Gromnir

No, but he implied that he left because: 1) There was some project or projects he wanted to do but wasn't able to. 2) He was tired of fighting turf wars over his authority. he implied, or you inferred? is such a gray area. yes, chris observed that his role were unclear to him even after multiple years at obsidian. yes, he he made axiomatic observation that there were projects that obsidian would not and could not do. he also rambled on 'bout his role in alpha protocol and offered up chestnuts o' wisdom regarding difficulties employees got following conflicting direction from multiple bosses (welcome to teh rheal world,) but he never actual answered the question. regardless, is the kinda response that different folks is gonna read into it what they wish. HA! Good Fun!

y'know, chris didn't actual answer the freaking question. HA! Good Fun!

to be fair, beamdog is using the setting rather than the module, yes? is a bit like hating movies set in chicago 'cause you saw red heat and were justifiably disappointed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsWRhNZNFzw unlike tim cain, beam dog is NOT trying to recreate old d&d pnp modules... thank goodness. am still not certain why folks at troika failed to talk cain away from that blunder... as well as his flamboyant pirate. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

we get the feeling that msnbc and fox news is in constant struggle to find wingnut-homeostasis. if fox news makes a ridiculous statement, a msnbc personality must make an equal outrageous claim or the earth will spin out of its orbit and wander into deep space. our resident obsidian board conspiracy nutters no doubt see such perpetual balancing as contrived by the alien jewish bankers o' R'xvlzic VI, but Gromnir sees as a natural/supernatural phenomenon. HA! Good Fun! ps if unclear, Gromnir were responding to the melissa harris perry contributions to star wars hype.

'cause stevie wonder makes every song? tough to argue against that proposition. HA! Good Fun!

am tending to agree with al2o3. the notion that folks were shocked and appalled that game journalists lacked integrity or standards were comical. folks feigned surprise. folks acted out their shock. *snort* game journalism has always had more in common with professional wrestling than it has with legit traditional journalism. yeah, folks were indeed disappointed that game journalists were a bunch o' self-appointed pundits trying to promote social causes through game coverage, but were no surprise... and weren't necessarily a bad thing neither. the genuine anger we has seen is focused not so much on lack o' integrity, but rather on the "sjw" sideshow... which al2o3 observes never were the sideshow at all. gg, from the start, has been a repudiation o' sjw and seeming liberal bias o' the industry's media coverage. unlike al, we do believe that there has been an annoying trend w/i the gaming industry to be indulging political correct agenda, but seeing as we never took the journalists serious, it has been difficult to work up any venom over the fight against the dominant paradigm... which ironic, has become the seeming dominant paradigm. yeah, is a few game developers that has gone too far (too far for Gromnir's tastes) trying to appeal to a vocal minority, but our remedy is no different now than it were 10 or 20 years ago: don't buy the games made by developers we don't like. as such, in our opinion, the whole gg debate is utterly pointless. and no, much as al is not, we do not intend to link every post in these game journalist threads that is actual condemnations o' sjw or pc... we would be here all day doing such links. HA! Good Fun!

got our christmas spirit going for swtor HA! Good Fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRr2kf84V2M watched fargo tv show... perhaps were the cause o' our late 70s nostalgia. HA! Good Fun!

no. you don't read, do you? HA! Good Fun!

not adopted. adoption is a legal process. there were no adoption. also, if such a birth happened today in cleveland or bakersfield 2015, adoption would not be necessary. child is the legal son/daughter o' the parents. assume betty is 9 months pregnant and she marries bill the day before she gives birth to fred. we do not ask if bill is actual the father o' fred. bill IS the legal father o' fred. paternity is a different issue. no need for adoption. HA! Good Fun!

right up until he needed a place to have his passover observance, at which point he relied 'pon one o' his wealthy followers to put out a nice spread for his disciples and himself. HA! Good Fun!

our veneration o' dread Cernunnos is the reason we continue to celebrate halloween. when children come to our door in the darkness o' october 31, we challenge them thus: Do you fear the Lord of Antlers? if they show proper humility and obeisance, we offer them a treat-- a symbolic reward from the king o' the underworld's everfull purse. or not. christmas in japan? *shrug* we celebrate 'cause we can. we never begrudge a soul for finding harmless joy in small things. HA! Good Fun!

that was mildly terrible. HA! Good Fun!

Not really, there are plenty of Republican supporters on this forum and they not racist video Sorry I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying because Trump makes racist comments then any Republican supporter of his must be racist ? perhaps her point is that she finally admits her ignorance. the individual being interviewed by msnbc is a proud american who bleeds red white and blue. no condemnations o' the great satan or anti-semitic rhetoric from the rashid. the marine advocates tolerance and noted that his marine brothers were o' all races and faiths. is ironic that qistina, who seeks to paint america and americans with a single misguided brushstroke, has far more in common with trump than with rashid. link is a recognition o' logic challenged intolerance shared by trump and qistina with an american marine as example at other end o' spectrum? HA! Good Fun! ps took out video.

Fair enough, I was wrong about the security sweep. I read an old news item that pointed to this case and misrepresented facts. Thing is, sadly I don't really need to make up hypothetical scenarios, when actual real life occurrences illustrate the point better. In this case, they were serving a warrant, "probable cause" being trace amounts of weed found in the trash. No previous criminal record, no history of violence. Funny that you mentioned me coming out of my boudoir brandishing a butter knife (and in a pink robe no less, whatever floats your boat I guess...), because that's basically what happened in this case. No questions asked, just some guy getting shot in the face inside his house, in the middle of the night, by militarized police. Must have been one of those "fatally stoopid" folks you mentioned. That's for a minor drug-related offense. Are they going to go any easier on suspected terrorists? Interesting asides about the British in Boston, and regarding the exclusionary rule not applying even when knock-and-announce is violated. SCOTUS recently left the ruling in place, btw. edit: thanks for the exhaustive explanation, too. again, your initial hypo were not similar and we already observed that there is indeed a problem regarding police training in regards to suspects with weapons, so you is largely repeating. *shrug* swat-style raids has become more prevalent precisely 'cause serving warrants is dangerous to cops and bystanders. like it or not, we gots a well-armed citizenry, and our criminal element tends to be better armed than our law-abiding citizens... except in the deep south. no doubt after the first few times cops get injured/killed while serving drug offense warrants, local law enforcement agencies, often with support o' voters, authorize increasing force to protect cops while carrying out LEGAL warrants. the op-ed writer suggests that warrants is handed out by judges like candy at halloween, but he don't exact offer support for such... most likely 'cause he is trying to sell another book. also, you are confused. you are getting refusal to award tort damages confused with Constitutional issues. this case were not actual a 4th amendment case but rather were the kinda thing you might see on a first year law student exam... for torts. the Court agreed that the cop entry in the case you linked were illegal, but no damages were awarded 'cause the son o' the PLAINTIFF's actions were a superseding cause o' his death. the evidence found in the apartment woulda' been excluded. in any event, am not sure if we can agree with the decision (which has NOT been addressed by SCOTUS) but is not a 4th amendment case as is being presented. but again, in our opinion (not legal, but personal) am agreeing that there is something fundamental wrong with cop training in 2015. far too many folks that is "armed" is getting shot and killed. the cops is seen as dirty by the public when they shoot #'s brandishing his butter knife, but for the most part the cops is doing what they is trained. am also not a fan o' fleeing felon standard. regardless, we agree that changes is needed. HA! Good Fun!

am also feeling the need to reiterate that the notion o' cops random shooting folks just for being argumentative is almost entire mythical. cops ain't gonna force their way into number's home 'cause if they do, exclusion results in complete fail o' all evidence gained from such a search, but let's say cops is in numbers home 'cause his roommate let 'em in and then numbers comes out of his boudoir to speak to them. situation escalates. ... is it possible that numbers gets arrested in such a situation? yes. is very likely. is too likely. you fail the attitude test, and many cops will look for an excuse to arrest you. if you then resist arrest, there is good chances that the cops will then wrestle you to the ground or taser you. so, let's assume numbers did nothing wrong but his nosy neighbor complains and next thing you know, numbers is on the floor of his bathroom, drooling into his bidet as the cops taser him repeatedly. is bad cops, but is only occurring if numbers is stoopid. arguing with cops is not gonna end favorably for you, so why do folks do so? Gromnir's father had the talk with us when we were young, and am certain many minorities had the talk from their folks as well. it never ends well when you argue with cops, so, why? most o' us know better or has been specific schooled not to do so by parents or family, so why? be polite and if cops is wrong, you straighten things out AFTER you is no longer in a situation where you are facing an armed person... particular if there is few/no other witnesses. would Gromnir fight cops in some situations regardless o risk? sure. is very few such situations. cops beating a child for no reason is one such example, but is not many for which we would risk our own life. the number o' unarmed folks who is shot by cops yearly is relative small, and a significant number o' such victims is mental handicapped. you gotta be very angry, very dumb or mental handicapped to attack a cop, so is not surprised that so many victims o' cops is indeed mental handicapped. we got much less sympathy for the fatally stoopid and terminally angry. fleeing felon rule also makes numerous unarmed folks reasonable targets for police shooting. armed folks shot by cops? that number is big. is too big. am thinking that cop training needs some changes. any guy--white/black/latino/indian/whatever-- w/i 20 feet o' a cop who does not immediate release his 'weapon' when ordered to do so is considered an imminent threat by most law enforcement agencies-- gotta pocket knife or a assault rifle not matter. the training says that such a guy can be shot, and cops is trained to shoot center mass. am realizing that cops is trained to act according to what they has been taught rather than to overthink a situation, so am not necessarily blaming individual cops. cops react according to how they were trained, and current training has 'em shooting at any possible threat. so, if numbers comes outta his boudoir wearing pink robe and bunny slippers, he may get arrested if he argues, but if he is brandishing a butterknife and does not immediate drop it, police training ays that numbers should be put down. am not certain we agree with that outcome. we really gotta examine cop training if we wanna stop some o' these senseless tragedies. 'course we ain't talking 'bout socal shooting no more. we are talking 'bout numbers ridiculous and implausible hypo. with significant changes, we made the hypo more likely and more entertaining. *shrug* hopeful things get back on track. HA! Good Fun! ps is no reason to feel guilty 'bout calling cops if you see suspicious activity. calling cops 'bout suspicions is not a violation o' anybody's civil liberties. "worst case" is not numbers hypo but rather another san bernardino shooting that mighta' been avoided if neighbors had said something to cops. cant or other nosy neighbors ain't gonna violate any fundamental rights by calling with concerns and letting police/law enforcement handle. we spend much time in airports and we actual feel guilty 'bout a couple situations wherein we were too busy to report minor suspicious behavior. am having a hard time imaging how guilty we would feel if one o' our ignored opportunities had led to genuine tragedy. some innocent guy gets pulled outta boarding line 'cause Gromnir were over-sensitive. yeah, that sucks. plane blows up over scranton pennsylvania 'cause we didn't say nothing...

"Louisiana deputy sheriffs, having received on October 17, 2000, a telephone warning that Gould, known to be a convicted felon with a reputation for violence, was planning to kill two local judges, went that same evening to the approximately 14 x 60 foot trailer where Gould lived to talk to him, not then intending to arrest him. The officers, who had neither a search nor an arrest warrant, were admitted by another resident of the trailer, Dennis Cabral, who said Gould was asleep in his bedroom." is facts at the very 1st page, no? 1) the guy who gave acces did have the right to consent to the entry of the home, but not necessarily the bedroom itself. even the portions o' the DISSENT you quote observe "The majority has created an exception that permits an officer to ask for permission to enter a home from a third party who may have authority to consent to only part of the home but not all of the home." cops were lawfully in the home. legal resident can give access to home. 2) the DISSENT contends that there were no reasonable articulable suspicion, but, officers observed that "When we got to the bedroom, the door of the bedroom was open; so looking for him strictly for officer safety reasons, due to the allegations of wanting to kill police officers, and judges, and those – also the incident that occurred in the courtroom or the Judge’s office earlier that day, officer safety was, you know, a predominate issue in our mind." am flippant 'cause you ain't reading and you is ignoring your own previous posts. there were no forcible entry in the present case. also, the case you are quoting is NOT SCOTUS, so at best you are talking 'bout rule o' law in one circuit. so, let's compare to your hypothetical. "Worst case scenario is cops show up, ask if they can come in first thing, I say no, but they come in regardless to make an "officer security sweep" of the entire house. They make a tenuous or outright bogus probable cause claim, I object, things escalate and I'm arrested or shot because they considered me a threat. And all because my neighbor figured it's suspicious to receive parcels, or work in my garage." sorry, is not at all similar. are you a convicted felon with a history o' violence? even if you were, if you did not give CONSENT, the cops could not enter your home. the case you cite would not allow entry or search. am being flippant 'cause you ain't being reasonable. HA! Good Fun!

delete... gomma explain more fully rather than flippant, but did you even read the facts? cops were admitted to trailer with consent. Indeed, Buie expressly noted and rejected the Maryland Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply the reasonable suspicion standard of Terry and Long on the ground that “the sanctity of the home” required a more demanding standard. "In United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the D.C. Circuit dealt, as we do here, with a consent entry case and upheld the protective sweep of a bedroom in the apartment which the party authorizing entry (the court assumed arguendo) had no right to authorize search of, even though the sweep was not incident to an arrest." but again, court states multiple times that officers had consent to be in the home. is a serious threshold that you keep ignoring. "First, it is at least implicit in Buie that although the protective sweep may extend to areas of the home where the police otherwise (i.e., apart from the protective sweep doctrine) then have no right to go, nevertheless when undertaken from within the home, the police must not have entered (or remained in) the home illegally and their presence within it must be for a legitimate law enforcement purpose." your silly hypothetical o' cops forcing way into a home and then doing a sweep is therefore no more than fantasy. ok, am not gonna spend too much more time on this as this all should be obvious if you bothered to read the case. in present situation we got cops who were admitted into the home by other resident than the defendant. the court makes clear that protective sweeps must be reasonable given circumstances, but that still not gain the cops entry to the home w/o, as we stated earlier, a warrant, exigent circumstances or CONSENT. once in home a balancing test is applied : “[t]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined ‘by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’” facts show that the defendant has a history o' violence and guns were in plain view as part o' their legal entry. the resident did not have power to consent to access o' the bedroom, but court observed the balancing nature o' the test to explain why sweep would allow entry in present context. the court makes clear via dicta that not every protective sweep is gonna be valid, but "We decline to adopt any across-the-board rule that a protective sweep can never be valid where the initial entry to the home is pursuant to consent, even where the consent does not of itself legally authorize the entry into the area swept." the protective sweep needs be of reasonable time and scope and must be supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion o' danger. so, you got lawful entry and a suspect who has stated he is gonna kill judges and cops. furthermore, you got numerous weapons in plain sight. *shrug* honest, read the case. HA! Good Fun!

but again, US Courts is almost unique (australia has a lite version o' exclusion) in that if cops do bad and find evidence that proves guilt of a defendant, we don't simple punish the cops... we let the defendant go free. HA! Good Fun! That is quite well working system in most cases. But even it can fail to protect innocents when their neighbors start to act too paranoid, as police officers and those whose behavior their neighbors find suspicious are humans and when there are influx of cases where polices are called to check those more or less suspicious people there is increased change that in some cases people (police and/or those under suspicion) don't act as well as they should in such situation that can lead altercation that has unwanted consequences. So it isn't law that is problem, it is the inevitable human element. And more there are distrust between people more likely it's that human element comes into the play. Which is why some people find neighbor watching/stalking problematic, which I think was the original point/thing that was objected thankfully we don't leave up to neighbors or cops to issue warrants. we do understand police frustration given what a difficult standard is probable cause. cops know that a suspect is doing wrong but cannot do anything 'bout it? must be infuriating. so many crimes is unsolved, but when cops know who the bad guy is and cannot do anything... am certain it gnaws. am convinced that there is a disconnect for europeans who is not genuine familiar with US law beyond tv or youtube snippets taken outta context. Constitutional protections ain't no joke. individual bad cops doing bad things is always gonna be a problem. bad people doing bad to their neighbors is always gonna be a problem. the thing is, our system makes it very difficult to prosecute bad people. is kinda a double-edged sword, no? we make it very difficult for cops to do their job, but when cops or witnesses do bad, it is equal hard to bring'em to justice. HA! Good Fun!

as an aside, one ' the few things crime tv shows seems to get right is that the typical cop sees almost everything as being sufficient for probable cause. our criminal law experience were brief and almost comical given the office we worked-- virtual 0 drug cases. even so, we did work with law enforcement officers and even the feds who were highly educated and trained had a very loose notion o' probable cause. acted surprised every time they were told that they didn't have no probable cause and that they would needs go out and do their job and get some actual evidence if they wanted us to even try an get 'em a warrant. act like it is attorney's fault for not magically bootstrapping their bare suspicion up to probable cause? am glad we don't leave probable cause determinations in the hands o' law enforcement. HA! Good Fun!

but again, US Courts is almost unique (australia has a lite version o' exclusion) in that if cops do bad and find evidence that proves guilt of a defendant, we don't simple punish the cops... we let the defendant go free. HA! Good Fun!

how are you comparing traffic stops to search o' a home? and no, a cop cannot enter your home to without a warrant, exigent circumstances or permission... period. you are imaging problems into existence. HA! Good Fun! ps there were a limited amount o' time before Court clarified the scope o' searches o' a residence incident to arrest during which some cops abused perceived loophole. *chuckle* cops would drag a suspect through his entire home and search any place the suspect could possibly reach, but that got nixed by Chimel in... 1969? oh, and the defendant's best friend is a bogus probable cause claim. we got the exclusionary rule here in the US. cops don't have genuine probable cause but search anyway? cops find evidence stemming from knowingly bad warrant? the GUILTY defendant goes free. fruit of poisonous tree.

cops can't break into your house here unless they got a warrant or exigent circumstances. proof needed by cops to search your home is considerable higher here in the US even though some similar language is used by many european and US courts. neighbor calls and says you is fiddling in your garage and getting many packages delivered is not gonna be anywhere close to enough evidence to be getting any judge anywhere in the US to grant a search warrant. so, worst case scenario is cops come to your door and ask you some questions. is not exactly 1984. HA! Good Fun!

I don't think he needed that much convincing. He did go to Saudi Arabia to find a wife. So, totally not another Islamic terror attack huh? >BUT LETS NOT CONDEMN AN ENTIRE GROUP OVER Does it seem reasonable to condemn nearly 2 billion people every time there is an Islamic terror attack? Is that going to solve any problems within Islam? Is that going to stop Islamic terror attacks? Spoiler alert, it won't help. islam does have a problem. is not as if other religions is free o' terrorists and extremists, but in 2015, it requires a special kinda obtuseness to ignore how much more common extremism is in islam compared to the world's other major religions. in Gromnir's opinion, blame muslims as a whole is a mistake, but there is a correlation worthy o' inspection. our personal opinion is that poverty, lack o' education, denial o' basic human freedoms and geography is the primary causes o' prevalence o' extremism, but when the terrorists is quoting from their holy book as justifications for their murders and rapes, it is understandable that people will be seeing a connection. there IS a correlation. point out branch davidians in texas or jonestown in guyana as examples o' christian nutters willing to shed copious blood in the name o' religion only highlights the problem that islam has. christian extremism is far more rare, and people is being reasonable when they question why is so much more common with islam. what makes matters worse is when we hear from s'posed moderate muslims and we is confronted with their ignorance. ignorant regarding personal freedoms in the west. spout anti-semitic nonsense while decrying misunderstandings o' islam. link to conspiracy nutters as sources o' proof o' western evils or angelic islam? many o' the stereotypes we is told don't actual exist and is creations o' the media is validated for us, so... am thinking it is right to not blame islam, 'cause actual problems is far more simple, but more pervasive and insidious. however, am thinking we does a disservice to truth if we do not at least question the obvious and disproportionate correlation 'tween islam and violence when compared to other major religions. the discussion should occur, but far too often in the west o' 2015, issues o' race and religion and even sex is too sensitive to be having frank and open discussions. inability to discuss like rational folks for fear o' causing "disharmony" results in further polarization o' beliefs. so, what happens now? on almost same day obama tells folks that there is no credible threat from isis to americans in america, we got a mass shooting wherein at least one killer is posting her allegiance to isis via social media. do we have open discussions and try to figure out why this tragedy happened in southern ca as 'posed to southern lebanon, or do we refuse debate, thereby contributing to increased polarization and distrust? a week ago, a muslim in so cal shouting 'bout US support o' israel or continued presence o' american troops in the middle east woulda' gotten little reaction from most listeners. today? if even 5% o' listeners is more suspicious o' their muslim neighbors, that is a huge number given total populations we is talking 'bout. hurl is a teacher o' middle school students, so am not expecting him to look for deep insights from his young students, but we has seen recent that it is difficult for teachers to have open discussions with students regarding matters o' race, sex and religion. teachers need be extreme careful not to offend. hurl is aware o' the student teacher who were chastised recently for asking students to create propaganda posters that support terror? virtual every news agency and pundit opined that it were a bad idea to do such a thing. am understanding why doing such a thing in this political climate is bad, but were the lesson bad? teacher wrong? show kids propoganda posters from ww1 and ww2 and a dozen other conflicts. have discussions 'bout the power and dangers o' propaganda. ask students to write a paper on propaganda following a lesson on such would raise no eyebrows, 'but 'cause young teacher tries a more creative exercise, he/she were chastised publicly... nationally. so, we stay silent. in effort not to offend, we ironically increase polarization o' belief. in an effort to protect women and native americans and sikhs (is sikhs plural o' sikh... doesn't sound right) we discourage folks to speak that which might offend. those compelled to stay silent 'cause o' social stigma are deprived o' the opportunity to change. "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." we got real free speech here in the US. however, the social pressures we willingly impose on ourselves is a far more immediate threat to truth and education than is the legal burdens. admitted, those social limits is not necessarily a bad thing. is the guys aspergers who cannot self censor, yes? even so, the current political and social climate is such that far too many topics is functional verboten. so, yeah, we agree that islam is not at fault, but we do believe that the frequent (not necessarily hurl) knee-jerk defense o' every religious and ethnic group is equal harmful. far too often the suggestion that islam or the arab world has a problem is met with accusations o' racism or bigotry. there is a correlation. discuss. if we don't educate now, we will only increase fear and polarization. HA! Good Fun!

am honest not enough of a comic book nerd to know all the plausible rogues, but our first thought when seeing the trailer were, "doomsday." possible reason for our impression is that we know more o' dc through the timm and dini animated stuff than through actual comic books. in the tv animations, doomsday is a living weapon created from a kryptonian blueprint and source material whose sole purpose is to destroy superman. from the tiny bit we see in trailer, lex uses zod to create a kryptonian monstrosity that we can only assume has death o' superman as its raison d'être. HA! Good Fun!