bugleyman's page

Obama's statement is a step in the right direction, but quibbling over whether this is a state or federal issue misses the big picture. It is a human rights issue.

It's discrimination pure and simple. It shouldn't be left up to the states or popular vote, much the same way segregation had to be struck down by the supreme court. It's disgusting that an entire class of people is relegated to second class citizenship because a bunch of ignorant jerks can't get over their own prejudices.

I think we can all agree that kids these days listen to s$**ty music, lack morality, and are generally on my lawn far too often. This is an entirely new development in human history and portends the end of civilization as we know it.

There's only so many ways you can call the Arizona Secretary of State a dumb@$$. There's also the conflict of interest thing he has going, being the co-chair of Romney's campaign in the state.

You've got to keep up with the Newspeak, IQ. "Freedom from religion" has been rebranded as "discrimination against Christians."

I believe that no amount of "cool" will ever be able to compete with the package that mainstream religion provides:

1. "Read this book, or have someone tell you what it says, and you now know everything from the origins of the universe, to the right way to live, to the secret of eternal life." How the hell can you top that? Science is hard -- you have to actually test stuff, and evaluate evidence, and use logic, and compare variables. And even then you miss wide swaths of knowledge, and run up against things we don't know yet. Hell with that. Instant omniscience is a hell of a lot easier. You can't compete with that using anything rooted in reality.

2. "Believe this thing, and you prove you're part of the tribe and can be trusted. Question things, and you're obviously unreliable and should be shunned." There's a reason that atheists are by far the least trusted group in America -- they don't toe the line. That's bad for unanimity of agreement. It causes all kinds of complications and questioning. There's also a reason so many scientists are atheists: scientists have to question things, so why not question the validity of the membership passwords? People who value "the fabric of our nation" would much rather you nod, salute, and obey -- not question things and cause problems.

I don't care how awe-inspiring the universe is, or how cool it is to blow stuff up. I don't think it matters in the least bit how glibly or metaphorically scientists communicate. I also find that people don't particularly value truth. So I don't think any of that can compete with instant omniscience and free membership in society and attendant popularity. If science and religion get pitted against one another -- by either side, or just by a quirk of view -- then for most people in the U.S., science automatically loses.

Thing is, what I said is still true. I have yet to meet an atheist that wants to outlaw religion. I have had the misfortune to meet far too many christians that want to outlaw any religion that is not THEIR version of christianity. I guess you guys couldn't be bothered to read my posts after that.

I've lived on both coasts and just about everywhere in between, and it's the same no matter where I've lived. I left christianity for a reason.

Well, if you're coming to Paizocon, let's have a beer and then you can say you know at least one Christian who believes very strongly in freedom of religion, or the lack thereof, as you see fit.

Oh for f!~* sake, can we not have the same old opinions on 4e and PF and have some information on 5e, please? Jesus, leave it at the door.

The normal fission plants were never meant to be all of the nuclear energy grid. The other half was the breeder plants and other pieces that would extend the fuel cycle by several orders of magnitude. Today, people are complaining that making more nuclear plants is only a short term solution because there is not enough fuel... Go figure.

Next up comes the arguments about safety. Fact is, not many power plants were made for some 30 years or so, and most of the old ones are really pretty old by now. For safety to work, you would need to update the technology, not just use the old crap you already have. And when plants built to spec and properly maintained have been involved in accidents, they have held up wonderfully. Tjernobyl, well, considering the soviets couldn't supply maintenance and education enough to handle anything else properly, why should it surprise anyone that they f+%+ed this up?

It's well past time to put in a honest and proper discussion about nuclear energy, hopefully this time we can ignore the bleating masses who think everything nuclear is bad, and judge the possibilities that exist today with unbiased eyes.

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

MeanDM wrote:

As to treatment of homosexuals by Christians historically, here is an interesting article about homosexuality in the middle ages written by a professor at Fordham University.

This article is hawt!!

