EnderAndrew

I am not here. I am not logged in. I am not posting on these forums. However, a bug just crawled up my butt and I was thinking about TOMBS. I'm curious what the latest iteration of it is. Has anyone expanded on the character traits/attributes? When I spawned this brainchild I offered to host stuff on a webserver. I am still willing to do that. Anyone who wants me to throw TOMBS rules/character/sheets/TOMB specific forums, whatever on the mighty intraweb need only to email me. If someone has some time and some SQL/PHP skills, we could even develop a rather nifty true peer review system. Each person would get a thread to themselves where others come in a vote in poll-like function, they rare you in each category and at any time you can see the aggregate scores. You can link your thread in your sig for every forum you post in. This could spread like wildfire. Alas, I don't have the time or strong enough PHP-skillz to pull it off. But someone could. But I'm not even logged in here. And the email is enderandrewNOSPAMatGMAILdotCOM

I haven't slept. I have to be up for work in 4 hours, and I'm posting here.

Yep, it is impossible to immerse yourself into the role of one character, but it is possible to imagine that you are 6 people who are having a shared out of body experience with poor vision.

On IQ tests they often have logic questions that go something like this: If humanity is part of life on this planet, and all life on this planet came from pond scum, then.... humans came from pond scum! You keep trying to correct me on various issues, and tell me what science teaches, but what you claim actually contradicts what every biology and science text book I've read says. You also don't seem to understand the two types of evolution, the phylogenic tree, or the scientific process. You tell me to lay off the insults, but you interjected initially telling me that I had no clue what I was talking about and how I refuted myself. Too bad you were exposing your own ignorance of the subject matter. I'm always up for intelligent discourse on a subject. You're just not offering it. Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you flip-flop with every single post. You insisted the reason that apes don't have culture is that you only evolve when it is necessary for survival, and since culture isn't needed for survival, they didn't evolve to have it. Then you say evolution only occurs from random mutation. Then you go back to survival. Now you're saying that humans evolved to have culture. Which is it? With VoloLogic is intentional. He knows better and enjoys baiting people. I sincerely believe that you don't know any better. And when I demonstate with simple and clear logic how your statements refute each other, you just keep spouting it. You're the one insisting their are animals advanced like us, comparing them to human evolution, and now you wonder why I'm asking which animals evolved like us? Are you not following your own arguements? Seriously, I think we should stop here. After all, you didn't do the homework I assigned you.

Supposedly an insider swears a female cast member will die by episode 6 for sweeps. Yet the insiders all swore that a major cast member would die before episode 13. They said it at ComiCon, and kept saying last year, and it didn't happen. Boone didn't die until almost the end of the season. So I'm not betting on when the next major cast member bites it. And if I had to kill off any female cast member, I'd kill off Claire or Sun. Personally I don't care for Shannon, but it would seem weird to kill her off after Boone. Sun's story seems largely resolved, and we can still see her in Jin flashbacks. Claire would probably have a huge emotional impact as a new mother. There didn't seem to be any unanswered questions in her background, and push come to shove, Charlie can take care of the kid for the most part. They could kill off the new female cast member played by Michelle Rodriguez, or Rose, but I don't see it.

Also stop with the crank, meth and the like. It interferes with a natural sleep cycle. Or alternate wuth downers. Yep, uppers and downers are GREAT together. I'm going to be such a a great parent. Relax. I'm not going to advocate drugs to my kid.

All the blasters from startrek are suicide devices as the energy they'd release vaporising a target twenty feet from the user would asplode, killing everyone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is possible to contain and direct energy, hence lasers and the like.

Especially when your hand, and the wound are both covered in salt water. Luckily the salt walter might help fight infection, but falling into the sand and getting thrown into a pit won't help. Unless he gets antibiotics, that wound might be fatal on the island.

That doesn't change the fact that science says humanity originated from pond scum, which you deny while telling me that I don't understand science. Science doesn't seem to agree that any species other than humans is really self aware, and no species has been declared officially sentient, let alone established an advanced cultural civilization. Let me know when we see language, art and the like from primates. Because man had art and language ages and ages ago. Infinite is a hyperbole admittedly but I still stress the difference is light years. On the pscyhology and philosophy side, man has made various progreses through the past 70,000 years or so that we've documented that no animal can even dream of yet. In fact, despite having survival taken care on in various circumstances, such as a lack of competitors in a niche, or domestication, animals have made zero progress in these areas in all of observed history. To say that is not noteworthy is rather unscientific. You brought up the point, and refuted youself, and now you want to drop the issue? Why am I not surprised. You said it was relevant, and now that you were made to look bad it isn't relevant anymore? You talk about the reason animals don't have these things is because those traits don't come from evolution. Those traits set humans apart. If those traits didn't come from evolution, where did they come from? What kind of scientist has data and refuses to acknowledge it because it refutes a theory? You said it yourself. Would you like me to quote you on it? You said yourself that evolution for animals stops at survival. If they don't need those traits for survival, then they don't evolve those traits. It is an extension of your arguement, except it contradicts what you said earlier. Considering you were claiming that I refuted myself, it would seem that you don't understand how a logical arguement works, or perhaps you don't understand what the term refute means. I really hate it when I have to explain what science is to people who supposedly swear by science. http://scienceforfamilies.allinfo-about.co...ficprocess.html Step 1 is to indentify a problem. The problem here is that we don't know the origin of humanity, or life on this planet, or the universe. Step 2 is to develop a hypothesis. You don't have to have imperical evidence before you make a hypothesis. Do you know how much of science is completely unsupported or unproven theories? We take observations and make our best guesses. One of my favorite examples is gravity. Gravity on a large scale doesn't work. Most people don't know that. Google Dark Matter and report back to teacher on what you've discovered. So, we have no emperical evidence to suggest gravity does exist other than the simple observation that objects fall. We don't know why they fall, but we have a hypothesis. The hypothesis has very specific evidence to suggest it is wrong. Do we reexamine or change the hypothesis? No! We create a new hypothesis that all this matter that we can't detect in any way shape or form is hiding and it accounts for all out theories of gravity being so wonky. That is very bad science. It is a fine example of what is wrong with the scientific community. The need to be right, and the refusal to allow previous theories to be wrong superceeds actual forward thinking and the scientic process. It may be that there is in fact phantom dark matter that we can't see. It could also be that every atom in the universe expands in size at the same rate. Objects or larger mass push out, rather than pulling smaller objects in. Not only does this duplicate the "falling" effect, but it could explain why there are 10 times the gravitational effects than we can quantify with physics. Given that the exact requirements for life seem so precise, and everything happened exactly how it needed to desite all probability, one could in fact infer that it happened for a reason. It is a much more solid theory than suggesting that if all the math for gravity is off, then phantom matter hides, is invisible and can't be detected by any standard means. If science is telling me to believe in the Easter Bunny, I mean, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, then why does it require faith in a religion to suggest there is an intellgent creator to life on this planet? Intelligent creation could also be another civilization for all we know. For a science-minded person, you are rather close minded. No, you really don't. And when you were caught refuting yourself, you backpedalled. I'm quickly learning that you are incapable of having a logical discourse. Unless you prove me wrong with your next few responses, I'm going to consider you a lost cause. Backpedalling again. You insisted that evolution only occurs from RANDOM mutation. One mutation is a direct response to specific environments and happens immediately when necessary for survival. How is that random? Have you ever read Darwin? Have you ever taken a course on evolution? His most famous example is the Galapogos Finches. He took finches from their native habitat on a ship to an island where they lacked their usual sources for food. They had to find new food sources or die out. When he returned to the island years later, the original species of finches did not exist. There were several new species of finches however, each with specific new traits in relation to their habitat. The finches adapated to different food sources in different areas by developing new traits specific to the area and food source. Science says random mutations take thousands of years often, and may not even be a favorable trait, or a trait passed on. When a mutation occurs immediately in the generation that is forced to adapt or die, and the mutation is very specific to the circumstance, it is not random. Read up on some Darwin and check back into the conversation then. No, Biologists insist that life was created by acids randomly deciding to interact in the same pool that for whatever arbitraty reason hadn't reacted together before, forming simple proteins. Evolution did not create the first spark of life, but they say evolution is responsible for everything since the proteins came into being. They insist evolution took pond scum, and created every species since then, including humanity which has unique characteristics that don't seem to fit a mold of evolution. We have no scientific evidence that this primordial soup existed. We don't have proof that fish crawled out of the ocean. Yet both of these theories are taught as fact in schools across the world. And people object to a second theory being taught? Why? What is the reason reasoning and agenda behind such an objection? You keep saying that science demands facts and intelligent design has none. The scientific process says to create a hypothesis first and then test it. You seem against the very scientific process while rallying for it. Again, it sure seems that you don't understand the process you believe in. I won't draw parallels to the religious groups you seem to despise that often aspire to a set of beliefs without reading their religious text or understanding what their supposed beliefs are. You can do that later since I gave you so much homework.

