Tale

Whether or not they've broken an immigration law is irrelevant to a person's right or priveledge of citizenship in a country where laws are meant to be challenged. And before you go into, yet again, that "laws should only be obeyed and if you have disagree with it you have other means to get it changed" I will reiterate that you've absolutely wrong and the way the United States legal system works is that the only way for someone who's not a politician to change the law is to challenge that law by breaking it going to court and seeing if a jury is willing to uphold that law. And even then, they can challenge it further in appeal. The system is built that way.

You are wrong right there. There have been cases here in Iowa in which an intruder was in the process of breaking into a property and the resident opened fired first and that resident was charged with no crime. Nice try but no dice. That's funny! There have been cases in the United States in which someone crossed the border without a valid permit but was not charged with a crime!

Readily commit a crime? Name one. In your state of residence, it is against the law to shoot a trespasser unless you have absolutely no other choice in order to prevent physical harm. I'm not clear on what the crime would be called, but I'm thinking it's voluntary manslaughter.

It's you. At the very base, Fantasy is fiction that isn't explained scientifically while Sci-fi is fiction that tries to explain it's fictional part with science. The end result is of course impossible, but it has an explaination that is believable. With all the arguments about fantasy I've heard here, it sounds like sci-fi is fantasy itself. It makes it sound like something like "the matrix" is actually fantasy. Except a lot of Sci-Fi does not try to explain itself. Did 2001 try explaining HAL? Not really, but the concept of artificial intelligence isn't quite so fantastic. It's somewhat reasonably possible. There's scientific research to that end. The difference isn't explaining how you got there. That's ultimately trivial. Loose technological explanations are not the difference between the impossible and the plausible. For everything Neo did, it was fantasy. The rest of it was largely Sci-Fi, though.

What I find ironic is how a man can condemn some people as criminals, while himself stating in other threads he would readily commit a crime if the opportunity showed itself. The irony stems because he doesn't actually care about the particular crime for the people he's condemning, he's condemning because they do a crime at all.

I don't even know where to begin to answer that question. Do I point out that I'm not a big fan of drum 'n' bass? Do I ask what a double ristretto is? What is fully functional in regards to a warzone? How does that relate to a more realistic scenario? All good questions. 1. It's interesting that you don't like drum'n'bass. 2. A ristretto is a short espresso. Highly concentrated; like being hit with a sack of coffee beans. Until your nose breaks. 3. Most importantly, by fully functional I mean once at a high level of arousal are you able to engage in lower arousal tasks? A classic high arousal person, once they're firing at the right pitch is quite happy doing 'normal' things. For many cases of ADHD, the person, "once they're firing at the right pitch" often accomplished via medication (stimulants), is quite capable of doing low arousal activity.

I have native blood in me. Cherokee and Choctaw. We don't want you here. Shoo

I don't even know where to begin to answer that question. Do I point out that I'm not a big fan of drum 'n' bass? Do I ask what a double ristretto is? What is fully functional in regards to a warzone? How does that relate to a more realistic scenario?

Because, for an individual to be diagnosed with ADHD, this has to cause a clear maladaptation. Which is often defined by it causing them distress. A person who has simply a high optimum arousal threshold, but operates perfectly fine on a cup of coffee is one thing. A person who has a high optimum arousal threshold and cannot focus on his schoolwork so he starts to fail is another. One is perfectly fine. The other can be a bar to a decent education.

1) I have a hard time supporting the notion of Star Trek as strictly Sci-Fi (and not as a heavy mixture) when I consider just how much of an analog to Orcs the Klingons are. Being plausible within the context of the setting is a false discriminator. That's a quality of being a competent writer, not a genre. By that notion Harry Potter is Sci-Fi because anything is seen as plausible within that setting. 2) Anyone that puts Star Wars as Sci-Fi (it's futuristic fantasy) doesn't even know what they're talking about.

