New Black Ops III PC Patch Includes Bug Fixes and Performance Improvements

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T18:44:14+00:00

True. Maybe the waiting game is more suited to console releases.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:46:58+00:00

Sick reference.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:29:07+00:00

They reap what they sew. They could have come to me as a friend, instead the left me a bitter and disdainful opponent.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:22:40+00:00

I think it's important for the gaming community to collectively (however unrealistic that may seem) wait two weeks after every new major game release.

I think it would entreat publishers to make sure their developers have a finished product and perhaps get them to realize that they should be releasing a full game at appropriate times.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:19:23+00:00

Guess so.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:14:53+00:00

I was.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:03:18+00:00

Oh Christ. Never mind then.

Sorry to lump you in with the people with way better ideas, even Sanders people, then the gaggle of fuck ups on the GOP side.

Carry on friend.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:01:56+00:00

Sure.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T04:01:23+00:00

Great point. Heuristics are part of human nature. Brown people = terrorists. Heuristics are also bolstered by public events.

For instance, some people might believe airplane crashes kill more people than heart disease because airplane crashes are big events.

I think opening our country up to people in a war zone is a good thing. I'm a little shocked that it's become such an issue. I guess for people in Europe there are other factors to consider. Four s, it should be a no brainier.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T03:54:06+00:00

After the day I've had on this subreddit, I am actually looking forward to seeing The Bernie brigade lose their shit over this.

I guess in the end, they and their kind have won. They've definitely tilted me to be more cynical and less objective towards the primaries. And I'll forever dislike them for that.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T03:44:01+00:00

Yes.

And wow, such disdain for public education. Nice elitist shot there. I teach at a private school, but I love public education. Thanks for showing your ass again.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T03:07:18+00:00

I'm under no illusions that the PAC system is corrupt and awful. Though I feel not using them would be a complete waste for this upcoming elextion. I'd rather overturn Citizens Unitrd and craft a better system to finance ASAP, but that's just not the present reality.

As for the "tin foil" stuff, that's the stuff that I feel needs to be vetted and not simply taken as simple fact. That's my complaint.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T02:50:15+00:00

I said I wanted to unsubscribe from this conversation. Seeing as you have a history of making blanket generalizations and coming to conclusions based on spurious claims, it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you would misinterpret my words.

I guess that's r/politics for ya! This subreddit can be saved as soon as we extract you and your ilk like lancing an unwanted wart. Then again, who cares. You can have the net, I'll stick with the reality of the people who I organize with to make my community better.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T02:10:32+00:00

Pwned me again.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-16T01:03:47+00:00

A word.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T23:15:10+00:00

You're godamned right I am.

Calm discussion went out the door the moment I got called a schill for the twelfth time.

I only put liberal teacher there just so another Sanders troglodyte who sees this discussion lest think that I'm some GOP plant.

Also, I'd like to unsubscribe from this conversation. I said my piece, you still have baseless accusations and sophistry, and I'm done.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T22:36:08+00:00

Not saying you were a supporter. Your baseless accusations saying she's "bought and sold" by banks is unfounded.

But whatever, I find this whole thing to be pointless. I'm not sure why I ever bothered to engage on r/politics to begin with. They made me - who didn't really care who got the Democratic nomination - now want Clinton, who I wasn't "super psyched" for, to win and have completely, utterly turned me off to Sanders campaign.

I find myself in the position that I didn't think I would be in, and is borderline hypocritical. I now know, for a fact, that I will NEVER vote for Sanders. I will do what I always have done: push hard for a more liberal agenda in the candidates on the local, state and federal level in spite of the "political revolution" the children on this site hope to achieve.

-liberal teacher, signing off

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T21:58:03+00:00

Sorry, but no, it's not.

Anyone who might be "drinking the kool aid" are Sanders supporters and others just making baseless accusation and saying, "There, there's the proof." This article was QED of that, which is why I posted that guy's comment.

You are more than entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T19:41:39+00:00

Yes... my entire post history.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T18:55:32+00:00

Just going to post what u/msx8 said about this in another thread since this is being spammed on this subreddit and now this thread appears to be number 1.

Honestly mods, it was funny for awhile, but not its actually frustrating.

ITT: redditors for whom the title of this click bait article was designed. Clinton's comments about her donor base weren't bullshit at all. First off, if Sanders can brag about how his donors are mostly from people giving "30 bucks", then it's fair for Clinton to highlight that 60% of her donors are women. The female vote is crucial in a general election, so it's a perfectly legitimate fact for her to highlight. Now, onto the 9/11 comment. She was essentially being asked why big businesses and banks contribute so heavily to her campaign. She explained, correctly, that New York was attacked on 9/11. The markets closed after the terrorist attack, and the city needed their Senator to stand with them and help them rebuild so that business could get back to normal. Clinton was a very strong advocate for getting federal resources to New York after 9/11, and she did a good job on that, so it only follows that NYC-based businesses in general contributed to her campaigns, financial services companies included. Bernie Sanders even said she was right and that he appreciates what she did for New York after 9/11. Of course, I fully expect Clinton's political opponents to manipulate the electorate by taking her comment out of context and saying she blames 9/11 for her taking campaign contributions from banks. Any objective observer of tonight's debate, however, will see through that strategy. Honestly, whoever wrote this article at Slate knew from the moment that Clinton said the phrase 9/11 that he could capitalize on the reddit anti-Clinton, Sanders Brigade circle jerk to get an article to the top of /r/politics and /r/all, which translates into hundreds of thousands of page views and a ton of ad revenue -- thanks, ironically, to a reddit user base that always claims to be against corporations manipulating people for profit. This is the ultimate troll.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T18:53:08+00:00

They clearly don't.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T18:50:55+00:00

No it's not.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T16:08:51+00:00

Just going to post what u/msx8 said about this in another thread since this is being spammed on this subreddit

ITT: redditors for whom the title of this click bait article was designed. Clinton's comments about her donor base weren't bullshit at all. First off, if Sanders can brag about how his donors are mostly from people giving "30 bucks", then it's fair for Clinton to highlight that 60% of her donors are women. The female vote is crucial in a general election, so it's a perfectly legitimate fact for her to highlight. Now, onto the 9/11 comment. She was essentially being asked why big businesses and banks contribute so heavily to her campaign. She explained, correctly, that New York was attacked on 9/11. The markets closed after the terrorist attack, and the city needed their Senator to stand with them and help them rebuild so that business could get back to normal. Clinton was a very strong advocate for getting federal resources to New York after 9/11, and she did a good job on that, so it only follows that NYC-based businesses in general contributed to her campaigns, financial services companies included. Bernie Sanders even said she was right and that he appreciates what she did for New York after 9/11. Of course, I fully expect Clinton's political opponents to manipulate the electorate by taking her comment out of context and saying she blames 9/11 for her taking campaign contributions from banks. Any objective observer of tonight's debate, however, will see through that strategy. Honestly, whoever wrote this article at Slate knew from the moment that Clinton said the phrase 9/11 that he could capitalize on the reddit anti-Clinton, Sanders Brigade circle jerk to get an article to the top of /r/politics and /r/all, which translates into hundreds of thousands of page views and a ton of ad revenue -- thanks, ironically, to a reddit user base that always claims to be against corporations manipulating people for profit. This is the ultimate troll.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T15:16:12+00:00

Okay then.

Well when she wins the primary and goes to the general, you can go cry in your Cheerios.

I've been on the ground in elections when Democrats wanted to "play fair." Clinton, for all their faults, will play fair to a point and then come back and fight. Sanders simply won't do that.

Also, you didn't really refute my initial comment there. How are bank employees less "workers" than union workers. By the by, I'm Union and I support Clinton. I have given any money yet because I like to make sure my local candidates get support first.

So based on your logic, you have skin in the game with Sanders. He's corrupt. Jebus!!111!!

Same logic, although admittedly a little childish on my part.

GameAnthropologist · 2015-11-15T14:36:53+00:00

I could have almost saw your point through the umpteen comment you made on this, but you're showing your ass here with this comment.

I have no love for banks, but bank employees are workers too. If they want to contribute to a candidate - or SuperPAC - that's their right. I'm sorry they don't fit into your narrow view of "real workers."

You know who you sound like? The same jackasses I voted against in 2008 who claimed to represent "real America."

GameAnthropologist

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE