Cantousent

Riiiiiiight. 99% of the people have no power in the government. How silly can you get. How many contortions can you undertake to even defend that idea. You can say that 1% have an inordinate amount of influence, resources, or power, but 99% have no power? I mean, it's true that Obama received considerably more money than his Republican opponent, but still, that didn't stop some 45-47% from voting for McCain. Popular measures come up by ballot initiatives in states all across this country. Look, I hate the bail-outs myself. In principle, I'm with Vol on it. However, what are we going to do? Snatch everything folks make and give it to someone else? Who gets it? Who gets to decide who gets it? The problem with the OWS crowd is that, inasmuch as you can discern the message, it's far more radical than the vast majority of Americans want. As folks learn more about that message, they dislike it, so people who used to support the movement see it as far too radical. The loudest voices in the OWS crowd don't want to tweak the tax code or rework budgeting. They want to radically reform our government to more socialist ideals. ...And we're not talking western European weak socialism, which is disasterous in and of itself. We're talking Marxism and all sorts of ugly stuff. Of course, the real problem with the movement is that it has no discipline and you can probably find counter-examples to every view you find somewhere in it.

I'm sorry to hear about that, Raithe. Were you close? I mean, it's terrible to lose family, but if she were a close friend also that would just suck even worse. God rest her soul. I'm getting ready to head out in a bit to the outlaws for Thanksgiving dinner.

Actually, it sounds like a non native american making up a quote to poke fun at the holiday, which is okay. I mean, if I'm currently frequenting the boards in one name or another, I always post a happy holiday message. I almost always get someone who pokes fun at it, which is all cool. Likewise, I often get someone who is riled up about it, which is also cool. Whatever the history of the holiday, what it means now is appreciating a good excuse to meet friends and family for a good dinner. Sadly, I'm going to my inlaws, but I think I'll still have a good dinner and my niece from my wife's side just luuuurves me. So, I'll end up playing Barbie on the Wii which lets me get in touch with my inner feminine child. Life. Is. Good.

Geez, I've played like four hours so far. lol Well... I knew that would be the case when I bought it, but it's been a fun four hours. I'm only level, seven?, I think. I can see where that would be a problem, Spider, the whole not gaining levels. It makes it harder since I don't think you have athletics in this one which means you don't get that. Still, if you take up enchanting and potions, those can still augment your favored fighting style rather than replacing it. I mean, doesn't always fit a base warrior type philosophy, but putting cool enhantments on your weapons and armor and being able to pop potions doesn't hurt. Also, you could take up restoration magic, which could really come in handy in a pinch if you don't use your mana for anything else.

Vol said he had the 360 version, so he should be able to second hand gift it to someone. I don't know if I'll try to pick up the individual dlc or buy the ultimate edition. I'll probably be a sucker and pick up the ultimate edition since I only have one of the dlc. As for the getting shot in the head thing, I was going to mention something along the lines of what Wals said. I mean, I think Benny is a terrible shot, but it could have happened that he thought he'd killed the courier when in fact he'd missed any vital bits.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you who celebrate Thanksgiving. I hope everyone here has something for which to be thankful. Even if you don't celelbrate Thanksgiving, I hope you have a happy day. Whether you believe in God, love your country, speak to your family, go to church, or even have a lucky rabbit's foot... or not, I hope you all have some good reason to be grateful for something in your life. I tend to go MIA for long stretches, but I'm actually pretty thankful for the board here. Hell, even the folks who habitually disagree with me are fun. I'm glad tarna is still walking the earth, chopping down foes with his big assed claymore, chewing gum, and taking names so he knows who's next in line. Of course, I'm grateful for things in real life, like my wife and friends and home and cat and general happiness. I'm Catholic, so I thank God, but I guess I'd just take a moment to remember I have good things even if I didn't believe in divine providence. Cheers, guys.

I agreed with most of your points, Vol. I enjoyed Ne--- I mean Las Vegas quite a bit also. I've only played it straight with a little of the Dead Money dlc thrown in. Have you tried any mods or dlc?

