Profile for Evnissyen
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Evnissyen |
| Member number | 15187 |
| Title | Warrior |
| Postcount | 178 |
| Homepage | http://www.gonelawn.com |
| Registered | Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| how to reach goodies at shaila's? in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, May 13 2008 00:28
Profile
Homepage
Was that the underground place leading into one of bunkers of the Shaper controllers (what were they called)? Moseh and so forth... . That place drove me crazy, trying to alternately avoid and find a way to turn off all those electrical fields. (EDIT: No, that wasn't Shaila. Ostensively I'm talking about something else. I remember the Shaila area being pretty easy.) (Wait: I think I remember what you're talking about. You have to squeeze around the southern edge of the south room and sneak inbetween the fields to get to a control that's there.) [ Tuesday, May 13, 2008 00:32: Message edited by: Evnissyen ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| What will scare the heck out of McCain in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, May 13 2008 00:23
Profile
Homepage
No, just presidents. It helps keep them in office, especially here in America. Americans love violence. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, May 13 2008 00:13
Profile
Homepage
Oh, for the love of humanity. Wiz: I wish you'd spend more time reading my posts. I've already explained all of this. The artistic endeavor evokes emotion and thought, which creates art, as explained here. Art does not "make" you feel anything. It's your own thought and perception that does it. Salmon: If I'm not mistaken, Jaws was supposed to feed on people's fear of sharks. The "Danger! Danger!" score undercut this basic fear. But... if Spielberg's intention, in making Jaws, was to manipulate people into feeling more fearful of sharks than they already are... then that proves my point. In that sense: Perhaps the score was essential . . . to complete the brainwashing process, right? Locmaar: Okay, you make some good points. I do have to say that the use of New Zealand as Middle Earth (which, I think I heard, Jackson had to fight Hollywood for) was an excellent move and the imagery is beautiful. I just feel that the too-often restless camera movements are obstructive. My opinion on films-of-books is the same as my opinion of song covers. If you want to cover a song: make it into something new; make it into something different. Don't just re-record the song. It's the same with films . . . but maybe this is beside the point. Mars: If I'm being "intolerant" then it's intolerance of the degradation of art. Thuryl: I do not agree that audiences are dumb. I think that they are trained by Hollywood and their kind to be dumb. I think that the dumbing down of society is a vast and complicated problem. Randomizer: Interesting. I think you're right about the tacked-on music, too. I do not, in fact, know if the soundtrack was Jackson's decision or Hollywood's demand (I've always strongly suspected the latter... even after Kong). I've heard Jackson had to fight Hollywood pretty hard on a lot of issues, such as the "genuine" nature of the weaponry (for example: I love that the weapons in the trilogy were not all perfect, gleaming works of craft) and the fact that the film should be shot in New Zealand and nowhere else. I give him credit for a lot of stuff. I just think that there were certain things that, in the end, ruined the film for me. Kelandon: It surprises me that Tolkien should've said that he "distrusted allegory in all its forms", since my understanding has been that the trilogy was largely an allegorical response to WW2? I could be mistaken. No scholar, I am! Also, if you argue that I'm nuts, then you might be correct at least there . . . that doesn't mean my argument is wrong. Sullust: Isn't knowing identical to perceiving? Or should we throw away the word "knowledge" as a word that means nothing? Perhaps that would be best. Also: As I always say: If just one observer . . . even the creator alone . . . thinks that a human creation is art, then it's art. That's why the DADAists were right. So, I want to watch a film that gives me room to feel and think. Why is that wrong? Perhaps with all this resentment aimed at me for daring to suggest that soundtracks should be treated with respect: I should ask why so many people think that I should fall into line and accept (and like) what Hollywood, or anybody here who disagrees with me, tells me to? Isn't that intolerance? So, you're attacking me for not sharing the vision you share... wow. What wickedness! (To use Locmaar's word.) Whew! These lengthy responses are tiring. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 01:45
Profile
Homepage
Okay, there's a good reason why I'm double posting, but first: Wiz: I prefer to be in control of my own emotions. As for music "adding something" to the film: 1. I think I already answered that question, as to my regard for the role of sound in film (which is that too many filmmakers have too little respect for it); 2. Filmmakers that use recorded songs are more often than not, I think, filmmakers that have a healthy respect for sound. I don't like that the cinematographers, writers (when not the direct), sound directors and even set designers get little recognition in comparison with the director and especially the leading actor/actress(es). Some cinematographers deserve to be advertised in bold lettering for the work they do. I do agree with you about one thing (if not the above): I, too, like to play my own music while playing games. Now, my reason for double posting, which is a short list, off the top of my head, of some films that I think are great: L'Eau Froid (I cannot watch this film without getting emotional) Buffet Froid (or mostly anything, really, by Bertrand Blier) The Dreamlife of Angels Crows Hour of the Wolf (Bergman) Winter Light (Bergman) The Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky) A Short Film About Killing (from Kieslowski's Decalogue) Blue (Kieslowski) Ratcatcher ...maybe I'll add more later... maybe other people can add their own lists... . [ Monday, May 12, 2008 01:50: Message edited by: Evnissyen ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 01:26
Profile
Homepage
Well, Star Wars I'll give a break, because it was, essentially, entertainment. I would've liked more from the prequels, though. As for Lord of the Rings... I was hurt when I saw the Fellowship (that being the only one I saw all the way through) because I was hoping for something more artful and artistic. Unfortunately Peter Jackson -- or Hollywood -- compromised the film by creating some sort of freakish hybrid of art and mindless entertainment. I was angry because I knew what potential Peter Jackson had in his hands (and I was a fan of his work), and he did not carry it through. The soundtrack ruined the entire film for me because it was distracting, and because it made me feel like I was being manipulated (which I was) and this I resented . . . and that distracted me even more. And this isn't even mentioning the over-wrought special effects (more distraction) and a few little gimmicks of the sort that drive me crazy, and a few things that did not make any sense. All this made me angry because of what I saw as a great thing tragically lost to the cruel god Hollywood . . . and I didn't even read the book. I can only imagine that if I'd read the trilogy I'd probably be angrier. I wanted to observe the characters. I wanted to know more about them. What I got instead was an insensitive soundtrack, outlandish special effects, lots of gratuitous swooping and close-ups, a nonsensical battle scene and a horse that, somehow, could not catch up with our heroes despite being just a few yards behind at one point. Mostly I thought there was too much emphasis on action and too little on character. And that was just the first film. I saw part of, I think, the second film, the one where the trees march (the trees were actually beautifully animated)... and I though that that one was better and I actually did enjoy the siege scene although I didn't like how it was cut up between there and the enchanted trees... I forgive that because sometimes, those things can't be helped, in a film. My comment on Del Toro being imperfect: Have I gone into my complaints with Pan's Labyrinth? There were a bunch. I don't want to get into it. I think I've insulted people enough already with my opinions and my big mouth. I should know when to stop, I suppose. I'm opinionated, and I love film, and I'm an artist who knows art... visual, audial, and written. So... I can be very, very critical. I can also be very forgiving when I see interesting things, when I see honesty and daring. I think I've mentioned a whole bunch of filmmakers, already, who fit that category. I don't expect everyone to be Tarkovsky & Bergman; that would be ridiculous. I just want people to be honest, and trust the audience instead of treating us like idiots and, in the process, degrading their work. I also have a tendency to ramble. Well, enough of me! Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Gemstones in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, May 12 2008 00:02
Profile
Homepage
I think I've said this before, but I've found wands to be all but pointless, as they're always less powerful than the spell itself, so I only ever use them when the spell isn't available, and then only rarely since the wand spells aren't very effective anyway. Plus, I find enough of them lying about, anyhow. Plus, the ingredients needed to make wands tend to sell for more than the wands. No need for the forge! The thrown gems in Geneforge are nice, though. I just wish they weren't so costly to make on the forge. I think if I'm making throwing stones on the forge, then I should be able to get several out of them, not just one. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Cooking in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 23:56
Profile
Homepage
Alright, now . . . do I really need to start up another vegetarianism discussion here? Thankfully there seems to be more fruit laying about in Geneforge & Avernum than there is meat, although... I never eat any of it. I prefer not to eat. In computer games even more so than in real life. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Geneforge 5 - May Update in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 23:49
