Shadowstrider

The thread starter has requested the thread be locked because of hijacking. So here we are.

I really like that piece, but I'm not exactly sure why. I think it shows a lot of promise and the colors really draw my attention.

She is 24.

9/30/2005 Never forget.

You guys done yet?

Probably not, but you probably didn't have to point that out, either . I'd say I'm like Nihilus, since no one on this forum understands a word I say.

Closed for obvious reasons.

hrm... whats that have to do with Star Wars?

I was talking about the game. Sickos.

No. PoR2 predates it by a lot. There might've been another before that, even - I just don't recall one.

I'd beat it.

Well, you can give it a try by simply removing it from the script. I don't know what else it will do, but it could theoretically work.

The posticon should have clued you in...

Ohhh Volourn... :">

I used to play monopoly weekly and chess almost daily. That was before all my friends, family and relatives split apart to move on with their lives (college, job offers, etc...) The only board game I still play is scrabble with my uncle.

It is, for all the wrong reasons.

Looks like I won't be buying any Splinter Cell or Ghost Recon games anymore.

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?act=boardrules Further public discussion of moderation will be removed, if it is a first offense you will recieve an informal warning. If it is not a first time offense it will be an official warning.

Mystary?

I don't know what to say. Thank you for whatever thought you put into this.

no, not at all. i did not criticize anybody, nor did i say their argument was invalid because they're somehow worthy of criticism. that's the requirement for an ad-hominem, i just threw in the "quote" to illustrate how bandwagons work. in other words, there's an opportunity for political muck-racking, and everyone else is doing it, so let's get on board. even commissar just said he normally doesn't care. I'd consider it borderline, myself. Personally, I see your calling my disagreement with "under God" or "In God We Trust" as an ad-hominem attack, as if you're questioning my credibility. I see it as you saying "you don't care about this issue, you just want to shake up the right wing!" This is entirely untrue. Yes, I tend to agree with you in most debates in fact. People color me conservative, so I've just adopted it as what people consider conservative. Whether it is or not. I don't find it meaningless, at the same time I don't think it is anywhere near a matter of importance. I don't think the Supreme Court considers it so either, the media circus surrounding it created the hysteria more than anything.

Why was it not a cause for concern for the last 50 years? I think the complaint is not particularly valid because it's not required to say the thing. For particularly the reason you mention, its not required. That doesn't make it a non-issue, it just makes it less important. The timeframe of the complaint is a non-issue. It doesn't detract from the complaints value in any way. I've actually had a gripe with it and "In God We Trust" on the dollar for sometime, its just not something I'm particularly willing to take before the Supreme Court over, where someone else may. I am adamantly against eating Oysters, muscles or clams, but I don't run around making an issue of it. If someone says "would you like oysters?" I say no and explain that I don't like them. Does that make my adamant refusal to eat them invalid?

does the term "bandwagon" come to mind? ooh, lookey, somebody is raising hell about something that will make conservatives (er, religious conservatives) squirm! let's all get on board. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This basically boils down to an ad-hominem attack. I should note I'm a conservative and an atheist, just like you! It has nothing to do with bandwagon jumping. Its a topic for discussion, it was brought up, so I discuss it. By this logic any time anyone brings up any political discussion, people jump on the bandwagon just because, rather than for real reasons. "O'Conner is retiring from the supreme court!" "Ya, but where were you in 1999 while she was still on the bench, we all knew she'd go eventually. You're just talking about this now to make X squirm." Sorry, that don't fly.

It has been discussed before. I don't know if it was on this forum or another. Again, does that make the complaint any less valid? What does it matter WHEN it is discussed? Its being discussed NOW.

Why does that matter? Personally, I'm an atheist, and I'm not mad over this issue. I talk about it because its at the table.