Valsuelm

Standard troll tripe really, both disrespecting and disrespectable.

Good point, I still wouldn't have gone through the tunnel though, simply too dangerous. If my loved one went through that obviously dangerous tunnel for no other reason than to save some time she wouldn't be my love one because I hate stupid reckless people. Yes he did, and no, I would not think people would be ok with ''its classified'' and shut up about it. Not in a situation like that. If I risk my life for keeping somebody save because said person has valuable informations about the apocalypse I want to know every little detail to make sure he is not lying to me. Tell me what I want to know or get lost. Abraham is a naive idiot. I would have camped in the vicinity and observed that place before even considering going in there. I would have waited for my friends and stopped them from carelessly rushing to a potentially dangerous place. Send some people in and wait what happens, don't just go in there like a group of naive kids. Well, insofar as the tunnel. We don't know that it was obviously dangerous when Maggie got there. The zombies may have shown up later. And I imagine they did as I doubt Maggie would have gone through there if there was obviously a bunch of zombies in there. Sans an obvious sign the tunnel has a bunch of zombies before you go in it, I actually think a tunnel is a relatively safe place to be if you have a good light source, as you can only be approached from two directions. As far as 'classified' goes, it wouldn't fly with me either. It doesn't generally fly with me in reality, and definitely wouldn't in a zombie apocalypse. But it does fly with a lot of people. And again, I agree with your approach on Terminus. Really I think it comes down to two things. One the writers really aren't that good at character development, character depth, or fleshing out what character X would really do in scenario X. Two, aside from Daryl I personally wouldn't want to be grouped up with any of the people on this show for the long run, as there have been so many instances that would have caused me to say 'wtf really? ok, I'm outta here. Good luck!' in their actions/inactions. But really, point two can be blamed on point one. As for Maggie forgetting her sister, again, the writers. A real Maggie wouldn't. @Zor - I agree on the group Daryl is with. If I were Daryl I'd be looking to part ways with them asap, and he probably is. As it stands he's probably thinking if he leaves they'll try and kill him for his crossbow and other possessions, I know I would be thinking that. He's got to wait for the right opportunity. And while I don't think the Wire was a bad show by any means, I do think it was/is a heck of a lot overrated. Then again, I stopped watching after Season 1.

I think Glenn insisted on going through the tunnel in case Maggie was still in there. He didn't know how far behind her he was. If I was in the same situation as Glenn and the one I loved was possibly in that tunnel, I'd insist on going through it as well. As far as the Doc, I think he's already said it's classified information did he not? That bogus argument works well enough in the real world for seemingly most people, why not in the Walking Dead world? You're 100% right on about Terminus. The problem is that they're all separated, and many are hoping to find their loved ones again. Terminus is the only waypoint that they all might find in common. That said, it was entirely retarded of them all to not have an escape plan with a rendezvous point in case poop hit the fan in the prison. But that said, I certainly wouldn't have just walked in there like they did last episode. I enjoy Walking Dead, but the writers are not the best. Oh to have writers of the quality of the ones on Breaking Bad on this show...

One of these days I may get an avatar, it's been on the back burner of my mind to do so. It's possible I'll do it when I get around to finalizing my pledge for PoE as I think I'll have to dilly with my forum account settings then anyways. I'm not generally a fan of them for a couple reasons, and I actually find a number of people's avatars in this forum annoyingly distracting (especially the ones with animations). Note that doesn't mean I find those people annoying. In find it amusing that you might confuse myself and Mor.

It is not particularly difficult to look up violent crime rates for the years 1995 and 2007 for both the US and Australia. You then divide the later number by the earlier number to see how much the rate has increased/decreased. and if requesting some kind of research\data from reputable source as prerequisite for any kind of discussion on the matter is anything but granted. ( After all if the conclusion he tried to imply that gun control led to rise in crime was backed by real research it would be in the headlines of every news paper... and so easy to back up ) First, I'd like to point out that as indicated to the left, I live in the United States of America. Where I live is very pertinent to the discussion of 'gun control', as is where you live, and everyone else engaging in the discussion. When I discuss it I'm generally speaking of it in regards to where I live, state and nation. Laws are different and values vary throughout the world. What's good for one group of people is not necessarily good for another. I'm a big fan of local governance, so if your nation decides that not having guns or implementing gun control protocol X is something you want to do, and it's people are largely actually behind this, then good for you. There is certainly no lack of places on earth one could go and live where the freedom to legally own a gun doesn't exist. I may think said nation is making a bad choice for it's people, but I'm not going to go to a forum in that nation and tell them this, especially in an insulting manner. Insofar as your grammar. It's generally pretty decent for someone writing in a second language. Good enough that it wasn't obvious to me that English was your second language. You do tend to use run on sentences though, and based on some of the things you've written I'm not entirely sure you understand what others have said. I don't mean this as an insult in any way, I point it out as a constructive criticism you can take or leave, and my observation may have nothing to do with your English language skills as there are plenty of folks who have demonstrated chronic lack of reading comprehension whose first language is English. I applaud anyone's effort to that the time to learn a language beyond their primary language. To directly answer your post: The general argument put forth by those in favor of 'gun control' is that with it, crime and murder rates would fall. Often this argument is accompanied with emotional indignation directed at those who are against 'gun control' with accusations such as calling them 'heartless', 'crazy', etc. You yourself have used the term 'gun nuts'. The statistics Ravenshrike mentioned and that I partially linked prove that is a argument with no basis in reality. There are a great many statistics out there that prove this even better than the Australian example. ie: Chicago, Detroit, or Washington D.C. are much better examples of this than Australia. In fact, if one looks at crime rates in general throughout the U.S., one would find that 'tougher' gun laws in a jurisdiction has about zero negative impact on crime there. 'Gun control' is about as effective as the 'War on Drugs' from a crime prevention point of view, which is to mean ( so there's no confusion) that it's not effective in any good sense. Folks who are against 'gun control' generally realize and cite that there are a number of factors in crime and murder, and those for it often want to ignore those other factors or don't understand them. The gun is just a tool and needs someone to aim and pull the trigger. Without a gun at hand someone intent on murdering someone else or committing crime X will find another way to do it, never mind that someone intent on committing a crime with a gun will likely find a way to illegally obtain a gun if 'gun controls' make it hard or impossible for them to legally do so. Where there is a will there is almost always a way. This last thing being something that a lot of folks seem to be unable to wrap their heads around in regards to this issue and others. And, uh, no. Headlines of newspapers aren't usually too interested things as mundane as facts, they're almost always there to sell newspapers and/or satisfy the owner(s)/sponsors of the paper. Appealing to emotion in this issue and others is a way to do that. That said, there are certainly plenty of articles out there that have been written over the years stating as much as I've said here. 'Gun control' is not exactly a new or unusual subject in the last few decades, and a lot has been written about it.

At no point have I ever stated that Russia is any sort of a victim in regards to Crimea or Ukraine nor implied it in this thread or anywhere else in the world. If you think I did, I either typoed pretty bad or you misinterpreted what I wrote big time. Please share a link where you think I called Russia a victim and I'll clarify for you. And I may have missed something but I don't even think anyone has said Russia is a victim in regards to the situation at hand, even Oby.

I can't imagine anyone writing this with plain face anything but a trollface. You guys have been making those assertion from the start, pretending as if someone is hiding the truth when it was in plain sight from the start; as if the affair was covered one sided, when Russia state media is the only one that showed completely one sided picture and was responsible to huge volume of claims that weren't substantiated anywhere else; and looking back it is Russia (and here oby and his peers) who have been pushing the Nazi/fascist angle first, worse using it in attempt to demonize and dismiss Ukrainian issues that surfaced with Euromaiden and not as relevant history lesson to analyse Putins Russia actions. What you're writing has absolutely nothing to do with what 213374U wrote. If you think he was trolling I'm not sure you understand what trolling is, and you certainly misunderstand what he was getting at.

