Gromnir

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13230192/ken-stabler-former-oakland-raiders-quarterback-dies and on the stoopid side o' nfl news http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/171547/nfl-faq-jason-pierre-paul-c-j-wilson-injured-in-fireworks-accidents HA! Good Fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__1YLNr2aDU is one o' the few songs we can clear recall the first time we heard it. bonham drums were like a hammer blow to the soul. presence album is still our favorite led zeppelin. HA! Good Fun!

The ''Cro-Magnon'' was not responsible for the demise of the Neanderthal. Just last night I learned homo sapiens bred extensively with Neanderthals. Everyone alive today has 1-3% DNA from them. I can't help but imagine the scandalous stories rivaling the Capulets and Montagues. What did they speak, how did they communicate, what was their favorite game to play ... so fascinating. I can't believe I get to live in the future. based on the highly scientific clan of the cave bear movie, the capulet and montague interaction were handled, well, caveman style. not much dialogue or foreplay. HA! Good Fun!

well, we likely know the most relevant context: location, location, location. http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/nov/cincinnati/011101.cincinnati.html http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/nearly-12-years-after-riots-cincinnati-race-relations-improving-but-more-progress-needed http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/colerain/2015/05/08/colerain-police-department-taking-proactive-approach-race-relations/26988701/ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119133/cincinnatis-2001-race-riots-reveal-solutions-fergusons-unrest the State prosecutes crimes, not the victim. the State has reasons to be cautious in this... case. HA! Good Fun! 40 people, that goes well beyond a simple beating and that not one of them looked at themselves and realized that a mob that size could kill one person. Or I guess they didn't care, I would go further and say that they lacked simple humanity but that might assuming too much. Even though they probably do. point? *shrug* the State is gonna be as deliberative and cautious as possible, and for good reason. there has already been one victim. HA! Good Fun!

well, we likely know the most relevant context: location, location, location. http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/nov/cincinnati/011101.cincinnati.html http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/nearly-12-years-after-riots-cincinnati-race-relations-improving-but-more-progress-needed http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/colerain/2015/05/08/colerain-police-department-taking-proactive-approach-race-relations/26988701/ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119133/cincinnatis-2001-race-riots-reveal-solutions-fergusons-unrest the State prosecutes crimes, not the victim. the State has reasons to be cautious in this... case. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/red-gate-woods# HA! Good Fun!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/africa/south-africa-xenophobia-attacks/ http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Faculties/humanities/NewsEvents/news/Documents/2012%20articles/A%20massive%20rebellion%20of%20the%20poor%20Prof%20Peter%20Alexander.pdf http://www.economist.com/news/21589143-where-protest-likeliest-break-out-ripe-rebellion unlike austria (HA!) you don't have the advantages o' a relative homogenized and stable society. you got big and real problems to face and your historically oppressed people is, unlike in the USA, representing a majority o' the population. am hopeful that things will eventually work for you, and am recognizing that you got unique problems. is suppressing speech necessary in south africa 'cause o' your different situation, or is the well-intentioned attempt to avoid civil strife as misguided in johannesburg as it is in vienna? *shrug* we don't have all the answers. HA! Good Fun!

hate speech is not a social ill that needs correction. hate is the social problem. suppress hate speech exacerbates the problem. worse, the majority has a tendency to label. that which is unpopular or offensive should be suppressed for the greater good. is extreme few folks who support the yutz who burns a koran to protest islam or dress up in white hoods to rail against miscegenation. a couple decades ago it would be hard to find folks who would support communists or gays. go back further and we find support for minorities to be equal unpopular. the only speech that needs a constitutionally protected right is speech that offends. in a democracy, free speech is a limit on The People. "Congress shall make no law..." a right to free speech that does not protect the offending speaker is... pointless. this should be axiomatic. HA! Good Fun! ps a muslim-american's defense o' hate speech http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/04/muslims-defend-pam-geller-s-right-to-hate.html and for those anglophiles "First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. "Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. "Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds." --John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

if there is a fix, we ain't seen one. this were an issue noted in the beta by many folks. we has had the problem since day 1, although it is a relative small issue for us. given the insane number o' hours invested in the game, and as this ain't a fps or mmo, the issue kinda fades into the background for us. is similar to the weird dialogue volume issue we get. 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 dialogues will result in a weird volume increase. is annoying... particularly if our cat is sleeping on our desk at the time as it freaks. even so, such silliness has become normal to us. HA! Good Fun!

as an aside, Gromnir is not claiming that the USA is or has always been perfect regarding free speech. we gave examples above, yes? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/elia-kazan/about-elia-kazan/642/ where we screw up, where we stumble and lose our way, is when we allow fear to replace what we should know is right and just. the First Amendment is an ideal, and we so often do not live up to the ideal. we keep falling and failing. we can and should do better. HA! Good Fun!

we had the first amendment before we had our civil war and emancipation and the civil rights battles that lasted into the 1960s... and beyond. HA! Good Fun! ps protecting the unpopular and offensive speaker From society is the point.

Or elected to public office as a Democrat. <cue rimshot> is (not) worth noting that in a poll conducted by nobody reputable, fully 1/2 of american democrats would support a limit on hate speech. democrats. *snort* in any event, we will observe that our most frequent disappointment regarding free speech is not that bigots and lunatics get to spew hate freely but rather that most americans do not use their speech rights to respond to the villains. americans, while less passive than most, is far too willing to stand idly by while their fellow human beings is tormented by evil men. there ain't no active duty to respond to hate, but surely there is a moral obligation to do so. we all too often see americans fail to live up to such obligations. we wait for a pundits to gather in a climate-controlled tv studio, miles and days removed from any actual bigotry and hate, to calmly debate the the issues facing american society. three minutes o' quasi-scripted dialectic ensues before the inevitable commercial break. are your clothes as clean as they can be? matthew mcconaughey drives a lincoln, and so should you. sitting at home, having watched the battle o' tin knights with paper swords, we cheer democracy and free speech and america. hurrah. HA! Good Fun! You see Gromnir you are in a very fortunate position to be able to intellectualize hate speech so you defend its usage even though you don't like it I live in a country where we haven't got to that point yet and people are very much effected by words . So we ban hate speech and certain words and its makes perfect sense The truth is certain words do matter and truly hurt some people in a palpable and psychological way. So why allow them? ban hate speech does not stop hate. it is our belief that banning hate speech has a tendency to increase hate. regardless, ban hate speech does not in any way solve the larger problems that created the hate. open and vigorous debate at least has the possibility o' curing problems. also, what if the folks spewing hate is right? what if we label folks and history proves that they were correct. hell, maybe they is wrong, but if they can't speak because their message offends, how much speech is chilled? is not many decades past that american blacks marching and protesting were considered disruptive. why can't the homosexuals just use their votes to bring about change instead o' their silly parades? those folks who disagree with US foreign policy is clearly communists and we need to shut-em up and blacklist 'em and whatnot. HA! Good Fun! You right, banning hate speech doesn't stop hate speech. is not what we said. ban hate speech does not stop hate. you limit expression and you cause the hate to seethe and fester. you can't fight hate by gaging bigots. all you are doing is creating a generation o' bigots who not only hate blacks or homosexuals or whomever, but they also hate and distrust the government for limiting their ability to express themselves. folks with nothing in common save for the fact that the government is silencing them is gonna become unnatural allies. you are exacerbating problems and instead o' dealing with those problems out in the open, you is gonna eventual need find 'em, dig 'em out and... what? the positives o' silencing bigots is obvious and it actual does resonate in most o' the world. in most democracies, as between an individual's right to speak and the competing right o' folks to be free o' the vile epithet, the world chooses to side with the victim rather than the bigot. that is the obvious choice. we think it is the wrong choice. HA! Good Fun!

Or elected to public office as a Democrat. <cue rimshot> is (not) worth noting that in a poll conducted by nobody reputable, fully 1/2 of american democrats would support a limit on hate speech. democrats. *snort* in any event, we will observe that our most frequent disappointment regarding free speech is not that bigots and lunatics get to spew hate freely but rather that most americans do not use their speech rights to respond to the villains. americans, while less passive than most, is far too willing to stand idly by while their fellow human beings is tormented by evil men. there ain't no active duty to respond to hate, but surely there is a moral obligation to do so. we all too often see americans fail to live up to such obligations. we wait for a pundits to gather in a climate-controlled tv studio, miles and days removed from any actual bigotry and hate, to calmly debate the the issues facing american society. three minutes o' quasi-scripted dialectic ensues before the inevitable commercial break. are your clothes as clean as they can be? matthew mcconaughey drives a lincoln, and so should you. sitting at home, having watched the battle o' tin knights with paper swords, we cheer democracy and free speech and america. hurrah. HA! Good Fun! You see Gromnir you are in a very fortunate position to be able to intellectualize hate speech so you defend its usage even though you don't like it I live in a country where we haven't got to that point yet and people are very much effected by words . So we ban hate speech and certain words and its makes perfect sense The truth is certain words do matter and truly hurt some people in a palpable and psychological way. So why allow them? ban hate speech does not stop hate. it is our belief that banning hate speech has a tendency to increase hate. regardless, ban hate speech does not in any way solve the larger problems that created the hate. open and vigorous debate at least has the possibility o' curing problems. also, what if the folks spewing hate is right? what if we label folks and history proves that they were correct. hell, maybe they is wrong, but if they can't speak because their message offends, how much speech is chilled? is not many decades past that american blacks marching and protesting were considered disruptive. why can't the homosexuals just use their votes to bring about change instead o' their silly parades? those folks who disagree with US foreign policy is clearly communists and we need to shut-em up and blacklist 'em and whatnot. HA! Good Fun! ps bruce is the one who is lucky. you got the opportunity to bring about real change at a time when it genuine matters. the other day, when the Court ruled in favor o' same-sex marriage, we saw folks cheering 'cause the Court had defended an "underrepresented minority from the tyranny o' the majority." is not the role o' the Court to be swayed by polls, but even bruce observed that the majority o' the US public is actual favoring same-sex marriage. were no tyranny by the majority. what we had were the Court being impatient with the indifference o' the majority... which hardly makes for a profound battle cry, eh? your problems in your country is open and notorious and raw, just as ours were not so long ago. in a sense, we envy you 'cause now is the time when you can bring about real change. by comparison, our social evils is massive and entrenched and largely kept to the shadows. example: blacks didn't get the same home ownership advantages decades ago, which has led to endemic wealth disparity. ok, fix that. fix it with a march on washington or protests? how? get it right. learn from mistakes and do it right. Gromnir is envious o' your opportunity.

developers like to say, "it will be done when it is done." unfortunately, publishers don't live in the same world. publishers need release dates. personally, we would rather the developers make white march a quality release without over much concern for a specific release date. is not a box item that needs shelf space. even as a direct-to-consumer product, there won't be no physical production, so you won't need a release date in the conventional sense. not need allocate distribution resources ahead o' time. only reason we can see for a release date is 'cause fans who is wanting something, anything, will be mollified if they get to hear a release date that is other than remote. *snort* finish the development and then release. announce release date and then (predictably) realize that development requires more time? does that kinda thing happen? HA! Good Fun!

Or elected to public office as a Democrat. <cue rimshot> is (not) worth noting that in a poll conducted by nobody reputable, fully 1/2 of american democrats would support a limit on hate speech. democrats. *snort* in any event, we will observe that our most frequent disappointment regarding free speech is not that bigots and lunatics get to spew hate freely but rather that most americans do not use their speech rights to respond to the villains. americans, while less passive than most, is far too willing to stand idly by while their fellow human beings is tormented by evil men. there ain't no active duty to respond to hate, but surely there is a moral obligation to do so. we all too often see americans fail to live up to such obligations. we wait for a hand-picked collection o' pundits to gather in a climate-controlled tv studio, miles and days removed from any actual bigotry and hate, to calmly debate the the issues facing american society. three minutes o' quasi-scripted dialectic ensues before the inevitable commercial break. are your clothes as clean as they can be? matthew mcconaughey drives a lincoln, and so should you. sitting at home, having watched the battle o' tin knights with paper swords, we cheer democracy and free speech and america. hurrah. HA! Good Fun!

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/index.html well, we looked at freshman profiles for all o' the UC campuses and we did note that the gpa averages is, across the board, mighty impressive, but the sat scores don't look all that different than what we recall from ancient times when Gromnir did matriculate. there were no essay requirement in ye olde days, but 1380 sounds 'bout right for Cal for math and verbal. we would need ask hurl if grading has been skewed upwards in the past decade(s). in any event, we suspect that manifested could start a blog and become an industry insider by next comic-con w/o too much effort... even as a state school grad. HA! Good Fun!

The convention is now a reservation for industry insiders. No longer does locality guarantee inclusion. That's my fancy way of saying if you don't win the ten-minute ticket sell-out lottery in February ... SOL is all you get. Which I already have plenty of. I shoulda called myself ManifestedSOL. Was forced to drive downtown this morning for work, today being the first preview day of SDCC, although work had nothing to do with it. I made it out by 2pm without too much hassle. Public parking quadruples this week, from ten bones a day to $40 per. I'm a nerd and I love comics and cosplay but they need to expand the convention center so normal people can visit Artist's Alley. I'm also envious ... I'd like to shorten my insufferably long name to short and kewl. I'll think of something, I didn't get this English degree for nothing. No, yes I did. well, am guessing we lost nerd cred. had no idea that sdcc were so exclusive. that is san diego comic-con and not san diego city college, right? back in the early 2000s, we went to a sdcc. we got a friend who builds all kinda star wars stuff including replica lightsabres, blasters, stormtrooper armour and genuine looking costumes o' all kinds. the guy is a serious craftsman, though we typical refer to him as being an accomplished "seamstress" when speaking o' his hobby. the seamstress invited us and while the convention itself had middling appeal, we like san diego, so we went along. it were a fun experience. regardless, our friend continues to go to sdcc every year. we had no idea that he needed a special "in" to get invited. HA! Good Fun!

multicultural hostspot? ... you are gonna bring up multicultural when comparing austria to the USA? HA! classic. and again, no, as an austrian you cannot say what you want if you have laws that prohibit holocaust denial, national socialist party propaganda and "denigrating religious beliefs." oddly enough, you also got some laws that specific prohibit anti-islamic speech, but anti-jewish speech seems to be okie dokie. weird. am not sure what kinda public shaming you are imagining. we went to berkeley for chrissakes. anti-government and anti-american (whatever that means nowadays) rhetoric were so common at our university that you tended not to notice such stuff. is not too much "I Hate America" speech 'mongst the general population, but disagreeing with the government is less likely to be a problem than rooting for the cowboys if you live in nyc, or being a cubs fan if you live in st. louis. *shrug* we spent a couple years in europe and we were initially startled by the misconceptions folks had 'bout the USA and americans. we rare go to europe anymore as our trips abroad is almost exclusive asian, but am betting that the internet has not improved misconceptions. regardless, you do not get it. hate the USA if you wish... many americans do. however, free speech in the USA is different than in austria and most o' the democracies o' the world. that don't make the USA superior, not by a long shot. USA free speech is different. ... we have this same discussion every year or so. http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showtopic=56176&p=1069777 read the thread from the linked post. is off-topic from cosby though, so we kinda apologize. nevertheless, you did ask for an explanation o' how USA is different. congrats. HA! Good Fun!

Wait. How is my free speech not like yours? In fact i can say what the **** i want, about what the **** i want without less restritcitons than you do, without fearing a goverment agent knocking on my door. I can tell a police officer to **** off with out getting arrested. ****, you are living in a police state that can bring you into prison without much of an offense. I think you are being ironic but i can´t tell, because your link is useless and doesn´t prove anything. :> *sigh* no you can't say what you want. as an austrian (yes?) you can be criminalized if you deny the holocaust or spout nazi propaganda. there is also austrian laws that prohibit you from "denigrating religious beliefs." perhaps you watch too much tv or read too many internet posts about the US? you don't get it. HA! Good Fun!

