Messages

I most hardy welcome, my friend.  This is one of the best introductions I've read by a new member.  Most just straight-out say, "My name is Mr. Spanky and I'm a 13-year old male who desperately wants to create adventure games in hopes of attracting gorgeous females."  Well, they don't say that verbatim but you get the gist.  Either way, it's nice to see somebody as enthusiastic as I first was when I found out about it... makes me think I should work on some of this game stuff..

I understand your sorrow.  Although I have noticed that with many savegames, it's not the game but the position/state/inventory/etc. of the savegame itself that presents the problem.  Nonetheless, if you'll e-mail the savegame to yakspit@probedbyaliens.com I'd be happy to give it a shot for you.  Also, if you would specify where it's crashing so I know at which point it's safe to resave.

It is interesting.  Imagine being tailed by surveying white vans.  They'll have reading machines bolted to the vans so they can simply follow you from the grocery store and find out your favorite brand of laundry detergent and what kind of clothing you like.   I, personally, don't like the idea of this possible breach of privacy but you do have to keep in mind that this isn't like a tracking device (per se), it's P/A tech meaning it's passive until it receives a signal at which point it's active long enough to send a number back to the transmitting stanchion.  It does have some definate bonuses that may even outweigh the negatives.  For example: It may deter more theft which'll mean lower prices (in theory) for those of us who pay for stuff (unlikely, but the theory is good).  You could also possibly have a line in a grocery store where you simply wheel your cart through a small hallway and slide your ATM card through... all without taking stuff out of your cart or having to deal with an actual human-being (They can be so trying sometimes).

Annie?  Are you sure you know what this is about?  This concerns the new clothing tags that are to replace the current ones.  The current ones have strips of metal set a certain distance apart.  When you pass through a stanchion, it sets off an alarm.  The RFID are the new breed of tags that use a very slight amount of electricity to activate a radio signal individually "keyed" to each tag.  

Now, even if you knew that, you might not know that these things are going to be used to nearly every product you purchase.  They'll be on cans of Coke, Videos, CD's, Coffee-Makers - not just clothing.  Now, if retailers are thinking of leaving the tags active then that is a tad scary.   These tags are supposed to be much smaller than the current tags.  In fact, they're supposed to be roughly the size of a head of a pin.  They'll be inter-woven into garments so they won't be easily removed.  

Iqu IRC
IMO and IRQ
Too many "I" things

Acronyms rule me
As a part of daily life
Not use? You're a n00b.

And was I quite wrong
Or did the original
sig have name Iqu?

Your sig confuses
An Iqu quote with my name
Saw this before where?

Some don't like haiku
They all stand back and make fun
Alas they are dead.

The thread is unglued
Much like an AGSer
When AGS crash

--  

The springtime is here
New birds bunnies and flowers
Where is cyanide?

Just a quick note:

Here's a blurb by Senator McCarthy that I have to agree with.  He's against this war and seems unable to comprehend any correct motivation or purpose behind it either.

Here's a bit of the article:

McCarthy, whose 1968 Democratic presidential campaign helped galvanize opposition to the Vietnam War, has been a staunch opponent of war in Iraq and believes it's the result of a military and political system run amok.

The military industry has become too big and its influence on politicians â€" Republican and Democrat â€" too strong, McCarthy said. He compared President Bush (news - web sites) to the Romans, who, he said, attacked northern Africa because they needed something to do.

"Bush has found a cause," said McCarthy, who turns 87 Saturday.

Darth...  if you're still reading this thread, I would encourage you to continue posting.  I disagree with a vast majority of things you've stated, but I enjoy the arguments you've put forth.  For the most part, I think you're expressing yourself intelligently and with excellent organization.  It would also appear that you're actually reading through all of the refuting posts whereas many that are posting in this thread are not.  

Everybody, I would encourage you to continue this discussion by arguing the points stated.  If somebody has said something wrong - disprove it or shut the hell up.  If somebody's opinion doesn't match yours, state your opinion... even going so far as to offer reasons why your opinion makes sense and the other's doesn't.  For the most part, I consider this group a rather more mature sampling of the masses than is readily available on much of the web... it'd be nice if we'd keep it that way.  Let's stop the attacks on personal aspects and focus more on the arguments themselves.

Pesty...  the US doesn't manufacture money?  Are you sure about this?  Why are we in debt then?  We've been printing currency for decades that has no basis on reality...  no gold and no goods to back it up.

For those that like a simplisitic argument or prefer debates in black and white, I have to state it this way:
Are we all separate countries?  Should each country be allowed to rule itself in whatever manner seems fit to them?  

If you would answer yes to the above, then you (logically) should be against the US's activity in Iraq.  

If you answer no, then you're either saying a) Countries should be able to rule themselves providing what they wish to enforce is in good standing with my personal morals and opinions (sounds rather hypocritical, doesn't it?) or b) There should be a one-world government or at least a separate country rules which are overseen by a government or representative body made up of all countries (The present example is the UN).  

The second statement only works if all countries under that legislation abide by its decisions or are able to bring the issue back under discussion and convince the rest of the ruling body to agree with their point of view.  

I admit that I may have missed a point of view there but I'm pretty sure that that covers basically everybody.  By all of the statements above, the actions of the "allied" forces are wrong.  "Allied" forces?  Why is the news even calling it that?  We (the US) have ignored our allies and have only the following of those that fear the US (or desire its financial support).  Hmm..  looks like we've become the bully of the world instead of the peacekeeper.    Some time ago, when we deigned to enter the first of the World Wars we began to see ourselves as the world's peacekeeper.  The country appointed by God, righteousness and/or morale superiority to decide how the world should be run.  When we at least had a sense of conscience behind this misconception, it was on the verge of making sense.  Now that we're under dysfunctional leadership, we're playing the part of the petty tyrant discipling an errant child.

I'm proud of much of our heritage.  I'm proud of many of my fellow citizens.  I'm amazed at how much the United States of America has contributed to the world over-all.  I'm awed that many of the technical, ethical and environmental achievements can be attributed to our country.   However, I'm ashamed of our government in its current state.  I'm appalled that we've given up many of our rights with the enactment of the homeland security act.  I experienced my first embarassment when the US refused to see the merit of the Kyoto convention's agreement.

The route the US took with Kyoto should've shown everyone what would be happening in the future under the rule of King Bush II -- No Kyoto, screw everybody else, we don't give a damn about the Earth as long as our country is prosperous.

Basically, you are correct but Bush initiated the current drive to have the inspections complete.  You failed to refute my previous point about the firing of scud missiles.  I know they are in violation and there were obviously in existence.  However, they weren't used until the US attack was beginning.  

All I am saying is that Bush was pushing the completion of the inspections and regardless of the inspection's outcome, would've initiated an attack on Iraq.     How can we actually stand behind an individual that is unwilling to stand behind agreements that we've made as a country with other nations?  He's violating treaties formed under the United Nations.    

Basically, Bush is resorting to school-yard bully tactics.  He is unable to prove his point via intelligent argument or (*god forbid*) evidence so he automatically resorts to violence.  I did note that you didn't bother to defend his intelligence level.  His mental landscape is miserably bleak.  

Again..   (and I've mentioned something to this effect before) I don't believe in the motives behind the war.  I have zero faith in Mr. Bush and his policies.  I find it incomprehensible that he's waving aside all other opinions and arguments (including those of many of our allies) and just doing whatever the hell he wants.  *However*, I certainly hope that the war accomplishes whatever it's supposed to as quickly as possible so that my friends in the service can get the hell home as soon as possible and the Iraqi populace can breathe a little easier.

Also, you may rail against the pacifists and the protestors but have you stopped to think that some of their publicity and their actions might be enough to turn aside repercussion against our civilian population?  At least other nations will know that we're not an entire nation of warmongers and that some of us are not on a personal vendetta against the religion of Islam (I'm not saying Bush/US is..  it's just what the Arabs are saying in the press).

You do have one good point, Darth.  Bush/US is not specifically aimed for the populace despite what some may say or the middle-eastern press might say.  However, I don't say this because I believe Bush gives a crap about 'em or is a good person.  It's just a bad political move.

Oh, no I change my mind!

Freakin' hypocrite.    

