Messages

You're assuming I'm wrong because you have your opinions which you think are right.  So I must be wrong?  My sarcasm, and how it's responded to, only proves my point.

Not really.

So why does your opinion (which you obviously feel strongly about) automatically superscede my opinion?  Because I use sarcasm?

I haven't degraded your opinion through the use of bad wit -- the fact that you use sarcasm to debate me only makes my points of view stronger.

I don't believe all the spin I see in newspapers and on TV.  But I certainly give it FAR more attention than I give Saddam's propagandists.  I find it repulsive that any of you can honestly debate this.

I don't debate it at all -- you're entitled to read and believe whatever you like.

However, I prefer to ignore the spin from both sides.

As far as 'Who cares if Saddam has nukes?' ... how in God's green Earth can you even type that, much of a less actually think and believe that?  You don't care that a psychotic has a nuke?  Are you nuts?

No one said 'Who cares if Saddam has nukes?'

I don't know where you got that idea from.

The constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents ever written that has stood the test of time.  Sure parts are archaic.  But you're not going to sit there and try to tell me bad things about America that you have NO way of proving are more accurate than what I'm saying.  That's hypocritical.

Well, actually I just did.

You haven't given any evidence that contradicts.

In fact, you've agreed with me by saying "Sure parts are archaic".

And you contradict yourself saying that, because a few sentences before you say that it has "stood the test of time".

The constitutional right to bear arms is very restricted in America.  So no, the average American couldn't, even if he/she could afford it, legally own weapons grade plutonium.  

Why is it silly?

According to the constitution, it's true.

And no, the constitutional right to bear arms isn't restricted.

See Bowling For Columbine and you will see how unrestrictive it is -- For exmaple, Some banks give guns out when you open an account.

I think that was a silly statement.  My other point that there is a huge difference between me owning a hand gun and Saddam owning nukes stands.
Why were there more firearm murders in the US?  Where did you get that fact?  From a newspaper or TV?  Do you believe everything you hear in the newspaper or on TV?  Contradiction alert.

It's a statistical fact from the bureau.

Over 11,000 people are killed in firearm homicides.

Critcising someones opinions with sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?  You can insult me if you want.  You don't know me, but that's okay man.  I really don't have anything against you.  I'm just, quite frankly, sick of this anti-American sentiment that's so popular right now.  You know what, if you people have a problem with how my country runs its government that's fine.  But you shouldn't assume that all Americans aren't worthy of respect simply because you think George Bush is 'goon' (or whatever you called him, I don't have the quote here)

No one has insulted you or taken any potshots at the American people.

And no one said Americans aren't worthy of respect.

I don't know where you got this idea from either.

I merely stated my opinion beforehand and you let loose with a lot of sarcastic nonsense.

Why don't you stop getting so emotional, relax, and write legible points of view without jumping to false assumptions such as "everyone thinks Americans are bad for invading Iraq".

I am open to any points of view against my comments.

But only when they make sense.

Your sarcastic rantings haven't made any sense.

Please, don't get over-excited about this issue -- this is an adventure game forum, not a soapbox opera.

If you stated your opinions in a simple, dignified, and civil manner, I'd be more open to them.

This has turned into a slug fest.  Which wasn't my intention.  I really don't have problems with you (or anybody on these boards).  I just wanted to get my point across.  

See above comments

If you think I'm wrong because I watch CNN and read the Washington Post, I have to question where you get your 'facts' from.  What makes your opinion correct, and mine so obviously faulty?

Does it really matter that deeply to you if my opinions are "correct"?

Do you really think I have the ability to change your point of view?

Because I don't think so -- I don't feel the need to change your point of view, thus have no need to tell you where I base my opinions upon.

So, what difference does it make how I base my opinions?

I believe in my own opinions for my own reasons.

And if you replied in a civil manner I would have thought the same about you.

If you asked me in a civil tone where I based my opinion, I could give you a list.

But obviously, you only want to here my sources so you can discredit them.

So why should I bother?

I'll say this -- I try to read a number of difference sources -- left, right, middle, whatever.

Plus, after studying media for several years at two universities, I have a keen ability for detecting bullshit in newspapers, especially with my current journalism degree.

Not only that, but I listen to a wide variety of viewpoints, especially from the people of this forum and other forums -- I force myself to listen to them, despite my personal politics, and comprehend their point of view.

Except when they use a lot of nonsensical sarcasim, such as you have.

And that's who I am -- and I am perfectly comfortable with my knowledge, so much that I don't feel the urge to imediately argue with someone just because their point of view clashes with mine.

I feel no urge to do so -- instead I listen carefully to their civil, well-thought-out, point of view -- and if there's anything that needs clarifying, I'll ask them.

However, as I said before, never critise my post, or anyone's post, using sarcastic rantings.

There is a saying that goes "A man who knows nothing, speaks. A man who knows everthing, doesn't."

That is why I try to keep my points of view as brief as possible.

I mean this is rediculous ... we're all being hypocritcal here.  This whole post was anti-war and yet here we are engaging in 'internet war'.  I want to state now, I am not pro-war.  I hate war.  But my country men are there, and there's nothing I can do about it.  So I back them 100% and support them all the way.

