Põdi

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: I'm not $iLk, I'm Menchise! ROTFLMAO Man, how could ANYONE confuse you two. that's the funniest thing I've read all week!

quote: I should've caught on that Jedis don't wear kilts. Yes, you should. Mind you, if Jedi Knights did wear kilts, I wonder which tartan? MacGregor would be the obvious choice I suppose.

quote: The lightsabre scene was actually from Braveheart. I'm a fool. Fendi, how the hell could you confuse a few hundred claymore-wielding sweaty-socks with Jedi Knights?

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Make that six. OK, seven. Could have BBQ'd Jar Jar, and Anakin was a whiny little brat. But the podracer scene and the final battle with THAT music were just awesome. Never saw it at the flicks, but I too bought the video.

IIRC, it was a known bug and has been fixed. You have to quit the game completely, then restart and you should be OK. If I'm wrong, someone please put him straight

Originally posted by $iLk: quote: The Northern Alliance ran Afganistan before the Taliban, and actually things there were a little bit nicer. Women were allowed to uncover their face without being bullwhipped and beaten with rods and chains. They did? I thought it was that General whatsisname, who's hiding out in southeast Afghanistan (I think) at the moment. People actually welcomed the Taliban at first, they brought some sort of order out of chaos and the crime rate became non-existant (not surprising since even not growing a long enough beard is a beating offence). I think people were prepared to put up with a lot of restrictions, as long as the war was over. Then they realised what they had let themselves in for. Did you know the Taliban make Afghan Hindus (or was it Buddhists?) wear yellow circles clearly visible on their clothing? Remind you of anything? They say it is in order for them to be recognized easily, so they won't be punished for non-Islamic practices. Yeah, right. Not sure about the Northern Alliance, what is their agenda exactly? They are anti-Taliban, but what is their interest in the rest of Afghanistan? They are hardly representative of your average Afghan, but rest-assured they will demand a considerable say in any post-Taliban regime.

Kain, What version of Mediaplayer do you have? The same happened to me till I got the latest (7.1 I think). Without this, some of the explosion .avis also won't play, causing it to crash.

As Charlie Brown so eloquently put it; 'Good grief!'

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Oh? Did you see the episode (about 3 weeks ago) about the medic? Or the one the week later about Bastogne? I haven't seen them all, so maybe I missed something. We're proabably a few episodes behind the US over here in the 3rd world. What I have seen just didn't compare to the first 20 mins of Ryan, yet still managed to convey to horror and realism of combat. quote:I moderated it. (stuff/crud) used to be another word. Strange that it didn't put the "Edited By Charles" thing Thought that might have been it. Strange indeed.

I've only seen a couple of episodes, but so far I'm very impressed. The acting is first class, and the action sequences are extremely well done, without the necessity of the graphical content seen in Private Ryan. Am I right in thinking it's based on a true story? Top marks. (BTW I didn't see any bad language Charles, did I miss a deleted post?)

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Given your answers above, why then did you bring this up in THIS thread? It was just a follow up to the discussion between Jag and Emmett, that's all. Hadn't really occurred to me before. That'll be all for now.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Where do you see STO's implemented? And do you even KNOW what an STO is? If you DO know what it is, what makes you think it would be mounted on a naval craft? *sheesh* Did I say they were? I had the impression they would be implemented in MP. Yes Why not, seems like a good idea. *hseehs*

quote: Former Mirror chief foreign correspondent I didn't really have to read much further. The Mirror is a notorious tabloid rag. Sensationalist journalism at its worst I'm afraid. Very clever though; a lot of WHAT he says is true, but you're right, a lot of sentimental crap and interpretation make it sound oh so heart-wrenching. Hell, he makes some points I agree with, just can't stand the sickening tone he makes them with.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Emmett, that is where those OTS missiles can REALLY come in handy, soften em up, then take them!!! On that point, do naval fleets have STO batteries? Or are they strictly ground-based?

quote: And the Palestinians wouldn't feel persecuted if they didn't attack Isreal during the 50's in the first place. The Palestians made their own bed -- now they must sleep in it. That's not exactly true. It all started by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which Guaranteed at homeland for the Jewish people. Unfortunately, similar guarantees were made to the indiginous Arabs. You know what happened next. Did you know Menachim Begin was a leader of one of the more extremist Jewish terrorist groups who killed 100s of British servicemen and policemen? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Sound familiar?

I think you find that God and Allah are one and the same. The arabic people are said to be descended from Ismael (I think, this being dragged up from the far reaches of my memory). They also see Abraham as the father of their people and recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet, though NOT the Son of God. Unfortunately, I think radical muslims don't BELIEVE they are one and the same God. Therein lies the problem. The Koran is more similar to the Tora than the bible, ie an interpretation as to how to lead your life and worship your God. Or something like that. I really should do more research on stuff like this. Just a point about killing in the name of your God, Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other in 1000s in the Middle Ages in Europe, in the name of God. Even the KKK and ultra-prods in NI today consider the Pope the Antichrist and Catholics as the hordes of Hell themselves. Wholesale slaughter in the name of religion is nothing new. I also saw an Islamic website explaining why the Taliban form of Islam is a perversion on true Islam. It quoted Koran verses which state that 'Compelled' religion is not true religion and is in fact counter the teachings of Mohammed himself. Another disjointed ramble from Paddy's shitty work Mac

quote:Originally posted by Urza: I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. $iLk just can't stop sparking debates and controvercy. It's what he does best, eh $ilk?

$ilk, can you ever start a thread without mentioning the word liberals?

Sorry Outlaw, I meant Mutant-X any good? I thought Andromeda was OK, haven't seen much of the 2nd series though.

