jinchoung

" Ultimately, a lot of this will be either first degree hearsay or second degree hearsay, so let the lawyers fight it out, and a judge direct them and the jury to come up with a conclusion." again, sane advice to be given to frogboy. not to me. this is not a trial room. this is a forum. HE wants to chat. let's chat. anyway, i didn't hear you or the other guy jumping in to withhold judgment when everyone was hailing wardell as t

" So let's not fucking talk about it, because you're making a fool of yourself." this would be valid advice to frogboy - to not broach the subject until it comes up in a court of law. actually, i'm kinda surprised his lawyer has not advised him such. but again, if he wants to chat, let's chat why not? again - he is not addressing a court. this is a forum. he's talking about it in a forum. no rule of law governing

i'm not a judge. so the justice system has nothing to do with this. frogboy did not post this thread to a jury of his peers. he posted it to us. there is no "justice system" at play in his appeal here. he wanted to talk about it. so let's fucking talk about it.

" Trying to argue your way to an early informal judgement based on your own assumptions is fucking retarded." but since the fucking retarded games have begun, you have to play by the fucking retarded rules.... as for the sanity of the exercise - i disagree. so far, we're not talking purely on a he-said she-said level. we've been citing statements that are not contested in terms of their utterance. so since the source material is agreed u

" Do not force your will upon another person." ahhhhhh... the hallowed faith in "non-coercion" raises its head. but what if, on that day in court, the defendant changes his mind and doesn't want the punishment? whatever would/could a non-coercive court/judge do? worse problem - however in the world can a non-coercive system ever fill a jury box of 12 jury of peers to judge? it's mandatory and it's hard to fill NOW. &nbsp

" We intend to have our day in court." fantastic. you'll have it. but that's not exactly a banner that carries any weight here and you waving it doesn't make you seem more or less innocent (though your waving it seems to indicate that you think it does). for now, you're talking to us and that flag is more or less irrelevant. " Let's move this back to the posted topic for a second:" <

also, question: you wrote, " I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar, and embarrassing person and I'm not inclined to change my behavior." at what point does that sentiment become a problem in your estimation? so you're "sexist" and that's just how you roll. what if you were "racist"? at what point does "hey, that's just who i am, take it or g

from the write up at kotaku: http://kotaku.com/5940401/pc-gaming-studio-said-she-ruined-their-game-but-only-after-she-sued-the-boss-for-sexual-harassment FIRST: " Please never touch my hair or any of my body parts; not even jokingly. Please do not talk about my

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="128" id="2753621"]I'd honestly like the Tactical Battles to include SOME War-game concepts and SOME RPG concepts as-needed. I'd like to stay away from the battle concepts of HOMM or E:WoM Launch as much as possible. Hopefully the tactical battles of E:WoM launch and E:WoM "Upgraded" are COMPLETELY different genres of Tac Battles.[/quote] i'm totally in agreement on this and i brought it up during the

coooooool! this is looking a lot like what i was hoping it would be like - a table top miniatures game! have you stardock dudes played any of those kinds of games like De Bellis Antiquitatis or Field of Glory or the modern default of Games Workshop games like warhammer or 40k? actually field of glory from slitherine has a pc and mac version that's not perfect and the AI is pretty brain dead but it's pretty much as close as it gets in terms of a pc version. (actually