Amentep

Don't have a dog in this horse race, as I do think in general at some point a Stronghold should become self-sufficient after a certain tipping point, but... The meaning Gromnir appears to be using is referenced in this link: Logic. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional. In this case the syllogism is IF you have hired hirelings AND IF you rest an infinite number of times THEN you will expend all of your money on hirelings. "Not Hypothetical" in this context would be "I rested 9,5028 times and having hired hirelings, I ran out of money" Note that based on the programing, this hypothetical situation is true (both in given propositions and in conclusion). The real question is whether the probability of the true, hypothetical situation is such that it creates a real problem, or is the probability on the level of being struck by lightning and therefore for 99% of the players the effect of infinite resting while having hirelings will never be apparent.

There was an RPG (that shall remain nameless) in the early 1990s that had a vague description of where to go next. So vague that I logged a couple of hours in the game doing nothing but trying to find the quest before giving up By 1993, I was on USENET and remembered I'd never beat the game and found online where I was supposed to go. Turns out I was walking on the wrong side of a narrow track of land. I needed to walk up the OTHER side to trigger the next part of the quest.

I'm not talking about my personal feelings because I'm trying not to make this about personal feelings. Here is what I'm seeing: Woman accuses guy of rape More women accuse guy of rape People complain the public isn't believing the weight of the accusations against guy and point to this being a "Rape Culture" that denies rape and enable rapists So my questions stands, how should society treat a guy accused of rape so as to not be a part of "rape culture"? Should we fire him? Boycott his work? What if we don't employ him and never bought his work? How do we demonstrate that we don't support rape? What vigilante justice will make our society right in light of accusations - regardless of how many - that have never led to a court decision? So its okay to "make it real" without his day in court? What penalty should be lodged by society towards the accused to show it has been made real?

Haw haw, the fries and coke are "expansion packs". Expanding your girth, amirite? :biggrin:

I don't think anyone took the stories more seriously because some comedian said something. But my point is what defines taking the accusations seriously in the first place? Somebody is accused of rape by multiple people. What should our reaction be? make the accused the subject of gossip and rumor? assume the accused is guilty until proven innocent? publicly denounce the accused for their alleged actions? shun the accused? ensure the accused loses their job and livelyhood? ensure the accused loses custody of their children? ensure that the accused is cut off from all ties to the human race? In short, what precisely is the appropriate reaction when a person has been accused as opposed to found guilty (criminal) or liable (civil)? I'm not talking about whether a person thinks he's guilty or not. What I'm talking about is what is the desired reaction to an accusation of rape? Because what is apparent is that there are people who believe that we should treat an accusation of rape as proof of rape. That apparently giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt as opposed to storming their house and tarring and feathering them isn't the right reaction. So tell me, how should we react to demonstrate we are against rape? Not intentionally I'm not. Again as I said yesterday I've made no claims intentionally regarding people making up their own mind or forming their own opinions. But you - amid the news reporter-pundit types as well - keep talking about how "the general public has failed to take the stories seriously". So here's my question, how are we supposed to demonstrate that we take the stories seriously? What does that mean? What rights do we deprive the accused of to demonstrate that we're taking these accusations seriously? This is the point I'm getting at.

Why? I appreciate the fact you seem to want to have a real debate but you realize that the words " culture of rape " was used in the original article I posted See below, so it wasn't my words it was CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/20/opinion/hill-bill-cosby-case-rape-culture/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 From that article So I'm going to ask you, Bruce, since this is one of the main criticisms over the reaction to the allegations against Cosby, that people don't immediately start treating people like rapists when someone accuses them of doing such... ...is that what you really want to end "Rape Culture"? To not have people wait for an outcome of a civil or state trial but to accept any accusation so long as the source is "credible" or that there are many sources or that there are many incidents over a long period of time?

Yeah, I wouldn't say its an injustice to say that, and that wasn't what I was trying to imply. The testimony certainly puts additional details in the face of the public that wasn't there previously, so I imagine more people are thinking that without the legality of a trial.

Actually confession does not mean you are guilty, legally. You'd still have to be tried and your confession could be used as evidence against you (otherwise every person with some form of mental illness who confessed to a crime would be guilty of that crime). However, since Cosby's guilt or innocence wasn't really the point of my post, only to try to counter the incorrect statements that Cosby had confessed to being a "habitual rapist" and that "50 accusations = guilt", I must admit that I'm failing to see the point in splitting this semantic hair any further.

In US Legal system, a man is innocent until proven guilty. So far he has not been proven guilty (or even liable in a civil case - I believe he settled the only lawsuit against him). This has nothing to do with my personal opinion of the situation. All I offered was a counter to two things I found troubling - the sensationalistic claims that Cosby admitted to drugging multiple unwilling women (which doesn't appear to be true from his statements I've read, as they only discuss one woman and one incident) and the very concept that an accusation (or even multiple accusations) are proof of guilt without there being a legal trial to assign guilt/liability/culpability. If 50 people accused you of rape, do you want the legal system to assume you are guilty and throw you in jail? Or would you rather the legal system provide you and your accusers equal opportunity to prove with facts the claims or to counter with facts a defense against them? In Finland that would mean that he raped those women if he had sex with them after giving quaaludes, because they are in state where their control over their body and mind are severely impaired, meaning that they can't give their consent for any actions after the fact. So his confession means to me that it is OK call him rapist regardless what US law or courts says about it, because he confessed action that would be counted as rape in country where I live. Of course if he can prove that women consented to unconscious sex before they took the drug, then situation is of course different, but I have not seen any such proof from him. I never said you couldn't hold a personal opinion, did I? All I said is that there hasn't been a legal finding (even the case where he made his admission was settled out of court, so ultimately he still stands innocent legally, as I understand it) and that an accusation isn't proof that something happened.

