Elerond

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor. While I have no desire to discuss gender in gaming, I will make a point of interest. The above statement by Elerond is horrendously false. They have no idea what they're talking about. Strength is critical in wielding a melee weapon. It influences everything. Endrance. How easily you can maneuver it. The ability to break through a parry. The ability to effectively parry. How precisely you can place a strike, and yes, the severity of a blow. All of this is also true in instances with armor. Source: 6 years Aikido, 3 years of Fencing, 2 years Okinawan Kenpo, 1 year of Kendo. I stand by words as person that has practiced sport judo for 20 years, hema for 15 years and who has taught both men and women to fight with swords, spears, axes, halberds, bows, rifles, knives, daggers. From my personal experience I have come to conclusion that if person has enough strength to wield weapon with ease (which means that person needs to have enough endurance to fling weapon for sometime) then in duel person's strength don't really play in when it comes to who will win the duel. People that fare best in in hema tournaments (or even judo tournaments) aren't really never come from the end that has people with most strength. They don't come even from tallest end even though reach plays more in advantage than strength in duels. But if person has strength and endurance to work 10 hours on the field during harvest then they have enough strength and endurance to wield sword, spear or axe. EDIT: To add, in my experience it isn't strength that put women in disadvantage in judo for example, but that fact that they are 20-40 centimeters shorter than me and weight 30-50 kg less than me. Because I have much more reach and they need to use much more strength to throw me. Meaning that I have easier time to get holds and for them fight is more tiring. But if I match with woman of my size then things are much more equal even if I can lift from bench more, then determining factors are usually skill, mistakes, tactics. In sword fight reach is thing that gives you most advantage (but shorter people need to just use tactics that aims to negate that advantage, but of course it still gives you advantage), strength plays much more in because you don't need to try to throw your opponent or anything like that but only wield your weapon. And as stronger person I can't put all my strength behind the hits because then I can't react to what my opponent is doing. In spear fighting even advantage from height starts to disappear because weapon itself has massive reach already and strength plays quite little in because you need quite little strength to get massive force behind your jabs and thrusts with spear, it is more about speed which you make it move than strength that you but behind it. In parries and binds strength can play in bit more, but even then it is technique that plays more in than who is the strongest. Knife and dagger fights are closer to judo, but even them weapon equals the field. EDIT2: After reading my post again I realize that I let my annoyance over comment by some anonymous person in internet to cloud my judgement, which has lead me to fail full heartedly in this debate because not only I appealed to authority, but I made myself (an anonymous person in internet) that authority. So I just let myself out and leave this topic to people that actually can debate without doing beginner's mistakes.

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor. So women not being part of fighting force was never really issue of their lack of strength, but their lack of schooling in using weapons. So it was more of social issue than anything else. Although in richer classes women often avoided physical work because they were able to afford to hire people to do work for them and it was socially excepted behavior.

Well, female fighting characters (either ones you fight as, with, or against) are certainly treated the same as male fighting characters in D&D - at least, I think so. Fighting characters are not the only type of characters in D&D, though, and on a wider overview, I don't think you could really consider that principle to stand up to any great degree... Yup. You're character is created, not randomly sampled, so she doesn't need to represent a typical member of society. You can play a Nikki Fuller-type character if you want. Revan is stating that in the typical fantasy universe, females are weaker than males. I don't see any evidence of that in D&D, at least that I've seen. I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men). Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women). In LOTR women were forbidden to take arms, and Éowyn just decided **** such nonsense and not just prove that she was capable warrior but that she was able to defeat Witch King immortal entity that had blighted Middle Earth for time of first war of the Rings (several thousands of years). Book don't give any information of prowess of other women in battle field. Although Galadriel is told to be one of the most powerful beings in the Middle Earth and that if she takes the One ring, then Sauron's rule would have been just cakewalk. And whole books point from start to beginning is not underestimate people and what they are capable to do. The Witcher series also has Ciri, who is as just capable in fighting as Geralt, of course magic from her elven heritage helps, but Geralt is magically mutated creature that also wields magic. But again Witcher's world is one where women's role isn't to be warriors, but in Skellige people don't seem to even bat an eye for idea of warrior woman, so they aren't some strange unicorns that pop-up once in the millennium. And if we look other fantasy worlds like for example Celano series' world there isn't any men because they all died in past because they weren't good enough (because of genetic tinkering of one person that really hated men). Lyremouth Chronicles' world where women are strongest people that exists (although it is only true in one part of the world other parts are controlled by wizards that don't care about person' gender) Meaning that they are fantasy worlds and their authors can make any changes to rules that they want to make, and if you only look fantasy world made men then you most likely find results that reflect ideas that men stronger, more capable, actual heroes, etc. just because nature of people.

