Gromnir

'cause they is more concerned with where and when they can say P and ENIS? throw a tantrum 'bout trivialities while losing sight o' the big picture? we thought that such silliness were a mk characteristic rather than a swede thing. perhaps we were wrong. another couple articles identifying the difference 'tween euro views o' free speech and American. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan28.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/18/...in5319877.shtml HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* we were hoping you would ask... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...03_0015_ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...91_0397_ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...15_0568_ZS.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...05_0377_ZO.html http://supreme.justia.com/us/432/43/case.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11254419 "The United States stands apart from many other Western democracies in priding itself on a near absolute commitment to allowing freedom of speech." http://jurist.org/dateline/2010/05/germany...-of-privacy.php "Europe and the United States share many legal principles. But they differ as regards notions of privacy and free speech. While European media outlets have been prohibited from publishing truthful information that the courts have found to be irrelevant, the American press has not faced such a restriction." etc. want a few dozen more linkies from the bbc and elsewhere? we woulda' provided more, but is pretty much a Given that the US is far more protective of free speech rights than is virtual all other western nations. we wouldn't thinks we would have to provide evidence on such a well-known and fundamentally inarguable proposition, but mk needs to be shown that fire is hot and water is wet? fine. you got it. have fun educating self. ... "Feel free to find a big European company board that doesn't allow me to write a P with an ENIS at the end" as that is an english word we can see how you is kinda limiting right off the bat... and we doubt that ikea and the ship building companies that comprise sweden's notable international corporations probable don't have open message board posting. ssssooooo, again, give us some examples. inability to use p and enis is what concerns you in reference to free speech? HA! well, as J. Harlan once observed, "One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric." but you see, while mr. cohen could wear his jacket emblazoned with the message "F@#% the Draft" into a county court house in LA w/o fear o' govt. interference, nobody (other than mk) would assume that the administrators o' a privately run message board should be compelled to allow such a posting. again, use your brain for 5 minutes and consider the consequences. St. Mary's Church in Stillwater Oklahoma decides to have a message board and mk believes that he should be able to spam 'em with P and Enis references? why? but still, this is all beside the point as you Complete fumbled with your original post. raise Freedom o' Speech and American in reference to a privately owned and run message board is the result o' your ignorance. once you recognize that point you will maybe be able to back out graceful... but we doubt it. HA! Good Fun!

If it's only down to private property rights, how would you explain the difference between the rest of the world and America? 'cause is a false comparison that you ain't supported with any facts. oh, and don't use some insignificant fringe euro developer to prove your point. small indie developers, whether euro or american has gotta be more flexible and understanding o' their potential customers. folks like bioware (non-USA) is gonna be much more careful 'bout censoring as they gots more exposure and more potential harm can be done. so, find numerous similar messageboards used as advertising (rather than complaint/feedback) and show us difference 'tween american and euro. in any event, YOU is the one who is avoiding.please return to the genesis o' this disagreement. have already forgotten the drunken limey threatening the President with extreme violence? free speech rights has zippo/zilch whatsoever to do with your perception o' censorship on a private message board. do a little research; USA free speech rights is more expansive than similar euro protections. must be our morals. HA! Good Fun!

To me it is not obvious. All these boards, in different countries, are roughly "advertising" (as you put it) for these various companies. Why is it OK to write **** on an advertisement in Sweden but not in America, if it is completely unrelated to American moral standards? What drives them to censor their own board? What are they scared of? Note that I am not claiming it to be written in law either way, I know they're 'voluntarily' censoring us (which you laughably refer to as their "liberty" to do so, unless you can find a place where self-censoring isn't allowed), just that it is what I believe Obsidian conforms to: they are scared of what the general American consumer thinks of them. so... what was your point? am suspecting you didn't have one to begin with. *shrug* a private company, without any government interference, chooses to run message boards promoting their games free o' the taint o' profanity and pr0n. has nothing to do with Americana or morals. it sure don't have nothing to do with American Free Speech law as the First Amendment is a grant o' protection to private citizens 'gainst the threat o' GOVERNMENT censorship. you know, once you realized that you were talking nonsense you coulda' simply stopped. HA! Good Fun!

