Valsuelm

We don't even have ammo.... or immunities..... or pre-buffing.... or encumbrance..... While there might be a penalty for point blank with a ranged weapon, it would be surprising as it certainly wouldn't fit the mold of dumbed down mechanics we've been given.

I expect episode 7 to make me miss Jar Jar like Bush and Obama made me miss Clinton. Never think it can't get worse, because it can.

Overthrow your monarchy, then perhaps I'll take you seriously.

Don't forget Abba and the Swedish Chef!

Star of the next Blade Runner movie that should never be.

Skyrim ist a nice Hiking Simulator with a nice build Gameworld. Sadly the RPG Part is terrible : Nohting what you do have consequences, the story is terrible, the writing uterly dull and the quests are totaly boring. Bethesda does two things very well. 1. They make games that look really good graphics wise. 2. They have great marketing. Other than that I don't think they could make a good game if their lives depended on it. Their games are basically poop wrapped up beautifully.

Huh.... why would my offsets be different than yours? I have 2E010 and 2E020. Also, Thanks!

Same patch, 11.8 MB on GoG...

It could be as bad as Blade 2. I'm expecting much worse. Akin to a graphic movie about a trio of corpulent hipsters breaking into your house, taking all that you hold dear (trinkets, your dog(s), grandma, comics, wedding bands, etc), piling them all on the bed, then proceeding to defecate chunky, liquid-like, and profusely upon it all. Then happily frolicking to in fro on their sea of poo upon your beloved, making swine look like cleanly animals. All while your deranged and estranged cousin Ed gleefully laughs wide eyed and clownlike, declaring it all a success, and somehow getting rich on it all. This movie is over two hours long, and you somehow find yourself in it. Try as you might, you can't tear Ed's head off. He suddenly has giant ears that glow to protect him from reality. Try as you might you are somehow unable to move to rescue your beloved people and things from the Triumvirate of Feculence romping and rolling before you. Overcome by the malodor you guiltily turn from your suffering beloved towards the closest window in search of fresh air. You look out the window into a vast sea of zombies that you somehow know are mindless. They shuffle in place, monotonously chanting Ed's name in reverence, as if he is their savior. Their cacophony drowns out your thoughts. Your soul whimpers. The horror continues. After awhile you realize that the zombie's have a harmony that sounds eerily familiar, like one of John Williams' anthems. The crescendo builds, your dog cries out for help, Ed looks euphoric, grandma screams, the hell continues. You resign to your helplessness and wish it was all just a nightmarish dream you might wake up from, that it really is just a really bad movie. It ends with the promise of sequels and merchandising. You look around you and see others who seem to have had the same experience, interspersed with zombies like you just saw in the film. Mindless, and beaming. You wish it never happened. You, who never prays, find yourself praying to wake up soon, and that it's really all just a horrifically bad movie in a bad dream.

Turn your computer off. Put yourself cellphone down. Walk away from both for at least 2 months. Discover life without technology. Discover your imagination. Earn an attention span. Then enjoy reading, and so many other things so much more.

Nah, it's always the rogue. Make the Monk companion in the expansion heartlessly evil instead. I'd prefer to see the evil Barbarian myself. I never have use for monks.

This is a nice surprise. I never knew this was in the works. Finally, there's something to look forward to movie wise in 2015.

I seem to recall otherwise in regards to your opinion on Al-Jazeera. Finding that thread though won't be easy, as it's quite some time back. If I'm mistaken, my apologies. If you like Al-Jazeera that's good. It's a step in the right direction. Here's an example of hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, or something of the like: 'I have disdain for the BBC because they are funded and controlled by the government of the United Kingdom yet claim to be objective, its not hard to understand the difference between the BBC and other international news channels that bring us global news.' Obviously your disdain is your disdain. You hold the BBC in high regard, and RT in low regard. Some of the criticism you lay on RT however, is also applicable to your cherished BBC. If one is to be capable of recognizing objectivity, one must be objective themselves.

It's a Trap! There is no trap laid for the General. I wouldn't mislead him so. The only traps appearing in this thread so far are the one's folks lay for themselves.

Be it as it may, your intention based on your personal history falls under Poe's law, hence misjudging your position. Regardless, considering the host of disfranchised kids here and the popularity of PC culture, my post is still relevant for the discussion at hand. Not really, on both counts. 'Poe's law' is not applicable to this scenario. You're new to the forum, there's nothing wrong with that. However, opining on things that are unclear to you is an indication of lack of good judgement skills at the very least. Stick around, read, get to know the posters, and have a clue what you're typing before you start typing and you might become one of the few here that post interesting things. Right now it's mostly just vitriolic idiocy based on assumptions you come up with in your head.

