MonoAccipiter

1: Decide which (see the underlined words) and please use commas/semicolons, this sentence is almost impossible for me to make sense of. 2: I have to quote myself from earlier: "the problem is more complex than initially assumed" (see my second post). Making it seem like I have claimed this to be a simple issue seems like quite the red herring. The fact that people who suffer from gender dysphoria also have need of other treatment is not at all surprising. Mental illness isn't at all like normal illnesses, having one can easily make you much more vulnerable to other issues. I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of the people that suffered from gender dysphoria were preyed on by anxiety or depressive issues, but again, this does not at all remove from the point I made and that the first source you cited (which at the point of writing my last post was the only source you had) also concluded with, namely that the treatment in itself isn't unnecessary, it's just not enough to deal with what is already a very vulnerable demographic by itself. Even non-transgender LGBT youth are subject to a lot of more psychological difficulties than the average person. "In the presence of severe psychopathology and developmental difficulties, medical [sex reassignment] treatments may not be currently advisable." Who's saying I don't agree with this? Either you're suggesting that all people wanting to change their sex suffer from severe psychopathology and developmental issues or this has no bearing for your initial stance whatsoever. In which case you have moved closer to what I was arguing for under the guise of having said so all along, which is not at all true. Your initial stance was that of comparing sex reassignment surgery for children to them mutilating themselves. With this source you're basically just dismissing the solution to a problem because it isn't perfect, otherwise known as the nirvana fallacy, when neither of these studies have concluded in favor of that... 1: You're right, it's a belittling opinion, not a belittling act. It still seems odd to write that your point is not to belittle, when that generalization, which still sounds like the "no true Scotsman" argument, achieves virtually nothing else than belittling. 2: So I am insane for not agreeing with you now...? That has to be the apotheosis of a poor argument. 1: What SRB said was that Americans had twisted those words around so much they have lost their meaning. I still stand by my point which is that these ideas have rather little to do with the traditional political spectrum (e.g. a communist state is not necessarily very gender-neutral). 2: This might very well be, but it is no argument. Even if they were, you couldn't dismiss something as absurd just because it was positioned on the wide side of a political wing. That would be a fallacy. 3: Yet, clearly less so in the wild, which indicates that nurture has something to say. Just like the Bell Curve and the Flynn Effect (when combined) have done before. Then I also seem to remember this other thing about Homo Sapiens, something about us being unique as a species because we have self-awareness... Which returns us to the argument I made earlier about whether evolutionary effects which is most likely possessed by monkeys as well as humans, would make someone better suited for raising children in modern society. The same goes for gender-attributed behavior, in which, by the way, one can see a rather large variety of behavior between different members of the same sex; how does the animal kingdom's definition of gender behavior encompass the full complexity of the behavior we traditionally attribute to genders today? The animal kingdom here being the environment which also presents us with a rather fluid concept of sex with, amongst other things, males that can be pregnant (link). Then there is also the existentialist argument, which questions whether any such evolutionary effect should have any say over how we behave at all. Existence as opposed to essence, is the foremost quality in any person. This has to do with the self-awareness part of being human, which renders behavioral inheritance from before modern society took form rather inconsequential. @GrantSP: Great points! Especially the musings on how what makes up a gender biologically has changed over the years. I hold that, above all, these things are rather effects a person has to live with than they should be said to define that person. Given that these characteristics are not something a person chooses, I find it strange that we so often give them more weight than the conscious desire inside the person to identify with some attribute or trait. I wouldn't be offended wither, if I happened to sleep with someone who later revealed they had been born as the "wrong sex" (for them - of course). How their previous physical misalignment with their identity would change either who they have been inside, or what they are like right now, I am completely at a loss in determining. @SparrowPrince again: If it's a fling, by which I assume you mean a relation based purely on a physical attraction, how would the person's past or even how they came to acquire the characteristics you were attracted to, have any meaning at all? The attraction is not to the persona, which is the only thing that can be affected by the person's past, but rather to his or her physical characteristics which remain largely the same (at the time of the attraction) no matter what this person has gone through. He's not saying you said that. He is challenging your conception of gender by proving that it is tied a lot of more attributes than you think, which also happen to be affected by a lot of genetic mishaps. One can for example be born with an extra chromosome, or one can be born with two different sexual organs, in which sex reassignment surgery is always performed. Now would you define these people as not having a sex at all? Humans can even be born with two different DNAs, that doesn't mean they're two people, just that defining them as something by virtue of a single characteristic doesn't hold up. Why is that relevant? Is it better for this person to have other physical characteristics that make them unwell, just because society does not label said characteristics as scars? Nirvana fallacy again... They probably have a body functioning much better for what it should do (allow them to be comfortable with themselves) and the fact that it could go wrong is absolutely a non-factor. You don't opt out of surgery in treating other illnesses because there is a slight chance that the surgery could go wrong. @baronaatista: 1: How is it childish to argue either that gender identity is much more complex than a traditional societal archetype? How is it childish to realize that gender studies is a miasma of findings that have no such thing as a clear answer to this problem? How is childish to point out how little actual harm would happen upon society if it did this? How is it childish to know that the modern view of epistemology understands that while certain ideas might be part of our current paradigm that does not make them equivalent to truth? In fact, I struggle to see anything childish about anything except your insinuation that holding another opinion than yours is childish. 2: Again, by what definition? I have challenged this "truth" on many leves, Grant has challenged it in his last post. The field of psychology disagrees on the topic, the field of biology disagrees on the topic, the field of philosophy mostly leans towards it being completely irrelevant, and it is virtually the same as saying that their decision to change their physical characteristics is pointless. Hence it is actually belittling. 3: This I agree that should not be a problem. @elenhil: 1: The comma confuses me a bit here. How does taking modern society for granted have anything at all to do with this discussion? Its morality, which I assume is what you refer to by using "wholesome", is also highly inconsequential. What matters is that modern society is the context in which we live our lives, and hence taking "advice" from how we evolved in a completely different context is rather absurd. I fail to see how any of the points I made can be reduced to something as disparaging as a "cultural fad". I deal in arguments, and if said "cultural fad" has better ones backing it than "biology", then obviously it should take precedence. I use quotation marks because biology is not in my opinion equivocal to gender-related evolutionary traits, and I don't want to be misquoted on having dismissed biology as a whole, although I realize you might just have called it that because it's easier to write out (I never used the word in my post except when paraphrasing you). 2: I shot myself in the leg by using the Indo-European people as a basis, I admit that. I would like to see the cross-cultural studies that reveal how a woman is the same in matriarchal societies, and that men in societies where they are encouraged to take care of children (of which I admit I do not know any) are "worse" at doing it. However, this does in no way debunk the argument that it is a social construct, because you insinuate that all these cultures have females in the nurturing role (I haven't seen these studies so I do not know) and as such they are not examples of societies where culture has encouraged something else... In any case that is not my preferred argument; I would rather lean on the existence over essence argument, where either alternative would be inconsequential as it is well within the means of any person (and quite within their rights) to transcend any part of their essence. i.e. they would no more choose the societal roles assigned to them than the biological roles assigned to them. EDIT: Fixed a couple of typos.

1: I have never claimed that biology changes, in fact, if you read my first post in this thread that was one of my main points in arguing for why evolutionary precedence often causes as much problems as it provides solutions. Evolution stopped happening at a large scale well before we settled into anything resembling modern societies. Hence why using it as an argument for how modern society should be is rather precarious. 2: I need to quote myself here: "The essential difference here is that your evidence (which is true) doesn't actually say that women are more apt to nurture, but rather that they have been." i.e. the history argument does not work. You also can't really say that raising people to function well in modern society is something evolution has taken into account. Monkeys are probably fairly good at nurturing their children from harm and satisfying their other needs, which I assume is what humans needed to do as well, way before we decided to form large societies (i.e. before evolution stopped occurring on a large scale). This does not mean monkeys would raise humans well to function in modern life. This happened to the evolutionary process because at some point we stopped killing people off when they didn't do well, which stops evolution dead in its tracks (as opposed to extreme eugenic measures). 3: I can't quite make sense of this. When did I claim that "20th century cultural notions" governed ancient societies? Again, I simply pointed out that history as evidence doesn't quite work in this case, as most of recorded ancient history has been under a male-dominant warrior-culture which arrived with Indo-Europeans as early as in the days of the Sumerian city states. As far as I know there are no societies without gender roles (with their associated ideals) so cross-cultural studies wouldn't reveal much. And, uhm, about Eleanor of Aquitaine: how on earth did anything I stated (i.e. her commissioning of poems) come close to resembling a slur, or have anything to do with "unnatural, unwomanly behaviour"? @SparrowPrince: This has nothing to do with capacity for mental thought in any regard at all, an absolutely everything to do with feeling at home in your body. Gender dysphoria is not something you show up at your doctor's office suddenly saying you have, it is something a psychiatric professional diagnoses you with and treats accordingly. What you're doing is literally the definition of belittling their life choices. Saying that they can never truly be like the sex they swap to is making a mockery of the attempt to do so. Plus it just sounds like the "no true Scotsman" argument. Why would you care if they're "biologically a true male/female"? I basically refuted the argument in my original post by arguing that it should be seen as a treatment and measured by its effect on the person in hand, not whether they're some kind of "true" version of whatever sex they feel as if they belong to. It still has nothing to do with the political spectrum... Which the part of that paragraph you omitted clearly said. Again, a source would be nice for that study if it forms the basis of your argument. I wouldn't be surprised if it's true at all, but without me knowing exactly what it revealed it's impossible to attempt a deconstruction of its meaning. When it comes to drawing the line: I draw it at the post above which was the first in here to retreat to the "anyone who thinks otherwise must be..."-argument.

