11XHooah

Here's the M2 50 Cal. machinegun:

Here's my baby Beautiful, isn't she?

Does anyone know what happened to this mod? I was looking forward to it because the Episode II Obi-Wan looked awesome. But of course I can't bump the topic or contact the author because the registering process on lucasforums sucks. http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=147892

U.S. 1.0A version on its way. Test it out and see if it works.

Have you downloaded the KOTOR II patch yet? That was supposed to fix the crash to desktop if I remember correctly. If you already have, then I don't think there is much you can do. And of course Lucas Arts is being gay and won't allow another patch, leaving the KOTOR II community SOL.

Let's just hope they come in peace

Actually, its quite clear. Only embryonic stem cells possess the pluripotentiality necessary for current research to continue. All others are lacking in one way or another. And you are right, they can't talk. In fact, they have no thought whatsoever. As such, can they truly be considered independent beings? Or life at all, for that matter. In my opinion, life begins the moment one becomes aware. Im sure this happens at some point within the womb, and that the memories are blocked out so as not to traumatize us. That said, most of the embryos used for stem cell research would never have reached that threshold, being stored continuously until used for research or disposed. There was never the chance for life, because development was halted. How can you object to an embryo that would not have the opportunity for life being used to save the existence of others? Even if you believe they have souls (which you seem not to), would not being used in such a way honor them? After all, is not helping another the highest achievement? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, that is a very commendable theory, but I can quote Buddhist scripture and suggest that all life, even earthworms and bacteria are sacred life (strict Buddhists do not take medications for common infections!). I have a more utilitarian approach, but I wouldn't classify myself as mercenary. I was under the impression that the only viable stem cells were from embryos (although cord blood and prepuce from circumcision might prove useful as well). Remember that cloning technology, once it is matured, should allow us to use very few precious ingredients. And I would also trust that we will soon be able to create stem cells. (The advances are pretty amazing at the moment; dentists are almost at the commercial stage of growing custom teeth replacements!) Well, we have to make a decision, because even not making a decision is in fact a decision (to condemn the embryos to oblivion and the sufferers to wait for alternatives). I choose the most good: the least worst outcome. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I must say that you both have brought up some very good points, and I'm actually starting to agree with you on some of them :D And you are right Metaldigital, we will have to make a decision at some point. No doubt stem cell research will be approved, but lets just hope it leads to better medical technology like we predict.

1. No, I don't find it inhumane at all. You may believe as fervently as you wish that life begins the moment two gametes unite in the fallopian tube; a lot of people do not share this conviction. (I suggest you look up the origin of the word onanism, because even the Roman Catholic Church, for example, has not always regarded the moment of conception as the beginning of life. (It used to be regarded as life only after forty days.) 2. That is a terrible, emotive analogy; it is the main reason why people of extreme views (like the earnestly faithful) are completely unable to use rhetoric to their advantage. They have a complete lack of empathy for those people who have a differnt pov! Just for your own erudition, there are RIGHT NOW more embryos in storage than can EVER be permitted to grow into human form: there just isn't enough years left in the Earth's lifespan. Our sun will go Red Giant before they all get their three-score-and-ten. Let's view the dilemma from a different pov. There exists a lot of people now and in the future who will have short, painful and limited lives based on injury, illness and disease. With research on some proto-lifeforms, it will be possible (I believe -- ) to remedy these mishaps and ailments. You are faced with a defined, real and quantitative amount of human suffering versus the wish to save some others who haven't been born yet. Finally, I obviously can't speak for any other people, whether alive, dead or not-yet-born, but I am a signed up organ donor and I would gladly trade a non-existence to help ease someone else's real suffering -- would you? And what do you think the spirits of others would do, even those proto-lifeforms, should they be given the choice? Because you are making a decision on their behalf just as much as your opponents are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. It may not have a soul yet, but it is still life, is it not? 2. Yeah, you got a point. My point is that embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. There are stem cells in fat tissue. There are stem cells in umbilical cords. There has been some success at harvesting stem cells from these sources. At present, it is not clear if these sources are just as useful (from a technical point of view) as embryos. And you're right, we can't make a decision for these embryos. If they could talk, some would want stem cell research done on them, some wouldn't. That's the real dilemma.

