Oblarg

"You have to be stopped." "I know." It does not get more straightforward than that. Also, you didn't read it very carefully - she says that the exile would have already failed her if he were to destroy Malachor and kill them both before the confrontation which she had engineered as the exile's final test. I haven't retconned anything, I'm going purely off of what Kreia says.

Oh, she'd certainly like to end the force, but the "I know I have to be stopped" makes it quite clear that she does not really intend to do it - rather, she used the threat of it to force the Exile to confront her, so that the exile's past might finally be resolved. That's the entire point of the game, really; Kreia training the exile.

Personal retconning? Nah, my theories are very well-supported (if not outright confirmed) by the dialogue during the final confrontation. Play it again if you don't believe me. Kreia hates the force, yes, but she knew she'd never actually be able to destroy it. She used it as a threat, to draw the Exile to Malachor. Exile: "The academy here won't last, Kreia. I can activate the mass shadow generator again." Kreia: "More talk of machines and threats. If you would end Malachor, then do it. But it would not be a victory for you. You may hold Malachor in your grasp, but I hold the answers to your past and future in mine. Would you destroy us both before learning them? If so, then do it - for you have already failed me." Exile: "If I had to, I would. You have to be stopped." Kreia: "I know. But there is more than death in this galaxy, and you shall not find it easy. It was difficult to draw you here, but it had to be done. This is your final test."

I'm not worried about retconning the Exile, I'm worried about retconning Kreia. The KotOR2 plot summary that they briefly had on their website in the early days seemed to dumb down her motivations in KotOR2 to "evil villain trying to destroy the force," which is an insult to the incredibly nuanced writing that went into her character (personally, I don't think she ever intended to destroy the force at all - she makes it quite clear at the end that all her actions were intended as a sort of "final test" for the Exile). In other news, I was accepted to the SW:TOR beta, but as I only signed up as a joke and don't have access to my desktop, I'm not even going to bother trying to play it. I gave up all hope in this really early on.

Gosh, didn't take you very long to start saying nonsense, did it? Even if we were to assume that "benefit" and "hindrance" to the body is even at all defined as a property of food (it's not), we really still have absolutely no way of determining it. As I have mentioned repeatedly (and as you have ignored), the majority of modern nutrition is based almost entirely on worthless correlative studies and not on actual understanding of biochemical mechanisms which would explain your proposed "benefit" and "hindrance." Humans eat foods, above all else, for calories (and to a lesser extent protein). Not for trace elements (which are already present in most first-world diets - how many cases of scurvy or pellagra have you heard of recently?). For energy, to make the body work. In that respect, the idea of a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie" is laughably absurd. At first glance, one might think it would be less absurd in the context of long-term health effects of various foods, but since we really don't know ****ing anything about that, it's just as nonsensical.

We know fairly well the caloric value our body can extract from various foods. We know fairly well how many calories our body burns per day. We know fairly well how much our body needs of protein. Those are the two major things that you have to worry about - largely, if you don't eat too much, you'll be fine. We also know of a few trace substances we need to avoid getting well-known dietary illnesses, and of a very few things which are demonstrably bad due to chemical interactions which we understand. Past that, modern nutrition is largely bull****.

This argument would be a lot more convincing if nutritionists actually understood the biochemistry of metabolism that causes the supposed health effects of various foods rather than simply presenting a rapidly shifting array of things which are "good" and "bad" based on the most recent poorly-controlled correlative studies. I don't put much store in modern nutrition, and for good reasons.

Protip: There's no such thing as a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie." Energy is energy.

Wait, you had it pre-ordered in the first place? Pretty much every bit of information about it I've seen makes it seem like a gigantic heap of ****.

Truly talented troll right here folks. Watch and learn...

I think I'm pretty consistent in arguing that kids don't reason effectively, due to a combination of factors, including susceptibility to peer pressure/advertising as much as raw mental immaturity. Just wanna point out... that the arbitrary definition of an adult as being 18 is rather rediculous. Ridiculous, but necessary. Arbitrary cutoffs are an essential, if imperfect, part of legislation. Also, Volourn, are you intentionally being a moron or does it just come naturally?

