Blank

i really like the dark cityscape you did. a few parts of it are realistic looking (on the left side there is a circuit-breaker box or whatever, and the fallen wooden panel that covered a broken window or whatever). it looks like a broken down city but with surreal elements throughout, really cool style

exactly, a frequency that could be the remnant of the Big Bang. horribly pathetic proof. that is so unconvincing that i am tempted to vomit to show my disgust. And don't start comparing how much proof one has to how much the other has, they both have an insignificant amount of proof and the big bang supposedly happened so long ago that no proof could really survive that long. and leave evolution out of this too. the big bang is a separate idea from evolution. evolution doesn't explain how everything in the universe got here, and the big bang idea doesn't explain how rocks eventually turn into humans.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but i don't want it being taught in schools as if it can be scientifically proven, because it can't be. same with the "big bang" though. the only proof of it is pathetic, just like the proofs for creationism. we have everything we can look at now, but that doesn't mean we have any idea of what caused it to be put into motion. you can't use the scientific method on either the big bang theory or creationism, both are screwed scientifically, so lets just work with the relavant science without forcing onto people unsupportable ideas about where everything came from, since it really has no bearings on current science, and i will argue that, so just try and say it does, i will be waiting.

yes, i guess our argument is over then, since we both hold different beliefs about how a nation comes to power and retains it and when a nation loses its power. i think the world sucks and will only get better technology, but continue to degrade morally, while you think that nations lose their power when they stop believing in progress (i am assuming you mean good progress, because like i said before, i certainly believe we will progress, but in a morally inept direction). like you said, no nation has ever held the reins of power for long, ever, so what makes you think that will change? it won't. nothing is new under the sun. but now i'll stop arguing to save both of our energy.

It doesn't matter whether there are limits to human achievement. What matters is whether you believe in change or stagnancy. Now, change is not always good, and stagnancy is not always bad, but the belief in change is what marks a society's vitality (or rebirth), while the loss of faith in progress is what marks a society's decay. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i am saying that it is a part of man's debase nature to lock others out of their own wealth, i.e. greed. so now that we have gotten to this point of no return with the money, government, and economy, i don't think it will easily change for the better, if at all. oh, i have faith that the progress will happen, just not in the direction you think. it will continue to progress in a bad way, just watch. i'll come back here in 60 years and we will pick up the discussion then No, it doesn't. i notice that you have misconceptions about reality stemmed from your avidly held ideals such as "power belongs to those who constantly seek to improve themselves" or "effort, not heritage, not nation, not legacy, should be the end determinant of wealth." open your eyes and see that this world sucks and the people in it suck and they aren't going to suddenly or even eventually choose to start bettering themselves into having an ideal world. they have not chosen to do that throughout recorded history, and they won't choose to do that now.

i share the joy, that was interesting and much better than nothing. as for JE i have never played it, but i have played K2, and i really enjoyed that, so i am confidently assuming NWN2 will be super sveeeeeet too. but as for the NWN2 forum moving, i guess it was bad, but not as bad as Hades thinks... i am guessing the hard feelings come from the fact that he got banned from it?

when i said i didn't care, i was mainly talking about intelligence people tapping in on phone lines. i definitely don't want them peeping in on innocent people. there is an extent to which i don't care about domestic spying. but beyond that i care, a lot. you could be right in saying that becoming slaves to safety starts with giving up things like parts of our privacy to our government. whatever the case, we should still consider carefully before we instill laws that claim to keep us safe, when they might not really help at all. like, how afraid of terrorism are people? some terrorism is just a part of life like natural disasters, and some of them you can't prevent unless you can read everyone's minds and have a judging software to stop them (like minority report). but then some terrorism can be stopped. we are dealing with lives here, so how much are we willing to risk? or how much freedom sacrificing is too much? these are the questions.

Not unless a GBA micro screen is PG-13. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... yeah, that's what you were talking about. right... <_<

Actually, they imposed conditions on loans such as privatization of public facilities and stuff like that. As a result, overnight people are suddenly without power and water. People also have their land taken from them, as countries are actively encouraged to create "cash crops" to repay the loans. Getting nothing at all is actually better, when you can self-sustain and self-regulate amongst yourselves and your neighbours by growing your own food and whatnot (kind of like the early days of frontierism in the United States). These people are displaced by the government as a condition to loans from the IMF, and to a lesser extent the WB. The end result is you get mass-migration to cities, severe overpopulation, and people that used to be self-sufficient (in "traditional" village settings) are now forced to place themselves in as the lowest bidder. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alanschu, buisness, government, and money (including taxes) are now intertwined and here to stay. Whether it was the US's fault for that happening or not, the reality is like you said, that people can't really be in self-sufficient villages anymore without having taxes imposed on them from their own government, so they need money and need to get in on the world's economy. You can whine about the situation all you want, and blame the US for it all you want, but the current world won't change, and it certainly won't revert to what it was before. EDIT: yes, it should be. but its not. get over it. No, not like how Hitler justified the destruction of other races on the basis of evolution. The US is not destroying races and they are not doing it in the name of evolution. they are interfering with other countries in the name of self-preservation and some of what WITHTEETH said about its theistic ideals. i don't see other countries offering any alternatives... you make the US sound like some big fat bully to the world when it is not that way. they take advantage of situations for their own benefit, but they aren't sadistic race-destroyers like Hitler, please don't deal in such extremes.

read this V your idea just wouldn't work in reality. the US would suffer irrevocably from stopping all interference in that other countries would be reluctant to do buisness with a country that is, in their eyes, totally self-serving and doesn't use its resources for helping out when it can. like i have said before, we won't be able to escape criticism from other countries or our own country no matter what we do, so your solution is neither helpful to the US nor to other countries.

Agreed ... but i was quoting the rules at Mothman, not her. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But do you know what it refers too <{POST_SNAPBACK}> that was PG-13 rated. i don't think i can handle that...

yes! this is terribly off topic and our buddy tarna is here. (w00t)

"Users may also create a signature that appears at the end of every post. Such signatures should remain at six(6) lines or less of text without imagery, or at most two(2) lines of text with imagery. All images, regardless of text configuration, must fit within a perimeter of 125 pixels high by 600 pixels wide." i don't like CoF's sig. either because it has the disturbing strawberry lady and is really big. and mothy, sorry to break it to you, but you violate the code too... i think your alternative sig. works well though. as for pixies... where the heck is he?

people like you not wanting the US to interfere with foreign affairs... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually it would have been two nuclear super powers going to war. You do the math on what the end results would have been. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so now you want that they didn't interfere? look at your first comment i quoted^... this just supports my belief that there will always be criticism about political decisions no matter what happens.

after reading that, mothman, i think that was totally in character for CoF to do.

people like you not wanting the US to interfere with foreign affairs...

There are plenty of evil, tin-pot dictators in the world...are you proposing that the US should intervene everywhere? I found it pretty funny how 2.5 years ago Bush was playing dress-ups on an air-craft carrier declaring victory and now he's begging for continued patience and saying that victory in Iraq is "still possible". I can't believe the US public was dumb enough to give this guy a second term. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, if you read the thread before posting, then you would know my stance on that question.

but they are already standing on their own. what the heck? the country was not developing in a good way, it was developing in a bad way, epitomized by the bad bad Saddam ruler. so we are responsible to interfere with a country's development, in that, we were protecting ourselves from Iraq becoming a dangerous place, and we were protecting Iraq's own people from being further oppressed by Saddam. we can stick our nose in, and we can pull our nose out. which we are doing, slowly but surely, i don't see a problem in that.

"with great power comes great responsibility". i believe that quote. although the US has been irresponsible by making mistakes in using their power in wrong places, i also think it has fulfilled some of its responsibilities when it comes to stopping the evil in the world. of course, the US doesn't hold this principle nor do they act upon it, but i do hold that principle. so even though people crticize the US's reasons for going into war with Iraq, i think Saddam himself was evil enough to start a war.

look at it this way, the fact that no wars are there now can be attributed to the US bases . you can't know for sure, so that argument will always hold up. even if it isn't true, it still might be partially true, and again, you can't know for sure. ... omg you are criticizing that the US didn't help when they weren't involved back in WW2 and then you are criticizing modern day US for helping when they weren't involved... so what the heck are you saying? but the fact that there was a freakin war in europe which consequently ushered in economical malaise doesn't mean it is the US's fault that the war happened to start with. and therefore it doesn't mean it is the US's fault that there was economical malaise subsequently. but countries do give stuff away. just look at all the money for food flowing into Iraq from the US. and look at all the money flowing in to louisiana from other countires. and look at all the money that flowed into tsunami ridden southeast asia from other countries. you must be talking about something else... EDIT: its just me probably... i am used to thinking Someone is watching me (God), so i guess if somebody wrongfully accused me when i was innocent, i wouldn't care because i know justice will be served after my death. the possibility doesn't seem high to me that they'd bust in on me, but it does to you. we might just always disagree on that since it is a matter of opinion.

Oh, only Adams did the free speech thing. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and FDR threw thousands upon thousands of American citizens in concentration camps. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ah, i see now. yes, habeas corpus is pretty unfair, and i don't see Lincoln's reasoning in that, even if there was a war, why not just answer lawfully to people asking why you are holding somebody in custody? (logical explanation: because it was not legal) FDR i think made his biggest mistake as president with the japanese in concentration camps thing. but with Adams, if he only suspended it for a short time due to war, i understand him and somewhat would support him if i was back in the day.

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion "i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. 'fraid not. See, the government most definitely does not have the right to listen in on the frequent calls from my household to Russia. And they're made on a weekly basis, with e-mail going a lot more frequently. The current administration claims that it's all kosher with the ol' Constitution, but they have yet to prove it. Sounds like an astonishing violation of the rights to privacy and due process to me. i see what you are saying and agree. they say it's constitutional to listen in on international messages from the US, when it is not. i didn't want to throw out the whole constitution, so that is why i disagreed when you asked what i said "in other words". but the next statements imply that i am willing for amendments to be made on the things that i don't think matter. of course, i alone would not be the one deciding, there'd be much deliberation before an ammendment like that. i agree there is always the fear of an eslcalation effect in which freedoms would continue to be lost until the fundamental freedoms of the constitution were taken away. but i really doubt people would stand for that. When it comes to speaking against the government during war-time, you really need to look at their motives. who wants a part of their nation undercutting the rest of it when a situation as delicate as dealing with war is going on? though it "horrendously violates" American civil liberties, i understand and sympathize with those presidents and their decisions. after war though, take it away take it away take it away now, but hopefully they made the law temporary until the war was done or whatever, so you wouldn't have a lingering and no longer helpful to the nation law that is unconstitutional

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion "i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen.

^ same for me i guess the next thing i would do is use the google search engine, but with that you need to shift through some stuff in order to get a simple basic definition of something. so i think wikipedia is helpful in the speed and availability factors of unofficial researching.