True, there will always be people like this. Perhaps I'm thinking unrealistically here. True.

Who's going to force them to? Judges like the one in Kentucky, for example. If I went in and he offered me the choice between jail time and attending worship services, I'd go for worship services, as would everyone else. "Okay," he'll say. "What religion are you?" I'll reply that I'm an atheist, and then presumably I'll be allowed to go home, since atheists don't have any worship services. Except that's not what'll happen. He'll say that's not a viable alternative, and I'll have to do jail time, whereas the good Christian caught with an eighth of weed can go to church for a couple Sundays. Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is? Tell that to 16th century Spain. Or modern-day Iran. Or Socrates. Or the current generation of twentysomethings who are going to be smuggling their Alzheimer's medication in from South Korea because our current president decided that stem cell research was offensive to God. Hey, know what? I'd be willing to bet you're some flavor of Protestant. Guess what happened to Protestants when they started being Protestants? They got burned, and not just by Spain, though that's the example I'll use since it's the easiest to follow. "Oh, but we've come farther than that! That couldn't happen anymore!" No, it couldn't. Not the burning, anyway. But the rest certainly could. Hell, it does. I gave you the example of the Kentucky judge just a few pages back. You want to claim that allowing religion a place in the power structure of a government would not lead to any persecution of dissenters, but you've got - and I'm going to make this bold - the entire history of religion arguing against you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree that what happened with the Kentucky judge is BS. But that was one case, it hasn't become an epidemic yet. That was bad judgement by the judge IMO. I agree with you that religion should be kept out of the judicial branch of government. As for stem cell research, you don't think that it's wrong? It's inhumane, and I haven't heard one word from the precious ACLU criticizing Bush's decision. I would bet that if he had approved of it, the ACLU would be all over him calling him a murderer. And I don't even think most of America agrees that it should be done. Now Bush used God as a reason for his decision, but it also could have been for moral reasons. True, stem cell research could lead to a breakthrough in medicinal applications, but it is a very controversial way of doing it. Oh but they're just embryos, they aren't human beings Here's a good analogy: Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it. See what I mean? And no, I'm not a protestant. I don't really know what religion I am anymore because I abandoned Christianity a long time ago. All I am is a person who believes in God, that's it. I guess you could say I'm part of my own religion.

I remember hearing somewhere that KOTOR was going to be made into a movie. I don't know if the rumor is true, but if it is, Revan will soon have a face, and a gender. But I don' t understand how it would work because the film director would have to decide whether or not Revan goes dark side or light side. And KOTOR II didn't clearly expalain which path he chose.

