Reveilled

I've never actually seen an XBox360 in real life, but that thing looks fracking huge. What size is it compared to a PC tower?

I've had success with it, but you really need to leave the forums you were posting to long enough to make people forget.

It was sillyness, with a tinge of seriousness. " But being serious, since you answered some of the less serious stuff so, then: no. Seriously? The way I always understood the Revolutionary War was that your leader (the King of Great Britain and his parliament) was demanding high levels of taxation from you without giving you any representation in parliament, and so you decided you'd rather not have him as your leader anymore. if i could kick my god's butt then i wouldn't think much of his power and i obviously wouldn't think he was right. so why he would be my god is beyond me. What does his power have to do with his correctness? Just because god is powerful, doesn't mean he is right, does it? Why should it be the other way around? God never said that... however, i am not so dense as to only refute you with that stupid response. if you think God is doing a poor job, he does not punish you (that i know of, in the Bible...) He will not cast you into hell if you think he is doing a bad job. i believe that God wants you to express your feelings to Him. Heck, just read Psalms. A lot of them are people feeling that God needs to do something different about certain things. But if God claims to be Omniscient, wouldn't changing his policies effectively be like admitting his previous policy was wrong? Thus, would expressing my grievances to God produce any change? And what if I decide that I'm not going to follow god's rule because I believe it is wrong? Will god respect my right to a different opinion, or will he call it a sin and cast me into hell? i will take this as humour, because what else it could be escapes me. Jesus is omniscient, like you even say yourself, so who the heck needs a jury when they are judged by Him? Jesus does the job better than anyone else could. No one else is capable of it. Even if Jesus was omniscient, that would not preclude him lying about my actions. At best, Jesus could be a witness. And even then, what evidence can be shown that Jesus actually knows my crimes. He claims to be omniscient, but what reason do I have to accept that claim? Omniscience isn't a prerequisite for Godhood (the god I believe in certainly isn't), so his simple existence would prove nothing in that regard. But I don't trust him. Why should I? I've got plenty of reasons not to trust him. Case in point, he doesn't believe in the principles of Democracy.

I don't understand why so many Americans are religious. I mean, didn't you guys fight a war because your leader was demanding tribute from you without giving you a say in how things were done? I mean, jeez, you don't get much more "no taxation without representation" than you do with God. That was the advantage of the Polytheistic religions. If your god started 'pressin' you, you could just kick his ass. But with Monotheistic gods, it doesn't work like that. If you think God's doing a poor job, he and his party get all "Don't yo geteth all uppity, biatch! I casteth yo into hell, ho!" And not only that, when it comes to Judement day, will I get a trial by Jury? I bet I won't! What is the procedure for impeaching God? Basically, God seems to think that just because he's omnipotent, and omniscient and omnithatjazz that somehow gives him the right to tell us what to do. It doesn't. It is somewhat fortunate, then, that she's actually nothing like that.

Wait, what does publishing the rights to a game actually mean? Do they just get the rights to republish the game, or the right to use the name to publish an entirely new game, or what? I'm just wondering what a Hentai game company would be able to do with the rights to "Mary Kate & Ashley Magical Mystery Mall".

I chose to leave mine. Half of a the class followed :D No idea, some do but I think they are talking about it as an absolute. Some schools, probably the more fundamental ones dont allow it. And they are much more likely to cause problems than the more moderate ones. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Must've been a poor teacher. Pretty much everyone in my Higher Class agreed it was one of the best subjects they'd ever done. One of the most interesting things about that class was that most who'd gone in religious came out significantly less so (one of my friends, who'd always been pretty strongly Christian, came out as one of the most vehement fundamentalist atheists you're ever likely to meet), while most of us who were atheists came out agnostics or deists (myself, a Discordian).

In principle, I'm a Strong Secularist. However, as long as the situation in the UK remains like it is, I think there are far bigger problems that should be fixed first. Religion in the UK has much bigger official influence on government than it does in the US, but the actual power of the aspects of religion that most of us wouldn't want are much smaller than in the States. The Church of England might get Bishops into the House of Lords, but I'm personally more comfortable with a religion that is in our country leaning towards greater freedom and equality (in the case of, for example, gay marriage and women in the clergy) having official influence than I am with a religion which wants to deprive it (constitutional amendments banning gay marriage?!) having a huge unofficial influence on government. Given the choice between a CoE bishop in the House of Lords or a member of the laiety of a reactionary protestant sect, I'd have to go with the Bishop. In fact, I'd trust the Bishop to be more independent-minded than the layman. I just think that there are other governmental issues (like the pretty damn-near dictatorial powers of a Prime Minister with a large majority in Parliament) that are a bigger concern in the UK. I'm also strongly, strongly opposed to removing Religious Education from schools. RE is pretty much the only subject where critical thinking and an independent mind are encouraged in school. At least when I was taught the subject, we were encouraged even to question our own faiths. And at more advanced levels, it does deal with issues like non-religious thought. In terms of value to the child (rather than the child's CV), a well-taught RE course can potentially be one of the most valuable aspects of their Education, by teaching them not to believe everything someone claiming to be an authority tells them. Is this definition old, by the way, shadow? Most faith-based schools do allow people of different faiths into their schools, as far as I know. My little sister is at a Catholic Primary school, and has Sikh, Muslim, non-religious and Greek Orthodox classmates.

