Valsuelm

If you think Komrad Bloomburg's ban on soft drinks over a certain size is a good thing. Please please, move to an appropriate communist nation, where you'll fit in much nicer than a place where freedom is supposed to be had. It'll work out better for you, and for the people who actually want to live free to not have to bother to argue with you, or one day fight the likes of you in a civil war if too many of you keep getting your way. The government of a free people has zero business legislating , let alone dictating (which is the case with Bloomburg and his crusade against soda) what or how much someone can drink or eat. And again, the insanity of such a dictation is that it is assumed that one person consumes the entire drink. You now can't get a 2 litre with your pizza delivery in New York. Most pizzas are not consumed by one person, nor are most two litres of soda, at least not in one sitting. Nevermind that there are other things still perfectly legal that are worse for you to consume (and they should be 1000000% legal) in large or even small quantities. Nevermind the precedents set with Bloomburg's evil dictations that will likely see worse things to come if it's not overturned soonish.

No. Those are patients.

The use of Heroin or the abuse of another Opiate based drug is not akin to eating a hamburger. Selling something to someone that has close to zero health benefits in most people who is only looking to get high is not the same as selling someone some food (that does have health benefits) that may not be the healthiest thing for them to eat. That said. I'm all for legalizing said drug and most others. Prohibition is not the answer to the problem, and creates far more problems itself. But that is somewhat another subject. And that said, I do think people who profit off of other people's misery are at best, disgusting individuals. However, barring the relatively few instances where someone is coerced or forced to take a drug, drink more than they wanted to, or even eat something unhealthy they wouldn't normally eat, the onus is 100% on the individual who sought out and consumed whatever it is we're talking about. The spokesmen who died of heart disease (if that's what they indeed died of) were dying of heart disease long before they were ever the spokesmen of the restaurant we're talking about. Having a really fat person advertise your restaurant for you isn't exactly bad marketing. It's implied that they liked the food so much they eat a real lot of it. For some this reinforces the idea that the food might be good. While I wouldn't be swayed by it I can tell you after working with dozens for chefs in all manners of restaurants, with no exception in my personal experience (though I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there somewhere), all of the best chefs had more than a little meat on their bones. Also, there's no relatively common amongst the populace tongue in cheek joke that heroin will get you high and kill you, as there is that a great burger and fries is a heart attack meal. The marketing is based on that joke. The potential marketing you describe for heroin would not be. Indeed. I haven't had a good burger in ages, and now I want one after this thread. I may go find Five Guys later today (the best burger around where I currently am, but no where near as good as what you can find in Vegas). Exercise is really the key. You can eat a real lot of greasy food like burgers and fries if you get the exercise to burn that fat off. Fat is actually very good for you as long as you make use of it. Of course, if that's all you eat you're going to be in trouble in the long run. But that is true of just about everything. Variety is not only the spice of life, in meals it's key to living healthier along with exercise. My apologies for the formatting. Apparently multi-quoting now squashes text on this forum.

Honestly that interview with Piers Morgan was the worst display, from Alex Jones, of childishness and inarticulateness I have ever seen from a person in my life. I would have cringed looking at my behavior if I was him and studied the interview. I don't think Alex Jones is capable of shame. Or rational thought for that matter. I would be surprised that people actually believe in what he says, but I grew up in Texas(not too far from Ron Paul's district) so I have been exposed to some of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Fear porn addicts that believe in these conspiracy theories. Which conspiracy theories? Some conspiracy theories have quite a lot of fact to them. Some conspiracy theories are complete fantasy. Some conspiracy theories are propaganda. Some things that are called conspiracy theories aren't theories at all but 100% based in provable reality, but are called that to convince those that have been brainwashed that all 'conspiracy theories' are fantasy that what is being discussed is somehow a lie when it is anything but. While Alex is a bit off the wall at times, he's also very lucid at others. He, like most other people, is capable of rational thought. Most people don't realize that potential though often and let others do the thinking for them. I'm no great fan of the guy but I'd say Alex thinks quite a bit more (not always rationally, but not near as often irrationally as you accuse) than your average Joe. Ron Paul supporters and someone who listens to an agrees with Alex Jones are not one and the same. Of course there's crossover. There's crossover with just about everything. But the crossover between Ron Paul and Alex Jones fans is the exception and not the norm. A lot of Alex fans may support Ron Paul, but the reverse isn't as true. Saying a Ron Paul supporter is a fear pron addict or that's what Ron peddles is a gross misinterpretation of about everything the guy's ever talked about. Alex on the other hand does occasionally engage in 'fear pron', but no more so than your average politician. The type of fear mongering that Alex engages in however, generally is a bit closer to reality than the type of fear mongering most politicians will engage in.

You guys obviously haven't been to Vegas much. I used to live there, and still go to visit. Vegas is marketed as a land of excess in general. It's a tourist Mecca. Tourists often want a little excess no matter where they are. And Vegas is a great place to vacation in the eyes of a great many, even many who don't gamble as there is a lot to do there other than gambling. Those burgers are small compared to others I've seen, and eaten. And no, I'm not a fat guy. Very large portions are a common thing at many restaurants in Vegas. Be they burgers, slices of cakes, a Margarita, a bowl of rice pudding, or most anything else one could eat or drink. And if you know where to go these portions don't cost much either. Many people who eat them (or rather in most cases attempt to eat them) are either tourists for the novelty of it, or do a nifty thing called taking some of it home for later in a To Go container. Or even more commonly, split the giant portion with a friend or loved one. Vegas is also the land of the all you can eat buffet. They are everywhere. And some of them are of extremely good quality. Something you'll find almost no where else. The marketing is a tongue in cheek joke. It capitalizes on a relatively commonly used tongue in cheek joke when referring to a really good meal that involves something from a deep fryer or a grill (something that some folks would tell you will kill you or shorten your life if you consume them). The phrase goes something like this: 'Ok! Who wants a heart attack!?!?' , and is something occasionally said by whomever might be serving up what many would consider a very tasty meal. And a common reply is 'Hell yea... I want one of those!', because it usually means a great cut of meat and/or high quality something from the frier (usually french fries). Then the burger and fries or something of the like is served up. Person eats, enjoys, and the vast vast vast majority of the time, like any other meal, they then go on about their business. They don't drop dead of a heart attack... There's nothing tasteless about what the restaurant does. It's good marketing. And having worked for years in the restaurant business as well as traveled extensively and eaten at hundreds of restaurants, I'd wager a bunch they have much better than average burgers and fries. That's certainly what they're advertising. Places in Vegas have various hooks to get people in their doors. You need to realize that almost every single establishment in Vegas is at least a mini casino. Giving away free food or drinks is very common to get people in your doors where they'll play their games. The money lost giving away the products at a loss is generally more than made up for in profits from the gambling. People should be able to eat what they want. Eating just about anything in excess is of course a bad thing, however that choice should be left to whomever is doing the eating. That anyone would think to deny someone that basic human right smacks of evil and/or totalitarianism (Hi Mayor Bloomburg!).

Yea... the subjects discussed were largely what I don't like about where gaming is going. I find it strange that Feargus is so concerned about players not reselling their games. While yea, you want them to enjoy their game that they bought, places like Gamestop can actually help you in the long run by introducing people to your game that otherwise might not have played it. Many people resell their games (and other possessions) as they realize they have no use for them anymore (even if they enjoyed them immensely at one point), or just need the money. Not everyone collects their games, and wants to keep them forever. There is and always will be a place for 2nd hand stuff in the marketplace. The looking up to Bethesda is disconcerting. Their games embody most of what I don't like about modern games, and have very little that I do like in them.

Well... that's part of the thing. The real issue here isn't whether people are for or against 'gay marriage'. That's a red herring on many levels. Most of which are too deep for this forum. The real issue, that trumps this debate, is that the government should have zero say on the issue altogether. But that's something that a great many people who are for and against gay marriage can't wrap their heads around, because they're so indoctrinated into the 'debate'. Step outside the box if you can. The world would be a much freer and better place if whether one was or wasn't married to a he, her, or it wasn't an issue at all in any way shape or form in the eyes of the government.

The iron is no longer hot.

There are few signs as tell tale that someone is brainwashed or uninformed than someone using that term.

Obtaining a driver's license in any state is trivial in regards to driving prowess. Licensing drivers does little to protect folks on the road and a lot to allow the government serious leverage on someone's life. There a licenseless drivers in the many millions in our nation, especially out west where there are more illegal aliens. The roads are no more unsafe out there than they are in the east where there aren't as many drivers without licenses. The concept that requiring licenses of drivers make the roads safer is an illusionary concept.

I'll quote a random guy who posted a comment on the above story as he's 100% correct: ""Why did prosecutors seek 50 years in prison and $1 million in fines?" Because that's what they always do? It isn't like this case is unique. They will seek the absolute maximum they are allowed to under the law, not because they think it is what the person deserves, but because it gives them more leverage to force a plea deal. If congress doesn't like that, they should fix it. They're the ones making the laws that allow prosecutors to seek such absurd penalties. " I'd only add that it's not just congress, it's state and local governments as well.

