JadedWolf

I haven't read all the official / political documents as a common person that I am, but there are at least 3 claims that are really common here: 1 - 2) Historic and legal rights: Based on a) the legacy from Spain, b) resettlement from Argentina while the isles were abandoned and the c) expulsion/problems that came later when the British arrived again. 3) Geographical rights: The islands are not only near Argentina but in fact they are part from its continental shelf, so they are literally in Argentinian territory by most treaty's. (+ its has given many complicated problems with the sea regulations) Ofc they are far more complicated and detailed than that but that's the reason why the conflict still exists. The fun thing about this all is that I don't like nationalism, it blinds people and makes people feel superior to others. But if a give my opinion in this kind of debates its cause this is greater than Argentina or The United Kingdom, its about law and justice: how we make our relations with other country's / people and respect them. Don't be mistaken, if tomorrow I see some kind of convincing proof of ownership I would totally defend the British. Its just, that this time I don't think they have the upper legal (*) and moral ground. (*) PS: I feel this needs to be made clearer: Falklands are occupied with UK people from 1833, its only logical to conclude that people who was born in British ambient, culture, with British parents, grandparents etc... and are having a good way of live wont feel like suddenly having a strange urge to be from Argentina. The referendum is just a political propaganda so the people don't think about what was really wrong at the beginning. PS2: Yes, I play lawfull good characters xD Good post But don't you think the interest that Argentina has in reclaiming these island has anything to do with the oil that has been discovered there? Of course it is about the resources. Even so, I suspect the actual motive of the Argentinian government to stir this up is to deflect attention from a poor record at home. When you're having trouble at home, stir up something abroad to make people look the other way. The average Argentinian can't care less about a rocky outcrop far out sea with a few sheep on it. As for "PS: I feel this needs to be made clearer: Falklands are occupied with UK people from 1833, its only logical to conclude that people who was born in British ambient, culture, with British parents, grandparents etc... and are having a good way of live wont feel like suddenly having a strange urge to be from Argentina. The referendum is just a political propaganda so the people don't think about what was really wrong at the beginning." What was wrong at the beginning? Are you saying people shouldn't have a right to want to belong to what country they feel they belong to? Or is it because the British are supposedly colonial? All the states in South-America have a history in colonialism. Now, if you're saying we should hand the whole lot back to the native population, that's something else...

I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it is. No one ever backs down from a territorial dispute. In any event that would make the question whether the Falklands are part of Britan and what the islanders think is once again irrelevant. What you are saying is not true, though. Example; the Dutch had a colony called the Dutch Indies, now Indonesia. During WW II, Indonesia claimed its independence. After WW II, the Dutch returned to Indonesia in force. What happened next is a complicated chain of events, but it came down to the Dutch winning the war on the militairy side, but losing it on the public relations side as Dutch misdoings in the war made news headlights. Under pressure from the UN and especially the US, they were forced to recognise Indonesia's independence. Now, I am not saying the Falkland isles are in any way similar to Indonesia, I am just saying that public opinion counts for a whole lot. And in that regard the actual inhabitants of the Falkland islands voting to be British means public opinion outside of Argentina tends to favour Britain. Imagine that Argentina would actually land on the Falklands, what would they do with the inhabitants? It could be that we could see news reports about Argentinian soldiers killing innocent British inhabitants of the Falkland isles. Such an issue could inflame the situation in such a way that Argentina would sorely regret its actions.

Yes, like WoD said! If Argentina can have the Falkland Isles 'back', can we, the Dutch, have New York back? It belonged to us before the English and Americans after all... Just uhm.... Ignore how we stole it from the native Americans. We'll take good care of it. Wooden shoes for everyone! "The problem for the Falklanders? is that they don't posess the military strength to protect their sovereignty. One could argue that the minimum prerequisite for a country is some ability to do just that." Didn't the British, which they are part of, you know, win the Falkland war? In any case, with your reasoning, a country with a large enough army would have the right to conquer pretty much the whole world. After all, they didn't have the strength to defend themselves, right, so they didn't deserve to be sovereign. So we can just conquer them, yay!