Not a bad bit of legislation, as far as I can tell.

I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line. If it WILL kill/harm the consumer with just small doses in a short to moderate time then ban it. Fen-Fen comes to mind. If it MIGHT kill/harm in large doses over a long time, don't ban but educate on the dangers and benfefits of moderation. Tobacco, trans-fat, etc. The key point I was trying to get at was the "as food" bit. I don't think something should be sold as food unless it is rigorously safe. That is an absolutely crucial role of government. Tobacco isn't sold under the guise that it is something you can consume to fulfill the most basic need of your body. Note the term "safe," not "healthy." I do not think caloric content, for instance, is under any circumstance a reasonable motivation for this sort of legislation (or even any taxation at all). As I've mentioned earlier, we don't really have anything that even resembles a functioning definition of "healthy" - a lot of it is just shoddy pseudoscience and anecdote. But if a product is demonstrably harmful to the human body through a mechanism which we rigorously understand, should it really be legal to sell it as if it were something that the body needs to consume daily? I'm not so sure.

I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line.

The problem with legislation based on nutrition is that the majority of modern nutrition is, simply put, bull****. There are a few things which we know are demonstrably bad for you for which we understand the biochemistry, and then there's a whole lot of shoddy guesswork based on poorly-conducted correlative studies which isn't really worth anything at all.

Yet another new Riot song. This album is looking like it'll be better than Thundersteel, even.

My sentiments exactly.

CERN just broke physics. How long until we have FTL travel? I want to be a space marine!

Sure, abiogenesis is something we don't know that much about (though there is quite a bit of work being done on proposing and testing possible ways in which it could have happened), but that does not make "god did it" a viable explanation when there is literally no physical evidence to support that view. If we were to propose "god" as an explanation for every as-yet unexplained area in science, we'd be at an intellectual dead-end. Still, this is beside the point. If you've never truly encountered a young earth creationist, I envy you. They're the ideological equivalent of brick walls. I would like you to explain how you know "for certain" that there is a god when by definition his existence cannot be proved through observable evidence?

Hahahahahahahaha. Hah. The fact that people think "intelligent design" has any more validity than young earth creationism means that the fundamentalist nuts have truly run a great propaganda campaign. Intelligent design means exactly what it says. It is a theory that points to an intelligent being behind the creation and evolution of everything. I'm not sure why that is crazy, at least more than any other philosophy out there. Because it proposes an untestable explanation for observable phenomena, and thus is directly contradictory to observable fact. I'd say anyone willing to ignore proven science in favor of "faith" is hopelessly disconnected from reality, yes - this includes *any* fundamentalist faith.

Hahahahahahahaha. Hah. The fact that people think "intelligent design" has any more validity than young earth creationism means that the fundamentalist nuts have truly run a great propaganda campaign.

So anyone who believes in God is "hopelessly disconnected from reality" ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Har har, you're so clever. I think it's quite clear by "creationist" I was referring to the substantial group in the US who believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical creation myth. Ideally, they simply shouldn't be listened to when they make a big stink about how science curriculum doesn't conform to their laughable worldview. There's obviously nothing can realistically can (or should) be done to remove creationists (and their unfortunate ability to vote) from American society.

1) Tea Pary - Yes. 2) Veterans - No. 3) White people - lol, no. 4) Pro-lifers - Yes. 5) Global warming skeptics - Replace that with Creationists, and you'd be right. 6) Gun owners - No. 7) People who own unapproved of dog breeds - This is an interesting one. If you own a pit bull, Rottweiler, or doberman in a city or county where those breeds are banned, you're probably not the type of person who should own a pit bull, Rottweiler, or doberman. And anyone who might vote for someone other than Obama - You seem to be forgetting the independent, socialist, and green party candidates. Gotcha. Terrorist = Anyone with an opposing political viewpoint. Well, glad that's all straightened out. I'd say "creationist" goes right past "opposing political viewpoint" and directly into the realm of "hopelessly disconnected from reality."

Blue crab is easily superior to king crab. King crab is tasty, but it's got absolutely nothing on blue crabs steamed with loads of old bay seasoning. Mmmm...