Shadowstrider

Que?

Monte still pops by every now and then.

Me too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Double you. Tee. Eff.

She touched my pepe! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with both these posts.

One problem with this game, using the above post, if Commissar says nothing I can only quote his quote. Only thing I can really do with that is...

You hate all news channels, then.

I find MSNBC the least biased towards one political wing or the other, personally. Joe Scarborough could be more right-wing than some FOX news anchors (I also find most of his arguements make no sense, and I am a republican). Another reason I think MSNBC is pretty balanced is righties think its liberal and lefties think its conservative, where as with CNN Lefties think its balanced and righties think its liberal, the opposite for FOX. I can't stand to watch CNN or FOX, they're both clearly biased and irritating. Plus I actually heard one of their anchors use the terms "that dude" and "big 'un" in a non-joking manner on FOX.

Sammael, myself, and a few others didn't post a lot, we just posted on important matters Actually, IIRC, Sammael didn't start posting intensely until about the time IWD2 was announced, pair that with the fact that his net, at the time, was charged per minute so he wouldn't come on for long. A lot of those life-long spammers would also have easily double their post count, if they hadn't made WoT not add to post count

I loved Band of Brothers, bought the DVD set and everything. As for Deadwood, the show doesn't do much for me, the dialogue in it is distracting more than it is anything else. When my friends and I sit down to watch it we find ourselves laughing, rather than watching. Everyone is either using words 80% of the population wouldn't know, or using words the other 20% doesn't use. *Shrugs* I find Rome, thus far, to be better than Deadwood.

It is true. Edit: Hey, wait a second, I'm simultaneously referred to as Gangsta, Brotha, Shadowstrida and wanna-be-gangsta!

Closing the thread as it has reached page 40 (and beyond). Creating a new one in its stead.

Did anyone watch the premiere on HBO tonight? I went in with low, oh-so-low intentions, but was greatly impressed. Though the character's introductions were a bit lackluster, the build-up of their personalities was very well carried out (with the exception of Caesar). The writing was pretty damn good, not 100% historic, but interesting enough to let me disregard any inaccuracies. I should add the show is definetely not for kids, with moments of nudity and a good bit of gore (ranging from watching a man get impaled on a spear, to a brief battle in the begining). The show had a good balance of action and drama - though I'd like a bit more of TEH DRAMA. As I said, the character's personalities were well developed; Octavian an arrogant but fearful child, the two soldiers (whose names I forget - like I said introductions weren't great) as polar opposites. The acting was very good, top notch. Anyway, it will rerun on Tuesday night, I recommend it. Anyone else watch it and have an opinion?

I have no idea what triggered that rant Eldar, but it needs to happen more often. Or maybe I'm a yutz.

Yep.

R.I.P.

So we're all in agreement, then. Locking =P

Yeah, but I figure if I give it just a bit more time it can be a full fledged topic again... Here's ta hopin'.

Has this thread out lived its topic half-life already?

What's overly harsh commenting? Can we say "that pic is bad" or "ugly"? Anyway, that Dyone pic is good. I can't really appreciate that style, but you draw well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Overly harsh is saying things like "you suck" or "you can't draw." This is not a thread to mock board members. If you have a problem with the picture they drew, or their style of art that is perfectly fine. "I don't like the way you drew the eyes, perhaps you could make them a bit broader and a bit farther apart" - perfectly fine. "The eyes suck, they're too thin and make it look like she has a unibrow" - acceptable, but perhaps a bit crude. "That sucks." - Not acceptable. If you don't like a piece, it is fine to say "I don't like it because..." and give a reason. For example, using the picture before that people described as "looking like a droid" you could say "I don't like that because it makes her look like some sort of cyborg."

Further spamming in the thread will result in a formal warning. Overly harsh comments that have no constructive criticism or merit will result in a formal warning. Being cruel to fellow board members is against the rules and inappropriate.

Definetely agree with this. Though her writing's quality may be debatable, the importance of children reading cannot be understated.

If the only way to prevent my neighbor from attacking me again after he has attacked me is to bulldoze his house, then it is perfectly valid as self-defense, provided that my life is at risk. It's exactly the way it goes when you are trying to justify your use of lethal force against an aggressor in front of a court of law. I don't care if you accept it or not. Fact is, your feeble grasp of laws is beginning to leave you in a difficult situation. Reread what I said, then rethink your statement. BTW - We're both off topic. Bad analogy. Where did I say I wasn't "listening?" I said I had nothing further TO SAY. See the difference.

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. I find this very funny, for many reasons. Feel free to request my removal from the moderation team for discussing terrorism, and replying to a post that you made. If you'd prefer we can lock the thread (not me, I don't have permission to do that here), since it is so clearly off-topic. Additionally, it isn't off-topic at all. The topic of this thread is the gaza strip and the forced removal of Israeli settlers. You then claimed that by doing this the Israeli were giving into terrorists. From there it went into a discussion about terrorism. That is the evolution of this thread. What did you expect the thread to turn into "I agree" and "I disagree?" You can't have a debate without drawing examples, and examples are often from outside the scope. Feel free to ask that this thread be locked, if you feel it is straying. All that said, you raising the point that it was off-topic is off-topic, as is this. Feel free to edit it out and I will edit my own post on it out, as well. Feel free to go back and read. I am not of the opinion that "no murder is ever justified, especially not civilians." I think there are ways that killing is justified. It was your opinion that no killing of civilians is ever justified. I used collateral damage as evidence that killing/murder can lead to excess killing.

Again, you fail to acknowledge my point. I'm beginning to think this is personal. You are not convicted of murder if you kill in self-defense. Self-defense is what the US did in Japan. Thus, it was not murder, regardless of what a dictionary says. If you want to get technical, get a law dictionary, and look it up there. Colloquial definitions are not good enough. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nice try at deflecting the issue. I didn't fail to acknowledge your point, I'm still waiting for you to form one. No idea why you would think this is personal. I don't care about you one way or the other (or this issue for that matter). As for self defense, I don't agree with that eiter. The USA was already winning the war, the Japanese had simply not refused to surrender. It'd be like if your neighbor(to stick with my prior comparative theme) had killed your dog, so you killed his dog and his cat then demanded his surrender. He refuses, so you bulldoze his house... I don't care what YOU need, fact is you contradicted yourself. I think its fairly evident, thus I have nothing more to say on the issue.

You are wrong. The Geneva Convention operates as the law of war for the world,[...] Only those who signed it. Additionally, it wasn't signed before the nukes were dropped and thus not applicable. Nope again. Collateral damage. Wrong again. Terrorism has existed, as a part of war since its inception. Threat of war is a form of terrorism. Placing heads of the opposition on a spike to incite fear is a form of terrorism. Hurling the bodies of the sick over the walls of towns or in water supplies (also the first known form of warfare by disease), also terrorism. All of these occur(ed) during wars. Terrorism and war go hand in hand. Terrorists don't exist to murder. They kill for a cause. Whether that cause is just is debatable, whether it is an effective form of warfare is debatable. Everything you said is wrong.