Valsuelm

Ya know, 'bossy' is minor league on the sexist scale if we're to believe it's sexist. Or if we're to assume that there are sexist words to begin with. Let's talk about the word 'bitch'. If you call a woman a bitch it generally has different meaning than if we call a man a bitch. Is that bad? Should we ban it due to the differences? Will we need to come up with another singular word for a female dog? What singular word will we use in lieu of 'bitch' to get our meaning across if someone is one? What word will we use instead of 'bitch' to describe someone who is using it in it's verbal capacity? What singular word will we use instead of 'bossy' to describe someone who is being such? Will banning either of these words solve any problem at all? Will banning either of these words create problems? Will banning either of these words not limit the vernacular of the mind? Does limiting the vernacular of the mind limit it's capabilities? Does limiting the vernacular of a people limit their abilities to communicate effectively? How do we ban these words? Make it a crime to utter them? What will be the punishment? How do we do this when such a thing as the First Amendment exists? Should we just ignore the First Amendment when we want to? Do we just socially ostracize someone who dares utter these words? Is socially ostracizing someone who would use one of these words a good thing? Is socially ostracizing anyone for saying a word a good thing? Is socially ostracizing anyone ever a good thing?

My apologies. I misread to a certain extent what you wrote, I think in part due to the extended ().

So you think banning a word is a good intentioned thing? Also, really? You've never heard of a female touted as a good leader? If we're talking about a girl, and not a woman than yea.. I could see that. It is a very rare kid indeed that is a good leader. But if we're talking about a woman, that's another story. Granted, good leaders of either sex aren't exactly the majority of the population, but they're out there in both sexes. If you're at all familiar with history there are a number of female leaders who have been considered good. If you're at all familiar with modern politics there are a number of female politicians who have been labeled good leaders (though I'd argue most of them are not, but also argue most male politicians who are called good leaders are not, but that doesn't change the fact that some folks call them that). One could look other places in society as well. Teachers, bosses (should we ban this word too due to it's similarity to 'bossy'?), company leaders, etc. A really good teacher is often a good leader (I've had some really good female teachers that I would call good leaders, haven't you?). You've really never met a female you yourself would call a good leader? That's all it takes to know of one. If you haven't either you don't know very many people or the problem you think is 'out there' is within you. Really... the whole oppressed female thing at this point is 100% hogwash in 2014 U.S.A. and this 'bossy' thing is 100% contrived (take a look at the sponsors for this initiative). Are there oppressed females out there? Heck yea.. and so there also be oppressed males. Usually it isn't a function of their sex why they're oppressed. And genuine sexism goes both ways in this world, just as genuine racism goes multiple ways. But even if women were horribly oppressed, banning words won't undo that oppression. Banning a word has never undone any oppression. Those that would ban a word are interested in controlling your mind, they have no good intentions.

Not really, no you didn't. If that's what you saw.... well.... I'm probably wasting my time right now.... so I'll stop.

If you are only vaguely aware of USAPATRIOT, then you may be more qualified to speak about it that the people who voted it into law. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_Ej_RA5Bf0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false That's some healthy lawmaking, right there. Unfortunately I have an aversion to anything associated with Michael Moore.... It's a well deserved aversion, but even Moore has a hand in a few good things. The above just illustrates what's also illustrated and discussed elsewhere: that the 'Patriot Act' was shoved through congress without being read. That's important, but also important if not moreso is since that time congress and everyone else has had more than enough time to read it, and yet a majority of congress continues to vote for the renewal of expiring provisions and our President signs it into law, repeatedly (despite the fact that much of it is illegal on Constitutional grounds), whenever the occasion arises. We as a nation continue to elect people who either don't care about our rights and the Constitution, are too stupid to realize what they are, or are downright evil and want to take them away. None of that bodes well for us.

If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil. Okay interesting perspective but I don't agree that sanctions are ineffective. Both the change in Iran and South Africa's attitude towards international pressure about certain policies are testimony to that. But I will say this, if the government of a particular country doesn't care about the suffering of there citizens then the sanctions won't be as effective. If you take North Korea for example the leaders of that country still lived a life of luxury but there citizens suffered and starved to death in there hundreds of thousands ...but that mass loss of NK lives is irrelevant to the Jong-il family South Africa is an anomaly in regards to sanctions, and if they even worked there is questionable. It's very noteworthy that the sanctions that ultimately were imposed on South Africa came about due to a great deal of pressure on the U.S. government from it's citizens and grassroots movements in the U.S. Both the U.S. government and the U.K. government (Mr. and Mrs. Sanctiondecider-Giver on planet earth) were more than happy to allow South Africa their apartheid system before it became political suicide for U.S. representatives to not impose them. Without so much pressure from the U.S. citizenry those sanctions would never have happened. And this is the only instance of sanctions in history I can think of that came about this way. Normally, and in every other case I can think of 'sanctions' are an aggressive imperialistic tool initiated on levels in society that are anything but grassroots, whose goals tend to not what they are advertised to be to the world at large and are anything but noble. (see Sarex's earlier linked documentary for a good example) In regards to sanctions on Iran... I don't think they accomplished all that much really, at least insofar in what they were advertised to try and accomplish. It remains to be seen what the ultimate affect of sanctions will have though. And I think it's definitely debatable if they're even a good idea to begin with as the ultimate affect of them may blow up in the faces of those imposing them (possibly just about literally). Iran is one of the more interesting subjects in the world though, and one of the most mis-advertised in the western world. If you want to see a decent documentary on what sanctions can do to a nation watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHn3kKySuVo You might just change your mind on the idea that sanctions are a good thing. There's another documentary out there on the subject that's even better but I can't recall the name of it right now (watched it years ago). Of course that the U.S. and U.K. even hold the power they do to impose sanctions on anyone is a troublesome issue in and of itself, and on many levels, many of which don't reach face value for your average person. But that's a world banking system thing, didn't ya know?

I know Canada is one and the other one slips my mind..... No, Canada isn't one. Canada still has a queen. Puerto Rico is probably the closest thing we have to a 51st state (not considering D.C. of course), and it's move to become a state has been shot down a couple of times snow. People seem fixated with the nice round number of '50'. In reality the greatest likelihood for a 51st state would be if one of the existing states split, and while I think that's a long shot right now, there is a growing movement in a number of states to split apart that I do think may gain real traction as time goes on.

Sanctions absolutely work, but they take time to work and you need a certain level of severity to be meaningful If your goal is for the populace of a nation to suffer and perhaps kill a great many innocents then sure, sanctions work. At their best sanctions are a bunch of hot air for the most part (which in regards to Russia they will be), at their worst (something they are all too often, ie: Iraq) they're downright evil.

I'm happy to watch that video but I still need an answer. Do you guys think that Serbia was treated unfairly by NATO in respects to the Bosnian War? I think there is far more than has met the eye of most of the people reading this forum in regards to Serbia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, etc. I think there is far more than has met the eye of even those looking closely at the situation (ie: Chinese embassy go boom accident my ass). I think that you should watch the video Sarex linked. I think in this day and age NATO has lost all pretenses of being what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance) and has morphed into an imperialist tool in the eyes of anyone who pays attention and doesn't gobble up the propaganda NATO and many of it's members serve up regularly. Some have said it's always been just an imperialist tool, I'm not sure they are wrong. I think NATO definitely treated Serbia 'unfairly' and was acting as an aggressor as well as the main instigator in the war despite the official overtones otherwise. And I think that anyone who looks into what went on during the wars, and what's gone on since will come to that conclusion if they let facts and not propaganda or misplaced loyalties reign supreme. And for the record, I am neither Serbian nor Bosnian, and have no family history in that part of the world, nor skin in the game over there.

