Gromnir

This one is easy, Jedi aren't allowed to have sex. Sex is part of the dark side. Think the rules of religions against the debaucheries of hedonism. even more important than sex is the issue o' ghey sex. does lucas embrace teh ghey? am not all that knowledgeable o' star wars canon beyond kotor 1 and kotor 2, so perhaps included in the novels and comics is frequent lesbian love scenes and athenian-style man orgies such that even john waters would blush. however, such stuff were absent from the few star wars games we has played, and we not recollect fringe sexual content in any movies or tv stuff. am only asking 'cause there is some kinda ghey critical mass at the bio boards-- for every 10 bioware threads, at least one must include a demand for more ghey romance. has the boycotts and protests begun, or is star wars bigger than ghey? "I haven't ignored "most of the game's content." Maybe you'd see that if you yourself weren't busy ignoring the content of my posts." sure you did. you ignored what were said and done throughout the game in favor o' a reading that makes an alternative interp o' one optional line o' dialogue at the end o' the game possible... and somehow that one line complete alters kreia motivations. try reverse. take out any one line that suggests that kreia wants to kill the force. remove any one line and it not substantial diminish kreia's apparent loathing for the will-robbing capacity o' the force, and her desire to end such subtle slavery. remove your one pivotal line and you got... nothing. even if you were correct, that woulds be horrible writing.... and it sure ain't clear. HA! Good Fun!

is odd how oblarg suggests that some kreia statements is clear, while at the same time he/she reads kreia statements not as they is written, but however they will fit with his theory. she didn't mean that Literally? 1) kreia hates the force-- even you admit that point. the force robbed her of choice and she were betrayed, broken and cast out. 2) "I see the potential to see the Force die" is what she says... clear language. whether you thinks that kreia plans to kill the force, the story makes clear that the exile's existence is a wound in the force that could lead to its demise. multiple characters, such as vrook, give this notion credence. 3) kreia then creates circumstances that could, depending on the actions o' the exile, lead to the death o' the force. (see above posts) ... motive, means, opportunity and words that can be read as an admission. lord knows Gromnir wishes we had so easy when we were doing criminal law. nevertheless, because o' one line mentioning a fina tests in a +40 hour game, a line that not every player would even necessarily read, a line that is open to interp and can be read multiple ways, oblarg chooses to read in a manner different than the one drew has chosen to embrace-- the reading that is 'bout to become canon and had to be ok'd by somebody in lucas' organization. fine... just don't tell us how clear it all is. heck, at least vol oversimplification don't ignore most o' the game content. HA! Good Fun!

You don't have to ignore any buildup - Kreia hates the force, and she sees in the exile truth in that one can turn away from the force and become stronger for it. Her motivations for the entire game are to preserve this, and rid the galaxy of those who are blind to it (the Jedi, the Sith). Nothing more, nothing less. "I would have killed the galaxy to save you" and whatnot. If Kreia had actually intended to kill the force, her actions at the end make no sense - she would have done it as soon as she could, not wait for the Exile to come and stop her. much o' the end o' kotor2 is... stoopid. keep in mind that atris were gonna be a possible final villain depending on how the game were played. kotor2 were not a coherent novel-- it were a game. obsidian games in particular typical ends messy. nevertheless, waiting for the exile is making sense if you actual follow kreia philosophy and statements throughout 40+ hours. again, the exile is getting to make a choice. why is the force abhorrent to kreia? 'cause it is an affront ot good old nietzsche will to power philosophy. am not certain why you wanna work so hard to invalidate kreia behavior for the vast majority o' the game. kreia sets up a whole scenario that can lead to the death o' the force... says she hates force and is happy that exile could kill the force, but that ain't what kreia is REALLY after? if that is the case, then your reading o' her actions is what do not make sense. HA! Good Fun!

The "you have already failed me" is dependent on the "if so," not a separate declaration. The latter would directly contradict other lines in the same discourse, which is full of nothing but praise for the Exile and his choices up to that point. None of what I have said "flies in the face of her character for the rest of the game." Quite the opposite - it is much more in character than a straightforward betrayal and villainous plot would be. Kreia is not a villain, not truly. sure she is a villain... just not a simple one. you is gonna continue to deny regardless o' some obvious kreia development. statements to atton 'bout being a pawn. philosophy o' force when talking with exile and handmaiden. comments 'bout and to atris. ignore all the build-up to show how kreia were hating the force and the fact that the force robbed her o' meaningful choice... 'cause that were all some kinda red herring? fine. you is devoted to your interp and will not be swayed. nevertheless, the notion that kreia makes it "quite clear" that she weren't genuine trying to kill the force is clearly a suspect position. and again, 'cause this not seem to sink in, the possibility o' a final test for exile does NOT preclude the fact that kreia wants to kill the force. the exile gets the choice kreia were never having. am not actual concerned in arguing the point... am just making it obvious that your initial statement were wrong. kreia never made quite clear, and drew reading is at least as valid as is yours. might even be as valid as Gromnir's. HA! Good Fun!

