Heh, that first few months were drama-riffic. I vaguely remember all of that, but I still sorta visited both sites because I didn't know if Salvation would be stable enough to stay... thank goodness it did.
And I still can never find the Gutter... I think I don't look hard enough.
Well, sometimes a pipe is just a pipe. Forgive me if I was trying to extrapolate more than whether a god would win a game of chicken. I think the more appropriate question would be, would a god, being omniscient enough, be tricked into a game of playing chicken? For all of this discussion, there's an awful lot of assumption that a god would even play chicken in the first place. I would a assume a god would not like to be proven that well, he got logically contradicted.
I think its the opposite, at least in America: it's rough being an atheist in America. Take my college, for example. Every week, we have some new crazy-Christian group, the ones that list every type of group or person on a banner and denounce them to hell, or hand out pamphlets saying that if we don't stop ass-raping each other and fornicating, then we'll be sinners FOREVER. On top of that, being Richmond, there's a church on every street corner, and there's a culture that if you don't believe in a god, then you're different and that difference is wrong.
Also, there's an implied idea that everyone has to be believe in a god, because thats really the only way for someone to live. It's a scary environment when you talk religion in public, thats why online a different beast comes out in a lot of people. Anonymity sure helps, and also the lack of personal interaction helps.
I think though that the people that dramatize in real life this idea of an "us vs. them", aka Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard and their ilk are the real people that make religion or the lack thereof rough for everyone, because they draw thin lines in the sand and force you to come out and say what you believe. It seems to be a stereotype that religious people fit that narrow stereotype, but unfortunately I know some people like that and I have to be careful. I find the best thing to do in real life is ignore those dumb discussions about religion and get into the nitty gritty of whatever the hell pleases you.
We can define good and evil though. They aren't certainly relativistic terms, and there are certainly degrees them. You would certainly agree that the action of helping someone is good, and the act of hurting someone is evil, regardless of the consequences? Or that bringing or maximizing happiness is good, and minimizing it is evil?
I think I was confusing in that opening statement. I meant that when it comes to various religions, there isn't one all in-conclusive list of what God is and isn't. Not all religions say that he is omniscient, not all religions say he is omnibenevolent, etc. I threw up what I think is a perfectly acceptable list of attributes everyone wants to look for in a god, and why these attributes conflict. Of course I know the definition of the god we were using is omniscient, but outside of restating the obvious, I fail to see how I'm being unruly. Please, actually get to the topic and not throw up a straw man.
The thing I find funny about deciding whether a god is such and such is that its an assumption; no can know and not know whether gods are this or that, we only cast whatever attributes we want to fit into a mold for our god. "But these facts stand a priori!" Not necessarily- I've never heard of someone figuring out what a god is on their own. It's always a definition someone else has supplied them that was supplied to them before, etc. etc. etc. And even before that, gods were used to explain the things that we could not yet understand about the world. "Why does it rain? Why, it must be [blank] who sent it!" you never see any documentation about ancient meteorology, after all.
Tangent aside though, lets do assume that a god would be omniscient. And lets say, well, besides a game theory argument that is easily refuted by the definition of omniscient, what would it mean for a god to be omniscient?
And while we are at it, lets include: omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent just for arguments sake. What would this mean?
Well, you can't help delve into the argument of evil, in that because there is greater evil in the world that can be derived no possible good, well, that certainly conflicts with those definitions. But that's been debated ad nauseum, but it brings a valid point that goes with original argument that would strengthen it: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then why can't he make you swerve instead of him? That goes against free will, but if he can't impede in that, well, how can he be so all-powerful? But again, this delves deeper into theodicy that again has been debated time and time again. What Blinking Spirit is attacking is the hypocrisy of the different definitions of what a god is.
Maybe the real problem here isn't gun control or making sure everyone has a gun (because in the case of the former, it didn't matter as mentioned before and the latter would cause complete anarchy). The real problem is the fact that no matter what, there are people who are quite mentally unstable everywhere and that given enough time and resources will do just about anything. If you've read the accounts about how the killer killed, it really wouldn't have mattered if everyone had a gun and was trained to use it. He just barged in classrooms and calmly started firing away. Even if someone could pull out a handgun to protect themselves, what are the odds that a shooter wouldn't just, I don't know, shoot him first? Also, the guy wouldn't have been packing two pistols if he was expecting resistance; he would have had much more deadlier weaponry.
What can prevent these types of things is simply people noticing someone who shows these psychiatric warning signs and helping them. So what if people kill people and not guns? People wouldn't get the desire to kill and plan out these types of Columbine events every year if someone wasn't stepping in and saying, "you're crying for help. So here it is."
Snoopdogg, you are missing my point and your post also seems like a flame to me.
I'm curious what 'The Lovery Mare' did, yet I can't find much information on her. I fully recognize she is special to the Magic department, but so far, like I said, I haven't seen what they saw in her, and I'd like to know that.
I'd also like to remind you that this is indeed the place to discuss this, as it is also discussed in the article where the card is previewed, and it was previewed by Jamie for that very purpose.
