Reveilled

I miss the Republican party that was about small secular government with social freedom and equality and tax cuts for everyone instead of just the rich. Anyone remember them?

Darth Vader - United States of NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Hayseed Dixie - Kirby Hill You wanna get your eyes knocked out, You wanna get your fill, You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! My daddy made corn whisky, Up on Kirby hill, Just like his dad before him, In an old pot, bell and still, He never took to strangers, Headin' up that way, And when he'd here 'em talkin' bout it, This is what he'd say, Hey! You wanna get your eyes knocked out, You wanna get your fill, You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! One night some other brewers, Thought they'd take the old man down, And they asked about the way up Kirby Hill all over town, They headed up the mountain, Round 'bout half past ten, Reckon now it's safe to say, We ain't never seen them again! You wanna get your eyes knocked out, You wanna get your fill, You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! My great grandaddy used to talk, bout the war 'tween the governments, Back when ol' Jeff Davis and Abe Lincoln were the presidents, He watched the armies marchin' up, He watched them both march by, No army never took his hill, No army dared to try! You wanna get your eyes knocked out, You wanna get your fill, You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! Lately up on Kirby Hill, I been planting seeds of my own, I know they'll fetch a pretty price, when they're good an' grown, I seen the helicopters, sent by the DEA, If they don't like how I do my buds, they'll stay the hell away, You wanna get your eyes knocked out, You wanna get your fill, You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! You wanna get your eyes knocked out, You wanna get your fill, You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! You wanna get your eyes knocked out, Just climb up Kirby Hill! You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill! You wanna get your head shot off, Just climb up Kirby Hill!

I would say yes, up to a point. If the guerrillas were to engage a military target in a civilian area without a uniform (or any distinguishing mark; a coloured armband, coloured bandolier, a flower in the hat), then yes, I would say that is bad and wrong. Nevertheless, I would still say that that is a distinction between good guerrilla and bad guerrilla, rather than guerrilla and terrorist (as such a measure would be to minimise their own casualties, rather than to maximise civilian ones, and though that would be the consequence, it would not be the intent, which in my opinion has to be there for a terrorist group). On the other hand, if the guerrillas hide themselves among the civilian population when not involved in a battle, then I would say this is justifiable as it is the only reasonable means by which the guerrillas can ensure their survival. Now, where are my rocks?

Well, I'd apply the same criteria that is applied to other kinds of Guerrillas: If the primary target is a military one, and civilians are caught in the cross-fire, then that is obviously a bad thing, but it isn't terrorism. On the other hand, if the primary target is the civilian population, or if civilians are explicitly targeted during the attack, then that would cross the line into terrorism, in my opinion. Unlike a standing army, though, I would say that Guerrillas and Partisans do not have to minimise civilian casualties as an army would in order to remain Guerrillas as opposed to Terrorists. Obviously, one would hope, especially in the case of a group we choose to label Freedom Fighters, that the group would attempt to minimise those casualties, but I would say that that line is the distinction between good and bad guerrillas, while deliberately targeting civilians is the line between Guerrilla and terrorist. Thus, I'd say that if they (intentionally) draw battle into civilian areas in order to make it easier to target the military, that that is different from drawing battle into civilian areas so that they can kill as many civilians as possible.

Hmm...no, I don't think so. In my opinion, a freedom fighter is the good kind of Guerrilla or Partisan, not the good kind of terrorist. Thus, I think that to be a "freedom fighter" rather than a terrorist, one must limit oneself to attacks and raids on military--and possibly government--targets.

I would argue that terrorism is a form of attack upon a country that attempts to maximise or deliberately targets non-combatants. Thus, I would contend that some actions that would be considered terrorist are not such at all. For instance, there were times when the IRA would phone the police about the locations of their bombs so that civilians could be evacuated. Of course, such an attack is obviously meant to cause terror, but it is nowhere near as morally reprehensible as setting off a bomb where the intention is to kill as many people as possible. Questions that arise from this: If 9/11 had only been an attack on the Pentagon, and the plane flown into it had been empty of everyone but the person or persons making the attack, would that have been a terrorist attack or a pre-emptive military strike, like Pearl Harbour? In your opinion, is there a difference? Similarly, if the planes flown into the WTC had been unmanned, and the attackers had called in threats such that the towers had been evacuated, would that have been a terrorist attack, or something else? In your opinion, would that have been less morally reprehensible? Would such an act have affected your view either or the attackers themselves, or of their cause (either the one they believed they were fighting for, or the one you believe their leaders are fighting for)? I'd be genuinely interested to hear people's thoughts on these questions, whether or not they agree with my proposed--as well as overly-generalised and pretty vague--definition of terrorism.

In Meta's case, the map shows four centres and three units, so unless there's an error in adjudication there which I missed the first time I went over the results, Meta has one build. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There's a map?! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eh? It's, umm...in the first post. As far as I can tell, the only errors are in the English Channel (ENGLISH F Lon and FRENCH F ENG), and that there's a RUSSIAN A Bul and no RUSSIAN A Gal. Once I recieve the builds, I'll add them to the map and upload it with the adjudication.

Well, in my case: In Meta's case, the map shows four centres and three units, so unless there's an error in adjudication there which I missed the first time I went over the results, Meta has one build.