Profile
Homepage
I do like the Quick Action idea. And that of adding more significance to creation intelligence. Synergy: Is that a trick question? Hot or cold, indeed. [ Sunday, May 11, 2008 23:52: Message edited by: Evnissyen ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Playing as a shaper in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 23:42
Profile
Homepage
Locmaar: Wheee! I can't wait for my perfect character. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| A present in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 23:29
Profile
Homepage
It's so silly I think I like it. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 11 2008 23:23
Profile
Homepage
Drew: The Lord of the Rings trilogy were not action movies! I think maybe that's the problem here: They were treated like action films, whereas, coming from people I know who've actually read the books, the books were anything but a description of a simple action adventure. And even action movies don't need nonstop orchestral encouragement . . . have you seen Wages of Fear? Sullust: Are you kidding? In what way is a soundtrack necessary to encourage a person's emotional response to sharks? Ask anybody you know: Do sharks scare you? C'mon... . ...And... the reason why you feel the original Star Wars would be worse for the watching is because the script is poor, not to mention the acting. (Well, at least Harrison Ford could act.) But having seen that movie again just recently I'll contend that the soundtrack, while charming, doesn't actually add anything to the film . . . and perhaps without it Lucas and friends would've been forced to realize that they needed to think over their script a little more, and perhaps hire better actors. Wiz: As I've been trying to say: I'm trying to describe the difference between a good soundtrack and a bad soundtrack. Spielberg has no (read: zero) artistic respect for sound. He sees it only as a means of encouraging emotion which, honestly, is natural to the human experience of a film and does not need encouragement. Nor am I looking for "perfect films". There are an awful lot of very "imperfect" films that I have high respect for. All that I ask of any artist is that they are honest: That's the most vital thing. If an artist is not honest, then how can I be expected to follow their lead faithfully? How can I accept a work that I do not trust? And in film: as people here have already mentioned, film is an extremely vital and versatile [and underexploited!] art form. David Lynch, as imperfect as he is (and he's very imperfect) gets this better than a very good majority of well-known directors of our time. He's obsessed with every element of film . . . and with sound, as I've said several times before, he is not at all lazy. In fact: I was one of those people who, directly after seeing Lynch's Inland Empire, defended it. I did agree and still agree with most people's opinion that the film was a disaster. However, as I was watching the film I soon came to realize exactly what I was watching: I wasn't watching a story . . . I was watching David Lynch. To me, the film was a landscape of David Lynch. I'll take that over Spielberg any day. Lynch is an artist. Spielberg's a mere entertainer. And before anyone raises the virtues of Entertainment, which I accept: I'll point out that I've yet to meet anybody who's read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and has come to the conclusion that it is, and was meant as, mere entertainment and nothing more. How about this: Imagine if Jeff Vogel decided to add a loud, imposing orchestral soundtrack to Avernum and/or Geneforge. How would that affect the feel of the game and the gameplay? [ Sunday, May 11, 2008 23:39: Message edited by: Evnissyen ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Playing as a shaper in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 23:20
Profile
Homepage
A slight variation on the topic, but I've always wanted to play a character who's strong in magic, moderate in shaping, and weak in melee. Even G4 didn't give me one. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Shaping Spawners in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 23:03
Profile
Homepage
Mr. & Mrs. Nesbit are eating the blancmange! I want to be the Walmart employee who greets that mobile spawner. "Sure, Mr. or Mrs. Spawner! You can find essence in aisle #7!" Anyhow... I remember thinking the same thing, when I first played G3, about wanting to be one of those shapers who has their own base or tower or so forth. I wanted to be Khyryk. But... while the idea of having players able to become super-powerful and then able to create their own bases or towers to be defended against adventurers (new players) or other very-powerful shapers intrigues me... it immediately conjures, for me, either an online scenario with 10 million players wandering around... or a SimCity or Civilization type thing... and the idea immediately sours on me. [ Saturday, May 10, 2008 23:21: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Corrupt shapers? in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 22:39