Which is good.

I know there is a LOT more involved in this war.  But the bottom line to me is they're getting rid of Saddam Hussein.  And that makes it worth it to me.  It's just that simple for me.

It's not that simple, all things considered.

It truely does bother me that the rest of the world has such a problem with America.  Truely.

It has more to do with hating Bush and Blair.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with Americans.

Some of the best AGS gamemakers are from the US.

EDIT - I didn't mean to insult your religion man.  Had I known you were actually a Quaker, I would have used the word pacifist instead!  I apologize, it was a bad choice of words, and I must confess, my blood was up. END EDIT

I'm not a quaker.

And it's probably a good thing I'm not, or else I'd be deeply offended.

Maybe you should relax more so your blood isn't up.

After all, this is only a forum for adventure games.

Saddam uses innocent civilians as human shields, this isn't President Bush's fault, nor Tony Blair's.  Perhaps if the rest of the world wasn't so 'uneducated' about the facts, this wouldn't be an issue.  Yes, innocent people will be killed ... it's called war.  But this is happening because Saddam Hussein defied international sanctions.  He didn't do what he agreed to do.  Saddam forced the action that is being taken, not Bush.  This is Hussein's fault.  If you want to point a finger go ahead, just point it at the person responsible.  And as much as the rest of the world loves the 'I hate America' band wagon, this is Hussein's fault, NOT Americas.  Do any of you HONESTLY think, that if America were attacked, Bush would use the innocents civilians of America as human shields?  Would he gas/kill/rape/murder American civilians?

Firstly, Saddam wouldn't be using human shields if Bush hadn't invaded.

Secondly, the US and UK coalition also use voluntary human shields too.

How do you know that Saddam's human shields aren't voluntary?

Do you believe all the spin you read in newspapers?

Just because you read a report in the paper or watch a report on TV, and you hear the word "innocent", it doesn't always mean it's 100% true.

When you look at it, the US and Uk are using "innocent" people as human shields too.

The difference is that the media used the word "voluntary' when describing the US and UK human shields.

This whole thread has made me sick.  I can't believe that the rest of the world can be so f***ing blind that you can't see the most obvious facts.  I'll tell you what.  I'll talk to Blair and Bush and get them to pull out and leave Saddam in power.  But here's the catch, when Saddam creates his first nuke, and we HAVE to go in to stop him, all you panzy ass quakers have to go in first and be 'nucleur' cannon fodder.

Facts?

You mean the spin that Bush & Co keep pushing out of the White House?

And the sad truth is despite the number of nukes that Saddam makes, the US has weapons capabilities that are far greater than Iraq.

Not only that, but the reason why Iraq has any "weapons of mass destruction" is because the US sold them to Iraq in the first place.

Also, don't  degrade any regilious movement please -- I doubt any actual quaker would like you calling them "pansy-assed".

Yeah, you're right.  He is a hypocrite.  He should definately take away our constitutional right to bear arms.  Yeah, you know what you're talking about.  Bush HAS put restrictions on the type of guns that are legal, he has done great work in clearing illegal fire arms from the streets.

That constitutional right is a very archaic clause.

I'm sure the founding fathers did not take into consideration the technological development of guns in the next few centuries.

And if Bush has done great work in clearing illegal fire arms, how come there are over 100 times more fire arm homicides in the US than in any other country (and this isn't counting accidental deaths and suicides) -- and that also includes the wars over the last decade too!

In fact, more people were murdered by handguns in 2001 than there were people killed at the WTC, Sept 11 2001.

And also, there is a HUGE difference between me owning a hand gun, and a psychotic dictator owning nuclear weapons.  How you, or anybody for that matter, could even compare that is rediculous and sickening.

But the US constitution says you have the right to bear arms.

That would mean the average US citizen can own weapons grade plutonium to safeguard themselves (if they can afford it).

In other words, you've just proven my previous point, which is the constitutional clause about bearing arms is archaic.

I just love that the rest of the world is just jumping on the "Anti-American" band wagon.  It's pathetic.

You love it, yet you think it's pathetic.

You could cut the sarcasim and write legible points of view -- people would take you more seriously that way.

Anyway, before you call the most powerful man in the free world a hypocrite, perhaps you should first know what you're talking about.

Firstly: Free world *snigger*

Secondly, I've demonstrated my point of view with serious comments.

You've just been using sarcastic jibes.

And you think YOU know what you're talking about?



I've stated my point of view, which is this:

I'm not for Saddam.

I'm not for Bush and Blair.

If you think Georgie W is the greatest guy in the world, then that's fine -- I don't really care.

But don't you ever criticise anyone's opinions with sarcasim -- it's the lowest form of wit!

Why don't you try basing your views with some real facts and not your sarcasim OR spin-doctoring from the White House.

People would take you more seriously.

Even: Don't forget the numerous deaths of people by guns in the US -- I'd say Bush is responsible for that, due to his lack of action upon any gun related issue.

