metadigital

Wait. Let me write that one down so I remember it. If people think I am ignorant, claim they are paranoid and delusional. Ok. Now, metadigital, before you start insulting my family as well as asserting that I am chatting about conspiracies (which I am not), perhaps you should consider that maybe there are costs involved in producing a game, publishing a game, bringing it to market. The fall of a game company might have alot to do with mismanagement and poor market choice. Personally, I think Troika fell because they were on drugs most of the time. However, just so that no one misses the plain facts in the face of your oh-so biting and sharp retorts, as if anyone would expect such wit from a moderator here, Flying Buffalo is still around, the guys who make Tunnels and Trolls. There's a company that's selling Arduin-Grimoire products and rulebooks (the rights for the game belong to Hargrave's widow). Also, Rolemaster is still being published by ICE. Not only would Tunnels and Trolls be popular with the 16-bit theater chimp crowd, so would Arduin-Grimoire be fun for power-gamers, and Rolemaster be interesting for those who enjoy bloody detail and intricacy. These licenses might be a bit cheaper to obtain and sustain than others. Anyone hear aught of conspiracy here? No? That's because you're not a diaperhead. Do not feel badly if you *do* wear diapers on your head -- the fad's coming in fast and hard. Fallout Online has just been announced, so grab those diapers like they're hotcakes, and fasten them over your ears, boys and girls! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You haven't addressed my criticism of your statement (failure of game developers, not successes of minor ones); you are clearly delusional if you think I insulted your family; I was trying to illustrate the ludicrous nature of your statement; you have resorted to agumentum ad hominem instead of arguing facts; as difficult as it is to believe, my position here is strictly voluntary; (yes, I know it's hard to believe I voluntarily try to clean up the mess that is left around here by some people); my opinion is my own and nothing to do with Obsidian; If I thought you were serious then I'd give you a warning and moderated posting, as it happens I think you are attempting to make a joke. Now, once again, this is what you said: Which, as a general rule, is bunkum. (Unless you think there is some ulterior cause, some hidden agenda ... a conspiracy.)

Had a quick go at Deus Ex after all that appetite-whetting discussion.

"

That will all come, I am supremely confident. I must say that is pretty clever, having an overarching timeline for everyone to use so that major NPCs are tracked (rise and fall, no doubt).

I would think that I would not like to keep waving my arms like I was sword-fighting for hours on end. I think it would be fun for a while, but it strikes me as just a novelty ...

According to my father the Australians had two big guns ... and one blew (itself) up. (The US had more equipment than they could use. He told me they all used to go to the US camp for pancake breakfasts!) I would expect they were firing at the next mountain range / valley, though, not across island bays ..!

You need to improve your reading comprehension. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> :angry: The writer is correctly limiting her conclusions to the what that particular study can show. There are other studies that indicate that ability to be deceptive is actually considered an asset for leaders in many cases - and is a selection criteria of their followers. I suppose I could dig that correlation up too. But so could you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr colrom, I am pointing out your inductive fallacy, namely you are making an faulty generalisation (more specifically a syllogism). Get as angry as you like, but I am just arguing logically with what you provide. You made a (fantastically) rash statement. I called you on it. You provided research that doesn't support your claim, so I have to conclude you: didn't find any to support your case, or didn't know it didn't support your case. If the former you are being disingenuous. I took the liberty of assuming the the latter, thus I was pointing out the fallacy. It's YOUR proposition. When you put forward the evidence for it, according to scientific method, we have to try to disprove it. If we disprove it, then it is false. (The reason we try to disprove a statement, rather than prove it, is to prevent the confirmation bias.) Try to divorce your frustration from the subject(s), so that we might discuss them without the intrusion of negative emotions. If you don't want to prove your rash statements, then don't make them.

Well, according to colrom's logic, a bit more niceness and I'll repent of my misunderstandings and become born-again. "

Haven't read Heidegger yet. I am due for Hobbes, next, after I finish The Glass Bead Game.

Does the game include the Japanese germ warfare, where they drop bubonic plague spores in a bomb? "

That's correlation, not causation. You need to improve your reading comprehension.

I can wait for you to translate it. I was thinking of doing a philosophy course at Bologna, but I need to check that they conduct lectures in English ... it's hard enough without having to transliterate from Italian. :D

Let's NOT discuss the US in this topic, because that will just make me close it.

Right, so because it offends your sensibilities and YOUR ethical framework, WE can't discuss it? So you are okay with killing someone who has a gun to your head, even though you don't know if they are going to kill you, because you can't predict their future actions, but a country can't intervene in, say, Sudan to prevent the genocide in Darfur, or in Kosovo ? Your position is untenable. Hence why I am calling you on it. Or do you need God's spokesperson to tell you who is evil, so that you have permission to kill them?

wait what

S

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's all down to CONSPIRACIES!

So the people of Iraq voted for a US government, did they?

Yeah, nut I still don't understand why he states "In general people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters." Why do people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters? Y'see, why I picked this up is because it's another attempt to paint people who don't subscribe to colrom's dogma as "misguided". Obviously people must want to vote for good liars, because they can't be voting for any REAL policies.

This was an Iraqi execution; they were at pains the ensure the US had nothing to do with it.

Nice surreal touch, but NO.

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage." Lao Tzu

Atheists are among the least trusted minorities in the country; I'd be very surprised to see any get elected at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In general people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters. In the US, this pretty much eliminates folks who are forthright about being atheist. But liar atheists who pretend effectively to be religious are no problem. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WTF? What makes you say that?