Valsuelm

There's a little Dana Barrett in all of us today.

Jeremiah and his mighty fine wine rarely ceases to lift me up. Words of mighty wisdom to live by in this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf-d-Ka30EY Freddie and the boys also have a great song to put it all in the right perspective:

Game reviewers are not generally known for being observant or insightful. It's been almost a decade since I've seen or read a good 'professional' review of a game. And I mean good as in the quality of the review, not the quality of the game. Most reviewers are as objective and insightful as the magazine Consumer Reports is.

What a level-headed and fair-minded statement. Totally doesn't make you come across as a fanatic who has fallen in with a bigoted hate movement. Very leveled headed and extremely fair. Netanyahu has earned his spot as evil leader #1. However, he is not worthy of hate, and there's no bigotry here. Bibi is indeed a fear monger as well as a warmonger, and expressing my disgust for such an individual /= bigotry nor does it equate to hate. Attempting to say such things belies just how weak your own thoughts and arguments are. If you choose to interpret what I said the way you do, so be it. Your interpretation of things as I've read them make many of the adolescently minded trolls on this forum look like very insightful and astute individuals. You, perhaps more than anyone else that's read this thread should watch the video I linked above, as well as this one, and this one.

While I agree with pretty much everything else you said, I disagree with this. I loved Battlestar Galactica but every time I heard the word 'frak' it threw me right out of the show. Sounded way too forced and contrived to me. I feel they should have just gone with the real thing and just toned down the amount of times they used it. Obviously, this whole discussion is totally subjective though. Oh, I thoroughly agree they overused the word, and that it was forced and contrived much of the time. BSG's writing was not near as consistently good as it could and should have been.

I generally agree. I drop F bombs in the real world all the time. I spent too much time working in bars and truck stops when I was younger. There's a time and a place though. I've no problem with adult themes, or even some cussing in the game. However, the F word generally feels way out of place when I see it in games, especially fantasy games (or fantasy books), and it's usually bad writing when I see it. I hope it's used well when it's used, and sparingly. Otherwise it's effect is just blah, rather than anything that adds to the experience. A good example of effective writing with profanity was Breaking Bad. They used the F word once per season, and with great effect. I hope the writers of PoE took some lessons from Breaking Bad (all writers should, as it was an amazingly well written show). Another good lesson in writing (in particular fantasy writing) in regards to profanity was the Battlestar Gallactica reboot. Where they made up their own word, Frak, used in place of the F word. It was used to great effect.

I think helicopters shouldn't be flying over people's homes taking pictures, unless asked by those living there to do so.

The following is a speech given in 2012 by Miko Peled, who was born in Jerusalem into a famous and influential Israeli Zionist family. His father was a famous General in the Israeli Army, in which Miko also served time. Even if you know the history of the region well, this presentation is very much worth watching all the way through.

Saw Billy Joel this last week, and for the first time since the Stormfront tour. At 65 he still puts on an absolutely amazing show. Was one of the best concerts I'd seen in a very long time. Pretty sure I'm going to be swinging down the MSG to catch another one of his shows later this year. Might even see if I can get my ass out to Bonaroo this year, where he's headlining. Here's two of my faves:

One has a better chance of being struck by lightning, killed by a cop, or winning a million dollars than meeting one of the people behind the 444 twitter accounts that said something that could be construed as supporting ISIS. Lion and Tigers and ISIS oh my! More importantly:

I would be awesome if people actually read the thread before they posted...

This is a cRPG that is supposed to be based on the IE games. All of which awarded XP for killing. XP for killing in an RPG is fundamental to most PnP RPGs, not just AD&D, which the IE games were based on, and very arguably the vast majority of all cRPGs ever made to a degree. No one is forcing you to 'search for every skeleton', etc. Being a completionist or an XP farmer is one's prerogative. For those that are the latter, they're just going to go about it a different way in a game without combat XP. A good GM (the game acts as a GM) awards quest XP, RP XP, combat XP, and so on. There's many things that can earn one XP in a well run campaign. Not having combat XP in a game that is supposed to be based on the IE games, and have a great amount of combat as those games did, is one of the a fundamental divergences that Obsidian has taken, to the dismay of many, if not most of the people that backed the game because Obsidian primarily invoked the IE games in their pitch.

I find it unfortunate that you force all retail shoppers who want a physical edition to use Steam.

