Gromnir

that depends on how you play the game, doesn't it? nameless were actual kinda a weak character, which is understandable given how necessarily vague and flexible he must be. HA! Good Fun!

I'm going to throw this post right in your face next time you accuse me of going off on a tangent about semantics, Grommy. The watermelon comparison is silly, even for you. Especially considering that if you want you can sample the fruit before buying it! So drop the "force" from the arguments. You are still left only with those two options. I was just following in on the idiocy of comparing a Broadway play to a videogame. You figure out the rest man, I don't share your enthusiasm for the absurd. actually, you started the absurdity.... is how we ended up with your either/or fallacy. am uncertain why you not abandon the "force" silliness. is not either/or as there is a multitude of options available options competing for your entertainment dollar. is not only two choices and there is no force. watermelon is no more ridiculous. is a blind purchase. you not know if you is gonna get a good or bad watermelon 'til you cut into it and take a bite. damned grocer is forcing a blind choice on you... evil bastards. the real difference is that only person who genuine thinks that the game purchase (sans demo) is a blind purchase is numbers. the game purchase is neither forced nor blind. "Well you know, you could always research your purchase before buying it thus you aren't blind." numerous people has made the same comment, but number ignores. is vol kinda obtuse. HA! Good Fun!

I don't have the game. I called Fry's and asked if they had Dragon Age: Origns CE for the PC. The lady said 'yes.' I drove over, the lady said 'I mean tomorrow. Come back tomorrow at 8am.' "Are you sure you have the Collector's Edition?" I ask. "Yes, we have 60 copies!" she replies, while showing me a picture of the regular edition. "The Collector's Edition?" "60 copies!" sounds familiar... and fry's is worse than most. some joker who is typical selling stereo equipment is suddenly working in games department for the day. whatever it says on the computer screen in front of him is gospel... is why we is general patient with such folks. chances are they is never gonna own their own house. getting chewed out by Gromnir would be overkill. HA! Good Fun!

And I don't think you have thought that through. Oblivion is the same whether you play 2 hours or 200, the game doesn't change and you get what's advertised - you get bored, but nothing the developers can do can change that. A good demo gives you a good feel of how the game plays. This is 100% subjective and no review can substitute that. What the hell man? Isn't that what I said? The options you are left with are to purchase blindly, or not purchase at all. I'm not saying that automatically grants the right to download the game, or that EA is putting a gun to anyone's head. You are forced into that in the sense that no other options exist. Also, when they make 80-hour long plays, I'll demand they make a demo, too. no force. maybe you claim that you were "forced" to buy watermelon blind 'cause they not allow you to demo it before purchase? you keep claiming force, but is not a single reasonable person that would claim that you were forced to purchase. if available alternatives exist, then there is no force. is also arguable, from economic pov, that force is impossible for luxury items. is pretty common for entertainment to be purchased "blind". HA! you not wanna rely on waiting and reading reviews, or playing on acquaintance's computer before purchase? that makes you lazy... or stoopid. not make force. again, you maybe use "force" for effect, but it simply not work. numbers not recognize either/or fallacy any better than he recognizes straw man. *snort* and what the hell does 80 hours have to do with anything? if play were longer you would expect to sit maybe through first act and then have option to pay? hey, maybe for season tickets for the Chicago Bears, Gromnir can get first 4 games as sorta a demo for season... then pay for rest if Bears is playing well. am not sure what you mean by a demo for play. in any event, is no force, so your rationalization is weak. HA! Good Fun!

You mean you have other options outside of those two? So what are they? your entertainment dollar or euro is extreme flexible. other games. movie, sporting events, naked mud-wrestling... whatever. take your entrainment dollar and spend elsewhere. available alternatives destroy notion o' force... is a pretty fundamental concept. and fact that this is a luxury item pretty much makes "force" a ridiculous notion. Gromnir were forced into a blind purchase of 2 Broadway show tickets 'cause the alternative were not seeing the show? HA! does demo make any less blind than available reviews? wait a few days for and no doubt you get genuine feedback from a trusted source. maybe you even get an opportunity to play on an acquaintance computer. regardless, notion o' "force" is silly in present context. overstatement for effect perhaps? or were it a genuine rationalization for piracy? HA! Good Fun!

