NCRForever

This was the latest version I think. The file name is DCMS167-11306-1-67.7z.

Well, it's not in my download history. So, I have no clue what it is. I told you the other day...how can you not mod? It's addictive. :devil: Come back to the dark side. :ninja: Heh! I just installed the first one manually. "Don't Call Me Settler" and people are saying that it's broken. So the mod author took it down. But, it's working as I remember it. I'm glad I saved a lot of the mods I used before. Just wished I could remember the name of this mod.

I just installed it manually and it's working fine.

Closest to Fallout? Fallout what? Raider edition? Douche bag edition? No Fallout game was ever like that. But, that has nothing to do with what the OP wanted to know. Back on track, shall we?

I don't know. Just trying to remember what mod it was. I guess i could go back through my downloads history onsite.

Umm... That's just normal for the NW dlc. Which is why there's a mod to prevent that. NW was a farce. It was created just for the purpose of destroying everything that you built up. Kind of like a child spending hours, days, months building something, only to throw a tantrum and destroy it.

The modder's reasoning is somewhat perplexing. What was wrong with the mod? I still have a copy of it and as far as I know, it was working great before I stopped using mods.

Here's a better screen of it. http://i66.tinypic.com/2uei35i.jpg

I'm thinking of modding my game again and this was a mod that I used to use. Any help would be awesome. Thanks. http://i64.tinypic.com/mmplt.jpg Edit: Oh, it has a jetpack that comes with a choice of wings.

Yes. Done. But, you can unlock it without doing that quest. I did it when I was playing on survival mode. I don't mod, because NMM is a flakey piece of software and MO is going nowhere fast now that Tannin42 has jumped ship. I'm still at a loss on that. How does the captain of a ship desert his crew?

Yes. It's just the workbench itself. I can use the armor and weapons bench.

Umm... Really? It's Sanctuary for crying out loud! So, not sure what to do. I always scrap some items and build a bed when I first get there and do the initial quest with Codsworth. Now, I guess I can't. Any ideas? I have no mods installed.

RivaTuner. I haven't heard of that in ages. Last time I used it was.... Hmmm.... I can't even remember. Maybe 5, 6 years ago. Is it even made anymore?

It had more than just a bit of functionality. But, I agree that he should have just joined the team.

Apparently, that guy was asked to remove the files. I saw a post about that on Reddit. Well behippo explained already - unless one proves they want to actually help and take part in the script extender process for years to come, one should just step aside. There's no point in having a bunch of unofficial fork. Yes, he did. Agreed on that.

Apparently, that guy was asked to remove the files. I saw a post about that on Reddit.

Have you tried using an ENB remover to get your Skyrim back to working order?

This. I got back into Skyrim the end of September in anticipation of SSE. I didn't mod any of the graphics because at the time I was under the impression that SSE would simply mod the graphics...I was wrong. SSE came out, none of my mods worked, I played it for ~10 minutes and became frustrated with the UI, so I went back to Skyrim. But I wanted better graphics. So I modded mine with RealVision ENB. Now I'm stuck in the thieves guild and after about 10 hours trying to find out why it crashes on entering Riften, I've given up on Skyrim. Waiting for SKSE64 to be ready to support some of my mods and I'll try again. So, you're telling us that the graphics aren't any better than OG Skyrim? Really? Is that what you're saying? So, the screenshot below, must be what in your opinion? PS'd? Modded? A lot of people know that I have moved away feom mods. Was too many issues. Anyway, my game isn't modded. I'm not using any ENBs or ReShaders of any type. I run my game on ultra. Am hitting well over 60 fps, which is annoying at times. Anyways, the screenshot. http://i65.tinypic.com/2nqsmk1.jpg

Before I stopped using mods, it was a must have for me. So, any clue why it's been hidden?

I'm a registered Constitutionalist. But, you did say "You all". That's a broad statement. Anyway, no big deal really.

Note: I didn't write this. Just thought I would share it. Original Author page: https://philebersole.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/populists-vs-liberals-in-american-history/ One of the main things I’ve learned from reading American history is that political alignments in the past were very different from what they are now, and that, prior to the New Deal, “populists” and “liberals” were rarely found in the same party. By “populist,” I mean someone who defends the interests of the majority of the population against a ruling elite. By “liberal,” I mean someone who takes up for downtrodden and unpopular minorities. Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, was a populist. He gained fame as the leader of a well-regulated militia, composed of citizens with the right to keep and bear arms, who defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans and who fought for white settlers against Indians in what later became the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. He was regarded as a champion of poor workers, farmers and frontier settlers. In an epic struggle, he broke the stranglehold of the financial elite, as represented by the Second Bank of the United States, on the U.S. economy. Jacksonians fought for the enfranchisement of property-less white people. In standing up for the common people, Jackson denied any claims to superiority by reason of education and training. He defended the spoils system—rewarding his political supporters with government jobs—on the grounds that any American citizen was capable of performing any public function. Jackson was a slave-owner and a breaker of Indian treaties. He killed enemies in duels. He was responsible for the expulsion of Indians in the southeast U.S. in the Trail of Tears. He was not a respecter of individual rights. He was not a liberal. This was opposed by almost all the great New England humanitarian reformers of Jackson’s time and later. They were educated white people who tried to help African Americans, American Indians, the deaf, the blind, prison inmates and inmates of insane asylums. Almost of all them were Whigs, and almost all their successors were Republicans. They were liberals, but not populists. Like Theodore Parker, the great abolitionist and opponent of the Fugitive Slave Law, they despised illiterate Irish Catholic immigrants in his midst. Poor Irish people had to look for help to the Jacksonian Democratic political machines. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Democrats favored a weak central government, low taxes, low tariffs and state’s rights and opposed government support for big business. Whigs and their successors, the Republicans, favored a strong central government in order to promote industrialization. Their program included high protective tariffs, subsidies for railroad and canal companies and public investment in infrastructure. It is due partly to them that the United States became the world’s leading industrial power., The Republican Party was founded by opponents of the spread of slavery, and, under Lincoln and Grant, actually tried to protect the rights of African Americans in the South. This tradition faded but never completely died out. President Theodore Roosevelt created a national uproar by inviting Booker T. Washington, the great conservative African-American educator, to dinner at the White House. In 1966, Edward Brooke, a New England Republican, became the first African-American U.S. Senator to be elected by popular vote. In contrast, Democrats not only enacted Jim Crow segregation laws in the South, but were the prime supporters of the simultaneous ethnic cleansing of black people from small towns in the North and West. As recently as 1924, the Democratic National Convention voted down a resolution to condemn the Ku Klux Klan by name. Both Democrats and Republicans were part of the corrupt Gilded Age, although the corrupt urban Democratic machines actually provided help to poor people in return for their votes. This is an oversimplification, but Republicans can be said to have stood for macro-corruption and Democrats for micro-corruption. Both Democrats and Republicans took part in the Progressive reform movement just prior to World War One, although with different emphasis. Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom sought to break up monopolies to give equal opportunity to small-business owners. Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism accepted monopoly as inevitable and sought to regulate it in the public interest. The New Deal realigned the parties. Prior to 1932, neither Democrats nor Republicans had been pro-labor. President Franklin Roosevelt made organized labor part of his governing coalition. Liberal reformers became part of the New Deal coalition. African-Americans joined the party of the Solid South. FDR, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy tried to strike a balance between labor union members, African Americans and college-educated liberals on the one hand and the white Solid South. This was just barely possible so long as the Republicans continued to be a civil rights party, and Southern segregationists had to choose the lesser evil (from their standpoint). But the Solid South went Republican after President Lyndon Johnson pushed through national laws banning racial discrimination, and Barry Goldwater ran for President on a platform of state’s rights. African Americans became as dependable a vote for the Democrats as white Southerners had been 30 years before. Democrats could have continued to be a populist party, both pro-labor and pro-civil rights. But their leaders chose not to do so. Instead they became a version of the 19th century Whigs and Republicans. This has been viable so far because Republican leaders, although anti-liberal, have not become really populist. Instead populists are offered a choice of evils (from their standpoint). I think a new American populist movement is bound to gain power sooner or later. The economic plight of the American majority cannot be ignored forever. The big question is whether the future populist movement will be liberal or anti-liberal. Another question is whether it will be within the Democratic or Republican parties. ∞∞∞ Here are some books that helped me understand the history of political alignments. THE LIFE OF ANDREW JACKSON: The Border Captain – Portrait of a President by Marquis James (1933, 1937). A readable, old-fashioned biography that shows why Jackson was admired, but which does not omit unfavorable facts. WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe (2007) BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM: The Civil War Era by James McPherson (1988) RENDEZVOUS WITH DESTINY: A History of Modern American Reform by Eric Goldman (1952) If you have time to read only three of these books, make this one of them. THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POLITICS by Samuel Lubell (1951). An analysis of voting blocs. If you have time to read only two of these books, this this one of them. THE EMERGING REPUBLICAN MAJORITY by Kevin P. Phillips (1969). A history and analysis of voting blocs. If you have time to read only one of these books, read this one. Phillips is a true populist, but not a liberal. All of his recent books about politics and economics are worth reading. CHAIN REACTION: The Impact of Race, Rights and Taxes on American Politics by Thomas B. Edsall with Mary D. Edsall (1991). All of Edsall’s writings, including his column in the New York Times, are worth reading. GOLDEN RULE: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson (1995). All of Ferguson’s writings are also worth reading. ∞∞∞ I didn’t include foreign policy as a basis for party alignment and realignment. Populists are unabashed American nationalists, while liberals talk about universal human rights and international treaties. Democratic presidents starting with Woodrow Wilson have been liberals in this sense. Republicans for many years were isolationists, meaning that they didn’t want the U.S. to take sides in European wars. But Democrats, Whigs and Republicans, and liberals and conservatives, have all sought to increase American power, first on the North American continent and then world-wide. I can’t see any great difference, in practice, between the liberal foreign policy of Barack Obama and the nationalist populist foreign policy of George W. Bush.

You all? Def wasn't a Hillary supporter. I was a Ben Carson supporter. But, he backed down from it. Anyways.... How does it ignore the fact? It's in our faces every single day. I come home from work and see the little sobs puffing away. Recreational use. Fine. Sell it. Tax it. Police it like alcohol and tobacco.

Maybe I'm just too old and set in my ways. I see what's around me and that's how I judge things. I've had many years on this planet and I have seen how everything has changed. Gone down hill. Drugs need to be controlled. In one form or the other. No, I don't believe that marijuana is a drug. It's a medicine. A NATURAL medicine and it works great for pain relief and eye issues. So, if it's medicine, why allow recreation usage of it? That would be like allowing recreational use of Demerol. Again. That's my opinion.

I didn't say that it shouldn't be allowed. But, people will be people. They will abuse the system. They always have and always will. Just like people pissing on themselves because someone has a different of opinion then they have.(this isn't pointed at you in anyway) I believe that medicinal use of things like pot is acceptable. I do have my pot card. But, come on. Recreational use? Really? It's going to get abused. Especially by the teenagers.

I voted. But not for either of them. Did YOU vote? Oh. Right. You either sat on your ass or you voted for Hillary. It's all good though. Everyone has their opinion, just like everyone has an ass. Voting Hillary or Trump, makes people an ass. Oh. Wait. If you voted for Trump, does that make you an elephant? Heh!!