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

ShadowcatX's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,097 posts. 9 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,097 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
But you know what Rosa Parks didn't do? She didn't yell, "Burn this b~*$* down!"

What she did say was, "It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand."

So what she did was more along the lines of not getting out of the street while holding some cheap cigars...

Oh, wait.

I guess the bus driver should have shot her, right?

Only if she was running at the bus driver, trying to take his gun.

She was breaking the law. She refused to move and was arrested.

According to some here, any resistance, even passive disobedience to the arresting officer, justifies beating the criminal while yelling "Stop resisting". Throw in a "Stop reaching for my gun" and you can shoot them too.

Of course, it was a different era back then. The cops didn't need to make excuses, they just waited for the all-white jury to let them off. Nowadays the same thing happens, but the legal contortions have gotten more complicated.

Who here has said that? Who here has said anything even remotely close to that? I'd love to see a quote.

Liberty's Edge

1) If you don't like something someone said flag it and move on. If you think a post should have gotten deleted but didn't, did you flag it? If you did, message the people at Paizo, if not, flag it and move on.

2) It is all well and good to say "(Other) People need to stand up for their rights at the risk of their life." Or to try and compare this situation to civil disobedience, but you know what, Rosa Parks didn't have to worry about getting shot half a dozen or more times.

3) Is saying "Comply in order to stay alive" close to saying "They should've complied then they'd still be alive"? Not in my book. When the victim blaming starts, call the people who do it out on it, but don't try and use the slippery slope argument to deny the intelligence behind doing whatever is needed to survive.

4) No where have I said, or implied, that the police shouldn't be responsible for the lives of all involved, or that they shouldn't be held to a higher standard. They most certainly should. However, the truth is, currently, they are not, and unless you want to be a martyr, that should be at the forefront of your thoughts in dealings with them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see 2 groups. Group 1 says "the victims shouldn't have to do anything, and saying they should do anything is victim blaming" where as group 2 is more concerned with keeping people alive than they are with deciding who is to blame when people get killed. Group 1 might be "right" but I can't help but think I side more with group 2.

The time to worry about your rights is when you're safe. Until things change significantly, when you're dealing with a cop, worry about not getting shot. (Especially if you're not caucasian.)

Liberty's Edge

Yuugasa wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.

The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.

This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.

The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.

Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.

You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?

Of course, but if it was an assassination that is in many ways an even more terrifying scenario. It means a hit man killed his target in broad daylight in front of witnesses with full confidence he would get away with it because he was a cop.

What does that say about the society we live in?

That police officers who are hit men can significantly undercost hit men who are not police officers and eventually get a complete monopoly?

Liberty's Edge

I think he meant crazier and uglier than Manson's girl. I mean if I was Manson and choosing between them I know who I'd pick...

Liberty's Edge

rknop wrote:

OK, I haven't been able to track down all the FAQs and forum postings and so forth that allow one to construct an argument that this is legal, but before I tell a player it's not, I'm hoping somebody can show me where to find it.

The character is a Peri-Blooded Aasimar, which has Pyrotechnics as a SLA, thereby satisfying the 2nd level arcane spell requirement under the currently ill-conceived FAQ ruling from the design team.

With Wizard/2 and Cleric/1, it's possible to have the 3 ranks needed in the two knowledge skills.

Finally: Trickery domain. "Copycat", a weaker version of "Mirror Image", is said to be 2nd level because Mirror Image is, and it's divine because it's from a Cleric domain.

At which point I'm saying, waiddaminnit, you're drawing a tortured connection between RAW and FAQAW to stomp absolutely all over the I in RAI.

Starting with RAI: Mystic Theurge is arguably a very powerful prestige class, since you get two caster levels per level. As such, it should require some effort to qualify for. By default, that means 3rd level wizard and 3rd level cleric, so you can't start it until 7th level.

I usually disagree with the argument that SLAs should qualify you for prestige classes, and would not allow it in a home game, although in some cases I can see it. Again, in terms of Mystic Theurge, where the class represents serious study in both divine and arcane lore, I don't think that stuff you were born with that you can't improve through experience should qualify. But, whatever. Let's leave that one aside, and say that the arcane prerequisite is satisifed.

But Coypcat as a 2nd level divine spell? Really? It's a weaker version of Mirror Image, but because it "cites" Mirror Image it gets to count as 2nd level. It's only an arcane spell in the book, but because it's a Cleric ability, it gets to count as divine. This, by the strict reading of the rules, may well be legal, but DAMN it's cheesy, and to my mind a reason all by itself to throw out SLAs,...

First, RAI does not mean rules as you want them to be. Given that it has been given the go ahead by the designers there is absolutely no RAI argument against it.

Second, mystic theurge was a greatly under powered prc in 3.5 without early entry / ur priest, and has remained so into Pathfinder. It is playable with the faq, though not entirely optimal.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Here is an blog post I like. Many police officers buy into the core idea of broken windows, that low level offenses left prosecuted will lead to more low level offenses until they are normalized and higher level offenses become justifiable because it seems like no one cares. If you apply that to police officers though, how can they justify not looking into accusations against other police officers and yet say that lack of investigation into offenses does not lead to higher incidents of offense?

People never want to believe the worst of themselves or their friends. The broken window is for other people, bad people, not Bob who had your back on that scary call last year or George who covered your Christmas shift for you your first christmas as a married man.

Liberty's Edge

Constantine wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Hold on, let me go get a list of every single person killed by type 2 diabetes, cause that's about as relevant as the information you posted.

People die. Police officers are at greater risk of dying than most people. That is not an excuse

While you do that, I'll grab a list of civilians shot by police officers. Oh wait, I can't because they don't report them even though the law requires it. I guess police officers are criminals too. Now who do we trust?
We are just supposed to believe you on that? Honestly, people say anything and claim they are facts....

If they report as required, show it. That'll help win people over to your side. It really is that easy.

Liberty's Edge

Cops do not think it was an accident? How do you accidentally use a wmd for them to consider the possibility it was an accident?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It might seem like it happens a lot,but the truth is, over all it doesn't. There are thousands of cities across the U. S. and many of those with their own police force, not to mention state and national law enforcement agencies, and other random law enforcement agencies (like tribal police). And still, most officers never fire their weapon.

Also, no a policeman's job is not to bring the suspect in alive or die trying, that would be ridiculous. Their job is to serve and protect the public interest. Sometimes that requires violence, but it should never require the officer surrender his life.

Where America falls down is in following up on shootings. Look at the Michael Brown shooting for instance, that might have been a good shooting or it might not have, but the response to it by the police has been horrible. (If the circumstances had been reversed and Brown had shot an officer I bet they damn sure would have gotten crime scene photos, dead batteries not with standing.)

Which isn't to say that the police in America aren't overly violent, especially against minorities, but it isn't a nationwide plot to oppress people, it is a few bad apples who get away with murder because they're buddies with the people who are investigating.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the clasp is meant to be used against Xykon. A few hp of damage <<<< going swirly eyed and jumping off the edge of the air ship (or something worse).

Liberty's Edge

The Flying Spaghetti Monster touches leafar ith his noodly appendage and leafar likes it.

Liberty's Edge

Revising my earlier list:

Serenity
Cloverfield
Let Me In
Aliens
Signs
Matrix
Pirates of the Caribbean
Bladerunner
The Princess Bride
Shawshank Redemption (maybe)

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
therealthom wrote:
Misroi wrote:

...

In the end, simple probability ended up solving it for me. At the outset, you have three doors, and you have no knowledge of what's behind any of them. Your odds of picking the correct door is 1/3, no matter the door you pick. Each door, therefore, has a value of 1/3. If you pick door 1, you have a 1/3 chance of being correct, and a 2/3 chance in being wrong. Mathematically expressed:

D1 + D2 + D3 = 1
D1 + (D2 + D3) = 1
1/3 + (2/3) = 1

So, Monty opens door 2, revealing a goat. What does that mean? How does it change the expression? Well, what it tells us is that (D2 + D3) isn't (1/3 + 1/3) as we would expect it to be. It still has to equal 2/3, so the quantity is actually (0 + 2/3). So, going against how we normally think probability works, the numbers show that 2/3 times, the prize will be in the door you didn't choose.

The best part of this problem is that it caused so much consternation on the Internet that math teachers actually had their students sit down and test the theory. Time and time again, experimentation showed that switching was the best strategy to win. Yay for fun ways to teach kids math and science!

I'm not getting this. It seems to me that whether or not switching your choice improves your odds depends on Monty's behavior. Does he always show you what's behind one of the doors? Or is he more likely to show you what's behind one of the doors if you have chosen poorly.

