Originally posted by Tolroc

I am not at all a fan of President Obama. However, the OP's reasons for calling him the worst president in history are not valid. I'm sure he was kept informed about what was going on in the gulf and he was leaving the job up to people more qualified than himself to take care of it.

 

Now, if the OP were to site the president ramrodding a health care down the throats of the American public when a clear majority of our nation's citizens didn't want it, we might have something to talk about. Even then I wouldn't call him the worst US president. Take a look at President Grant that spent most of his time in office drunk.

Or President Roosevelt, who can be both lauded and loathed for his actions during the Great Depression and WWII - actions which have brought us to where we are today in terms of Social Security, health care, and myriad other problems.  The problems that we face today did not suddenly appear, they have been brewing for about 60 years.  It was simply a matter of time before they came to a head because programs that were designed to be temporary to get this nation through the worst economic crisis we have ever known were made permanent but not properly vetted, funded or adjusted to compensate for the change.  It is important to add that Congress under each of these Presidents is equally to blame, if not moreso.  It is Congress that legislates, not the President.  Compared to Congress, the President's power is really quite limited...which is as it should be.  

As Tolroc states, I am not President Obama's biggest fan.  I did not vote for him (or McCain), nor would I if the election were tomorrow.  But I cannot cite him (or President Bush, either, for that matter) as the worst President in history or even in my lifetime.  In my own lifetime, that dubious distinction would have to go to President Carter, I'm afraid, because of the Presidents in my lifetime (Ford, Carter, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, G. W. Bush, Obama), President Carter stands out as the absolute worst of them all.  He may be an acceptable advocate on occasion today, but if you are under 35, ask your parents (not a slam on young folks, just acknowledging that I was 6 when Reagan was elected and I barely remember Carter myself, but I do remember the long gas lines and rationing, so I can't possibly expect anyone younger than me to know or remember these things) to give an honest assessment of President Carter's term of office before you make an assessment of who is historically the worst President this nation has had. 

Originally posted by hoopty

Originally posted by Nifa

Originally posted by hoopty

Originally posted by Nifa

I'm curious how the beliefs - however misguided one does or does not believe they may be - of another can or should affect you (or me)?

I happen to be a Christian. I also happen to oppose the manner in which many Christians attempt to force their personal beliefs upon others.  It's not an action I would choose to take and I have also, because of my more tolerant leanings towards others and my strong belief in allowing others to exercise their free will, been called a "bad" Christian and told I was destined for an eternity in hell.

Personally, I choose to ignore the opinions of others because those opinions are none of my business.  I often have a tendency to shake my head and chuckle to myself at the mental image of Jesus (which, to answer the question of the name, is simply a translation of a Hebrew name, Yeshua, Now i know this is a lie..The bible cannot be altered..In which case it has..The Old English did not use the name Jesus..Now as the letter J came into being..The name should a been Joshua not Jesus..Further more, does not the bible say there is no other name given among men? I guess that knock the Greek name Jesus off the list..After all, Mary did not giver her son a Greek name...Yeshua and Jesus does not sound the same..Joshua and Yeahua does..which means "the Lord Saves" into another language, in this case, Greek.  If you prefer, you can use the Hebrew name "Immanuel/Emanuel,"Now this is funny, according to the bible the name was suppose to be Jesus(Fake Name) then in turns in another passage say his name is to be called Immanuel..So which is it? Immanuel or Jesus?? (Fake Name).Remember there no other name Given to which men are saved by.. which means "God with Us," which he is also called, or even the Anglicanized "Christ" from the Greek "Kristos," which simply means "The Anointed One") shaking his head and facepalming over all the people demanding that others believe exactly as they do or suffer an eternity of torment.  Such an image of showing one's faith by browbeating seems fairly contradictory to me since intimidation and abuse is exactly the opposite of love - but that's only my opinion, and I've already stated how I feel about opinions. ;)

Now as for Christ..Agree, it means anointed one.But look how many Pastors,Priest,etc,etc  Claim they are Anointed...I would agree with John..There alot of Anti Christ running around...