...And should definitely be included in the Detailing Your World section of the GMG!

But seriously, I've said it in other threads and will here: when homosexuality changed from a sin that could tempt anyone (which is pretty well what sins do, definitionally) to a sexual preference exhibited by a segment of the population, the religious conception/treatment of homosexuality must have gone through some changes. Of course, that was also a world where you had to wear a scarlet letter around if you sinned, so I'm not claiming it was better so much as subtly different.

Many of the anti-homosexuals today still seem to treat it the same way. It's a "choice", the "homosexual lifestyle", fears of gays "converting" kids, etc.

Seems like they think it's so tempting that if it's not strictly repressed everyone would switch teams.
Look, I'm straight. I'm attracted to women, not guys. I don't have to keep rigid control of my self to keep from succumbing to the lure of other men. I'm not interested. I never was.
Do people really think differently?

Look, all the good things that religion is doing, let it keep on doing them. If people feel comforted by the belief there is an afterlife, that's great. If people are brought to feel a sense of community through their faith, and it guides them to do good things, and gives them the moral courage to pursue their dreams, that's awesome...

...but as soon as you parlay that belief into any sort of doctrine that refutes science and fights it being taught in schools, or flies planes int buildings, or starts wars, or thinks its okay to discriminate against women, or homosexuals, or illegal immigrants...it's my business and I WILL get angry.

A band doesn't have anything as sophisticated as tribal elders.

Hey, DD. Here is some of your own medicine.

Can you cite us a band of hunters gatherers with roughly the same (+/- 10%) population and territory as the USA ?

If not, why do you think the way some cavemen lived and organized themselves is relevant in a debate about something as sophisticated as healthcare ?

EDIT: dismissing comparison with other first world countries on the sole basis is completely bogus, just a convenient way to dismiss data you don't like. If France, Germany, UK, etc. could build a complete healthcare system back in the forties, at a time when they were smoking ruins, financially strapped, how could the USA not manage to do the same thing at their economic height? The federal government is way MORE integrated and efficient than the European Union ; it's only the political willingness to enact a single payer system which is lacking.

EDIT2: @DD: I wasn't aware than our african migrants (the main source of immigration here, followed closely by asiatics) came from first world countries. The numbers I provided you (and which you can still look after on the EUROSTAT Internet site) excluded intra-UE flows. That also means Poland.

A polish guy working in France would be entitled to the french SS. Why not? He contributes to it, by a small slice taken from his salary (0,75 % for healthcare only, not including retirement, unemployment, etc.; other incomes get taxed too). If he is a tourist, he still get treatment, billed to Poland (thanks to UE integration). If he is a bum, he still gets emergency treatment for humanitarian reasons, billed on our taxes. We can take it.

As I, he could choose any hospital or MD he wants. He would carry a Vitale card, some sort of chip-encrypted credit card given by the SS carrying his whole health file, accessible only by medical personnel. Instant access to past exams, known antecedants, ongoing treatments, etc. Serves also as a billing card for medical needs : just hand it over and grab your prescriptions, keep your wallet in your pocket unless you are buying for-comfort drugs (cough syrups, nice honey pills, that sort of things).

I am quite healthy, an apendicectomy being my worst health problem so far, but knowing than I can go down with cancer tomorrow and not worrying about how I could gather enough money to survive it is worth every penny I ever paid.

Democrats

The official change log is a nice touch.

How dare you, the liberal media, ask me about my extramarital affairs, even though I spent a year or so hounding a sitting president about his, and I run as a family values candidate, AND I dont want to let gays marry as it would ruin marriage's sanctity?!?!?

It boggles my mind that anyone would even consider Newt. And Santorum is even worse.

Quote:

Interesting Betts. You're already dropping the system you've praised litteraly daily on these boards every since it arrived, for 5ED. If 4Ed was that great of a system, as you've suggested so often, why not stick with it? Then you wouldn't have to re-buy all those books you've already shelled out your hard earned dollars for in the 4Ed system?