"... a child or teen is no way mentally ready to decide if they want a sex change." How do you know this? When are people "mentally ready" not to feel at home in their own bodies, or with their own sex? Is this not a feeling that eclipses most other concerns? Do note that the study you linked did not conclude with a dismissal of sex reassignment, but rather that it might not suffice as a treatment without additional care. This is a conclusion not at all far removed from what I presented in my earlier post. They look at the effect of said treatment and try to differentiate between whether it means the treatment is faulty or whether the problem is more complex than initially assumed. It's infinitely important to understand the limits of any statistics, and in this case there could be several other contributing factors to the high mortality and psychiatric morbidity amongst transsexuals. Take for instance the general discrimination and negative attitudes surrounding transgender people, or even the taboo nature of psychic illness in itself. LBGT youth in general have one of the highest suicide rates in any given demographic (link). Then there's also the question of how these statistics would compare with people suffering from gender dysphoria that are denied treatment. "... underlying fact they never will truly be male/female in my opinion anyway. That is just a biological fact." Is it a biological fact that they will never truly be male/female in your opinion...? If you mean that being male or female is a social construct then to some degree I have already made that point in my earlier post (remember existence over essence). However, an important difference in my approach to the matter is that while I do not think gender should be something that defines you it is still something that affects you, and thus gender dysphoria is a perfectly valid condition, which should be treated accordingly. That picture is not something I consider far-left. In Norway we have a fringe party (occasionally getting a seat in the Storting) that wants a planned economy. That is something I consider far-left. This seems more like something to do with feminist values than any particular wing of the political spectrum. I do, however, see no issue with that particular picture though. Awareness of what gender is supposed to be imply (and the confusion when their ideas conflict with reality) seems infinitely better than never bothering with those questions in the first place. In regards to the comment on Asians - I'm not sure that extends to other countries, but it might very well be. An interesting observation in any case, but payroll isn't the only measure of privilege. I gave one example of an environment where belonging to a minority certainly doesn't seem to pay off in my last post. And again, what would be much more interesting is a comparison of people doing the same jobs, as has been done for women in comparison with men. @SRB: Maybe in a year I'll be a freshman if everything goes right. @z929669: "Women ARE more apt to nurture than men, just as men ARE more apt to commit violent acts than women. Isn't it obvious? Hasn't history demonstrated these facts for millennia?" Yep, it has. History also pushed for a family structure where women were only seen as needed for the act of nurturing for millennia though. Then for centuries it assumed a male-dominant warrior-culture where women were mystified as something that men could not, and need not try to understand. Did you know that chivalry was an attitude largely invented by women (partly Eleanor of Aquitaine who used poetry as a subtle means of insinuating how men should behave around men) to instruct men of war on how to behave around members of the other sex? The essential difference here is that your evidence (which is true) doesn't actually say that women are more apt to nurture, but rather that they have been. What is interesting then becomes whether this is something inherent to their social or sex-tied identity. Society has for the longest time (centuries at least) espoused the idea that women should aspire to be better at this than men, and that men need not even try to understand this act of nurturing, because it is simply not their job. Is it then so strange to imagine that this could have affected how history "demonstrates these facts"? Hormones being tied to these attributes then become more a cause of correlation, than a certain causation, because behavior is infinitely more complex than looking at biological factor and immediately determining what it does. Using history as evidence in this case becomes inherently flawed because you cannot really eliminate the other potentially relevant (mostly social) factors. What is also much more important in the stance I am arguing for here, is not so much that we should ignore these biological effects which I do in no way deny, but rather that we should question whether they in themselves should be enough to dictate how members of either sex choose to live their lives. I hold that these factors are no more things we chose than we chose our parents, and as such it seems strange to think that they should get to define who we are. @GrantSP: I like your post. Just wanted to add that. :: EDIT: "what" to "that".

