Mathew Steel

I am aware of this. I think I may have worded this line poorly: "It just means that in my spare time, I'd have less time training, and instead would be writing reports, updates, and essays on specific operations." I spoke to a member of the RAF sometime ago, who has the same role I would like. He receives the same training, however, in his time where he isn't busy, he's either: 1. Sent home, if he hasn't been called up for an operation yet, to continue with the journalism side of work OR 2. Continuing with the journalism side during "time off", like any journalist, he has deadlines, and as long as he finds time to complete his work, he joins the other soldiers in the other training sessions also Hopefully this cleared my point up somewhat :) I'd like to add, your way of thinking is great to me. There's so many people who have the "they don't deserve X because Y" mindset. My belief on the matter is similar to yours. Whilst in the UK we have no constitution, and our free speech laws aren't entirely the same, I have always valued the US' free speech regulations higher than ours. Heck, our Prime Minister is still trying to pass this data law that will allow her to gain the information of recent search histories or Internet activity of anyone she wants, simply by asking for it. Her reasons are unknown to me, but it puts free speech and privacy on a slippery slope, in my eyes.

Not sure I understand this part. Could you elaborate, please? :) My role in the RAF wouldn't be as a news reporter, just to clarify. I'd be with the other soldiers, having received basic training, helping out in the same way they would be. It just means that in my spare time, I'd have less time training, and instead would be writing reports, updates, and essays on specific operations. I'm not sure what the US Air Force is like, but with the RAF, it's not just focused on Air Combat. A lot of the work is helping out in natural disasters, evacuating towns and villages that have suffered due to floods etc. There's a chance I'd be called out to somewhere in the UK, or overseas. Which I'd be very much interested in. I want to do journalism as a profession. However, a lot of people I know struggle finding a career in journalism. My idea, is that the RAF would be a good start. It's interesting, and has a constant flow of things to report. It's only X amount of days per year, and in the meantime, I'd be sticking to social journalism. I've wanted to join the military in the past, but could never imagine myself joining at 18 and doing it until I retire. By following this line of work, I'll be able to fulfil my want to serve my country, and then still have a career outside of it. Of course, that's the dream, and it's a lot easier said than done, I'm not too naive to recognise that :P

Thank you for the input! I appreciate it. Like you said, the reason I'm anti-Islam (not Muslim), is because of specific teaching of the Quran. I understand fully that not all Muslims are terrorists, that would be a foolish comment. However, many are radical. I stand up to it because it poses a threat to us. I plan on joining the RAF as a war-journalist during my time in University. I've been mocked for that, and been told that I'll just spurt out racist drivel. Yet, why is it racist to report on the state of another culture? It is factual that Islam sees women as less important. A woman's word is worth half of a man's in some cases of Sharia Law. Am I racist for pointing that out? Of course not, the idea of that being racism has zero merit whatsoever. Obviously, I am not American, but you served your country. You've experienced things the majority of your country haven't. Seen, heard, even had first-hand contact, with different scenarios and people. People can argue all they want about who is right and who is wrong, but at the end of the day, context matters. As Becker says, it depends on the situation, who is present, and how they react. That's how right or wrong is determined.? For me to be labelled racist, despite me defending people of other races on multiple occasions, is ridiculous.? The issue there is that the majority of the UK share similar beliefs to my teacher. Not to be political, but the education system is a place filled with left-wings, and that's fine, however, it does mean that when it comes to religion, many of the people in power in education will turn to defending it no matter what. You can have as many facts as you want, and you'd still be given a slap on the wrist and told to change your values. I don't often speak up to teachers because of this. It's not a big deal, I can carry on with my life fine, but it does becoming aggravating. EDIT: I feel like I rambled a lot here, but I hope it made enough sense.