"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost. But in you

Oh, she'd certainly like to end the force, but the "I know I have to be stopped" makes it quite clear that she does not really intend to do it - rather, she used the threat of it to force the Exile to confront her, so that the exile's past might finally be resolved. That's the entire point of the game, really; Kreia training the exile. "i know" is agreement with the exile's belief. it could even be a statement o' regret. nevertheless, you choose to ignore dozens o' other actions and comments by kreia throughout the game. hell, you choose to ignore the You Have Failed Me bit in your own quoted material. kreia is a complex character. she wants death o' the force and she loathes what she has become... and she blames the force for that as well. she sees the exile as an answer to her prayer for the dying o' the force... and possibly as a means o' redemption if her ultimate plan fails. kreia is not simply teaching the exile. she uses the exile to kill off all who she feels betrayed herself and revan. the force robs kreia o' meaningful choice. perhaps that is why in spite o' her machinations, she ultimately provides the exile with a choice. don't try to simplify for your own benefit. your retcon is no better than the one you deride. HA! Good Fun! ps kreia is right up there with ravel as the bestest crpg character we has encountered. don't diminish.

am not certain why you thinks the above quote precludes kreia's desire to end the force. *shrug* people see what they want to see. is why drew has no chance to satisfy you all. HA! Good Fun!

a one-dimensional evil villain interp for kreia would be sad, but your personal retconning o' kreia reveals why this drew fellow gots 0 chance to appease fans. btw, any bets on how long it takes for some schnook to create a darth evil/evyl/e'vl character? yet another reason we wouldn't touch this nonsense with hurlshot's computer much less our own. HA! Good Fun!

am having almost 0 interest 'cause two of the three factors you mention is negatives in our estimation. as for star wars dogma... *groan* am recalling how more than a couple o' nerdnatics railed at chrisA 'cause the kotor2 basilisk war droid was all wrong compared to previous star wars canon incarnations. am pretty sure that anybody other than lucas who works 'pon star wars books or games needs sign a contract signed in blood. soul as collateral. eternal damnation. etc. kotor2 were/is, in our estimation, obsidian's bestest release by some considerable margin. nevertheless, forcing future developers and authors to stay true to kotor2 canon seems silly and stoopid. am recognizing that lucas is serious'bout maintaining the integrity o' star wars canon (HA!) but Gromnir personally finds such efforts to be laughable and a little sad. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking that this is good news... just so long as tim ain't in charge o' making sure a game gets released on time or is bug-free. perhaps it would be a good idea to keeps tim from having to make production kinda choices or works on nuts-and-bolts implementation o' conceptual stuff. probably not want tim to handle any business decisions or relations with publishers neither. ... can tim make coffee? HA! Good Fun!

am not a huge fo fan, so take with a grain o' salt, but our firstest choice would actual be buffalo, ny. proximity to kanada could be fun, and there is at least one international recognized landmark in the vicinity. the kanada aspect o' the fallout universe is worth exploring. buffalo architecture, as a whole, is pretty darn amazing, given the relative size and age o' the city. additionally, many o' the better known buffalo buildings is heavily art deco influenced which is perfect for fallout. furthermore, lake erie were once so polluted that it caught on fire, which could makes for interesting game material, no? burning lakes and a nuclear winter? chicago is an obvious personal favorite city for Gromnir, and we thinks it would be an excellent locale, but is maybe too obvious... and is not as close to kanada as is buffalo. HA! Good Fun!

we can easily imagine a chrisA finding nemo. the ellen degeneres character would be mad 'stead o' funny/loopy... lots o' similarities to ravel. always needs a ravel. william defoe's character would be the essential broken/brooding warrior o' the game unnecessarily spouting 5 cent existentialist philosophy. there would probable be an angel fish character, but the angel fish would be twisted or crippled in some way. etc. there would be some quasi-attempt to introduce tenuous metaphor suggesting that as one goes deeper into the crushing depths o' the ocean, one gets closer to enlightenment/light... parallel to reflection o' self/soul... very edgy. would need lots o' exposition from characters to clarify the metaphor. gameplay would be kinda whacked, but obsidian fans would marvel at the "depth" o' the characters and story. heck, an chrisA finding nemo pretty much writes itself, no? HA! Good Fun!

