213374U

Well... to be honest, most of the regular, mainstream (as in non-hardcore, so none of you count) gamers I know are morons, at least when it comes to gaming. So I see it kinda justified. But that's not going to stop my bitching and moaning! )

Well, I'm not quite as worried about how they do it rules wise as long as they make NPC death a factor in combat. As it was in K2, not only you couldn't have your party members die, you also had to be either suicidal or completely passive to get both the party members AND the PC die and thus have combat count for something. Not implementing proper death also means making the game significantly easier.

Whatever. Mods are supposed to have an exemplary behavior, not just post like everyone else, and then bitchslap somebody here and there. I've had my fair share of speeches about fostering community and the spirit of the rules, and that kind of attitude goes precisely against that, even if it respects the letter scrupulously. Maybe that's why Fionavar doesn't actually post on these boards other than to police around. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread or see it locked, so I consider it settled. If you want to go on about it, PM me. I'm not going to cyber you though, so keep that in mind.

Following that logic, let's go back to the arcade times when you had to start the game all over if you messed up. Only that was just a gimmick to have you pumping more and more coins into the machine. Oh well. Anyway, the function that these lame death rules supply is already provided by the loading function that most games have. Only this effectively prevents people that don't reload in the event of NPC death from playing as they want, and forces them to play in a predefined way for no good reason. This redundancy is only good to hold players' hands as they play. One would think that the trend is to provide more choices instead of less, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. A good story can be crafted without resorting to this deus ex machina BS, as it was done with BG2. I hated it in KotOR/K2, and will hate it in NWN2. I hope this is the only mistake they have copy-pasted from K2. Is randomly picking on the members part of your duties as moderator?

Because People Hate Losing.

What assumptions have I made? Only that you have an Internet connection and discuss ways to fix the world. Well, you're right. You might be doing so from Africa or South America in your spare time between building a well and harvesting the crops, but I doubt it. If that's the case, feel free to correct me. I'll take it all back. Thousands of years of empires rising and falling. Not only in Europe, but also in South America and Mexico, Asia... basically anyplace where society progressed locally past the tribal level. This doesn't even require a "understanding of history", as it's not dependent on any interpretations. It's just facts. It's you who's embarassing yourself with your unrealistic claims, and gleaming lack of historical knowledge. Another jewel. A "contraposition" of power is equal to an imbalance of power, except in the case of two competing hegemonies. Last time that happened, it was called the Cold War. Another thing I'd rather not have back. Well, now it's you who doesn't know what's talking about. The empires of old were often involved in constant war, either to keep their potential competitors from developing a strong economy, or simply to expand. And, at any rate, the wars that the US engage in today are very local, and rather contained, and whose extent is not comparable to that of the wars of old if we take into consideration today's weaponry. And yet, it's you who keeps on posting historically inaccurate stuff, without providing anything that can remotely dispute my allegedly mistaken historical claims. Obviously, it's hard to find data to back you up when you are, as a matter of fact, wrong. And no, your revolutionary pamphlets don't count, as they are full of the same fallacies and historical inaccuracies you suffer from. None taken. The fact that my opinions may sometimes be coincidental with that of those "US hawks" has absolutely nothing to do with their validity. It's also common for fools to laugh at what they don't understand. That doesn't worry me in the least. The difference between an ad hominem attack and a mere statement is that the former aims at undermining the validity of a point without actually addressing it, while the latter is just another part of the discussion. I don't argue ad hominem as I always address and debate people's points properly regardless of personal comments. I'm not sure the same can be said about you and your