I mentioned racism in South Africa as that's where you're from (I assume you're truthful with your location), and what I was attempting to do was point out the marked differences between our nations on the issue to say to you that it's not as bad here as you seem to think in regards to racism. It really isn't, not even remotely. I didn't do it to belittle you or your nation. I surmised that perhaps you might have a tough time believing that given the exceptional levels of racism in your backyard and how some U.S. media constantly manufactures stories to stoke the fires of racism. Race simply is the most minor of factors when it comes to Obama, just as sex is when it comes to a female like Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin. So minor it's really not worthy of being discussed. 'Racism' and 'sexism' are terms far more often used as a weapon to marginalize by the lowest of the low of journalists and politicians than they are actually used as factors to determine someone's vote positively or negatively. And while there are no numbers on it and never likely will be (as how do you even measure such a thing?) I think anyone who's really paying attention to what goes on and talks to a lot of different people would say that Obama got far more votes because he was black than he lost votes because he was black, and the same goes for Hillary, Sarah, and others in regards to their sex and race. Genuine racism exists in the U.S., but the hypersensitivity to it, the false sense of guilt, and false sense of entitlement is far far far more common amongst the populace. As for us disagreeing a lot. Yes. You come across to me as someone who believes almost wholeheartedly in the official western state supported dialogue on almost every subject that ever comes up on these forums. (I am simplifying this critique.) I think I question things a lot more than you do, in essence because many years ago I realized I was being lied to, and a lot. I used to believe a lot of the same bull**** you do but upon realizing that some of it was bull**** I dug for truth, I found some, and it was anything but pretty. I don't think you realize how much of what you think is true is a bunch of lies (your latest thread on 'banbossy' is a good example), and I think you should question things more than you do before you jump on a bandwagon. As I've said on these forums before: Always ask yourself 'Why am I being shown this?' 'Why is this a news story?' and 'Cui Bono?' If we were sitting in a pub or on a dock by a lake on a regular basis over the course of time I think I could convince you of many a thing (I have success doing this with people; truth is a powerful convincing tool for all but the most delusional), but it's hard to debate on a forum, and not knowing where you come from (why you think as you do) on whatever issue it is we're discussing. But really, question things more. Have no heroes, always ask 'why?'. The answers are not what many seem to be on the surface. The world is often not as advertised on television and in the major print publications (both of which are largely owned by the same folks, worldwide at this point).

I wouldn't ever accuse John Taylor Gatto of being a doomsday prophet. Of all the folks I know of that talk about the U.S. education system in a no nonsense manner (which is few people at the national level) I'd actually place him among the most positive of them all. He's a pretty enlightened lighthearted guy in my estimation. A beacon of enlightenment in the dark sea of bull**** that makes up most of what is our discourse on education at the national level is these days. That said, the history of our education and current condition of it truly can come off of as an overwhelmingly negative thing, and John Taylor Gatto is the bearer of bad news to many folks who are unfamiliar with some of what he's talking about. That things have gotten markedly worse in just the last 20 years makes much of what he says all the more relevant. John, a multiple award winning teacher (and very deserving of those awards), likely wouldn't last in today's school system, he would likely be fired, as would many of the better teachers I had growing up. Things are not good. But I'm not looking to get into a debate about the current school system. I read your link (thank you for it), and I think the guy who wrote that article is lazy in his critique, is probably a little too self absorbed. has entirely missed much of the meat of John's work, and if he's limited himself to just reading John's short essays (which he seems to have done) then he's missing out on most of what John ever talks/writes about. John does indeed offer some solutions, but they are solutions the typical holder of a PhD in education are not going to swallow or recognize, as they are a part of the problem more than most anything else, and part of John's solution would mean the elimination of most of such people's jobs. John's best work in my opinion has nothing to do with solutions though, and that's when he writes/talks of the history of the modern education system and is just serving as a historian (it is not a historian's job to offer solutions). And this is why I linked Gatto, and used the specific link I did, as the book 'The Underground History of American Education' was pertinent to what I was talking about. It's a good book, and I highly recommend reading it to anyone, but especially teachers and parents of those in our state sponsored education system. But it's really a good read for anyone who wants to know how and why we got where we are.

I'm really still not sure what it is you want then that wasn't in the IE games already. The follow the leader button was there. You seem to just be upset that some characters may get there before others due to things like boots of speed? So you want a follow the leader button and a pace normalization button? Wouldn't just taking off the boots solve your problem?

