Aristes

I've seen two films recently. Both were better than I'd been led to believe. First up was the remake of the Day the Earth Stood Still. This one falls into my rather large category of "It's a good film. I enjoyed it. Nothing great but nothing terrible." I liked it, but I could see where folks were disappointed. A lot of it felt rushed and little of it was properly explained. At least that was my take. I also watched Valkyrie. Okay, that was a good film. I'm not a Tom Cruise fan, but I think a lot of the complaints about the film came from folks who had an axe to grind against him. He turned in a solid performance. Overall, I thought the performances were solid. Yeah, I think it was a pretty simplistic view of the plot, but it's a movie. They wanted to create some sympathy for conspirators. If folks went in expecting action, they were undoubtedly mislead and disappointed. However, it does cover an important historical event. Even if the facts are strained, like they are in every feature film based on a true story, at least folks get some feel for what was happening at the time.

I think you're using bad example, Krookie. Most folks don't use turkey sandwiches as a reason to oppose gay marriage. Sure, some yutz will, but effective arguments don't. Instead, people usually cite Polygamy. ...And they use it as a slippery slope argument. All well and good, although I think that's the wrong slope to cite. Personally, I don't really care if folks can marry more than one person any more than I care if two people of the same sex marry each other. Hell, for all I care, multiple same sex partners could marry each other, combining into one big same sex polygamy soup. On the other hand, I think there is far more potential for mischief as regards polygamy. That's because of inheritance laws, power of attorney, and child welfare. The case against homosexual marriages based on these issues is virtually non-existant and certainly doesn't seem any more complex than heterosexual marriages. ...At least on its face. So, the "if you let gays marry then why not allow this other group marry" argument is pretty bad. However, the more potent slippery slope argument is that, by equating homosexuality with race, you pave the way for homosexual marriage to be used as a weapon to attack religion. Folks kept saying that this slippery slope argument regarding religion was a "lie," but it is undoubtedly something that swayed votes for the propositions both times. There is a simple way address this issue, however. Instead of fighting against a ban on gay marriage, craft your own proposal that explicitly states that religions will neither be punished or fined for refusing to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony nor will they lose their tax exempt status. Problem solved. I think you'd win in a landslide. The fact is, some religious folks are against homosexual marriages because of powerful religious conviction, but a lot of religious people have no problem with homosexual marriages per se, but they feel under siege. They are afraid that this issue could be used to attack their religion. ...And they are right. It would be. If it could be used to attack religion, an anti-religion group will probably use it. So, give explicit assurance to religious folks, as part of the proposition, that homosexual marriages will not harm their expression of faith, and you've got this issue. I'll personally vote for the proposition. I voted against the first gay marriage ban. Of course, because of the way it panned out, the new proposal will need to be a constitutional ammendment, but that's not so tough to swing in a 50+1 state like Cali. Once you've coopted religious folks, and reaffirmed the legislative process, and won the day based on popular vote, you will have crushed any opposition to gay marriage.

Oh, I AM in Chapter 4. I just got confused. That's the one with the Lady of the Lake or whatever her name is.

I've been playing American McGee's Alice. Also, WoW infrequently. I'm dead set in the middle of Act 3 of the Witcher and I plan on returning to it to finish. I'm also one of those poor yutzes that spent a fortune on Shani's ring only to have her tell me to get one on the cheap. I usually hate game romances, but I get a kick out of the over the top sexuality in the Witcher. It has literally made me laugh out loud. I laughed one time and the wife asked why. I made the mistake of telling her and now she hates it when I play the game. She can tell by the music and voice over work. I hate to antagonize her, so I've been laying low on the title. She calls it my smut title.

Wow, I'm actually impressed that someone took the time to put all that down. With references. I'm not an MMORPG apologist per se. I'm just say that they provide a product and it's well within my means to purchase it. I have mixed feelings about MMOs in general, but I also play one, so it's tough for me to think they're all that bad. I have saved money some months by playing WoW or LotRO, but some months have been wasted. I think it all boils down to what you want as a consumer and if an MMO fits that bill. If it does, then you shouldn't feel bad about it. I guess, like all other purchases, you should decide what it does for you and whether it's worth the expense. Anyhow, I've mostly been lurking. I would say you should definitely not let folks pressure you into playing World of Warcraft if you don't find it enjoyable. I wasn't much of a Guild Wars fan myself, but I also didn't have a group of friends and family invested in that game, unlike WoW. For me personally, I think I would much prefer either the Warhammer game (if it were stable, which is wasn't for me) or LotRO. In fact, I certainly wish I could convince family to go into LotRO with me. I think that would be my favorite.

Painkiller is great fun. I've played it several times. There is a secret ending if you finish it on the hardest setting. Have fun, man! Also, try American McGee's Alice. Great game. I tried to play Zork Nemesis on Windows XP a while back, but it just couldn't slow down enough for this one part. Too bad. I really enjoyed that game. I'm going to try Grim Fandango on the Big Screen TV. That way the wife and I can play it at the same time.

I'm happy to have this option. The fact is, we'd just end up with two different ceremonies. One would be civil and the other would be religious.

Sure, I think society needs a good reason for coming to that decision, you, seemingly, do not. So, what you're saying is that society should not have the right deny rights without establishing that having the right would cause harm? Look, whether or not I think that gays should not have the right to marry is one thing. This ammendment should not have been overturned. I have a very good reason for thinking that should be true. The ammendment passed through the legitimate legal process. The ruling was 6-1. That 1 was way out of line. Even the folks making the argument to overturn the ammendment weren't optimistic because they were merely making the best argument they could and it was a bad argument in the first place. I've discussed this issue in good faith. I wasn't even argumentative or reactionary when Krezack called me a bigot in one of the earlier threads. I've taken folks at their face value. I've given up hope that folks would take me at mine. You might hate my conclusion, but at least I'm willing to set about discussing the issue honestly. Certainly a lot more honestly than folks answering poll questions here before the vote. I'm perfectly happy if the state permits homosexual marriages. I do not want these marriages imposed by the judiciary.

What I was trying to establish is that all society does is deny rights and some of the time there isn't any question that it should. Good Lord. Folks only complain about society denying rights that they wish to have. Look, you said: "I don't think society should have the right to decide the issue, when the issue is denying rights." My point was that society denies rights as its normal function. I was also establishing that some things should be prohibited. I was making the most ridiculous example because I wanted to be clear that no-one complains about exluding things like child abuse from the list of 'rights.' I went from that extreme up to blind people having the 'right' to drive. I went from there to the death penalty and ended up in euthanasia. I wasn't trying to bait you in any way. However, my point still stands. Society decides what rights are and then immediately jumps in to decide who gets them. Sometimes, the vast majority of the population agrees. Sometimes they don't. ...But society always decides. THAT was my point. The specific question is ridiculous on its face, but as part of the larger discusion, I don't think it is. The age of consent is variable around the world. I'm not saying that homosexuals are child molestors and I'm saying you are and I'm sure as hell not saying I am either. However, what is the real difference between 18 and 17.5 years? Yes, it's a dreaded question, but I think it's legitimate. How good of eyesight does someone need to have before society will trust them on the road? Blind is clearly out of the question, but what is the law? If you can settle this question in everyone's mind, you'd have your homosexual marriage right now: Is homosexual marriage an unalienable right on the same level as heterosexual marriage? If you convince enough people that it is, then you've got your ammendment.

Calax: I don't think that the voters have a tremendous amount of buyer's remorse just yet, but I think they can be swayed from their current position. Prop 8 won by a significant but not particularly forceful margin 2.5% switch in votes and you've got it. Of course, Prop 8 also came up during probably the most significant presidential election in my lifetime. What does the turnout mean for homosexual marriage? I don't know. I would much rather see this issues played out at the legislative level than judicial. I'm glad that we're strating from scratch. Kitty: I'm not trying to antagonize you. I know this issue is very much personal for some of the members here. ...But societies always decide the rights and who has them and who doesn't. It must. No one here wants to see the age of sexual consent lowered to 5. How about no age limit? Driver's licenses for blind people? Does the state have the right to execute criminals? Do individuals have the right to end theirs lives because of terminal illnesses? These are all questions that society faces. The process of deciding who can do what is the only reason to have laws in the first place. I'm not saying that homosexual marriages are the equivalent of allowing blind folks to operate vehicles on the freeway. I, personally, don't see any harm in permitting homosexual marriages. I do, however, see harm in allowing the State Supreme court to infringe on legislative power. Hey, I can't help it that, in this screwed up state, the legislative process falls under mob rule on a regular basis. I hate it. I would definitely support a consitutional convention to overturn the ballot initiative process. Maybe then our cowardly and despicable legislators would do their job. ...But we don't have that and the Supreme Court had no basis for overturning the ammendment.

I disagree on both points. There's no guarantee that the SCOTUS will consider this issue. ...And I don't think it's in the best interest of the activist groups for the SCOTUS to do so. Oh, don't get me wrong, it would be if the issue were certain. The SCOTUS is the final word. It has the gravitas that state courts simply lack. However, there is no certainty that the decision would fall the way the activists want, and that gravitas cuts both ways, no? Finally, I don't think social convservatives need to worry based on the popular unrest. The homosexual groups threw everything they had into this issue both times and lost. Now, I know my views on this are unpopular. I think homosexuals should have the right to marry. After all, why should I want to deny homosexuals the right to do something when that right doesn't hurt me personally or cause harm to society. However, society does have the right to decide the issue. ...And they have. Twice. If, on the other hand, homosexual groups can find ways to draw off voters, they can do something much better than win in court. They can make a counterproposal that explicitly allows gay marriage. Won't that victory be much sweeter? ...And it has the added advantage of not promoting the encroachment of the judiciary into legislative power.

yeah, we keep it in the garage. It's not much of a largess. Only as much as a middle class family can afford. I don't really care about posturing. I just want a good enough university to get a job. ...And all of this supposes that I am accepted and can handle the workload. Keep your fingers crossed.

Yeah, my Aunt graduated from Berkley, and she's an insuferable fool who only stays off the government dole by the largess of my family.

