Tigranes

No, it's not. Turn that on its head; if you don't know anything about me or other people in this thread, then why did you go ahead and make bold claims such as the fact that we are all Americans? I'm not bothered that you thought I was an American - that's a very trivial point. What I am saying is that you are groupoing everyone here into a big stereotype of "people who have been brainwashed by western media and don't realise anything bad the US has done, and think US is the big hero of freedom" or something. That colours your discourse. Once again you don't actually answer my questions. Do you actually have a real practical suggestion on what should happen from now on for the good of everybody, Muslim or Christian or US or Arab? If so, why don't you actually post that? That's what is relevant to the discussion, not a thousand pages of US IS BAD. Are you for example suggesting that everybody leave Iraq alone immediately, and nobody else interfere? What do you think that would do to a country with no political, social or economic infrastructure left and a power vacuum? Why is the UN any better than the US? Is the UN magically better, more capable and more neutral and nice unlike the US? What makes you think that? Shouldn't it be the Iraqis anyway who decide this stuff, not you in Indonesia (right?) or Bush in US? But when the Iraqi government cannot adequately represent its people how are you supposed to know who wants US in Iraq, who wants US out of Iraq, UN, whatever? You aren't going anywhere past "US IS BAD" right now, I'd be happy to move this discussion forward when you have a practical proposition on what should happen now and why that will work. No, "US GET OUT" doesn't suffice for very obvious logical reasons. Got to run, but I'll come back on the parallel posts on pop and mes. edit: also: Do you have a clearly defined idea on the power of sovereignty then? 1. You think US should not have interfered with Iraq, because the US government does not have legal authority over the actions of other countries. 2. This means that you subscribe to the modern idea of sovereignty, and that the invasion represents a breach of that national sovereign integrity. 3. At the same time, have you not considered that Saddam Hussein's regime was not exactly a liberal democracy (Zakaria)? How does a government come to deserve sovereignty? At what point do you say "this government was not democratically elected"? When votes are rigged? When votes are probably rigged? When the presidency is practically for life? Was Saddam Hussein's presidency in your eyes democratical enough, that he could be considered an acceptable representative of the people? Did he have 'sovereignty'? I never supported the invasion of Iraq, but it's not a clear cut "US meddling bastards" thing. It is extremely naive to suggest that.

The only person who is holding up a delusion that this is some kind of 'fight' is you. I'm a Korean living in New Zealand and I don't like US foreign poilcy either. I'm here for the debate, not for some kind of immature 'battle'. Excuse me? Where am I turning a blind eye to terrorism committed by US or other western governments? I am very concerned with the US and have always opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that now they're already in there, it's very hard to pull out and not make things worse. I'm not even American. Why are you grouping everyone in the forum into one big "America-Loving-Stupid-Idiots-Who-Believe-CNN"? I think that's very rude and arrogant of you to assume that about other people. Why would I have a double standard about US and Muslim activities? I'm a Christian but I believe Muslim is another way to God and I respect that very much. I don't think you have the right to say anything like this about other people. Blanket statements don't help your case. No, I didn't. I DIDNT ASK THAT. --;; I already know what you think. You've made your point that US has committed a lot worse atrocities. You've given us evidence. Everything. That's fine. Okay. Sure. You've made your point. What I'm saying is, SO WHAT. Do you want everyone to nod their heads and say "Oh, right, US is worse than the Muslims"? Is that all? What do you want to happen on the world stage or a local one in a pragmatic sense?! Do you want US to pull out completely? Once again, you have never articulated why that would actually help the place! Do you think the violence wouldn't escalate if they pulled out? Do you think the US peacekeepers will break their long series of useless performances to actually restore order? Do you think the Muslims would no longer suffer, or terrorism from them would stop? You're just posting the same thing over and over again right now and you have no conclusion.

You don't have to, really. But if you want to continue this discussion - and sure, I'm sure some of us would - then it's up to you to provide a complete argument that actually has a point. I think it's rather interesting that you choose to make disparaging remarks on everyone's intelligence in this situation, no need to descend to that - just give us an actual argument (instead of "US BAD"), and we can get on to it.