They're not compelled.. yet they do. Ever wonder why? no. seems pretty obvious why they would. as we noted, these boards is a source o' advertising for Obsidian. am fully cognizant o' reasons why Obsidian would wanna keeps things pleasant. duh. and in any event, there ain't no rational connection linking American free speech protections which is meant to insulate citizens from government action, and the behavior o' Obsidian on their private boards. is complete unrelated. HA! Good Fun!

actually, you is wrong. as a government actor the White House has far less latitude to censor than does Obsidian. is numerous reasons that the White House could still enforce rules that might limit some free speech, but govt. actors need to be overcoming pretty significant legal obstacles that Obsidian would not face. schools has been the early battleground for determining the extent o' freedom o' speech on government run websites. schools is finding out real quick that they gotta be very careful 'bout how they present their messages to the public. am hopeful that hurl is not teaching his students wrong 'bout free speech. HA! Good Fun!

So why are they censoring us, ****roach? You think they're trying to protect your ****ing kids? It's a **** kind of freedom when you have it but you can't use it. Obsidian reflects American moral standards. eh? you got some funny ideas 'bout America. Obsidian is not legal required to follow some kinda American Ideal regarding freedom o' speech. after all, Liberty is also one o' those concepts we hold dear here in the U.S. o' A. is no laws forcing Obsidian to be open and charitable regarding free speech... for reasons that would be obvious to anybody with a pair of firing synapses. has a functioning business model wherein employees could resort to a Free Speech defense at any time? has this board, which is first and foremost an ADVERTISING tool, become filled with profanity and pr0n? HA! there is a yutz born every second. free speech is a prohibition on GOVERNMENT action. Obsidian is not America, and they sure as heck ain't compelled to reflect "American moral standards." HA! Good Fun!

sorry sucker, but this ain't an American board... is an Obsidian board. freedom o' speech as set forth in the First Amendment is a prohibition on State action. "Congress shall make no law..." and to the rest o' you bemoaning the injustice done unto some poor uk kid... to stir the secret service to action you gotta threaten the Prez with death, serious bodily harm, or kidnapping. so, a drunken limey threatens Obama with some kinda significant violence and is subsequently informed that he should not be making any US vacation plans in the near future... and you clowns thinks that it is the US o' A that comes off looking bad? you know, part o' Gromnir wishes that we live long enough to see China become the world's dominant military and economic super power. no doubt it sucks to be recognizing that folks in Washington D.C. can disproportionately affect your lives whether they intend to or not. *chuckle* am suspecting that the well-intentioned but misguided bumbling o' Pax Americana will be recollected with fond nostalgia when the epicenter o' power in the civilized the world shifts to Beijing. HA! Good Fun!

... ok. ... you recognize that cultures change, but you wonder if a multicultural society can somehow avoid such change? am honestly not certain what your definition o' a "multicultural society" is to begin with. take a look at some Inodnesian nations and the degree to which the cultures of those peoples has evolved and changed over the past five decades. you tell us that certain aspects o' cultural diversity does not rise to the level o' your envisioned multicultural society w/o any real explanation or justification. does a predominant national identity somehow preclude the possibility o' a multicultural society? why? ask folks in the Southie neighborhood o' Boston if they is feeling like they has lost their Irish culture... ask folks o' the Polish Downtown in Chicago if they has become lost to their heritage. the Oglala o' Pine Ridge has, in large part, retained core beliefs and language o' the Lakota people. 'course Pine Ridge also gots infant mortality and poverty more in line with 3rd world countries than what one would expect in the United States. other Indian/Native American reservations has had considerably greater success as they has attempted to retain their culture, but such reservations is, as the name implies, synthetic creations. our recollections o' cultural anthropology from University is blurred due to remoteness, but we seem to recall that Culture were a damned expansive term. a school could have a culture, and the individual departments and sports teams might also has thriving and identifiable cultures. organizations and clubs on/off campus might also breed identifiable and distinct cultures. if a single school campus could breed so many healthy and enduring cultures, then why would stepping off campus kill the prospects for multiculturalism? expansive... not limited. am thinking that mesh is using "multicultural" different than the way it were taught to us... which don't mean that he is wrong. after all, our school were (and still is) the largest and most enduring hippie freak show in the United States. HA! Good Fun!

With what? Your comment that it looks like a 3rd rate game's alpha stage. this would be a good time to compare the Age of Decadence thread to the DA:2 thread. HA! Good Fun!

in the U.S. of A., grad school endures as the only remaining form of legalized slavery. HA! Good Fun!

Thanks for this little gem of irrelevance Gromnir. Did you have anything of value to add to this thread such as links to chemistry tutorials or text suggestions? linky there... something o' value & relevant to the thread. as a person who has hired more than a handful o' employees, am gonna inform you that a major reason for choosing college grads has got 0 to do with what the prospect learned in school. the degree is proof that an individual can gut it out for four years and finish their education. is nothing wrong with taking time off from school, but every month you is away from school the harder it will be to return. don't put off too long or you is gonna wonder where time went, and you is gonna be stuck with a crappy 40k a year job when you is in your thirties and forties. til you go back to school, you is a drop-out. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* regardless o' your intention to return, you is a drop-out. many folks intend to return to university and never do. for the moment you is a drop-out... and that got nothing to do with you being a bucket-head. HA! Good Fun! btw, is loads o' drop-outs who has gone on to be extreme successful, so don't feels so bad/sensitive.

I think you've hit my nail on the head. Ashdown was precisely the sort of supremo (q.v. Gerard Templar in Malaya) required. Send him to the 'Stan forthwith and give him some clout. The pity is, and I'm genuinely not being chippy about the Yanks, the US foreign policy machine consists of almost nothing but careerists you are rightly leery of. Iraq proved that US civilian administrators are NOT match-fit. You'd need an ex-military man, as the US armed services has thrown up a generation of thoughtful, imaginative generals whjo might be ideal for the role. which respected ex-military man would take the job if he is gonna know he do not have genuine support o' the current administration? what sorta respected ex-military man With Clout is actually gonna be chosen by the powers that be? as a student o' history, you is of course aware that the region you speak of has had a tumultuous past. the success o' outsiders to stabilize has been limited and typically a considerable 'mount o bloodshed were necessary to achieve moments o' relative "peace." the "consequences" you spoke o' earlier looks like war to the casual observer. *shrug* am thinking it is too late for this administration to make genuine progress. sadly, by the time a new administration comes to power, the necessary military and infrastructure resources will have been pulled outta the region making new efforts impractical/impossible. HA! Good Fun!

another college dropout. so sad. HA! Good Fun!

And as a Dward Noble (just a different kingdom). And the Bann of Alienage as a City Elf. And probably something I'm forgetting. Still, it ain't much, but in the grand scope of things, not an issue to me. saying that the empty title "ain't much" is an understatement. hypothetical new feature for DA. the pc may find a deed in a chest... makes you owner o' The World. you literally own The World. 'course, +90% of npcs treat you the same whether you is owner or not, and there is no additional gameplay that becomes available if you becomes the world owner. dumbest feature evar? how is world owner different than how becoming king/queen is handled in DA? perhaps there is some minor appeal to vanity in being King that genuine made da a better game 'cause such a thing were added, but if it makes game better it does so in a very minor and uninspired manner. is not noteworthy or innovative. HA! Good Fun!

at the end of the game... when it doesn't make a difference and you cannot DO anything as king. is no KING/QUEEN gameplay... is NOT meaningful. HA! Good Fun!