Oh no, you got me now. We don't need to turn this thread into another piracy "debate"(read: flamewar). If you think someone is advocating piracy, report them, as simple as that. why would Gromnir report? as we noted already, the rationalizations for piracy amuse us. you wanna play board mod? be our guest. HA! Good Fun!

I don't think anyone is actually doing that. The anti-piracy squad is on a hair trigger, as usual. an over-sensitive pirate responds? if people claim that individuals is "forced into a blind purchase or no-purchase situation" when speaking of luxury items... use as an explanation for piracy... *shrug* and looks at junai's typical doggerel. does high price o' entertainment have anything whatsoever to do with piracy... or were that a non sequitur with no real purpose? bah. HA! Good Fun!

am always amused to hear folks rationalize the piracy o' a Luxury item. please continue. HA! Good Fun!

development and publishing games is a business endeavor. if developer and publisher ain't making money, then they will not be making additional games. heck, Gromnir liked ps:t, but its economic failure guaranteed that there would be no sequel or similar game from bis or any other developer. on the other hand, as much as diablo ii bored Gromnir, it were immense popular and developers is still making clones. sales is much more relevant to future game development than is the personal taste o' an individual gamer. HA! Good Fun!

"Take TOEE (Temple of Elemental Evil) for example, here you had a game with the best turn D&D based tactical combat engine of the time. There were no expansions or add-ons (other than the free and idependently developed Keep on the Borderlands by CO8.oRG). The game died, and they did not maximize its potential income." ... am not sure what the above has to do with dragon age. toee were 'posed to be a quick and cheap development... were plans for multiple d&d modules using same engine.unfortunately, troika missed deadlines and ruined whatever relationship they mighta' had with atari. once it becomes apparent to atari that there ain't gonna be no sequels with troika, they got a choice 'tween shipping a half-baked product before end of fiscal quarter, or missing quarter and trying to work with an antagonistic developer to fix toee 'fore release. toee didn't have to be a big seller to make atari money as it were envisioned as a quick and relative cheap development, but toee were a failure before it ever were shipped. HA! Good Fun!

am assuming it is more than just the diablo ii clone it appears to be. HA! Good Fun! No. Why would you assume that? Do you find it unfathomable that Sawyer would find a well-built Diablo clone to be enjoyable? "enjoyable" is different than "it owns." am willing to concede that if you liked diablo ii, then a well-built diablo ii clone would be enjoyable. 'course, one wonders what is reasoning for playing the clone when the original is still available. better graphics? ownage is achieved through graphics and cloning? kinda disappointing if true. HA! Good Fun!

am assuming it is more than just the diablo ii clone it appears to be. HA! Good Fun!

spirit-eater were... stoopid. not the idea, but the implementation. took 'bout 20 minutes to figure out the gaps in the reason used to implement. afterward, if playing good, you not need to worry 'bout spirit meter save as a somewhat tedious pre-adventure ritual... find place where undead spawn, and max out meter before going off to thaymount or ashenwood. spirit-meter were an annoyance that not actual add to gameplay. never played evil, but am betting that world map travel weren't no fun for folks with high rate o' hunger. even so, if good end were busted, am betting that evil side were similarly flawed. also, the original pre-patch alignment bonuses/hits for the spirit-eater were likewise ridiculous. took 20 hours o' gameplay to get 'nuff dialogue options to equal the amount o' possible law-boosting points you could amass from 20 minutes o' suppression + rest sequences. am thankful Gromnir never played a bard or barbarian. btw, the joinable npcs for motb were a big disappointment. am sounding like a broken record, but if dove were a human & male paladin, would anybody have given a damn? personalty o' damp dish towel and colorblindness Not = great character. o' but 'cause dove is having wings That makes her kewl. bah. motb jnpcs were all gimmick and little substance. make gann a human or elven roguish womanizer... with mommy issues. lame. o' but he's Blue... literally. *groan* yet another character that woulda' been reviled as cliche if not for the gimmick. make gann a hagspawn, and presto-chanego, the overused cliche becomes novel. the bear were kinda a neato concept, but we didn't get much development past the concept. etc. Gromnir liked motb, but the end were weak... as is typical for obsidian games. am always forgetting the name o' the betrayer guy... which is a bad sign as he is the ultimate adversary. never developed requisite interest for the titular character--didn't hate or admire or feel requisite pity for the betrayer. if not for the silly end battle, the betrayer coulda' been nothing more than a macguffin suitable for Hitch****... which woulda' been ok if other adversaries Did gets development. again, we enjoyed motb, but the spirit-meter were flawed and the writing were inconsistent at best. then again, they managed to get maxwell's daemon into the game. HA! Good Fun!

