JanYpe

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: manticorefan Their ongoing campaign against KFC has gone nowhere. quote> I've seen a few posters about that. With a blood-stained Colonel Sanders stabbing chickens. Quite amusing, actually. Apparently, they want the chickens treated more humanely. Because a bird that's going to be killed soon anyway really needs to be kept in pristine quarters, or something. Clucking insanity. quote> It's not the fact that they want to speak out against the way animals like pigs and chickens are kept, which usually isn't particularly appetizing, that makes the likes of PETA look insane but the nutty and manipulative tactics they use. Things like that blood-stained Colonel Sanders you mention, or the posters about 'the holocaust on your plate', might get some attention for a second, but they're not going to make anyone appreciate their cause.

runt

fun

An entirely deserved and unsurprising verdict.

Originally posted by: Muck308 Take away our guns and you take away our best means of self preservation. If a full-on invasion were to occur, they wouldn't make it past Coney Island.quote> Only if your citizens happen to have a concealed carry license for some SAM batteries, artillery pieces, tanks and machine guns.

Pains

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: Easy Bakes who cares who voted for who?quote> Someone with power who wants to rig an election. Back in the day, voting was often done by grabbing one of two sheets of paper (color coded) and putting it into a box. The point was so that even if you were illiterate (which used to be much more common), you could vote by knowing "use the blue paper for candidate x, use the red paper for candidate y". The problem with this was that since voting wasn't anonymous, factory owners and other big businessmen were enabled to strongarm things. They'd tell their employees to all vote for a certain candidate, then station a "spy" at the polling place to watch and see if they could spot any employees voting for someone else, and if they did, to make note of who. That person would then show up at work the next day and be informed that his services were no longer required. So, private ballots to preserve voter anonymity were implemented to put an end to those shenanigans.quote> That reminds me of this bit from a book on the 19th century I'm reading: "...landlords in local and national politics expected support at the polls. Where necessary, it was enforced by bribery or coercion... One German landlord distributed completed ballot papers to his peasants in sealed envelopes. A curious voter started to open his to see how he was voting, and received a smack on the head from the outraged bailiff: 'It's a secret ballot, you swine!'"

Originally posted by: manticorefan Originally posted by: sam And please don't label people as uninformed or assume they are ignorant simply because they disagree with you. While it may be one reason for disagreement that the person is indeed uninformed, the other possibility is that they are knowledgeable and have examined the evidence to reach an informed and considered conclusion based on information that you may not be aware of.quote> But it happens all the time here, usually directed at those of us on this side of the issue. Now it's not ok? Did I miss a memo?quote> Ack, woe is you, for people didn't take kindly to the side of an argument that relies solely on falsehoods and assertions of faith. Because it's always the same misrepresentations, misconceptions and sheer fantasy that get dragged with undeserved optimism to the table by people whose view of god is so diminutive that anything that wasn't scribbled down more than two thousand years ago is dismissed out of hand. Shaking your fist and saying "but it´s in the bible and that´s all the proof you need" isn´t evidence of anything, just undeserved arrogance. "This side of the issue" does not and will never rely on informed and considered conclusions. "This side of the issue" is only in the issue, because some of the faithful were so blind that they couldn't bear having to adjust their view of creation to the discoveries that have been made. So go on. Copy and paste all the fundamentalist talking points that disprove evolutionary biology, the ones that prove biblical foreknowledge, the ones that prove evolution is a vast atheistic conspiracy and bring on whatever other fantastical statements you might have up your sleeve. But don't for a second pretend that it is anything other than sanctimony and hubris.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa It is just wrong to charge people for normal bodily functions. I know it is common in Europe, and even many US stores/restaurants (you have to buy something to use the bathroom), but it is a very asinine mentality. Barbarossaquote> I agree it's a strange policy to introduce on a plane full of paying customers, but why is it asinine elsewhere? Keeping a bathroom clean involves a cost, how is it wrong to expect some of that to be covered by the users? A bathroom where you are charged a very minor fee is preferable to no bathroom at all.

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic Your understanding of the bible is clearly skewed. A bunch of old men... lol. Again, you're speaking in typical generalized misconception based on lack of information, yet like always you claim to know things about which you propose false assumptions.quote> Claiming to know things without having evidence you say? Old men... consider that the first Christian church was started in reaction to the reappearance of Jesus, at a time when saying that you followed him was an offense punishable by death.quote>No, that is severly overstating the reaction to the early Christian movements. There were certainly sporadic persecutions until Constantine became emperor, but not like you describe. Yet for some unknown reason ordinary people suddenly became radical advocates of the religion,quote> What do you mean unknown reason? Religious cults and movements were all over the place in antiquity, certainly not exclusive to early Christian followers. with all of the disciples suffering deaths of intense torture after boldly setting out and preaching in dangerous cities, etc., Paul even asking to be crucified upside down, not worthy of the same death as his master. That means nothing to you, right?quote>According to tradition. Stories about saint's lives tend to be in line with the Hollywood school of writing when it comes to sticking to the facts: they make for great stories, but lousy documentaries. Peter was the one who was crucified upside down (which is why the inverted cross in Catholic tradition is called Peter's cross), Paul was supposedly beheaded. This is historical.quote>A whole lot of it is legend and tradition. It's hardly set in stone historical.

Originally posted by: Gridlock Stuffquote>Two questions: 1. What have you been smoking? 2. Where can I get some?

Originally posted by: Duke87 That's really the biggest flaw with democracy: policy is dictated by what's popular, not buy what's right and what works. And, people at large being idiots, the two often do not match.quote> Quite possibly the finest way to summarize democratic politics as a whole.

Originally posted by: abcvs Originally posted by: Leech10 Nikki: Ready to surrender? Nick: Or are you willing to risk the snoring when you're trying to concentrate?quote> They snore? Great. Sorry I had to separate them... they were driving me nuts with their constant yabbering... Problem is now they are yelling at each other across my sig... I am seriously beginning to think this is a bit of a bum rap...quote> And whatever you do, never, ever feed them after midnight.

No. Just, no.

Yeah I saw that, I like the husband´s complete indifference.

Haven´t we had this discussion 10 times before? I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day.

Originally posted by: hym How is the quoted comment a suggestion of going back to the gold standard?quote>It wasn't, but it's part of the trend of this thread to put more shine on gold than it really deserves IMHO.

Originally posted by: Duke87 "Think about it, if everyone decided tomorrow that gold was worthless and they would only take payment in gravel, what good would gold be?"quote> You're making a false generalization here. Gold inherently has value. Paper money only has value because the government says it does. If people didn't accept the bills, you'd have mere paper in your pocket, worthless. If people didn't accept gold as payment... well, for one thing, that's ridiculous, since why wouldn't they? But even if they did, you'd still have something of value that you could exchange for something else they would accept. quote> And you are merrily generalizing along. Not accepting bills would be just. as. ridiculous. Only on the internet and with paranoid libertarians (shall I go ahead and tick both boxes here? ) is a full return to the gold standard still a viable idea.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek My aunt said once that, time was, a business owner was proud of how many jobs he had created. Those days appear to be gone. quote> Then again they've been headed out the door for a long time. Industrialisation created the blue collar worker, and in the search for efficiency it has made a lot of them as obsolete as the skilled manual labourers they'd replaced. Anyone looking to go back to a moral economy these days just runs the risk of being painted with the big red 'socialist' brush. Originally posted by: manticorefanWhat that will lead to enters the realm of Conspiracy Theorists. quote> ...unlike the rest of your post? All you really left out was the part where you praise the many virtues (cough) of the gold standard.

6) Agent J, Men in Black (1)

5) A column that

4) A thousand paces 6) Greek and Latin

Originally posted by: Duke87 Wow, what are the odds? quote>You might say the odds were.....astronomical. :edit: My expert legal team informs me that to say this would be an offence to public taste, decency and humour, and I hereby retract the remark.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Unfortunately, I don't know a lot of clean, family-friendly jokes. I will refrain from pirate jokes... Here's one I can think of: What do you call a fly with no wings? A walk. Barbarossaquote> Ba dum tish!

Originally posted by: dedgren I just don't see the huge appeal beyond the novelty. The farm buildings simply "float" lifelessly on the completely undifferentiated (and unrealistic appearing) farm field base. Are we really ready to give up years of learned experience lotting and modding for a little 3D glitz? Compare those perfectly uniform (and boring) country roads with the stuff SC4 Rural Gods like Chris (chrisadams3997), John (Darmok) and Jackie (jacqulina) are doing in SC4 today. Like I said- I just don't see it. My hat is off to Monte Cristo for trying, but those pics, probably better than anything else to date, show the price of trying to live "off the grid." Davidquote> I´d like to think these rural pictures are more of a proof of concept (look guys, we´ve started working on farms!) than anything else. Abandoning all hope at this stage because it doesn´t stack up to SC4: Custom Content Edition seems a bit like being angry with your six year old kid for not playing golf as well as Tiger Woods. But I do agree that at this point a full 3D city builder relies a lot on novelty. If you´d call the previous City Lives and SCS the first generation and CXL the second, having this play as a coherent, less clunky and more rewarding game would be the best goal to reach for. I'd rather see an honest improvement to the genre, but with some limitations, than a game that tries to live up to the fantastical expectations of every potential customer, and ultimately fails to impress anyone because it tries to do too much.