Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Gorum

Irontruth's page

5,038 posts (5,040 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,038 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen. Their main tactic was to fire rapidly, but to fire high so that arrows rained down from above in an area rather than specifically aiming. They didn't use quivers much either, they jammed their arrows in the ground point first when they wanted to use them in combat. But they didn't jump around much either but operated in groups to lay down heavy density arrow-rain. The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).

Bolded portion.

Lars has shown that he can reliably shoot faster than people using other techniques. If the English were primarily concerned with rate of fire, why would they not use this (or something similar) technique?

Sighting the arrow down the left side is better for accuracy, but as you say, the English were firing to a space, flooding an area with arrows, not attempting to hit a specific target. His method would seem more than adequate for doing that (even though he has shown himself to have good accuracy).

Part of the firing rapidly was also firing long arcing shots. For which you need power. Perhaps more power than Lars has shown? I haven't seen everything he's done, but it looked mostly like quick, short range shooting.

Perfect for PF style skirmishes, but not so much for full scale battles where you're hitting masses of troops at range, as they close.

Using the same person (Lars) with the same equipment, do you think he would develop MORE power using more mainstream modern techniques?

I think we're all in agreement, an English longbowman who trained all their life would probably be better at this than Lars. People have cited evidence that English longbowmen has physical changes from their years of training. Do you think an English longbowman would be more effective using a slower method or a faster method?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something to note involving all of the "debunking" so far....

None of it actually has to do with the technique he is using. Not one person has even claimed that his method of nocking, drawing and firing the arrow cannot achieve what he is doing.

It's all about how the bow he is using isn't effective, or the arrows aren't constructed right.

None of it has to do with the speed or accuracy he is demonstrating. I don't think he's some sort of genius, or that he's uncovering something completely unknown. Rather he is demonstrating a technique that is not widely used and showing it to be just as effective, if not more, than other nocking/drawing techniques.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen. Their main tactic was to fire rapidly, but to fire high so that arrows rained down from above in an area rather than specifically aiming. They didn't use quivers much either, they jammed their arrows in the ground point first when they wanted to use them in combat. But they didn't jump around much either but operated in groups to lay down heavy density arrow-rain. The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).

Bolded portion.

Lars has shown that he can reliably shoot faster than people using other techniques. If the English were primarily concerned with rate of fire, why would they not use this (or something similar) technique?

Sighting the arrow down the left side is better for accuracy, but as you say, the English were firing to a space, flooding an area with arrows, not attempting to hit a specific target. His method would seem more than adequate for doing that (even though he has shown himself to have good accuracy).


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
For the record: I'd much rather this thread debate sociobiolgy than manspreading. Carry on.

I think science can definitely be used to illuminate human behavior.

I just find comparisons to other species to be specious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with using evolution as the basis for explaining human behavior is that you CANNOT use any other animal as an example of what is or is not typical behavior of humans. Even within the various primate species there are large differences in behaviors. Picking one and holding it as an example of human behavior is choosing a selective bias in an attempt to prove a point.

Second problem is one of the very concept of gender roles and applying them to people. We know that not all men are 100% male and not all women are 100% female, both in the non-brain physical sense and in the brain physical sense. It's a spectrum and everyone is on it somewhere. Therefore saying that your apparent gender assigned by society should predict your behavior because of evolution is false, because society may have assigned you (a) the wrong gender or (b) a superficially simplistic one that fails to account for other factors.

I believe we are creatures of evolution and it is possible to use it to explain most of our behaviors. The problem is we live in a world colored by our society, and that society is not built around science. You can use science to explain portions of society, but you cannot rely on society to adhere to all aspects of science, since it's a social construct created by a bunch of animals who are controlled by evolution, not perfectly scientific beings.

TL:DR - I never trust anyone who uses another species sexual behavior in an attempt to explain ours. Their choice of examples often betrays their agenda or base viewpoint.


Muad'Dib wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

"Seems to find"? When you generate it yourself, it didn't "find" you.

Let the battle of the cheaters commence!

Hey HoustonD, How many Seahawks were suspended for PED use this season?

The answer is none.

Last season they had 5-6 (including Browner being suspended twice).


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:


Does that mean that everyone here has a degree? Not at all. We still have a lot of unskilled labourers. We still have people who go the tradesman route.

In America we have very poor provisions for trade educations. We have a (quite disgusting, honestly) tendency to look down on people who work in the trades, and, while we certainly have trade schools, they don't really get much in the way of support. Most of the big ones you see advertised like ITT Tech or Devry are showing off their computer technology and medical programs and maybe automotive or welding, with construction and maintenance and the like not really getting attention. Plus, ITT Tech and Devry are both extremely shady institutions, with ITT Tech having been sued by the Feds last year and both having an absolute laundry list of complaints against them. America's trade school scene is pretty bad, and we need to stop looking down on trades workers and laborers.

In fact, you know who seems to do a lot of trade schooling? The community colleges. That might we an angle worth looking into. Free community college plus buffing up the resources for the trade programs and making an effort to teach HS students that trade careers are worthwhile. Boom. Now young people have an accessible alternative path to academia.

It's almost like no one bothers to actual read what is being proposed.

Seriously, it's about 1/2 way down the page. It gets it's own header, divided into a couple of easy to read paragraphs. This stuff isn't hard to find.

Higher education is not ONLY college/university. It includes trade schools and job specific training.

Quote:
In January 2015, the President proposed the American Technical Training Fund to award programs that have strong employer partnerships and include work-based learning opportunities, provide accelerated training, and are scheduled to accommodate part-time work. This discretionary budget proposal would fund 100 centers to help high-potential, low-wage workers gain the skills to work into growing fields with significant numbers of middle-class jobs that local employers are trying to fill, such as energy, IT, and advanced manufacturing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quark,

Free Trade and automation are hurting the middle and working class.