There was a thread put up, albeit not by a Dev or Mod so perhaps that's why you missed it. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65209-reddit-ama-2262014-discussion-thread-c2b-approved/ To the Devs: Thanks for all of the information you've shared so far! In this thread and others. For Adam, Josh, or whomever, I'm curious what you would you say has been the most challenging aspect to designing the game so far?

Here lies Old Yarrick, Hero of yesteryore A righteous wise man of mystery and war On his deathbed people came from far and wide To wish him well, be by his side No one knows what to make of his last croon 'Always, always, keep the pantaloons' Thanks for the opportunity. I had some good fun writing this. I'm not sure if the name of the stone and the message of it will flow into one another in game. Hopefully they do.

What the hell does the Bosnian war have to do with Kosovo? Also what do you know about the Bosnian war? Do you know how may Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and west Bosnia? Or do you want me to start with WW2 where the national tension culminated? Save me from your western media information, because they lied their ass off during the Bosnian war. If you are interested in the Bosnian war watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08 What has the Bosnian War and Kosovo got to do with each other? You really don't know? Well lets see.... Serbia was directly iinvolved in both conflicts and Serbian nationalism played a part in both wars Serbia took there military strategy too far, in other words what they were prepared to do to "win" In both cases NATO intervened to end the military aspirations of the Serbs I assume you are Serbian? Do you think that NATO treated the Serbs unfairly? The question is more about the Bosnian War Whatever you think about the wars in Yugoslavia in the last ~25 years, I highly recommend you watch the documentary that Sarex linked. While it glosses over a few things (especially the 19th/earth 20th century history), and is told from a somewhat Serbia perspective, there is indisputable first source information in it that flies in the face of what was told in the news to most of the world. What happened in Yugoslavia and Albania, and how those wars came to be, is not what most people outside of those nations think.

Your concerns should be addressed to Amazon, or perhaps better yet, the Canadian government. Obsidian has no control over how you obtain the game or the shipping policies of the various retailers that sell it. It's quite normal for a U.S. company such as Amazon to have restrictions on international shipping due to cost and tax issues among other things, but it's usually costs and tax issues. From experience dealing with shipping things to and from Canada in the past, it's likely a tax issue for Amazon. Canadian taxes and restrictions on items coming over it's border can be downright ridiculous, and as a result many companies don't even bother. There is an Amazon.ca is there not? If the price is a lot higher up there it's more than likely due to the taxes the Canadian government has seen fit to place on the items being shipped from the U.S. to be sold up there. As I said, 'ridiculous' is the operative word to describe some of their tax policies on items coming over their border. That said, a download option for collector's edition buyers isn't a bad idea, but perhaps the logistics of it aren't all that feasible.

Not impossible at all. In each case I mentioned the information of the details of the acquisition and why was publicly available at the time (possibly still is if you look hard enough). I gave a very brief synopsis. Here's a slightly longer synopsis for the case of Origin: When it was sold to EA it had some financial troubles yes, but due to epic mismanagement and serious overpaying of some of the execs and lead devs. The lavish lifestyle of Garriot in particular being the prime factor as he was taking far too much money from the company coffers for himself. The money was available, Garriot decided he'd rather build himself a castle and keeping throwing lavish parties though. The company was his baby to do with as he wished, and he definitely had the means to keep it afloat. Going to EA allowed him to keep his castle, lavish parties, and other expensive habits though. So yea, you could say Origin was facing death or going to EA, but that's a serious over simplification, and not really how it was. Insofar as obtaining a loan back then, if he wasn't able to get a loan it's because the banks saw his mismanagement when they looked at his company books, not because of some recession or the savings and loans scandal. I don't know if you were around back then, but I was, and when Origin went to EA it was on top of the computer video game world, and EA (ECA at the time) was not near the behemoth it is now. In fact Origin going to ECA was a serious 'wait what!?!' moment in the industry as Origin had been perceived by most to be the more successful company at the time. ECA didn't have the huge hits that Origin had, in fact it had had a string of so-so titles for awhile, but it was managed far better. I do not like what EA has done to the industry, nor most of the games they've published in the last two decades (there are some gems from before) but I will say they are very good at managing their business, when so many others are not. Garriot basically leeched everything he could out of his company and then sold it. Origin could have survived and thrived on it's own if it had been managed even a little better by folks not near as greedy as Garriot. It's notable that even after EA acquired it the Origin folks who stuck around (Garriot being one of them) were paid too much and pissed away money on epic levels (which lead to it being eventually folded). There might not be a bigger squandered success story in the history of computer video games than that of Richard Garriot and Origin. Origin of course isn't the only company that folded or sold out at a time when it was raking in millions, you might be familiar with Interplay? I mentioned my greatest disappointments in gaming in the last 10 years above. In the time before that Interplay's demise was my greatest. Epic mismanagement and greed there as well, but not on the level seen at Origin.

How it was done in the IE games was good. If I understand the OP correctly he wants a 'follow me' mode where all of the other character step exactly where the leader steps. While convenient, I do not think that would be a good addition to the game. It would take away from some gameplay as well as immersion. So you have a very dexterous trap finder who nimbly walks around the traps, so all other characters should be able to as well? Convenient, but conveniency is not always good as has been demonstrated in many a game in recent times.

Most of the good companies that EA obtained and cannibalized were not in the position of be obtained or die. Bioware certainly wasn't, nor was Origin. Maxis, Westwood, or Bullfrog. All once great game companies who were either bought out against their will or sold themselves out (and in most of these cases in their prime). Bioware going to EA was one of the most disappointing things to happen in gaming in the last 10 years in my opinion. And I've lost oodles of respect for Ray for doing that as well as after I saw him in some interviews. The man totally has lost his way in regards to games (not sure about Greg as I haven't seen him in interviews, but I suspect he has as well). Obsidian Entertainment is the only current U.S. computer game company I have any faith in and respect their work at this point. Though I do have some hope InXile becomes a second. I once had great respect for Blizzard as well, but they're a sell out story of a different kind and the source of my biggest disappointment in the last 10 years of gaming.

I know racist people. I've seen racism firsthand directed at others in a real way (not just calling someone a name, but in a manner that actually hurts the individual in some way), and have experienced it directed at myself in a real way. It exists. It however does not exist as a common thing to a level that it affects more than a smidgeon of the U.S. population's opinion of Obama. Those that defend Obama on grounds of racism really just show how little there is to defend, and/or show how per-occupied with race they are themselves. Racism isn't even remotely as prevalent in the U.S. as it is in South Africa (where it is still probably worse than it ever was in the U.S. as a whole, even in the darkest of times in that regard) or as some in the U.S. media would have you believe, and not even remotely might be an understatement. Also, It is probably safe to say Obama has gotten more votes due to his skin color than those he's lost because of it. I've heard far far far far more people say they were voting for Obama because he's black (in 2008) because they thought it was time for a black president than say they wouldn't vote for him because he was black. That Obama was black was overall an asset in 2008 USA, not a liability.

Anyone supporting it certainly. Unless they are an evil MFer. No one with any sense of even a smidgeon of appreciation for liberty and the U.S. Constitution would support the U.S. Patriot Act. And it's worth noting that a majority on Capital Hill have supported it for over a decade. There's probably no better litmus test in determining if your representative is fighting for your freedoms and/or competent than if they support the Patriot Act or not. I've not read the whole thing, but I have read a bunch, more than enough to see how bad it is. And I'm aware of how it was written before 9/11, shoved through Congress, and what's been done in it's name since. It is an evil act through and through, and a good example of doublespeak in regards to how it's named as anyone but a real U.S. patriot would support this act if they actually were aware of what's in it. And supporting any act without being aware of what's in it is just plain dumb. Just because you've chosen to be unaware of something that is in the public domain, do not assume that most everyone else has chosen to be unaware as well.

