213374U

The line would be where the subject brings to light illegal (or even simply immoral) activities, government or corporate. If a person is aware that a crime is being committed and doesn't report it, he can be charged as accessory. The government doesn't (shouldn't) get exemption on that just because they claim to be doing it "for the common good", "for the people" or "for reasons". And yes, I feel everyone should know what their government is doing. Reason #1 is because they are doing it with my taxes' money. I don't get to choose whether I pay taxes or not. Reason #2 is that I'm a distrustful and cynical **** and cannot think of a single use of secrecy that cannot (and therefore will not) be abused and subverted. Doesn't mean everyone needs to know everything immediately though. But secrecy destroys accountability. And there can be no true democracy without accountability.

Oh, wow. A kindergarten reference to my handle here is the best you can do? Come on, be a bro and put some effort into it, make a "ur mum" joke or something. **** yeah babby!

No, it's not simple at all. Counting how many journalists are imprisoned or killed vs the same thing in Russia only tells you how many journalists are killed in each place. It says nothing about the independence and quality of journalism. And, by all means, keep bringing more figures and statistics from western-based organizations collated by obscure methodologies to prove that western journalism is "free". That's true. But mostly only because of Snowden—the dude that can't go back to his country because there is no whistleblower protection. A sad state of affairs for the country that is the vanguard of the "free world", don't you think? http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/1/ It's hard to find the hardcore stuff on mainstream publications, though. And I mean the news items regarding the ever-escalating drone assassinations, the role of intel agencies in foreign regime destabilization, the CIA secret prisons, etc. That kind of thing simply doesn't get as much exposure as other choice pieces do, and obviously nowhere near as much as it should. Instead the criticism is mostly regarding budgetary stuff, policy decisions, partisan tugs of war, etc. Yeah, you are right. Going through your posts is like cleaning a bar's toilet. No matter how hard you scrub, you know there's plenty more where that came from.

No need for wild imagination, you just described good ol' system in most Eastren countries(including Russia) where the government tells the press what is ok through harsh censorship. As demonstrated by the data I linked, so that we can avoid any statements based on our own beliefs or biases... Speaking of censorship, that film you linked to make your point about america was produced in and acted by Americans. In fact many films and other media in the "west" are openly critical of its various governments and policies. Which brings me back to Russia, when was last time that anyone was allowed to make a truly critical about Russia\Putin (in fact, some of the bigger fishes have been jailed on tramped up charges, so that others get the hint that you either with or against the "party" line ). So before we continue, you need to understand that from day one you have been exposed(brainwashed) to only one point of view i.e. "Putin daily". This is particularly hard to understand to people in the east where censorship is most brutal, thus their initial experience to global media is usually WTF?! LIES! this is usually passes once you expand your foundation and figure out that the world doesn't revolve around you. I really love how you get all high and mighty at the drop of a hat and accuse other people you know nothing about of being "brainwashed", "lazy", "complacent" and anything else you need to feel good about yourself. Compensating for something, are we? The link you posted is of questionable value, for reasons I already discussed. Clearly, an unbiased analysis and discussion is much harder and effort-intensive than copypasta of the first WP page that supports your view. Here is the post where I pre-emptively discussed the WP "data": bushthatsheetididntreaditlol.gif Now, I'm not an expert on Russian media, I know very little of the actual hurdles journalists have to overcome to do their job over there. And unless you are Russian, I'm not going to take your word for it, either. But what I do know is that western mainstream media are so under the control of private interests that there is no functional difference between a central government censorship agency and "editorial lines" that journalists have to follow or face sacking. What good is a right if it's not exercised? Heh. Aw, gee. I don't know. How about we shift the focus for once and cast the bad guys from our own backyard? The death toll worldwide attributable to the global MIC is difficult to calculate, but it sure beats war crimes during the Balkans wars. Of course, the idea that the people signing our paychecks (for those who are still getting one) are involved in the business of systematic global destabilization may be harder to swallow for some of us than some nice reinforcement of the "us vs them" mentality achieved by caricaturesque portrayals of bad guys from "the East" to whom we cannot establish any sort of emotional connection. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

Sure, the day Larry King interviews Edward Snowden on CNN. Oh, wait... Lol "free press". That should raise all sorts of red flags by itself. Just saying...