Well I am surprised 2133....pleasantly surprised. You somehow found a way to not attack and undermine the EU..even if its a small positive step forward And you right its not a authoritarian regime EU is collective democratic regime (meaning collection of independent democratic countries that have decided by themselves and freely to participate in bigger democratic institution to achieve common goals) where lots of decision making process is obscured by bureaucracy and complex power structure. And things are made worse by countries government using confusion caused by EU's complexity and distance from general public as scapegoat for unpopular decision that they themselves haven been part of making. Of course collective democratic regime can be seen that individual country is losing its power to decide about things by themselves because there are things where they need to come in agreement with wider community. But in other hand leaving such collective regime don't mean that you don't need to come in agreements with other countries anymore. But of course if country and its population has fundamental disagreement about where things should go than rest of the countries in said collective regime then leaving that regime is probably best for their own interests.

Do you have any sources that countries have done such thing as official declaration, and not just some politician speaking poppy****. Like for example there are Russian politician that tell every year how Russia will reclaim Finland, but that is quite far from Russia itself threatening to reclaim Finland. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W50PN The Gibraltar one seems to be a few speculatory statement by the Spanish foreign minister taken as fact by several publications Good link but its just rhetoric, why would the UK allow that? If they do leave the EU the UK in fact would be more forceful and committed to stopping illegal immigrants. The UK is a small country and it could manage entry points effectively It isn't rhetorical threat, but quite real thing that France can do if they want. It is what Russia did for Finland from December to February, they just let immigrant pass their border control and then these immigrant seek asylum from UK and because of what was agreed on 1951 Refugee Convention UK has to take them in and process their petition for asylum. Of course UK can denounce it but such action probably would cause them quite lot problems in UN. You right about how I used the word rhetoric, I should have said " its rhetorical in the sense it wont impact the UK like France is suggesting " Not that France would do this but lets say France carried through with that threat and disbanded all the refugee camps near the English Channel and stopped policing there side and said to all the immigrants " there is UK we wont stop you " all that will mean is the UK will be finally able to implement proper border control.....there will be less refugees in the UK as the UK allows a certain percentage of refugees into the UK only because they have to due to there EU responsibility Currently UK can't say no for refugees that cross their border and seek asylum. It is what UK has agreed on when they signed UN's articles about refugee rights. Meaning that if France don't stop people that seek to go in UK to get asylum then UK don't actually can do anything else than take them process if they actually fulfill requirements to be refugee and if not sent them back to their home country if some other country don't take them. This scenario of course assumes that UK don't break their international agreements.

Do you have any sources that countries have done such thing as official declaration, and not just some politician speaking poppy****. Like for example there are Russian politician that tell every year how Russia will reclaim Finland, but that is quite far from Russia itself threatening to reclaim Finland. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W50PN The Gibraltar one seems to be a few speculatory statement by the Spanish foreign minister taken as fact by several publications Good link but its just rhetoric, why would the UK allow that? If they do leave the EU the UK in fact would be more forceful and committed to stopping illegal immigrants. The UK is a small country and it could manage entry points effectively It isn't rhetorical threat, but quite real thing that France can do if they want. It is what Russia did for Finland from December to February, they just let immigrant pass their border control and then these immigrant seek asylum from UK and because of what was agreed on 1951 Refugee Convention UK has to take them in and process their petition for asylum. Of course UK can denounce it but such action probably would cause them quite lot problems in UN.

Do you have any sources that countries have done such thing as official declaration, and not just some politician speaking poppy****. Like for example there are Russian politician that tell every year how Russia will reclaim Finland, but that is quite far from Russia itself threatening to reclaim Finland.

This must be one of the most inaccurate posts you have ever made? You trolling I assume Lets keep it simple....is there one thing in this post that is true? Well, several EU nations have threatened retaliation if the UK leaves. Likely because if they leave they won't be the last. Which countries have given such threats?

Yeah you are right he is technically nazi and he even lived in Tibet two years after current Dalai Lama become Dalai Lama. Clear proof that Dalai Lama is nazi sympathizer, my bad.

*yawn* another pointless "we need to open our hearts and our borders"-diatribe, WAIT WHAT? He can't very well rail against mass han chinese migration to Tibet changing the identity of the region, then think its ok elsewhere. Plus he was good friends with various nazis and other nationalists. Current Dalai Lama was ten when WWII ended and was not recognized as Dalai Lama until 1950. And his predecessor died in 1933 without any remarkable connections to nazis that I can find, but as rebel leader of occupied country I can see him having connections to nationalists addition to CIA giving him millions to start guerrilla operations against China. But now Dalai Lama is changed man , he even ceded his power over Tibetan government in 2001.