when bg2 joinable npcs were first released to public there were criticism that they were too "cartoony." the pastels were not embraced, and minsc, in particular, looked like a predictably buffoonish character from woody-woodpecker episode, complete with ridiculously toothy grin. folks pointed to recently released iwd portraits as a more aesthetically pleasing alternative. maybe iwd weren't "realism," but at least it weren't cartoon neither. mike saas responds by making bg2 portraits gritty and realistic: he added scars and piercings. *groan* 'least minsc no longer looked like a bio attempt to mock victims o' down's syndrome, but we were amused that biowarian notions o' "dark and gritty" were to remove smiles and add scars and piercings. am hopeful that the bio writers ain't as lazy as the bio artists were. HA! Good Fun!

You were giving lessons of straw men fallacies, just a few posts ago. That's a textbook example. Not bad, Grom, not bad. Not exactly what I had in mind when I said you could do better, though. I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?" Since, by your own admission, its value as a deterrent for similarly aged teenagers isn't that great, and nobody actually bothers to enforce it in those cases. The Ancient Egyptians were just an example to show that just because CONGRESS set it up that way it doesn't mean it's the ONLY way. Gee, who woulda thunk it! Oh, wait. They are "barbarians", right? am not sure you genuine know what straw man is. how is dollar limit for grand larceny different than your argument regarding consent age? some clown steals $499 and is petit. steals $500 (or, when in CA, any any amount of avocados) and he is likely to face grand larceny charges... am serious 'bout the avocados thing. is arbitrary. is a distinction that could conceivably send some person to prison for life if is facing 3-strikes. if is fails 'cause is arbitrary, then there ain't no difference, is there? is literally thousands o' laws that got arbitrary limits and thresholds. you got a Constitution that protects us from the tyranny o' the majority, but otherwise is society that decides on rules to govern selves. the investment o' the citizenry in the process makes for some seemingly odd laws, but that investment by people also means that Force is not needed to gets most people to follow the laws. "I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?"" nope, that were never the question. laws ain't 'bout best way to protect. laws don't necessarily have to find least restrictive or ideal means o' protection... never has, talk 'bout slippery slopes. laws is also 'bout expediency and vengeance. am gonna have to introduce you to RW again? only the most ignorant o' flower sniffing hippies thinks all laws is only 'bout bestest. Best? HA! again, is of, by and for the people... people not make best laws. has never Evar, been 'bout best when you is talking 'bout representative democracies. as long as the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest you got a valid law in this country. is not plato's philosopher king. and Congress never set no age o' consent... is different from state to state. nevertheless, if you thinks you bolster your argument by comparing morality judgments made by democratic elected representatives o' new hampshire or idaho with those o' the pharaohs, then good luck with that. HA! Good Fun!

am sorry, but is silly in extreme. 55 and 65mph is arbitrary. so is 18 years of age for consent and $500 for grand larceny. so, obviously we can't have no speed limit, age of consent or dollar amount for grand larceny. *snort* as walsh mentions, if you think 18 is too high, then what number you think is appropriate? doesn't really matter though... 'cause once you agree that some age of consent or speed limit is beneficial, or that it makes sense to distinguish petit from grand larceny, then you is just arguing details... can always quibble over the exact perfect number or measure. so what? admission that laws depend on an arbitrary limit or number in no way invalidates 'cept in silly message board scenarios referencing the high morals of the ancient egyptians. huh? HA! Good Fun! ps you gotta be a complete idgit if you suggest that the only valid and useful law is one that is infallible. numbers, Gromnir would like to introduce you to the Real World... apparently you two has never met before today.

am not certain why you think the principle is invalidated 'cause o' the hypocrisy of the author. a father who never brushes his teeth teaches his children to brush twice a day and floss regular. is the dad's message false? how 'bout michael vick doing humane society commercials 'bout treatment o' pets? is false that dogs should be treated humanely? hypocrisy of the messenger does not invalidate the message. the fact that principles espoused in the declaration is more valid now than it were when written makes principles false? HA! Good Fun! ps "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," sounds better than, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men are created equal". just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