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

If history would only have been a little different... Apparently a lot more people would be speaking Swedish. >_>

Just chiming in to say that I, too, would say that lady nr. 2 is the better looker. Painfully slim is not my cup of tea. Also, yes, the time that Western civilization rules the roost is going to end sometime. And not because we've fallen into some sort of decadent wasteful era akin to the last years of ancient Rome, but simply because other countries are catching up. We're not that special anymore, deal with it.

A belated congratulations to Mr. Rorie on his new job, may it work out great for him. Edit: also, some of the discussion on this thread made me think of: http://dgaider.tumblr.com/post/39544291251/on-fandom-and-toxic-environments

How dare people leave Obsidian, indeed. We must put a stop to this. Bring out the chains! Let's see them leave with a 40kg iron ball chained to your feet, eh? -Cackles madly- None shall leave, and great games will be made! -Cracks whip- Get on with it, minions! Get on with it! Oh, and remember to enjoy yourself. I will be taking notes. If I don't see smiles, questions will be asked. *Tough* questions. Carry on. ... What are you looking at me for like that, I said CARRY ON!

This made me laugh, and about sums up my feelings when reading this.

By the way, for those of you who were worried about the multiplayer focus of Elite: Dangerous , it is confirmed that it will be perfectly possible to play the game offline.

The latest update for Elite: Dangerous is , and looking good. If anyone here is still on the fence, take a look and see if this might win you over.

That sounds a bit like this Kris landed by boat, rushed ashore, put a little flag on this fellow Steve Goodman, struck a pose, and said something akin to "In the name of the queen, I hereby claim this person and christen him Steve Goodman! Now, let's go find the natives and tell them the good news." ... But then again, maybe I just have a very odd imagination.

Body fat should be a sign of wealth, I think, but also predominant amongst people who work with food and thus use the opportunity to stuff themselves when they can. But as I said, well-trained or lean bodies are not necessarily beautiful. You are absolutely right. Take this gentleman, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bartholomeus_van_der_Helst_-_Gerard_Andriesz_Bicker.jpg Which raises the point; beauty isn't something objective and quantifiable. Ever seen a Rubens? The ladies in his paintings didn't skip any meals, and yet they were considered beautiful. Not going to link, since none of them are wearing any clothes and that might be frowned upon. So who says that in this fantasy world they would even apply the same standard to beauty that our society does, anyway? I highly doubt they would share in our worshipping of anorexic teenagers.

I think Obsidian should spend the money any way they please - and personally, I would rather see them use any "extra" profits as a reserve for leaner times, when a project falls through or such.

Yes! Like in Monty Python and the Holy Grail!

You could kill Zevran as soon as he showed up though. You didn't have to recruit him. I think that complain is about DA2. Where Fenrirs would be the leather loving gay(or I would say anime) elf in question. Naw, it definitely refers to Zevran, as you can give him leather items as gifts (he will sniff them...), and he is a male-male love interest. On topic: I think it should be allowed, but with consequences. If you kill someone in your party without good reason, be prepared for all the morally guided people in the party to attack you. Or, hell, some of the less moral people could cut your throat at night, just out of self-preservation. I mean, who would feel comfortable being with someone who kills off their companions on a whim?

Shhh, be vewy vewy qwuiet, we're hunting mages...

I am in the same boat as the OP. Now, I am not that much into games with a high hack and slash element, and what I read of DS III was mixed at best. So I didn't exactly rush to the store to buy this game. But when it was on Steam for, quite honestly, a steal, I figured I would give it a go. And honestly, I was pleasantly surprised; it really is a good game, for what it sets out to do. And well, even the story managed to grip me, something I really didn't expect from what I saw as a purely hack and slash game. I managed to have a good time with this game on my first playthrough with Anjali, and I doubt it will be my last. For anyone still on the fence, give it a go, if you're willing to accept this game for what it is you'll have a blast like I did.

I'd feel dirty. Because of, you know, all the ink.