Valsuelm

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 $$$.

Note that I said:

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. I do hope they are able to snag Avellone as well as anyone else that contributed significantly to PST after he is done with PE. Or if somehow they were able to partner with Obsidian that would be even better. Fargo and the PE team are the only ones I have any faith in (in America anyways) to make a good CRPG. And that said, I do have a lot of faith. And that interview reminds me what a horrible company WoTC is. They, much like EA, destroy or poison most everything they touch. I wish Gygax and co. had been as good a business man as he was a game designer so TSR was still around.

And you think that there's been an explosion in gun sales because why? Fifteen years ago if I mentioned the idea that a new Revolution may be coming to your average crowd of people almost all of them would have looked at me like I was nuts. 'That will never happen here!' would be said and echoed. As a student of history I knew they were wrong, though I didn't necessarily think it would happen in my lifetime I knew that in time most certainly war would come to the shores of the U.S. and it would likely happen from within rather than from without.. Ten years ago, after the Patriot Act was passed (which included many provisions that many would have said 'would never happen here!'), when I did mention it as a possibility, people raised their eyebrows at me but a few acknowledged my points and said I hope not to which I replied 'So do I'. For the last five years or so I hear talk of it almost everywhere I go that a long political discussion about anything comes up, and I spend time with people from all walks of life. I don't bring it up, others do. And I've even been surprised at some of the people I've seen bring it up, as it's included people who will say that they themselves thought it would never happen here. You're in Canada. You still have a queen. She signed your bill of rights. I don't expect too many foreigners that are ok with the fact that they still have a monarch to understand. Make all the arguments you want that they are just figureheads, depending on where you live that's usually to varying degrees untrue (and definitely is where you are), and you're ignoring what puppets politicians can be and most often are for whoever bought them, be they royalty, CEO, or foreign government. If and when there is a revolution it will be because there is: 'taxation without representation', and in fact that's largely what we have in almost every nation in the western world. Yes, we have governments and representatives, but at the national levels most of them aren't truly representing their people. While the population in the U.S. has become more pacified and ignorant in the last few generations there is still a very strong connection to what and why this nation (the U.S.) was founded for many. And even for those whom there isn't, there's a clear understanding that their line in the sand (whatever it be) is getting closer and closer to being crossed. While at the same time those who don't pay attention at all or do so but only superficially are sticking their heads further and further in the sand. And Revolution or no.... there's a real lot of folks buying weapons thinking that some really bad poop is not too far around the corner. And as I said in another thread: Unless some miracle never before seen in recorded history happens bad bad things are coming both in the U.S. and throughout most of the rest of the western world.

I think one of the things that led to this more believeable atmosphere was the lower level characters - you were barely more competent than your average commoner to start and progressed rather slowly upwards not getting exceptionally more powerful until mid-game and even then it was entirely possible to stumble on an encounter that would eat you for lunch. By games end you were showing some true power but the length of the journey that took you there made that power more believable. In BG2 you started off at those powerful levels and went on to godlike ones - much less believeable - especially if you were not using a character you leveled yourself in BG1 and start off at level 8-9 right off the bat without the benefit of having grown to those levels - like being born a young adult with no basis for your knowledge or chartacter. It's one of the reasons I really prefer lower level campaigns - say level 1-mid teens if they are D&D type levels - which is why I am so excited about PE as thats the level of play they are talking about. Indeed. However if I recall correctly there has been talk (I forget where exactly) by at least one developer on these forums of having the leveling rate be faster than BG. The leveling rate in BG was near perfect. It certainly shouldn't have been any faster. BG2, while a great game had the leveling rate a bit fast imo. Something I really don't want to see is my character(s) being greater than level 1 less than an hour into the game, or level 3-5 after 2-3 hours of playing (as in NWN2). Having played many PnP campaigns over the last couple decades, I agree: in general the lower level campaigns are more fun for a variety or reasons. That's not to say that a high level campaign can't also be fun, but balancing them is quite a bit tougher as too often characters end up being just too powerful. One thing I really hope PE and it's sequel does is continue the story in a fashion such as BG1 > BG2 did. BG2 was a true sequel that saw companions and the main character return, to continue the next chapter of the story. My hopes are that PE2 also sees the main character as well as most (if not all) of the companions from PE1 return to continue the next chapter of the story. Edit: /salute from one upstate New Yorker to another.

Whooosh right over your head it seems went most everything I said. If you don't know and appreciate the difference between a judicial opinion (I suggested you read a few above) and whether or not you think apples or bananas taste better I give up on you. I'm wagering you've not read anything I suggested you read and wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't read 1984, Animal Farm, or a Brave New World though you refer to 1984 and dystopia at large. Heads up, by many people's estimations (including my own) we're a bit past 1984 in many respects at this point. If you haven't read all those books, I suggest you actually read them, as well as A Brave New World Revisited. If you don't understand the merits of reading the historical documents that contributed to almost every Constitution in the entire modern world such as the Articles of Confederation.... well, again, I give up on you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Again, never once did I take issue with anything said or opined by Scalia (and again, that doesn't mean I wouldn't or would depending on the case), nor was I ever referring to the Heller v. District of Columbia case. I specifically mentioned Roberts (and Ginsburg as an aside to my point) to you as you used "even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with me" argument. Perhaps you are confused and think Scalia is the Chief Justice? He is not, Roberts is. And quite seriously, if you really did think that Scalia was the Chief Justice, please check yourself, as you're in way over your head. Frankly I feel like I'm arguing with someone who has only a rudimentary understanding and minimal knowledge base in regards to the subjects at hand, and chooses to be ignorant.

Remind me why the South African Constitution is rubbish? You need to be careful when you make blanket insults against a country that is based on your ignorance, it undermines your point and you come across as some kind of uninformed and emotional fanatic. I made no insult against an entire country. Anyone with half a brain in South Africa would realize and does realize what I said. I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you've read it as well as the originating documents I mentioned along with just a few other Constitutions in the world, it should be obvious to a junior high schooler unless they're truly naive. And that's if they don't get the banking clause or know what goes on in that nation. If you understand the implications of the central banking clause of that document as well as have a larger grasp of how the monetary system in the world works, and where the UN, IMF, World Bank came from you'd see the document for what it is. One could write a lot about that particular Constitution and how it's rubbish through and through. Sorry my comparison of the South African Constitution to that of the U.S.S.R. bothers you, but its 100% right on. Both Constitutions (as well as most Constitutions in the world) are little more than pieces of paper to placate the subjects of the nation, totally ignored by those who wrote them. Ever notice that a super large chunk of the world is a democracy now yet the people in most nations really truly don't have a say and never did? I'm guessing not.

Oh sweet sweet 5 1/4 inch. It's been a long time since I've gazed upon you....

If you're going to take issue with what I said, you really should read the South African Constitution, after you read ours of course, as well as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papets, the Magna Carta, the Articles of Confederacy, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights. So you have a clue of the context of what I'm talking about. And when you read the South African Constitution, even if you don't understand what the significance of the central bank aspect of it, which will speak volumes to anyone who does, it should be amazingly obvious to you that it's not a better document in any way. Ginsburg's loyalty is not to her own nation, it's not a matter of just simply something she thinks. Her position means everything. Note that I said impeached, not charged criminally with treason. Her actions and thoughts are perfectly acceptable for someone who didn't swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution or is charged with sitting on the Highest Court. You'd understand the fundamental problem with what her thoughts are if you'd read some of her opinions such as the one I noted above. To put it another way to illustrate the significance of what she said. It is akin to saying that the U.S.S.R. had a better Constitution. You're free to think so as just a citizen of the U.S. Having someone whose sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, especially someone in her position thinking this however is an entirely different matter. I didn't take issue with Scalia's argument. Not saying I wouldn't nor that I would, but it was not the purpose of anything I wrote. As for saying that's a bias news source... the author of the article really was just pointing out something that almost no one else was. And in regards to 'Obamacare'... 'Obamacare' itself has little to nothing to do with what I was writing about. The actual decision to uphold it and the opinions expressed in that decision is what I was referring to. I do not know how much you understand law, but the manner in which a law is upheld in a court can have far greater significance than the actual law itself. In the matter of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the 'Obamacare' case), this likely to prove true. At the very least the is going to be a very ugly court battle in the future regarding the precedents set. And to quote one lawyer I spoke to the day the decision was released (who read the decision as I had) "This decision totally eclipses Obamacare as an issue. Holy f--- we're in trouble."

