Menchise

Charles, I just edited my previous post.

quote:I present the infamous "Cat Moustache" puzzle in a certain Sierra game. I forget which one because I haven't played it. I have read several reviewers complaining about that particular puzzle. I have read the solution to the puzzle and I feel the reviewers are right. The solution made no sense whatsoever and I can see someone turning to a walkthrough to get past it. The moustache puzzle was in Gabriel Knight 3. There are two types of challenging puzzles: 1) the type of puzzle that requires logic, imagination in the context of the role you're playing, or some such wonderful thing (the good puzzles). 2) the type of puzzle that requires illogical thought, the imagination of a Martian from Jupiter, or random guessing because the solution is so ridiculous (the bad puzzles). The moustache puzzle in Gabriel Knight 3 was the second type. [ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:First of all, this means that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In addition congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. In other words, Congress has no power to set rules either way. Any laws for or against religion in public schools, the government, etc are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The separation of church and state implies that church is outside of the state's juristiction, not that religion must be expunged from our government. It depends greatly on the way that religion is being expressed. I don't really have a problem with religion in public schools as long as freedom of expression is consistent. For example, I have no problem with allowing prayer in public schools or for people to express religious tradition within them as long as that school does not prescribe itself (and therefore its students) to any one religion or to a need for a religion, otherwise it starts alienating people, which contradicts with the whole purpose of having public schools. quote:If our president, congress, etc. want to display religious symbols, ideas, etc., it is not the governments place to step in and stop it OR encourage it. Religion is (according to the constitution) immune from law. Not necessarily. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with members of congress displaying religious symbols on their person when they're in session, but if the president or congress decided to put a great big crucifix on the front of the Capitol building, it would be a violation of the first amendment, because that display is sending the message that only Christian Americans are represented in the House of Representatives. quote:The fact they exist is one more example that our country is moving towards removing culture in order to embrace socialism - cue Menchise Hmm...I could join another debate (which would make it 4 this month) about culture and socialism, or I could play BCM. Another debate ... BCM ... another debate ... BCM. You know what, I think I'm gonna stay out of this topic and have fun somewhere else, if you don't mind.

There is a link to the feature at Gamespot. The Worst Game of the Year Award went to Survivor: The Interactive Game.

Recently, Gamespot published its annual Best and Worst Games of the Year Awards feature. The results would be described by many as unexpected. First, Gamespot created a new category (Best AI) so that Black & White, which shares Gamespot's highest review score of the year, could win something. It wasn't even nominated for Best Strategy Game. Secondly, the game that won the highest number of awards (3) was Clive Barker's Undying (an FPS published by EA) yet it wasn't listed in the Top Ten Games of the Year category. Max Payne, which was number 2 in the list, only received one award, Best Single Player Action Game, of which Undying was a nominee. Finally, the winner of the Game Of The Year award was Serious Sam. I don't think anybody saw this one coming.

quote:Hitler was a member of the German Socialist Party after World War I until the government cracked down on Socialists. Hitler used his Socialist upbringing as a springboard for National Socialism. So what could have been a socialist leader, changed his mind and became what we know. So Hitler WAS a socialist before the rise of the NSDP He still wasn't a revolutionary, and there are many types of socialism, many of which use Marx as an initial springboard but adopt positions that are far from Marxist. Secondly, Hitler used many springboards, including the history of German militarism under Bismarck. Thirdly, the socialist element of the Nazi Party was very small in the beginning, and became non-existent over time. Finally, Nazi Germany had a mixed economy on the market side. quote:Germany allowed private gun ownership under the government. Hitler began a program of gun registration (in fact was the same form of registration used by the United States to the embarrasment of some public officials hehe.) and once he knew who had the guns, he began the process of taking them away from "undesirables". Then every country that Hitler conquered found their weapons taken from the private individuals. Well then, that just indicates that gun ownership is required to defend the revolution against so-called "supreme leaders". quote:Third - Initially only 33% of the German people supported Hitler's rise to power - not a majority. I never said it was a majority (I knew that it wasn't), I said a significant percentage. [ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:How many of you people actually DO what you say? I haven't done any of the things I have said, but I haven't played that much either. I just like to join the fun. This is the Fun Stuff forum, you know.

