prev <-> next
[2011-10-12 14:25:19] - paul: how about this, do you think people who oppose the death penalty, have a more positive opinion of criminals? or do you think that people who oppose the TSA have a more positive opinion of bombs? - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:25:11] - mig: also, moustaches are prickly. ~a
[2011-10-12 14:24:21] - a: No, I don't disagree, and in fact that's how I think of the debate usually. I actually think the way Aaron was referring to it was strangely avoiding mention of legality. I don't really think of either side as a debate on who "decides" on abortion (government of parents), I think of it in terms of whether it should be legal or not. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:23:30] - paul: you really think it's hard to argue that pro-choice people are more strongly anti-abortion than pro-life people? hmm that kind of surprises me. but i guess i see your point - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:22:34] - or to be more direct, i don't think you have to find abortion unethical to be pro-life. i don't think you have to find abortion ethical to be pro-choice. there are many other reasons to be pro-life or pro-choice. - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:22:26] - Aaron: Sure, I think I mostly agree. The only part that I disagree with is that I have no problem with the "pro-life" anti-abortion rhetoric because (1) it pretty accurately describes their main focus and (2) even if all "pro-choice" people were strongly anti-abortion, it's hard to argue that they are more strongly anti-abortion than the "pro-life" people. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:20:53] - mig: no, i deliberately used the word some there. i think many pro-life people also believe, for example, that creationism should be taught in public schools, or that church is an acceptable replacement for public service. i don't think all pro-lifers think that, i just think that some do. i'm just explaining that there are many reasons to be pro-life - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:19:03] - i'm pro-choice just because, as a male atheist who's never been a father, i feel like i'm too naive to understand the personal/ethical/political/religious implications of abortion and i just don't think i should decide that kind of thing for other people yet. i'm not particularly pro-abortion or anti-abortion i just don't think i'm too stupid to know the answer yet - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:17:47] - aaron: i think saying that pro-lifers "think religion should play a heavier role in government" is a bit of a micharacterization. It's a prickly issue even amongst those who think religion and government should be kept at arms length (it is a bit of a divisive issue amongst the libertarian community). - mig
[2011-10-12 14:15:24] - paul: different, sure. but incorrect? pro-life/pro-choice is about the legality. do you disagree? ~a
[2011-10-12 14:14:43] - implying that pro-life people are "anti abortion" or pro-choice people are "pro abortion" are both equally naive (imho) so it's a bit of a pet peeve when pro-life people use anti-abortion rhetoric, even if i understand where it's coming from - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:13:18] - some pro-life people are pro-life because they think religion should play a heavier role in government, or because they don't think government should subsidize birth control. and some pro-choice people (many of them) are pro-choice simply because they believe in "small government" and don't want government having a hand in medical procedures/family planning - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:11:43] - paul: i agree it's a weird way of thinking about it. i agree it's unintuitive but i'm trying to avoid the false dichotomy that pro-choice people are for abortion, or that pro-life people are against abortion, since that's not really how i understand the sides to be split - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:07:50] - a: I wasn't trying to disagree or anything (I didn't even catch the "reversed" thing), I just wanted to make sure I understood because it was just a different way to look at each group. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:06:38] - a: I dunno, in both his comments about the irony of pro-choice kids and pro-life parents and his comments about pro-life bumper stickers, he used phrases to describe both groups which I don't often hear, and had to re-read a few times to understand. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:01:37] - "I guess I just feel like Aaron has a very unusual way of viewing the pro-life and pro-choice movements" how so? ~a
[2011-10-12 14:00:29] - aaron: I also liked that story (Jobs), if it were me I would totally qualify birth parents rather than qualifying adopted parents. Although that would depend on how old I was and situation surrounding adoption. ~g
[2011-10-12 13:59:23] - I don't disagree that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are bad descriptions, though. I guess it's just easier to think of things in those terms in my brain for whatever reason. -Paul
[2011-10-12 13:58:11] - To me, it seems even more confusing to equate pro-life with "in favor of abortion being decided by the government", because it sounds like they're advocating having the government decide whether individual pregnancies should be aborted or not. -Paul
[2011-10-12 13:57:30] - aaron: I dont know if I agree with saying people who are pro-choice are not ok with abortion. I mean on some level there is the mentality that it is okay, possibly caveated for certain situations etc... ~g
[2011-10-12 13:55:44] - a: Not really, I guess I just feel like Aaron has a very unusual way of viewing the pro-life and pro-choice movements. I think I understand where he is coming from, but sometimes parts of it seems a little off to me. -Paul
[2011-10-12 13:51:40] - g: but yeah that's why i brought up the birth control thing, i think that's a much more fiitting premise. birth control is much more popular today than it used to be and it's arguably ironic (or interesting) that kids who were born as a result of the absence/ignorance of birth control are now having fewer children - aaron
[2011-10-12 13:47:37] - a: yeah, nail on the head - aaron
[2011-10-12 13:46:22] - g: yeah people seem to equate pro-choice with being ok with abortion which isn't right. miguel is pro-legalization of drugs but he's not ok with drugs. if paul was doing drugs all the time miguel would probably move out. t's only ironic if the kids are actually pro-abortion, which isn't implied by pro-choice - aaron
[2011-10-12 13:44:43] - paul: yeah i got those backwards - aaron
[2011-10-12 13:42:08] - yes maybe he meant that, but he didn't say that. through his words, he implied that all pro-choice people have abortions as the default. ~a
[2011-10-12 13:37:30] - aaron: I think xpovos meant... a child who is only around because their parents didnt believe in abortion being okay with abortion. ~g
[2011-10-12 13:36:46] - ah nm... also yea its backwards. ~g
[2011-10-12 13:36:07] - a: I think when aaron said by a family/mother he means the family/mother of the pregnant parents... but I could be mistaken ~g
[2011-10-12 13:33:30] - oh, is it backwards? ~a
[2011-10-12 13:32:21] - paul: is there anything wrong with that assessment? ~a
[2011-10-12 11:58:56] - aaron: I'm confused, but are you saying that pro-life = "in favor of abortion being decided by a family/mother" and pro-choice = "in favor of abortion being decided by the government"? -Paul