Its the problem with people, there so indoctrinated..They dont take the time and search of who bull shitting who..That is why the religion has turn off so many people...

You wish to get into semantics?  *rolls eyes*  I would love to see the semantics on translations into the myriad languages across the five thousand or so years of recorded history, languages and word etymology people can produce in order to argue a name. If you have STUDY on the word Jesus you would have known that is NOT the true name of the Messiah.. Better yet, let us get into semantics to argue the name written upon Christ's thigh which (according to the Bible) no man knows, shall we?After you study on the Word Jesus as mention above.. (And the Bible was not written by God himself, it was written by men.  Men who are not perfect beings and who are capable of making mistakes in transcription and translation - let us not forget this in the discussion, shall we?Agree men are not perfect..  Nothing written or transcribed or translated by men is ever infallible.  Nothing.  Inspired by God, yes. What do you mean inspired by God? Written by him? Absolutely not!)

The point being presented in my post, which you have so brilliantly illustrated for me, is that the name used does not now, nor has it ever, mattered. If you are a Christian you should read Act 4:12 name does matter.. It is the intent of a man's heart which matters

.  If the intent of a man's heart is so legalistic that it can see nothing else but the letter of the law, then the law is but a curse What laws are you talking about MAN Laws?- and yes, that does turn people off.  

As for the theological debate, I leave that to each man or woman to decide for themselves.  I have my own beliefs on the matter and it is not for me to ask another to believe as I do. I rather seek the truth then being led by pathetic liars..

 

Edited for clarity

 

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." - Isaiah 7:14

"And she[Mary] will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which is translated," God with us." - Mat 1:21-23

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.-Act 4:12

We both know that the word Jesus (Fake name) and Immanuel are two different names and Meaning...This is a bottle neck for a christian..Because according to Act 4:12 its all in a name..

Maybe you should a done Semantics and etymology  study on the Word Jesus you would have known the word Jesus is not the correct name for the Messiah and most reputable scholars agree...And just to think i dont have a Phd..haha

To the OP..  alot of christians are indoctrinated, same goes with your Boss..Alot of people dont take the time to challange to what is being taught in there church..

Mod edit spelling..

The point being presented in my post, which you have so brilliantly illustrated for me, and continue to brilliantly illustrate with each post, is that the name used does not now, nor has it ever, mattered. It is the intent of a man's heart which matters.

The name being used does not change the nature of the thing or person it is being used for.  Indonesian Christians do not call God Jehovah (one of many names given in the Old Testament, and the one that most readily comes to mind before I've had my coffee) very often; they frequently call him Allah because that is the name they know.  It makes them no less worshipful of him than a Western Christian because it does not change the intent of the heart (and since you are so fond of throwing out the Bible, go read about David's anointing as King where Samuel states that God does not look at the outward appearance, he looks at the heart - a statement which can also easily apply to the name you choose to use to call him by)...and frankly, most of the Indonesian Christians I know have had to endure far more in order to simply live, let alone practice their faith, than any of us here in the West, and they are far kinder, gentler souls than any of us can ever hope to be.  I aspire to one day have the depth of faith that I have seen in many of my Indonesian friends...who use Allah, God, and Jesus interchangeably.  It does not make them any less or more faithful or believing than anyone else - the depth and breadth of their faith does.

Would a man or woman saying "Allahu Akbar" make them any less faithful were it used in reference to the Christian God?  No.  The phrase means "God is great," and an Arabic speaker would rightly say such a thing in praise of his or her God - regardless of whether they were proclaiming it of the God of the Muslims, the Jews, or the Christians...or any other god they choose to worship.  I myself have said it as a Christian in a service filled with primarily Arabic-speaking Christians.  So yes, semantics, I do certainly call into question as being legalistic, worthless, and silly.  Faith, I do not, and never will.

