Gromnir

this is a dumbarse thread with lots of dumbarsed theories and dumbarsed posts. however, the fact that it ain't been purged is noteworthy. HA! Good Fun!

btw, one thing Gromnir cannot stand is developer bs... as if we ain't been listening for the past decade or so. am not talking 'bout josh, but developers 5 years ago told us that gamers didn't want 80 hour games... gamers wanted 40 hours. so now, 5 years later when Gromnir says, "where are the 40 hour games," developers tell us that gamers really want 20 hour games. bs... we call bs. HA! Good Fun!

two games that gots equal quality, one of which is 60 hours and the other is 40. which is better? most every designer and developer tells us that they likes shorter games... but then they admit that the resources it takes to make 3d games nowadays results in Big Games being impossible to develop. *shrug* games is getting shorter... and we suspect that in the future it is even gonna get more expensive for developers to keep up with cutting edge tech, so games will probably become even less long. as long as publishers believe that they has to make games that look as good as they can make'em, the games will get shorter and shorter. is Gromnir wrong? we hope so. HA! Good Fun!

according to that source, mead is pretty vile stuff. as Gromnir does not partake of alcoholic libations we has no point o' reference, but gaiman sure makes it sound disgusting, no? ah well, taste is such a personal thing. HA! Good Fun!

is a very short book and an easy read. am not surprised that you CAN read it once a month. am just confused as to why anybody would do such a thing. then again, Gromnir has read beowulf a few hundred times... HA! Good Fun!

once a month? ... post-war french absurdists give us gas... but we agree that "the stranger" is worth reading at least once. HA! Good Fun! p.s. if it weren't for the fact that both beckett and conrad wrote in french, we would pretty much ignore the existence of france... from a literary pov at least.

camus were an existentialist. HA! Good Fun!

sir gawain is actually a beter read than beowulf, but Gromnir sees beowulf everywhere, so we give it the nod. as to richard iii... it is a play... as such, w/o actors to breathe life into richard, the title character can come off as both over-the-top and maudlin. nevertheless, we got a soft spot for the "poisinous bunch-backed toad." is our favorite shakespeare even if it ain't the bestest. can't go wrong with macbeth. HA! Good Fun!

not really... but you do have multiple narrators, one of whom is retarded. "as i lay dying" is another novel in which faulkner uses multiple narrators (one of whom is dead.) their story is more coherent... less stream o' consciousness. HA! Good Fun!

add: lolita the complete short stories of ernest hemingway one that is as often on the list as off: gravity's rainbow is a great book to teach and discuss 'cause so much is going on in it, but... *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

regardless, the following is just plain wrong: "It is the Court's duty to rule on what is legal or illegal based on current precedents and law." HA! Good Fun!

dubliners pale fire brave new world the sound and the fury richard iii slaughterhouse 5 the king's indian babbit rabbit is rich the dark knight returns beowulf grendel as i lay dying the heart of the matter knight the phantom tollbooth HA! Good Fun!

is not semantics. Congress cannot overturn a Court decision re Constitutionality. Congress' only option is to change the Constitution. and as to following precedent, NOT overturning roe v. wade or some other case ain't the same as following precedent. maybe this is a vocab thing... am not sure. HA! Good Fun!

still got miscommunications with ss. the Court has no duty to follow "current" precedents. the Court determines Constitutionality and as the highest court in the land it not need to follow past precedent. if it deems an act to be unconstitutional, then guess what... the act is unconstitutional until the Court changes its mind. and as it is the Court that determines what is law

They may have spoken on an issue, that doesn't mean they covered it completely. Politicians have also been known to do strange things, like vote for something they thought was wrong and defend their decision. Thats not to say I believe the framers or founding fathers did this. Simply that people do crazy things, as you yourself said, thusly I don't really intend to debate intent. As the romans used to say, the public is a fickle mob. Generally speaking what I said was true, which was my point. Public opinion thankfully doesn't control law, either. I don't see how my notions are wrong, either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you cannot debate legal issues w/o intent. sorry, but it just ain't possible. try figure out the rule o' law divorced from considering what the author intended is a hopeless endeavour... and yeah, the mob is fickle... which is exactly why the Court is not elected... so it need not be swayed or controlled by the mob. get off the fence ss. you can't have both ways. oh, and yeah, you is wrong. takes an amendment for Congress to direct overturn a Court deciscion concerning interp of Constitution. texas v. johnson and the eichman cases is illustrative... and katzenbach v. morgan is not doispositive in this case as we ain't talking 'bout judicial interp of a federal law, but of the Constitution itself. HA! Good Fun!

then isn't it great that you live here in the us where you can choose to loathe God all you wish? nevertheless, the fact that you loathe God should not mean that everybody else should loathe God and it not mean that peoples needs must pretend that they do not love God simply 'cause such a thing bothers you. as we said earlier, Gromnir is in favor of Wall of Separation language, but there is very little to suggest that Wall of Separation is what the framers wanted... and if you ignore the framers, then whose intent should matter? leave up to public opinion as ss suggests? then why have a Court at all? end up with the tyranny of the majority nightmare? HA! Good Fun!

They aren't here now to explain their reasoning, or what factors played in their mind. Its one thing to analyze the factors leading up to a decision and the decision itself, but the fact is we don't know ALL the things which played in their mind. Thus I'm not going to debate what someone's intent was. I never met George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. so I'll restrain myself from saying "I think they thought." Polls support that most people accept the seperation of church and state arguement. It might not be an overwhelming majority, but neither was Bush's election. In all likelihood if you went to a breadbasket state to poll, most might not accept it. *Shrugs* I go by what the polls show.

"2 - The "Wall" of seperation may not have existed in the original intent (which we really can't debate their intent), or the original wording. However we have come to a point where people believe that is the case, and most accept it." first, why you think it is not possible to debate intent? look at what the framers said is a good start... then look at what they did. we not gotta know specific what is in the minds of each and every framer to glean their intent s a whole. second, the fact that you assume that most folks accept the wall o' separation language seems based on gut feeling rather than reality. we got a very religious nation, and your certainty that most folks believes that the establishment clause creates a wall o' separation would be something that we would have no such certainty 'bout. finally, what does it matter that most persons accept something as true? popular opinion is what Congress is 'posed to be swayed by. Congress is the folks elected by the people. if the people has changed their mind, then by all means, let them change the law by demanding their representatives to do so. that is the way the process is 'posed to work. stodgy old Justices who gots no accountability to the public is the ones who should be gauging the current trends and opinions o' the American Public? oh, and while this ain

we like to fight. unfortunately, we only engage in those socially acceptable forms o' combat, (e.g. fencing, rugby, litigating, dating.) high school were the last time we bloodied some other human being in a bare fisted brawl. am now too old and too mature to engage in such barbarism. *sigh* is one of the great tragedies o' life that we rarely appreciate our youth until it is gone. HA! Good Fun!

The coiimibat oif the infinity engine games in general was quiite weak. Balduirs gate 2 had loits oif poissibilities buit yoiui oinily needed toi emploiy 1 strategy toi carry yoiui throiuigh moisit oif the game: casting breach foilloiwed by a melee ruish. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> breach didn't work on many critters... or it were of limited efficacy. had to fight vampires different from mind flayers and liches different from golems, and dragons different from everything else. to say otherwise would be fibbing, if only to your self. HA! Good Fun!

roshan now compares bg2 combat to ps:t? HA! look, Gromnir liked ps:t a great deal... were/is our favorite pc game (regardless as to whether or not it were a crpg,) but ps:t combat were NOT a positive quality and it not have anywhere near the possibilities and complexity o' bg2... not that bg2 were a great combat simulator neither, but to compare to ps:t... like ps:t for what it was... and in spite of its weakness... but pretend that it not have weakness is foolish. HA! Good Fun!

never denied founding father status o' jefferson... or his political influence. however, he was, at the time of the constitutional convention, viewed as something of a loose cannon and yeah, a fringe politician... and maybe a bit of a nut too. would never wear more than one suit, and would wear that until it wore out before getting a new one. regardless, he were one guy... just one. his views hardly represented the Framer's intent as a whole. HA! Good Fun!

there is no duel. am not gonna simply throw out 100 quotes to prove you wrong. is a waste of both our efforts. maybe you want a list o' Court cases that you will not fully understand? do yourself a favor and look at the actions of early post bill o' rights Court, Congress and Exec, 'cause a battle o' quotes will prove nothing, and you will still be wrong. am always amazed at how folks put so much stock in jefferson and madison quotes concerning establishment clause, while they happily ignore fact that the Congress that ratifies the Bill o' Rights opened with a prayer, and apportioned monies for christian missionary work into indian territory... and almost 150 years o' subsequent history. *sigh* and please try to get it through your head that jefferson were not a framer. he was not at the Constitutional Convention and he were not part o' the virginia delegation that ratified the bill of rights neither. HA! Good Fun!

most prominent? HA! he wasn't even at the constitutional convention. and if you wanna start listing stuff, go for it, but we will bury you with washington and jay and hamilton and madison and many many others... and more important, since all we got is drafts o' the amendments, we will buryyou with the ACTIONS o' the fldgeling government... put the FRAMER's words into context of what they did with'em. jefferson were a brilliant man, but he hardly spoke for the majority o' the founders... and he weren't a framer. HA! Good Fun!

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge. The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear." the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit. make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it. ... look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll grant you that the separation clause doesn't explicitly establish the wall, though I will posit that the framers' writings, specifically Jefferson's, do indeed support the wall. Hell, it was Jefferson who first used the phrase. Then again, Jefferson was obliged to put 'endowed by their Creator' into the Declaration of Independence in order to get certain colonies to sign off on it, so I wouldn't say he was religious in the way we think of religious today. Now, whether or not you consider that a valid argument is wholly up to you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> jefferson were THE framers? wow. and here we thought that he were just one guy... and kinda a fringe politician at that. were he even at the constitutional convention? no? wall o' separation folks place too much stock in jefferson... and they ignore pretty much everybody else. is bad history and bad scholarship. HA! Good Fun!