and to ensure that despite the fact that Crimea is part of Ukraine Russia is able to use its geographical military strength and influence to effectively annex the Crimea. All these developments are fine for him, but what bothers him the most is that one of the most corrupt leaders the Ukraine has ever seen, Yanukovych, was possibly removed illegally from power. I think the double standards and bias should be obvious

Online dictionaries tend to often give an incorrect/incomplete definition of a great many words, most really. It is a shame and possibly a testament to something sinister that better dictionaries are not readily available on the web. I suggest you get yourself a hard copy of an unabridged dictionary, and if you're really serious about learning about words, one from today and one from three or more decades ago. I've found Webster's to be the superior of the modern dictionaries as it tends to be less susceptible to bias or politics, but any other option should still do oodles better than the relative tripe we find online. Regardless, I'm more than well aware of what you and most of those who would use this word think it means. I'm not here to debate the meaning of 'homophobia', but to point out it has almost no place in a legitimate debate on most anything, no more than the 'n' word does. It's a word primarily meant to divide, conquer, stupefy, insult, and marginalize. Philosophically the word is discussable (as the 'n' word is), but you're not using it in such a manner. I've submitted to you that you are thinking in very shallow terms when you use such a word as you do, but your reaction is to just repeat yourself while emphasizing the false enlightenment using such a word bestows upon yourself and the insult it bestows on others who may disagree with you. "There is no other way to see this form of discrimination." possibly best belies your shallowness of thinking, as yes there is, multiple and most alternatives with much greater depth than you've put forth. I redirect you to my original post that sparked your reply... I have little hope I will pry you out of the box you've let yourself be placed in via these forums, but I do hope you'll find yourself out of it someday. I think you will find that if you do you won't have people thinking you're someone's alt or a caricature. While I do not think you are such a thing, you are indeed one of the most cookie cutter thinkers I've come across, and certainly are the most of the prolific posters on this board in my estimation. 'None but ourselves can free our mind' - Marley 'Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein.' - Geothe translation: If you ever get over your aversion to videos and are willing to have much of what you think truly challenged and are wiling to listen to someone discuss some alternatives to your thinking with a little depth, here's a decent place to start: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL981B1FFB9C7A8A67 Lets keep this simple, what is your definition where groups of people are discriminated against because of there sexual orientation? If the word homophobia isn't appropriate in your lexicon I would like to know what word is? What word can we use so that we can have a legitimate discussion around this type of bigotry

Yeah I tend to agree, I think many people don't want to see any positive about any modern Bioware games because they have become part of this "Bioware Bashing" crusade and this gives them a good reason to complain through any medium possible. I also see them finding a spurious connection between the perceived decline of Bioware and the Bioware implementation of Romance. Now I'm a simple person and believe companies can admit mistakes around RPG design but then produce another game in a series that will be very entertaining and address mistakes made in a particular previous game , hence my support for DA:I

That must have been quite funny. What I typically do in that situation is if there is a group of ladies and one guy is to approach the guy first and chat to him and offer him a drink. Then start talking to the ladies but use him as a way to get an introduction, that way you are seen as less threatening and not trying to cut the guy out of the situation. I also always automatically include him in rounds of shooters I buy. I see this approach as more respectful based on the situation as the guy obviously has some significance to the ladies.

Yes that is exactly what I meant, I surprised that such a simple point could be so misunderstood by some people I didn't misunderstand it at all. My satire on the ridiculousness of what you stated and the ideas that generated your statement as well as the points I made on the subject in general are apparently lost on both you and Oerwinde. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobia No, you are the one who still misunderstands. Homophobia in the context of social justice and bigotry is the dislike of someone because of there sexual orientation. There is no other way to see this form of discrimination. You can try to debate its meaning in any other way but you would be wrong. And I think almost everyone on these forums knows what the word homophobia represents and means. There is nothing ridiculous about saying "homophobia is considered unacceptable to many people"

I meant to comment on this earlier. I was very impressed and want to really recognize the fact that you made a post that you didn't have to make as people, me specifically, had misunderstood your original point. There was certain unnecessary contention around the semantics of what you were saying but you took the time to explain what you are actually getting at. This really shows a maturity and tthoughtfulness that at times we often all seem to lack in defusing certain debates, so well done

Why was there hate directed towards you?

As I mentioned before this is probably the most annoying question someone could ask. I am exactly who I say I am, I am a real person who believes what he posts and is happy to debate the discussion points. Lets move beyond this absurd suggestion and try to focus on constructive comments

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters.... If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act. I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes to a website and starts being homophobic? Websites have their forum rules, unfortunately that means that depending on the place honest dissent that is voiced politely can be perceived as a harmful speech and blocked. You can customize your web experience so that you're never exposed to other perspectives (and Google helps that a lot with search algorithms) Internet forums are often like gated communities, if there is a dominant view it will be the one that's enforced. Short answer is that moderators will take care of it based on the community rules/biases/ideology. For example, we don't tolerate bots. Sorry for the belated response, I was away for the weekend and only returned late last night. I'll just summarize my point. People keep saying " you can't say you live in country that allows free speech if you also say that certain words are not allowed to be used. This is a contradiction" But in the UK for example they prosecute people for using certain words and offensive descriptions on Twitter, yet they live in a Democracy that does practice free speech. I'm sure that in all other Western countries there are similar cases of people being charged for using certain words through social media in a way that is considered socially unacceptable This does not mean the country doesn't allow free speech. Thats my point. I don't think he meant it in that way, I think he meant acting homophobic on the website. Yes that is exactly what I meant, I surprised that such a simple point could be so misunderstood by some people

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters.... If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act. I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes to a website and starts being homophobic?

Monte I don't like conspiracy theories to get in the way of the greater good

Where would this "private matters " apply in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe? Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters....

Thats an impressive list, nice one

Thats harsh, I don't believe anything like the desciption below "Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It connotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.[1]

What do you think of Putin Malc?

Sadly this is the necessary state we find ourselves in, many governments are forced to do this as some people need to dragged to the table where we discuss how gender equality is here to stay and be implemented by legislation if necessary. I fail to see how addressing an obvious failure of equality is fascist ?

Whats your defintion of "Stratagems" in the context of this discussion