First, I'll be switching because I tend to prefer supported systems to unsupported systems. I'll also be switching because the game will probably be even better than 4e. Just because I like it doesn't mean I don't think it can be improved.

As for re-buying books, they're cheap. I didn't spend more than a couple hundred dollars on books over the course of coming up on four years. And really, why would I complain about the opportunity to own more books? Books are awesome.

For $200 dollars, I can (and probably have) taken my wife to the movies ~10 times for ~20 hours worth of entertainment. Or I can spend $200 on RPG books that will keep myself and a party of 4 entertained for over a hundred hours of enjoyment per year. Our hobby is cheap guys. That said, I probably shouldn't tally up how much I spend a year on RPGs.

I agree with Scott — books are awesome.

Doesn't really sound any different than the tone used here.

Guys, pls run through this logical thinking n u will know what i mean.

Oh internet.

It's weird to read this thread having posted in it. My parents are quite devout. They belong to the Church of England. To them, loving their children and others no matter how different they are is Jesus' primary lesson to humanity.

The important thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that we need two standards for determining whether something constitutes protected speech. One standard for speech (and politicians) we agree with, and another for speech (and polticians) we disagree with. Otherwise, we're forced to make up arbitrary distinctions between those two groups to disguise our bias relating to the content as an objective complaint about the method.

Nice strawman.

No strawman at all. You've cited "emotional harm" as sufficient cause to suspend Constitutional rights, and I asked what the limits are. Just because you haven't considered that problem doesn't in any way make it a strawman.

Templeton, you make little sense.

Fox news is just jealous of the reality and gravitas of sesame street.

But the best way to get people off of welfare is to create an environment where business shines. A smaller government requires less resources allowing for taxes to be cut significantly on both people and business. I wouldn't mind some incentives that allow taxes on business to be cut even further if they do things that help further boost the economy like hiring lots of workers and definitely for providing health insurance for them.

More and better job opportunities means less reason for anyone to be on welfare. We'd probably even see a drop in people who claim disability just because there would be better options.

Over the last 30-40 years we have cut the top marginal tax rates again and again. Each time we've been promised an economic boom great enough to actually boost revenue. It has never happened. Tax cuts have led to drops in revenue. The economy has grown and shrunk in cycles, the profits have been claimed by a tiny minority at the top and the rest of us, before this recession, have barely held steady. Can't we tell by now that tax cuts aren't the solution?

No, we must have faith. We'll cut taxes one more time, slash social spending even further and this time, this time the economy will boom as conservative orthodoxy says it will.

And if not? It will just need another round of tax cuts.

Most Americans don't believe in Darwin. You should be fine.

Frog: If the definition of libertarianism is the bare minimum amount of government regulation in order to function then some could argue that, given our broken system, we need to regulate more in order to reach it.

Agreed. :)

It's settled, then. And if we don't end up in Heaven (this includes either another plane of afterlife existence -not the Fleshwarrens, please, not the Fleshwarrens!- or the immanent void), I'll figure out how to buy you a drink.

For the record, I'm not trying to prove God doesn't exist -- frankly, that is (rather obviously) impossible.

And I've long since determined that trying to prove His existence is equally impossible, and a good way to get people angry at each other.

To Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's.

You'd be surprised how often we atheists (sorry -- agnostics :P) get "God exists unless you can prove otherwise."

Aye, and I understand how frustrating it can be to argue under such impossible conditions.

I strongly believe that we Christians don't have to waste time in trying to prove that God exists; that's kind of missing the whole point. Expanding the faith is about setting examples, not setting arguments.

As the old saying goes, "Spread the Good Word at all times. And, only if necessary, use words".

Yeah, the USA's numbers look pretty good in that post there, HoustonDerek. Too bad we're not feeling it.

It's really quite possible for a small number of people to do very well at the expense of the general welfare.

