metadigital

True. It's funny that some people seem to upbraid others for starting endless amounts of threads with the same subject ... and criticize others for necroposting. V. convenient rhetorical devices. Just a teeny-weeny bit hypocritical.

Here's a couple of quotes from the King James Bible: Deuteronomy 13 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Deut. 17.2-7 It's not like the Bible is a bastion of common decency.

Whooooooooooosh!

Because the Eldar simulation's TOMBS points are highly valued.

Do you look at the screen when you type?

Dude, I don't read the posts in threads. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you repeated it as an attempt at humour? Oh. I just thought you had just drunk an entire bottle of scotch whiskey and bashed your head against the keyboard, so I thought I'd help you out.

It's not a new thing for Source, it is part of the original game (if it exists at all). I found it quite bizarre when I read it, so I didn't download DoD to see. (My harddrive is currently full of other fun things to play.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I find this lament ironic when I juxtapose a subsequent paragraph, above. I am struggling to distil your point, here, so I bet a lot of others are too. You might want to expand / elucidate a little. Um, dystopian universes are prevalent because they provide the greatest raw material for heroic / epic narratives AND because the world is dystopian (and as far as theology is concerned will continue to be until the next coming of God / heaven on Earth). In fact I only know of ONE utopia EVER described in all the SF I have ever read. Just use Woody Allen's mantra: he makes films as a selfish, ignorant pawn at the mercy of fate. That is he makes films that appeal to him, for his enjoyment. If they happen to appeal to others, then that's terrific, because the resultant financial adjustments will help future film projects. Or are you suggesting that ALL developers will become corrupt as a consequence of the development process?

Brilliant. Like your Paladin/Avatar exemplar. Courage is not the absence of fear

I thought I read somewhere that there is a SP module to play ..? Maybe I might have a remote chance of not being completely and irrevocably correct ... "

Well, because we use English (the mother of all whores wrt language) we are happy to borrow any words from Swedish, if you have one. Normally it is differentiated by the adjectives "high" or "fine": high art is opera, low (brow) art is soap opera; fine art is a classical bronze statue, etc.

'"Duke Nukem Forever" ... and ever and ever.' 'When pigs fly.' ) Really, I would have thought that those of you who spend all your effort complaining about unfinished games with too many bugs would actually be pleased with a development company that has precisely the opposite philosophy. Or are the gain-sayers just enjoying some (thoroughly hipocritical) spleen-venting? "

But, the German tech was better than the allied stuff. Also, is there a SP narrative to play, or is it just MP?

As I don't consider myself an artist, I'll defer to the opinions of two I saw being interviewed about such things. They were performance artists (this is important because, just as we are arguing, so too artists do not agree: "traditional" artists like sculpters and painters generally have issues with performance art), and their adjudication rested on the intention of the creator. If it was created by an "artist", i.e. someone who was deliberately creating ART, then it is art (whatever the format: there was a recent peice that consisted of several tons of bananas piled high, for the public to pick up and intereact with and, yes, even eat). So, just like the definition of good and evil, it all depends on the motivations of the person(s) who instigate the work. It doesn't. It's a pretentious notion, much like "if it's popular then it can't be culture". Ignore it and move along: nothing to see here.

Wow, settle down Eldar. I am having a discussion; ENJOY the discussion. I thought the use of humour was an apt way of defusing any pent up pressure. Evidentally I am not infallible. :/ Islam is no more violent, fundamentally, than Christianity or Juduaism. After all, the Talmud is common to all Abrahamic religions, in some form. (Christians just stick the beginning, middle and end in a different order, for example, and call it the "Old Testament".) You don't think the US aid budget and trade sanctions don't contribute to the misery of developing countries (co-incidentally mostly Islamic nations)? So Islam is violent because some extremists are warmongering in her name, yet fundamentalist Christian policy from the world's richest nation that inflicts uncountable hardship and suffering is not violent? What do you think is a root cause of violence? Why aren't there (and never have been, afaik) people rioting in Switzerland? I wasn't trivialising, actually. A lot of the Islamic extremism evident today is a long term result of the fundamentalist Christian behaviour of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which, amongst other things, killed a lot of the moderate Muslims in the M.E. That's like the poor use of antibiotics in hospitals leading to MRSA, and you blaming the Golden Staff bacterium, rather than the hygiene policy of administrators. It's not a predjudice if you are open to argument and liable to change your mind given sufficient evidence. That's an (hopefully) informed decision. Predjudice is when you make up your mind before the facts are known, and don't counternance any alternative interpretation. (Fundamentalist, if you will.) Mixed messages. The Arab nations are probably pretty peed off that they haven't been taken seriously in world politics ever. The French and British conveniently forgot all the promises they made in WW1, and

Fio is like the trinity (heads down: here comes a tirade), parent, child and holy spirit! Fio is everywhere and nowhere, and able to edit omnipresently ...

It is wrong, and there are no excuses. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he he. That's a very extreme and fundamental view, Steve.

We are in violent agreement, ~Di.

Phew. That's as contentious as the latest Egg card advert ...

007 was at a loose end for forty minutes ...

Sssssssssshhhhhhhh! Fio will be back soon.

Fizzy Jizzy Numner Five!

What about the foreign policy of not providing aid to countries ravaged by AIDS in Africa without assurances of abstinence, rather than condom use? Or the Catholic Church's role in the poverty cycle in South America because it refuses to endorce family planning methods like condoms, voluntary sterilisation and abortion? Are you suggesting that religions should be rated on a violence scale? Buddhism is okay, they can keep their temples. Islam is too violent, so it must be ... errr ... what? Forced out of the world? What do you propose? A crusade? I have seen the Zionists protesting: they are just as vociferous and violent and extreme in their opinions about Islam and the Arabic peoples. They are the Hamas of Judaism, for they too won't stop until every Muslim/Arab is dead. Or is the violence-o-meter weighted by population? " He he. Fundamentalists are certainly a big problem. When someone thinks they have the divinely inspired truth and all who disagree are heathens to be converted or slaughtered (it was Pope Innocent III who said "kill them all, God will know the difference" when asked about the women, children and those who were not the target his sectarian genocide). But extremists are certainly a big problem, too. And the two groups are not mutually exclusive.