Blank

The only way it makes sense is if Hades was relating a tactic to us, where he would go in first, get everyone to follow, and then run back. Such an action would be setting up his teammates to be in more danger than him, and in turn, the tactic or Hades can be labled lawful evil.

Web Chess. I mean, I knew I wasn't good at chess, but I can't beat the computer with the default one second think-time. It seems like all its moves are infallible.

It's been around for so long. Pretty fun to watch, but you don't want to get attached to it; Stargate SG1 is like an old stray dog that shows up at your door and looks cute, but you know it'll die in a year.

Same here. I was just playing with a friend. It was a two on two game and my friend and I aren't the best of players, but we were using the mic's incessantly for tactical reasons, and we would cover each other in every direction: I would strafe right and he would walk forward and stop at the corner while I would continue around the corner. We threw smoke grenades in the middle of the level to distract the enemy. Oh, that was fun.

Especially if there is bad blood in the beginning (e.g. a racial slur that really gets people angry, and then combining those two teams)

Media sees controversy as a surefire way to get viewers. I'm curious myself as to how people will treat each other, that is, when things get heated up, if there will be racial slurs and junk that will force Jerry Springer guys to hop in between everyone. As Alanschu said, this could get ugly, which is probably another lure to get viewers.

I think Obsidian's been very lucky to inherit two of Bio's games. Even though some of its devs came from BIS, Obsidian was a new name in the buisness, and it is often hard to get into the dough as a startup company. I'm just saying, Obsidian is probably grateful to Bioware for these first two "hand-me-downs".

Zing!

Use Trillian. No ads or anything, and you can manage your aim, icq, yahoo im, and msn instant messaging all in the same program, as well as be notified if you get any new e-mail for those respective services. It's free, and easy to use, and if I said anything else I would sound like an ad. http://www.ceruleanstudios.com. Go to Download Trillian Basic 3, because that's the one that's free. You'll like it, IM sure (oho, pun).

I just played the free FEAR multiplayer. The game looks nice first of all, and the gameplay is pretty decent, but it isn't as good as Counter-Strike. I don't know if I am just used to CS and liked it better because of that, but there were strange things, like the bullet trails (which just shouldn't happen), and the overall movement was a little slow, fluid, but still slow: like molasses. The single-player is probably fun due to graphics and the assortment of weapons, but for multiplayer there are better games. Free is free though...

Both of these are good concerns, but they can also be opposing. When you want to be completely safe, you have to surrender a lot of freedoms. But being completely free will invite a lot of bad to happen. The trick is to find the middle ground, and to know that there will be risks no matter what. It sucks, but that is the world we live in. Right, but some people get pretty worked up when the goverment gets more power. The ultimate fear is that the government gets more power than the people, becomes corrupt, and is able to stifle any opposition from the people. The idea that people think about when they are opposed to more governmental power is the "gradual compromise until it is too late" idea. I'm not saying that I agree with that belief as per our current government, but I'm pretty sure that's why people get worked up. It isn't an invalid idea: such gradual compromises in addition to ignorance have transpired in history that have ended up catastrophically on an international scale.

I hear it from a lot of people, and I won't say that I don't agree: the prospect of the government tapping the average Joe's phone is disturbing. It is one more freedom that is lost toward the cause of "national security". I'm fairly sure that phone tapping by the government without permission can help in certain terrorist cases, but most people I hear don't think it is worth the freedom that is lost. However, I'm also sure most of those people wouldn't forgive the Bush administration if another terrorist attack occurred. My immediate family wasn't directly affected by the events of 9/11, but I know a lot of people's families were. In the broken world we live in, with freedom comes risk. I hope the people who berate Bush for things like the patriot act are fully aware of the risk that comes without that extra "security". If I thought about it long and hard, I would rather not have the patriot act in place, simply because I want to be as far away from a dystopia as possible, and the patriot act is an unnecessary step toward that direction in my eyes. Although, like I mentioned earlier, my eyes are different than someone else's who has lost family due to terrorist attacks. My main point for writing this is to express my feelings that people need to understand what risks they are proposing to take when they suggest abolishing things like the patriot act (i.e. comparing the risks to the freedoms, not just looking at the freedoms, which seems to be the common thing to do).