I wonder if there's some loser American on some Russian gaming forum somewhere that trolls Russians and tries to insult their nation on a semi-regular basis.

The radical Zionists who run Israel do not have now, nor have they ever had any intention of allowing Palestine to exist as a state, nor have they ever had any intention of returning the land they took during the 6 day war, nor any they took prior to that.

Indeed. Any competent U.S. president that has U.S. interests in mind first and foremost would tell Israel that they'd shoot down their planes if they flew over U.S. controlled airspace on their way to start a war. In particular one that has an almost certain potential to drag the U.S. into it, as well as to become WW3. That said. It's likely nothing more than political theater BS that it was said. To rile up the pro-Israeli and anti-Obama zombies who are completely unaware of the U.S.S. Liberty and other things that go to show that Israel is anything but a good ally to the U.S..

Your puzzling skills are lacking.

I said that I think banning abortion is socialistic which is not the same as saying it's socialist specifically, but rather that it seems like the kind of thing socialists would be inclined to do. Uhm. Why? I mean... Since socialism is traditionally tied to atheism, why would they ban abortion? Abortion is usually banned on religious grounds. No, it's not usually banned on religious grounds. It's historically usually banned on the grounds that many people, religious and not, consider it murder. Banning murder is not socialistic. If one does not see it as murder then I can see how one would consider it that though. As for communists. There is no standard communist position on the matter. ie: At various times the Soviet Union allowed and banned abortion. However communist Russia was the first nation in the world to allow it Carte blanche. Later they changed their minds (many have theorized they did this when the population of ethnic Russians wasn't as growing as much Stalin would have liked). So, in the case of the U.S.S.R., one might say that the stance on abortion was a matter of state run reproductive policy, which would indeed make the issue of abortion socialistic in that nation. In the world at large there are multiple schools of thought in regards to the issue. Some are technocratic, some are socialistic, for some it's just a matter of 'women's rights', for some it's just a matter of seeing it at murder, and so on. In the U.S. all of these schools exist, but the 'woman's right's movement' and the 'right to life' (those who consider it murder) are the two major factions that generally get the airplay on the news, and for the most part has what's been driving any legislation in regards to the matter. The less dominant schools of thought ally or attempt to manipulate these major schools (as they do with pretty much any issue). So while there is no obviously visible direct influence by technocrats or socialists one could argue they have influenced the debate. Indeed many have argued that the modern women's rights movement itself is socialistic or technocratic in nature, in addition many have argued that the issue of abortion itself is technocraticly driven from a eugenics perspective. Interesting post Vals Whats your view on abortion? I am fine with it under the right circumstances, I think it is a very traumatic experience for any women and most of the time its not done without careful consideration My view is that it's a very grey issue. The circumstances in regards to what leads a woman to want to get an abortion vary greatly. I think both of the major mainstream schools of thought as represented in the media have it wrong, as they are presented to have a black and white view of the matter, and indeed this is how many see it. In my experience those who see it as a black and white issue (should be allowed 100% or should be banned 100%) generally have not thought the issue through at all, and have allowed media to define their opinions on the matter (which is common for many to do on any given issue). The legal issues are quite complex. Roe v. Wade, the landmark case in regards to the issue in the U.S. is quite complex, as is the subsequent fallout from it. In the main stream media (which is generally dominated by leftist thought) Roe v. Wade has been misrepresented as to allow abortion Carte blanche. It did not do this, yet it is commonly celebrated by many to have done so. While I generally agree with the ultimate outcome of the case, I vehemently disagree with some of the arguments and reasoning made during it, as indeed some of those arguments were socialistic in nature (I generally stand firmly opposed to socialism as well as generally agree with the argument that the court didn't have Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter). Again though, the issue is very complex. A discussion about Roe v. Wade between people knowledgeable on the issue could last a great many hours in person. And Roe v Wade aside, there are many different scenarios one could discuss, and in many of them the questions of 'should the state be involved?', and 'if so in what manner?' leads to a complex discussions in themselves.

