213374U

I seriously doubt they got that from randomly bashing the keyboard as I advised, man. For some reason, they are under the impression that names such as "38q9yg0ajow43p" or "234fjiofrmn<" aren't quite as pungent as "THI4F". People sometimes...

Care to share? You can edit the hot steamy cyber bits out, if you really must.

=/ I really wish devs would participate more in, um, their own forums.

Whew. For a second there, I thought this thread was going to use the metaphorical relation between Quarians and Jews as an introduction for a People's War rant. Yes, right up there with "Illusive Man", "Cigarette Smoking Man" or even "The Dude". Are you perchance an OE employee? Meh, never mind...

To remind himself as to where his allegiance truly lies? You know, with all those lobbies, special interest groups and campaign donors, it's easy to lose track...

Right, because reducing the opinions and reasons of any number of members of a heterogeneous group to just ONE, always works beautifully. Great job.

And I take it you missed how what I (and Boo) was saying has nothing to do with that. FPTP can result in relatively popular candidates not getting a seat and therefore skewed parliamentary majorities, but unlike some other undemocratic bull****, it will not result in gravely impopular politicians getting "elected", ever. Apparently, some people believe Gordy is the bestamest PM, evar. That's freedom of opinion for ya. Regardless, I like STV better than FPTP. Coalitions are bad because big parties are willing to compromise on important issues if that's what it'll take for them to keep power for themselves -- this is what places political dwarves in a position of strength that doesn't correspond to popular support. However, coalition governments formed by large parties in Germany have worked well for some time, so coalitions aren't necessarily bad. The problem comes when the people don't punish the party they voted for forming a coalition with a small party whose stated goals and policies are at odds with their own. Leaders in a democracy are, for good or ill, a very accurate reflection of the quality of the electorate.

I can't say I've been following his performance with the national team, but in Real he's been carrying the team 50/50 with Higua

Um, you can't really polarise what is essentially a yes/no question. Once you pick a camp, you're supposed to defend your position, or resort to nonsense along the lines of "Is this art? Maybe to someone with just the right personality disorder. Sometimes, I happen to have just the right personality disorder to consider that art." Art is a category... only no two people can seem to agree on precisely what it encompasses. Uh huh... That seems to have caused the intended effect No, I'm not an art expert by any means, so don't take that as me implying that "I have the refined tastes to better appreciate art than you plebs". I know what snobbism is, though. And no matter how many times I've read it, The Emperor's New Suit never fails to bring a smile to my face, either...

I find this opinion holds the most water in countries where you vote for the person instead of the party, which increases actual accountability and makes MPs think more of their electorate, as that's what can make or break their careers. In theory. In places like Spain where each ballot is a closed party list full of names you've probably never heard before, voting becomes akin to rooting for a football team; pro politicians are mostly just party apparatchiks whose essential talent is self-promotion. It's under this setup that Boo's statements reflect reality the most.

http://thief.wikia.com/wiki/THI4F Who keeps telling people that names like THI4F and F3AR are good?

No, just to become "cult" titles. I suppose there's no general rule though, as for instance Bloodlines or DX are probably considered cult titles but aren't overdone in that respect, with the "artistic" qualities overtaking the game itself. On the other hand, you have Fallout 3, and other than the usual suspects, you'll find that the game got pretty good ratings across the board. Lots of indie games go unnoticed every year, too. People pay way too much attention to the opinions of "experts" in a field where such a thing is meaningless... whatever works for you, just does. Overly complicated mechanics just tend to make games more a chore than a pastime, which in my book is a bad thing. There's fans for everything, however... Art is abused by the intellectually insolvent in an attempt to draw a qualitative distinction between themselves and those over whom they believe to stand. This doesn't mean there's no difference in quality between artists, though... just a lot of mediocre but very forceful fine art "connaisseurs".

Yeah, pretty much like during "Pax Romana" and "Pax Britannica", and yet those periods are considered by and large relatively peaceful. Consider the first half of the 20th century (and to a lesser extent, the second half), for some context on industrial era militarism and "peace". You can also compare daily casualties in Iraq with violent deaths in Mexico, for some additional perspective on current "wars". I doubt you can find any period in human history that's absolutely devoid of violent conflict.

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.