Amentep

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?

So there was unprofessional behavior on behalf of a person who has no journalistic qualifications and works for a website that, according to the Reuters, scores 15 out of 100 on an independent journalism test (or so I've heard). Whoopty-****ing-doo. I still believe that Grayson's sex life is small fries compared to the industrialized corruption going on with the big publishers, and focusing on that detracts from the real issue. I don't disagree that anyones sex life - per se - is the issue. Having no journalistic qualifications and systemic corruption are probably related and would probably connect why some people don't get why the ethical issue on non-disclsure/non-recusal is an issue at all given the greater issues suffered by games journalism.

Alternatively, they didn't want to be tabloid journalists who publish telephoto lens from a tree gathered topless pics of celebrities right next to the ongoing saga of Batboy The problem I see in the posts is the immediate dismissal of the ethics issues. Had there been no semblence of ethical impropriety on behalf of the journalists then realistically the group was right - Quinn's sexlife was a non-issue with respect to games journalism. I'm pretty sure that's not how conflicts of interest work. Yes it is. As far as I'm aware, "a conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." Primary interest here being "the unbiased writing of games reviews", secondary... I don't know, let's assume "continuing to have sex with Zoe Quinn". Unless Grayson is obligated to write about any of Quinn's games, I see no inherent conflict between these two. As I recall, Conflict of Interest involves two conflicting interest held by one party where the interest of one corrupts the interest of the other. A politician who remains on the Board of Directors of a corporation that receives government contracts has two conflicting interests, to the people via the government and to the corporation and their stockholders. The desire to see the corporate interest thrive can corrupt the interest in serving the people. In this case, a journalist who has a relationship with a developer can see the desire to serve the interest of the relationship corrupt the interest of providing unbiased coverage of gaming. Since I think we want journalists to be relatively human this isn't a case where mitigation by removal would work, so the only mitigation left is disclosure (telling people of the relationship so they can decide if they detect a bias) and recusal (not covering or giving press to the object of the relationship so that a neutral third party can provide unbiased views). The issue with this is that it appears that until this broke most of the "major" game sites journalists either didn't mandate to disclose or to recuse or weren't really policing it if it was their policy that disclosure/recusal be the norm.

Thing is the Brietbart article doesn't really indicate anything that wasn't known (that a group of journalists/bloggers/whatever coordinated a series of responses and articles). What is there doesn't really illuminate the ethics issue (the only one that really matters IMO) any further, so - and again IMO - it adds little to the real discussion that hasn't already been incorporated.

Two words will prove you wrong: Jessica Rabbit http://www.yayahan.com/portfolio/costumes/jessica-rabbit

Didn't feel right with responding to this with my fluff response to Gromnir...hope my double post is forgiven. if this works you will see what I am taking... If not we'll I will fix it at home. And technically the only people who can really interfere here probably won't so it's seeming more and more likely my entire legacy in this world is being shot in the head by thousands of gamers in new Vegas And you're happy with that? You can't change that legacy if you're not around to add anything to it. Look you're miserable and I get that, but I'd suggest perhaps calling a professional you know like TN suggest or at least 1-800-273-TALK (8255) might do more to help you than what you've been implying in this thread. Well I'm probably not gonna care soon. Besides, that's more of a legacy than most people leave behind, and I'm not exactly the type that'll ever get a girlfriend/wife/partner/whatever you want to call it. At least it's a fitting legacy... shot in the head by people I don't know. In response to the bolded, do you need one right now in your life? I've had girlfriends and I've not had girlfriends and ultimately my happiness wasn't due to me being in the relationship (or not being in them). Suddenly finding romance isn't a magic bullet anymore so than anything else in life. And if you don't care, it's not going to hurt to give that 1-800 number a call, is it?

am suspecting that psychiatrists likely see a difference 'tween the penn & teller scenario. though one wonders where the line 'tween acceptable schadenfreude and practical jokes is crossed and sociopath label is achieved. lack o' guilt, perhaps? in any event, were more noteworthy to us that we had never seen nothing sacred. is particular strange as frederich march were a star and for us he were always so darn... forgettable. other than dr. jekyll and mr. hyde, we has difficulty recalling specific films he were in, but we know there were many, and we not doubt that we saw most o' them. nevertheless, am positive we never saw nothing sacred. HA! Good Fun! ps and so we have our continuing battle with font size. hmmm Eh, I was mostly just offering suggestions to him for futher tricks if he wanted to pursue them, to be honest. Never saw Nothing Sacred either (sounds like it might be fun). I know I've seen the Jeckyll/Hide version with March, Death Takes a Holiday and Desperate Hours. Never saw his other Oscar films - A Star is Born, or The Best Years of Our Lives. Spend too much time watching trash cinema, I guess.

Augh! Vending machine gave me a diet drink instead of the intended choice. Tried to taste it...urgh...how do people drink this stuff? #water4life

if this works you will see what I am taking... If not we'll I will fix it at home. And technically the only people who can really interfere here probably won't so it's seeming more and more likely my entire legacy in this world is being shot in the head by thousands of gamers in new Vegas And you're happy with that? You can't change that legacy if you're not around to add anything to it. Look you're miserable and I get that, but I'd suggest perhaps calling a professional you know like TN suggest or at least 1-800-273-TALK (8255) might do more to help you than what you've been implying in this thread.

Oh was just commenting on how fun it can be to mess with people by intentionally lying to them to aid in manipulating them somehow. Not seeing how that is really sociopathic, I guess you lack empathy by treating people as tools ? But eh, I've done that with my relatives, interesting to watch the false gossip spread and them react to things that never actually happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller%27s_Cruel_Tricks_for_Dear_Friends