I wasn't making any editorial observations, just pointing out the numbers. And, frankly, Europe is in a crisis mode as well. None of us has a swimming economy right now, we are all facing pretty daunting debt crises, and Great Britain and France are sporting some pretty poor emnmployment numbers right now as well (as in, worse than the U.S.).

Germany would probably be better off if France and Great Britiain didn't basically drop the Greece issue completely in their lap. As it is, they're in maginally better shape only because they've been historically more austere than the other two big economies in the EU.

Stating that Europe is "growing faster than the U.S." is demonstrably false. Whether or not the people in those countries are feeling the pinch is much more subjective but, again, employment numbers suggest that it isn't all wine and roses there, either.

Our real unemployment rate here is probably much closer to 20% than the 8.whatever% the government is claiming, so, yes, people are hurting. But, France is sporting a 9.9% unemployment rate and Great Britain 8.1% (probably higher, again, because they only count "economically active" people - whatever that means), so that isn't anything to brag about.

Germany is doing well (5.9%), but, again, their government is much more austere, and much more business friendly (unions in France and GB tend to be more like ours - business adversarial; in Germany they actually work with the companies to find what's best for everyone, a reflectionon the different cultural attitudes towards government and labor/management accountability).

But Germany can't be the EU's piggy bank too much longer and expect to enjoy the relative stability they experience now.

Everyone has to take a step back, realize that money isn't an infinite resource, and, in the case of the U.S., we need to start serving indictments to the idiots who ruined our economy (both in corporate America and Washington) instead of bailouts (which, apparently, get used to give the idiots who screwed us in the first place bonuses).

I guess one view of it is that the weapons that cause the most harm in both urban and rural settings are not the ones that have utility in rural settings.

A pistol is not intended for hunting. (or, as I'm fond of repeating: "a pistol is what you use to fight your way to real gun.")

A fully-automatic weapon is not suitable for hunting.

Restricting access to these weapons presumably reduces their use in crimes. It also makes it so that only the police and government have guns, which is something I'm not too excited about.

I'd love to think there's a happy medium between "no guns ever" and "anyone can get a gun cheap no questions asked." I believe in restricting access to ensure the safety of the public. I also believe that completely restricted access leads to a police state.

*sigh*

It's the ideologues on both sides who make an effective solution impossible.

IMHO, no-one should be given anything: no free lunches. Work and produce, pave your own way.

And i would be fine with that. The problem is that we have one system where if you're rich you get the free lunch in the form of lower tax rates, breaks, and incentives, a military that will secure your possessions overseas (whether or not they belong to you) and if you're working poor (a phrase swiftly becoming redundant) you're not supposed to get anything.

If anything it should be the other way around.

Democrats may be social engineering socialist socialites but at least they cop to it. Republicans pretend to be for a lack of government interference until their clientele either need a bail out or a moral issue passed.

Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.

Well they ruined D&D but I don't think you can say they ruined Magic. After all they started it.

*coughHanshotfirstcough* *coughLUCAScough*

I understand that.
To avoid confusion, I nominate "Marriage" to be the name of such a civil union. Done.

I must admit, the Condition card deck has been a very useful tool in keeping my game going with minimal rules references. I highly recommend it.

I just wish I had some for spells.

I'm not anti-gay marriage, but I don't think using a celebrity farce wedding as an example is a good bet.

The fact that this twit can meet a guy then get married and divorced in less than 6 months and I can't marry my monogomous committed partnerr of 5 years doesn't show inequality?

Good thing there is that prohibition on same sex marriage in order to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage.

I am definitely in the camp of " keep things the way they are."

In many ways, Pathfinder is the game of "keep things the way they are." It is the source of Paizo's success. They won't soon forget that. Even if they revise the presentation, I have full faith that your CRB won't be downgraded to a doorstop (though it would excel at the task).

However, there are some actual problems, not with the rules but the presentation. I see a lot of room for improving the presentation to the point where I would be comfortable handing a new player the Core Rules and not the BB. The rules can be the same, just presented more usably.

To do that, I feel they should find new players, ranging from mid-teens to middle-age, and teach them the rules, just as was done with the beginner box. It's okay to choose smart people who like big words. This testing would bear our what procedures actually need to be presented during play.

You claim that the status quo is fine; my rebuttal is simply to try giving the CRB to a new player, or even a BB player, and see what arises when they try to play. A couple of key points:

Character creation is incomplete as presented.

Character advancement rules are missing.

Treasure rules are incomplete, and even when you fill them out with the GMG the process is like pulling teeth.

The stealth rules rely on three separate sections (at least) without so much as a cross reference. (Vision and Light!)

The end result is a game where you must read about 200 pages in detail (no telling which ones) and be conversant in an earlier edition of the game in order to play correctly. Playing incorrectly is an option, but has its own troubles.

What I want is not the CRB written in the simple authorial style of the BB. I want the CRB stripped down into data relevant to gameplay, then reorganized and clarified to be optimally useful at the table, then written in the same authorial style as we all enjoy in the current CRB. The rules (excepting obvious problems) should remain as they are, I'd just love to read the stealth, perception, vision and light rules in a single, unified section that gives the GM a procedure to fit them all together, instead of sending me flipping through the book without a reference! (just one example)

This opinion was formed by nearly 4 years of GMing out of that book.

EDIT: Sorry I am beating a dead horse here, it's just that this is the only aspect of Pathfinder I feel like discussing lately. I've been playing a bit of Mouse Guard RPG, and although I would never make the case that PF needs to become MG, the vast difference in gameplay has been illuminating. Thanks OSG, and everyone else, for taking me up on this discussion. I hope it does some good.

Ought to make a spinoff thread I guess, but I am too lazy.

I happen to think there is a lot of common ground in the disagreement upthread.

Nobody's really asking for changes in the complexity of the game. I happen to like the "mature" presentation of the CRB as the poster put it.

The problem is, there are major flaws with the information design of the CRB. Things are not where they need to be. Standards are not adhered to. Systems are incomplete. There are a ton of "hidden" clauses (some of the worst have come out in the errata thank god) and there are a number of places where the rules are hyper-specific with very little gameplay payoff (read magic? Deciphering scrolls? geez). Those same rules could be shortened, collected, and made into a procedure.

The book needs to contain procedures for play, not a partially-organized partially-thematic bundle of rules clauses.

I understand 100% why the book is the way it is. In its own way, it is a thing of beauty. But problems have come up over the years that I have been using it, and those problems find their root in the legacy text from 3.5 and the fact that this was actually two books crammed into one cover.

I know Paizo knows it; I'm wasting my energy ranting about this.

If they use the same usability process as they did on the beginner box, but get testers who are slightly older and represent the CRB's target audience, I have absolute faith that we will see an incredible reformat of the rules in the future. And I also have faith that those people who want the rules to stay the same (and reverse compatible) will not be left out in the cold. It's absolutely doable. Have cake, eat too.

BTW, I can clearly see that the BB had "naive" testers brought in and that lead to some great innovations. I hope this becomes a permanent consideration for future rules products.

*phew* Can you tell I just had strong coffee?

Just to augment what the above posters have said:

I don't want the rule omissions from the beginner box to be implemented in the core.

I do want the clarity of rules and the user-driven approach to be implemented in the core.

The game is most popular at lower levels because the game is most playable at lower levels. I feel the Pathfinder CRB has usability issues that could be fixed through language and presentation alone, no actual rule changes.

I for one would love to see the game broken into Normal play (1st - 12th) and high level 13-20. Or maybe even end break at 10th level.

Here's how I'd like to see things play out for CR 2.0.

Have Beginner Box be the main reference for levels 1-5.

Have a new 'Core Rules Volume 1' which covers levels 1-12, with the same Beginner Box clarity and presentation. This would also match the Pathfinder Society level range.

Have a new 'Core Rules Volume 2' which covers levels 13+, with the same Beginner Box clarity and presentation. This would cover all the high-level stuff.

So for newbies, they'd start with Beginner Box. Soon thereafter they'd get CR Volume 1. Some power-players would get (or use at least) Volume 2, but many folks would be content with just Volume 1 and never play past Level 12.

I think this would be a great compromise for those not wanting the dense and daunting 500 page book, wanting something that seemed rules lite and approachable, while not splitting the 'Basic' crowd into a different product line.

And I think this would go a long way to making things easier for GMs. Playing 8th level? Maybe you digest 250 pages instead of 500. At the very least, the book would be lighter weight :-)

I don't disagree. What is uncertain is how interested those people would be for mid- and high-level play (6-12) where things get a lot more complex than levels 1-5. In other words: We know there is a potentially big market for an intro product, we don't know how much of a market there is for a 6-10 product, especially when said product largely comes down to "ignore AOOs, ignore combat maneuvers,"

...

That's cannibalizing the core PF sales. If someone's just buying the "basic" products, they're not buying things like the APG, Bestiaries, and so on.

But you did say yourself that there is a lot more than just the omission of complicated rules that goes into making the Beginner Box different. And if that difference is clarity then I think there is a market for clarified 6-10, and clarified 10-20. In fact, I think the market would get more enthusiastic as the game gets more complicated.

The complexity of the reference affects the play experience. I love Pathfinder but I am at my wit's end GMing for mid-high levels (we're 12th now). The same game with a reference as clearly-worded as the basic box would mean fewer cross-references, fewer gotcha rules, less prep time, and many improvements with few to zero drawbacks.

I don't think it should be a different product line. I think it should be a revised edition. I think that the treatment of language in the Beginner Box should be the new model for a total re-wording of the CRB. (EDIT: Someone is going to read that as "new edition". Let me repeat: same rules, clearer wording.)

If the CRB weren't so damned byzantine, I would be relishing the next Adventure Path instead of patiently waiting for my current one to end so I can stop struggling against the wording.

Just to be "clear": great job with the beginner box, Sean. If I were CEO, you would be asked to begin a clarity rewrite of the CRB today. I would then publish it as a parallel "revised" edition compatible with the CRB. There's probably all sorts of good reasons that it doesn't make sense to do that, but man do I want that book.

Let me raise my hand in favor of continuing the line of products with simpler rules and presentation started with the BB.

It's astonishing how many people read Ayn Rand and think she knows what she's talking about.

I agree completely that this is exactly the heritage view that PAIZO has taken with Pathfinder RPG, and its consistent with the origins and history of Dungeons & Dragons. Its like a naturalism that is the source of the rules, and the rules are just useful ways of describing it.

Gary Gygax thought 3e was a bad game.

Sorry bro. Your patron saint doesn't like your system of choice.

Also laffo forever at D&D having a "history of naturalism." D&D monsters were made from children's toys and imagination then rolled on a chart of random monster encounters. This whole "naturalism" thing was born in the last two years as a means of putting down 4e, nothing more, nothing less.

Simulationist:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I will never understand why some people insist that monsters and PC's should follow the same rules.

Considering that most monsters will have a lifespan of 1-5 rounds, why should they be built with the same complexity as player characters?

Just visited my local occupy group, they were a litle cold and hungry. They did not like my Iraqi Freedom veteran hat and commented on how I am a part of the "military industrial complex.". I told them that I may not agree with their protest message, but I would sacrifice my life so they could do it. Then they took my food and apologized. We had a good talk and amazingly, I understand their pov and they said they understand mine a little bit better. Too bad more people can't be civil and put a face to the issues instead of dehumanizing each other. It makes it much easier to kill nonhumans than humans when the fighting starts. Hopefully they will stay warm tonight. I would bring them some chicken noodle soup, but some people can't have gluten and others are vegans. I really hope no one gets sick there.

I blame a certain chatter for this post...

Here's how I view OWS and what they stand for (to me). I believe that every American should have the opportunity to work to support themselves. This means that everyone who wants to get a job should be able to get a job, even if they're incompetent. They shouldn't have a right to the best job, or a high paying job, but at the very least, if they're willing to punch in and work 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, even if that work is digging holes that don't need to be dug and then re-filling them, they should have the opportunity to earn wages and support themselves and their families. Such a job should enable them to purchase nutritious food, it should provide their children with access to education (including college, without student debt), and it should allow them to obtain healthcare.

The current system does not currently support this dream. It did for a while - there was a period in American history where one income earner could support a family, afford a home and a car (even pay for a college education for their kids), make an honest living and retire without fear. But, for the past 3-5 decades, wages have stagnated (or held steady only through moving from a one income household to a two income household), healthcare has become too expensive and difficult to obtain, and living standards have fallen. during this time, the pie has grown, the economy has grown larger, but that growth has not been shared by everyone who helped create it.

This is a dream, and the reality of implementing it is fraught with peril. I'm not going to poke my head in the ground and tell you that this could be achieved without recalibrating the balance of American life. If the entire American economy is based upon digging and re-filling holes, there won't be any food to purchase or healthcare to be found. If there's no incentive to build businesses, there will be no money to pay even a limited number of people to dig/re-fill holes. If American businesses are less competitive on the international stage, we will be unable to protect our way of life and the dream will evaporate before it can be experienced. Answering these questions and facing these challenges is a necessary step to improving our lives, and I refuse to be defeated by the spectre of what could go wrong without also discovering what could go right.

The current system does not seem to be working. I believed for a long time in the promise: if corporations can grow bigger, if capital can accumulate in greater amounts under the control of a small number of skilled business persons, everyone will experience prosperity, everyone will have a job, a bed, and an opportunity to share in the American dream.

I want that outcome, and I think we need a better system to realize it. I don't know all the details of that system. I don't know if that system can be obtained at a cost that is worth paying. I don't know, but I think there is the possibility of a discussion, of a compromise, of coming together as a nation and choosing to make the lives of our people better. The current system drives us to hoarde and consume at the expense of so many things that are more valuable to us as humans, as Americans, as, if you will, Christians.

That's my take. I'm tired of trying to figure out who's absolutely right and wrong. I'm tired of being told I have two polarized choices when it comes to any particular issue. I'm tired of fighting. I want a better life for me, for you, for every American.

And, if I may steal an innovation from toy_robots:

TL;DR Version: The dream of a better way of life is worth having, and only by sharing a dream can we make America better.

Hey, remember when I posted this in the very first page of this thread?

What tends to go round and round is this:

Person1: What's the harm in reskinning if it doesn't have a mechanical benefit?

Person2: Because it has a mechanical benefit!

And amazingly enough, that's exactly what's happening here: people say "as long as there's no mechanical benefit, go ahead" and their opponents say "but there IS a mechanical benefit!"

Everyone in this entire thread agrees that any reskinning that provides a mechanical benefit should be disallowed.

If you want to argue that there's no such thing as a zero-benefit reskinning, be my guest. If you want to argue that there's some other reason to categorically ban reskinning (like Joseph Caubo's statement about PFS needing to be "vanilla"), go right ahead.

But could we please stop repeating the scenario-based arguments where somehow the entire table manages not to notice the obvious mechanical benefit of an outlandish reskinning? To imply that the "reskin if no benefit" camp wouldn't notice those benefits is tantamount to calling half the people in this thread stupid, and if this thread is going to accomplish anything useful, you need to stop it.

I've been watching this grow for the last 3 weeks, and I have to say I'm really impressed by their spelling. I haven't seen a mistake on a sign yet.