Bay 12 Games Forum

I think you mean ceilinging.

Oh, well that makes it a different matter. :B

Quote from: Vector on June 11, 2011, 12:25:44 pm

The fact remains is that his wife is one of the people whose rights/wellbeing/whatever he's supposed to be upholding.

Maybe I'm just too goddamned idealistic.

Well, yeah.  And he probably won't be getting his wife's vote due to that, nor the vote of anyone who thinks it reflects badly on his ability to do his job.

I just watched a supporter come up and shake his hand on the news.
Oh, also, his wife thinks that he should stay a congressman.  Isn't that kinda sorta like getting her vote?

Besides, if the News is A-OK with showing the picture, I can't see it being too obscene, really.
I've seen worse on Cartoon Network.

One day, in a few years, I shall play an engraver who cuts his ear off and sends it to the lady of his choice.
At which point I will come back here and revive this thread. 

Quote from: h3lblad3 on June 08, 2011, 05:21:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on June 08, 2011, 07:05:13 am

Quote from: h3lblad3 on June 08, 2011, 06:45:09 am

So am I the only one who truly believes that what a man does in his privacy is absolutely none of my business, nor the business of anyone else? Seriously?

If he didn't use government resources, this really isn't anyone's business.  It's between him, his family, and those 6 or so women, yes.  But I really don't see the need for the news to constantly bombard me with stuff that doesn't affect me in the least bit.  No, he shouldn't have lied.  But when he did, the whole story should have been over.

Hell, from what I can tell it never affected his ability to do his job.  Well, you know, until the news latched onto it like a pack of rabid dogs and wouldn't leave the man alone.
I'd still vote for the guy if I believed his policies.  I'm not from New York, though, so meh.

That's kinda the thing though. It became a story when he put it on Twitter by mistake. At which point, it ain't private anymore. And if it was my Congressperson, I'd be a bit concerned if they randomly put a junk shot out on Twitter. Because it's...shall we say, a sign of erratic behavior? I vote for my Rep because I expect them to be my voice of sanity in government.

Yes.  He put it on Twitter.  By mistake.  If he had meant you to see it, it'd be your business.
Which is kinda the whole point from the get go.

Umm, no. Let me make an analogy:

If a politician makes an incredibly offensive racist remark when he mistakenly thinks the microphone is off, do you think everyone should just pretend he didn't say anything? Do you think people honestly WOULD be able to pretend that? Doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not. If it enters the public sphere, it becomes a public matter. People are still free to judge Weiner as leniently or as harshly as their personal attitudes dictate. But to say this is a private matter and should be off the public radar altogether is disingenuous.

No. There's a huge difference.  Racism actually affects his ability to do his job.
For example, taking a response against something because someone of African descent wrote it.

The only thing that effected his job here was that no one would leave him alone about it.

So am I the only one who truly believes that what a man does in his privacy is absolutely none of my business, nor the business of anyone else? Seriously?

If he didn't use government resources, this really isn't anyone's business.  It's between him, his family, and those 6 or so women, yes.  But I really don't see the need for the news to constantly bombard me with stuff that doesn't affect me in the least bit.  No, he shouldn't have lied.  But when he did, the whole story should have been over.

Hell, from what I can tell it never affected his ability to do his job.  Well, you know, until the news latched onto it like a pack of rabid dogs and wouldn't leave the man alone.
I'd still vote for the guy if I believed his policies.  I'm not from New York, though, so meh.

Quote from: breadbocks on June 08, 2011, 12:46:46 am

Ummm.. Montague? No. The player is not Armok. Armok is part of the lore of StA:GoB 1. The player is just a given fortress' overseer.

Its why neither of the developers mention "Armok" except in the title of the game. Its some sort of an inside-joke that has outlived it's relevancy.

Its all what Toady One said in interviews, basically.

Really, everything in this thread has outlived its relevancy. 

Well, Aramco, as you might be able to see from the edits of people in the thread... even if you don't know who Kurtulmak is, the kobold god knows who you are.
As for Urdlen...  I don't know if he's ever existed outside Kurtulmak's sig.

I also want to point out, I never actually expected Kurtulmak to appear so that just makes things totally awesome.


As a matter of fact, we have both Armok and Kurtulmak (sorta) in this thread, sooooo....  FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!