metadigital

RTFT! nVIDIA 7800GS (<{POST_SNAPBACK}>)

Thread pruned for preservation. Strike ONE. (Don't be PERSONALLY responsible for the next strike ... <_< )

It's probably going to be the last word in AGP graphics cards (depending on the retort from ATi) ... but don't pay over

Evidently. I have nothing against setting up the "rules of engagement" that includes mature themes in a campaign. Ditto for CRPGs. In fact it is a mandatory requirement if mature elements are included in a game. What is a little more disconcerting is the weird nerdy boys who will pore over such a tome, memorising every little phrase and unnecessarily mimicking every idiosyncracy. I would have a lot more sympathy for anyone (presumably mainly females) playing out scenarios to deal with early sexual trauma, etc. (Which is why I ascertained the gender of the lascivious and lubricious Paladin.)

It's not good.

That is not true.

http://www.variety.com/VR1117939918.html It's funny, he was perfectly okay with cashing the dough made on mocking all the other religions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Baley's keen eye for hypocrisy FTW.

They do advocate chastity. For one thing, I can't really speak for Catholics, since I am Protestant (woo-hoo!). But one reason why they might oppose homosexual priests is probably the same reason boy scouts would oppose gay scout troops. Not necessarily out of homophobia, but out of safety. Imagine this: you have a male priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Sex is a part of human nature that, like any other part, starts to really get to you once you go without for a long time. Then say that this priest was homosexual. A priest who spends much of his life around other men AND young boys. The chances of a homosexual priest abusing a young boy would be greater than that of a heterosexual priest abusing a young boy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mothman, homosexuality ≠ pederasty that is a fallacy. And a dangerous one.

I think the basic problem is the wish to simplify intractable issues. It is arguably necessary to try to untie the Gordian knot

Yes.

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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The minorities are just trying to reverse the stigma attached to their minority condition by the majority. Not to suggest that one state / condition is better than another. I think it is more therapy: celebrating the RIGHT to BE OPENLY GAY in society, without bigotry and repression. Otherwise, through the silence of the majority that is more to aquiesce, but that is manipulated by other, vocal minorities condemnation. Amen. I wish we lived in such a utopian vision, too. Not sure I am able to pass a judgment, but I would expect that, as long as the right to be OPENLY, publickly a member of a minority, then there is less need for the display.

Well if one group is allowed to go around proclaiming how great it is. It's only fair that everyone else gets to do so as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you feeling repressed? Well thats one of the things I'd like to know. It's like if you are expressing pride and your not a minority your doing something wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BECAUSE White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males are the ruling class. You don't see royalty picketing inthe streets for equal rights: that would be a step down!

It's brilliant, I thought.

Actually, one of the tenets of a proselytizing faith, like Chritianity (cf. Bah

That's hardly proposing any solid argument. Or are you stating your support for natural selection, and Darwin?

Did the Paladin (and I'm assuming it was a male playing a male, natch) win his eternal battle with the temptations of the flesh? Wait a minute, aren'y Paladins meant to be chaste?

Is that why they get so upset and want to rule the world? A destiny of inferiority complex? So if we could win the Hearts and Minds

If you trust us, why didn't you wait ...

Great, that's just what I need. <_<

Hey! <_< ... O, wait, you were talking about- ... " I prefer to pool all my resources into the best PC I can get: currently this gives means I have a laptop, so I can not only play games in the sitting room, but also play games out in the garden, if I want. ^_^

Nothing else really needs to be said about the definition of an RPG, and the relevance of the setting.

Indefensible.

That seems to be a common attitude in most cultures, except for the USA. Seems to be the motivating force behind this current cult of celebrity, which demands fresh (ephemeral quasi-celebrity) sacrifices to perpetuate it. In Australia, for example, the practice is called the Tall Poppy Syndrome.

" Edit: Wow, look at all the pretty warning lights ...