Amentep

I think the right tact for a new & review outlet to take would be to be guided by the phrase "It is not enough to do no wrong, one must avoid the appearance of impropriety". While I don't think supporting a Kickstarter itself is grounds for recusing from covering the Kickstarted game (because we know that not everyone who kickstarts a game is going to love the finished product), it'd be best if its mentioned in the article that the writer had supported a Kickstarter just to keep disclosures consistent. I'd generally argue the same for Patreon payments. Other types of relationships probably should end up with that writer not covering the product.

Zoo is kinda ridiculous, but I liked it enough to watch it again next week.

Sorry, wasn't meaning to make you feel bad; I did think supporting the publication of Hogan having sex in private with another man's wife because adultry was immoral was dispicable. Neither Hogan or the other man's wife really "deserved" their intimate moments to be posted to the internet. You did make me feel bad but I don't blame you....you played the guilt card marked with fact. There is a difference between Zoe Quinn who was a no name, diffident , depressed programmer having an affair with some equally no name " gaming journalist " and Hogan the super-celebrity sleeping with his friends wife...yet they are also similar so I had to concede I was wrong I'm not aware that a Zoe Quinn secretly made, non-consented to sex tape had surfaced (I understand people found a nude photo shoot or video or something she'd did years ago that was online and pointed it out in public, but not a sex tape made without her consent). That said the only aspect of the Zoe Quinn stuff that should ever have been of interest is the potential conflict of interest in the Journalist's article had their been press created that didn't disclose the relationship. The relationship is - as it should be - a non-issue of itself and (IMO) Zoe Quinn took the brunt of a lot of unfair remarks and criticisms when - realistically - the problem wasn't with any group of pairs of people and their relationship but whether there was an undisclosed bias behind the press created by the journalists. One of the biggest problems (IMO) with the GG narrative is the claim that it's about games journalism (which can be a valid point of concern) and turning it into these personal digressions. I'm still not 100% sure why Anita got dragged into it other than a large section of the online gaming community have a mad on hate for her and MacIntosh. In short, talking about "Writer A" being paid through Patreon by "Developer B" where "Writer A" wrote a glowing review of "Developer B"'s product without disclosing the financial relationship is a problem. Talking about "Writer A" sleeping with the best friend of his/her boy/girlfriend, who is the second cousin thrice removed from "Developer B"'s maiden aunt's next door's neighbor is a bunch of hooey, IMO. Talking about the personal life may be relevant to conflicts with specific articles, but often it seems like gossipy speculation (if not character assassination). Again, IMO.

Not if one of the groups is wearing hazmat suits. The hazmat suits would get dirty. And in taking them off the people inside might get dirty. And the person who cleans them might get dirty. And the person inside might get dirty if the suit isn't properly sealed... ...what was my point again? Sorry, wasn't meaning to make you feel bad; I did think supporting the publication of Hogan having sex in private with another man's wife because adultry was immoral was dispicable. Neither Hogan or the other man's wife really "deserved" their intimate moments to be posted to the internet.

I think the weird thing is that (so far at least) there's been little real benefit to it being Malcolm in the book, so retconning the previous book seems odd.

...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand). Lets not degrade both sides to the lowest closest denominator...GG is still worse than anti-GG at the end of the day if you look at everything that occurred ? When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty?

Awkward. EDIT: Aaaaand that would have worked better on the bottom of the last page instead of the top of a new page. ... So yeah, I'm still working on Crichton's THE LOST WORLD.

...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand).

ANW is an awfully fun show to watch. Although I felt bad for some of the contestants who ended up being out due to some unfortunate blunders.

^That picture isn't horror enough?

I would have loved it if they kept the original ending with John Connor dying and them putting his face on Marcus's body and him taking over as leader of the resistance. Ditto, that's where the film felt it was going and it would have been a nice twist on the "annointed one" storyline that had been running (with Original John Connor essentially so prepped for his "Destiny Moment" he was incapable of being a real leader).

Maybe Avellone will just be sitting in the audience to troll the Obsidian Panel.

Introduction to an Avengers 50th anniversary @ Chichester University from Mr. Macnee in 2011. Ended up watching "The Cybernauts" and "Dead Man's Treasure". Sadly I don't have copies of any of the existing Cathy Gale episodes or the Tara King season.

2nd mission in Fallout Tactics looming tonight. Hope I recognize "raider in a red jacket" contact and don't blow him away. Friendly fire...it happens.

Depends on where you live. They still find unexploded cannonballs from the US Civil War in a lot of the big battleground states. But probably not so much from 600 BC (but hey it is theoretically possible).

Rip Patrick Macnee. Going to try and squeeze in a few avengers eps tonight or tomorrow

I started belly crawling through the wasteland sniping an people's ankles in FALLOUT TACTICS, the only Fallout game I've never played.

I wouldn't have known about it at all if it hadn't become an internet issue. Mind you, I've never played a GTA game, so...

Interesting; I obviously just went through on Normal being an of-average-cleanliness normal player. But large changes to stats when I played around with the PC stats with the console didn't seem to make much of a difference in attacks outside anything that effected the deflection bonus (which seemed to make the most difference in Combat). I guess I didn't test enough spells with effects to see how the benefits worked with respect to duration.

Given the normalization of the impact of stats in the game, would bumping the stats for enemies really alter combat meaningfully? Or do the enemy stats work differently than the PC/NPC stats?

Thing is the people who believe the Confederate Stars and Bars flag means something aren't the kind who'll hear the message; they're most likely already inclined to not trust the government.

As I understand it the connection is that its Gawker Media (the owner of Kotaku and io9 amid others) that published the video (which was made in secret and published without Hogan's - or presumably his partner's - consent), so the question becomes if Kotaku is backed by a company that doesn't act ethically, how can we expect Kotaku to? This could be a spurious connection depending on reporting structure and control/lack of control between parent and subsidiaries...

So you're okay with people videotaping in secret and without consent (like they did Hogan) and subsequently releasing it to the public as long as the person involved was doing something you declare immoral? That's kind of a despicable position to take, I hope you realize. You're essentially saying that personal rights only matter for moral people and immoral people can have their rights violated because they are immoral.

The thing is that they knew enough of Rocky to make a quip about how it would be better to communicate to them in terms of more obscure directors which are lauded for their talent. So they clearly knew that Rocky as part of pop culture and they used the contrast to communicate a bit about themselves. Namely that they are pretentious twats that consume not for joy but because they want to feel superior to others. I don't think that they meant to come off that way but nature will out. BTW, if you need a good contrast of what an actual cinephile behaves like you only need to look to our own Amentep who manages to be passionate about film without being smug about it. Kudos. Thanks for the compliments.

Reminds me of Barefoot, Kentucky. Kentucky also has a "Thousandsticks" and "Topmost" amid many, many colorful placenames ("Big Bone Lick State Park")