Lastly, I find it very sad you are portraying me as an uncaring, petulant and spoiled person. I probably have as much experience witnessing what people with cancer go through as most people, perhaps more. As such I'm fully aware what the Mare and people close to her would go through. Also, I do not like you for implying the people I know with cancer are somehow less worthy then the Mare. All people with cancer and their families suffer, if you have seen it firsthand you wouldn't imply or say that any person with cancer is less then another. Take these word to heart; every single person with cancer should be treated with love and care, for they have a terrible road before them, one nobody should wish on anybody.
I'd ask for an apology for the insults you did to me, but if you now understand my motivation and remember what I wrote here, then that's good enough for me as well
If you wish to continue how I am 'petulant and spoiled' and what not, then I can already tell you I won't respond.
Simply put, she was a huge part of Jamie's writing. Almost every one of his articles he mentions, "The Lovely Mare" and his total inspiration came from her. If anything, you can't really mention one without the other. Also, it's a touching tribute to Jamie as well. He can actually play with Timbermare and not deride it as a weak green card. Jamie Wakefield was one of the foremost advocates of trying to strengthen green, his favorite color, especially in an era filled with degenerate combo decks that avoided green like the plague. One of the most famous decks of all time from Magic is his "Secret Force" deck, which was a mono-green beatdown deck that would often win quick thanks to Natural Order.
Hey everyone! After five years from News to Salvation, I'm leaving Salvation permenantly (and possibly Magic) permenantly. It's been good times, but I've just outgrown Salvation. I'm moving on to better and grander things.
Goblinboy: Sucks you stopped 3CB, but you've been a great guy. I hope great things happen in your future.
Greebo: He probably isn't reading this, but you're awesome too.
To my old, old, old clan Rath Party: you guys were awesome. Too bad it didn't transition into Salvation, but whatever.
All the people in Debate: you guys scare me. If any of you decided to rule the world, god help us all.
Furor: I <3 talking about movies with you. I always appreciated your opinion, even if it ran contradictory to mine.
Lone Warrior: Whats the ones that are better then Spirited Away? (just curious)
In my opinion, My Neighbor Totoro and Princess Mononoke. But Spirited Away is a close third to Mononoke, I just felt he really branched out with Mononoke.
Best: Spirited Away (my third favorite Miyazaki)
Worst: Sin City. I originally liked it when I watched it, but when I watched it again, I realizied it was quite a bad movie. I have read a little bit of the comics, and I appreciate the comics more do then I the movie. The movie itself isn't very original; you have hyper-violence done in a film-noir setting that has little to no character development. If I wanted something violent, I would just watch Pulp Fiction again, because at least that had memorable dialogue and characters that you would care for.
I play World of Warcraft (and Everquest before it) because they were fun games. It turned into a social thing for me because that is what would eventually happen: sooner or later you join a guild. I joined the one that my real life friends were in, and it's a blast, especially since they are off to college while I'm not. It's a great way to stay connected.
to the poster who said that MMO's provide an "artificial sense of accomplishment": um... isn't that the thing with all games? I mean, who gives a rat's ass if you killed Diablo, or Emerald Weapon, or whatever hard-ass boss the programmers put in there? I play games to have fun and relieve stress: I don't play to recieve a lecture in philosophy or an arguement in Kantian ethics. I just want to kill a raptor, or go on a raid with my guild, or fire rocket launchers at people. While there certainly is this drive of people working in game instead of you, it wears off quickly: at least for me it did. But honestly, you chide MMO's for this fake sense of accomplishment and not see that all games have them?
And to all the people who say the monthly fees blow: Which is cheaper: paying for one MMO that cost $50+$15 a month fee, and that being the only game you play, or getting one or two $50 games a month? Don't be scared of monthly fees: they're simply there so you can keep playing on reliable servers. And, at least for WoW, the new content is somewhat meaningful and "free" in that the player base doesn't have to pay another $20 to get it. In EQ, the same amount of content being offered by Blizzard would be another expansion.
No Contest... Civilization. I dare someone to say they're only going to play Civilization for a few minutes, then not realize 6 hours has passed and you're still playing. Honorable Mention to my dear good friend Gordan Freeman from Half-Life, as the original Half-Life is quite possibly the best game of the last decade.
EDIT: OH! Only on those game-boxes! I would have to say Super Smash Brothers. Ocarina of Time was a great story, gameplay, etc., but Smash Brothers is the only game where I can get 15 guys to spend an entire weekend playing in a tournament.
Best: Princess Mononoke
Worst: Passion of the Christ
...so you'll vote for Mononoke, but not Totoro, which is the superior movie? Shame on you all (except for nan, he voted for Totoro, so he's in the clear)
And I still can never find the Gutter... I think I don't look hard enough.
Also, there's an implied idea that everyone has to be believe in a god, because thats really the only way for someone to live. It's a scary environment when you talk religion in public, thats why online a different beast comes out in a lot of people. Anonymity sure helps, and also the lack of personal interaction helps.