Ah, crap. I hate this quote limit. Oh well, here we go again. Do I really have to explain the concept of conversational context to you? If this is a debate about politics and economy, it doesn't take much thinking to assume that I'm referring to that part of his works. Also, please be so kind as to quote the exact paragraph where I said that Marxism is the same as Communism. Communism is, however, the closest social scheme to Marx's postulates. No. As a matter of fact, Communism in its various brands is what happened to Marx's ideals after different people attempted to implement them. Since you like the wikipedia so much, go and cross-reference the articles on both subjects to find that they have more in common than merely an utopian vision. And of course Marx wouldn't have supported any dictators. He was a romantic revolutionary, idealistic, and ultimately blind. This statement is just a baseless assertion derived from your personal impressions, that incidentally, matches your sadly mistaken view of the current and past state of global affairs, and the nature of the human being itself. Again, please be so kind to quote the exact paragraph where I said that Julius Caesar used the might of his tank divisions to conquer the world. Or where I stated that Napoleon used his vast network of industrial centers to out-produce his competitors. Or where I said that the Mayans ruled an empire that spanned the entire globe. Until you can find a quote along those lines, please keep your straw men to yourself. It is true that empires have not always existed. There were times in which countries, factions or nations fought among themselves for hegemony. Examples of this are the Middle Ages, the classic period in the Eastern Mediterranean, or Europe at the beginning of the XX century. I'd much rather not have another of those, thank you very much, especially not after seeing two World Wars. Obviously, before the advent of the industrial society, the size and reach of empires and local hegemonies was different. Obviously, with the advent of global communications, corporate-based economy and industrial production, it's possible to manage larger empires (or at least with a larger sphere of influence). However, all empires (or rather, all hegemonic empires), throughout history share one common characteristic, that defines them: their power, be it military or economic, or a combination of both, was greater than that of any of their neighbors, and in most cases, greater than the combination of their neighbors' as well. And this power was always applied to favor the interests of the empire. The Evil US is no different in the essence, only the methods. I guess overpopulation means jack to you. You say that there are more than enough resources for the survival of everyone, with which I'm inclined to agree. I do not suscribe the opinion that the contentment is guaranteed as well, unless you expect everyone to live in some sort of soviet-style quasi-misery and be "content" with it. Nah. Criticizing the evils of capitalism, globalization, and US imperialist policies while enjoying your broadband Internet connection in a comfortable room makes you a hypocrite. It's that simple. Sorry if you don't like it. Following your logic, everyone should get into politics, instead of voting. Oh, that's right. You don't like democracy either. Too bad. And, um... if it's the thought of losing your influence and depriving the world of your wonderful theories, that prevent you from going to live under a rock in Africa, don't sweat it. It's unlikely anyone will seriously try to implement your suggestions. Fortunately.

What. The. F**k.

I see you've given up trying to use customized quotes, good. It's important to know one's own limitations. I am tempted to modify this quote and use it to dismiss you as the dimwit you are obviously making an effort to look like, but I won't. Right now I have nothing better to do, so I can waste some time with this. I am, however, going to ignore several of your statements and focus on the root of the problem, that is, your detachment from reality. Oh? And which mindset are you stuck in? The enlightened vision that gave birth to the laughable imposture known as the United Nations? The one that led to capitalism running rampant? The one that's leading to globalization? Or maybe you're more of a Marxist type of guy? Yeah, Marxism was awesome. Damn shame it's failed everytime anyone has tried to implement it. Marx failed to take into consideration a little but fundamental factor when elaborating sociopolitical and economic theories. He forgot about human nature. I hear what you say about the evils of imperialism and how there's no reason for empires to exist anymore. In your world of chocolate and gingerbread, that is. You obviously haven't given much thought to why empires exist, or otherwise, you would realize how sadly unrealistic your discourse is. The reason why there are, have been, and there will be empires is simple. There just isn't enough of anything for everyone. Quite simply, we're just too many, and resources are too few. Which basically means that to enjoy the very comfortable first-world life you lead, people have to suffer and die. When I see you giving up your lifestyle and going to live under a rock, I'll take you seriously. Until then, you're just another armchair humanitarian. Another goddamn hypocrite. This is where you are wrong. The US will fall eventually, but other will take its place (provided there's no nuclear war). This is backed by housands of years of human History. On the other hand you rely on... your daydreams of a world of happy faces, peace, and streets paved with candy, to make those predictions. That's just nonsense. A "multi-polar" world, as you describe it, only drives to widespread warfare until a hegemony is stablished once again, as it's happened time after time before. And everytime the "old elites" are given a run for their money, it's only so a new elite can replace it. So, yeah.

Ronaldinho was just okay. With all the hype though, it's no surprise that he found a minimum of two defenders breathing down his neck almost at all times. He also has this annoying tendency to do everything by himself even when playing with others has more chances of success. Meh. I'd have liked to see a bit more of Reyes too, it's a shame he played so little.

I have. And it is. It was for me, anyway. If you're going to play BG1, do it through TuTu, it's way, way better.

Yeah, I saw this in the news. They also showed a picture of the actual expert. Nice how nobody noticed that the white, middle-aged, thin technology expert they were expecting had somehow turned into a large, young black fellow.

Yep. Eto'o and Giuly made a few amazing displays of control. However, Eto'o's (that just looks weird) forte isn't dribbling, and every time he tried to get past Eboue, he lost the ball. He saw a lot of action on the left side, but he didn't really accomplish anything, until he was sent back to his usual place, at the center. Personally, I enjoyed Iniesta and Giuli's game much better than Eto'o's.

