Profile for Petoffen
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Petoffen |
| Member number | 4349 |
| Title | Apprentice |
| Postcount | 8 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |
Recent posts
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| A little confused in Nethergate | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4349
|
written Saturday, August 18 2007 09:28
Profile
The game description could be a little clearer. Yes, the name is 'resurrection' and not 'the new adventure', but it's still a little vague. If it said something like 'play the classic game updated for new OS's with new bonus dungeons...' I'd thought it was a 'new content' game after the first reading, until I saw an interview on it. Posts: 8 | Registered: Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |
| The Conservative Shift in General | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4349
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 22:07
Profile
Thank you for the comment Slartucker. "Banning lobbying is not really a very good idea - lobbyists do a lot of good for Congress as well. Every interest, every opinion has a lobbying side, and it helps Congressmen get a full picture on every issue and helps them formulate an opinion on issues they would otherwise ignore." It's not about banning lobbying. Lobbying isn't going anywhere. But it is about preventing *undue* influence of lobbyists, by elected representatives being overly dependant on their donations, and not having adequate sources of independent input. The way things now are the politicians need huge amounts of cash only available from interests. "And banning pork, while it would be worthwhile, is hard to do explicitly. What classifies as pork? Getting the federal government to pay for road improvements? Getting more Homeland Security $$$ for your state? It's hard to draw a line in legislation, or actually impossible. It's more of a pornography "you know it when you see it," and the responsibility to stop it should be on Congressmen as a whole, led by senior leadership, to stop pork." You don't have to define pork. You have to set the system up so that the representatives are not incented to deliver pork, by owing the recipients so much. Take that away, incent them to represent the public instead by the proper role of money being enforced, and the pork will disappear. They don't do pork because they like to, they do it because they are forced to. An election ago in California, the new legislators were asked what their #1 concern was, and they said the amount of money they were forced to raise; they said they wanted to represent the public, but were forced to spend huge amounts of time fund raising to have enough. It's up to the public to push the fix. Posts: 8 | Registered: Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |
| The Conservative Shift in General | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4349
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 10:31
Profile
My views: - as some suggested, I think part of the perceived 'shift' is more in the presentation than in fact. I.e., the elected leaders are far more right wing, the media is more right wing, etc. - To the extent that there is a shift, I think in large part it's simply the fact that 'conservatism' was hijacked as a movement as one of several groups in a coalition to gain power, the magical 51%. The designers of this effort know what they are doing; many of the groups in it do not. This is why you have Christian groups in a coalition opposing helping the poor, you have fiscal conservatives in a coalition with huge deficits, you have small government conservatives in a coalition which has grown government hugely. This coalition is called the republican party, and it's working; they identified the key segments of society which felt 'slighted' by not being in the previous majorities (the reaction to the republican depression in 1932 through the Southern Strategy in 1968), and created the sense of persecution where needed, to 'mobilize the base', by pandering to these groups. So you have the Christians - over 75% of America and doing just fine, thank you - sold on things like the 'war on Christmas' to get them supporting the republican pandering to their more extremist elements, not supporting the democrats for, say, the democrats more Christian policies for the poor. What's behind it? Putting aside the duped masses who aren't behind it but are enabling it, you have groups ranging from monied interests - it's the old system of a political party selling out the public interest for business support - and ideologues. Ironically, the ideologues not only resemble the types who have come before, of harmful minority views gaining power - from the Bolsheviks to the Nazis - but they are actually in many cases direct descendants of the Trotskyites of the 30's, using the same 'ends justify the means' approach. And it's worked, if barely (the 2000 election was particularly disrespectful to democracy, in the man who was the clear choice of the voters not getting the office, through both accident and design). Following such shifts in power you have the 'infrastructure', such as Fox News, which chases power and profits by doing so. These things increase the 'movement'. Casualties include the empowerment of the people to be well-informed, as that poorly serves these interests. Indeed, as Orwell wrote in 1984, the purpose of the sort of propaganda you see there or from many on the right now is aimed at preventing the citizens from seeing the facts, framing issues in ways to prevent it; issues need two sides, but what two sides? For example, the policy in Iraq is not about the issues of internaitonal law, of aggression versus democracy - rather, the questions are, 'do you support the troops', are you 'with America or against America', etc., to use some of the more simplistic examples. The most important issues are decided often secretly - when did you last interact with your government on the programs to develop new space-based or 'tactical nuclear weapons' - and when they can't be secret, crude propaganda serves. Take the first gulf war: whatever the merits, they did not decide the issue; most of the public was against the war, but a PR campaign changed that - a campaign with the cooperation of the US government, including an effort paid for by the Kuwaiti government (in exile), who hired a US ad agency with a manager who had been President George H. W. Bush's chief of staff as VP, starring a tearful woman testifying to congress about the horrors she saw of Iraqi troops leaving babies on hospital floors to steal their incubators - stories which were later shown to be lies, told by a woman who was not there, but was - unknown to the listeners - the daughter of the Kuwait ambassador. And yet, there was no political price for the deceipt - it worked to sell a war. That's the story, and it's the responsbility of the American people to counter it, just as it always is for the society to prevent evil elements from gaining leadership. Most importantly, perhaps, is not 'defeat the right', but rather 'fix the system' from the terribly broken way we do elections now in the money - where it takes millions to get elected, forcing the government to represent donors not voters. Posts: 8 | Registered: Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |
| What Do You Think Spiderweb Software??? in General | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4349
|
written Monday, May 31 2004 09:04
Profile
Never say never. It may be as simple as someone coming up with a hosting service for those who provide some content, or even another developer making the game and licensing with Spiderweb. Look at all the mods made for some games, and it's easy to see some people doing an online Avernum possibly. Options include the MMORPG route with big changes, or Baldur's Gate-type multiplayer. Posts: 8 | Registered: Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |
| Looking for recommendation in General | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4349
|
written Monday, May 17 2004 00:05
Profile
I'd like to get one of the Spiderweb games, to support them, and enjoy it. Can someone who knows them recommend one - I saw the poll and many are well-liked. I've enjoyed Everquest, Might and Magic 6, Betrayal at Antara, and so on. I have, and they look fine but I haven't gotten too far, many others like Wizardy 8, Morrowind, NeverWinter Nights, Arx Fatalis, Divine Divinity, and so on. I don't have enough times for the games I already have, so short is not a negative, and may even be a positive - though it the better game is long, I'd prefer that. Hard to say what I'm looking for, not knowing the games well and not preferring to put the time into trying the demos etc. Rather get a 'here's the one to get if you like...' summary. Posts: 8 | Registered: Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |