Amentep

It is when that's not the one being debated. Which was, in fact my point (I think we actually agree on this as what we're both trying to get at is that the important thing is to have a common reference for concepts being used in discussion). And in several places that's what I've seen regarding sexim, to wit: "Those guys are sexist!" "What about these women saying #killallmen?" "Lol, women can't be sexist, they're oppressed." "What, hating gender isn't based on who is oppressed, its based on hating a gender." "Lol, you can only have sexism if you're oppressed. Anything else isn't sexism." "But the definition..." "Lol, you're using definitions...that's so 1980" etc, etc. Really? That's a rather...bold claim. I'm looking forward to your proof that everyone in the world is, in fact, guilty of some form of racism.

So there's "good racism" and "bad racism"? Its only bad if it "affects their lives on a daily basis"? But otherwise racism is okay? I never said any of that. Try again. You implied it or perhaps I inferred it, hence my question. If, as I follow your argument (but maybe I'm confusing several arguments together), racism has to have a component of systematic oppression (ie that there is a dominant race in the culture) and that while there can be "racism" against the dominate race, that because they're are systematically supported (or perhaps just not actively oppressed) the racism against the oppressed cultures are the ones that "matter" and "racism" against the dominate race is irrelevant. Therefore it is okay ("allowable", "good") to have racism against the dominate race but not okay ("forbidden", "bad") to have racism against the oppressed groups.

So there's "good racism" and "bad racism"? Its only bad if it "affects their lives on a daily basis"? But otherwise racism is okay? "People" don't redefine words. Use by society redefines words. A person can't redefine a word, for example, to ensure that they win a debate because their opponent is no longer arguing with a shared context.

I've seen nothing that indicates there is any serious thought behind doing Howard the Duck again. Realistically, they have a lot more world building to do before HtD would make sense. As a side note, I still remember seeing HtD in the theaters on opening weekend.

One time I played BG1 and got to Serevok and CLUAconsoled in an army of Drrzt's and Sarevok killed them all. It was sad. Or funny, depending on your perspective.

I wasn't here when the original discussion happened. If I were, I might have said: Not really, for any set of numbers where addition and multiplication are defined, there will be an X where X + X = Y*X where Y signifies the doubling of X. Its a property of the relationship of addition and multiplication; if you're in a number "set" that can't do this then adding and multiplying can't be defined for that set. If I remember correctly.

You're throwing the soul of the dirt into the soul of their eyes. Just remember when you blind an ooze in his soul, it's striking its ooze on your soul. You've been soul oozed. (the above may not be serious) Generally speaking (and more seriously speaking) so far I agree with you. A lot of combat decisions in the game basically fall in "does this character tank or not" and then making sure the tanks attack and everyone else snipes. And have some exit plan for teleporters.

There's only one way out.

Yeah not reading all of the thread to see if anyone suggested it seriously meant that my joke was wasted. For what its worth, I can live with the disconnect of knocking a jelly prone (because its a game rather than a simulation), but it doesn't terribly make a lot of sense removed from a game context (ie if you were writing a PoE novel, writing that Eder knocked the jelly prone would just be silly).

Since everything uses souls and soul power in the game...you're probably knocking that jelly's soul prone and blinding the eyeless creature's soul so it can't sense however it is that it senses with its soul. This means fire burns the Flame Blights soul too.

Gfted1 might have to rethink his drone defense plans: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150413-chimpanzee-drone-curious-clever-chimp-attack-zoo/ Chimps with sticks 1, Drones 0

To be honest, one branch of my family comes from one of the poorest areas of the US. And a lot of the generation that "got out" (and their kids) have weight struggles. I think part of it is not having a strong diet education coupled with the fact that being able to eat what you want, when you want is a sign of affluence when your background is having the cheapest food possible when you didn't have to go without entirely.

You have no freedom on a company owned message board. That's not even to get into the "You can't ban him/her, they're a good poster, that's a stupid rule!" and "Crushing that poster's freedom is wrong!" and "I can't believe Obsidian allows a bunch of Fascists to run their message boards!" emotional appeals every single time some "nitwit" is "crushed". Having the forum enforce a rule is about as impartial as you can get and saves a lot of time and trouble for the mods.