I think it probably depends on the field and then maybe the specialty within the field. It might also depend on what you intend to do with the degree. For instance, if you get an advanced math degree with the intention of teaching high school, it might be different than if you intend to use it in the private sector. You might even want to be a college professor. For my purposes, I don't care about big named colleges so much as colleges that I can reasonably attend without killing myself or my marriage driving there daily. I also have to get a degree in a field that does demand teaching at several different universities over the years, fighting for a job. My true academic love it simply out of my grasp, which is a killer, but I can still do something productive that has an academic feel to it, you know?

http://chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/...TION/Page1.html I found this very interesting. That was splendid! Good job, dude! Anyhow, I agree with the final assessment. I enjoyed the film, but I just didn't really care what happened other than watching more action I also watched a movie called... what? Alphabet Killer or something? Anyhow, little note: don't say it's based on a true story and then make a movie about ghosts and a psychotic police detective and God knows what else. What the ****? I literally laughed when I saw the end note saying the movie had no resemblance to persons living or dead. "Didn't the begining just say that it was based on a true story?" "Yeah."

Too true to be funny.

I just can't fault Bethesda for this one since it seems to be pretty broad across the board developer wise. It's probably just a cost to reward question and making the kids killable isn't worth it. It's just one of those things where the developer figures the players can shrug it off. Little Lamplight was kind of like the child soldier idea, only it didn't actually work that way. The kids wouldn't try to kill the PC, but the dogs would attack while the children ran. I guess that's fair. The PC can't kill the kids, but the kids can't kill the PC. I'd seen folks complaining about it online and gave it a shot (haha) just to see what would happen.

The 6-1 ruling underscores something I've said all along. The ballot initiative has run amock in California. The justices wisely upheld the law because they deemed that, whether the constitution should be so easy to ammend, the established law makes it so. Now, I think this issue is not finished. It might be a better turn of events than some folks realize. Look at it this way, if the only thing allowing homosexuals the right to vote was the Supreme Court overturning an honest to God constitutional ammendment, there would be a hue and cry like no other. ...And California has already suffered from hubris and foolery already. Instead, craft a proposal that legitimizes civil gay marriages but does not penalize individual churches for refusing to perform the ceremony. I bet that will cut the legs out from under the coalitoin that currently opposes gay marriages.

Figures, Gorth, I'm helping the pointy eared freaks. What I really feel like saying, however, is a pox on both their houses. Rat bastards.

I would rather play LotR online also. I don't feel I'm being ripped off when I pay for WoW, but it's just not all that interesting for me outside of visiting with family. I think gaming does facilitate social interactions because, while we'll get together for dungeons and whatnot, there's no way in Hell I'm going to talk for a couple hours just on the phone. Talking while questing still lets us converse about non-gaming stuff.

Yeah, because being an asshat doesn't help make your point while sounding reasonable usually encourages folks to listen to it at least. Krezak: yeah, I agree. A lot of small factors combine to set the atmosphere in a game. For my part, I think it does help continuity, but I also don't consider killing kids in the first place. If they wanted to be really realistic, have one of the wasteland warlords force children to kill and commit atrocities and then they won't only be possible targets, they'll sometimes be reasonable priorities as targers. There's your real world gritty setting for you.

Thanks for the practice question, Maria. Sadly, I couldn't finish it in the time alotted. Sober advice from you, Enoch. I've already paid for the LSAT, so I am taking it. My choices of Law Schools really boil down to UCLA and UCI. Since the whole process of testing and applying for law school is not particularly expensive, I can't see a reason not to do so. What to do if I'm accepted is the only question. After all, if my very narrow choices for law school don't pan out, there isn't any choice on that front. Your wise words really strike at the heart of the matter. Is it worth it? I'm 40 years old and I've basically spent my entire life doing nothing. I've had jobs or not as the whim struck me and wandered a lot. I really need to find a profession and do something worthwhile for someone. Even if some of the work might be mind-numbingly boring, I might be able to render good service as a lawyer, and so I've long thought about doing it. My academic background is solid and there should be some opportunity to use a law degree where I currently live because, frankly, I'm not moving. My wife is settled here and there's a good chance this is going to be where I live for the rest of my life. If that weren't the case, I'd have continued on in the academic field of my choice a long time ago. So, this is one of those big life journey questions, which makes me all soft hearted for all you anonymous folks giving me your e-support. Awwww If anyone has any pointers for the sorts of things that might help me on the admissions front, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Actually, I really flubbed it in naming this thread since I was also interested in things like my letters of recommendation and the like. For example, I was thinking of including 2 letters from folks who can attest to my academic background and 1 who can attest to my volunteer work. And the person who can attest to my volunteer work is also the head of a public organization so he goes to Washington DC each year, etc. I don't know if that's a good strategy, but I constantly hear about how Law Schools like to diversify their student population. I was hoping that the fact that I've done so much volunteer work might make up for the fact that I've basically been doing what I wanted without much drive towards any one thing for the past several years. Applying for things like Law School are a real bummer, but I know I'll enjoy the experience, even if it's just the academic part of it.

dd? What the hell kind of advice is that? Krezack, you nut, did you just tell me "don't die?"