metadigital

You're Carmen Miranda!? Blue shirt.

Sure, why not. I believe he is all-powerful. Why can't he do something like that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree that an omnipotent force can certainly do it. The point is why? That's the problem with conspiracy theories, the effort involved outweighs the utility. Or is there some ulterior motive for the supreme being to create an illusory reality for the patronized creation? Why does a GOD need to do that? What is being hidden, and why? Excellent. A much more tenable belief. And a salute your maturity.

Aren't you?

I doubt you'd get elected on this platform, let alone get a chance to push it through the two houses. There's a very simple reason why the US is a major supporter of Israel.

No.

Sims 2:Pets is out in October ... "

I was referring to the pre-invasion of Afghanistan: 9/11. The reason that it was necessary to go and give the Taliban an attitude adjustment.

It saddens me that you have such a poor grasp the cross-discipline scientific evidence to seriously entertain this particular belief. Really, of all the hare-brained concepts, this must be the silliest. And totally pointless, too: it doesn't actually say anywhere in the Bible that the Earth was created nearly 6000 years ago, it was some anal Bishop who sat down and "calculated" this figure based on what he thought the length of the serial timeline. Seriously, there are so many different areas of knowledge that repudiate this that I am actually surprised you said it. From things as unrealted as the evolution of Indo-European languages over the last tens of millennia, to genetic mutations and adaptations (like the galactophagous gene), to migrations, localizations and extinctions of animals (not many marsupials outside Australia, for example), to the fossil evidence of proto-humans, and magnetic polar drifts and swaps, and tectonic activity. I could go on. But you probably believe that the fossil sea shells that make up the white cliffs of Dover are a nice decorative touch by the Alpha God. Really, I find the fundamental interpretation of a book that is obviously a collected work of many hands (the two markedly different creation myths in Genesis, for example) silly and dangerous. Sure, believe in the two commandments of the Gospels: Love God above all else and Love your neighbour as you love yourself (enter much interesting and worthy musings by Kierkegaard on what it means to "love thyself"), but don't take the Old Testament as a literary ethical instruction manual.

With respect, Cantousent, Pidesco might be a little truculent, but it is the fundamental interpreters who insist that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and nothing else, that insist on the all-or-nothing approach. It is more mythic than historical; by that I mean pre-historic, a collection of folk oral traditions, finally collected and written down (like the myths of Ancient Egypt and Scandinavia, for example). Yep, it has some excellent literary merit. And these are the crazies. These are the ones who see an angle in which they can interpret the arcane text "for and on behalf of" the laity. Don't forget William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible from latin into English, in retalialion for providing the common folk with the ability to read and interpret the holy text themselves. (Aside: this is what really sticks in my craw about the organised Christian religions, especially: the belief that the end justifies the means and that the hoi polloi can be told anything and treated any way to achieve "God's kingdom on earth".) Well, that is a more defensible position, but still any ethical lessons must not be taken from the Old Testament, with the God Of Wrath, lest the kingdom of God be full of eyeless and toothless inhabitants. The story of God's punishment of Egypt is appalling. To excuse it as part of some higher plan for greater good is a supreme act of denial, and even dangerous. (If it is possible once, then it may be necessary to happen again ...) No question it is a significant piece of literature. The problem comes not from those who criticize, but from those criticized for insisting that the Bible is a factual representation that is beyond man's comprehension and right to investigate.

But if you don't care about the longterm, then whatever you do in the shortterm is potentially in jeopardy, in the longterm. I'm not so concerned about the cost of the war; seems to be a useful sink for the countless dollars used by the US on their military budget, and it has the advantage of (perhaps) securing longterm energy security. Afghanistan should be lesson enough that a power vacuum can lead to serious problems for civilians well inside the national borders of the US (which, if I'm not mistaken, you do care about).

Reminds me of something the Chinese consulate was reputed to have said in the last few decades, when asked about wars etc, and specifically the French Revolution, their response was "Still to early to tell." :D

I was under the impression that the reason Bush I didn't follow Stormin' Norman's volitions was because it was completely contrary to the overt instructions of the UN Resolution (and would have lost the backing of all the Arab states, not to mention most of the other nations in the coalition). My recall might be slightly less than 101% correct, however.

I meant in the video ...

You have not said anything about your Fallout game. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, going slowly. Finished the radscorpion lark, and onto the radiers.

Nay, the Danes. "

I would caution against buying ANY montior that isn't widescreen for a tv. After Summer, just about everything will be broadcast (free to air as well) in widescreen. Even Eastenders.

I think this thread is part its use-by date. Thanks for playing. Please try to learn etiquette. Don't argue like little children. Talk about views, not the people who hold them. Try and remove the sand off your appendages as this topic is retired, permanently.

Just played the tutorials of HoI2 ... and I managed to win them all ... though I don't know how I overran Taiwan ...

Mugabe is probably the most eligible. One of the great paradoxes of recent times is that a saint like Nelson Mandela was leader of a regressive political party that sold millions of advanced weapons to other African nations for the governments to repress their citizens or conduct ethnic clensing (like Ethiopia attacking the Eritreans and Sudan, etc, etc).

Moses is your standard crazy old apocalyptic demagog, every country has at least one, I really hope he doesn't have a serious congregation. But that guy there in the clip seems to actually be somewhat intelligent, and that's what makes it scary. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not sure who you are referring to, but if it is the dude in charge of the thinktank, I thought it was made plain what the ulterior motive (of the Intelligent Design crowd) is: he is (and therefore they are) trying to redress the slide in personal ethics (which HE and people like him believe is a direct result of teh great Satan [science] and consequential nihilistic conclusions) by removing said science, so that the human race can live in ethical harmony, with no nasty doubt to sully God's kigdom on earth. Which is pretty much spot on why I dislike organised religion, because they use any method of control to get their own desires ...

Maybe we could give two or more Nigerian "government ministers" each others details ...

Ah, Rambo. The titles are a dead giveaway; meaning they correlate perfectly with the degree of silliness that the film embodies: First Blood Rambo: First Blood, Part II Rambo [iI: First Blood, Part] III. Of course it is possible for a single man to shoot down a helicopter gunship. With a bow and arrow.

I'd reinstall NwN now. First off, you'll enjoy playing the game, without being prejudiced by the (much) improved sequel; secondly, you'll get to play the premium mod; and third, you'll finish just as NwN 2 is released.

Talk, Mr Bond? I expect you to die.