Valsuelm

The point I tried to make was that their training seems less focused on diffusing situations rather than responding with full force. There's a world of difference with making mistakes while doing your job and having been trained wrong. @Hurlshot: While I'm all for freedom of speech I can understand why a police department might not want to be associated with them, still the problem should be handled at a Federal level (which my conspiracy sense tells me that its the whole point of publicizing these transgressions) Edit: I just realized that that last part could be misinterpreted to mean that the racist's cop case should be handled at a federal level. I meant to say that the police brutality and investigations into police corruption should be handled at a federal level rather than by IA. Absolutely not. I'm not sure if there is a worse case scenario than that. Putting aside the fact that the Feds have no authority to do such a thing, centralizing that kind of power would be worse than letting the foxes in the hen house. There is no simple solution in regards to fixing the police brutality and abuse issue. There's a myriad of causes and different departments/localities have different problems. The solution is at the local and state level. The only thing to be done at the Federal level in regards to local police forces would be to amend the Constitution to forbid the oodles of immunity and special privileges laws that have been given to public officials and police over the last century. That isn't happening anytime soon.

From the backer portal: A full collection of the musical tracks from the game, composed and arranged by Justin Bell, Obsidian's audio director. Now includes track names, track order, metadata/tags, and album art.

Yea.. it's been a few years since I played it but I'm near certain Rosveen is correct. Best place to ask to be sure though would be on the forums of the folks who made/host the mod: http://www.shsforums.net/

Good god the thread has gone crazy far quicker than I could have predicted. Please do. I don't recall you ever offering anything insightful on any subject ever brought up here. You generally just come into a thread, spout some vitriolic nonsense and attempt to marginalize points of view you don't understand and/or disagree with, usually in a very immature manner such as now. About the only good thing you ever offer any discussions is your avatar. However, Cranky Kong was far more insightful and witty in his commentary than you. All you've got is the crankiness.

I'm not surprised. Despite all that blah 'bout how they care about the gamers wishes - in reality they don't give a f***. Many asked for a walk toggle back when the game was still in development but Sawyer and Co. decided to ignore it. I really don't want to be rude but that's pissing me off. Honestly I so regret that I gave them my money: I can't enjoy the game anyway... For ****'s sake can't you just swallow your snot-nosed attitude and give us what we want? We're not asking you for a super complex and expensive new feature that would take months to make and implement but to do something a decent modder could do within 5 minutes provided he had the tools. While I agree that walking should have been the default and a run toggle should have been in the game (that you could turn permanently on in options if you wanted), I wouldn't get too upset about them not fixing the situation in the week 1 patch. They had a number of serious bugs to fix. Give them some time. I'm hopeful the situation will be remedied.

Of course not. That would go against the culturally Marxist subversive and false narrative of women being oppressed. The government in general does not recognize most rapes where the female is the perpetrator, and when it does the consequences for those females is much less than the consequences men face, if the females even face consequences at all. That said, I'm somewhat surprised to see that article published on yahoo. I've noticed the tide beginning to turn, but I think this is the first time I've seen a mainstream source begin to tell it like it is.

Why would you not release the patch standalone for gog users? Why isn't the old tried and true formula of releasing a patch via downloadable installer (or even just files you copy over your installation) available? How are you going to handle patching for those of us who have physical DRM-Free disks coming our way?

You could hit the cap for BG1 pretty easily hours ahead of the final boss as well so its not like this hasn't been done before in other games. I do think the cap for this game should have been at least two levels lower though. Everything has become trivial now. That it could be done in BG1 isn't really an argument that it's good, though. I really can't understand the buff to XP gains. I wish there was a way to turn the additional experience off completely, or maybe even nerf it globally, just a little. I personally feel that to hit the XP cap, you should have to finish almost absolutely everything in the game. And I agree that the game should've been capped at 10 or so, too, but eh, I guess it was not to be. I totally agree. I wish there was a slider along with all the other difficulty settings we could use to adjust XP gains between 50% and 100% or something. I hate hitting the cap. There ended up being a mod or two for BG that removed that cap. I look forward to one for PoE. XP caps suck.

