JanYpe

Originally posted by: Duke87 Ah, finally we're taking some action about those bombs Mooninite terrorists planted in Boston! quote> That's just what they want you to think. Clearly this bombing is designed to wipe out all evidence of the sound stage that was built there to fake the moonlandings.

A "sneak attack" by countries "conspiring" against the US, does that sound a little jumpy or what? Maybe they couldn't find a way to run this under its initial title: "Oh god the sky is falling we're all going to get it RUN!" It's not really a surprise that the rest of the world might not want to be beholden to the US, or that there isn't a whole lot of brand loyalty when it comes to global finance, now is it.

In related news, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has decided that the Czech president will not be allowed to ratify the treaty until the court has ruled on the complaints of several senators about the treaty. Originally posted by: Duke87 Even still, the "They won your freedom - don't throw it away" poster really hits home with me. For two reasons. One, being American, you know I love that sort of rhetoric.quote> agrees.

Originally posted by: Meg Originally posted by: Barbarossa Originally posted by: Meg Originally posted by: Livin in Sim Is ST going off the air? quote> quote> Too true. I am completely in the dark here. Someone give me a flashlight! Barbarossa quote> Way back when, television stations did not broadcast 24 hours a day. They would shut off, usually somewhere around midnight - 2 a.m. Before they shut down for the night, they would show a waving flag and play the Star Spangled Banner. Then the screen would turn to nothing but static. quote> That's what the public station here used to do as well, with our own anthem obviously. (The video here is just a random one)

Originally posted by: hym Why does it really matter whether she is presented with an award? Humans have far more important problems to be solving.quote> It matters because someone who promoted reading to an audience that is all too often apathetic about it was denied public recognition on extremely tenuous grounds. I should think that one of those important problems for humans to solve involves hunting down the kind of cretins who think children's books really do "encourage witchcraft" and locking them up in a nice padded cel, instead of letting them roam the political landscape.

Trite

How much do you have?

Ooh, to be graced by the presence of such an esteemed leader. You must be close to bursting with joy.

Crate

Who knows?

Originally posted by: Ephemeron Originally posted by: abcvs If the trolls and bashers think they can simply carpet bag their way over here to Simtropolis...quote> Trolls and bashers? Please tell me if I am one of them, otherwise I will assume that I am not allowed to miss the old site. I missed the community back there. And yes, it's true that (contrary to my first post on this thread) that the forums are not all about complaining. I worked hard on my 200 or so posts, and I felt a sense of loss when I found that the forum had gone. Can you imagine how it must feel for those who made thousands of well thought out posts there? quote> I can imagine that would make them feel annoyed, irked, honked, ticked and quite possibly a little pissed off. And they're going to have to follow our rules anyway. This forum is for reasonable discussion about the game, and obviously that includes posts expressing doubts and dislikes. But we expect people to post with some maturity, and to have something to add to the discussion. What you quoted was not directed at anyone in particular, it was to reaffirm that we will not put up with people ignoring the rules of this site just because they're annoyed or they were able to get away with more on the other site. A lot of posts on the old site were well thought out, like you say, but plenty of them were not. The internet is a big wide place; if people want to spend their time screaming their head off, ranting and bashing just for the sake of it, they can find plenty of places to do that. We here do not have the time or the inclination to play host to tantrums like that. We welcome anyone who'll put in the effort and post in a calm manner, but we're not handing out the whips to beat a dead horse. Handing out duckies though:

Moving to Gaming Talk.

Last song was Van Morrison - Caravan Currently it's Kyteman - Sorry: Originally posted by: your_adress_here Tim Buckley's Morning Glory, a beautiful, mellow song featuring his hauntingly smooth vocals. quote> Wow.

Originally posted by: Meg How about we read the text of the speech before we decide what it's going say? quote> This is the American Politics thread. If the last twelve pages have indicated anything, it's that silly things like facts or the real world matter a lot less than pundit fantasies.

Non-intrusive ads are the kind that we as players could work with, or at least not mind too much. But by being non-intrusive these ads by definition don't attract a lot of attention from the user. On top of that, unless you give the ads some click through feature or provide a monitoring tool, there is no way to measure how effective these ads are. That means any ads MC added in would be of a pretty low value to any would-be advertisers. In theory it's a neat idea, but I doubt there's enough money in ads like that to cover development costs, let alone make a profit.