I may constantly bag out our Prime Minister, John Howard, but at least I give him credit for banning guns when a major shooting happens.

The Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 for example -- he banned all semi-automatic weapons.

Or the Monash university shooting a few months ago -- he proposed legislation to ban all handgns not registered to the Commonwealth and Olympic Games (I'm not too sure if this proposal has gone ahead though -- does anyone know the current status of it?)

Regardless, Bush has done nothing to regulate guns in his own country, despite Columbine or the Washington Sniper.

And he has the nerve to talk about weapons of mass destruction when his own people are killing each other.

He's a hypocrite.

Naranjas, I think you just became my deity!

Yes, the US has dealt with war before.

However, they haven't had a very good record of dealing with war.

And most of the problems of this current war were caused by the US in the first place.

But that's a whole new debate.

I say we employ the Hawkeye Pierce method.

Invite both sides to a party at The Swamp.

Keep serving martini after martini.

Last man standing wins the war.

The Eastern world, it is explodin',
Violence flarin', bullets loadin'.
You're old enough to kill, but not for votin',
You don't believe in war -- but what's that gun you're totin'?
An' even the Jordan river has bodies floatin'.
But you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say,
An' can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today?
If the button is pushed, there's no runnin' away,
There'll be no one to save, will the world in a grave.
Take a look around you, boy, it's bound to scare you, boy.
An' you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin',
I'm sittin' here just contemplatin'.
I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation,
Handful of senators don't pass legislation,
An' marches alone can't bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin',
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'.
An' you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China,
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama.
Ah, you may leave here for four days in space,
But when you return it's the same ol' place,
The poundin' of the drums, the pride an' disgrace.
You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace.
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace,
An' tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction,
No, no, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

- Eve of Destruction by P.F. Sloane

Flippy: Despite whatever accuracy was needed, LGM'S post, like all others here, was a joke -- so I doubt anyone REALLY REALY cares about the exact specifications of the quote because this is supposed to be a bit of harmless fun.

Carry on, people! That's some A-class stuff you're putting here!

Alright, It will stay!
I only hope the stickies
Do not crowd the board!

The other day I
Removed it because noone
Had posted in it.

Are yoy sure it's safe to have them on a First Baptist Church website?

Some of them are nasty!

No, it wasn't mainly Yahtzee.

He was just the final small step in making me give it away.

There's other things -- Personal things in real life.

Looking back, I'll just say that if it wasn't Yahtzee's comments, something else would have made me give it up.

He's not a completely bad person.

I think he just needs to be a bit more thoughtful when he writes.

It's sad to see such talent go to waste.

I wrote in the General forum that the AGS Dictionary is yours Andail, seeing as how it is more you project than mine.

Develop it and make it grow too.

I should explain something.

Yahtzee isn't the main and major reason why I'm giving this away.

However, his comments were the straws that broke my back.

But to explain the main reason in a very simple way: I no longer have the time nor energy.


As for Kandyman's relation with Yahtzee, I doubt that makes a significant difference.

Yahtzee has expressed his desire to not be a part of this community.

If he releases the odd AGS game, I'm sure it will go through the same process as all other games do.

I trust Kandyman's judgement and have complete faith in him.

However, I think it would also help to have a second person on board to lighten the workload.

If Mods wants to share the work, I'm all for it.

After all, his suggestion on AGDzine inspired me to start the awards.

I think it's fitting he should be a large part of it.


All I can say, guys, is make it grow.

You've been here longer than me, you've made some great games, and you seem to fit all the requirements.

You're also drunk.

YOU'RE HIRED!!!

Also, Kandy, if you need any advice on how to organise it, I'm always available.

Consider me a backup.

But did you want to organise and run it too, Erica?

The figure "2 years" is an approximation.

All I need is someone who has enough experience and understanding of AGS's history to run things.

I would like to hand this over to someone else.

I'd prefer the applicants to be devoted and willing, have at least two years experience with AGS, and a proper web-hosting domain.

There are numerous reasons why I'm giving it away -- too many to list in a single post.

I hope someone takes this offer up.

Thank you.
- DGMacphee

On snowy bridges
I stand alone with no warmth.
Hold me till summer.

A mouse creeps to me.
It is white as soft snowflakes.
I watch it run south.

Pretty mouse so soft,
Why did you leave me to die
In such a cold place?

When my spirit flies,
I will look over the fields
And see falling snow.

It looks beautiful.
Children play and build snowmen.
So damn innocent.

Stay that way, children.
Don't stand alone on a bridge
And die like I did.

Yeah, by No Doubt I'm referring to the Tragic Kingdom era. And Manson's a dweeb. His gimmickyness exceeds his talent tenfold...

Have you seen Bowling For Columbine? I've never been a big fan of his music, but I find him a very intelligent and interesting person. In fact, he's quite normal compared to other people in the doco...



As for my music tastes, I've been listening to Sarah McLachlan lately... Other then that: REM, Paul Weller, New Order, Radiohead, Elbow, The Stone Roses, Simon and Garfunkel, Peter Gabirel, The Beatles, Doves, Muse, early U2, and some Annie Lennox...