How does making education expensive improve their chances of advancing their economic standing?

Why is providing easy access to education a detriment to the working class?


Let's break down your statements here.

Quark Blast wrote:


The point I was making is that until... what? ... sometime in the 1970's? A person could pay his way through college with summer work and part time work while at college.

When people could afford to pay for their own education, they could receive it and provide for themselves.

Quark Blast wrote:
Today college tuition is way out of proportion with the benefit it gives.

Now that college education is harder to obtain (the monetary barrier), it's worth less.

Quark Blast wrote:
But giving more people degrees, in effectively the same manner we give high school diplomas (i.e. they can be "earned" simply by showing up and marginally participating), we will only produce less value in college degrees as a whole.

Therefore if we make them easier to obtain again, they will become worth even less.

Your conclusion is false based on the premise YOU propose.

You keep harping on this concept that college degrees will be handed out just as easily as high school diplomas. Do you have proof that this is intended? Do you have something to compare this to?

I had a great-granduncle who had his university degree at 18. I don't say this to point out that he was some sort of genius, but rather that I believe the standard for a degree in the 1890's was lower than it is today. I highly doubt that the qualifications for his job were near as stringent as they would be in comparison to today.

Here's a challenge. If you think an increase in the number of degrees in society has an impact on wages, show it. Right now you're making a bunch of claims, but history doesn't bear them out.

Something to consider, in the 70's there was an increase in college graduates entering the workforce (the baby boomers were graduating). This lead to an initial dip in wages for entry level jobs requiring degrees, but as time went on, wages went back up and productivity increased faster. The overall net effect for the individuals (college graduates average $1,000,000 more in lifetime wages than non-college graduates) but had positive impacts on the overall economy as well.

In numbers, if you count 25-65 year olds, the US ranks 5th in higher education levels (42%). If you look at 25-35 year olds the percentage stays the same, but that ranking drops to 14th. South Korea for example is at 65% in the same age bracket, while their 55-65 bracket has fewer than 15% with college degrees. Their unemployment rates for people with college degrees is 2.6%. 40 years ago South Korea was extremely poor, it's actually a rather amazing turn around. Education has been a major focus for them, they are the third highest in the world for the % of GDP spend on education.

If you want to argue for stringent standards on college degrees, I'm all for it. You'll get no complaints from me that we need high standards in education. But arguing about HOW we do it is different from arguing about IF we should do it.

Please, dig up some information that a higher educated workforce is bad for us. I'd be really interested to hear that.


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

1) Free college education does not automatically mean you are guaranteed to get a degree.

In the US, state colleges and universities were either free or so cheap you could pay your way through working a menial labor job for several decades. It's not uncommon among the baby boomer generation for example that they graduated either with no debt or minimal debt, while receiving little money from their parents. During this period of cheap/free school graduation was not automatic. Therefore we know that this assumption is false.
...

Getting back to your point 1) though...

If the funding is coming from the Feds (taxpayers), then there will be a strong incentive to show results. That means, like "No Child Left Behind", the more kids you "pass" or "graduate" the easier it will be for the college to get further Federal largess.

That is not a good situation.

Boomers went to college - often using the GI Bill - at a time when their tuition really did pay for their education.

Scouting for college myself I've spent not a few hours over at ratemyprofessors.com for the colleges I'm looking at and there you'll see good evidence of professors using multiple-guess testing and otherwise "going through the motions". As my counselor said, to prepare me for eventual college, (paraphrasing here):
"You are largely responsible for the quality of your education. Don't depend on the professors to teach you but instead seek to learn from them by asking questions whenever you don't understand."

Roughly 10% of the baby boomer generation participated in the Vietnam War. They'd be too young to participate, or reach college soon enough to use their parents benefits from WW2 or the Korean War.

Dependents can use your benefits from the GI Bill, but that counts against your total benefits. So if you have 36 months of eligibility, so if you use 12 and your spouse uses 10, there are 14 months remaining.

Not every veteran used their benefits. The Vietnam War did have one of the higher usage rates at 72%. To be eligible though, you need to have received an "other than dishonorable discharge" though. I don't know about the numbers for whites, but for minorities about 24% received other-than-honorable (a category of it's own, I can explain in great detail if necessary as I used to do this paperwork for a living). While an other-than-honorable does not automatically disqualify you for the GI Bill, depending on the reason it can increase rejection rate from jobs and college applications (so you can't even use the GI Bill) by 40%.

Currently the military branches are considering re-examining some of those discharges in an attempt to account for PTSD influenced behavior.

Anyways, all this brings down the total % of baby boomers who used the GI bill probably down to around 6.5%. 29% of baby boomers had college degrees by age 42, putting the GI bill benefiting just over 22% of baby boomers with college degrees, or about 1/5th.


1) Free college education does not automatically mean you are guaranteed to get a degree.

In the US, state colleges and universities were either free or so cheap you could pay your way through working a menial labor job for several decades. It's not uncommon among the baby boomer generation for example that they graduated either with no debt or minimal debt, while receiving little money from their parents. During this period of cheap/free school graduation was not automatic. Therefore we know that this assumption is false.

2) Free post-secondary education does not automatically mean college or university.

In fact, if you actually go check out current proposals (linkified if you're lazy) you'll note that technical programs and on the job training are ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. Citing the exclusion of these programs as part of your opposition to the proposal seems a little silly. Know what you're against before you decide you're against it.

3) The level of complexity in the world is ever increasing.

Jobs will continue to become more layered and specialized. While schooling now is already more advanced than it was 100 years ago (go check out 3rd grade math from then and compare it today, it's more advanced), that trend is going to continue. People are going to need more and more education to do what future decades determine are menial jobs. In addition with out our cultural system is set up, more and more aspects of being a citizen require more and more knowledge. Planning for retirement is a part time job now that if done well can take 10-20 hours per week. It requires math skills and economics to do well. Society continues to grow more and more complex and require additional skills to be successful in.

