Valsuelm

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it. I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective. The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind. Words are often more than wind, and they often have consequences, be they good, neutral, bad, or some combination thereof, for either he/she who utters them, those who hear/read them, or both. You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion.

While I'm not going to say what I think, you'd have better said: 'Please tell me you think it's JFK. I fully believe what my government and the mainstream media told me in regards to all of the mentioned incidents and I've not looked into any of them much because to do so would possibly challenge those beliefs. There might be something to the idea they lied about what happened with J.F.K though, but I've not looked into it yet.'

Food for thought:

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. Charlie Hebdo's second incarnation came about in large part because of the first Gulf War. From day one it was an anti Muslim pro war in the Middle East propaganda magazine. There is no way that France's foreign policy did not serve as a motivation for the attackers on some level, albeit perhaps an indirect one. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it.

Nothing wrong with being skeptical. I myself start skeptically looking at pretty much everything, when I begin looking at something. And I would agree you should generally do your best to not inflict your view point (whatever it is) upon your students. I don't know what era of history you teach, but whatever it is, I do hope you mention the dubious aspects of things like the incident that gave us the phrase 'Remember the Maine!', the Lusitania, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for those things that would be pertinent to the era of history you teach. If you want to stop being lumped in with the brainwashees on this forum, please refrain from making comments like this: This adds nothing positive to the conversation, and legitimizes some of the even less positive things that are mentioned in this forum. That said, of the four things you mention, one of them is definitely not as was told (and usually is told) to us in the mainstream media and by our government officials (most of them anyways). I'm as sure of that as I'm sure I have two legs, as the evidence is overwhelming. All four things however, are worth looking into a great deal, because even if at the end of the day you're not convinced there was a 'conspiracy' (for the record: I am not in regards to all four) you'll still learn a great deal that is not commonly known. And that's all I'll say on this as to say more really opens up a can of worms of sorts that has little to do with the subject at hand, and this forum is not very conducive for intelligent discussions on these subjects (in part due to comments like yours above).

Not really. The vast majority of people 'buy into conspiracy theories'. There are few people out there so skeptical as to not believe anything, or so stupid as to not think conspiracies happen. There are many though that have been brainwashed to not realize what it is they are even thinking, and that they've been conditioned to not think. You happen to be one of the people who use 'conspiracy theory' as a pejorative. As a student of history you should know better. The entire purpose of 'conspiracy theory' being a pejorative is to marginalize points of view, and stymie questioning and lines of thought that might be contrary to the official narrative as given by government(s) and mainstream media, whatever that may be. Nevermind that what the official narrative is might be a conspiracy theory itself. Nevermind that most people on planet earth have participated in a conspiracy of some sort at some point in their lives. Many of us a great many. Though I suppose this is less true for the growing number of anti-socials out there (as one needs more than just oneself to conspire). If you want to debate and offer other possibilities in regards to 'conspiracy theory' X that's ever brought up, go for it. Do it on the merits of the evidence and those ideas. To dismiss evidence or a possibility out of hand as a 'conspiracy theory' because it doesn't jive with what you think already happened or is possible is foolish at best. I'm not calling people who don't necessarily 'believe in' (it's not a matter of faith for most people) X brainwashed, I'm calling the people who would dismiss X as 'crazy', a 'conspiracy theory', or whatever out of hand before they even consider the evidence brainwashed. They have been conditioned to reject alternative viewpoints and evidence that might contradict their world view out of hand. Sorry Vals but somethings I can just dismiss without the need to have a debate, I'm fortunate like that. I know when something is nonsense We all think we can do that, and to some degree or another most can. However some are far better at it than others. From what I've seen on this forum however, your 'bull**** meter' as I usually refer to it, doesn't function all that well. I've seen you dismiss a number of things out of hand without ever looking at the evidence, and you yum up a good chunk of the bull**** that mainstream media or politican X splurts out. That you'd even have to ask: Why who does profit from this ? And please don't say that the USA is behind the rise of Islamic extremism so they can money from it ... tells me you are not paying attention or thinking things through all that much. Anyone with even smidgeon of knowledge of world politik should be able to theorize a number of folks and entities who could profit from this. It's actually pretty obvious at this point that some people are profiting from this (note this doesn't mean they actually perpetrated it).