what on earth are you talking 'bout? modern societies does all kinda things that reject math, and thankfully so, particularly in light o' the fact that maths is far more subjective than walsh suggests. the maths would have us cut money funding stuff such as the arts and services for the disabled... would have us end any sort o' welfare monies, more than half of which goes to supporting the needs o' children. having kids starve or die o' exposure might be mathematical rational, but is not something most o' us is willing to bear. is kinda amusing that we gets to bring up dr. shockley to respond to two walsh posts that seems to have fuzzy notions o' history. william shockley, one o' the more brilliant minds o' the 20th century, used the maths to "prove" that blacks were possessing genetically deficient intellects and that society would benefit if there were government subsidized sterilizations o' peoples with IQs less than 100. the maths can be more than a little monstrous. regardless, slavishly following the maths is clear antagonistic to the principles o' a democratic society. we not got a philosopher king or a hal 9000 to tell us what is best in a democratic society. in the united states we got a constitution that is protecting some handful o' fundamental rights--- stuff like interstate travel, right to bear arms, and freedom o' speech. individual states gots their own constitutions that frequently add to a citizens list o' protected liberties. perhaps in south carolina there is a state protected liberty right that covers smoking, am not sure. nevertheless, the list o' fundamental rights that is held to be beyond the grasp o' the democratic process is few. we vote and has representatives vote. pure utilitarian is a fail if you not gots folks feeling invested in the processes and as between democracy and a tyranny of maths... HA! Good Fun!

There is no such thing as "free". The burden of every single handout in borne by the taxpayer. Now you've created a way to get high on the taxpayers dime. I don't mean to frustrate you old man. But it's a question of the maths. it isn't just maths. never was... never will be. just as our ambulance hypo suggests, the math does not decide matters. is no way you get politicians to advocate government subsidized drug use. thankfully, the maths has never been the deciding factor in stuff such as drugs, education dollars, services for the handicapped, etc. HA! Good Fun!

You won't see me arguing against a ban on smoking in public places. So, if you make up an absurd hypothetical way of going about it, then point out how absurd that solution is, that clearly means the problem has no solution, right? You've made two posts in this thread and both contain really moving stories... which are not really relevant. Loss of productivity and social security costs are a problem for sure. How about getting users to pay the difference? Clearly it's "not practical". Not practical like driving licenses, not practical like progressive taxes, not practical like trials, not practical like pretty much everything else that makes a difference between individuals. petty much all the solutions is absurd, which is why there ain't been a solution and we/society is still faced with the problem. duh. so, you make the solution. the problem isn't really up for debate: smoking costs non-smokers lots o' money. one obvious solution, albeit a crude and ineffective one, is to prohibit all smoking. you obvious don't like that one. so, you fix. *shrug* in any event, what is most absurd is for smokers, drug users, and alcoholics to bang the drum o' liberty as their collective stoopidity punishes the rest o' us. so fix-- come up with the miracle solution none of us has yet considered. that or quit your whining and deal with the absurd solutions governments invariably resort to. your liberty is admirable only so long as it don't adverse affect those around you. HA! Good Fun!

But secondhand smoke does directly affect other people. The evidence is pretty strong on that. don't forget the other costs o' smoking. dollars lost due to health care for uninsured smokers in addition to those fuzzy lost productivity estimates released by the cdc and other reputable health organizations suggest that smoking costs American taxpayers and corporations in the tens o' billions of dollars each year. most people seem to accept that required automobile insurance is necessary even if they thinks that the insurance industry is evil and corrupt. a negligent driver hits #'s car-- #'s is severe injured and needs multiple surgeries and 6 months o' rehabilitation to recover, but the negligent driver has no means to pay for damages to #'s car and his life. *shrug* such scenarios is why requisite auto insurance is pretty much accepted. however, is not practical to be requiring drug users and smokers to gets insurance for the damage they cause to those 'round 'em. am supposing that tobacco products could be taxed to the point where their social costs would be complete defrayed... $20 a pack sound kewl? unfortunate, high tax results in a great opportunity for crime too, so you gets ironic vicious cycle whereby the more you raise taxes to cover the social costs, the resultant and inevitable criminal activity from the tax more than counters the benefits o' the tax. personal stoopidity typical has a social cost. HA! Good Fun!