I've gotten a bit more into Skyrim. I have to admit, I think I made serious mistakes in my game. Still, I mow down most things. There are only two monsters who've given me a hard time so far. One was the Falmer Gloomduder and the other was this thing called a hagraven. Something tells me that I should have had an easier time with them. On the other hand, I've managed to kill them well enough. I've just had to rely on the environment to do it, which sucks. I think the problem is I need better spells. I still dislike the dialogue. Not just the writing, but the fact that, even putting up subtitles and clicking through it feels clunky. There's a time delay and I just want to get through the wretched lines as fast as I can read them. Otherwise, even taking it slow as I have, it seems like a fun game. It leaves me wanting Fallout 4 something fierce, but it's a good distraction I guess. The wife isn't interested in it at all.

Poor Fio. :D

Well, it does mean you should have enough money to spring for lunch. ...And the pepper spray to spice it. I think the Occupy movement is more or less destructive. It had some good will to begin with, but it has started to lose its shine to a lot of Americans. I actually wrote a long post about the OWS movement, but figured there was enough going on in the thread about pepper spraying folks than to get into the politics behind the confrontation. Although I do get a kick out the Gifted and Morgie excahanging salvos.

hehehe that was funny. You're a real citizen of Athens, my friend. I'm a registered Res publica n myself. lol We're such a goofy bunch.

One of the things about WoW is that you ended up looking like everyone else once you got to a certain point. Raiders always ended up looking pretty much the same. I really hated that. It would be cool if you could keep the outfit you like best but just put the new stats or whatever on it rather than switching to the same stuff everyone has. If that's what you mean by upgrades, that would be sweet. What I would really like is if you could keep the look you wanted. I liked CoH/CoV in that respect. You could customie your look. It wasn't even so much that I wanted to spend tons of time on my costumes, just that I liked being able to have my own costume and not look like everyone else.

Hey, buddy, stop by the British Museum and borrow the Elgin marbles for me? I'll be by in a bit to pick them up, assuming you get them out okay. :cant's **** eating grin icon:

I keep vascilating on this title. WoW is absolutely horrible now. I don't mind the money I spent on it, but I had to quit a few months back. I thought the outlands expansion was pretty damned good, especially Kara, and I enjoyed WoLK, but the latest stuff just doesn't do that much for me. In fact, I dropped after progressing about halfway through Firelands. ...But what WoW has done is make me leery of MMORPGs altogether. I don't want to get stuck in a rut where I do nothing but grind to get to the heavy raid content and then be stuck looking for a good raiding guild and then praying fervently that all of the dynamics that make the team operate properly stay in place long enough to advance for a while. Plus, the way WoW worked when I left, they keep updating expansions which meant that I had just gotten maxed out in terms of my valor gear, tier sets, and had some good items from raids only to be forced once again to max out my heroic dailies every week in order to stay up with other players. I would like to see the Star Wars universe, but I just don't think I'll play any MMORPG for very long now. As for the neutral folks, I think it would be great to have a game that gets away with a 2 sided contest. It would be very nice to have real factions and be forced to deal with them separately instead of having just an Alliance/Horde struggle. Having even a third faction would be wonderful for keeping everyone on his toes. I did think it was interesting that CoH and CoV had a crossover component, but I stopped playing that one before it was available.

I've known too many cops to worship them as heroes en mass. Some of them are certainly heroic and some are true heroes, but not all and, frankly, probably not even half. You make a great point, though, Calax. There have been incidents of police clashing with members of the Occupy movement in which not only was force used but even resulted in injury on both sides. You cite Oakland and Standford. Notice that, of the examples you gave, UCDavis is the center of controversy? If the police had gone in and physically removed the people there and, as a result of the conflict, been inclined to grapple them or even use batons, I don't think it would have caused as much concern. Grom's example of better tactics in using the spray on the Davis crowd makes sense. Frankly, I don't even care if the police use pepper spray or not. As I understand it, pepper spray is safer, but if evidence came out later that it is indeed not safer, then I would be just as happy to see it prohibited. The point I make about it is that the way the original 'question' was formed did not encourage the type of reasoned debate that has any hope of working towards informed policy. Looking at one incident and then saying that the cops suck is not an argument for any real policy at all. I did read both links, Gromnir, and they are informative. My point is that further research could refute early studies, although I suppose there won't really be much more investigation on the specific asthma related deaths. If later studies show that pepper spray is not as safe, we should definitely tailor policy to that research.

Oh, I don't know. Some of the wine I buy is not exactly top of the line. I did read about your bike earlier and I say, next time put a lojac on the thing and hunt the thieving bastards down.

