Soul of Wit

Just to pile on Santorum, for kicks: He's in the 1%--the 1% of Americans who think that contraception is a bad idea. Did I mention that most of that 1% are beyond their child-bearing years? He has huge issues with corruption. Not at NEWTonian levels, mind you, but significant in their own right. He couldn't get reelected to the Senate from Pennsylvania--a swing state. Thanks to his outrageous past comments on homosexuality, his last name is now a Google bomb. I say deservedly so. Gay rights are human rights. The scale is tipping, as the electorate grows younger. ===== Santorum won't get the nomination, of course. I'll stick with my long-standing prediction of Romney in the general and Obama for four more years. Let's face it, Romney has less sincerity than McCain. [/understatement]

In addition to the traditional healing and righteous attack roles, a Priest has no restrictions on armor. It can act as a meat shield, too. As Jerakeen points out, the Priest is the ideal defense against mind control. There are enough mental-boost items in the game to hit the anti-mental cap (90% ?) with two PCs. Making those two PCs Priests would allow them both to help out the more cerebrally-challenged party members.

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen Aaaaaaaand Santorum sweeps Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri. I know Missouri doesn't really count, but still.... Bahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha This answers the question: Who would be easier for Obama to beat than Romney or Gingrich? As for Missouri, it is considered one of the bellwether states (states that tend to vote as the nation does.) It is worth pointing out that Missouri voted McCain in 2008. The "show me" state also failed to like Ike in 1956.

Originally Posted By: Denver on $133 a day! Godwin's Law, in many formulations, states that Nazis are invoked and useful conversation has ended. I think you can invoke xkcd without putting brakes on the thread. It's just that the probability of xkcd approaches one as the length of a thread approaches infinity. This was, indeed, what I was implying. I vote for Brevity's law. That should be sufficient to confuse future participants in these forums.

Originally Posted By: The Ratt Well there's already the question of extraterrestrial life being out there, and we're looking for it the wrong way. A good analogy. Is there an adage, similar to Godwin's law, which expresses the likelihood of an xkcd link being introduced to a growing thread?

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim We as a species have actually been able to manipulate our environment and mostly everything in it. But I do think it's gotten to a point where it's starting to backwards slightly. Within the last 30 odd years, we've seen the rise of things like tv, computers, the internet and the like. While all these things can be useful to spread information and the like, it's also been used to spread a whole heap of misinformation and absolute nonsense. This intrigued me. You see the electronic information age (for lack of a better term) as a backslide in evolution; whereas, I see it as an advancement. I do see the degradation of our environment as a possible way to increment the Earth's mass extinction count by one. .....<O> I've always viewed extraterrestrial life as likely. The usual caveats about intelligence only limit the possibility of reasoning life, without eliminating it. I will concede that fear of infinity plays a part in my universe view. It seems quite anthropocentric to dismiss ETs out of hand. Thus far, the non-anthropocentric have a pretty good track record (Kopernik, et al.)

A search of Amazon finds the Julian May books (it's a series) out of print, but available in Kindle (e-reader) editions. Some were also available used or new (the latter inflated in price, of course.) I'm thinking that a search of used book stores (some have websites) might prove fruitful. As for Silverberg, his paperbacks should be easier to find. The novel based upon the short story is certainly available.

I'm guessing that is precisely the reason why the arena ogres are neutral. It is amusing to slaughter the town and then have a friendly conversation with a bored ogre.

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit A comment on the feds requiring (federal fund receiving) health vendors to provide contraception. For those unaware, that includes the so-called morning-after pill. There is a balance here that is not being struck. There is a strong argument for providing funding to (for example) religious hospitals. That argument is that they provide their services to all. The argument is further bolstered by the desired goal of providing healthcare to as many people as possible. The solution is a limited voucher program. The religious organizations are exempted, but the patient still gets voucher access to the contraception--elsewhere. The worst-case scenario here is inconvenience (can't use an on-site pharmacy.) Here's the problem: for some patients, there isn't an elsewhere. Sometimes the religious hospital is literally the only hospital in town, especially in rural areas. When "inconvenience" can mean travelling hundreds of miles, that's more than just inconvenient: that's obstructive. By the time a patient can arrange transportation to another hospital, it's often too late for the morning-after pill to work. In addition, there have been cases where the patient has suffered a violent rape and is too badly injured to be safely transported outside the first hospital she's treated in at all for the first few days -- in that case, she either gets emergency contraception at the hospital she's first brought to or she doesn't get it at all, no matter how many hospitals you build. The way I see it, you've already given up absolute freedom of religion when you claim to practice medicine, because medicine implies a set of values that are fundamentally incompatible with the practices of certain religious groups. No sane person would claim that you should be allowed to set up a building that treats every illness with nothing but prayer and call it a hospital. The responsibility of medicine, always and everywhere, is to act in the best interests of the patient while respecting the patient's autonomy, regardless of the doctor or the institution's own beliefs. I hadn't thought of the violent rape angle, or of in-patient care, in general. Rural America is often severely lacking in healthcare. In my post, I was thinking of visiting a nearby pharmacy and not of visiting another hospital. That, of course, leads to a discussion on pharmacies and their policies. In a perfect world, the in-patient would have someone to visit that nearby (and science/law-based) pharmacy. If it's legal, stock it.

Seconded.

A comment on the feds requiring (federal fund receiving) health vendors to provide contraception. For those unaware, that includes the so-called morning-after pill. There is a balance here that is not being struck. There is a strong argument for providing funding to (for example) religious hospitals. That argument is that they provide their services to all. The argument is further bolstered by the desired goal of providing healthcare to as many people as possible. The solution is a limited voucher program. The religious organizations are exempted, but the patient still gets voucher access to the contraception--elsewhere. The worst-case scenario here is inconvenience (can't use an on-site pharmacy.)

Originally Posted By: Death Knight Originally Posted By: Spidweb Maybe try a party with 4 characters? - Jeff Vogel I thought of that, but the smaller the party the less confusing. Plus ive been spoiled by avadon's 3 person party. A 4 PC party can be quite simple. I ran two DW melee, a Mage and a Priest. Sell all pole arms. Give the shields to the magic types. The lead meat shield concentrates a little more on Parry, to fend off the nastier outdoor encounters. His second is a backstabber.

I'm pretty sure there is at least one opportunity to be a hit man (i.e.: kill Joe Blow and I'll reward you.)

What's the derivation of the word in this context? It looks like a British variation of gremlin. I can find neither dictionary nor wiki references to a meaning related to emoticons.

Sadly, the PIt is BYOB.

I assume that you meant... http://ocremix.org/ I do love covers of pop schlock, cartoon theme songs and the like.

Generally directed at Harehunter... If only most states had used cigarette taxes (and lawsuit awards from tobacco companies) primarily for education. Too often, it went mostly/entirely to the general fund. Is it okay if I both love and loathe Texas? They get so many things right (and don't get me started on tall women.) They get so many things wrong (but I am a Yankee.) I feel similarly towards Walmart. They manage their company so well, but they could do so much more. No-quorum roadblocks are, of course, part of an individual state's legislative rules. An important thing to consider is the general public sentiment towards the stand. Is it considered a principled stand? Is it supported by the majority of state residents? Immigration has to be tailored to the country involved. Different countries have different needs. The reality is that a popular country (and the US still is--defending my love-the-USA street cred) can be more selective in immigration. I'm sure there are university courses devoted solely to the history of US immigration policy.

Originally Posted By: fade out again You know, I really enjoyed those in the original game. I have no idea why, but they seemed to fit. In this new version, they do seem a little obnoxious, but I think that's because one has to constantly go into battle-mode to fight, rather than being able to attack whilst in town mode, as per the original. Valid point on combat in town mode. I'll chime in on the dark rooms. Took me right out of the game more than once. I was used to it by the endgame, so that helped.

...

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen You know you're a hoarder if... ...you keep collecting bottles of beer after wiping out Spire. Go. A party has needs, I tell you.

Some things in this game affect your reputation (you can see it in the stat window.) A certain level of reputation allows for additional dialog/quests. That is the only game-based concern, and it's not really a concern. There are far more positive reputation opportunities than the opposite.

Originally Posted By: Superba And how a human can carry 46 lamps, 10 lanterns and sixteen candles? Hey, hey! I can quit hoarding light sources any time I want to. Rehab is for losers.

I'm not surprised at the civility in these forums. This community is a wonderful mix of backgrounds and ages, with a general belief in civility (and the moderators aren't afraid to be aggressive, as warranted.) If anything, I miss the input of those that lurk, or comment vaguely. Alas, real life often intrudes. Cue humorous comment on real life...

Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee ... My point was, why can't there be a form of newsmedia or infomedia which actually cares more about separating fact from believe than promoting an ideology? I blame human nature. When will we finally put robots in charge of everything? ... I pay attention to how often a source corrects known errors of fact. You can be biased and still correct errors. Your point is certainly valid in consideration of the consistency of correcting errors. You blame human nature. I blame human nature, the ingrained two-party system and neoconservatism. Much of the blowback from the left is an unfortunate response to the darker tenets of neoconservatism. And, yes, I mean lying to advance a political agenda.

Originally Posted By: B.J.Earles ... 1. I'm not contesting that voter ID laws by themselves will not work. That's pretty much a given. What I don't understand about your argument is how the issue is a smokescreen, and for what. As far as I can tell there are two extremes on the "control who votes/don't control who votes" argument: the "everyone can vote even if they don't even live in this country" side and the "only the 'elite' know what's best for this country" side. Personally, I'm of the belief that all law-abiding-citizens who are of age are eligible to cast their vote, and as far as I can tell, the majority of my party agrees with me. 2a. The point I was trying to get across is that saying that others cannot debate an issue or that the debate is over is almost the same as saying you're out of arguments and/or evidence. If I tried to pull a stunt like that during a debate tournament, any worthy opponents, intelligent varsity, and judges worth their salt would all jump down my throat at the same time. There is always a debate to be had. Fortunately, it seems you do have some good arguments to make. And yes, I'm a Republican on the side of democracy. Try not to have a heart attack now. 2b. If you're going to accuse someone (or in this case a large group of someones) of purposely lying, I'm going to have to invite you to prove it. Also, what exactly is the stated intent of voter ID laws, word for word? 3a. All parties have divisions within them. The only reason we have such large political parties is because smaller groups of people with different, but not opposing, political goals band together to get greater support (sort of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal). Those groups do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on other issues. 3b. Have you ever actually watched Fox News? I don't mean just a few hours, but rather watched it over a longer period of time. I've heard others saying that main-stream media is nothing but lying super-liberals, but that does not mean I'm going to take it as fact (at least not without a very hefty dose of evidence to back up the claim). 4. So, I take it we agree on the proof of citizenship limitation then. It may be that voter ID laws are just an honest attempt to stop voter impersonation fraud with a bunch of unintended negative consequences attached (it does happen). I'd have to go find the arguments for and against it and look at the situations in context before forming an opinion though. (Well, that post only took over an hour to write ) The intent of voter ID laws is to limit the numbers and types of people voting. The smokescreen is that they are effective in reducing voter fraud. My apologies if I was unclear. [see my response to Harehunter for a sidebar on the types of people and why this has nothing to do with racism.] Voting for citizens should be strongly encouraged. We should err on the side of rare occurrences of fraud, versus common occurrences of disenfranchisement. It is my firm belief that the common occurrence of voter fraud would be both (sometimes) detected and widely disseminated. That has not happened. This is not a debate forum. I will behave civilly and attempt to explain when I am misunderstood. Instances of minor logical fallacies are no reason for alarm. Consistent use of them would be unappealing. I, in no way, accused a large group of lying. I clearly stated that Republicans more often fail to understand the intent of voter ID laws (see previous paragraph.) The intended implication is that those creating the "smokescreen" are the liars. Clearly, I don't buy your #4 at all (again, see my first paragraph.)