Originally, in this post, I explained a small modification to the known AC system used in D&D up to advanced second edition. My goal was to reintroduce something that was lost when the game migrated from wargaming to RPG, but then, as a final afterthought, I made some calculations and discovered that, well, my changes made little (although not insignificant) difference. Preceding a post with a disclaimer like “what you are going to read may not be as useful as it seems” is probably not the best hook, but I still believe there are a few interesting bits here and I may also have unwillingly solved an ancient argument about AC vs. damage reduction that sometimes still rises from its grave (spoiler: there is surprisingly little difference in the long run unless you make a completely different system from scratch.) Besides, I’m a believer in the idea of publishing negative results, even if they are not as eye-catching as positive ones.
Recently, an unknown member of the appropriately named Crash Override Network group (yes, CON), leaked their chat logs (they are redacted for personal information, phones numbers, and such things.) Being a respected and serious group dedicated to fighting harassment and online abuse, one would expect their chat logs being full of open discussions about their daily work, the people they are helping, the costs of their programs, their setbacks and daily issues, and occasional ramblings into unrelated subjects (we are all human, after all.) Yeah, well, I guess so:
[23/12/2014, 1:02:36 PM] Randi Harper: feeding men their own dicks in arenas after i rip them off
Edit: You can read the original leak and the context of those quotes here.
(And there are more)
1.Western countries are more permissive towards Islam than many Islamic countries.
You’ll probably find more burka-wearing women and anti-semitic preachers in London than in Algiers. Why? Because we allow it. Islamic countries know that Islam is a powerful thing, dangerous even, so they keep a watchful eye on it. The
“Arab Spring” “Islamic Winter” has changed some things, but the standard tactic was to allow only their preferred government-sanctioned Islam, and if it got TOO dangerous or cocky, they suppressed its worse elements. It’s simply too dangerous to let them roam free.
“Se produjeron muchos horrores en las ciudades durante la guerra civil, horrores que se dan y se darán siempre mientras sea la misma la naturaleza humana, más violentos o atenuados y diferentes de aspecto según la modificación de las circunstancias que se dé en cada caso, ya que en la paz y yendo bien las cosas, tanto ciudades como individuos tienen mayor discernimiento por no estar sometidos al apremio de la necesidad; pero la guerra, al suprimir el bienestar cotidiano, resulta ser un maestro de violencia y acomoda a las circunstancias los sentimientos de la mayoría.
From the MailOnline
“A Muslim convert who protested outside Parliament with a sign saying ‘I am Muslim, do you trust me enough for a hug?’ is facing jail for threatening to bomb an MP’s house.
Craig Wallace used the sign as Stop The War protesters came to Westminster for the vote on military action in Syria last week.
It stated: ‘I am Muslim, I am labelled a terrorist, I trust you, do you trust me enough for a hug?’
But the 23-year-old, of Willesden Green, north London, is now facing a possible prison sentence after he threatened Tory MP Charlotte Leslie online following the vote.
Wallace, who calls himself Muhammad Mujahid Islam online, wrote on Facebook: ‘I’m going to smash her windows then drop a bomb on her house while she’s tucked up in bed. You dirty f****** pig-s******* s***.’
On December 3, the day after MPs voted to authorise the airstrikes, he wrote: ‘I’m going to find her and show her what it’s like to murder innocents. You dirty pig-f****** w****.’
He also described shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn as a ‘war criminal’ and a ‘terrorist’ the day after the Commons vote to bomb Syria.
His defence lawyer Abu Sayeed said Wallace had posted the messages after he had been out protesting against the Syrian bombing vote for ‘two or three days and had very little sleep and had not taken his medication.’…”
Now that’s what I call an explosive personality. I’m not sure saying he is off his meds is a good defence, though.
Por el MailOnline
Un converso al Islam que protestaba delante del Parlamento con una señal que decía “Soy musulmán, ¿confías en mí lo suficiente para abrazarme?” se enfrenta a una pena de prisión por amenazar con una bomba la casa de un parlamentario.
Craig Wallace usó su cartel hace una semana cuado los manifestantes de “Stop The War” fueron a Westminster por la votación sobre la intervención militar en Siria.
Pero el hombre de 23 años, de Willesden Green, al Norte de Londres, se enfrenta ahora a una posible pena de prisión tras amenazar online a la parlamentaria Tory Charlotte Leslie después de la votación.
Wallace, que online se hace llamar Muhammad Muhajid Islam, escribió en Facebook: ‘Voy a romperle las ventanas y arrojar una bomba en su casa mientras está en su cama. Sucia j***** s***** ******* [Nota: insultos intraducibles e indescifrables, pero parecen tener su gracia]
El 3 de diciembre, el dia después de que los parlamentarios votaran para autorizar los ataques aéreos, escribió: “Voy a encontrarla y mostrarle qué es asesinar inocentes. Sucia, p*** f**** cerdos [Nota: ese sí se entiende, no sé por qué el DailyMail lo censura].
También describió a la secretaria de asuntos exteriores, Hilary Benn, como una ‘criminal de guerra’ y una ‘terrorista’ el día después de que los Comunes votaran bombardear Siria.
Su abogado defensor, Abu Sayeed, ha dicho que Wallace ha escrito esos mensajes después de haber estado protestando contra la votación sobre los bombardeos en Siria durante ‘dos o tres días y que ha dormido muy poco y no se ha tomado su medicación.'”
Eso es lo que yo llamo una personalidad explosiva. Aunque bueno, no estoy seguro de que decir que no se ha medicado durante varios días sea una excusa muy buena.
In Italy these professional condottiere evolved a scheme of warfare that practically eliminated bloodshed for a time. There were fights, yes -splendid, clashing, colorful affairs like vast tournaments- bu the contestants were covered in plate armor that prevented them from getting badly hurt, and the men they were fighting against -other professional like themselves- might well become their comrades-in-arms the day after the fight. […]
But when hand-guns began to be used, things were different. In 1439 the army in the pay of Bologna used hand-guns against a force in the pay of Venice, actually killing many of the Venetians’ knights. The Venetian army was so infuriated, it won the battle and rounded up the Bolognese army. Then the Venetians massacred the hand-gun men who had stooped so low as to use this ‘cruel and cowardly innovation, gunpowder.’ Why, they said, if this sort of thing were allowed to happen, war would become a positively dangerous business.
Source: Ewart Oakeshott, “A knight and his weapons” (1964), reprinted 2008, pag 103-104
I don’t know about what battle is he talking, but the next year (1440) the battle of Anghiari was fought, and only one man died… when he fell from his horse.