Cantousent

I won't go so far as to say that I would support anything he creates, but I'm disposed towards giving him a lot of leeway to find his creative voice and I'm willing to try or even purchase modules that I enjoy. He can't do a Troika and rest on his laurels, but he can expect a lot of folks to give him a chance. Probably a good long chance. Of course, meta has the right of it. He should probably go all Bachman with his modules. I just hope he doesn't.

Unless you intend to make your modules under a pen name, I hope that you indulge us here at the message boards and let us know when you complete a module. For one, I would like to see it. I intend to buy NWN2, come what may. I might bitch later, but I'm still buying it. From what I can tell, it looks like Obsidz is putting care into the aspects that most interest me. So I am keenly curious to see how you will use the toolset for a private project. Yes, you will undoubtedly open yourself to criticism. *shrug* folks criticize each other all the time on the net. A fact with which you are familiar, I am sure. :Eldar's tongue in cheek icon: With the critics, some of whom will have good points and constructive criticism, there will also be folks predisposed to praise your work. Some of them will also bring good points and positive feedback. I

Yeah, well, after I got done playing, I have to install a new kit in the water tank for my toilet. No freinds with that, I assure you. Blank, I might give you +15 TOMBS points, but the fact that you're virtual makes them pointless.

hehehe. Jerk.

Before the message comes the fun. We might want to find meaning in our games, designers might want to put purpose in their work, but it is first and foremost a game. *nods to the thread revolving around games as art* Theater is art, but it's purpose is to entertain. That is purpose enough. The entertainment is the art. If you express meaningful ideas through your art, then so much the better.

Okay, meta, apparently too much spice in my diet lately. You know how I am. I appreciate the response, though.

Okay, meta, you get high marks for gymnastic but low marks because you're acting like you need to score points more than engaging in actual discussion. First of all, the idea that we put religions on a scale is a red herring. I didn't do so. I merely pointed out that there are differences in what various religions have tolerated in terms of violence, but that the Islam of today more readily resonds with violence than do other "mainstream" religions. If I were to use a scale, everyone else would be far over on the other side. Then, you cite AIDS relief in Africa? Give me a break. That's plain offensive. You write: "[w]hat about the foreign policy of not providing aid to countries ravaged by AIDS in Africa without assurances of abstinence, rather than condom use?" You somehow equate what a particular country shells out in aid to a foreign entity as the same things as multi-national calls for violence against foreign nationals. meta, I was asking what I thought were serious questions, not trying to make points. My perception is that Islam as a whole today is more violent than pretty much any other major religion. I might be wrong, but citing African aid doesn't move me much. Next, and even worse, you cite a 12th century pope? I'm not mad because I feel attacked. I'm irritated that you trivialize the discussion with these tactics. I believe you have insight into these matters, but as long as we can't explore Muslim violence in a meaningful way, we're not discussing much. Citing centuries old conflicts to justify modern day violence is simply wrong. The Crusades are over. Let's not pretend that we're lawyers trying to advocate our clients at all costs and argue in good faith. I'm serious, dammit. Why is it that we praise the imams who call for peace but we cannot accept that there is a sizeable minority calling for war? If I even have the temerity to suggest that Islam exhibits more violent tendencies than other religions, folks are likely to call me prejudiced. At least you didn't do that. You do, however, cite foreign aid and edicts almost a thousand years old. I'll put off the fundamentalist argument for a while simply because this is a bigger issue for me. I'm not prejudging Islam. These widespread (and they are widespread) protests are a timely matter that I did not prejudge. Hell, Surreptishus' argument is more convincing because it essentially says that it is not the religion but how folks are using it to further political or geopolitcal aims. That makes sense. That's a reflection not of the religion nor of the innate qualities of the people, but of political opportunism, which knows no ethnic, cultural, or (so-called) racial bound.

Islam is lucky here. In meta, it has another eloquent defender who brings sound arguments to the table. I won't say I agree with your post so much as I found it informative. I take you at your word and it is reassuring. However, I must make two points. They are not so much in disagreement with your statements as disagreement with the implication. Yes, Christianity has extremist and some have committed murder for the sake of their beliefs. However, in our age, similar acts or statements that have targeted Christianity have not resulted in multi-national calls for violence by the Christian community. For example, I thought "Piss Christ" was in poor taste and I certainly wasn't happy that the government funded the project through the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. However, I don't recall a widespread movement demanding violence by Christians in this country, let alone around the world. I don't make this argument because it's important to defend Christianity. Whatever you think of Christianity, you're going to be hard put to put it in the same category of extremist violence as Islam. We can argue the reasons, but there are more Christians clamoring for less violence. That means that there must be a greater minority (if not majority) of Muslims who advocate or resort to violence. Sure, we can argue the reasons for it, but citing counter examples of doctors killed or taken hostage in the US just doesn't work. We're better off trying to see why extremist are such a powerful force in Islam in comparison to other religions than trying to say that all have an equal percentage (if not number) of extremists calling for violence as does Islam. Making this a politically correct issue dosn't help at all. Saying, "well, Islam has extremists but so does everyone else" doesn't change the fact that priests and ministers in the United States don't call for this sort of activity. Sure, you can cite the isolated exceptions, but violence as a response looks increasingly like an acceptable choice to a large number of Muslims. Why is that? If we cannot accept that terrorism is far more the choice of Islam than Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, or Buddhism, then we have hit an impasse. Don't tell me that there are examples of Buddhist violence and so the violence is somehow comparable to the spontaneous uprisings of Muslims in countries throughout the region and beyond. Hell, my experience and understanding is that Buddhism is less violent than Christianity, but neither approach what we see today in Islam. Is it simply unreasonable to express such observations? Finally, Fundamentalism is not the cause of this. It is extremism. Fundamentalism does not equate to a call for violence. When someone takes a fundamental belief and uses it as a springboard to advocate violence, they are an extremist.

The point is that the hardened anti-hero is overplayed these days also. The sassy jerk with a heart of gold is overplayed, sure. ...But the ugly jerk with a black heart who does something that needs to be done isn't exactly fresh. There really isn't any combination that provides anything so fresh that someone else can't cite an example of him from literature. Folks looking to deny a creative idea will always find examples that "prove" that the author stole the concept from someone else. Here's one I'd like to see. The hero really is the good guy. I mean, he's super good. He's so damned good and sensitive that every evil act he witnesses and every battle against evil in which he participates, he loses a little of his sanity. The game could include a "sanity" value or some such. Instead of the vampire trying to retain his huminity, the hero is trying to lose just enough that his war against evil doesn't push him over the edge. Blood provides the impetus for frenzy in both cases. The player must make sure the character must make tough decisions, lest he finally break. Breaking could result in a few different things. The character might find his dialogue options chaged from goodness in light to jaded ugliness. He might become a coward and run from fights. He might crack in a much more insidious way by assuming everything he deems evil must be detroyed. There is nothing more to decide. If we go with the idea of factions and revolving antagonists, then a switch in his sanity value might put him into another faction. Another good anti-hero is the fellow who is a complete coward but, for whatever reason, still goes through with the mission. He is different from a real hero in that he never overcomes his fear, but is compelled by some outside source to complete the quest. ...Or, he might have an internal reason that overcomes his fear, but the reason is not heroic. For instance, he's a coward, but his greed is stronger and so he completes the quest.

I

A world without bias is a world without the possibility of sin or freedom. A world without the possiblity of sin renders religion pointless. At any rate, I've been following this thread more closely than I've been participating in it. However, I'm curious, Miss Launch, what is your point of view regarding the papers printing the cartoons? I have not really known a lot of Muslims, I admit. I think, as a group, they are over-represented by extremists, but I agree with both you and Walsh that these extremists are born out of a culture rather than religion. On one hand, I see Muslims worldwide acting in a way that I see virtually the members of no other mainstream religion acting. Is there religious strife and sometimes violence in other religions? Certainly. ...But Islam provides a source of violence unheard of in other religions today. Before someone cites the exceptions, no matter the instigation, and there have been many such instigations, has an insult against any other religion spurred such an outpouring of hatred? Not by individuals, but by entire communities. On the other hand, I don't want to believe that Islam is violent or that the people of the Middle East are innately violent. In fact, I don't believe it. You are an eloquent defender, Miss Launch. Between you and Julian, Islam has a tempered and reasoned voice in the debate. At least here. ...But, like Walsh, I'm worried about Islam. I'm worried because, at the end of the day, the best way to combat the prejudice of offensive religion-baiting is to prove that it is unfounded. Extremists acting out in the ways we've seen over the past couple of weeks do not help to settle that issue. If extremists are the minority in Islam, they look to be a more sizeable minority than in other religions. We can debate that point, but it's a harder sell every day that protesters advocate or enact violence and in such numbers. Islam is lucky to have both you and julian as a defender. I'm just unsure that it is worthy of you. ...But I've taken for granted that every word you've spoken is true. I'll always believe that it is Denmarks right, as a sovereign nation, to restrict free speech in whatever way it deems fit. Nevertheless, your words do not fall entirely on deaf ears.

No, you're not real meta. You're just a really, really good fake.

Thanks for the tip, Ghengis. I'll do that the next time I watch a football game at your house. Hopefully the Cowboys vs. the Seahawks. :Eldar's trouble-making grin icon:

The Irish Anti-Hero: The guy who kills his best friend in a bar-room brawl and weeps the next day, not out of contrition for his act, but because he misses his friend. The successful Irish Anti-Hero: We weep because he does.

How about this: a long time ago, some folks (we'll call them liberals for the sake of discussion) decided that the best way to attack a different group of folks (we'll call them conservatives) was to question, repeatedly, the intelligence of the second group. Liberals think they're right while conservatives *know* they are? Steve has a good point about seeing the honor in our opponents. I'll go even further. We have enemies in this world. There is no sustainable all inclusive "us" in this world. At some point, there will be an "us" against whom will be arrayed a "them." This is the nature of mankind and I have seen nothing thus far that indicates we will change. What we must not do is treat our opponents as our enemies.

Oh, I wasn't looking at the screen for that call. I remember them calling it but I don't remember seeing a replay. I agree with Drabek, about the audibles. *I'm a big fake, my wife hates football so this is the first Superbowl I've seen in like... ten years, I guess. Maybe more. Still, I thought it was interesting and I'm a guy. I have to talk football every ten years or I lose my "guy" status and become a "weenie."

I was for the Steelers, but there were a couple of bad calls. First of all, pass interference? Give me a break. Can players even touch each other these days? Another for holding? Naw, that just wasn't right. Most calls seem right on. However, the controversial call for Roethlisberger's touchdown was correct. The replay was indecisive -- it looked like the ball might have passed the plane while he was in the air -- and so the people on the ground get the nod as.they.should.

If I said I'm doing a report... :Eldar's even wrier grin icon:

I can attest to the fact that Hurlshot doesn't always hold to any talking points. Actually, a lot of folks here are like that. I've never really thought about how the debating really works, but there are some really ugly liberals out there, man. I mean, howl at the moon crazy sorts of fellows.

That was quite funny. I laughed out loud and received admonition from my wife. Spellmar can bite me.

Ouch, jerk. :cool:

Fionavar and Kumquat have both convinced me to buy the series. You just added incentive where none was needed. Also, you're a busy man on the forum today.

I dunno. I usually don't resort to sarcastic wit and I'm one of the most conservative people in this forum. Oh, I have fun from time to time, but very rarely do I actually resort to flame.

Ahh, you big Dane you. Can I say that on a private forum. Actually, that introduces another question, message boards. Folks complain about fascist moderators all the time. I'd like to reprint some of Fionavar's views, but this is probably not an appropriate place to do so. The reality is, however, that there have been some clear slurs against Muslims on the net and they did not receive much attention. Obviously, this issue relvolves around the fact that it's an actual publication. It's important for Muslims because it's an attack in the mainstream media. It's important to Europeans because of how they value a free and open press.

Not to get off topic, but the next time I want an opinion from a flat headed, obnoxious, French Kanadian Neanderthal, I