It is burden of our debt based economies, where countries have taken debt in hopes to grow their economies, and if those economies don't grow fast enough those debts start to eat from country's capital and people start to be able to buy less and less stuff with money they have (because inflation lowers value of money constantly), as growth goes to pay things that were bought in the past (in some cases countries take new debt faster than their economies grow, which will eventually create situation where country don't have funds to run itself).

Because those EU regulations are actually there to lower amount of bureaucracy and free the business. They make rule and laws to be similar in every member state and they tell how money, products, taxes, services, and people can move from one members state to another. They are there to make it possible that if you can do business in one member state you can do it also in another with as little as possible paper work. And because those regulations has cut so much of that red tape that there was it has created possibilities for behavior that some member states feel to be abuse of the system which has lead to creation of regulations that are meant to prevent member states and business to do those things which has lead to situation where some member states feel that EU's regulations prevent them doing what they want to do. And then to answer itself Getting out from EU don't remove any regulations, although it gives illusion for country that they have more freedom to decide what those regulations are, but as those regulations are almost wholly about international things, which means that getting out from EU only means that those things need to be renegotiated and how much country has say so what goes in those negotiations depends quite lot how independent their economy is. And you don't free business by denouncing international trade agreements, but instead it will put your business in more difficult position as they need to adjust themselves to red tape that comes to move goods, services, money, and people over borders. Of course rich countries like UK are most likely are able to make quite good two way agreements with EU member states and general agreements with whole EU, but even their business most likely will get more red tape added to all their operations in EU.

Youth mobs drive teachers from Australia town http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36376221 Carjackings, children armed with axes and machetes and teachers airlifted out for their own safety are not the kind of scenes witnessed in most Australian towns. But in the Aboriginal community of Aurukun, in Queensland's remote Cape York, they have become familiar of late says journalist Kathy Marks. .... Teachers were evacuated from the community after the first carjacking and had only returned at the beginning of the week. After Wednesday's attack, the state government evacuated them again and have closed the school until July. ... 'Handful of troublemakers' But what frustrates locals even more is the apparent failure of government to provide adequate security for teachers and what they see as a softly-softly approach by Aurukun police. Footage circulated earlier this month showed officers standing by during a public brawl. ... The latest wave began a fortnight ago, when youths allegedly tried to break into two teachers' homes, threatened the principal, Scott Fatnova, with an axe and stole his car. Twenty-five teachers were evacuated, but most returned last week. Then last weekend, despite the presence of extra police and security guards, Mr Fatnova was threatened and carjacked, this time by youths wielding knives and machetes.

Finland's GDP is bit over 200 billion euros, Finland product export is about 56 billion euro's worth, from which chemical industry products are about 18.8%, forest industry products about 21.5%, metal industry products about 14.7%, machine products about 21%, electric products about 12% and other products about 12%. When you add services (tourism, banking etc.) then value of exported things rises to about 78 billion euros, which is about 37.9% of GDP. Finland imports stuff about 38.7% of its GDP. (This are 2014 numbers, euro amounts have grown bit from mentioned, but I don't have last years industry percentages so 2014 has to be enough ) Lots of Finland's GDP comes from circulating money inside of Finland (aka running our socialistic economy) Big junk of chemical products consist from exporting biofuel. Metal industry has lots of smaller companies that produce all sort of things. Machine products consist from luxury cruisers, elevators, paper machines, forest work machines. Electric products are also lots of smaller companies producing all sort of things. But after fall of Nokia's mobile phone business there has not be one sector that clearly dominates Finland's economy.

I am bit of disagreement with previous arguments about Finland's membership in EU Citizens of Finland don't need visas in any of the EU countries and because of two way deals that Finland has with those countries they would not need them even if Finland leaves EU. Only thing that would change in this front would be that citizens of Finland would need to carry passport instead of just identification card, but most people carry passports anyway (And this is only in theory as there isn't border checks in EU so people can travel fairly free from country to country even without identification). EU regulations don't force Finland to do anything it don't want to do. Those regulations are always approved by our government and they don't come in force before our Parliament has made them as law. People can sue Finland to EU courts if they feel that our laws are against EU directives, but even EU court decisions don't force our government do anything they are just reprimands that Finland has not done what was commonly agreed on. You can see from this refugee crisis how powerless EU is against member countries that willfully decide not to follow what was decided. Currently Finland suffers from phenomenon where hedge funds use EU's treaties to move money out form Finland to countries with lower taxation like for example Luxembourg. So currently EU membership helps hedge funds to withdraw money from Finland's economy in way that they would not be able to do if Finland wasn't member state. Finland is relatively rich country that actually can support its own currency, even though separating from euro would cost Finland billions of euros because of bureaucratic issues, productions cost of new money, difficulties in trade with euro countries, making Finland more vulnerable to market swings, etc. issues. It would not cause Finland's economy to drop in third world levels. Currently Finland suffers effects of strong currency and our government is trying to compensate it with by lowering salaries, benefits, etc. things that would be solved by weaker currency (of course weaker currency brings other problems which is why I am stated previously in this board that I support Finland's membership in euro) Finland's credit rating will not drop much regardless of what idiotic things and how much our government try to get it to drop get their agenda pushed through, because Finland's pension funds and other investment funds that have their capital outside of Finland have multiple times more money in them than Finland has debt. So Finland's problem isn't that it can't pay it current debts but that amount of debts are rising alarmingly fast, which means that Finland needs find way to cut out its need to import things or increase value of things that it exports. But there are other economical benefits from EU that in my opinion are so high that Finland should not leave EU, although EU's constant undermining of trade with Russia hurts Finland's economy more than our politician are willing to admit. So fixing relationships with Russia should get more importance in EU than it is currently getting (although negotiations with Russia are usually done in backrooms and not in public eye, but still current state of cold hostility isn't beneficial).

Focus on trailer seems to be in dehumanization of those who have augments, which I think is them trying to justifying their story line that augmented people are separated from rest of human kind in beginning of the game. And in the game they will then try to give them back their humanity. Although I don't think they actually succeeded that well in their trailer, but that seems to be for me what they tried to achieve.

Are you assuming that she is that competent? Also, are there no more debates before June the 7th btw? I don't think that democrats' establishment see any point to organize one as Clinton only needs 77 delegates to win and there is still over 100 super delegates left to give "their" voice who will be the democratic candidate.

Trump is interesting candidate for GOP as his proposed policies and public statements about things are actually quite opposite to what members of Tea Party preach. And I find it also bit amusing that what he says is many ways very close to what Sanders says, although his proposed measures are quite different. And Clinton is closest of those three when it comes to preserve classical "American way of life"

Gods are beings or entities that people believe to be gods. It don't matter where they come as long as people believe that they are gods. Like for example part of Christianity is to believe that a man (Jesus Christ) was conceived by God (the Father Almighty) touching a girl as spirit (Holy Spirit) and that man is therefore son of God (the Father Almighty). And when this said man died it is believed that he did go to hell and then rose from the death and walked among his followers and then ascended to heaven, where he sits on right side of God (the Father Almighty) as his son and where he judges living and dead. And Christians worship these three entities as gods, but there is only one God in the Christianity (Trinity/Holy Trinity). I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. (Lutheran version of Apostles' Creed) Lutherans believe in the Triune God and reject other interpretations regarding the nature of God. (Article I of Augsburg Confession, titled as God)

Was there something else than trying to get similar disclaimers than in TV to political ads in internet in those things that they wanted to re-examine?

Is there such thing as Canadian accent? One would think that people from Nova Scotia have different accent than people from British Columbia. There is quite many native accents and dialects in Finnish and people don't even live thousands kilometers apart of each other and have mostly common ancestry (meaning that most of the people's ancestry goes back thousands of years of mainly 'Finnish' speaking people, with some Germanic (Swedish or German) and Russian influence here and there). Or is Canadian accent some sort metropolitan accent born from mixture of multiple accents in big cities, like so called London dialect. Purely off topic, but only thing of interest for me in past couple pages

Not anymore as Paradox bought license to make World of Darkness computer games back from CPP Games last year.

White Wolf owns trademarks for Vampire Bloodlines and Vampire the Masquerade in EU and USA. And White Wolf owns copyrights to most materials to Vampire the Masquerade table top game. Paradox owns White Wolf. Activision probably still has right/license to sell Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines game.

That looks like filming of some tv series, film, etc., especially the end where people suddenly appear and jog after robbers and then stop after couple steps and start to celebrate.

As I said to Bruce. Just some problems about a couple of things. Nothing really. So you were purely trolling? As you can make general statements like "What the hell is happening in [any country in world]? I've just been reading up on this country. :blink:" "there is massive problems in [previously mentioned country]" - "Oh, so the problems in [that same previously mentioned country] are small problems?" And generally speak the truth but those statements just don't bring anything in the conversation, or even start real conversation as there is nothing that others can actually refer or give any real input. It seem to me that you for some reason wanted to shade Sweden and not to say anything of interest. Sorry that I took you bait.