metadigital

Revivication?

I miss the times when you're not posting! Figment of your f

1. Yes. The medium is irrelevant; you may as well ask if it is possible to meet someone in a bar or on an airplane. 2. Find help here. 3. I'm collecting material, what's your excuse? 4. dodger, J.E. Sawyer, some other people.

I miss the times when we used to talk about sneeze fetishes.

You are such an idiot. Don't judge me! Ender ... is that you?

What? You let the server bounce because of a girl?

Sure beats the second reason, though.

You don't believe in evolution? I suppose gravity is just a coincidence, too? You would like Hume ...

I'll leave aside your scientist-bating for the moment. (Why can't science give guidance for morals? That is the very basis for humanism, after all. Are you denying humanism exists?) I'm more concerned with why you think science can't AND SHOULDN'T speak to faith. The reason I enquire is that we must be careful to not give too much respect to religion, past its due, lest we end up giving the Narcisistic Personality Disordered carte blanche to delude those "willingly gullible" cult members.

the same can be said for some that think their lack of faith (in a higher power, or religion) is above all as well. Absolutely.

I'd be worried too if I woke up reading this forum. "

Well, at least the writers didn't stretch her beyond her capabilities ... almost.

Why be moral? Why be healthy? It feels good. There is this natural tendancy in many human beings depending on how they were raised (and genetically i suppose too) of the pleasure to please, and the capacity for empathy. Empirically, i see another suffering in despair, i feel empathy, I've been there. So I help them out because it will help me feel good then too! Is that selfish? Well, i just made 2 people happy, myself and another. And later on, that person will reward me back (in theory haha!) This is the best reasoning i can come up with. Anyone want to chime in? Albert Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, has a lot to speak of about this. Basically there is no compelling reason to be good, evil or indifferent. A person can do and be whatever they feel, whether it fulfills them or not. There is no reckoning, bar the immediate world of our own face in the mirror. This debate has gotten a little of track, methinks. The fundamental issue at stake is that (some) religious folk think that their faith is above the created world, beyond criticism and certainly cannot be subjected to scientific rigour. And not only are they offended that others might think that their faith is not universally correct and accepted, they think it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone who dares to challenge their god-given wisdom. I would hope that we all would agree that, for our society to survive, all members must be tolerant of others and not wish to extinguish their rights to believe whatever they want. This doesn't mean that belief is immune from criticism.

Nokia N95 has a 5Mp camera and a GPS.

I thought the wives' tale was that the person's insides would rush out of the body, as the surface tension / vacuum seal of the alimentary canal was disrupted.

If a hello kitty horse adventure game allows me to roleplay and fight monsters, then it's DnD game. The fact that it uses d20 or not is pedantry.

Did you sneeze with your arms?

Who is the authority that polices what aspects of a game MUST be kept for it to be a sequel? Where does innovation become interference? I ask again: Who is the judge?

It depends on the context ... from a DNA perspective, you retain the original chromosome mix; from a social point of view, you would be the new gender.

You'd be a Moral relativist, then. I.e. you don't hold that there are any absolute ethical truths. Like eating babies is wrong under all circumstances, for example.

(I thought you were giving up gaming forever.)

There is no such thing as "the whole civilization".

GameFAQs google is your friend.

*loud heckling from the back*