[2011-10-11 17:49:04] - aaron: Right, but I think most of the irony has been wrung out of such situations by just the modern approach to sexuality in general. It's just not as interesting as it once might've been. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-11 17:41:25] - i think i understand your point though - perhaps a better example, would be kids who regularly use birth control, where they would have never been born if their parents had regularly used birth control - is that what you mean? i think that's a little different from the pro-choice pro-life debate, but it's a little ironic - aaron
[2011-10-11 17:39:23] - xpovos: you mean parents who are in favor of abortion being decided by a family/mother, bearing children who are then in favor of abortion being decided by the government? hmm what's the perceived irony there? - aaron
[2011-10-11 17:00:59] - g: I wonder if there's any irony anymore in pro-life parents having pro-choice children. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-11 16:51:40] - g: i really think it's best interpreted as a pro-adoption message, i especially like the anecdote: when asked about his "adoptive parents," Jobs replied emphatically that Paul and Clara Jobs "were my parents." - aaron
[2011-10-11 16:49:59] - I think it would be a better pro-adoption message, since his adoptive parents helped make him into who he was... although I guess genes probably had a bit to do with it to. ~g
[2011-10-11 16:48:44] - xpovos: even if it were a pro-life message it is that his birth parents are pro-life not that he necessarily was... Although depending on the circumstances it could have just been too far along to terminate. ~g
[2011-10-11 16:41:40] - i guess the "choose life" bumper stickers are the ones i'm thinking of, really, because the bumper sticker describes my beliefs to a tee - despite being put there by someone who is almost definitely in disagreement - aaron
[2011-10-11 16:39:32] - a: that false dichotomy of "pro-life/pro-choice" bothers me too. although it does make me a little less frustrated by pro-life bumper stickers. i just smile and think, "yeah me too, abortion sucks" - aaron
[2011-10-11 16:14:29] - a: Sure. But adoption is frequently the 'zero solution' answer for pro-lifers when confronted with the difficult questions that come from a hard-line pro-life stance (notably rape and incest). As such, the two are frequently paired; certainly moreso by semantics than pro-choice and pro-adoption. But there's no logical exclusivity. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-11 15:29:52] - xpovos: "You could take that as a pro-life message" what's so pro-life about adoption? can i please be pro-adoption and pro-choice? ~a
[2011-10-11 15:12:59] - mig: From my wikipedia read only, it didn't seem that the grandparent was pressing for it, he was just adamantly against the couple getting married, and without the support and structure of a marriage the couple thought adoption the best option. You could take that as a pro-life message, I guess. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-11 14:38:32] - xpovos: I'm not sure though if you can use Steve Job's childhood situation as a pro-life argument. Going from the wikipedia information it's not clear if the parents had considered abortion, or if the grandparent was pressing for it. - mig
[2011-10-11 14:23:18] - xpovos: i didn't know steve jobs was adopted until i saw this picture on reddit... i assumed it was just one of those "lol conservatives" fake posts, but i guess there are real people who are using it as a pro-life argument - aaron
[2011-10-11 14:16:25] - oh oops, i misread that he moved to mountainview when he was 5 not adopted when he was 5. ~g
[2011-10-11 14:12:53] - xpovos: although according to the same wiki entry, Steve Jobs was not adopted until he was 5 years old. If they regretted it after 6 months it seems like they could have tried to get him back... Or say after his baby sister was born 2 years later gone back to get him... ~g
[2011-10-11 14:10:36] - Xpovos: Don't know enough about Apple to reply to your China comment. They got free preferrential treatment? -Paul
[2011-10-11 13:12:23] - trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/ Avengers trailer. I think it's the best looking trailer for a movie since Star Trek. -Paul
[2011-10-11 13:09:49] - Paul: Why spend money to lobby the U.S. gov't for preferential treatment when you can go to China and just get it for free? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-11 13:06:58] - Paul: According to wikipedia, the choice was primarily a result of grandparental interference, and once that was out of the picture... so I'm guessing they regretted it as little as 6 months later when the grandparent died, if not more accurately immediately. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-11 13:03:15] - mig: Yeah, one thing I read is that Apple never formed a PAC to try to lobby the government for preferential treatment. I've no idea how true that is, but if it is true, then my respect for Jobs would go up a great deal. -Paul
[2011-10-11 12:56:47] - also a pure capitalist as well. - mig
[2011-10-11 12:56:36] - xpovos: maybe, maybe not. TBH I have no real idea what his political views really are. There's a sect of progressives who have scolded him and his estate for not doing any public philanthropy. He never really went out crusading for any political causes that I know of. Based on his personality one could maybe say it's safe to assume he had progressive views, but he was
[2011-10-11 12:53:26] - Xpovos: I just recently heard that he was adopted. How much do his biological parents must regret that now? I also read that Jobs said that using LSD was one of the most important things in his life. -Paul
[2011-10-11 12:50:27] - aaron: Oh, hahaha. So you think ME2 gameplay is bad? I can see where you are coming from. I feel like it's inferior to Gears of War in a lot of aspects. but it was so much better than ME1 that I had no problems with it. -Paul
[2011-10-11 12:48:46] - I drove past an abortion clinic yesterday (I drive past it not-infrequently) and there were protester in front (not uncommon). One of the protesters held a sign "Steve Jobs was adopted". I was unaware of that. That said, I have to imagine Steve Jobs was "pro-choice". So it seemed like an odd, if strangely effective, sign with which to protest abortion.-- Xpovos
[2011-10-11 12:46:44] - paul: actually i've played ME2 but not ME1. ME1 has some compatibility issues, either with 64-bit OSes, or Windows 7, or my video card, or something. i'm working with EA tech support atm, so i've only played ME2 - aaron
[2011-10-11 12:42:03] - Aaron: I thought the gameplay was pretty terrible, but some of that is in retrospect compared to ME2. I didn't realize how annoying the inventory system and MAKO was until they fixed those things. I don't know if you mentioned this previously, but have you played ME2 yet? Or just ME1? -Paul
[2011-10-11 12:40:04] - aaron: Yeah, I pretty much 100% agree. The gameplay for ME was just terrible IMO, but I absolutely loved the character development and plot. So good. I got shivers during the entire Virmire mission. -Paul
[2011-10-11 12:27:51] - actually i'll backpedal a little. the gameplay wasn't terrible, but i thought Gears of War was much better. as a biotic, my powers were never very useful except as "finishing moves" to mess with weak enemies, so combat got pretty repetitive except for boss fights. - aaron