"- putting him in jail wont achieve much," disagree. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," too often we see celebrities and wealthy people getting special treatment, seeming in violation o' the principle that all men is created equal. to the average citizen it appears that not only did polanski get a special deal from prosecutor 'cause the director were a famous person, but when he found out that he were gonna have spend a measly 48 additional days in prison, he fled the country. let us alter facts. imagine if numbers guy or pozi or Gromnir were accused of having sex with a famous 13 year old actress... same transcript and evidence... same flight from justice. everything same 'cept that the victim were the famous person, and nobodies like us were the defendant. you thinks hollywood and the french government would come to pozi's defense? HA! famous people gets different treatment, but Americans don't believe that celebrities should get special handling. so yeah... sending polanski back to prison would achieve something. sees that famous people can't simply pay their way out of their mistakes has value. 'course if you not think polanski made a mistake... HA! Good Fun!

Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that. If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age. ... am thinking that you is misreading or missing point. "age of consent". consent cannot be given by persons younger than age of consent. if you have sex with somebody who did not give consent... HA! Good Fun! You missed the point actually Grom - Wals was talking about (in response to me bringing it up) variations in the age of consent across different countries and what he thought was proper, not what the legal definition of consent in America is. I'm fully aware that a 13 year old cannot legally give consent in America. am fully aware what wals were talking 'bout. age of consent is age that children is legal deemed too young to consent to sex. is meant for protection o' children. am not quite sure where you misunderstand. adults is fully aware that if they have sex with a child, they can go to prison. has a deterrent effect. is age o' consent ultimately an arbitrary line drawn in sand? sure it is, but so is speed limits and dollar amounts for grand larceny and a thousand other examples. society decides that to protect children from abuse, age o' consent laws is useful. am hopeful you ain't gonna try the slippery slope relativism o' other posters, 'cause it just not hold muster. "Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that." actually, it does change. perhaps sadly, child abuse is also gots legal implications and definitions. age of consent changes behavior of people having sex with partners who is young. protects those youngsters from possible "abuse." "child abuse is child abuse" doesn't mean anything... but even if it did it wouldn't mean what you thinks it means... confusing, no. to hiro: "You're the one that's suggested the AGE of the person with this 13 year old girl by dismissing it as two minors having sex. I never said anything about age in the FIRST place and later suggested it may have been an adult? an uncle? WHO KNOWS? Maybe it was an uncle and the family didn't want to make this worse than it already is. You're the one that's suggesting she had sex with a minor and dismissing it as such. What a callous and insensitive thing to say. The most obvious reason? Unbelievable." you asked why the other rapists ain't being brought to justice. a simple and obvious possible reason is that previous 2 sexual encounters were with non-adults. am not quite certain where your disconnect is on this. you is trying to imply some kinda silly conspiracy or lack o' diligence on the part of the DA? HA! and again, you gots logic issues. anybody wanna give hiro a basic primer on logic... explain about how impossible it is to disprove something that ain't been proved. prove that God doesn't exist. prove that the previous two sex acts were not with adults. is no need for Gromnir to prove age of the victim's previous partner(s)... is up to You to prove that they was adults. for there to be felony, the partner(s) must be adults... so prove that previous partner(s) was adult. bah. and you still ain't explained how you could be More disturbed by fact that the victim weren't a virgin than you was by the evidence of drugging and rape by a middle-aged man. HA! Good Fun! ps to pozi: admissions is always admissible as evidence o' a crime. what you want or would like is not what the courts need or want. is typical very hard to convict w/o the willing cooperation o' victim, but given polanski's subsequent admission's regarding the incident, am thinking that it would be insane for him to abandon the celebrity-grade plea agreement he worked out so many decades ago... gives DA an opportunity to tack on the rape and sodomy charges.