Cosby hasn't been convicted of anything, only accused; if you read the information the AP got (rather than some of the sensationalistic news articles) as far as I can tell, Cosby admitted to giving quaaludes to a woman who willingly and knowingly took it. He has continued to deny alligations he gave the drug to unwilling women. From the linked article: So we should take an accusation of crime on face value? Note I didn't believe or disbelieve the victims; I do think that guilt and/or liability is decided in a court of law not by people making accusations, and accusations - in and of themselves - aren't grounds to assume that something is true. Can you imagine a world if a person was considered guilty anytime someone accused them of rape until they could prove they weren't?

Saw the new Terminator over the weekend. I thought it was fun, albeit it had some odd elements implying some editing to the movie.

Eh, we have the death penalty and personally I'd rather we didn't - if nothing else because the system can't guarantee a conviction actually means the person is guilty (as DNA re-reviews of convictions has shown us in several cases, but even before that things like Erle Stanley Gardner's "Court of Last Resort" showed the same.). At least if the person is alive you can release them. Can't rectify the situation if they're executed.

Eh, IMO, Malcador is right that the sun probably was a factor. That said, also IMO, Japan's goalkeeper was playing too far forward for her height & speed; a taller goalkeeper or a faster one could make up for playing that far forward. It was clear she wasn't able to make up the distance so probably shouldn't have been that far out.

Nah, they're not going to make a single clone of Shepard. They're going to make *2* clones of Shepard, one for you to play and one for you to romance. Seriously though, I liked the series (admittedly decreasingly during each installment) so I'm curious - if they can recapture the best parts of the series for a full game, then the game will be worth playing.

Anita is a journalist? What publication(s) does she work for? What games has she reviewed or previewed as a writer for said publication?

Yeah one of the big faults of Infinity (IMO) is they don't have a cool generic world for the Toy Box characters and making one with any depth seems to always be more problematic than you think it should be.

They have enough fantasy kingdoms and fantasy objects they could probably do a pretty solid high fantasy story. Make Chernabog the main villain somewhere in it, and I'd be for it.

lol. I think two of the hotels still exist (International and Hilton?)

I know he was, but I didn't think you or MISO was, so Iz confuzzled.

Looks like the only stretch goal that wasn't hit was the Hireling Deck.

Haven't been for a while, but I enjoy the off-strip casinos as much as the wretched-excess monuments. The ones with gold lightbulb marquees and buffets for retired people. Next time I go, I'd like to catch a Supercross race, or bomb Natties with rednecks at the Speedway. No I wouldn't. Yes I would. The dirtbikes anyway. Monster Energy girls carry signs on the track that say "30 Seconds to Go" which somehow seems familiar and shameful at the same time. Why do you guys leave out the strip clubs ? Are you embarrassed...please dont tell me you guys did nothing similar to that in Vegas Mmm...I may be misunderstanding this conversation, but "off-strip" Casino mean "off the Vegas strip" not "off-strip clubs". The main casinos in downtown Las Vegas were clustered along a strip bordered by certain roads (Los Vegas Hwy, Russel Rd, Sahara Avenue and Freemont Street, I think); other gambling establishments originally that weren't in the strip were outside the city limit. I've never been to Los Vegas, but if I did I'd probably try to go to all of the places (still existing) that appeared in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER...

I love it when people think that making up cute names for games somehow strengthens their points, and how hating a game - but playing it to the end - somehow makes their hate more legit. Generally speaking, I advise if you hate a game - stop playing it. (That said, I've not played Witcher 3 and probably won't ever play it having played none of the serious and finding myself uninterested in it from what I've seen here).

Own goals suck. When in high school, I was subbing as keeper and got own goaled because I stumbled on a no pressure passback by a defender and missed the pickup. Mortifying, truly mortifying. Thankfully my side still ended up winning, 6-3.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people dislike the Anita/McIntosh posts & videos. However, understanding that perception of a large issue that you're not actively involved in is always unreliable, I have to say the first references to Anita in the GG/anti-GG writings I saw was the GG side bringing her in, not her inserting herself in. Given that she's not a journalist but a "researcher", she seemed an odd target for a group that was arguing for ethics in journalism. If the nightly news ran a daily story on the person who stands on a street corner preaching the end of the world and treated the claims as truth, tailoring their newscast to bolster the end of the world claims, you could certainly complain about the journalistic side of it, but complaining about the person preaching the end of the world is a fruitless endeavor.

Inspiration: Avoid for Inspiration