Elerond

Until the actual election results I would have agreed with your friend because my experience is many people, including some forum members, did seem almost obsessed with the email scandal But I would ask your friend when was Trump homophobic, because I can recall when he demonstrated other forms of bigotry but not homophobia ? When he chose Pence, who is openly and actively against LGBT rights and protections and who thinks that conversion therapy is not just okay but better target for governmental funding than AIDS prevention, you know that he isn't big supporter of LGBT people.

Do they also include VP that in interviews tells that if they win election they will as soon as they get in office start to remove LGBT protections, rights, including same sex couples to marry?

You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump. That was the first group listed m8. Anyways it looks like Clinton may have won the popular vote. This just gets better and better. Sorry I am just blind. It is nice to see that yet again candidate for establishment and democratic party that rigged the election loses election by winning popular vote because of rules by establishment.

You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump.

It seem that best case scenario has happened. Trade agreements and cheap foreign labor supporters now control house, senate and president's office.

Now we're back fun-time pondering! What's in for Trump to run and deliberately lose? What will he gain? Lets go in conspiracy rabbit hole and presume that conspiracy theorists are right Then there would be several things that Trump would gain by losing purposefully First he would have corrupt president that is willing to use her office to help her friend in office Clinton already has big part of governmental official in her pocket. Trump is facing criminal charges and tax fraud charges etc. and he wants them to go away Trump will get direct line to White House and influence its decision without needing to sacrifice his businesses like he would need in case that he becomes president. Presidential campaign has again made Trump relevant which is probably good for his reality tv shows. and so on.

The problem there isn't specifically too much information though, it's people cherry picking only information that fits their preconceived positions or not being equipped to filter it. Either can and does happen even when there isn't huge amounts of information. People who lack time or critical faculties can always go to a news site to get a filtered appraisal anyway, doesn't mean that that should be the only option for any complicated subject. And you have to ask what the alternative is. I'd far rather have too much information than too little, and the idea of having someone deciding the Goldilocks Zone of information for me does not appeal. I don't really want Fox News or CNN deciding which emails are relevant or whether climate change exists because I know perfectly well what their positions will be irrespective of what reality actually is. Cherry picking is possible when there is so much information that person can't reasonably spent enough time to internalize it themselves, so they turn to somebody else that has that time and they trust will tell them what that information contained. Which usually means that there is high change that they will get only parts of information that fits their preconceived positions about subject which makes them more likely ignore any information from other sources that goes against what their trusted sources say. Meaning that we are currently living scenario that you speak about, where Fox News, CNN etc. instances decide what emails are relevant and whether climate change exist, because most people don't themselves have time, resources, knowledge, and energy to look these subjects so they will listen somebody that they think will tell them "the most important details" about those things. Although locking away the information is not the solution, but I don't think that how things current run is way to go either. I don't also have comprehensive solution give out. But I would recommend that people don't only trust singular source or sources that all game from same origin, but instead look wider range of sources. Also people should avoid just following someone else's ideas if they don't understand and agree with them. "Citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to watch carefully how their political leaders and representatives use their powers, and to express their own opinions and interests." - Larry Diamond

Climate change is a topic that shows how information overload can make information obscure and how people can't comprehend all the information that they get and usually seek somebody that gives shorter, simpler and straightforward answers. It is topic where people have hard time to tell what is false and what is truth, which is why conversations of said topic are usually more based people precognitive notions about subject than actual facts and studies. And where people's opinions about subject seem to be on same line as scientific studies about subject. It is probably subject where I see even people appeal to authority even in circles that should be experts. In short climate change topic in my opinion is excellent example how too much information, especially badly structured and presented information can make that information meaningless and leaving people on mercy of lobbyists.

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. The problem lies in that there is just too much data. By leaking hundreds of thousands emails that mostly contain nothing of importance, they create data block than isn't verifiable by any common person, because it take month probably years for person just to read all that information let alone alone check if all those emails are real. And then when somebody highlights one email from that pile, it is very difficult to check if if it is only email about subject or tone of earlier and later correspondence between same parties or parties from same circles. In other words there is so much information that for most people that read about wikileaks emails, it would be same if emails that aren't highlighted by somebody didn't exist because they will never read them. Drowning people on too much information is what big law firms nearly always do in tv series (and probably in some extent in real life) all the time by sending every unnecessary document with documents that opposition actually wants in order to hide those documents from their opposition. So one could ask why people use tactics that are meant to obscure and hide information if they want to inform people. Drowning people in too much information gives impression that you don't hide anything from them even though you are doing just opposite, because if people can't get information because there is too much noise then people are just in same place when there was just silence.

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda. Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.

lol In that sentence Clinton don't propose rigging Palestine election, but instead she says that USA did mistake in supporting Palestinian election especially when taking consideration fact that parties who oppose USA and its allies interests were the most popular ones. Meaning that Clinton thinks that USA made mistake in accidentally supporting its enemies and in that process undermining its allies. What nice way of saying that democracy should only be supported when the people vote for the ones that i like. Democracy is just way to give people express what direction they want their government to go, if said people are your enemies it isn't necessary best move to give them more power to oppose you and your allies more. And when you talk to said allies after you have given their enemies more power to oppose them bring up that you did it for principality to support democracy for all costs, especially when you are representative of nation with long history doing opposite isn't necessary best way to go about things. But of course who knows maybe things would be better if Clinton had just said "**** you" to Israelis and told them that they just need to suck it up that Palestinians voted know terrorists and Israel haters to represent them and nobody would use that against Clinton now.

lol In that sentence Clinton don't propose rigging Palestine election, but instead she says that USA did mistake in supporting Palestinian election especially when taking consideration fact that parties who oppose USA and its allies interests were the most popular ones. Meaning that Clinton thinks that USA made mistake in accidentally supporting its enemies and in that process undermining its allies.

Would be worth more if the authors were the same. But ah well, is images. First is from WP's editorial board and second is from WP's opinion's column by two ex United States Deputy Attorney Generals, one who served under Bill Clinton and another who served under George W. Bush, meaning that comparison is on same level as these elections are at general level "Who cares about facts, when my stories are much more entertaining"

Speaking about building writing portfolio, I would say that writing adventures for table top rpgs is excellent way to build your portfolio and learn elements that are unique in games compared to other forms of media, like branching story arcs, player agency etc..

Trump has nearly got more free media coverage than all other candidates have bought and free media coverage together. Of course lots of it has not been positive, but reality is that even bad press is better than no press at all, because people will not vote you if they don't know that you exist, in other cases you have opportunity to convince them to vote for you. So ironically Trump candidacy is probably reality because of media outlets that now oppose him most. Maybe next time those outlets will think before chasing clicks... but who am I kidding that will never happen

Maybe Platon was right. Only great philosophical minds can lead country and other people need to serve their vision To me choice for as our great philosophical leader is clear, there is nobody better qualified to tell people what they should think than Bruce

Being proud of one's own sexuality and being proud of one's ability to get away of molesting other people because they are famous are at least to me very different things even though they both have their roots in sex, as first is about person's right over their own body and second is person right over somebody else's body.

In PoE there are machines that are able to control souls and use them as their source of power. Main story of PoE has major focus in some of this machines. Even though animancers and other people that study souls are portrayed so that they don't fully comprehend how they work, souls themselves are portayed as something that are clearly observable and manipulable. Meaning that they are something that real scientists can study in world of PoE. Souls behavior in PoE is something like new scientific discovery (which is what they aimed towards starting from their kickstarter pitch) , PoE's souls, soul research and technology to utilize them are more similar to new scientific discoveries that you can find in science fiction, like spice in Dune or biotics in Mass Effect or even hyper/warp drives in most of the space travelling science fiction. Meaning that there they are something that is can be understood in scientific sense in those fictional universes even if people don't necessary fully understand how they work. PoE animancers are heavily inspired by early scientists that sought scientific discoveries often with very questionable methods. It aims to portray time when science starts to replace mythology as explanation how things work. You see Thaos fighting against this change because he believes that kith need mythology and gods to guide them. I don't see how they could take more scientific approach to magic in Forgotten Realms as they are so heavily based it on the gods in so much so that assassination of one god causes magic to disappear. Of course WoC can make it more scientific, but they would need to change quite lot of nature of their world order to do so (which is absolute thing that they could possible do in future as they time to time do big changes in FR to freshen it up.)

Again though, why does it matter that things are "kept magical" all the way down (to the bottom turtle)? Suppose an author were to write a (series of) books set in a world and written in a style very much akin to that of for example Forgotton Realms and other such traditional settings. Now suppose three hypothetical scenarios. In scenario A) the author states (outside of the books, eg. in an interview or whatever) that magic in his fictional world is magical through and through; it is not bound by rules, it is just a manifestation of divine will / the whims of fate / whatever. In scenario B) the author states the opposite: although not really explored in any way in the books, magic in his world is ultimately bound by rules of nature, and could (potentially) be scientifically studied and understood by a sufficiently advanced society in that world. In scenario C) the author says nothing on the matter at all. My question is, why would this matter? The books and stories are the same in all three scenarios. So why would these works be more 'Fantasy' in scenario A than in B? There is no meaningful distinction in my view, but at least the suggestion seems to be that those scenarios really are appreciably different in this respect. Literacy genres are very flexible guide lines they exist only to give readers some sort idea what the book is about. Like for example when it comes to speculative fiction subgenres fantasy is generally distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three. In case of your scenarios there is no difference because what author say outside of their work don't matter how their work should be classified, only thing that matters is how the work itself portrays things. Also in case of Forgotten Realms, Wizard of the Coast is the authority that decides how things work in their world not authors that write books in it. And same goes with most of the traditional multi author settings (meaning that authors don't have authority over the setting). In settings that are inspired by history and metapsychological things there will be always lots of different opinions should work be classified as fantasy or science fiction or something else. Like for example if we look steampunk subgenre there is always debates if it should be classified under science fiction or (science) fantasy. And even with modern or future setting style genres like urban fantasy and cyberpunk there are such debates. This kind debates are very similar to debates what constitutes as RPG. Meaning that it changes from person to person what elements are seen as genre defining.

Magic is usually defined as supernatural force that can control natural forces (aka observable forces). Supernatural is usually defined as something that is exist beyond the visible observable universe usually relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, ghost, or devil. Meaning that both are something that can't exist in scientific contest as we know it, as when something become observable it becomes natural and therefore it stop being magic/supernatural. In Forgotten Realms where magic comes from the gods (with some exceptions like psi powers), which works as way to keep things magical even if wizards, etc. magic users in Forgotten Realms study and research magic it will always keep its magical status because of its source. In PoE magic comes from souls, that come from some sort larger pool of things where souls go to be recycled and where they it is possible that they are able to change or their structure and become different soul. Souls are also entities that are possible to destroy but what happens after that is somewhat unknown. But anyway in PoE souls seems to be something that is observable and manipulatable, which makes power that can be harnessed from them less magic/supernatural and more natural force in PoE's world. PoE's explanation for its magic/soul force and gods steer it away from traditional fantasy towards science fiction, but its magical creatures and world building counterbalance those elements and keep it under fantasy genre (IMO).

I would put quite lot blame on how social media platforms work in first place. As they use trending, activity and etc. algorithms to promote topics and hastags, and you it is actually surprisingly small number of people that need to converse about topic or hastag to make platforms to promote it and when topic or hastags gets promoted it is seen by millions of people, from which maybe couple per mille will post something about which will make platforms to promote it more, which will mean that tens of millions people will see the topic or hastag. And when some per mille of them post about topic/hastag then we have some tens of thousands of people talking about the it and then news sites start to write about outrage in social media, because they want people to visit their sites and generate ad revenue to them. And so we have internet outrage, even though number of actually outraged people were in hundreds or thousands. It is just that global reach of social media has ability to snowball any issue that gets rapid attention for one reason or another. I would also note that there are groups of people that purposefully trend topics in social media just to get them media attention which then will give it attention from public. Which can make issue that would have normally become issue to become issue.