You'd have to extend that to any Ugandan. Unless you can test for homosexuality somehow. Science has all the answers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_photoplethysmograph There's of course a male version as well. Thank you Stephen Fry and QI for highlighting this important information. Come on man, I leave everything set up for you to make a facile gaydar joke and you come up with... wtf is that, seriously. I just lost 1d6 SAN.

I was tempted to bring up a troll thread from 2005 that I started that turned out pretty well, as an example. Decided against it because... no real point. But yeah, funny how the memory works. Can't remember the name of this coworker I need to talk to or that formula that I absolutely need for this exam... but remember vividly some silly discussion from ten years ago.

I'm not big on western social colonialism, but moral minimums. Seriously, moral relativism is the road to chaos. I agree with your point on sanctions. It's always the little people that get the short end of the stick. You'd have to extend that to any Ugandan. Unless you can test for homosexuality somehow.

Yeah, I guess if anyone has reasons to be suspicious of the intentions of foreign powers, it would be the Balkan peoples. Austro-Hungary, Ottomans, Russians, Germans, NATO... you just can't seem to catch a break huh? My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Yeah, well. With CRPG fans it's a bit like the old joke: "What do you get if you put two Trotskyists in a room? Three Trotskyist groups"

I honestly don't know about that. Encyclopedia Dramatica is a favorite of mine (I have a weakness for "an hero" shopped pics) and yet I'd like to think I'm a fairly well-adjusted individual. Who doesn't think the same, though? Despite my best efforts to be serious and non-offensive—when I choose to be—the deep aspects of my personality are going to leak through and affect the way I behave. The question is, if the person I am affects the way I behave online, can the way I behave online also affect the person I am? Another perspective is the relationship between language and thought. I remember reading a theory that suggested that thought and language both affect each other, as opposed to language being simply an imperfect tool to convey thoughts. If the use of language is distorted, the concepts behind it can be distorted as well—this mechanism is well established and a basic lesson in propaganda. The internet is a special setting where it's all language and no action, and it's basically one huge free for all, so the boundaries to which it's "acceptable" to distort language are poorly defined, if at all.

Right. I'm not so convinced either way. "Games turn kids into killers" is probably the most extreme example you can make, but there are other scenarios we could consider. For instance, the rise of "happy slapping" and other phenomena that transcend the barriers of the 'nets and affect people's physical lives. This is not the same as suggesting that 'Codex is a nest of rapists because they systematically trivialize rape, but it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas? Social pressure is essential at curbing antisocial (oh, wow, I went there) conducts, but with the internet you have a space where standard social norms no longer apply and may or may not be substituted by something entirely different depending on the community you are looking at.

And that would be fine, were it not for the fact that you are using this "loose, broad definition" as proof that Yugoslavia was aligned with the Soviets, thus attacking the other leg of the "strategic, unaligned" requirement for a counterexample you formulated yourself. You didn't follow the link I pasted, did you? The idiom you used indicates neutrality. Political neutrality and non-alignment are different concepts. Stop with the equivocation, please. Which one? Poland in the interim between WWI and WWII? Poland after WWII? You are comparing Poland after WWII with SFR Yugoslavia and that is a valid comparison. But then you are bringing the historical circumstances of Poland after WWI to support the idea that "neutrality" didn't work out so well for Poland because it got annexed by Germany and the USSR—this makes no sense as post-WWII, Poland was a Soviet satellite from the get go, making it an unsuitable candidate to be an example to sustain your theory that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence". They cannot sit on the fence if they are puppet states to begin with, duh! And I'm the one moving the goal posts around? But let's consider for a moment Poland's fate after the M-R pact's secret protocol went into effect. This is only proof that Poland could not survive in the geopolitical landscape of 1939 without some great power backing her up. That's the only conclusion that can be rigorously drawn from that historical episode. Using induction to make absolute predictions in geopolitics is a no-no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