Probably gonna take some hail for this, but some of these opinions are a bit too brusque for my taste. First of all, please don't state that Norway makes "build a wall"-esque statements when 99% of said statements come from a right-wing populist party (the Progress Party) which got 16.3% of the votes in 2013 and managed to land the Minister of Immigration and Integration post because they formed a coalition government with the support of three other parties, and arguably put their loudest mouthpiece on the job. Her statements have been as controversial here as in other countries. And I do not think that statements like that should be applauded at all. A large portion of Trump's statements on immigration have been based on loose (and cheap) pathos appeals which have almost no factual basis. That has nothing to do with either PC or softness - it's simply ridiculous by its own merit as an argument. The same can be said for Listhaug's attempts at calling anything else than Europe's strictest immigration policy the same as "carrying them in on golden chairs" ("them" being refugees of a tragic war which has already ruined countless lives) or for that sake the large amount of accusations her own government has pointed out as being ridden with factual errors, even garnering heavy critique from two of the parties that helped put her in that position... How is changing one's sex the same as being mutilated? Just because you don't understand the need to do that doesn't mean it isn't real. Neither does it posit a problem if you stop seeing a sex as something that defines you, and rather as something you live with. If a "man" behaving like a "woman" isn't problematic (which I do not see why it should be) then neither should it be a problem to have what you see as a "women's brain" in the body of a man, as long as this is what makes the person feel at home with his or her identity. This argument works for most stereotypes as far as I can see, and would also eliminate the problem of people feeling pushed into a certain mode of behavior because they're told that's what should come naturally to them. I must admit I find it very peculiar to see so many theories on how a person is inclined to behave presented almost offhandedly in this thread, when as far as I know the field of psychology hasn't even reached a consensus on that point. In any case it would also be wise to remember that most modern views of epistemology dictates that what happens to be the commonly accepted view of subject only works so far as to the point where a case violates that rule. Meaning that leaning heavily on any theory about behavior without being prepared to observe the effects of that theory on people seems rather shortsighted. This is probably also why a lot of sex-change surgeries are allowed, not because we have grown too soft on the matter, but rather because we realize that it is inherently a very complex and timid subject - and the ultimate measurement of the success of any policy on this would have to be the happiness and contentment of the person involved, which is also what you'll find motivates the decision to go ahead with it in most cases. Calling it mutilation seems rather horrid to me, as if belonging to any sex should change how you would be able to live your life, or if feeling that you belong to the other sex is something wrong in itself. The measurement of its "morality" should in any case lie with the effect and not the act alone. Now, I would happily define myself as a feminist. I vote for a party that calls themselves a feminist party (amongst other things) and I find the ideas of thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir both very well constructed and thought-provoking. Should point out that I have not read any of her works through anything but second-hand sources, but I have been meaning to read some of her books for a while. However, CJ2311 is (albeit a bit indirectly) absolutely right in that the term itself has become somewhat washed out. Feminism has suffered from not developing any new terms to differentiate between different contemporary movements, and has instead seen its banner being used as a sort of "credibility weight" latched on to arguments of wildly different stature. It's very strange to see the term being used to describe people like those Audley described standing on street corners, and at the same time use it as a definition for movements that have fought for and achieved several important goals in steering society onto a more equitable path. The analogy about "female" being a derogatory term is a perfect example of this: which seems to be a metamorphosis of the argument that the term female is pretty clearly a derivative of the term male (just add fe at the beginning) much like she is a derivative of he (add s at the beginning). And while I do not pretend to know what effect this has on people, after all the effects of language on human beings is pretty disputed, I would argue that it becomes far more interesting when one starts with the objective observation and then moves on to discuss the possible effects of that later. Ironically, the UK leaving the EU is unlikely help much with their immigration, and several arguments that seemed to sway public opinion (such as the one about them getting much more money out of an independent trade deal) were later proven to be factually incorrect. As has been the case with so many populist movements in Europe lately. I do not know what extreme left you are discussing, because there is no extreme left with any traction in any Western state except perhaps Spain where a radical left-wing politician (a communist) recently has gone through some sudden surge in popularity. No left-wing parties currently near being a contender for power in any of the major European nations are considered to be part of the extreme left as far as I know. That being said, what most left-wing parties in Europe argue for is in no way an utopia of diversity. It is more a general awareness that a large portion of the ruined cities and homes in the Middle East has over a long time been caused by weapons produced and sometimes used by Western powers. The massive amount of refugees attempting to enter Europe nowadays won't simply disappear because we don't want them. They did no more choose to be born into a part of the world where their livelihood or even their very lives are in constant danger, than we chose to be born into a world where this does not happen. Being aware of this is not being soft, it is understanding that while this crisis presents a manifold of problems, the solution to them is not simply turning our backs. When it comes to extremism you are partly right. Yes, fear has motivated a lot of these decisions, but since when did fear become a star to steer by? Several experts on extremism have pointed out time and time again that so many of these people are not people that were "genetically" or "ethnically" inclined to religious violence, but rather people who were being pushed out by a cynical and alienating system, and became vulnerable for religious groups providing explanations for a lot of the things they were feeling. Mohammed Ahmed and Yousuf Sarwar, two British men that spent eight months fighting for ISIS in Syria and later were