MadCast: majorhoward

I should also be available from about 1500-1700 EST.

If you are looking for people, and it could be made to work with my schedule, I would be game, though I would dislike to take the spot of someone who has not played before. My experience with D&D began with Living D&D, and have played 1-2 times a week since the end if such.

I might or might not have been very very drunk at the time @MadCast: Kitty Stark but my statement stands.

In so far as a general thought, nothing comes to mind, in a specific vein, yes, please, hydra kitty.

Sure, I think I would be game for that, I'll write up a quick backstory and character build and send it to you.

@MadCast: Kal How open are you to meme characters. I have a concept I think would be fun to fuck around with, a warlock who won his powers in a rock off with the devil, a la tenacious D and the pick of destiny.

I will echo Angelix, in that any service you do not pay for, you are the product. Upon another tact, as an anarchist, the primary way to be an anarchist is to act as if you are already free, given that, I use TOR to hide my activity from as many sources as I can in which I personally would be known, (governments, companies, etc.) then a paid VPN to access region locked content and I do not care for the legality of it. As well, anything that deprives the NSA of information is pretty damn good (outside of additional context) in my book. Even if it is tyrannical governmen

My favourite milk is not represented, though it is a little hard ot get one's hands upon, the Croatian island of Pag produces magnificent sheep's milk, though most of it is made into similarly magnificent cheese, and you can only really get the milk on the island. gourmands unite!

Anarchism is not anarchy, or chaos, it is not no government (at least in my concept), it is an absolute minimum of government in the flattest, most justifiable form possible, with the most minimum of laws and regulations, organized (again in my conception), around the worker controlled means of production. some (syndicalists particularly) say, this organization should be done around workplaces as autonomous units, but I believe that to be unnecessarily divisive. as to regulations, we would have an absolute minimum, as most regulations, say, in car manufacturing to kee

ok, so there are two answers to a question like this, the short one and the long one. the long one, comes in the form of Kropotkin's mutual aid. The short one can be (with the attendant simplifications) boiled down to the essence of not wanting one's fellows to die needlessly. removing the profit motive, which is what leads manufacturers to cut corners more than anything in my experience, would lead, I think, to a much safer vehicle. the fundamental miscommunication I think we are having here comes out of the idea that anarchist society wouldn't need regulations for it, people

well, I do quite whole heartedly believe that pretty much all of our problems with factionalism stem from the intentional and unintentional dividing of people by capital and corporations. In his book Mutual Aid, Kropotkin takes on the very subject and proposes, what I believe to be true, that the state of human nature is mutual aid, and that given a fair shake and a chance, that is the attitude that will prevail. If, in the unlikely chance that it does not, it is a free and mutual association which any and all parts of are free to withdraw from at any time, and join at any time. As

As somebody that has trouble understanding other people at the best of times, I entirely agree with you upon your dislike of internet forums as a means of meaningful communication, upon the matter of emotion generating understanding and agreement, I must disagree though. I don't harken back to Chamberlain's logical but cold speeches about appeasement, I recall churchill's fiery tirades. My Scottish arse has a very, might I say, fiery soul, I am not a terribly emotional person, but for example when the question of separation from the UK comes to the fore, my logical side agrees, but my emotiona

so, I will do my best to address this paragraph by paragraph, please take no offence if I misunderstand you, @MadCast: Angelix, I assure you in all good will any misunderstandings are not in bad faith, simply that I am a drunk and miss shit sometimes. my issue with the paragraph also stems into why I would prefer a moneyless society. there used to be limits, at least here there did, I am no expert on America. then rich cunts lobbied the career, and the incidental, politicians, and suddenly the tax margins, they shifted a bit, then a bit more, then a bit more under pressure of lobbyist

The film? I thought the film largely replaced actual anarchist theory and praxis with this weird and horrid combination of a conflict between neo-liberalist and neo-conservative US elements, with a sprinkling of what most of the world sees us anarchists as, terrorists and nothing else, we in the anarchist community refer to that misconception as anarcho-terrorism. when such elements are employed in the service of actual anarchist cause we call this propaganda by deed, but this. as well as context below bears a caveat, the most important and pressing issue I have with the film mostly, but even

The issue I take with your argument Angelix, (and to be perfectly clear so there is no chance of a misunderstanding, no personal attack is meant), is A) there has never been, and will never be, one person who is Plato's philosopher king. Take for example, probably the best example that comes to mind right now, Marcus Aurelius, by all accounts an Enlighted and stout individual, but his ashes were not cold before the Pax Romana fell apart and Commodus oversaw the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire, full of plots and assassins and intrigue. and b) your prohibition on multiple terms? how wel