Whose rule, Vol? Pepper spray is literally considered to be less harmful than physically picking people up, cuffing them, and arresting them. The reason isn't so much the 'picking up' part as it is the struggling of protesters who can come to harm or harm police during the physical altercation. So... If the police had physically removed the people by force, then this wouldn't be an issue. There has been far less outrage over the police using physical coercion to remove mobs from other areas. This is stark because it looks bad when the police use spray on people whereas we accept when the police go up to a bunch of people, grapple them, pin them to the ground, and place handcuffs on them. If there is less chance for lasting injury in using pepper spray, then why is that bad? ...And as for the people being peaceful, sure. They were, but they were also in defiance of the law. Not for speaking, mind you, but for inhabiting the area. 'Occupying it,' so to speak. If I decided to pitch a tent and occupy the area for my own personal reasons, I could only expect that I would eventually be forcibly removed. The actual removal has nothing to do with my right to speak. I'm literally telling you, as I understand it, there was actual reasoning behind using the pepper spray. If I am right, then it was within the guidelines and the police will not face any criminal charges for what they did. It was not illegal. That's why I say it comes down to the original assumption. Getting away from kneejerk reactions, is pepper spray more human than other types of physical coercion or not? If it is more humane, then what they did is actually good in that they took the more humane option for accomplishing something they were not only within their rights to do, but even bound to do by law. If it is not humane, then pepper spray should be constrained in use and availability. EDIT: Just saw your comment Gorth. :Cant's guffawing icon: Let me tell you, the story about that little bit of pepper spray on Mr. Johnson is not a proud one. I might tell it for kicks later just for laughs. After all, it can only hurt my pride.

How's this for ****ed up? I just sat down and put a glass of wine on a coaster at my computer. Being basically a lush and philistine, I drink my wine out of a ballantine's glass instead of a wine glass. So, I sit down to drink what amounts to two glasses of wine and the coaster must have had some water on it because the next thing I know the whole ****ing thing is falling on my leg and my favorite wine drinking glass is broken on the floor. Bull****. And I haven't even had any wine yet. Screw this, I'm switching to whiskey for tonight.

I thought the point behind using pepper spray was that it is putatively less dangerous than physically moving protesters. What gets me is that the Occupy participants were removed without serious injury on either side. The reports that I've seen so far are that no one is still suffering from the effects of the pepper spray. If that's not the case, then I guess I'll have to rethink. What I find questionable is Vol saying that the police should be fired or even more strident calls to put them in jail. If the police had gone in and physically hauled off and arrested the protesters, then we wouldn't have all of this hyperventalation. ...And, if the protesters stood for the KKK or some other terrible movement, some of the folks hyperventilating now wouldn't even catch a breath. The real question, framed to be a little less inflamatory, is: Has research confirmed that pepper spray is less dangerous than engaging in physical coercion or combat? If it is less dangerous, then it seems to me that, in those cases where you would have no problems with using physical coercion, you should have no problems with using pepper spray. If it is more dangerous, then the question becomes: At what point is the threat sufficiiently warranted to use what ammounts to increasing levels of force? The police in question might be subject to reprimand for using the spray, but it doesn't look like they broke the law in using pepper spray because the presumption is that pepper spray is less prone to cause serious injury than risking breaking limbs as protesters fight off police or, in the course of writhing in an attempt to get away, fall and impact body parts on the pavement. If the assumption about pepper spray is wrong and it is actually more dangerous, then the original statement would probably have been better stated than what amounts to: American cops are pretty (expletive deleted) up. AND ...that is some really (expletive deleted) up (expletive deleted) and those cops need to go to jail for what they did. Those cops shouldn't go to jail for following properly identified guidelines. A better statement might be: Research shows that pepper spray is more harmful than we have hitherto been led to believe and we should change the policy so as to limit its use to a smaller list of circumstances. Hell, I've gotten pepper spray in my eyes and (don't ask) even had a small amount on my genitals. It hurts like hell, but it's better than suffering a broken arm. I've also been teargassed before. Anyone who's been through basic training has. I get the outrage, but I think that outrage is overwrought all the same.

My first FPS was Wolfenstein 3D. What's funny is that folks probably think of it as a precursor to DOOM, but I played the earlier Escape from Castle Wolfenstein, which wasn't an FPS at all. I thought it would be a sequel, but it was a new game. You were still escaping from Wolfenstein, but instead of being an English soldier, you were American, and instead of using a variety of tools and even some stealthy moves, you were basically gunning everything down everything that moved. I think some new FPS lose some of the charm of the ol' run and gun style FPS games. I did enjoy some sort of zombies game that came packaged with Black Ops. That one really gets back to mindlessly slaughtering endless foes but the main game has a lot of new and creative ideas.

