213374U

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.

Uh, you aren't commenting on my posts even though you are directly quoting me? Exactly what are you doing, then? Posting out of a compulsion?

You think that's funny? No, dude. In fact glossing over social advances, poverty reduction, huge investments in education, welfare, generous foreign aid and a steady net economic growth for the past twelve years, not to mention actual advances in democracy that we smug westerners could take notes from, to focus on the economic downturn of the last year to casually decree that "the socialist experiment has failed", that is funny. It becomes hilarious even, the apex of comedy, when you consider the fact that we here smug westerners have been in a crisis since 2008. I guess I have that much more reason to assert that "the capitalist experiment has failed"? You laughing yet bud? No? Okay then, you know what else is funny? The Press Freedom Index (one commonly cited figure when examining this issue) does not focus only on actual dissident journalist persecution, but rather on how easy it is for journalists to go about their work—including, but not limited to, public media independence, self-censorship and legislation. The questionnaire from which this index is derived also takes into consideration other factors influencing professional journalists, as in basically bribes and also how many really independent privately owned media companies exist, if any. This aggregate index puts Venezuela at roughly the same level as Israel and ahead of faithful western ally Turkey. For exactly what reasons? Impossible to know! Amusing, huh? Let's hope it lasts. From the link it seems like Yanukovych is gasping for air and trying to buy time however he can. No mention of whether he'll review his decision regarding the EU either.

Still a better love story than Twilight.

Because if Obsidz were to do it, you would play as a nameless Borg drone struggling to find your own identity against the oppresive presence of the hive mind, while pondering questions such as "am I really free or just a pawn in a sick game of chess being played for the queen's amusement?". In this context, "romance" would amount to an intimate voyage of exploration of the cold, vague, yet suggestive innuendo from drone 1234 of 5678, delivered through your hive mind connection, possibly while in excruciating pain. Obviously. OT: I actually liked Hawke as a character, and thought the dialogue was at least serviceable. In my defense, I systematically picked the "funny" response. I'm a sucker for wise cracking.

Hm. What game exactly allows you to rest right before facing a boss but after taking out the trash? (honest question, I don't know) I agree with you that this is frankly stupid and should result in either the villain fleeing or a not-so-surprise attack on the resting party. This also rests on the assumption that the player knows in advance that the next portion of the instance cointains the boss fight. This is either a result of metagaming or of signs placed there on purpose to inform the player. Very little that devs can do about the former, though. The more freedom the player has to choose, either in non-linear gameplay or simply character customization, makes it a lot more difficult to know what sort of resources a player has available. Some solutions have been attempted, such as scaling/modifying encounters based on character level, which has mixed results in my experience. Yep. I'm also wondering how approximately should devs consider the amount of resources a player has at a given point—for instance, Kangaxx in BG2 is accessible in chapter 2, but without resorting to cheap ass tactics that exploit design flaws, taking a shot at him straight out of Irenicus' dungeon is... not recommended. That's basically the devs throwing an encounter in there without any regard for the player's resources other than "it's doable with the stuff you can find throughout the game". And it works beautifully. Why do all encounters have to be tailored around the perceived power level of the player? I hate that.

"The socialist experiment has failed"? On whose account? Let's take a look at the figures: "During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. "Extreme poverty" fell even more - by 72%. Further, "these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn't take into account increased access to health care or education." "Datos reports real income grew by 137% between 2003 and Q1 2006." "Venezuela's infant mortality rate fell by 18.2% between 1998 and 2006" "Spending on education as a percentage of GDP (which grew dramatically since 1998) stood at 5.1% in 2006, as opposed to 3.4% in the last year of the Caldera government. Spending on health increased from 1.6% of GDP in 2000 to 7.71% in 2006" "In June 2010 Mark Weisbrot wrote that jobs were much less scarce then than when Chávez took office, with unemployment at 8% in 2009 compared with 15% in 1999. He also stated that the number of front-line doctors had increased tenfold in the public sector and that enrolment in higher education had doubled, noting that these statistics were backed up by the UN and the World Bank." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government That hardly looks like a failure to me. Venezuela is a command economy and one that is absolutely reliant on oil exports. As a result, it's seriously unbalanced. But a failure? And as for the thing that the CIA has nothing to do with what's going on over there, I don't know. http://www.voltairenet.org/article30032.html Disregard the actual connections between Sharp and the CIA, I'm not necessarily buying that either—still, the media attacks and instigation of popular revolts on the streets as a tool to overthrow governments under the guise of morally acceptable "non-violence" is something to think about. Especially under the current public opinion climate where an overt use of force seems to be politically untenable. [1] [2] Not really, no. A majority is at least >50% of the survey sample. You really need to stop redefining words to suit your purposes at the drop of a hat. "49% of Ukrainians supported signing the Association Agreement, while 31% opposed it and the rest had not decided yet." "However, in a December poll by the same company, only 30% claimed that terms of the Association agreement would be beneficial for the Ukrainian economy, while 39% said they were unfavourable for Ukraine." "45% of respondents believed Ukraine should sign an Association Agreement with the EU, whereas only 14% favored joining the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, and 15% preferred non-alignmen" "58% of Ukrainians supporting the country's entry into the European Union" "39% supporting the country's entry into the European Union and 37% supporting Ukraine's accession to the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia" Only one of the cited surveys shows that a majority supported the agreement, but overall the polls seem to indicate that support was, at best, lukewarm. Which makes this whole thing even more difficult to understand. People are on the streets raising hell... over a trade agreement that wasn't even such a big deal for people to begin with? What's going on here? Anyone else feels we don't have the whole picture? edit: ****ing forum software is utter ****ing ****

You absolutely don't need supplements. Your body produces everything it needs to build strength and muscle, provided it has the necessary building blocks (macronutrients) at hand. Problem is, as discussed in the other thread, that your average first-world Joe's diet is all over the place, and in order to build muscle your body needs a healthy energy surplus and more protein that is obtained from a "normal" diet. Your body is extremely good at using just about anything (except minerals and water) as an energy source and to produce other stuff it needs—at different efficiency rates—but "essential" amino acids must be acquired from external sources. This also ties in with the "biological value" of protein that is so popular with the BB crowd. The only real advantage of protein powder is convenience. You can prepare and consume a protein-rich meal quickly and easily, but you could get the same results with regular food, and it may be cheaper too. It's also easier to mentally prepare for—I have no problem with tough workouts, but eating as much as I should is a total chore for me. The only exception to that is creatine. Creatine has been shown in trials to provide a slight edge in strength work (~5% IIRC) and lead to some lean mass gains, but the mechanism behind that is not well understood. Coffee is deserving of a mention too but I'm not sure if peeps would consider it a supplement (coffee is teh shiznit). TL;DR: supplements are a) strictly unnecessary and b) for lazy people like me.

I didn't particularly care for either of them and think Fallout: Tactics is better than both. You may now form a lynch-mob. I felt some sort of primal feeling of rejection forming in the deepest reaches of my soul when I read your post. Then I realized I have probably replayed FOT more than FO1 and 2 combined. I think now I know how Luke Skywalker felt.

Sweet, sweet imbalance.

I have very little knowledge of running-specific coaching techniques, but you can probably benefit from training in sets, look up interval training—that's to begin with (periodization is also effective if you are serious, but that's more long-term). You will probably want to get the interval training out of the way first, and then do your regular cardio work. While cardio is good for fat burning, it does little for you at the metabolic, hormonal and structural planes, and is conducive to injury due to the combination of reduced ranges of motion and extreme repetition. It is also known to favor muscular imbalances—hamstring injuries are rather common in runners as a result of hamstring-quad imbalance, also problems caused by lumbopelvic instability. Consider taking up strength training man, you don't need to stop doing what you are doing and the benefits are well established. And transforming into a cut-out t-shirt Instagram douche is completely optional.

I guess you missed the part where after three months of peaceful protests, the government attacked the protesters in an attempt to break them, with the police killing protesters and violence escalated by the deployment of paramilitary and military forces. But yeah, it's the protester's fault. They prolly kill themselves just to put blame on poor Victor. Then what option does Ukraine have? You're claiming it can stand on its own. How? It has an ailing economy, high levels of corruption, and is currently torn apart by internal struggles. You're citing examples from totally different times and totally different geopolitical situations. They aren't joining the EU. The revolution is over an association agreement, which can be the first step, but doesn't have to be. That said, I did take that into account and I did find a full version of the study online. It has a lot of interesting conclusions, including an explanation that a large part of the rise in inequality was caused by countries that joined the Union. Their internal inequality contributed significantly to the coefficient. It's also interesting to note that you seem to be putting the blame for income inequality on the EU, rather than its individual member countries. Why? You were the one comparing 2014 Ukraine to Cold War Yugoslavia. My comparison is as valid as yours. (1) Corruption in Ukraine is not going to be fixed by the EU. This is only relevant in the debate about independence in the sense that corrupt officials are more likely to be bought off by external parties rather than less. I don't see how a depressed economy means a country must absolutely become a satellite of another—there may be short-term economic advantages to doing so, but the long-term forfeiting of sovereignty is invariably glossed over. Again, closer ties would be advantageous to whom? The average Ukrainian? Because that's who's being killed on the streets. (2) Take a closer look. The wealth differences have been increasing not only as an average but also within member states. This has been going on since the 80s (and possibly earlier). I'm not really interested in the aggregate index precisely because it can be misleading as you said. But wealth gap increases are a constant across the board even in the most well-off members of the EU (the link is for all OECD, disregard non-EU data). Same thing with poverty (analysis limited to 2011, no official data on expected increase; no expected decrease however). Even with the Europe 2020 reform package (2010), this keeps going. What does Ukraine stand to gain from all of this? Free transit? (3) No, I made no such comparison. I was using post-WWII Yugoslavia to disprove your categorical statement that "no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence". More examples throughout history, but one counterexample is all that's needed to refute a general principle. Yet this got somehow derailed to a comparison between Iran, Sweden and Greece, based also on the assumption that "Swedes claim everything is going to the dogs"—suggesting by overextension that things aren't as ****ed up as I'm saying—only it's not me saying it, it's them statistics.

It's not going to cut it for reasons I've already listed. Yugoslavia survived because of its unique position and history during World War II. The two states are (well, were, since Yugoslavia's dead) fundamentally different. Yes, **** is bad, news at 11. Seriously though, shaking a stick at Europe because it has problems and pretending other parts of the world don't (because that's the only situation in which doing that would make sense) is silly. The economic crisis is global in scope and causes problems everywhere. That doesn't mean a collapse is inevitable, as we had prophecies of doom since time immemorial, often fueled by adversity. I might as well compare them to Iran. The point was that you focus on negatives and ignore the positives. (1) Uh, no. Those are not reasons. You said countries cannot stand on their own under pressure from other superpowers. There is abundant historical evidence to the contrary, actually. Whether Russia is a superpower at this point is debatable, too. Sorry, but your opinions do not constitute evidence. You cannot simply dismiss counterexamples to your general principle by going "they are different". Well, of course they are, genius! No two historical situations are ever the same! The times are different too and Russia is nowhere near her position of strength post-WWII. Did anyone say false dichotomy? (2) Do not misrepresent what I said—I was not heralding a collapse and the Oxfam story was more an afterthought than anything... yet the fact remains that it's simply a projection for the next decade if current trends continue; no reason to assume they won't except for the opinions of the usual suspects. Bottom line is the EU has not done anything to fix the ever-widening income gap in Europe, since the 1980's, as the OECD link I posted proves (which you have conspicuously ignored twice now, great going), while the austerity reforms dictated from Brussels are pushing a lot of people into poverty and the prospect of long-term or even permanent unemployment. What is your evidence that joining the EU would have substantial benefits for the Ukrainians? I don't see how this is "obvious" at all, and so far your counterpoints have focused on how the EU isn't dead yet. Whoop-de-****ing-doo. (3) What? When did Iran join the EU? Oh, that's right, it didn't, so it's yet another irrelevant rebuttal. The point is that you focus on the positives and ignore the negatives. No, wait. There are ostensibly no positives, you just focus on... nothing much.