Messages

Want me to remove Princess Marion 3 from the list?

No?

Then, shut up.

Cause this really is the last thing I need after going through every single thread in both the Announcement forum and Games in Production forum.

A quick forum search confirms that number III wasn't: therefore to know it's subtitle correctly, you must be a fan! Come out of the closet and admit it!

Or maybe I just used my keen detective skills and thought "Hey, number one, two and four were posted! What about three?"

Then maybe I checked your website, found three, wrote it down and called you an idiot for not posting it on the Announcement forum in the first place, which would have saved me the trouble.

Idiot.

No worries -- updated!

The Princess Marion games were listed in the Announcement forum -- How else do you think I found them?

1) Yes, I'll also be scanning for new demos in the ext few weeks.

2) I couldn't find links to any other templates -- But now that I think about it, you can't really call a template a non-adventure considering that they're used in the construction of adventures. So what I'll do is leave the Discworld Interface up there for this year only (since it would be unfair to drop it from the list now) and disregard all future templates.

3) Who really gives a shit?


Vel:
I said post if you can't find your game or if I've made any mistakes -- If your game is there, DON'T POST.

Christ...

For both VGXT games, or just the first one?

Okie dokie!

I've written down 'almost' every game from 2003 for the AGS Awards:
http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/list.htm

I say 'almost' for two reasons:
1) I may have missed other AGS Games and Demos released from 1 Jan 2003 to 9 Dec 2003 -- If I missed yours, please note down the name of the game, the type of game (Full, Demo, or Non-Adventure), and a link to the zip file.
2) I still have to list the games from 9 Dec 2003 to 31 December -- If you are about to release a game before 31 Dec 2003, just simply list it in the Announcement forum (Don't worry -- I'll note it down!)

Please note that games from previous years are obviously not eligible for the 2003 Awards -- Please check these pages if you are unsure if your game has been included in past years:
http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/list2001.htm
http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/list2002.htm

If everything is sweet, we can press on with the awards.

EDIT: If there's any mistakes on the list, please tell me.

I have surprises in my pants!  

Also, how can you claim that Palestinians are not fighting for independence when the hegemony of the country shifts from Palestinian ownership to zionist Jewish ownership?

Yes... I shared that oppinion since someone told me years before "Notice that Yihad allways strike when a peace plan is close to be signed"

And it´s true... as better the peace conversations go, bloodier the strikes are.

That friend, a Jewish Turkey mate, made me investigate the foundational documents of Jihad, Al-Aksa, Hamás... All of them say that their final aim is to destroy the Isreaelian State.

That made me change my mind...

Post ergo proctor hoc - After it therefore because of it.

Not always true.

I mean, it's like you're insimuating that the peace talks cause Palestinian rebels to strike.

And that's ridiculous, cause strikes happen there even without peace a peace signing.

The reasons you hear about bloody strikes during a peace signing is because the media likes to juxtapose recent strikes with peace signnings.

I've talked about this to people in the industry -- it happens all the time, and not just with the Israel-Palistine situation.

Think about this: why would the Western media give a shit about what's happening with the Israel-Palestine bloodshed if there are no peace talks?

You can only report on the bloodshed so much before people become bored with it.

It's sad, but it's true.

http://www.seanbaby.com/ -- the best internet satirist ever
http://maddox.xmission.com/ -- and the second best
http://www.sexylosers.com/ -- The evilest comic on the net, and I love it!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/ -- Forget ordinary dictionaries, cause this is the only way to go.
http://www.whatever-dude.com/ -- A SomethingAwful.com-like site with less updates
http://www.omgjeremy.com/ -- ditto
http://www.rinkworks.com/ -- ditto
http://www.portalofevil.com/ -- Need to find a really shitty website? This one lists them all!
http://www.oscarwatch.com/ -- Oscar season is coming, and I use this site to keep tabs.
http://www.script-o-rama.com/ -- Best place for all film and TV scripts
http://www.annoyances.org/ -- Whenever I have a problem with XP (which is all the time) this site always aids me.

And you can do whatever you want with it too!

Make another chunnel!

DG: You haven´t answered my question: My intention was you to say: "Yes, they´re more muslim terrorist, but because of bla bla bla..." and they, trying to explain which are they motivations, reaching to a final and common conclussion, but if you don´t want to discuss, ok, no problemo,  .

Reaching a final and common conclussion?

On this forum?

Crikey, good luck!

And just because I'm putting forth alternate questions to your argument, doesn't mean I don't want to discuss it.

So, don't get stroppy, matey!


Also, how can you claim that Palestinians are not fighting for independence when the hegemony of the country shifts from Palestinian ownership to zionist Jewish ownership?

What if I say "What difference does it make whether there are or are not more muslim terrorist groups than christian terrorist groups?"

Either way, people are going to get killed.

Settle down, boy-o!

I was just asking such questions to make sure I understand your point of view.

Don't go all caps-crazy on my ass, man!

Falange never was a terrorist group, it was like a armed arm of the Fascist army. It is like saying that The SS were a terrorist cristian group.

ETA: They demand the independence, they are cristians killing cristians.

Tha main motivation of many of others you mentioned was the independence...

