Oblarg

Blah blah do you have an argument or are you just going to attack my use of the word "bourgeoisie"? Especially since I haven't used it?Blah blah the bourgeoisie this the anti-communists that. Do you have an argument or are you just going to keep repeating the same boring rhetoric forever? The fact that his rhetoric doesn't change doesn't necessarily make it invalid.

That was thoroughly awesome. Lots of great info. I hope the dossier system is deeper than "this person likes you to be professional." From how they explained it it could either be really simplistic or incredibly deep.

The Orioles got Tejada back, so I'm happy (being from Maryland), but I doubt they'll do particularly well. Their batting is always solid, but they really can't pitch. No matter how terrible they are, I still cherish my foul ball I got at Camden Yards hit by Brian Roberts.

Steel Prophet - Montag It's funny, the two songs I can't stop listening to recently (this and Something Wicked This Way Comes by Redemption) are both lyrically based on Ray Bradbury novels, and both have Rick Mythiasin on vocals. Odd coincidence.

Because the former constituent republics of the USSR aren't oppressive at all... wait... If Gorbachev had his way, the USSR would have peacefully socially and politically liberalized, rather than fracturing into a large number of right-wing dictatorships. I don't see how you think the historical result was a "good thing." I can vaguely (very vaguely) see it as a "good thing" in comparison to the continued existence of the USSR (though someone as ignorant as you is probably conflating the USSR under Stalin and the USSR under Andropov). But it really ****ed over everybody living there, and Russia still has 15% unemployment and a dictatorial President Prime Minister. Quality of life has gone downhill for pretty much everyone there. The man speaks the truth, more or less.

Regardless of the hopelessly romantic prism through which you are reviewing history, are you sure that using this guy as an example of what you are saying is a good idea? The guy who peacefully dismantled the Soviet Union? Yes, that might be quite the good example. He didn't exactly intend to dismantle the Soviet Union. If you payed attention in history class you'd know that.

You brought a single, manly, tear to my eyes. A fine song indeed. That opening riff nearly blows my head off every time, and the chorus is unforgettable. I really have no idea how Riot is such an obscure band.

Avenged Sevenfold is not metal.

I know you can carry around two weapons, but do you have to? If I only want to use a pistol, do I have to carry a shotgun, SMG, or AR with me? Not a major thing, but it would be nice in terms of character image.

Great interview. I'm really hoping character interaction is as deep as Chris Avellone is claiming. The combat sounds fun, too. June is so far away, though!

"Theoretically possible" only means that there is no point in the game which you cannot progress past without having invested stats. Practically, I'm willing to bet it's impossible.

Lol wat.

"And I thought I might have to work harder..." "You would if I wasn't tied down" I lol'd. Chris Avellone, you are a genius. Perfect voice acting, too. Really can't wait. The "In case of emergency..." at the end was hilarious, as well.

The theory of evolution and the Big Bang, like all science, say nothing about the existence or inexistence of God. But for those who wish to attribute some aspect of creation to a divine force there shouldn't be a problem. Science is a fine tool, but it is neither an end or an answer in and of itself. There's no reason science and some sort of faith in the divine cannot coexist. IMO, positing an extreme anti-divine science as salvation is just as problematic as positing an extreme anti-science divine faith as salvation. Considering the possibility of an afterlife or creator is a waste of time. It's a question which is by definition unanswerable.

That was not an Ad-hominem. Merely an observation on the tone of your post. If I were to call you a nasty, condescending a-hole, THAT would be Ad-hominem. But I didn't did I? You know what else I did not do? Express any support for AD as a factual explanation for the origin of life. I simply pointed out a few things that you and a few others posted about it that were factually incorrect. And I was not wrong about that. Isn't it odd that the whole concept of ID generates so much rage in people that a thread that had nothing what-so-ever to do with it gets sidetracked far OT. Almost like it was heresey or something like that. Ironic isn't it? Actually this thread was about what the history books in Texas were going to say about the history of Texas and it's place in US history. It generates rage in people who care about the integrity of our educational system (which should be everyone) because having kids learn things which are demonstrably false is bad for the future of the country.