quote:Individuals enjoy no freedom under either system. Another issue for the other thread. quote:I seriously doubt that whoever takes control after a revolution will allow the citizens to keep their weapons. The founders of America made sure it was allowed. What makes you think that socialist revolutionaries would be any different? quote:As Adolf Hitler proved, taking away their weapons made the people more susceptible to their wishes. Firstly, Hitler was not a revolutionary or a socialist. Secondly, I don't think the German people were armed in the first place. Thirdly, a significant percentage of the German people supported Hitler (at least initially).

quote:I believe the fact that they use Marxist thought is completely relevent. They adapt it to suit their needs - just as any leader who took control after a socialist revolution would. Despite what the revolutionaries believe, the government formed after a revolution will not match what they fought for. It will match whatever the leader of the movement wants. It is not the fault of Marx if his words have been twisted. To say that Marxist thought contributes to Fascism because fascists used it as a springboard is the same as saying that Christianity contributes to Racism because the Afrikaans used The Bible as the springboard for Apartheid.

The ultimate sign that you're playing too much BCM: You win the SC's prize for being the first to use a RANDOM.

quote:I'm sorry but every time I read fascist or National Socialist literature, they use Karl Marx and Socialist thought as a spring board. They simply diverge from the idea of global community, and concentrate instead on National Community. Other than that, I can't differentiate many quotes from Hitler and Mussolini, when compared with Marx and Communist leaders. The idea of people working toward the "greater good" is prevalent in both ideologies. Whether they use Marx as a springboard or not is irrelevant, because the differences in both ideologies are significant. Fascists believe that the individual is nothing without the state. Communists believe that the state is nothing without class division. Fascists believe in unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader. Communists believe that there is no such thing as a supreme leader. Fascists glorify war. Communists believe that war will end when class division ends. Fascists believe in an organically unified community with a strict hierarchy and an umbrella state. Communists believe in a classless and stateless society. quote:A Socialist country would outlaw guns AFTER the revolution to keep a counter-revolution from developing. That would be pointless, and your arguments prove it. If gun control doesn't stop crime, then it won't stop a counter-revolution, so the system would be better off with gun ownership, so that the people can a) Maintain the proletarian state's accountability, and Defend the revolution if necessary.

quote:That's just guns, let's not forget Mediscare, Racism, and other buzzwords that evoke fear in some demographic of society. Sadly ignorance allows most of these "evils" to be confronted when in reality they are being used to further a Socialist system. You mean a fascist system, don't you? I see no reason why a socialist (especially a revolutionary socialist) would be against gun ownership (how else would the ruling class be overthrown? ). Before you start paraphrasing me from previous gun control debates, note that those opinions were personal and had nothing to do with any political position. quote:But you assume that firearms are useful only for self defense. Have you ignored my entire point, and Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln's points? Firearms are a check against government tyranny. The argument that extensive gun ownership would serve as an effective check on government tyranny is full of false assumptions. 1. It assumes that there would be widespread agreement over what is tyrannical and what is not. 2. It assumes that tyrannies conspicuously restrict everyone's rights. 3. It assumes that the citizenry is united against tyranny. Clever tyrants are very selective about whose rights they restrict, because it keeps the less discriminated majority on its side. They tend to discriminate against anti-government elements that are part of marginalized social groups, labelling them as troublemakers and enemies of ordinary people, which appeals to the reactionary and conservative elements. It also alienates every other anti-government individual, because whenever they openly criticize such a government, they are quickly associated with the marginalized groups. When the media sides with the status quo (which it usually does when it comes right down to it), the state's ability to divide the citizenry is so effective it's terrifying. Make no mistake: Owners of private and/or commercial media are not independant; they will side with any tyranny that benefits them.

quote:Reproduced. Looks like the recent fix related to a CTD when trying to leave a planet (in some rare cases) affects this. I never checked the TA scenario which is why roam/acm/ia work fine. I did some more checking and discovered that the problem is more extensive. 1. Instant Action is also affected (I checked all of the Commander scenarios and they all crashed the same way). 2. TA and IA also crash when I try to launch a shuttle. For some reason, Roam is not affected. I haven't checked ACM.

I have encountered another problem with the Training Academy. In the Commander scenario, I get a CTD (invalid page fault) every time I try to launch a fighter.

Hehe. Don't give me too many of those ideas. [rp] *After one week as Quality Control Officer, Nick starts to feel stressed* Jaguar!!! I can't get to those ****ing teleporters on the second level! Make a doorway NOW!!!! Why the f*** are my starbase security guards all clones?! My office needs furniture! Must have furniture!! *left eye twitches* Where are the visitors?! Why aren't there any visitors??? Aarrghh!!!!! *panic attack* [/rp] [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Ep5, those group info terminals in Battlegroup Park have broken links.

It's not a bug. Players are not allowed to replace systems when docked at a station. If you don't have the money to buy replacements, and you can't sell anything to get that money, then you can't replace it, period. It's a rule, not a bug. You also didn't mention which systems were busted. If they're not essential for the operation of the CC, then launch the ship, find some cargo pods somewhere, and go back. Hopefully, you'll have found enough valuable items to sell so that you can afford to buy the replacement. If they're critical systems (ie you can't operate the CC properly without them) then you're screwed.

In the Training Academy scenarios for the Commander and Space Force Marine, the AE doesn't have a jetpack. I have v1.0.03 installed.

quote:Menchise - I'm no longer going to call you a liberal anymore. I think you've earned the title of Socialist from my lips, because you actually have the conviction of your ideals unlike a liberal from Australia I've been arguing with elsewhere. Yippee! quote:*blink* my eyes hurt. LOL! I know how you feel, Tac. Ouch! Responding to every point in this deluge is going to take forever, and I'm not in the mood to spend forever in a debate. So, to make things simpler, could all points about socialism in general go into the "Continuing the Debate" thread (preferably in note form so that I'm not flooded )? As I recall, this thread was about peace and war. So far, nobody has responded to my points on page two about how socialism/communism would end war and terrorism, and those are the only responses that I'm going to reply to in this thread from now on, otherwise I'll never leave the computer. Hehe. It's not easy being the only Marxist (or whatever I am, although I seem to be Marxist) in the forum.

quote:What exactly do you think is going to happen if you throw an ideology that is exactly the opposite of what they live under towards them in a short period of time? Socialism is not the exact opposite of what people live under. It's a progression of what's been happening throughout the history of class struggle (Despotism to Feudalism to Capitalism to Communism).

quote:It is hardly debatable that Socialism as a system cannot compete with Capitalism or any market driven system, because Socialism is not geared towards competition. Capitalism may have a higher productive output, but it's also inherently unstable. Apart from its frequent crises in overproduction and underconsumption, there is also the issue of a disgruntled workforce, whose demands for a better life where they receive the value of their labour instead of making someone else rich are being oppressed by the state when they're not being blinded by nationalist or neoliberal rhetoric. quote:Competition breeds ingenuity and excels far ahead of the sluggish mindset of Socialism. Socialism, if it could come about would perhaps support itself supposing everyone went along with it (doubtful but still), but it cannot reasonably be denied that it would slow us down technologically. It can be reasonably denied. Technological advancement comes from knowledge, not competition. Competition is just one way of motivating inventors to invent faster. Capitalism suffers in that a minority of the working class have the knowledge or access to the knowledge. One of the features of socialism is free education; everyone has access to knowledge, thus socialism has a significant advantage in that area. I've heard and read a lot of opinions about how competition improves technological advancement, but all I can see is a contradiction. Competition motivates inventors to compete with other inventors for profit, which theoretically speeds up and improves advancement. In practice, however, competition is actually harmful to advancement, because it divides knowledge. Instead of the sum of knowledge inventing something of great value, you have competing inventions of lesser value. One ironic example of how a non-market (not necessarily socialist) economy has outdone a market economy in advancement is Cuba's highly successful pharmaceutical industry, where drugs such as PPG (the world's top anti-cholesterol medication) were developed. quote:I don't see what's so appealing about it, other than the fact that you'd no longer have the ability to be jealous of those who succeed beyond what you think is right. The appeal is that labour value goes to the people who perform the labour, instead of being extracted by a shareholder as profit. Other appeals include: 1. Job security. 2. Full employment. 3. Basic needs are guaranteed. 4. Less crime. 5. Free education. 6. Free health care. 7. No poverty. 8. No war. Shall I continue? quote:I seriously can't understand the Socialist obsession with class and competition. I seriously can't understand the Capitalist obsession with profit and competition. quote:It isn't fair that those who could excel in life be forced to live under the same level as someone who is 100% trailer park trash and beats there wife every night. Now who's using rhetoric? quote:It's pretty much a fact, that people who FEEL instead of THINK vote towards liberal candidates. A fact, eh? Prove it. While you're at it, try proving to me that conservatives don't feel instead of think when they vote. quote:Those who feel see their idealism as reality. That's why the sudden slap in the face of the liberal movement by the events of 9/11 has caused many of them to squirm because they are trying to deal with the situation in the only way they deal with any situation - whining about everything that their country does. I'm not whining now.