I said that I think banning abortion is socialistic which is not the same as saying it's socialist specifically, but rather that it seems like the kind of thing socialists would be inclined to do. Uhm. Why? I mean... Since socialism is traditionally tied to atheism, why would they ban abortion? Abortion is usually banned on religious grounds. No, it's not usually banned on religious grounds. It's historically usually banned on the grounds that many people, religious and not, consider it murder. Banning murder is not socialistic. If one does not see it as murder then I can see how one would consider it that though. As for communists. There is no standard communist position on the matter. ie: At various times the Soviet Union allowed and banned abortion. However communist Russia was the first nation in the world to allow it Carte blanche. Later they changed their minds (many have theorized they did this when the population of ethnic Russians wasn't as growing as much Stalin would have liked). So, in the case of the U.S.S.R., one might say that the stance on abortion was a matter of state run reproductive policy, which would indeed make the issue of abortion socialistic in that nation. In the world at large there are multiple schools of thought in regards to the issue. Some are technocratic, some are socialistic, for some it's just a matter of 'women's rights', for some it's just a matter of seeing it at murder, and so on. In the U.S. all of these schools exist, but the 'woman's right's movement' and the 'right to life' (those who consider it murder) are the two major factions that generally get the airplay on the news, and for the most part has what's been driving any legislation in regards to the matter. The less dominant schools of thought ally or attempt to manipulate these major schools (as they do with pretty much any issue). So while there is no obviously visible direct influence by technocrats or socialists one could argue they have influenced the debate. Indeed many have argued that the modern women's rights movement itself is socialistic or technocratic in nature, in addition many have argued that the issue of abortion itself is technocraticly driven from a eugenics perspective.

I imagine some folks in Rome said this when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I wonder if they realized it might be the better part of two millennia before it got better. A new dark age is on the horizon.

Indeed. Except combat XP was broken. So they fixed it. Bestiary XP is awesome, and more games should use that instead. It's a shame Obsidian caved in on Trap/Lock XP and added it to the game. Now you don't have a choice but to farm every trap and lock. No... it wasn't broken, and yea... you do have a choice. Also, to each their own, but I humbly suggest you never 'farm' anything when playing an RPG. You'll likely enjoy it much more. Though I suppose there are some out there that like to 'farm', you lament thinking you have to, so... simply don't. Or play something else. The concepts of 'farming' or 'grinding' have become increasingly common in the last decade when discussing various video games. I contend that if one thinks it's 'farming' or 'grinding' that the game is not inherently fun, or the person engaging in it has a somewhat masochistic idea of what fun is. At the very least it's usually a glass half empty approach.

Never said that. I considered it socialistic as it suggests collective ownership of people's bodies. Was going to say this is the dumbest thing I've read all day but then I got to the Nazi sympathizing. Only just hopped on and I've already had enough Off-Topic for one day. You need to be strong and resolute Baro....enough to despise the power of the Off-Topic Or failing that have the mental fortitude to just engage in debate, peoples opinions on this section are not that unfathomable or unreasonable Unfathomable? No. Haven't once come across an opinion here or anywhere that was. Unreasonable? Lots of them, here and elsewhere. Stems from not knowing what one is talking about most of the time. Though, for arguments sake, one usually can even consider an unreasonable opinion in realistic terms reasonable when one considers the limited bits of knowledge one bases their opinion on. ie: This girl's reaction is reasonable when one considers the limited scope of her knowledge.

He's #1? Really? Kim Jong Un doesn't trump Netanyahu? Kim? LOL (old school, as in you actually made me laugh out loud (the internet was a better place when LOL meant what it says)) Kim is largely harmless. I'm not saying he's a good guy, but he doesn't have near the blood on his sleeve than many other leaders do. He doesn't even rank top 10, hell, not even top 20, maybe even 50. Unless of course you had your heart set on a mohawk, then maybe he's the worst of the worst.

Iran is the wrong people, it doesn't get more wrong unless you resurrect hitler. Btw, there's no Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons. http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/03/16/there-is-no-fatwa-condemning-nuclear-weapons-by-irans-ayatollah-khamenei/ This Andrew McCarthy > yours. While I do occasionally enjoy Bill Whittle diatribes about the state of things, PJ Media is about as naive and ignorant as any media source comes when it comes to international matters (this sadly includes Bill to a large degree). Especially when talking about Iran or Israel. The pro-Israeli propaganda is heavy on that channel, and the organization that the article is citing (MEMRI) is a pro-Israeli 501c. I trust them about as much as I trust Obama to tell the truth, maybe less. That said. Fatwa or no Fatwa, it doesn't really matter. Iran would be dumb to not get nukes if they can, given the historical hostility from it's some of it's neighbors, the U.S., U.K., and Israel. Nothing could assure it's national defense more than nukes, sadly.