Something tells me that if it were 2003, you would be arguing that the UK and US government officials wouldn't be lying about the 'WMDs' in Iraq and would buy the manufactured hogwash that Saddam was the antichrist of Arabia and the greatest enemy on earth of freedom and democracy who must be 'stopped'. And yes, if you forget, at the time, there were people, myself being one, saying they were lying and going to war under completely false pretenses. How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop believing the source? You right I did support the invasion of Iraq for the reasons given, I then changed my mind after it was clear the reasons weren't true. History will reveal if it was still the right strategic decision to invade Iraq. But I don't think it will be due to the political situation that now exists in the region. Of course the invasion of Afghanistan was and still is perfectly justified Were you really one of those that was opposed to the Iraq invasion? I don't suppose you have any proof..like an old forum discussion that you can link? I suppose even conspiracy theorists are right sometime Yes, I did oppose the Iraq invasion in 2003, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan, as both were done under false pretenses and a pile of lies. The same is true for Libya later on. I'm not a big fan of imperialism, especially when it's done in the name of the people of the nation I live in. As for proof. No, not really. You'll have to take me at my word, and it's not as if I have anything to gain by lying, not to mention I abhor lies. The forums I was active in back then are either completely gone at this point or are purged regularly of older messages (ie: the only forum I'm still active on at all that I frequented back then purges all messages older than 90 days from the public domain). Though I don't recall discussing the politics of the US invasion of Iraq much if at all on the internet anyways, I do recall discussing it at length with people face to face. I made my prediction that the US would invade Iraq around 11am on 9/11/01, within an hour or so of my roommate informing me of what was going on that day, I said something along the lines of 'they're going to use this as an excuse to go into Iraq'. The revelation in mainstream media that the US and UK lied about 'WMDs' in Iraq was somewhat of a surprise as those kinds of coverups do not usually get coverage in such places (there was enough anti-war sentiment and alternative media sources making noise however to make it happen), and allowed me to wake a few folks I had been discussing the events with at the time.

I can. I would have liked to have seen Obsidian partner with CD Projekt RED as a publisher myself. That's the only game publisher/developer in the world I have faith in aside from Obsidian at this point. And they head up GoG.com which would have been perfect I would think given so many want a gog version of PE available and one is promised. I'm actually curious as to why they didn't go with CD Projekt RED, as I imagine they must have been considered and there is communication between the companies anyways due to Obsidian having products on GoG and planning to have more. CD Projekt RED isn't a publisher they are a games developer, as in the same thing as Obsidian. If Paradox uses DRM everyone is using DRM, including CD Projekt. It is called Steam. Also Obsidian has said since practically day one there will be a GoG version of the game, so no, there will be a DRM free version of Eternity for those who want it regardless of who publishes. CD Projeckt is indeed a publisher, but so far of their own games only. I never said there wouldn't be a DRM free version of PoE on GoG (in fact I stated there would be), so why you're arguing as if I did, I do not know.

Uh... as I previously stated, Paradox is in Sweden, which is not in the US. I'm not sure if you thought it was, but it isn't. So Obsidian has given marketing duties to a company outside of the U.S.. But what does the company location have to do with altering the details of the kickstarter?

Paradox is in Sweden. Sweden is somehow better than Poland? You may have a point on CDP not wanting to work on other folks games though as they have yet to do that from what I've seen and may just not want to take their company in that direction. As I said, I'm curious why it didn't happen as it must have come up. Obviously there was some reason(s).

I can. I would have liked to have seen Obsidian partner with CD Projekt RED as a publisher myself. That's the only game publisher/developer in the world I have faith in aside from Obsidian at this point. And they head up GoG.com which would have been perfect I would think given so many want a gog version of PE available and one is promised. I'm actually curious as to why they didn't go with CD Projekt RED, as I imagine they must have been considered and there is communication between the companies anyways due to Obsidian having products on GoG and planning to have more. Two years ago I would have been happy Paradox was the publisher as well, but over the last two years (especially this last one) they've near completely lost me as a fan for reasons stated by some in this thread and others. That said, perhaps they can redeem themselves to me. I'm hopeful but doubtful. And Paradox saying they are anti-DRM at this point holds as much water as your average politician promising you X, because they do use DRM these days. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk, they used to yes, but no longer. Requiring that third party software be installed on your computer to activate/install, patch, and use some features of your software is DRM, anyone thinking otherwise fundamentally doesn't understand what DRM is.