Remember that time when there was only clean athletes competing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres The Men's 100 Meters at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea – frequently dubbed "the dirtiest race in history" – ended in controversy after Canada's Ben Johnson defeated defending champion Carl Lewis from the United States with a world record time of 9.79s, topping his own record of 9.83s that he set at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics in Rome. Johnson was not the only participant whose success was questioned. Lewis had tested positive at the US Olympic Trials for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine, medications available at the time in common cold remedies, but the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) cleared Lewis to participate at the games in Seoul. Christie was found to have metabolites of pseudoephedrine in his urine after a 200m heat at the same Olympics but was later cleared of any wrongdoing. Dennis Mitchell tested positive ten years later. Of the top five competitors in the race, only former world record holder and eventual bronze medalist Smith never failed a drug test during his career. Smith later said: "I should have been the gold medalist." Johnson had demanded that Lewis be stripped of his gold medal, but the IOC had no intention of redressing the issue, stating they operate under a three-year statute of limitations. In the ESPN documentary 9.79*, eventual silver medallist Christie states, and footage of the race shows, that Lewis "ran out of his lane... two or three times" during the race, which could have resulted in Lewis' disqualification had he impeded other competitors. The numerous athletes using performance-enhancing drugs at the time understood how long before a race, and possible drug test, they should stop using the drugs. Johnson has stated that André Jackson, a mutual friend of Johnson and Lewis, entered the drug testing area in Seoul to deposit stanozolol in the beer Johnson consumed to produce a urine sample. The CBC radio documentary, Rewind, "Ben Johnson: A Hero Disgraced" broadcast on September 19, 2013, for the 25th anniversary of the race, stated 20 athletes tested positive for drugs but were cleared by the IOC at this 1988 Seoul Olympics, and an IOC official stated that endocrine profiles done at those games indicated that 80 percent of the track and field athletes tested showed evidence of long-term steroid use although not all were banned. In addition, CBC Radio was told by its sources that NBC had threatened to withhold its second rights payment to the IOC due on completion of the 1988 Seoul Olympics games stating, "if these games collapse in scandal, we're out and that money's gone". That three years statue of limitations these days sound so strange, when IOC strips changes results of 4, 8, and 12 years old competitions quite often these days.

When I had pneumonia I specifically asked about that since I have 2 young nephews I see regularly and was told not to worry about it. One of them actually got pneumonia later (9 months later, and viral, so not from me) and while he had to go into hospital he didn't go into isolation or anything. So she was probably fine with that, corny/ fakeness etc notwithstanding. It's a damned if she has it, damned if she doesn't situation. The jist of it is that pneumonia comes in various different forms, some less contagious than others, and the thing is that the less contagious forms happen to be very very common amongst people with Parkinson's. The video I linked on the last page will explain it for you quite well. If she had a "normal" pneumonia case, then it's contagious and hugging that child was a big no-no. If it's not contagious, it adds evidence to claims she's suffering from Parkinson's, which does indeed seem to be the case as it explains some of her oddball outbursts and actions in the past, not to mention her history of falling down. Parkinson's is a serious disease. It will absolutely bother some voters to think that this candidate may not be capable of doing the job in a year's time. Sure enough, not even the bought-and-sold news outlets can do much to cover this story, because people are 1) Ticked off she's lying yet again, and 2) Legitimately questioning just how unhealthy she is. People with Parkinson's disease suffer from more severe symptoms compared to other people that have pneumonia, so it is quite safe bet to say that Clinton don't have Parkison's disease as she was able to continue her campaign even after getting pneumonia. Normal case of pneumomia regardless if it is bacterial or viral version has quite low contagious rate, as long as Clinton didn't cough directly towards child that she hugged, child's change to get pneumonia is nearly non-existent, as pneumonia bacteria and viruses are usually transmitted through droplet infection. But anyway it is poor manners to touch and hug other people if you know that you are sick.

I do feel sorry for her, on the health issues at least. On the political aspects she's again been her own worst enemy though. Right down to the cringe inducing photo op with the 'spontaneous' little girl outside Chelsea's apartment, as if pictures of that would displace her being half carried into a van from the news. What a surprise, you would find Putin a stronger leader Lets see ...Putin has destroyed the Russian economy, controls the media, has murdered journalists and illegally annexed parts of Georgia and Ukraine...yeah what a leader And you think he is more decisive than Obama, really? According to you and the Putin get- a-long-gang he was going to invade Turkey to teach them a lesson, actually defeat ISIS and " make a real difference in Syria because Putin knows how to get results " But he has been inconsistent in the bombing campaign, bombed hospitals and killed innocents and failed to win the war in Syria...and now they need the USA to end the war.....yes that's very decisive Zora Putin is strong leader in sense that his opposition in Russia is weak, his foreign policies are supported by significant economical and military power that he can use quite freely. But fact that he is strong leader don't mean that he is necessary good leader or leader that one should look as example how to run you country. But in foreign politics he should not be ignored or underestimated, because he is in control of significant resources and is in position to drive through his own agenda, which is why it is important (for president of USA) to understand what that agenda is and how you can negotiate with him.

https://twitter.com/ScottyLiterati/status/774895778817073152