Irrelevant, I was asking what your argument was. Is your argument "US is a lot worse than these muslim terrorists"? In that case, the argument is complete; but I would say that is an utterly pointless argument. If your argument actually develops from that observation, then you've got some writing to do. I'm not trying to insult you but I'm pointing out that the argument you have put forward is not relevant at all at the moment, because it remains a one-upmanship of "US is just as bad if not worse". So what if it is? Not relevant. All those pieces of evidence were supporting your initial point. I already said that I'm speaking to you presupposing for the sake of argument that you are right on that point. That point is not an argument iwth any practical application itself... and there is a massive logical gap if you say "US is bad too, so it should get out." Massive. Gap. Now, if your argument is, as I seem to be able to pick up from a couple of places, that US should get out of Iraq immediately, get UN in there and leave them alone forever. As my latest post articulated (or attempted to), not the best idea. I wasn't happy with US invading Afghanistan or Iraq; but it takes a fool to say that everything will improve fi they get everyone and everything out of there right now. It might make it worse. And at what poitn do you leave them alone? Do you leave Hitler alone in WWII because it's not America's business to intervene in other people's sovereign nations? Or if the question is one of sovereignty, is it okay to not intervene at all as long as that country doesn't invade other peoples'? And if America really didn't send any troops to Iraq or bomb it or whatever, do you think muslim 'terrorism' will stop? Relations will get friendly? People will move on? No. America's involvement with the Middle East is *now* inevitable; the only practical question to ask is in what way it should involve itself that is most benefitial for both parties, not "GET OUT", because it can't "get out" anymore.

Because that question is relevant to answer - and very relevant - on a sociological and psychological level, but it is less useful for a surfacial glance at the comparisons of foreign analyses. Presupposing an understanding of the jihad fighters that goes beyond a moronic diatribe against "crazy idiot bastards", this question is not a central one for foreign policy, only a societal understanding and contextualisation of jihad fighters. In the end I'm limiting myself to a very specific discussion: when a hypothetical man decries the 'terrorist' actions of some jihadi, and another hypothetical man says "well look at the US", then stands there righteous as if the argument was complete, I have to ask, what is the point of that truncated comparison, that juxtaposition which may have meaning for the lesser questions but not the central one? And if the answer is that the US have no moral prerogative to interfere in the Middle East and therefore should leave (or restrain their activities to more morally acceptable ones) - at this stage in time, what does that in a practical sense do to the denizens of the Middle East? In a state of conflict what can you do but wound each other and create vendettas? And even if the US had never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, or dropped any bombs or made any direct 'terrorist' attacks, the social and religious suffocation some Arabs feel and have felt for the greater part of last century does not simply go away. The vendetta against the West is not some limited thing based on a select few causes, an animal whose front and end is conceivable: it is a worldwide phenomenon that is a tide too big to restrain that way. Muslim 'terrorism' will not go away just by the US troops leaving Iraq; perhaps there will be less bombs exploded and less people killed, but the greater conflict moves on to new waters.

So you think you have an objective and unbiased view of US foreign policy and Muslim fighters? You don't, and I don't. While for practical reasons it is pedantic to argue about some sort of 'true' objectivity (go postmodernism!), to assume that you or anyone are infallibly on that pedestal is dangerous in any argument. Besides which, why does he have to learn to be objective or whatever, before you give your opinions on Muslim fighters? Why can't you just give your view first if you have one, because this isn't some sort of school or one-upmanship, right? If the most important thing is the debate and its points, then why not tell us what you think? Your original post (with the a-bomb photos) - irrespective of whether I think you are right or wrong - is an independent opinion on US foreign policy, and it can't be somehow manipulated to express a comparative analysis between US foreign policy and Muslim fighters. Let's assume that I fully agree with you that US foreign policy has resulted in many unbelievable acts of 'terrorism', and they are truly despicable occurrences. Right? So, how does that relate to a small minority of Muslims in the Middle East right now that are killing people, kidnapping people, bombing things, so on? What are you trying to say? That compared to US' atrocities, Muslim terrorism is nothing? That is a completely illogical non-point. It doesn't matter if the US blew up an entire planet with a-bombs in 1945, why should that influence how acceptable or tolerable Muslim 'terrorism' is right now? Or are you trying to say US should get out of there and leave the Middle East alone because US isn't any better, they're worse? This isn't about one-upmanship. This isn't about "which country is cleaner" or "which country is more benevolent". You can't just say "US is worse!!!!!" and expect that to be a conclusive remark about the state of the world today. But then, that was a major presupposition of what your argument might be, because your original post didn't develop that at all. You stopped on "US is bad man, do you guys realise?". So where are you trying to go from after that? What is the US and the Western world supposed to do in regards to the conflict in the Middle East and why? I skim-read that SOAD essay you quoted, so let's take the 'solution's he presented... assuming you agree with them: 1.Are you saying U.N. Peacekeeping troops and missions are acutally more successful than U.S. troops in bringing 'peace' to the Middle East? Or just a question of legitimacy? If the former, what is the evidence? 2.What will the cessation of bombing and patrol of Iraq do for peace? Will Iraq just become a peace-land if everything American goes away? 3. Sure.

If you could actually show us the cover, then you could get an answer?

Oh wow, Baley's first clip was glorious. Time to link and share, reality TV DOES have its fun moments.

Looks like your standard indie 'ye-olde-times' RPG. Might be fun, but probably mediocre. We shall see.

Well, after a long period of a process of elimination, I discovered the motherboard's model (from some weird stupid Chinese manufacturer whose website resembles a travel company's), and installed the onboard video card drivers. That seems to have done the trick, predictably. Thanks people, now to burn those entrails in the open, suburban neighbourhood air.