give examples... and not simple instances o' minor dialogue changes. dwarf noble is different from dwarf commoner almost not at all. all the same major choices is available to any origin: harrowmont or bhalin. as a dwarf commoner instead of fighting a handful o' nameless carta thugs + Jarvia in the big dust town battle, one of the thugs is replaced with leske... whom you cannot have meaningful dialogue with anyways. wow. and a minor trinket bonus attached to each origin is hardly a meaningful difference. replay a +40 hour game to get a five different dialogue encounters and 1 or 2 unique equipment items? HA! is not what bio were selling pre-release... but it figures that vol would buy post release. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* the origins had little genuine impact post the origins, but they did require bio to expend a considerable 'mount o' resources to implement. a handful 'o slightly altered dialogue choices w/o any substantial change o' key plot points? hardly is substantial. hell, compared to the bard stronghold quest o' bg2, all the da origins were lackluster and underwhelming. our most jaded preconception o' the origins previous to playing da had us imagining that, beyond the unique origin material at the start o' the game, we might gets one or two minor and tangential side-quests for each origin. is hard to imagine that Gromnir were gross over-estimating. we ain't seeing bio do origins in da2, so it seems as if even the biowarians ain't convinced that the benefit o' the benefits were outweighed by the cost. is also a bit o' a stretch to call "innovation" when something similar were done by previous developers. sure, bio sunk far more resources into the feature, but there weren't anything genuine novel or original 'bout the da origins. in and of itself, an increase in size does not result in innovation. it ain't a criticism to point out that bio vast expanded 'pon previous origins-like features w/o showing genuine innovation. HA! Good Fun!

you is nuts. the codexians couldn't get fire department response if they set themselves ablaze and ran into a busy street. nobody beyond codex cares 'bout codex save as entertainment value. a small group o' over the top malcontents howling at the wind. is funny. the console version o' da sold better than pc... and now bio gots to release a sequel in very little time. therefore, biowarian priority is understandably shifted to consoles, and any way they can strip down and streamline da2 will aid in their efforts to make a q1 2011 deadline. many o' the announced changes and features is resource saving moves. bio will release a pc version o' da2, but it is not gonna be a long development cycle, and they is gonna cut anything they deem as nonessential so as to be making their deadline. codex forced changes? *chuckle* HA! Good Fun!

I've gotta say, that is dead wrong. I know quite a few gay couples, in pretty much every stage of their lives and relationships, and it is a big deal to every one of them that they cannot tie the knot. It is a major part of a person's life, for better or worse, and it is very messed up that an entire group is not legally allowed to take part in it. and Gromnir knows numerous homosexual couples who managed to get hitched before prop 8 came down the pike and they admit that while official marriage is extreme important from a pride and emotional pov, the actual impact on their day-to-day is minimal. if real estate hadn't tanked, that capital gains issue would be a more substantial factor for those selling & buying homes, but as it is, capital gains is less an issue today than it has been since the 80's. very important pride and emotional, but not as big for most daily stuff. HA! Good Fun!

short term backlash that lasts nearly a decade... right up until Congress begins to implement changes? that is a considerable long and violent bit o' backlash, not that we forsee anything like that in the present context, 'cause as already noted, this is mostly a symbolic right that don't serious impact the day-to-day life of most hetero or homosexuals. btw, forced judicial change is more likely to drive people who are on the fence into the intolerant camp. people don't like decisions forced upon them. HA! Good Fun!

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right. fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws. Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect. eh? are you responding to yourself? you sure ain't responding to Gromnir's posts. the decision will not change attitudes regarding homosexual marriage. the decision will, if anything, result in increased bigotry. however, we has mentioned in numerous posts now that this ain't like Brown... the difficulties o' implementation and enforcement is far less significant. IF this thing manages to survive (which is doubtful based on the law) we don't see same-sex marriage being killed by a resistant populace; there ain't enough resistance to begin with. but again, 'cause you clearly didn't pay attention, "a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is." the mere existence o' legalized same-sex marriage will not make peoples less bigoted... just as a ruling regarding desegregation did not make people less bigoted. only a fool believes that a court ruling will change the prejudices o' a populace. HA! Good Fun! To reiterate, because you missed the point again: this decision is not targeted at changing the attitudes of the current generation of bigots. If it is even aimed at changing attitudes at all as you imply (rather than simply eliminating institutional discrimination and protecting a minority from the tyranny of the masses), which I doubt, then it is aimed at preventing Americans yet to be born from becoming bigots in the first place by providing a world where the notion of homosexuals and heterosexuals having different rights under law is foreign; where the rule of law fully endorses equal rights for same-sex couples. Do I think legal judgement is necessary for homosexuals to enjoy equal rights under law? No - each generation is progressively less bigoted. But if homosexuals have to wait for the current generations of youth to replace the conservative elderly that die off before they receive equal treatment under law (or rather, distinction between heterosexual and homosexual is simply abolished), that's another decade or two away. It's simply unreasonable and unfair. talk 'bout going in circles. once again, we never suggested or implied that plaintiff success would result in some kinda no-win for homosexuals whereby they would fail to actual get marriage rights. in fact we has said the opposite numerous times, pointing out how different the prop 8 case is when compared to Brown. as for your hypothesized notion o' a less bigoted world 'cause homosexuals is given bare legal rights of marriage, you is complete naive and deluded. show proof. we has already pointed to the history o' litigation regarding race and observed that a win in Court does not change the attitudes o' the people. so, show us how the granting o' a largely symbolic right to homosexuals, particularly in light of the fact that yous is so obvious unclear on the details o' the recent decision and do not seem to realize that same-sex marriage still ain't been given the weight o' a "fundamental right" and homosexuals will not be getting no "suspect class" status, will result in some kinda paradigm shift o' attitudes related to homosexuals. utter nonsense. oh, and each generation is not progressive less bigoted. w/o court interference that is indeed the case, but Brown showed us that the Court can actually increase racial intolerance with its misguided attempts to make Americans better than they is. after Brown, kkk membership rose sharply and so did violent crimes 'gainst blacks. HA! Good Fun!