I don't think Pro-Life had anything to do with gaining independence.

You also justify a lot of the actions of Christian groups (i.e. they weren't an actual terrorist group, they were gaining independence, they are only fighting other christians, etc)

Does that mean that a Christian extremist's right to kill outweighs a Muslim extremist's right to kill?

And I haven´t said that the 9/11 provocated the war on Iraq. I told that the the strike awakened a feeling: Dictatorial countries are impredictible and they may attack in any moment, that feeling provocated the war (that´s why I deffend a bombing to the Iranian and S. Korean nuclear facilities, and Korea is not Muslim, I think)

I think this had more to do with the spin-doctoring of the US, and not an 'awakening' of a feeling.

I'm not sure that any current living Christians were around then... but feel free to produce a really old guy and prove me wrong. Anyway... if it weren't for the crusades, Indy wouldn't have found the holy grail! If you want to find people advocating killing in God's name then Northern Ireland has quite a few using that excuse.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrasy in trying to portray Christians as innocents.

Besides, you've only just added weight to my initial question with your second point.

You can't compare the Nazi dictatorship to the Iraqi dictatorship if you're trying to argue that Muslim dictactorships enact bloodshed based upon their culture (which you previously said).

Hitler wasn't a Muslim nor (to my knowledge) was any other member of the Nazi party.

So, how can you first say that Muslim dictatorships enact violence based on their culture and then make a comparison to a non-Muslim dictatorship?

I thought that he was commenting on Hitler's  miitary tactics more than his motivation. To say that someone has drawn a  parallel in motivation therefore they can't compare tactics with someone of a different motivation is just bad logic.

No, bad logic is trying to say Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11.

Besides, he wasn't comparing military tactics -- He was comparing dictatorships, if you'll read his next few lines.

I don't see how it's bad logic to ask for clarification on bringing up the relevance of a non-muslim dictatorship comparison when a) this entire thread is about Muslims and Muslim dictatorships b) he previously stated that attacks by Muslim dictatorships were based upon their culture.

No, we´re 3,000 milions and no one of us uses the name of God for killing.

What about the Crusades?

the muslims are happy of the wars and they applause the terrorists and the fighters.

I recently spoke to someone who trained CNN journalists to adapt with hostile environments -- He had recently returned from 2 weeks in Baghdad.

The reaction he got from a lot of Muslims in Iraq was one of anti-war -- He told me the majority of Muslims just want to continue living out their lives instead of seeing war breaking out.

Um.. that would be Afghanistan, not Iraq. The reasons Bush listed for invading were almost entirely lies. If we invaded every country that was happy for our loss, there wouldn't be such a thing as an Arab state in five years.

And even then, it wasn't really Afghanistan as the cause of 9/11.

Bush sent forces to overthrow the Taliban due to the belief they were habouring terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda (supposedly the cause of 9/11).

However, the move generated a lot of general anti-Afghanistan sentiment in the US at the time, which is sad because the citizens of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.

And the US government still hasn't found Osama.

If you forget the dictatorial states, something wrong can happen to you. That´s why Bush attacked Iraq, and he should go on with Iran, Sirya and North Corea.

No, Bush did not attack Iraq because it was a dictatorship and was mass-murdering people -- Iraq has been a dictatorship for over two decades and slaughtered many citizens in that time, so I doubt the US government suddenly woke up and said 'Let's liberate these people'.

The US government's publicly-stated reasons for invading Iraq were due to the belief that they were a) developing weapons of mass destruction to sell to terrorists, and b) harbouring terrorists.

(There's also c) the oil reason too, but that's a debate that's been had many times before in this forum, so I won't press on with it)

Anyway, to address these two points: a) the weapons of mass destruction still haven't been found yet and b) only a few minor terrorists were found (the most major player was one that hi-jacked an ocean liner -- none were members of Al-Qaeda or had any relation to 9/11, and the White House has admitted this)

You should read Ian Kershaw´s biography about Hitler. His first steps about an agressive foreign politic were very very small (like the militarization of the Ruhr), and the Nations league did nothing. A few years after he invaded Poland.

You can't compare the Nazi dictatorship to the Iraqi dictatorship if you're trying to argue that Muslim dictactorships enact bloodshed based upon their culture (which you previously said).

Hitler wasn't a Muslim nor (to my knowledge) was any other member of the Nazi party.

So, how can you first say that Muslim dictatorships enact violence based on their culture and then make a comparison to a non-Muslim dictatorship?

The Shield probably isn't the best example of racial profiling -- I mean, it's a cop show about corrupt cops, so obviosuly there's a certain mentality there that's dramatised.

You're a week late, but I'll keep it cause it's funny.

Now all I need is Sherri Lewis' hand up my arse and it's complete!

I would just like to point out Alice Cooper's video clip to Poison in helping me get through puberty.

If you've seen the clip, you'll understand.  

Peter Gabriel
Paul Weller (ala The Jam and Style Council)
REM - great in the 80s, still damn good now
Old U2 stuff
George Harrison!!
Icehouse (Great Southern Land!)
Queen
Screaming Jets
The Cure
etc etc etc