kumquatq3

I certianly hope you just pulled that ending material from out of your ass, because if not, you are the worlds biggest prick for posting the ending of a game (no matter how crappy it is) in a, supposedly, spoiler free forum. Way to go jackass,

Never happen. If only because delaying the PC version to "fix" it would be admitting they rushed an unfinished product out the door to fill the gap left behind by the Republic Commandos delay.

Link to a solution and people with problems like yours it seems

In THIS, very lite spoilerish, thread in the Gen forum it talks about how the "influence system" does not cause a NPCs preferences to change. Meaning, if I got Miss Snow White Jedi Lady to turn to the DS, she would still prefer I do LS actions....or I lose influence. Meaning, she likes to see senerios play out the same way, regardless if she is LS or DS, crushing (for me) what I thought was going to be the best part of the "influence system". It also seems that the special abilities of the Jedi Master and Sith Lord, the extra "influence" attribute, is essentially almost worthless now, as I understand it. As bringing someone to the DS or LS only does so in name and for what force powers they get. My reaction in that thread: It sure seems that the influence system is there to do nothing more than force you to replay the game to try out each NPC. What I'm hoping for is that something can be altered to change this. Tho I doubt it's possible, I assume it would require new dialogue to be recorded, etc.... Forget about extra content, lets fix this if you can. EDIT: I like this comment by Vol as well:

I've mostly stayed away from the forums for fear of spoilers, but I saw this thread on the main boards the other day and have been following it, and I feel the need to comment. If all this is the case, then it is a ridiculously poor oversight and I can only hope it is modified for the PC version. Considering the devs were pushing the new NPC interaction as the new "thing" in K2, I am shocked and dissapointed to hear how apparently trivial it is. It's K1, except some NPCs will help you less due to your actions. Amazing.

Well, true and not true. I doubt anyone wants to play Buffalo right now. Buffalo has scored 37, 38, 42 and 37 in wins over St. Louis, Seattle, Miami and Cleveland the past month, and their game against N.E. was much closer than the score indicates, iirc Frankly, no playoff team from the AFC would be that big of a surprise to win it all. They will all be very solid teams. All the divisons are already sealed up, and the Jets all but own a WC spot. The Ravens (rough schedule) Bills, Broncos, and the Jags are in position to take the 2 WC spot. I can see the Ravens, if their QB plays like last week, go all the way. I can see the red hot Bills upset any team in the league. The Broncos might have a chance in hell. The Jags...not going anywhere. The NFC....well.....there is Philly and Atlan-overrated-ta. Despite Philly owning them on Monday night, Green Bay has Brett Farve and thats worth something. Just ask John Madden and the Panthers are hanging in there with a little Cinderella season magic left over from last year. Other than those 4, I doubt anyone is a threat. I thought the Bears, Bucs, and Cowboys could make it in and at least challenge Philly and the others a little, but all three lost last week (hence they are a long shot). Minnesota has no ground game or defense to speak of, but I suppose they could do something if they got in a shootout. Seattle is the poor mans Green Bay.

I ownz your thread noob! Yea, he did beat me too it, but this is the wrong forum (I think it is anyways: hence I didn't bother to check in here) as the other forum is:

Well, that was an interesting week

No problem anyways, I think we both have gotten are respective points and views across, so unless there was anything in particular you would like me address: It was a fun debate

Those two teams play each other next week. The loser will have a tought time getting a WC spot.

First, I said "maybe" we should, not that I'll start the groundbreaking myself Second, are you then arguing that all religious monuments should be allowed, regardless? Third, and most importantly, Odds are that the land for the monument would be donated (tax free) to the group in question. Much like your churches. So, it would not be a public land, and more importantly, it would not be a religious monument on public land designated for something else. See the difference? I suggested that I wouldn't mind a religious group using a park for a fair or something, because a park isn't a police office, court, or goverment office. See the difference? I'm not unreasonable, I don't think, but if you force me to choose your way or public use being banned outright....I'll take outright. I hope that clears up my position. There would be some type of break, like most other countries, I'm sure. Don't understand why you asked tho, just for kicks? No, that is not all right at allb but that is obviously not what I'm arguing. You don't have the right to use a court house to display a religious monument. Thats what you want. Rights and Wants are very different. I looked it up. It was a banned type of hand gun: Officials in this suburb north of Chicago are searching for new ways to make it difficult to own a gun after Illinois lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to give new legal protection to homeowners who use a [U]banned handgun [/U] to shoot burglars. Link O, and I'm sure your legally allowed to bring a gun home that you purchase, maybe you have to mail it or something, dunno. Interesting. First, I sure you can see the difference between a street and sanitation guy wearing a shirt (tho it is almost certain that there is a uniform or reflection vest to wear over said shirt) and a cop or judge wearing one. I suppose I'd have to see the shirt. If it was just a shirt or something meant to send a message. But, for the record, I don't mind things like crosses or head dressings. THo again, if you want to say "say he's being selective", I think I'm being reasonable. If you pushed me to go one way or another, I'd say ban it outright on public jobs. 1. Please, point to a single thing I said that was "religion bashing" 2. I never, I don't think, suggested that (other than this one judge, who was found in violation of the law) any religious person was doing anything particulary wrong. 3. I don't think I attacked religion, please reference if I did 4. Your right, I suppose, that I have something to prove. That is, why I think Church and Goverment should remain seperate.....including religious monuments on public land. 5. Lets not make this personal

To answer the question, but doesn't want to get to off topic: Short history of the authors of and the pledge itself, with a religious slant for obvious reasons: Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston. Later in 1923, "to the flag" was changed to "to the flag of The United States of America". Bellamy did not like the change, but his protests were ignored. In Bellamy's retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there. Then in 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. 62 years after it was written, under protest of the family of the author, their protest were also ignored. Bellamy was dead at that point.

If you guys beat San Diego at home, you just might. As yor next 3 games are N.O., Carolina, and Arizona. Carolina is the only one that should give you trouble.

Which, for all of you watching at home, was not originally part of the pledge. It was added several years later. The only saving grace of it is that "God" isn't a specific (tho it was meant to be) endorsement of any religion. Which is, I suppose, better than nothing.

I'd like to hear more before I jump to conclusions on this one

O man, got alot of reading to do in this thread, but quick points: But you say that like you should have the right too They give you private land, and lots of it, tax free....but thats not good enough? Let me put it this way: Would you be happy if all religions got equel exposure? I'm guess not. excellent point, which is something I did not think of In those cases, maybe there should be public monuments allowed. I'm sure you can see how that would be different than: "I want a monument, because..." It is placed there is celebration of a religious holiday that not everyone believes in. You could argue the purpose of it, but needless to say, it's not the same thing as say a X-mas tree. imo. Your walking a dangerous path when you allow the wants of the many to overrule the rights of the few. I think the issue was the type of firearm, not that he had one, iirc I see where my example failed The key difference is a pharmascist can't be fired for religious beliefs, or even practicing them to a degree. He is doing a job in the private sector. A civil servant, on the other hand, must serve all the people. Hence why they must stick close to their job description and the laws of the land. No, it doesn't nessasarily make them wrong. Thats why we don't have to argue that murder is wrong, etc. Because morality exist out side of religion. But when it comes to something like abortion, and you are against it because your religion tells you to be against it, then you need to not transfer that over to work if your a civil servant. Not that it is "wrong" to believe that, but others should not have to face penalties because of your religious beliefs. Do you see the difference? But this isn't really the arguement, the arguement is about putting a monument to your religion out on public land ( a court house).

things don't look that great for them, but they are by no means out of it

Well, in that specific case, the guy was screaming to bring god back into the courtrooms nightly on the news, iirc. But in general, it doesn't matter. A judge shouldn't be expressing anything but the law, to the extent possible, while he is working I'm sorry that happened to you, but to prevent things like that happening here (or even starting to aproach that) you must protect civil liberties So because you can't remove the judge, tho the judge in this case was removed, you should let him do whatever he wants? True enough in most cases, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, tho this is getting away from the main topic a little. 1. Church land is tax free so that it can be used a a place for these kinda of things. Religious land holding in America are substantial. It's not like they are hurting for space. 2. There are no real religous sites here like there are in the middle east. The need to have a monument to something or declare a religious monument are not the same. 3. They don't want religious displays on public ground because were does it end? And when does a "display" become preeching. How do you make sure that the displays of one religion are fair for the others, in comparison. You enter dangerous territory. 4. Lets not start with the extreme left or radical right stuff 5. It all depends. If there is a good reason that it needs to be on public property, I'm listening. Say if there is some kind of religious fair that wants to use the park for a couple of days, go for it. Or a church group wants to use the school gym after school, knock yourselves out. As you said, by the wording. How said law is used in practice, the precedent for such things in American law, are two different things. and he bans concealed firerms, or carrying them in public, you can still own them. Nope, people do it all the time. I'm sure lots of pharmacists that are highly religious give out birth control or doctors. I reallllly am late for leaving for work, but I promise I will respond to the rest of your post when i get back (7 hours) and the bills part I skipped, but that will take awhile. I'm not running

AFC Leaders: New England 11-1 Pittsburgh 11-1 (one win from clinching) Indianapolis 9-3 ( 1 from clinching) San Diego 9-3 WC contenders: best NY Jets 9-3 (Could catch NE) Baltimore 7-5 Denver 7-5 (Could catch SD) The Rest: Buffalo 6-6 Jacksonville 6-6 Cincinnati 6-6 Houston 5-7 NFC Leaders: Philadelphia 11-1 (clinched) Green Bay 7-5 (tied record wise with Vikings, Gb owns tie breaker) Atlanta 9-3 (One win from clinching) St. Louis 6-6 (tied record wise with Seattle, ST.L owns tie breaker) Best: Minnesota 7-5 Seattle 6-6 The Rest: NY Giants 5-7 Dallas 5-7 Detroit 5-7 Chicago 5-7 Carolina 5-7 Tampa Bay 5-7 My predictions: AFC: All current leaders win their divisions The Jets make it and the Bills win their last four to squeeeeeeek in with a surprise win over Pitts. NFC: All current leaders maintain their division lead. Minnesota and Seattle collapse. I see each team lossing 2 or 3, the team that loses next week (they play each other) will be the one with 3 loses. Minnesota should win at home next week, but 9-7 is no lock, as they could lose some time breakers. Now this is the hard part, as I can see so many teams take this WC spots.... Let me do it like this, here is what I think "the numbers" tell me: No shot: Detroit (Run game and Pass game come out once every 3 weekes, schedule medium strength) Some shot: NY Giants (hurt, pulled Kurt, Manning prolly can't do it this year, tough schedule) Better shot: Carolina (never underestimate heart) & Cowboys (Their run game is hot, passing game is enough to beat you, the coach has them believing again, but they got a game against Philly (count it as a lose)) Almost there: Chicago (If passing game holds, may hav the best chance to sweep. Most players back from injury) & Tampa Bay ( Much like the Bears in that the defense is clicking and they may have just found a quarter back to lead them) Best shot: Vikings (Won't be good down the strech, but the 2 game cushion should help) What makes it so hard is that soooo many of these teams face each other in the final weeks or have several games that would help decide tie breakers. I say the Vikings win just enough to make it (but they beat seatle next week) and......I have to.......da Bears win their next four. The 2 WC teams will be 9-7

He didn't believe in a christian god or a god of islam, so to them, he might be. Depending on how you want to play with the wording. He didn't believe in a revealed religion or anything like that.

Off subject a bit, you know Einstein isn't religious like you are, right? He was a deist, of sorts. He felt that something helped to created it all, but not a God thats active in everyday life or the existence of an after life. He had in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. I'll find a link to his letters that say as much if anyone likes, but just an FYI on a subject most people (including me till this was brought to my attention) misunderstand.

Another thing that has bothered me is that we havn't seen the "monster" since Locke ran into it.....hmmmmm...... Also, remember what Locke said in the first episode, there are two sides one dark and one light. Since then we have seen those two pieces appear in Lockes eyes in a dream, which only seems to indicate that his original comment is true. BTW, anyone notice that the kids dog hasn't been around? I think the fat guy ate him, hence why he hasn't lost weight.

To the devs: I'm going to try realllllly hard to be nice about this as I would like to continue this discussion First, "people" can believe whatever they want. When you are a servant of the people, things change, while you are on the job. Second, while the law is subject to interpretation and is not absolute, there is such a thing as precedent. The room for legit interpertation isn't often large for deciding guilty or not guilty. Third, nothing is absolute, but the Constitution is about as close as "laws" come to that. Now, as I said in my orginal post, there is a little wiggle room, BUT guilty or not guilty should be decided by applying the current interpertation of law to the best of ones ability. A little wiggle room is left because not all cases are equal, but the law should not be bent to fit the individual belief system of the judges. I sure as hell do, as long as he is a servant of the people and is being paid to do a job, I expect him to do that job as he was instructed to do it. When he walks out of the courtroom he can believe whatever he wants and display whatever he wants on his property. When it comes to a CIVIL SERVANT, a judge on the bench, I expect him to apply the law fairly, broadly, and with as little regard to his personal beliefs as possible. Not to meantion the courthouse does not belong to the judge and he doesn't begin to have the legal right to decide what gets displayed there. Thats a trick question. The seperation of church and state means the absense of religion, not attacking or discrediting religion, as atheism might. Hence why churches don't pay taxes. Under a Atheist morality, that might not exist. Let me turn it around, are you advocating having judges use the bible as their tool for interperating modern law? You can ignore that little thing about seperation of church and state for this answer. But I doubt any of that makes you happy, so I will reluctantly play along with the question and answer the best I can, keeping in mind I'm in one sided territory: I said a judge should apply the laws how the laws are intended to be applied and fairly. If you think the morality of atheism is being fair and just, I'm happy you think so highly of atheism, it's good to except others, but in no way did I advocate that. BUT, religion does not have sole possesion of morality. In the absence of religion, morality remains. Right and wrong does exist without religion. For those cases that religion might dictate something different than than the law dictates, the law is pretty clear for the most part and doesn't leave much wiggle room, if any at all. I don't think you understand what it means to be in service of the people. A cop can't legally decide not to read you your rights if it happens to violate his beliefs. Hell, I can't even legally refuse service to someone in my store based off my "beliefs" and I'm just a citizen. And again, it's not his land either. It has a assigned purpose, as a court house for the people of the USA. Thats it. 1. I'd looooooooooove to see you stick to that position if a judge puts out a sign that said "god is dead" or if they displayed quotes from the Quran. Or how about "one nation, under Buddah". There would be buses filled with protestors and moving down the highway within an hour. 2. You incorrectly misinterperated what I said again. I said: It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? That sentance asks the reason for displaying the 10 commandments, if not for educational purposes or the like. How you got that it hurts me to look at them, I don't know. It does bother me when peoples constitutional rights are trampled on tho, yes. Let me explain my logic to you then, he said: You might as well burn down the local church its just as likely to "influence" people as this monument. His clear point was a church, like the monument, does not (in his opinion) "influence" people very much. My point was, if true, you could hold court in a muslim house of prayer then, via his logic. Because, if they hold no real influence, if thier presence doesn't matter, then it wouldn't be a problem. Via the above logic, it is a prety neutral site. Unless, of course, you believe there would be a "influence" that comes from a Muslim house of prayer that would not be contained in a church. Is the ACLU advocating the erosion of church and state? Is the ACLU in support of sections of the Patriot act that are in violation of civil liberties? Is the ACLU supporting the idea that anyone called a terrorist by the goverments loose definition of the word can be held indefinatly and without a trial or even legal counsel? Dunno, sure seems like the ACLU is the peoples best friend right now. Remember, the ACLU isn't around to insure that the majority get what they want or get an extention of their liberties because they want it, they are around to help insure that no group or individual gets their liberties trampled on.

There are plenty of places to display the towns religious heritage A courthouse should not be one of them I have a problem when a judge starts to rule by his own morality rather than the Laws of the United States of America. I know there is some wiggle room there, but when a judge feels the need to put the 10 commandments out on display despite peoples objections......that tells me there is a bias. It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? O, using your train of thought, you would be ok with having your judge and trial reside in a Muslim House of prayer, as thats not going to influence anything right? but what can you expect when are constitutional rights are being crushed left and right. The damn ACLU can't even keep up.