[2011-10-11 12:23:56] - so my characters stopped getting new skills! ahhaha. and the frequent checkpoints meant that i didn't have to really try very hard in any fights. but the plot was ridiculously good. i can't think of any game where the plot/characters were enough to motivate me to play the game. maybe heavy rain, but... not really - aaron
[2011-10-11 12:22:27] - i was really impressed with the depth of each of the characters in ME, i was kind of expecting them to fit more RPG stereotypes, you know, "tough soldier" and "socially-challenged scientist" and "love interest" but yeah. honestly the gameplay was pretty bad, there was a game-breaking bug where i started getting -1 or -2 skill points after each mission - aaron
[2011-10-11 12:20:00] - paul: i didn't find it until really late in the game - but in the screen where you pick your armor, you can scroll it down to customize the colors. but yeah if i had known that none of the male/male stuff was going to be an option i definitely would have pursued one of the female romance options since they seemed really interesting - aaron
[2011-10-11 12:16:11] - aaron: I didn't even know it was possible to dress up Shepherd in bright pink. Kinda defeats the purpose of camo. -Paul
[2011-10-11 12:15:35] - aaron: Garrus is the most interesting, but even his romance options are a little awkward (I've been told), whereas I feel like all three male romance options are fairly fleshed out and interesting characters. -Paul
[2011-10-11 12:11:25] - aaron: Yeah, neither ME game has had any male-on-male romance options yet (ME1 had one female/female option, I don't think ME2 had any homosexual options beyond Kelly). I can't say from experience, but I feel like femsheps get the short end of the stick in ME2 (like Miguel said). -Paul
[2011-10-11 11:56:42] - mig: Even if I play it on Xbox? -Paul
[2011-10-11 11:54:44] - paul: i didn't mind the voice acting for the male shepard. my only regret was dressing him in bright pink camo as a joke, just before (what ended up being) the final mission of the game. it was really hard to take certain scenes seriously - aaron
[2011-10-11 11:53:54] - paul: i ran through it once with a male shepard and i just restarted with a female shepard. i was disappointed by the lack of options for romancing male characters as male shepard which is one reason i restarted
- aaron[2011-10-11 11:41:20] - paul: and as i said that, I forgot you are playing on the xbox. hmmmm, not sure if there's an equivalent for you. - mig
[2011-10-11 11:31:43] - paul: there's a site which i don't remember the url, but it has a huge archive of me1 saved games to suit your story choices. - mig
[2011-10-11 11:18:52] - mig: I would've loved to have tried a femshep in ME2, but I just don't like the pre-sets for the decisions in the first game when you create a new character in ME2. -Paul
[2011-10-11 11:03:44] - The big thing though is, no offense to Mark Meer, but he sounds like an emotionless robot. He may as well be an Elcor. - mig
[2011-10-11 10:55:48] - I did the Garrus one on a playthrough becuase I heard it was actually kind of hilarious, especially having a conversation with mordin about it. - mig
[2011-10-11 09:49:10] - paul: actually they are weird. Your options as a female are garrus, thane, and jacob, and in a technical sense Kelly is an option in the same way it is for a male. - mig
[2011-10-11 09:13:42] - I'm wondering if any guys have any thoughts on playing a FemShep. Is the romance options a little weird? Do you just skip them? -Paul
[2011-10-11 09:12:37] - People who have played Mass Effect: What gender is your Shepherd? Mine is male, but I've read a lot of article where it sounds like female Shepherds are also quite popular. I know the voice actress is supposed to be better, but I've always just been a little creeped out playing as a female when given the options to flirt with male characters. -Paul
[2011-10-10 09:55:50] - vinnie: i didn't "turn off" the feature per se. in 2003 i did a rewrite so most of the dubious features were never reimplemented. ~a
[2011-10-10 08:58:28] - vinnie: I was thinking that the OWS sounded a bit like the tea party as well, although it does seem a little less focused to me. I'm admittedly a little biased, but the Tea Party seemed more focused on being angry at taxes, spending and debt (which are fairly closely related), where it seems harder to pin-point what the main gripe of OWS is. -Paul
[2011-10-07 14:57:38] - a: Definitely not, fails a logical test on the corollary quite easily. What is right is often offensive. I wouldn't say politically correct, but I understand why you do. How about, "more politic and cognizant of the semantic value of words for people in a wider range of circumstances"? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-07 13:02:29] - xpovos: offensive==wrong?
yes, ten more years of experience has helped us all become slightly more politically correct. ~a[2011-10-07 12:23:20] - I could phrase the same argument better these days. 10 more years of experience. I'd be focusing on my initial points of birth rates, for one. Avoid the whole conversation being dragged down the path of race if at all possible. And the 'civilization' debate was pointless. Ah, memories. Bad memories. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-07 12:14:18] - a: Yeah, it was bound to resurface eventually. Without digging too deeply, I know what I said was offensive, but I still don't see it as necessarily wrong. And it wasn't said to be offensive, of course. I just have that knack. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-07 11:33:07] - xpovos: "I can't say, I don't know your background" is probably the best possible post that could have come up from that conversation
~a[2011-10-07 11:18:43] - I've been reading a lot about the protests and I think they're really interesting, especially in the way they're run. it reminds me a lot of the tea party, both in some good and bad ways. both groups seem unfocused, even contradictory, but that's the nature of a group founded that way. I like that OWS is trying to see what it agrees on - vinnie
[2011-10-07 11:16:15] - huh I guess it's been a long time since I used a new word. I haven't seen the message in so long I figured you removed that feature. also, unctuous - vinnie
[2011-10-07 10:56:08] - mig: hmmm. i've read the first half and it seems pretty cool. maybe we should drive up? ~a
[2011-10-07 10:55:37] - daniel: words with numbers in them are ignored. mostly because words with numbers in them show up often in URLs. ~a
[2011-10-07 09:33:20] - An interesting account of the occupy wallst protests. - mig
[2011-10-07 09:25:55] - Hmm so numbers on the end don't make for new words? I do see the thing that says the new word though. Interesting. -Daniel
[2011-10-07 09:25:21] - farfignewtonnotwengifrafz -Daniel
[2011-10-07 09:25:12] - farfignewtonnotwengifraf2 farfignewtonnotwengifraf3 -Daniel
[2011-10-07 09:24:44] - farfignewtonnotwengifraf -Daniel
[2011-10-06 16:21:45] - title: No, there is too much to explain, let me sum up. - IM(YKMF)
[2011-10-06 16:21:00] - Still, as I noted my own habit of posting here for so long should have resulted in some of these words appearing before. They're common enough in my vocabulary, so it's still somewhat surprising to see them show up as new words. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-06 16:20:04] - a: I did search after I posted. It just seems absurd that in 110K+ posts and 20M words that no one had hit such a commonplace one. Ennui I could see, it's not 'common', but I was still a little surprised. Some of my other recent ones like twigged or flitted I could see, they're both not common and parsed. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-06 15:43:13] - daniel: some time you're feeling board, type in a non-word like asdfgaoeui to the message board and you'll see what we mean. xpovos: all 110k+ posts, all 20M words. did you try a search for "longing"? nobody had used that word before you did two days ago. ~a