something sounds wrong with walsh history. first true integrated circuit were a private innovation from some guy at texas instruments, right? the first silicon chip were developed independent o' the texas instruments circuit by the folks at fairchild semiconductor... and the only reason we know any o' this is 'cause o' some research we did regarding william shockley. in any event, the early atlas icbms were developed and and operational before the first integrated circuit, and am honest not certain what were needed for guidance of early icbms... an analog computer and a couple gyroscopes such as the old v-2's used? HA! Good Fun!

ambulances. picture an ambulance that is driven in accordance with all the basic rules o' the road. gots a 7-year old girl with a gaping chest wound in back o' the vehicle, but the driver calmly waits for red light to turn green before carefully entering a busy intersection. is no flashing lights or screaming siren to announce the passage o' the ambulance and its threatened cargo. darn. is a school day so the driver reduces speed to 25 mph as he makes a pastoral glide past winston churchill elementary in sheboygan, wi. the mother o' the injured girl is riding in the back o' the ambulance. she watches as her blue-lipped daughter's labored breath slows. tiny blood-flecked bits o' foam leak from the child's nose and mouth. the girl's eyes is wide but unfocused and largely sightless--she is in too much shock to be consciously recognizing anything her eyes "see," but to her wailing mother it would appear that the girl is gripped by terror. etc. ambulances driving fast does not statistically save lives. in point o' fact, speedy emergency vehicles is responsible for a shockingly large number o' deaths each year-- the number o' lives saved by lightning-quick arrival at emergency rooms is more than countered by the number o' fatalities actual caused by emergency vehicles each year. so then, why does we continue to require that ambulances drive at dangerous speeds? HA! Good Fun!

Nah, the difference is there's an ocean in between. The fact that Americans built a wall to keep their southern neighbours out, should tell enough how they would deal with muslims. so, the US built a wall to keep southern neighbors out? HA! new mexico gots a spanish-speaking population of over 47%. california and texas is both having more than 1/3 population o' native spanish speakers. the US is the country with the second largest number o' hispanic residents in the world. no other country in the world has as many total immigrants from all countries as the United States has immigrants from Mexico alone. 11% of all living people born in mexico live in the US. if the US gots some kinda pervasive animosity directed at its southern neighbors, they gots a funny way of showing it. border protections (not a wall) is to stem the tide o' ILLEGAL immigration. duh. HA! Good Fun! The US is often divided down the middle on it's issues (not to say always) so you get both the support, understanding and bigotry, animosity. disagree. the US left and right is actual not very far apart on most issues. with only two parties, you tends to get far less polarization than in european parliamentary systems. try to explain to foreigners that there is no more conservative beast than some southern democrat Congressmen is difficult. individuals in the US may be running the gamut from support, understanding, bigotry and animosity, but our laws rare turn out that way. most laws end up as compromise measures authored by folks with largely similar ideologies. since the civil rights acts o' 1964, any kinda overt public sanctioned bigotry has declined rapidly. sure, you can finds bigots everywhere in the US, but other than handling o' relations with domestic dependent nations (recognized indian tribes,) endemic, government sanctioned bigotry is rare. between the Court enforcement o' the civil war amendments, and Congressional tendency to avoid anything that even remotely smacks o' extremism, your suggestion o' disparate treatment is... unlikely. some folks want far too much from lawmaking. there is no law or Court decision that can change the beliefs and prejudices o' people. even so, American laws is very much supportive and understanding o' all racial minorities who is LEGALLY present within its borders. HA! Good Fun!

Nah, the difference is there's an ocean in between. The fact that Americans built a wall to keep their southern neighbours out, should tell enough how they would deal with muslims. so, the US built a wall to keep southern neighbors out? HA! new mexico gots a spanish-speaking population of over 47%. california and texas is both having more than 1/3 population o' native spanish speakers. the US is the country with the second largest number o' hispanic residents in the world. no other country in the world has as many total immigrants from all countries as the United States has immigrants from Mexico alone. 11% of all living people born in mexico live in the US. if the US gots some kinda pervasive animosity directed at its southern neighbors, they gots a funny way of showing it. border protections (not a wall) is to stem the tide o' ILLEGAL immigration. duh. HA! Good Fun!