How are they being self-righteous for calling for the repeal of legislation that is unconstitutional and downright evil? Can you point to a single instance of that legislation preventing a terrorist attack? The Federal government cannot. And even if it could, what's the point of fighting wars for freedom if at the end of the day you have none? Haven't the terrorists as they are advertised on TV who supposedly hate our freedom won if we legislate our freedoms away?

Oh? So you're insinuating I'm crazy? What's wrong with the link? Obviously you didn't realize what it was if you're making that insinuation. Either that or you're a extra special level of brainwashed to have such a knee jerk reaction to what I linked. I'll give you the option to check again. I'll agree the website could be better designed, but the information I linked is anything but crazy. It's one of the best books I've ever read (and I read a lot) for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is it's enlightening on a level that most are not, especially if you know your history, and have done research yourself on some of the subjects the author touches on. If I recall right you're a teacher aren't you? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall you saying such sometime ago. If there was ever a book you should read as a teacher or as a parent if you have kids in the public school system in the U.S., Europe, or any other nation that has a schooling model based on theirs (which is most at this point), the book I linked or possibly another one by the same author is one that should be read. The author, John Taylor Gatto, was kind enough to put the book I linked on his website for free. If you don't know who he is, I suggest you look him up, and then read his book either on the website or order a copy. Also, putting aside the innumerable things wrong with the 'mental health care' system in our nation, what gives the Federal government Constitutional authority to say or do anything at all in regards to 'mental health'?

Good question, and not an easy one to answer. The reasons Teddy was bad are not as obvious as the reasons his cousin or many others are bad, and require a lot of knowledge about the times and 19th/early 20th century politics in general both in the U.S. and abroad. It would take me a long time (probably the equivalent of 3 semesters worth of U.S. history classes focusing on those times) to fully explain why and I just don't have that time. In very short however, Teddy was in the pocket of the bankers on a level never before seen up to that time for anyone sitting in the White House (he was VP first, and became President on McKinley's assassination, supposedly by a lone acting anarchist ('anarchists' were often the scapegoats of their day like 'terrorists' are today, and 'revolutionaries' were before them)) in particular J.P. Morgan who was essentially either in league with various European oligarchs (particularly the English branch of the Rotschilds) or basically their U.S. agent depending on how you look at it and when. McKinley's death was extremely convenient for the bankers who wanted to bring the U.S. into the central banking fold, and even more convenient was who his replacement was. As Teddy was largely a yes man for them, a Presidential yes man. Teddy's story and why he's bad spans 3+ decades of U.S. history (European history to an extent as well), sees him being a key figure both purposefully and probably just as a pawn in seeing the U.S. transform from what it was into a both a fully fledged imperial power and brought under the thumb of the British central bankers (in league with some newly minted U.S. oligarchs such as Rockefeller), and culminates in him paving the way at JP's behest in getting Wilson elected (Taft wasn't the puppet to the bankers that Wilson/Roosevelt was). Both Wilson and Teddy were puppets, both were very different people, but both were full of themselves. Teddy was an ego-maniac of near unparallelled level in U.S.history, and though I wouldn't say anyone who's ever been president is dumb, Teddy is probably the least mentally gifted of any we've ever had (he was still smarter than your average Joe though), and probably the most susceptible to manipulation due in part to that ego. And that manipulation came at a key time in U.S./world history. Though Wilson gave us the corrupt central banking system we have along with it's symbiotic parasitic income tax, and The Great War (WW1), Teddy paved the way for all of this like no other President, Wilson just sealed the deal. Serving the U.S. up to the very interests we fought a revolutionary war to escape, and we went on to fight two world wars and a whole bunch of others since for those interests.Though I do believe both of them did it largely unintentionally, as I said, they were puppets. U.S. history, and world history is not as simple or black and white as folks are taught in high school and even most college courses. It's made up of a great many interrelated things, some of which span centuries in scope, and much of which is almost never mentioned in textbooks. Some of those old scopes having direct and real impact on today's world. The majority of the U.S.'s current troubles can be traced back to the early 20th century though, to the time of Teddy, Wilson, et al. But really, this may not make much sense if you aren't very knowledgeable in history.