Gromnir

last comment from us. many folks on these boards, Gromnir included, enjoy mocking the way trump panders to the lowest common denominator. trump wants to make america great again? what the hell does that even mean? he blames muslims and mexicans for violence and claims that something must be done 'bout such folks. trump tells us that we gotta be tougher when handling foreign enemies and allies. etc. ... trump is notorious for his emotional appeals that resonate with the less educated portions o' our populace. there is a sizeable percentage o' the voting demographic who do not realize that trump gots no actual concrete action plans. worse, when trump does have a method in mind for handling a problem such as muslim violence, his solution is typical complete and utter unfeasible and even illegal. like it or not, the typical cry from the left for gun control following a mass shooting is actual classic trump. many liberal politicians take advantage o' the emotionally charged atmosphere following a mass shooting to appeal to voters with a meaningless demand for increased gun control. most americans, particular after a mass shooting, is gonna poll in favor o' some kinda increase in gun control. politicians is aware o' the public mood and take advantage o' the situation by making wholly vacuous appeals for increased firearms safety regulations. we got a ridiculous number o' firearms in this country that is not gonna disappear with any kinda gun control legislation and the Constitution limits any meaningful efforts at gun control regardless. the vague action plans to curb gun violence offered up by the left in the wake o' sandy hook or orlando is either complete impractical or largely pointless, but such stuff resonates with voters who is justifiably angry and distraught. it costs the left nothing to demand change. when change fails to materialize, the left can then blame on the nra and judges... or just wait for the next orlando. those folks who mock trump for his ridiculous and empty appeals to the lowest common denominator better look to what the left does in wake o' mass shootings... and for those folks who buy into such appeals, you might consider that in this case, you is part o' the lowest common denominator. HA! Good Fun!

Mexico is included, as is Canada. Canada is on the pictured chart 2nd from bottom, Mexico isn't as it had too few deaths (2). It's definitely not uniquely american anyway, but I'd safely say that it's disproportionately so when compared to the other OECD countries as a whole. What constitutes a rampage killing is the biggest question. Buggered if I know, despite everyone describing them as OECD Rampage Shooting Index data or similar there's no OECD page on it and the chart sourcing for the total deaths is to a now defunct page. Presumably it involves mass (well, it includes some single death incidents so go figure) gun violence which has no 'criminal' intention except for the act itself, ie cannot be because of drug cartels fighting over territory or similar but the sole criminal act has to be the commission of the mass shooting. Not in the chart, just in thinking that only happens in the US. Just wonder how many corpses you have to pile up to get the Rampage achievement. I would guess 5, myself 4 "The FBI defines “mass shooting” as any incident where at least four people were murdered with a gun." http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/everytown-mass-shooting-analysis1.pdf no doubt there is other standards, but might as well use fbi given that folks (mistakenly) seem to think that mass shootings is uniquely american. as fighter observes, compare US to individual european nations is unfair given the population disparity. reverse and compare wisconsin to the eu? 'course not. the charts keyrock and Gromnir linked recognize the population disparity. "The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack. "There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. "But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher. "Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US." etc. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure if you is serious. as homophobic and intolerant as is elements of the religious right in the US, to attribute the current violence to them is misplaced. blame christian right? blame jewish right? such groups frequent resist affording lgbt citizens equal rights, but is rare to hear calls for violence from such groups. and regardless, it seems highly unlikely that omar were a disciple o' jerry falwell. you think omar were tuning into jewish right broadcasts on saturday nights? we got a lesbian freind that we were speaking with earlier today and her reaction to the recent violence were... curious. somehow the violence perpetrated by a single isis advocate represented a massive reversal for the lgbt community. regardless o' how much the equality for lgbt citizens has improved in the last couple decades, the single act o' violence by an islamic extremist represented just how little progress had actually been made since the 60s. today it were a muslim extremist, but our friend were certain that this event were a harbinger o' more widespread violence. dismiss as terrorism were a way for the non lgbt folks to ignore the epidemic o' violence building like a thunderstorm on the horizon. clearly the religious right couldn't handle transvestites sharing their bathrooms, and because their legal resistance had failed, the religious right were turning violent. etc. ... honestly, we love our friend like a sister, but she were completely off her nut. am not ignoring the tragedy, but is no way to see this violence as somehow representative o' a greater shift towards violence by americans as a whole towards the lgbt community. any suggestion that the religious right as a whole made this specific act o' violence more likely cannot be advocated with any seriousness. am not dismissing that lgbt folks continue to be unfairly discriminated 'gainst by their fellow citizens, but to use this incident as an excuse to promote a larger crusade 'gainst the religious right would be unjust.

your confidence is misplaced http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ HA! Good Fun!

Except they're not. That's completely false. Mass shootings have happened and continue to happen all over the world. In fact, if you take a ratio of mass shooting deaths compared to population, the US doesn't even make the top 5 (admittedly this chart doesn't include 2014, 2015, or 2016): the list keyrock reveals is much similar to the one we linked already... am only bringing up as is is noteworthy that if one changes the descriptor from mass shootings to mass violence, the US drops even further and belgium and russia makes massive leaps. why should we ignore bombings, eh? russia has very few mass shootings, but w/o guns, those wishing to do mass violence find a way. gun restrictions do not stop russian mass violence. HA! Good Fun!

You know Alum I'd even go along with that if I thought for a second that is where it would end. But it won't. The goal of the gun control crowd is no less than prohibition followed by confiscation. They are willing to do it incrementally but that is the end all things are leading towards. Each new "reasonable" restriction begets another "reasonable restriction" and another and another and another. The best way to ensure you never reach the bad end is don't start down the bad road. That is the heart of it right there. That is why you see people like me opposing even "reasonable" restrictions. Because we do not trust the government to be satisfied with that. We are not dealing with an honest partner. You have a better shot of convincing people if you don't automatically assume that those who disagree with you are Bond villains. People who want gun control in America don't gather to laugh maniacally about the success in the next stage of their Master Plan. (Or, well, they wouldn't if they ever achieved any political victories worth celebrating.) They're just ordinary citizens who are sick of seeing bullets hit things they care about. For my part, the horse is pretty much out of the barn on gun control. Sure, if I had the choice between a society with few guns in private hands, versus one with many, I'd pick the former 10 times out of 10. (The latter was a useful check on 17th-18th Century tyrants, which is why the 2nd Amendment was written, but modern technology has functionally destroyed the capacity of personal arms to overthrow a better-than-3rd-World oppressive sovereign power.) In America, though, that choice was made for me a long time ago-- both in the whole Constitution thing, and in the fact that there are just a ****load of guns out there. That sucks, and creates a whole lot more tragedies than there need to be, but that also doesn't make it smart to expend a whole lot of political capital tilting at that particular windmill. am mostly agreeing with enoch. truth to tell, in spite o' the Constitutional hurdles, Gromnir is in favor o' gun control in some form. 'course in our mind, handguns is the genuine menace, and semi-automatic weapons is a distraction from the problem. we would be in favor o' a magazine capacity limit, but as we noted already, am dubious 'bout the actual benefits o' such a measure. am also having a hard time finding common ground with gd who is clear untrusting o' the State in this matter. dunno. our background makes us highly suspicious o' The State's good intentions-- growing up in the shadow o' wounded knee can color the perspective o' a guy. even so, while we hunt no more, we do own numerous firearms, but paper targets is 'bout all we shoot at these days. regardless, all our "hunting" firearms is having no more than a five-shot magazine (our marlin 336 xlr... though our .22lr does have a box that holds 10 +1). am having a hard time envisioning a legit need for a 30 round magazine... particularly for an ar-15, which is NOT a hunting weapon with its .223 calibre. the slippery slope arguments for resisting any kind o' gun control for fear o' inevitable future excesses by the State is difficult for us to embrace. where we heartily disagree with enoch is his observations 'bout the impact o' a well-armed populace in confrontations with foreign or domestic armies. dismiss the war games scenario where US and a foreign power plays out global thermonuclear war. such stuff is apocalyptic but largely pointless. purpose o' an invasion is traditional to conquer and not just to destroy. *chuckle* even if a hypothetical chinese army could invade and hold territory in the United States, we cannot begin to imagine how bloody would be attempts to control populations in cities such pittsburgh (lots o' hunters and ferocious geography) or chicago or entire rural areas o' west virginia, kentucky, colorado, etc. shady can tell you just how forbidding the geography alone is in colorado. add an angry and well-armed population that includes a significant percentage o' experienced hunters? we can't even imagine how a domestic tyrant would establish control in urban or rural areas o' much o' the United States if some considerable portion o' the population chose to revolt or resist. urban fighting is notoriously bloody, but in US cities where citizen owned guns is so plentiful, we predict considerable carnage being visited 'pon foreign or domestic oppressors. heck, every male we knew growing up in the dakotas knew firearms basics and likely had some skill in hunting. *chuckle* looks at this board and see how many military veterans we got posting in this place. a large standing army means we got loads o' military veterans too... armed veterans. tanks, smart bombs and stealth fighters would be woeful inadequate weapons for maintaining control o' hostile populations in the united states. yeah, our marlin 336 xlr, remington 798 and savage mk ii is all feeble weapons that would be largely useless if we were attempting to stop US armour under the command o' emperor trump. still, am kinda warmed by the thought o' the abattoir trump's occupation forces would face from guerrilla fighters armed with weapons such as is in our personal arsenal as regular army units attempted to exert control throughout the foothills and sierra nevadas. ... am kidding 'bout the emperor trump stuff. mostly kidding. HA! Good Fun!

Well... no. I said that American culture has a weird obsession with guns, seeing them as symbols of freedom and rugged individualism, and given that mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomena, the culture surrounding guns and the societal perception thereof is likely a contributing factor in that. Sure, I don't think you should be, but restrictions on the magazine size sound reasonably enough to me, and I believe they have been in effect for quite some time. I assume you don't need 30 bullets to defend yourself from hostile fauna. mass shootings is not unique american http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ and the efficacy o' magazine size limits, as our earlier linked article reveals, is rather difficult to gauge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html HA! Good Fun! ps far more people in the US is killed with handguns than with semi-auto assault rifles. in spite of the media fascination with assault rifles, our personal gun control focus has always been handguns. pps everybody likes easy to read pie charts, yes? bloomberg study is curious http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/everytown-mass-shooting-analysis1.pdf

'Assault rifle' is an emotive term though, for a medium to high calibre weapon that has an automatic, military, equivalent. A semi auto 'assault rifle' is functionally identical to a semi auto hunting rifle in everything except look and (in the US at least, and iirc) magazine size. We have far stronger gun control laws here but I could, theoretically, walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15/ AK-74/ SKS/ FN FAL. I'd only do it if I needed to control pigs or deer as the idea of trying to shoot them with a .22 is both moronic and barbaric and I'd get a proper hunting rifle, but functionally that FN FAL 'assault rifle' would be exactly the same as a .308 'hunting rifle'. zor is correct. in fact, an ar-15 that hasn't been rechambered for big game weighs in at a paltry .223. that being said, in most states, the typical magazine size for an ar-15 is 30 and quick-release. various states has put limits on magazine capacity. 'course the impact o' limits on magazine size is not easy to gauge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html as to our earlier question, while the Court has been a bit conflicted 'bout the level o' scrutiny the second amendment deserves, the law o' the land is that the right to bear arms is defended with greater vigor than is the right to be free o' searches and seizures by the State. District of Columbia v. Heller uses the language o' strict scrutiny, but the Court appears to actual apply intermediate scrutiny under certain conditions. regardless, fourth amendment search and seizure is only gonna protect against unreasonable State action, which is a less onerous burden for the state to overcome than is intermediate or strict scrutiny. the point is that simple acts o' Congress or state legislatures is likely gonna be ineffective in reducing an American citizen's access to firearms. like it or not, the right to bear arms gets the full extent o' Constitutional protections. when folks demand more rigorous gun control provisions, they is wholly ignorant o' the herculean task they is demanding. the hurdle that prevents meaningful gun control is not American's fascination with guns. the real obstacle is the the Constitution of the United States. HA! Good Fun!

