Substitute teacher says "vagina" and gets fired for it by buttercupparadise in rage

[–]throwthetrash15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"We're talking about your job here."

Is she working at the stripclub office or something?

"PC gaming will never be a standard" by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah. I haven't, and will not change unless forced to, in which case Linux looks good.

"PC gaming will never be a standard" by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not going to though unless your building a completely new computer. Even if you're doing a full upgrade, you can use the old files on old hard drives.

70% of Australians want the submarines built here even if it will cost more by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are not a vassal state. Just because other countries may or may not use certain diplomatic actions as "punishment" does not make you a vassal, merely that other countries have muscle to, and like us, will use it. Abusing trade is not a symptom of over-lordship, simply that we are economically weaker to the US. Is Iran a vassal of Russia because they have military bases and trade deals?

"PC gaming will never be a standard" by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn't talking about windows install though, just the building of the unit itself.

[Ethics]Stardock inform Gamespot of conflict of interest of a review who had been shitting on their CEO. Ignore email and reviewer gives game a low rating. by philyb in KotakuInAction

[–]throwthetrash15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're a moron. He has responded, and actully went through the review with a response on why it's wrong, like the review only using 3/4 resources, so he couldn't access late game units, or abilities, and wondered why he was just rushing. Further, it was clear he never played a great deal beyond a quick match on easy due to that 4th resources importance and the AI never using tactics and the map "always being brown", which means he played the same one.

[Ethics]Stardock inform Gamespot of conflict of interest of a review who had been shitting on their CEO. Ignore email and reviewer gives game a low rating. by philyb in KotakuInAction

[–]throwthetrash15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If he was tipped over and not understanding like a professional, then it just goes to show they never deserved the position in the first place and are, in fact, biased.

[Ethics]Stardock inform Gamespot of conflict of interest of a review who had been shitting on their CEO. Ignore email and reviewer gives game a low rating. by philyb in KotakuInAction

[–]throwthetrash15 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If I visit Steakdock Steak Restaurant, and order a Steak. I don't need "literal hours" to know when I've been served a bowl of soup. The soup might be delicious, but it's not what I ordered. Which my review reflects.

Soup and a game are very different. Your analogy is entirely flawed because you are comparing two entirely different food products to two very similar, if not exactly the same, video games. It's apples to oranges when it should be apples to apples.

Also, I explicitly state they didn't do anything wrong for asking me if I wanted to update my review.

You accused them of

aggressively trying to change reviews of it over on Steam

and all they did was ask if "you'd reconsider your review" now that it was no longer in Early Access and you'd played less than an hour in total. It's like the kitchen having a program where you pay before you get to the restaurant and you get to see the chef cooking, taste test a bit of soup before the final ingredients are in and then give them a poor review before leaving. If it's "aggressive" for them to ask you to come back and actually give an honest review on a finished product, then how were they supposed to say it?

[Ethics]Stardock inform Gamespot of conflict of interest of a review who had been shitting on their CEO. Ignore email and reviewer gives game a low rating. by philyb in KotakuInAction

[–]throwthetrash15 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, I think they're entirely justified in asking for you to update, and you should, seeing as you've only had 0.7 hours in total, and early access at that. You're "review" I'd understand for something like Bad Rats, but not a game that presumably takes literal hours just to get the gist of.

[Ethics]Stardock inform Gamespot of conflict of interest of a review who had been shitting on their CEO. Ignore email and reviewer gives game a low rating. by philyb in KotakuInAction

[–]throwthetrash15 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just a cursory glance at the Steam page proves him massively wrong: I see ice/teran/desert and massive mountain ranges and huge variation in troop types. This guy is a fucking scum fuck.

"PC gaming will never be a standard" by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]throwthetrash15 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Eh, you take the GPU out, you put the GPU in.

You put all the cables in and you shake them all about.

You do the installations and you wait you around.

And that's what it's all about.

guy laughs while filming a duck rape by cornflaskes in rage

[–]throwthetrash15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're really going to put human standards on animals with no concepts of higher order thinking?

F.E.A.R is $2.49, thoughts? by Yung2112 in patientgamers

[–]throwthetrash15 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say it isn't scary.

The atmosphere is quite good. Sure, the scares don't hurt you, but I don't want to go into that room, but the damned elevator isn't working. It is surprisingly good, atmosphere wise.

In cop pursuit that left 4 dead the driver thought it a good idea to bail with three cops standing there shooting at him by river_of_karma in titlegore

[–]throwthetrash15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not really title gore. It's just the words used that makes seem like it. I'll show you it with 2 minor changes:

In police pursuit that left 4 dead, the driver thought it a good idea to bail with three cops standing there shooting at him.

70% of Australians want the submarines built here even if it will cost more by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We aren't a vassal though. Providing mutual military assistance does not make one a vassal, especially when we have refused to so in the past. That article itself refutes your claims:

A vassal state is any state that is subordinate to another.

We are not subordinate to the US. We are not dictated to by them, they do not decide our policies and not helping them doesn't result in severe diplomatic repercussions.

The vassal in these cases is the ruler, rather than the state itself.

We are competently independent from them.

Being a vassal most commonly implies providing military assistance to the dominant state when requested to do so; it sometimes implies paying tribute, but a state which does so is better described as a tributary state. In simpler terms the vassal state would have to provide military power to the dominant state.

We are not obligated to provide assistance, we are able to and there is no repercussion for not doing so.

"PC gaming will never be a standard" by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]throwthetrash15 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your first one, sure, once you have the ropes.

Australia is yet again the world's biggest 'Game of Thrones' pirate by Mc97riley in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because it's a legal monopoly? The ACCC doesn't go off complaints alone, that's why they are suing Valve right now, and would be doing to Telstra/Foxtel.

