unixknight

I dunno, man... that's an awful lot of awesome.

Yeah one can really go nuts with conversions... especially now that Forge World is releasing all the bits and bobs to customize for legions. Sons of Horus and/or Luna Wolves swag would go naturally with Black Legion gear. Most of my Black Templars have at least a little bit of conversion to keep them from looking like ordinary marines, and with BT iconography there's plenty of sources for bits to stick on them to represent all that Teutonic Knight bling. Forge World Decal sheets help a lot, too. I was running a Bretonnian army before WHFB imploded, so now they're a Kings of War Brotherhood army. That freed things up to get creative with the minis. My biggest conversion there so far was to take 3 Pegasus Knights and remove the riders, replacing them with female warrior minis from Reaper... With the Bones line, the minis are a soft resin plastic that could easily be shaped so that they are riding the winged horses instead of standing. Will share images once the painting is complete.

@mirkwoodIt's the details like the ladders, cart and barrels that really sell it. Most impressive there, bro. I had a Beastmen army until I started consolidating all my stuff. Still have a custom Razorgor chariot I made from an Orc chariot, a Razorgor and a couple of Bestigors. It's all disassembled now but it's yours if you have a use for it.

To me personally, the answer to the question is that I have received testimony through the Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith indeed was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true. For Mohammed and the Quaran, I have not. Everything else is just academics.

Dude that's awesome!!! They'd also make amazing scenery for Infinity and Malifaux. What kind of material are the walls made from? Is that sheet styrene?

Ugh, that would be the worst. Many a stand-up comedy act has been ruined in the same way.

Generally I just prefer not to know. I don't like watching what would otherwise be a great performance while distracted by knowing a performer's politics.

Yeah I don't see any evidence that Tom Hanks is a virulent Mormon hater. I looked it up on mormonmatters and it struck me as being pretty benign, in the scheme of things, and he did make an effort to backtrack it some. Is there more? If not, then there's nothing to see here, folks. Generally speaking, I'm divided on how to react when famous people put their stupidity on display, regardless of the subject. It seems like when people have a really impressive talent, somewhere there's a huge character flaw that balances it. Some of the greatest artists of all time were also believers in some pretty stupid things. What I find troubling is just how much credibility our culture gives to celebrities for no reason other than the fact that they're celebrities. In what way does being an Oscar-winning actor qualify someone to speak intelligently on a subject like the Economy or U.S. Foreign Policy? Sure, they might have studied it and know something, but that's entirely separate from their career. Why do I give a fig about what Tom Hanks thinks of the Church in the first place? Sadly, there is an answer, isn't there? It's because people listen to celebrities precisely because of the illusion of credibility. This is made worse when celebrities take on a persona of knowledgeability, like John Stewart or Stephen Colbert, who are entertainers, not news anchormen. So then we have to deal with all the little parrots who think they know something because they heard it from an interview with their celebrity of choice, or watch the Daily Show regularly.

There's also the part where Captain America has this discussion, in the first Avengers movie: Black Widow:"Are you sure you want to do that? They're prettymuch gods." Cap: "There's only one God, ma'am. And I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that." That panel sends a shiver down my spine, and why I LOVE Captain America.

In Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games like EverQuest or World of Warcraft, your character gains levels by accumulating experience points. The act of just going out and killing monsters just to get the experience so you can level is referred to as 'grinding.'

Just imagine what it would be like to walk a dog that can go up a wall or ceiling! Better wear a raincoat...

Don't feel bad. I immediately thought of 'grinding' as in 'grinding for XP' in an MMO...

I was also considering a birdeater but I'd want to put that in at LEAST a 20 gallon tank, and I just haven't got room for that.

I used to have a Mexican Redknee Tarantula. I miss that spider. Thinking about getting a Mexican Fireleg next.

The only consistent answer I've come up with is that there's an expectation that people have a right to avoid the consequences of their choices if things turn out differently than planned. In other words, I was once told in no uncertain terms by a pro-choice debater that if a woman didn't choose to get pregnant, then that fact alone gives her the right to abort. They also compared pregnancy to a medical malady for which abortion is the treatment. I'm not sure which of the two arguments was the more absurd.

The issue is massively polarized because of those who benefit from that polarization. Political candidates want to appeal to one side or the other, and are stirring up peoples' emotions to motivate them to get out and vote. News and commentary outlets have more viewers/listeners when things are polarized, so they discuss and report on it in such a way as to stir things up. Most people really would like to come together on this and figure it out, but we've been conditioned to fight over it.

@NightSG And when one of the parties doesn't consent to the recording? Every state varies, but in some, like MD, audio recording without 2 party consent where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists is a felony. Sooooo if you record your encounter and she didn't consent, even if it proves your innocence, it will not only be inadmissible in court but now you may well be facing a new felony charge for "wiretapping." So in theory that solution might work, but in actual practice... I'm not trying to give you a hard time here... just illustrating that this is an immensely complex problem with no simple solutions... and the devil is in the details.

Part of the reason I've been sort of playing devil's advocate is that with a situation like this, an imperfect solution isn't going to be good enough to last long. People who want 100% unrestricted access to abortion aren't going to sit still for that, and will use every false allegation as an example of why the system isn't working. Especially if there are examples of women who went to prison for that murder when it turns out later - whoops, she really had been raped after all. At the same time, the pro-life side is still going to maintain that even if a woman is provably raped, that doesn't justify killing the unborn baby for what his/her father did. Personally, I regard an abortion performed on a child from rape to be doubling down on the tragedy.

...which they'll never do because as long as we're divided on the issue and fighting over it, they have a platform to run on for re-election. They have no reason at all to solve the problem as long as they can keep scapegoating the other side.

I don't think you're wrong, I just think that would still cause a lot of undeserved damage to guys' reputations when condoms break or someone wakes up with regret. I just don't know that there's any possible way to ensure that women in legitimate cases of rape have access, but also that no false accusations ever get made. I think that's going to be a problem anytime a system is in place where a party might have a motive to lie, which would throw off the entire purpose of the system. Indeed. Of course, now that we have partial-birth abortions, the effort to draw that line has become meaningless anyway. Makes sense, though I can imagine the backlash when people perceive that as putting a victim on trial. Ultimately, the only truly conclusive proof of consent would have to be a recording of the actual encounter, which is hardly a practical solution... And that's the thing, if we're talking about putting a woman on trial for murder because she had an abortion under questionable circumstances, the burden of proof would still lie with proving she wasn't raped. Trying to prove a negative would be next to impossible so I can't imagine too many convictions there. Heck, I don't even know why a prosecutor would even try the case unless he had a recording... But even THEN what does it prove? Okay, so this couple had at least one encounter which was consensual. Fine. Now prove that was the actual encounter in which she got pregnant. Because all she'd have to say is "Yes, that occasion was consensual, but the next day..."

What about a case where a woman makes that police report in good conscience, but the alleged rape is either unproven or at least unclear? That takes us back to defining what's meant by "proven to be consensual." It's got to be more than just an acquittal in court.

The problem is that no matter where you draw the line between "lump of cells" and "human being" it'll be completely arbitrary. If we're really talking about matters like the soul and the definition of a human being, are any of us qualified to make that arbitrary distinction?

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "proven to be consensual." I would think the first method that comes to mind is an acquittal in court, which I addressed. Did you have a different scenario in mind?

My dad lives there, and he was telling me about it yesterday on the phone. Pretty scary stuff.

Problem is I think it would be pretty hard to have cases be that cut and dry. If a guy is acquitted of the rape charge I don't see that justifiably being used to automatically charge the woman with murder. An acquittal isn't an assertion of innocence, only that the prosecutor was unable to convict. Imagine a woman who really was raped, her attacker acquitted somehow, and now she's up on charges for murder on top of everything else. No, that won't fly.