I don't mean for this to get political, as the topic itself is irrelevant. Allow me to give the backstory. Today, I was called racist and a white supremacist today by my Religious Education teacher. I don't study the subject, however, she was in the class as we were working. The argument started when a friend of mine shouted out, jokingly, "Tom hates Islam". The teacher, who admitted herself she's read "some" of the Quran, proceeds to tell me how it's peaceful etc etc. She then manipulated my sentences. I said, "Most terrorists are Muslim", she replies, "You think all Muslims are terrorists?" She then says, "Statistics show...", when I asked for these statistics, she couldn't provide them, and so resorted to calling me a racist and a white supremacist. My issue here is not the name-calling. Words don't offend me, and she could say much worse without me giving an ounce of care. I also don't feel the need to report her for it. It would be hypocritical, and probably would end up leading to nothing. What really bothers me, is her misusing these terms. There are many words like these that are misused daily in political debate. I've devised a small list of definitions, and I ask for you all to remember them, and correct people for misusing them.? Racism -?prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. NOT - criticising a religion or belief. Bigot - a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. NOT - disagreeing with someone. Fascism -?an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. NOT - when someone disagrees with you. Jokes aside. Please, when you're debating with someone on any topic. No matter what your beliefs or stances are, do not be intolerant. Listen, and disagree respectfully. Don't resort to name-calling, even if it's applicable to the person in conversation. Finally, and I can't stress this enough, do research, and remember statistics and facts before trying to argue your point. Even if you've read something before, it's no use if you don't remember it to use in debate, and your "opponent" will think you're uninformed on the matter. Thank you, all.

Will be sure to do so!

No worries, as I said, I just ignored that bit. It's difficult to convey your tone through text. I just assumed it wasn't meant to seem passive-aggressive :P?

This is a personal opinion on the "Last Edited" notice seen by edited posts. To me, it blends too well with the normal font used, as well as the size and positioning. I quickly made my own edit to the notice in Photoshop, and wanted to see what the majority think.? https://ibb.co/mtyuxk I did try to embed the image, however, it didn't seem to want to work. The font used is TW Cent MT in Italic. The font size is 13, and it uses the same colour as the rest of the text. I've also moved it a bit further down below the post, as you can see in the image. It's not a huge deal, but for me at least, it's a little easier on the eyes. Let me know what you all think! :)

If I'm correct, I believe that's called an integer underflow. A similar thing would happen in the older Civilization games when Ghandi became too passive. It started on 1, and since nobody put a line of code there to ensure it wouldn't drop below zero, (since negative numbers can't be stored on certain binary integers), it would lap over to the highest, which was an aggression of 10 (or 15, I don't remember properly), he'd then start declaring war on everyone. Meant to add, you can store negative numbers on a signed integer, that can handle negative numbers, but that's not important here! I've never really noticed this issue, although, never have I tried to have such terrible popularity :P

I've experienced it once in the last 2 months. However, that may be due to some site maintenance reason? Other than that, I haven't had any issues recently!

I'll just ignore that impatient "Look" comment. I read the question just fine. If I knew of a mod (and I did search for you) I'd have given you the link. As Chris and Eagle pointed out as well, it was disabled along with the online servers.? In order for a game to be able to enable offline LAN, the LAN function STILL needs to be in the game's .exe. Chris pointed out this was no longer the case with Stronghold 2, and therefore, that would probably explain the reason for there being no mods.

As I can recall, the LAN option for SH2 multiplayer went down along with the online multiplayer. However, if you and whoever else still wish to play, then you can use?https://www.gameranger.com/ to set up a lobby, then play via that. I'm pretty sure that's what the majority of us here do :)?

Hmm...is this v1.4.1? If there's a bastion tower in the corner that's hidden then I believe I have come across this design before. If not, then I haven't a clue!

Back at the cavern, Geralt insisted that treatment was not needed, and that he would be just fine. This of course was before he continued to walk, then collapsed to the floor beside Goodman. There was something more than just a wound affecting Geralt, and surely it would need further treatment. He sighed, looking up at Goodman, who was knelt beside him, resting a hand on Geralt's shoulder, whilst shaking his head in dread of what was occurring.? "Friend, as much as I wish to help you retrieve your ally, I fear I am not fit to do so in my current state," he stared into the distance as he thought. "I beg you, come with me somewhere where I can be healed, and I will be forever in your debt." Geralt's eyes showed a sign of fear. It was clear to Goodman that the young man was not comfortable to be led away by some strangers, yet for some reason had already formed some sort of trust with Goodman himself.?

