Namutree

I've started making a new little game. I want it to be kinda cute, but also kinda weird. Drew a cute little guy cheering for the game. He has animation, but I only know how to post a still image of him.

Your stomach is weak and your CON is low.

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it. I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective. The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind. You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion. The attackers were not directly insulted nor were they confronted by the paper. They decided that no one is allowed to draw their prophet or insult their ideology. When some one did; they meant to silence them with violence. A more accurate analogy would be if Joe decided to hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob wrote in a paper that FDR was a jerk. Then Joe declared that if anyone publishes anything that insults FDR he will hit them with a shovel.

While I'm not going to say what I think, you'd have better said: 'Please tell me you think it's JFK. I fully believe what my government and the mainstream media told me in regards to all of the mentioned incidents and I've not looked into any of them much because to do so would possibly challenge those beliefs. There might be something to the idea they lied about what happened with J.F.K though, but I've not looked into it yet.' I have looked into the JFK issue quite a bit actually. I'll admit I've not looked to deeply at the 9/11 truthers theories, but that one seems really unreasonable to me.

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it. I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective.

Please tell me you think it's JFK. I don't believe in any of those conspiracy theories, but that one is the most reasonable.

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. At least this is true. Nearly all religions contain bat**** crazy nonsense that is extremely dangerous to society if acted upon. Islam is no exception.

That's fine. As long as all attributse are viable for all classes; they don't all need to be useful for all builds.

Isn't this from that KS website where you make your own figurines?

You can say that. RP however you want.

Sometimes people are stupid.

I do. Already I feel poe has a better race selection. Don't get me wrong; I don't think poe will be better than BG2. I'm pretty confident poe will have at least a few things over BG2 though.

Interesting read. Glad you're enjoying the game.

I forgot a word there. Here is what I meant to type: That's kinda true and untrue at the same time.

That's kinda and untrue at the same time. Black majority areas are more likely to have more problem students. There is a reason for that though; not to sound like a broken record, but this thanks to the damn drug war. The drug war targets blacks the most, and thus screws up their communities the most. This is a big part of why the socio-economic situation for many blacks isn't so good. Ending the drug war would do far more good for education than free community college; especially for poor black communities.

@Mangonel I think this is a good way to respond without having to quote me.

Compared to the old system it certainly does have more depth. Back in Oblivion you could just raise all your skills to 100 and receive the full benefit of said skill. Now you actually have to decide how you spend your limited perks. With Skyrim two characters with the same level and the same skills raised could skill be radically different characters based on how perks were spent. With Oblivion's skill system everyone turns out the same (Skill wise). Not so with Skyrim. So yeah, the skill system is definitely more in-depth with Skyrim. If you completely ignore the major/minor skills and the soft cap on character levels major skills impose and the fact all combat skills have damage modifiers based on their respective governing attribute, sure. In Oblivion attributes are part and parcel with the skill system so you can't just ignore that and say Skyrim has more depth. Saying two different archetypal chars in Oblivion with 100 in a skill without considering attributes is like saying two different archetypal chars in Skyrim with 100 in a skill are the same without considering perk selection. Perk selection was added to try and fill the customization gap they made when they gutted the attribute system. Two characters of the same level with the same skills can be just as different, if not moreso, in Oblivion as they can be in Skyrim. Skyrim does to an extent let you make poor choices just as its predecessors, you can be a warrior who puts all his points in magicka and skills 2hers, just as you can decide to ignore you're +5's to strength and level up +1's to int/willpower/personality in Oblivion. If you only look at viable level up selections, which is what matters, Skyrim and Oblivion are similar. The major difference being that in Oblivion and Morrowind what you actually do on a level by level basis matters in how you level up your attributes whereas having been dumbed down to health/stamina/magicka in Skyrim they do not, its a choice of 10/10/10 no matter what you do. The level-by-level differences in Oblivion/Morrowind add both depth and flavor. What you do, and when you do it, in game has a direct impact on what your character eventually becomes. This also inherently increases the differences between two archetypal chars of the same char and skill lvl as neither two would have done the same things in the same order to reach the same outcome even when the end skill and character level totals are the same. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Leveling#Raising_Attributes Example 1 illustrates my point. What 3 attributes the player decides to pick make each character different on a level by level basis even if they're going for the same archetype. The differences between optimal and sub-optimal-but-viable skill ups and attribute selections make the effective difference between characters even more pronounced at higher levels. Even if you decide to lock attributes and health/stamina/magicka selections, such that both chars make the same selections in order to focus more on skill differences. Such as always pick Str/End/Spd and always level H/S/M at a 2/2/1 ratio, the fact that the order in which you gain your skill ups in Oblivion matters makes for greater differences in characters. So no, Skyrim does not have more depth in its skill system than Oblivion. My point is that things aren't dumbing down. You just insist they are without a basis. I get it; the attribute system was simplified. As you have already recognized Skyrim's skill system was enhanced to compensate for the simplified attribute system. So guess what? IT WASN'T DUMBED DOWN. It was a shift in focus. Depth was moved away from attributes and placed into skills. That's not dumbing down. I would readily admit that the attribute system in Oblivion has more depth than Skyrim; too bad you can't just admit that the skill system in Skyrim has more depth than Oblivion. Yes, I'm aware that skills in Oblivion affect your level ups. Once again though; this has been compensated for by the perk system. I should also note that perks can make your character more different than the attribute system does. In fact the only attribute choice that even really matters is whether or not you choose to raise Endurance early on. In Morrowind it had barely any depth. You almost have to try to not be level 300-something with 100 in all attributes within ten hours of playing the game since the game offers master trainers for every skill which are easy to find since there is one for every skill. That is; unless you are willing to exploit the game and use good ol' drain skill if you are too lazy for finding and paying the master trainers. As for flavor; I guess that's subjective, but I'd venture to say that Skyrims offer of knocking people down with my shield and slowing down time for enemy's power attacks is a bit more flavorful than a minor attribute modifier for an attribute that will be 100 soon anyways.

Oh, I know that rush; all too well. When I was dealing with a homicidal maniac bent on taking out my eyes (not making that up I swear) as a teen the last thing on my mind was romance. That anyone could fathom to even think about sex or romance under such circumstances is beyond my ability to believe.

Compared to the old system it certainly does have more depth. Back in Oblivion you could just raise all your skills to 100 and receive the full benefit of said skill. Now you actually have to decide how you spend your limited perks. With Skyrim two characters with the same level and the same skills raised could skill be radically different characters based on how perks were spent. With Oblivion's skill system everyone turns out the same (Skill wise). Not so with Skyrim. So yeah, the skill system is definitely more in-depth with Skyrim.

During the red scare people were haphazardly being accused of being communists. Are you suggesting that GG is randomly accusing people of being feminists? Ironically, there is a group that is randomly making untrue claims about people's political affiliation: Guess who it is!

WTF is this quote about?

Cool.

Telling of what?

What a pile. If his reasoning is you don't want to be offensive then he should do that across the board. The reasoning I gave was more sound. Pardon me for overestimating these cowards.

lolololololololololololololol Are you joking? I hope so... A high stress situation is not conducive to romance. I wonder what world you live in where people just get romantic when **** hits the fan. Bob: Jim! Them nazi's are firin' on our position! We need to find cover! Jim: BOB!!! I... love you! Let us embrace in passion. Bob: I'm not normally romantic, but according to TMZuk in high stress situations romance WILL happen. Jim and Bob were then gunned down by nazi's since people automatically fall in love in high stress situations. That why romance never occurs in a relaxed setting. That's why there's nothing more romantic than a war zone. That's why most romance stories are like the D-Day invasion. How romantic. Wanna acquire a spouse? Easy; get them alone and stress him/her out. Romance WILL happen. It's a fact!