~Di

LOL, yes, and why aren't there any virgins? We sacrificed 'em all! Hehe, seriously, in America all religions are allowed and recognized. It's a constitutional thing. It literally takes an act of congress to disallow a religion here; now disallowing religious practices that infringe on others or break the law is different. Believe it or not, however, some Indian tribes are allowed to break USA drug laws because their religious ceremonies require certain illegal/controlled substances. So our country bends over backwards for all religions, whether common sense finds said religions "worthy" or not. So I wasn't really trying to be a pain in the neck, lol. That distinction is very important here, where all religions, no matter how "silly" they may seem, are recognized.

I read this at least six times. Talk about a lightbulb going off. This actually is to thank you, Rosbjerg, immensely for this insight, because quite frankly I have met over a half-dozen Danes on various boards over the years, and have never gotten along well with any of them. I thought them... arrogant and mean. Yes, mean. (We won't get into what they thought about me.) I now realize that much of what I interpreted as deliberate mean-spirited behavior was probably considered witty and ironic in a culture that I clearly do not understand as well as I had foolishly thought I did. It is with embarrassed revelation that your brief sentence reminds me that Europeans and Americans are very different cultures, and that we frequently misunderstand each other. My apologies to my Danish forum mates for my lack of comprehension in the past, although I cannot guarantee that it won't happen in the future. Okay, off topic I know, so carry on. It just hit me like a light bulb that what I had attributed to unpleasantness was probably just culture shock. And I suspect it goes both ways.

I couple of comments here. First, I don't necessarily agree that everybody has the right to express their religion fully. It depends upon the religion itself, and if "expressing it fully" infringes upon the basic rights of others. Human sacrifice, for example, is pretty universally forbidden despite the fact that some religions still believe in it. Next, I agree that it was pretty danged insensitive to create the cartoons in question, and meant to annoy. Cartoons mocking Christianity are pretty danged insensitive too, but I doubt the world would rationalize Christians storming the streets threatening to kill people and inflict violence. Burning national flags is intended to be insulting, but nobody would tolerate folks of that nation rising up to incite violence because of it. When one specific segment of society is such a bully to society that it receives "special" treatment so it won't hurt society, then can you not see that there is something very wrong with that? If Muslims want to boycott Danes in their own country, fine. But it is not fine for them to incite violence, make violent threats, riot, or generally break the law. They are not special, dang it. The laws apply to them too. My thoughts.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, because it is quite clear to me that the writer of this article wished to put the most onerous possible spin on the report, and did so with clear bias. I agree that we have probably spent more time than necessary discussing this, but I too am glad the spirit of our disagreement remained fairly chipper!

