BruceVC

That's been settled for quite a while now. Do tell? Share with us your insight

Unless he's from Norway then the idea of a Brotherhood would be absurd. Hes from Finland, does that count? Nah, they are outsiders to the cool kids club. EDIT: Also I gotta correct myself -- If he's from Norway or Finland, then the idea of a Brotherhood would be absurd. Shame poor Nep, well I suppose he could form a brotherhood with the Laplanders

Unless he's from Norway then the idea of a Brotherhood would be absurd. Hes from Finland, does that count?

Now thats a good idea, being able to finally put the rest many conspiracy theories. Like who built Stonehenge and the Pyramids and who was Jack the Ripper. Good thinking

Yeah I suppose you could abuse the principle of time travelling like this

The Ice Age? I think I know what you really want to do ...you want to find a saber-tooth tiger kitten and bring it back to raise it as your own...I'm right aren't I Lady C Also I believe created this in the wrong section, can you possibly move this to Way Off Topic?

This is usually what they always do in this day & age - Simply look at Hitman Absolution or Splinter Cell Conviction.Nah, keeping my eyes on Deus Ex Human Revolution. I had high expectations for these guys, even if it was an obvious B-team. My comment was merely meant to point out the ham-handed handling of the stealth genre today -- Putting scripted events and pretty scenery on top as opposed to sprawly sandbox-fun. That's a big no-no. Thief is simply stepping into line. Human Revolution was a great game although it's no secret that it too was severely streamlined which is still distressing. Not sure I agree re HR's streamlining... Come now Nep, he's from the region. The least you can is agree with him in the interests of Scandinavian brotherhood

Yes you right about the possible consequences for any change you make, but lets not over-analyze it. Lets say you can visit the past but you just can't kill significant people we know about from history

Yeah I was thinking about that, I wonder if the experience wouldn't be too much for our puny minds to grasp?

Sup All I was wondering if you could travel anywhere in the past what would you want to experience and what would you want to see. We obviously need some important rules to manage this experience You can't kill anyone that has had an obvious impact in history, for example you can't kill Hitler when he was boy because we don't know all the permutations in the future this would cause You can automatically speak the language of any era you travel to and the local dress code would be made available to you If you die for some reason you will be automatically be pulled back to our current time You can choose to come back to our modern time instantly. This is important because you don't want to be imprisoned in some ancient jail and die of old age Every 3 days you will automatically be pulled back to our time stream unless you choose not to. This is important as what happens if you end up being incapacitated and can't consciously think you want to return to our era So where would you go, there are so many things I would want to experience. Lets see I would want to see ancient Babylon and the Hanging Gardens. I want to experience the apparent hedonism and culture I want to meet Jesus, I am not religious but I do believe he was a man who lived and inspired people I would want to experience life in the First World War trenches and see what the first day of the Somme offensive was like I would go on several historical gastronomic tours. I want to partake in a Medieval feast and eat the first Pizza in Naples in the 1600's for example I want to see how pre-historic man lived I want to see how dinosaurs lived and looked like in there natural environment Thats all for now

Its probably more to do with the fact that you Ozzies don't have decent Internet penetration in the Outback or your citizens are busy fighting all those dangerous and poisonous snakes, spiders and other lethal creatures that inhabit your fair land

Liver and onions go great together. I eat all organs of animals. Brain, kidneys, tripe, lung..you name it IMO the main reason why people say they don't like these types of food is more the thought of eating them. You assume they won't taste nice..once you realize the texture is fine they can be delicious

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-03-10/barraco-barner-woman-hits-back-after-global-ridicule/ Guys this is really funny, this is why some people just need to not give there opinion on serious topics on Twitter

I don't really have any opinion on Sarkeesian herself, but just about everyone on the internet engages in the second part of that, having some valid points and meaningful things to say at all is a step above most internet commentators. And yeah, pretty much always, even when most internet users were denizens of prestigious academic institutions they didn't always use sweet reason alone to make points- usenet existed, after all. I don't know about that Zora I think its fair to say you would agree that I generally say valid and meaningful things? I mean look at the number of times you have agreed with me around discussions of social justice? Before I came on these forums I don't think you really cared and now look at you, you almost an activist and SJW