I haven't read the comic myself, but I have read the synopsis on wikipedia and an article or two on the differences between the comic and show up to the point the show is at. I'm no fan of spoilers myself, but only minor spoilers exist in the wiki I think. But don't get me wrong, they are spoilers, and maybe you won't think they're minor. I say they're minor because the show has deviated from the comics so much, and will no doubt continue to do so. Here are a few examples of the differences I read about between the comic and TV show for the timeline up to the current episode. The spoilers below are light, ie: I'm not revealing any deaths except those that are already dead in the show. As far as the answer to your question, I'll let someone who has actually read the comics say why it was more brutal, but I can say:

Something tells me that if it were 2003, you would be arguing that the UK and US government officials wouldn't be lying about the 'WMDs' in Iraq and would buy the manufactured hogwash that Saddam was the antichrist of Arabia and the greatest enemy on earth of freedom and democracy who must be 'stopped'. And yes, if you forget, at the time, there were people, myself being one, saying they were lying and going to war under completely false pretenses. How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop believing the source?

I guess your ability to use proper grammar wanes when you're in a vitriolic tizzy? What conclusion did I make that was ignorant? I never said there aren't a lot of factors why crime happens as you seem to think. I'm not a kid, kid (you certainly act like one if you aren't one by age), and I don't use google. If you really need some folks with a PhD to tell you what's what, you're never going to see the light on this issue or any other. You're beholden to others to do your thinking for you.

Where on earth do you think you're going to get more reliable statistics on crime in Australia than the Australian government? And do you really need someone to read the statistics for you and write a 'paper' or 'study' spelling out what those statistics say? I don't use Google.

Much of what I've stated recently in this thread is a tangent, yes, but it is related and that tangent grew out of discussion being had. You'll see that if you read back. Umm... anyone who thinks the stock market's daily wobblings or even it's yearly wobblings is a sound indicator of the health or unhealth of any economy fundamentally doesn't understand economics or has a very narrow view of what economic health of a nation's economy is. Of course I realize that's what most talking heads on TV would have you believe, but stock portfolios is not a good indicator of what's happening to everyone else. For one of the most blatant examples of this: ever hear of the term 'bubble'? I put forth that just how many people are brainwashed to believe this is one of the stronger indicators of how precariously sitting on a ledge over an abyss the western economies are. Regardless, even if sanctions take their toll on Russia or anyone else, the effects of that won't be seen in meaningful statistical numbers for awhile. But really, when the only sanctions I've seen implemented so far are aimed at a couple individuals and a bank or two, it's certainly not something that is going to affect any nation's economy. Someone please link what other sanctions have been implemented, if any, as I haven't seen any others. So basically, so far the only sanctions even implemented are just a bunch of hot air, that in the long term will accomplish absolutely nothing as the individuals and banks sanctioned will just go around them (if they even want to).

'Gun nuts'? You certainly have an unbiased objective view of the situation. Look it up yourself. The various statistics for such things are not hard to find, especially U.S. statistics. About the only stat I've ever had any trouble finding is how many people are gunned down by police every year in the U.S., as even though congress has asked it to be done the FBI and other governmental agencies have ignored their request. Oh here, since I know you're lazy (because if you weren't you'd have already looked this stuff up and wouldn't use the term 'gun nuts'): http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html Find the rest yourself.

Ayup, they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 Not that these numbers really mean all that much in regards to sanctions except to partially point out that Russia is one of the nations on earth that can self sustain if need be. Not only that though, Russia isn't playing the great 'central banking / convert our nations into fiefdoms based on debt slavery' game that the Europeans and the U.S. are anywhere near as much as those pulling the strings in the EU and the U.S. would like. Which not only shows how little Russia is under their thumb and how little sanctions will likely matter, but also how good a position Russia is to thumb their nose at the Euro and Dollar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt Any sanctions probably will hurt the west in the long run more than Russia, as they will just push Russia even more in the direction of dropping the Euro and Dollar all together. Whether they do or don't though they are downright stupid. Sanctions on Russia over this is pretty much the equivalent of a prepubescent spite over not getting their way, and will have about the equivalent outcome such spite generally does.