Stratified societies have always existed, and they always will. As a matter of fact, a stratified, pyramidal organization is necessary for the society to have any degree of stability as things are right now. That's how things work. Anything else is a proven failure. Sorry if you can't handle it, but that's how it is. As for the particular circumstances in Mexico, it's a democracy. If they don't like it, they are supposed to have the power to change it. If they can't change it because it's a flawed system, they have to bring down the system and start over. If they don't do either, they deserve what they have. I already explained this. No, I'm not going to make your research. You are making an argument, you bring the facts to back your claims. Why should the US act against Fox's corruption? It's beneficial to the US. It's the Mexicans who should do that. Sorry if the US isn't making all they can to make the world a better place. That's not the aim of any government. The US act just like the Roman, British, French, and Spanish empires did, only with today's means. You love to throw mud at your country (or the strategic ally of your country) while you dream of worlds in pink. But if it wasn't for the very policy you hate, you probably wouldn't even have the luxury of considering those thoughts. Inequality is a constant in human society. Give thanks you're part of the privileged part, and deal with it. And also, don't reply to yourself. I'm not a figment of your imagination.

For Wals' pleasure, here comes my marvel of a multi-volume post (as the quote limit doesn't allow me to put everything in a single post). It's not the same. In that case, there wasn't much choice but to cooperate, as the country had already been crushed militarily. It wasn't a civil war in which one of the factions was backed by the US. Not only you need to read more history, you also need to watch the news more often. It's happening in Iraq right now, buddy. Evidence, as in declassified documents, for instance. And what if Bush was planning Chavez' downfall? It looks like for whatever reasons, he didn't implement it. End of story. So what? Castro had, until '91, the support of the USSR, that offered Castro a lot of "preferential deals". Besides, the embargo only affects the US, not the rest of the world. So, no. It's not a very effective way of stopping a revolution, sorry. That's speculation, as nothing like that has ever come even close to happening. The US is in no shape right now, militarily, politically or diplomatically, to conduct "full scale retaliation" against Mexico in the event of a large scale revolution, or civil war. Really? then what's this? That sounds pretty goddamn apologetic to me. Is there even a reason to go against the US? It's not an hegemony for nothing, you know. But at any rate, Cuba is not a valid example. Despite all of the US efforts, Castro still stands. So it can be done. And no, crossing over a border is not more realistic than overthrowing the corrupt government that rules your country. It's easier. There's a difference. Right, because the US would be able to take over the whole Central and South America without batting an eyelash. Just like they took over Afghanistan, or Iraq. Now, who's turning a blind eye to military logistics and domestic political climate?

Well, if he gave Lehmann the red, he should have allowed for a penalty kick, instead of that free kick near the line, as the foul was right over the line. But yeah, the ref was pretty bad. The yellow card Henry got was out of place (as a matter of fact, he came out of the tackle worse than the other player), but the ref just saw Henry going in with both feet, and reached for his pocket automatically. What I still can't understand is how Eto'o was declared best player of the match. For most of the first half he was completely blocked by Eboue (which for some reason he insisted on trying to dribble), and he didn't really make a great second half. Henry should have been player of the match, even if he wasn't very lucky. Also, it sucks for Pires... the man probably had a hard time restraining himself from choking Lehmann...

Nope. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy that exists in a discourse blatantly apologetic of a regime that systematically suppresses basic freedoms, while at the same promptly taking the moral high ground and to down fire on the embargo. At any rate, it's irrelevant if the US has helped to overthrow governments, as in most cases, it was an internal affair, with external US help. If there weren't factions in those countries willing to sell their own people for money (as those governments are invariably corrupt), that kind of foreign policy would be unfeasible for the US. They couldn't do that in (western) Europe, for instance. Again, they are just not ready to have democracy. And it shows. Also, I'd like you to present evidence (actual evidence, not another of your pamphlets) to back your claims regarding those alleged schemes to overthrow or kill Chavez. Not really. But how is the US going to stop a civil war? Like in Iraq? Right. Who's arguing who is right and who is wrong? As I said before, it's a matter of interests. The US do the only thing anyone in their right mind would do, protect their interests. On the other hand, it's you who's apologetic of a dictatorship. That sounds like lame excuses. Also, I don't think the US have the manpower right now to occupy Mexico. There was some talk about reinstating the draft, and that's a no-no for any President that wants to even think of a second term. Are you talking about the military dictatorships of the 70's? Again, those people had the support of many within their own country. Neat. Next time you make an argument that's difficult to refute, I'm going to use that line as well. Not that that's going to happen anytime soon, though.