Last night I had a friends b-day dinner in Pretoria, about 60 km from where I live. We went to this authentic Italian restaurant called Carrafas. I had Chicken Livers for starters and then Chicken breast in a white wine sauce for my main. It was delicious but the highlight of the evening was the company. My friend, his wife and there friends are such nice people. We end up drinking, joking with each other and laughing about completely silly things and at times discussing serious things like the objectification of women in society My friends wife is a teacher and her and her friend politely let me know they think I have ADHD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADHD) because they see this with some of the children they teach, anyway we had a good chuckle discussing the symptoms of ADHD and do I really have it. I'm sure I have some of the characteristics of ADHD and its not a big deal if I am anyway

Nah, they don't have a buffer zone, they still border Georgia. And Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, of those just in NATO. Yes, I somehow suspected something like this was coming. Situations are massively different. Still, I'll show exactly why as you put in some effort to the whole enterprise. Northern Syria is not a geographically distinct region. Crimea is geographically distinct, if you asked a five year old to draw regions on a map of Ukraine they'd be able to put a circle around it. Northern Syria has no distinct identity, ethnic or otherwise, from the rest of Syria. Excluding the Kurds, but then I don't for a second think we'll see US troops liberating Turkish controlled majority Kurd areas, and neither would anyone with even a cursory knowledge of international diplomacy. Northern Syria has no history of independence or resistance, outside the last three or so years. Crimea's dates back 20+, and they would have been independent if the Ukrainian constitution were not specifically written to prevent secession. In order for the comparisons to be valid there would have to be all those things- perhaps a Turkish majority in the effected regions so they can return to the neoOttomans or somesuch. But there isn't. I'd say that the US hasn't learned anything. And yes, I will nitpick the realism because "let's just pretend this is reality instead of what actually is" is not a valid technique in any form of debate, even internet debate. And no, it isn't about principle, nothing in international diplomacy is- unless you're on losing side of reality/ facts on the ground, in which case principle is the only thing you have and in that case it suddenly becomes critically important. Zora, you are very naughty. I asked you specifically to NOT nitpick my analogy because thats not the point. I was giving you an example to try to get you to see how unacceptable what Russia is doing. You failed to learn something today, you are incorrigible An Internet debate is not always about a persons ability to explain facts but sometimes a personal story or a story about the vicissitudes of particular set of circumstances in this great journey of life. You need to open yourself up more to others opinions, its not healthy to feel you need to be right all the time

Thats clever, I like that

There is NO chance that UN or EU observers will be allowed into the Crimea to oversee the referendum. Already journalists are being blocked and there is an actual boundary and check-points between Crimea and Ukraine manned by Russian supporters and soldiers. Remember Putin knows he doesn't need real legitimacy to absorb the Crimea, he just needs to pretend to follow a semblance of a legal process. But the reality is there is no doubt in my mind that a referendum will reveal that the majority of people in the Crimea want to join Russia, this is not really the point as the actual referendum is illegal and any outcome for Crimea to join Russia won't be recognized by most of the international world.

Why not, is a pretty fair assumption., Or do you believe the West does things because it's right and just ? They need something out of it, after all. Really, you sure about that Malc? Where was the oil and natural resource contracts that the West gained for intervention in the Bosnian Conflict? Isn't it possible that certain Western interventions are about the humanitarian precedent ?

This is a nice gesture on your part squeakymeister. I would suggest you put something on the memorial stones similar to " I want Romance in PoE" ....

OK so you didn't watch the documentary. I will then run down the events for you. Where did it start? Most people agree that the national tensions culminated in WW2. What seems to be forgotten by most people today is that Croatia was an ally of the Nazis in WW2 and that they committed even worse crimes then the Nazis during that time. The worst of the crimes was the notorious concentration camp Jasenovac(in which they killed not only Jews, but also Serbs), which committed crimes that dwarfed that of the Nazis. Why? Because where the Nazis where efficiency exterminating the Jewish population, the Ustase in Jasenovac were not concerned with efficiency, they made sport of their killings, tortured people daily and seeing how long they could keep someone alive while doing it. http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/jasenovac.html After WW2 was over Tito assumed power and quelled the national tension for the most part. After he died there was a power struggle which, as is always the case, sent the country in a downwards spiral. With the countries destabilization, America sees the opportunity to dismantle a major power in Europe not under it's control. They offer Croatia a chance to secede from Yugoslavia with their support, which as can be seen they accept. 1st of March, 1992. In Sarajevo at a Serbian wedding in front of a church the groom is killed. This triggers the civil unrest in the City. 23rd of March 1992. Croatian Army attacks the village Hrasno, 6 member of YNA (Yugoslavian National Army ) are killed. 25th of March 1992. Croatian Army block roads to Serbia. 26th of March 1992. Croatian Army in tandem with the local Muslim paramilitary forces commit a massacre in the village Sijekovac. ...More attacks from the Croatian side through out Bosnia. 7th of April 1992. Bosnia and Herzegovina declare independence. 9th of April 1992. Serbian force take over Zvornik. 16th of April 1992. YNA come in to Visegrad and takes over command. 2nd of May 1992. Military objects in Sarajevo are under attack by the Bosnian paramilitary groups. Serbs apprehend the Bosnian president Aliju Izetbegovića. 3rd of May 1992. The Serbs and Bosnian arrange an exchange for Alija Izetbegović and the unarmed retreat of all the Serbian forces under the supervision of UNPROFOR. The retreating Serbs with UNPROFOR at their head are attacked and captured. Alija Izetbegovic is freed. The attacked Serbian forces suffer 32 casualties (One of which was a medic in a sanitary vehicle and also my grandfathers brother), 71 wounded 215 captured. They are released after the war, they seem to be extremely undernourished and to have suffered torture by their captives. Serbian command (Slobodan MIlosevic) orders the retreat of all the Serbian members in YNA from the mainland (Serbs who live in Serbia), from Bosina. ... Continued attacks by the Croat and Bosnian forces. Now for the famous part of the war. 7th of January 1993. Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in Kravici. 16th of January 1993. Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in the village Skelani. ... Continued attacks by the Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric. Over 150 Serbian villages are razed to the ground. ... Conflicts continue and Srebrenica is under attack by the Serbian forces in an attempt to kill Naser Oric and his forces. 11th of July 1995. Serbian forces capture Srebrenica but NAser Oric escapes via a helicopter and leaves his forces to fend for them selves. Serbian general Ratko Mladic evacuates all the civilians from Srebrenica. Serbian forces capture the 2000 strong Muslim military forces and execute them for the massacre they committed over the Serbs in the area. Now what Mladic did was essentially wrong, but I doubt he could have stopped it even if he wanted to. The Serbian forces had been chasing after Naser Oric for over a year around the Srebrenica area, and they had seen all the horrors that happened in his wake (children killed, pregnant women disembowel, corpses beheaded and mutilated, people crucified upside down and many, many other horrible things). To make the matters worse the Serbian forces were partly comprised of the people from this area. Soon after NATO interferes and soon after that the Dejton agreement is singed. 4th of August 1995. Operation Storm starts. ...During it over 200 thousand Serbs are ethically cleansed from their homes. 4th of August is declared a Croatian national holiday. So you asked me if Serbia was the victim here? My answer is yes, we have waged a defensive war in Bosnia. If Milosevic had been smart he would have committed the full Serbian might in Bosnia and ended the war inside a week. We would have held all the territory between Zagreb and Serbia. By the time the UN managed to involve it self we would have held all the disputed territory and we could have negotiated from a position of strength. At least like that we would have earned the reputation we have and we would have been in a much better situation now. If you want me to go over the Kosovo conflict, I can go in to detail about that too. But the Kosovo conflict is a different thing all together. Thanks for that detailed post, I appreciate the effort you put into your response I don't want to go into a detailed line for line debate about what you mentioned. Some of what you said is true and some is not IMO. But I'll make some general points. All sides committed atrocities in the Bosnian War. I know the Serbs weren't the only ones. But if you look at International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks have been convicted. So you could say " yes this shows how the Serbs have been unfairly targeted" or you can say " the Serbs committed the most atrocities". A 1995 report by the CIA found that Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for 90% of the war crimes committed during the conflict You say 2000 people were massacred in Srebrenica. All my sources point at close to 8000. And the number is significant as the charges against the Serbs involved was genocide. Genocide is a very different and more serious charge than most war crimes that people in the Bosnian war were charged with If the Serbs were just trying to defend themselves in Bosnia what was the purpose of the brutal and inhumane Siege of Sarajevo? Finally I understand why you distrust NATO and the West, I don't agree with it but I understand your view due to how you feel Serbia was treated. All I ask you to do is to accept that NATO intervened in the Bosnian War because of certain atrocities that Serbia perpetuated and would have continued to do so without Western involvement. You shouldn't assume that every time the West looks at a potential conflict area it acts in a disingenuous and hypocritical way

Good points rasied Malc

Not just that, but Bruce is the king of ogling and drooling over game babez and romance content. He's part of the supposed 'problem' Sarkeesian is attempting to highlight. I reject that comment with utter prejudice Just because I enjoy Romance in games and appreciate the aesthetics of the female form that doesn't mean I don't agree with Sarkeesian on many issues. There are certain parts of games where the objectification of women is debatable. But I still believe that Sarkeesian does raise valid issues that need to be discussed and addressed. I consider myself a feminist but there are differences of opinions on the topic.

Russia didn't annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia, though I tend to think they should. They're too small to be independent and there's far too much bad blood for them to be Georgian. They're both independent, or 'independent', depending on pov. I've got no personal opinion about Crimea being part of Russia or independent as that isn't my business but should be up to the Crimeans. But I have little doubt that they would want one or the other based on historic data though. Yes Russia didn't "annex" Abkhazia or South Ossetia but the result is the same. They aren't part of Georgia anymore and are completely dependent on Russia for both economic and political survival. They claim to be independent states, even though hardly any country in the world recognizes this, but thats not true. They are completely aligned to Russia and will do as Russia says. This suits Russia as they now have a buffer zone on part of there border that protects them from countries friendly to NATO and the West This is the same route the Crimea is going. What do you think would be your reaction, and others, if the USA moved troops to the Turkish border of Syria and then moved those troops into northern Syria. They only did this because the vast majority of northern Syria was rebel controlled and the rebels have decided they want there own autonomous region and they feel there survival is threatened. To prove that the Syrian rebels want there own state a referendum in the region is held and the results indubitably show the citizens of northern Syria don't want to be part of Assad's government. The USA now says " its clear, northern Syria is a separate region as this is what the residents want " and they decree it so. Because they have vast amounts of troops and military in the region Assad accepts it as he doesn't want war with the USA. And Syria becomes a divided land that the USA military ensures no one challengers What would you say in this scenario? Please don't nitpick the realism of my example. This is about the principle and the reality of how Russia has been " gaining" new territories and there claims they are doing nothing wrong.

Democratic vs Totalitarian? I suppose its more of the West vs East Russian retarded rhetoric. Anyway, I already commented on this issue before. Although, while it is not surprising that Russian bullying --in attempt to subdue a country into becoming a submissive satellite state that should care more about Russian interest that its own-- give rise to nationalism. It is amusing how uhm "Totalitarian Russia enthusiasts"(?) try to portray the situation in Ukraine as fascist and what not, considering Russia track record with xenophobia and racism. Btw how goes your attitudes toward various minorities and "dark asses" in particular, and how goes your new patriotic laws, which include the adaption of educational history texbooks to paint a more patriotic picture? It would be interesting to see what would happen if your nationalized tv would give tenth of the time they spend on Ukraine to this issue in russia. What? What "your laws"? Do you really think that anyone who do not support ukrainian revolution is a russian? I don't really care what Russia want to do, for me most interesting and entertaining part is how hard people try to ignore ugly and inconvenient parts of new administration. Plus, how Russia uses the very same arguments that were used for interventions during Kosovo, Libya and Iraq campaigns. And how everyone changes their opinion because "That were democratic and righteous revolutions against all that is Evil and this is a totalitarian undemocratic unfree Satanic invasion to opress all that is Good!". Surely I don't blame west for supporting ultraright nutjobs in some country, because, once again - "Might makes right" but it's one of the greatest source of lulz for the time being that makes righteous internet democracy activists extremely uncomfortable. Yes Culitist sometimes regime change and intervention is about democracy and righteousness. And sometimes its about the humanitarian principle. And sometimes its not and we get misinformation. You need to look at each example on a per case basis. You can't generalize about the reasons for legitimate or illegitimate reasons around Western or NATO intervention Cultist I am generally interested, where do you live if you don't mind me asking?