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' - Goethe

Most of the folks you'll find arguing in this thread are very indoctrinated in that way of thinking, and do not see the forest through the trees. Tip: In the upper left corner of your reply box is a button to use BBCode Mode. That will allow you to use the old format of quoting. And you're right on tariffs. Those would solve a lot of problems. Yet that's a taboo subject and you'll get labeled a tinfoil hat wearer or an old fuddy duddy when a large majority of the population is brainwashed into thinking 'free trade' is all that, and a similar number brainwashed into thinking change is always for the better. We don't call it 'change' much anymore though, that's passe, and isn't as good a word as others in the battle for minds. Use words like 'evolution' and 'innovation' that way the opposing argument sounds bad right off the bat.

Where exactly is it mentioned this is the case? It's really bad idea imo to have no combat XP in PE. However I'd like to read the reasoning behind it.

Haha... yeah..... I regret it, but I sold all my coloured D&D books (had them all) and a whole bunch more due to a girlfriend at the time. (good advice: NEVER sell ANYTHING for a girl, EVER)

Well... let's see. 2nd edition AD&D was basically 1st edition AD&D minus demons and boobies with a few tweaks. The positives of 3rd edition are greatly outweighed by it's negatives, so I'd play 2nd edition in a heartbeat over 3rd, and fourth is an abomination. So yea... change isn't always good. Especially if one is attempting to reinvent the wheel or fix what isn't broken. If all editions of AD&D were still in print and allowed to compete against one another I'd wager a bunch that 1st/2nd (they are very interchangeable) editions would sell more copies than 3rd, 3rd 1/2, and 4th, despite so many always thinking newer = better.

I don't think I've read a good article on PC Gamer since the 90s.

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2. But he loves Skyrim! (just check his twitter feed, lol) So maybe he should apply for a job @ Bethesda instead of trying to make a spiritual successor to a game that he hates. For real? skyrim might be a decent game, but I thought it was an absymal RPG, with little to no C&C and most importantly; no consequences to character choices; you can be guildmaster of every guild at the same time, rival or not. And you can excel in every field of skill. I doubt PE will be like skyrim, but I fail to see the merrits of that game as a proper CRPG. Oh god.... make me slump more in my chair why don't you. Oblivion and Skyrim are so amazingly overrated. The best part of Oblivion was the intro and it's scenery was absolutely amazing (I'm generally not one swayed by graphics but it was a beautiful game). Gameplay wise it frankly sucked as the game went on as it all scaled, so nothing was ever tough. The open world was cool but as open as it was so much of it was the same. That and it had a lot of bugs, one of which broke the game for me and I gave up checking to see if Bethesda finally fixed it after about 6 months and never picked up the game again. Skyrim was worse.... and I didn't bother playing too far into it. I realize a lot of people like these games, and Bethesda has a great marketing department. But to me they represent almost everything I don't want in an RPG. I'd hate to think they're inspiring much of anything other than 'we don't want to do that' in regards to PE.

Care to elaborate why you think the combat in IWD is superior to that of BG2? currently giving IWD another shot as I hadn't finished it before and I find the combat quite tedious and frustrating, with enemies swarming you at every turn. Could be because my last playthrough of BG2 was with the SCSII mod, increasing difficulty a fair bit without feeling unfair. I actually just did a full play through of IWD a month ago. It's not a bad game, but it's not a great game. I do not think it's superior to BG1 or BG2 in any great way in regards to combat. No doubt there were a few tweaks to the engine as it came after the other two, but really, there's nothing substantially different imo. I think it has that reputation of having superior combat as that's the focus of the game, as the story isn't as deep as BG's. It's got some great battles but they aren't anything better than what BG or BG2 had in my opinion. I don't think the difficulty was all that different from the BG games. If anything it was easier overall. The final fight in IWD was significantly easier than the final fight in BG1 for example. I beat the guy on the second attempt, and was really surprised I did. The most fun fight and the toughest imo in IWD is the one where you fight a whole lotta undead in a room with possessed priests in Dorn's Deep. There were more tough fights in BG1 and BG2. I generally play these games on 'hardcore D&D' mode. edit: I really don't like the new quoting mechanism on the forums... anyone know of a way to switch it back to the older format?

While there are characters from games I don't like, I'm not against having them in the game. We all have the option of bringing or not bringing NPC X with us. ie: I never really liked Edwin in BG (I preferred Xzar as my evil wizard), yet a lot of people liked him. I don't begrudge them their having Edwin in the game, and it never really bothered me that he was in the game. One thing I would ask is that if we must have a overstereotypical character such as Khelgar from NWN2 in game that he not be found so early in the game where you're somewhat obliged to take him with you. I personally don't know if I can take yet another dwarf with a Scottish accent. Save the super stereotypical NPCs that join you for later in the game. That's my 2 cents.

