metadigital

I tell you you'll all see my point of view sooner or later: compulsory, mandatory reversible (upon satisfying certain criteria) sterilisation at birth, for everyone. It's the only safe way.

That's just the nature of negotiations (and some *cough* *cough* players disorganised styles). Nothing ever seems to be negotiated until the last possible moments, whether it is purchasing a car or reducing SALT missiles.

Works for me. Who cares about graphics, sound and story as long as there's hot lesbian action. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "

Ah, but during wartime, science should explode! Especially if you conquer a scientific race, like the Germans (so you can steal all their scientists and make improvements on their V2, atom bomb and flying saucer designs to make ICBMs, plutonium fussion bombs ignited by fission and ... er ... SF tv shows).

Personally, I am more comfortable with the notion of perfect free will. Viz., every action can be taken by every actor (on the great stage of life, boom! boom!), and to encompass this, there is an infinite multiverse, where each and every choice made is manifest.

It's all just a Darwinian hangover of the pre-homo sapiens sapiens survival instinct. Seriously, though, you ask why basic interaction is fundamental to our humanness (and possibly even more fundamental than that: perhaps it is hardwired into every organism, from the cyanobacteria to the hive). Perhaps it is an unwritten assumption that the many can do better than the few. Who knows, maybe the sociopaths have got it right

But isn't individualism the opposition to all forms of control, of authority, over the individual? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wouldn't think so, that's just being obstreperous for the sake of it. I.e., it is quite possible, surely, for a bunch of individuals to agree on a (presumably mutually beneficial) scenario, otherwise you aren't talking about individualism, you're talking about chaotic anarchism. Sure, but are you consciously making a choice? What you seem to be doing is disenfranchising yourself, unnecessarily; it is quite okay to do something that is not beneficial in the short term (or even penalises one) for a long-term benefit. That's what intelligence is for, deciding what is better in the long term, even it it appears to be counter-intuitive at first sight. Otherwise, without intelligence, long-term advantage would need to be hardwired and may not adapt to new circumstances. Again, you seem to be arguing a sort of anarchism, not individualism. I am very happy with my individualism, I consciously choose every action I take (whether it is to pay for a train ticket instead of stealing a ride, or helping someone in the street). It is a self-esteem perpective: I may be choosing between two bad options, but I am choosing. Even if given an extorionate choice, I can still choose the "wrong" option, should I so wish to exercise my individuality. In theory mankind can also build societies which will always support and promote people's growth in a positive way, and this would ultimately be something like an utopia. But isn't this a double edged sword? Determining what is best for someone or something may not be necessarily the best. A society could allow humans to grow unmolested by radical environment, viruses, the chaos that would likely come from lack of structured, ruling hierarchy, etc.; and mankind could grow prosper and safe, but this would cost placing control in others' hands rather than our own. Note that I'm not arguing that absolute individualism is better than the positive aspects a given society can bring. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, this is a Hobbesian observation of the "jungle out there", or indeed the conclusion to Eric Blair's 1984.

That reminds me of my boxing coach in Varsity; he was always good for a story. He recounted once that he had tried using a guard whereby he leant his fists on his forehead (if any of you have ever boxed, you will know that one of the most difficult things to do is keep your guard up

Sometimes I think you're doing it on purpose, because you actually are using the exact opposite of the correct idiom, which means there is method to your madness ...

You are practically neighbours ...

(Most sequels are worse, though.) On that note, how about: KotOR2: The Wrath of Fans ?

Not in Way Off-Topic, he's not ... Now if only you would use decipherable spelling and grammar, then the others might be able to read as fast as you ...

read this

:*:*:*:*

Pazaak would probably be more interesting if there was a mutliplayer version (I do not mean playing with another human player). What I mean is having a variation that is somewhat like Texas Hold 'Em in that there are several players at the table at one time, each with full voice over. that would help create a more casino-like feel. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How would that work, though? In a casino, all the players play a single dealer. Even more obscure blackjack-type games, like Seven-and-a-Half, rely on a set dealer (who keeps the deal until beaten or twice through the deck), and the dealer has an advantage. Poker might work, but then again, I wonder how much of a betting game can be included without affecting the rating ...

... Alien

I think the Boy George episode wins the "best surreal moment in modern tv" award ...

Have you played it?

The antidote is Rome: Total War.

You do realise that these suggestions have even less chance of being acknowledged than the ones in the legitimate thread, created by the moderators, for this, don't you?

I will appraise it through other means, such as reviews from trusted sources, or purchasing it from the store where I have a loyalty membership, so that I can return it within ten days should I not like it. Anyway, why are you asking that? What's that got to do with your original question?

So? I won't buy it, then, will I?

But why? Don't you have a video card that is nVidia or ATi ?

Look at the title of thread Mr. Wiggin (plus Baywatch started in 1989 ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How do you know so much about swallows, Launchie ?

I think those elements make us unique individuals, but not necessarily examples of individualism. No one else is like me, but I am like everybody else: physically distinct, but socially and morally bound to what is written and considered the norm. My life is my own, but my own life falls into the cracks that others' lifes often do. I don't believe I am living for myself, and I doubt I ever will. I find myself doing things I do not want to get things I don't think I particularly need and to please people I don't like at all, hate or am afraid of letting down (if they haven't let me down in the first place, that is). Am I really that different from others? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, you sound like an individual that is constrained by the limits imposed in a society. That still doesn't preclude individualism, however. The probablility is that an individual will act in accordance with their own interests in the society, but that is still no guarantee: people still go "postal", once some internal reference threhold is triggered. And how do you define yourself, the "I"? I'll drudge up more unfounded and ignorant opinions just for the sake of conversation, and submit that no one truly exists as an individual because we must conform to a reality that does not allow us to grow or become our true selfs, actual individuals. We are limited by self-regulations, barred by laws, we are tied by social, political and moral conventions which most of the time neuter our perceptions and desires, and confine our abilities. When we do not place regulating powers in others' hands, we are regulating ourselves. Am I a true individual considering I don't allow myself to be more? To be truly individual? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Laws also provide a structure for positive growth. The greenhouse allows more plants to grown unmolested by pests and weather than without. Ah, wasted youth... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For all we know, the Existentialist Nihilist is right, and this universe ends when I die ...