213374U

On the other hand, raising your "unarmed" high enough and getting "better criticals" could result in your STR 5 character consistently pulling 1-punch-kills (often leaving you stranded in the ring, too). This was a bit ridiculous, and going bare-handed vs Enclave goons was even worse... Meh, who am I kidding. I want the return of Kung-Fu master builds.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this. So you are tired of people re-iterating their dislike of something and their frustration at the publisher's disregard of their customers' preferences. Okay, I can understand that. But... then what's the point of reading a thread specifically created about it AND taking the time to look for and post a snide image, other than deliberately being a prick? Do you actually endorse that? Really? Agree on the mod thing, btw. I think it's also worth pointing out that pirates won't waste their time ranting about DRM -- they will simply download the game and save themselves a lot of time and headaches...

You really need to stop this under-the-counter lobbying for your de-acronymization forum app, man. It's getting out of hand. Anyway, I'd like to know what you guys think about how a possibly weak(?) British leadership could affect the latest attempt by Euro bureaucrats to centralize economic decision making at the expense of national governments. I know we can't have a true Union (is what what people really want?) without centralization, but I'm not sure I like it.

1. I'd guess that the least drastic one would be to continue to practice our healthy tradition of free speech and pay no mind to the tantrums of a bunch of idiots. Using commercial pressure against those who are in a position to take advantage of our dire energy dependence would be not only quite drastic but also very likely to produce utterly disastrous results. 2. Fair enough. It was an ideal world hypothesis, wherein I implied such a thing doesn't correspond to the real world. I believe I made this clear in the post you quoted originally. 3. Nothing unbelievable. I'm simply going against your insinuation that large amounts of perfectly normal, happy and well informed people just seem to hate and wish for the extermination of others... just because. 4. Then you simply don't hate. It's simple as that -- if you accept that alternatives to force may exist as a solution to whatever you believe you are threatened by, I doubt it qualifies as hate. What is usually regarded as "hate speech" revolves around promoting the infringement of the rights of individuals or groups, and that can only be achieved by force. Force may be needed in an extreme but, PC hogwash notwithstanding, that doesn't make anyone a xenophobic fascist. Perfectly democratic and free countries have had armies whose ultimate purpose is the systematic application of massive force for centuries, now. As I said, animosity isn't hate. I'm merely attacking the inconsistencies in your tone and attitude. You have been arguing that hate is emotional and irrational and that it "drives people", without offering anything to back your stance, or even explaining it enough for it to be analysed. AND in the same post, you claim to be entitled to your hate towards some unspecified groups, and you assure you have "ample evidence and well grounded reasoning" to justify it. Misunderstanding or clear case of double standards? You tell me.

Right. Because other cultures are inherently worthy of respect, no matter what. I mean, why waste glucose thinking when we can just apply basic rules of thumb like that and get on with our business.

And by "much clearer", you obviously mean "catastrophic" (for us). See how effective the international embargo to Iraq was to force any internal changes, and then take a look at EU economic figures such as current account, balance of trade etc to see how closing markets is the exact opposite of what policy makers believe is wise to do. I wasn't as clear as I meant to. The scenario is an ideal world where speaker and listener are both aware of all facts pertaining to the matter being discussed -- thus making deceit impossible. I suppose that one can be perfectly informed and still choose to ignore any amount of information to hold a specific mindset, but that's irrational and, in my experience, while people can be intellectually lazy, intentionally irrational individuals are hard to come by. I wasn't trying to shift blame away from the individual btw, but it's childish, arrogant and quite dangerous to believe oneself to be deception-proof. The psych textbook quote works in my favor as well, since perceptions are formed based first and foremost on available information... and information selection is a widely used technique for mass-opinion manufacture. That may be aberrant, but it's just the way the world works. Nazis, nazis, yeah we love to hate 'em. Whatever would we do without them as an example of all that's wrong with people. However when the responsibility of the German people at large in the crimes of the Third Reich comes up, it's worth take a while to consider the circumstances surrounding their rise (historic, economic and socio-political), and remember that even NSDAP leaders admitted to being dishonest with the people (duh) and manipulating them to earn their support for their agenda. Again, this doesn't exempt individuals from responsibility, but do remember that Hitler got to power with little over 33% of all votes. So you either accept that the people were deceived or sustain that roughly 1/3 of the well-educated and informed German electorate were happy with mass murder. The executors of the regime fall in another category; their hate was a cold, methodical process of desensitisation and dehumanisation to carry out genocidal policies; that's probably as pure as "hate" gets. This is well illustrated if you can read interviews with former camp guards or torturers -- to them the victims are animals and they become progressively unable to relate to their suffering. Interestingly, I have yet to find a single testimony where a rational and solid (not grounded on pseudoscience) explanation is offered as to why the oppressed are objectively inferior or deserving oppression. Those people were punished when caught, though, so there was no evasion of responsibility in that case. Or, that might just be you trying to legitimise a hate you're obviously proud of while at the same time attempting to preserve the highly educated persona you work so hard to present. I'd love to hear your "ample evidence and well grounded reasoning" for mass murder, too. Animosity isn't hate.

Whoa. So, if you go and join the French Foreign Legion, The Man automagically takes away your rights, or do you have to fight against the US?

So you figure it's impossible to teach these kids (both groups) that these antics are unacceptable and they shouldn't fight over them (even if they end up doing it anyway), or just not worth it? Not saying that confrontation is desirable, but if you don't teach people to respect each other and not be pricks when they are young, can you expect them to behave differently when they grow up? This isn't just fighting over a snarky remark that makes hormones take over, racial issues carry over to adulthood.

If an immigrant has a problem with the national and cultural symbols of the place he's migrated to being prominently displayed everywhere, perhaps he should have chosen a different place to go to. The kids were being provocative jerks, they were fishing for a fight, etc... by wearing their country's flag on their shirts. Yeah, sorry but no matter how I look at it, I can't see how that can reasonably be interpreted as a provocation, unless Mexican-Americans somehow expect Americans to change their attitudes to accomodate their sensibilities (which they probably do). It's not like they were burning Mexican flags and playing Yankee Doodle in their 2000-Watt car subwoofers to crash that 5 de Mayo celeb (what's to celebrate about yet another French defeat, anyway?). We discussed this in another thread already -- offense is subjective, and there's no minimum conduct standards that can be agreed upon to guarantee that nobody will be offended. It's a nice slippery slope to "consider context" and "let it slide". If that's how you think, maybe you should practice your Spanish more, because soon you'll be getting the evil eye for speaking in another language... or worse. That said, the principal probably took the easy and safe route and dealt with the less numerous and more easily manageable group instead of trying to make a political statement and get involved in a racially-grounded civic crusade... you only get to do that safely on internet message boards.

Uh-huh. So Soviet imperialism is fundamentally different from other kinds. It's an interesting theory and I'd like you to prove it. Remember: self-referencing isn't a valid proof method. That's the best you can do? Cling to the few average results in that chart and wield them as proof that people overwhelmingly want a return to communism? What about the results for East Germany? Yeah, they want DDR back, for sure! Blah blah blah -- prove it. Specifically, prove how external factors such as political rights, personal freedoms and economic development have no relevance whatsoever to people's outlook on life and overall happiness.

Of course not. But then, one must remember to consider your definition of "success" when reading these things. I guess that at least you are consistent. Consistently mediocre, but nobody's perfect. This is starting to become tiresome. If you can't keep track of points, there's no point in even replying to you. See, this one came from your original assertion that 19th century colonial exploitation models and present global capitalism are the same thing, remember? If we call those A and B respectively, and C is Soviet imperialism, then we have on one hand A = B (your original statement), and A = C (Soviet imperialism). Therefore, B = C (Soviet imperialism equals global capitalism), which is obviously false. Logic says that the error must be in the premises if an impossible conclusion is reached. Since the only unsupported premise here is your silly idea that Victorian Era colonialism is one and the same as capitalism "same dog different collar", this must be false. Go on and attack the other premise, though ("allegations of Soviet imperialism are just a part of the larger worldwide zionist bourgeois reactionary conspiracy!"). That's always a blast to read. No, that just adds to the already wide pool of data supporting the analytical observation that older people tend to be more conservative than the young. No, I'm not going to dig up a ton of documentation on this either, since most of it is not freely available on the internet anyway. Do a Google search, you can start with "Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains". And of course, there's the other reading of the chart: people like capitalism and democracy better -- those in the two middle groups did experience both systems and still favor the current state of affairs. Hahaha. And now you'll tell me that you're going to be the one deciding which are important and which are useless. Right. Thanks, but I'll keep my own counsel on what is relevant and what isn't. You can keep your lobotomy vouchers. Your imaginary example is useless, too. People aren't being asked about "happiness" as an abstract concept either, they are being asked about general satisfaction. But here's the cool thing: the survey is comparative between communism and capitalism, and people rate their lives better under capitalism. So, either people don't know what they are talking about (now and back under communism) and therefore this whole doc is useless as people can't be trusted, or people like their lives better under present conditions. You can't have both (eg. people knew back under communism but now they are under the influence of the worldwide zionist bourgeois reactionary propaganda conspiracy and can't be trusted!). Pick one.

Nothing to worry about, gentlemen. America has hit Peak Fat.

You misunderstand. I meant it literally -- It's been established beyond any reasonable doubt that you are like a compass, unfailingly pointing towards the wrong. So if what I'm saying doesn't sit well with you, it's obviously because I'm on the right track. So your "asking first" (demanding proof of what is essentially an analytical observation) somehow gives you carte blanche to spout off random nonsense? Nice. I'll be sure to casually ask you to prove that it's gravity that makes things fall down in each subsequent post, just for kicks. Anyway, I'm not going to compile an international historical vote intention survey library for you. I have much better things to do with my time, such as dozing off. Disregard that particular point if you want, and get to work on the rest. You have your work cut out for you. Go on...

Really, I'm pissing you off? Great, I must be doing something right! And no, you haven't shown any evidence regarding your fair and balanced blanket statements about any party that isn't the CPSU. But that's okay, take your time.

Was wondering that myself. Czech Rep/Ukraine is where it's at. From a geographysicist's standpoint Africa is much worse than S. America, btw, and they have less countries with competitive soccer football teams. Lol, that is a Euro anti-tank gun.

Cool. I hope you aren't a supertanker pilot, though.

Mathemagicians, rather.

That doesn't even make sense. You are lacking a predicate. So that some evasive little **** who is losing an argument... what? Anyway, yes. You must prove it because it's neither a fundamental fact nor an obvious one -- your saying so doesn't make it so. "The Earth is obviously flat." The USSR engaged in imperialism as much as it could. Show why imperialism necessitates capitalism and how that relates to Soviet foreign policy. Ah, yes. They don't like capitalism at all... yet they are generally happier and like capitalism better still. Hey, what's the vote % for communist parties in those countries? Yeah, they sure want back on the Iron Curtain. "Help help someone demanded that I find evidence for my rancid rhetoric! The party committee guys said this wouldn't happen!" No. The question was brought up in the same document you brought up as "evidence" that people want communism back, so it's perfectly relevant. It is in fact your attempt to disregard part of the document that is dishonest. Yeah, so successful that it didn't last half a century -- and then not even violence could keep it together. Good is bad, success is failure, and freedom is oppression. I think I'm finally starting to understand.

Blah blah blah -- prove it. Yes, people that have experienced both systems have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and are at the mercy of the worldwide bourgeois zionist conspiracy propaganda. Fortunately, they have the great lof to open their eyes! He hasn't actually experienced communism outside of "Obama's America", but that doesn't matter, he's possessed of the certainty of the ineffable! When you prove yours. You can start by the bit about "every party other than the CPSU is a reactionary bourgeois power clique". No, self-referencing isn't considered a valid proof method. Thanks for a completely irrelevant piece of trivia. Other than the negative implications that this could have against the "proof" you brought up yourself, I don't know what this has to do with anything.

Short answer: *ba-dum-tish* edit: linky no worky!

Sounds like a great way to save money and look great. I think I'll add some 3500 cal per day on top of it, to put on some lean mass. Damn, I think I should hurry up and patent this ****.

You're defending capitalism, yes. Same monster, different head.Lol, no. You will have to elaborate on how present global capitalism equates to late 19th century colonial exploitation. "Facts"? I'd say that the stupefyingly mad tripe you insist in posting is more like a crack-overdose induced interpretation thereof. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, I guess. Oh, wait... Anyway, did you even read the doc before linking to it? I guess not, otherwise you'd have noticed that the title goes "end of communism cheered, but now with more reservations" -- which more than sufficiently supports what Wals said. The reservations bit isn't surprising considering that the 2009 part of the survey was conducted at about the same time the global financial crisis hit its peak; similar effects can be observed in vote intention surveys for the period. Further, the survey clearly shows that people believe they are better off today than they were when asked back in 1991, even considering generational gaps. Also worthy of note is the correlation between satisfaction, perceived corruption and economic performance in a given country. Of course, if your country is doing like **** and your leaders are a bunch of crooks, capitalism must be to blame, right? Yeah, because under communism, corruption didn't exist... Unlike you, I won't ask you to stop posting -- you make a much better case against the extreme left than I could ever hope to. Why do you hate socialism?

Who here is defending the return to British administrated India? Who here is defending the return to Soviet policies and practices? Hmm. I don't think "intellectually dishonest" means what you think it means. The same applies to "reactionary bourgeois power clique". I know that one of the pillars of Stalinism was a conscious effort to redefine as much of the lexicon as possible to minimize the very ability of people to think badly of the Party, the Leader and of communism itself. But that never worked in real life when it was attempted with the aid of mass repression, so don't expect it to work in some internet message board, lol. I thought we had already established that pulling some chart from your sleeve just isn't going to cut it. I can do that too. Why don't you go ahead and post your sources? How many of those asked had actually experienced the height of Soviet or Soviet-fostered oppression?

The rig wasn't BP's AFAIK, and they didn't even operate it, despite having some personnel on board. Some sort of lease contract, I think. I don't know who would be liable for the incident. It's undoubtedly a blow to BP in the sense that a cutting-edge, multi-million mobile facility like this can't be replaced overnight, but probably it's going to be worse for the owner of the rig and the insurance company. Just sayin'. Huh? I'm pretty certain I heard something about Obama planning to build some 20 new NPPs to deal with "energy dependence" in the US? I'll try to look it up and get back to you. Since I'm 100% drug and alcohol free, I expect to find at least something... or I'll be very worried. *ahem* Well, yes. It's difficult enough to reliably estimate the current global reserves of oil, and that's with the current development of relevant tech and the volume of prospections being done each year, so you'll excuse me if I'm a bit skeptic on estimations of retrievable Uranium deposits. The sun will also run out of fuel eventually, heh -- I remember some report from an international agency that claimed that currently surveyed Uranium deposits could provide enough fuel for the next twenty centuries. In the meantime we could make do with "fast breeders", if alternate energy sources were expensive enough. Thorium is cool too.

Do you even have a day job? Where do you get the time to play all those AND patrol the boards? For me usually gaming sessions are 2-3 hours, but most days I don't play at all. And you are into Paradox games... care to share your secret for time dilation?