Valsuelm

Even now we can't have proof of Al-Qaeda presence in Mali (Actually we can't find they in any part of Earth). http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/10/ansar-dine-spokesman-dismisses-terrorist-label.html In other words Ansar Dine is not Al-Qaeda, but western media continue mumbling about Al-Qaeda without proofs. That's because many westerners have made duped into believing in the boogie man. Only those who haven't enough background in world history/events and haven't done enough homework believe they exist outside of the propaganda machine or as an 'intelligence community' asset, or the unintelligent. Al-Qaeda = boogiemen. Anyone that considers just how powerful this organization that spans the globe supposedly is should begin to question just how that is even remotely possible. Most don't question though, not much of anything.

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread? Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads. By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so. Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates. Oby? Good with facts? Only if you are a bat**** ruski or libertarian who thinks RT tells the unbiased truth. Also this. 19.3% is about 20% in most circles. no? 'Bat**** ruski'? You have a problem with Russians? I'm not Russian, but I think they have some pretty beautiful women, and they at least attempted (but lost due to interference from the US/British Oligarchs) to revolt and form a real free state. Though it's been near 100 years now it's a lot more than most nations where the people think they are free can say. That said, Putin is one evil mofo. Communism is evil and on the rise (despite the myth it's dead), and the Russian government is no friend to the U.S. or it's citizens. However neither is the U.S. government for the most part. RT is what just about every other network is: a varying degree of news and propaganda. RT however generally does not sink to the 'entertainment' level that most networks have.The major differences between Russia Today and the most main stream networks are that RT is more open with it's foreign affiliation, your average reporter/anchor is quite a bit more intelligent on RT, and in general the stories on RT are actually closer to the truth than you'll find on the mainstream networks. Just like Russians once got news stories they wouldn't normally hear on their networks from Radio Liberty, Americans get news from RT (and other non mainstream sources) that they wouldn't normally get from their news sources. If you think there isn't rampant censorship and propaganda coming out of the big 3, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, AP, et al, you're one of the many brainwashed. Of course fans of Fox think MSNBC is extremely bias, and fans of MSNBC pretty much only tune in to get their Fox hatred fix, but in the big picture both networks are generally working for the same agendas and those who think their network isn't bias is an ignorant fool. Much the same as anyone thinking that voting for Romney over Obama, or Obama over Romney (or Bush over Gore, Gore over Bush, Bush over Kerry, Kerry over Bush... and it goes on like that a good couple decades) was going to give you any great meaningful difference except hairstyle and different flavored BS. Just about all news networks are extremely bias one way or another, and not in the way most think (left vs. right). Just about all of them are beholden to their owners. And most American news networks are owned by those who benefit directly from all of the wars we've been in over the last half century plus, the poisons in the food, the increasing police state, etc. Always ask yourself: 'Why am I being shown this story?' And yes. You are correct. 19.3% is about 20%.

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread? Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads. By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so. Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates.

Do us all a favor and let this thread die. If you want to start a thread about Anime, please go for it. But call it something like 'The Anime Thread', and not 'Depressed'. This thread's title is very misleading. Not only are you not readily going to get the folks who would be interested in your topic to read your posts (as who looks for a discussion about anime in a thread called 'Depressed'?), you're going to get people to read your topic that don't give a poop about anime.

Amazingly, and sadly, smoking is still cool amongst a very large portion of the populace. It's really probably not any more or less cool than it was once upon a time in most segments of the population. The only real differences between now and the 70s in regards to smoking is that the connection to ill health is solid and not even debated anymore, advertisements are legally limited, there are laws (many ridiculous ones at that) against smoking in many places, and there are disgusting amounts of taxes on them in many places. People still do it. Younger people even making up more of the smoking population than the old in many studies and estimates. What kinda blows my mind is that a lot of them smoke generics due to the disgustingly high taxes and exorbitant cost, so the advertisements for Camel et al can't be blamed... and generic cigarettes are generally exponentially more disgusting smelling and tasting than the brand names. Another big difference between now and the 70s is that the concept of 'addiction' is far more widely spread than it was in yee olden days. Nowadays many smokers (and other substance abusers) blame their 'addiction', as if they have no control over their actions. They freely submit to the idea that their willpower is not sufficient enough to overcome an unnatural craving for something that poisons their body. There's even a billion dollar industry to 'help' people quit, when the only thing that will make them quit for the most part is them making up their mind that they are done.There are some people who even are convinced they have an 'addiction gene' or a 'smoking gene'. Hogwash through and through this is, but a lot of people believe it, and it's quite pitiful.

Those that do would be and are marginalized by the media and the droves of mindless goons like the guy in the cartoon in front of the TV would go along with it. In all parts of the mainstream media you for the most part have folks with lower than average intelligence spouting off their nonsense and repeating the BS they're told to, and a public that moves generally in two directions. One towards being more and more brainwashed all the time, and the other towards realizing that almost everything they're told in the media is a lie or a twist. The former refers to the latter often as 'conspiracy theorists' as if it's some kind of bad thing, and willfully, even gleefully deny themselves deeper thought. While the latter often constantly tries to wake the former up from their daze with rare but meaningful success. All in all though, there's a real lot of folks without minds capable of higher thought and critical reasoning. Everyone but the truly mentally handicapped have the potential for it, but most refuse to realize it having been conditioned not to from an early age (as that cartoon eludes to somewhat). You can tell someone that something very true, provable, and uncontroversial such as that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned. For a moment you might see a flash of thought in their eyes if they even know what the Fed is, or can understand the significance of what that means. But sadly most of the time they'll just go right back to their mindless parroting of stuff they're told to think. Mention something very true and provable such as what happened to building seven of the WTC, and these folks will call you a nut they're so conditioned to reject what isn't fed them by the media, or contradicts what the media told them. Occasionally though that spark in their eyes actually ignites into a flame and a quest for knowledge, the truth, ensues. I've seriously met dogs with better reasoning than most of the people I've ever met in my life. Not that dogs like that are common, definitely not, but the comparison is fair. As far as the 70s go. Comics like that were even rare then. We're 100+ years into the total brainwashing adventure set upon us by the industrialists at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. What were the most important and common bits of discussion before this adventure in your average public place such as a pub were religion/spirituality and politics, things that actually matter to everyone on the planet whether they think so or not. Replaced they are with superficial conversations about things like 'sports' and pick a celeb of the day such as Snookie, things that don't matter one lick in any meaningful way to the person talking about them. Go look at comics from the 19th century and you'll find oodles and oodles of commentary such as what you posted. Despite what many indoctrinated folks believe these days, people back then (at least in the U.S.) were on average far more informed and thinking than they are today. There's oodles of places you can find proof of this, such as newspapers, books, college exams, speeches, et all from those days.

You make a lot of noise slurping up that propaganda. No doubt people are being killed. No doubt it's horrible. However, the boogiemen aren't doing the killing. Just how many times are you going to buy the same BS story? Or are you young. I'll forgive you if you aren't old enough to remember the same story ~12 years ago right before 9/11. And I don't overestimate how safe it is here in the 'first world' as so many of those that live here such as yourself do. The boogiemen will be back here someday, or rather evil folks will be that are advertized as such. The world is not as it is advertized, not even remotely.

Al-Qaeda = Boogiemen

Not that she's bad looking, but if you look anything like your avatar I imagine you probably don't discriminate much.

I wouldn't ever refer to them as glory days but I'd take them or any other decade in the latter half of the 20th century over the 00s or 10s in a heartbeat.

This is actually a good petition. I didn't know much about this guy before he committed suicide, but it sounds like he was a victim of a way overzealous DA. This should have been a misdemeanor case at the worst, and it put a guy that already seemed to be struggling with mental issues over the edge. So thanks for the good link Oby This petition as well as most others are meh at best. It's a PR game on both sides most times. Frankly, if you think this particular DA was overzealous you're not familiar with standard operating procedures in most DA officers. It's quite the norm to bury someone in charges, trumped up, fictional, essentially doubly/triply charged for the same thing to force them to plea. More often than not people accept pleas and cases never even see trial for things as frivolous as punching someone to as serious as murder. Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it most of the time, convictions for the prosecutor and making the best of a really bad situation for the defendant is what's important. The idea that you're innocent until proven guilty is not actually practiced in most courtrooms, as the deck is stacked incredibly in favor of the state these days. It's also not the idea that is prevalent in most American's minds. For a great many, if you were arrested you must have done something wrong. If you were familiar with how most police departments operated you'd know that is very much not the case these days as you can get arrested for something as trivial as pissing off a cop, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yea, you might win in court, but the costs to you are usually very high and to the cop usually very low if anything at all. One of the greatest bits of corruption going on in our nation is that cops and state officials (very much including DAs) are largely given immunity for all sorts of things that your average citizen might be fried for. So, while I wholeheartedly agree that this DA was overzealous, and what he did was wrong on many a level, what he did is very much the norm almost everywhere.

Corn Syrup and other unnatural food additives are bad for you. It's getting harder and harder in the U.S. to find good natural food, like used to be on every grocery store shelf just 20 years ago. Monsanto et al are evil. And yea... women today (and men, but I don't look at them as much) have gone all flabby. It's noticeably worse in just the last ten years. Vegging out in front of the TV or computer has a lot to do with it too. And kids in general don't have the freedom they did a generation ago to go out and play. You make too much of the Vietnam protesters compared to modern America's lack of protesting though. The protesting still happens, it just doesn't make the news very much. Believe me, as brainwashed as most westerners are most Americans are not in favor of the wars we're in, or a great deal of other things we're subjected to by our 'leaders'. Even folks I know who were gung ho let's get Saddam and the boogie men in Afganistan in revenge for 9/11 are vehemently for ending the wars at this point and have been for awhile. People just haven't gotten to the point where they're going to demand in no uncertain terms change though. That time will come. My concern is the nutjobs running things will push us all into WW3 before that happens though to avoid any real revolutions. If and when the west falls, humanity all over will likely plummet into a hell. The New Dark Ages are nearly upon us.

Not even remotely. Feudal Japan was an entirely different culture with values much different than ours in today's western society. In many ways the our culture compared to theirs is fundamentally opposite in terms of values. Honor is very very rare thing in our culture, this was not so among many in Japan, especially the Samurai. While no doubt some folks committed seppuku due to peer pressure, you fundamentally don't understand the practice if you think that's all it was or is. I should have said this earlier, but it's those who label suicide as always the act of a coward, or someone who is suicidal as always just someone looking for attention who are cowards. They are afraid to use their imagination to ever contemplate a moment where they themselves might end their own life or seriously contemplate doing so. They are often blinded by their hubris. Frankly, to me someone who thinks this way fails one of the litmus tests to indicate if a person truly thinks with any depth or not, and really truly has empathy; excusing the young of course as they just may not have had time to think about it yet. Any adult however that thinks this way thinks very shallow. Fear truly is the mindkiller, and the fear of contemplation of many a thing is what keeps the unintelligent unintelligent. In many ways you are as smart as you have the courage to be.

Seriously? Is your imagination so shallow you can't consider other scenarios for suicide than cowardice from a tough situation? The guy was notoriously selfless. The selfish masses cannot comprehend selflessness. People sometimes kill themselves for the sake of others believe it or not. There are all sorts of reasons someone may commit suicide. And yes, in some situations it is even honorable (not saying it was here necessarily). Go read up on seppuku. Use your imagination. This guy was pretty smart. He likely didn't off himself without thinking it through, if that's indeed what he did. Two things: Perhaps he did seek treatment for his imagined 'illness', in which case he's likely been in psychotropics for ages. These drugs #(&^ you up bad mentally in the long run and quite permanently in many cases. They never solve whatever problem it was you had that drove you to take them, they just mask it or delude you into thinking it doesn't exist at best. He reportedly left no note. He very well may have been suicided.

Someone who kills themselves is not necessarily a coward. Especially if they used a noose as initial news reports are saying Aaron did. Are some folks who kill themselves cowards? Of course. But being a coward usually has as much to do with suicide as whether or not the guy/gal who did it likes chocolate ice cream or not.

No. The weapons of choice for that are media and schools.

I think far too much negativity is indeed being made of this. For all those who are bent out of shape about it, consider that Chris Avellone gave it his blessing. Also consider that Fargo has an excellent relationship with Obsidian and that he oversaw Interplay in it's golden years. While I'm not a huge fan of everything he's done, I'm not aware of anything he's ever done that really falls into the evil greedy suit category, poster boyed by EA and Vivendi. Can you name one? If so then maybe an argument can be made, if not then very unfair criticism is being levied. The resumes of the folks involved so far as I know them do not warrant much of the criticism in this thread. Do you think Chris is a dishonest money grubbing guy? Nothing I've ever seen him say or do gave me that impression (quite the opposite), and neither did anything in that interview make me think Fargo et al were. The worst thing I see happening here is maybe they'll make a bad or not awesome game. Hopefully of course that doesn't happen.

See Tsuga C's post about on your 'well regulated' statement. And getting your religion recognized isn't that hard. That 501c(3) organizations exist in the first place is one of the great evils in our nation today. Not necessarily the organization itself, but the designation and how money is hidden behind it by many an evil organization. The IRS should be abolished for so many reasons, non profits being a big one, but that's another topic. As for why I'm not fighting for the 1st amendment here. The larger topic of the thread is 'gun control', which is what you're arguing for, which deals specifically with the 2nd amendment, not the 1st. I'm all for you being able to talk about your Call of Duty character in the airport. I despise the airport 'security' that has sprung up in the last ten years. I used to frequently fly, now I very rarely do. The TSA is a nasty stain in America and the sooner we're free of it the better. If we're never free of it... well.. worse things are then coming. I also avoid certain U.S./Canadian border checkpoints as some of them in my experience would lead you to believe you're anywhere but traveling between two supposedly free and friendly nations. I've quite seriously witnessed gestapo moments on the train to Canada (advice: never take the train to Canada). What you might be subject to at these 'security' checkpoints in airports and at borders is nothing less than pure insanity at best. The Mexican border can be even worse, as there are checkpoints many miles from the border itself that people who never even crossed or will cross the border are subject to. As for running into a theatre and yelling 'fire!'. That's akin to owning a missile as far as the second amendment is concerned. In some places you'll get away with it though, in both examples. Depending on who you are can help. There are consequences for any action. Legislating something and making it illegal rarely solves anything, no matter what it is. More often then not it just makes a bad situation worse, or creates a bad situation out of thin air. Depending on what those consequences are a civil suit usually will solve the problem (and would in your example). However, people's rights to sue are being more and more abrogated or superseded by criminalizing law all the time. The issues of speech specifically encountered in the 1st amendment can actually be one of the more complicated ones, as it invokes the 14th amendment often as well, an imperfect and contradictory amendment to put it nicely as well as some of the legal source for one of the biggest shams in our modern world: the national debt. I'd say one of the major problems in America in general is the tendency of the ignorant to say: 'We need a law for this!' 'That should be illegal' 'He should be in jail for that'. In reality most of the time what person X did is probably already illegal and no more laws need to be passed. As well as often what the person did that raised these cries really shouldn't be illegal. And God knows we don't need more people in prison. A LOT of what has become illegal should not be so.

Same. I won't be unhappy with something in the middle, which is why I liked Josh's reply in this thread. However I'll be happier the closer it is to BG1. The idea that BG1 was too sparse is exaggerated I think. Empty areas give the sense that you're in a world. And there really were only a couple of zones that had little in them in terms of encounters. I'm all for a couple of zones in PE that are relatively sparse in terms of encounters. It can make sense to some encounter way off nearly by itself in the wilderness. And it adds to the feeling that you're in a world to traipse through relative emptiness. Of course we don't want too much of that, however by no means do I think BG1 remotely approached too much of that.

And some yahoo from the south isn't exactly "A well regulated militia" I'm well aware why we're talking about it. What I wonder is how you can be so dense to think the gun is the problem in the above article, or really almost anywhere else. There's over 300 million people in the U.S.. Every day there's going to be a whacko or three whacking out somewhere about something. The answer is never to force everyone else to give up any freedom to protect us all from the whackos. They will always exist. While there are likely ways to lower their number curtailing essential freedoms (in particular the last line of defense for all of the others) of the non whackos is not one of them. Big kudos to those that talked this kid down, however this story should not be national news. I realize you're likely to not educate yourself. But here's more reading: http://www.guncite.c...rol_essays.html and www.guncite.com in general has a lot of information on the topic. And the ATF should be abolished. it's an extremely corrupt organization. Also, anyone is supposed to be able to form a militia. Your observation of a 'yahoo from the south' speaks volumes of the stereotypes you adhere to. I recommend setting them aside, as reality does not abide them. And finally. Yes, people go before the courts (including the SCOTUS) all the time and argue legal precedent. Occasionally, depending on the case and what's being argued, the historical legal precedents existing before the U.S. Constitution existed are brought up in court. The Articles indeed have been used to argue cases before the court, as have the other historical documents I've mentioned and many more. If you don't understand where you, we, or someone else comes from you'll never understand where you/we/they are and where you/we/they are going.

How many were killed with hand guns son? And nice over the top "END OF THE WORLD IF YOU TAKE OUR GUNS" essay. Got anything reasonable? Answer: A LOT more than were killed with rifles. Yet semi-auto rifles are the main focus of the discussions at large currently in the media in regards to 'gun control'. Yea... I already recommended a bunch of historical reading for you, and there have already been a number of good links in this thread. You've chosen to largely ignore them. That essay is not even remotely over the top, though I'd say it could have been written a bit better. Random things to consider in regards to the topic at hand: http://english.pravd...ericans_guns-0/ http://youtu.be/0nM0asnCXD0 http://youtu.be/FWNOiw_XIV8 And by the, way: Had you asked people who opposed the re-election of Obama what they thought was in store for them in his second term, many would have and did say (long before Sandy Hook) that his administration would be coming for the guns next. There's a much bigger game being played in this world than you realize and all this hoopla in the media about gun control was predicted and very predictable if you see even a part of the chess board that is World Politics (a great many do not). You need to spend some serious hours educating yourself about this world and it's history to realize it. The all important question 'Why?' should always be asked of everything. And one place it's rarely asked by most people is 'Why is this a story right now?' about whatever it is is the story of the day, week, month, or year. The answers to the 'Why?' are often not simple and take quite some time and self education (no one can make you learn much beyond the simple but you) to come to. Also, make no mistake that the White House et al who would have guns taken away or restricted more than they already are already have the legislation they wish to pass written and likely had it written years ago. Just as the Patriot Act was written long before 9/11 ever occurred. And both pieces of legislation are written by peoples who are anything but patriots of the U.S. "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt I'm no fan of FDR by any means, however even men such as he are capable of saying some truisms. The above is one. Edit: Here is a link to a good read. It's not directly on topic, however it discusses something that very much is related in the big picture of the 'gun control debate'. It's a good place to start getting educated as to how things really work as it's crammed full of information not commonly known anymore yet extremely relevant to the world yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

The latest versions of Gimp vs this old version of Adobe? No, it doesn't. And to anyone thinking this is a good deal from Adobe and aren't already aware: http://www.gimp.org/ One of the best pieces of totally free software out there.

An Atari 800. I still have it, along with the controllers, one being a wheel ball to play centipede. I no longer have the printer or tape drive however that I once had for it. It's been a couple years since I dusted it off but last I checked it still worked.

