Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Please hurry.

MF

The Boar Studio
Patron
Developer
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
889
Location
Amsterdam
Frodo and Sam.
It's all over Lord of the Rings.

When all was at last ready Frodo said: ‘When are you going to move in and join me, Sam?’
Sam looked a bit awkward.
‘There is no need to come yet, if you don’t want to,’ said Frodo. ‘But you know the Gaffer is close at hand, and he will be very well looked after by Widow Rumble.’
‘It’s not that, Mr. Frodo,’ said Sam, and he went very red.
‘Well, what is it?’
‘It’s Rosie, Rose Cotton,’ said Sam. ‘It seems she didn’t like my going abroad at all, poor lass; but as I hadn’t spoken, she couldn’t say so. And I didn’t speak, because I had a job to do first. But now I have spoken, and she says: “Well, you’ve wasted a year, so why wait longer?” “Wasted?” I says. “I wouldn’t call it that.” Still see what she means. I feel torn in two, as you might say.’
‘I see,’ said Frodo: ‘you want to get married, and yet you want to live with me in Bag End too? But my dear Sam, how easy! Get married as soon as you can, and then move in with Rosie. There’s room enough in Bag End for as big a family as you could wish for.’

They're basically breaking up in Return of the King. Tolkien never denied it.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
Short

stumpy

hairy

veiny

throbbing

bulbous

HOBBIT COCK

8===========D~~~~~~~
 

SlavemasterT

Arcane
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
2,670
Location
not Eurofagistan
Sylvanus said:
As if you couldn't see it in the movie. Gaaaaaay.

Seriously though, does it really matter?

Yes, it does.

I don't remember noticing any homosexual themes or characters when I read the Lord of the Rings. Perverts need to stop reading their own deviant distractions into innocent works. Stop trying to corrupt normal people's childhood memories.

Also, re: the above passage, I don't think it was uncommon historically for servants to live with their masters.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
890
SlavemasterT said:
Yes, it does.

I don't remember noticing any homosexual themes or characters when I read the Lord of the Rings. Perverts need to stop reading their own deviant distractions into innocent works. Stop trying to corrupt normal people's childhood memories.

I agree. People who suffer from arrested development annoy the shit out of me.
 

bylam

Funcom
Developer
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
707
LOTR is a pretty cool story considering that Tolkien only wrote it by request and was not really passionate about the work.
If I recall correctly Tolkien regretted the popularity of his works before his death and was against the fandom that had sprung up around them.
How ironic that every year on his birthday fans gather around his grave and sing a lament in elvish.
I hope that wherever he is now, Tolkien cannot hear that.
 

spacemoose

Erudite
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
9,632
Location
california
that's probably 'cause he was a democrat. all them democrats are gay. if you just wait a while, they'll probably all die out from their gayness and all, then this country will finally be clean
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
Maybe, but Lincoln was a Republican (i.e. our country's first lying manipulating warmongering redneck who started the Civil War to steal the South's oil).
 

Jasede

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
24,793
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut I'm very into cock and ball torture
I don't like your US system where you can choose between Republicans (who will bend you over and fuck you in the ass) and Democrats (who will sedate you and "make love" with you while you're knocked out).

Well, it's not worse than the German system though - we can choose between assrape, assrape disguised as "love", communism and GIVEUSALLYOURMONEYBITCHES. Oh yes, and the Greens. But I would rather have assrape than vote for some hippies.
 

denizsi

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
9,927
Location
bosphorus
US system gives just too much power to the president, that's retarded. Especially with that law permitting the president to interpret the laws to his own liking, it's basically an inch away from elected dictatorship.

By the way, do the other parties ever get considerable amounts of votes? Judging from the way it's reflected in international press, I find it strange that it's like there isn't even a third party outside those two, and those two seem to be doing a hell of a job of polarising people into just two camps and keep them busy throwing shit at each other.
 

One Wolf

Scholar
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
311
Location
Planet X
king comrade said:
our country's first lying manipulating warmongering redneck who started the Civil War to steal the South's oil

hah!

elhoim said:
how many americans vote?

last i recall turnout was around 40%, enough that if everyone who doesn't vote cast ballots, they could elect OJ Simpson. which is likely anyway, without their help.

wikipedia says that 70% of US voters are registered (and 50% turnout of voting pop. in pres. elections), but i have no idea how many actually cast votes, and i adamantly refuse to read past the second paragraph on the website. so who knows.
 

Greatatlantic

Erudite
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
1,683
Location
The Heart of It All
denizsi said:
US system gives just too much power to the president, that's retarded. Especially with that law permitting the president to interpret the laws to his own liking, it's basically an inch away from elected dictatorship.

Choose your words carefully, the American system strictly limits the interpretation of laws to the judicial branch, thats literally the word we use how we teach children in schools about what roles the different branches of government play.

The president's job is to enforce the laws. There is always some manner of having to decide how to put laws into practice, but disputes are settled by the courts. Some presidents have tried to extend their power so as to not be answerable to the courts, but I don't think any president has ever succeeded with out having a war as an excuse to do so (for example Lincoln suspended habeus corpus laws during the Civil War). What we've seen is Bush trying to justify what he's done, but the courts are slapping his claims down, albeit it really slowly.

By the way, do the other parties ever get considerable amounts of votes? Judging from the way it's reflected in international press, I find it strange that it's like there isn't even a third party outside those two, and those two seem to be doing a hell of a job of polarising people into just two camps and keep them busy throwing shit at each other.

There are other parties in the United States, but the way the system is set up really discourages low level parties from succeeding. For example, instead of distributing Congressional seats based on people voting for a specific party, each congressional seat is determined by a winner take all election on a local level where people vote by person, not party (in theory, they still list the canidate's party and a lot of people will just vote down the party line). Therefore, the only way to win anything is get an outright majority(OK, a plurality would cut it as well) in at least one part of the country. So, a party that might attract 15% of the voting populace won't win 15% of the seats. More likely they'll win 0%, unless that 15% is highly concentrated in a few states.

So, if there is only one one man is going to win, more often then not voters don't want to "waste" their votes on somebody who has no chance to win.

The presidential election has very similar dynamics to that. Furthermore, there are a lot of rules about getting federal funding for campaigns that favors the two dominant parties. Its sort of a Catch-22 that you have to win an election to get campaign funding, but chances are you need funding in order to win. Finally, there is just a ton of history surrouding the two party system in America. We have two parties because thats what we've always had (ignoring those crazy times in which we didn't, of course).
 

One Wolf

Scholar
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
311
Location
Planet X
so why doesn't american law prohibit campaign contributions completely, instead utilizing gov't issued tv/radio airtime/campaign funds thereby leveling the playing field, reducing lobbyist influence and allowing non-millionaires to run for congressional seats? too much cash required? i read somewhere that each congressman has to raise thousands of dollars a day just for re-election. seems like that is a serious time-drain from doing what they are supposed to be doing as reps.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
so why doesn't american law prohibit campaign contributions completely
The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to restrict free speech*. Campaign contributions are a type of political expression.

*Of course, this doesn't often stop politicians from doing so, but typically only in cases where nobody cares or notices.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
One Wolf said:
isn't bribery illegal?
Yes, what makes you say campaign contributions are bribery? Would you say buying produce from your local grocery store is bribery? After all, you are giving them money they need to stay in business in return for something you want and normally wouldn't have access to, isn't that bribery?
 

Dmitron

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,918
The_Nameless_Prick said:
Apar said:
Gothic 3 is on my to-do list. One problem: no elves, but many orcs. Fuck orcs.

Tolkien took a shit 50 years ago and people are still wiping his ass.

Well you gotta give him a little credit......YOU WOULDN'T HAVE YOUR FUCKING RPG'S IF NOT FOR TOLKIEN YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER!!!

RUN FOR COVER HIS GONNA PULL OUT HIS COCK.. i mean GLOCK
 

One Wolf

Scholar
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
311
Location
Planet X
KC said:
Yes, what makes you say campaign contributions are bribery? Would you say buying produce from your local grocery store is bribery? After all, you are giving them money they need to stay in business in return for something you want and normally wouldn't have access to, isn't that bribery?

grocery stores don't make laws. if the reason why corporations are allowed to exert so much influence over politicians is because a congressman's legislation is for sale, then that analogy makes sense.

besides, isn't bribery tied to the corruption of someone's intent/position/purpose? congressman are supposed (i think) to represent the voters who elected them, not a handful of people or businesses that give them the most money.

if i gave cash to the police for them to ignore my infractions and punish my enemies, i would think of that as bribery. they would be doing my bidding as opposed to what they are ostensibly supposed to be doing aka executing law.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom