taks

tissue? mark... ahem...

we're all alts of our true persona (and name)... no need to cry. definitely not slowtrain. taks

you guys can speak for yourselves on that one... no man-hugging in my book unless it's my brothers, and even then it's one of them one-armed, half-facing, firm hugs that resemble a wrestling move anyway. I DID NOT CRY WHEN OLD YELLER DIED!!! oh, sign me up as member # 2 of the ILG! we need a slogan. taks PS: i actually turned my head...

it is an alt... though there should be no flogging for using a different name on a different board. even when you use a different name than your own it's a nick, which is just another term for an alt. i personally do not carry any alts though i have posted in the past as my character name (mendolf). taks is actually my real-life nick-name (since i was 13 or so) but it's still an alt... half the damn time i still post with my real name (though i do hide my last name from publication... less than 30 hits on google for it as well). taks

excellent point... taks

yes, hades one is visceris. taks

yes, but jackal said his/her alt is Doomsayer a few posts above... that confused me. taks

no such thing, jackal. yes, even on another board, it's still called an alt. it's just not frowned upon like when you do it on the same board. slowtrain? i doubt... unless the old geezer suddenly has a penchant for cross-dre.., er, alting... ahem. the style of the avatar, however, is a clue pointing in that direction! perceptive indeed, jackal. another sign you aren't visceris. taks

? so, out with it jackal... what's the scoop, wasn't visceris DoomSayer a while back? taks

damn alts... never known any "crashgirl" at the lair... *sigh* still rooting for ya, missy taks

jackalmonkey? yes... less whiny. taks

*shudder* taks

??? i thought doomsayer was visceris. you're waaaaay to literate to be visceris. taks

taks

*gasp* you, you... you... ahhhhhhhhhh!!!! ahem... *regains composure* listen mr. ontarian, that happens to be a very touchy subject for me. so ppppththththhthththtth... and until mike martz is canned, LA can have 'em back. taks

that is true... but unfortunately, it's a specific case in an otherwise general business model. perhaps it is our own fault for trusting that we may get to see a game who's demise was foretold well over a year ago? dunno... hindsight certainly makes you feel kinda stoopid for wishing, that's for sure. the writing was on the wall, and we knew it, just ignored it. however, the mere existence of "j" did provide us with a benchmark for evaluating what we all believed to be a true crpg... oddly, a benchmark driven from a game none of us ever played, nor ever will play???!!! amazing the power of our own imaginations, isn't it? taks edit: PS: i don't blame the design teams. they're the true casualties in all this.

given the glut of crappy developers out there, however, sometimes it is better if the talent moves on and lands at a better house. i'm not trying to say the devs at interplay were bad, just that interplay was obviously bad as a business (they wouldn't be in this pickle otherwise). more options at the cost of quality is not necessarily a good thing. i think the capitalist model relies on the fact that the cream rises (so to speak) and the crap gets flushed. in other words, maybe we'll end up with fewer, but better development houses in the near future (there's a few more i'm predicting won't make it...) taks

i feel about the same way i felt a year and a half ago when my (then) company collapsed. sad, for sure. on the bright side, one of my co-workers from the same time is in town and wants to have a few drinks... for the next couple weeks! it'll be good to see him. he got it two weeks before me... lucky bastard, i had another skill they needed for those two weeks. only those two weeks. mark

in spite of their problems, i did not expect this. i wonder if this means they sell off the franchises OR try to still have a skeleton company "publish" the titles still using external developers? *sigh*... taks

well, i always thought dwarves were kinda fuzzy anyway. you go, missy!!! woohoo... man, the lair.... *shudders* taks

that wasn't the confusion i don't think, aegeri... depending on your viewpoint, christians have multiple gods akin to the greek/roman system. they put "god" up on top and then have several lesser "gods" below. they just prefer to call them saints, angels, jesus, etc. not really much different than having zeus, athena, aries, etc... christianity just doesn't refer to the lesser folk as gods. semantics, really. taks

christians are monotheist, they just dance around the definition of what it means to worship "other" gods... i.e. the father, son and holy ghost are all the same... the angels aren't "gods" just real powerful otherworldly beings, satan was cast down so he no longer has any real power... etc. taks

good point, but "find it hard to believe" does not equal proof. another logical fallacy. you're also assuming (again) that the universe is perfect. by what measure? in actuality, the universe is tending towards an ever increasing level of chaos... perfect imperfection, perhaps. taks

oh, btw, matter is not really destroyed by meeting anti-matter. theory holds that it is simply converted to pure energy actually. i can't comment on whether this has ever been witnessed. taks

i think the point is that you've tried to make a logical argument based on an unprovable set of assumptions, namely the concepts that matter must have a beginning and an end. we don't know that for sure, and scientfically, those assumptions are untrue. the only legtimacy such an argument holds in one in which you start out with the answer you're trying to seek. unknowingly circular at best, disingenuous for sure, and a flat out lie at worst. taks