EnderAndrew

I totally agree. Add Mudhoney and Temple of the Dog to the Underrated list.

Spellmar says "weird".

Over-rated: Nirvana Under-rated: Pearl Jam

Reveiled stated in the other thread that he is against forcing players to be involved in a game that is not fun, but contradicts that here. He made a big to-do about his knowledge of the game, and then contradicted it later. Given his trend of going back on what he said, and the fact that he alone defended continuing the game I find it hard to believe that he voted to reset the game. Either way, he has demonstrated that he is not the type of player interested in keeping a game fun and not a player I want to play with. Back-pedalling only serves to hammer than home even more. Reveiled said lying out-of-game was bad form, and thusly he is being called on it.

You quoted a problem specific to K2 where things weren't real. This is a problem with both games and has little to do with real or not.

Every single sci-fi book and movie I've seen uses the same broken science, such as laser in space or sound in space. So why target one film for it? Star Wars never featured teleportation, and operated in a galaxy other than our own. Inhabitable planets could be closer together. Travel could have been a few days at faster than light speeds if planets were close. It is never said that the travel takes place in a few hours. Actually, in the books intestellar travel can take weeks,

I also have no idea what Meta is talking about.

I shouldn't really tell tales, but I might hint that one player was threatening to take his bat and go home ... I take it this player is currently benefiting from the meta-gaming handicap of everyone else? " Note that meta say HIS bat and not HER bat. Also : The itallics used and everything else is completely UNEDITED.

Yet most would say those are still sub-genres of sci-fi. That is like saying Diablo is not an RPG because it isn't a hard-core RPG. Star Trek has some of the worst science I've seen, yet I've never heard someone say that Star Trek isn't sci-fi.

Maybe they choose people who are emotional to up the dramatic ante?

I wonder what the forum record is for a heated political debate with no warnings, deleted posts, or thread closings? Commisar asked for a political debate and he got one. Those that enjoy political debates will read them and post in them. So I think it is safe to continue.

It's actually not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It has all the genre trappings of sci-fi. It is played on the Sci-Fi channel. It is categoried in the sci-fi section of DVDs. Then again people argue whether Dances With Wolves is a western for years, but the movie wil always be sold in the Westerns section.

Spellmar frowns upon you. Really? What history books are you reading? If Israel didn't claim them, they would still be part of Egypt today.

You mean Dr. Lupus, who is afraid of the full moon was really the werewolf all along?

You missed it. The arguement is that Israel "illegally" obtained the Gaza Strip 50/60 years ago, and the UN is just now deciding that it is illegal. Convienent that?

Sien Fein and the IRA are two brothers. I do not judge one brother for the actions of the other. Sien Fein preaches peace and diplomacy. The IRA does not.

They have zero historical claim. Palestine never actually owned the Gaza Strip. And I am for a Palestinian state. I've been saying that the entire time. Are you not reading my posts? A pullout of 9,000 people is partial segregation. Either fully segregate and create two states, or don't. This half-way thing accomplishes absolutely nothing.

The portion of Ireland has independence because they were granted independence. Let me clarify my arguement. My arguement is that right or wrong, Israel exists, and we should address the present situation rather than argue about transgressions 2 generations ago. Either segregate Israel or don't. Don't remove 9,000 people from their homes unless you plan to fully segregate and create two states. Telling Israel to give up on land they acquired from Egypt 50-60 years ago today is random and silly. And we're not asking them to give the land to Egypt. My arguement would be to tell the IRA to stop killing civilians. The UK might be persuaded to give Northern Ireland independence as well someday, but I don't see the UK caving into terrorism. I see the IRA as a group that foils themself. Really? The US supports the England and doesn't support terrorism. When have we supported the IRA?

The UN has never in their history decided that a country should change ownership based on majority population. Given that it is not policy, it is just as random as giving Northern Ireland to Greece. Both are third parties that never actually owned and controlled the land they are being given control over.

