Valsuelm

Before I initially replied to this thread I took to youtube and watched the video of the student judicial meeting, as well as a couple of short news presentations and an interview with Mr. Baral. If you haven't already done so, I recommend doing so. Watching the actual footage is just about always superior to reading an article about that footage. Baral is either a moron or very disingenuous (I'll wager a combination of both, as those are generally the qualifications of people who seek to be president of things like student judicial boards). And if you didn't know, the probability that he's Jewish himself is extremely high as both his first and last names are Jewish names. Chances are it's him that tried to make a mountain out of a molehill that wasn't really there to begin with.

One of my first great disappointments in life was realizing that the myth that people at universities are smarter is just that, a myth. In particular the ones that are supposed to be the best, like Harvard, MIT, et al. That is not to say that there are not intelligent people at these places. There are. And due to the nature of these places being institutions of learning, you will generally find a higher ratio of intelligent people to morons than you will in most other places in the world. But that ratio isn't that much higher. There are oodles of morons on any given campus. Oodles. Idiots still make up the majority, even at places like Harvard, Cambridge, et al. And college campus or not, when you have a society that not only has come to tolerate doublespeak, doublethink, PC, and other crap that shackles the mind, but actually has a lot of people that have been duped into thinking it's a good idea, you all too often end up with the intellectually lowest common denominator ruling the dialogue. ie: the situation that spawned this thread.

Nothing to see here other than perhaps some of the insanity that one can find in many if not most student judicial boards at University X. Certainly not racism. A student applying/running for a position on the judicial board, with an affiliation to some organizations, is being questioned in regards to how she'd handle a situation that arose where she might have to make a judgement that would involve those organizations. Pretty much a standard question for such a position. It so happens she's Jewish, and at least some of the organizations she's apart of are Jewish, so some are freaking out with the 'race card' (even though Jew isn't a race). The correct answer of course is that she would recuse herself from judging a situation where there's a real of readily perceivable conflict of interest. However, from what I've personally seen on many campuses as well as read about on others, conflicts of interest are the norm on student judicial boards. Perhaps the one at UCLA is actually attempting to avoid such things (as any good judicial board anywhere would do). Unfortunate for them, some idiots are attempting to cry foul and play the race card. An all too common thing these days on campuses. I imagine Abe Foxman is yumming this one up.

Aye. I find it amusing that some actually think getting waylaid like we did in Baldur's Gate was annoying. Games like Nethack (a game I'm currently playing again right now), Legend of Zelda 2, or Final Fantasy 1-8 (I stopped playing after 8 so I dunno if they still do random encounters), all great games, would be like Guantanamo for these folks. The whole random encounter thing was a fundamental aspect of AD&D gameplay, which was the ruleset that all of the IE games were based on (even 3rd edition had random encounter tables). Not to mention the other PnP games I played back in the day (notably Palladium games) also had random encounter tables, based on location as you suggest. Seriously, if I don't get waylaid randomly at least a couple of times during my PoE adventure I'm going to be disappointed. Even more seriously. Who in their right mind doesn't like getting waylaid? Far better than all that romantic crap some people want, just skip to the good part. Get waylaid. Perhaps there should be an option in the menu next to the violence setting, on whether one wants to get waylaid or not withing the game.

You win the thread. This is awesome!

Never played KotOR2 so I can't speak to it, but I agree and would add that I think BG1's crafting system was just as awesome as BG2s.

I love that you have that gold medallion yet are drinking worse than well. You could have bought a lot of cases of great beer or a few of some good wine. But no, IE was invoked and you heeded the call. Even if it meant you had to suffer Fosters. Good man.

If Obsidian didn't hire the narrator from Baldur's Gate to tell me I'm waylaid from time to time I think they dropped the ball. If I never get waylaid in PoE then I'd say they didn't just drop the ball, they lost it.

Ah yes. Because I wasn't raped last night, makes the fact that I got robbed at gun point so much better.

Troll! Indeed. Gifted is guilty more than any other moderator I've seen of being exactly what a moderator shouldn't be: an immature troll.

I don't think its just common on these forums, I think its common on the internet. Discussion go off on tangents that have little to do with what started them. Oh, I don't mind tangents (there's a point where they can become super far off topic though and it's best to just make another thread (ie: discussions of why some like Fifty Shades of Grey)). This is a tangent itself. It's the taking things out of context, arguing just to argue, and the hypersensitivity that lowers the conversation level. It's fairly common on the internet these days yes. But it's not overly common on the forums I've frequented in the last decade (some are gaming forums, some are not) or the ones I frequent now (most of which are semi-private). If this forum had better moderation I'd say it wouldn't be frequent here either. But some of the moderators on this forum are guilty (in other threads, not this one) of what I mention, and trolling is not only allowed on this forum it's seemingly encouraged by some of the moderators (as some are guilty of it). Which more than anything else methinks, lowers the quality of many of the conversations found on this forum, as while hypersensitivity, taking things out of context, or arguing just to argue isn't necessarily trolling, I've noted that most of the people who are on these forums who engage in these things often troll elsewhere. It's the incredibly immature mindset that is a prerequisite for trolling that more often than not is also a prerequisite for these other behaviors. In other words, don't tolerate trolling, like most respectable forums don't, and set good examples (especially if you're a moderator) and you won't have all that much of this other bad stuff. I brought this up in hopes that at least a couple of the guilty look in the mirror and change their ways. Unlikely, I know, but it does happen from time to time.

The hypersensitivity of some and the propensity of others to take things out of context or argue just to argue really poops on my desire to even read these boards. In other words some of you are seriously immature, which really poops on the ability of others here to have an even semi-intelligent discussion. I just mentioned Bioware, didn't say I liked them, didn't say I didn't like them, and some people take what I said out of context and others freak out simply because the word was mentioned. Note: this phenomenon isn't unique to this thread. In fact it's quite common on these forums. But this is probably the most ridiculous and obvious example of it I've seen in awhile.

Beautiful art. Thanks for introducing me to her. Love the Ghibli influence. I immediately wanted to make something she did my wallpaper, but alas, I couldn't find anything big enough.

Here's my favorite Russian music video, which also seems to be a home video of one of Uncle Fester's vacations: Translation of the lyrics as given by a random youtuber (so it might be wrong, but I've not reason to think it is): And here's something from a little further east. The name of the band is Qetiq:

Well, most goyim don't even realize what they are. That said, what recently happened is news. Bibi's speech is nothing new, but the circumstances the speech was given under, and the divide, whether real or manufactured for political theater, is unusual.

Na... they aren't going to regroup anything. EA is where good studios die. EA has been cannibalizing game studios for about 20 years. Bullfrog, Origin, Maxis, Westwood, and many others. Bought by EA, used, abused, eaten up, discarded. We'll see the same happen to Bioware in a few years.

LOL

We're talking about a guy who uses info-graphics such as the below to make his points. He's pandering to people who are pro-Israel no matter what, or have a political mentality and attention span about on par with that of an elementary school kid. Unfortunately for the world there's a helluva lot of the latter out there, many of whom go to the polls and vote every election.

Rand Paul is running for president. He's pandering. Expect more pandering until he wins the republican nomination or fails to obtain it. Yea... it remains to be seen if alienating much of his base with his endorsement of Romney and Israel will hurt or help him more. I went to see Ron Paul speak last year. The crowd of course was made up almost entirely of people who like what he says. He got lots of applause over the course of his speech and some standing ovations. On two issues only, he got a lukewarm at best response from the crowd. One was his discussion of the issue of abortion and 'a woman's right to choose', and the other was his son. The crowd was more receptive to the former. Each of the few times he tried to promote his son the crowd's applause level shank very noticeably. Prior to Rand coming out for Romney or Israel that would not have happened. And in fact it is a great point of consternation for many Ron Paul fans that Rand doesn't have his father's integrity and/or views. So Rand has likely lost a lot of votes with his pandering. Will he get more than he lost from the pandering? We'll find out next year.

About the only thing Obama has done even remotely correctly since he came to office in my opinion is to not be Bibi's lapdog. What the Obama administration's motives are I'm uncertain (a broken clock is right twice a day), but kowtowing to Israel at all, and especially to Bibi (who has little to no competition for the 'Most Warmongering Leader of a Nation Award' out there) is exactly opposite of what's in the best interests of the nation in which I live. That of course doesn't jive with the average layman's understanding of Israel or what most of the mainstream media has been saying about Israel for years, but the more astute and objective folks out there realize that Israel is very arguably a much greater liability (and that's probably putting it lightly) than an asset to the U.S., or most any other nation really. I think there's a lot more to Bibi's visit than meets the eye. Sure, he's just spouting the usual crap, riling up the pro-Israel sentiment amongst the folks with short attention spans and the US media, both I'm sure for his political benefit at home as well as for what he sees as for his nation's benefit. But something tells me that he's here for much more than that. What exactly, we'll likely never know, but the entire thing smells off to me. In a way however, Bibi might have shot himself in the foot by coming here, at least if his goal was to win more support in the US. Never in my lifetime has there been more anti-Israel sentiment (not to be confused with anti-Semitism for the race baiters or Abe Foxman disciples out there) than there is now. And that's a very good thing methinks. Of course this whole issue has turned into some kind of retarded Republican v. Democrat issue, but that's a side show for the most part. What matters is telling Bibi to go F himself, and more people than ever are willing to do that which just a few years ago would have been political/career suicide for many. So, while I might change my mind if I knew what Obama's motives were, on the surface this is one issue that I actually can say: 'Go O!'. But again, I think there's more to all of this than is currently meeting the eye. Insofar as how things might be different with a Republican president. I think that of course matters who we're talking about. Obama being at odds (at least publicly) with Bibi is honestly a surprise to me. Israel has generally received strong support from both parties for the past few decades. The lobbying Israel has done behind doors and out in the open successfully created an atmosphere where speaking objectively about Israel (let alone speaking out against it) was taboo (for many it still is), so it's not something anyone from a major party seeking the Presidency would have done, no matter what they personally thought about it. That has slowly changed over the last decade or so, and I attribute the information people have found on the internet which was (and in a large way still is) basically blacked out in the mainstream US media for years as the primary reason behind that. It's definitely not a Republican vs. Democrat issue however as some of the media is trying to portray, at least not as far as the voters are concerned. There are actually a lot more Jewish people registered Democrat here than Republican. Of course, that doesn't actually mean too much, and of course being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-Israel (despite all of the propaganda that it does), but it serves to illustrate how the whole R vs. D thing in regards to this issue is really largely a myth.

...Because I'm apparently a dirty foreigner who encountered the word in a review of a book whose prose he found to be **** and assumed without checking that it simply means "it's poorly written". My great shame is now revealed. (No, really, I never realized this word doesn't mean what I thought it means. I apologize for the confusion.) It happens to the best of us at times. Especially with a language that isn't our primary. It's not uncommon for me to make similar mistakes if I read/write in my secondary languages (German and Latin). Truth be told, your mastery of English is better than my mastery of German or Latin (I don't use either much anymore). You aren't a dirty foreigner (well... I assume you bathe regularly anyways), anyone who makes the effort to learn another language should be applauded in my opinion.

Is there an English translation to the work? I can't read Russian. Those books are likely going to be on my 'to read' list after the last one is published. Even as prolific and diligent as Erikson is, after my experiences with Robert Jordan and G.R.R. Martin, I've reached a point where I don't want to start any series until the last book is about to be published. Especially when the author writes as dense as Erikson does. I've found the reading experience to be much better when one can read books in a series right after one another, rather than have to wait months/years in between books. Have you read any of Esslemont's Malazan books? I'm curious as to the opinions of anyone who's read Erikson's work as well as Esslemont's.

I've read Eco, numerous 19th century (and older) authors, even Gravity's Rainbow, a book generally considered to be "one of the longest, most difficult, most ambitious" novels of the last century, without running into the same problem. I'd hazard the guess it's not a vocabulary issue. Side note: people generally don't appreciate being condescended to. If you've read all that, and comprehended what you were reading, then why you would refer to Erikson's work (or anything else at all really) as stilted is beyond me. That's a word best used by someone whose reading hasn't gone much beyond Stephen King's level, not by someone who is well read.

I read the first three books and that was pretty much exactly my reaction, so it probably isn't the translation's fault. I'd add rampant continuity errors as well. The author doesn't care about them, but to me they're the mark of a highly sloppy writer. OTOH they are worth checking out as a lot of people do like the Malazon books a very great deal. Aside from the notable and acknowledged minor errors between Gardens of the Moon and Deadhouse Gates, name me some continuity errors. I've found none. But again, the plot is so thick and intricate there's a lot that's easily missed, and why I reread and referenced earlier books time and again as I read the later books. My guess is that what you think is an error is just you missing something that wasn't obvious. There's a lot packed in some of those chapters, and Erikson generally doesn't spoon feed the reader. ie: The full significance of what happens in the prologue of Gardens of the Moon isn't apparent until many books in. On book translations in general though, it's easily imaginable that some are very inadequate, especially when the author has a very expansive vocabulary such as Erikson. And as for stilted..... I'd say that's just a judgement based on one's own limited vocabulary. I'd suggest hanging out with people whose vocabulary matches Eriksons in order to expand your own. Or reading more works such as his. Another good modern fiction author for that is Umberto Eco (though he doesn't write the genre in which this thread is concerned, I do highly recommend his books). Authors from the 19th century and earlier are generally also good for this.

The Malazan book of the Fallen. To each their own. I'd rank it amongst the best books I've read. It's certainly the best fantasy series I've read within the past decade. It isn't for everyone certainly; nothing is. It's a bit deeper, more complex, and at times subtle than most everything else of any genre out there. It took me longer to read that first book (Gardens of the Moon) than any other fictional work I've read since I was a kid, as I had to constantly reference what was going on, on previous pages (this wasn't a bad thing). ie: The plot is very complex, and figuring out what is going on doesn't happen until a long way through the book on a level I've not seen elsewhere; I read the first half of that book at least three times before finishing it, and more than any other series I've read I found myself referencing the earlier books as I read the later ones. No other author has been able to paint on such an epic scale as well as Erikson has in my experience, and I've read hundreds of books of various fictional genres by this point of my life. Like all of the best fictional authors he has an exceptionally good understanding of how humans work. Other than Malazan. There is of course The Song of Ice and Fire. Excellent books I'd rank only slightly behind Malazan (both series are treats). The worst thing about this series is that it is not done (where Malazan is), and doesn't look as if it's going to be done for many years yet. The author has at least two books to go and is averaging 5+ years between the publication of the last few, and he's not getting any younger or thinner so there's a lot of reasonable speculation that the books will never be finished. A conservative estimate for when we'll see the final book published if the rate of publication stays the same is 2020. Other fantasy authors off the top of my head that I think write good stuff (at least what I've read). Note the styles of some of these authors varies quite a bit.: Fred Saberhagen (some of the Book of Swords stories are enjoyable, and relatively quick and easy reads) Terry Brooks (the first few Shannara books. Not to say the latter ones aren't good, I just haven't gotten around to reading them) Terry Goodkind (Wizard's First Rule) Robert Jordan (the first few books of a Wheel of Time at least are gems) Stephen R. Donaldson (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant) J. R. R. Tolkien (of course, and I feel bad for you if you've seen the movies before reading the books) T. H. White (The Once and Future King) David Eddings (The Belgariad and The Mallorean) No doubt I'm forgetting at least a few good fantasy authors I've read.