I really liked Wizardry 8 except one thing. Formations. I really hate it in games when the opponent in combat has options that the player can't have. That's a cheap way to make combat "challenging" to me. Often the difficulty in fights in Wiz8 weren't because of facing or poor squad formation or something similar like you'd expect in the style of game. It was because enemy spell lobbers could hit your entire group with spells EVERY ROUND because you were locked in a close formation but because they weren't locked into formation you'd be lucky to hit both of their spell casters at once and you'd rarely get more than one round where you *might* be able to hit most of their group with a spell. Otherwise it was a fun game. Disliked that particular "feature" though something fierce; I don't recall it being a part of the early Wizardry's (which were more traditional - PC/Enemy fight in formation in turns as I recall) and I don't know if that was something that crept into the 4-5 Wizardrys I never played before 8.

I try to get 8. I usually get 7 and take a nap on Saturday or Sunday to restore the loss. And talking about this has made me yawn...

Cauliflower > Broccoli I'm weird on Broccoli and Cauliflower to be honest - love them raw, dislike them cooked. But raw cauliflower is awesome.

Ant-Man was (in the comics) a founding Avenger. That said, he rather quickly became Giant-Man in the comics (a little over a year after his debut). Shrinking dudes were a hard sell in the 1960s (DC's The Atom didn't do well either compared to other Silver Age stalwarts). The longest run for a shrinking hero was Doll Man in the "Golden Age", appearing in 1939 as a headline in Feature Comics and holding two books (Feature and Doll Man) through 1949 (when he was dropped from Feature) and then in 1953 his solo title was cancelled. Of superheroes from the same publisher, only Plastic Man fared better than Doll Man. In comparison to Doll Man's 159 appearances, Ant-Man had 14 before becoming Giant Man, while the Atom lasted 38 issues solo after his 3 issue tryout in SHOWCASE. Obviously teams were a thing in the 1960s that they weren't as much in the 1940s, so Ant-Man and Atom rack up a large number of appearances in teams (Avengers for Ant-Man and Justice League for Atom) that Doll Man didn't (he wasn't added into a team until the early 1970s). Atom's & Hawkman's books were also combined in the late 60s to try and save both low selling titles, giving Atom 7 more appearances as a superhero duo with Hawkman. That's probably more information about shrinking heroes than you ever wanted.

Its funny, I thought the Thing prequel was pretty good...until I watched it with the earlier film. It proved a poor cousin indeed. Although I still enjoyed some parts of it, it's not a patch on either earlier film.

MEGAFORCE (1982) - Stuntmaster Hal Needham's ode to motorcycles and dune buggies. And possibly gay men if you believe modern interpretations of the film. Okay so I watch a lot of bad films. I'm not going to deny it. But even with that background, this movie made me "WTF" several times. At its heart, its a loosely strung together series of stunt setpieces (motorcycle jumps, dune buggy jumps, wheelies) with some action movie explosions (and lasers, because its post STAR WARS). It makes virtually no sense; the plot is about as thin as you'd ever see in any film. With all the explosions and lasers, the most incredible effect might actually be Barry Bostwick's hair, which should have won the Academy Award that year. I'm not sure what category or if Oscar just needed to create a special hair Oscar that year like the Shirley Temple or Snow White special oscars they did in the past. But its totally incredible and unlike anything on film before or since.

I thought hating people for not holding the "right" opinion was what the "SJWs" were supposed to represent. The more I hear from both sides the more they sound like opposite sides of the same coin.

Should be one thread. Unless the posts are problematic, I don't see a reason for mods to nuke threads. It would be nice to have one thread rather than one in each forum.

I'd like to see more wild orlans. And Aumana. And then Godlikes. Also... New Class confirmed?

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." Bye.

I nominate BruceVC to voice every line of dialogue in the game, but in a "romantic" way. This way we get both. Suggestion for Voice Acting model (Male):

Thanks. I stand corrected. But that is one bad graphic (I guess they wanted to take the tumblr text and make it look more like a tweet or something). Reading through the tumblr, I think that's the point.