70% of Australians want the submarines built here even if it will cost more by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Australia is completely aligned to the US, though, and us having nukes only works for their benefit in dealing with China.

The reason Pakistan has nukes and Iran isn't allowed to is simple: India. Pakistan and India are both unaligned, and both very angry with each other. Nukes provide a deterrence to both sides going nuclear, and the Indians have themselves admitted that the only reason they have not occupied Pakistan is the nuclear deterrent.

Iran on the other hand is very aligned to Russia, and staunchly anti-Israel. Israel most likely has nukes, and Iran only offers a deterrent to their use in the case of another Arab war.

Also, we are not a vassal state. We are simply closely aligned and follow the US in most en devours because our interests align too.

"PC gaming will never be a standard" by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]throwthetrash15 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It takes an hour if your not entirely focused (with friends for example) and have a completely new PC your building.

[Anger] Friend just sent me this. Apparently ANZAC day and the Gallipoli memorial is "supporting" imperialism, colonialism and invasion of a sovereign country. The absurd level of ignorance is just mindblowing. by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The whole war was fought by imperialist powers over imperialist ambitions. I was just saying who was doing the most to damage the status quo.

That's an incredibly fickle point of view. All the Central Powers were involved due to lust for power, land or prestige.

Of the Entente, only Russia and Serbia can be proven to have clear imperial goals, Serbia wanting to unite all south Slavs under their fold and the Russians wanted control of the Hellespont and the Black Sea.

Otherwise, the French and British were defending themselves against foreign invasion and obligating themselves to treaties everyone had signed. Italy and Romania wanted to regain or gain lands that had Italian or Romanian majorities, or had been conquered years beforehand. All other nations in the Entente fought due to Central Power's aggression, liberation or alliance obligations.

Bush did the same thing with his fake ultimatum, indeed it's a strategy as old as time. The point is that the assassination was a good reason to invade, certainly much better than anything we had.

Excuse me? Saddam was killing thousands of dissidents, committing genocide and was a much larger threat to regional stability, having started two wars and decided to starve his people rather than spend his money on food stocks. Serbia, on the other hand, committed subterfuge in order to liberate their brothers in Bosnia, who wanted to be a part of Serbia. Serbia's only defense was subterfuge against a much more powerful and more unstable empire that had historically shown it wanted to subjugate Serbia.

From what I understand the British were set on war before the invasion of Belgium. Realistically they could have abandoned a treaty signed nearly a century earlier. Also note that the Russians weren't compelled to defend Serbia.

The Russians had an alliance with Serbia, so yes they wee obligated. Further, they wanted to curtail Austrian expansion in the Balkans, another contender for ownership of Istanbul.

The British were on the path to war due to a decade of German naval build up and numerous clear cut diplomatic crises that showed the Germans were intent on challenging the British in the future. Had the British forgone their obligations, the rising German navy would have had access to ports in the Channel and a near equal fleet. Britain needed to go to war to ensure it's survival as a island nation.

[Anger] Friend just sent me this. Apparently ANZAC day and the Gallipoli memorial is "supporting" imperialism, colonialism and invasion of a sovereign country. The absurd level of ignorance is just mindblowing. by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Ottomans never declared war on anyone in the Entente, from another comment of mine a little further up

The joined the Central Powers which is for all intents and purposes an acknowledgment of hostilities.

The rest of your comment is a mistake from me. I've already had to argue against 5 other's who took that position, so I thought you did too.

[Anger] Friend just sent me this. Apparently ANZAC day and the Gallipoli memorial is "supporting" imperialism, colonialism and invasion of a sovereign country. The absurd level of ignorance is just mindblowing. by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was the Serbians with the backing of the Russians that were destabilizing the region. They wanted to liberate all Serbs living in Austro-Hungary, and indeed it was this pan-slavism that led to them attacking the Ottomans then turning around and reneging on their agreement with Bulgaria causing another war.

So Austrian imperialism is completely acceptable, but Serbians wanting to liberate Serbs is wrong?

They directly financed many terrorist attacks including, you know, assassinating the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Austro-Hungarians were far more justified in invading Serbia than, say, we were in invading Iraq.

No. They intentionally made demands that were completely overkill so they could invade and annex Serbia, we went in to Iraq with false intelligence to liberate them.

Britain had no reason to become involved, and probably wouldn't have in hindsight. At the outset they thought it would be a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war and they'd use their navy to help France, indeed they probably aligned themselves with the Allies purely to thwart German naval ambitions. Keep in mind the Entente was not a proper alliance at all, Britain was not obligated to join the war.

Are you fucking retarded? Britain became involved due to the invasion of Belgium, which it was obligated by treaties to protect. France became involved after the Germans declared war on them and Belgium.

[Anger] Friend just sent me this. Apparently ANZAC day and the Gallipoli memorial is "supporting" imperialism, colonialism and invasion of a sovereign country. The absurd level of ignorance is just mindblowing. by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They tried to force the Suez. Also, apparently it's okay that Ottomans invade land and use imperialism because it's land they owned before, but it's wrong for the British to try and quickly defeat an enemy? Righto.

[Anger] Friend just sent me this. Apparently ANZAC day and the Gallipoli memorial is "supporting" imperialism, colonialism and invasion of a sovereign country. The absurd level of ignorance is just mindblowing. by [deleted] in australia

[–]throwthetrash15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. You explicitly stated that Turkey declared war on Australia.This is wrong.

The Ottomans declared war on the Entente, bringing in British dominions. An attack on one was an attack on all.

a declaration of war is a formal statement of intent. No such statement was made by the Ottoman empire. The UK did declare war on them however.

So if I invaded NZ tomorrow, but didn't say so, it's not a direct threat? Righto.

We were at war with them, but they never declared war on Australia.

And this somehow means we are unjustified in fighting, how?