Assuming Monty will always show you what's behind one of the doors, you can just as easily pose rewrite your equations thusly:

D1 + D2 + D3 = 1
(D1 + D2) + D3 = 1
2/3 + 1/3 = 1

And darned if you shouldn't always stick to your choice.

If Monty always shows you an empty door your odds were 1/2 when you started and they stay that way.

Monty always shows you an empty door, but he's doing it after you've made your initial choice. He's eliminating one of the bad choices. If you could choose up front or wait until he'd shown you an...

I'm not sure if you are serious or if you're trolling.

Liberty's Edge

You seem to be under the impression that someone in the middle of a riot can say "Hey, this is my house, leave it alone." and the rioting mob will listen to them. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

So what is someone whose house is being looted going to do to stop it? Call the cops? Because that'll goover well and not in any way escalate the situation or bring danger of bodily harm.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
The men wanted to acquire two more bombs, the sources said, but could not afford to do it until the Electronic Benefit Transfer card of one suspect’s girlfriend was replenished.

So, so many really bad things to say but I made a will save so all I'll say is that I'm surprised YD didn't consider this state sponsored terrorism.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no need to feed the troll y'all, we all see him for what he is.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
Driver of car that plows through Michael Brown rally not yet charged

I would like to read a more un-biased account of this including what happened for a minute or so before the video starts. Not that it will excuse running over random people, but I'd like to have the full story of what was going on.

I will say this, if I'd have been in the vehicle once it came to a stop, I'd have been terrified, and I can totally understand saying let's just get out of here and if they get in the way well they'll move. Its how did they get to the point where they had already run over someone that I want to know more about.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Why people are upset

There is a history of blatant cover ups from the department

You understand the difference between surprised and upset?

Liberty's Edge

Skeld wrote:
I thought this was a good read. It's various legal minds weighing in on the fairness of the grand jury hearing.

I wonder how many of those legal experts are experts on behalf of the prosecution, and how many of those get paid for their time and expertise, and of those I wonder how many would be afraid to say anything negative about such a sensitive topic for fear of losing a significant source of income. I suspect the answer is non-trivial.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
Its saner than to suggest that if violence in response to a failure to prosecute over a police involved shooting exceeds the ten million (9 million for taking a life in payout + 1 million to train a new officer) it costs the state to prosecute its own it becomes more economically efficient to prosecute the officer.

Ok. Where are you getting the figures of a 9 million dollar payout for a death and 1 million to train a police officer? I promise you those are both ridiculously high. After having read several of your posts, I really don't think you fathom how much a million truly is (and not just talking about money, I mean just the number one million).

Quote:
So at around 98 incidents a year, the expense would need to be a billion dollars a year to the judicial budget. The most prized asset in the judicial economy being the training of an officer, the exchange rate would be ten officers per African American and a thousand a year at the current rate of violence. I believe that the current rate of loss of officers in the line of duty was about ten to fifteen percent of that exchange rate.

And here I think you're just making stuff up.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
Why not. That Wilson took the life of brown is not in dispute. The only grounds under which a life can be taken is if brown resisted arrest under charge of treason. For Wilson to do so in violation of those grounds is treason.

Do you actually believe this to be true or do you know its false and just hope saying things like it often enough will eventually make it true?

Liberty's Edge

And just to be clear, he didn't lose anything, and this wasn't a case. There's no incentive for him to convince the jury to indict (beyond the whole justice thing but that is so last millenium).

Liberty's Edge

So cops shouldn't whistle blow because it might be dangerous? How is that different from any other part of their job?

I'm sorry, if you apply the law differently based on someone's profession you shouldn't wear the uniform, simple as that.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Again, it's all about how Snowden was bad and how he might have been treated and how Manning was treated and how she behaved differently: It's never about what they actually revealed.

Never about the lies and unconstitutional activities of the government. Never about the secrets or even lying to Congress.

Both conversations have a time and a place.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

1. Serenity

2. - 10. As Don Juan
sabotages ShadowcatX' space ship

You don't have to sabotage my space ship just to get to watch Joss Whedon, I'd loan it to you.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
And at that she was given consideration for her unduly harsh treatment.

And by unduly harsh treatment you mean unconstitutionally bad, bad enough that another government was even asked to intercede on her behalf? And Snowden, who doesn't have another government to plead for him, and who did far more than she did, is an idiot for not turning himself in?

Quote:
But here's the thing: We find these things out. They are announced by the government for crying out loud. The government literally goes, "This was done and it was wrong and here is how we are going about punishing those that did it, and how we are trying to compensate the victims, even if there can never be full compensation for what they endured."

That has to be the most adorable and naive sentiment I've ever seen.

Liberty's Edge

1. Serenity
2. - 10. As Don Juan

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Nah, this is just typical global warming. If hell freezes over, then we'll get really cold.

hundred inches expected over buffalo by Friday?

How big a snowfall is required to form a permanent glacial mass? Does it require rainfall as well?

A lot more than 100 inches. Not that 100 inches isn't horrible, it is definitely far more than is needed to declare a state of emergency, heck, that's 33% more than the average yearly snow fall of Anchorage, Alaska. They're going to have piles of snow that may take a year or more to melt (assuming, of course, that they pile everything they scrape off into huge piles and depending on their temperatures). But it isn't even close to what is needed to form a glacier.

Liberty's Edge

Nah, this is just typical global warming. If hell freezes over, then we'll get really cold.

Liberty's Edge

My GF has to work tonight.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most people who say improved weapon finesse isn't over powered use "they still don't do as much damage as strength based builds" as their argument. I don't agree with that argument. If you have a dex based build, and improved weapon finesse is an option, it is a must have. You'd be a fool not to take it. Ever. And that, my friends, is over powered.

Liberty's Edge

CNN wrote:
A Navy veteran in Missouri said he was fired from his job and called a terrorist for posting pictures to Facebook of Homeland Security vehicles massing near Ferguson.

Here.

Could be totally innocent that Homeland Security is gathering near Ferguson and could totally be coincidental that the man got fired. Still, worth a read.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh good, there weren't enough cops to supress everyone's rights sufficiently good thing the American military is ready to be deployed against American civilians on American citizens.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anonymous has gotten involved and taken over the KKK's twitter account. I like them more and more.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
1) If someone steals $5 worth of ANYTHING from me, I would be hard pressed to not justify getting it back and being intentionally unconcerned with the well-being of the thief.

Here's a simple justification - it's against the law to shoot someone for stealing five dollars.

(Except in Texas, but hey, Ferguson isn't there).

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. Florida and Oklahoma, at least, also have stand your ground laws, which include the right to defend your property, rather it be $5 or $5 million.

My understanding was that the stand your ground laws dealt with defending against (perceived) imminent harm or death or defending your home, but not, for example, with someone who steals a bill out of the tip jar and runs.

(as an aside, I deleted the original post because I decided it would lead off topic, but hey, too late, I guess).

I believe it is property in general, rather house, car, or the contents of your wallet. I don't know if there is a law like that in ferguson, but I do want the information in the thread.to be accurate.

Ok, technically it is in self defense so long as you have a legal right to be there. Realistically how it goes is that the perp tries to steal something, the victim refuses to surrender it, the perp threatens or commits violence and stand your ground allows the victim to defend themselves with legal safety. (That's my understanding of it at least, I'm no lawyer though.)

On a personal aside, anyone wants to steal $5 from me is welcome to it though, they likely need it much worse than I do.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
1) If someone steals $5 worth of ANYTHING from me, I would be hard pressed to not justify getting it back and being intentionally unconcerned with the well-being of the thief.

Here's a simple justification - it's against the law to shoot someone for stealing five dollars.

(Except in Texas, but hey, Ferguson isn't there).

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. Florida and Oklahoma, at least, also have stand your ground laws, which include the right to defend your property, rather it be $5 or $5 million.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
I have a 214 IQ.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a good, long while. His would make you orders of magnitude smarter than Stephen Hawking and probably the smartest human ever.

Eta: Not the smartest ever, but in the top 5.

Damn it, I hate not being on top...

As to Steven, I know whats happening in a black hole. Thats well ahead of hawking.

** spoiler omitted **

Still doubt me?

You aren't smart enough to know that selling 500 million novelty items at $100,000 a piece is impossible, so, do I doubt that you have an IQ of 214 (or even in the triple digits at all)? Yes.

Do I doubt that you believe you are as smart as you claim and believe everything you say? Not a bit.

Are you telling me you wouldnt spend five hundred dollars on a lottery ticket whose first prize is a hundred billion dollars?

That's exactly what I'm telling you. I'd much rather buy 500 $1 lottery tickets and hope to hit a few million than buy a single lottery ticket with a 0.00002 chance of winning more money than I can fathom. My quality of life wouldn't differ terribly much between a $20 million lottery and yours.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
I have a 214 IQ.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a good, long while. His would make you orders of magnitude smarter than Stephen Hawking and probably the smartest human ever.

Eta: Not the smartest ever, but in the top 5.

Damn it, I hate not being on top...

As to Steven, I know whats happening in a black hole. Thats well ahead of hawking.

** spoiler omitted **

Still doubt me?

You aren't smart enough to know that selling 500 million novelty items at $100,000 a piece is impossible, so, do I doubt that you have an IQ of 214 (or even in the triple digits at all)? Yes.

Do I doubt that you believe you are as smart as you claim and believe everything you say? Not a bit.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
I have a 214 IQ.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a good, long while. His would make you orders of magnitude smarter than Stephen Hawking and probably the smartest human ever.

Eta: Not the smartest ever, but in the top 5.

Liberty's Edge

Battlefield control. If the opponent is slow, grappled, blinded, stunned, or otherwise out of commission, summons are going to walk all over him.

Liberty's Edge

Same as a PC, BAB, Str, etc.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Pretty big reason I don't deal with the cops. Sure, most of them actually aren't corrupt or overzealous, but a fair number are, and they can cause a lot of harm.
Any cop that doesn't arrest their corrupt coworkers are themselves corrupt, arbitrarily applying the law as it fits them.

And any cop that stands idly by and allows their partner to shoot an unarmed suspect should themselves be arrested as an accessory to murder.

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:

Ferguson Waits Uneasily for Grand Jury’s Decision

"...
And Mayor James Knowles III suggested that people steer clear of the area in the evening if protests break out. “By 8, 9 o’clock, nothing good is going to happen out on the streets,” Mr. Knowles said. “When the gremlins come out, you’re just going to get caught in the crossfire.”

Hear that folks? Shoot-a-niggar-gremlin starts at 8 o'clock! YEE HAW!

But that whole "good people stay off the streets, and anyone out there is asking for it" is tired old Miami Model crap.

If the system doesn't even allow a trial, the citizens should defend their rights by any means necessary!

No justice, no peace!

Ya, because "any means necessary" totally won't end in a blood bath. Sadly, police are prepared for an any means necessary" uprising. Better to go over the mayor's head.

Liberty's Edge

Electric Wizard wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
It is? Because to me it looks pretty bad for Japan.

Why do you think this?

.

Isn't a weak currency that is growing weaker usually pretty bad for the country that uses it?
how could it be otherwise?
Then why ask me why I thought it was?

.

I'm asking you to explain how it could be otherwise. Is BOJ Governor
Haruhiko Kuroda just stupid and making a mistake? How would you have
handled the situation, if you were him?

** spoiler omitted **

.

I thought you might have been leading me into a trap to spring something on me that showed my horrible understanding of global economy. Good play.

Liberty's Edge

Electric Wizard wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
It is? Because to me it looks pretty bad for Japan.

Why do you think this?

.

Isn't a weak currency that is growing weaker usually pretty bad for the country that uses it?
how could it be otherwise?

Then why ask me why I thought it was?

Liberty's Edge

Electric Wizard wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
It is? Because to me it looks pretty bad for Japan.

Why do you think this?

.

Isn't a weak currency that is growing weaker usually pretty bad for the country that uses it?

Liberty's Edge

It is? Because to me it looks pretty bad for Japan.

Liberty's Edge

knightnday wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$$%ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?
Ah, the Internet equivalent of "you can't tell me what to do!" Much easier to tell them to not read the thread than try to ramp back the hyperbole and general grar. It's like we're playing out how the Congress and Senate operate here.

So the post telling people not to post in these threads is acceptable but my post telling said person to simply not read the thread if he doesn't like these kinds of threads is unacceptable? That makes sense. . .

Liberty's Edge

The article specifically mentions that this isn't about race and that they had to deal with racism within their group and stamp it out because that's not what it is about. I believe, as such, it would be more about the culture than about the skin tone of the individual, though that could just be pr.

But again, if it is a racist thing, I doubt they're missed by the communities they came from.

1 to 50 of 5,097 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.