Dark Moth

Although I do admit Bastila is hotter than any girl on this list. Lesson: don't settle for the real thing if you can make a better one. Also, her accent and stuck-up attitude turn me on.

One very simple explanation: you don't want your enemies to know how you work. First rule of warfare: know your enemy. If you don't know your enemy, that's one more advantage they have over you.

I'm not sure if it's either funny or sad that a pixelated character is owning everyone else.

LS. Helping others out and being a nice guy feels good. I also have this guilty conscience with doing DS things even though it's just a game. And DS so far is just too "bully-ish" for my liking. I'd rather be a clever, manipulative, diabolical mastermind than some brutal kitten-drowner.

It should be in Religous Studies or Philisophy couse, but not in Biology until the theory develops a solid scientific research base. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I doubt we'll be seeing a solid scientific base for it anytime soon. But I think it should be presented just for the soul purpose of not offending those who do believe in ID. Do I think ID should be presented in every biology class of every school? NO. But if a school decides it wants or needs to, I don't think we should prevent them from doing so, provided of course the school actually doesn't go beyond just presenting the theory. As I said, my viewpoint is not actually teaching creationism, but just leaving the theory open as a possibility. There's a difference. Cause let's face it: a person might not fully agree with evolution, but still might want to learn about biology. But I guess that's where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's what everyone is saying to you. Present it as an alternative, but not in biology class. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah? And where else in public school would that be? Aside from a religous studies course? I was under the impression we were talking about biology all along.

I don't think it's an "atheist devil tool" But it doesn't care if it hurts or helps any religion. It's not supposed to. But in areas where science and faith clash, I don't think it's fair to completely shut either one. My view is that they shouldn't actually teach ID, but just present it as an alternate theory, as I've said at least 5 times already. They can go to Sunday school or take a religous course if they actually want to learn about it. Evolution should be the theory they actually teach and cover, because it is science. As for what WITHTEETH said above, I agree with him on most parts. But as I said, where science and religion clash, I think it's fair for both sides of the issue to be presented so we don't offend those with religious strongpoints. Just because you have religious views means you should go to a private school. Maybe they don't want to go to a private school. I know I wouldn't. Public school is public, and it'd be unfair to exclude them or shut them out completely. Like it or not, religion still plays a role in many people's lives. But yes, if the student decides he or she doesn't want to learn at all about evolution, then yes, maybe they should go to a private school.

I think you're the one missing the point, and I think you're being unfairly dismissive with the whole thing. WWII has nothing to do with math, but ID does have something to do with presenting a theory as to how man came about. I'm well aware creationism is not science, nor has any evidence to back it up. But that's not the issue here. It's pretty easy for you to say being an atheist, but you're not thinking from other perspectives. And I'll say it AGAIN:

No, you're wrong. The topic being discussed is how man came about, right? Science teaches man came about through evolution. ID teaches that man came about by some supernatural outside force. They are two radically different theories, but they are presenting both sides of the same topic. World War II, however, has absolutely nothing to deal with math. If you're discussing functions in math, bringing up WWII won't help you one bit in determining the vertex of a parabula. It's a completely different, impertinent subject. They are two completely different things. They don't even discuss the same topic. And once again: I believe both theories should be presented. However, of the two, I think evolution should be the one taught (keyword). For ID, my view is they should just present it as a theory, just to keep the field level. If people want ID taught in the classroom, they can take a religous study for that.

Now you really are being silly. That example has no application whatsoever to the discussion.

Know what? You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions. I think our first step should be to go after Galileo. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now you're just being silly. Have you even read my posts? I said nothing about throwing out a discipline. @WITHTEETH: The theory of evolution works just fine with all the religions you mentioned. I'm talking about the other religions that do teach creationism like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I think it's pretty disrespectful to just simply dismiss all those who might hold religous views on the subject. It may not be science, but almost all religions require a leap of faith. I'll say it again: I believe both theories should be presented. However, of the two, I think evolution should be the one taught (keyword). For ID, my view is they should just present it as a theory, just to keep the field level. If people want ID taught in the classroom, they can take a religous study for that.

I'm getting your point just fine. You want to any shred of religion to be erased from the science classroom. Which is okay, but it's a lot easier for you to say, being an atheist. What about those who do hold religious values? I think it's unfair and pretty dismissive of you to say science isn't for them. A lot of religious people have no problems with science. As I said earlier though, I think we should just present the thoery of ID and leave it at that. Don't actually delve into it (in other words, don't teach the theory in depth), just present the theory and leave it at that. Teach evolution, but try to keep it fair for all. I think it has a lot to do with fair, thank you very much.

I think you're missing my point completely. What about those who staunchly believe in creationism, aka intelligent design, who would be forced to hear that their beliefs are wrong. Key word: offending. I think it's fine to teach intelligent design in schools ONLY if it's presented as a theory and not delved into. In other words, present the theory of ID in the classroom as an alternate theory and leave it at that, then go into evolution. And you don't need to "present all sides" as long as you keep the intelligent design theory generic. In other words, make it applicable to any religion/belief.

Now that's just silly. You forgot the Norse Pantheon. "

I think some people misinterpret why ID is being taught in schools in the first place. While you could say that the right-wing is trying to impose religion on us through schools, I think a big reason is simply to avoid offending those who do believe in creationism (and that does not include just Christians). If you teach evolution in schools as solid fact, someone with very strong religious ties might take offense to that (laugh at it if you want, but it would happen). Basically, you'd be telling the person that his/her religion is wrong. I think a big purpose here is to try to avoid controversy by simply presenting both sides of the issue. EDIT: I believe Darkside is saying that she believes God created man through the process of evolution. We did not evolve, in other words, through mere chance. Some higher being jumpstarted evolution for us. Am I right fellas? I mean, am I right?

Quit talking to yourself.

I think Visas's line about seeing nothing more than a man was just a way to put a final twist on Nihilus's character. I mean in the entire game, Nihilus was depicted as an uber-poweful (ha ha) Sith Lord more terrible than anything at the time. It didn't seem possible that he could even be human, especially with the power he weilded. Yet after he died, Visas looks at him, and sees a being not unlike herself. So while Nihilus may have been powerful and unstoppable, in the end, he was still just a man.

Voted "negative". It appears to me as little more than an attempt by LA to milk a character's popularity dry. My prediction is we'll hear very little about KOTOR from him, too. Most likely, he'll just be suffering his usual memory loss and not remember a thing about his past.

The "master storytellers" of Obsidian didn't make continuation for the game any easier, especially with the darkside ending having pretty much all the Jedi dead. I admit I was actually excited to hear K2 would be a direct sequal of K1. Looking back though, I realize that it was a mistake, that K1 didn't need a sequal, and that attempting to explain more of Revan's character only made him less of your character. And the way they wrote him off was just lazy. But now that K2 pretty much needs a sequal, LA is going to have a heck of a time as far as continuing the story. Especially if they try to introduce a new main PC for the game.

Age of Mythology: the Titans Alas, it seems I won't be getting AoE: 3 this year. I don't have XP.

I tend to agree. The male Revan/Bastila storyline as always seemed deeper, more dramatic, more solid, and just more appealing than the other romances. Plus Bastila's a lot nicer to look at. As a fanfiction writer, I'd also like to point out that there are quite a few female Revan/Bastila romance stories on that site. most written by females

"GET OVER HERE!" Yeah, I like him too. :D

For something on topic... LOTR: The Third Age It's not as bad as I'd thought it would be, and it's kinda addictive. Sadly, it's not all that great, either.