If transported back 30 years ago, I'd miss some of the people I didn't meet until later on, but I'd enjoy the company of people I knew then who've sadly passed. I'd miss a little some of the movies that had not yet come, eg: 'Braveheart', and on some levels I'd miss some of the technology but not most of it. What I'd miss I'd gladly trade for what would be gained. But there were great movies back then (and more of them), great books (there's too many good ones to read them all in a lifetime), people looked better (far less couch potatoes (nowadays computer chair potatoes) and corn syrup and chemicals (cheap alternatives to the real thing) weren't yet widely used in food), many more things were still made in the USA, and overall the quality of goods almost everywhere was better (there's so much cheap plastic @#$* these days), and as Gorth mentioned people TALKED to each other. Overall though, I'd take an 80s tech world over today's tech world in a heartbeat. It was a far more social world, in the meaningful ways. Even ten years ago before everyone and their grandmother got a cell phone it was a far more social world. People still commonly wrote letters, nowadays few do. Emails are not hand written letters. If you wanted to talk to someone just randomly showing up at their house wouldn't be considered weird or creepy. And people randomly showed up at your house which could be a really nice surprise (nowadays it's custom to text before stopping by). If you were interested in a girl or guy randomly showing up at their house beat the hell out of all the text message games and sexting crap of today. You had to either drum up the courage to look them in the eye and talk or at least make the phone call. People are losing touch with their humanity and the younger generations that don't know what life is like without the internet largely lack many important communication skills, not all of course, but most. People hide behind the internet, behind text messages. People used to hide behind a phone, still do, but that's still far better than hiding behind text. Something that happened to me in 1998 when I was in college that made a big impression: Around Memorial Day there was a huge storm that knocked down trees and the power and telephone lines (land lines, I was one of the very few that had a cell phone then) were out of almost a week or over a week depending on where in town you lived. School (Syracuse Univ) was closed for the first time in decades for more than one day due to, well anything. What happened? Without electricity or telephones people walked outside and communicated with one another far more so than you saw at the time. Candles were broken out, hide and seek was played on large scale (after the early 90s it's been near impossible to do this due to so many motion detector lights and oh do I feel sorry for the younger folks who've never experienced the epic 2-3 city block hide and go seek matches in the dark with 10-20 peoples, nothing better except maybe sex), BBQs emass with neighbors, nearly every porch on the street had people on it nearly all day, people had to come up with things to do that didn't involve video games, or vegging in front of a TV.... in short it was a throwback to a decade or two earlier when people did communicate with one another more and got to know their neighbors. That was 1998, the internet was still somewhat in it's infancy, while exploding not everyone and their grandmother had gotten a computer yet (even in college). Even at that time the antisocial behaviors of society were beginning to really show their growth, and 1998 is a far cry in terms of the widespread use of computers and cell phones that we see now. Some, especially the younger, will decry what I've written as just nostalgia, that I'm seeing the world through rose colored glasses. No, I'm not. Things weren't perfect back then and a few things have improved, but as a society as a whole for all we've gained we've lost a lot. I could point to modern day examples of communities where cell phones still don't work (they're rare but they exist.... I don't live too far from the Adirondaks), and internet is dial up or satellite and most don't have it. In those places people still TALK and do things with each other face to face more on average than elsewhere. The world has come together over the internet but as much as that is true, it's also true that it's become more fractured in many ways. Anyways.. I'm off to get a beer and Pac Man is still one of the greatest video games ever. Asteroids not far behind.

Planescape Torment was i the minds of many who played it (including myself) overall the best CRPG ever made. No other game ever absorbed me so much into it, and this is coming from someone who had zero interest in the Planescape universe going in. I wasn't at all interested in the game, and in my opinion it was marketed badly, but on the recommendation of a friend I played it and oh boy was I more than pleasantly surprised.... I rate the story up there with some of the best novels I've ever read. In my opinion a sequel really probably can't nor shouldn't be done as the original story doesn't really lend to a sequel. Though who knows, if the right story evolved (I can't imagine a good one but maybe someone can)... anyways, that will never happen as as mentioned in the interview Wizards of the Coast owns the license to Planescape and they're not interested in letting anyone use it. It seems to me what Fargo et al are trying to do is make a game in the spirit of Torment, and that's what they should make in my opinion. If unable to use the PS universe then completely original is all good. I'm not sure it should even have Torment in the title, unless it truly is more than a marketing ploy. If however a team is assembled to make a game in the 'spirit of PS:T', that game will very likely be the second kickstarter I back. However I really would like to see them wait until Avellone is available. I'm in no hurry, I've already waited 12+ years, and I'm sure others would rather wait a little longer if it was possible to assemble a team with Chris on it as well. I know I wouldn't think twice about backing it if he was, and if he is not I still very well may but I personally would need to see a little more than what I've seen before I committed the $$$.