You are answering your own question with the question. If they didn't censor the games, who would be the only ones not able to play the games? The kids. They censor the games so the kids can play them too, which basically means they aim the games for kids by censoring them. No it doesn't. How you can think this confuses me. Wolfenstein 3D was banned in Germany because of the Swastikas present in it. When nintendo censored this game, they removed the nazi symbolism. Does this mean they were aiming the game specifically at Germans? Or Germans in addition to everyone else? If it was just aimed at Germans, I think it would make sense for them only to sell it in Germany, where the people they were marketing it to live. Do you think they did? I think you'll find a great many people have played Mario and Zelda, despite any lack of blood or swearing. And what do you mean by the lowest common denominator? That sex, swearing and graphic violence are all that appeal to them?

I don't see how that disproves anything I've said. Nintendo censored their games. Heavily. That doesn't mean the games were aimed at kids. Risk has no blood, gore or sex in it. Neither does Chess. Or Backgammon. Things which make a game adults only do not an adult game make. Does Nintendo censor their games so that they are aimed at kids, or does it censor their games so that they are aimed at everyone? The vast majority of Nintendo's games can be enjoyed by people of all ages. The fact that they are edited so that children can legally play them does not make them childrens' games.

Never has been. I'm not so sure about that. Nintendo used to have very strict rules about the games they allowed on their machines. I remember Rare getting in trouble for Conker's Bad Fur Day for.. Was it Nintendo 64? I think so. Also, back in the 16-bit era, they used to censor the games on the Nintendo. Blood could not be red, developers had to either remove the blood or turn it into a harmless colour. Nintendo has always been aimed at kids (Nintendo is still one of the strongest brands among 5 year olds), even though they've at least been letting other kinds of games appear on their consoles now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think that's really true. What I think is the case is that Nintendo have always aimed their products at all ages. There are plenty of adult games on Nintendo consoles, just very few "adult" ones, and very few kids games, but rather ones that are designed so young children as well as adults can enjoy them. Nintendo's games, I think, are analagous with board games like Monopoly, Backgammon, or Risk Children are able to play the first two, but they're not childrens' games. Adults might not play Monopoly often, but when they do play it most can easily derive enjoyment from it, and in the case of Backgammon, it is a perfectly normal game for adults to play. On the other hand, to play Risk you need to have a reasonably adult grasp of strategy, but these games aren't "adult" in the sense that say Grand Theft Auto 3 is, and if you're a teenager who can play Risk and enjoy it, there's no danger that you'll become damaged in some way (if it is possible you can be damaged by a violent game), or that everyone will become angry at the publisher and the industry that you were exposed to an adult game.

kumquatq3, that was...inspired!

Everyone, ultimately, is in it for the money. Not solely, of course, but when you have the choice between doing what you love and doing what you love and getting a lot of money for doing it, few choose to do it just for the fun. There's no shame in it. As long as another DVD gets made, I'm quite happy to see Joss Wheeeeeeee!don get a Whole Lot of Money

Don't be so shortsighted. He's hoping that that statement will increase the DVD sales (and thus both his and Universal's profit) so that another DVD will be justified, which will increase his profits more! It's a never-ending cycle of money and DVDs! I bet at this very moment, the only noise that can be heard from Chateu Wheedon is a maniacal "Bwhahaha!" "

No, i concur with the assessment that a little nude natalie would have done wonders. Not in ep 3 though, she'd be all preggo and stuff.. unless that floats your boat <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Does it ever! (w00t)

See, now speaking as an 18 year old, I think that's absolutely despicable. There ought to be some sort of mechanism whereby such people can be not just banned but blacklisted from all MMORPGs. Unfortunately (in this case at least), anonymity on the internet is far too easy to do. Hell, if you did that to a child in real life (not rape her, but described the act in a graphic manner) it would be a crime, arguably it could be one here.

Well, whether you consider it a flame or not, I would never participate in a game that actively encouraged ageism. One might be better served simply by banning on a first offence. I don't currently play in MMORPGs, mainly for the same reasons you cite, but there are a couple that are coming out in the future that look both interesting and niche enough that I could play a session without seeing a single "lolzors".

Y...you cried? I know the feeling...but that powerful a response is beyond me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eh, well, the crying thing wasn't really to to with the series being over so much as how it ended. I only cried a little anyway. Nothing like at the end of the Green Mile, when I had tears streaming down my face. But then, that film was the saddest thing ever. I get choked up just thinking about it. :'(

Yes. And it wouldn't be so bad if it kept him from making new ones. Greedo shot first. Greedo has always shot first. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fixed. Orwellxored!

Lawful Stupid! "

I wonder what would happen if one put "100m dash" on a form... pUned. "

No, we're talking about the Jedi and the Sith here. The people who would send a child struggling with the dark side to spend his days hanging around a dictator they suspect of being evil, and the people who would send a man out to kill his son and actually expect him to remain loyal. In geekanese, that's Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Dumb.

As they say in Greece: Tehos Roxoroi! If it's true that is. I hope so. I'm on to the last DVD in the set now, and I find that I can't bear to watch it, simply because I don't want it to end. This happened with Serial Experiments Lain, too. I bought the boxed set and didn't watch the last episode for ages. And then I cried after I finally did watch it. :'(

Uh...do need to have played World of Warcraft to understand why that's funny?

Mother n00ber? "