What the... Par for the course for any psychotropic. They wreak incredible damage on the mind and body in the long run, and the vast majority of the time they just mask whatever issue(s) it was that had person A in 'need' of them to begin with. Note that 'need' here is akin to someone who 'needs' opium. There is little difference between the guy on the street corner peddling illicit drug Y to person Z who wants to escape life for awhile, than there is from the guy in the white coat peddling his goods. That said, sometimes it is good to attempt to escape life for awhile if it's become a hell. A permanent vacation in the form of spending the rest of your life in a bottle or on drug X from your problem(s) is a horrendous idea as you've not really fixed your problems but taken on a new one that will eclipse the old. The most hopeless drug addicts are the ones who think they don't have a problem and believe what they're told when they're told they 'need' a drug. The long term consequences for themselves and those around them are rarely less than and often greater than the guy who takes to the needle.

There's a number of reasons. You can sum most of them up with the word: Corruption. Some of them: 'Mental Health' has a bit to do with it. 15 years ago few insurance companies covered 'mental health' under their general plans. Much like most still don't cover dentistry. A variety of things changed this and now just about all if not all insurance plans out there cover 'mental health'. There are an ever increasing number of people going to folks in the 'mental health' field, and they are not cheap. Nor are the drugs they dish out like candy. 'Having a bad day? Would you like some Zoloft?' Quite seriously that's how easy it is in many a psychiatrists office to either score (if you're looking for it, which many are) or be given (if you're not) these drugs. I know more than few people who play the system to get their drugs, and I also know more than a few people who have been given drugs they never really even wanted. Who picks up the bill? People who pay insurance premiums if insurance picks it up, or taxpayers if medicare/caid/etc picks up the tab. There is also a TON of fraud and price gouging in the health care industry from top to bottom. And there's a lot of top. The administration departments in your average hospital are very top heavy with extremely overpaid incompetents. And then there's just your good ole variety price gouging on the part of the insurance company. Much like skyrocketing gas prices after Katrina.... something totally not based on any reality but a circumstances a big company can take advantage of to fib and jack up prices for bigger profits. Then you have an ever expanding idea of what the 'health care industry' should be providing for you. Not too long ago for example you weren't getting abortions (the non life threatening kind, which is most of them), contraceptives, sex changes, various cosmetic surgeries, or other various elective things such as Viagra under insurance plans either. Increasingly you are finding that you are, and in some cases because of some law some idiots somewhere passed. And last, but not even remotely least is the ever increasing addiction/belief that you need 'medicine' to cure every ailment (real or perceived) under the sun by your average American. Got the sniffles? Run to the store and get medicine X. It didn't go away in a few days? Heed the BS on that medicine's label and go to your doctor for some prescription drugs. Get some real rest, and eat healthy? 'Huh? That won't cure it!?' says your average Joe these days. well actually sir average brainwashed Joe... most of the time it will. And most of the time you'd never have gotten sick in the first place if you were living a healthy life to begin with. What's a healthy life? Exercise, rest, little to no drugs or alcohol, no processed foods, all natural foods, etc. I could write a lot more.... but there's a synopsis.

Anticipation? Exploiting the market? Some provisions of it are already in effect. One of the biggies, the mandate that says you need to purchase insurance doesn't go into effect until 2014 (even though many of the more corrupt states are already mandating it amongst some of their populace (ie: New York and college students)), but some the rest of it, such as the increase in age for required coverage of dependents is already in effect. Also, despite the myth believed by many who supported it, 'Obamacare' is not a blow to the evil insurance companies. Many insurance companies were very much in support of that bill and lobbied for it as they well knew it would increase their profits. You didn't hear about that much in the main stream media though.

Liar. ARs and other semi-autos make great ranch rifles, target rifles, and hunting rifles. Even Field & Stream is in on this trend. Give it a rest, already. You have no credibility when you issue asinine statements like the one I quoted. You're the one who stated that the guns in question had less stopping power and were worse for hunting than pistols and rifles. Which is what I was getting at, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with me (see the tiff with gromnir a few pages back over his decision in DC v Heller) Having the current chief justice of the Supreme Court agree with you is not something I'd advertise. The man is evil and corrupt to the core. He is not an authority on law, he bends the law to the wills of the people who bought and paid for him. So much so that he's redefined words to mean things they've never before meant in the history of English. Nevermind Ginsburg's 60+ pages of near gibberish (seriously, go read what this woman wrote and be amazed such intellect is on the Supreme Court let alone any court), Roberts opinion was the very dangerous one, that sets a precedent to give the Federal government the legal power to take any freedom it wishes away via 'tax' and 'mandate' (words Roberts redefined). Ginsburg, is a woman by the way that thinks the South African Constitution is better than the Constitution of the U.S., something that should have seen her impeached on grounds of treason (go read the tripe of a document that is the South African Constitution and realize just what traitors we have in the SCOTUS). 100 years ago she would have, but these days our legislative branch is so full of incompetents as well as it's own bunch of traitors and the American people so polarized that such a thing as holding someone accountable to their oath of office isn't even on the radar. Whether or not you were for or against 'Obamacare', I highly recommend reading the actual decisions of the justices in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case. This is something the main stream media obviously didn't do (in this case and just about every other, they don't do much investigating anymore than most other people do). They were too busy bowing to the wills of those who own them and stoking the false left v. right paradigm of thinking fire. Facts, reality, and consequences be damned. You will discover if you read it that the arguments for it by Roberts are possibly the most contrived evil to ever be perpetrated in a ruling at the Supreme Court level. Even if 'Obamacare' was this super benevolent awesome thing of all good, the arguments he uses for it are evil to the core and set a precedent that undermines everything fought for in the American Revolution. If Wickard v. Filburn set the precedent that the Federal government can do almost anything it wants and get away with it, the opinion by Roberts takes the 'almost' out of the equation. The opinion to uphold 'Obamacare' as it was written is going to come back to haunt everyone, even those who supported the bill. And on that note, I'll wager that 99%+ of it's supporters never read even a tangible fraction of it. It's a pretty evil bill up there with the Patriot Act. Most of it has nothing to do with health care. In other news in regards to the main topic of this thread, at least one reporter out there is asking the pertinent question: http://www.wnd.com/2...hook-reporting/ If you really want to see fewer tragedies such as Columbine or Sandy Hook, the answers are complicated and are societal on a level that they won't be fixed any time soon. But if there's one thing that contributed to these tragedies outside of the will of a twisted person, it's not the guns, it's the drugs.

I like your observations. However I disagree that the PE world should have less crazies. I'd argue that most adults on modern earth are completely nuts. Give earthlings swords & sorcery and they will make the Sword Coast peoples look like a nice collection of well balanced, logically thinking, calm and reasonable individuals. Whose parents would let their kid play out in the woods with Dire wolves? Lots, and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it. Different folks have different values as well as perceptions of danger. The girl might have been out without permission too: did you never go anywhere you parents forbade you? Or maybe she just came from a family that hoped she wouldn't come back, or didn't know about the Dire wolves. Who knows.... use the imagination. Keep in mind too that each area map of BG represented a place of interest. You had to travel to them and random encounters sometimes happened along the way. Presumably the girl lived not far from the map you find her on, but the house she lived in was uninteresting when the party traveled by it (if they did). There were X hours of traveling between each area, and each area only took a few minutes to walk through. That means the vast majority of the Sword Coast was populated by peoples uninteresting and encounters uninteresting enough to put on a map. I also very much preferred that map and exploration of BG1 to BG2 or any of the other Infinity games. Baldur's Gate did the world map exploration better than any RPG game I've played before or since. It most closely represented what one would find in a good pen and paper game. It allowed you to explore, finding random interesting things that had nothing to do with the main plot, or maybe did. It fleshed out the world. It allowed backstory. It didn't hold your hand much either (like most modern games... ie: *(?@)! the 'quest compass' and the ridiculous symbols over quest givers and enders heads, *bleep* them hard). You're spot on about the geographic feature complaints too. I'm 100% alright with little variety in geography if our tale isn't spanning a globe. And heck, maybe our tale takes place on a planet with only one major geographic feature: ie: Dune.