Geralt was bewildered. Every event seemed like a blink of an eye, and attempting to keep up with everything was proving to be a challenge. He had not even learnt the name of his new acquaintance, and was visibly unsure of whether to feel at ease or not. He awaited the rations Goodman had ordered. Upon arrival, Geralt was in awe of the quality of the food he was presented with. After months of hunting animals that had not been fed themselves, it was a welcomed change. He took bites of the food, savouring each one.? Once finished, Geralt noticed Goodman talking to the stranger. The conversation was inaudible due to the cries of those fighting. Geralt got up and began walking to Goodman. Doing so, he winced as a sharp pain shot through his knee. His hand reacted immediately, applying pressure to the area of the pain. He moved his hand away, revealing a tear in his clothing, as well as a patch of blood covering the wound. Knowing Goodman needed his assistance, he tried to hide it, and continued walking over to Goodman, doing his best to ignore the pain, his face grimacing with each step. He reached Goodman, put an easy hand on his shoulder, then spoke, "My friend, if I am not to learn of what is going on yet, at least tell me how I can help."

Geralt stood up upon hearing the cries, "It seems that fate has decided we help one another" he spoke with an eager tone. Reaching at his scabbard, he noticed his sword was missing. Now embarrassed, he looked to Goodman, then in a quick change of tone explained, "I must have lost it during the chase...Never mind! It doesn't sound like we have much time to waste." Geralt was right, as during the conversation, Goodman's men had quickly advanced to their set targets, with what sounded like little resistance.?

I may have to steal that quote from you ;)

I think you're right. There are certainly more Muslims that are radical than we actually know. For example, Didsbury Mosque came out condemning the recent terrorist attacks. Many people would use this example to prove that British Muslims aren't radicalised. However, the Libyan suicide bomber of the recent attack in Manchester, had in fact attended this mosque. The mosque itself has had a long running of inviting hate-preachers. Abu Qatada delivered a speech in the mosque in 1999, there are videos and proof of this, yet the mosque's Imam denies this. Qatada constantly preached that non-Muslims should not be seen as equal, and was accused several times, even by the USA, of having ties with Al-Qaeda. He arrived in the UK from Palestine in 1993 and was later deported in 2013, after nearly a decade of trying to kick him out. The point I make here, is that although many Muslims appear to be rational, they are in fact not. Again, this isn't to say ALL Muslims are radical. There is still a large percentage of those who live by our values, and do not practice every part of the Quran (or Koran, however you wish to spell it). It's very credible that with an increase in Muslim population, there will also be an increase in radicals. More radical Muslims there to convert non-radicals. More influence. More power. It's inevitable, especially in younger Muslims, that sooner or later, that some will become radicalised. I'd also agree that the more culturally diverse areas host a larger percentage of radicals. Going back to my earlier point, I can't help but feel the Muslim community can do far more than they are. I'll most likely get called racist for saying such things, even though it wouldn't make sense, but if 66% of British Muslims say they wouldn't report a suspected terrorist, then there's clearly a large issue at play. I wanted to add, although it's off-topic, that I believe people have been unfair on Tommy Robinson. I don't believe he is a racist, and although some might argue he's radical, he's doing his part to fight radical Islam.?

Hmm, not sure I'd agree there. The reason so many Muslims wouldn't report it is because their religion teaches them that siding with a non-Muslim will get them into trouble. Again, Islam being the issue here. You may also be interested to know that about in the UK, we have about 2.8 million Muslims living here. 78% wanted cartoonists of Mohammed to be legally prosecuted. In the US, 2.6 million Muslims. 13% said violence against civilians could be justified, 19% were favourable or were unsure of Al Qaeda. As you can see, this issue is specifically Islamic. A lot of Muslim immigration comes from France, so let's look at that. France, 4.7 million Muslims. A 2007 poll, by Pew Research, showed that 35% of French Muslims said that suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.? Your point about people not reporting things in worry of it not happening isn't really applicable here. We're not talking about someone stealing a bike, we're talking about someone joining a terrorist organisation. Failing to report on such things is illegal.

