BruceVC

I like this beast, you have clearly given it some good thought

Errr, that's just a typo on my part. The example I stated in my last line is in line with what I meant (and what you said) Okay got it

That is a stupid comment and deserves to be chided. It literally qualifies that the race of the individual has affected the assessment of how quality the job is. In an ideal world, the idea that she was a "black cosplayer" would never come up. But it did. What exactly does it mean to say "For a black cosplayer?" It's no different than saying "For a white person, this was pretty impressive." It implicitly states that the colour of one's skin influenced the decision, and the implicit assumption is always going to be that had the skin colour been different, the result wouldn't have been impressive. No one says "For a black cosplayer, she is pretty impressive" meaning "but had she been asian/white/whatever, it was HOLY CRAP AMAZING." I agree, there is an undertone of racist assumption. But I will disagree with one point you made, the comment "For a white person, this was pretty impressive" doesn't mean other races wouldn't have been as impressive, what it says is that other races would have done it better and you are almost surprised that this racial group did it as well.

Yesterday I had a really productive day, I had to present to a potential customer an overview of the primary software product I support. So I created some slides that included marketing, technical and the methodology we use when implementing. This customer has about 140 branches throughout South Africa and southern Africa so there were some really good questions and discussions. Its always good when people ask relevant questions during a presentation because then you know they are actually thinking about the practicalities of what you want to sell them and they didn't just attend for the free lunch

Snow aaaaaaah. I have certain fondness of snow as its only snowed once in South Africa where I live and it wasn't really snow, more like sleet.

I remember the Mirror Demon from one of the Fighting Fantasy books by Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone. I think it might have been Deathtrap Dungeon, anyway you had to Test your Luck before the battle or the Demon dragged you for all eternity into its mirror netherworld. At the time I was absolutely terrified of that thought Thats a good monster

How is this a good idea, precisely? An arbitrary stonewall to progress? And how exactly is the game meant to progress once "you" have rag-raped some NPC? If "the ragman" is "you" then who are "you" once "you" have rag-raped some NPC? Once you're that NPC how are you supposed to become "you" again? It sounds more like you're just expressing your fantasies about being tentacle raped like a Japanese schoolgirl. Come now AGX, you need to use your imagination a bit more and see how this type of concept would apply in a fantasy setting. Its not hard. The party in PE could be approached by the monster Rag Man and ask for help in retrieving his body or what about a member of the party that is the Rag Man, and you discover that he is in fact not human. You could even extend the idea where your Rag Man party member keeps killing people when you visit towns, and you realize that someone in your party is a murderer. Its a good idea and has some exciting possible consequences I think that would work much better as the ending to a whodunnit type quest than as something which could attack the party, for a start it's like something that would attack lone people, and secondly it would be difficult to implement it taking over a player characters body I'm all for having weird nightmarish stuff like this in the game though... Yeah quest hooks are good idea's, but the I do like the concept of a Doppelganger in your party as another idea. Imagine at some point in the game having to kill a party member who is not only a valuable person in combat but also someone you like or who you have had Romance\Sex with

http://www.formspring.me/ksaun/q/422168444062946670 Some information around the name "Tides of Numenera"

Did it really cost 1 Billion, I thought it was about 400 Million dollars?

How is this a good idea, precisely? An arbitrary stonewall to progress? And how exactly is the game meant to progress once "you" have rag-raped some NPC? If "the ragman" is "you" then who are "you" once "you" have rag-raped some NPC? Once you're that NPC how are you supposed to become "you" again? It sounds more like you're just expressing your fantasies about being tentacle raped like a Japanese schoolgirl. Come now AGX, you need to use your imagination a bit more and see how this type of concept would apply in a fantasy setting. Its not hard. The party in PE could be approached by the monster Rag Man and ask for help in retrieving his body or what about a member of the party that is the Rag Man, and you discover that he is in fact not human. You could even extend the idea where your Rag Man party member keeps killing people when you visit towns, and you realize that someone in your party is a murderer. Its a good idea and has some exciting possible consequences

Wildman is T'lan Imass. Oh my hat I am reading Toll the Hounds at the moment, I am loving the whole series. I didn't think too many people knew about Steven Erikson Was gonna comment that any pig-man race would be Jaghut, and any raptor-man race would be K'chain Che'malle, but held off. Good series... but I stalled mid-book... on Toll the Hounds. Its weird that we are on the same book in the 10 part series, I am about to finish but I agree that at times its not easy reading. Compared to George RR Martin which I found I couldn't put down

I hear you but I don't see it as bad thing, from the definition I linked its someone who is highly intelligent but lacks certain social skills. And the description clearly says " aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down"

Okay I found the website, its GameStop

Guys I need some help, I have an unusual request. I use several prominent PC gaming websites to download games I buy. I use Steam, GOG and Gamers Gate But there is another gaming website that I use and I can't remember. Can you guys name some PC gaming download websites that I haven't mentioned. The one I can't remember has its own download client that sits in your tool-bar

I wasn't sure what an aspie was so I looked it up, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Aspie I would say that is an accuate description for Agx

Sorry to change the subject and be morbid but did you guys hear about the horrific rape that occurred to those Spanish tourists in Mexico, there must be nothing worse than going on an idyllic holiday and this happens http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-authorities-seeking-masked-attackers-raped-6-spanish-065322666.html

Linux, Linux ? Who cares about Linux I use to work for Microsoft so you understand where my loyalty lies. But you know that Linux is already the dominant Web and SMTP server that customers use globally, so Linux is doing fine. I only see it going from strength to strength in its own way

Marriage is a socio-economic contract. It originated in ancient times as a purely economic transaction between two families, family groups or tribes. Things like dowries and bride prices existed and still exist in the developing world based on the economics of the loss or gain of an individual and the economic value placed on that individual. What conservatives think is that legalization of gay marriage means big bad government will storm their churches with the national guard and force them at gunpoint to conduct gay marriages (which is idiotic.) Legalization of gay marriage is about the civil, governmental, bureaucratic rights that come with marriage. It's not about religion, although conservatives want it to be so they can force their social values on everyone else on the grounds that it somehow intrudes on their "freedom" to give other people the same freedoms and equal treatment under the law. Just like how the Catholic church wants to dominate the social behaviors even of people who aren't a part of their church by influencing government policies in various countries. Notable examples like Ireland's Catholic-driven ban on abortions recently causing the death of an Indian woman whose life would have been saved by an abortion. No homosexual, contrary to conservative beliefs, "chose" to be homosexual. After all, if anyone believes it's a choice, I ask, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Do you make that decision every day? Because it only stands to reason that if it's a choice, both options must be equally appealing to you. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, it has been seen in many species (the most noted example being in sheep, with an even higher rate of homosexual behavior than is known in humans.) From a biological perspective, yes, it is not a "correctly functional" sexual orientation in that it does not, under natural circumstances, result in reproduction and the propagation of the DNA code driving the behavior. Besides, modern society and science have overcome those hurdles in several ways and more are being developed as we write (there is active research into allowing two women to reproduce sexually through artificial means.) And sexual reproduction is not the only method of reproduction. Asexual reproduction came before sexual reproduction, after all, and there are species of amphibians and reptiles capable of Parthenogenesis, which is when a female produces offspring without the involvement of males. While the resulting offspring are genetically identical to the mother, they are still a propagation of her DNA. This occurs in situations where there is a lack of males in the environment, thus allowing for the preservation of the mother's DNA through time, until such a time as sexual reproduction becomes available as an option again. After all, it's better to reproduce in any way possible rather than have your genetic lineage die out, from a natural biological perspective. Even more bizarre/interesting is the fact that there are some amphibians which can change their sex in response to environmental conditions (a severe imbalance in sexes in the community,) with males becoming fully-functional females and vice-versa. All that said, the fundamental issue is that of the law and the rights granted by the law for wedded couples. It's about human relationships and the rights of individuals to certain benefits exclusively restricted to marriage as a legal institution, not a religious institution. I would agree, and while I'm not a fan of governments involving themselves with the headache that is marriage politics, as long as being married is the standard for couples it should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - with both being provided the full rights and privileges that this conveys. Like I said, the fundamental issue is the legal institution of marriage, not the religious one. Anyone can get "married" religiously, with or without an organized religion's involvement, but the government grants certain benefits and rights to people married under the law. A marriage under the law can be undertaken even without any form of ritual ceremony or religious hullaballoo. It's about those legal rights and benefits. Because one of the US government's primary roles is to enforce/guarantee compliance in contracts made between individuals and/or groups of any kind (be they businesses, community groups, private clubs, corporations, governmental bodies or any other that can legally make a contract,) the institution of marriage naturally falls under their purview. Besides, the government's involvement is implicit when you use the term "marriage politics." After all, if the government weren't involved, gay marriage would have no hurdles to overcome (except possible hate crimes perpetrated by social conservatives,) and heterosexual couples would have no special rights or privileges granted to them under the law. Wow, I'm really impressed with your knowledge and ability to articulate your view. Nice one I can't agree more with you, you make some salient and irrefutable points on this topic. I would hate to have to debate you if I disagreed with you.

Hurlshot, seriously dude you are a genius. I thought I was insightful but you "leave me quaking in my boots"

There is some relevance , some people are opposed to Gay relationships because of the act of sodomy. I have had debates with people around this anachronistic perspective

You crack me up Nep Nep is 100 % right guys. If you don't drink you are an extremist I like that one, Nep for President !!!! In fact anyone who doesn't drink should pay extra taxes, something like an "anti-sin tax" because you are causing the rest of us to pay more for alcohol?

This is my point and I agree with everything you have said, I don't understand what people mean when they say gay relationships are not normal and shouldn't be allowed the same rights both in and out of marriage?

Gorth you need to be bold and resolute to get through that room, bold and resolute

I find these topics fascinating so thanks to you and Nightshade for commenting, this whole debate on normal always fascinates me. If a homosexual relationship isn't normal can you explain what a normal relationship is in the context of why gay couples can't get married and have all the same legal rights as straight couples? So for example are gay relationships not normal because anal sex is not normal the fact that gay couples can't have children is not normal most religions say its not normal I am genuinely interested in the point that gay relationships are not normal and can't receive equal legal married rights

Well I can spot the alcoholic in this post, can you? With "this" do you mean your post? With all the milk I drink I am probably a lactolic... (other than a teetotaler) Don't you drink at all Melk?