I haven't said that everyone who disagrees with me is off-topic. Hiroshima has been discussed and dismissed as being off-topic. Continuing to bring it up derails the main conversation. You are a new moderator, so perhaps you don't realize that you can do more than just lock topics. You can also get them back on topic, such as I am attempting to do. Instead of killing conversation by suggesting the thread should lock, perhaps you could be more helpful and re-rail the conversation. Unless you are calling the US a terrorist organization, I think you are a bit confused. Go back a few posts and you will see how I explained yet again why Hiroshima is off-topic exactly. War is won by destroying the enemy's resolve. So you could stretch any act of war to be an act of "terrorism" by saying that you are terrorizing your opponents, but both you and I know that contradicts every proper connotation of the world terrorist. Intentionally misdefining a term to derail a thread from its original topic is not something I expect from a mod. That doesn't change the fact that you are calling collateral damage murder. Murder is willful and unlawful. Collateral damage is not against the law and is not willfull. Again, you are using intentional misdefinitions to siderail the proper debate. You admit here that the collateral damage/murder arguement wasn't even in line with your actual beliefs. What purpose then does the semantic debate serve other than to get the thread off topic?

Apples and Oranges ... Apples to Apples. England acquires Northern Ireland. Israel aquires the Gaza Strip. After a lengthy period of time, the UN steps in and tells England to give Northern Ireland to a third party, Greece based on the fact that England shouldn't control Northern Ireland. After a lengthy period of tiem, the UN steps in and tells Israel to give the Gaza Strip to a third party, Palestine based on the fact that Israel shouldn't control the Gaza Strip.

I'm arguing that Hiroshima is not part of this debate. It is off topic. Let me make that clear. Nuclear warfare doesn't apply to a debate on the Gaza Strip in any way. US policy doesn't really apply that much given this is between Palestine and Israel. I'd also like to point out that continuing to bring up Hiroshima indicates a partial abandonment of the supposed points you keep arguing for. You are all over the place. You rationalize terrorism as a tactic in this case, and then blast terrorism is you can use the word to knock on the US. Not only does this contradict your stance defending Palestine, but it also contradicts any arguement where you say history doesn't matter in allowing Israel a right to their home land. Then you say history does matter in that murder is justified because of a historical shaft the Palestinians got. In WWII both sides bombed factories. When the US did it 120,000 civilians died. You call that murder and terrorism. But if Germany killed 20 million Russians, 3 million Poles, 6 million Jews, etc. the world doesn't need to step in any do anything? We had no right to protect people or give them back homes after they were stolen? Decide whether you want to argue the situation today, or the situation about the creation of Israel. In either case, there is no real justification for displacing the 9,000 Jews in the Gaza Strip. If you're dealing with the here and now, Hamas made no offer of goodwill in return, and it poses an increased risk of terrorism now in Israel that the Palestinians have gained a tactical inroad to central Israel. If you're dealing with the past, either your belief is that Israel shouldn't have formed in the first place and two seperate states should exist, or that you feel the should live together in peace. On the states issue, why do anything half way? Either fully segregate now to totally end the violence, or don't. Creating 9,000 victims doesn't do anything postive. If you're trying to get them to share the nation in peace, then do that. But we're saying they can't live in peace and must be segregated here, but not on a large scale. It makes no sense whatsoever. I dare someone to make a logical arguement how this makes sense. That was the original point of this thread and I'd like people to get on topic.

They didn't colonize into another country. Israel claimed the Gaza Strip as belonging to their nation 50 years ago. That would be like the UN demanding out-of-the-blue that the UK give up Northern Island and hand it to Greece. Seriously.

Oversimplification doesn't prove your point. Your attempt to be witty actually brings up a point against you. There are no doubt zealots who hate us for our way of life. I wouldn't say that every terrorist does, but the reason some Palestinians were celebrating the death of innocent civilians on 9/11 is because they see it as a victory for their idealogy. You foolishly believe reason applies to a zealot, and it doesn't.

1 - You are off-topic. As a mod I expect you to keep the debate on the topic of the Gaza Strip, not something that has been described as being largely irrelevant. 2 - You quote the definition of murder and then throw out collateral damage as the same thing? Look at your definition of murder again. Murder requires intent. Collateral damage implies accidents. I suggest you go back to the dictionary and look up intent.