Well, I tried plugging in the CRT, setting it to 800x600 / 16colour, and that worked. However, even when I switch it to the LCD, the LCD can't handle anything higher. I tried reinstalling the OS system files with the LCD plugged in, but the same issue; it just gets OOR at 1024x769, even though prior to format, thats the resolution that was always used. There are no video card drivers in, of course, and the comp is just working of Default Plug 'n' Play monitor, so maybe that's the reason. Now, to somehow divine what the damn video card is...

Yeah, I am going to try connecting the CRT first. Went to a shop nearby, didn't have any in stock so I got some kiwifruit and cheap custard.

Will have to wait until the morning, my personal supply of head-bouncing Kupi dolls ran out sometime during last week. Lots of honey around, though. Some other people I've asked came to a similar conclusion about the frequency/resolution, and it looks like the most probable solution is to reinstall the OS system files with the LCD plugged in, so that the process picks it up right. It'll be a bother since I did a ton of post-install stuff to optimise it, but oh well.

Which one, the CRT? It does look a lot like a TV... it is a monitor, I promise you.

Alright, time to dip into the big green vat of knowledge everybody here except me seems able to contribute to. Just a quick question. So I formatted someone else's computer for them, since they're your standard know-nothing-about-computers. Everything went fine. Except I used my own monitor for the proceedings, and when the said person returned to her home and tried to use it, apparently the monitor says 'Out of Range' as soon as it gets into Windows. I suspect the problem is that mine is a XGA CRT (This one, to be precise) and hers is a LCD, apparently something called a Direction L172 Deluxe (Only info I could find was from a new zealand equivalent of eBay.), with apparently a RGB input signal, whatever that means. They also have different horz/vert scan frequencies. The same error occurs even if one attempts Safe Mode. The resolution of 1024x768 shouldn't matter at all, and I don't think the refresh rate was anything above 70 either (left at default). So I suppose there's something different between the two monitors that means whtaever output Windows is putting out for my monitor, that LCD can't handle. So the question is, what's the quickest and best way to fix it? Tomorrow I should have access to that computer, and both monitors. The OS is WinXP. If I could somehow find out in the next 12 hours I'd be a happy, happy chap and you all would get some immaterial gob of greatful happiness in return. So, Tally ho, off you go.

What? I didn't watch the stupid video, I was fangasming over the UI. karka gets a manly, manly hug.

..... LINK ME LINK ME LINK ME LINK ME OH GOD. That link's just a jpg, FOR GOD'S SAKE LINKE ME I'M DYING HERE.

I guess the 657 Cloudkills don't really do much against banshees. The party looks pretty okay actually, apart from the one death, that is. I suppose the multiple fears were annoying.

rofl'd. I actually was talking about the manga version, since I only ever saw that. If the anime is worse than that, then God. Personally, I thought the big high of the series was

Death Note needed to end after the first arc, as the 'evil guy wins'. That, or the writer needed to take a break so that the second arc wasn't so crap. It was really hollow, and whereas there was a tension and believability in the first arc, the second just felt childish and made-up... starting from the stupid premise of the orphanage. The orphanage is nonsense, and the curly-hair kid is a deus ex machina all in one, Guy That Knows Everything. I held out for the one thing I knew was coming - the final showdown that would show fragility of Yagami Light and his empire, and his despair in those final moments - but even that was cliche and quickly passed over.

On Darker than Black, I've stopped watching and haven't caught up yet, so I guess I agree with theslug, though I feel he's a little bit on the harsh side. Yoko Kanno's music *is* good, but yeah, its a typical action sci-fi 'we're-so-cool' anime. I have a strange aversion to all types of fighting in anime anyway - they bore me incredibly. On the other hand, I'm reading BECK the manga. It's pretty damn famous, but just in case - it's a story of a rock band and its members. Half of them speak English half the time though, and its a little bit old with a typical art style, and I don't really enjoy the music itself in the anime (as opposed to Nodame Cantabile which had some nice classical treatments) - so, reading the manga. It's pretty fun, if formulaic. Also getting myself Monster in manga, being in NZ i have a 20gb bandwidth cap each month so I prefer manga when I can get them. Actually, I just like pacing myself as well.

Shut up, or I'll touch you from afar.

We don't condone that kind of morally reprehensive, illegal behaviour on this forum. The vast majority of the civilised world would never do such a thing.

Ten year olds won't be allowed to buy FO3, sorry CrashGirl. Nothing wrong with Bethesda taking a ten year old game and trying to replicate it in some way, if that's what they want to do. If that's not so much what they want to do, that's fine as well, as long as it's not completely different. It can still bear the name of FO3. By that time, the name has a different sort of signification and whiel some in positions such as Sand's might still see it as some sort of deviance, not too many will care overmuch.

Pretty sure it's ok, if you install UB after.