You cannot know unless and until you have seen the sentences in their actual location in the document, and read the surrounding passages to comprehend the original intent. You don't get the feeling he's either for or against the policiies suggested in the report? Are you serious? He uses the bolded word Propaganda , Credibility Problem and US Digital Ambition paragraph headers. Do you honestly not believe that those titles are selected to portray certain beliefs? Does not the fact that he spends a large portion of the article stressing things like Psyops, and referring to pentagon-sponsored sites as "propaganda" does not imply to you that the writer is coming from a, shall we say, disapproving position here? I love the way he starts out: "Bloggers beware." Huh? Beware of what? There's no quote from the document that indicates the US military is out to shut down bloggers, but clearly the writer would like to leave the impression that there is. Just sensationalistic cuteness, trying to grab a reader's attention? Perhaps. Otherwise known as... propaganda... the pushing of one's own agenda through select dissemination of information. FWIW, that's what most of us do here on this forum as well. And we cheerfully admit it. But back to the article, perhaps a bit of sarcasm in the writer's journalistic effort would be revealing: "It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials". Did you catch that? All this in response to a government paper discussion ways to get their message out. Kinda like Radio-free Europe in the old days. But that was good. The fact that nearly every other government on earth uses the same kinds of media, electronic and otherwise, to get their own message out escapes this writer, because he does not, as a real journalist would do, compare what the US military does to what is common in other countries. In fact, he pretends that it has never happened anywhere else on earth. It's obvious to anyone who reads this that he considers the US studies on media/internet options to be bad, very bad. Certainly the person who posted this article agrees that it is very, very bad, because he added his own comments to the originating post: "Amazing arrogance on display here by the Pentagon." Apparently he didn't think any further explanation as to why the Pentagon studying potential enemy attacks via communications and media, and how to thwart those attacks would be considered "amazing arrogance." And he didn't because the writer of the article did it for him. Following are a few other statements that I believe reveal quite clearly the fact that the writer is not reporting and comparing journalistic fact; rather, he is announcing his own conclusions as fact: " When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system. " Well, duh. Since Al Qaeda uses the internet to feed not only it's own propaganda to the world (the USA isn't the only country on earth that uses propaganda to impart its own slant on things), but also to organize its attacks and sow terror through video of beheaded hostages, I suspect every government on the planet sees the internet as a vital enemy weapon. Any government with half a brain is making its own plans on how to protect their own electronic media, and how to interrupt the media of an enemy using the internet to wage war upon them. Wouldn't such plans be prudent? I sure think so. The author of this article does not. " The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet. Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real? "; And upon what statement does the writer base this stunning conclusion? Upon this... "And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum". US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum". Well, yeah. This is an internal security document where brainstorming about potential security risks might occur and how they could be thwarted. How to thwart the ability of terrorist organizations to use the internet to, well, sow terror? Seek a way to disrupt it. I strongly suspect the British military has similar plans on their drawing board as well. They're just smart enough not to hand it out to foreign journalists who will pick out portions to publicly mock and "interpret" through the filter of their own bias. " The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon. " Does it now? Another conclusion. Where, one wonders, are the quotes from Pentagon officials this writer contacted in order to get information and clarification on that and other conclusions he has printed in this piece with no attribution beyond his own interpretation and belief. " The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking... And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it."; Ooooo, obviously up to no good! That drips from every carefully chosen word. And you still do not see any bias in this article, any deliberate sway in not only what it chooses to stress, but more importantly what it refuses even to acknowledge? None of what I've written should be construed as approval on my part of the document in question, because I have not read it; nor should it be construed as approval for other botched attempts to plant media stories positive to the US effort around the globe. However, since my opinion that the article is commentary, not hard news, has been questioned so I am backing up my opinion with specifics. There are more, but these should suffice.

I see no significant bias and nothing that suggests a 'jaundiced opinion' on the part of the writer. Which of the quotes are out of context? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All of them are out of context, since the report itself has not been printed, only selected portions of the report to which the writer has attributed his own conclusions. It is an Op Ed piece; a commentary. It is not hard news.

More likely the former than the latter. If you wish to discuss it further, feel free to PM me. I'll be happy to clarify what I meant. I can say, however, that I do not recall ever saying anything to you that would be considered an insult here in my own country, so if it is considered an insult in yours, I should probably know about it so I don't repeat the behavior.

? I do not recall ever having (deliberately) taken a personal jab at you. I do not even know you. This is, however, the second or third time you've launched personal insults at me. I rather suspect we might have suffered a serious breakdown of communication somewhere along the way.

I didn't miss anything. You, however, apparently did. Please open your Funk & Wagnells, and read the definition of "joking" , "sarcasm" and "irony". Also, there's no need for you to constantly add personalized insults. You can discuss the content of posts without ad hominems, and I respectfully request that you do so. I'm not disagreeing. Any time one group of individuals moves into the territory of another group and tries to impose their values, problems are bound to arise. I certainly don't want the culture and values of others imposed upon me in my own home; I can see that you wouldn't either. Nor would the Iraqi people, for that matter, which is why Bush's vision for that country was doomed from the start, IMHO. I personally think forbidding religious dress and religious icons is a bit harsh, but that is because here in the USA we have more tolerance for various religions than some countries do. In other words, things look a bit different when one is the actual target rather than merely an univolved observer. Exactly so. You may wish to consider that when judging others.

Thanks again for all the excellent information. I'm truly grateful! (((hugs to all)))

I'm sure y'all deserved it. After all, it's not like Muslims, or any other group of folks for that matter, ever decide to get offended and hate a country without a reason. They hate the USA because the US asked to be hated. Therefore, I'm sure Denmark asked to be hated too! :D Oh, the irony! /end joking sarcasm

Great info, thanks so much. Fionavar, I particularly enjoyed browsing the site you posted. I've decided widescreen probably isn't for me, not being a techie-geek and all. Main decision is whether to go LCD or stay with a huge, heavy-but-reliable-for-all-my-games CRT. CRT seems the safest way to go; cheaper, easier to use, might even be able to afford a 21" (Yes, Grommy, size DOES matter!). But lord they weigh a ton and I have to find muscle-bound rent-a-boys to haul the danged thing around so husby's back won't dislocate on him again. .... Hmmm, perhaps I have made my decision? *evil grin* ..... Nah. Muscle-bound rent-a-boys are fleeting; solid gaming is forever! Keep the feedback coming!

Thanks so much for the feedback! One monitor we are considering is the ViewSonic Widescreen 19" LCD... has anyone used a Widescreed LCD for gaming? Does it look good, or are there black strips on the sides to fill in beyond the standard game-screen size?

My precious 4-year-old 19" monitor bit the big one today. Just wouldn't light up. Am now using a cruddy old 17" that cannot tell the difference between blue and gray. I hope to be able to get my ViewSonic repaired, but if I can't I'll be faced with choosing another old-style tube monitor or going with slim, fancy LCD. I'm not in love with heavy and clunky, mind you, and enjoy the light-weight look of the flat LCD's, but have heard they have a very short life and are not very good for game playing. Can y'all give me some feedback and advice? I'd appreciate it.

This is an Op Ed piece... read "commentary". The guy is entitled to his opinion, his speculation, and his conclusions, but none of that is fact, nor is it even presented in a journalistic fashion. I'm not ready to opine that the USA is turning communist because of one BBC commentator's rather jaundiced opinion as he pulls out-of-context sentences to which he personally attributes his own belief as to motivation, intent and conclusion.

Unless Hamas' official policy has changed, their stated goal is the destruction of Israrel. That being the case, I doubt Israeli elections matter to them one way or the other. CNN: Many Israelis Despair at Hamas Win

Yeah, Sargy. You and Grommy had some deliciously epic...er... discussions. *sigh* I miss those days. I miss them a lot. Oh, and to be on topic: I love Gothic and Gothic 2. Love them more than plum jam, I do!

Time will tell, but I stand by my prediction that a right-wing non-concessionist will replace Sharon and Israeli troops will re-occupy Gaza before the end of the year. I guess I should have figured this was coming when Palestinians broke into public celebration after Sharon had his stroke.

Good question. You'd have to direct it to those involved.

I dunno. Very bewildering from my personal perspective. In the past year, Israel took serious heat from its own citizens by forcefully clearing all Gaza Settlements and handing the territory back to the Palestinians... without requesting a single concession. First the Palestinians rewarded the gesture by lining rockets up to fire into Israeli cities; now they have put into power a group that still maintains a policy of the violent destruction of the country of Israel. The peace process is officially dead. Now it's almost guaranteed that Israel will elect a Netenyahu clone *shudder* to replace Sharon, blood will flow, West Bank can pound sand before it sees another territorial concession, and I'd be willing to bet Israeli troops will be back in Gaza before the end of the year. Not good for either side, frankly. Very sad.

I started out on the old blue, cross-connected Bio-boards too. I feel so old.

It can be and it has been. The problem comes from individual perception of what is and is not logical/realistic within the parameters of certain gameworlds, and whether that logic enhances or detracts from gameplay. Those perceptions are not universal. One person buys into the fact that kobolds exist and can be pickpocketed despite the fact that they are quite clearly naked, and another does not. Your view of the game world may differ from mine, but that does not automatically make you right and me wrong. It makes us different. I was responding primarily to one specific post, offering alternative views to what was presented in that post. I know many folks don't share my views. Then again, many people do. By pulling the opening paragraph out and dissecting it without the context of the second paragraph, and indeed the rest of the post, you have totally missed the point I was making... which was, in a nutshell, that even the internal logic of a game world must be tweaked when that logic replaces fun with frustration for the largest number of game players. Wow. I don't think a personal snipe was called for here. For one thing, you ignored the overall message of my post as a whole. For another, you should be able to accept differing views in a respectful manner, particularly if you plan to go into the business of creating games for the wildly varying preferences of many differing playstyles. Obviously. I wasn't drawing a parallel between the lush, fleshed-out world of a well-written novel with the creation of a game world, however. There are vague similarities in the backstory of creating the fictional world, of course, but the implementation is miles different. In a novel one does not follow the protagonists on a daily basis, plodding through mudane daily activities. Scenes are set up to reveal only what moves the plot forward, or gives the reader necessary information. Everything else is simply lost in the white space. If the protagonist of a novel has to trudge to the bank every 30 minutes to deposit his weighty gold, the reader may know about that drudergy because of a line of narrative, but doesn't actually have to read about every occurrence. In a game world, the player not only knows about every occurrence, he/she has to actually do it... over and over and over again. In a game, the player IS the protagonist and in many ways creates his/her own plot movement, so mundane activities sometimes have to be tailored to minimize that... hence, weightless gold, backpacks that contain everything from a dozen weapons to six suits of armor, etc. Everyone pretty much agrees that in game development certain logic/realism functions of the game world itself must be sacrificed in order to keep players interested. The disagreement comes in when players discuss which functions should be sacrificed. There is no right and wrong here, only differing opinions and gameplay styles.