Originally posted by hoopty

Originally posted by Nifa

I'm curious how the beliefs - however misguided one does or does not believe they may be - of another can or should affect you (or me)?

I happen to be a Christian. I also happen to oppose the manner in which many Christians attempt to force their personal beliefs upon others.  It's not an action I would choose to take and I have also, because of my more tolerant leanings towards others and my strong belief in allowing others to exercise their free will, been called a "bad" Christian and told I was destined for an eternity in hell.

Personally, I choose to ignore the opinions of others because those opinions are none of my business.  I often have a tendency to shake my head and chuckle to myself at the mental image of Jesus (which, to answer the question of the name, is simply a translation of a Hebrew name, Yeshua, Now i know this is a lie..The bible cannot be altered..In which case it has..The Old English did not use the name Jesus..Now as the letter J came into being..The name should a been Joshua not Jesus..Further more, does not the bible say there is no other name given among men? I guess that knock the Greek name Jesus off the list..After all, Mary did not giver her son a Greek name...Yeshua and Jesus does not sound the same..Joshua and Yeahua does..which means "the Lord Saves" into another language, in this case, Greek.  If you prefer, you can use the Hebrew name "Immanuel/Emanuel,"Now this is funny, according to the bible the name was suppose to be Jesus(Fake Name) then in turns in another passage say his name is to be called Immanuel..So which is it? Immanuel or Jesus?? (Fake Name).Remember there no other name Given to which men are saved by.. which means "God with Us," which he is also called, or even the Anglicanized "Christ" from the Greek "Kristos," which simply means "The Anointed One") shaking his head and facepalming over all the people demanding that others believe exactly as they do or suffer an eternity of torment.  Such an image of showing one's faith by browbeating seems fairly contradictory to me since intimidation and abuse is exactly the opposite of love - but that's only my opinion, and I've already stated how I feel about opinions. ;)

Now as for Christ..Agree, it means anointed one.But look how many Pastors,Priest,etc,etc  Claim they are Anointed...I would agree with John..There alot of Anti Christ running around...

Its the problem with people, there so indoctrinated..They dont take the time and search of who bull shitting who..That is why the religion has turn off so many people...

You wish to get into semantics?  *rolls eyes*  I would love to see the semantics on translations into the myriad languages across the five thousand or so years of recorded history, languages and word etymology people can produce in order to argue a name.  Better yet, let us get into semantics to argue the name written upon Christ's thigh which (according to the Bible) no man knows, shall we? (And the Bible was not written by God himself, it was written by men.  Men who are not perfect beings and who are capable of making mistakes in transcription and translation - let us not forget this in the discussion, shall we?  Nothing written or transcribed or translated by men is ever infallible.  Nothing.  Inspired by God, yes.  Written by him? Absolutely not!)

The point being presented in my post, which you have so brilliantly illustrated for me, is that the name used does not now, nor has it ever, mattered.  It is the intent of a man's heart which matters.  If the intent of a man's heart is so legalistic that it can see nothing else but the letter of the law, then the law is but a curse - and yes, that does turn people off.  

As for the theological debate, I leave that to each man or woman to decide for themselves.  I have my own beliefs on the matter and it is not for me to ask another to believe as I do.

Edited for clarity

Mr. Aioshi,

Your column really does make some very good points sometimes about F2P games.  Unfortunately, I find myself more often than not in agreement with the sentiment of the poster above:  it's not what you say, but how you say it.

As a columnist, a journalist, I imagine that you would get the same questions from many people over time.  But Human Relations 101 back in college taught me that it's not what I intend when I say something or write something, but how the hearer or reader perceives my intent that matters.  When I read your column today, as is often the case when I read your column, I perceived your intent as the following:

"I get these stupid questions from the drooling idiots who read my work all the time and I really am getting tired of having to explain myself, so please read carefully and stop asking me.  I'd really like to get on with addressing the things that I feel are far more important than your silly little questions."

