Humodour

Mostly anything you can type in the chat console can also go in the ini file. When it's in the ini file it's done once and is then over. I dunno why Tel Aviv's reverted each time, but you should try typing slomo or gamespeed into the ini file as directed. Sow what've you been up to kumquat? You should join us on the IRC channel we made.

You little monkey spanker. It doesn't work, and that forum theme is simply dreadful. =P

AHOY MATEY. INVITATION CODE.

Lenny Kravitz - Fly Away

I liked Mission. My favourite combinations involved Mission, HK-47 and Jolee.

kumquat!!! I dunno. I don't have it so it must be because you've got so many posts? Anyhoo: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=39510 I've also heard this: Further information: http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/19023

Don't be shy. Jimbo doesn't bite - he hasn't grown teeth yet. Mostly he just nibbles with his gums.

On my current PC with XP Corporate, I have some folders which are ported over from older XP installations (home, professional, tablet variously). Some of these folders contain or contained music. Now, when Windows Media Player is connected to the net, it seeks album art for any song you it is playing. When it finds it it throws it in the directory of the song and marks it as hidden. Now, the problem is (besides the fact that I can't figure out how to turn it for future songs), these older XP installations must have done something differently, because when I try to open folders which have hidden WMP AlbumArt pictures, explorer crashes - search, IE, anything linked to explorer.exe (but not forefox, mIRC etc). It's a simple thing of running explorer.exe through taskmanager to reactivate it but... I can't get to files in these affect folders. One more thing: I tried a few things and while folder views don't change anything (nor do thumbnails on/off), the folders on crash if the AlbumArt files are actually visible on the screen. Somehow this also extends to performing searches of the afflicted folders (even if the AlbumArt files aren't part of the search - it seems enough to simply scan an afflicted folder in this case). I suppose it's because search actually interects with the files? I'm stumped. Removal with command prompt is out of the question - too tedious.

Jonah Hill was in both Superbad and Knocked Up. He's one of things I didn't like about those movies. I can't stand him - fairly strange considering I don't tend to like any stars one way or another. I thought Superbad was pretty good, if awkward at moments. Knocked Up had me laughing at times but not often enough to warrant the title of comedy, IMHO - it too was kind of awkward in parts.

It's Latin for 'voice'.

Rule #6: Sign the crates petition.

Why hello there.

You haven't played Planescape: Torment? Hooooo boy. You're missing out!

Maybe you're The Nameless One.

True enough about IPU not being a contradiction. It's still a demonstration of the absurdity of disbelief in one thing which wholely lacks evidence, yet belief in the another. I think that a claim must be justifiable through science because it is the lens through which I make sense of the universe. I don't consider it something you can use sometimes, and ignore at other times. Is it even possible for one to believe in logic but not science (from a deductive point of view, not personal belief)? I guess if one were to shun the axioms of science (those which we observe to be 100% without counterexample so far) then it is possible. But it would not be a very rational being who did so (though I suppose that needn't imply they are illogical). It all gets rather subjective and meaningless if you take science and rationality out of the equation.

I did misuse terms. To me "rational disproof" held with it a certain level of recourse to intuition. You're right that this proof/disproof idea is an important one which I shouldn't simply dismiss due to it becoming trite. I'd like though, for it not to be the lynch pin in arguments against why it's seems to make more sense to not believe in reincarnation, because otherwise I think we get stagnation (as it would be the same reason to challenge somebody as to why they DID believe in it). I couldn't find the razor of plentitude to which you refer but I think you mean this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude It's certainly an interesting rule but I don't feel it violates Ockham's razor fully. There's a key phrase there "anything that can happen". So that which one claims will happen must still be justifiable through science. You don't see any contradiction with positing that: a) a unicorn exists b) that it is invisible c) but that it is also arbitrarily pink?

hai guys i rigistered here on yeasterday my name is larry palmer i am a 24 yrs old junior retail manager at **** smith and i live in my mums attic (haha you thought id said bassement) lets talk about torment planescape i love torment planescape and dakkon with enduring "through endurance you grow fit" haha he is realy wise

Fionavar ruined my wit.

May I ask what is "rational disproof"? What does "rational" mean to you? Because no proof in favor of something does not equate to a disproof. I have to say that I am getting fairly tired of arguing against "no proof against doesn't mean it can't exist!!!1". I work within the realms of known science, and a phenomenon such as reincarnation would require some directing force - some force creating information/order on a large scale and away from what is natural. As far as I can tell that would defy entropy. But ignoring that, where is this information coming from? Who or what is generating it? Because it's certainly not explained by the laws of physics. May I refer you to Occam's Razor and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves)? "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the belief of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that they she is invisible because we can't see her." Somebody please disprove the IPU. K? "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." I think it's a good rule to live by. Why should we theorise that human progression is directed by some intelligent agent? Some agent who, to explain the existence of, would require fundamental changes to the laws of physics, or worse, a belief in magic, when we can just as easily explain human progression with some basic science (autonomous brain function fails, then we decompose!)? It doesn't further the cause of reincarnation any that it in fact doesn't make any predictions. Any purpose it carries is tucked away securely in some abstract realm such as an afterlife. Now, it should come as no surprise that my arguments hold as much weight for God/gods, yet interestingly people don't dismiss them nearly as easily.

No more so than 'of course not', yet you havn't picked on any posts that have said that. I beg to differ. I would contend that the majority of people on this forum do not believe in reincarnation, due to rational disproof. As such, I am curious to know why Lucian thinks reincarnation is so definite. I don't mean to pick apart his reasoning, if that's what your getting your pants in a knot over.

Evidence suggests the big-bang/big-crunch scenario is unlikely. Recent findings predict large amounts of dark energy exist (a repulsive force) which would prevent such a scenario in a closed universe (density parameter less than 1). In an open universe, (hyperbolic) expansion occurs forever regardless of positive dark energy. Of course if there is an opposite attractive force (like gravity but separate) there would be a big crunch, but that would only occur if the universe underwent a phase transition... which has happened before - namely the start of the universe). In a flat universe (Euclidean, density parameter equals one), the same applies as in an open one, but in the end much of the universe would be a BEC - which I guess you COULD call a big crunch. But yeah most evidence suggests we are in an open universe. Furthermore, in a universe which followed a big crunch, you'd get an entropy build up which would eventually cause heat death after the nth universe.

"Of course"? In what sense is it justifiable to answer this question with "of course"?