Edit: That quote was made before Mr. Collosal helped EvenWolf go back in time to edit his post and make it one of length.  

Now: Even... do you really attest to greater knowledge of the Being of Pure Righteous Light that is Bush just because you're from the same state?  You can only judge a person's character upon their actions.  Saddam has undisputedly horrific actions attributed to him while Bush has only Kindergarten antics and ignorance attributed to his.  Therefore Saddam does = Evil ... but G.W. = Militant Ignorant.

"We may never find biological weapons (most likely 'cause the Iraqis are probably, in a panic, over there right now destroying them!) but they've already fired scuds at our troops.  Which they weren't supposed to have.  Right there is proof."

They weren't supposed to?  When was this?  Before or after we threatened them with annihilation?  Was this before or after we deployed and began a bombing campaign?

As far as the whole weapons search thing goes.  They might find something, they might not.  However, any rational individual knew, from the first time it was announced that weapons inspections would take place to determine if we would attack, that Bush would declare non-compliance and order an attack.  I didn't even feel very strongly at the time about Bush or the issue at hand when I guessed at that one.  

You can defend your points of view.  You can defend our country and what it stands for.  Don't bother defending Mr. Bush.  Give him up as a lost cause.  Whether or not you agree with his actions at present is irrelevant.  The man's an idiot.  That's not name-calling, it's statistical-classification.  

Well, if we were to vote...  hmm..   :

I won't discredit your belief system as much of it is based upon upbringing, religion, location, etc.   But since I am still on Active-Reserve status and can be called back to fight for a cause I don't believe in, I find it absolutely surreal that this discussion is involving Good Vs. Evil.    I'll be certain to pound that thought into my head if I go to the middle east.  That man I just shot.. he was frickin' evil.  He had a bad soul.  He had to die.  He had to die by my hand.  Why?  Because I serve righteousness.   Sorry, it's all just too biblically Old Testament for my taste.

edit - since Even snuck his post in before I completed mine I'll note that this was directed toward Darth's last post.  

Sure, you live in your bubble and you believe that there exist evil people and evil places out in the world.

this might be out of context but I'm gonna use something you said for my own purposes.  I think this view is totally right and this is the problem I have with most of the opinions I hear bounced around the net and from the ignorant.  There seems to be a popular opinion that there exists only good and evil, that anything not Democracy is the bane of goodness in the world.  That any leader not practicing democracy is the prince of darkness.  WTF?  

      Humanity realized long ago that it required government in order to allow large groups of people to co-exist and to solve disputes.  People tried many different methods.  They tried monarchies and democracies.  They've tried many forms of government.  Some work better than others and some are more fair than others.  Some allow for tyrants to rule unchecked ... others allow tyrants to start wars.  Americans, in particular, seem to regard Communism as an evil that needs to be weeded out. Despite what many may think, it was designed to create a utopian society wherein everybody, regardless of status, has an equal share.  Granted, it doesn't seem to work as planned, but then again, what government does?  Americans like to think that we're living in a democracy where everybody has a say in how this place is run.  It's just not the case.  We don't even practice democracy (although it has elements of it) ... we practice Federalism.  I know this has little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand but due to events of my crappy day I feel the need to rant about the self-righteous.

On that point I agree with you.  I disapprove of firearms (although I've fired around 15 different types) but outlawing weapons or making them harder to get will only cause impediment to honest citizens.  Those who use them for illegal purposes seldom acquire them legally.  The only real good it might do is to prevent accidental deaths (or deaths caused by ignorance of repercussions or ignorance of firearm safety). We could find a better solution in education and proper caution taken by owners.  Again, I have to say that I dislike firearms being in the hands of the populace (which are comprised mainly of idiots) but don't see a solution to the nation's problems in further restricting them.

I personally feel that Saddam is not the most wonderful of leaders and should definately be removed.  He has shown from his track-record and his reaction to our attack recently that he will always resort to cowardly inhumane tactics.  Am I too much raised on militarily-minded movies and spy-flicks?   Don't the US and UK have some of the best special-ops personnel in the world?  Why can't we just assassinate him and his cabinet?  Why must it involve a war sacrificing our youth and civilians in Iraq (and possibly the US, who can say?).  

To play the devil's advocate...  do we know for a fact that Saddam *is* evil?  Much can be said of Bush that is not too pleasant.   Take this example:  Either the man has such hatred for the Arabian people or he is such an ignorant bastard that the first day of the attack took place on the day of the Persian New Year.  What the hell?  America would probably demand we turn the sands of the middle-east into a sheet of glass if we were attacked on our new year.   Iranians are more concerned with this holiday than Iraq, of course, but we have been told time and time again by the people and leaders of the middle east that an assault upon one of the Arab nations is an assault upon them all.  Iran has no cause to love Iraq and even less to care for Saddam.  However, because of the nature of our strike and its timing we've earned their intense hatred as well.  I can't understand why Bush would choose that day of all days....      

By the way, thank you for your response.  I have an all-new respect for you and those that share your perspective thanks to the mature and rational way you responded to my last post.  I'm also glad that opposing viewpoints can still find points in our debate in which to laugh at ourselves and one another.  

Ah, and the avatar was no stretch of genius...  I just used a webcam very close to my face and cropped the pic down.. then compressed it until it was 64k.  It is rather different though, eh?

I cannot deny that you seem well-grounded in your beliefs  (I realize that your post was in refutation to a previous argument but am jumping in nonetheless).  I can't help but admire your patriotism and faith in your country and way of life.  However, I don't see how you can so blatantly flaunt the constitution of the US as being so revered when it's the very document called into question concerning the issues at hand.  Any laws written to govern our country, any contract signed and any deal agreed to is only valid if it is adhered to.  

What Bush is doing (and has been since he greedily lapped up the opportunity given him by Sept. 11) is utilizing the situation to his advantage in order to bypass the constitution.  He has taken the agreements and the statutes that the US and several other nations have worked so hard to build and tossed them out the window.    He is basically telling everybody that they should support him.  When the others don't see his opinions as valid, he mutters,  "Aw, what the hell does the rest of the world know?" and does what he wishes anyway.  It is under his misguided leadership that the US is acting and it is that leadership that will create means that cannot be justified by the ends.  

Please don't take this in the wrong spirit.  I was against the beginning of this conflict but now that it has begun I can only hope that it will be swift and with as little loss of life as possible.  I have nothing against the soldiers of the US and our allies (it would be difficult seeing as how I'm on Active Reserve status) and I wish them the best of luck.  I only wish that they didn't have to give their lives in sacrifice to such causes as Bush deems worthy.  

Oh, and to Texans reading this ... you have my sympathy for the embarassment of having produced one such as our president.

Don't confuse (or respond to) pacifism with hatred.

Trap, I respect you, really I do.  You do, however, need a little bit of experience in these matters before forming concrete experiences.  This isn't addressed only to you but to those that may have a few misconceptions.  I'm only responding to part of your post. Pacifism in its purest form should not be confused with hatred.  However, quite a few of the anti-war protestors have turned to violent means.  Living near San Francisco, my friends and family have been harmed by these "hatred-free" individuals.  My dad's car was beaten soundly with a crowbar while he was in it.  My uncle David was hit with a nightstick.  Not because he was part of the protestation but because he was just trying to get through the crowd.  Fanatacism in any form can be universally destructive. Let's not limit this to the warmongers.  I myself, in case you didn't already know, am against the war and am all for impeaching Bush at the earliest opportunity.  I'm rambling now, but it's sickening to see peace preached with threat of violence and to see those protesting in the name of peace actually tout another agenda (gay rights, violence in movies, unfair working conditions) - using the war to further their own causes.  

I may be wrong in this but it seems to me that most of the country's all for this stupidity and most of the rest of the world thinks we're friggin' idiots.  I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but who is to say that what we're being told is correct?  I've no doubt that Saddam is a horrible and cruel man but what the hell do we *know*?  All we have are opinions (ours or the media's) based upon the few facts given us.   I, for one, knew from the get-go that whether or not Saddam was stashing munitions, we would start a war.  I don't think Saddam should remain in power but I think we're going about this the wrong way.   I've heard arguments for the war but I don't think I've heard one that didn't sound like it was based in ignorance, misconception or outright fanaticism.