>> ^UsesProzac:

Huh, I was a single girl on WoW and then I was a taken girl on WoW. Never experienced any of that except for perhaps a little unwanted attention both when single and not. Most of the time gender didn't even come up. There were sometimes jokes about making sandwiches and the like over vent during raids, but that wasn't the drama that usually happened. "Don't stand in fire you fucking idiot." <- That was.
It all depends on the person. It hurts me to see you make sweeping generalities like that.
I met my partner on WoW and now we have a child. I was a troll rogue and then I was a troll priest, just in case anyone was wondering. I didn't do much in the way of alts, spent way too much time on my main, which was the priest. Good luck finding a constant spot in a raid as a melee dps.
I used to raid five days a week and arena the other two. Oh, WoW. I'm glad I have a life outside of it, now!
>> ^Porksandwich:
My experience with women who play WoW, purely from in-game. Most of them pretend to be men, you will rarely find out they are female until you hear their voice and they can't pull off the teen boy. These are usually single and have been creeped on in the past so they don't want cyber stalkers.
OR
They proudly declare they are a woman, but they also happen to be married or at least near-married. They won't inform people of this until it gets weird. Seen it happen many times in guilds where there's a woman whose overly flirty with other members and they think she likes them "in that way" only to find out that after they've helped her do a bunch of a shit..she's married and doesn't appreciate blah blah. Then the guild falls apart because people take sides.
Hell in one guild, a girl pretending to be guy was like dating one of the married men in the guild who was married to one of the women who was flirting around and getting "unwanted" attention after she got what she wanted from people.
I gave up on guilds after this one, because I would rather not be mid-raid and have drama break out over vent/ts due to this stuff. Enough other crap happens with people competing for loot/high scores/etc.



Not meant to be generalities, they are the experiences I had with the game. I think there were 4 women in the guild that I knew of. Could have been more, but I only knew the raiders or longer term members.

One was married to the guild leader, she used to ask for help to complete things and keep us waiting a good hour or two before she showed up. I didn't like her simply because she tried to treat the guild as her errand runners asking for help and having us wait so she could keep constantly busy. She got involved with a guy in the guild (not her husband) and that kicked off some events.

Next was young, and took a lot of the "sandwich" stuff you are talking about. She got involved with the married guild leader, that kicked off another bunch of stuff....probably 10-15 years difference. This is the husband of the one above....they had kids together and it basically split the guild right down the middle. The young girl involved with him had other admirers and tried to play a guy for the longest time only talking during certain raids. She was called all sorts of names once it came to light that she was dating the husband....no one really mentioned the wife doing the same thing. There was one guy she led on for a long time, they were friends and he thought it was more until he found out she was after the married guy. That started another ripple of problems...she left the guild for awhile to try to get him back as a friend, etc. As much stuff happened involving her, I think she did a lot of intentionally or was younger than she claimed. I generally liked her, but I had to wonder with as much stuff that cropped up around her as to what was going on there.

Another "involved" woman, who was either newly married or soon to be married to another guy in the guild was involved with the guy who was involved with the wife of the guild leader...the first woman I mentioned. That guy told me she was sending him pictures, and then she lost it when she found out he was involved with the other woman. Her husband/soon-to-be never suspected afaik. She was nice enough, but I was friends with her husband and I couldn't stand to hang around him anymore knowing all of this and him being in the dark.

Fourth woman was friends with a couple younger guys in the guild. Who used their vault access to steal a bunch of stuff from the vault and switch servers during a free move. She switched with them once it came to light they had stolen. Then renamed herself and came back, trying to hide her identity. She also tried to hide that she was female to the majority of the guild for a long time as well....she'd type most of her replies. Rarely spoke unless it was a tougher raid. I don't know if she had unwanted attention, or just made like she had unwanted attention from a few...because she moved with the guys she complained about on that free server move. The switch and hiding her identity was probably the worst of it involving her, and really she hadn't done anything wrong that anyone could see but she looked guilty as hell doing what she did. Then she defended those guy's actions who stole tabs and tabs of stuff from the vault before they left.

And yeah they all probably stick out because it was a lot of hub-bub involving them, and all the guys and gals involved were all culpable for their actions. But it was one guild that had more than 1 married woman in it and it failed spectacularly... Other guys in the guild would come hang out with me or solo play instead of doing guild stuff because it was toxic to be around most people in the guild with how everyone was supporting one or the other in just overall poor choices and questionable actions.

I am not saying all women in games are like this, but with this one experience with it made me want to stick to non-voice stuff so I couldn't identify the sex of anyone involved. And yeah I'd like to find a female who games.......but I'd actually like to continue enjoying games heh.

@dannym3141 Yeah, I had an account there after BC. I played in WoW beta and had my fill of the game in it's state then...so didn't sub up till first expansion. Someone offered me 150-250 and I laughed at him, I had a decently equipped max level druid, but I also had a bunch of level 40 something guys on the account plus a whole lot of money and a small personal guild I used to vault stuff. I told him I'd want 500 bucks offered before I'd even think about it, because while I could recreate the character the rest of the stuff would have taken me a long long time to redo. It's sitting around idle for however many years now...4 maybe 5.

But still doesn't change my opinion on account and gold selling ruining the games...gold screws with the markets where people with bots playing 24 hours a day are driving prices up creating the need to buy gold if you don't want to grind continuously. And sold accounts make it so they never have to solve the boring levels...like I thought 1-25 were crazy boring and around 40 it got really slow, but max level was fun until you played everything to death and 20-40 were fun due to the skills and maps becoming available.

No idea what the game is like now given they revamped everything with cataclysm....sometimes I'm curious to find out..then I remember how pissed I was with WoW toward the end of my time there...doubt I'd even get 2 weeks out of it before I was pissed again.

Everquest was a whole other beast, it was really cool because it was mysterious. But I know if I had the option to play it now for free I wouldn't, I tried to go back after they released more expansions and found it too confusing/cumbersome after WoW interface and stuff. Plus I really disliked EQs alternate advancement system, it was like leveling your character over again and gaining very abysmal gains for your efforts......would have rather they added multiclassing or something instead of that.

"Just me and Tucker hanging out with some 'bees, showin of fo the ladies. PEEIZ!"
>> ^Yogi:

Are parents who name their kid "Brodie" not expecting a douchenozzle?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'erin stack, hate, alcohol, pole vaulting' to 'erin stack, hate, alcohol, pole vaulting, jon lajoie' - edited by Trancecoach

Black and white, baby, black and white all the way!


>> ^spoco2:

>> ^bareboards2:
The one where the grumpy misanthrope never has time enough to read. His wife keeps bugged him? He is in a vault when the nuclear holocaust happens. He gathers books around him, sits down to read and promptly breaks his glasses. Episode ended with him howling into the sky.
Burgess Meredith with coke bottom glasses.

Was a great episode... although not in the 80s series, but the original.

>> ^bareboards2:

The one where the grumpy misanthrope never has time enough to read. His wife keeps bugged him? He is in a vault when the nuclear holocaust happens. He gathers books around him, sits down to read and promptly breaks his glasses. Episode ended with him howling into the sky.
Burgess Meredith with coke bottom glasses.


Was a great episode... although not in the 80s series, but the original.

The one where the grumpy misanthrope never has time enough to read. His wife keeps bugged him? He is in a vault when the nuclear holocaust happens. He gathers books around him, sits down to read and promptly breaks his glasses. Episode ended with him howling into the sky.

Burgess Meredith with coke bottom glasses.