Just the usual anti-Islam, anti-Muslim stuff. You know... Where people pretend that Muslims are trying to take over the world, have a monopoly on killing people in droves, are actually a threat to any western nation's security, and just generally responsible for all the big evils in the world that Russia isn't. Wals is apparently back, bigoted and lazy as ever. Can't even post a bad link to the subject he wants people to talk about.

http://www.kirith.com/portrait/ http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/index_portraits.php http://modlist.pocketplane.net/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=71

The link is broken.... How did you find this treasure trove? I'd like to locate it if possible. The samples you post are great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ49vdzLMIk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQJVhTnP-A

Why do you even care? It's not your money, after all. He's a troll. He doesn't really care. He just creates threads for the reasons trolls do.

I would imagine that given who Satan is and what he represents that most Christians would object to participating in a Satanic ritual celebrating the marriage of a man and a woman. Most certainly most Christians would object to baking a cake with an upside down cross on it, no matter what it was for. You may as well ask a Jew to bake a cake with a Swastika on it, or a devout Hindu butcher to chop up some cows for you. If you look really hard you might find some that might, but you'd probably find a lot more telling you to bugger off (moreso I would think in the latter scenario). There are many things that a Christian (or anyone else, religious or not) might morally object to and not want any part of. Why marriage is seen as good.... that would take a book to answer fully. Put simply: Marriage is generally seen as good as Christians in general celebrate life (a fundamental reason that in general Christians oppose abortion), and view marriage as the ideal and best manner in which children can be brought into the world and raised. Sex outside of marriage is frowned upon for a variety of reasons. The bond of marriage is a sacred holy bond to many Christians. Christians generally hold the love and bond between a man and woman in high regard. As for Christian views of non-Christians getting married and having kids. Most Christians don't view non-Christians as folks who will necessarily suffer eternal damnation, Certainly there are some who do. Heck there are sects of Christians (of pretty much any religion) that think if one doesn't follow their way one is going to suffer eternally, or in this life. For the most part however, people with such thoughts are not deriving them from their religion, but to their credit, most if not all of those sects do attempt to persuade others to follow their way of life, so in their minds they do try and save those that they see as being on the path to hell. Christians certainly generally do not look at a child of anyone (even Mr. and Mrs. Satan's kid) and think to themselves that the kid is going to hell because of his parents (note that Christians who protest abortions aren't saying 'we're only protesting abortions by Christians, the others can abort for all we care, in fact we hope they do'; Christians generally view all human life as sacred). If anything they'd look at it as a new opportunity to tell someone else of Christ and the Bible. This is part of the reason (though I wouldn't say the primary) that a great deal of missionary and charity work is done all over the world where Christianity is not common, by many Christian churches. Note: I'm not exactly a practicing Christian. I do know a lot about Christianity, as I'm a lifelong student of history, went to a Christian church as a kid, and find the subject of religions and spirituality very interesting. if you want better answers than what I've given, I recommend actually going to one of your local churches and attempting to talk to one of it's clergy or even some of it's members. Clergy in general are happy to talk to people about their religion and answer questions. Even to people not of their religion (this is how I learned quite a bit of what I know of Judaism). Members of course run the spectrum a bit more, from those who will happily talk to you to those who for whatever reason would rather not, and of course some will be more intelligent and knowledgeable on whatever subject you're interested in than others. I myself almost always have interesting conversations with the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses when they stop by in hopes of converting me. Believe it or not, most of them are pretty smart in my experience and aren't afraid of tough questions. I also have had some interesting conversations with an old priest turned part-time auto salesman who I run into at a local bar on occasion. And by way of a former job know more rabbis than priests at this point in my life. If one is respectful, people often are happy to talk about their religion with you. Morality and discussions about it can be quite complex. Such things are best done in person.

He is the guy who posted the logic fail video about shooting cops. So who cares.. NM, my mistake, I was thinking off Valsuelm. Logic fail eh? Please explain logically, where any fail is.

Haha. Volourn uses quotations correctly for once and confuses many people.

I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. But if the particular sect of a Christian church doesn't recognize gay marriage, its not a marriage at all to them. So why is it important? And why is it sinful other over heretical marriages to the point that it is singled out as prohibited? I already told you, but I guess I'll repeat. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. To be more clear they see homosexuality (and other 'LGBT' behaviors) as immoral and destructive, and they want no part of celebrating what they see as immoral, destructive, and sinful. Might some people, Christian or other, have a belief that participating in a wedding ceremony of someone who holds a faith other than theirs is sinful? Possibly, there's a lot of people out there. But in general, Christians have no problem with a marriage between a man and a woman no matter what that man and woman's faith is or isn't. A marriage between a man and woman is generally seen as a good thing to Christians.

I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful.

Oby isn't delusional, he's just trollin'.... It's rare that a troll isn't delusional.

I'm pretty sure using a sample of one is what's a "load of crock" here. Not really. Keep Kaspersky. If you're going to link an AV comparison guide, use a good one, not what you linked. Could you specify what makes the AV comparison guide you linked better than the one I linked? When I read your guide, it says the same thing as the one I linked: Bitdefender 6 awards (4 Gold, 1 Bronze, Product of the year) - 18 points in my guide Kaspersky 6 awards (2 Gold, 3 Silver, Top Rated Product 2014) - 18 points in my guide Eset NOD32 4 awards (1 Gold, 2 Bronze, Top Rated Product 2014) - 15 points in my guide Bitdefender is the best, Kaspersky second and NOD32 a bit behind, in both guides. Well, first you linked an article, not the source the article is based on, but If all you're doing is look at medals and ratings I suppose it doesn't really matter. If you look a bit more into the two it should be apparent why AV-Comparatives is better than AV-Test (the article's source) . In short it does some more rigorous testing, provides quite bit more useful information, as well as better explanation behind it's findings.

