As far as I've read they've only mentioned server upgrades but with a patch of the size stated they must have made some big strides.

I still wouldn't expect the Asura or the Sylvari (tree people) though as I think if they was coming they'd have shouted it from the rooftops.

I did watch a video which showed the skills have been put into tiers now instead of being able to buy anything at any time. Be interested to see what difference that makes.

Well, I got creamed in an Elite STF mission with the D'Kora, so either I need to use better weapons or fine-tune that build. My Polaris is still a better ship at this point, it seems. It's odd--I figured a stronger hull would help.

The MC gig was awesome and I got to meet a couple new queer burlesque performers I didn't know before. :)

Back the the Queen most Australians want a republic we dont want anything to do with that old....woman 70% of Australia will agree with this :)

but I don't see how becoming a republic will benefit Australia in the slightest? It's not as though Britain, or by extension the Queen exploits Australia, its all ceremonial these days.

Don't become U.S #2, lol.

Have they said if the other races will finally be in this beta, the Asara and the tree people?

Hey again. Yeah. Each Oddysey version has its own console. Work Bees. Seperation and Aquarius Escort. If you have all 3 consoles then they also act like a set.

So you get all 3 hulls. Take the consoles off the 2 you dont want to use, add them onto the hull you do and poof. All 3 powers on one Oddysey plus it buffs your turn rate and a few other bits as well.

As for using the Atrox, yeah they are fun. Just so long as you dont want to whizz around like an Intrepid. Trick with Atrox seems to focus around getting good Blue Hanger ships from the Dilithium Store and working on getting those Flight Deck Doffs etc.

Hope the D'Kora proves to be fun and that your MC time went well. :)

Hi All!

I want to encourage everyone to go ahead and patch your GW2 BWE clients. They have already pushed through a 5 or 6 gig patch. I am all patched and ready to go! I would also suggest re-checking later Thursday or early Friday to see if they have added any new patches!

Maellin

An announcement about upcoming content additions just appeared on the Star Wars website today! "Sometime this year" they are raising the level cap, introducing new space missions, introducing a new planet and in July the game becomes F2P up to level 15. There is a video showcasing all this too! Finally, maybe they are figuring out what people actually want and will stop the endless dragging out of content updates. :woohoo:

Preview Exciting New Reveals from E3!

Episode 632 - Voyager - "Endgame, Part II" - 05/23/2001

http://www.allstepisodes.com/megvid.php?n=4726

In an alternate future where it took Voyager 23 years to get home, Admiral Janeway devises a plan to alter history. As the crew enter a final showdown with the Borg, the two Janeways implement a risky plan to take out one of the six Borg Transwarp Hubs in the galaxy and simultaneously cross the transwarp threshold to get home.

This marks the end of our Journey through Voyager. Wow, was it amazing -- it brought back so many childhood memories since this is the one Star Trek series I watched from start to end, as it premiered, growing up.

We will be watching "First Contact" tomorrow, followed by "Insurrection" on Wednesday, before moving onto Enterprise on Thursday.

Enjoy!

Episode 631 - Voyager - "Endgame, Part I" - 05/23/2001

http://www.allstepisodes.com/megvid.php?n=4725

In an alternate future where it took Voyager 23 years to get home, Admiral Janeway devises a plan to alter history. As the crew enter a final showdown with the Borg, the two Janeways implement a risky plan to take out one of the six Borg Transwarp Hubs in the galaxy and simultaneously cross the transwarp threshold to get home.

Enjoy!

Incidentally, do you know that if the Queen stays on the throne for 5 more years, she'll be the longest reigning monarch in British history?

(Currently Victoria holds the record)

also within the next five years we'll have the largest aircraft carriers ever launched by the Royal Navy (approximately the same size as the U.S Nimitz class).

Agree wit
I agree with a lot of what you say, even though my outlook on it might be a bit different. Where you might see pure tokenism, I might sense a (even though sometimes inedequate) gesture of solidarity. But besides my positive and your more negative spin, there are issues with the use of LGBT that I do recognize.

What I don't fully understand is your argument regarding the author's implied trans- or biphobia. To me, this seemed rather careless, based on the text that was cited and in light of the initial discussion in this thread. That said, I'm not familiar with the author's body of work (and wasn't initially aware you were). At least part of my dissagreement with your statement likely stems from that.

I am familiar with the issue of erasure. Not the least because this issue begins on an even more fundamental level in the German language, where the default gender for most words is masculine and women (and people not identifying with any particular gender) are often enough carelessly excluded from everyday speech. However, I still think there is one important difference here (as with your examples regarding racism): There erasure spreads through exclusion and monopolizing certain words, terms and phrases. LGBT is (at least superficially) a sign of awareness of non-exclusiveness. Even it's use in the cited article weakens your transphobia statement somewhat. As the author - again, superficially - included trans and bi initially, not mentioning them later mostly because the Queen not talking about gay issues already implies she's also not talking about those other topics. Which, of course, in itself can be critized.

But I don't want to look like I'm defending the author. I'm not. And I fully recognize that our sensibilities for these issues might differ somewhat. It's still a discussion too interesting to just dismiss it. :)

It's bad when they say "LGBT" when they mean "cis gay". It's erasure, plain and simple. And again, it happens all the time. An author will mention LGBT, even take the time to spell out what it means, and then the rest of the article will discuss issues that *only* impact gays and lesbians. It's such a regular occurrence that it becomes frustrating to read articles from most mainstream gay/lesbian activists.

Am I "doing the same thing Thatchell [sic] did" if I point out that Tatchell is hardly alone in doing so, as I had? Is it wrong of me to point out that Tatchell does this regularly, such as here, where he mentions "transgender" at the beginning of an article about post-homophobic sexuality--a topic that is at best only incidentally connected to anything transgender?