@NetRunner

I think the difference in our concept of what's going on is that my understanding is that commercial banks can make a reserve deposit at any Fed branch and then make loans against that. From what I can tell, there isn't any math done like you're describing. Maybe if you want to make a new bank or long ago when some of these banks were created there was math like that, but there isn't anymore. There is simply a minimum number required to have on reserve deposit or in vault cash compared to how much you have loaned out. This is all not to mention that there are types of deposits which have exceptions to the reserve requirement. That alone makes sure banks are loaning more than they have (if they want to take the increased risk).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#United_States

I mean, if putting $100 in a Fed reserve bank and loaning out $900 based on someone's promise to pay isn't creating money, I don't know what is. You don't have to start out with $1000 to make the $900 loan once you're already a commercial bank. That's the point. If you make money on some investment, you can make loans and collect interest against your increased profits. You don't have to have the money and then hold 10% back. (Glass-Steagall, anyone?)

Plus, the money that comes in as interest is money that never existed in the money supply before the loan was created. Someone else has to borrow money to pay you in order for you to be able to pay your interest. This is why growth is required to pay interest and avoid foreclosure and default. If the money supply does not increase and more people aren't promising to pay interest, other people won't be able to fulfill their promises to repay. That's why the system requires growth to function well.

Legal tender law and fiat currency make sure that everyone must participate in the system at some point, or your contracts won't be protected by the courts and you won't be able to pay your taxes, since both only deal in dollars.

>> ^NetRunner:
Well, prices are set by market forces. You know, supply and demand. It's not necessarily the case that the Fed expanding the monetary base will lead to inflation.

Again, look at the last few years. Bernanke expanded the monetary base radically, but inflation has stayed low, and is on a declining trend.

And price changes from an increased "supply" of currency is called inflation.

Bernanke expanded the monetary base of the US dollar (ie world reserve currency) and people all over the world are in the streets rioting over the increased cost of living. PPI in the US has gone up 7.2% the last 12 months. And if you're referring to QE, most of that money is either parked at a bank or was used to buy toxic debt (to counter deflation). But when those TRILLIONS do reach the marketplace, inflation will be realized. That's why precious metal prices have blown up. The US dollar has lost 98% of it's purchasing power against gold the last 40 years.
>> ^NetRunner:
Oy. Okay, so here's how a bank works. People like you and me have some money. The bank offers to "hold" that money for us in an account, and at least used to pay us some small amount of interest on that money as incentive for us to keep our money with them.

But the bank doesn't just take our money and stick it in some vault for safekeeping, they lend that money out to other people, at a higher rate of interest than they offered us.

Problem is, we're allowed to withdraw our money from the bank whenever we want, so the bank has to keep some cash on hand (aka in reserve). However it will only keep a fraction of the total deposits in reserve, because otherwise it wouldn't be able to loan out money. That's what fractional reserve banking means.

That's what one would presume fractional reserve banking means, but it's not.




>> ^NetRunner:
I agree. Provided by "our system" you mean laissez-faire capitalism.

The banks take our savings and gamble them on risky, potentially profitable investments. That's sorta key to the functioning of capitalism though. Without that, the whole system crashes almost instantly.
LOL. The state stepping in to reward and cover up fraud is not laissez-faire capitalism. I don't get it. You defend the system, then you try to shift blame on free market capitalism?

>> ^NetRunner:
Artificially. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Prices are set by market forces, and according to free market advocates this is perfect/moral/only way they can or could ever be set, or else we'll go to hell be socialists.

There are plenty of unnatural "market forces" in our current system. Even inflation itself. Hence, prices are artificially set.


>> ^NetRunner:
Different economic models hypothesize different answers. I tend to think the Keynesian story is right -- it's aggregate supply and aggregate demand. When you have a shift in either one that would lead to a higher equilibrium price, then you see "aggregate price" (aka the CPI) rise.
Which is to say, you can get both inflation and deflation without the Fed doing anything. To stabilize inflation, you actually need the Fed constantly adjusting the monetary base so neither inflation or deflation get out of kilter. Look at pre-1913 interest rates if you don't believe me.

John Maynard Keynes on inflation: "By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft."

What you're talking about makes no sense. Prices in a market with sound money still go up and down. That's the way a market works. Calling it inflation and deflation doesn't make it so.

>> ^NetRunner:
I agree, if by "the ones that...extract value from that actually worked and earned their wealth" you mean any and all business owners, investors, and so on who have done nothing but collect interest on wealth they already own.

Maybe before you start going after people who are collecting interest on the wealth they presumably earned honestly, you will stop defending those who collect interest on money they created from nothing. Deal?

>> ^marbles:

So... where does this increase in price level (i.e. inflation) come from...? Oh yeah, from expanding (or inflating) the fiat monetary base!

Well, prices are set by market forces. You know, supply and demand. It's not necessarily the case that the Fed expanding the monetary base will lead to inflation.

Again, look at the last few years. Bernanke expanded the monetary base radically, but inflation has stayed low, and is on a declining trend.

>> ^marbles:
>> ^NetRunner:
Also, "Without a system built on fractional reserve" means a world without banks.

LOL Says who? It may be a world without corrupt banks. If you or I can't loan money we don't have, why should a bank be able to?

Oy. Okay, so here's how a bank works. People like you and me have some money. The bank offers to "hold" that money for us in an account, and at least used to pay us some small amount of interest on that money as incentive for us to keep our money with them.

But the bank doesn't just take our money and stick it in some vault for safekeeping, they lend that money out to other people, at a higher rate of interest than they offered us.

Problem is, we're allowed to withdraw our money from the bank whenever we want, so the bank has to keep some cash on hand (aka in reserve). However it will only keep a fraction of the total deposits in reserve, because otherwise it wouldn't be able to loan out money. That's what fractional reserve banking means.

>> ^marbles:
Meanwhile, our system uses the power of the state to reward fraud and gambling of the largest banks and biggest corporations while extracting wealth from the poor and middle-class.


I agree. Provided by "our system" you mean laissez-faire capitalism.

The banks take our savings and gamble them on risky, potentially profitable investments. That's sorta key to the functioning of capitalism though. Without that, the whole system crashes almost instantly.

Well, I'm honored to be in the running.

And it's not for nothing that a long and versatile tongue is not simply a function of wit and sarcasm, but its very shape and form has, indeed, been associated with enlightenment, with Buddhahood, as is cultivated through yoga, tantra, and other forms of kundalini meditation.. and evidenced by glossalalia, "speaking in tongues," quali, "Song of Solomon kisses like wine," etc. etc...

Even the fetal development of the oral cavity is due, in part, to the secretion of sweet-tasting muco-polysaccharides from the “heavenly” cranial vault in the newly forming roof of the fetal mouth.. known for millenia within Hindu traditions, and only recently suggested by scientific research.

A colleague of mine states that the physiological basis of spiritual experience -- the body's "natural LSD-Ecstasy" with no side effects, only natural maturities -- constitutes a long tongue and versatile tongue.

On second thought, Bill Gates probably would be able to still buy a new Rembrandt even if his taxes were raised (even if they were raised a LOT). And that's the point of this whole argument. Even if you raise taxes on the rich they wouldn't do without anything save for a Scrooge McDuck style money swimming pool/vault.

It's a crime that higher taxes on the rich are not being imposed when everyone else is a bit of bad luck away from huddling around a trash can fire for warmth and they are living lives of excess thanks to laws influenced by the lobbyists they hired with their disgusting wealth.

Diamonds are only precious because debeers keeps them locked up in a vault and controls the supply of them. This increases the value of them so that they can make more cashola. They are actually very common. Emeralds on the other hand are much more rare and beautiful.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'firemen, firefighters, competition, drills, ladder, pole vault' to 'firemans, firemen, firefighters, competition, drills, ladder, pole vault' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fireman, competition, drills, ladder, pole vault' to 'firemen, firefighters, competition, drills, ladder, pole vault' - edited by calvados