Hmm, has this thread evolved again? Sorry I wasn't around Jag, had an enormous migraine yesterday and felt like shit. Anyway, this will (hopefully) be my last take on the matter. You know, before Darwin, Creation had been taken as fact by most people. Only after he had made his observations and started to develop his theory did the concept of evolution start to make headway. Do you think he did it to be a pain in the arse to the church, or because he made an observation and formulated a theory to explain that observation? He was subsequently ridiculed, just because he had dared to question the religious dogma at the time. No, you're right, no-one has conclusively proven evolution, but there is ample evidence to support the theory; whether it be classic gradualism, puntuated equilibrium, or a mixture of the two (my personal favourite). However, I have seen NO evidence to support a 'Creation theory'. Yes, I've looked at 'Creation Science' literature and web sites and all they do is attempt to debunk classical research and evidence, without providing a single shred of evidence towards a meaningful alternative. The term 'Creation Science' itself is a contradiction in terms; Creation is a religious doctrine, which requires the faith to believe in it; science is the objective measurement and observation of data, leading to the proof or disproof of a theory. The two should never be uttered together. Creation does not fulfil the criteria for a science in any way, shape or form. If you look at the Buddhist theory on the Creation of the Universe, they believe in a cyclical chain of events, whereby the universe is created, lasts for several billion years, contracts and the whole thing starts again. This is more akin to the big bang theory than biblical creation. Whos religion is correct? I grew up in a Christian household, my father is a retired Church of England minister, yet he is also a pragmatist. Yes, the story of creation was preached (and was taught at school as part of religious education classes), yet it was never put forward as dogma, but more as an attempt by the scholars at the time to explain the hitherto inexplicable. I'm simply a Biochemist, not an evolutionary biologist or paeleobiologist, it's not my speciality, but I look at the geological, astronomical and biological evidence put before me and weigh that up against a few chapters in a religious text. For me it's clear. What I find disconcerting is that people try and turn Creation into a science in an attempt to get it taught in schools as an alternative to evolution theory. Creation is purely a religious concept. Therefore, is it a devious plan to introduce religion into the curriculum disguised as a science? Which brings us back full circle to the initial topic I suppose. We must all be Buddhists then I'm sorry, I'm not the best debater in the world, I tend to ramble. Jaguar's post always read much better than mine. But then he is a salesman after all (aren't you Jag?)

quote:Originally posted by Emmett.hendrick: The new series of Andromeda has only just started it still has a good 8-10 episodes to go so if your right it will be a while. As far as Sky's scheduling goes it doesn't bother me I don't really watch any sport but I am a avid Sci-Fi fan. Have you watch Mutant X on Sky on Wednesdays yet? Not yet, any good?

quote: Ah, it's phrases like that that make me wish I were English. Well, I'm off to the lift to go downstairs and get some pop. Sarcastic wanker. While your downstairs, could you pop into your yard, go to the car parked on the sidewalk and fetch the salantro (sp?), which is in the grocery bag in the trunk?

OK, it's late, and I've just got back from Z├╝rich, having watched my hockey team lose 4-1 in quite a dreadful match. So my brain isn't working 100% right now but I just had a thought. If evolution is false, why bother with procreation? Let's face it the development of a complex multicellular organism in the space of 40 weeks from a single cell is a pretty awesome event and nigh on 'mathematically' impossible. Yet it happens, all over the planet, all of the time. The developmental process is a highly complex interaction of cells, growth factors chemokines, cytokines and the temporal switching off and on of genes as and when is necessary. To me, it is akin to evolution itself. If 'God', or whoever is out there, can place, or destroy, new species over the planet at will, why bother with development? Just create a new little, complete person when you want. If my argument is flawed, then it is no more flawed than the theories of 'Creation Science'. Another point, 'micro-evolution', 'macro-evolution', 'speciation' are basically terms for the same thing; change. Like I said, it's late and I need my bed and I'm not going to surf the soft-underbelly of the web to find references to support my views, because quite honestly, very few people in this thread have done so either. And *thanks* Jaguar for throwing me in at the Scientific deep end. Over and out. Z├╝rich 4, Fribourg Gott├®ron 1. Bollocks.

quote: because its "blueprint" will NEVER change. That statement is actually FALSE. Genomes are mutating, be it on a very small, scale all the time. In fact it's a wonder they remain as constant as they do. When we reproduce, the chromosomes in our germ cells undergo a process known as homologous recombination, which means that portions of homologous chromosomes break, swap over and recombine. This process is pretty efficient, but not perfect and mistakes do occur, leading to point mutations, deletions etc. Thus the genome has changed, ever so slightly. These changes may be disastrous, in the case of genetic diseases, passive or beneficial. The point is, change has occurred. Mistakes can also occur in the processing of RNA and in DNA replication. Now you might think that this happens to us all, all of the time, but there is a fairly efficient repair mechanism going on which can repair mistakes and mismatches, but it is not 100% efficient. Such mutations may only occur once every few generations, but it shows that the genome is dynamic. Another point that Creationists try to put forward is how did cells miraculously appear? well it's quite simple really; take an aqeuos solution and add some phospholipids to it. At a certain concentration, the phospholipids form vesicles, which are spherical bodies where the hydrophilic ends are in contact with the water and each other, and the hydrophobic tails point away from the water and associate with each other. This can form a bilayer, which is the exact basis for the cellular membrane seen in all living organisms. Scriv, the article I mentioned about the whale was a scientific paper the peer-reviewed science journal Nature. Unless you can get to a library, you won't be able to read it online unless you have a subscription. Now, I really must get on with my research.

quote:Originally posted by Tac: Yes, I heard the box even came with ointments designed to return sensitivity to your butt. Awesome! And a wrist support. To, uhm, protect your wrist during fierce mousing activity I meant. Honest. Nothing else. Really.