Considering most modern scientists seem to think that somewhere around 98% of your DNA is 'junk' (because yea, if we don't understand what it is it must be junk right?), it's not too surprising they think we're half bananas. It wouldn't surprise me if they thought we were half eggplant, half snotball, or half toejam too. I certainly believe they are at least half bananas, and I think the case could be made that most people in modern times are at least half bananas, my personal experiences certainly validates that argument, so maybe they're on to something with this.

Chances are high there's some mistranslation going in one direction or the other in regards to some of the words that definitely are not profanity, either that or the words sound/appear like a profane Mongolian word. The authors of those articles give way too much credit to the Urban Dictionary and must not get out too much. There's not a word on that list I wasn't familiar with decades ago, long before the Urban Dictionary and it's legion of prepubescent and college aged entry suppliers. Just about all of the words are words you'll find bantered about a Jr. High lunch table in your average school in the U.S. for half a century or more. I could have supplied a more robust list of profanity than that myself, my 13 year old self of yesteryore even more.

Not looking too likely since they've made it clear they're running with a skeuomorphic GUI. File me in camp pro-skeuomorph. In other news, I'm glad to see that as the proud owner of a set of declining eyes, I'll still be able to enjoy PoE. Edit: No pun intended. Why would a skeuomorphic GUI mean that all aspects of the UI couldn't be scalable or movable? Personally I'm more than alright with a skeuomorph GUI, unless it means I can't scale it up/down or move it up/down/right/left as I please to best fit my preferred resolution on my monitor and my sadly ever slowing increasing myopia. The very reason I wish to be able to do this is to make playing easier on the eyes, and more efficient for the way I prefer to play the game. So I'm with you on wanting a UI that someone with declining eyes can use as well. ie: Minimap or Character Sheet a little too small on your screen for your liking? Just scale it up, and move it somewhere it's easier for you to see. The UI is extremely important to the experience, and giving players options I think would be ideal, as that way pretty much everyone can be happy. Really, it blows my mind how many games don't allow for this these days, as well as have really bad UIs at many resolutions.

That is an amazingly stupid argument that if accepted invalidates pretty much every argument for anything ever, including your own. Perhaps you meant to phrase it differently. The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War (a more apt name) which is really just an extension of the First Indochina War was about a myriad of things, almost all of which boil down to imperialism and resources. The exceptionally uberlucrative drug trade (namely opium), oil, having Indochina under the western capitalist umbrella (which was dominated by the U.S. and U.K.), acting as a check to growing Chinese communist power that was gobbling up resources in Asia, expanding the Anglo-American empire at the expense of the French and the Vietnamese (French were no better there, they just got wrestled out), and Vietnam's strategic location near the very economically important Straights of Malacca to name a few.

Nationalism is an ideology Bruce... and it's not why wars are fought in modern times. Anyone who thinks that buys into the manipulations and propaganda of those who are behind the war. I don't know if I agree to that definition...but I could be convinced? For me the Cold War was a war of ideology but for example the Bosnian War was about nationalism The 'cold war' was not an actual war, however yes, that had a lot to do with economic ideology: Capitalism vs. Socialism/Communism, which could itself could easily be argued to be fundamentally about resources. The Bosnian war was divide and conquer war about resources where the Bosnians, Serbs, and other locals lost, and some powerful economic interests of Germany, U.S. U.K., and other NATO powers won. It's fairly well described in the video Sarex posted that you refused to watch. It was also about isolating Russia economically and NATO took advantage of the fact that Russia was down for the count and under bad leadership for a bit, it paid off for them. They tried it again with Ukraine, but this time Russia was no longer down for the count and no longer under bad leadership (Putin's evil, don't get me wrong... but leading is something he is good at).

I have bridges I'd like to sell you.