I thought Doug Doug's dad did an excellent job with his voice and facial expressions. The ending credits look cool also.

I saw this on another forum: Fear of Girls. You've all probably seen it. It's pretty funny, about rpg pnp gamers.

YAY!

In before lock!

"My driving belief in life is to love God and love others." Just to note, nowhere in that last post did I say God was loving. Now I will say God is loving, so now your comment can apply. God has a lot to do with love. Primarily, how he died for sin on the cross. As for eternal torture, since the last time we spoke, Hades, I have thought at length about this subject. Indeed, how can a loving God put someone in eternal torture? To that I will say again that I believe God is sovreign, rightous, just, and most importantly, good. So can a good, loving God, allow that to happen? He allows free will, and there is punishment for certain choices, but will he punish eternally? On this issue, a few months ago, I decided that I won't draw a distinction, except that I know there is some kind of punishment, or else salvation would be meaningless (that is, if there is no punishment, then salvation from what?). I studied the issue, and the eternal fire and brimstone isn't completely clear in the bible. The closest I see is that the devil, the beast, and the antichrist are thrown into the lake of fire, to burn for eternity, and that anybody whos name is not found in the book of life will be thrown in also (though there is no timeframe given for those people, as it is given for the devil, the beast, and the antichrist). If the passage said that the people who aren't in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity, then my belief would be more concrete, but that passage gives the most detail about the economy of hell that is in the bible. Although, regardless of this, I have faith in a God that I believe is sovreign. If you believed that, it would only make sense to serve him, your soul would be at his fingertips. Moreover, I serve him by doing good. I don't see why you are adverse to a belief system that only permits you to do good. Perhaps the reason behind it? Because the reason is that it is for God? The reason is actually that it is for good, it is for the sake of good. I happen to believe that God defines good. So what he did in Egypt, was that good? I won't say. Ask him when you get to heaven. Or heck, ask him now, he might answer you.

Sure, why not. I believe he is all-powerful. Why can't he do something like that? It doesn't matter about how I believe the world was created. As you said, my driving belief in life is to love God and love others, so trying to convince people that the world was made 6000 years ago is stupid. In fact, I'll recant that earlier comment, simply because it has no bearing on my beliefs as a whole. I believe God created everything, that is all that's needed. I do give ground though. Like now when I realize that believing the world was made 6000 years ago is rather stupid to push as a point that matters.

The Christian axis of evil strikes again!

Sorry for double posting, but some people get annoyed when I edit my posts in these settings. The instances that I don't take the bible literally, I make sure to put them up to the rest of the bible, and see if my decision is right to not take the instance literally. Moreover, what I say I believe doesn't matter, because my beliefs are defined by what I do, and the heart behind what I do.

And by previous list I'll assume you mean this one: Let's see... the sun, we have documented, does not go around our planet. I don't believe it does. Therefore, that instance in the bible, I do not take literally. What passage is that from though? I think there is something like that in Psalms, a book of songs. Songs are artistic, and oftentimes scientifically unsound. I say I get heartburn, when I know that it is stomache acids pushing up my esophagus. As for the world being created 6000 years ago, I believe that is true, yes. I explain all aging of the world we find as being made by God. If I was going to make a world, and I was God, it would make sense to not make it a planet that is just coming into existence. I would create the world "aged" a bit, like good wine, in order to house people. As for carbon dating and stuff like that, I believe the atmosphere was different in the beginning of time, and that a flood occured. Pi is not exactly three. If that is in the bible, then it is simply not true, and one should look at the spirit of the passage. Where is it in the bible (just wondering)?

I will say that I don't ignore context, but I try to take the bible literally as much as it is possible for me.

Like I said, we aren't the punishers, that is reserved for his job.

I'll reply. Firstly, I believe that God is sovreign and justified in anything he does. Secondly, I do subscribe to the "do what I say, not what I do" principle in this case. The reason I do that is because God and I are different. I am a human, and my realm of dealings is with what I do, not with punishment. God's realm of dealings goes beyond imagination, but one of them is punishment. To compare me to God is flawed, because his job is immeasurably larger than mine; we are so different that it is not comparable.