JadedWolf

Russia's navy seals are standing by:

This... Love-shy website. Can't figure out if it's meant as satire or... I mean, that'd be a lot of effort. But then, it can't be serious... But then, it'd be too much effort... But people surely can't be that crazy... Ungh. I think I need to lie down for a bit.

Shall I admit my guilty pleasure? Shirokuma CafeYou can guess who my favourite character is... >_>

My personal advice: skip step 2. Nah, the atmosphere and set pieces are awesome Keep in mind that the "Alternative Edition Redux" is only available through download on the 'net as it is not an official release. Just google it and do not feel bad for dowloading it since it falls under as an educational piece. I'll admit the visuals are gorgeous.

My personal advice: skip step 2. Reasons: heartplugs, weirding modules, bat**** crazy baron Harkonnen.

Dying is fine, but I wouldn't include killing in a child's story, but then again, I'm no author. Well given the age range, why not? Child is everything up to 12, no? Depends on how the killing is done, how it fits in the story. Heh the Animal Farm film was ok, up to the ending which was needless. Honestly, at eleven, twelve, I was reading things like Stephen King's It, Herbert's Dune, Lord of the Rings, etc. Nobody was reading me anything anymore. If your child is that age and still depends on you for reading to them, there's something wrong. Reading Dune at 11 might be boring to some considering the political intrigues, but reading It at the same age left you with a weird feeling because of what the children had to do to become adults. Sure it was more of survival pact between friends, but still the innocence of childhood had gone when i read it at the same age. Yeah, It really is a great book for a younger audience, if you ask me, with the whole coming of age experience. Also, I could personally relate to the bunch as I wasn't exactly part of the popular crowd myself. My first Stephen King's book was The Eyes of the Dragon, which was actually intended for children. A young prince sent to prison (albeit a luxurious one, he gets his own penthouse tower suite) for the murder of his father, while his younger brother (who as a hobby stones stray dogs to death) knows of his innocence -since he saw with his own eyes how the court wizard poisoned his father- but is not saying anything out of envy. You know, typical kids stuff. :D One of my favourite real children's book series is The Chronicles of Prydain (what the Disney movie The Black Cauldron is based on). If you've got children in that age bracket, I highly recommend it. It's actually quite a thoughtful series. One of the books actually deals entirely with Taran's trying to find who he is, with him trying out different apprenticeships, meeting common folk and generally growing more adult while still somewhat lost as to what he's supposed to do with his life. Also, it doesn't shy away from showing that something good people do die in war, and that it's often the common folk who would rather have just lived a quiet life that tend to do so.

Dying is fine, but I wouldn't include killing in a child's story, but then again, I'm no author. Well given the age range, why not? Child is everything up to 12, no? Depends on how the killing is done, how it fits in the story. Heh the Animal Farm film was ok, up to the ending which was needless. Honestly, at eleven, twelve, I was reading things like Stephen King's It, Herbert's Dune, Lord of the Rings, etc. Nobody was reading me anything anymore. If your child is that age and still depends on you for reading to them, there's something wrong.

Dying is fine, but I wouldn't include killing in a child's story, but then again, I'm no author. Well, there goes the bible then... Seriously. My mother grew up catholic, and although we weren't baptized and we never went to church (and my dad didn't believe in anything), she would read us from this special "children's bible", which -despite being for children- was still filled with the most gruesome stories of murder and destruction from the Old Testament. She stopped reading them to us after a while when she noticed that they really weren't that child friendly.

Well, not a program per se, but... -Produces two wired rods, crossing them, and creating a spark- ... I could be persuaded to change jobs. I will warn you that my fees are rather high, however.

Worked for me. Thanks a bunch.

I guess the upside of living in such a building would be that once inside, you don't have to look at the outside of it.

So what you are basically saying is you want us to fill in your survey, just because you are too lazy to forge the answers yourself? Why, I never! Back in my days, we forged our own results, and we were happy to do so! Harrupmh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=53&v=N-aDHKKRdso

To be honest, I find Bruce's view on Muslims paradoxically insulting to Muslims. As if they are not capable of the same rationality and detachment that is expected of people of other faiths. Actually, I think he is doing exactly what the people who held the event are doing, and that is lumping all Muslims on one heap and saying they are all the same. Look, I think we can all agree that what is supposed to happen here is that these people would have their "art exhibition", nothing would happen; Muslims would come forth and say that while they don't agree with the subject matter, they support the right of people to hold such events, and the whole thing would disappear into oblivion like it deserves to. But, as I tried to say before, what irks me is that there is a certain cynicism at work here from the side of those who hold events like this, where they are almost asking for something like this to happen in order to further their own agenda.

That's an interesting thing to think about. Would I be willing to die for Wilders? Hmm, I guess I fail as a human being because my answer is "Hmm, nope!" By the way, I don't think Wilders is an idiot, I actually think he is a very cunning man. He knows exactly what he wants, and how to achieve it. He is a master of provokation, who knows exactly how to play his game. And that's my problem. It's not that I feel we should be sensitive to fanatics who will probably always find some reason to go around causing mayhem anyway, it's the cynical use of free speech by people like Wilders to put an aura of sainthood around themselves while other people suffer from it that gets under my skin. Dying for Wilders... I can just imagine it. His cynical PR machine would end up declaring me a martyr for his cause. Yuck.

Not sure how this relevant to my point in this thread but I believe abortion in certain cases is fine and the decision should be the women's choice Volourn is, I think, creating an analogy mainly in reply to this: That is, those operating abortion clinics know it will offend fundamentalist Christians...who might conceivably raise hell...so shut down the abortion clinics in the name of making sure potential maniacs are not offended. One could make the argument that by shutting down the abortion clinics, you may similarly be offending militant pro-lifers. However, one can extend Volourn's analogy by simply saying that you might be offending those who fervently believe in freedom and exercising your rights, regardless of whatever silliness it is for. The idea is you shouldn't shut stuff down simply because it might be controversial - that's a pissant way to run a supposedly "free" society. On the other hand, from what I understand, protesters against abortion are free to gather around the people who are seeking entrance to the abortion clinic and shout at them that they are going to hell.

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection?

Well, yes, in theory I should probably have to obtain a permit first. Which in reality wouldn't happen.

Hmm, so guys, do you think I should be able to get police protection if I decide to exercise my right to free speech by setting fire to Feijenoord shirts outside of the Feijenoord stadium, while wearing an Ajax shirt? I'll call it an art performance, if that helps. If anyone then attacks the policemen, it won't be my responsibility at all.

Congratulations to both boxers for stuffing their wallets. One may have lost, but they are still both world champions of hype.

No Nonek, your interpretation of what she is saying is lacking...very lacking You can't compare the dead soldier to the grief of surviving family members..the dead soldier is now dead and no longer has feelings, you accept that right? So all that is now left is the residual emotional impact from his death..and only the living will experience that. And everything they are going through is because they loved him. So I'm not sure how you can see this as something "lucky" ..its not a question of luck. There are no lucky people here Nonek...people are grieving There are just different degrees of loss..surly you can empathize with that? So how do you feel about the guy who comes home without his legs, eh? This whole discussion is beyond stupid. What kind of question is that I would treat him with absolute respect and admiration...he was prepared to sacrifice himself for his country. He deserves all the support from society he needs ... I'm getting trolled here, surely? Why do I even bother...

No Nonek, your interpretation of what she is saying is lacking...very lacking You can't compare the dead soldier to the grief of surviving family members..the dead soldier is now dead and no longer has feelings, you accept that right? So all that is now left is the residual emotional impact from his death..and only the living will experience that. And everything they are going through is because they loved him. So I'm not sure how you can see this as something "lucky" ..its not a question of luck. There are no lucky people here Nonek...people are grieving There are just different degrees of loss..surly you can empathize with that? So how do you feel about the guy who comes home without his legs, eh? This whole discussion is beyond stupid.

To be honest, the mere audacity to declare who you think have it worst in the long list of people who suffer from war -those who have to fight it, those who die from it, those whose who come home crippled (be it mentally or physically) and who are often left to fend for themselves, those who lose their husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers or mothers- is scumbaggery of the highest order. You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye Who cheer when soldier lads march by, Sneak home and pray you'll never know The hell where youth and laughter go. Of course, we have it better these days, since our technology allows us to kill people from the remote safety of a video screen hundreds of kilometers from the scene, and all we have to do is to push a button while never at any risk ourselves. And even then sometimes those who push the button end up mentally scarred.

More Amiga goodness.