The people who would take part in such a coverup definitely do not fall under the 'most people' banner. Most people would not partake in such a thing. But there are plenty of people out there world wide who would, and also know how to keep their mouths shut. In the modern age of social media it's hard for many (especially those who participate in social media) to understand and appreciate those who can keep their mouths shut and why they might do it, about anything. Vanity and 'look at me' is a huge aspect of things like Facebook, Twitter, et al. So for people who are constantly wearing it all on their sleeve it's hard to imagine how some never roll up their sleeves. There are plenty of people who don't though, and when anyone is looking to hire someone for a job they look to hire people with certain qualifications, whatever they are. Whatever you want in a prospective employee is out there somewhere. All that said, there's plenty of examples in history of people successfully keeping their mouth shut about X. As a student of history you should know this. Anyone who has ever looked at anything that's been declassified should know this as well.

Not really. The vast majority of people 'buy into conspiracy theories'. There are few people out there so skeptical as to not believe anything, or so stupid as to not think conspiracies happen. There are many though that have been brainwashed to not realize what it is they are even thinking, and that they've been conditioned to not think. You happen to be one of the people who use 'conspiracy theory' as a pejorative. As a student of history you should know better. The entire purpose of 'conspiracy theory' being a pejorative is to marginalize points of view, and stymie questioning and lines of thought that might be contrary to the official narrative as given by government(s) and mainstream media, whatever that may be. Nevermind that what the official narrative is might be a conspiracy theory itself. Nevermind that most people on planet earth have participated in a conspiracy of some sort at some point in their lives. Many of us a great many. Though I suppose this is less true for the growing number of anti-socials out there (as one needs more than just oneself to conspire). If you want to debate and offer other possibilities in regards to 'conspiracy theory' X that's ever brought up, go for it. Do it on the merits of the evidence and those ideas. To dismiss evidence or a possibility out of hand as a 'conspiracy theory' because it doesn't jive with what you think already happened or is possible is foolish at best. I'm not calling people who don't necessarily 'believe in' (it's not a matter of faith for most people) X brainwashed, I'm calling the people who would dismiss X as 'crazy', a 'conspiracy theory', or whatever out of hand before they even consider the evidence brainwashed. They have been conditioned to reject alternative viewpoints and evidence that might contradict their world view out of hand.

The Drop 7/10

But if he is using Steam then his games would be working? He is saying his games aren't working? Well, I assumed he meant how a great many games come out full of bugs these days or with serious fundamental design flaws and are really only good (in many people's eyes anyways) after they are modded (if they are ever even good; but modders try). Some games on Steam are very hard to mod or hard to get a mod to work on (ie: most people I know who played Civ4 (I used to play a lot of Civ4 MP) could never get mods to work with that game if it was installed as a Steam game).

Your first mistake is you're playing games on Steam. A platform that has a number of issues, DRM and modding being just two of them. And yes, it's a platform with lots of people who don't see the problems you do so you might feel alone if that's where you're mostly hanging out (most that perceive the problem are not playing games on Steam). But no, you are not even remotely alone as lots of people have stopped buying most modern games. There's a neverending supply of young people though that come up and buy them however, so the game companies aren't missing those that quit too much. Most game companies are too stupid to realize the largely untapped market of gamers who have pretty much given up on most modern games out there. The Project Eternity kickstarter tapped into a part of it. But anyways.. if you quit. Go for it. Video games aren't exactly the best use of one's time most of the time. We all could usually be doing something more productive with our lives than playing video games.

They made a really bad choice when they picked an engine if they picked an engine that limits them in a way they can't populate a city to the density we saw in BG1 or BG2. That said, I very much doubt the engine is an issue.

LOL Yea... it's totally unreasonable to dislike some folks because they attack and bomb where you live over a period of years. Totally!

Math hasn't always been my strong suit, but assuming I'm understanding numbers correctly $500 is much more than $45. Don't hate the poor, Mitt Romney. Opportunity cost, and you shouldn't be buying X that makes use of Y if your Y isn't up to snuff. It's like getting a new paint job on a car that's engine is falling apart. Your priorities are out of whack.

