Re: Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Neither actually, I just have other things to do beyond continued checking of old posts for personal requests of me. But here you go.
1. Do I accept that things outside of my direct view can exist? Sure.
2. Do I believe that official stories aren't always the real stories, including official stories from our silly, stupid government? Sure.
3. Do I believe that the government has in the past used false information to push us into war, or expand war? I don't think that can even be in doubt, actually, with the Golf of Tonkin incident(s) being pretty settled history and all the bullshit Henry Kissinger pulled, not to mention what Reagan did just prior to his election.
4. Do I believe that our same stupid government that couldn't properly pull off even these smallish conspiracies could effectively pull off the 9/11 attacks, or conspire to allow them to happen, with ALL the pieces that would have to be involved, with ALL the people that would have to stay silent, with ALL the complicity we'd need from foreign governments to the tune of foisting upon us 2 wars and all this nonsense security? Please, don't make me laugh. No government is that good, nevermind ours. The fact that you have full on proof of earlier conspiracies proves it. The fact that you had an Al Qaeda group perfectly willing to lay claim to the attacks and to claim motivation for the attacks prior to them occurring means there no reason NOT to believe they committed the crimes.
9/11 truthers are a sad breed of people unwilling to believe several things: government ISN'T so powerful as to be able to keep us completely safe at its whim, evil DOES exist in the world, religion is a MASSIVE problem in Earthly affairs, and there isn't a nice little box you can put every tragedy into to explain it. The world is chaos. Get used to it. Stop hiding from it.
Yes, they were, and if Microsoft had anything remotely planned such as the comment described above, they would have made their case instead of putting their collective tails between their collective legs and retreating faster than an army out of Baghdad. Those of us that actually keep up on these things and do some gaming reporting must just ALL be fools and Microsoft is a poor, misunderstood company with the interests of gamers at heart.
"As a reminder, the article was written by Timothy Geigner, the same person who ripped into Microsoft about its XBox One console, decrying how "it's DRM". Steam uses DRM, so I'd like to know what gives between the differences of its use"
So, if I understand the complaint correctly, you feel there is some hypocrisy in writing one negative article about a gaming console going out of its way to INTRODUCE DRM and an article praising a platform that happens to use a form of DRM introducing refunds to customers? How is this supposed to work exactly? Am I supposed to refuse to acknowledge positive news from any company anywhere that uses any sort of DRM, just because I think DRM is dumb? You're not actually serious with this, are you?
"What most people didn't hear, because they were too busy screaming at the top of their lungs with fingers firmly placed in their ears, was Microsoft was going to allow people to sell their digital games."
What a crock of shit. That whole thing was a half-baked attempt by Microsoft to gauge what the reaction from the public might be to letting the monolith become GameStop. And if you think they were going to handle selling used digital games anything remotely like an actual secondary marketplace, you're high.
"Getting a refund on a digital purchase should have been a day-0 option. It should have been known by service providers and game publishers not every purchase is worth the price (but shovelware sells!)."
Did you not notice the sarcastic tone of the above article, indicating exactly this? I even put "Finally" in the headline to make it easy on you....
"also, daily Kotaku crosspost? Whats next? You start quoting foxnews?"
Eh, like most of Gawker's sites, Kotaku has its issues, but they generally do a good job as a starting point. I typically don't take their posts as gospel and click through for other links. Honestly, when the click throughs are all in Japanese, however....
As Mike said, the study didn't suggest that the ONLY cause of Alzheimer's is gaming, but that it could be a cause, or contributor, which is still bullshit.
That said, I'm enormously surprised that all the evidence isn't in the OTHER direction. As I too have a long family history riddled with Old-Timers Disease, as we call it in fearful humor, I've been keeping up on the advances that have been made in understanding how to hold off the symptoms or keep the disease at bay for as long as possible. Everything I read indicates that doing things like completing crossword puzzles and Sudoku may help. Why should gaming, especially gaming that includes puzzle-solving, be any different?
That said, I'm FAR more interested in what scientists are learning from ex-athletes diagnosed with CTE, given its close symptomatic proximity to Alzheimer's and the possible link to similar debilitating proteins that affect brain function. I may be being optimistic, but I wouldn't be surprised if we had some kind of way to essentially eliminate early-onset Alzheimer's within my lifetime....