Why? Most of europe has free speech. Historicaly speaking long before the US, which is no suprise because the US constitution is based on the Magna Carta Libertatum and it´s various interpretations. Long before the US even existed. I will never understand this. US people are so high on their "freedom" of everything, which compared to us, is just a given thing. In fact considering some laws you have, and the the goverment can do what it want, i would say your idea of freedom is even less than what we consider freedom in europe. Or Russia, which, surprise is also a democracy. I don´t get that "we are the land of the free we can say what we want" when this is standart in europe and factual isn´t even the case in the US. I just don´t get it. it is true that you don't get it, but it likely ain't your fault. what you call free speech, isn't. sorry, but you haven't bothered to learn the differences 'tween US freedom and yours. hmmm. probably easiest to provide a link http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419 to folks in the USA, we realize that it is the speech that offends that is requiring protection. simply because we, the majority, dislike or even loathe the message, does not mean that we should limit the speaker. "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." you don't get it. HA! Good Fun!

am not gonna take the opportunity to pat our self on the back. we thought we had reasons to dislike white folks, particularly as a kid. that reflex, learned through harsh experience, were/is difficult to overcome. is a flaw in our character. that being said, our sense o' intellectual honesty precludes us from dismissing the value o' the United States Constitution 'cause o' the bigotry or character flaws o' the authors. as we noted already, Gromnir has issues o' our own. US flavor o' free speech is almost unique in the world. every democracy claims to protect free speech. even China has a constitution which protects free speech. our considerable time abroad gave us the opportunity to recognize that we took US Free Speech for granted. ... am gonna note that most o' our paying work comes from free exercise and establishment clause cases. freedom o' association is also more likely to result in paying jobs than is free speech. in any event, it takes a particular kinda idiot to get into Constitutional law for the money. HA! Good Fun!

as noted afore, certain folks were missing the forest for the trees. am much relieved that amentep recognizes the actual problem... or the absence o' a problem. HA! Good Fun! ps if you explicit explain the error, a person will be less likely to learn. he gots to make the connection, or the exercise is pointless.

Forget that example, thats not the point What about pedophile rings that get busted? Don't you automatically assume they scum and guilty ? no, we don't assume they are guilty or scum. however, depending on the evidence made public available, we might protest or boycott. we might even use our First Amendment rights to criticize the State if it appears to us that there were a failure on the part o' lawyers or police or whomever that made it possible for seeming guilty folks to go free. we need be convinced that a person is scum... need more than mere accusation. however, what convinces Gromnir is likely gonna be different than what is required to convince gifted or bruce. good. am not seeing a problem if evidence made public is unconvincing to gifted but satisfies Gromnir that _________ is scum and we will henceforth never voluntarily do business with the d-bag. stuff such as "innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard for the court o' public opinion. if __________ is an accused pedophile, then how much evidence do we require to convince us that ___________ is not somebody we wanna leave alone with our pre-teen cousin, regardless o' whether or not we is certain that they is legal guilty? chances are that we need little such evidence in that situation, eh? for us, legal guilt is a complete different query. there can be any number o' reasons why the State fails to prosecute a scumbag. is even more reasons why the State may fail to gain a conviction o' a scumbag. am understanding that such a pov can seem self-contradictory. HA! Good Fun!

Interesting answer, you see when it comes to my personal views on Cosby I can't separate the guilty and the fact he is a dirtbag You do have more temperance than me but that doesn't surprise me because of your life experiences. For me its simple, if a guy commits rape on this scale I cannot show much restraint if we believe he has done wrong, then we want to see the process applied fair. we don't need legal punishment per se. ... am gonna admit that there is cases in which we suspect that the process has been subverted. is the State v. Defendant in a criminal case. is not victim v. Defendant. is society as a whole that is s'posed getting justice. however, as a complete random example, a wealthy defendant might be able to convince a victim to refrain from testifying. is pretty much 0 chance a prosecutor is gonna try and nail a defendant for rape w/o the cooperation o' the victim. so, am much bothered when we see a professional basketball player (again, is complete random example) possible escape justice by what amounts to paying off the victim. such results offend us. HA! Good Fun!

good info. manifested is in san diego, and we suspect there is a few boardies who make their yearly pilgrimage to comic-con. HA! Good Fun! ps am genuine envious that our name cannot be shortened to something kewl like "Kaz."