I'd consider peasants game content... Either way, it's a design mindset, and one I couldn't disagree more with. The other Obsidian RPGs already out do not have cities as dense as BG1 or BG2 in any way so it shouldn't be surprising what we're seeing given that and what Josh has stated. Again, hopefully Josh and co. take the feedback in this thread and others regarding this to heart before release.

Unfortunately Josh felt that the cities in BG1 and BG2 were too dense in their content.... BG1 and BG2 did cities and towns in an RPG game better than any other game I've seen before or since. It certainly would be nice however if Josh and company took feedback such as in this thread to heart before the game is released.

Really. If you can afford to spend money on video games, you should be able to afford new RAM. I'm all for making PoE run on systems that are not top notch, however asking someone to have at least 4gb of ram, at the very least Vista (if not 7), or that they run a 64 bit OS, is not asking much in 2015 (it wasn't asking all that much even 5 years ago). If you have less than that you're really really behind and should spend the couple hundred it takes to get yourself a far far better system. To give you and idea of just how far behind you are, only the cheapest of Dells (I'm just using them as an example as they are a mainstream source of computers and their products represent what average joe buys) come with 4gb of ram, and they are less than $500. Dell's mid tiers all come with 8gb, and they aren't much more than $500, and Dell's mid tiers would still be considered a lower tier system to many if not most modern gamers. To be frank, someone who hasn't upgraded their computer in the better part of ten years really has no legitimate complaint if it can't run a new product well or at all. Rather than spend money on games, go out and spend money on getting a better system first. It will be money well spent.

I don't joke about terrorism, and this is approaching genocide. So we have Bruce jumping on the ~2,000 bandwagon before it's confirmed (it very well may be confirmed at some point), and now you're talking genocide (which will not be confirmed anytime remotely soon because it isn't happening). Exaggerate much? That said, yea.. Boko is bad news. But you guys don't need to get all emotionally exaggerative to point that out. Boko isn't the end of the world, nor even the end of Nigeria. I'm sure you have local tragedies that you could possibly do something about that warrants your attention far more than tragedies half way around the world or 1000+ miles and 4+ nations to your north.

Here's some more great Eddie songs:

It's not a bad song at all in my opinion. It actually reached #2 on the charts when it came out too. I just scored the Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack again (have it on cassette but that's a bit worn out now sadly), so I've been rocking out to that. It's one of the best soundtracks from an 80s movie in my opinion. So many great scenes to music in that movie too.

It does seem that way when the application of respect is inconsistent. Add that to a violent act inflicted upon people that didn't, and the needle sinks in a bit deeper. So going back to the suggested faked video of the cop getting shot, what is the ultimate end then of doing that and how does the affect any other details of the attack ? Or is that all there is to it ? Cui bono for the first question, and there's a number of possibilities. For the second, it may not at all. It would depend on what other details we're talking about, and if it was a sure thing that the shooting was faked or not. Something that's inconclusive from what I've seen so far, and taken by itself it doesn't add up to much. Here's a recent presentation that includes a bit on how someones(s) might benefit from staging a 'terrorist' attack. Warning to the brainwashed: there's 'conspiracy theory' type stuff in this. But it's a mainstream source, and it's ok to talk 'conspiracy theories' when it's about someone that's either a real or perceived enemy (in other words this 'conspiracy theory' has been deemed ok to talk about and believe in by mainstream western media), so you'll probably be ok. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/putins-way/

Is this legit? Hard to say without knowing more details. Could be a massive violation of the guy's constitutional rights, but it also may be legit given the circumstances, which are not adequately explained in the article. Then again, the article may be getting this wrong all together. It's getting at least part of it wrong, as The Silk Road is not defunct. It was shut down for a second time temporarily late last year but it wasn't long before it was up and running again.

If that's what you think, the thinking you do is not your own. Worth repeating, again: If 'conspiracy theory', 'conspiracy theorist', or something similar is a pejorative in your mind, you are brainwashed. Conditioned to not think outside of a box. It's one of best litmus tests there is in modern times to determine if a person is so.