again with the fallacies. point out where we claimed that the US has not killed people who is muslims. US forces has killed far more believers o' shinto, buddha and christ than they has killed those who follow mohammed, but rare is it claimed that the US harbors some kinda animosity towards the faithful o' the aforementioned. religion has been a relative non-factor leading to most US aggression beyond its own boarders. btw, am personally offended whenever and wherever freedom o' expression is abrogated. is the raison d'

is actual kinda impressive to be seeing how many logic fallacies you can fit in a two line post. *chuckle* even so, your ridiculous statements is actual managing to be examples o' the muslim perspective/paranoia. sure, is not as if the US is bombing folks 'cause they is wearing burqas or reading the koran, but the muslims not see it that way. thanks for illustrating the point. HA! Good Fun!

well then, given that the press reviews hasn't been mixed should be more than a little surprising to walsh. heck, even Gromnir has been mild perplexed that the albeit limited number o' press reviews thus far has been disappointing. HA! Good Fun!

is hard to explain to euros that their notions o' freedom of expression and religion is seeming more than a little oppressive to the average American. even rosbjerg, who would appear to be a relative open-minded fellow, suggests that muslims should be willing to Change to fits in with the herd notion o' Acceptable. this nation's revolutionary roots, and the fact that many early Americans were escaping religious oppression themselves, has given Americans a different pov regrading personal freedoms than you sees 'mongst the peoples o' the enlightened western nations. that being said, even here in the US we has failed to recognize that for many/most muslims, religion IS their identity. their entire world-view is filtered through religion-- makes it difficult for westerners on either side o' the pond to understand the seeming endemic paranoia and stubbornness o' the average muslim. here in the US we take it for granted that if Bob, the sheet wearing klansman, and Dave, the hasidic jew, lives next door to each other, they is both having equal rights to express their pov. the fact that Bob and his fellow nutters burns crosses on weekends does not, in and of itself, deprive Dave o' any o' his religious or personal liberty. euros is frequently disturbed by American indifference to the insulting and inflammatory behavior we allows in the name o' First Amendment protections. even so, relatively speaking, Americans and the people o' most western nations ain't all that far apart on these issues. both euros and Americans looks at burqas and recognize that there is an aspect o' the traditional islamic garb that is fundamentally demeaning to women. nevertheless, here in the US we thinks it is best to leave the choice o' wearing the burqa up to the individual rather than to create legislation which would threaten religious freedom. the euro pov is understandable. after all, can a muslim woman who has been raised since birth with muslim values really makes an informed choice? is not an easy question. even in the US we has some hard choices that makes our desire to protect the free exercise o' religion very difficult. assume for a moment that the aforementioned Bob is not a klansman. in our present hypothetical, Bob is a member o' a fringe religion that forbids the use o' modern medical treatments. Bob's son suffers from a disease that is easily cured with a readily available medication. without the medication, Bob's son will die. Bob says "no" to medical treatment for his son. am suspecting that even the average freedom-loving American would pause before jumping to protect Bob's claim o' religious free-exercise. after all, it is Bob's son who is gonna die for Bob's beliefs, not Bob. shouldn't we protect Bob's son until he is old enough to make his own choice? as hard as it is for folks to accept, American courts protect Bob and would stand aside as Bob's child died seeming unnecessary. euros, and even a goodly % o' Americans, would no doubt be disturbed by the death o' Bob's son. a "pointless" death in the name o' religious freedom? again, is not that euros and Americans is so far apart philosophically, but we is far more hesitant to embrace well-intentioned paternalism if it would touch upon free exercise o' religion. muslims is... different. everything is religion. is no line drawing possible 'cause all aspects touch 'pon religion. if a preacher in florida burns a koran, then America is allowing islam to be insulted. no school prayer is clear an attack 'pon islam, regardless if is a non-denominational prohibition. depictions o' western values in popular TV shows is also an attack 'pon islam. a scantily clad female movie protagonist who speaks back to men folk in public? clearly is meant to demean islam. sounds paranoid? sure it does, but if everything is somehow 'bout religion, then the paranoia is understandable. in the US and in most western nations, it is assumed that religious and secular interests can be separated. we draws lines different in the US than they does in europe, but we still recognize that some aspects o' every day life is discreet from religion and can be legislated w/o offense to core spiritual values. is different for muslims. is not that westerners is enlightened and that muslims is backwards, but there is a fundamental, and possibly irreconcilable, difference in our perspectives regarding religion. personally we thinks euros trying to legislate burqa dress codes is offensive. even so, we recognize that our espoused notions o' egalitarian religious tolerance is even more offensive to muslims than is the burqa prohibition. kinda ironic. HA! Good Fun!