I am a secular materialist, non-objectivist LaVeyan satanist (Left hand path ethics. Scientific worldview.). I play Pathfinder. The two are not related.
A group of volunteers in different time zones spent years re-creating an epochal game in a modern engine. They re-recorded the voices with unpaid actors, created assets, debugged and tested for reliability, then released a full length AAA game for free, and you write:
Half-life with a graphics update and some parts cut and others expanded, but only in a superficial way. Also, the AI cheats and has omniscience so you die faster.
Aka it is really nothing special, and the greatness about it is just Half-life legacy.
I just order whatever is on special, and the girls in miniskirts bring it to my recliner quietly, in the dark. Usually I have the dim sum and a tea. Taiwan is awesome.
This like, guy, but not really a guy, you know, more like a monster or something, was all like 'you shall live to tell of blah blah blah' and he like killed all these people, but he totally didn't kill me, so I could be like, a witness or something. I don't know. Hi mom.
Something about a reckoning, I guess? I should have wrote it down.
About gender pronouns, here is a text you ought to read, which will show how insidious they actually are.
Spoiler:
It's high time someone blew the whistle on all the silly prattle about revamping our language to suit the purposes of certain political fanatics. You know what I am talking about--those who accuse speakers of English of what they call racism. This awkward neologism, constructed by analogy with the well-established term sexism, does not sit well in the ears, if I may mix my metaphors. But let us grant that in our society there may be injustices here and there in the treatment of either race from time to time, and let us even grant these people their terms racism and racist. How valid, however, are the claims of the self-proclaimed "black libbers," or "negrists"--those who would radically change our language in order to "liberate" us poor dupes from its supposed racist bias?
Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the age-old usage of the noun white and words built from it, such as chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forwhite, whitepower, whiteslaughter, oneupswhiteship, straw white, whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that using the word white, either on its own or as a component, to talk about all the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute person everywhere where white now occurs. Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal." Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All persons are created equal," or "All whites and blacks are created equal." Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident when white is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the darker race just as much as fairskins.
There is nothing denigrating to black people in being subsumed under the rubric white--no more than under the rubric person. After all, white is a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow, including black. Used inclusively, the word white has no connotations whatsoever of race. Yet many people are hung up on this point. A prime example is Abraham Moses, one of the more vocal spokeswhites for making such a shift. For years, Niss Moses, autheroon of the well-known negrist tracts "A Handbook of Nonracist Writing" and "Words and Blacks," has had nothing better to do than go around the country making speeches advocating the downfall of "racist language" that ble objects to. But when you analyze bler objections, you find they all fall apart at the seams. Niss Moses says that words like chairwhite suggest to people--most especially impressionable young whiteys and blackeys--that all chairwhites belong to the white race. How absurd! It is quite obvious, for instance, that the chairwhite of the League of Black Voters is going to be a black, not a white. Nobody need think twice about it. As a matter of fact, the suffix white is usually not pronounced with a long `i' as in the noun white, but like `wit,' as in the terms saleswhite, freshwhite, penwhiteship, first basewhite, and so on. It's just a simple and useful component in building race-neutral words.
But Niss Moses would have you sit up and start hollering "Racism!" In fact, Niss Moses sees evidence of racism under every stone. Ble has written a famous article, in which ble vehemently objects to the immortal and poetic words of the first white on the moon, Captain Nellie Strongarm. If you will recall, whis words were: "One small step for a white, a giant step for whitekind." This noble sentiment is anything but racist; it is simply a celebration of a glorious moment in the history of White.
Another of Niss Moses's shrill objections is to the age-old differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns whe and ble. Ble promotes an absurd notion: that what we really need in English is a single pronoun covering both races. Numerous suggestions have been made, such as pe, tey, and others. These are all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no linguistic training whatsoever. Then there are the advocates of usages such as "whe or ble," "whis or bler," and so forth. This makes for monstrosities such has the sentence "When the next president takes office, whe or ble will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or ble would not want to offend any minorities." Constrast this with the spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and there is no question which way we ought to speak. There are, of course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing bl/whe everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable pronunciation. Shall be say blooey all the time when we simply mean whe? Who wants to sound like a white with a chronic sneeze?
. . . I would merely point out to the overzealous that there are some extravagant notions about language that should be recognized for what they are: cheap attempts to let dogmatic, narrow minds enforce their views on the speakers lucky enough to have inherited the richest, most beautiful and flexible language on earth, a language whose traditions run back through the centuries to such deathless poets as Milton, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Keats, Walt Whitwhite, and so many others. Our language owes an incalculable debt to these whites for their clarity of vision and expression, and if the shallow minds of bandwagon-jumping negrists succeed in destroying this precious heritage for all whites of good will, that will be, without any doubt, a truly female day in the history of Northern White. -Douglas Hofstadter in Metamagical Themas.
Kydeem, if someone tells you she is a woman, then call her "she." If someone tells you he is a man, then call him "he." This is not confusing. It is also very firmly established in the TLGBQ community that you call someone the gender they say they are, end of story. Asphere wasn't telling you that randomly, but citing established practice.
But he isn't really a sphere, is he? I mean, you can see his profile pic. It's a cube. A gelatinous cube. He can SAY he is a sphere, but who is he fooling?
Spoiler:
I completely agree with Asphere. This post is to make a point, and does not reflect my views, which are that people should be free to do, say and be anything that they want, as long as it does not cause serious pain or harm to others.
I did not know palladium was used in catalytic converters, but knew her as Pallas Athena, and worked it out.
I almost got thrown by the wording of a few of these, but got everything except
38. What type of cell division in eukaryotic cells is divided into prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase?
I agree with the above posters that this test has flaws, but then, it is hopefully your own creation. Thank you for putting it together for us.
Thoughtlessly typed informal text construction that is a three letter, capitalised anagram denoting a gelotological response that would be anatomically mediated by the constriction of the epiglottis by the larynx , were it actually happening.
Furio would shoot Vyv in the knee, then pull the stars out of his forehead with a pair of pliers, casually kicking Vyv's cricket bat out of the way, then he would pull out his phone to tell Tony how it went. While he talked, Vyv would say something in Punk, then smack Furio through the wall with the severed leg from the front of his car. Furio would then shoot him in the head. Vyv would lurch around for a while, then say 'It was bound to happen sooner or later" and lie down for a while.
DrivethruRPG and RPGNow both stock nWoD modules, with pregens in each, but may I urge you not to use pregens? A great deal of the fun in nWoD is the powerful character generation process. The players ought to spend the hour it takes to make a character, because it primes them to know their characters. A pregen is difficult to play with insight if you are new to the game. The character sheet IS the system in nWoD.
The penultimate adventure's title is: "Rasputin Must Die!"
This is the first title of a Paizo product that I read with dismay.
>Rasputin< is an historical figure from Earth. It is jarring and breaks verisimilitude to have an Earth proper noun on the cover of a Golarion product.
IF it is the real Rasputin in the path, it strains credulity.
IF it is not the real Rasputin, why use the name?
Pink Floyd/Syd Barrett/ Roger Waters
Jethro Tull
Yardbirds/Cream/Sabbath/Led Zeppelin
The White Stripes/ Dead Weather/ Jack White
Gorillaz/ The Good, the Bad and the Queen/ Rocket Juice and the Moon/Damon Albarn
The Beatles/John Lennon
There are my six. If push comes to shove:
Roger Waters.
Led Zeppelin.
The White Stripes.
Gorillaz.
The Beatles.
Your comment was intended to deride, had you said "I am a secular humanist" or "I am a logical positivist " Then my answer would have been yes, I would show your beliefs the respect that they deserve as they are very meaningful to you. But instead you chose to deride something that is meaningful to a great number of folks with the whole Judeo-christian b*&**@%+.
How are my alterations above, qualitatively different than your original statement? Yes, there are lots of people who believe in christianity, but b~$#@*~~ is in the mind of the beholder.
Yes, well, apart from streetview, Google Earth, free directory services, sketchup,artificial intelligence breakthroughs, robot cars, cloud services, adsense (which finances free content), Google Maps, 20 % time, Gmail and YouTube, what has Google ever done for us?