[2011-10-06 14:40:10] - xpovos: certianly an interesting endeavor, though I can't imagine it being anything other than a total clusterfuck. - mig
[2011-10-06 14:25:22] - Iceland is writing a new Constitution and has decided to crowdsource it. Interesting process, and some interesting and expected results. Reminds me a lot of one of the things in Eric Flint's book 1632. I didn't like that constitution, either. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-06 12:30:57] - http://luckyshirt.tumblr.com/post/9385209803/dear-guy-who-just-made-my-burrito-have-you-ever dear guy who just made my burrito - aaron
[2011-10-06 12:30:40] - Whats this new word thing yall talk about sometimes? -Daniel
[2011-10-06 12:04:37] - a: How robust is the new words feature? It said the other day that "longing" was a new word, and that seemed a bit odd. Does it cross reference all 100K+ posts? 100K+ had better not be a new word... -- Xpovos
[2011-10-06 11:18:37] - yay, now it only mentions new words once. ~a
[2011-10-06 11:18:25] - bodonii test bodonii test. ~a
[2011-10-06 09:51:56] - a few of them like "bodoni" i should have really remembered. but bodoni sounds so much like a cheese! - aaron
[2011-10-05 20:25:35] - is "cheese or font" anything like "cake fart"?
[2011-10-05 17:37:38] - http://www.cheeseorfont.com
[2011-10-05 17:10:44] - i wouldn't be too surprised if fox is literally only giving them another season for the merchandising rights to the DVDs, which will probably sell through the roof - aaron
[2011-10-05 17:07:07] - daniel: the show did poorly in ratings in 2006, i don't think it'll be wildly popular or anything but the show was consistently funny and never had any kind of decline that i noticed. i think when it's ressurrected it'll be about as funny and unpopular as it was before. that's all i'm expecting - aaron
[2011-10-05 17:01:07] - daniel: huh. implying that it was a popular show back in 2006 because it won some awards isn't really fair, and i struggled to find any other substance to that editorial other than "it might be disappointing" - aaron
[2011-10-05 16:45:56] - aaron: http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/34683/do-we-really-want-another-season-of-arrested-development A dissenting opinion on the Arrested Development development. -Daniel
[2011-10-05 15:33:49] - aaron: Definitely not Matrix. Although, I guess if the Wachowski brothers go back in 20 years and make a new trilogy they probably won't be perceived as worse than 2 and 3? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-05 15:30:45] - xpovos: yep, indeed, when i first read "carrie-anne moss" in the ME credits i was all "oh! star trek"
- aaron[2011-10-05 15:20:02] - I misread Carrie-Anne Moss as Carrie Fisher. Huh. Wonder why that never twigged for me before. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-05 14:18:47] - hah, i forgot your name was a gradient! you have obviously been gone too long. ~a
[2011-10-05 14:08:06] - whoops, i misparsed. that was carrie-anne moss? -amy
[2011-10-05 14:07:14] - huh. i check the mboard for the first time in several months, and i'm mentioned within the top 2 posts. i don't remember saying i think that sounds sexy!! -amy
[2011-10-05 13:39:09] - aaron: ha, I totally didn't catch that it was Carrie-Anne Moss' voice. Seth Greens was amusing for me though. -Daniel
[2011-10-05 12:47:02] - daniel: oh, seth green was in Mass Effect 2 also! i didn't recognize his voice. also, apparently amy thinks carrie-anne moss sounds sexy (i agree) - aaron
[2011-10-05 09:58:10] - mig: Dark Souls, the sequel to Demon Souls was released in north america yesterday - aaron
[2011-10-04 14:11:02] - (or i guess i should say, allegedly plotting to kill foreigners. it's possible he had an bad lawyer who put up a bad defense) - aaron
[2011-10-04 14:10:12] - paul: right, i understand and somewhat agree. i guess he was in yemen at the time, so it's really up to yemen's court system to decide his innocence, even if he's an american citizen. when travelling it's important to recognize local laws/cultures, and i guess plotting to kill foreigners isn't as acceptable in yemen as it might be elsewhere - aaron
[2011-10-04 14:05:06] - Do I have some kind of record for using new words on the mboard? I had one in the post I just made and two in the post previous to that. It seems a bit strange to me. I mean I'm not digging for obscure synonyms here, and it's not like I haven't been posting for years, so I would've figured at least I would have used some of these words before. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-04 14:03:04] - aaron: Not in this case, but it doesn't matter. I clicked a link, or reused a window I no longer needed for some new purpose. The sidebar ads, which I've trained myself to ignore flitted through to my conscious brain as the page shifted, going 'back' means the ads are reloaded, but the algorithm changes and the specific ad is gone, maybe forever. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-04 14:01:08] - aaron: i've been using ctrl-shift-t after you and daniel told me about it. it's so very useful when i hit control-w when i mean to hit control-v (something that happens on dvorak more than i'd like to admit) ~a
[2011-10-04 13:59:23] - aaron: "he maintained e-mail contact with suicide bombers/terrorists like the fort hood shooter, and spoke favorably of the killings" I totally agree that he wasn't a good man, but even if we take all of those things at face value... I just don't know if it adds up to warranting a death sentence. -Paul
[2011-10-04 13:53:04] - xpovos: did you close the tab? ctrl+shift+t is a great key combo in firefox - aaron
[2011-10-04 13:40:41] - a: I'll take an old word if it has a suitable definition to emulate the meaning. A kind of very gentle but wistful longing for something that will never come? It's like ennui mixed with anticipation. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-04 13:38:30] - that has happened to me. but i doubt we need a word for that
~a[2011-10-04 13:36:20] - I need a new word... this word should be defined to mean that feeling you get when you see an ad out of the corner of your eye as you're navigating off the page but are intrigued and suddenly wish you hadn't clicked away because the ad will never load again randomly. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-04 13:26:11] - aaron: I think my opinion would be changed ultimately by how "fair" a Yemen trial would be, which I know little about. - mig
[2011-10-04 13:11:40] - miguel wins the ultimate-frisbee response award! it was a photo finish with aaron taking second at 3 seconds after miguel. ~a
[2011-10-04 13:07:10] - i guess maybe it's unfair to feel remorse for al-qaeda members, and i guess if a member from the press covertly tries to contact someone who's had repeated recent attempts on his life, missile strikes, targetted bombings - i guess he knew the kind of danger he was in and was willing to accept it. but, it's still unfortunate. - aaron
[2011-10-04 13:04:50] - paul: 2 other al-qaeda members and a magazine editor (presumably evil) were killed while we were trying to assassinate him, oops. but it's ok because they were all bad - aaron
[2011-10-04 13:01:21] - paul: also if it changes your mind, he was charged in absentia in yemen for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-qaeda. he had a lawyer present to represent him, and the yemen court system ordered that he could be caught dead or alive - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:58:44] - paul: he has a very long wiki page, even if he didn't directly orchestrate terrorist attacks (and i'm not saying he didn't) he maintained e-mail contact with suicide bombers/terrorists like the fort hood shooter, and spoke favorably of the killings, - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:57:12] - Aaron: I understand your point about a trial not being a possibility, but could we at least have held a trial in abstentia or something so we follow some sort of rule of law and have our judicial system determine this guy is guilty of a crime worthy of execution instead of leaving it up to the President's judgment? -Paul
[2011-10-04 12:55:09] - Aaron: I think it's the last point that bothers me the most. Even convicted murderers don't often get the death penalty in our justice system unless it's a particularly bad crime (or you live in Texas), and yet this guy basically gets executed without a trial and without any evidence he killed (or even necessarily helped kill) anybody. -Paul
[2011-10-04 12:52:46] - mig: maybe i'm naive but it seems like something two (efficient) guys could conduct over the course of 2-4 weeks, which seems OK to me - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:50:11] - Aaron: I'm certainly not surprised. I wouldn't say I am upset, but I am concerned. It's one thing to assassinate somebody. It's another thing to assassinate an American, and it's yet another thing to assassinate an American whose worst crime appears to be spreading propaganda for a terrorist group.. unless there is new info about him I don't know. -Paul
[2011-10-04 12:50:06] - mig: that editorial is obviously slanted against the U.S gov't but i'm still not sure i find fault with anything the FBI did. it doesn't seem too far beyond what police do to trap pedophiles. the cost of this doesn't seem extravagant to me - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:26:14] - paul: so i'm not particularly surprised or upset, i just think it's a somewhat scary version of "security through obscurity" where they're hoping our lawyers aren't clever enough to figure out who the U.S government is/isn't allowed to murder - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:24:30] - paul: i think it's most likely that it's legal to assassinate every citizen, because of some scary reason that they don't want to tell us (i.e the war powers act allows the president to do whatever he wants in a state of emergency, and state of emergency is defined loosely enough that it can apply every day of the year, etc) - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:22:35] - paul: regarding anwar al-awlaki: i'm not too surprised that the justice department ruled it was legal, although i find it a little interesting that they won't tell anybody why it's legal. i guess they're nervous that if their rationale is something easily worked around, like, "we're allowed to arrest people with scary beards", that all terrorists will shave, idk - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:05:04] - but maybe the "surveillance and shaky court case" thing has its merits. maybe it's more efficient in ways i don't understand, or maybe it's more respectful to innocent civilians in ways i don't understand either. i guess i just don't understand your viewpoint yet, sorry - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:04:22] - mig: personally i think the FBI did the right thing this time, i hope they continue to confront people up front with sting operations, giving them an immediate chance to exonerate themselves, rather than relying on surveillance and shaky court cases against potentially innocent civilians - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:03:29] - but you're right, there's definitely a gray area between "help me blow up this school" and "i am interested in purchasing C-4 for this specific terrorist plot". maybe it's in the FBI's best interest to try and invest their man-power in that gray area, to take people to court who might be maybe committing crimes but maybe not - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:03:09] - aaron: maybe it would but that's the system of justice we chose to have. - mig
[2011-10-04 12:01:54] - it would stink if there was someone who deeply invested in causing harm to civilians, and the FBI tried to arrest them, and then they were acquitted in court because the FBI acted too quickly, or because the defendent had a really good attorney. - aaron
[2011-10-04 12:00:20] - mig: hmm okay. you're probably right. well, personally i'd rather the FBI arrest criminals for doing something illegal (purchasing C-4) rather than arresting them based on an utterance, only to find out that the "message board was too random" or the "statement wasn't public enough" or the "statement wasn't advertisey enough" - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:54:23] - recruting for an illegal act i mean. - mig
[2011-10-04 11:53:49] - aaron: there's a very huge difference between a random utterance on a random message board and publicy advertising recruitment for a legal act. The latter is I think a very clearly illegal act.- mig
[2011-10-04 11:51:07] - mig: really? hmm. i don't know if it is! do you want speech like that to be illegal? do you think it should be illegal? that's fine too. maybe anybody who says anything like, "i want to blow up the school" should be immediately charged with a crime. that's another possibility - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:49:55] - in my imagination, i feel like the FBI could potentially never be able to definitely incriminate/exonerate someone based on surveillance alone. not only is a sting operation more efficient, but it's definitive. they could have busted Timothy Mcveigh a week before his attack, and he'd be all, "what, shock tubes? ammonium nitrate? i'm just a hobbyist" - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:48:46] - I would think advertising that openly is a wee bit illegal, and it would at least warrant a very direct confrontation from law enforcement almost immediately. - mig
[2011-10-04 11:47:29] - mig: it's not like you can just watch someone for 2 weeks and see, "oh, they bought a lot of fertilizer" and arrest them for that. and it seems naive to watch them for a week, and think, "oh they spend a lot of time on their computer, but that's all. i guess they're harmless" - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:46:29] - also how long do you think surveillance should last? you seem to think it's a short period of time, as though these kinds of attacks are only planned for like a week in advance. the oklahoma city bombings, for example, were planned 6 months in advance, so i would think you'd need to surveille someone for at least that long - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:45:16] - mig: okay, fine, if you don't like my hypothetical, that's annoying. i guess i can rephrase it. if a theoretical "bob bogeyman" puts up a craigs list posting, "i am looking for C-4 to blow up the national mall", and he is joking. do you think he would rather be the target of sustained surveillance or do you think he'd rather be approached by a fake arms dealer? - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:43:35] - mig: i interpreted your statement, "[the FBI should] keep an eye on him instead", to mean, "the FBI should surveil anybody who makes remarks which the FBI interprets as threatening." which to me, sounded like widespread surveillance, if it's up to the FBI to decide who's threatening/nonthreatening they could potentially be surveilling a lot of people - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:39:27] - I'm not sure how you're interpeting that I'm in favor of widespread surveillence in general. I'm simply saying in this specific instance, I would think some surveillence of him would be more appropriate than launching an elaborate sting operation. - mig
[2011-10-04 11:31:00] - In short, the FBI would have probably found this guy to be pretty much harmless, and moved on. - mig
[2011-10-04 11:30:25] - does it have to be that long and involved surveillence? I think it was rather obvious from the circumstances that this guy clearly lacked the resources to really do anything of signficance on his own. The idea itself was idiotic and it's very likely that this "plot" would have simply been a wild fantasy in this guy's head without the FBI's assistance. - mig
[2011-10-04 11:27:48] - aaron: survellience with a warrant that provides evidence for probable cause, I'm not against. - mig
[2011-10-04 11:26:42] - aaron: in your specific hypothetical, neither. Probable cause is not there to warrant it. - mig
[2011-10-04 11:05:17] - mig: if you said something on the mboard which was interpreted as a terrorist threat, would you personally, rather be under surveillance for 5 years, or would you rather have a government operative offer to sell you C-4? - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:05:13] - mig: i'm also genuinely surprised that you're more in favor of widespread surveillance, than you are of sting operations.... - aaron
[2011-10-04 11:02:20] - http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-goofy-face-of-terror/
[2011-10-04 11:01:41] - mig: no, if someone says "i want to blow up the pentagon" it's a lot cheaper to match them with a fake arms dealer. maintaining years of surveillance (theoretically, a lifetime's worth?) is waaaaaay more expensive! that seems obvious to me, right? am i missing something? why is a sting operation more expensive? - aaron
[2011-10-04 10:59:28] - mig: oh! the article i linked doesn't mention any of that. do you have a source? that does sound like a lot of effort - aaron
[2011-10-04 10:42:11] - I have a major problem with the entire practice of undercover cops posing as prostitutes/drug dealers/terrorist recruiters in general, it strikes me as law enforcement having this need of creating criminals when they can't find enough real criminals. - mig
[2011-10-04 10:30:02] - It seems like you save more money that way, and if he contacts real terrorist plotters, you have a chance to nab those guys too. - mig
[2011-10-04 10:23:07] - And isn't the more rational response to someone saying "I want to blow up the pentagon", to just keep an eye on him instead? - mig
[2011-10-04 10:20:54] - opportunities to arrest him before that. - mig
[2011-10-04 10:20:35] - aaron: yeah i think this is taking it way too far. I mean, this kind of stuff doesn't get span over a short period of time. They flew him to DC so he could "scope" the target and meet with his fellow "plotters". They essentially spent all the trouble acquiring the things he needed for his plan and went as so far as to "execute" it. I feel like there was plenty of ...
[2011-10-04 10:06:58] - mig: it's not very complicated is it? it's the same concept of undercover prostitutes or undercover drug dealers. according to this article they arrested him after providing him with weapons he allegedly requested. you think that's taking it too far? - aaron
[2011-10-04 10:04:35] - mig: huh, well it seems obvious to me... but if someone posts a message on the internet and says, "i want to blow up the pentagon," it's hard to charge them with anything. if someone purchases fake C-4 from undercover agents and parks a van outside the pentagon, you can charge them with a lot more. right? - aaron
[2011-10-04 09:19:40] - to justify their budget. - mig
[2011-10-04 09:19:31] - the main problem i had was not whether it actually was entrapment or not, but the fact that the actual dangerous threat was only made possible by the FBI's assistance. I have to imagine they had more than enough evidence to arrest him long before they did. What was the point of helping him in his plot up to that point, other than to generate headlines or waste money ...
[2011-10-04 09:18:43] - a: I wasn't sure, so I figured it was better to play it safe. I'm not necessarily saying what Bush did wasn't legal, but it didn't reassure me at all when his Justice Department told me that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were perfectly legal. -Paul
[2011-10-04 01:31:28] - paul: i'm pretty sure aaron was being sarcastic. ~a
[2011-10-04 01:30:05] - so the stuff that bush did wasn't legal? ~a
[2011-10-04 00:58:11] - Aaron: Frankly, I wouldn't expect the Justice Department to say otherwise. It's headed up by the Attorney General, who is appointed by the President. I remember how the Justice Department used to tell everybody how everything Bush did was legal too. -Paul
[2011-10-03 19:01:46] - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/ i feel reassured that the justice department ruled that there were no legal issues with the killing of anwar al-awlaki! but shhh they can't tell us why. it's a secret! - aaron
[2011-10-03 18:30:29] - i'm not trying to be pedantic, i just had to look that up for myself
because i was like, "hey yeah that IS entrapment". but, there's actually an important legal distinction for why it's not - aaron[2011-10-03 18:30:03] - daniel: the distinction from entrapment is whether or not the person was ready and willing to break the law. FBI agents offering random people explosives is entrapment. but potential terrorists finding FBI agents via the internet, meeting up with them, etc is not entrapment because the person was already ready/willing to plot a terrorist attack. - aaron
[2011-10-03 16:35:33] - mig: Yeah I think a lot of those cases are dumb and seem to me hard to distinguish from entrapment. However it does show a case where a "potential terrorist" wasn't killed but was arrested. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 16:31:09] - daniel: not to change the subject too much, but that case really bothered me a lot too. The best headline that I've seen on it: "FBI foils its own terror plot". - mig
[2011-10-03 16:15:59] - mig: As an example there was a guy who got arrested in Boston last week who wanted to blow up the pentagon and capital building, he wasn't assassinated but he was somewhere where the US could arrest him so they did. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 16:13:32] - either. I don't think you can treat him just like a regular criminal given his associations and location. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 16:12:56] - mig: Part of the difference here is that anwar wasn't a regular criminal. He was involved (heavily) with an organization that the US declared war on and was living outside the US. I think that does open you up to possible consequences. I don't want to go to far in arguing for support of it cause I'm not really sure that it was right but I'm not 100% that it was wrong...
[2011-10-03 16:00:53] - And given the track record of this administration and the previous one, I'm not ready to take them at their word that he was some sort of dangerous threat. - mig
[2011-10-03 15:59:46] - i doubt anybody is saying we should. you're arguing slippery-slope? ~a
[2011-10-03 15:59:25] - But I guess it would come down to was Anwar, some sort of immiment threat to the lives of american citizens. I haven't seen or read anything that would convince me that he was. - mig
[2011-10-03 15:54:43] - "what, do you think they'd like subpoena him (or whatever) and he'd show up in court?" Do we assassinate every single criminal that we can't successfully extradite? I don't think we do. - mig
[2011-10-03 15:21:17] - s just really hard for me to imagine, i guess. i feel like if anybody in america was publicly advocating violence on chinese citizens, and publicly in favor of suicide bombers, or took credit for terrorist activity in china, the US would be after him before china would even get involved... but if china assassinated him, yeah i guess that would be huge, you're right - aaron
[2011-10-03 15:14:28] - mig: so for those two reasons i don't think it's fair to equate those two circumstances - aaron
[2011-10-03 15:14:12] - mig: but as it is, i think anwar is "absolutely unjust" and he's in a country which isn't willing to extradite him (that's my understanding), but the people you are describing are "relatively unjust" (like maybe china doesn't like them, but a layperson wouldn't understand why) and U.S would probably be willing to extradite them given logical reasons - aaron
[2011-10-03 15:13:04] - mig: you know, i guess it comes down to the question of absolute justice. if there was some chinese version of anwar, and if he were residing on U.S soil, i think we'd extradite him to china. i think that's the difference. if america was a different country, maybe the question would hold more merit. - aaron
[2011-10-03 15:09:37] - a: hmmm, it might be directed to miguel, i guess. he's still pointing out the (implied) hypocricy with us being OK with anwar's murder, but not OK with the murder of chinese dissidents. i guess i should phrase my line of thinking to be more in line with his statement really - aaron
[2011-10-03 15:04:57] - *nobody in specific. ~a
[2011-10-03 15:04:50] - aaron: haha, when i found out he wasn't on us-soil i retracted my statement. are you directing this to miguel or nobody ~a
[2011-10-03 14:57:18] - although i guess the end result was more humiliating for everyone involved (except the US, i guess we looked OK. but definitely more humiliating for iraq and saddam) - aaron
[2011-10-03 14:56:48] - i still think it's rational to criticize america for you know, assassinating someone. but to criticize america, literally, for not putting him on trial? what, do you think they'd like subpoena him (or whatever) and he'd show up in court? i guess we could have gone the saddam hussein route, maybe that was better. - aaron
[2011-10-03 14:54:30] - anwar was actively hostile towards america, and if he's not willing to cooperate with the american justice system then i don't understand why it's rational to feel upset about the lack of due process - aaron
[2011-10-03 14:52:59] - i'll just assume you were trying to be a jerk
~a[2011-10-03 14:50:44] - oh nevermind. sorry, i wasn't trying to be a jerk, i just saw your message before daniel's - aaron
[2011-10-03 14:50:01] - a: it was on u.s soil? that changes my opinion a little. i was under the impression that daniel gave, that he was someplace where he couldn't be extradited - aaron
[2011-10-03 14:33:08] - mig: I think if it was an area of America that we couldn't / didn't control and we agree with China that they were bad people then perhaps we could discuss it. As it is if China really wanted someone we could probably just arrest them and send them back to China (whole other can of worms) -Daniel
[2011-10-03 14:31:16] - mig: oh, who's china in a war with? ~a
[2011-10-03 14:30:13] - daniel: Well, the problem with saying, "well it was in yemen so it was ok", is then well should we be cool if China starts sending un-manned drones after Chinese dissidents living over here? - mig
[2011-10-03 14:29:23] - during wartime, we have americans killing americans over-seas all of the time. it's not called murder/manslaughter, it's usually called fratricide. yes, this is different, but i understand that under these circumstances, these kinds of crazy things happen. war is hell? ~a
[2011-10-03 14:26:33] - ah, it wasn't us soil. well nm then.
~a[2011-10-03 14:21:10] - a: It wasn't on US soil, it was in Yemen (which as I understand it was highly relevant to him just being killed rather than arrested) -Daniel
[2011-10-03 14:10:33] - (sorry for jumping into the conversation late) "i don't really have any strong opinions on it. as long as it's just like, one guy every couple years." i'm surprised at this because i'm bothered that it happened once ever. an american killed another american on us soil without due-process? how is that legal? how is that not murder? ~a
[2011-10-03 13:48:16] - paul: the meetup organizer (from xpovos' link) shows up as Carl Ewald. ~g
[2011-10-03 12:45:57] - oh my! ctrl+x and ctrl+shift+x do two completely different things when you're editing text in firefox - aaron
[2011-10-03 12:30:52] - mig: If they became a general or some important leader in some other way. Secretary of Propaganda or something, and lived in Berlin. I could see them being targeted for bombing maybe. Its not 100% analogous because our "War on Terror" isn't really conventional warfare but it has some similarities. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 11:59:36] - daniel: you mean like, if they rose to like a general or something and were leading german troops, or if they became prominent people in germany after the war? - mig
[2011-10-03 11:00:49] - mig: are there other times where an american citizen went abroad to join a foreign based effort to do violence to the US? The only other thing I can think of is Americans who sided with Germany in WW2 and while they weren't assassinated(just regular killed in fighting) I think if any had rose to prominence we would have targeted them. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 11:00:37] - mig: oh! wow! okay, that could definitely be. maybe i just watch too many james bond movies. i figured presidential administrations could cover up stuff like that if they wanted - aaron
[2011-10-03 10:58:46] - aaron: not necessarily, I just don't believe that a presidential administration would have had the competence to pull it off without anybody figuring out they were behind it. - mig
[2011-10-03 10:56:20] - mig: hmm! okay. yeah, it's possible that presidents have never authorized the assassination of an american citizen before. maybe i'm just being naive about that. i guess i feel like there's so many criminally dangerous americans, some of whom are so well-protected or difficult to extradite, that previous presidents would have just been like, "fuck it" - aaron
[2011-10-03 10:54:18] - mig: well, i guess one way of thinking (maybe this is what you're thinking) is that prior to Obama, no president had ever authorized the assassination of an american citizen. i guess i just feel like that's naive, and i feel like presidents have probably done that before. but, maybe i'm just being more cynical than you for a change
- aaron[2011-10-03 10:53:16] - aaron: it's specific because that's what the situation is. Yeah, presidents have probably authorized assassinations (and probably in secret as wel) before, no doubt. But the fact that he was an american citizen makes it a very big deal (at least it does to me) and something that is rather unprecedented. - mig
[2011-10-03 10:51:43] - i guess my real point is that, while some people might look at this as a failure of due process, or a failure of our president, you could also look at it as a success of US foreign relations, or a success of our media, or of our foreign intelligence/special forces - aaron
[2011-10-03 10:49:58] - made some diplomatic advances with different countries in the middle-east which make assassinations like this on foreign soil more practical... right? i feel like we're seeing more cooperation between US/Pakistan, or similar relations than we had 20 years ago. - aaron
[2011-10-03 10:48:45] - mig: well, that's being very specific. i'm sure that prior to clinton no president had asserted that he had an authority to play a saxophone at a press hearing. i guess my point is, i think presidents have authorized assassinations before, and i don't really know if this is anything unprecedented? media's made some strides in the past 20 years, and the US has also - aaron
[2011-10-03 10:46:57] - I'm not sure thats good or appropriate just sharing what I heard when it was being talked about on the radio. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 10:46:27] - mig: I think your statement reflects what I said earlier, I think you are assuming due process is defined as an adversarial trial which is apparently not actually defined anywhere as such. Granted it was a Bush era DOJ person making that argument on the radio, but apparently the DOJ talking it over could on some level satisfy "due process". -Daniel
[2011-10-03 10:26:14] - aaron: I don't believe any president before Obama, has asserted that he had the authority to assassinate an american citizen that was deemed a terrorist threat without any sort of due process. Bush expanded his own executive powers in very creative ways during his reign, but that wasn't one of them. - mig
[2011-10-03 10:21:16] - mig: haven't previous republican presidents had this power? - aaron
[2011-10-03 10:13:51] - and lastly, I am terrified of any future republican president (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions) having this power. - mig
[2011-10-03 10:12:49] - aaron: There are so many good reasons to replay ME2. Paragon vs Renegade, Male vs Female Shepherd, plus all the different romance options and also endings. -Paul
[2011-10-03 10:10:12] - The secrecy and lack of any meaningful process is just beyond disturbing. It literally is the president points his finger at you says, "deadly terrorist", and the boom, you're dead. - mig
[2011-10-03 10:10:00] - Aaron: Cool. I think ME2 is the better game in most respects, but the story in ME1 is definitely better. I also think playing on the harder difficulty is a good thing, otherwise the combat gets a little easy and boring. -Paul
[2011-10-03 10:07:18] - the al-awlaki thing bothers me a lot. If he's such a deadly threat to americans I think we deserve to know why. The whole assassination thing, even if you interpert every circumstance about it in Obama's favor, is on very shaky constitutional ground. - mig
[2011-10-03 09:57:41] - did anybody else here the new yorker report that arrested development is coming back for one more TV season before the movie? wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - aaron
[2011-10-03 09:56:59] - i'm already eager to play it through again, i'm doing mostly "paragon" stuff which means not doing a lot of fun/impulsive things (like busting that bitchy reporter in the chops) - aaron
[2011-10-03 09:56:52] - Daniel: Right, but I guess my question would be: Is being involved with terrorists but not actually killing anybody worth the death penalty? -Paul
[2011-10-03 09:56:20] - paul: i bought ME and ME2, but i'm only playing ME2 because ME has compatibility issues with Windows 7 64 bit. ME2 is pretty cool though, i'm playing it through on "veteran" (second hardest) which is a good difficulty, i just had my first fight against some of the collectors and it was pretty tough. - aaron
[2011-10-03 09:17:37] - Paul: I don't think he actually killed anyone, but I thought it was pretty well established he was involved with the yemenese al-queda people. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 09:15:31] - in a more Bushy* (as in reminiscent of the Bush way of doing things)
[2011-10-03 09:14:54] - Paul: Also apparently in a more Busy shady way "due process" isn't actually defined anywhere so potentially people in the gov simply discussing and deciding to kill you as a group could somehow meet the burden of "due process" but that definitely is more sketchy to me. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 09:14:05] - Aaron: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Mass+Effect+2+-+PlayStation+3/1686194.p?id=1218282102245&skuId=1686194 Also, I don't know what you were thinking of doing for Mass Effect, but apparently ME2 is $20 at Best Buy right now for the PS3 version. -Paul
[2011-10-03 09:13:50] - paul: There were a couple of factors that I heard on the radio discussed as reasons it was "OK". One was the location of the person, that since he had gone to somewhere where arrest and extradition weren't really options then it put summary execution on the table. Like if he fled to Norway or Japan then we could have arrested him and extradited (sp?) him. -Daniel
[2011-10-03 09:12:21] - aaron: Yeah, the fact that it's an American citizen doesn't necessarily bother me, although I am worried a bit by the fact that we don't even know what exactly this guy did. Did he even kill anybody? -Paul
[2011-10-03 08:37:02] - i don't really have any strong opinions on it. as long as it's just like, one guy every couple years. if it were someone like bradley manning or something, i'd have a stronger opinion. anwar seemed like a jerk. i'm also reassured that it made front page news. - aaron
[2011-10-03 08:35:43] - paul: i don't know, i guess i'm somewhat reassured by the targetted killing of someone who's technically an american citizen (right?), in a way it shows that we don't play favorites. we'll assassinate anybody! - aaron
prev <-> next