Diogo Ribeiro

They should. Can't get more real than that.

I believe they call them features instead.

Apparently not going to see Munich today anymore. Hmm.

The tendency to keep bringing up past glories as if that somehow would matter to present-day concerns. If I see one more RTP1 broadcast with footage that's older than a decade, I'm gonna turn into Manuel Subtil #2. In fact, I pretty much avoid national television right now partially because of that; the only thing I watch their are series like Lost, The Shield or Dr. House.

And in the process do so in a way that does not fit their agenda. If it's assumed that somehow homosexuality or rather, those who express themselves as being homosexuals being in a repressed minority - which I disagree with, because what we're witnessing is prejudice against established social conventions which are wrongfully thought of as laws of nature, prejudice which apparently has no bearing on the affirmative action taken by increasingly more and more people (which in itself contradicts the essence of minorities as it is slowly becoming less of a minority) - it isn't beneficial to manifest themselves in a way that corresponds to common misinterpretations of them. They want to remove prejudices based on unfounded categorizations or beliefs of them; not to reenforce them. They can't celebrate that right if they claim they haven't acquired it yet; or is it a celebration that refers to every single successful step that promotes their agenda? Nonetheless it is a flawed therapy because the right to be open towards anything that goes against social conventions will always be met with bigotry and repression, wheter for good or bad and wheter we agree of disagree with it. To me, the right to be openly gay is a falacious issue because they have the right to be gay; they always had the right. They are not forbidden of being gay by no man or no law. However, the right to the expression of any person's mind, behavior or belief is not isempt of criticism or opposition. As such, people have the right to exercise free will and free speech - but they can't expect to be free of consequence. We can't deny someone's free will (in this case someone who would oppose homosexuality) because it goes against that of other individuals (in this case someone who supports it). We can, however, make sure divergences are kept in check and do not outweigh the concerns and integrity both physical or moral of either side. All I've done is said things how they are, although not all want to see them as such. I don't think this is necessarily utopian as I do not find it impractical as a standalone truth nor as a concept applied in a social reform. Curiosly, given our nature, I find the erradication of bigotry and repression to be much more utopian than the acceptance we're all human beings who are capable of loving each other. The problem is, in the eyes of those which are supposed to be made more tolerant of open sexuality, do 'gay pride' parades come off as meaningful opinion-changing vehicules or histrionic nonsense? While I don't mean to use anedoctal evidence, the fact is I've yet to encounter people who believe these parades to be anything but the later.

Tsk, tsk. You're way out of Kansas.

Haven't seen V for Vendetta yet, although it seems much of the positive aspects of it come from what was left intact from the original graphic novel. As an adaptation I suspect it will be bare bones. Recently saw War of the Worlds, today I'm going to see Munich.

And then we'd all embarassingly giggle when someone used the acronym three times in a row. It would be better than Dorothy's mantra.

Can you smell the despair of gaming publications trying to come up with new genre or genre definitions to try and stay afloat and remain relevant?

The Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas soundtrack. Currently playing: Jane's Addiction - Been Caught Stealing Rock on.

Rights are not acquired or given by flamboyant displays of ill conceived notions surrounding sexuality. All they are doing is noise, nothing else. There is no merit in having a different skin color, nor is there any merit in having a different sexual preference; therefore, no reason to be proud of it. They did not fight for their right to be gay; they already were to begin with. It's absurd to attribute pride to sexuality or to use sexuality as an identity flag; sex is bereft of identity and history, and it does not beget any kind of culture, ethics or politics. Homosexuality is a natural condition, not an ideological argument. When it is used as such, it loses its value. Gay parades are at best warped expressions of what Dr. La Forest Potter did in the early 30's, where he tried to typify the common traits or distinguishable characteristics of homosexuals and went on to propose a ludicrous laundry list of such features. They end up exacerbating the common misinterpretations of their nature and end up parodying themselves. How does that give them rights? And rights on what, especifically? "Gay pride" does not exist, and suffice to say neither do 'heterosexuals' or 'homosexuals'; it's all an absurd concept born out of narrow minds and narrower visions, not unlike Potter's own irrational discriminations disguised as science. There are just men and women, human beings who are capable of loving people of the same gender, of opposing gender and of both genders. 'Homosexual' describes an act, not an identity; and the problem stems from trying to do the opposite, redefining identity by how submission to desire is made. In the end, gay parades are terrible attempts at the expression of homosexuality and are no better examples of homosexuality than construction workers playing Casanova to passing by women are expressions of heterosexuality. It's a vulgar and rudimentary manifestation of exacerbated sexual traits. Nothing else. The only thing they should really be proud of is their human ability to love, to truly love another and fight for said love. I'm sure someone could tell me all about gay minorities and how they are excluded and such. Unfortunately, since I do not believe in the concept of homosexuality as indicated above, I also don't believe in gay minorities. And I don't believe any of them will ever have their rights achieved by excluding themselves and trying to pin that exclusion on others. There are human beings who can undergo situations of exclusion and humiliation, and if that is the case then it is the duty of any civilized society which they are a part of to correct these situations - not because they are 'gay victims' but because they are victims. Not because they deserve to be respected while being 'gay' but because they deserve to be respected while human beings. All this homosexual martyrdom, associated rethorics and its aberrant displays - such as gay parades - are much more insulting to human beings who love those of the same gender than people will ever understand.

Haven't tried it yet but for what it's worth the Codex boys reviewed it, and some people gave off a couple of impressions of the game. #1 #2 I'm trying to get my grubby paws all over it and make love to the CD.

What communism really is.

Clearly

Yeah, she really pops out.

That seems to be another quality Firaxis game but unfortunately train simulators aren't my thing.

I don't hate my country though I most certainly have disdain for many of its inhabitants.

That's why I've said that that is what I would want from a Justice League game.

A Justice League game that doesn't use Batman as another brawler.

Maybe they can do something about the fact that all the games in the past using that license were terrible but I'm not holding my breath. We'll see.

The butterflies in my glass box are also communists then.

Awesome. What the video doesn't show is that the entire cast of the show was roundhoused in their groins so they would never laugh at all the facts about Chuck Norris.

God is playing with us.

Yup, heard it before. It's on my radar; it had to be after the quality of the first title.