Hurlshort

Forsberg is playing? I thought his pancreas broke or something... I love Forberg, but that poor guy can't go a season without getting some nasty injury.

That's the most bizarre comparison I've ever heard. First off, Conklin is still part of the organization. His contract is not terminated. It would be more like Microsoft moving him into a less prestigious position, or sending him to an office out in the boondocks. Second, the minors means he still gets paid the same, and he will probably get a ton of more playing time. Is it better for them to have him sit on the bench every game? He just needs to work hard and earn his way back to the major league team. No NHL team stays healthy all season long, so if he gets to work he'll get another chance to play.

Doom really isn't Doomed. It had a big weekend. It's got the Rock, and he's a box office draw. It will probably pull in over 50 million box office.

It amazes me that, despite horrid reviews, this was the #1 movie this weekend. Alternatively Serenity got stellar reviews, and didn't manage to capture the top spot. Why do we have reviewers? No one listens to them. They have no actual influence on what becomes popular, so what's the point?

I'm in a deep depression over the Sharks...but it's still early. At least Marleau looks good, but Nabakov looked terrible before he got injured. Since when did the Sharks have the worst defense in the league? Hey, we are losing to the lame music thread guys, pick it up on the posting. Only 41 pages

Yay, another tool for bad parents to ignore.

I have Rome: TW, and it's very reasonable that each turn is about 6 months. I'm really on the fence about getting Civ 4. I still play Rome when I need that strategy kick, so do I really need another? I know they are very different types of games, but I'm not a huge strategy game guy. Do you really think it will be a "must-have" game?

I don't think Michael will die because he's got the son storyline going. Even Shannon has a big storyline going with the dog and her visions. Plus if she died, the story of her and Boone would be a dead end, and I think they'll still use that. It has to be someone who's already wrapped storylines up, or hasn't really got involved yet. It could be Sawyer. He's already played hi story out, and he is shot already. My money is on that new chick who we know nothing about.

I just really think in order to be considered a clutch player, you have to go all the way at least once in your career, and be a key player in that success. Yzerman took a decent team to the cup, but he scored critical goals when they were needed. Lemieux, of course, was a catalyst for a mediocre team. I wouldn't call Jagre clutch, because once Lemieux retired, he never pushed Pittsburgh to the top. I agree that Sundin is the better player right now than any on the list, except maybe Broduer, but I consider clutch a term given to a player after a long career of netting big goals, and at least one run to the Cup.

I remember the Suarus! Those mounts in the desert were awesome in QFG2. That was such a great series of games.

I have to agree that Sundin isn't the best clutch player in the league. He's awesome, and he's helped the Leafs win when they didn't have a chance, but he's never led them to a cup. Clutch is coming through in the big games. Until he leads the Leafs to a Stanley Cup, he'll never be at the top.

Considering how expensive movies have become to make, I don't mind spending $5-9 to see one. I think it's a shame that anyone pirates this stuff, because it really only causes the prices to go higher.

Man does this. You seem to have a lot of hostility towards any type of religion. Was something forced on you ShadowPaladin? Saying that religion is important seems like a pretty safe statement to me, as it is important to the majority of the people on Earth. That doesn't mean that you should follow in it.

You are bandaging the wound, but religions seek to avoid the wound all together. You don't address how science is stopping violence and hatred. Those are major problems. I'm not saying science isn't important, but I am saying religion is important as well. You seem to have the opinion that religion is useless and outdated.

There is also a difference between the progress of technology and the progress of humanity. Has humanity progressed? In many parts of the world, perhaps, but we still have violence, suffering, hunger, and hate. Does science seek to solve these problems?

You have to keep in mind what type of person posts on this board. Most religious people on these forums will likely have an open mind, just based on the fact they are hanging out in a video game forum. Typical religious folks are not here, they are at church praying for those poor souls playing GTA (major generalization, but it's fun to make it). Athiests don't have churches to go to. It seems that the internet and forums actually are the church of the Atheist. So really you have the most open-minded of religious folk, and then you have the typical atheist. This means that typically it is the atheist that comes off as close-minded in these discussions.

That is a wonderful example of the charity religion can inspire. The more I read about Islam, the more I appreciate to the teachings of the Qur'an. My opinion: There is more to life than science. We are all unique and capable of great good.

I've said it time and time again, organized religion is flawed. But it is a major part of humanity. It has positive and negative influences. It's also not going away anytime soon. Personally I think the only thing scarier than a world with religion is a world without religion. That would be a world where the unfortunate have no reason to hope. There really are two separate conversations here. One deals with belief, and one deals with religion. PS sorry about getting the name wrong, I'm rushing a bit because I'm at work "

Shadowknight seems pretty dismissive with religion. You compare it to a blanky that the modern man should discard because he is above previous generations. I don't think we are so far ahead as that. This is still a violent and often harsh world. The basic tenants of the major world religions are still very important. I don't know all of you very well, but I assume you don't commit random acts of violence, take whatever you want, and treat women like objects.

Religion and humanity have gone hand in hand since prehistory. Stating that the world would be better off without religion seems terribly arrogant to me. I've already stated my problems with organized religion, but I think a belief in something greater has been crucial for mankind. But without religion, does God cease to exist? When I tell you I see evidence of something greater all around me, it is difficult to put into words. It's like describing love, or the pride I feel when I do something positive. It's not tangible, but I just don't see how everything around me came about randomly. I'm not saying there is an ultimate plan, but there does seem to be a point to all this. I'm pretty sure it's 42.

Well, there are very few Atheistic Crusades in History. That's a good thing. I didn't know Darwin was agnostic, as I'm far from an expert on him or any scientist. I also don't understand why people always bring up the problems with organized religion. We've been discussing whether or not God exists. The Bible, Qur'an, and Tora are not necessary to support a belief in a higher power. I've already stated that my belief comes from simply looking around. I do not see how this is random.

I also think that the reason many scientist don't believe in a higher power has little to do with experiments they have done. All people enter into a situation with pre-concieved notions. Many people who pursue science already have a disdain for religion. Darwin is a perfect example. He was raised Catholic and rebelled at an early age. He hated the church. I'm not an expert on him at all, but that does influence a person. Religion is also not infallible. Again, religion is a construct of man.

Science doesn't have anything to do with faith? Are you serious? Does that mean science has never changed because it's always 100% accurate? Science attempts to prove stuff with experiments, but that doesn't mean it is infallible. Scientists make leaps of faith all the time.

We all use faith here. Athiests have faith in science. I have faith in a Higher Power. Maybe that's all that will matter in the end.

I believe in a Higher Power. I look around every day, and I just don't see how this could be random. I'm not sure why I would want to believe in that. I have HUGE issues with organized religions. Religion is, for the most part, a product of man. It's been used to great good throughout human history, but it's also wreaked terrible havok. But all monotheistic religions share one major point. Faith. I support that. People may call it blind faith, but again, I look around and it seems pretty obvious. I'm not saying we all have some divine purpose here, but I do see life as a gift from something greater than myself.