am thinking you not know what a straw man argument is. "What disturbs me is your lack of understanding and comprehension of what I've posted and the fact that you condemn Polanski but it's okay for the other two times when she had sex and dismiss it as 'playing doctor with a neighbour'." see, now That is a straw man. Gromnir conceded that it were indeed disturbing that a 13 year old girl would had sex. however, we did note that sex 'tween minors is far more common than you seem to believe. quick use o' google reveals statistics such as the following: "The percentage of teens 15-19 who had initiated sexual intercourse before age 14 has decreased in recent years, from a high of 8 percent of girls and 11 percent of boys in 1995 to a low of 6 percent of girls and 8 percent of boys in 2002." http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S...-Fact-Sheet.pdf better than 1 in 20 13 year old girls has "initiated" sex before age of 14? btw, California is pretty typical for "statutory rape". most jurisdictions don't call it statutory rape, but that is kinda beside the point. regardless, in California, sex 'tween minors is a misdemeanor offense that is covered by the same penal code section that deals with "statutory rape". am recollecting that there may be a $70 fine involved. you wonder why the "prosecutors" not hunt down the other rapist(s) that engaged in sex with the victim previous to polanski? most obvious reason is that they not got time or effort to waste on minor misdemeanor offenses that not even have a complaint. sex 'tween minors is unfortunate, but is misdemeanor offense with no teeth... and given the mind-boggling number o' minors who is having sex, we imagine that lots more judges, lawyers and cops is gonna have to be found if hiro is to get justice. *snort* does Gromnir know that the victim's previous sexual experiences were with minors? nope, but you don't know either. you want an explanation? if the victim's previous sexual encounters were with fellow minors, that would explain the reason why those folks weren't hunted. regardless, speaking o' logic fallacies, how does absence o' prosecution of your missing rapists absolve polanski? and please, explain how polanski's forced sex with a 13 year old girl that he got drunk and drugged is less disturbing than fact that the girl admitted to having experienced sex 2x previous to being violated by polanski. HA! Good Fun!

hiro's response is perfect example o' why we sympathize with rape victim families. a 13 year old girl is given booze and drugs and then forced to have sex with a middle-aged man, but what really disturbs hiro is that the 13 year old weren't a virgin at the time roman violated her. talk 'bout disturbing.

Disturbing stuff. Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski? Could you give a source for your allegation? For example, the page of the trial transcript in which the admission was made? from linked transcript: page 13, line 28.

mom were foolish. 'course if setting were dirt water missouri and we were talking 'bout private math lessons or private piano lessons, most parents probable wouldn't be over concerned. hollywood "photographer" wants to take photos o' your 13 year old girl? yeah, some warning bell shoulda' gone off in mom's head. woulda' been another reason why victim's family didn't want trial at the time... mom/daughter/family woulda' been raked over coals til you weren't certain who were on trial no more. before rape shield, the victim's prior sexual experience were fair game. girl and family woulda' been violated in court and in press over and over again. HA! Good Fun! to hiro: 1) you don't know if the prior sexual encounters were with adult any more than Gromnir... but sure seems more likely that it weren't with an adult. you ask why the sex with roman gets pub and previous encounters didn't. obvious answer: the victim's prior sexual encounters were with similar aged teens. but you think is More disturbing that she had sex 2 times previous to polanski? wacky. an adult drugs a 13 year old girl and then forces himself on her, but you find mere fact that she had already had sex 2x More disturbing? 2) am thinking you is a bit naive. you not think that some kids experiment with sex at very young age. hell, Gromnir grew up in freakin south & north dakota and we knew kids who had experimented with sex by age 13. considering how few people Gromnir knew, that is saying something too. nearest neighbor for Gromnir were over a mile away. Gromnir never suggested that all such experiments is involving intercourse, but you is ridiculous obtuse if you think it not happen... and if you think that such occurrences is extreme rare then you is nuts.

you serious? how many kids has played doctor in basement with a neighbor? is disturbing, but More disturbing than being drugged and forced to have sex with an adult? you is kidding. you Must be kidding. HA! Good Fun!

'Normal people' don't try to install windows on a netbook from a flash drive. They either 1) buy a computer from a Best Buy or Dell.com and Windows comes preloaded, or 2) the take a Windows CD and stick it in the drive of their laptop or desktop then sit around while it installs. is complete off-topic, but almost 4 years ago we built a rig and tried to load windows xp home on that thing. try to load os 3 times = 3x fail. gave up. loaded windows xp pro. quickest os install we ever recall. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!