? Who the heck is that?

Exactly. That in a nutshell is why discrimination cannot be fixed simply by changing the target of discrimination from Race/Gender A to Race/Gender B. For a society to achieve true equality, the root of discrimination must be poisoned through education, through scocialogical evolution, and through the fair implementation of justice for all citizens, not just a few based upon either past grievances or fear of future grievances. Any time good people are deliberately abused so that others may unfairly prosper, the seeds of resentment and hatred thrust roots even deeper into the combined psyche of society as a whole.

First, I think we have to accept that there will always be aspects of games, including our beloved RPG's, that are unrealistic and illogical. Magic isn't realistic or logical. Being able to run sixteen blocks then jump onto a first story roof without having a heart attack or respiratory failure isn't realistic or logical. Finding a sniper rifle in a sewer isn't realistic or logical. Finding a +2 sword on a kobold isn't realistic or logical... kobolds don't exist, dammit. Games are supposed to be fun. Period. Game developers want their games to be fun to the largest number of players. The largest number of players do not enjoy being frustrated, bored or annoyed, so game developers try to avoid things that frustrate, bore or annoy the largest number of players. These players, btw, are not stupid morons or addled-brained. They simply don't think trudging to a bank every five minutes to unload weighty gold, or staring at dark monitor for an hour waiting for the game-world sun to come up in order to progress is a fun way to spend their recreation hours. They also do not like investing 30+ hours in a game only to find a hidden timer has expired and they have to start over. Newsflash! Games DO exist to serve the whims of players. That is the point of games, wouldn't you agree? The real question you are asking is, "Is it wrong to want the gameworld to serve MY whims as a player." And no, it's not wrong to want that. There are games that will serve many of your personal whims. The world of Gothic, in fact, does much of what you wish, but has done it in a manner that doesn't (for the most part) bore and annoy most players. ( Most being the key word here.) The Thief series also had the kind of "realistic" game world consequences you might enjoy (although I don't know how realistic it is to have water arrows that can put out torches! Another case where fun and gameplay have overridden logic, and rightly so.) Many games also have quests that are time-oriented. The player knows up front which quests those are, and what his/her options might be. As for the dying-cat/burning-building analogy, that would turn me completely off the game. Why? Because the game offers me a situation where no matter what choice I make I will feel icky afterward. I do not like feeling icky. I do not like lose-lose situations in my games. (Yes, feeling icky and lose-lose situations are realistic and follow logic consequenc. So does diarrhea, but I don't want that in my games either.) Ok, so I am informed that an assassin is hunting me. Should I go on a picnic? Maybe. Is the purpose of the picnic to flush out the assassin? Maybe the purpose of the picnic is to increase my reputation with an important faction, or simply because I'm hungry. Just because an assassin is after me doesn't mean I have to go hide in a closet for the rest of the game. What do you suggest I (my character) do? That's up to the game, isn't it? If the game gives my character the information needed to find and kill the assassin, great. If it doesn't, I'm going on a picnic and will worry about the assassin later. But if the game says nothing other than an assassin is after you, now go out and hunt him down in this big, interesting world... and I am in the process of doing so when a gong goes off and "TIME'S UP, YOU LOSE!" flashes on the screen, yes I as a player am going to be pissed off. A great many players would be pissed off. Game developers know this, and few of them go out of their way to piss of a large number of players. If the game story requires a time limit, most developers will mitigate the frustration factor by letting the player know up front what that time limit is and give them game options to meet it while still having some freedom to play the game to their personal taste. Depends on the game, doesn't it? Logic is not static, after all. Different people using their own logic will come to different conclusions depending upon the facts available to them and the experience they bring to their deductive reasoning. You cannot simply insist that everyone who comes to a differing conclusion is wrong. Well, you can so insist... but that would make you wrong. It's okay to want what you want, so long as those who disagree aren't insulted, looked down upon, or condescended to (which you have not done in your post, btw!)... because it's okay for the loyal opposition to want what they want as well!