I'm Canadian, but keep in mind there are many Americans who feel the same as I do... Religion has no place in government. A government that is truly looking out for all citizens as equals should be purely secular, as once religion enters into it, someone's going to get screwed. Whether it's women, gays, or people of other faiths, religion in a government is going to hurt someone. A secular government on the other hand really only has to take into consideration whether or not something will hurt or help the nation's citizens. Murder? That will hurt citizens, so it's illegal. That has nothing to do with any commandments. Contract laws? Will help the citizen, so they exist. Yes, you can find traces of religion all over America's history. It helped keep women down until the 1920's, helped keep blacks down throughout its short history, and help keep gays and lesbians down until the Supreme Court just recently stepped in. Sharia law in Islamic countries is religion-based, and is that a good thing? Any non-Muslim would probably say no. As for your remarks about a leader being religious, I'm glad you put a qualifier on the morals and that some people would think it would make them more moral. It clearly doesn't make them more moral, but yes, there are people who think it doesn. However, without a qualifier you said it "shows that the leader is faithful." What does that even mean? Faithful to what? I want a leader that is faithful to the people, not to some invisible spirit. I'm an atheist. I am faithful to my family, my friends, if I had a significant other, I'd be faithful to them, and I am faithful to my country. How does religion affect any of this? Heck, I'd be more suspicious of a religious leader because their greatest loyalty usually goes to their god/s. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Religion did play a role in all those things, but you neglect the fact that it was mostly the mentality of those times that caused it. Women were kept down yes, but it was because back then respect for women was at a low because they were seen as inferior. African-Americans were kept down because they were seen as inferior as well. They were segregated because people were brought up to look down on them. As for the subject of homosexuals, I agree that religion is the biggest reason they are kept down. But then again, I know non-religious people who do not approve of homosexuality. Again, it is a mix of mentality and religion. As for religious leaders, you don't believe that a leader can be both faithful to God as well as the people? I am just as faithful to my family,country, etc. as I am to God. For those that believe a leader has good morals because he is religious, his faithfulness and devotion to whatever God he/she worships will further reinforce this. I don't believe this, but some do. And I agree that religion does not affect your faithfulness in other areas, but some think it does.

They protect the minority - in this country, non-Christians - from the majority. They try to make sure that no one's ever going to have to pray to a god they don't personally believe in. They try to ensure that our government stays as far from a theocracy as possible. And they get roundly maligned for it, because, as that article you put up demonstrates, the folks on your side of the aisle believe Christianity's the answer. Nevermind the fact that every theocracy on earth has been oppressive, the very antithesis of a free society. Why shouldn't they eliminate religious expression in public schools? I don't think you Christians would be very happy if the local Satan worshippers got to use the cafeteria for their weekly meetings. Or if Muslims demanded that they got to lead a prayer over the loudspeaker at football games, too. And before the Protestant one. That's the whole point; you guys are happy as hell with religion anywhere it can get its tentacles, just so long as it's your religion. I've never seen the ACLU go after the military in any significant way. Don't forget, you're not the only guy who's served on these forums. I'm quite content to let you champion the military's cause, but I think I can attest pretty strongly that there's a wide variety of views in the armed forces. It's not all Toby Keith fans, don't forget. As far as the second amendment? I'm split on that one, honestly. The way I read it, it sounds as though the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on a militia being necessary to ensure the security of a free state. To me, that point is long since moot; any armed uprising in the US would have absolutely no success. I also don't know of any states' rights issues that the ACLU has commented on, but then again, I haven't searched through a history of their lawsuits, so I could be wrong. My point is that yes, they do indeed question the government. Any thinking citizen in a democracy should. I don't care if it's "wartime" or not; nothing should ever be taken at face value from any authority. Power's nature is to perpetuate itself, by whatever means necessary. And for the record, it's not like the ACLU went dormant during the Clinton administration. They're apolitical that way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You have a point with religious expression in schools. But would it not present a perfect opportunity for children to learn how to respect the religion/beliefs of others by being exposed to them? To answer your question about the second amendment, since the meaning of the language used in the Second Amendment is that individuals have a right to own firearms, the ACLU has little choice but to fall back on the argument the Amendment was intended only to provide for a militia. If so, it has been said this is the biggest secret in history because there is not a single shred of evidence from the Constitutional Convention which supports this proposition. Gun control proponents have yet to identify even a single quote from one of the founders to support their claim. By contrast, there is an immense amount of evidence and quotations from the Framers which make it absolutely clear they intended the Second Amendment to recognize an individual right. And I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the ones protecting the U.S. from becoming a theocracy. Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is. And you say that they make sure that no one prays to a God that they don't believe in. Who's going to force them to? We have the freedom of religion. Worship anyone you want, or worship no one if you are agnostic or atheist. Who cares? And I agree that you should question the government. You would be fool not too. But I think they take it to an extremist/paranoid level IMO.