No. It's really sad when you have to twist my arguments so you can attack them. What I said is that Castro's regime is the cause for the international isolation of Cuba (which the embargo is only a part of). Also, I wasn't referring specifically to the embargo, because even if the international community doesn't approve of it, that doesn't mean they are willing to deal with Cuba on the same level as if it was a democracy. Try again. Of course it's all politics. But if you want to assume a purely utilitarian stance, then your own arguments regarding the humanitarian crisis caused by the embargo aren't worth jack, as it's all a conflict of interests. Thanks for shooting down your own discourse. Finally. I was starting to get the impression you'd never get it. Has the vote changed anything? No. It only does when it's the powerful that gang up on someone else. Thus my point is proven. As for the US allies, everyone knew that supporting the embargo or not is of little consequence. But it looks bad to be on the US' side, these days. How the hell do you know what have I done for democracy? Tell you what, if we are to get along, you don't make random assumptions about me, and I won't assume you're talking out of your ass. How about it? Eh... yes. Those civilizations were replaced with a copy of our own, which was ruled over by criollos once the countries kicked the Spanish out. That was about... two hundred years ago. They have had more than enough time to get back on their feet. Why haven't they? No idea. Vietnam, maybe? Hardly without the consent of the local leaders. And in this case, local leaders are elected democratically. Sorry. Yeah. It's called hegemony, and imperialism. Again, welcome back to planet reality, "Bob". It has existed since there's a recorded History. And eventually, those empires have always been brought down. People fought them, though. For some reason, this doesn't seem to be the case. If they won't fight for their own future, I sure as hell won't. It seems it's you who needs to do some reading. There's no such "white elite" ruling in South America. In some cases it's the descendants from criollos (half-native, half-Spaniard), and in some other cases it's native folk. I don't know, Morales looks pretty native to me. Mind you, the descendants of criollos are full-fledged citizens of those countries. I hope you're not suggesting that anyone from Spanish heritage should be banned from the exercise of public functions. You also seem to need to read up on the amount of money invested in South America in the last 20-25 years, and how none of that has served to increase the life quality of the people there. Corruption is the word. On the other hand, we have the emergent economies in southeastern Asia.

-"Throw in a blowjob and you got yourselves a deal!"

sterilization plz

As a matter of fact, that is a lie, but I'm willing to grant you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just misinformed. The only thing that prevented the country from bursting into civil war before the war were Saddam's own totalitarian practices (including, but not limited to, genocide). Now with Saddam gone, and a foreign occupation force on their land, the violence is difficult to control. But the violence was latent. It wasn't created by the invasion. Yes, it's truly sad when a few people damage the image of a much larger group of people like that. But let us not forget that thanks to the media, every little detail gets blown out of proportion. And also, let us not forget that torture and executions of hostages are commonplace there. Not US soldiers, but people like doctors, journalists, and the like that have nothing to do with the occupation and are there only to help, or at worst, to make a living. I thought you were talking about the war in itself, and that is also a consequence of it. Why did you omit that part? Indeed. Or even the equivalent of stopping ritual genital mutilation! God forbid us from fighting barbaric practices when they are rooted in their culture!

Oh, of course. A brilliant article written by the world-renowned geopolitical expert Salim... who? Wait, did I say brilliant? I meant painfully tendentious. Yes, putting the US embargo against Cuba on the same level as the 11-S attacks (as he considers it terrorism) is a whole new perspective alright! Thanks for the laugh. Now, how does the embargo justify in any way Castro's regime? I'd like you to explain that. If possible, without another revolutionary pamphlet. The UN? You've got to be kidding me. The "United Nations" are only good as a lobby for the powerful to forward their interests behind a thin fa

Ah, yes. Poor, poor little Castro. I take it then that the fact that he refuses to adopt a democracy, and the fact that he systematically denies basic freedoms and rights to his people have nothing to do with Cuba's international (as opposed to US unilateral) isolation?Wow, that's a whole new perspective! What about the bunch of democratically elected snake oil salesmen that run those other countries in South America? I guess it's all part of some shadowy scheme orchestrated by the CIA to put imbeciles in office. They probably taught them their anti-US rhetoric as well, you know, for greater effect. Time to remove the blindfold. Hard, unpleasant reality, meet Azarkon.

Are you sure you don't mean hypocrisy? I see how you might confuse the two...

But is it? Why should immigrants be required to do something that the average US citizen would find difficult? You might as well refuse to let in those that fail to drag a truck with their ears. The thing is, immigrants will find it difficult to get a legal job in the US without an adequate grasp of English. But that is a different matter. You were just dodging the issue.