phildog

Hey, pDog here. Just writing to tell you all that my Raider Power Armor Mod will be made available for use with New Vegas within a few weeks. Pending my intrest, I may even fullfill the request frequent for more conservative elbow pads as well as provide an optional meshes for compatibility with Pipboy replacer Mods. No promises on that last bit though.

Granted, but in a month after you find it someone hacks your account and posts child porn on the forums. You get an instant IP ban from all nexus sites and can never access them again. I wish Gundams & Transformers were real.

We're talking about real entities, not fictional ones belonging to Christan & pagan folklore.

I don't think so. I can't think of any mods that resurrect him, there wouldn't be a point to it as he's only used for highly scripted sequences. There is the Liberty Prime Companion - Revamped Edition.

From the linked censorship policy, I quote: "If we were to remove a file because any individual or group of individuals find something offensive, the site would eventually have no files available for download, as someone will always take offense to whatever is offered."Can't you make that exact same argument for swear words here? More importantly, if you're willing to ban content some people find offensive, why don't you ban something even more people find offensive, male homosexuality? I'd be willing to bet dollars to dimes that more people on this "family of sites" are offended by male homosexuality being included in their mods than swear words being used on these forums. So if the argument can be swear words can be barred from implementation forums due to a number of people who dislike it, then one must also accept that male homosexuality should be banned because of popular disdain for that or anything else commonly disliked. No offence, but I'd think being offended at the use of a word arguibly much more juvial than using the word per se. Besides, using that logic you could ban abbreviations, arguing that "more mature" persons should be using the full form. Would it be unnecessary and inconvenient? Yes, but so is arguably banning swear words. I'll take it up with him then. One would think that, sure, but only if they didn't really think about it. You're thinking only of black and white images, and forgetting the greys. Take for example this image. Clearly it's acceptable to you as you haven't removed it from Herculine's sig, but would you put that on a resume or show it to your mother? I know I wouldn't do either. What about the image in this post? An admin, LHammonds, clearly seen it and hasn't bothered to remove it. I don't think I need to point out that you won't show it to your mother or put it on a resume. What about the image in this man's signature? Clearly that girl is both underage and posed provocatively. Is it stepping over the line, how should I know? ...and that's what bothers me, ill defined rules. I'm not trying to be an admin or a vigilante. However, lack of clarity makes it hard to see just where the line is and when it's crossed or even if it's being stepped on it right now.

It seems completely ridiculous censor swear words on a site host to mods like Animated Prostitution & Killable Children, not to mention the fact that Fallout 3 itself has swearing in it. Places like deviantArt and youtube get along fine without it, so I see no reason for it here. It's ridiculous, I can't see any reason why there needs to be an auto-censor as this site clearly isn't intended for children. This site is intended of adults and older teens, and I can say with great certainty that both groups can handle a few curse words. There's no reason a handful of words need to be prohibited, and the only words I can think of are either juvenile or draconian. So why have the censorship? Why not just get rid of it or ad an optional system like youtube has? I think you should give this some real thought. Thanks for your time. EDIT: PS, your forum rules don't say much about what words & images you will and won't allow here, you should probably do something about that.

This question donned on me earlier. In our society Hitler is generally accepted as the incarnation of absolute evil, the ultimate ass, but is he really? I don't like to enter into discussion of evil, because I find that to be metaphysical bullshit and open to wide interpretation. For the sake of clarity and concencus, I generally reference assness as a substitute. Both evil and assness are commonly defined by one thing: selfishness. As for the question of who was a bigger turkey, I think what needs be asked is who was more selfish? Hitler or Kim Jong II First let's examine Hitler's case. Now Hitler was not a selfless person by a large regard, but one could argue he still did care about his people, about his country, and about the future of both. He wanted to rid the world of those peoples who he viewed to be the cancers that plagued the humanity and prevented it from becoming all it could be. Fortunately for him, they were all easily identified themselves by their skin, heritage, or ideologies, and even more fortunately for him these all happened to be people he never liked in the first place. Kim Jong-il on the other hand is arguably much less noble than his Hitler. For example, while Hitler had only one large & elaborate mansion built for his personal use, Kim Jong-il has 17, at least one featuring watersides and many having large golf courses. While not busy stealing food from his own people and subsequently watching them starve to death, he enjoys the benefits of "western capitalism" that he brainwashes his people to fear; things like vising Tokyo Disneyland, viewing home of his 20,000 movies. To top it all off the only work he actually does as the leader of his nation only revolves around one thing, protecting his own ass by threatening to blow up japan. In short, Hitler really cared about some people, and all he asked was that they look like him, came from a similar heritage, and agreed with everything he said. Kim Jon-il on the other hand clearly doesn't care about anybody excluding himself. Not to say Hitler was a saint compared to him, both men will lock you in prison and let you rot to death if you look at them the wrong way, and that's if you're lucky. However, at least Hitler was able to feel concern for the welfare of some people other than himself, and may have thought he was doing the "right thing". At least that's something, and that if that small something is good for anything, it proves he wasn't as much of a selfish ass as Kim Jong-il. What do you think about all this? Was Hitler less of an ass than Kim, or is there something I'm missing? What's you're opinion?