~Di

Oooo, this sounds encouraging. Can you tell us more about the gameplay, the style, the ambience (is it a fantasy MMORPH or a Sci-Fi MMORPH) and what about the game you find particularly addictive? I've been hearing some good things about it. I should probably just Google up the game's home page, but would prefer direct player feedback if I can get it.

This is... unbelievable. I am being discussed as if I'm some piece of meat on an auction block, my motives being dissected by people whom I do not know and who do not know me, and I'm being called basically selfish for not supplying a bunch of strangers on the internet complete access to my professional life. All this in a thread that I did not even participate in until my name was brought up and I was insulted by someone to whom I have previously never said an unkind word. To say I was angry, hurt and stunned is an understatement. Now, it seems, I have some kind of duty to everyone else on this net to provide personal details of myself that none of them would consider doing were the situation reversed. Tell you what, LoneWolf16, you give us all your RL name, your home address, the address of your employer (along with the name of your supervisor... we can get all the phone numbers from the web... in my case, the moment one of my pen names is known, all the rest of that down to the names of my children and pets can be instantly Googled!), then post examples of your work so we can critique it, okay? Yes, yes, we know that's how you make your living and there may be a few crackpots who will call your supervisor and insist you smock crack in the company boiler room, but it would be selfish of you not to share your professional knowledge with all of us. Sound idiotic? Of course it is. But in a nutshell it is what you expect me to do. (kirottu, bless you for trying to understand) Writing is not my hobby, it is how I made my entire living for more than 15 years. If you do not think that your employer and employment details should be made public on an internet forum, then you might consider I feel exactly the same way. As far as sharing my knowledge about the profession, there are several people over the years with whom I have shared a great deal of advice and discussion... in private message... and without giving them personal information about myself. I thought that answering professional questions over the years, both in numerous PM's and in threads about the craft and business of writing, I was being generous with my knowledge. I had hoped, at least, that it would be of help to some, which is why I have spent the time to do so. I did not, however, believe that I should have to post personal information about myself in order to be "generous." Surely none of you would post what has been asked of me, details of your name, address, employer, etc., for public consumption and critique. I still do not think I have done anything on this forum that would warrant suddenly having a spotlight foisted upon me, being called paranoid, selfish, etc., and being reminded yet again that someone who lives close to me would like to start pounding on doors until I am located. (I'm sure, CoF, you think all this "I want to find out where you live" stuff that you periodically post is quite amusing, but frankly to me it is getting extremely creepy.) I am quite hurt by much of what has been written in this thread, frankly, and hope this thread either returns to the original topic or dies a needed death.

The post I quoted was rude and insulting, period. I've never done anything to you to deserve it... except to refuse to give you my pen name, address, and other personal information when you have repeatedly asked for it. I do not give out that information for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I do not want people on the internet writing my publisher to insult my writing abilities, or mocking my work by posting out-of-context narrative to ridicule, or any of a thousand other harassments that could adversely affect my professional reputation and career. You seem to think that if I share information about my general business, which is writing and publishing novels, then I am duty-bound to fling open my entire professional resume to anyone who wishes to see it. Or at least to you personally, upon your demand. I replied to your PM politely, as I have replied to many other such requests for personal information about me. I simply didn't give you what you wanted. At this point, words cannot express how grateful I am that I didn't. You've got some gall, young sir. You don't like me offering insight and/or information about my professional knowledge when the topic comes up? Tough. You're sulking because I won't give you my name, address, phone number, the pen names under which I write, the titles of all my 32 novels, my publisher's name and address, my editor's name and address and my agent's name and address? Double tough. Surely you didn't think you could insult me, call me paranoid and have me smile happily while squeaking, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" Since I annoy you so much, and you certainly annoy me now, I recommend we simply ignore each other. And I would not suggest you continue your efforts to find out where I live. Thanks.

Yes, I'm always thrilled to give details of my personal life to strangers over the internet, particularly those who are insulting and rude to me.

Wow. Did any of you miss the part about Gene Shalitt having a gay son, for whom he has publicly acknowledge deep love and acceptance? Whether you agree with his take on this movie or not, it seems odd some of you would continue to speculate upon his personal "homophobia" after knowing that. At any rate, until I've seen both the movie and the review video I really don't think I have anything valuable to offer here. Not that having nothing of value to offer has ever shut me up in the past.

