The Musings Of The Consensus

Call me one sad little autist, but learning history is my thing. Most people would be content curling up with a good novel at night, you could hand me a good history book and I'd get the same benefit from it. And that's when I discovered this: Oversimplified is a video series done by a guy who promotes historically based games, but in exchange for some openly admitted plugs for these titles, done for the obvious purposes of covering costs for his channel, you do learn some actual history, only in a such a way that if fought sleep in IRL history classes, you won't watching this. For starters, this guy makes it all very plain English, with helpful illustrations and humor to make the learning portion less boring. Second, you get the condensed, relevant facts. No long, boring explanations, this stuff was made for people with attention spans of a gnat. Finally, you get the two in one deal of some decent games getting pitched to you as good ideas to buy them, and so

I'm writing this to make perfectly clear, in case there is ambiguity, my stance on how much I can take before I don't want to put up with nastiness. First off, just want to get out there I'm a stolid defender of free speech, and simply being offensive, even to the point of being an asshole, is not a crime, and while I might have to restrain the urge to hit someone for being this to me, I will defend their right to be that way. However, and I'll cover this in more detail as I go on, there is a point when I no longer consider it justified as far as my personal limits go. In real life, civility is a rule in every place that observes civilized behavoir. I expect it, and I expect it to be returned. Common sense, but I admit it annoys me when people act like this isn't true when it otherwise is. Granted, life is not ideal, and I'm not blind to the fact rules alone do not make human nature bow to reason, but in the real world, such incivility usually has social

It's been a very long time since I wrote a post where I just have to vent, but event of recent days have made me feel it would be better to make a blog post about it so I can get this out. Given the rage is about a party I know for a fact has read my blog, I will be deliberately vague with details in many cases because the party in question I simply want to wash my hands and it is my solemn hope they never trouble me in any way whatsoever, so in the event they are reading this, I want it made known I discourage in the strongest possible terms anyone doing to them as they have done to me, their evil actions should not be repaid with more evil, and I will not be party to doing so. Anyway, here's goes: Recently, I had to draw a very direct line in the sand with a certain party who has both seniority and certain privileges that exceed mine at a place I frequent. The line in question was to demand they cease any attempt to have anything to do with me whatsoever except in any

I recently re-read some of Thomas Harris' works, and I've come to understand his titular sociopath's curious morality, which Anthony Hopkins did well to reproduce in the movie versions of the books, at least those parts faihtful to the books. I cannot speak as to the TV series version where Hannibal is portrayed by Mads Mikkelson, so this merely addresses the original version Harris wrote. Lecter is a complex man with seemingly inscrutable qualifications for whom he considers worthy of respect, what he considers "rude", and when he will kill someone, but after analyzing the books carefully, it's obvious how to boil it down to make it simple for everyone to understand. 1. Lecter's hatred of rudeness follows a curiously logical progression. While he can tolerate rudeness if professional responsibility absolutely requires it (he accepts Jack Crawford's refusal to appeal to his ego as wise even though he obviously enjoys having an ego stroking, an