Messages

Yo!

As was mentioned, the lovely ladies are a tad on the rough side.  Are they the DJs?  If they are not it's a little unclear their purpose (to me at least).

I wouldn't worry about the 'widescreen' part of it ... I'm sure you'll be writing the code to allow it to resize depending on resolution (that's beginners web 101)

The colors are a bit obnoxious (which might be the intent) but you've essentially got full-bright yellow, green, and magenta/pink on the screen at the same time.  It's a little on the overwhelming side!  The text in the body is very difficult to read as well.

I am at work now and can't do a paint-over but if I have time when I get home tonight I'll whip up an idea or two for ya!

Cheers!

I have heard of people bing banned from facebook because they [facebook] received a lot of complaints about them.

The Apps system is actually a great way to 'expand' facebook but sadly, as is always the case, people abuse it and take advantage of it.  That is, most likely, where your ban originated.  An app carried out annoyances in your name

I would email/contact them and request an explanation (more detailed than a simple 'violation of TOS') on why you were banned.

I have a reoccurring dream where I'm being chased and no matter how I try my freakin' legs just don't want to work.

As Mods said, I always interpreted it as my subconscious telling me I'm "running" towards something big, but I'm having trouble achieving it.

I've always been fascinated by dreams.

I do what I like to call 'web experiments' where I come up with an idea for a web site, create it, and put it out there see how it does (usually with the goal of making some money from it of course).

For the last 6 months I've been working on a HUGE project idea, my biggest to date!

I plan to Beta it in mid-November and will be posting a call for testers soon.

Aside from my 'web experiments' (and AGS stuff of course) I like to throw some pixels together from time to time.

I see the system as antiquated too, but I'm not sure if the proliferation of the mass media has made the popular vote any more reliable. With the mass media bombarding the public with all sorts of contradicting information, it's hard to see the forest for the trees and judge what's reliable and what's spin. I doubt those rabid McCain-supporting crowds had been this fired up if it hadn't been for the fearmongering, attack ads and pundits shouting all sorts of things. In the good ole' days, a significant part of the electorate was uninformed and now that same part is misinformed. That's progress for ya.

It certainly is hard to tell the the 'good' from the 'bad' sometimes.  I saw one commercial bashing McCain's tax plan, and very next commercial talks about how McCain's tax plan will save the country.  It's all a matter of how each person sees it I suppose.  One side will see it one way, the other side sees it the opposite.

My basic thought on it was that 100 years ago if you took a picture of Bryan and one of Taft (the two candidates for president at the time) out to a bible-belt farmer in the mid west they'd have no idea who either man was.  Now-a-days if you go up to a bum on the street and show him a picture of McCain or Obama chances are they'd know who they were.  While they may not be very educated on the candidates (policies, beliefs, etc) they at least now who they are.  That's at least a little progress I suppose?

I think removal of the electoral college and letting the popular vote decide the president would completely change the face of presidential campaigns (for the better).  Sure it's possible it could backfire ... but the system as it is now gave us Bush for 8 years.  Could it really be any worse??

Why not just have a 1 person - 1 vote system, where all the votes are counted up nationwide and then whoever gets the most wins? Surely that would be the fairest way to run the Presidential election?

My sentiments exactly.

I believe the counter-argument to this is that such a system is too fallible to be effective and/or reliable.

However, I like to think that if we had the technology to put man on the moon 40 years ago we can find an effective way to make such a voting system a reality today.

Well, somehow George W has managed to survive 8 years assassination-free, and if he can do it, anyone can!

I heard a news blurb last night about the CIA uncovering an assassination plot on Obama.  They made it sound (in the blurb) like some huge far-reaching conspiracy. I did a little reading on the story and it sounds like it wasn't quite as menacing as the media made it out to be (big surprise) just a couple of skin-heads talking shit; but still, it appears to be credible.

I'm sure Obama expected things like this to come up.  I will give him credit for going forward with his campaign knowing it might put his life at risk (though I suppose that's a reality for any presidential candidate).

When I purchased my ticket for Mittens it was around 800 USD (was £550 I believe at the time).  However ... AFTER I purchased the ticket I checked the flights out of Miami (instead of Ft. Lauderdale) and found them to be a considerable bit cheaper.

So yeah, I'd think you could probably get to Miami for around £400.

And you better make it!  I need a bigger role in next year's Mittens movie!!!

[Back on topic...]

Nice. You call people sheep, I simply point out that by your own standards you're probably one of those sheep, and I'm the one with the demeaning tone?

Yes.

And you didn't simply point out anything.  You made a weak argument which failed to turn my comment around on me.

If you think I'm a sheep for following my own path and believing in what I believe in, so be it if that actually makes sense to you.  To try and somehow connect my 'not doing what I say I won't do because those that do are sheep' to me 'being one of those sheep' ... well ... that just doesn't make any sense.

So when you wrote, "That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is," you were trying to express the nobility of complaining on the Internet rather than getting involved and trying to change the things you don't like about the democratic system through the system itself?

It wasn't complaining.

You keep claiming to know what actions I'm taking in my personal life when you do not posses this information.  When you know nothing about a person's day-to-day life you really shouldn't make statements like that.

In other words, they are completely imaginary people that you made up in your head.

So not only do you know what I do in my day-to-day life, you also dictate my beliefs?  Interesting.

I'm done discussing this off-topicness.  You proved my point quite nicely about politics, so thank you.

Back on topic...

RickJ - thanks for that information.  I had researched the institution before (not like I did a book report on it or anything just some Google and Wikipedia) but it's nice to get some new information about it.  I always admire your posts as they come with good information!

It was, to my understanding (and I could well be wrong), that the electoral college was put in place to allow smaller, less populated, states of the union an equal 'voice' in the voting process.  While at the same time being used as a 'safety measure' because the founding fathers didn't trust the population to elect their president.  Not just that they would make bad decisions but also that they could be coerced into voting a tyrant into power which, given the fact that they'd just fought an incredibly costly war in the effort to over-throw a tyrant, makes perfect sense.

I feel that in this day and age, with the proliferation of mass media, it's reached a point where we can (and should) tally the popular vote and base the presidency off of that.  I see the electoral college as antiquated and no longer needed.  It's a different world than it was when the electoral college was instituted.  Perhaps back then (I can't speak for how others feel/felt) the citizenry were content with a select group of people making the decisions for them.  I am not happy with such a system.

I know that it's extremely unlikely the EC will be 'done away' with anytime soon.  It would require an amendment to the constitution (3/4 of the states must agree) and the smaller states (that benefit from the system) aren't likely to vote for it.   I just don't feel that is a good enough reason for me to like it

Look buddy, I think you've kind of argued yourself into a corner here.  If you're so opposed to the status quo and the current electoral system, but you don't do anything about it (and no, not voting is not "doing something") other than complain on the Internet, aren't you exactly the kind of sheep who "goes along with it because it's all there is"?

As I stated in my last post (and must repeat again); you have no way to know what (if anything) I'm doing about it.

If you want to [try to] debunk my opinion by using a demeaning tone and condescending claims that I'm doing nothing but complaining on the internet by all means go ahead.  I am neither complaining, nor doing nothing about the situation.

If I express my opinion to an audience on the internet and even just one person out of one thousand sees my point, then that's doing something.

If a person feels that a certain system is corrupt, and that contributing a vote to that system is "wrong", then the act of not voting is doing something.

This does not make me a sheep.

I think it is not I that has argued himself into a corner.

Well, grasp of facts can actually be objectively verified, and poor understanding of those facts typically soon reveals itself when things don't work out as predicted. There's been plenty of predictions made in this thread. We'll see.

And you arbitrarily determine that your grasp of the "facts" is correct and others are wrong?

That's the very way of thinking that has led to the problems as I see it.

Perhaps you should run for public office!

Wow, I guess I didn't realize how actively involved you've been in efforts to reform the Electoral system. My mistake.

I don't see how me thinking 'sheep' of people (for the reasons I've [re]stated several times) gets translated into me being actively involved in the [much needed] reformation of the electoral system.  Aside from that, I don't know how somebody on these boards (who has zero idea of my day-to-day) would have any idea what I'm involved with as far as my political views go (without me telling, which I haven't).

Let's not pretend that everyone is equally well-informed and reflected about politics and the political system. This is not a completely subjective topic where all opinions are equally valid; it's one where facts, understanding and reasoning matter.

I wasn't pretending anything. 

I was pointing out that the opposition to what you're saying would [likely] say the exact same thing(s) you're saying.  They will feel they are very well read and knowledgeable on the subject.  I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm just saying that one point of view, no matter how well researched (or thought researched) doesn't mean it's better (more correct) than another person's.

But anyway ... We've gotten off the subject of the thread and I have no desire to keep repeating myself.