Yeah, I hate the MSNBC site... takes forever to load, and half the time only half the page loads. When the full page on my link actually loads, you'll see "Gene Shalit's corner" on the far right. The Brokeback Mountain review, Jan. 5, is the first of 3 listed reviews. Mouse over the title "Brokeback Mountain" and click. (This is just generalized info, since you have already seen the clip elsewhere) As for your link, wow. I did not know that Shalit had a gay son... but then again homosexuality is pretty danged common (despite what certain groups would have us believe) so I cannot say I'm particularly surprised. Literally some of my best friends have gay children... and a couple are gay themselves! Point being that GLAAD perhaps should have done a bit more homework on Mr. Shalit before casting the "homophobe" stone at him.

LOL, yes I adore Morte. But the question was NOT the funniest RPG character ever... which I agree would be Morte... but the funniest RPG ever... which is without doubt the magnificent and under-rated Anachronox.

Funny you should say that. I found the video of the review in question , but since my clunky dial-up would take half the morning to download it I decided not to bother. If y'all are interested in seeing both sides of the argument, and your computer can handle video stream, you may want to give it a peek!

Thanks for the info! Since you've read the book, I'll trust you have an excellent grasp of the characterizations and motivations involved in the story itself. Now, have you also read Shalit's entire review in context? Personally I get suspicious when a single phrase has been yanked out and used to villify someone. I think that's one of the things that has annoyed me about this story... and this thread... the vast presumptions being made with so little actual evidence. I've tried to find the text of Shalit's original review, but no luck so far. However, I've certainly found a bunch of websights labeling Shalit as a homophobe, and worse, because of this review. I'm one of the most intolerant folks on earth when it comes to real homophobia, or anything that denies homosexuals the same rights and protections every other person on the planet has. But I'm not going to chime into a mob scene and start chucking stones based on somebody else's say-so!

Talk about overreaction all the way around. Shalitt is a movie critic. He criticizes movies. That's his job. His opinion is his livelihood. Now GLAAD is entitled to be annoyed with his review, but they do not have the right to try and shut him up or harm his career simply because they disagree with it. Some critics called Glen Close's bunny-boiling performance as the "stereotypical woman-scorned histronics." I didn't see any organization leaping from the woodwork to call those critics misogynists and heaping insult upon the organizations which employed them. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if the lead character was behaving like a sexual predator or not. Now contradicting what some on this thread have implied, a male who persues a female repeatedly with unwanted advances IS a sexually predator; there is nothing "romantic" about it. If a male (or female for that matter) is persuing another male against that person's wishes, is manipulating or coercing that person into a sexual relationship that person has repeatedly said he did not want, that IS being a sexual predator and saying so does not make Shalitt homophobic. At least Shalitt has seen the movie, which is more than most of us here can say. GLAAD has a right to offer a contrary opinion of the movie; it does not have a right to attempt to destroy Shalitt's career because they didn't like his opinion. This has not helped their cause, IMHO.

Indeed. I am a total Fio fan, and have been for years. Three cheers for big, green and sexy! :D

I agree. Anachronox was the funniest RPG, bar none. God, I love that game. Such a hoot!

Why start at 60? Hell, people in their 50's have no right to live either. Or 40, for that matter. Aw, screw it. Set the cap at 30. Logan's run, anybody?

I empathize, Commisar, I really do... but damn. This has got to be the funniest thing I have read in months. *wipes away tears of laughter* Dead hooker in the garage. LOLOLOLOL.... Thanks, y'all. I needed a good giggle. :D

Controllable, without doubt. I love BG-style party play.

I truly enjoyed Guild Wars... and probably will play it again when the expansion comes out. Mind you, I have just started World of Warcraft and like it much more; but it costs much more as well. I highly recommend Guild Wars. It does exactly what it sets out to do, and does it brilliantly. Much of the game can be solo'd using computer-generated "henchies", or the more social can group for the entire game. You can join a guild; you can remain guildless. Tons of options available. Great fun game. (BTW, I hated Diablo, and really don't see the comparison with Guild Wars. *shrug*)

No, I don't hunt. Like COF I also live in a rural area filled with both predators and prey, so there is the occasional necessity to kill mountain lions, coyotes, rattlesnakes and the like that endanger humans and livestock. If my family was starving, I'd hunt to feed them; however, I find no thrill in murdering defenseless animals for the so-called sport of it.

LOL, I'm always amused by how many posters believe they have an inalienable right to heap insult on Americans on a daily basis on these forums, then go into appoplectic shock at any real or perceived insult to themselves. For that childish hypocrisy alone this thread is a royal hoot.

No, the government causes more panick than the terrorist itself with all the Terror Alarms and Terror Laws I hope I'm misunderstanding you here. I may not be particularly thrilled with some of the legal changes my country has made to deal with terrorists inside its borders, but what whipped me into a frenzy by the sight of hijacked jetliners being flown into buildings and the death of 3000 Americans. I'll presume this was just poor wording on your part and not a deliberate attempt to be insulting. BTW, anyone who brings Hitler or Nazis into an argument has automatically lost the argument in my view. I read it. Your moderator status kept me from commenting even further about it. Suffice to say, I don't consider my friends and relatives who are serving in the military to be Nazis or facists. I shall leave it at that, but request that you tone down the rhetoric and insult a tad. Please.

Tell you what, Eldar. Since neither of us can seem to properly understand what the other is saying, and since your hostility and personal animous toward me is getting on my last nerve, how about we simply do each other a favor by ignoring each other. I won't respond to any more of your posts. I respectfully request you accord me the same courtesy. If you feel the need to further discuss your observations, comments and criticisms about me personally, please do so via private message. Thanks.

Exactly so! Perfectly stated.

Point taken, Grommy. However, to be perfectly accurate, Clinton did not officially perjure himself since he was not convicted of having done so. He was accused of perjury, and alledged to have committed perjury. Unless and until he was convicted of that crime in a court of law, he is merely an alleged perjurer. The only thing really proven is that he has no sexual impulse control, and the morals of an ally cat. :D My take on Bush is that he deliberately lied about his motives in order to engage this country in what I believe to have been an illegal and immoral war. (I'm hardly a liberal, BTW. Registered republican for more years than most reading this have been alive, but am now a disgruntled independent.) If my suspicion is true, then impeachment is the least Bush deserves. Since my suspicion will probably not be proven in a court of law either, perhaps I should refer to Bush as the "alleged liar." LOL!

*shrug* Those "impeachment hurts the presidency more than the president" arguments sure didn't hold water when the GOP tried to knock Clinton out when he only had a couple of years left in his turn, now did they? I personally believe that Bush truly is a liar, because anyone who listened closely to his 2000 campaign speeches new then and there that if he was elected he'd try to take Saddam out one way or the other. Then 9/11 happened, and he happily found himself with a country full of scared, angry people will to let him pre-emptively invade a country for the first time in our history. WMD's made him do it? C'mon. You may not want to hear it, but Bush IS a liar. Most people are liars, of course, but when Bush lies it has rather far-reaching consequence, don't you think? He's already confessed to having lied when he told folks in 2003 (I think that's the year) that no wiretaps or spying was being done without proper, legal judicial approval. He'd already signed the NSA secret spying orders. I'm not "raling on" about impeachment. I'm simply saying that the comparison is rather interesting in that many who staunchly fought to see Clinton thrown out for the audacity of lying about a sexual liasion are now sweeping Bush's lies under the rug with shrugs and excuses. It is a given fact that tens of thousands have been killed and maimed as a direct result of Bush's actions, so forgive me if I think veracity in that case is a bit more serious than trying to keep your sexual escapades out of public view. Besides, take a look at the topic of this thread... Bush and Impeachment. So stop telling me not to discuss the topic. Also, no lectures about how I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I go out and do volunteer work, m'kay? That caveat isn't noted on our constitution as an exception to the free speech clause. LOL! BTW, the "Hitler" comment was a cheap shot, since you were responding to my comments primarily and you know perfectly well that I have never said such a silly thing. Not that I'm particularly upset with it, but it really wasn't worthy of you, sweetie.

I agree with Commissar as well. Nobody has to prove that Bush approved breaking the law, because Bush himself has confirmed it. He has given the NSA directions to use wiretaps and other spying devices without judicial approval or legally-issued warrants... in secret, mind you... and he is proud of it. He says national security rules, and civil liberties be damned. Sorry, but if Clinton can be impeached for lying about a blow job, then Bush should surely be impeached for all the danged lies he has perpetrated on this country, and on the world. Then again, I'm biased. Y'all know I'm certainly no Bush fan. But Crikey, gang, he ignored the laws of our land and the constitution he swore to uphold because he damned well wanted to. Surely that must send a cold chill down a few spines.

The only thing surprising about this is that people were able to forceably shove religious belief into their public school curriculums in the first place.