I can't speak for Walsh, but, from his post, I don't think he's advocating censorship. I was a bit confused by the T1, T2, T3 thing, but that's undoubtedly ignorance on my part about the terminology. I agree with him about the fact that all ideas aren't good ideas, but they should remain free. I agree with Grom that people, whether in minority or majority, should be protected from government oppression. Of course, in a representative government, the majority is usually pretty well protected since they have the largest influence on the government. I'll be the odd man out on one thing, though. I don't necessarily think that the Davis police were wrong to use pepper spray to remove the protesters. The occupy movement has every right to speak, but that does not mean they have the right to take up residence in off limit areas in defiance of the law. It does not mean that they have the right to present a health hazard to the rest of the community. The University has not only the right but the obligation to uphold the law. I mean, if the KKK had set up a tent city in the same place, a lot of the folks crying foul right now would be cheering the police and chancelor for removing them. The means of removing the occupiers (pepper spray) is arguably much safer for both the police and the mobs than handling them bodily.

I played a bit of PST with the wife again and a bit of skyrim. I hope to get some gaming done this week as best I can.

I've enjoyed the little bit I've played so far, but I don't feel any attachment to the quests at all. One particular quest I did was more brutal than the rest, though. I'm playing on expert and my full blown mage had to kill off the leader of these little gollum looking bastards who can cast spells. I had to get really tricky with the scenery to knock off the head honcho. I also killed one of those old dwarvish constructs and got some sweet loot. I shamelessly took advantage of the environment with him and he was a hell of a lot easier than that falmer gloomwhatzits guy. Overall, the game seems to be progressing quickly. I've played up to level six. It's no FO3/New Vegas, but it's an okay game. I don't mind spending the money on it. There are two main gripes I have. No flying, which I loved in Morrowind. I hate the interface generally and the dialogue trees specifically. Of course, the dialogue itself doesn't help.

Yeah, you can't really discuss anything in history without asking why and with what immediate outcomes. My point isn't to discourage that sort of thinking. That's great stuff and is why I love history also. Like I said, you have to engage in a certain amount of what if. It's the point at which you stop, which should be well before what if and becomes this is exactly what would have happened that ceases to be history. :cant's handing Gorth a cold brew icon: EDIT: As usual, my own cold brew had me put in the exact opposite word I mean.

I don't mind folks arguing from a historical perspective. I mean, it did happen, so counterfactuals only go so far but you have to engage in that sort of thinking to a degree. What folks do, however, is take that event, say the bombing of Japanese cities with nuclear weapons, and use it as a way to castigate the Truman administration and America. That line of reasoning is ridiculous. Argument over policy should be forward thinking. If it goes back to historical events, it should do so only to highlight possible future outcomes, not as a political weapon to castigate one side or another. So, getting too deep in the weeds in terms of arguing about how one side should have done this particular thing better as a sort of oblique attack on current nations, administrations, or populations is idiotic. I wish I had taken a different example. The bombing makes it seem like this is an issue I have as an American, but folks creating whole alternate histories that they present as the basis for a different world today based on small changes in history is ridiculous. Take a different example: If the Athenians had sent more folks to islands while Attica was overrun, they would have avoided the outbreak of plague and therefore won the war after several years instead of losing it after almost three decades of ugly fighting. There's no way to prove that theory. It provides an interesting conversation piece, but it isn't particularly fruitful in the long run otherwise. The problem is, considering other possibilities is one of the hallmarks of certain historiographical philosophies, which is fine for what it is. You have to be able to think of the alternate possibilities in order to form a cogent argument about actual outcomes. But an entire work that says that this specific line of events would have been the outcome of a single change defies reasoning. Multiple changes make the matter worse and the line of outcomes starts as little more than educated guessing and gets worse very quickly. EDIT: and, no, arguing about motivations is centered on the events as they occured, not as you think they should have. I mean, mind reading has its own pitfalls, but saying that the administration did it because they hated Asians is different than saying that the war would have ended almost as quickly with virtually no additional loss of life if we hadn't bombed the Japanese.