Ah! Lamenting the tenor of political discourse in one post, then calling those who disagree with you "sheep" who "accept something simply because it's what they have" the next. I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning! Smells like... hypocrisy.

I didn't call those that disagree with me sheep.  I called those who go ahead with the current system because "that's the way it is" even though they disagree with it, sheep.  Quite a difference actually.

What smells like hypocrisy to you smells like Sheep to me.  Potato potatoe. 

It's not hypocritical just because you think it is.

Just differing points of view.

You know, I have no problem with efforts to change the presidential electoral system to a direct popular vote. Good luck to you! Meanwhile, this is the system by which the president is elected for now. It may not be perfect, but it doesn't invalidate the whole concept of a general election either, as you implied. ("If this is how it's gonna be they need to change it from, 'by the people' to, 'by [a very small group of] the people'")

Nor does it invalidate my belief in not going along with something simply because, "that's the way it is".

Differing points of view.

I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of the American political system and current political realities.

I'd wager those you're not mentioning feel the same way about their own knowledge and understanding.

Differing points of views.

This is same kind of debate we get when the topic of religion comes up.  Both sides are so convinced they're right (and that the other side are wrong, ignorant and stupid) that it continues in perpetuity.

I get a kick out of it.

[Recruit A Team]

Please review the forum rules before posting!

This topic belongs in the Recruit A Team thread.  Please post in there (rather than starting a new thread in the Adventure Related Talk & Chat board)

Thanks and good luck with your game!

Just out of curiosity ... how can there be another 'last' crusade

You boarish lot!

Huh?  I said to say, "glad you liked my game" at the end!  That makes it totally nice and polite!!

What happens if I have sex with a woman??

I'm guessing she would explode.

Because I'm definitely waiting until I'm married to have sex.

I also buy cars without test driving them.

Isn't Diamonds in the Rough a commercial game?

I stand corrected.

I'd still send the letter though.

Maybe so. That's the system you have, though, and even with that small complication it does allow the American people to elect their head of state. As for the popular vote, it's been proven that there is no voting system that is completely fair and always comes to the decision favored by most people. So from that point of view, a single round, single-vote popular ballot is just as arbitrary as any other system.

While some people might accept something simply because it's 'what they have' I am not among that group.  That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is.  If some people want to take what they're offered because there's nothing else (even if they disagree with it) that's their mistake.  I won't join that herd of sheep.

Anyway, I was responding to your claim that the Electoral College would pick McCain for President regardless of the election result. That's nonsense.

I do not think that's nonsense but, as I already stated, it's a difference of opinion that will just go on and on.  It's your choice to have faith in the electoral college.  I wasn't trying to persuade your (or anybody's) opinion, I was just expressing mine.

The point itself is not difficult to understand. Why you keep raising it, and why it's relevant to--well, anything--is.

I'm actually not the one that keeps bringing it back up.

It was relevant to my original point.  All the times it's been brought back up (out of some odd inability to grasp the concept) were, I agree, rather irrelevant.

For a lot of people, Jed Bartlet was their ideal fantasy president. There were even campaign buttons that were pretty popular in, IIRC, 2000. If you were joking, good for you, but I don't think it was foolish of me to take you seriously.

Fair enough.

I'll refrain from naming specific posters who have lowered the level of factuality and reason in the thread; I think the record speaks for itself.

I would wager that were you to name those posters you'd find that they feel your opinions and statements fall into the very category you lumped them into.  This is just a hunch of course

Politics is politics.

I would email her back (from a spam/not your normal email) and tell her this:


Dear [female name],

It's 2008.  If you paid money to download a FREEware game that's your fault for being an idiot.  Call it a 'lesson learned' and move on.

Glad you liked my game.


This is, of course, just my opinion on the matter

Dude, the electoral college is not some powerful conspiracy that secretly rules the US; it's just a bunch of party hacks selected because they WILL vote for their party's candidate. If the Democrats get to appoint a majority of electors, which is based on the popular vote in each state, they will certainly name Obama president.

I didn't say it was 'some powerful conspiracy'.  It is, however, an antiquated and totally unnecessary institution.  It served a good purpose 100 years ago, but it is no longer needed (in my opinion).  Now it's just a convenient system of control because the government (perhaps smartly) doesn't trust the American people to actually elect the American President.

Case in point; Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but was still put in office.  More votes 'by the people' were for Gore, yet we got shnocker'd with Bush for 8 years.  If this is how it's gonna be they need to change it from, "by the people" to, "by [a very small group of] the people"

I'm aware of the term 'representative democracy'

I'm aware that Bush was only the third president in history to be elected against the popular vote.  However, if it happens even once, that proves (to me) the point.

Granted I'm no expert on the subject.  But there is ZERO logic (in my way of thinking) to putting so much significance on making people vote (while providing duds as candidates), then tallying votes from all those that did vote and then basing the election off of something else.

Actually, polls show that Palin has more support among men than among women.

I'm sure the polls are correct (because they're polls after all).  However, that's not the point I was trying to make so I'm not sure what you mean by pointing to the polls.  I was simply pointing out that there will be some women inclined to vote for McCain because Palin is a woman.  I continue to marvel why this issue (and the other 'black/Obama' issue) is so difficult to understand??

OK, just a little bit of opinion/discussion here at the end: Jed Bartlett would not be a great, or even good president in reality.

Dude seriously?? If you really thought I was serious about that I would point you to this...

There's been so much misinformation, ignorance and straight up stupidity in the thread that it could make you cry.

... and TOTALLY agree with you

Not being confrontational ... but you calling any of us partaking in this thread "stupid", "wrong", and/or "ignorant" goes back to the point I made in my post:

This little debate we're having in this thread, ironically, symbolizes to me the very thing I find wrong with the political system in the U.S.  Each side is so convinced they're right (and that the other side is 'less intelligent' or not 'in the know' just because their view is in stark opposition) that it will just perpetually go back and forth with neither side winning or losing (though each side will think they're 'winning').  It's the nature of politics I suppose.

... but this will just go on and on and on and on ...

More of the same I suppose.

If you think Obama will - at the end of the day - benefit from being black I don't think you know your country. I think there's an enormous amount of people who claim they will vote Obama just to be politically correct and then vote Mccain since they still have a streak of prejudice in them.
There's so much latent racism we will never know about.

I know my country pretty well (I like to think)! I'm well aware of the latent racism (on all sides). Down here (in South Florida) we're calling it the 'Bubba Effect' (not sure what it's called elsewhere).  It's the white-boy-in-the-country who talks up voting for Obama to avoid being called racist, but when he's in the privacy behind the curtain his vote goes to McCain.  But again, this is a problem to me because they're (most likely) not voting for McCain because they want him as president but because they don't want Obama in office.  I refuse to vote for somebody I don't want as president just because I want the other guy less.  To me that's worse than voting for neither. (I believe this is what ProgZ feels too if I'm understanding him correctly).

This little debate we're having in this thread, ironically, symbolizes to me the very thing I find wrong with the political system in the U.S.  Each side is so convinced they're right (and that the other side is 'less intelligent' or not 'in the know' just because their view is in stark opposition) that it will just perpetually go back and forth with neither side winning or losing (though each side will think they're 'winning').  It's the nature of politics I suppose.

I'm not jabbin' at anybody in particular but I feel what I feel and I believe in it.  I'm open to new ideas and I understand other's points of views but just because you believe strongly in them doesn't make my ideas "wrong".  Just as I don't think your ideas are "wrong" ... we're just in opposition.  A little debate is nice from time to time ... but this will just go on and on and on and on ...

Nuthin' but love ... even to the opposition.

I think I'm being misunderstood ...

I'm not saying Obama will win because he's black.  Or that if McCain wins it's because Palin is female.  I'm simply saying that there are [a lot of] people that will cast their votes due to these facts.  That's all.  I feel that point was [reasonably] proven with the link I provided in my first post in this thread.  Those people had NO clue about the person they are voting for.  True, none of them admitted that it's because he's black but I think it's a logical conclusion to draw given just how little they knew what they were talking about.

I get upset sometimes because when I hear Obama's speeches it almost inspires me to vote for him (McCain's speeches do not).  He is a very good and eloquent speaker.  But then my skepticism kicks in and I realize that he's just a really good politician saying exactly what middle-class folks like myself want to hear (as all Presidential candidates have done for decades).  Am I just jaded and cynical?  Perhaps ... but it is, none-the-less, how I feel. 

Don't get me wrong, as I commented in the thread about Mods' passion with UFOs, I'd love to be proven wrong in this situation.  I'd love to see a generally honest and trustworthy man (or woman) sittin' in the Oval Office. (like Jed Bartlett)  However, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.