Valsuelm

10/31/96 Musical Costume: Talking Heads Remain in the Light. One of my favorite bands covering another of my favorite bands. http://phish.net/setlists/phish-october-31-1996-the-omni-atlanta-ga-usa.html

Acoustic Harry with Neil Young

Yes, they've had prior interactions. Context is missing. As with other snips of things he's said in this thread. As I mentioned before in this thread, one really should read that thread, before commenting here. Certainly before offering criticism. It's an increasingly long read of course, and much of it is skippable (I mostly just scan for Chris's or other Dev posts), but I do think worth the read. A thread about an ongoing thread is kind of meh. I'm here as I'm curious for reactions and how much diehard loyalty there is here. Avellone is more than a little believable, and despite the insinuations of some in this thread, he's not inconsistent, nor acting out of drunkenness. The best that I can tell is that he'd had enough of being asking questions based on false assumptions, and hearing a false narrative of events. He'd kept a lot bottled up and one day he said "'**** it', I'm not keeping these secrets anymore, who wants to know what? I'll tell ya". That's something I and I'm sure others can relate to. As with all of the best writers Avellone has a deeper understanding than most of human nature, and in order to get that understanding one has to have to have a great appreciation for the truth, as well as to be very human themselves.

So Chris likes to party. So what? It's pretty irrelevant to what's going on.

Gun sales haven't been up the last few years just because....

The question is, why would MCA make up a story like this, which can be so easily refuted by anyone in the company? He is either believing that nobody will testify against him and makes a bluff like this, or ...you know... it is the truth. And this is true for everything he said. He made soooo many harsh claims in the last few days, and he knows that he has to prove these if he is getting sued for defamation. Now he is either an idiot, or knows that this is the truth. He might have only 1 friend, but several people he is in good terms with. He doesn't have to prove them true, the ones suing him would have to prove that he's intentionally lying (not simply misunderstanding or accidentally misrepresenting) with intent to harm the company. And need to prove financial harm was caused by what he said. Libel and defamation suits are very tough things to win in the U.S.. The first amendment is pretty well held up in this regard.

It's actually quite common to have someone bad at business be in charge in the modern world. Why this is is a complex thing to answer, as there are many whys. Most CEOS are leeches, as are most upper management in any given medium sized or larger company. They excel at spewing BS, having big egos, wanting to be in charge, offering the appearance of work, yet substance and quality is rarely their forte. There are exceptions of course. If the product offered is something enough people want, those in charge can be monkeys so long as the workers are half decent at providing what it is that people want. Maybe they have high turnover, maybe they don't. People stay in jobs for a variety of reasons. Even jobs they don't like. A few common ones: a) They don't realize the grass actually is greener elsewhere (super common one here, and also often why people stay in bad relationships ). b) Unable to move to a new location to take a job elsewhere for whatever reason. c) They're not good enough at what they do to find a better job. d) They may not even realize how bad it is where they work. Upper management of company X generally isn't forthcoming with employees for good or bad reasons. e) Sometimes old loyalties die hard.

Saying you welcome the fight or 'bring it' or something along those lines doesn't necessarily mean you actually want the fight. It very well may just mean you're more than ready for it, and if someone dares bring it, you're ready to thwomp them. Legal battles suck. I'm sure Avellone realizes that, as he's a smart guy. When the truth is on your side and your hands are clean, you tend to not give a poop if someone might sue you, as you know and those who might sue you more than likely know, that when all is said and done, you'll more than likely prevail (the truth tends to do that).

Aren't they saying we'd be the ones to disbelieve it This IS Obsidian's board. That's a fair expectation. But this board seems more apathetic about this subject than anything. I expected to wake up to a much larger thread, but apparently "Chris hates Obsidian" isn't as big a draw on this board as posting "Romance in PoE II". Chris has never stated he hates Obsidian. His beef is with 'upper management' and primary Feargus based on what he's posted. With very good reason if what has been said is true. He doesn't have to state it, it's pretty obvious. Platitudes about how he wishes the poor victim employees the best don't mean much when he's actively hoping they'll sue him and rooting for the company's destruction. Please cite where Chris is rooting for the company's destruction. I missed that one. And your interpretation of the other is a bit twisted. Those who have X in their heart often cannot understand how others do not. In this case the X is hate....

Aren't they saying we'd be the ones to disbelieve it This IS Obsidian's board. That's a fair expectation. But this board seems more apathetic about this subject than anything. I expected to wake up to a much larger thread, but apparently "Chris hates Obsidian" isn't as big a draw on this board as posting "Romance in PoE II". Chris has never stated he hates Obsidian. His beef is with 'upper management' and primary Feargus based on what he's posted. With very good reason if what has been said is true.

You don't "have" to trust anyone, though. That's entirely your choice. The sentence itself uses the words "if I had to....", as in, if someone put a gun to my head and said choose or die. I didn't say I trusted either. Though I will say Avellone has done more than enough to prove he is untrustworthy. How about I write it so Codexer's can fully get it. Of the two, Chris Avellone and Feargus Urquhart, which one "appears" more trustworthy based on the data that is available? Feargus Urquhart. Not really.

There are a lot of folks arguing points in this thread that are irrelevant. You're seriously wasting your time in this thread, if you haven't read the Codex thread.

A New York City Republican isn't exactly what many Republicans would consider a Republican. New York City politics are a breed apart from most of the rest of the nation.

Since they have a fictional place from Icewind Dale listed as their location, the odds are somewhat decent that they do live in Bavaria (or at least Germany.) edit: Side note, my first guess was that he lived in Afghanistan, which might have given insight into the Muslim immigrant concern. But then I looked up Kuldahar and realized it is not the same as Kandahar. Please enlighten me as to why a Bavarian or German would be more likely to list the fictional place of Kuldahar as their location than anyone else in the world? It happens to arguably be the best track in the game, but I don't get the Deutsch connection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhVxvv4VWLc

12/31/10 > 1/1/11 That time the Meatstick went international....

Why be pissed about this? Truly, even if you disagree with it, why be pissed? Were you betrayed? Did someone lie to you? Do you live in Bavaria? If you don't live in Bavaria why would you be pissed at something they do there?

While I wouldn't go so far as to say the vast majority will never protect and serve, Val's general thrust is similar to my earlier post. I think the solution to or the even the appropriate action given after the fact of a shooting is not to expect the police simply to "come through on their mission statement." If the officers fails, maybe strip them of the position or retire them to the desk. We can't afford our solution to be the best case scenarios of human error, that is never good enough, and punishing human error is a capricious acting out of righteous indignation by society when it's a larger societal fault that we expect police to be the heroic archetype of "succeed or die trying." And how that compares to the notion "you don't need guns for protection, police will protect you"? I certainly would never state the latter. You absolutely cannot count on the police to protect you. If you think so, you've let all those movies, TV shows, newspapers, etc where the police are usually portrayed as heroic good guys go to your head. Average Joe policeman, is not going to risk themselves saving your behind. Average Joe policeman isn't even going to risk themselves by putting themselves in a situation where they might have to save someone's behind. Hence average Joe policeman spending the vast majority of their time raising revenue for the local mafia some call government via ticketing people for X, or arresting someone for a petty 'crime' where no one is actually a victim (in a court of law the mafia often ultimately claims that they are the victim). And all that said, even if you've got superhero police people in your locale of the best Hollywood caliber the following with nearly always apply: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In real life the 'bad guys' don't always miss, and the 'good guys' often don't win. In real life, no one is more able to protect you than you. If you're not willing to take the steps to protect you and yours that's 100% on you. Without a doubt it is better to be armed and never need a weapon, than to never be armed and find yourself in a situation where you need one.

Spades be spades. I'm all for sunny fun things, happiness, flowers, good vibrations, and such. Believing things to be other than they are though, generally leads to bad things for you and possibly others. It wasn't me who was calling for some guy who perpetrated no crime on anyone (that we know of) to be killed, thrown in jail, sued, or punished in some undefined way.... yet I win your comment. Are you trying to be #3? You'll have to try much harder.

Frankly, it's foolish to think the average policeperson would ever save any of these kids. And it's equally foolish to think that training would condition them or most anyone to act in heroic manner in the face of their own potential death. The idea of punishing them for being cowards is ludicrous. Most are, and we absolutely don't need more people in our already ridiculously over populated prisons. If you really think that police are there to 'protect and serve' you, some kids, or the average person, the ugly joke is on you. The vast majority of police will never protect and serve the average citizen in any meaningful way, and certainly would never put their own life on the line for others.

Just arm the teachers already. And the school mascot as well.

In a dark way... it's comical that he thinks people will believe him. In a sad scary way, some people do. The continued use of cartoonish props tell you everything you need to know about the contempt that he and those he works for have for those this message is aimed at. Note that he's speaking in English....

I'm actually sometimes a big fan of music I can't understand. Two examples I have a particular affinity for: Spanish Shakira, and Finnish Tik Tak. In the case of Shakira, she's actually lead me to learn some more Spanish. Tiktak.... I still have near no idea what they're saying, but I dig it. I'm actually considering catching Shakira live this summer. From everything I've ever seen/heard she puts on a great show.