Perhaps, Mr. Aioshi, your readers ask you these questions in order to clarify some points in their own minds and to give you a "fair shake" as a journalist rather than dismissing your work out of hand.  Though I have never troubled myself with asking you anything, preferring to allow your writing to speak for itself, I do perceive you as biased and a bit arrogant towards your audience - two things most journalists really cannot often afford to be.

Still, I thank you for the clarification as to why you choose the topics you do.  Perhaps the next time you choose to answer your readers' questions, you could choose to do so with just a bit more tact?

I'm curious how the beliefs - however misguided one does or does not believe they may be - of another can or should affect you (or me)?

I happen to be a Christian. I also happen to oppose the manner in which many Christians attempt to force their personal beliefs upon others.  It's not an action I would choose to take and I have also, because of my more tolerant leanings towards others and my strong belief in allowing others to exercise their free will, been called a "bad" Christian and told I was destined for an eternity in hell.

Personally, I choose to ignore the opinions of others because those opinions are none of my business.  I often have a tendency to shake my head and chuckle to myself at the mental image of Jesus (which, to answer the question of the name, is simply a translation of a Hebrew name, Yeshua, which means "the Lord Saves" into another language, in this case, Greek.  If you prefer, you can use the Hebrew name "Immanuel/Emanuel," which means "God with Us," which he is also called, or even the Anglicanized "Christ" from the Greek "Kristos," which simply means "The Anointed One") shaking his head and facepalming over all the people demanding that others believe exactly as they do or suffer an eternity of torment.  Such an image of showing one's faith by browbeating seems fairly contradictory to me since intimidation and abuse is exactly the opposite of love - but that's only my opinion, and I've already stated how I feel about opinions. ;)

Originally posted by Amathe

I'm sure that various advantages and disadvantages would have to be attached to it for all the usual reasons. But this is not about whether you get +3 this or a purple that. It's about adding to all the typical features a meaningful ideological conflict, with corresponding tangible representation in the virtual world. This, for the purpose of giving people a sense that there is substance to the conflict and that it's not just another goody generating theadmill activity.

Don't get me wrong; I understand the need and the purpose behind rewarding players for their effort.  I suppose what "bothers" me about the various PvP systems as they currently exist is that the rewards are the only reasons for PvPing (aside from bragging rights, as I previously mentioned).

If, as you ask in your OP, there were a reason that didn't center solely on the rewards of loot for PvPing, but something that was focused on a bigger picture, it might motivate me to consider PvPing as more than just a "goody generating treadmill." (Love the wording on that one, by the way.  I might steal it!)

If PvP had a meaning other than the Super Duper Sword of Doom or the Armor of Never Ending Protection - a purpose that actually mattered to me as a player, or, more importantly, to my character, I'd be more inclined to participate.

As it is, it's all about loots and bragging rights - two things that really don't motivate me.

Originally posted by smitty0356

I'm pretty sure there will be an imbalanced number of jedi...

I played MXO and LoTRO, so I have a little perspective about what players tend to do with a strong IP like this, and I know not EVERYONE will be a jedi, but I have a feeling it will be very lame as to just how many there are.  Then, because there are so many of them, the perpetual whine about nerfs and OP classes causes the game to cater to them which perpetuates the jedi problem.

Let me just tell a story quick about mxo...  there were more zionists than machines, because there were 3 million N30 clones and morfeeeus's, that it just threw the game into a tail spin...  imagine if there were more jedi than stormtroopers in starwars...  Their advantage was in their numbers.  The effect was the same with the "legolas/legoloin/lego-fill-in-the-rest" class in LoTRO.  People complained so much that their legolas wasn't as good as in the movie until they got anti-nerfed to the top of the food chain in pvp.

Just saying, I hope they have some great plan for keeping the populations in check or we will see hordes of darth vaders and darth mauls running around zerging people.

 

I was right about the n30's, the legolas's, the destruction zerg on WAR, and I'll be right about this

As has already been stated, the game is set about 3000 years prior to the films.  Even in the prequel films, Jedi were in abundance (until the end of the last one).  A high number of Force users fits the timeline (unlike in SWG), so it is less of a canon issue in TOR than in other Star Wars releases. In fact, in the timeline of TOR, low numbers of Force users would be a canon continuity problem.  Personally, I plan to play a Trooper and an Agent, but will also have Force users on both sides - I just don't plan on making the Force users my main characters.

Regarding MxO, which I also played, the disparity in numbers is simple: the films were written in such a way as to present Zion as the heroes and the Machines as the villains - a very black-and-white notion for the theme of the Matrix, in my opinion.  Cypher's character was written and acted - deliberately, in my opinion - in such a way as to present the character in an unsympathetic light.  The Merovingian also comes across in the films (in my opinion) as less than sympathetic (though the aptly-named Persephone is presented a bit more sympathetically, in my opinion).  MMOs, as a general rule, are presented in such a way as to make the player "feel" heroic, which may account for the imbalance in the numbers of Zionists versus Machinists/Merovingians in that game (counting, of course, Cypherites as Machinists and EPN as Zionites).

Hunters were absurdly over-the-top for a long time in LoTRO.  My main is a champion, but I do have several alts and one is a hunter.  I can't speak to PvMP in LoTRO because I don't bother with it, but there have been some (very necessary, in my opinion) nerfs to the class that have affected PvE play over the years (now if only they would nerf all the variants on Legolas people try to use to name their characters).  There is a fine line between "heroic" and "grossly overpowered," I believe, but at least it is something they've worked on instead of leaving it as it was.  It is extraordinarily rare that I will agree with nerfing a class - whether I play that class or not - but in the case of the LoTRO hunter, it was most certainly warranted.

Still, I don't necessarily see a need to "keep (Force user) populations in check" in TOR.  High populations of Force users fit into the timeline the game takes place in, there are counters to the Force user classes (Bounty Hunters for one, as mentioned previously, also I suspect other classes that are skilled and devious enough to try new things may be able to survive the encounter, even if it's not an encounter they wish to have every day) and, as BioWare has stated more than once, the emphasis in TOR will not be on PvP - the game may have a PvP aspect, but PvP is not the focus or the goal.

Originally posted by fyerwall

Aye, great article and it is true.

People need to stop looking at the elephant in the room and wishing it would go away and instead maybe just look past it and see whats going on in the next room. Because who knows what you will find there. Maybe it will be something cooler than the elephant or maybe a different breed of elephant. Hell, it might just be a chair. Point is if you stay so focused on the elephant and the tricks it does you end up missing out on everything else thats going on, like the shady guy stealing your wallet...

Exactly.

Great article.

Most of my guild doesn't really play WoW because it's a great game, we play it because the games we actually want to play haven't been released yet.  Overall, WoW is a polished game, but it is not the best game on the market.  There are people who love it, and that's great.  I enjoy it well enough, but it's not the best game I've ever played (nor is it the worst, it's simply alright).

The fact is, Jamie hit the nail squarely on the head: just because it's a juggernaut doesn't necessarily mean folks should ignore all the other potentially great games out there.  A sub base of 11 million just means a lot of people play a game - it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best game on the market; it just means it's the game with the best marketing team.

Originally posted by xpowderx

 

In 2011 if states like California do not have Real I.D active in which they resist. The citizenry of that state will no longer be able to get plane flights anywhere in the U.S, enter government building, nor apply for any federal program.

 

Actually, this isn't 100% true...anyone with a Federal ID, such as military, veterans, or anyone carrying a passport (when I travel, I carry my military ID - which is an "indefinite" orange variety on account of my being a 100% disabled veteran and therefore does not have the microchip, my Department of Veterans Affairs ID - which also does not have a microchip, and my passport - which also lacks the microchip) will still be able to travel after 2011, even without a Real ID/RFID.  The information contained in the RFID is the same biometric information contained on most Federal IDs: height, weight, eye color, distinguishing characteristics, fingerprints, etc.  Though some Federal IDs do not have the chips, there are methods that do link authorities to the databases containing the information, so the RF chip becomes unnecessary.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 

 In no other state are you required to carry any type of ID if you're not driving.  

 In fact if a cop stops you on the side of the street and asks you for ID, you can just say no.  

Incorrect.  In many states, including Washington State (where I lived for 15 years), anyone over a certain age (I believe it's 14 or 16) is required by law to carry some form of identification on them at all times, whether that be a State ID, student ID, what have you.

The law is not always strictly enforced, admittedly, but it is on the books in several states.  Certainly, you can refuse to present your identification, but that refusal can (but does not always) result in probable cause for detainment by authorities until you can be properly identified.

My problem with the Arizona law is not the crackdown on illegal immigration. I fully support a crackdown on illegal immigration as do all of my legal immigrant friends who are now either naturalized citizens or green card holders.  My problem is the potential for abuse the law inherently has, the racial profiling it can cause by its implementation, and the potential for stripping of civil liberties of legal citizens both born here and naturalized.  My problem with the new law is also that the State of Arizona, as California and Texas (where I currently live) before them, are attempting to do what is, according to the Constitution, the Federal Government's job: protect the borders.  Granted the Federal Government has not been interested in doing that, which explains why the states have taken the onus upon themselves, however, it appears this law will be challenged by numerous parties, including the Justice Department, and, like California and Texas laws before it, it may well get struck down on Constitutional grounds.  California alone has the electoral votes to really push this issue at the Federal level, as does Texas.  Should both states go about this wisely and choose a more political means - say, between now and the next Presidential election, maybe(?) of approach to the issue to make their views abundantly clear on the matter, I suspect the Federal government would be far more willing to step up to the plate and do their job.

Voice chat and jumping around like jackrabbits on crack.

I don't care that NBC rebranded the channel, I refuse to use the new name and still call it SciFi.  That said, the game looks intriguing, but I will wait for more information before I decide whether or not I'm actually interested. E3 might be a good time to give us more info on that one.

I have been watching APB and am very interested in that one.  Have a friend in the beta and from what she tells me, I'm jealous and can't wait for this one to release. :)  Would be very interested to see/hear more at E3.

Originally posted by Airwren

 

 Isn't there a saying that goes something like "husbands and wives that play together stay together"?

Not always true. I divorced my ex, but it had absolutely nothing to do with games and everything to do with a lot of other really good reasons. ;)

Originally posted by Maverz290

Originally posted by Nifa

Originally posted by Maverz290

SWG.

A guild called NS'r, full of women, nightsisters. Had men as slaves. I accidently walked in on one of their RP events where there was some combat ritual. Lets just say, it was like the scene in 28 days later in the church with the sudden look around and stares...

*Slowly, backed away..*

Moral of the story is, don't interrupt womens rituals.

This includes gossip girl, one tree hill and of course, Farmville.

I actually know a lot of those women.  The guild leader is an acquaintance (and a kick-ass digital artist).  Those are some women (women in real life as well) who you probably do not want to mess with in game because they'll tear you up in PvP.  Rper's, yes.  Skilled players?  Most definitely.

 

I know they can PvP. I've PvP'd with and against them. I never emplied they couldn't lol. They're just RP'rs by default.

They are lovely once you get to know them, you make them sound all deadly lol.

I'm part of mandalorian brotherhood. Whom are originally from Wanderhome. We have a few things in common with NS, which are culture, warrior code, well, sort of. We have the Resol'nare, they have the teachings about the weave.

Something interesting is the mandalorians value all, both men and women, and are both given equal rights. This is how we enforce our guild, and thats why it should work for all.

We've never had a problem.

*snicker*  They are all quite lovely.  Very nice ladies.  Didn't mean to imply that I believed you thought otherwise, hehe. ;)

I'd actually considered joining NS for a while a few years back when I first transferred to Starsider (in '07, I think?) but ultimately went with a smaller guild based on Lok because I hit it off extremely well with the members (and they didn't mind that I had Rebel alts, so long as I didn't PvP on the Rebel alts, which I didn't since they were crafters and I'm not that insane).

I know a bit about the Mandalorians, being a Star Wars fan myself (actually, my friends call me a Star Wars nerd ;) ).  I think I've heard of you guys as well, come to think of it.  Maybe I'll look y'all up when I resub next month on my Armorsmith to help out a friend and teach him how to be a decent armorsmith (he's having a bit of trouble sorting the crafting system out in terms of what to look for in armorsmithing mats, so I promised him I'd log in and give him a hand after my vacation). :)

Originally posted by DevilFace

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Shastra

My wife enjoys EQ2 and she is in all female guild. No boys allowed ;)

Imagine if it was the other way around, an only boys guild. People would scream bloody murder.

Haha who would *want* an all boys guild? Aside from gay guys.

 

 

Anyone who doesn't want a lot of drama.

As a woman, I hate to say it because it reflects negatively upon my gender, but as a guild leader (been in guild leadership for seven years now and worked my way up to it from the bottom - and was elected unanimously to the guild leader position the first time I was given the position), it has been my experience that 80% of the worst guild drama I have seen was caused by women.

That is not to say that men cannot or do not cause drama - they most certainly do and have in my experience, but the ratio of male drama queens in my years of guild leader (and member) experience is 20% male, 80% female.

Originally posted by Maverz290

SWG.

A guild called NS'r, full of women, nightsisters. Had men as slaves. I accidently walked in on one of their RP events where there was some combat ritual. Lets just say, it was like the scene in 28 days later in the church with the sudden look around and stares...

*Slowly, backed away..*

Moral of the story is, don't interrupt womens rituals.

This includes gossip girl, one tree hill and of course, Farmville.

I actually know a lot of those women.  The guild leader is an acquaintance (and a kick-ass digital artist).  Those are some women (women in real life as well) who you probably do not want to mess with in game because they'll tear you up in PvP.  Rper's, yes.  Skilled players?  Most definitely.

Originally posted by TheMinn

Why do we care about the population when it comes to gender? Every MMO I play I really never think about the reproductive organs of the person I am fighting with in my group.

TheMinn's stated my opinion clearly and succinctly.

I have never cared one way or the other if the players in my group are male or female - and I am female.  So long as they know what they are doing (or are willing to learn), I'm a happy camper.  Oh, and I currently play WoW and EVE and have played almost everything out there.  And for a long time, most of my game content in all games was PvP, though now I mostly raid.  I also play a lot of L4D/L4D2.

On console, I'm currently playing FFXIII, but also frequently play Saint's Row 2, Mercenaries (1 & 2), Gears of War, any Rainbow 6 game, and any FIFA or NHL game and enjoy a bit of Halo every now and again (I used to play it in a weekly LAN party with 7 guys and was well known for walking up behind snipers and destroying them)

As has been said before by myself and other females, we don't all fit into the same box. ;)

Originally posted by shae

Yup -  We're taking WoW over one server at a time.

We have female only guilds, we have pink tabards and yes when we get on vent we do nothing but talk about shopping, shoes and how the last time we got our nails done how great they looked right after but like 2 days later they've completely gone to hell.

And no, we don't have a clue how to play the game, I personally just push random bottoms and hope something goes right; who knew if you got 25 of us on the lich king doing the same thing mr. frostbite would go down so easily... iknowright?

Oh and if you don't play WoW and play some other more complicated, convoluted, "technical" game like eve, or runscape or whatever to like... get away from us. Don't bother man, just don't bother. We're all over the place.

We have our pink mouses, our pink keyboards, t-shits that spell the word Girl in like 50 different ways (i.e.: Girlz, Gurls, Gurlz, G!lrz, Gu!z, etc, etc), we have our bras, our tampons, make up, spare sweater in case it's cold (it doesn't matter where we're going, it could always be cold) and we're going to take over... oh yeah, we're taking over.

Oh yeah by the way.

Farmville is... AWESOME!

I think this is the best post I've ever read on a forum anywhere.

Pardon me while I go clean up the water I just spit all over my keyboard and monitor. :D

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

 

He doesn't need to. He is too cool.  Just look at the pic of the Hospital he was born at. 

 

I could be mistaken, considering the President is about 10 or so years older than me, but I'm pretty sure Tripler Army Medical Center was re-built or redesigned since President Obama was born. ;)  Most major military medcens in the  Western Regional Medical Command, which Tripler fell under when I served in that command in the early 90's (and several outside of that command), have been.  Still, it does have a gorgeous campus, doesn't it?

Regarding the OP, no, I do not believe the President hates white males aged 30+.  He's been quoted numerous times as telling the very people who "got" him elected that he cannot be a "black president" because he has been elected the President of the United States and all her citizens.  That makes it clear to me at least that President Obama does understand that the office to which he has been elected and appointed by the people (and no, I did not vote for him) does not allow him to pick and choose a race or age group whose interests he will represent above all others.  Certainly, as a human being, he probably has his preferences, but he clearly understands the need to at least try to represent all citizens, regardless of age, race, religion, sexual preference, background, or any other number of possible reasons to choose one group over another.

Regarding AZ's new immigration law yes, there are American-born individuals of Latin descent who have been targeted already.  One such individual, a 20-year-old college student who was born in Tucson and who is a US citizen by birth, has already been stopped at least once and carries her driver's license, her student ID, and her passport with her everywhere she goes to prove her right to be in the country and state in which she was born.  I fully agree that something needs to be done in border states such as AZ, NM, CA, and TX (where I live) about illegal immigration.  Other states, such as NC, OK, and even WA (though WA's issue is more with Asians than with Mexicans, in my experience), also have serious illegal immigration problems.  The answer is not, however, turning these states into forms of "police states" and removing the rights of American citizens to be in their own country is not the answer, in my opinion.  The answer is clearly laid out by the powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution to protect our borders - powers which our government has thus far refused to enact due to fear of upsetting our Mexican neighbors.  As others have stated, this is one time when the Federal Government could step in and do its job, and I suspect that few Americans would become outraged: eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, Educational (did you know that in some parts of NC, such as Charlotte, part of the public school system has been changed so that in the public schools, native-born American children cannot attend some public schools near their homes in their districts if they are not 80% fluent or better in Spanish and are bussed out to other schools?), Healthcare (emergency and hospital), translation, and any other publicly-provided service (including DMV, buses, insurance, vehicle licensing and registration and insurance) to those who are not here legally and cannot prove via a green card or visa that they are here legally.  Connect all public service systems to the INS database and refuse all public care of any sort to anyone who cannot prove that they are not a citizen or are not here legally.

I fully support legal immigration.  My great grandparents emigrated here from Scotland and Germany, respectively. Many of my friends are legal immigrants who have gained their full citizenship and I have been proud to attend their oaths of citizenship ceremonies.  It is so very fascinating to me that every single one of my immigrant friends who have come here legally are positively incensed by these illegal immigrants who believe that they do not have to obey the laws of this nation and come here legally.  When immigrants and green card holders who have gone through the proper process to legally enter the country want the illegals out and believe strongly that the illegals are wrong, I personally find it terribly hard to find any sympathy whatsoever for those who come here illegally, no matter what their reason for coming.