You really underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare, while your point still stands the could cripple the Southern Lands economically (Although I doubt they had the presence of mind to stick to guerrilla tactics) Well... not only can guerrilla warfare be successful, there's a number of fairly famous incidents in history where the 'rabble' soundly defeated what some considered the better organized, better equipped army. The folks that fought the war that founded the nation I live in were considered rabble by many, as were the Finnish in the Winter War, the Zulus, various Native American tribes that fought quite successfully against the U.S., Mexicans, et al for awhile, the Huns, Germans, and Barbarians of Roman times, and so on. [Note: possible minor spoilers if you haven't read the book below, but I only reference things that are revealed in the books up until the point of the Battle for Castle Black.] The situation of the Wildlings was somewhat simplified for the show. I honestly don't recall all the details of the battle where Stannis captured Mance other than that the element of surprise was crucial, Mance's army was already quite weary from fierce battle with the crows, and in the book it was not the complete rout that the TV show portrays it as (in general the TV show really glosses over some awesomely described battles, more than a couple of times; the only battle I think the show did a fair amount of justice to was the battle for King's Landing in season 2). The end result is the same though: Mance surrenders. Here's a few factors that are pertinent to the Wildlings being far more than just rabble. Had Mance been at full strength when Stannis arrived and known he was coming the outcome very well might have been much different. 1. There's a poopton of them. 2. They aren't looking to conquer really, they're looking to get beyond the wall, settle, and use the Wall as a shield against the Others (what it was meant for). Mance isn't an idiot. On the contrary he's very intelligent, insightful, and pragmatic. He's from south of the wall, he used to be a crow. He knows what he's leading and what he needs to do. Direct conflict with well organized southern armies was something he was looking to avoid if possible. 3. The Wildlings are fleeing the Others. They have no choice but to assault the Wall. it's get south of the wall and try and make a life there or remain north for certain very unpleasant death for them. 4. They've got giants, mammoths, and other allies that aren't quite human that trump your average human. In the book these forces actually do a good amount of damage to Stannis's troops. 5. Mance knows that the crows are badly outnumbered. He knows Castle Black's defenses. He knows all of the Wall's defenses. 6. The bulk of the King of the North's army is far to the south and cannot defend the Wall. And in short, no one is coming to the defense of the Wall. If Stannis didn't show up, the Wildlings would have taken the Wall and pretty much had their way with the North, for quite some time. If not indefinitely as the forces of the south are otherwise occupied. 7. Melisandre kills Varamyr's eagle, which Mance was relying on as his eyes. This is something completely unexpected (there's no indication the Wildlings are familiar with Melisandre's kind of magic, but even if they are they have no reason to believe that the crows or anyone fighting for the Seven Kingdoms has access to it), something almost no one else could do, and crucial for securing Stannis that element of surprise. This probably more than anything else lead to victory for Stannis. 8. Mance has spies south of the Wall, and he knows quite a lot of what's going on there. He even spied south of the wall himself prior to the Wildling's march on the wall. 9. While there's some rabble within the Wildling's army, they are not quite as unorganized as portrayed in the show. In the books it's made fairly clear that Mance feigns more disorganization than the Wildlings really have to Jon and the crows. Mance has a number of lieutenants that are competent and loyal to the cause if not to him. Some of which are not portrayed much if at all in the show. Anyways. In short, the Wildlings were not just rabble. Had they met Stannis on the field fresh and unsurprised evidence in the book suggests they very well may have kicked his ass right back out of the north. Remember too, that the Wildlings are in a fight or die position, most of them realize this, which a primary reason why they joined Mance to begin with. Stannis is leading an army of mostly mercenaries, fighting in lands they do not know against a foe that knows those lands. Loyal to the coin they are paid. In general I'll put my money on the man who is fighting for his and his family's life over the man who is fighting for some coin, just about any day.

You realize you're putting a whole bunch of spoilers out there for a lot people right? Had I not read the books I'd be hating you right now. Very big spoilers for anyone who has not read A Dance with Dragons below:

There's a few different theories on the subject. The place to go to read and discuss them is here.

The great wrong was the 1964 Civil Rights act that had provisions in it that were unconstitutional. Without it, we wouldn't have the problem (at least in most places; states could pass similar laws if their Constitution allowed, discussing that is a huge 'what if' speculation scenario with many variables) of folks suing private businesses because they think they were discriminated against. Arguably the even greater wrong however was the corruption and bastardization of the Constitution in rulings such as Wickard v. Filburn, that created the infamous commerce clause loophole that has been used to justify all sorts of expansion of power and evil by the Federal government, such as parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Without FDR's packed court, decisions such as Wickard v. Filburn which entirely changed how the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution was legally interpreted (generally for the worse unless you're a socialist or fascist of some sort), we wouldn't have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or at least the unconstitutional provisions in it which applied to private businesses. Discussing this, the fundamentals of how we got here, is taboo in many people's eyes though, as the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a sacred cow to many, as generations have been taught for the most part that this was a only a good thing and necessary. One is generally automatically deemed a racist or some other bad thing if one comes out against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which while it had some good provisions, it also had some evil draconian tyrannical provisions. Two wrongs don't make a right and the ends don't justify the means both very much apply here. These are some the building blocks on the road of good intentions to hell. But we can't talk about them as a nation because the populace as a whole has been conditioned to reject rational discussion of the issue. In the mainstream media and the brainwashee's mind the issue is settled, cannot be revisited, and anyone questioning it is marginalized. So, we continue to keep laying bricks to hell, with this issue and others.