The game is also a spiritual successor to commandos (a game that Sawyer loves), so it was necessary. No combat xp. Reading that link was depressing and disappointing. By far and away the best games of those mentioned in the Kickstarter video were BG 1, 2, and PST. Those are the games mentioned that got me to back PE. While some of the other games mentioned were pretty good (I never played ToEE or Arcanum), I'd not have backed PE if it was only inspired by them. BG1&2 and PST were oodles better in so many ways than the IWD series in my opinion. No combat XP is a bad idea.... is there really not going to be combat XP? I haven't read where they said that was the case yet. Though I'm pretty sure the things the OP is upset about aren't actually going to be in the game (or are they?.. .if so that's bad, one especially being bethesda style level scaling). Had I known Sawyer's opinion of Baldur's Gate and that he'd be lead designer of PE I honestly likely would not have backed PE. I've never agreed with him on his opinions of 2nd edition vs. 3rd (while there were some improvements in 3rd, overall I think 2nd (or even 1st) edition is a far better game than 3rd edition AD&D), and think IWD2 probably would have been a better game had they stuck to 2nd edition... I'm not going to say I regret it yet, but my excitement for PE has just diminished a great deal. The upside is that we still may have a great story.... Hopefully the OP's concerns don't really amount to much. Name dropping Baldur's Gate in the PE Kickstarter vid and having it lead designed by a guy who doesn't like those games was a bit misleading on Obsidian's part. I hope I'm misunderstanding something here....

Time is certainly a big factor, though it is possible to cook healthily and quickly too everyone loves convenience. I would add education as well though, lots of people simply do not know much about what food is healthy, and many do not know how to cook much at all. I'd dispute the other part though, at least here I could buy healthy food more cheaply than something like McDonalds even once a day. I'd reckon I could feed four people reasonably healthily for roughly what it would cost one person to eat at Maccas- they wouldn't be getting wine with the meal but I don't think you get that at the golden arches anyway. If it were something like a noodle based vegetable stir fry I reckon I could do it as quickly, too. Indeed. Cooking is not hard. If someone makes it far into adulthood and hasn't yet learned how there's an extremely high possibility that they're either always benefiting from someone else cooking for them or they're lazy. The best way to learn how to cook is to have to do it. Of course it helps if you have someone giving you tips, but it's not necessary. And even then, just like driving a car, the only way to really learn is to do it yourself. You'll pick it up quick if you go to the store, get the ingredients, take them home, and start figuring out what you need to do. You do that a few times and you'll find that unless you're seriously mentally handicapped you're going to have figured out how to make some good stuff (at least that you think is good). Cooking is a LOT easier than many people try and pretend it is. And eating healthy is generally less expensive than any fast food place, and relatively so even if you're eating the same type of food (eg. burgers and fries). As for the education part. Anyone can look at the ingredients of something. Most don't though. And if you make it to adulthood and haven't somewhere learned that veggies, a variety of vitamins, and such are good for you, you're a hopeless case.

I just want to say I got an email with this update in it! Super awesome that is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ySi6smb6A

You lost me. How does this have to do with anything. I don't think I ever had you. As I previously mentioned, you would do well to actually read the Constitution, as well as get a clue as to what the legal and philosophical issues that have arisen out of it's interpretation, practice, and real life applicability on everyone is. If you did that, you'd know exactly what this has to do with anything. Because I'm pretty sure based on your continuing ignorance of things myself and others in this thread have posted (some of the answers to your ATF question were already given by one of the folks who called it corrupt, and I do recommend looking into what he wrote) I'll give you a big hint: One who has a clue (is actually familiar with the Constitution) can rarely can mention the First Amendment without bringing up the Fourteenth in regards to the first's applicability anywhere other than on the Federal Government because of how the First was written and it's original purpose. The First Amendment was meant to only apply to the Federal Government. There purposefully were not limitations placed on the States or local governments in regards to making saying some things a crime. One of the things the Fourteenth Amendment does by many interpretations of it (it's a horribly worded amendment) is apply the First Amendment to the State and local governments. Anyone who actually takes the time to read and think about could come to this conclusion, and if they bothered to learn how the First Amendment is ever argued in court they'd know this. It's quite clear that you don't bother to learn. In contrast. The second amendment is much more limiting than the first on what government can do. '...shall not be infringed' is different than 'Congress shall make no law...'. Note that I did not respond to you earlier than now, as frankly I've come to the realization that arguing with you is near pointless as you refuse to educate yourself. The answers to most of the questions you bring up have already been answered in the thread, and you'd find answers to them and more if you actually did some serious homework. I don't mind the person who really just doesn't know that much, I do mind the person who's been pointed again and again in the direction he/she can come to know but refuses to go there. As I said earlier: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. You've been standing over a pool of water that myself and others have lead you to but apparently don't realize you need it for awhile in this thread now.