Feel free to name one single act of terror committed by the ACLU. If you can, I'll concede your point. As for that 'article'...I'm not entirely sure that 'crap' does it justice, but I can't use any stronger words for fear of the profanity filter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Calling the ACLU domestic terrorists is just hyperbolism on my part. I just don't like how they try to tell people where and when they can practice their religion. Freedom of religion is there for a reason. They eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds saying that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." They also refuse to protect the 2nd Amendment and ignore the 10th Amendment. They also show a lot of opposition to the US military. I find nothing about this organization worthy of being involved with.

Roger that. Sorry, I just get a little belligerent when it comes to the ACLU. I'll be sure to stay civilized from now on.

Yeah, the ACLU is sh*t. I like to refer to them as a domestic terrorist group. They're a bunch of paranoid f*ckers who just want to turn people against the government. They bash the military constantly which really pisses me off. Now back on topic. For the separation of church and state, you should read this article. I found it very interesting: http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Alright, time for me to get in here :D Now I sort of blew through all the previous posts, because who really wants to go through 10 pages But from what I can ascertain, most of you believe that religion should not be intertwined with government. I think that religion should stay. You can find traces of religion all over America's history. In the Pledge of Allegiance, you have "one nation, under God". When I signed up for the military, I had to speak the Oath of Enlistment, and God was in there. Did we have to say it? No. Do we have to say God in the Pledge of Allegiance, much less even be required to say it? No. Which is why I think that religion does not go too far. But this is just simple crap that I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that the U.S. government is based strongly on religion. But I think religion plays an important role in government. If a leader is a religious person, that's a real plus to most people. It shows that the leader is faithful, and some would even think of him/her as having more morals than a leader who is not religious. Now, was I on the mark with my arguments, or should I go back and read the 10 pages of posts because I missed the whole point of this thread? :D

We're on vacation I'll check out that thread and see what I can do.

I thought there were only a few turtles ... I'm just saying that there are some questions that we may never be able to answer. Perhaps we are built to not understand such things as the creation of the universe for a reason. There will always be a question that has no correct or accurate answer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Never give in! Never! Seek and ye shall find! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well I must admit that admire your tenacity to pursue answers for these types of questions. And there is much wisdom in what you just said

I doubt the human race will ever answer this question. I don't think that our minds are built to comprehend this kind of knowledge. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would have thought someone so bold on the field of battle would not display such a lack of valour in the field of ontology. " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm just saying that there are some questions that we may never be able to answer. Perhaps we are built to not understand such things as the creation of the universe for a reason. There will always be a question that has no correct or accurate answer.

I doubt the human race will ever answer this question. I don't think that our minds are built to comprehend this kind of knowledge.

Indeed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ignorance is bliss...especially when pertaining to FF game mechanics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many unhappy people :D J/K Anyway, I've decided to revisit this thread. Now, I'm going to be earnest and admit that I don't know jacksh*t about most of the scientific theories that you guys are throwing around. To be truthful, I'm not a real fan of science. But I have a hard time understanding how a massive explosion created the universe. How was the explosion created? And what was in place of the universe before it was created? Was it just a huge empty space? But then you have to answer the question of what created that space. I just can't believe that something as massive as the universe was created in the way that science believes it to have happened. The only explanation that I can provide is that God created it. But that's just my .02. I know that most of you are either atheist or agnostic, but you should keep an open mind about the possiblity that perhaps a great being such as God created the universe.

Cop it sweet, Mr Hooah. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I sure will :D

Wow, this is pretty good I'm looking forward to reading more.

-George.. George... -Mhh? -The Martians are attacking. -What? -I said the Martians are attacking. -They are!?! *slams every red button on the console* :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> -George.. George... -Mhh? -The Martians are attacking. -Is that bad? -Yes, Mr President, I would say that is a bad thing. Should we use all force necessary? -Um, is that a good thing? -Yes, Mr President. -Okay, do that ... thing ... that you .. just said ... then ... :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, Ha Ha Ha I had a feeling my post would bring about Bush bashing.