Profile
Homepage
Well, there aren't enough answers in the poll and one could argue that both answers are the same answer. The problem that the shapers have found themselves in by G4 . . . and I think it was made clear in the game . . . is that in order to combat the 'radical' tactics of the rebels and particularly the Drakons and their Unbound creation(s), they now need to resort to more drastic methods, they need to break some rules in order to win the war. Now, enter the canisters, stage right. Yes, they're arrogant and power-hungry. All people with power desire more power. That's the nature of the lifestyle. Same with the Drakons. They also wish to resume ruling the world, same as the Drakons wish to overthrow that rule so that they themselves may rule. These are just pieces of a larger, complicated picture. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 10 2008 22:26
Profile
Homepage
I really need to read those books... . Locmaar: What I mean, as I think I've said before, is that music and sound, in a film, should be treated with sensitivity and respect. If you want to compare this to actors, then think of Sound as a separate character. Do you want that character to be shouting directions at the so-called "third wall"? Or do you want that character to be contributing something, to be an active participant in the story and the film? And... In Star Wars I did not need to be told that Darth Vader was a mean S.O.B., it's evident in the story and with a good actor it's evident in the acting. The actor Lucas hired (I forget his name) to play Anakin in the Revenge of the Sith is talented enough an actor to portray his very human transformation without that little gimmick of lowering his head and looking out past his eyebrows. Nor did I need that overbearing soundtrack to tell me how to feel. We all know human psychology and with a somewhat better script there would've been no need for an emotive, orchestral soundtrack to tell us that something distressing is happening. We know it personally, and we understand it just on cues of the story and the performances. If you wish to add sound, then there should be a purpose to that sound. Fellini knew how to use sound. Kubrick knew how to use sound. Tarkovsky and Bergman knew how to use sound. Werner Herzog knows how to use sound. David Lynch, as I've said before, is an absolute master of sound, although at times he, too, lapses into manipulative elements. I don't blame him for that. Somebody here mentioned, a while ago, that laugh tracks can be useful in TV shows that feature sensitive jokes. I'd argue that a show like the Sarah Silverman Show, especially, is no less funny for the lack of a laughtrack. In fact, it'd most likely be less funny if it had a soundtrack. The Family Guy features 'sensitive' material also and its that very sensitivity of the material that makes the joke funny... without a laugh track. Slarty: If you want examples: You can probably take nearly any soundtrack coming from a Spielberg film for an example of blatant manipulative behavior. The soundtracks of most Hollywood films are blatantly manipulative. When you use orchestrations to convey a scary moment, a sad moment, a sympathetic moment, a cute moment... that's telling an audience whom, like Synergy adds, the director apparently feels is too dumb to get the point . . . or else knows that the script is poor and therefore requires that extra sugar coating to make it palatable. There are good writers around. There are talented filmmakers. The industry blocks them. Hollywood wants money, not art. Back to the Hobbit: I, too, am interested to see how the film turns out. Del Toro is a smart and daring director, though imperfect. For one, he ruined Pan's Labyrinth at the end by trying to unite the two worlds of reality and fantasy... then the feel-good ending directly following the girl's death -- that was necessary, I know, to pull the auidence back from the death of the protagonist, but I felt her death was unnecessary. The blood of an innocent? I don't know... but... that's a nut in itself that I don't want to get into. But, in short: Like Gilliam, he still doesn't seem to trust his audience enough. I think he should surrender himself to his art, and trust that his audience will follow. Both should take Bergman's advice and Tarkovsky's advice. It's not for nothing that those two filmmakers are considered two of the greatest in history. They both have faithful followings, and always will. Spielberg will fade. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Geneforge 5 - Possible Sects in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Friday, May 9 2008 19:27
Profile
Homepage
Damnation, Delicious: There will be no Vlish uprising! (And as for eating them: they're a little too rubbery for my taste.) (Also, their intelligence tastes a little funny.) [ Friday, May 09, 2008 19:28: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Geneforge 5 - May Update in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Friday, May 9 2008 19:18
Profile
Homepage
Yes, I found the Rotghroth very useful in G3... never tried it in G4. As for War Tralls: Isn't that the creature with that distressingly huge... tumor? I found that a little disturbing. I agree with Slarty that the melee creations need some strengthening. I tend to prefer the magic and fire creations, whenever I use creations. I tried that Kyschaak (sp?) for a while... I didn't keep it long. It didn't prove extraordinarily helpful. But as I've said before: The Wingbolts were brilliant. I picked one up as soon as I could and they're excellent creatures... when you're not on the wrong side of them. And.. Jeff: More quick-key slots! More spells! Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Friday, May 9 2008 18:47
Profile
Homepage
Of course I interpret it personally as manipulative. When I'm watching a film and I start to feel like I'm being manipulated, I get annoyed. That not only kills the film for me, it also distracts me. But... it doesn't take a psychological researcher to see that Hollywood soundtracks in particular (not to mention TV) are widely used (and near-universally successful) as a means of manipulating the audience. I think I'm intelligent enough and educated enough to be able to distinguish a soundtrack designed to manipulate the audience from a soundtrack which is as relevant to the film as every other element... the lighting, the performance, the writing... sound should not be treated as a means of telling the audience how to feel at any given moment, it should be an active and relevant part of the film. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| What will scare the heck out of McCain in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Friday, May 9 2008 18:30
Profile
Homepage
Mystic: Hey! You can't run for president! You believe in "the border between the Twilight Zone & the Outer Limits"! Only devout Christians are allowed to run for president! No magic-hugging heathens! Tull: Wait, what're your definitions of liberal and conservative? (Oh, and: same question for Thuryl.) (I'm curious.) Also, RE another comment: Yes, these forums do seem to've been suffering a lot of technical problems, lately. Salmon: I missed this point before, but: You're correct that Chucky is relatively [and temporarily] popular because he's seen as "harmless". Unfortunately, I don't believe he's harmless at all. As well as I can discern, were he elected (not a high probability for that, thankfully), he could prove about as harmless as Reagan proved. (Disclosure: I have another epithet for John McCain, but I'm not using it because it can be interpreted as unwarrantedly mean.) Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| What will scare the heck out of McCain in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Thursday, May 8 2008 09:18
Profile
Homepage
Thuryl: So, now rational thought is extreme? ...oh, wait . . . you're right, actually. In the U.S.A., rational thought has in fact become not only extreme but also radical. (EDIT for Salmon): Where's your sense of humor? [ Thursday, May 08, 2008 09:21: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Thursday, May 8 2008 09:04
Profile
Homepage
I understand what you're saying... but I'd argue that, there being a difference between manipulation by the artist and manipulation by the audience's own thoughts and emotions, the two should never be confused. The former necessarily hinders the latter. One of the funny things about art is that no matter how hard the artist tries to deliberately convey an impression: it seems to have this irresistible tendency of being 'taken the wrong way' by at least somebody. That's because art works by impression, not by communication. You the artist juxtapose a few ideas in order to help yourself figure them out and, while the result might mean one thing to you, the artist, it will mean something else to me, the audience. So... art and message are different. Impression and manipulation are different. Most people don't like intellectual explanations of art . . . that's understandable. But even if you don't want there to be an intellectual explanation: that doesn't mean an intellectual explanation doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. I'm not trying to suggest that art be straightjacketed (I'm the one who likes weird art, after all); I'm only trying to explain why bad soundtracks destroy otherwise good movies. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| What will scare the heck out of McCain in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Thursday, May 8 2008 08:37
Profile
Homepage
A Moderate is somebody who absorbs and accepts the rational arguments of both the left and the right of what used to be the political spectrum, and ignores the irrational. Chucky's pandering doesn't comfort me. Pandering did not make either Johnny Swiftboat or Senator Hillarious a Moderate. It made them liars. And, just because Chucky had the sheer gall to suggest he agreed with our Constitution's declaration against torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques" as my own x-Governor Willard so delicately tried to redefine it) . . . and just because he denounced Jerry Falwell and Friends before asking for and then embracing their endorsements . . . does not make him a Moderate. It makes him John Kerry. Lt. Sullust: Sorry; your link only sent me to a page that demanded that I identify myself. Is there another link? Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| What will scare the heck out of McCain in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, May 7 2008 23:48
Profile
Homepage
Politics is the practice of convincing other people to believe what you believe and therefore to do what you want them to do. Salmon: I don't believe that either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party literally represents anyone. They each have basic platforms -- the Democrats want to govern, while the Republicans favor plutocratic recklessness -- but does either party really represent anyone in particular? Even whatever candidate happens to be running for whatever office at any given time? As for primaries: I still believe we should have a 3-day weekend-long national primary. Problem solved. Lt. Sullust: Unfortunately, I've met too many people who I don't believe would ever vote for any politician since they've already closed their minds to politics. Because politicians must do what they must do to get elected, and then must do what they must do to pass legislation for the consituencies they represent... these people have become turned off -- permanently. Even Barack Obama will not bring these people to their senses. They've apparently resigned themselves to the will of the uneducated masses and the corporations who control too much of our lives. Nothing will get them to vote or become active. As for the Democratic nominee: He was chosen a good many weeks ago, it's just that Sen. Hillarious and her supporters did not want to admit it. They still don't want to admit it. A small portion of her supporters are Republicans who plan to vote for McCain in November. (They've admitted it in exit polls.) Most of the rest will get over their tantrums after 'all the dust settles', as they say. I wouldn't worry about it. Tullegolar: You're kidding, right? First: Chucky is not now, nor has he ever been, a Moderate Republican. Lincoln Chaffee was a Moderate Republican. Olympia Snowe is a Moderate Republican. Chucky is a Conservative and always has been, but he's also a walking identity-crisis, the Republican equivalent of a Centrist. I'm not really sure he knows himself exactly who he is. As for Obama: He's hardly "extreme". He's about as liberal as you can get in a national electorate that has been convinced (with the Centrists' help) that liberal=bad, but he's not a strong liberal like Kucinich. For example: Obama is not against the death penalty. He does not publicly support same-sex marraige. Obama has not promised to pull our troops out of Iraq immediately. (He's proposed a "phased withdrawal" which, I suppose, could mean anything.) I also believe he hasn't taken nuclear weapons "off the table" -- although I believe it's safe to assume he does rule out the use of nuclear weapons in any situation whatsoever. Still: Unilateral nuclear disarmament is a liberal position. I also believe he eats meat. In respect to the party platform: You're right that Obama's pretty on-target. But does this mean that you believe that the Democratic Party's platform is "extreme"? [ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 23:49: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Geneforge 5 - Possible Sects in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, May 7 2008 15:12
Profile
Homepage
But why would a human or servile play in favor of the Drakons? After all: only the Drakons like the Drakons, who want the whole world and all the power for themselves and -- let's be honest -- would prefer to enslave all species to serve them. . . and the human and servile rebels in G4 admitted that the Drakons were a "problem" that they would need to deal with after their more pressing problem -- the Shapers -- was taken care of. I voted Shaper, Radical Shaper, Human Rebel, Awakened, and Trakovite. It seems inevitable that the Rebellion will break apart, and the Shapers as well . . . and the Trakovites seem to hold a good portion of the answer to ending all the strife. (EDIT : The first paragraph was for Dragonlord..) (EDIT : ...and Raji) [ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 15:18: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Oscars! (for Mad Scientists) in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, May 7 2008 13:57
Profile
Homepage
No! No no no! I'm talking real life, here! Real mad science! Let's start in the area of gene alteration... I'm sure there's plenty of crazy stuff those scientists can do! Or plastic surgery -- the plastic surgery field is exploding (so to speak) because of the money... we already have a growing number of people doing crazy, interesting things to their body... probably most people here are familiar with the cat guy. Let's hear about some truly insane plasticsurgifications. The maddest plastic surgeon, if you like, or the maddest gene alteration... why don't we start encouraging our scientists to create crazy new species? Wow... did I just bend this subject around into Geneforge? Sometimes, I amaze myself. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |