The_Baffled_King

jmerry: Sorry for the delayed reply on my part; I thought I had email notifications enabled as a default setting, but apparently I did not. Thanks for the detailed response with the fix. Maybe I should've saved you the effort by clarifying that my "fix" was to edit d5_dual.bcs so that the invisi-creature just destroyed itself... not a fix in the sense that it made the component work as intended, but I wanted to get on with the game at that point rather than check the IESDP - I didn't even have any PCs in my party who were eligible to dual class!

I'm playing IWD:EE. When my F/M becomes a level 4 Fighter, she gains one level 1 spell slot and one level 2 spell slot (Total: 3 L1; 2 L2) - obviously she shouldn't get spell slots for gaining Fighter levels! When she becomes a level 4 Mage, she gains a further level 1 spell slot and level 2 spell slot, as of course she should (Total: 4 L1; 3 L2). When she becomes a level 5 Mage, she gains a level 1 spell slot as per usual, but she gains two level 3 spell slots instead of just one (Total: 5 L1; 3 L2; 2 L3). At this point, she has one too many spell slots for every spell level. It seemed that "Enforce PnP Proficiency Rules on Dual-Classed Characters" was the culprit, so I tested the component on an otherwise vanilla install. It is indeed the culprit. Upon becoming a level 3 Mage, the F/M's kit is changed from Base Class, AKA MAGESCHOOL_GENERALIST, to the mod-added kit D5FIGHT. I'm guessing that the game thinks my F/M is a Specialist Mage, and is awarding an additional spell slot per spell level? Anyway, I've fixed my game - this post is for informational purposes.

I'm playing BG2 for the first time (BG2:EE; v2.6.6; only other mod components are Kjeron's "Fast Trap Detection" and G3 Tweaks' "Adjust Cromwell's Forging Time"). I just completed Animal Trouble in Trademeet via druidic challenge - it wasn't too difficult, as Faldorn did nothing more than attack my Fighter/Mage with her fists. Exciting stuff. Faldorn uses CEFALD01.BCS in the override slot, and every action in that script (other than the Cernd non-party shapechange) includes this in its trigger: See(NearestEnemyOfType([0.0.0.DRUID_ALL])) A Fighter/Mage is, of course, not a Druid. At the very least, the readme should be updated to warn that the component essentially ruins the process for acquiring the stronghold. I was aware beforehand that the quest concluded with a druidic challenge, so I had Cernd join my party specifically to complete it in a flavour-appropriate fashion. Sadly, that doesn't work, although I see that's basically a consequence of the vanilla game forcing a Charname Druid to fight Faldorn, regardless of whether Jaheira or Cernd is in the party, or whether Cernd is along for the ride as a neutral (oddly, a player-created Druid in the Player2-6 slots can fight Faldorn even if Charname is a Druid). Also, if one sends Cernd to the grove and talks to him while he is not in the party, the game initially proceeds as if Cernd will do the challenge as a non-party NPC, but the changes to Faldorn's dialogue made by G3 Tweaks take over and force Charname to take up the challenge. Finally, from looking at the dialog files to work out what was going on in my game, it seems to me that this component doesn't allow a Charname Shaman to gain the Druid Stronghold? They can have Cernd, Jaheira, or a Player2-6 Druid fight the challenge, but the response trigger in the post-fight dialog that screens for the offer of the stronghold (CECHALLE.DLG) is as follows: True() True() !Class(Player1,SHAMAN) I've already acquired the Fighter, Paladin, Thief, Ranger, Wizard, and Bard strongholds, apparently without complications, although I'm holding off on doing the stronghold management quests. Can anyone warn me, please, if I should expect any script errors in acquiring the Cleric stronghold, or in doing the quests for any of the 8 strongholds? I appreciate that the Ease of Use version is basically a quick and dirty "let the player see more things/get more XP and loot" tweak, so Charname will continue to be addressed as though they were the class to which the stronghold is linked, but if the combat scripts are going to be screwed up like Faldorn's was then I'd like to know about it and fix it beforehand. Thanks in advance. @DavidW: Tagging you because you have a different version of the "multiple strongholds" component. Does your version just break the Ease of Use version down into 8 separate components, or are the changes made to the game files your own work? I'm just wondering what to expect if I install your version on a subsequent play-through. Thanks in advance, too.

Guest Jeremias, I’ve already said that I agree with changing the name of the spell, given what it does. Also, I appreciate that you expressed yourself politely, and I don’t want to be unkind. With that said, I am also a native English speaker, and I’m sorry to say that your comments about the usage of the word “holocaust” are totally inaccurate. Please make sure that you have your facts about the usage of a word right before asking for it to be changed because you're sure it’s offensive. Freedom of expression is a human right, and freedom of speech is a fundamental pillar of liberal democracy, whereas the freedom to not be offended is neither of those things. There are five posts earlier in the thread that mention that the word in question is used in other contexts, including the one immediately above your post. More importantly, if a word is present in dictionaries, and it isn’t identified as archaic, then it’s probably a bit of a stretch for anyone to argue that the word is “not really one that's ever used”, unless of course the argument originates with a professional in the field of linguistics. This applies all the more when dealing with English words because the language is so widespread - it’s an official language and primary language or lingua franca in countries on every single continent (not counting Antarctica). Here are three reputable mainstream sources published within the last month alone that refer to "nuclear holocaust": in America (Harper's Bazaar), in Britain (The Times), and in Canada (The Globe and Mail). I found them in a few minutes on the first couple of pages of a google search. A more thorough search would undoubtedly have found many more examples from similar sources, even if searching only for material from this year. In public discourse relating to nuclear weapons, it's very common to refer to nuclear holocaust. I challenged myself to think of another plausible use for the word, then find some relatively recent examples in reputable mainstream sources, all within five minutes. I managed it: wildfires are still described as a holocaust. Here are two examples from America: in the Los Angeles Times, in 2020, and in a speech by President Bush, in 2003. There's also fiction to consider, and I can't imagine what standard of proof is necessary to declare that a word is no longer used in fiction. Even if the word "holocaust" did pass out of normal usage, it would remain in dictionaries but be identified as archaic. What genre of fiction often uses archaic wording? Fantasy. Like Baldur’s Gate.

To put a bit more emphasis on my opinion, let me add that the name of the spell is "a total nogo" for me as well, given what the spell is and does. National background is certainly relevant, but I'm sure there are some amount of people even in my country who aren't aware that the word "holocaust" actually has a meaning beyond the historical events in the middle of the previous century. Although I was in full agreement with the posts above mine, I just wanted to make sure that anyone posting after me was aware of the full range of meanings of the word in question, as it might help contextualise how the situation described in the OP might have come about.

The proper noun "Holocaust" coupled with a visual of a gas cloud and a description centred on "venemous gas" is less than ideal. If it were me, I'd change the name. However, I hope that everyone who reads this thread will be aware that "holocaust" has existed as a common noun in English for centuries. I was already aware of that fact, but my (extremely hasty two-minute) internet research tells me that the etymology of holocaust can be traced from Hebrew, to Ancient Greek, to Late Latin, to Old French, to Anglo-Norman, to Middle English, to Early Modern English, to Modern English (AKA "English") - and there are probably a few steps between Hebrew and Old French that I've missed out. According to this source, holocaust existed originally as a word "for "burnt offerings," given wider figurative sense of "massacre, destruction of a large number of persons" from 1670s" (Early Modern English). The modern definition of the term is linked to its origins, in that it refers to destruction "especially by fire or heat" (hence the phrase "nuclear holocaust"), but it would not be inaccurate to use the term holocaust to describe the effects of a sufficiently catastrophic flood, for example. Interestingly, a relatively popular science fiction game with an international audience has, or had, a psychic power known by the proper noun "Holocaust" (psychic powers being spells in the sci-fi setting); this power was however fire-based. That was the state of play for the game in the late '90s when I used to play it, but I don't know if that power still exists. All of this is to say that, while I find the existence of the spell in this mod somewhat unfortunate, the author's use of English is actually fairly accurate, taking into account the sometimes hyperbolic naming of supernatural powers (Meteor Swarm, anyone?).

The vanilla game might very well be the culprit. In v2.6.5, and in the final version of v.2.5, non-combatant area actors in Candlekeep have the specifics script WAITRUN.BCS, and combatants have the specifics script WAITHSTL.BCS. If creatures with these scripts are attacked, they set the global variable "AttackedCandleKeep" to 1 and turn hostile, if that global variable is already set to 1, they turn hostile even if they haven't been attacked yet (there are also other scripts that use that variable in that way). My most recent install with SCS is on the final version of v.2.5, and I think it's one of the last versions of SCS v33. That version of SCS makes no changes to WAITRUN.BCS or WAITHSTL.BCS, and it doesn't remove the script from the actors. So, attacking the nobleman on the upper floor sets that global variable, and it is the global variable that turns everyone else hostile - I don't think the scripts changed by 'Better Calls for Help' are to blame. I don't know when that behaviour was introduced into the vanilla game. Also, I don't know whether it's possible that the changes that SCS makes to creature scripts (ie not the scripts I mentioned) could ever have operated in a fashion that prevented the specifics scripts for the area actors from being parsed, but that's getting beyond my knowledge (in theory and in relation to SCS).

That is irrelevant to what I said. What I said is compatible with a wide range of values and motivations. I suspect that you know that, so I won't take the time to explain why. I posted in this thread to rebut temnix's claim that his thread was "risque" rather than one containing pornographic material, as it was mentioned earlier that the ability to make the claim was an unfortunate side effect of the moderator action. The deleted thread wasn't visible for very long, and I don't think many people saw it.

+1 for the decision to delete the thread. I read the thread because its title followed the format used for the naming of court cases, and I was curious how such a bizarre-sounding court case came about. Dear reader, even if the thread title did refer to a court case, no such case was directly discussed in the thread! It contained cartoon-style pictures that, in most contexts, would be classified as pornography (they appeared below several sentences that looked like they were from an official statement regarding western economic policy towards Russia). I wasn't offended by the thread but, had its title been a straightforward description of its contents, I wouldn't have read it. The wording of the title could be interpreted as a form of trickery to get people to read the thread, while offering its author deniability - temnix might say "the title of the thread included the words 'Aladdin Gay Porn', so what did you expect?". The answer would be that I expected the thread to contain trolling, but I did not expect to see pornographic material - which is the default expectation of basically everyone who views anything in a public space that has not identified itself as a possible source of pornographic material (the Noobermeet subforum, for example). It's true that something classified as pornographic can be classified as non-pornographic in a context in which it has artistic value. I doubt that anyone - not even temnix himself - would genuinely believe that the deleted thread had artistic value. However, it doesn't make a difference either way, because all that I've written applies equally if the words "pornographic material" are replaced with "art that would be considered pornographic but for its artistic value". Readers of temnix's threads will know that they operate on the premise that modern society and the art that it produces is, in every respect, vastly inferior to its counterparts several decades ago. Of course, decades ago, in societies worldwide, there were greater restrictions on pornographic material - and on gay pornographic material in particular - than there are today. I suspect that, several decades ago, unsolicited distribution of art that would be considered pornographic but for its artistic value/"Aladdin Gay Porn" in a public space would be likely to result in consequences more negative than removal of the material and pre-emptive review of further contributions in the same public space. At a minimum, I guess temnix's oft-stated position about society is not consistent with his complaints about the deletion of his thread. Weird, huh?

+1000 internets. -5 internets (if the OP thesis that "games from the 90s ... had something that today's games don't" is correct, I'm sure there are many contributing factors) I really don't want to get into this debate, so I won't even say whether or not I agree with the OP thesis, but I'm sure you deserved many internets for your post.

The first pissy screed that appeared in the Mac install guide for Baldur's Gate EET thread was your pissy screed about the choices made by k4thos in developing EET, including the fact that he chose to make it on his own (the temerity of the man!!!) and is no longer around on these forums. I suspect that set the tone for what followed. Goodness, no, why ever would you do that when you can just edit your rants away and pretend that nothing happened?

Finally, thank you to everyone on here with whom I have had polite interactions, or interactions that have fit normal standards of fairness, decency, and observable reality. That is in fact every single person on here, other than 5 specific people - so do not think I am tarring you all with the same brush. Far from it. Then again, I don't know what many of you think, and silence is complicity. If you agree with the actions of Almateria, please say so, that I may know you for what you are.

I challenge you to prove that the posts in this thread before your above post contain any evidence of what I have emphasised above in bold. You have to do so in a way (a) that depends on the actual words used; (b) that depends on the natural and ordinary meaning of those words, and how they would be interpreted by a reasonable person, acting in a reasonable fashion; and (c) that doesn't rely entirely on people with the "Modder" tag being able to say whatever hateful nonsense they please about people without those tags. That is how things work in the real world, Almateria. It's okay to run this place differently. It's not okay to pretend that it's normal, that it's rational, or that it's fair. I also challenge you to prove that the posts in this thread before your above post prove of what I have emphasised above in bold, using the same criteria that I outlined earlier in this post. Plainly you fail at the first hurdle, because the discussion between InThePineways and I very clearly proceeded on the basis of action movies, and physical characteristics relating to action scenes, and any potential gender-related considerations referred to with a shorthand "political correctness" depended very specifically on the genre of film and the specific type of scenes therein. That is enough to undercut your so-called argument entirely by itself. Finally, I challenge you to prove, using the same criteria that I outlined earlier in this post, that my post here (quoted above) contains any evidence that I believe anything even remotely like "all women are worse than men and having a female lead role is political correctness". The above post is the only one of mine containing the words "politically correct", or any other such variation on the terms. I would not even want to converse with anyone who held such a view, Okay, Nathan82. I think that any fair and decent person would clarify exactly whom they were accusing, or not accusing, of harbouring opinions that could lead this thread to "devolve into incel central", which I most certainly agree is a retarded bunch of bollocks. There weren't many of us here - you name names. For the record: although I find women attractive, I have never used a sexually explicit or suggestive image of any kind in any computer game I have ever played in my entire life. I consider InKal's image in poor taste, but I consider his posting of it in this thread what you have to put up with if you somehow believe that the Gibberlings3 forum is such a special, shining beacon of morality that, rather than follow the example of pretty much anywhere else on the civilized internet, you instead follow the example of 4chan. I guess if you had rules, it would make it all the more obvious that this community allows Modders, and regulars, to say whatever they want to anyone who doesn't drink their very specific brand of Kool Aid.

I suppose that the problem with letting members form their own opinions about other users, instead of having rules, is that the policy is dependent on the ability of the members to form rational opinions in the absence of rules. Okay, subtledoctor. Do you really want it explained? I understand, and I can do so - no need to wait for InThePineways. But I think you went wrong at the start. See, there is a stark difference between what you quoted: And what was actually written by InThePineways: I think if you weren't unaccountably limiting the scope of your quote - removing the support for InThePineways' entire argument - then perhaps you would understand a little better, and perhaps it wouldn't lead astray other posters who read only your selective quote. You see, Ripley had a gun, or a flamethrower (as indeed did Vasquez, who was another badass action female in Aliens), and that helped her defeat adversaries - the eponymous Aliens - that were physically more powerful than her. Of course, we could say that, in the name of female equality, we should pretend that Ripley should have been able to go toe to toe with aliens without a gun, but that would be pretty stupid, because there are massive differences in physique between the average alien and the average Ellen Ripley. This why aliens, and Ellen Ripleys, have separate categories for sports and athletics. I can assure you that the role of "killer" is in fact a stereotypically male role. I'm sure there are statistics out there to prove the point - I would be extremely surprised if comparing murder convictions of females to the size of the female general population, as opposed to comparing murder convictions of males to the size of the male general population, would not reveal a striking disparity in numbers. The really interesting thing, though, is that those male convictions for murder would include among them a considerable number of men convicted of murdering women. If we must assert that women and men are homogenuous blobs of humanity, with no distinct physical characteristics, I don't know why there aren't more stories of women successfully fending off the (male) human stains that attack them. And I'm also surprised that you don't seem to know this, subtledoctor, because men killing women for gender-related reasons is an absolutely massive problem in societies worldwide. I mean, you seemed very socially conscious in the "ducks" thread, so it just seems weird.

I'd say the difficulty is that the topics in question are interesting, but they're serious, so while there's fun in the more abstract sense of exercising one's brain, that's as far as it gets. Sure, when I quoted this post of yours, in my post here, I definitely had fun by quoting only the atrocious phrasing at the end of that post - which really undermined the wider point that you were making (and bigging up Ripley, 'cos she's awesome), but the only subsequent fun part was discussing Aliens. I only did that because I was sure you would come up with a concise way of describing your position more accurately, which you did, in this post here. I'm sure no-one can complain that "fighting outside your weight class" (as you put it) is in any way intrinsic to one's views of women, because boxing, for example, has been using weight classes for many, many years, to ensure that male boxers with mismatched physical characteristics don't have to fight each other. But, it's a slippery slope, and one interesting point can lead to another, and before you know it there's two men on an internet forum discussing female gender roles in the context of societal change towards greater equality for women - which is obviously a very dangerous place to be because, y'know, a key part of greater equality for women is men listening to what women have to say instead of speaking for them. So, in my post here, once I typed "(a) I'm tired; and (b) let's not have two men (I'm guessing) discussing female gender roles in depth", I very probably should have taken my own hint, and stopped. Or, towards the end of the post, when I wrote "I feel like I've just sat a test. Next time, I will stop at the Black Widow/Batman part", I still had the opportunity to not post what I'd written. But inertia is a thing, and I was tired, so of course I ended up staying up even later to edit my post. And to InThePineways, specifically - it's my own fault for taking the test. Thanks for taking my hint, when I did not, and refocusing on film. In fairness, the crux of it definitely seemed to me to be "are fight scenes involving female characters in modern action movies believeable". I am absolutely sure that is what we began discussing; I'm sure that any fair reading of the thread would show that; and I'm sure I wouldn't have touched this topic with a bargepole if it was really as described in your unfortunate phrasing in the above post that I quoted would seem to imply. I think it's a shame that you didn't push this point more, because it seemed like your strongest one. I understood that it tied into this post of yours (with the photos): put simply, it seemed that you were pointing out that a female actor playing a part in an action film will generally not put on as much additional muscle mass for an action role (when compared to their usual physique) as a male actor playing a part in an action film (when compared to their usual physique). And that led you to this: Which I clearly understood as an expansion of your original point, which is that there are clear physical differences between the sexes, and these differences are actually sharpened by societal pressures on how women "should" look, which has a knock-on effect on your ability to suspend your disbelief in action films which, to quote myself from earlier, are so poorly-written that they require "a slight female to unnaccountably defeat a muscular man in a test of strength". Because that is a bit weird, isn't it? And suspension of disbelief is a weird, subjective thing. I mean, I've met many people who simply can't abide fantasy as a genre, due to the lack of realism. I wonder if your reaction to Aliens compared to the Avengers is colouring your view of the female characters therein. There's a lot more in the Marvel universe requiring suspension of disbelief - all the more so, in fact, because it occurs in our time, rather than in the future. And you're not keen on the films anyway. Does it make a difference? Maybe. Maybe not. Just minimally, I'd say that Black Widow is a great character in the middle of the Avengers run when paired with Captain America. But let's not go into that. Aliens is actually a far more realistic film than the Marvel films, in my view. It requires you to accept: (a) these aliens exist; and (b) we're in the future (but we still have vaguely realistic-seeming military tech. Once that's done, then you're good to go. Also, you like the film, unlike the Avengers films. As for your point about the motif regarding Newt, yes, that's absolutely right (Ripley was the heroine of a previous film without Newt, but that was a horror). It is pretty blatantly used to juxtapose Ripley and Newt with the alien queen and its eggs - Ripley reaches Newt, and then uses a flamethrower to threaten the eggs, leading the alien queen to get it's warrior drones to back away from Ripley, whom they had surrounded. However, the mother-child motif is subordinate to a far more important one, in my view - one that also stretches "back to our pre-human ancestors": overcoming your fear. Ripley, after the events of Alien, is traumatised (at least in the colloquial sense). In Aliens, she is in the company of self-confident, gung-ho, professional soldiers. Yet, when Aliens attack, it all goes to hell. The marines are being slaughtered. In the APC, frozen through some combination of fear and incompetence, Lieutenant Gorman does nothing. So, Ripley steps up - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Newt at that point. I mean, I'm not keen on action films, but Aliens is fucking brilliant, and Ripley is an amazing heroine.

Your point is generally sound, but the Black Widow/Batman comparison specifically is not. Going by the fights in the Avengers films (I meant only that I hadn't seen her eponymous film), Black Widow does fight very differently and does perform very different stunts. Case in point: an acrobatic vault at pace that leaves her thighs wrapped around the neck of her generally male adversary; she may weigh less and presumably be weaker but, by applying her weight at that particular point, and with momentum on her side, she can counteract any weight, height, or strength advantage a male adversary might generally be expected to have, sending them tumbling to the floor. Black Widow's fighting style is based very much around agility. I don't know if it's unrealistic or not but, for the purposes of a film, I have no difficulty in believing that she can win her fights any day of the week. In contrast, Batman has his gadgets and ninja training to give him some mobility but, once in a fight, he's still a bruiser in some fancy undefined body armour who takes a lot of punches and utilizes brute strength to defeat some adversaries. For me, this comes under the category of "tweaking the rules of the fight" - here, the tweak is just that Black Widow has talents as a martial artist that Scarlett Johansson lacks. Bit of strike through, and you've answered your own question! Scarlett Johansson is super hot. Sex sells. Films tend to conform to the male gaze. To the extent that we're talking films, nothing else matters. However, as you raise the topic of gender-based differences in the representation of female actors in fighting roles compared to male actors in fighting roles, the differences between the outfits of superheroes and superheroines is stark, and the attractiveness of the female character is usually more central to their role. Okay, I'm dealing with the rest tersely because (a) I'm tired; and (b) let's not have two men (I'm guessing) discussing female gender roles in depth! So: Yes [Edit] (society's notion, not mine) [/Edit] In films? Possibly. In real life? No, it isn't about sharing the glory; it's laziness of thought - equality as "women can do male stuff now" instead of "let's reimagine societal roles". I agree but - as above and below - this could very well be because the approach to equality is still kinda male-centric. Yes. My understanding is that this is because (to generalize across the population) women in theory get equal access to the same career types as men now, but they're still expected to do way more than 50% of the traditional housewife stuff while holding down that career, while also retaining the supposedly female-orientated tasks at work that they might have been expected to do back when they were only allowed to be secretaries and receptionists and so on [Edit] I read the above as "with children" not "w/o children". Eh, maybe what I said was still relevant. But sure, the actual text raises more questions than what I misread it as. Without knowing if the figures show correlation or causation, it's hard to know where to start. [/Edit] To the extent that it means women not feeling pressured to occupy male roles? Sure. To the extent that women get more time to recover post-pregnancy? Sure. [Edit] Didn't mean to imply that there were no other areas where more importance could be placed. I suppose for me it's a question of unravelling how much of the activities traditionally associated with female social roles are in fact irreducibly female, in the sense of biology and long-term evolutionary adjustments, as opposed to more recent conveniences created by a male-dominated society. Obviously I don't know! [/Edit] Parents (male, female, non-binary) raising the next generation A rise in divorce rates generally correlates to greater female equality - put simply, they have the financial resources to leave relationships, which is particularly important in the context of male on female domestic violence between romantic partners. Perhaps any further rises are now due to other factors (e.g. less religiosity). Sort of following on from the above: the single most important thing is love*. Get love as a child, and you'll pass it on as an adult. Without something compelling to tip the balance, a two-parent household is generally better in the simple sense that two is a larger number than one - overall there's more love available to give, and two parents to better balance work and domestics on the one hand, with childcare on the other. However, a good single parent is far better than two shit parents. [Edit] The real question is obviously how unhappy do two otherwise good parents have to be with each other before their unhappiness affects their parenting so much that it's better for the child if the parents split? I certainly can't say. [/Edit] In conclusion: It's been a male-dominated world for many hundreds of years, with socialization into gender-specific roles. We're not doing a good job of moving on from that. However, men and women are biologically different, and that isn't meaningless. Who can say what things would look like if we did this right? Not me. [Edit] Umm, I know that there's plenty more to bear in mind beyond work/home gender roles, but I'm not going there! [/Edit] Phew. I feel like I've just sat a test. Next time, I will stop at the Black Widow/Batman part! *(yes, sometimes people who love their children are nevertheless dreadful parents)

I'm not sure, but that was an awesome sentence either way

Pretty much. If the weight classes are too far apart, either recast the fighters, or tweak the rules of the fight so it plays out in a more believable way. More recently, Black Widow made for a convincing kick-arse female fighter, within the confines of her genre (I haven't seen her own film yet, mind). If ever she did a little more than she should be able to, well, Hawkeye always seemed the worse offender - and either way, it's necessary for both so they can keep up with the thunder god and what have you. What gives me pause for thought is that action films can often be ridiculous throughout, anyway... So I guess it depends. I can 100% get behind the notion that a film of the type that we're talking about can suffer for what one might suspect to be politically correct reasons, to use the phrasing of the other poster. Fury Road? I ain't seen it.

You're absolutely right that I don't understand, and I wasn't claiming to, hence "one way or another" and "unaccountably"! I promise you there was no pity, and I don't presume to tell someone what they should do with 5 years of their life if I do understand them, let alone if I don't. If that was how you read it, thank you for not giving me both barrels. For all that I may be unsure of, I am sure that you had a lot of very interesting ideas - and once you release them into the wild, then I can feel how I like about them. So there. That last part that I quoted? Completely fair.

"Ellen Ripley has entered the chat" (If a film allows a slight female to unnaccountably defeat a muscular man in a test of strength, the fault lies with the quality of the writing, not the genders involved)

Maybe it's the inevitability of death that leads us to succumb to the tedium? Sort of, but I think that having the chance to find interesting new formats to replace the stale ones every so often helps, provided those chances are taken. On a non-morbid note, I thought that your points about game design seemed apposite!

What, on these august forums? Gosh, most certainly not! Perish the thought, eh, temnix? It's amazing sometimes how much impact a short, simple sentence can have if it's in precisely the right place. One way or another, it just seems unaccountably sad. If you're leaving soon, and if you carry on in this vein in the interim, I'll say good luck to you when you go.

If that's how you wish to respond then, having deliberately been vague to spare your blushes, I'll instead say what I could've said when I quoted your post from last year: "Perhaps Greenhorn will appreciate me posting his quote from the earlier thread, as it will suggest to other posters that he is not likely to be deliberately condescending, especially if he knows he is commenting about the meaning of the English language in conversation with a non-native English speaker. While I never suggested that he is a condescending person, or even that he was being deliberately condescending in the context of that post, I remain certain that a reasonable person, acting reasonably, could find that his post was condescending, and there is absolutely nothing for me to apologise to him for.". With that out of the way, I'm returning to my stated position of not arguing with you about me, or about my post.

There was another relevant post that I found in that thread from last year, while scrolling down to mine. My feelings about this EEFP thread remain entirely unchanged, but perhaps Greenhorn will appreciate it if I also quote his post from last year's thread:

You're very welcome, and thank you also for posting to say that you enjoyed it. I expressed my views on non-native English speakers on this board in a post last year; this was the relevant part: As for the summoning, don't worry - nobody could reasonably read any malice into it at all, only the possibility of a little teasing. It was funny if you were being tongue-in-cheek, and funny if you were also teasing me a bit too. I mean... you stuck a smiley on it, so if I read malice into it, it was totally my fault! Honestly, if you hadn't made me laugh with the summoning, I might have just edited away my offer and politely declined to have a go at the query. It's definitely healthier to bite off too much sometimes than to stop eating for fear of having too much in your mouth! Anyway, if you post about a string where Bioware/Beamdog have made a mistake, then that's great; if you post about a string and there's no mistake, then... where's the harm?