I have to! Otherwise I'd be a total trainwreck during exams :P I wasn't trying to say Islam is a religion of peace, mainly because it isn't. My point was, it was the same type of headline where they say "Where is the minute's silence for them?" As Charles pointed out. British news should report on Britain, French news should report on France, and so on. Of course, it's important we know what's going on elsewhere, but to expect our news agencies to report on deaths in Pakistan for example, is stupid. Especially when it's such a common occurrence. We have to prioritise what gets reported, otherwise we'd be bombarded with lots of useless information, and miss out hearing the important stuff. I do find it funny how people claim they are less bias because they are allowed to write about either side. All that means, is that there will be bias towards right-wingers as well as left-wingers. Even so, I don't think I've ever seen a right-winged article written by The Independent. Although, I hardly take anything I read as fact when it comes to British media.? Your point about it being about making money, I'd agree with you. It's just aggravating that with political correctness on the rise, we're seeing such a decrease in honest, truthful news.? Anyway, I've thought about my own article headline - 66% of Muslims in the UK said they would not report on another Muslim joining ISIS. Why didn't The Independent report on this?

It would seem it's fixed itself. Must have been a specific error on my side! Apologies :)?

You would be 100% correct. A study by Murray and Saunders concluded that African-Caribbean families have less motivation for boys who grow up without a father figure, which is so common in these families, that it's become bit of a stereotype. You might be interested to look into a sociologist named Bordieu, and his concept of "habitus" and "cultural capital". He believed that different areas teach different values and in turn you end up more "street smart" in certain areas compared to others. His "cultural capital" concept, is that the education system has values shared by the middle/upper-classes, and so if you also have these values, you have more cultural capital, and so perform better academically. Studies by Mac an Ghaill, and Bowles and Gintis also suggest that children from working-class families have values that cause them to suffer in education. For example, they have less emphasis on revision etc, because they believe that they won't succeed. More often than not, parents from working-class families haven't done well in school, and so, they pass on their bad values onto their children. So you are completely right in saying that it's not simply down to area. In sociology, we split it into three parts: 1. Material Deprivation Factors - BACKGROUND/POVERTY/FOOD/JOBS 2. Cultural Deprivation Factors - LANGUAGE/RELIGION/FAMILY VALUES 3. Interoperable Factors - Internal factors within the system, i.e. teachers, curriculum, and so on. Each of these different points have an effect on the academic achievement of people in all ages. Functionalists, mainly David and Moore, like to believe that meritocracy is applicable in education. This is the idea that effort + ability = success, and that everybody has the same opportunity to succeed, no matter what the external factors are. It's also a concept shared by a lot of right-wing supporters. A very weak concept, may I add. It's interesting to hear of your background. You seem to have had a taste of many different cultures as you grew up. I think the majority of people would see this as a good thing, and I'd imagine your far more open to different opinions and ideas because of it.? As for judging someone by their ethnicity, I wouldn't say it's entirely unfair. Ethnicity relates more to a person's culture. For example, African. African's have a specific culture, specific religion, food, traditions etc. If someone African met you in the UK, you can learn a bit about them from their ethnicity. Race on the other hand, is simply what colour somebody's skin is. To make judgements off that, is ridiculous, as it tells you nothing but...well, the colour of their skin. Again, I agree with you. I don't understand the left's reasoning as to why WE, in our own country, should have to change our values and beliefs and traditions, for the pleasure of an immigrant who doesn't want to live where they are. It's insane.? ALSO, ANOTHER ONE -?http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kabul-isis-explosion-attack-no-one-minutes-scilence-a7767341.html

I agree with you, Eagle. Stating facts are is not racist. I hope you understood the point I was making. I was criticising the people who use the term without fully understanding what it means. However, you cannot ban a race from entering a country. Here me out, the reason the majority of crimes are committed by black people are because there are more black people living in poorer areas in the country. In the UK, 70% of Bangladeshis, and 60% of Pakistanis and African-Caribbeans live in the 20% most deprived areas in the UK. They therefore have poorer facilities, and end up being less-educated due to lack of opportunity, down to money, and also a worse upbringing. In fact, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis have the worst academic achievement, where even the girls from these races perform poorer than white males. However, this isn't the case in every single country. In many countries, such as parts of Southern Africa and China, the results are very different. Therefore, to ban a race simply because 30ish % of crimes are committed by that race, is completely unfair. I also agree that we should do more to protect our culture. Why should our culture change in order to please immigrants? Surely, the reason we have immigrants, is because they wish to live by our culture. Personally, if someone moves to our country, and doesn't want to play by our rules, they should be kicked out. Maybe that's unfair, but I do not care.

We should never have intervened in wars that were not ours. Yes, partly because of political reasons, but also, our soldiers should not die for an unneeded cause.? Also, as I expected, there was another attack, and the same thing happened again. It's a never-ending circle.

As the title says, if I edit a post and click "Submit" it goes back to what the post was before edited. The edited post does not update or save.

It's been a while since we've got political on the site, and I'm very aware it can cause arguments. However, this article has really ticked me, for how pathetic it is. www.independent.co.uk/voices/isis-terrorism-pakistan-donald-trump-media-press-a7585461.html Quote:?"The message is clear: Western lives matter but brown, black and non-Christian lives aren?t worthy of a story.?The fact that these publications are simultaneously denouncing Trump for his racist policies, or waxing lyrical about the value of the Black Lives Matter movement, just adds to the irony of the situation." The argument suggests that the reason people haven't been going nuts on Twitter and Facebook with their worthless, crappy hashtags, is because the victims of the attacks weren't white Christians. I could not believe my eyes when I saw this. How moronic does one need to be to come to such a conclusion? I'm all for free speech, and allowing people to believe what they wish, but I cannot help but criticise this belief. It's painfully clear that the only intention in this article is to push an agenda. The writer could not care less about the attack itself, but instead feels the need to try and push a narrative that we, in our Western societies, are inherently racist and prejudice. Let's argue with the original argument.? 1. "Western lives matter but brown, black and non-Christian lives aren?t worthy of a story."? Except the BLM movement has had more coverage from the Independent than it has from any other news source in the UK. Secondly, our societies do not condone racism. No decent person truly believes that any race is better than another just for being that specific race. and anyone who believes this and acts on it in a violent way, will be punished. I don't understand why the left believe that our cultures are full of racism, when our laws and values clearly oppose it. As for "non-Christian lives", I've seen hundreds of articles from the BBC and other left-wing medias covering stories of Muslims opposing the recent terror attacks in the UK, as well as articles trying to say that Muslims are targeted for hate. Even Tommy Robinson, who the left label as a racist, has been interviewing a number of Sikhs in regards to their good work and progress in our country. In fact, the only time Christian lives are reported on specifically, is when there's been a terrorist attack by someone who is Christian. Again, pushing an agenda. 2. "The fact that these publications are simultaneously denouncing Trump for his racist policies, or waxing lyrical about the value of the Black Lives Matter movement, just adds to the irony of the situation." I'm not even entirely sure what the argument here is. However, using personal adjectives to describe a policy is a clear sign of pushing an agenda. I don't like Trump, and I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but being harsh on immigration is not racist, and it infuriates me seeing people claim it to be. Sure, if Trump turns around and decides, "No black people allowed into the US" then yes, that would be racist.? As for the BLM, the movement is a joke anyway. One of the leader's of the group is openly racist on their Twitter, and another was arrested for disorderly conduct, when he stole a confederate flag from someone, and started hurling abuse at said-person.? Funnily enough, The Independent again, who posted this article - www.independent.co.uk/voices/facebook-abuse-video-black-lives-matter-blm-kidnap-is-racist-a7511466.html - have jumped on to defend the BLM, claiming that there is no maternal link between the BLM and the people who committed the act...you know, except for in the recorded video these people can be heard shouting "This is for BLM" and "White c**t" at the disabled white man. Ignorance truly is bliss, huh? I don't consider myself a conservative, nor a labour voter, but I am sick of the left bombarding the media with non-factual, subjective, ignorant information. Don't get me wrong, The Sun is just as ridiculous, but if I were to make an article on all of their false reports, I'd be here years.? I can't vote as I'm not of age, but with the election coming up I plead with those of you who can to do your own research. Look at more than one source, and don't jump to conclusions based upon little evidence. Don't be afraid to look at views that oppose your own, and do not, I beg of you to not, go around throwing the words "Racist, bigot, fascist, ignorant, and Islamophobe". Mainly because the majority of those who do so are unable to define the words, but also because it makes you seem like you're out of arguments.?