which Constitutional freedom is more deserving o' protection: the right to bear arms or the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? clue: the answer is in the question. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/12/us/what-happened-at-the-orlando-nightclub-shooting.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/ http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-updates-shooting-at-pulse-nightclub-20160612-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html

as we said, we frequent a local butcher for most all our meat needs. we ain't done any genuine investigation, but the butcher has given us assurances that his suppliers is reputable. am living in CA and the butcher claims that many o' his customers is greenpeace, wwf, birkenstock shod hippies and the issue o' humane conditions o' the animals is common enough that he had to take an interest. veal crates are still used in the united states. average life span is 12-23 weeks... in a 30"x70" crate. the calves is fed a low iron faux milk substitute that is purposeful rendering the animals anemic to be keeping their flesh pale. there is a recommendation by american veal producer association to phase out crates by 2017. is a recommendation, and compliance is voluntary. we do not know how all our meat products is handled before slaughter, but we do know that calves meant to be veal is still frequent subject to horrific treatment. given that such practices is still common, why on earth would Gromnir support the veal industry? the ducks (or geese) that become foie gras gets equal barbaric treatment. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0128-friedrich-foie-gras-california-20150127-story.html we don't know about most o' our meat, but we is certain 'bout foie gras, and we got much reason to be suspicious o' any veal that comes our way. much like guard dog, when we did hunt for our own food, we were as humane as possible. we were taught to respect those animals we hunted. to knowingly purchase meat that were procured through cruelty would be antithetical to everything we were taught. am gonna continue avoiding foie gras and veal. HA! Good Fun! ps peta is not our first choice for factual info as they can skew a bit to make a point, but the following foie gras link is perhaps useful http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/ducks-geese/foie-gras/

Do baby cows not matter to you? You monster!! Seriously though, if you're always taking the high moral ground at the very least try to hide your sins. I mean you're just inviting Volo to bugger you about how horrible you are for eating young animals. Do you think most members on this forum care about the plight of young cows and or sometimes the cruelness about where Veal comes from well, we won't eat veal or foie gras precisely 'cause o' the lack o' humanity involved in raising and slaughtering o' the animals. all our meats is purchased from a reputable local butcher, but we do not pretend that we know the conditions that exist where all our pork, poultry and beef is raised. *shrug* am a human who needs at least some meat protein to stay healthy. also, we like meat. gotta be some advantages to being at the top o' the food chain, and it ain't as if the animals have any empathy for Gromnir. we no longer hunt. as a kid we hunted in large part out of need. frequent went months when only meat we had were what Gromnir or grandpa could acquire. however, without need to motivate us, we no longer find personal gratification in dispatching deer, bear, turkey and the like. *sigh* most common were actual rabbit. doesn't sound as impressive, eh? somehow managed to never get sick o' fried rabbit. ... made us hungry for buttermilk fried rabbit. HA! Good Fun! ps am an admitted hypocrite regarding the hunting bit as we will happily cook game meats our acquaintances provide. can't make our bigos w/o venison and wild pig.

am not particular forgiving o' games, as can be recognized from our reviews here and elsewhere. the thing is, we play so few games, and our 6 month rule allows us to thorough vet developer claims before our purchase. for example, our steam library is as follows: dragon age origins: ultimate edition poe shadowrun returns shadowrun: dragonfall torment: tides of numenera (beta... obviously) wasteland 1 (came free with wasteland 2 and have not played... well, not since late 80s) wasteland 2 xcom: enemy unknown (all dlc) that is all. fo4 came with our xbox, but we ain't played it dragon age: inquisition were a goty purchase for us last december, but is still in the shrinkwrap we purchased siege of dragonspire, but am not planning on playing 'til 6 months has elapsed post release. other games current on our computer: swtor bgee bg2ee kotor2 (heavily modded) ps:t (modded) our 6 month rule results in fewer mistake purchases. we wait for reviews from like minded friends, observe gameplay, and given that our current gaming preferences is extreme limited (crpg and strategy) results in a relative low fail rate for game purchases. is actual kinda surprising just how many disappointments we suffer given our game buying habits. HA! Good Fun!

Only 1/4th of the games you have ever played had a lot of wasted potential? Oh my, you have played a very fine selection of games in your life. "it's so plain to see just how much more fun and engaging it could've been with some minor tweaks." games that we can see marked improvement from minor tweaks? games we see having displayed "wasted potential" as 'posed to being a waste of our time? yeah, 1/4 is 'bout right. HA! Good Fun!

It's a prime example of wasted potential - still fun, but it's annoying when it's so plain to see just how much more fun and engaging it could've been with some minor tweaks. the sad thing is that your observation applies to about 1/4 of all games we has ever played. HA! Good Fun!

am not having played with the newest improvements. that being said, we thought the initial beta were already worth playing... though similar to majek, our plan were to not play again 'til release. given the list o' changes, we will likely run through the beta once more so that we can be giving useful feedback. the beta we played were clear needing work, but on the positive end o' the spectrum, we do not feel as if the content we were exposed to ruined the game for us. will play again to be offering final thoughts to developers. ... admitted, many o' the early criticisms we saw adopted by the group-think regarding the torment beta at various sites were perplexing to us. too much 'signposting'? *snort* our personal gripes regarding the game were either unavoidable or unfixable. we were annoyed by the lack o' character development we were seeing in the beta. 'course the game is clear meant to be similarly character driven as were ps:t, so the fact that the developers has avoided major spoilage is hardly surprising. we found a few o' the minor npcs to be mildly intriguing, but it appeared (hopeful?) that the developers were purposeful keeping major character development to a minimum in the beta release, and we expect that inxile will continue to hold their characters close to the vest until release. so, largely unavoidable on character paucity? sadly, our other concern were largely unfixable-- the aesthetic did not match the theme. torment is clear a close cousin to ps:t in terms o' thematic focus. in spite o' that fact, the world o' torment is a relative bright and inviting place. am not sure if we would go so far as to describe setting as "cheerful," but the setting and aesthetic is definite not evoking images and feels o' torment. regardless, am suspecting that by the time the beta were released, it were far too late to do major changes to the look and feel o' the game. so, unfixable regarding aesthetic. unless something major has changed with the new beta content, we would recommend playing only if your genuine intent to do so is to be offering feedback 'bout bugs, interfaces, combats n' such. torment, as a game purposeful meant to evoke parallels to ps:t, will succeed or fail based on how well the story is told... with a particular focus on character. am having a hard time believing that you is gonna see any further meaningful character development pre-release, and regardless, would you genuine wish for more character development in a beta? HA! Good Fun!

y'know, Gromnir actual tried yoga once. were back in college and a cute girlfriend requested that we join her for a session. is hard to recall all the things we has done over the years for no other reason than to impress a cute girl/woman, eh? went twice and we actual did our bestest. we got pretty good flexibility, so we don't believe that we were humiliating our self or anything, but the looks we were getting from the instructor were... ... is kinda funny to reflect these decades removed, but never has we had to endure such contemptuous stares. am not sure if the glances were 'cause we were a man or a jock or... whatever. if we had come into her studio, squatted down and took a big steaming dump, we doubt we woulda' been able to elicit a more disgusted look from the woman instructor. *chuckle* we gave up on yoga almost immediate 'cause a 5'-nothing, middle-aged, woman yoga instructor made us feel bad 'bout our self? apologies for going complete off-topic. HA! Good Fun!

as enoch is aware, Gromnir ain't a jazz guy, but we do got a soft spot for herbie han****, and not just 'cause o' his death wish soundtrack. apparent all our jazz favorites is cartoon related? peanuts. fat albert. weird... or groovy. HA! Good Fun!

Strength isn't that important when you are fighting with those weapons, you need just enough to wield weapon (which is something that both men and women can quite easily achieve especially in time most of the house hold work was done with similar tools, especially farmers [and there was no farming house where women didn't partake in reaping, and other heavy duties, because they could not afford not to]) without problems, but then you need skill, speed, hand eye coordination and understanding how your opponent can move and most likely move. This is because sharp sword, spear or axe needs quite minimal force to wound and kill person. Strength also plays quite little in in armored combat, because additional force that you can put behind weapon isn't that much without risking losing control over it which is when you opponent most likely wins the duel, you are better of to find spot where there isn't armor. While I have no desire to discuss gender in gaming, I will make a point of interest. The above statement by Elerond is horrendously false. They have no idea what they're talking about. Strength is critical in wielding a melee weapon. It influences everything. Endrance. How easily you can maneuver it. The ability to break through a parry. The ability to effectively parry. How precisely you can place a strike, and yes, the severity of a blow. All of this is also true in instances with armor. Source: 6 years Aikido, 3 years of Fencing, 2 years Okinawan Kenpo, 1 year of Kendo. resume time? we got a partial scholarship to University of Pennsylvania for fencing. considerable more than 3 years with sabre. we also wrestled for many years including having made varsity since sophomore year at one o' the better known wrestling schools in chicago. did not go to state, but it were close. boxed from youth through first couple years in college. admittedly weren't anywhere near golden gloves, so we ain't even gonna pretend we were something-something, but we did have experience in the ring. worked probation for a few years and went through MAB training which we used on a near daily basis. *shrug* one-on-one, mano v. mano fighting is Not same as military. bigger and stronger is indeed huge advantages, but is not dispositive particularly in military battles. if you got smaller and weaker soldiers, you is gonna use 'em accordingly. there is a reason why not all units is heavy infantry or heavy cavalry, yes? http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm average 16th century samurai were 'tween 5'3" and 5'5" and ~135 lbs. the size o' the average dutchman is, surprisingly, not much different today than they were in 16th century... go figure. the samurai fared well enough against europeans in those limited melee combats that took place. which again, is all beside the point. in any number o' fantasy settings, a foundational premise is that men and women humans is equal strength. such settings do not implode from implausibility. d&d since 3.0, pathfinder and dragon age is all examples that quick come to mind where women is equal strong as men and wherein militaries is often populated by men and women with equal frequency. starting point of equal strength has not overstrained credulity or destroyed verisimilitude. HA! Good Fun! ps not that it is actual relevant, but am gonna once again reiterate that we recognize that women is, on average, not as strong as men. am also recognizing that strength is a vital quality in many military and civilian roles. we want our marines to be able to carry their own pack. we want firefighters to be strong enough to carry the average adult male out of a burning building. when government actors bow to political pressure and reduce minimum essential strength thresholds just so that more women can be represented in fields that has not produced anything approaching gender parity, we get a bit unhappy. am not saying that women can do anything that men can do. men and women are different. that being said, strength is not the quality that has historically prevented women from serving in Most militaries. after all, the number o' small and weak males that has been conscripted into militaries over the centuries is likely beyond counting.

am suspecting that you is "done" if only 'cause you can't string out the falsehoods much longer. as we keep pointing out, the aforementioned settings didn not simple apply equal strength to women for player characters. the world of greyhawk makes women and men equal strength-- not just pcs. is same for pathfinder and dragon age. *zoom* point missed. also, we never implied that you wanted females penalised. we specific said that the issue is "moot" as there ain't no way that tyranny would penalize. again, is much different as you is representing. and elerond is correct 'bout strength. women is weaker, but they got more than enough strength to use spears and swords. has been more than a few cultures with relative small Males who were more than capable warriors, even when facing considerable larger foes. strength has never been the primary issue.... which is, again, beside the point. HA! God Fun!

Gromnir would like for the bond franchise to make us forget spectre. what a waste o' a fantastic cast. christoph waltz had been secret hounding bond for years 'cause o' unresolved daddy issues? HA! Good Fun!

revan has short memory. "I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN)" again, your conclusions is untrue. d&d didn't simple remove strength differential for player characters. were similar for pathfinder and dragon age. largely equal female representation of women in military roles in numerous editions o' d&d and other game Worlds has been noteworthy only insofar as it has been non-noteworthy-- nobody cares. the verisimilitude shattering overrepresentation o' women in the lore o' d&d since 3.0, and in pathfinder and dragon age were a complete non factor. good. as an aside, am going to posit that strength differential has never been the main reason for pre-industrial real world women exclusion from military. lack o' dependable birth control and a reasonable bias in favor o' women handling child rearing duties were far more important factors. takes very little strength to kill, and to kill effective. women are not as strong as men and when US Congressmen and military generals pretend as if the genders is the same, the results is largely comical. even so, is not strength that has historical been the reason for exclusion o' women from military roles. weaker don't = weak. preindustrial women spent most of their time either pregnant or rearing children, a fact which limited their military opportunities. regardless, numerous highly popular fantasy worlds has been very successful at full integration o' genders. has been a non-factor as the developers o' greyhawk and other worlds simple started with the foundation recognition that women is as strong as men in such worlds. the many thousands o' d&d, pathfinder and dragon age fans accepted the foundational premise o' gender equality with hardly any notice whatsoever. is not a genuine issue, and is hardly "beyond retarded" for a developer o' a game or fantasy world to embrace such gender indifference. HA! Good Fun! ps does anybody actual say "retarded" nowadays?