convicted of preparing for terror offences, ordered Islam for Dummies online before heading out to fight their holy war. In so many cases we see people (young men mostly) estranged from society who turn to a religion they hardly know themselves because it gives them a sense of purpose that they clearly could not find elsewhere. I find myself much more frightened by the fact that issues such as immigration and religion are given the full blame for this, when much like with any other social problem it goes much deeper than that. @Z: "Humans need their mothers when they are developing their personalities. Fathers are --on average-- pretty worthless at nurture." I think what would be much more interesting to discuss would be whether fathers or mothers are like this because of inherent or assimilated traits (de Beauvoir would probably argue the latter case). If fathers can be good at nurture there is no inherent problem to encouraging that they attempt it. Thus there can neither be a problem with allowing women to step out of their assigned "role". Now do note that I am an existentialist, so I find it rather absurd to imagine that one has to accept a quality as part of oneself just because it is either associated with or directly connected to some category you "belong to" - one does not chose one's brain (and its inherent biases) anymore than one chooses one's body - and as such I would think it is rather irrelevant to individual whether they are good at said thing or not. Existence precedes essence, as Sartre would put it. However, even when moving past that stance I see problems with your statement. You present it as if it is a fact that two people of of the same sex (especially males in this example) wouldn't be able to contribute the same as different sex parents, whereas I am fairly certain there are several examples of people being raised by same sex parents and turning out, at least ostensibly, which is the most you could say for anyone, fine. So I can't help but wonder on what grounds you make that observation? If the argument is the second sentence (which also doesn't have a source) you deconstruct that pretty well yourself by adding "--on average--" for the reasons I pointed above. "When moms mostly decided that they should have their own careers to prop up their egos to compete with men, the kids all began paying for it." So when females make the same prioritization as men with regards to their family, that is now wrong because...? Shouldn't the same acts be weighed equally in terms of morality? And then shouldn't we instead be discussing whether it is right for men to make that prioritization in the first place? And what table of gods sat down and decided that the responsibility of how the kids turn out rests on women's shoulders? Responsibility can't really be attached to a genetic code: even if a certain sex is better at nurture, which I don't really agree with, that doesn't change the fact that (hopefully) two people were equally responsible for bringing someone into this world, and thus owes them pretty much the same thing. "... women now dominate the corporate workforce," ...? Do you mean that there are more women working than men (which in that case would be related to population differences and not have anything to do with gender equality) or that women do better than men (which in case I fail to see how would be a problem) or that the workspace is biased towards women? If it's the latter, I have no idea where you're getting this from, because even in my country which has several laws enacted that secure female participation in top leadership positions, the majority of all top-of-the-chart jobs are still filled by men and there is even a noticeable discrepancy in pay between women and men doing the same thing. I would think that it would be worse in countries with less strict egalitarian policies. A quick Google search netted me this which, while a feminist website, used the U.S. Census Bureau's data. "... crazy idea that women are equal to men," Alternatively you could call it the idea that women should be equal to men in their ability to do what they want with their lives and be who they want to be regardless of sex. Again, existence over essence! Which doesn't sound half as mad to me, and is the idea that most serious gender equality organizations promote. Notice how the only thing the website I linked suggested for corporations was to do audits where they compared pay for similar positions. "The sexes are built differently due to the evolutionary advantage of being so (see sexual dimorphism)," And, as modern psychology seems very keenly aware of, evolution causes at lot of problems in today's humans, because it happened thousands of years before we ended up in modern societies. Just look at the countless addictions people develop because the brain evolved at a point where certain parts of our livelihood where innately scarce (be it food, sex or other needs). "Just look at the increased age of mothers at first childbirth. Way up since the 70s. What's to blame?" Yeah, the feminist movement is probably to blame. No, I do not see why that is a problem. So women take more control of their lives, choose to become parents when they feel ready for it, and exercise some more freedom. I seem to remember something else going way up since the seventies too... This little thing called life expectancy. "Women are biologically engineered to bear and raise children, and on average, they are temperamentally much better equipped to do so." Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're arguing against. Most feminists are rather uninterested in whether or not this is the fact, as opposed to whether or not it comes from society (underlined the last part so no one thinks there are feminists that believe society made women bear children) or nature, and whether or not that should have a say for how they live their lives. "In much of Europe, women get paid vacation for a full year to bear and begin the raising of their children." In Norway we have that for males too, albeit not as long. Most dads seem pretty content with it. Turns out most people find they become better at taking care of a child if they do it for six weeks... "We promote the idea of gender equality in all respects. Corporations generally win, families (and society) generally lose." I would agree with that last sentence if it stood alone, but as an extension of the first sentence it just doesn't make sense for the reasons I have presented above. @Sparrowprince: "The thing is some women complain about they don't earn as much as men, but that is simply becuase a lot women choose stay at home and raise a family; which is perfectly fine." See my argument above. "On the SJW front, it is funny to see them say that white people are basically the most privileged. This is inherently false as that crown belongs to Asians who have the best jobs and earn much more than any other ethnic group." In what country are we talking about? And do you have a source for that? If you want an example of a racially biased competitive environment just take a look at the film industry... Exodus: Gods and Kings comes to mind as a prime example of what most people call whitewashing. EDIT: Fixed a couple of typos and added some missing words.

