Fionavar

Well that was fun ... I know the smiley is popular and I am sure admin will get to the smilies once they are satisfied with the board proper.

I believe that admin has and continues to make tweaks here and there. For instance the banner is now linked properly and I would asusme this is just another of those silenet adjustments

Off to WoT with you ...

Due to the fact that this thread quickly degenerated after this post, as well as the several complaints I received in regard to this matter, this thread has been pruned. I apologise for those who had tried to post on topic, but it was easier to make a clean sweep. I would request that flaming and baiting not occur and if it must take it to PM.

Well I would say that we are just going to wander this discussion of Lucas, Anakin and the bikini to WoT. I personally think Lucas should have quit while he was ahead and never done the last two movies ... except for Bobofet (SP?) and Yoda going all psycho ... I could have done w/o. And now he is bloody well talking about redoing the original 3 with more FX and crap ... sheesh ...

Well and with that rousing post ... that's a take folks

Well I think there was some hope of discussing the possibility of Lionheart 2 ... but the title might be a wee bit vague FLoSD.ObE

I am not even sure trying to get this thread back on track is worth it ... but let's try - please?

Brilliant - thanks for that article!

You know I am surprised this has not actually been done yet. In fact, I would say it is only a matter of time. Karzak is right, almost every other medium uses this manner of promotional revenue generation. Though it might not occur in more dedicated houses, I must say that I am surprised MS or larger game houses do not do this - the Sims must have done this though? I never played it, but I would suspect this might be one game for sure that would de able to capitalise on the blurring line.

Salutations - have fun!

Actually the fall of Rome is directly connected with the constant migration of nomadic peoples who were being displaced and forced westward. Once the Roman Empire took on a defensive posture, it became inevitable that it could not hold back the constant and changing threats. A simple explanation, but then it is generally considered probable. Dark Lord Revan you might find it interesting to note that one of the first noteworthy treatise on the subject - written by Edward Gibbons - had a love hate relationship with Chrisitianity. Many people have contended that what actually held the Empire together for so long was the growing influence of the church and the adoption of church structure into the day to day governance of the state. In the end, however, it was more due to a system that could not afford its defenses and opted to decentralise authority, until the local municipalities had to bear the load that had once been centralised. Furthermore, the Roman Empire - proper if you will - survived well into the 15th century CE. And the only reason that Constantinople fell - some argue - was not due to gluttony - it was due to the Crusades that the Papcy used to justify the conversion and recapture of the Holy Land through bloodshed. I won't debate the interpretation, only to point out that it was not until the 12th century that the Eastern Empire - for lack of a better term - began to have to defend itself on two fronts. On the western with the Papacy economically and eventually physically, while the east held the growing Muslem states and principates. Finally, if anything or anyone brought Europe out of the Dark Ages - again for lack of a better word - it was Arab and Islamic scholars who advanced Greek and Roman learning for some 1000 years while the Church imposed a feudal system that only kept any learning alive in sequestered and very remote monestaries - particularily Scottish and Irish, that were really more scholarly than they were theological. Well there is some more socio-historic background. Note: I am not sure where the idea has arisen that someone is arguing that it would have been better if Jesus had not existed is arising, but I can assure you I would not make such an argument, fwiiw.

Hmmm ciao bella :D

One thing to do regardless of when you buy, is to make sure you have a good quality and stable PSU (power supply). I would say a good 65%+ of t/s I have do for people has to do with a) gaming B) a generic rig with a poor PSU - two things which do not play nice with one another. Most of the name brands are ok, but I would recommend either an Antec or Vantec if you are paying someone to put it together for you or if you are doing it yourself. As well, if you can, you can get a much better rig put together by someone locally than a Dell for instance ... the big proviso is ensuring that the person you find is someone who has a good reputation. If you know of someone who does gaming rigs and has a web site, I am sure there are many gecklings here who can compare and assist in ascertaining whether the person knows their pricing.

I'm not really good at the "you're wrong" "I'm right" debate ... probably why I was not often in YoP I was merely trying to add some background without hopefully telling anyone the way they should or should not think. What I would say, however, is that any belief system can co-exist with the interpretation of others, as long as they do not intend harm a/o judge others. I know that is a large generalisation and open to much interpretation, but in essence the humanist and political philosopher John Stuart Mill sums up my belief well, in that we all have competing rights, but we are all permitted to express those rights as long as is does not infringe on another's well being. When this line is crossed, imo, then that is what is wrong.

I guess it all depends on the intent of identifying what in fact the text is or is not. From whose authority does the text derive? The question, in essence, is what importance or significance does one attach to the text? Is it an example of a faith community's attempt to address problems that are not dissimilar to its modern counterpart? Or do you move beyond that into the authority of the text as Divine and over-riding the years that separate them from the present reader? If it is the lattter, then there arises a whole set of questions around authenticity, paprylogical corruption, and archeological conundrums (to mention only a few), all of which begin to outline the inherent contradictions. Furthermore, these contradictions are often only exacerbated by the lack of recognition of these sanctions from the Prophet himself. In the end, these are questions that must be answered for each person from wherever he/she is on their faith journey.

Fwiiw - the sanction in Romans was a clear poltical attack against those who had begun to see the Way as a potential threat. Moreover, as the Way became identified no longer as a part of the Jewish faith system, the Christian community was under more pressure - political and financial - to conform to the Roman adherence of the Pax Deorum. When it became obvious that the Way and the early church was not going to submit in the manner most others had, the early Apologists began to attack the State in a manner that was consistent with the inference of Leviticus. Historically speaking, however, it is not until the use in the NT that the sanction receives a special status and it must also be noted that these letters in Romans are in themselves a human response of a community under attack, and in each prohibition there actually is no reference from the Prophet to deny and/or validate the sanction.

Fwiiw the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus is also the same as eating pork and being with a woman during her menstrual cycle (to mention only a few). Furthermore, most of those prohibitions were not hierachical in nature. To move beyond the text as a socio-historical document, however, and apply a literal interpretation in fact is fraught with an extreme level of circular and contradictory logic.

Fair enough ... even if only cynically (on my part that is)

Thanks for the clarification. I must admit that I assumed as much, but it was better to ask Though I could have respected the other option as well, I find that this is one of the biggest impediments to people today actually exploring faith and spirituality. The fact is most people are disillusioned with most institutions - be they political or religious. Something that I think is rather sad - sadder that there has been no learning from many of the institutions to address the fact that they are alienating the people who may need/desire relationship most ...

Can mods be added to the ignore list as well? I am sure that is possible. Though I would assume that this might not be implemented, as a potential problem poster would have to be informed of his or her infractions and we would not want anyone to claim they did not know they had done anything wrong since they had used the ignore function. After all - we're ruled by an enlightened despot - not a democratically elected represenatative. Again - I think the rules bear this out and if you have problem with the rules, then again might I forward you to admin through PM. S = Sarcastic

Ok - well thanks for raising the issue and when you decide, please feel free to contact me or admin.

No I guess if it has to do with board mechanics and such that is fine, but when it is in regard to a decision, I think that for the sake of ease I would recommend trying PM from the outset, as I really do not think it is necessary to get stuck in trying to figure out all of the shades of grey. In essence, I think the rules are pretty clear in this regard and what admin expects. If you have a problem with this, then I would suggest PMing admin, but until then I would use this as the standard.