Amentep

KKK being a conservative organization Abarr is a moron. The KKK were never a 'conservative' organization. It was founded by a bunch of traitors after they lost the civil war. They don't respect traditional American values, nor do they love their country. Imperial Wizard Bradley Jenkins The KKK has wizards! Now I finally get the robes. Maybe they have 'racist a**hole' as a prestige class. They were really more a vigilante group as inititally founded who was dedicated to upholding the "law" of the confederacy in the face of reconstruction than anything else. Vigilante groups have a long history in the US (like the San Francisco Vigilance Movement that was anti-immigration). That said, the branding in 1870 as a terrorist organization is certainly fair in reflection to their status and activities. The Imperial Wizard designation for leaders has been with the group since the original, as have some form of facial coverings to hide identities. I think the robes themselves are more artifacts of the second group, however, and derived from "Birth of a Nation". Hi Amentep " waves " Where have you been ? I was getting worried you were still alive

KKK being a conservative organization Abarr is a moron. The KKK were never a 'conservative' organization. It was founded by a bunch of traitors after they lost the civil war. They don't respect traditional American values, nor do they love their country. Imperial Wizard Bradley Jenkins The KKK has wizards! Now I finally get the robes. Maybe they have 'racist a**hole' as a prestige class. They were really more a vigilante group as inititally founded who was dedicated to upholding the "law" of the confederacy in the face of reconstruction than anything else. Vigilante groups have a long history in the US (like the San Francisco Vigilance Movement that was anti-immigration). That said, the branding in 1870 as a terrorist organization is certainly fair in reflection to their status and activities. The Imperial Wizard designation for leaders has been with the group since the original, as have some form of facial coverings to hide identities. I think the robes themselves are more artifacts of the second group, however, and derived from "Birth of a Nation".

Big Hero 6 - which I enjoyed a lot. Want to see Interstellar, not sure I'm in the mindset for ~3hours of it atm though.

Liked the season opener of SLEEPY HOLLOW last night. They did their best to throw a swerve at the audience.

Can't say I ever got that much into Byrne's Fantastic Four. But then I don't really like the Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four either. Might have been great at the time but (IMO) it's a hard road to travel now. But I heard a lot of great things about Hickman's Fantastic Four and FF and it was as good as advertiesed (again, IMO).

Yeah, divorced of context it has great blub possibilities. The Imaginary Story bit just always gets me. You are now dead to me. DEAD! Nah, I kid. I'm kind of like you on "For The Man Who Has Everything". Both had been hyped to me before I read them; loved WHATEVER HAPPENED TO but wasn't crazy about FOR THE MAN.

I want to read this book. The text is from the introduction to "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" by Alan Moore from SUPERMAN #423 and ACTION COMICS #583 (both September 1986); it was intended to be the "last" of the "classic" Superman stories as DC was rebooting Superman (by John Byrne). It was the last regular issue drawn by legendary Superman artist Curt Swan, had inks by George Perez and included the last Superman work of long time Lois Lane illustrator Kurt Shaffenberger. And its probably one of the best Superman stories ever written (IMO). Collected as a stand alone trade under the WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW? name; as a Hardback under the same name but with the addition of the other Alan Moore Superman story, "For the Man Who Has Everything"; and as part of the collection DC UNIVERSE: THE STORIES OF ALAN MOORE that includes Moore's work on other DCU titles (like "Mogo Doesn't Socialize" from Green Lantern)

I actually quite liked it. Guy who played Keltus was AWFUL though. I dunno if he was awful, but he did seem to be the weakest of the three leads. His story also was the most under-represented (didn't understand who the Prophetess was or the switch up or any of that).

^But are you a crook?

The idea was to say there is value in females and in feminine concepts that weren't being given much attention or recognition. The idea wasn't to be against male and masculine concepts, like you imply. A gender neutral term wouldn't have done that, because by its essence it would have never addressed the "societal value" of masculine or feminine concepts. Whether its necessary to continue with that terminology is a valid argument for now; starting without that terminology probably would not have been terribly successful (particularly considering that the English languages' gender-neutral generic person pronouns are all also the masculine pronouns).

I pre-ordered it based on really enjoying the first one, and we barely touched Toy Box mode (to the point we didn't bother buying Toy Box only figures) are the playseta that bad in this one? They had widely varying gameplay in the first. Loved the Piratws and Monsters University ones The actual gameplay is supposed to be repetitive to a fault. I'm gonna get it anyway. Better to decide for myself if it's fun ... and if not, at least I'll have some cool figures. Plus I'm hoping for a Winter Soldier playset, with Falcon, maybe Agent 13 ... Well the reviews I've read more or less indicate a similar problem to the first set - ie most of the missions are "go here, do that". I'd imagine (and I thought this a potential miscalculation from the begining) is having the major playsets all be tied to the same game mechanics. CARS didn't play like INCREDIBLES which didn't play like PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN which didn't play like MONSTERS UNIVERSITY. But LONE RANGER and TOY STORY (IN SPACE) played a lot like Pirates/Incredibles in their own ways. I'd imagine the three launch sets (only sets?) being Marvel Superheroes means the gameplay is going to be heavily like Incredibles/Toy Story/Pirates/Lone Ranger without the funkyness of CARS' racing theme or MONSTERS pranking theme. Even still both of those had a lot of "go there, do that" quests. So far the reviews have struck me as an expansion of the existing idea than throwing more new stuff out there, and I can understand that there are some things that I think DI could have been improved on that they aren't doing and how that can be off-putting.

It is a mischaracterization to say that the meaning of feminism is not what it means; in context of your post, yes Watson was arguing about the perception of people who apply the word (to self/to others). It doesn't change the meaning of the word as it was originally constructed, however, and Watson makes a fair point that the word would be better reclaimed than allowed to fester because "people" have attempted to alter the meaning beyond what was intended. Yes it is. Based on what it appeared to be you were arguing for was definition by largest definition during use - Volo (when gamer is 51% defined as people who play games): "Gamers means people who play games." Volo (when gamer is 51% defined as white misogynist people who play games): "Gamers are evil mysoginists!" Volo (when gamer is back at 51% defined as people who play games: "Gamers means people who play games." That way leads to not even having a universal context to discuss anything with. Feminine and masculine are descriptos of traits commonly associated with females and males. They are inherently gendered concepts, not inherently sexist. Feminism was coined as a movement to promote that women should be treated as equals to men. That's what it means. For many years people railed against "feminzais" until the point that many just started lumping all feminists together as a monolithic group without understanding the difference between the meaning of the word as coined and the practice of people who adopt the word to describe themselves. Which is, really, the exact same problem with arguing that gamers are white misogynists because white misogynists call themselves gamers. You could refer to her as a strong woman. Also what kind of strong? Strength of will? Of arm? Of mind? Compared to whom? That's a rather skewed view of what feminism means, how it was defined and used. Arguably the use of "feminism" (as opposed to say, gender equality) was to say that women and things feminine have an equal value to men and things masculine, not that to be equal one must be feminine. And that's fine - I think a good argument could be made that groups seeking equality could move to adopt language that was more gender neutral. It doesn't make feminist inherently sexist anymore than gamer is inherently misogynist. Not trolling and no, respectively.

Curse of the Dragon Slayer (aka Curse of the Shadow and SAGA: The Shadow Cabal) (2013) - low budget fantasy film. Fun for what it is, dialogue is rough at times and some of the set up is confusing. But not bad considering that its low budget and all. And it certainly has its fun moments.

And what, pray tell, would that be? I think the idea that the gamer identity is supposed to die is stupid. I also think mischaracterizing feminism is stupid. Personally, I see your stand as inconsistant since your argument isn't based on meaning or even intent of use but on a nebulous "how many people use it in the way described". Which I guess means that once 51% of the people start calling gamers white misogynists you'll be agreeing with the "gamers are evil" stance?

no doubt wals will not be able to understand your pov and questions. *shrug* regardless, having "dated" many very attractive women, we learned that there really is no correlation 'tween initial eye-test attractiveness and performance in bed and/or more meaningful attractiveness. we dated a ballerina/dancer for awhile. she were not classically beautiful, but having seen her perform, we thought she were exquisite. My experience is that a when you get to know a woman well, her personality will make her attractive/not-attractive regardless of where you'd place her on a "beauty" scale. Also, IIRC I've met Toni Morrison sometime after BELOVED was published and she struck me as a fairly nice and intelligent woman.

Your line could be applied to current gamers-flap - "Use a different word. Gamers are immoral and are dead and are anti women." So you're agreeing with the people who think "gamers" is a dead identity?

This news had passed me by but I heard it mentioned on the Fergus MattChatt linked elsewhere - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68559-feargus-urquhart-on-kotor-ii-nwn-ii-fo-new-vegas-matt-chat-part-4-final/ Douglas E. Smith, creator of Lode Runner has passed away. Loved Lode Runner back in the day, spent a lot of time playing it. RIP. https://news.yahoo.com/douglas-smith-creator-1980s-pc-160102650.html

^it was posted a couple of weeks ago, based on the date. If he's to respond, I'd suspect he already had.

I guess when a lot of the alternatives boil down to "the love of your life has been corrupted so you must execute her in cold blood", even Dear Esther is starting to look good. I've never actually seen that scenario in a game. BG2, although you could resurrect them and it could be a dude. You almost make it sound like when you bring them back their gender is randomly assigned. Which might have made BG2 even more interesting. And possibly prevented the Aerie-baby-as-inventory-item bit if she'd come back as a dude. Chris Redfield has to sorta-kinda-almost kill Jill Valentine in RE5 while she's under Wesker's control. But there seems like there should be a big obvious one somewhere in the back of my mind that fits this scenario.

I admit that this reflects a trend I've found unsettling for several years now, where people who hold unpopular opinions aren't just disagreed with and unpatronized (if that is the wont of the consumer) but instead those who disagree with them organize to actively see the person lose their livlihood/future work.

That's surprisingly accurate, actually. But isn't the group of manchildren endorsing sharing and politeness an all-around nicer company than the other group holed up in their treehouse? Given the vitrol both sides have used harrassing people because they don't support their particular "side", it seems to me its a case of both groups of man/woman/other-children holed up in their treehouse arguing which treehouse is better with a larger, diverse middle group caught in the crossfire.

I fail to see how someone giving a lower score to a game they find racist is bad and unprofessional, but whatever. In terms of criticism it isn't - unless it was the same reviewer who did both the PC and console review and was tailoring each review to each market (which would imply that he wasn't doing reviews so much as some kind of targeted infomercial for himself/herself as a cultural lynchpin)

Welcome back!

I don't disagree with this either.

This is an IMAGINARY STORY (which may never happen, but then again may) about a perfect man who came from the sky and did only good. It tells of his twilight, when the great battles were over and the great miracles long since performed, of how his enemies conspired against him and of that final war in the snowblind wastes beneath the Northern Lights; of the women he loved and of the choice he made between them; of how he broke his most sacred oath, and how finally all the things he had were taken from him save for one. It ends with a wink. It begins in a quiet midwestern town, one summer afternoon in the quiet midwestern future. Away in the big city, people still sometimes glance up hopefully from the sidewalks, glimpsing a distant speck in the sky...but no; it's only a bird, only a plane. Superman died ten years ago. This is an IMAGINARY STORY... Aren't they all?