Brother None

You do realise you're on the internet, right? In-ter-net The above description, especially "spam breaking up hardcore debates" really would place Missy's low on the rank of serious places, y'know. You can have spam, and you can have debates. If you let the two makes, well, hey, you got a moderating issue, but that, again, is just me Very well? I don't know Missy at all and don't care to. That's completely besides the point

"evidence", heh. That's like asking if I have evidence that immigrants would rather go to Germany than to Denmark, because Germany is a nicer place. It has no evidence, it's simply logical, why else go there, and why else go there en masse? In any case, you can't deny that once a community is known as a chick-community, people join up there or become active there because of that. Just look at the UV. I will not defend that in the sense of "but your opinion sucks and we're right", because I do not support that. However, I've known Rosh for a long time now, some 5 years or so, and I respect him greatly. You may not agree with him, and often neither do I, but he is very clear. The Fallout forums (and at times the news forum) are *his* territory. He is very clear to people that there are certain boundaries, set by him, that you have to respect. Remember, you're on his territory, hence it's his rules. Generally his boundaries are "don't be a dumb-s***". Are all people he bans dumbs***s? Not at all. But they should have the common sense to know when to back of and leave it rest. And a lot of NMA has grown around Rosh, yes, same as DaC and Vault13 of old. Can't help that. It was a reaction of the overblown phanboyism of Interplay, exemplified first and foremost by PaladinWhatever 2.0, a kind of counter-measure to balance it out. I don't agree with it, because I don't agree with being that unneutral. And large portions of NMA agrees with me, but hey, it's still Rosh's turf. But all of the above is completely besides the point. Or do you think "OH YEH BUT WHUT ABOUT NMA?!" is a good counter-argument to defend Missie's. If you think a bunch of people being able to live peacefully with each other displays maturity you're very wrong. Humans are not, by nature, accepting of other people's opinions. Generally peaceful coexistance just shows that people either don't care enough for their opinion to defend it or that it is a mass, bland and thus uninteresting opinion. Not to be offensive or anything, that's just how it generally is, ey? ... Your ban was just freaky, though, but I've never really looked at it, since you never complained. I think welsh mentioned it being "strange" once before, though. I'll dive into it, whether you want me to or not. Yes, you are naive.

That shot confused me too, but y'know, it's prolly some kind of statement I was thinking you prolly meant that scene, Teatime. I suppose it's pretty true, the signals do get a bit mixed up right there, and maybe that was the intention, but I still hold it the primary goal was a message of friendship and understanding, "linked souls", not love.

In general I would agree, Teatime, I think nobody enjoyed Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars II, but Johansson is something else. See Ghost World if you don't believe me. Or that other flick from the previous year, Girl with a Pearl Earring. Coppola didn't select her for her big boobies, y'know, the girl's got some major talent Of course, Sofia partially picked her because Scarlett's like an acting alter ego of the girl....woman. Oh, and Teas, I felt Lost in Translation did a pretty good job in avoiding sexual chemistry and just making it seem like this strong, deep, spontaneous friendship. But meh

I loved Lost in Translation. It was possibly the only meaningful film of 2003, considering the pile of pure entertainment crap walking besides it (Return of the King, Pirates of the Carribean, Master & Commander) I am never annoyed by Scarlett Johansson. Beautiful, beautiful girl, that Anyway, "them getting it on" would be a misinterpretation, just like that "rich angst" stuff on Missie's. The film is not about feeling sorry for yourself, or about love in the non-platonic sense. It's about their place in life. The title of the film is "Lost in Translation" and it is, very conciously, set in a city that enables the characters to mirror this feeling, that feeling of being totally lost. Bill Murray is a man going through his Mid-life crisis, a time of great insecurity, when you're completely unsure if you took the right path in life and even more unsure if you want to continue it, which is why so many mid-lifers take such strange, random and big decisions, most common is buying a Harley or a Porsche (if you can afford one, heh) Scarlett Johansson is a young intellectual who just got her university degree in Philosophy. Much like me right now, she is wondering what she's going to do with her life and feeling completely lost. Some people know what to do with their life when they're going, often because they're told by their parents, but the increased freedom of the modern age means that a lot of young people feel at a loss at what to do, and often they make the wrong choice. But, as Murray say to Johansson, "you'll figure that out" It's a beautiful dance of mingled emotions, thoughts and directions. The entire film is not so much a plot, an adventure or an event, it is a thought. And I'm afraid a lot of Westerners, and Americans in particular (shames me to say it, but it's prolly too), simply don't get that. We've grown too accustomed to films that're actually going somewhere to remember those great masterpieces by Federico Fellini that did nothing but express a feeling, rather than a story. And no, that's not artsie, I still hate artsie The reason I fired off at that particular thread at Missie's is because they completely seem to miss that. And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't get a film, I'd rather you say "I don't get it" than fire down on it. I, personally, don't *get* 2001, but I have to admit it's a masterpiece, because that's what it is. Funniest thing is, the quote in that thread is probably the most sensitive moment from the film, where, once again, the dialogue is not even the most important thing, the feeling behind it is.

Oh man, that's rich. Never mind the weird plural/singular mix-up... 1. How "strong" can that relation be, considering how young Obsidian is 2. How trusted can a development house be if it hasn't made any games By who, I wonder, where're they getting this stuff from?

No need to be so sensitive about it. It's hard to judge a forum when you're on the inside of it, I've always liked the quiet self-reflection and critical eye of welsh, who seems to be able to judge NMA for its flaws no matter how much he likes it on there. Not all people have this ability, nor should they. TeaTime is, I think, referring to the fact that a lot of people go to Missy's lair *because* it's run by a chick, whose cyberpanties is a prized item of contest. Like it or not, that's the effect of having a site with a large female presence. And StillLife, I do not think you grasp the concept of "emotional maturity" in this context. Missy's lair, nice at might be, is severaly emotionally immature. Not in the sense that posters don't behave and "don't use naughty language", because that has nothing to do with maturity. One of the most mature message forums on the 'net I know of is the infamous AssHats, but they often act like a bunch of clowns or teenagers, and flame each other to hell. Their emotional maturity lies in the sense that they're older and wiser in the ways of life, and are not to be dragged of quickly by petty notions like younger people do. Their opinions on any subject tend strongly to be well-thought out and informed. The first sign of lack of emotional maturity is guys fawning over girls. Every site has this, I mean, this is the internet, go figure, but the level on which your site has this very much determins the emotional mature face of your site. Now underneath it all Missy's Lair might be a grand place of maturity and intellectualism, but on the surface? Tchyeah. But that might just be me. Oh, plus your taste in movies really sucks, I actually caught a post there about Lost in Translation being about rich angst. But at least that statement was supported a bit, the rest of the thread is just pretty inane remarks. <_< (which not is not to say all of the forums I visit are different, but I do tend to skip over those threads)

Hay, and to be precise, a strong non-linear storyline would be great

Looks like. Anyway, if you need new source material (yes, this'll get deleted too), here's the old NForce link from the Codex: http://www.nforce.nl/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14775

Sad but true. *agrees with Teatime* Still, not a bad place for overly hormonal teenagers to try and get into the cyberpanties of other teenagers (probably guys, but they pretend to be girls)

eheheeh Yeah *cough*bs*cough* So how can they allow my av, huh, that's a scan from a book. Total infringement of the law, dude

Heh, if its censorship, that's dumb, since the article is spread all around by now and even copied for a couple of "previews"

Does this include your theory? You just pwned yourself

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

I'm afraid I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic, pretty much. I, in fact, noted this myself: I've seen no definitive proof that God exists, I've seen no definitive proof that God doesn't exist. I, in fact, don't believe in the concept "definitive proof" Here's a little secret, Craftsman: I used to be a Christian, protestant. I was converted when I was 12 or so, and left the faith when I was 16. Why? I believed because I could feel God, as far as I remember, and don't feel him now, so I don't believe. Now back to the original argument. You made a logical structure to support the thesis of there being a divine being who must've started everything. I made the structure collapse on itself. If all you can reply with is "you come down to the same concept", as if that's some kind of insult, and then "you're mentally" unstable, then why do you think people will listen to you. If you can't even take the trouble to try and disprove my arguments with the same logic as you used in your original argument, then why do you think anyone will listen. Or don't you care? Are you just talking to stroke your own little God-based ego? PS: I don't base my argument on the failure of man, my arguments were based on the same lgoic as your argument was, originally, so if me logic-structure is inherently wrong, so is yours, hence disproving yourself again. PPS: "the bible is true because it's from God" is not a valid argument, this has been noted before

Craftsman, you posted the exact same "thought" (I'd like to point out again at this point that quoting other people doesn't count as independant thought, this includes the bible and other holy books) before, and I replied with this: Philosophers? Ey? I'd like to inform you of the fact that the philosophical construct of "the Great Mover" was made in a time and area where and when nobody had any form of a monotheistic faith, unless there were some jews hanging around. The Greeks were polytheistic, I'd like to remind you. Also, your thinking has a logical flaw If EVERY event has a cause, which is the assumption that proves your argument, than God also must have a cause. "But," you'll say, "that's not true, because God is eternal" Well then, you just disproved your own theory. If God is eternal, there is something which needs no cause. If it is a fact that there is something that needs no cause than there's no basis to assume that God is the only thing that could be eternal. Or, in other words, the assumption that the galaxy hasn't been around forever collapses in on itself. Ipso factum. The question is very simple: if everything must have a cause, how can there be one thing which needs no cause that causes everything else? Or, if you turn the assumption the other way, if there is something that's been eternal which causes everything else, why would it be "a divine being". Why wouldn't it just be the mass (or energy, wha'ever) of which the universe is made, as in the Big-Bang theory. Now I know you're just going to ignore this post again, but meh, I like talking to myself PS: and before you use such a weak attack, "cause-and-effect" and "end-and-beginning" basically boil down to the same concept; that either the universe has been around forever or something caused it.

I love it. All this proving me right is a real confidence-booster :D PS: I'm pretty agnostic myself, I'm not sure if a God exists or not. I am pretty sure these moronic arguments that Craftsman keeps posting, based on "facts" or "science", have no validity, whatsoever.

Thanks for proving me right, Craftsman

Well ain't this the pot calling the kettle black? Excuse me, but I would suggest you go back in the thread and count the number of times the following has happened: 1) You ignored arguments as it suited you 2) You replied to arguments with exactly the same statement as that argument countered. 3) The only reply you give is "you people are fools, it says so in the Bible" or some such claptrap Now for the more relevant part Wow, that was kind of an interesting read. I love the way they mix up a lot of unnecessary complex words to confuse the reader, but here's the problem...Mostly with the last sentence. It follows from the incompleteness proof and Liebniz's Law (which is, apparently, simply accepted as true, even thought Liebniz was a Rationalist, a brand of philosophy which has long since been discarded) that a higher being exists based on one premis: "S is consistent", which in this case is human logic "being consistent" There's a problem here. Lack of comparative material. G

OH DEAR!

Philosophers? Ey? I'd like to inform you of the fact that the philosophical construct of "the Great Mover" was made in a time and area where and when nobody had any form of a monotheistic faith, unless there were some jews hanging around. The Greeks were polytheistic, I'd like to remind you. Also, your thinking has a logical flaw If EVERY event has a cause, which is the assumption that proves your argument, than God also must have a cause. "But," you'll say, "that's not true, because God is eternal" Well then, you just disproved your own theory. If God is eternal, there is something which needs no cause. If it is a fact that there is something that needs no cause than there's no basis to assume that God is the only thing that could be eternal. Or, in other words, the assumption that the galaxy hasn't been around forever collapses in on itself. Ipso factum. Again you disprove your own theory: "(...) found a watch on the ground that you would recognize it as a piece of machinery that had purpose and did not simply grow in the forest like plants and trees." This seems to state that a watch is a purposefully built piece of machinery while the forest and plants "simply grew", and hence are not a purposefully built piece of machinery. But that's just wordplay and unfair. So why is there "intelligent design" in the universe? Simple, because that's the only way it could survive. "How Darwinistic of you, Kharn". I know, but despite the fact that I dislike Darwin and especially Social-Darwinism with fervour, there is something to be said for the basis of the Evolution theory. It is a matter of simply weeding out the bad thing. The universe, arguably, was born at a certain point or, at the very least, transcended from a simple state of "still-being" (before the Big Bang, when change and therefor time did not exist). After its birth it began to develop. As it develops, it goes several routes. Say there's another planet with living things, but it's ecosystem is entirely different from that of earth and furthermore, it turns out not to work, and all living things die. Because only planets that can sustain life eventually sustain life, it seems very much so like it is planned, like a number of planets were created to sustain life. But this is simply not true, all planets have the potential-life, but "by chance" a number of them actually grow to sustain life. This way of growing, evolving, eventually ends up in a huge ordered structure because the useless bits die out off themselves. There's no reason to assume there's a planner that structurized the universe to be a certain way beforehand, because the universe simply grew into this form. How caustistic, but how wrong Which was first, the chicken or the egg? Now think of another question: which was first, the laws that structured human society or the structure of human society? Why don't humans kill each other at random? Because a society structured on random killing would (anarchistic theories aside) collapse even before being founded. And doubtlessely, there we societies founded on this principle, but naturally enough the strongest societies were, on the long term, those who internally (not externally, war is alright) decided that killing was wrong. After this decision was made, a law was written up that killing was wrong. We call this morality, and we pretend that the code of morality is older than the act, but we're wrong Take the transcension from Medieval society to the Renaissance. In the Medieval society, violence to those lower in the food chain was alright, as was killing people lower in the food chain for no reason. There was no monopoly of violence, everyone had the right to be violent as long as it was to a subordinate. And the Medieval society never progressed. When did Western Europe progress? When it shed off the concept of free violence and placed the monopoly of violence in the ruling body (a monarch, mostly, in that time). By placing the monopoly of violence with this man or, later, with this governmental structure you forbid violence within the society, and allow it to grow. If the above is not true, then go figure; why is war condoned, and murder not? Ipso factum again...

Is this spam? Technically, since roshan seems to repeat every statement he makes 3 times over in different threads, he's a worse spammer than your are Anyway, Karzak, how about you live with the rule for now? I haven't seen any abuse of it... ERROR! this is the first time i have posted about living with the rules. SECOND ERROR! Yet you've posted a number of times about people forgetting about Fallout 3.

I'll be the first to poke fun at you, bud :D

Is this spam? Technically, since roshan seems to repeat every statement he makes 3 times over in different threads, he's a worse spammer than your are Anyway, Karzak, how about you live with the rule for now? I haven't seen any abuse of it...