Originally posted by: tcxalapa Originally posted by: JanYpe ..... Enacting this law was the easy part, now they've got to show actual progress against the criminals. quote> what! what more do you want? what is USA doing to minimize the use of drugs? stop seeing this like is only Mexico's problem and take action with the drug consumer in your country. quote> I wasn't saying this is Mexico's problem alone, distribution networks aren't contained by national borders. I was saying that while it can be a useful step to stop locking up insignificant users, that step isn't going to solve the problem overnight. Locking up the people who profit from this industry and the violent crime that goes with it is still going to take a long time.

Originally posted by: tcxalapa Originally posted by: JanYpe ..... Enacting this law was the easy part, now they've got to show actual progress against the criminals. quote> what! what more do you want? what is USA doing to minimize the use of drugs? stop seeing this like is only Mexico's problem and take action with the drug consumer in your country. quote> I wasn't saying this is Mexico's problem alone, distribution networks aren't contained by national borders. I was saying that while it can be a useful step to stop locking up insignificant users, that step isn't going to solve the problem overnight. Locking up the people who profit from this industry and the violent crime that goes with it is still going to take a long time.

Originally posted by: tcxalapa Originally posted by: JanYpe ..... Enacting this law was the easy part, now they've got to show actual progress against the criminals. quote> what! what more do you want? what is USA doing to minimize the use of drugs? stop seeing this like is only Mexico's problem and take action with the drug consumer in your country. quote> I wasn't saying this is Mexico's problem alone, distribution networks aren't contained by national borders. I was saying that while it can be a useful step to stop locking up insignificant users, that step isn't going to solve the problem overnight. Locking up the people who profit from this industry and the violent crime that goes with it is still going to take a long time.

Originally posted by: Jasoncw If you ask me though, I think this is a reflection of the state of the drug war. It's so overwhelming that they're trying to reduce the scope of the war by making that amount of drugs legal. This probably frees up a lot of resources for the police and drug related agencies.quote> I should hope it does. Time and resources need to be spent fighting the actual cartels and their infrastructure, not wasted on their instantly replaceable customers. The production, distribution and exploitation are at the heart of this problem, investigating and prosecuting that side, while discouraging/treating the use instead of locking up users, is the only serious approach to fighting this "drug war". Originally posted by: manticorefan No amount of methamphetamine is safe for any community. Ask anyone from the Pacific NW, the stuff is the most insidious substance ever created. Any allowable effort to eradicate it is the only way to go, long term.quote> Methamphetamine certainly seems like a questionable thing to include in this sort of amnesty, unless getting caught three times comes with definite consequences this is not a long term solution. But who knows, it could be a stopgap on the way to rational policy. Enacting this law was the easy part, now they've got to show actual progress against the criminals.

Originally posted by: Jasoncw If you ask me though, I think this is a reflection of the state of the drug war. It's so overwhelming that they're trying to reduce the scope of the war by making that amount of drugs legal. This probably frees up a lot of resources for the police and drug related agencies.quote> I should hope it does. Time and resources need to be spent fighting the actual cartels and their infrastructure, not wasted on their instantly replaceable customers. The production, distribution and exploitation are at the heart of this problem, investigating and prosecuting that side, while discouraging/treating the use instead of locking up users, is the only serious approach to fighting this "drug war". Originally posted by: manticorefan No amount of methamphetamine is safe for any community. Ask anyone from the Pacific NW, the stuff is the most insidious substance ever created. Any allowable effort to eradicate it is the only way to go, long term.quote> Methamphetamine certainly seems like a questionable thing to include in this sort of amnesty, unless getting caught three times comes with definite consequences this is not a long term solution. But who knows, it could be a stopgap on the way to rational policy. Enacting this law was the easy part, now they've got to show actual progress against the criminals.

Originally posted by: Jasoncw If you ask me though, I think this is a reflection of the state of the drug war. It's so overwhelming that they're trying to reduce the scope of the war by making that amount of drugs legal. This probably frees up a lot of resources for the police and drug related agencies.quote> I should hope it does. Time and resources need to be spent fighting the actual cartels and their infrastructure, not wasted on their instantly replaceable customers. The production, distribution and exploitation are at the heart of this problem, investigating and prosecuting that side, while discouraging/treating the use instead of locking up users, is the only serious approach to fighting this "drug war". Originally posted by: manticorefan No amount of methamphetamine is safe for any community. Ask anyone from the Pacific NW, the stuff is the most insidious substance ever created. Any allowable effort to eradicate it is the only way to go, long term.quote> Methamphetamine certainly seems like a questionable thing to include in this sort of amnesty, unless getting caught three times comes with definite consequences this is not a long term solution. But who knows, it could be a stopgap on the way to rational policy. Enacting this law was the easy part, now they've got to show actual progress against the criminals.