Janitors will have to have a basic understanding of economics and investments to plan for their own retirement, otherwise they will place a heavier burden on the government when they are no longer able to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Creativity is a skill, not an inherent ability.

Add more activities into the group mix that rely on creativity. There are lots of games (not just RPG's) that rely heavily on creativity, such as the card game Once Upon a Time.

There are also a lot of short RPG's designed to last a single session (2-4 hours) which are low on mechanics and heavy on the creativity, such as Fiasco.

Think of it in physical fitness terms. Games like this isolate the creative "muscles" of the brain, which helps build various creative skills which improves our ability to roleplay. A game like Pathfinder certainly uses those skills, but it also accesses other skills, like tactical and strategic thinking, so the focus is more broad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I no longer see it as my responsibility to "hook" the players.
I see that as my primary responsibility. Everything else is bookkeeping.

I think of the game as a collaborative process. If a player isn't interested in contributing, I'm not interested in playing with them (as DM or as a fellow player).

It also gets to how I am as a player. If I'm in your game, you don't need to "entertain" me. I'm going to participate, be creative and add to your game.

Players are participants, not an audience.


GreyWolfLord wrote:


Stellar Impact appears to be one of those online only deals (free from what I can see) which is what they are claiming as their experience making rts games.

I believe Stellar Impact is a versus game only, no single player. Hence the online only, cause the game is only designed for multiplayer.

Last I checked it wasn't free (maybe $10 or 15), but the remaining player base is tiny.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:


Trying to motivate the variously-aligned PCs to actually want to do the next thing in the story is difficult for GMs. Rescuing someone your character cares about is more interesting than rescuing generic NPC 17.

Something I've changed over the years, I no longer see it as my responsibility to "hook" the players. Instead it is their responsibility to tell me why their characters are motivated to do these things.

As DM, I have enough on my plate as it is. If the players aren't interested in my game, we'll do something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:
So no I don't think these underinflated balls is a big deal. The patriots and Green bay should not lose draft picks because of this...

So can I place you squarely in the corner of, "Cheating is OK as long as I feel it doesn't affect the outcome of a game" camp?

I'm in the camp that says you have to prove that it's actually cheating. That means showing intent to deflate the balls, under who's orders, how it was done and when.

Did some over eager ball boy who happens to know Brady's preference do it on his own? Or does Belichick have an assigned "ball deflator"?

It also matters how common this is/was for the Patriots. Did they do it all season? Have they been doing it since 2007? Or was this a one time, high pressure game thing?

Then when it gets to the actual punishment, the impact of the cheating does matter. The NFL has prescribed punishments for various levels of offenses and this has to be considered. Not all cheating is punished equally. For example, PED's are cheating, but the team isn't punished, the individual player is. Otherwise if we consider all cheating to be equally heinous and should void all wins, that means any team that had someone use PED's during their season has to give back their super bowl rings. I suspect that would be quite a few.

Lastly, I think the overall righteous indignation about cheating needs to end. To me it stinks of statements like:

sanctity of the game
love of the game
sportsmanship

These sound like good ideals, but they aren't really representative of what the NFL is, which is a business in which millions of dollars (or even billions if you're an owner) are at stake. When people's livelihoods are on the line, and their livelihoods have the possibility of making them very wealthy, they are naturally going to look for any and every advantage they can gain.

These aren't "athletes" in the Victorian sense of the word. They aren't there to engage in contests of pure athletic skill. It's a cutthroat entertainment business and if you don't use every fiber of your being to take everything you can, someone else will take what you have from you.

I don't say this to apologize for the cheaters, but rather as a fan I get really annoyed at the sanctimonious b$+@*!+$ being spouted (particularly by former players). If the Patriots cheated, they should be punished in a way that is commensurate with their crime. Lost draft picks for example is a very powerful punishment that can affect a team for years, hampering their ability to field the best team they can for quite a while.

I'm not a Patriots fan either. The team that breaks my heart is the Vikings.


Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Please. Unless it's just more of "this isn't really a feminist issue." Talking about a phenomenon that exemplifies the (most likely non-malicious in intent and unconscious) habit of many men to take up more space than women, to seemingly feel entitled to more space than women is an issue of gender equality. It's possible to address something like this while also caring about and addressing more severe gender inequalities. I'm not in the mood for straw-feminists.

What makes you think they are doing it because they feel entitled to more space than women?

Most likely, the majority of those people simply don't realize the space they are occupying or don't have much choice due to height and whatnot... And some of them are douches who don't care if they are inconveniencing others (male or female), but I doubt any of them is doing it specifically because they think women deserve less space.

Not every reprehensible behavior is caused by sexism, you know...

Concerning the bolded portion, which method would you consider more effective at correcting this issue:

1) Silence
2) Sharing information

"Excuse me, may I sit there?" usually works. The person will automatically try to open space for you to sit (unless they are one of the douches, but thankfully, those are the exception, not the rule).

Which of the two options that I provided do you think that your explanation falls under, 1 or 2?


The indigestible portion of corn is called an insoluble fiber.

Insoluble fiber is important for your digestive tract, even though it isn't digested. It's very good for you, even though it isn't broken down by the body.

A second source.

Studies regularly reinforce the fact that high fiber diets (which includes both soluble and insoluble fiber) reduce your chance of coronary disease, stroke, hypertension, gastrointestinal diseases, diabetes and obesity. This of course applies to unprocessed corn. Processed grains involves removing the fiber, which of removes the "indigestible" portion, but also removes the health benefits of fiber as well.


MagusJanus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Your point was that without something like industrial farming the world could not possibly feed itself.

My point is that in industrial farming:

1) a significant portion of the crop goes to non-food purposes
2) even some of the "food" purposes are indirect

It is a myth that industrial farming is NECESSARY for human existence. Feel free to counter with some data. Corn is by far our largest crop in the US. Currently some 87,000,000 acres are used for growing corn (which is a little smaller than the state of Montana). Only 12% of that corn goes to feed humans.

Source = National Corn Grower's Association

They're not some sort of ironically named anti-corn group. They are a lobbyists for corn farmers. Here's a list of their donations in 2014. I provide that not necessarily as an indictment, but rather proof that these numbers are their attempt to make corn look like the best thing ever. They don't claim that corn feeds the world.

Industrial farming isn't about feeding people.

I apologize for the delay. There was a medication switch due to unfortunate side-effects from my last meds that left me hospitalized for a day.

I also needed time to dig out the original version of the report you linked to. I have to agree with them; the orange really does make it look better than the green I originally suggested. But then, I wrote it. One of my better-paying "consultations."

Yeah, that paper is somewhat bunk. Certain sections of it I simply made up at the time. In particular, I'm proud of the fiction I wrote under Everyday Sustainability.

And, actually, it's biologically impossible for corn to feed the world; humans don't possess the correct enzymes to digest corn. So, to be perfectly accurate, the wasted portion of the corn output is the portion humans eat.

Finally, my stance is not that factory farming is necessary, but that industrialization is necessary for farming to feed the world; there's a difference. Industrialization is, effectively, the entirety of...

Your defense about industrial farming is that you made stuff up to make it look better, therefore it's vital to our self-preservation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Please. Unless it's just more of "this isn't really a feminist issue." Talking about a phenomenon that exemplifies the (most likely non-malicious in intent and unconscious) habit of many men to take up more space than women, to seemingly feel entitled to more space than women is an issue of gender equality. It's possible to address something like this while also caring about and addressing more severe gender inequalities. I'm not in the mood for straw-feminists.

What makes you think they are doing it because they feel entitled to more space than women?

Most likely, the majority of those people simply don't realize the space they are occupying or don't have much choice due to height and whatnot... And some of them are douches who don't care if they are inconveniencing others (male or female), but I doubt any of them is doing it specifically because they think women deserve less space.

Not every reprehensible behavior is caused by sexism, you know...

Concerning the bolded portion, which method would you consider more effective at correcting this issue:

1) Silence
2) Sharing information


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Yeah, you're clearly seeing things ONLY as you want to see them to make sense for your argument.

If you have no counter argument other than a baseless ad hom then you have no argument.

You haven't yet actually provided proof of anything you've said. You keep making claims and stating opinions, but you haven't really provided proof.

To this point, you sound like a petulant child who is threatening to misbehave further unless his demands are met. I'm not wrong either. You make those very threats on the last post of the previous page. You point your righteous indignation at other people being inconvenienced by you and threaten to double down on the behavior in an attempt to bully your way to a victory.

This is not an ad hom. This is a fact. You very much made that threat yesterday.

Everything else just sounds like rationalization coming from you now. There's no point in arguing with someone who will do whatever mental gymnastics are required to rationalize their point, because they'll never stop doing it and it doesn't matter what I say, because it will always be rationalized.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Why should he? You're not fitting a second person into that seat anyway.

If he has his knees at should with apart his boots +feet +femur is a good for or 5 inches taller than than the height of the seat. If your thighs are directly in front of you like that, you're pushing against them into your midsection, not fun. If that makes no sense to you, try sitting with your legs together on a childs seat.

Yeah, you're clearly seeing things ONLY as you want to see them to make sense for your argument.

You can argue this with someone else, cause I have no interest in you making stuff up that I can see aren't true.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Most of the people in the photos doing the manspread are pretty tall. You need to make your femur shorter than the height of the seat somehow and that means putting it out or putting it at an angle.

You keep saying this, but none of the pictures being shown does this statement make any sense at all.

Lets use the photo you linked.

What exactly is preventing him from sitting with his knees a little bit closer, say 8-10 inches apart?


houstonderek wrote:
Considering the number of options in Pathfinder, and the insane number of options if the DM allows 3.5 and 3PP material, it would due madness NOT to plan your character to at least some degree. Just looking through all of the books would take a ton of time every time you leveled if you didn't have some idea what you wanted your character to look like.

Quota achieved, since this point has been made on every page of this thread I believe.


Like stapling jello to a tree

As useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You should consider Mythender instead. You can download the pdf for free from the Paizo website.

Mythender

The feel of the game is like playing a 20th level game, on crack. It only concerns itself with the equivalent of high level abilities, so you don't have to keep track of as much stuff. Here's how I describe what this game feels like:

It's like the final fight from The Avengers. Since it's an RPG done in real-time, it lacks some of the polish, but the epic feeling and intensity is very much present.

There's also a short document about running Mythender in Golarion.


Education is only one factor and it plays different roles.

Women who work and have a higher education tend to have fewer children.

At the same time, if things like education and various services are cheap or free, they don't act as barriers to having children, which increases the birth rate.

Also, Europe went through a similar change, though not as drastic as the US, in regards to abortion. While attempts at reforming abortion laws started in the 30's, it wasn't until the late 60's that laws were finally repealed.

The only major difference between the US and Europe concerning abortion is how we talk about it. The antiabortion groups are much more vocal and powerful here in the US (though they decidedly in the minority, albeit powerful). Otherwise the timeline is fairly similar.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Keep in mind that college graduates and prison inmate are partially selective: the smart, driven person willing and able to work within the system is more likely to end up in college while someone that isn't is more likely to wind up in prison. You can't just turn one into the other.

Are you claiming that there has never been a violent offender who went to prison, but was later able to turn their life around and become a successful and contributing member of society?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
By the time career criminals arrive at their prime years for crime (16-24), they've already rejected education as a pursuit in favor of crime. School is already free (compulsory, actually) at the point they are developing a criminal skill set. This proposal would have almost no effect on crime. (Throwing people in prison, on the other hand, is proven to be effective at lowering the crime rate. The so-called prison-industrial complex is the primary driver of the post-1994 drop in crime.)

The facts don't support your argument.

Prison inmates who participate in educational programs have a 43% lower recidivism rate than inmates who do not participate.

The prison-industrial complex has actually been shown to increase crime. It creates a network of information sharing and community building amongst criminals that further aids their criminal endeavors, especially organized crime. There's also significant evidence that the increase in prison populations is pushing higher and higher participation in prison gangs, which also results in higher participation in gangs outside of prison.

The drop in the crime rate is much more closely linked with the legalization of abortion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

By that logic, every time I disagree with someone I'm choosing to belittle them, because the mere fact that I disagree means I think their argument is not good enough.

Yes, sometimes I question the validity of claims. Because sometimes I think those claims are not a big deal. That doesn't come even close to trying to silence anyone.

Like I said, if someone creates a thread complaining about the color of the t-shirts of their players, I'll say I think it's a non-issue. I'll not pretend it's a big deal just to spare the OP's feelings. If the OP is so sensitive that he's hurt by someone disagreeing with him online, then he shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.

You can choose to interpret my post in the most offensive and dismissive way possible, but that doesn't mean I was offensive or dismissive. Much less that I'm trying to stop anyone from talking about whatever.

Let me try to use that same logic... You know, by accusing me of trying to stop the debate, you are trying to silence me. Trying to make me feel bad about disagreeing, saying "agree or be quiet".

Not a very good line of thought, huh?

So no, I'll not stop disagreeing with people when I think they are wrong. You can take that as me being mean or condescending. The way I see it, I'm just being honest and sharing my opinion. If you want me to take the "issue" of players planning their character seriously, then give me a good reason why it's a real problem (so far, none of the arguments were very convincing). Don't expect me to automatically agree with you and support your claims. Same goes for trying to convince me of anything.

No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying to encourage you to participate in the conversation more constructively.

If your only concern is that this issue doesn't exist, fine. I think at this point we are all convinced you believe this is a non-issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Here's the problem I have with your response:

Someone came on here and said "something is bothering me".

Instead of trying to understand why it's bothering them, your response is essentially "be quiet, it's not a problem".

No, my response is "Why the hell is this even a problem?". So far the answers I got are not very convincing. I have no obligation to agree with anyone.

I never told anyone to "be quiet", I merely said it's simply not something that I consider worth of being bothered by.

Irontruth wrote:
So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.

Anyone can choose to be bothered by anything... What I'm pointing out is that some things are just not worth being bothered by. "Players planning their character build" definitely falls into that category for me. And I have every right to voice my opinion that the presented issue is not a real issue. If someone created a thread named "I'm sick of players wearing blue shirts!" I'd also point out that I don't think the color of someone else's shirt is a problem... Even if someone insisted that it is for whatever reason.

Irontruth wrote:
By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".

Hah! Yeah, right...

For someone who claims to know my "standard response", you obviously haven't been paying attention. (Also, how the hell would you know what I do IRL? Are you stalking me? :P)

Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I'm trying to keep them from talking. I don't remember any instance where I told anyone to shut up. At most, I replied multiple times explaining my arguments... You know... Like people to do in a discussion....

I understand what you're trying to say. I really do.

The problem is communication between humans, and it's a problem you aren't understanding. You think you are saying one thing, and it's being interpreted as something else. Here's the thing though, it's a fundamental problem to thing you are trying to say, not a problem with communication, language or interpretation.

When someone says "I have a problem"
You respond "That's not a problem"

You do this consistently, and in multiple threads (I'm not stalking you, the "RL" topics comment was referring to other threads about life in general, other than roleplaying).

Now, you're free to say "that's not a problem" all you want. The issue is that when you do that, it becomes interpreted as "be quiet". I understand you're NOT trying to say that, but that is an inherent inferred meaning, regardless of your intent. This is the nature of how human minds work.

You aren't choosing to belittle and condescend, but that is the effect of your comments.

I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm pointing this out so that you KNOW. You have the choice, take this as a moment to learn something, or continue on your path where you inadvertently (even though you don't want to) belittle and condescend others.

If it is your goal to better understand WHY this bothers other people, than there are better ways to go about it. But to question the validity of the premise IS an attempt to shut down conversation on the topic.

This is not from the simple fact of your disagreement. It's fine to disagree. To be honest, I don't necessarily agree with the OP either. I want to offer suggestions and advice though, and setting myself up as the opposition who completely disagrees is not the best method to do that though. Plus I do understand the core problem and have methods from my own games that can help solve that issue, because I have personally seen, experienced and probably even been that problem before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Or he may just be confident in his own abilities. He is wondering "Should I drop my training, which proved successful so far, to chase whatever mysterious teaching they are offering?".
Sure, again, its in-character. That's the important part.

And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.

There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.

What about someone who refuses to deviate from their plan? What if their refusal becomes disruptive at the table or reduces the enjoyment of others?

That is about a player being intransigent, not about planning. You can build a character by randomly choosing feats and class levels and still be unwilling to collaborate with the story.

Besides, if the player's plan only involves his own character build.. Who cares? What does it matter for the GM if the guy sticks with his plan? How exactly does it harm the story? What's the difference between a character randomly grabbing Improved Critical or deciding to take it 5 levels in advance?

Here's the problem I have with your response:

Someone came on here and said "something is bothering me".

Instead of trying to understand why it's bothering them, your response is essentially "be quiet, it's not a problem".

I agree, I think planning the character is a good thing. The game is complex and to make a good, solid character can take planning and preparation.

At the same time, I see the point. It CAN (not always, but sometimes) represent a player who is being uncooperative, who doesn't interact with the DM and other players fully.

So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.

By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".


Lemmy wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Or he may just be confident in his own abilities. He is wondering "Should I drop my training, which proved successful so far, to chase whatever mysterious teaching they are offering?".
Sure, again, its in-character. That's the important part.

And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.

There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.

What about someone who refuses to deviate from their plan? What if their refusal becomes disruptive at the table or reduces the enjoyment of others?


LazarX wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Prove it.
You will find that this link Matter into a Black Hole proves my point. My theory is based on the non-rotating Schwarzschild black hole, because there is no way for matter to avoid colliding with the Singularity.
There really isn't such a thing as a non-rotating black hole. The original angular momentum of the source star is still preserved. You're still going to be tidally compressed to a superheated fine mist, so it's rather irrelevant.
You can prove that all objects in the universe have angular momentum?
The correct physics answer is that 1. I can state with good confidence that the answer is most likely yes. The collapse of nebulae into stars and planets by necessity imparts angular momentum to the resulting products, just as an ice skater speeds up by pulling in her arms. 2. In order to have a non-rotating black hole, you would need to account for the disappearance of the angular momentum of the collapsing star. Like other forms of energy it can't just disappear.
I didn't ask whether something was likely or not. I asked if you could prove that all objects in the universe have angular momentum.
All objects that can collapse into black holes... yes. In that it's impossible as far as we know to make a star, or a galaxy without angular momentum. Every object we've observed, whether comet, asteroid, moon, planet, or star, has rotation, thus angular momentum. When a star collapses into a black hole, the following is preserved, mass, angular momentum, and net charge as observed in the event horizon. Schwarzschild's model was the first proposition of a black hole, presented as a theorectical ideal, like absolute zero. The math in that paper had not been worked out to take into account rotatation, and of course, it was some time...

I agree with you, a Schwarzschild black hole seems highly unlikely.

You haven't actually presented anything that could conceivably be considered PROOF that they don't exist. You are merely putting forth evidence on how likely it will be to find.

Overall, this is a pedantic conversation. If you insist on claiming PROOF of it, I'm certainly happy to continue it with you. I have no interest in defending Schwarzschild's model, but so far you haven't actually proven it to be a false one.


LazarX wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Prove it.
You will find that this link Matter into a Black Hole proves my point. My theory is based on the non-rotating Schwarzschild black hole, because there is no way for matter to avoid colliding with the Singularity.
There really isn't such a thing as a non-rotating black hole. The original angular momentum of the source star is still preserved. You're still going to be tidally compressed to a superheated fine mist, so it's rather irrelevant.
You can prove that all objects in the universe have angular momentum?
The correct physics answer is that 1. I can state with good confidence that the answer is most likely yes. The collapse of nebulae into stars and planets by necessity imparts angular momentum to the resulting products, just as an ice skater speeds up by pulling in her arms. 2. In order to have a non-rotating black hole, you would need to account for the disappearance of the angular momentum of the collapsing star. Like other forms of energy it can't just disappear.

I didn't ask whether something was likely or not. I asked if you could prove that all objects in the universe have angular momentum.


LazarX wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Prove it.
You will find that this link Matter into a Black Hole proves my point. My theory is based on the non-rotating Schwarzschild black hole, because there is no way for matter to avoid colliding with the Singularity.
There really isn't such a thing as a non-rotating black hole. The original angular momentum of the source star is still preserved. You're still going to be tidally compressed to a superheated fine mist, so it's rather irrelevant.

You can prove that all objects in the universe have angular momentum?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.
Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

I think there's an important difference here.

GMs who railroad are making the players do things the players don't want to do.

Players who plot out characters aren't making the GM do anything she doesn't want to do.

Basically, I can overplan the toppings on my own pizza to my heart's content, but that's not the same as your planning my toppings.

You're not understanding the comparison then.

GM Railroading: in effect, regardless of the actions of the players, them GM is forcing a series of events to take place.

PC 1-20 Planning: regardless of the actions of other players or events that happen in the game, you are making your character this way and no other way.

Both behaviors are ignoring the collaborative effort that is occurring at the table.

I completely understand that characters in this game do require planning to achieve certain goals. At the same time, I see the point about allowing for deviation from that plan to account for events as they unfold. Part of it is a restriction by the game system. Pathfinder rewards specialization and locks you into certain options.

I get why this rubs people the wrong way too. Traditionally in a lot of D&D based games the only control and influence a player has is over their own character. Deciding what feats to take and what skills to grab are the only refuge of player authority often times.

That said, a player who is going to do whatever they're going to do regardless of the actions and wishes of those around them is engaging the same kind of behavior as a DM who railroads the party. It's just that the players influence and control is smaller, so the direct impact is less, but it can be disruptive to a table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Farael the Fallen wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Prove it.
You will find that this link Matter into a Black Hole proves my point. My theory is based on the non-rotating Schwarzschild black hole, because there is no way for matter to avoid colliding with the Singularity.

From your link:

Quote:
Once inside a black hole, beyond the Event Horizon, we can only speculate what the fate of captured matter is.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that speculation is not considered proof in the scientific community.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I've had GMs tell me that "this particular campaign is about `redemption,'" for example. Yeah, right. It's about redemption if we decide that we are willing to allow our characters to redeem themselves. If I don't want to be `redeemed,' you're not going to be able to make it happen -- and we're both going to be very frustrated.

Let's say I say this to you. That I want to run a game about redemption.

As a player you have three options:

1) Say yes and play the game.
2) Say no and do something else with your time.
3) Say yes, but offer input and insight that can help shape the game.

If you are truly uninterested in a theme, you are perfectly in your right to say "no" and walk away. Start your own game.

You are also entitled to talk to the GM and express concerns and suggestions.

I was at a house-con this weekend. I ran my most favorite game ever, two times. It is heavily themed (power vs free will vs survival). As soon as the first session ended, one player turned to me and said "Can we play this again tomorrow?".

The sessions were great. They stayed on theme and the players had a blast. I don't railroad, but I do keep things on theme. Players get to do what then want, but I ask questions and put obstacles in their path that directly related to those themes. If those players didn't want to confront those themes, they were more than welcome to join a different table (they could literally walk to the next room and play a different game there). I also gave them massive amounts of control over their characters and the world around them.

When introducing the game I talk about what the game is like. I also talk about what the game is not like, so that people get a good idea of what they're getting themselves into.

As a player, when I join a game I make it a point to buy into whatever the GM is excited about. They want to share something with me, so I listen to their ideas and goals. This lets me play my part in contributing and ensure that the GM and I are working together to create a cool and fun game. In return, I expect to have input and control over the story (proportionally as I'm only 1 player).

I do not consider the GM and player roles to be naturally combative positions at the table. Rather I see us all as people sharing a collaborative experience. With that in mind, communicating goals and sharing ideas is important.

If a GM and 4 players all want to have a serious game about a tragedy, if I'm the 5th player, I'm an ass if I come in and make it all about Monty Python jokes. And vice versa, if it's a game of Monty Python jokes, I'm a jerk if I tell people to shut up and be serious. This all gets into communicating the mood and theme of the game and adhering to that as a participant.


MMCJawa wrote:
Well...there are bacteria out there that can grow on nuclear reactor cores. There are also bacteria living in rock pore space miles under the earth. So even a total nuclear war wouldn't render the planet completely lifeless technically. (and a nuclear war of that magnitude seems rather unlikely now)

The question is more "what would destroy human life?"

Neat as bacteria is, very little of it qualifies as "human life". (Though it is highly important to our survival and function as a species)


I cooked my bacon explosion. It was delicious.

Unfortunately it was too cold outside to use the smoker. So it wasn't epic. It was good, just not epic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
If you're a patriot, you'd support free college education for US citizens. If you don't, you hate America and want to see it fail.

It's this form of political rhetoric that keeps American government from reaching compromises and getting anything done ever.

- Torger

I was partially being sarcastic. At the same time, there's a very real element to what I said in those 2 sentences. If a person truly wants America to succeed, we need the most educated workforce in the world. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that.

Education is basically one of the core pillars of solving a majority of the problems people identify in the US. It would reduce crime, give people the tools to pull themselves out of poverty and ensure that as a nation we stay on the cutting edge of technology.

We constantly get this rhetoric that giving help to those who need it is a bad thing. Instead, we should just give more to those who don't need help. That doesn't make us stronger as a country, it only makes those individuals stronger.

Interesting fact: Salt Lake City has reduced their homeless population by over 70% in recent years. Their solution? Give them a place to live. It has numerous benefits:

1) When they apply for jobs, they can now accurate fill out the "address" portion
2) It makes it easier for social services to find them and assist them, for example if they need regular doctors visits and prescriptions to deal with mental health issues.
3) Salt Lake City now spends less money dealing with homeless people per person than other major cities (Salt Lake City used to spend an average of $20,000/year on each homeless person, that has dropped to $8,000/year).

A Colorado study had similar results:
each homeless on the street = $43,000/year
providing same services PLUS housing = $17,000/year

Lifting up those on the bottom makes economic sense and improves our country in other ways too (like reducing crime). That doesn't necessarily mean that every program designed to help the poor is perfect (or even good), but we have to keep arguing over whether it's even good to help them or not, so we can't have a rational discussion about how.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
It's like raising the minimum wage - the inflation that comes with it undoes all the potential good, and lowers the values of those who earn more than it.

That makes no sense. I don't think any real world examples would back up that claim.

EDIT: They figured this stuff out 100 years ago. When you give working people more money it stimulates the economy. Trickle down economics has proven to be a farce for decades now.

What happens is that minimum wage goes up. The people making minimum wage have more money. The business paying them has more expense but is not getting more for that extra expense. The business then raises its prices to cover the expense. Everybody then has to pay more for what they were getting, including those who did not get a raise from the minimum wage going up.

Inflation continues. That extra money that the people getting the government-enforced raise got gets put toward the increased expenses. Those who didn't get a raise see that the money they have buys less.

But the government makes more money, because income taxes only care about how much money you made, not how much money you made compared to how much things cost.

Increasing the minimum wage does not increase inflation. There's a simple way to look at it to know this is true.

Inflation has happened at a faster rate than the minimum wage has gone up, and it's done regardless of increases (or lack of increases) to the minimum wage.

There isn't even a correlation between inflation and minimum wage, let alone causation.

Second, if you want to continue to live in the richest country in the world, we need to have a workforce that dominates the best paying jobs in the world. If all the high-end technology workers start coming out of India and China, we will be left behind in the dust.

If you're a patriot, you'd support free college education for US citizens. If you don't, you hate America and want to see it fail.


It calls for pork butt? Not pork belly?

I have to go to the butcher shop today or tomorrow and pick up a couple pounds of bacon. A friend is hosting a house-con this weekend for his birthday (2 days of board games and roleplaying games) and I'm going to make a bacon explosion.


Brox RedGloves wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:

That doesn't match what I've learnt, nor does it match Wikipedia's description:

Well if it doesn't match then let me go over there and change it. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to cite facts since it can be changed on a whim.

Rather, it should be used as a jumping point to verify facts from other, more reputable sources.

EDIT: I gotta werk on my peepl skillz

Please, go change the Galileo page on wikipedia. Tell us how long it stays changed.

1) I doubt your change will go through
2) If it does, it won't stay for more than a few hours, or even minutes.

For one, wikipedia does not immediately display anonymous edits. You have to register, sign in, etc. Second, if you aren't a trusted source (you've submitted information numerous times that has turned out to be true), your edits are not immediately displayed. The process of becoming a trusted editor can take months to years depending on how active you are in the wikipedia community.

Go test it. See how it turns out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Here are some numbers about farming:

40% of corn grown in the US is used to make fuel, not food.
36% of corn is fed to animals (plus some of the leftovers not used in the fuel process above)
98% of soybean meal is used to feed animals.
12% of soybean oil is used as a petroleum alternative.

We do use 80% of soybean oil for human consumption, but the solids themselves almost entirely go to animals.

Article on water consumption for specific crops
California has wonderful temperatures for growing crops, but it completely lacks the water necessary to sustain the farming industry as we now use it. A single almond takes 1.1 gallons and 99% of all almonds grown in the US are grown in California.

Also note, when looking at the pictures of how severe the drought is, those are nearly 12 months old and the conditions have gotten worse since then.

Commercial farming is inefficient. It's ridiculous to suggest that we MUST stay with an inefficient system or we'll all starve.

Non-commercial farming is going to have all of the same problems with water and crop usage; moving away from commercial farming will not solve those problems. Note that in both of the fuel cases, those are a result of the U.S. trying green-at-the-time solutions to the fossil fuel problem.

So, do you have a solution that actually reduces those wastes? Because everyone I've talked to about it has ultimately admitted the only way they see to have a positive impact is to reduce the need for the crops in the first place... which means reducing the human population.

Your point was that without something like industrial farming the world could not possibly feed itself.

My point is that in industrial farming:

1) a significant portion of the crop goes to non-food purposes
2) even some of the "food" purposes are indirect

It is a myth that industrial farming is NECESSARY for human existence. Feel free to counter with some data. Corn is by far our largest crop in the US. Currently some 87,000,000 acres are used for growing corn (which is a little smaller than the state of Montana). Only 12% of that corn goes to feed humans.

Source = National Corn Grower's Association

They're not some sort of ironically named anti-corn group. They are a lobbyists for corn farmers. Here's a list of their donations in 2014. I provide that not necessarily as an indictment, but rather proof that these numbers are their attempt to make corn look like the best thing ever. They don't claim that corn feeds the world.

Industrial farming isn't about feeding people.


Here are some numbers about farming:

40% of corn grown in the US is used to make fuel, not food.
36% of corn is fed to animals (plus some of the leftovers not used in the fuel process above)
98% of soybean meal is used to feed animals.
12% of soybean oil is used as a petroleum alternative.

We do use 80% of soybean oil for human consumption, but the solids themselves almost entirely go to animals.

Article on water consumption for specific crops
California has wonderful temperatures for growing crops, but it completely lacks the water necessary to sustain the farming industry as we now use it. A single almond takes 1.1 gallons and 99% of all almonds grown in the US are grown in California.

Also note, when looking at the pictures of how severe the drought is, those are nearly 12 months old and the conditions have gotten worse since then.

Commercial farming is inefficient. It's ridiculous to suggest that we MUST stay with an inefficient system or we'll all starve.


Kullen wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Second, don't let anyone else tell you how to drink Scotch. If you like it over ice and drowned in Coke, that's fine.
Er, to quibble, I'd say that's fine if you drink it alone and not when other people might smell it. Scotch and Coke?! That's like saying "You want a bite of cooked carrots mashed into chocolate milk?" No one is going to thank you for sharing.

Naw, he's right.

I agree, scotch* and coke is horrible, but if someone likes it, more power to them.

*IMO scotch is one of the worst mixing alcohols in general. Even if I didn't appreciate it's more subtle aspects, it just has something about it that doesn't mix well. There are a few cocktails that work, the exception that proves the rule and all that.

Rusty Nail
Scotch
Drambuie (a scotch based liqueur)
Bitters (Angostura is a popular choice)

I've seen ratios from 1:1 to 4:1 (2 ounces of Scotch, 1/2 ounce of Drambuie), so experiment and find your ratio.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Last night I finally sampled The Yamazaki 12-Year Old Single Malt Japanese Whiskey. I don't care if it's a ripoff, the stuff is GOOD, comparable more to a MacAllen than to a Glenfiddich (if we're talking Speysides). I'm a little leary of the price tag ($68 + 7% + 18% tax here in PA), but the stuff is definitely worth sampling.

I suspect it's mostly that bit of culture shock that people have when thinking about Japanese whiskeys, it just doesn't sound like it should make sense. I haven't had any myself, but I've been wanting to try.

I was on a trip to visit family in Texas a couple weeks ago. While there I noticed a bottle of local bourbon, TX Blended Whiskey from Firestone & Robertson. It was $35, so I grabbed it. Overall I like it. It's decently smooth and has a nice variety of flavors, vanilla, cinnamon and caramel stand out to me. It's decent straight or a touch of water/ice. I've found it's also an extremely good mixer, if it were available around here and a little cheaper, it would be my go-to for this purpose. It mixes great with anything that has some sweetness to it, or shares one of it's flavors.


Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
"I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems."

I'm not taking it as an attack, but I believe Lisa Stevens has the credibility to take what she says at face value...

You're entitled to your opinion on the matter of course, but as far as I know, you've not claimed to have seen the actual financial records of TSR, and Lisa has... In fact, it was her very job to look over the actual financial records to find out what happened to TSR.

How can a person who is on the side-lines, "arm-chair quarterbacking" as they say, without ever having seen the actual financial records, form any kind of believable opinion that another person (with credibility) that has actually seen those records is somehow mistaken?

Now, if Lisa had never said that she had gone over the financial records of TSR, then forming an opinion as a mere consumer on factors one sees in sales trends, hears in tales told by former TSR employees (who themselves probably never saw the financial records), and other such information, that is (IMO) something worth continuing to speculate...

If you have indeed seen those records, and I am mistaken about you just being a consumer, please, feel free to correct my error.

Seeing as you just spent your entire post going after ME and not the actual information I presented, I have no further interest in your words.

1 to 50 of 5,038 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.