Gromnir

given such a peculiar attitude, the mystery o' why woldan is so frequently injured no longer strikes us as mysterious. in our experience, first lesson a craftsman is taught is to maintain his equipment and workplace. HA! Good Fun!

at least you wore pants. am suspecting that at least 10% o' Gromnir's Cal graduation class (undergrad) went al fresco. freaking hippies. congrats and all that. HA! Good Fun!

according to at least one report, the suspected shooter also shot his girlfriend, though she appears to have survived. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=dontrunup as an aside, obama's forthcoming executive order is not so much meant to regulate police brutality as it is directed at regulating military hardware reaching police departments. a US President can do less about perceived or real police excess than many folks realize... set the national agenda is his most vital role. HA! Good Fun!

ridiculous and utterly myopic. how on earth can you even suggest such a thing with any degree o' seriousness? as to your nonsense about "pure necessity..." HA! hell, the same reasoning can be used by folks in the west regarding sanctions. same reasoning has been used, badly, to explain US involvement or non-involvement in any number of foreign debacles. call something "necessary" absolves you o' all sins or stupidity, eh? am understanding why zor is afraid to do so, but drowsy should go back to july and august in this thread. it will be useful to you to see just how utterly predictable this situation were even to a bunch o' geeks posting on a game development board. btw, Gromnir were never a fan o' sanctions as the means to respond to russian actions. we noted that there likely no better option available to the west in 2014, but we didn't like sanctions. the food sanctions imposed by russia were laughable as they were seeming designed to hurt russia more than the west (wacky) but we has always been concerned that the russian economy is too freaking fragile. petroleum is the russian economy. to make matters worse, russian entrepreneurs and investors are notoriously fickle-- they will yank out their money and invest in foreign ventures at the first sign o' trouble. etc. western sanctions were designed to hurt russia, but you got sanctions aimed at a complete bass ackwards economy that were already on the brink o' recession... with a moron at the helm o' the country. the food sanctions were just sorta so over-the-top idiotic that it were near impossible to laugh away putin nonsense any further. but again, the biggest and most obvious fail is 15 years o' allowing the russian economy to be complete driven by a single volatile commodity. in spite o' various booms and busts during putin reign in russia, no genuine attempt has been made to develop the russian economy beyond its singular dependence on petroleum. how you can look at the current russian financial crisis and Not blame much o' the problems on russian stupidity is actual a bit mind-boggling. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* am understanding your attempt to ignore reality, but as we said, your subjective notions o' right v. wrong regarding russian behavior is wasted. Gromnir ain't referencing right v. wrong. the west reacted predictably to russian actions with sanctions, regardless o' whether you thinks putin were just and right and noble or not. this crisis were all very predictable and very avoidable. 'course the biggest example o' russian stupidity were the one that is gonna take decades to fix. an economy near complete dependent on a single resource is extreme vulnerable. maybe this is the wake-up call the russians needed? dunno. given the recent history o' russian stupidity... HA! Good Fun!

of course you don't wanna touch the predation bit. wsj don't care who were right or wrong regarding crimea, but the western sanctions that followed were predictable. right v. wrong is complete separate from the question o' whether russian actions were stupid. putin stupidity related to malaysian air made it so that even the pro-russian western governments lobbied for harsher sanctions. and your amusement regarding wsj don't change the fact that any yutz with even high school level comprehension o' economics could see just how vulnerable the russian economy were given its near complete dependence on petroleum exports. ... is honestly shocking to see just how hard folks will ignore reality regarding russian economic woes. honestly, all you gotta do is go back six or seven months in this thread and you will see who were being obtuse and who were predicting just what has happened. can go back further than that if you wish. there ain't no big surprises. HA! Good Fun!

amused. yeah, russian stupidity is in large part to blame. there has been little attempt to diversify the russian economy since putin came into power. even putin has finally admitted the need to modernize the economy in light o' the present crisis. 15 years too late to make that change, eh? furthermore, the initial sanctions were the result o' russian intransigence and predation... but no doubt such actions get a different spin in russsia. writers at wsj and nasdaq (the nasdaq article were actually originally printed in wsj, but we couldn't link for those without a subscription) don't care much 'bout politics save for the impact on money... is one reason why wsj is our primary news source. investors don't so much want or need to hear spin. so... back to the topic at hand... following western sanctions, in an act o' unrivaled idiocy, russia attempts sanctions o' their own on western foodstuffs, which predictably made russian problems worse as the typical russian already spends a far greater % o' their income on food than does westerners. this all happened before the tanking o' oil prices btw. the russian economy were already heading towards recession when putin comes up with the brain fart move o' trying to impose sanctions o' his own. the article(s) then observes how putin dealt with pro-russian supporters in the west following the malaysia air incident. moron. etc. yeah, russian stupidity were/is a large part o' the problem. HA! Good Fun! ps please note our post at the top o' this page. you can go back and look at posts from Before tanking oil. what has happened to the russian economy were not unexpected even by the largely clueless posters on these boards.

what on earth did you read? wishful thinking? with some extreme few exceptions, a collapse o' russia would hurt everybody. oh, sure, a functional collapse similar to even 1998 will hurt russia more than the united states or even germany, but a collapse o' russia is bad for business... most everybody's business. major US corporations such as Ford does considerable sales in russia, and more then a few American banks have investments in the ruble or have made loans to russia. financial havoc in russia as wishful thinking? what articles are you reading? where is you getting such a notion? the articles does show that the crisis is more serious than the russians pretend and that the troubles is the result o' misfortune AND russian stupidity. ... is amazing what spin folks add to articles based on their own biases. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.food.com/recipe/ikea-swedish-meatballs-294387 dunno. is hard for us to envision a swedish meatballs recipe w/o nutmeg, but supposedly that is an authentic ikea swedish meatballs recipe. you now know all you need to 'bout scandinavian culture. HA! Good Fun!

larger strategic failures o' Germany in ww2? is a whole different issue from what woldan and Gromnir were discussing. *shrug* invasion o' the ussr were a horrible notion in retrospect, but is one o' those decisions that need be put in context. the soviet had invaded finland and, for the most part, got the snot knocked outta them. nazi germany were supplying and aiding finland at the time, so they got a great first-hand view o' soviet military capabilities. conflict with soviet were deemed to be inevitable, so why not take 'em off the board sooner rather than later? yeah, invade soviet russia were a dumb move, but given what German military commanders had seen o' the soviets during the winter war, the decision to invade were not nearly as suicidal as it gets portrayed. is many german military decisions that get portrayed as the result o' hitler's lunacy that weren't... weren't simple hitler's decisions and weren't near as stoopid as they is described. as an aside, am surprised to see the continued myth o' the me 262 as a game-changer is still being embraced. the jet were a monstrously fast, and surprisingly agile (at high speeds) fighter, but it were a resource and maintenance hog that failed to meet Germany's actual need for a dependable Long-range fighter. Germany had a number o' weapons that woulda' been game changers if the world were made o' cardboard, but wars is not won on paper. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/putins-year-of-defiance-and-miscalculation-20141217-01129 http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/03/how-russias-debt-and-currency-markets-could-spiral-into-crisis/ dunno, staying on-topic in off-topic is seeming unnecessary, but we will give it a shot. HA! Good Fun!

What destroyed Germany was the weak Airforce that allowed bombing the infra structure to pieces, not realizing the importance of radar and Allies gaining control over the oil fields, this rendered 1/3 of the mechanized troops useless crippling the supply chain. your conclusions is highly debatable. it is is an interesting if off-topic debate, however. german airpower were were actual very strong, relative speaking. unfortunately, the luftwaffe were built wrong as it had far too few long-range fighters and bombers of its own. it had short-range fighters in abundance, but in spite o' the horrendous toll the luftwaffe were exacting on allied long-range bombing efforts, the allies were able to able to absorb such losses. is the navy that is likely were the biggest weak point for Germany in ww2. there were little naval airpower, and naval losses, particularly the norwegian campaign, forced the battle o' britain to be fought almost completely in the air ... where again, the lack o' long range fighters and bombers proved problematic. in fact, while the battle o' britain is portrayed as a handful o' british (and polish and other expat pilots) fighting off the luftwaffe despite seeming insurmountable odds, the battle for britain were likely won earlier, at sea. the Germans simple didn't have the surface ships to make an invasion o' britain possible. in any event, everybody gots theories. HA! Good Fun!

the only good thing about this thread is that you can actual go back and re-read some o' the nonsense folks posted. the only folks who would be hurt by sanctions were the west? brazil and china would simple be new and more lucrative trade partners for russia? oil export revenue dependence o' russia were being overblown. list goes on and on and on and onandonandonandonandonandon. add in the conspiracy stuff posted by some folks (you know who you are) and this thread is non-stop chuckles... but mostly in retrospect. HA! Good Fun!

conspiracy theory stuff is often having a geographical origin, but am thinking that is hardly shocking. is not so much an internet thing as a cultural phenomenon. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0222/Was-Chelyabinsk-meteor-actually-a-meteor-Many-Russians-don-t-think-so.-video however, beyond the conspiracy stuff, we do understand some o' the reluctance to believe that this, the hack of sony, is what it appears to be. most international incidents is the result o' a confluence o' accidents and errors in judgment. on the other hand, when some event is the result of intended action, we expect it to be major. george bush sr. vomits on the japanese prime minister? is an accident and only the wackiest conspiracy nut thinks otherwise. nevertheless, there were dozens o' instant theories and it were even reported on cnn that bush had died... and that were 1992, when the internet for private use were still a fledgling. the sony hack were not the result o' an accident or a case o' flu and and too much sushi. somebody planned the hack. have the hack be perpetrated by malcontents with too much free time strikes us initially more plausible than that it were actual planned by the north korean government. based on the damage done to sony and to the movie industry as a whole, we can't see this as being some kinda publicity stunt. nevertheless, while all evidence suggests that north korea were the ultimate cause o' the hack, the whole thing is just so darn silly that we understand why folks might look for other more rational explanations. HA! Good Fun!

The leaks, if not the underlying hack, have reportedly been traced to the network of a fancy hotel in Bangkok. It's a weird sort of mentality all over the web these days that first suspects some kind of false-flag attack for, well, everything. I suspect it originates from the 'chan universe (where such suspicions are usually quite justified), but it is very rarely justified elsewhere. perhaps movies and tv shows has taught folks that such wide publicized computer hacks is a smokescreen or a diversion and typically there is some larger plot at work. also, as far as international incidents are concerned, it is so hard for most folks to take this serious. is not at all like timothy olyphant stealing the totality o' US financial information from a social security computer facility, and there is no threat o' a nuke or dirty bomb being smuggled into ________. aren't we s'posed to be afraid that the chinese can disable the US power grid? don't you realize that we are already living in the Matrix, and there ain't no neo to save your clueless arse from digital Armageddon? where were we? oh, yeah, north korea sponsors a hack o' sony that humiliates some executives and compels 'em to delay the release of a comedy film. ... this isn't what we were promised by movies and tv and conspiracy theory nutters. the sony hack is so ridiculously banal. north korea didn't bring about a financial catastrophe in the west and they didn't have planes crash into iconic US buildings. the endgame were that the haX0rs left a flaming bag of poop on the doorstep of sony? is not a particularly satisfying plot for a tv show or movie, is it? is more like a south park episode scenario, yes? HA! Good Fun!

is funny. you don't even see what you are saying, eh? the folks who is demanding a relaxing o' gender roles in malaysia is a group having a western bias. you recognize the problem given your earlier posts about western bias? oh, and we sure as hell don't take one person's opinion as the whole truth about the role of women in malaysia... we will leave you to ponder that point. HA! Good Fun!

You know history is long and not just modern history? we made that exact point in our post that you initially quoted. good for you that you picked up on that, if only subconsciously. so? HA! Good Fun!

... we linked an article by norani othman, a "Professor and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies." no doubt she don't know anything 'bout islam, malaysia or the treatment o' women beyond Gromnir's quaint little corner o' the world. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. am not thinking it is just a publicity stunt. christmas week is one of the most significant weeks for movie attendance during the entire year. the threat o' a north korean terror attack on randomn theatres in retaliation for the movie in question strikes us as laughable. however, if even one percent o' people avoid any movie theatre where the interview were set to play 'tween christmas and the first week in january, that would be a substantial amount o' lost revenue. so, how does one attempt to make a positive outta a negative? in the entertainment business, apparently you turn a minor little side-show into a three-ring circus. all the publicity is generating enormous attention for what looked to be a kinda silly movie. how many movies get free advertising from every major network in the US? some folks will eventual see the movie 'cause o' curiosity... is a natural reaction when you see everybody around you looking up to do the same, no? some folks will see the movie just as a kinda FU to the north koreans. *snort* some folks will see the movie just so they can then complain about how terribad the movie actually were; no doubt you has seen this effect with bioware games. *shrug* am not seeing a conspiracy, but we do see a movie studio and distributor making the most outta a less than ideal situation. HA! Good Fun!

far game? FAIR game. blame jet lag? HA! Good Fun!

am knowing you is joking, but am curious if other nations has sexual harassment laws different than the US... we can do a check we s'pose. sex harassment is a title vii thing and is related to hostile Workplace situations. more rare is sexual harassment as a nuisance... am meaning legal tort nuisance. is there actual laws in canada and elsewhere that criminalize for some random schmuck on the street or in a gym propositioning a woman, or man? hell, starting in the 90s, gyms in CA kinda replaced bars as the most likely place to hook-up ... though am guessing the internet has now replaced bars and gyms. am recalling a cynical bit o' pith regarding unwanted sexual advances... am sure we is getting wrong: the law protects a woman until she is eighteen and nature protects her once she turns fifty (sixty?) but for everything in-between, she is far game. HA! Good Fun!

*insert eye-roll here* is such a bass ackwards pov... not to mention hyperbolic in the extreme. the notion that "realism has to fly out the window" because in a fantasy game we is choosing not to punish women gamers for playing traditionally male roles is funny. and even then, we suspect that any popular crpg you thinks is realistic... ain't. real combat is much like hobbes state o' nature. given the avalanche o' unrealistic elements in any crpg, to rage or obsess over women being treated equal is laughably myopic. am not gonna even touch your lazy history. HA! Good Fun! And you're the one calling me lazy, with that fallacy and hand waving. Punish women? Rage or obsess? Now that's hyperbole. Is it a silly rationale to appeal to realism in the case of frame and muscle correlating with strength? No. Is your argument valid? No. Most games would appeal to realism in some form or another, competing with other concerns they still simulate reality to certain degrees. It's a valid preference and has nothing to do with the fantasy elements such as magic or monsters, that statement was illogical. That there are so many other conceits to gameplay and dev time in CRPGs is a better argument to any appeal to realism but you didn't make it. I'd love to know what you dispute in regards to what I wrote about history, because it looks like you're just blowing smoke. you stated conclusions about historical figures. there were no history in your history. and you not give us anything to respond to with the rest o' your post as it is little more than a "nuh uh" response. some games have some element o' reality in them? gosh, really? gosh, well no crpg is complete realistic neither. duh. that was a marvelous bit o' insight. thanks for sharing. is games. is entertainment. women, a sizable percentage of the players o' these crpgs, should be punished for playing a role? yeah, a strength penalty for a strength-based character would be a functional punishment. the explanation for such a penalty is as follows: you chose to play a female. is easy to see how a penalty would discourages a player from making an in-game choice... we not need to explain that, yes? conversely, explain how existence of a gender-based strength penalty makes the game better. is such a penalty no more than aesthetic choice based on hypocritical notions o' realism? no doubt some handful o' folks will embrace the myopic notion that teh rheulnuss o' a strength-based penalty for gender makes a game better... 'cause it is more... uh, real? fine. on the one hand we got women and folks who would want to play female strength-based characters. on the other hand, we got... who? the folks who ignore literal hundreds and thousands o' unrealistic game elements but stand their ground on gender based penalties? that Should sound ridiculous. HA! Good Fun!

*insert eye-roll here* is such a bass ackwards pov... not to mention hyperbolic in the extreme. the notion that "realism has to fly out the window" because in a fantasy game we is choosing not to punish women gamers for playing traditionally male roles is funny. and even then, we suspect that any popular crpg you thinks is realistic... ain't. real combat is much like hobbes state o' nature. given the avalanche o' unrealistic elements in any crpg, to rage or obsess over women being treated equal is laughably myopic. am not gonna even touch your lazy history. HA! Good Fun!

and that is why we said you ain't thinking long-term. if you offered a gym owner with even a fraction o' monetary acumen $700 for a lifetime membership when he is charging $120 per year, he would snatch your money in a heartbeat and laugh all the way to the bank. $700 cold hard cash today is worth considerable more 5, 10 and 20 years down the road. oh, and since you is adding other expenses, try and have your home gym with the single bar and 12 plates you says the $700 will provide. this is why we can't all have nice things-- people genuine don't understand the value o' money. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* if you cannot get a 10% return on investment per annum, you is a complete and utter idiot. you need us to calculate roi for $700 after ten years? here is a clue, is not $70. is not even $700. you are NOT thinking long-term... you just don't realize that you ain't thinking long-term. HA! Good Fun!

If you doubt my calculation you probably have no idea about gyms, the fee of my nearest gym of acceptable quality is 120 bucks a year. Buying weights is definitely cheaper in the long run. The main advantage in my case is not having to drive 1 hour to the gym, I think I would not be lifting if I had to drive for 2 hours after work every single day, even in winter. That would become so annoying. ... if you cannot turn $700 that you have today into a perpetual $120 yearly payoff, you do not know how to handle money. HA! Good Fun!