Neverwinter Nights was t3h roxxor. If you disagree, you are t3h suxxor. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. "

I don't consider having to watch all those adverts a minor fault. I consider them to be an exremely annoying aspect of the film that ruined whatever enjoyment I might have gotten from the film. What I like about the cinema is that other than the ones at the start, I don't have to watch adverts. As to remakes and such, the difference is that those are actual remakes, whereas the Island was a rip-off. Apparently, it was such a rip off of one particular film that the maker of Parts: The Clonus Horror was at least at some point considering Copyright Infringement action. That aside, even if it only borrowed a few ideas, it didn't do anything new with them. Same old, same old.

Yeah, I never understood that idea. I mean, even if he makes more than a hundred dollars in the time it takes to pick up a hundred dollar bill, if he stopped to pick it up, wouldn't he have the money he makes, plus the hundred dollars?

Count yourself lucky. The first one sucked. 459036[/snapback] more like, you sucked, NERD! "

Gosh, they're so roomy! Whee!

Well, as I said: "For starters, it was extremely derivative (of Logan's Run, especially), and I felt like I was watching a really, really long advert. A really intrusive advert, at that. An advert I had to pay to watch." It can across as a cheap knock-off of several other far better films. Far better films that didn't feel the need to shove adverts for Xboxes, trainers, perfumes, Hondas, beers, MSN, and some American beverage whose name escapes me, in my face. I could bear it on a background level, as I do in many films nowadays, but when I'm forced to watch an entire Calvin Klein advert (and not just any Calvin Klein advert, oh no, it's the Calvin Klein advert from the first decade of the 21st century that is still inexplicably being shown sixty years in the future!), I find that irritating. When I have to watch a five second long shot focusing on the bottle of a beverage that it isn't even sold in my country (not that I'd find it much better if it was sold here, the overt insterion of the close up of the bottle is my objection), then the film begins to seriously suck. If I have to watch these adverts to watch a film, I shouldn't have to pay for the priviledge.

When I first read that, I thought Lara Croft had taken up hairdressing. "

Saying that The Island was way better than War of the Worlds is like saying that being shot in the leg is way better than being shot in the face: even if it's true, both still suck. The Island was the worst film I've seen this year (I didn't even bother with War of the Worlds, as there was no doubt in my mind that that film would outsuck a black hole). For starters, it was extremely derivative (of Logan's Run, especially), and I felt like I was watching a really, really long advert. A really intrusive advert, at that. An advert I had to pay to watch. Honestly, if I hadn't been there with my dad (sitting silently in a dark room for a few hours is our lazy idea of father-son bonding), The Island would have been the second film I'd ever walked out on (the first being Ocean's Twelve). Petay's favourite, Team America, on the other hand, was a helluva good movie, if for nothing other than the songs. "Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies? I guess The Island sucked...just a little bit more than I miss you."

Wha? Whats wrong with those movies, apart from Joe Dirt?! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Especially when the person passing Judgement liked The Island... " @Petay: You might be surprised to learn that the film you describe is indeed Cube. Whodathunkit?

Actually, I thought Gladiator was a pretty downright average film. Okay, but hardly deserving of all that hype.

I never wathed the sequel or the prequel. I've always suspected that the other films would ruin the first for me. After all, the first film was more about the psychology of people placed under extreme stress than about the cube itself, and what can you say about that in a sequel that hasn't been said already? On the other hand, when they make Cube3: Timecube, I'll be first in the line for tickets. :D

My favourite film is Cube, starring Ezri Dax from DS9 and Rodney McKay from Stargate: Atlantis. It really is a brilliant film, though I'd advise you not read the comment on the IMDB page, as it is a pretty bad spoiler.

I dunno. From what I've heard, a nuclear program is just about the only thing every faction in Iran agrees on.

Bah. I've boycotted the prince of Persia games ever since I couldn't figure out how to get back to the start after getting the sword in the first one. Stuck at a game at 5 minutes in. I suck.

Pretty much like julianw said. All that was required to find the forum was to click on one of the links to the Other Games forum, either the one on the front page (the bold white text actually being a link), or in the link on the chain at the top of any page while in Pen and Paper or Computer and Console. I clicked on such a link by accident, and when the page loaded, I noticed that the "New Topic" icon was at the bottom of the page. Other than the fact that there were links to the two subforums at the top of the page, the secret forum was pretty much like any other forum on the boards, except for the spam and the Word Association and the swearing and the spam. "

I would say that the company has a right to set whatever price it wants. From the company's point of view, presuming that the new drug is not prohibitively expensive to produce, it would make most sense to price it such that it is not prohibitively expensive to buy. Obviously, one can get higher profits from a high price, but there will be more users at a lower price, and a low price will improve PR. Especially for a life-saving miracle cure for cancer or AIDS, a high price is almost certainly going to lead either to people getting angry enough to organise boycotts, or people getting really, really angry and voting in a government that will nationalise them. As to the government's involvement, if a government commited to nationalised healthcare is running the country, said government should probably negotiate a deal with the company to buy the drug, and distribute the drug to the people who need it most. That the government might nationalise the company if the cost is too high to buy it should encourage the company to price the drug affordably. On the other hand, if the government is not committed to such a program, then the government should have no official involvement in the relationship between buyer and seller. However, there would be nothing wrong with people in powerful positions in government using the prominence that comes with their position to organise boycotts in their capacity as private citizens.