As I said, this is going to be difficult if you can't keep track of your own posts. You began framing this as a question of Ukrainian integration into the EU (which is partly what it's about, judging from some of the Euromaidan demands, and depending on the final scope of the DCFTA). Exhibit #1: This is not simply a Ukraine-EU association agreement, this is actually directly referencing economic and legal integration. Ukraine is not going to become a full-fledged EU member overnight, even if the DCFTA is a first step on that direction. The closer the relationship is to actual membership the greater the sovereignty loss. Simple, no? How is it inconsistent? The loss of sovereignty in exchange for nothing much is precisely the point I've been making! I will rephrase the original question to solve this perceived inconsistency: what will Ukraine receive in exchange for relinquishing part of her sovereignty and independence? I'm not the one treating the EU as a federation, you are. You are justifying the loss of sovereignty for reasons. Exhibit #2: It's starting to get old to do your work for you. In practice, what happens is that the EU lays down specific requirements and goals for countries to legislate towards by means of the Stability Pact, look it up. In a sense it's even worse—the EU dictates a series of high-level directives countries must comply with, and they must do so without critical macroeconomic tools such as the ability to devalue currency. Pretty clever, huh? Nope, the issue is not the disagreement—it's your insistence that closer integration into a EU that has some serious democratic deficits is positive for everyone involved, for reasons. When I a) showcase the price that integration has on members and b) present economic figures that show that the EU is failing at addressing key problems in member states despite having and exercising broad powers to intervene in domestic affairs of member states, you go off on tangents to rebut my rebuttals without actually ever making the slightest effort to back up your own claims. Where you live or have lived is irrelevant because I did not accuse you of having preconceptions; I accused you of not understanding basic concepts (sovereignty, neutrality) of international law and EU bureaucracy, based solely on your posts in this thread. You could be posting from the ass end of the universe for all I care. Oh, but you did say it wasn't strategic. Exhibit #3: Pretty handy how the internets remembers everything, don't you think? You were also drawing an irrelevant comparison to push forward the idea that, as Yugoslavia wasn't as arbitrarily strategic as XYZ, it therefore does not constitute a valid counterexample to your general principle that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence". A beautiful example of a No True Scotsman fallacy. The irony is so gleaming that I'm now writing these posts with my sunglasses on.

Not gonna fall for that bro. You claimed that international treaties infringe upon sovereignty. You have to prove it. Until you do, it's just your hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you. Get with the program and stop using these bull**** delay tactics where you constantly demand that I prove a negative while you continue to make random unsupported claims in return. How, precisely, and outside of the EU agreements, do any of those limit sovereignty "to a degree"? To what degree, really? The one that suits your stance depending on the moment? How is any of the following: the principle of the right of political self-determination the principle of equality between states the principle of non-intervention in other states' internal affairs affected by the treaties subscribed by Spain? Go on, for once, support your arguments. Present evidence. Give concrete examples. Unsubstantiated. International treaties place obligations on participating countries that are agreed upon during the negotiations for the treaty. This is fundamentally different from outsourcing the entire decision making process to a supranational entity that is outside of the control of the signatory. To make this perfectly clear, a treaty is a one-time deal whose conditions are clear to those involved a priori. The loss of sovereignty that becoming part of a federation entails is akin to giving someone else carte blanche to make deals on your behalf and take away your ability to question those deals. Ah, so now what I've been saying is not important or relevant because "sovereignty isn't abolished", merely diminished. Thanks for proving my point. And please, show me where I said national sovereignty of members is destroyed, abolished, or any other hyperbolic participle you can think of to articulate your weak No True Scotsmans. Each member is free to exercise their sovereign rule... except where this comes into conflict with ECJ rulings, EC regulations and directives, EP laws, or any other source of law at the Union level that contravene it, at which point it it's superseded because it was decided that Union legislation should take precedence. EC regulations are not voluntarily accepted by any stretch of the imagination, unless by "voluntarily" you actually mean "take it or GTFO", obviously. So long as you do what we say, all will be well, is it? Unless national law conflicts with EU law. It doesn't bother micromanaging national courts, it simply overrules them. Seriously, who's the lawyer here? None of this is even serious academic stuff. It's on WP, for crying out loud. And in this sense, "human rights" can increasingly mean anything so long as it involves the "rights" of humans—including, but not limited to, legitimacy of life in prison sentences, retroactive application of judicial doctrines, voting rights, extraditions, etc. Again, the EU court will simply overrule national courts if a justification can be found to do so under the European Convention on Human Rights. Once more, thanks for proving my point. I'm not even making value judgments, here; simply confirming what I've been saying all along, to wit, that joining the EU means a loss of sovereignty. Oh, cripes. The only thing that my time living in the EU proves is that my opinions (which I welcome the challenge of, btw) are not, in fact, preconceptions—and therefore baseless and grounded on emotion as being preconceived would imply—simply because a preconception is a mental representation built in absence of actual experience with the object in question. Your credentials are not abhorrent, they are merely irrelevant. There are some users here with a strong background in law and bureaucracy and I'm more than happy to defer to their opinions. Not by virtue of their credentials (which rests on my willingness to believe them), but because they actually use their knowledge to make their cases and present evidence that is not just one Google click away. Unlike you, they never bring their credentials up in an effort to support their arguments. They don't need to.

The examples you are putting forth are not only the extremes of trolling, but also don't very well connect with the idea that "a troll is somebody that goes online with the sole intention of pissing others off". The extreme example is maybe the "God Hates f**s" crew. Do they go online only with the intention of sabotaging serviceman memorials? If they do so, is it because they get a kick out of angering mourners or because they really believe in the tripe they spread? How can we know the extent and tone of the rest of their interactions online, if any? This is why I contend that tagging individuals as trolls and calling it a day just doesn't cut it. Regardless, the internets is a new medium, where the dynamics of interaction are completely different from the real world where everyone first learned to interact with other people. Much like astronauts need to re-learn how to move in zero-g, people need to teach themselves first how to react before thinking of acting online. The first step is, as I mentioned before, to grow a thicker skin. This is a crude way to say that, in general, it is beneficial to learn to recognize and disregard noise and, in particular, to view content through the prism that "opinions are like arseholes". My reasoning is grounded on simplicity and economy of effort—it is much easier* to learn to recognize and reconduct my reactions than it is to try and moderate the internet to make it conform more or less to a set of rules established for a different medium. In an environment where fluff (or content aimed at eliciting a negative emotional response) is blocked at the user level or outright disregarded, there can be no trolling. *as easy as any effort of self-reflection can be, anyway

Oh, so that's what you really meant, I feel silly now, heh. I guess steroids can be safe and even beneficial if you know what you are doing and are already at the "top" of what is achievable naturally for you. Most guys on juice fail to meet either criteria however, and then you get cases such as this: It's also, as you say, very much a question of narcissism (insecurity?)—except at the pro BB'ing level, then it's all about money—so I understand your misgivings about getting involved with that. A pity.

Nope, I don't believe in hardgainers either, only undereaters. 68 Kg for 1.84m is really skinny. Keep in mind that 1500 kJ is just ~360 kcal, it's really not that much—when I studied this I was told that a good approach was to program an excess of 500 kcal/day and adjust from there based on results. Also, and short of calorimetry, there is no way to directly measure energy expenditure so it's always a bit of a guessing game. Basal energy expenditure can be somewhat reliably estimated by a body composition measurement, but expenditure from activity is far harder to establish, so it's possible the requirements have been underestimated, the intake overestimated, or both. Another possibility is that your friend has some sort of intolerance that is damaging his ability to absorb nutrients. Lactose and gluten are the usual suspects here, and the problem is that these can be asymptomatic... and yet still totally wreck you internally. If your friend is really eating obscene amounts of food and is still constantly hungry/not gaining weight, a visit to the specialist may be in order. Again, this is your friend and you obviously know him better, but when people can't seem to put on weight no matter what when training hard, odds are they just aren't eating enough. If all else fails, put him on the GOMAD diet, see what happens (not recommended if lactose intolerant, obviously). Good luck!

Prepare for disappointment. Old timers (me included) are prone to donning some seriously thick rose colored glasses when discussing their favorite games. Deus Ex may be an A-level title but it hasn't aged well. Same with a lot of other "classics". Some of those games are also buggy, so temper your expectations. On the plus side, they should be real cheap by now and will give you good bang for your buck if you can get into them. Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex HR should be on your list, too.

This is the blasphemous opinions on CRPGs thread. The iconoclastic opinions on CRPGs thread is through the other door.

Le sigh. This is going to be difficult if you can't keep track of your own comments. You said: "no country is truly sovereign in the modern world" This was in response, and as a dismissal/justification of my point that integration into the EU entails a loss of sovereignty. This is you giving up on national sovereignty as an outdated concept. Are we on the same page? You keep losing track of comments, running circles and shifting focus when a point is made that you can't handle. For someone so quick to flaunt their academic credentials, I'd expect at least a basic understanding of concepts such as sovereignty, and a working knowledge of the obligations that come from being a EU member. Let me lay it out for you. Members are obligated to: relinquish control over monetary policy once switching to the Euro (handled at the Union level by ECB) acknowledge rulings and domestic ruling overturns by the ECJ and ECHR obey regulations and directives issued by the European Commission (secondary legislation, I'm sure you know what this is) fall in line with the common trading policy or face severe penalties etc. Did they not cover this in law school? It may seem AWESOME!!! to you, but NEWSFLASH: the EU is not de jure a federation; it was not ever marketed as one, it was not designed as one. The transfer of powers to a series of higher, transnational organs is, by the very definition of the word, a loss of sovereignty. Also, you are making the frankly mad implication that international treaties infringe upon national sovereignty. This is simply not so unless the treaties are actually imposed by third parties and are designed specifically as an intervention instrument on the country they affect (i.e. the military restrictions provisions of the Treaty of Versailles). But I guess international law is not your speciality? While I've been experiencing the EU every since my country's accession in 2004, so I have plenty of first-hand experience. I also have done my reading (and have a law degree, but that's a separate matter), so I know that the EU is about, in concept and in practice. Spare me the condescending bull****, please. It sucks to be in Spain and Portugal, but don't pretend the EU forced your government to adopt unsafe policies, bloat public spending, and ignore the bubble. The Union does not micromanage countries, that's left to the individual national governments. *golfclap* And another uncanny dodge, and redirect into... the major cluster**** that is the policy of Spain? What does that have to do with what Ukraine stands to gain from joining the EU? Or, specifically outside of Spain and Portugal (I made a point of not naming any countries), the ongoing advance of poverty and inequality across the entire Union that EU institutions have failed to handle? You know, the stuff in the paragraph you quoted and that you were supposedly following up on? What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU? That was in reference to your comments that my views were "preconceptions" about the EU! Seriously, does that sort cheap prestidigitation work for you in court? Sorry, but you have made it abundantly clear in this thread that you do not know what the EU is about, you do not know about the undemocratic and opaque character of its decision-making processes—either that or you are being intellectually dishonest. So which one is it, Your Honor? Which superpowers was Yugoslavia stuck between? I specifically pointed out that while it split with Stalin and the Warsaw Pact, it was still a communist country, a part of the bloc. It wasn't, however, a vital strategic area like Germany, Czechoslovakia, or Poland, where Third World War would be fought. Which superpowers? Are you for real? Wow. So China was part of the "bloc" too after 1960? What about Cambodia after '76? Basically any country that has a socialist government was part of the "bloc" by your logic? What bloc are exactly talking about, because I cannot find any definition of a post-WWII "bloc" that includes Yugoslavia precisely because Tito made a point of non-alignment. Therefore, and henceforth, I'm going to refer to it as the "Tagaziel bloc". Yes, Yugoslavia formed part of that bloc. And please, stop with the navel gazing, it's getting embarrassing. Yeah, fine. Yugoslavia was not part of the great European plains that would have been the scenario of huge tank battles and possibly tactical nuclear warfare. It was, however, the only non western-aligned country that could allow the Eastern bloc (USSR + Warsaw pact) access to the Mediterranean. I guess that's why the Balkans area hadn't been a scenario of competing interests for any great powers for centuries and ostensibly the tug of war that led to WWI. Oh, wait... But I guess it's not Poland, so it's not strategic. I cited an example of history that happened to disprove your assertion. Instead of responding, you're pulling a No True Scotsman counter. Sorry, but a No True Scotsman fallacy requires me to redefine the subject of analysis to take it outside of the scope of the general principle being applied to it. However, I am not redefining anything, I am, in fact, sticking to your own words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence What definition of neutrality covers launching campaigns to grab land before anyone can react? I guess we'll call it "Tagaziel neutrality" from now on, i.e. "I'm neutral but I attack when it suits my purposes". Also, just a heads up. I cannot be using a No True Scotsman because it only applies to redefinition of counterexamples to general principles. However... this was no such thing. It was actually an example you brought forth to support your general principle that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence" (again, your words). A better example of a No True Scotsman fallacy is your dismissal of my example of Yugoslavia as "not strategic" because it's not Poland. You are welcome.

And it wasn't supposed to. Again, the point of contention is the association agreement with the EU. This association would open the door for closer economic cooperation with the EU and development of Ukrainian economy, leading to long term welfare. The average Ukrainian in the streets is fighting and dying for a free country and the ability to associate with the EU. That was the original reason the Euromaidan formed and it still is. There's a reason EU and Ukrainian flags are on the maidan. Also, forfeiting of sovereignty? No country is truly sovereign in the modern world, maybe except for North Korea and other psychotic, insular regimes. No. You keep connecting things that are not linked by a causality relationship. Economic cooperation with the EU does not mean a development of the Ukrainian economy. You need to present evidence that this would be the case. That's all I've been arguing and asking for in this thread—evidence that it will lead to "welfare" for Ukraine at any point. Statistics seem to indicate that joining the EU has, at best, zero impact on that and countries just continue on their present course (whatever that may be), while giving up an important portion of their monetary, legislative and judicial powers in the process. I find it deeply disturbing that you are already giving up on national sovereignty and expect others to follow suit as if it's the obvious choice. It's also a world view that is simply not supported by facts. But I guess 55% of the world's population is "psychotic"... that certainly helps put in perspective some things you have said in this thread. The natural state of man is not slavery, no matter how widespread the practice may be—though he can be taught and led to believe it is. Which is a global phenomenon not limited to the European Union. I studied those statistics before and they do highlight a problem. However, the OECD study you linked to (a great piece of research, thanks) also points out that there isn't a consensus as to what accelerated the development of inequality. It's likely a combination of factors, including faster growth of income in the top brackets, not marked by an increase of a similar scope in the lower ones. Ukraine stands to gain: * More free entry into EU countries. * Access to EU markets. * Easier opportunities for work in EU countries. * Exposure to European law order, leading to reforms (which may be actually required per the association agreement). Also, it's apparent you start with the preconceived notion that the EU is bad and then refuse to acknowledge that it may do some good. I'm well aware of the EU's shortcomings, but it's still the best bet for Ukraine. I did not state or imply that the EU has accelerated the widening of the wealth gap, nor did I make any attempts to explain the reasons behind it; I pointed out that it's a tendency that has been going on since before EU integration in the 90's and the EU has done nothing to correct it. What I did say is that austerity reforms mandated by the Troika have not only not helped to recover from the crisis but have in fact had the opposite effect in the "periphery"—they are not even working at the macro level! This is well documented by the links I pasted in previous posts. Of your list of things that Ukraine stands to gain, none directly entail economic growth. Workers migrating en masse outside of Ukraine (both blue and white-collar) is only going to make the already cutthroat competition for jobs in the EU worse, and except for those Ukrainians that find work abroad, is not going to help Ukraine any, either (migration of qualified workers is always bad news). Finally, you clearly misunderstand what preconception means. I have been experiencing the EU since my country's accession in '86 so I have plenty of first-hand experience—I have also done my reading so I know what the EU is about, in concept and in practice. Is this the same Yugoslavia of the history books? The country was a part of the communist bloc only briefly, because Tito and Stalin never saw eye to eye to begin with and Yugoslavia had to fend for itself from 1948 until it was dismantled. So yes, it stood on its own for 44 years. It's a perfect example of what I was saying before that your idea that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence" is historically false. And no, Poland is not a valid example of that unless by "sitting on the fence", you really mean seizing as much territory as possible by means of force in the wake of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, and before permanent borders could be drawn. (1) (2) Your attempt to equate present-day Russia with Lenin and Stalin's militarily aggressive versions of Soviet Russia is cute, as is the implication that EU expansionism is comparable to Third Reich policy with regard to its neighbors, but the parallels fall apart beyond broad geography.

Nope, you could not rest anywhere—some areas outright did not allow resting and others were unsafe to rest in; waking up to a cadre of vampires surrounding your party is no fun. You could go back to a tavern, rest, and come back to confront the boss, which is even more absurd though. I don't remember how respawning mooks worked tbh. As for Kangaxx, I'm not sure he could follow you (I think he could but it's been a long time since I played vanilla)—I was more thinking along the lines of a Protection from Magic scroll rendering the whole encounter irrelevant. But that's not the point; I was addressing the idea that encounters need to consider the player's power level. The whole of Kangaxx's questline disregards this principle and it works. Conversely, it wouldn't work with Irenicus' dungeon because it's the very first instance in the game and you must clear it to proceed. The ability to spend a month napping down there is difficult to justify though, even if you consider the fact that spellcaster <charname> wakes up from torture without spells memorized. Imoen even comments on how insane it is to rest down there, but I'm guessing they chose to make it more forgiving for first-timers. Nothing prevents you from clearing it in one go, though. I have not played any MM games, but that does sound really silly.