Amentep

These forum's moderation has always seemed to operate under a "no harm/no foul" rule. Or put another way, that if - instead of clicking the "report" button because someone posts a personal attack against you in a disagreement, you respond with your own personal attacks - more than likely the mods are going to let it slide unless you continue to virtually pull hair for a couple of pages or a third party complains. My experience is that most people who get into these kinds of arguments are giving as good as they got. At that point it becomes a case of "who shot John?". Poster 1: "He threw the first punch!" Poster 2: "No he threw one five pages ago!" Poster 1: "He threw one on this other thread!" Poster 2: "But he threw one in a thread before that!" Poster 1: "Oh but this all started when he threw a punch in a thread three years ago!" Poster 2: "You punched me four years ago!" And at that point the mod questions the sanity of their decision to join the mod team and punishes both people, which then leads to all of Poster 1's and Poster 2's pals complaining that the mods were heavy handed because THEIR pal didn't start it, the other guy did so why is THEIR pal getting punished and how this would never happen at the RPG Codex and we get pages and pages of people whinging about draconian moderation and Bioware's and Bethesda's forums (because people here always complain about Bioware and Bethesda) and the mods vodka intake increases 20% and they lay low for awhile. ... I might have went overboard with the hyperbole there. Sorry. ... Anyhow, I do agree the Trolling rule reads a bit weird. I think its missing some words. I italicized an example and what I think needs a fix: "It's OK to say you don't like a game, but referring to another company's employees or the company itself to troll or harass is simply not be tolerated here. Posts which intentionally attack another game company and/or it's employees will be deleted and the member censured accordingly" At the very least the phrase "...or the company itself is simply not be tolerated here." needs to be changed.

If only the new trolls would quit posing "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", the old one would slumber in R'lyeh still...

In 1920 a 54 year-old Harry Houdini and a 61 year-old Arthur Conan Doyle met. They shared an interest in spiritualism (Houdini trying to contact his mother; Doyle trying to contact his first wife, son, brother and two brother-in-laws). They became friends. But Houdini - knowing a thing or two about cold reading amid other stage magic misdirections - couldn't let fake psychics stand and so began exposing their tricks. He was so good that Doyle became convinced that Houdini was an unwitting pyschic who was blocking other psychics from using their powers. They had a falling out, ruining the friendship. And then Houdini died in 1926. By 1920, the first woman with arrest powers in the English police force, Mrs. Edith Smith had been vested as such for 5 years and was 2 years in service as head of the Metropolitan Women Police Patrols (whose first 25 members, unlike Mrs. Smith, did not have arrest powers). This development had been started in 1914 when Margaret Dawson and Nina Boyle convinced the Commisioner at the time to hire women officer (as the Women's Police Volunteers - later Women's Police Service) to deal with wartime manpower shortages as well as to specifically deal with female prostitutes. This brings me to the rather anachronistic Houdini and Doyle - already aired in England and Canada and premiering on FOX last night. Presumably so no one would have to see an aging and bald Houdini team up with an aging Doyle, the grand meeting of the 2 is recast in 1901. Houdini, 35, had ended his 6 month run at the Alhambra Theater and would have been touring the rest of Great Britain. His press for a handcuff escape that baffled Scotland Yard would have been a year old at that time is still a sore point with the local police (but apparently Houdini is pals with the Commisioner of Scotland Yard). Doyle, 42, had published his book on the Boer War. Holmes had been gone for 8 years and its unclear if this is prior to The Strand serializing THE HOUNDS OF THE BASKERVILLES (Aug 1901 - Apr 1902) but I suspect before given the talk with the book seller. The premier has the pair - already knowing each other and a bit antagonistic towards the other's beliefs. Houdini is presented as a high level skeptic. Doyle as someone desperate to believe. They are joined by Adelaide Stratton, the first woman at Scotland Yard who is assigned to babysit Houdini and Doyle who are both interested in a Ghost Murder case. The trio argue, bumble around and eventually all figure out the mystery separately in time to reveal what really had happened. If you accept that the setting is wrong/alternate universe with respect to history[1] for any of the events portrayed and ignore the modern dialogue (at one point Houdini anachronistically dismisses a claim by Doyle with 'Garbage in, Garbage out' a term applied in Computer Science and here created 57 years prior[2] to its first known appearance in print leading to some guffaws from this viewer), the mystery is actually not bad. For a first episode, considering they have to sell us on the characters as much as set up a mystery, it does its job of defining the main characters and their conflicts (Houdini and Doyle with each other, Stratton with her superiors) fairly well. And the mystery buff can always appreciate settings that play up the need for clues/clews as opposed to jamming trace evidence in a machine that shakes and using a computer to blow up a picture image far past the amount of data it contains to get the vital information to solve the case ala modern Forensic-based mysteries. While the first episode explains all the supernatural events in the mystery Scooby-Doo style, there are hints the supernatural might be real in an X-Files sort of way. Logically able to contain the series in a End-of-the-Victorian-Era-That-Never-Was reality, there's enough here that I want to see if, in future episodes and having set up the setting and characters, they manage to make something of the series concepts and improve the central relationships to more than shouty matches between Houdini and Doyle. But if one is looking for an alternate-history mystery series, Canada's Murdoch Mysteries does it better (if you can deal with Murdoch creating just about every scientific advance to criminology for several decades well before it actually happened and the on-again/off-again romance between Murdoch and female pathologist Dr. Ogden with all their longing stares and inability to actually talk about what they feel). [1]To further the idea that this is an alternate universe Houdini and Doyle, Houdini's wife's name is changed from Wilhelmina Beatrice ("Bess") to Cecilia. Also I'm not aware of Doyle's wife being in a coma; she died of tuberculosis in 1906 but I don't recall her being incapacitated more than typical with that disease. [2]It should be pointed out that the concept was recognized by Babbage in 1864, but not articulated as GIGO by him; so Houdini saying it here strikes me as a huge anachronism. In fact no one really talks much like they're in Victorian England and Doyle doesn't sound Scottish like he should. I'm not sure what Houdini sounds like, his accent is weird but then Houdini family was from Budapest and he spent his developing years in Detroit. But hey, alternate universe.

we liked dredd, but the titular character works much better in comic books than he does in film. have an actor do dredd for +90 minutes? can't be easy. is a kewl character, but if you want character development in a dredd movie/show, it is gonna need come from the villains and from other judges. perhaps make a dredd kinda like the 1982 conan? arnold got a couple o' unforgettable scenes in conan, but his job were to be tough for +90 minutes... let james earl jones, max von sydow and even mako do the heavy lifting. am knowing it sounds odd, but am thinking you need to take considerable focus off of dredd to make a dredd show or movie work. dredd is more a function o' setting than actual character. he... is. as to the budget, we didn't mind dredd's dirty, ultraviolent, dystopia filmed almost entirely within a single grimy urban housing development. kinda reminded us o' the raid: redemption. HA! Good Fun! I think that's the reason both films got POV characters (Fergee and Hershey in the first, Anderson in the second) - Dredd doesn't change. I liked the urban housing, but when you looked at the exteriors they couldn't really match what JUDGE DREDD did on a bigger budget (not that it ultimately mattered to the movie itself).

I actually don't dislike Rob in JUDGE DREDD. There's actually a lot that works there, but it lacked focus because they tried to jam too many stories into one movie - rebuilt ABC Robot rampage, Dredd/Rico/clones, Exile to the Cursed Earth, the Angel Family. But anyhow Schneider serves as a voice for the audience who doesn't get a lot of what's going on, but can ask the questions the audience might have and do so in a way to elicit a chuckle. DREDD though is a tighter story with laser focus. It does lack the previous films budget to realize MegaCity 1 though.

No.

I think all three of you are right. Well more specifically Laci Green and MRA guy are both right because you are right that the general theme is about prejudice. Laci is right because the "prey species" are represented by two major female characters (Judy and Dawn) who are trying to get ahead in the big city where the power structures we see are all represented by men (Bogo, Lionheart, Mr. Big). MRA dude is right because Judy learns not to give up on her dream because the world is against her - she can (and does) her job and ultimately the world changed to oblige her determination and skill. But both of those readings are really there because the bigger theme is more generically prejudice and how it can shape the individual and society negatively (another lesson Judy has to learn about herself).

Has anyone actually ever been banned, outside of spambots? I couldn't name anyone. Personally I like it that way. You can always head out to RPGWatch or SA for stricter moderation... or the KKKodex for the opposite. Here? I think so. Wasn't originally the late Vicseris banned and came back under other names? At BIS & Interplay, I know we banned a bunch of people.

am admitted interested not in lara croft/tomb raider, but if a filmmaker is planning on doing multiple actiony movies with the same attractive female lead, it makes sense to start with a younger actress. gotta plan for future, no? hope for three movies and you are gonna be looking at at least five years between filming o' the first and third flick, no? HA! Good Fun! Indeed, which is why everyone was putting money on 24 year old Daisy Ridley.

Given that they're planning to follow re-boot Lara, I think looking young will be a plus.

Jolie was 26. Not much difference there, to be honest. I've liked Vikander in everything I've seen, she's a strong actress (even if Daisy Ridley seemed to be more like Reboot Lara made flesh).

Watching this video is kind of depressing.

Opening naming suggestions to the public - particularly in a case like this - is probably an exercise in fruitless endeavors. Amid the noms they got not listed in the screenshot: Adam Lanza School of Fun Austin Taliban Elementary School Boaty McBoatface Elementary Coach Tom Landry Elementary Dwayne Johnson Elementary Flava Flav Elementary Forgetting Your Past Dooms You To Repeat It Elementary Fuccon Elementary Generic School Name Hypothetical Perfect Person Memorial Elementary James Earl Ray Elementary Jefferson Davis Elementary John Bell Hood Elementary Orenthal James Simpson Elementary Rudolph Hess Elementary Schooly McSchoolerson Schooly McSchoolerton The Elementary Formerly Known as Robert E. Lee Elementary The Illuminati Elementary Werner Von Braun Institute of Science and Technology

Obs didn't have a forum for NWN2 when the game was new...why would they have one once the game got old?

Imagine if all those 80's action movies took the sensibilities of the audience in the Soviet Union seriously. Hollywood as a whole - due to the less internationally focused business climate and the cold war - probably had little interest in the theater markets in the USSR or China.

Yeah, it really is a two way situation. If either side can't let go, can't accept the things that can't change, can't accept that sometimes compromise doesn't mean 50-50 but you don't get what you want and they do (or vice versa) then the relationship is going to derail, in my experience.

Bah. It is boring if you get on all the time. Must be my childhood but I always find people that act as if fights in a relationship are bad. Is a good stress reliever and hardens one up. Fighting /= plotting death That's a highly illogical claim to make without meeting everyone. Or at least a sensor reading. FWIW taking the topic mildly seriously...the ideal partner is going to be the one who you like enough to live with the stuff you don't like.

You two might want to consider dating outside the League of Assassins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NF5XU-k2Vk

Twin Peaks revival cast list is...big. http://welcometotwinpeaks.com/news/twin-peaks-cast-list/ Or a tabled version - http://tvline.com/2016/04/25/twin-peaks-revival-cast-list-showtime/

Looks like "We don't care" to me. Not a Braille expert though.

Yes, I am suggesting that. Because the problem is (as they always are) bigger than any single "magic bullet" solution can ever manage to solve. Making things illegal only affects the people who care about the legality of what they're doing. In the case of mass shootings, the fact that homicide is already illegal wasn't a deterrent; it is highly unlikely that making it also illegal to have a gun would have any significant effect. Solving the problem of mass shootings is only possible when society as a whole starts looking at the multiple factors that lead people to the point that mass death seems to be a logical choice, and working back from that trying to mitigate those factors. "Magic bullets" need not apply. I'm not convinced the only viable reason for wanting stricter gun control is that it would prevent mass shootings, though. I'm pretty sure that the line of discussion leading to my post was specific about gun control as a way to solve mass shootings, though.

Boring is worse than bad, IMO. Bad can be entertaining. Boring can't.

Yes, I am suggesting that. Because the problem is (as they always are) bigger than any single "magic bullet" solution can ever manage to solve. Making things illegal only affects the people who care about the legality of what they're doing. In the case of mass shootings, the fact that homicide is already illegal wasn't a deterrent; it is highly unlikely that making it also illegal to have a gun would have any significant effect. Solving the problem of mass shootings is only possible when society as a whole starts looking at the multiple factors that lead people to the point that mass death seems to be a logical choice, and working back from that trying to mitigate those factors. "Magic bullets" need not apply.

Alls I'm saying is that you treat people differently based on their gender. For shame BVC, for shame. The only way to right this wrong and rebalance the universe is for you to to go out this weekend and blow a wad of cash on some strippers. Sorry it had to come to this. Well gfted1 lets be honest....can you give me what a stripper can give me....if you can I'll be super nice to you, trust me I have a sales role and can be very obsequious when required D: