Meatrace, first off, apology. You are quite correct, I did completely and utterly misread what you said and imputed malicious actionns on your part into the text that weren't there. I'm sorry I got your argument so wrong that my response was but releveant, especially as that annoyed you. Wasn't my intention and I f&&@ed up.
Now, to make sure I understand your argument correctly this time, are you saying there are no circumstances when people can complain about being offended? Or is it just people you are not talking to who shouldn't complain?
The former I disagree with completely, the latter, not so much. If you're clearly audible from 30ft away, though, it is kind of hard to argue you're having a private conversation. If nothing else, she could have legitimately asked you to keep the noise down. If you're making that much noise and swearing, yeah, people can complain about your language. You're inflicting it on them, after all. Seriously, 30ft is a hell of a way for hushed conversation to travel, even in a quiet place. Same way if you are in conversation, as Hama said he was earlier, and you playfully insult your friend with racist/homophobic/whatever language, someone else in the conversation could legitiamately ask you to stop as that's racist/homophobic/whatever. You do not necessarily have to do anything about it, but they can tell you you're being offensive.
Going up to random strangers having a converasation and then interrupting if they're just talking normally is an incredibly rude and dickish thing to do. I think we agree on that one. They have the right to be rude and dickish, of course, but as mentioned earlier, they don't have the right not to be treated as such for their actions.
EDIT: To be sure, if she's screaming and shouting at you for it, then yeah, she's behaving as a crumpet. But if someone comes up and says, not shouts, they can hear you from across the room and what you're saying is offensive, maybe at least moderate the volume?
I agree. People don't think of themselves as crumpets which means the person they're being a crumpet to must be the one at fault. And yes, I'm guilty of this myself. Everyone is a crumpet at some point in their lives. However, I'm just pointing out your lack of awareness of being a crumpet does not mean you are not, in fact, being a crumpet. And if you have the right to be a crumpet, I have the right to be one right back by poiunting it out. It might not be productive but we're not arguing about effectiveness but that the right to free speech both includes the right to be a total and utter crumpet, and the right to point it out and ask you to stop.
You're telling her she can't say something that she wants to say. That's you censoring her free speech. It's not exactly a subtle or complicated point. Whether she should have been listening is another social matter entirely and you're quite free to ignore her because she shoudln't be eavesdropping, but you're saying she shouldn't be allowed to say anything to you about it. Where's your respect for her right to free speech? However, if she heard you whispering from 30 feet away? Maybe that whisper isn't as quiet as you think it is.
And would your argument be different if she was in a conversation with you? If you swear and she is offended and says so, would you still say she shouldn't be allowed to tell you that you've offended her? If so, what's the difference, regardless of your intent, she heard you and was offended. Maybe she should have kept her offence quiet. Maybe you shouldn't swear so much. Same free speech issue. If she shouldn't be offended by overhearing you swearing, you shouldn't get a wasp up your arse about her telling you she was offended, either.
EDIT: Her saying she's offended and you should stop is as much cenosrship as you saying she shouldn't be offended. In both cases, you're trying to control someone else's speech and emotional reactions.
DM Wellard wrote:
In general I agree with your comments...once again we were left with more questions than answers..perhaps the Anniversary will bring some of the latter
And while we wait, would you be interested in this lovely bridge I happen to have to sell? ;-)Let's be honest, Moffat does not seem to like resolving mysteries unless he can pile on even more mysteries.
So it's not just targetting the Tea Party. Which means the claim that the IRS is just doing this as a political move, maybe isn't true given, generally, Jewish groups are more likely to support Democrats, right?
Also, the "deserved it" line of argument you used? Really beneath you, Matthew. Unless of course you really are an a!+#~+$@. Which I hope isn't the case as you're usually better than that.
Kingmaker can be if you run the kingdom in the background.
Note, all APs assume PG13, so you'll probably have to tone down some things in all of them.
John Kretzer wrote:
Unless they're by Rich Burlew.
There appears to be a cut and paste error from the Elven Archer in the table. Or at least I presume the Battle Scion doesn't suddenly get Precision +2d6 for no reason at 9th level.
These are fairly trivial points, however. Spell Tactician question, though. When the archetypes replace the 11th level Spell Tactician ability, do they get that ability at 13th level rather than the noraml 13th level ability or do they just lose the 11th ability and get the normal 13th level ability at 13th level? Also, do they lose the increased bonus to Combat Casting?
Squat is traditional weightlifting bar acros sthe shoulders then, with back straight, lower yourself to a just below seated position, squatting, and raise. If you just dip down slghtly and don't go to the full squat, is usually a quarter squat and considered not to count as a proper squat.
And now you know, even if you didn't really want to.
Restore Minions is a Summoner 7 spell. I presume this is suppsoed to be 6 given Summoners don't get 7th level spells.
And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?
LoF is 3.5 only but you can run NPCs as 3.5 without much trouble. I did that for CotCT with a Beta party and it worked fine. It may makwe things a littel easier but only a little. Your better half might reqauire q liattle help for some of the tiems but really not that much.
They do, for exactly this reason. They also have to spend a significant portion of ime pre-op living as the new gender. I have a friend going through it and it's quite a strain for her.
I suppose you could call a straight line a really flat curve if you wanted to mangle the language, but it is a uniform distribution, not a normal one and certainly not a bell curve.
Power over Undead (Su): You receive Command Undead or Turn Undead as a bonus feat. You can channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier, but only to use the selected feat. You can take other feats to add to this ability, such as Extra Channel and Improved Channel, but not feats that alter this ability, such as Elemental Channel and Alignment Channel. The DC to save against these feats is equal to 10 + 1/2 your wizard level + your Charisma modifier. At 20th level, undead cannot add their channel resistance to the save against this ability.
Added bold for emphasis.
I would imagine so. The not showing up in mirrors was due to silver being used, and silver's supposed purifying properties. So unless androids have similar silver eyes they should be vsible just fine. On the other hand, it would be funny if you have an android PC.
Just imagine the effect of an Empress finding herself less than a slave in a system designed to oppress her. The depths of that fall from power to nothingness would produce despair that would be...exquisite. 100 years is nothing to a being whose plans span millennia. It might even be a worthwhile time period for the cosmic equivalent of a prank.
The London comment was to kryzbyn who I was originally replying to and forgot to delete.
The 'highie' was an attempt at humour referencing your high-blood pressure and using it to label you. In retrospect (i.e. five seconds thought) it was a stupid-arse thing to do, so I deleted it.
And yes, quite possibly that rant was a little incoherent. I just don't see how further labelling the out group and excluding them which is what calling people like us normal (which as I'm sure you'll admit is rather bizarre in itself) is not seen as a bad thing. The majority needs to be more careful of the minority for the same reason an elephanrt has to be more careful around a mouse than vice versa.
Still more than 50% of London (not that that's really relevant).
But if you're used to being called things like abomination, unnatural, freak, adding abnormal all the f%ing time is not a good thing. How much f*#*ing empathy do you have to have to realise that further otherising people who are already marginalised, insulted and generally treated worse than s$$$ is a bad thing?
How is being called cisgendered a problem exactly? If it's a problem, perhaps being called transgendered is also a problem to them and you're making things worse without even thinking about it? Good grief, I know I'm not the most observant or empathetic person on the planet but is that really so difficult to understand?
EDIT: And, meat, for the record, I'm probably pastier than my avatar.
No. It's not fair. You have noted I've f+#~ing agreed withyou that AA is a crude unfair system, right? I'm still waiting for you to come up with something better. So far, nothing. What's your solution? Identifying a problem is only the first step in fixing it. What is your fix for this situation?
Andrew R wrote:
You're proving my point, Andrew. Anything short of perfect equality isn't good enough. AA is unfair. It is less unfair than not trying to sort out the problem of racial or sexual bias that has been shown to exist with CVs identical except for the name. You appear fine with people having to work twice as hard to be thought half as good. "Until we stop all of that, nothing should be done to address any of it." seems to be your view. Which does make one wonder how we can change it if no change but global revolution (cue Anklebiter) is enough. So yeah, you're in the same boat as the bigots who actually like that situation, even if you're not bigoted yourself. For practical purposes, you both want the same thing done about the problem: Absolutely nothing.
Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.
I only read X-Factor (and currently Young Avengers. We'll see on that one. Liked and disliked parts so far althoguh loathed the ending of the Children's Crusade when it finally came out) from Marvel. My DC pull list is slightly larger but not exactly huge anymore. My problem with Marvel is the sheer number,and size of crossovers recently and some of the directiosn they've taken. It seems, and this may be my perception through not liking things rather than fact, that there's no such thing as a status quo anymore. The quo changes every 12-18 months with another 8 part multi-platform crossover so it never actually lasts long enough to get to be statused.
Of course this may just be because I'm nearing my forties and getting a lot mroe picky than younger me was, or the comics are still being written for people younger me's age and older me just doesn't understand them anymore. And you kids can get the &*$% off my %^&$ lawn.
And after the latest Pathfinder comic, I think we can safely say that Saerenrae is not hostile to same sex couples, given Kyra's backstory
I think everyone is overlooking the real reason to keep the fiction in the AP. Without it, James Sutter, as editor of the fiction line, might have (some) free time. There's a reason Paizo keeps expanding to the limits, or just beyond, of its staff's capacities for work. It's to make sure no one working there has the free time to really give vent to the horrors lurking in their minds. So keep the AP fiction and protect us all.
Sooo...is there a reason that the subscriptions page now shows RoW issues 1 and 2 authorizing on March 14 and shipping on March 22? Is that just a typo since Snows of Summer is supposed to be authorizing right now? Everything else still shows a February release date for it, so it seems more likely it's just an error on the subscriptions page, but I still wanted to check.
My "shipping in the next week e-mail" includes "The Snows of Summer" so it looks like it is an error.
Isn't everyone pretty useless at 14? Plus "kids today" has been a meme since Socrates so it may be they're no worse than we were at their age and we've become our parents.
Not a blast. Also not really doing much to dispel "conjuration is teh bezt spellz evarrrrrr"
Suggestion for 'fixing' Snowball.
The Weregeek comic has been doing a lot on this lately.
Although to be fair to DC, Power Girl's costume has managed to stay intact for two straight issues of World's Finest which I think is a new record. Seriously, how do you take a character with a boob window in her costume and make her more fanservicey?! All they needed to complete things was tentacles! [/rant]