You're dense too, since you assume magic will lead to more opportunities to create something intereseting and new. Magic can create situations that perhaps technology cant, like the classic love potions and whatnot, but it can also be a limiting factor. My classic example of how "raise dead" will ruin the possibility to make a "whodunnit" in D&D. It can slo create fun plotholes if youre not careful, like why they dont simple just take all the big eagles in LotR and drop the ring into mount doom, instead of going on a quest. I mean, they could easily kick the crap out of those lizard things which there are only nine of while the eagles are like 150 and gandolph could ride one and shoot fireballs at the witchking and all.. The limitations of one setting do not apply to all of the genre. You want a whodunnit? Have limitations on raise dead, counters to it or the divination, or simply not have them in the first place. Voila. Heck, D&D already does some of that. You want a reason not to take giant eagles into Mount Doom? You can make one. Easily. Just because there's a few plotholes in LOTR or D&D isn't suited to some specific scenario doesn't mean it's necessarilly true of all Fantasy. Nor does it mean Science Fiction does not suffer from the same flaw. Or horror. Or action. Or... well quite frankly the plot hole is a flaw of narratives and literature featured in every single genre in existence. Magic is oft quite silly. But that's wholly beside the point.

I'm not a big fan of fantasy. Anyone who's read a quarter of my posts relating to KOTOR will have seen at least one instance of me insulting it in some way for being too much high fantasy. However, you have to either be absolutely dense or intentionally trolling to try to make this argument. The Sci-Fi genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the world is doomed to be destroyed by natural disaster, ancient beings/machines/artifacts come to wipe out man, or man's ambition for exploration/creation/acting god have threatened to destroy the universe/world/man. hurr hurr My argument, although not backed by evidence, is that Fantasy is the most formalised genre with the least amount of patterns. Kind of like how you dont have as much freedom if you write a Punkrock song, as you would if you wrote a Symphonic Rock song. You dont have the same amount of chords, you can only use 4/4 tempo, you cant have a flute player etc. because then it wouldnt sound like a punkrock song anymore, and thus wouldnt be a punkrock song. Does that make it clearer? Im saying that Fantasy hass a smaller amount of useable patters (we could call them schticks too) than other genres, and thus leaves less room to be creative and/or original It makes it just as dense. I'm not saying your argument isn't clear, it's ignorant. Magic, practically by definition, leaves the room for more creativity than simply expanding upon theorized science. Because magic can do quite literally anything the author wants. To stay true to Sci-Fi, an author must stay within reasonable limits. One of the key differentiations between the two is that Sci-Fi has to at least be reasonable. Fantasy has no such limitation. Fantasy can have magic news cameras. Take a look at the Harry Potter series and their newspapers with moving photographs. Both Sci-Fi and Fantasy are speculative fiction. Sci-Fi speculates on what could reasonably happen. Fantasy speculates on what we wish could happen. And the variety of what we wish for is a lot more than what is reasonable.

I'm not a big fan of fantasy. Anyone who's read a quarter of my posts relating to KOTOR will have seen at least one instance of me insulting it in some way for being too much high fantasy. However, you have to either be absolutely dense or intentionally trolling to try to make this argument. The Sci-Fi genre is heavily formalized and adheres strictly to a certain model of "storytelling" or whatever you might call it. You have a finite set of design/story patterns that you use over and over again with slight variation. Like for example the world is doomed to be destroyed by natural disaster, ancient beings/machines/artifacts come to wipe out man, or man's ambition for exploration/creation/acting god have threatened to destroy the universe/world/man. hurr hurr

You're also an NGE fanboy, by your own admission.

Resistance again. Best WWII shooter of all time. Insomniac should make more FPS games.

I've been thinking about getting the two Grindhouse films every time I see them at Circuit City. I also saw the Planet Earth Blu-Ray set at Wal-Mart today for $65 and am determined to buy that either today or tomorrow. Or the three Evil Dead movies for $7.50 each. I don't think I'll get enough enjoyment out of them to say it was a good purchase, my interest in probably in the novelty due to their cult status.

Killer 7. I bought it used a few weeks ago. This game is completely insane.

That doesn't sound very convenient at all!

Is this truth convenient? I'm only interested in those kind.

Keep in mind that the original cut of Alien is the true Director's Cut. The "Director's Cut" that is labelled as such was cut by Ridley Scott, but only because when the studio tried to recut it he felt they did a horrible job. His definitive cut is still the original. Which is actually a minute longer. It was interesting when I found this out because it contradicted my previous understanding of what a "Director's Cut" could mean. It was no longer "the cut the director wanted but the studio wouldn't allow," it was "extra scenes to make a buck." Sometimes it is the latter, usually it's the former.

Adderall will probably have the same lack of appetite. I have that problem when I'm on it. I usually drop weight when I take it regularly.

Have you played X3? It's a good space sim.

No, it happened back in '99. Welcome to the afterlife.

Just did the first assassination mission of Assassin's Creed. Love the game. Hate the travelling.