Install this.

Do you have the FCO eye fix?

Usually has to do with something using the same method as ENB to hook into the game, like an overlay or something similar.

Sounds like a problem on your end. Nothing to do with textures though, must be something else (if the textures were corrupt they suits would just change appearance while they moved).

How did the game give you a riot shotgun? Did it drop from someone specific?

Do you use ENB? Try turning off the Steam Overlay.

Moved the topic to MO Support, since it seems to be an issue with MO and not the mod.

Create a rule, or untick the merged patch in MO's left pane before you sort. Was busy over the weekend, sorry.

Yes. I had a visitor over the weekend, so I was a bit busy, sorry.

Completely depends on what the merged patch changes. The Bashed Patch merged some weapon records in a way I didn't like, so I put it after the Bashed Patch instead.

From looking through the guide, the recommended settings for Skyrim looked okay for FNV as well. I don't have a NVidia card so I can't write a section for that, sorry.

No and yes. Someguy got tired of making his mods look for whether you had completed the earlier versions, since the scripting was so unreliable. NVBIII will for example start even if you haven't done NVBI (which is problematic since it starts right outside of the place where NVBI begins). Also, I have been unable to test them myself.

Install it where you would install the other packs linked in the guide, and let it overwrite the plugins, and you're fine with the instructions already in there. WMX's Modern Weapons module was removed from F&L since I've been heading the development of that guide for a while, and I never really liked it in FNV. Hence I removed the tip about that from the description at the top of the pack a while back. Glad you enjoy the pack, and thanks for the feedback. ::

100% dependent on how much you like Fallout 3. I am not an enormous fan, so I never cared much for TTW. Can't imagine I would be able to roleplay that much if I tried it either, since Courier Six and the Lone Wanderer are built up to be two very different characters imo.

Should point out there's a pretty big blocker for me down the line with the NCR troopers needing to be disabled if you fail Don't Tread on the Bear. Also haven't had the energy to work on anything but my weapons pack for like a month. :confused:

Use Merge Plugins Standalone?

They're not textures, unless you mean the alternative textures, which is the plugin making the mesh use different textures than the default mesh. The records in question are statics, immovable objects that can't be interacted with beyond being seen. They (these particular statics) are not used anywhere in the game, they're probably only included in case some other modder wanted to make a weapon display case (like the one at Mick & Ralph's) with them or something akin to that. If you remove the alternative texture entries (e.g. the one which is pointing to a non-existent texture set) the statics will only revert to using the default textures associated with that mesh. Then again, why bother? They can't be found or seen anywhere in the game unless you use console commands to make them appear (and be stuck in the air) at your location.

Hmm, only on the statics? Those are leftover errors from the original mod, and besides the statics aren't actually used for anything, so I'm not too inclined to fix them.

The GECK had moved the Project Nevada - Equipment.esm file to my overwrite folder without me noticing, hence the new archive didn't have it included. Fixed now. :)

Yes, do that. EDIT: It has been fixed with v0.64 of the pack. The PN plugins were also updated.

Okay, glad you solved it. I changed the instructions to make it more clear. ::