I was somewhat cheating because I believe Darque has been published, but she won't tell us what she has written.

So far the show seems to suggest Walt summoned a bird. Walt also spoke backwards, and spoke though he wasn't there. On the DVD's, Damon pretty much says Walt is psychic. Either they are operating on the basis that psychic talents are a psuedo-science, or they are just flat out entering the realm of the supernatural.

I will not shout Khan at the top of my longs, nor quote Klingon proverbs. I will not derail this thread further. Instead I will ask how many states of matter do you really think there are and should we rethink the way we view states of matter as being fixed?

there really is no point in telling you to stop. you've already made a complete a** of yourself. here is a clue: apes and man evolved from a common ancestor which is now extinct. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not insisting that we evolved from apes. I think the supposition is pretty damned stupid, but plenty of people believe it because they don't understand evolution. I could believe that humans and apes diverged from one parent species except for one simple fact. The traits that are unique to humans are not traits that would develop as a natural course of evolution. They aren't necessary for survival, nor can they be traced to any events we know of. There is no real scientific evidence that we have the same parent species since we don't know of a parent species that existed. Our genetic makeup is similiar, and there is no denying that. However there is vastly more about genetics that we don't know than we do know. Why is it that after mapping genes we still have no clue where instict comes from? How is it that a brand new baby "roots" and knows to search for a breast to feed from? Why do babies practice to breathe well before air ever touches their undeveloped lungs? If a human has the basic needs of survival taken care, he moves on to creative expression and other needs. Other primates don't do this. Why? Given that there is no actual evidence to suggest the primordial soup theory, nor does that theory explain how the soup came to exist to begin with, and that the BBT theory has been disproven, science offers not a single idea where everything came from. Science says you take obersvations, make a hypothesis, and then look for data to refute or support it. Intelligent design does not apply to any religion, nor does it require any more faith than any other unproven theory. It is an observation. Life is very specific. It requires very specific cirumstances. The word does seem almost perfectly staged and structured. A valid observation might be to suggest there is a reason behind that, hence the scientific theory of an intelligent design. So called science-buffs seem pretty close minded to that for some reason.

I say disrupter technology still beats plasma rifles.

Schmarthy is back!

My step dad said as a kid he used to love fried spam sandwiches. I've never actually had the stuff. When the boards first opened up, they didn't even have a naming convention, let alone details for their project, but they still talked with us.

Kinda like chewing before you swallow? What? That's what my mother always said.

Didn't Starflight II have the horrid copy protection wheel thingy?

And the Quickboot cart for the C64 that increased the memory was awesome! I remember that I was able to load Contra in just a few minutes with that!

Bounty is the quicker picker-upper!

Apple II > TRS-80.

jaguars4ever is the most likely to run a minor crime syndicate.

Number 2 is still working on sharks will friggin' laser beams. However, LOST has Sharks with logos. http://elitemrp.net/fark/2005/logoshark1.jpg

Necromunda did have a cool setting. I think Darque and all the Shadowrun fans would dig it.

Someone needs to come out with an online Necromunda multiplayer game, or type game. They could charge $10 a month and people would play, as it would be less expensive than buying and painting figs.