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right. fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws. Oh you can argue that all you want. It's a different point, and one I think is pretty weak. But your original claim (as quoted) that the judge's decision won't achieve its goal (regardless of whether you support the decision) is incorrect. eh? are you responding to yourself? you sure ain't responding to Gromnir's posts. the decision will not change attitudes regarding homosexual marriage. the decision will, if anything, result in increased bigotry. however, we has mentioned in numerous posts now that this ain't like Brown... the difficulties o' implementation and enforcement is far less significant. IF this thing manages to survive (which is doubtful based on the law) we don't see same-sex marriage being killed by a resistant populace; there ain't enough resistance to begin with. but again, 'cause you clearly didn't pay attention, "a decision delivered by a Court will fail at making people better than what they is." the mere existence o' legalized same-sex marriage will not make peoples less bigoted... just as a ruling regarding desegregation did not make people less bigoted. only a fool believes that a court ruling will change the prejudices o' a populace. HA! Good Fun!

That is inaccurate. It might fail at making the CURRENT generation better than what they are, but that does not apply to generations who have only ever known a time when gay marriage was enshrined in law as a right. fail. it ain't the judge who conveys rights. judges do not create laws. the only way the right exists in a multi-branch, representative democratic government such as ours is if that right is granted by the people. and even if a judge tries to conjure up a right w/o any legal support, the right is meaningless 'less the people is willing to observe. keep in mind that is not simply judges who gets caught up in misguided paternalism. prohibition is an example in which the democratic elected officials attempted to force through a law for the good o' the people, w/o actual having the support of the people. such a law is doomed to fail. you wanna make people better? use education and goodwill. use laws to force people to become better is doomed... it doesn't work. regardless, same-sex marriage ain't anywhere near same scale as is school desegregation. most folks in Sacramento do not support prop 8, so while a slim majority o' The People got prop8 passed, the elected officials is largely opposed to the law. california ain't gonna have to use the national guard to enforce gay marriage if the appellate and supreme court rules in favor o' the plaintiffs; this just ain't that big a deal... and homosexuals has been living as married couples for decades, regardless o' whether or not they is able to take advantage o' tax breaks, inter-spousal transfers, and capital gains sharing. those folks who was able to take advantage o' the California same-sex marriage court ruling previous to prop 8 passage is facing no more or less bigotry than is their peers who is living as life partners. resistance to same-sex marriage has been steadily decreasing for decades. sadly, am not so sure that will be the case next year when this becomes seen as a full blown State Rights v. Fed battle. many folks who not give a damn 'bout homosexual marriage will be fighting against Fed interloping. is ironic that we don't foresee big trouble in CA, but there will be trouble a brewing elsewhere in the nation... and the folks who will suffer unnecessary backlash will be the homosexual community. HA! Good Fun!