I think though that the people that dramatize in real life this idea of an "us vs. them", aka Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard and their ilk are the real people that make religion or the lack thereof rough for everyone, because they draw thin lines in the sand and force you to come out and say what you believe. It seems to be a stereotype that religious people fit that narrow stereotype, but unfortunately I know some people like that and I have to be careful. I find the best thing to do in real life is ignore those dumb discussions about religion and get into the nitty gritty of whatever the hell pleases you.
I think I was confusing in that opening statement. I meant that when it comes to various religions, there isn't one all in-conclusive list of what God is and isn't. Not all religions say that he is omniscient, not all religions say he is omnibenevolent, etc. I threw up what I think is a perfectly acceptable list of attributes everyone wants to look for in a god, and why these attributes conflict. Of course I know the definition of the god we were using is omniscient, but outside of restating the obvious, I fail to see how I'm being unruly. Please, actually get to the topic and not throw up a straw man.
Tangent aside though, lets do assume that a god would be omniscient. And lets say, well, besides a game theory argument that is easily refuted by the definition of omniscient, what would it mean for a god to be omniscient?
And while we are at it, lets include: omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent just for arguments sake. What would this mean?
Well, you can't help delve into the argument of evil, in that because there is greater evil in the world that can be derived no possible good, well, that certainly conflicts with those definitions. But that's been debated ad nauseum, but it brings a valid point that goes with original argument that would strengthen it: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then why can't he make you swerve instead of him? That goes against free will, but if he can't impede in that, well, how can he be so all-powerful? But again, this delves deeper into theodicy that again has been debated time and time again. What Blinking Spirit is attacking is the hypocrisy of the different definitions of what a god is.
What can prevent these types of things is simply people noticing someone who shows these psychiatric warning signs and helping them. So what if people kill people and not guns? People wouldn't get the desire to kill and plan out these types of Columbine events every year if someone wasn't stepping in and saying, "you're crying for help. So here it is."
Simply put, she was a huge part of Jamie's writing. Almost every one of his articles he mentions, "The Lovely Mare" and his total inspiration came from her. If anything, you can't really mention one without the other. Also, it's a touching tribute to Jamie as well. He can actually play with Timbermare and not deride it as a weak green card. Jamie Wakefield was one of the foremost advocates of trying to strengthen green, his favorite color, especially in an era filled with degenerate combo decks that avoided green like the plague. One of the most famous decks of all time from Magic is his "Secret Force" deck, which was a mono-green beatdown deck that would often win quick thanks to Natural Order.
Goblinboy: Sucks you stopped 3CB, but you've been a great guy. I hope great things happen in your future.
Greebo: He probably isn't reading this, but you're awesome too.
To my old, old, old clan Rath Party: you guys were awesome. Too bad it didn't transition into Salvation, but whatever.
All the people in Debate: you guys scare me. If any of you decided to rule the world, god help us all.
Furor: I <3 talking about movies with you. I always appreciated your opinion, even if it ran contradictory to mine.
I'm out! Good night, and good luck.
In my opinion, My Neighbor Totoro and Princess Mononoke. But Spirited Away is a close third to Mononoke, I just felt he really branched out with Mononoke.
Best: Spirited Away (my third favorite Miyazaki)
Worst: Sin City. I originally liked it when I watched it, but when I watched it again, I realizied it was quite a bad movie. I have read a little bit of the comics, and I appreciate the comics more do then I the movie. The movie itself isn't very original; you have hyper-violence done in a film-noir setting that has little to no character development. If I wanted something violent, I would just watch Pulp Fiction again, because at least that had memorable dialogue and characters that you would care for.
to the poster who said that MMO's provide an "artificial sense of accomplishment": um... isn't that the thing with all games? I mean, who gives a rat's ass if you killed Diablo, or Emerald Weapon, or whatever hard-ass boss the programmers put in there? I play games to have fun and relieve stress: I don't play to recieve a lecture in philosophy or an arguement in Kantian ethics. I just want to kill a raptor, or go on a raid with my guild, or fire rocket launchers at people. While there certainly is this drive of people working in game instead of you, it wears off quickly: at least for me it did. But honestly, you chide MMO's for this fake sense of accomplishment and not see that all games have them?
And to all the people who say the monthly fees blow: Which is cheaper: paying for one MMO that cost $50+$15 a month fee, and that being the only game you play, or getting one or two $50 games a month? Don't be scared of monthly fees: they're simply there so you can keep playing on reliable servers. And, at least for WoW, the new content is somewhat meaningful and "free" in that the player base doesn't have to pay another $20 to get it. In EQ, the same amount of content being offered by Blizzard would be another expansion.
Anyway, here we go:
Best: Rashomon
Worst: Resident Evil.
EDIT: OH! Only on those game-boxes! I would have to say Super Smash Brothers. Ocarina of Time was a great story, gameplay, etc., but Smash Brothers is the only game where I can get 15 guys to spend an entire weekend playing in a tournament.
Worst: ...can't...think...of...any
Worst: Passion of the Christ
...so you'll vote for Mononoke, but not Totoro, which is the superior movie? Shame on you all (except for nan, he voted for Totoro, so he's in the clear)