Oh, you.

That is apparent.

Makes complete sense. They are so committed to story integrity that you have to wade through 50 levels of hetero content (guys, there are a LOT of flirting dialogue options in this fscking game, even for Jedi) before you're allowed to be gay. Over there. Where good, wholesome, Christian Sith and bounty hunters can't see you doing your filthy business.

If they were actually committed from the beginning, they would have the dialogue written for all the content already. They'd have put the hooks in the code to drop in voice content when they could afford it. They could have prepared, and instead they made excuses, and delayed, and dragged their feet. I don't know why, but I don't actually care why either. They tried to boost sales by hocking to the gay crowd and then dumped us after release. Fuck 'em, I'm out.

Although the AC troll brings up an interesting point. I theorize that the rate of homosexuality among the geeks n' gamers crowd is probably higher than in the general population, if only because of the outsider appeal of the subculture. In my experience, us nerds are generally less judgmental about inconsequential things like sexual orientation and focus on things that really matter, like Who Shot First, or whether SSDs have finally solved the cost/performance ratio problem. Additionally, gamers skew younger (even with us Gen Xers bumping up the numbers), and young people tend to be more tolerant of gay folk too, in their way.

In any case, I'm growing a few throat oysters for Bioware the next time I see them walking down the street. They totally caved on their commitment to GLBT, which was a major reason I bought the game to begin with. At first it was "we'll definitely have gay stuff", and then around release they said "we'll have it in a content patch", and later they shoved queers back into the closet with "it will be a companion relationship only, so other people don't have to be grossed out by your gayness". Now they're backing away from that too? Just goes to show, a few Jesus nuts can really fuck it up for the rest of us when corporate interests are involved.

Support indie devs! Invest in crowdsource projects! Freedom is cheaper and better made.

Well, *I* thought it was funny.

Hey, consider this: Amazon may be setting itself up to be the legit Silk Road for recreational cannabis. Think about it! Home growers could have a retail channel that includes the entire US, dragging the industry into legitimacy. Talk about a grass-roots movement... With the new laws in Colorado and Washington, there will be a market starting in January.

Now, no one at Amazon has even suggested such a thing (as far as I know), but I found it an interesting coincidence that this wine-selling program started to make headlines in a big way immediately on the heels of the election. Even if it isn't intentional, this would be (or rather, WILL be) a massive revenue stream for the first company to offer such a service, and Amazon will have this wine business experience to work out the kinks in state-by-state deliveries.

I'm hopeful.

I haven't seen any evidence to support your claim, but I certainly look forward to finding out! From my point of view, the people who supposedly have these documents should be prosecuted when they are inevitably caught; on the other hand, I also think they will have done a service to the people of the United States if they can leak the info first.

Civil disobedience is about risking imprisonment. I wish I had the nerve to do more of it.

True, they grew hemp: a non-psychoactive strain of the cannabis we all know an love. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't strong evidence one way or another on the topic of Founding Tokers.

I'd rather have a post than a funny mod - and I got both! =D So thank YOU sir, for making my morning.

My impression of Congress over the last four years is that they have already taken that measure preemptively.

No... you're thinking of the FIRST first black president.

I don't see why your premise is less plausible. A healthier organism is more likely to attract multiple mates. It seems far more plausible to me, actually.

Of course you are. If you read very carefully all the way to the end of the sentence (that's the bit with the period at the end) you'll see that I said "impair judgement AND has strong physically addictive properties". Hardened addicts are a danger to the welfare of all those around them, thus...

... my assertion about the common good. The fact that the concept of a common good is outside your pantheon isn't terribly surprising, but sometimes we can significantly improve the health, safety and well-being of the many by narrowly curtailing the rights of a few. It's a delicate balance, and I won't claim to have all the answers, but a chaotic free-for-all society is no society at all.

Evidence can be believed - as long as it is scientifically verifiable. Otherwise it isn't evidence. Historical evidence is based on (among other things) documentation, photography/video and eyewitness testimony. All of these things can be tested scientifically, therefore "historical" evidence is not distinct from scientific evidence. Your dogmatic assertion that your god wrote the bible is tiresome. Men wrote that book, and the predictions of men are sometimes correct - it isn't evidence of a deity even if you refuse to accept it. In fact, there is a rich, well-documented history of the origins and numerous translations of the bible across the centuries. Unless you read Greek and Hebrew, you aren't even reading the original text (whatever your beliefs about the "original" author).

To put it another way, in the words of the esteemed Lionel Hutz, "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."

I'm also not interested in your banal predictions about an afterlife, because (as with all your other arguments) it is unknowable. It is unknowable. Just in case I haven't made an impression on this point, it is unknowable. Please consult a professional theologist if the concept still remains unclear. In any case, I personally think the threat of hellfire is absurd. If a person does the "right" thing only out of fear of torture, it demonstrates nothing about their character except a fear of personal pain.

As I said before, I'm not interested in challenging your faith (although you seem intent on hammering it into me). It surprises me a little how poorly you seem to grasp both science and faith. Jesus said to pray in private. I would personally be grateful if you'd listen to the guy.

I won't be responding again so if you feel the desperate, prideful need to have the last word, now is the time.

Drugs which severely impair judgement and have strong physically addictive properties should probably remain illegal. Examples include cocaine/crack, heroin, and methamphetamine. I don't judge the morality of users of these drugs, but the common good is served by keeping them illegal.

On the other hand, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and cannabis are classic examples of drugs which should be legal, in my opinion.