And two more for you good General, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ou9rOssPg

General, RT is not near as bad as you think. Many if not most of it's guests are American, and it hardly is just a 'constant negative view of the west'. It does however fairly constantly report stories that fly in the face of many myths you hold dear. Russia is hardly alone in owning media outlets directed at nations other than itself. Many nations dabble in such matters, including the U.S., which has many media outlets for overseas propaganda purposes, and of course the U.K., that nation who supposedly no longer runs the world's largest empire but just so happens to own the world's largest propaganda.... oh sorry, I'll use the PC term you'll be more comfortable with: largest international news network. It's a coincidence I'm sure. The sad truth is that RT, PressTV, and Al Jazeera whom all you have railed against, generally are far more objective in the stories they do cover than any major western mainstream 'news' outlet. Your list of journalists killed doesn't really amount to much. The wiki is as ever incomplete, and many of the deaths listed are the result of war. That said, of course the occasional journalist is snuffed out in Russia because of what they said or what they were investigating, but this also happens in the 'west' as well. You would dismiss such claims as 'conspiracy theory' though. As for how much influence the governments of the 'west' have on media? Well, that varies quite a bit. In the U.S. for example no major network is outright owned by the government, though PBS and NPR get quite a decent chunk of government funding, and government agencies do exert some degree of influence over the mainstream media. In the U.K. there's the BBC, which is owned by the government. Australia also has a 'news' station owned by it's government. In the 'west' however, it often is not so much how much influence the government has on the media but how much influence the puppeteers of the government have on the media, and the answer to that is one helluva lot. So good General, I'm sorry to disappoint but you shot yourself in the foot, confusing it with a Russian foot. It's somewhat understandable, as they do look very much the same these days. I have recommended you watch these before, and it's clear to me you haven't yet, but here again are some of my recommendations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOygpfEl7nE

I don't usually SNL anymore, but a buddy pointed this one out. It's fairly on the mark. It also shows how a much her clout is spent. SNL won't make fun of a candidate in this manner that Lorne and the other execs want to win.

They had buzz, but never a chance. Bachman had buzz like Justin Bieber can grow a beard. Perry had quite a bit more. A legitimate shaggy he was. He fudged one debate bad though and never recovered.

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries? In case it's completely missed you, which it seems to have done, the issue is not merely about 'freedom of expression'. There are other issues at play. Libel and fraud being two of them, both of which are recognized in western law (to varying degrees depending on where you live). As I said before, I can't read Russian so can't get at the finer points of the law, but as it's been represented, there actually may be little wrong with it, and very well might even stand up as a law in the U.S.. We have legislation on the books in regards to Libel and Fraud already, which, situationally could apply to memes. The thing about memes in the U.S. though is that it would generally be hard to prove who was responsible for it, one meme alone isn't usually damaging, and the people behind most of them are idiots without much money, so a civil suit is almost never going to be feasible because of these and other factors. Very well said and i agree. In fact there isn´t that much difference in free speech if you compare russia and the west. The whole idea that everyone in the east is oppressed is realy nothing but a propaganda tool, too many people believe Russia today is still like the Soviet Union, well it´s not Also, concerning free speech in the west...i always saw it more like a farce full of double standarts, but before i write another mega post i will just point to this article, which is a decent view on it, in my opinion: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/10/392456/The-farce-of-Western-free-speech 'Freedom of Speech' in many nations in the west does not now nor has ever really existed. It's a myth that it exists. A decent litmus test is to look up which nations outlaw questioning aspects of the 'Holocaust'. Where you have a nation that will put someone in jail for questioning the 'Holocaust' you will find a nation that will put people in jail for other bits of speech as well. Those nations do not have true 'Freedom of Speech' enshrined in their culture or law. (tip: question anything and everything that any government ever outlaws discussion about). Many nations have adopted anti 'hate speech' laws in recent years, which sometimes encompass questioning the 'holocaust'. ie: Canada In the U.S. it does did exist. It's enshrined in the highest law of the land (which is increasingly ignored or perverted in some manner), and historically has been a fundamental concept in our culture. In modern times though that culture has been under fire and is deteriorating, ie: the subversive cultural Marxist ambiguous concept of 'hate speech' landed here in the States in recent times and laws have been enacted against it, something which is entirely unconstitutional and doesn't bode well at all for the health of the nation. To a large degree though you can get away with saying anything you want in the U.S.. Legally anyways. Just don't violate those unconstitutional ambiguous anti 'hatespeech' laws (which don't exist in every state), and end up before a judge which will put those laws above the constitution. For the most part though, you'll only find yourself violating those laws if you've violated some other law. They're generally just politicized laws designed to subvert the culture, and in practice generally just exacerbate a situation where someone is already getting charged for some other crime. For example: You can say 'i hope you die you mother ****ing *'N' word* all you want. You won't be convicted of a speech crime (at least not yet; you might get arrested by an idiot though). You can't say that very thing though while beating a black person up without being charged with a 'hate' crime in some jurisdictions. Or beat a black person up after having said such a thing where others could hear you. The insanity and evil of such laws, which largely amount to thought policing, is obvious to some but amazingly not to others (or they're just evil). And such things are on the rise. (The road ahead is getting darker as we go.) Laws against libel and fraud exist of course, but generally don't land you in jail (especially in the case of the former) unless you've defrauded some 'official' government sanctioned thing. To a large degree these laws just allow people who have been damaged in a substantial way to seek redress against those who damaged them (if what was said was false). A jury gets to decide either way, most of the time (unless a plea/settlement deal is reached). ie: A recent somewhat famous example of this was Jessie Ventura's successful suit against the estate of Chris Kyle.

He had some points. But, and that is just my 2 cents here, if you want a discussion about this, you should stop the picture spam and make some very clear points Tip: Oby is a troll, and an exceptionally deluded one at that. Don't waste much time in his threads or on his posts. In general he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Occasionally he does make decent points in a round about way, though it's more than likely just by accident, in the manner that a broken clock is right twice a day.

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries? In case it's completely missed you, which it seems to have done, the issue is not merely about 'freedom of expression'. There are other issues at play. Libel and fraud being two of them, both of which are recognized in western law (to varying degrees depending on where you live). As I said before, I can't read Russian so can't get at the finer points of the law, but as it's been represented, there actually may be little wrong with it, and very well might even stand up as a law in the U.S.. We have legislation on the books in regards to Libel and Fraud already, which, situationally could apply to memes. The thing about memes though is that it would generally be hard to prove who was responsible for it, one meme alone isn't usually damaging, and the people behind most of them are idiots without much money, so a civil suit is rarely going to be feasible because of these and other factors. So you support this move in Russia ? General, As I've tried to point out to you repeatedly, the world is generally not made up of black and white. I don't support nor condemn this move in Russia as I've not seen the actual legal language myself. In my own nation, where I can read the laws, there are articles misrepresenting those laws all the time. Propaganda is everywhere, arguably even more so in regards to foreign nations. In the case of this situation it certainly is dishonest to say 'The Kremlin declares war on memes', but that headline serves to reinforce a narrative for the brainwashed, so it is used. If I support any law at all I would support one that allows those reasonably damaged by fraud and libel (via meme or any other manner) to seek redress, ie: anti-Libel and anti-Fraud laws.

Emo alert! Yea.... This poster right here is enough to turn me off from this game.

Nope.... Bachman was never as serious a contender as any of the three Republicans that are currently in the race, and she didn't announce her candidacy until June of 2011. At this point last time she was being talked about less than Gingrich (who also hadn't announced yet) was then and Walker is now. Romney did announce by this time last election cycle, he was one of the first to do so. Also, all three current Republican candidates are stronger candidates than the majority of the Republican field from 2012. Paul at least will be in it for the long haul, Cruz likely will as well. Rubio, even though he currently has the best chance, might bow out if the media and the puppet masters of the Republican party decide to back another. Rubio is pretty much just a puppet. The road to the Republican nomination is also going to be much different this time than last time. There's no Ron Paul (Rand is not his father), for the establishment to have to go out of their way to marginalize. To a large degree Romney got the nomination due to sitting back and allowing the other contenders to go after Paul in the debates and media, thereby damaging them (as Paul generally beat up those he debated), but not himself. This time around Cruz and Paul very well may cancel each other out, which would just make the darling of the puppet masters and mainstream media (whoever it is) cruise to victory. This of course assumes that nothing super major happens on the world scene, ie: collapse of the current financial system, another massive 'terrorist' attack, or world war 3. All of which are on the horizon, but unlikely to happen within the next ~18 months.