Actually you're just a little off on this one point. The rest was correct. ID is based on the lack of evidence of an evolutionary path from single cell to complex organisims. As Oblarg correctly pointed out it is a "God in the Gaps" argument that presumes there is no such a path, not that it is just unknown. The idea that complex life was seeded here by aliens also explains the "missing link". Still I really don't see the issue with presenting the idea as an unproven hypothosis with the caveat that it is a hypothesis. Natual Selection does fine explaining the progession of life over hundreds of generations, but it is mute on the origin of compex life. I have to say I find the hostility on this board to the idea to be pretty remakable. By the tone of his posts I'd say Oblarg was foaming at the mouth and slapping his keyboard in his anxiety to get his words out. Others too. You know, 100 years ago you could be thrown in prision for teaching Natual Selection (look up the Scopes Monkey trial). 300 years ago they would excecute you for it. In Iran they still would. By the sound of most of you I think you would be in favor of similar treatment to anyone who presents an alternative idea like ID. Like I said, it's funny how the shoe is on the other foot now. Ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with you won't change the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong. ID isn't a valid alternative explanation. When you have a scientifically viable theory, try again.

That's a bit harsh, I think. The truth is harsh. People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge. Faith is always going to be a part of human existance. To try to stamp it out is silly and a waste of time. Especially in cases where "truth" is unknowable, faith is pretty much as good as science when it comes to offering up explanations and possiblities. I'd say in those cases "truth" is irrelevant anyway.

Chavez is a democratically elected socialist. The government of Venezuela is now arresting a man who directly supported a military putsch. Which one of us is right? While I think LoF is sugar-coating it a bit, calling Chavez "commie scum" is ignorant

That's a bit harsh, I think. The truth is harsh. People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge. Ummm, you do realize intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution right? There is a great book out there, Signature in the Cell that lays out all of the scientific evidence supporting the principle of irreducible complexity, the basis for the theory. It is beyond refute at this point that complex bio-machines (cells, life, etc) evolve and that humans and apes did have common anscestors but evolutionary theory has no answer for the jump from single cell organisims to more complex life. There is no evolutionary map there. ID is just a theory that explains the gap. It, like Darwinisim is just a theory that does have some merit and has been neither fully proven or disproven. Personally I do not see how it is harmful to present it as such, just as darwinisim is, in school. Denying children access to knowledge just because you don't like the potential ramifications if the theory is eventually proven correct is every bit has despicable as putting John Scopes on trial for teaching evolution back when it was not widely accepted. Funny how that shoe is on the other foot now isn't it? And if ID is ever proven incorrect, what was the harm of presenting it as a theory? None. But we are digressing here. The dispute in Texas was over history, not ID. Reply if you wish but I'm dropping it here. Irreducible complexity has been debunked over and over again. The "we don't know everything yet, therefore God did it" argument is not at all compelling. Try again. Also, "darwinism" is not a word. We don't "believe" in evolution because Darwin said it, we "believe" in it (and it's not really a belief so much as a logical conclusion) because all the evidence points towards it. Oh, and you don't know what a theory is. Even if irreducible complexity had any legitimate evidence (it doesn't), it doesn't make intelligent design (read: creationism) a valid theory, because it doesn't support that conclusion so much as it contradicts another. And anyone who says something is "just a theory" obviously didn't pay attention in science class (or maybe science class doesn't teach science anymore). Intelligent design is not knowledge, it's faith. Faith does not belong in science classrooms. A theory is a testable explanation for an observable phenomenon, and intelligent design by definition fails to meet those criteria because you cannot test it. It does not belong in science classrooms, and people who think it does have no place on a board of education.

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works. You either missed my point, or just spewing things at random. In the latter case, there's no need to quote me. Or you didn't word your post particularly well. I answered what I read, whether it was what you intended to say or not.

Goat curry, basmati rice, and roti. I love Indian food. Only thing that was missing was some mung dal.

Regardless, "remarks that were deemed "offensive" to the president" is a pretty pathetic reason to arrest someone. What if those remarks were "**** this wonderful President even though he's been democratically elected, I literally love undemocratic military putsches because they aren't run by ebal socialests"? Not warrant for arrest, unless they can prove that he had a hand in the coup. Really, if the statements are as ridiculous as you're making them seem, the president shouldn't have much to fear from them.