And again, I'm discussing a systemic issue, not one necessarily aimed at Tatchell alone. In this case he is merely an example arising from the fact he was quoted in the first place.

As for the example, I fully recognize the issues are different, but my point was about erasure. It happened in another forum's thread on race, where it quickly devolved into whether it was ever OK to say the n-word, as if that was the only racial issue involved, as if African-Americans were the only ones to experience racism....

When I need to discuss transgender issues, I speak about transgender issues. When I need to discuss gay/lesbian issues, I speak about gay/lesbian issues. When I talk about bisexual/pansexual/polysexual issues, I talk about those issues from that point of view. It's only when discussing an issue that impacts ALL of us that I'll talk about LGBT issues. There is plenty common ground there--AIDS impacts us all here, violence impacts us all here, discrimination impacts us all here. But it still remains useful--and important--to distinguish how each impacts our community differently depending on what part of the community we're in. That's the part that disappears when "LGBT" is used carelessly as a synonym for "gay". And that is what I'm talking about.

I'm not entirely sure if you're not just doing the same thing Thatchell did, by saying he has issues with bisexuality or transidentity because he doesn't mention those topics (or cause he uses "LGBT").

The main problem here is likely that there is an implicated hierarchy when it comes to LGBTQ issues: If the Queen doesn't talk about gays and lesbians, she surely won't talk about bisexuality or even trans topics. If she's homophobic, there's no question that she's also biphobic and transphobic. There's some truth to that, of course. But that doesn't make it right. Not the least, because sexual orientation and sexual identity should be viewed as different (if complementary) aspects, but are often hastily thrown together into one bag.

But again, this is one of the aspects of visibility. Is it that bad when someone uses LGBT - even if they focus on gay issues more? Would you rather have them not include B&T at all? I wouldn't decry Thatchell for that. I'd also say the comparison with "people of color" is weak, because the issues at heart are different and the term has a very historically shaped connotation - wherass LGBT(Q) is especially used to emphasize that there is more to sexual orientation and identity than "gay".

It is also worth noting that Peter Tatchell mentioned the words "bisexual" and "transgender" once in his article, and used the presumably inclusive acronym "LGBT" repeatedly, but otherwise focused on gays and lesbians instead. Since I am reasonably sure the Queen is no less transphobic or biphobic than she is homophobic, it seems to me that Tatchell has his own issues with transphobia and biphobia that are revealed through his own omission. Why didn't he ask the Queen's press office about whether the Queen mentioned the words "bisexual" and "transgender" in her speeches? Why didn't he mention biphobia or homophobia? Why use the LGBT fig leaf if the focus of the article only covers a portion of the community it represents?

I should point out that Tatchell is far from alone here. This curious omission masked by token inclusionary language happens a lot, and not just with cisgender gays and lesbians using "LGBT" when they mean "gay" or "lesbian." Discussions of racism in the US often only touches on its impact on African-Americans while using the term "people of color," a term that also covers dark-skinned Latino/as, Southeast Asians, Native Americans, etc. To reiterate, the issue is systemic, not individualistic.

There is an inherent problem with accusing individuals with having homophobia, transphobia, or any other privileged bias. Namely, we forget that these biases are systemic. While the UK may have come a long way, I'm sure it has a long way to go still. The Queen's silence and soft bigotry is ultimately symptomatic of the greater problem, and I seriously doubt she is alone here.

Personally I dont think it is the place of the queen to express her personal views on such things as her role precludes her from having any.

Being head of the Commonwealth she oversees and tries to command the respect of many different nations, including those which are of the Evangelical persuasion which are totally homophobic to say the least. Having a pro gay stance could jeapordise her standing and political sway over those territories and thus diminish her standing in the world stage. It is far better for her to have NO opinions at all.

I think "by default" comes into play when you don't actually put yourself in one particular category or another or deny being in a particular category. So rather than putting you in a "favorable" category, because you haven't broached the subject at all, they will automatically (or by default) put you in the undesirable category. Just a guess on my part though, because I could be absolutely off base on my assessment here. :whistle:

It was a very interesting article though..... ;)

Episode 630 - Voyager - "Renaissance Man" - 05/16/2001

http://www.allstepisodes.com/megvid.php?n=4724

The Doctor is forced to help aliens steal Voyager's warp core.

Enjoy!

Quote by backyardserenade

It's an interesting article and a very curious topic. But I think the text might be a bit too judgmental and sensational.

You know, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has never publicly used the words "gay" or "lesbian", either. Is she a homophobe? Sure not. Does she dismiss LGBTQ people as the unspeakable ones? I don't think so. We have an openly gay secretary of state, after all. (I'm not too fond of either politician, but it was an example that came to my mind.)

Visibility is an issue. And a very important one at that. But calling the Queen homophobic cause she never talked about LGBTQ issues? For my taste that goes too far - and is just one of the many overuses of the word.

Well said.

I have a question about the OP, though...

How is one "homophobic by default"?

It's an interesting article and a very curious topic. But I think the text might be a bit too judgmental and sensational.

You know, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has never publicly used the words "gay" or "lesbian", either. Is she a homophobe? Sure not. Does she dismiss LGBTQ people as the unspeakable ones? I don't think so. We have an openly gay secretary of state, after all. (I'm not too fond of either politician, but it was an example that came to my mind.)

Visibility is an issue. And a very important one at that. But calling the Queen homophobic cause she never talked about LGBTQ issues? For my taste that goes too far - and is just one of the many overuses of the word.