Well, female fighting characters (either ones you fight as, with, or against) are certainly treated the same as male fighting characters in D&D - at least, I think so. Fighting characters are not the only type of characters in D&D, though, and on a wider overview, I don't think you could really consider that principle to stand up to any great degree... Yup. You're character is created, not randomly sampled, so she doesn't need to represent a typical member of society. You can play a Nikki Fuller-type character if you want. Revan is stating that in the typical fantasy universe, females are weaker than males. I don't see any evidence of that in D&D, at least that I've seen. I was thinking about games, movies or books, not p&p rulesets (by the way, the older D&D versions had inferior strenght cap for females - they removed them in the newer versions just to allow players to create every character they want, I guess -, and also I've not read stories based on D&D settings but I do think that most of the regular soldiers are men, as it is in games such as BG, IWD and NWN). For example, in The Wheel of Time women usually hold more power than men, but that is because they can use magic while men go mad after using saidin for a while (and so are forbidden to use it or hunted down). Regular soldiers are men, there are women that go to war with them but they are sorceresses. There's pretty much the same situation in The Witcher series (Triss, Yennefer, Philippa and the Lodge are arguably more powerful than Geralt, but their source of power is magic, not their combat prowess and the regular fighters/soldiers are men). Then again, there are women who rise up to become good fighters in many fantasy stories (Eowin in LOTR, Brienne in ASOIAF, etc.) but they are not common and don't represent the average woman (who shares the pros and cons and the traits of real world's women). highlighted is untrue. as o' 3e, the d&d rules specifically note that women (not just pc women) is as strong as men in greyhawk (the core d&d world at 3e release.) subsequent editions have followed suit. pathfinder has also stated in their rules that women is equal strong. while we ain't read pathfinder or d&d novels o' the past 20 years, the game worlds 'pon which they is based is normalizing male and female strength. am unsure of dragon age lore, but we would be incredible surprised if the biowarian social progressives had not made special note that women is equal to men in all things in their world. all o' which is complete beside the point 'course. the initial revan complaint is largely meaningless with recognition that tyranny, like so many other fantasy rpgs, would be ill-advised to handicap women players who wish to play their women characters equal strong as men. the fact that there is equal numbers o' women seeming represented in tyranny world military units is about as non a factor as a non-factor can possible be. is admitted not possible in real life. so what? in a fantasy world where developers control the biology and the physics, why wouldn't they create equality? misplaced notions o' verisimilitude? is a freaking game... a fantasy game. HA! Good Fun!

am suspecting you are correct, but keep in mind that the goal o' brine is not typical to make your chicken taste like pop. is not gonna taste like pop regardless, but many o' the stronger flavors in the soda pop will be infused into the chicken to a lesser or greater degree depending on the time length o' the brine. have never tried ginger ale, but 7-up is actual a good option for a pop brine. lemon and lime flavors. were actually 'bout ten years ago that we started frequent doing soda pop brine for chicken... 'bout the same time we switched to boneless and skinless chicken breasts as our most common grilling choice. thighs is our actual preferred piece for almost any kinda chicken cooking, but like so many other folks, we became more health conscious over the years. *sigh* boneless and skinless is not a fantastic choice for grilling-- tends towards dryness and flavor paucity. ick. to combat the shortcomings o' our meat, we devised ways to improve to the flavor and moistness qualities o' our boneless and skinless breasts. rubs and brines. in any event, have fun experimenting with soda pop brines. in addition to trying out different varieties o' pop, we would recommend 15-30 minute incremental increase o' brine time starting with 30 minutes as kinda your base. perhaps 2 pieces brined 30 minutes, 2 pieces brined 45, 2 pieces brined 60 minutes, etc? HA! Good Fun!

is gonna sound strange, but give pop a try for your brine. get a 2-litre o' coke or rootbeer or dr. pepper (do NOT go diet. artificial sweeteners make a brine taste vile. am not kidding or exaggerating) and dissolve your salt into the pop via a nice bit o' boiling. after salt is complete dissolved, cool the brine by adding ice or refrigerating. make sure your brine is genuine cool before adding chicken as you do not wanna risk salmonella or other bacteria growth. brines is particular useful when doing high-temp grilling with various rubs. keeps chicken juicy even when you gotta blacken to bring out flavor o' your rub. two hours is likely the maximum amount o' time you wanna brine chicken pieces. as little as 30 minutes is okie dokie. regardless, try pop... almost any kinda pop. different flavor will be added to chicken. experiment. caution: lengthy pop brine will make your chicken taste odd. is not necessarily bad, but is kinda weird when your grilled chicken breasts taste a bit like ham. HA! Good Fun!