Profile for Or else o'erleap.

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 14:07 Profile Homepage #56
quote:
I have lived a life largely by the principles of health I hold, and I know the benefits and advantages I have enjoyed for my choices. I don't expect to languish and die in a hospital with cancer or heart disease, because I have made choices to forego that likelihood.
You can reduce your risk factors for heart disease, and you can to some extent avoid carcinogens. (It's hard to avoid genetic predispositions!) You can't guarantee yourself health.

Nobody expects to languish and die in a hospital, but it happens.

quote:
Health is not rocket science. I find it really is very simple with some very simple principles when reduced to its most common denominators. Mechanisms are complex. The principles are simple. We either choose to recognize and live in accordance with them, or not, and suffer the consequences. We have enough information now to have little excuse otherwise, really.
No, health is medical science. How can you "find" it simple when you candidly admit that you aren't an expert? You have enough information, but some of it is quite wrong according to the medical mainstream and I still don't understand what gives you the expertise to know better.

quote:
[b]If I ever came down with cancer, the first thing I would stop doing is eating red meat and any processed food. Cancer is the body's best last remaining way to contain a diseased state that is otherwise going to kill you. The cancer is not the enemy or the cause of your illness as much as it is the manifestation of the disease state that is finally manifesting that way.
[/b]

That's simply false. Cancer is a disease caused by genetic damage. When tumor suppressor genes are mutated and no longer prevent uncontrolled cell proliferation, the result is cancer. It has nothing to do with containing anything, and it certainly isn't due to the food you eat unless the food you eat happens to be carcinogenic.

quote:
I subscribe also to a psychosomatic component of disease. In this view, some disease is fueled by pervasive emotional states such as anger or depression. These create energetic states in the body which alter cell behavior, because cells respond to energy as signals along with chemical signals.
Once again, there is a psychosomatic component to disease, but it's not because of "energy." Our emotions trigger complex chemical signalling by hormones. They have effects on many organs and cells, and the immune system is included. If you're depressed, so is your immune system, but energy is not involved in the process.

quote:
Alternatives to going in to a hospital for chemotherapy when you develop cancer is to radically change and simplify your diet, your lifestyle, your drink, your stress-levels, your emotional environment, and put into your body the precursors for the nutrients it most needs to overcome the particular cancer you are dealing with.
And then you die. Can you find any shred of credible evidence for curing cancer with macrobiotics? I can't. If the only support is from the alternative medical community, then there's no way we're going to agree here. (I suppose that makes me partisan, but I'll take the scientific side for science, thanks.)

The effects of heat and cold on the body can be explained without recourse to what I'll continue to call mysticism. The same is true of wet and dry air. If you're congested and you can breathe easier in the shower, it's not because the shower is doing anything but keeping you warm and giving you warm and moist air to breathe.

[Edit: Is it just me, or is there condescension going both ways? Syn, calling everyone else closed-minded because they disagree with you isn't terribly open-minded itself. To turn your perspective around, we accept that there can conceivably be benefits in alternative medicine but that they haven't been shown whereas medical medicine has been proven over and over. You, on the other hand, have closed your mind to medical science and persist in rejecting it based on what you believe to be better without actually taking the time to understand medical science on even a basic level.]

—Alorael, who thinks this discussion has reached total deadlock point. Maybe it needs to move to Spiderweb chats now. If anything can improve a good virtual shouting match, it's putting it in real time!

[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 14:11: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Golddale 5 in The Avernum Trilogy
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 13:49 Profile Homepage #1
Yep. And the Trainspotting characters, and Malloc/Calloc from C++, and so on. There's a thread about it somewhere.

—Alorael, who was happy to find a new addition in G4. The Baroque Cycle deserves all the references it gets and then some.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 11:45 Profile Homepage #48
quote:
Originally written by Synergy67:

So, Alo, I'm in concurrence with what you just wrote. I am not against scientists or science. They are the ones who have done so much of the work I see as more helpful and hopeful than allophathy has been, for instance.
Let me rephrase what I said so you no longer agree. Allopathic research has led to great advances in medical understanding and treatment. Alternative research has mostly led to nothing. There are occasional treatments that work, but it's been left up to the allopathic scientists to figure out why and what else can be done.

quote:
I resist dogmatic attitudes wherever they are found, whether in science, religion, or psychology. I question the values that may drive science and technology. Things often get done because they can be done, not because it is better for us that they be done.
But your opposition to the current standards of medicine seems pretty dogmatic to me. If you don't understand how and why it works, how can you legitimately reject it?

There are two values that drive research. One is the bottom line, and that takes precedence in industry. Pharmaceutical companies aren't trying to make the world a better place, although their work often does. The other side, which I'd argue is really the more important side, is basic science. Figuring things out because we can leads to most real advances in medicine (and other fields).

quote:
I believe we have many such alternatives available and a great number of ongoing discoveries and exploration in this regard, thanks to science as well as to long-held practice. I believe we could be well-served to open up our vistas for consideration of a wider range of treatment for ourselves than the prevailing paradigms encourage.
But here's where you need to be a scientist. You are no more qualified to judge where the frontiers of medicine are than I am to determine the most promising future prospects of particle physics. It's the MDs and PhDs doing the research who are in the best position to know where the research should go.

I'll admit that most medical professionals have a knee-jerk rejection response to alternative medicine. Not all of them, though, and it's the ones who study homeopathy, acupuncture, and other alternative medicines in a serious and scientific way who are doing what you wan. All too often, though, the results aren't glowingly positive. Many therapies have no effect beyond placebo, which is not worthless but also not medicine. Some therapies have definite negative effects, because compounds ingested are drugs no matter how natural they are.

I'm willing to concede that there could be untapped knowledge in alternative medicine. It's not there in all alternative medicine, though, and there is known potential and power in surgery, drugs (including chemotherapy), gene therapy, and the like. Yes, they have toxicities, but those toxicities are known and documented (and part of the push for personalized medicine based on genetics, incidentally).

—Alorael, who would like to know what should be done for cancer, bacterial infection, autoimmune disorders, and so on and so forth. If there is a standard therapy that has documented efficacy, why is that therapy automatically inferior to alternative therapies that don't exist?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 09:09 Profile Homepage #44
[Edit: Basic chemistry time! An ion is a molecule-like atom or group of covalently bonded atoms. Where molecules are electrically neutral, ions are molecules that either gained or lost electron pairs and are therefore charged. They're central to many reactions and can either react to form new molecular compounds or combine with ions of opposite charge to form neutral ionic compounds. Table salt, sodium chloride, is the iconic ionic compound of Na+ and Cl-. Ions don't inherently cause cell damage; they are, in fact, necessary to life. Some reactions harmful to cells involve ions, but that's because the majority of biochemistry involves ions.]

It's all been said before with varying degrees of rage, but I'll say it again:

Popular opinion is a bad metric for science. Most people don't undesrtand medicine, and their decisions to reject "allopathic" medicine in favor of alternatives isn't scientifically meaningful. People have been deluding themselves over thousands of things for thousands of years. Now is not any different.

Drug companies promote their drugs because they are companies and have profits to worry about. Scientists working for drug companies are understandably concerned about making drugs that work because it's their job. Other scientists, however, are concerned with other things. How about iRNA for gene regulation, or (yet again) NCCAM, which tests the alternative therapies you propose for whether or not they are effective? Most aren't, but the ones that are get more study.

Again, Synergy, you seem to have a belief that science needs to be rejected simply because it is so smugly self-satisfied. That's fine, except one of the most basic and fundamental aspects of the scientific method is skepticism. Scientists try to prove themselves and each other wrong constantly. Science requires verification and failures of falsification to a degree that no other human endeavor matches.

Finally, you claim that our health is far from optimal and a great deal of it is due to our lifestyles. In many ways that's true. We're too sedentary, too overfed, too used to eating unhealthy food (unhealthy for a variety of reasons and components, but yes, unhealthy). We live stressed lives with too little sleep, both of which reduce immune function. It's all true, and in an ideal world we'd fix the problems.

However, most of those aren't medically fixable. Your doctor can't make you eat better. He can't make you sleep more. He can't replace your stressful job with a healthier one. What are we left with? Treatment. If people get sick, deriding them for it isn't useful. Treating them with drugs, acupuncture, or whatever else is effective is better.

—Alorael, who adds a new problem to the list: the fallacy of medical omnipotence. Doctors can't fix Western lifestyle problems. They can only treat the results and make recommendations, and they do both. Everyone wishes there were a better lifestyle solution, but blaming the treatments as inadequate helps nobody.

[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 09:39: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
The Beginning Was The End in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 08:40 Profile Homepage #3
Anyone who loves Alec loves him for his invective as well as everything else.

I'm glad you're back and sticking around too. Spiderweb's not the same without a little two-fisted fury.

—Alorael, who guesses he'll have to get used to one-fisted fury now. And all these years he's been accepting no substitutes...
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Myspace lol in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 08:38 Profile Homepage #2
Myspace may be evil. I'm not really all that familiar with its intricacies because of an even greater problem:

Myspace is a horrific abyss where aesthetics and literacy go to die.

—Alorael, who would like to know who decided it was a good idea to apparently give everyone access to all the HTML they'd like and turn them loose. Black and neon pink with heavy metal MIDIs and "lol oka im chil" is a cry for help in the form that comes to pedestrians.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
another environmental topic in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 08:33 Profile Homepage #7
Buying local produce seems irrelevant. When you buy locally, it's either going to be organic or not. You still have to decide which to buy. And that's only if there's local food in the first place.

My understanding is that the world doesn't have a food shortage. It has a distribution shortage. Growing more food is not the solution, but moving more food for less effort and money or growing food in more locations could help.

—Alorael, who thinks that dragging the Malians into the picture misses the point of the article, which is pretty clearly aimed at the first world. In Mali the problem isn't how to grow food; having any food, no matter what its provenance, is coming out ahead.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Best Game Ever? in Geneforge 4: Rebellion
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 08:22 Profile Homepage #17
Oh, sure, there are nice changes to Jeff's engines since Nethergate. I just don't think the flaws are bad enough to really detract from the game experience.

—Alorael, who thinks Nethergate hit upon something close to the best of all possible keyword system.s You don't have to type them all in, and you don't have to guess and click like in E3. Having the keywords in blue makes it fairly easy and close to a response system except for the ability to guess what else might get a response.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
8000: Pseudoscience Postravaganza in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Wednesday, December 13 2006 08:18 Profile Homepage #46
I can see hooking a plant up to something, but a polygraph measures such signs as heart rate and blood pressure. Plants don't have either one. Maybe it would have to be transpiration rate and, uh, photosynthesis? I suppose surface conductivity remains viable.

[Edit: As it turns out, that's basically what he did. Monitoring conductivity due to water movement is a decent plant polygraph, I guess, although ascribing emotions to it seems to be a bit of a leap. Just a bit.]

—Alorael, who wonders what people are supposed to eat once the plant rights activists join with the animal-rights vegetarians. Soylent green may be the only food left.

[ Wednesday, December 13, 2006 08:23: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 22:37 Profile Homepage #25
I'm likewise baffled. Why do you think biology has not incorporated the changes in physics in chemistry into its advances? It has. The "paradigm" that you seem to object to is the use of drugs, particularly psychoactive drugs. They aren't a paradigm, though. They're the tools that we currently have.

Pharmaceutical research is narrowly focused on pharmaceuticals by definition, but other medical fields aren't all drug-based. Consider radiation therapy, which is very obviously a use of "waves" instead of "particles"! (Note that it also has its drawbacks.)

Ultimately, I think you are disappointed in drugs, particularly psych meds, for working only some of the time and for having devastating side effects some of the time. Drug inefficacy and toxicity are known problems, and they're the reasons we don't all pop pills like candy. Ultimately, though, if they're the best tool then they're used.

Not liking pharmaceuticals is hardly uncommon, but it's also counterproductive. Drugs work better than the absence of drugs on average. We try to find new and better ones and we try to improve the ones we have, both in their effects and in how to target them, but they're imperfect.

—Alorael, who feels compelled to also point out that drugs have a tendency to affect cells by acting as signals. They're obviously not able to alter DNA directly (most of the time), so they make cells do the work for them. That would be exactly the approach you seem to want except for the use of "particles" instead of pure "energy" to do it.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Sie beissen auf Granit. in Richard White Games
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 22:24 Profile Homepage #22
No sé qué es un garzón, pero si yo viera un mil de cualquiera cosa que anduviera cantando (menos cantantes, supongo) yo huiría gritando.

—Alorael, who thinks he may have inflicted linguistic stress upon an undeserving language. Haklimmah shelo gadol.

[ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 22:29: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:25 Profile Homepage #11
Yes, you need a background in science to discuss science. Why is this surprising? If you didn't need such a background, nobody would study sciences to become a scientist in the first place!

You don't need to be a scientist to discuss metaphysics; scientists are in fact not especially well equipped for that discussion. Metaphysics, however, are not relevant to health care, quantum mechanics, or the physical definition of energy.

[Edit: Paradigm shifts require a genuine challenge to the paradigm. You can declare the dominant scientific paradigm to be wrong, but if it still finds the answers it needs there's no reason for anyone to listen. As Kel and I have now both said, part of your argument is from ignorance: if you don't know what scientists are doing, you can't chide them for not doing it.]

—Alorael, who thinks you have now stated the problem. You believe the universe can be expresed in simple terms, but you are not a scientist. The scientists study it and express it in complex terms. From what position of authority do you declare the experts wrong because their pedestal of expertise makes them blind?

[ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 20:27: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 20:15 Profile Homepage #7
Let's leave out the physics. They're just making things murkier.

[Edit: Okay, a little physics. Newtonian physics advanced long after Newton's death, and just he didn't deny the existence of energy at all.

Also, you are conflating two different things. One is that living beings are composed of matter and full of energy. That's scientifically fuzzy, but it makes sense. No argument. We radiate energy? Also uncontestable. That energy has effects? Of course. All radiated energy has effects. Here's the problem: the source of energy does not alter the character of that energy. Electric fields from brains are the same as electric fields in your computer's circuits. There's no reason to give them special treatment because they have mystical appeal.]

Syn, you've got some false premises mixed into your understanding of cell biology and science. There's nothing magical about brainwaves, but brainwaves are electrical. We understand electromagnetism quite well physically, and it's already a subject of research biologically. The origins of those waves don't make a difference in any current model of physics, and biology has to be based on physics.

It might surprise you to find out that Chinese traditional medicine is, in fact, studied by Western scientists. Sometimes what they do works and can be explained. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it works and can't be explained, but that is always the subject of further research, not rejection out of hand. Again, look at NCCAM.

The Central Dogma is quite simple. In a nutshell, DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein. There are subtleties, of course. Most DNA is not transcribed, and a great deal of RNA isn't translated. There's no argument about the basic principle, though. Information flows one way (except with reverse transcriptase).

The Central Dogma does not claim that DNA controls biology. The cutting-edge DNA chip technology was designed precisely to show the effects of upregulation and downregulation of various genes. It's not even arguable that external (and internal) signals play a huge role in what cells do with their genes. It's accepted fact. Cells can't make proteins they don't have genes for, but they can do many, many things with what they do have, which is why we have red blood cells and neurons and leukocytes.

This far I don't disagree with you except where you claim that science ignores signalling. It most emphatically doesn't. But then you claim that thoughts and emotions have effects on our cells.

Actually, that's true. Thoughts and emotions can change our biochemistry. That's known, and while a lot of it is still not understood, it's being explored. It's explored as biochemistry, though, because there's no reason to look for new causes for the same effects. If a stressed mother has a fighter baby, it's not because her thoughts alter the embryo's development. Her stress level may release hormones, however, and those hormones can affect development. I don't see what makes this latter approach invalid except for the lack of special privilege for what's in our heads.

Pharmaceuticals are only one element of medical research, and they produce results. So do studies that show us how to live healthier lives. Do you think the effects of fat, cholesterol, calories, exercise, and yes, stress were and are studied only by Big Pharma? "Overall well-being" is definitely a goal of medicine, but it is pursued just like all other medicine: from the basis of the science we have.

Ideas outside the dominant paradigm are rejected because the dominant paradigm is the scientific method. If you have to posit whole new fields of science alongside the existing ones without evidence when the existing fields seem fully capable of explaining the phenomena in question, you are rejected because what you're doing isn't science.

—Alorael, who is all for studying everything. When the studies come up negative, though, it's time to stop spending and move on. To turn the skepticism around, why are you so convinced that biochemistry cannot explain psychosomatic effects and the like? Why is a novel form of energy interaction required?

[ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 20:20: Message edited by: In Times of Tandem ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
8000: Pseudoscience Postravaganza in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 18:23 Profile Homepage #37
You're mixing science and mysticism, Synergy.

Pharmaceutical companies stick with drugs. Occasionally they branch out into novel forms of treatment, but drugs are what they do. I'm less familiar with surgery, but I believe it works on the principles of figuring out what needs to be done and then doing it, usually with exhaustive research in advance. If it works, it becomes part of the repertoire.

You claim that energy is "100% efficient." On what basis? Energy exists and does things, but it never does 100% what you want. That's basic thermodynamics. Energy is also quite often tied up in the molecules and chemicals you disparage. What fuels our cells? Molecules that store and release energy.

The effect of current and electric fields on bodies are studied. The other "energies" you name aren't energy in any scientific sense. Emotion and thought aren't "pooh-poohed" because they seem less quantifiable. We can't quantify them, and we don't even try to quantify them as energy because they aren't.

First, discussion of what is physically energy: there is a great deal of research done, but you make it sound much more mystical than it is. Running current through someone isn't (usually) helpful. Phosphorylation of proteins is studied, but it's not based on waves of energy from extrinsic source. We know exactly where our ATP comes from and generally what it does, and yes, our understanding advances with chemistry.

Thought, emotion, and other non-scientific energies are studied as well. Take a look at NCCAM for a big example. Promising studies are taken seriously, but most claims are shown to be baseless.

The other side of this is, of course, neuroscience and psychology. Nobody denies the valuable and different contributions of these two fields of science. Yes, we know that emotions have an effect on health. There are ways to study it, and it is being studied, without recourse to a rejection of the scientific method or medical science.

Take a look at recent advances in biomedical science. In the past few decades we've gone from discovering the structure of DNA to sequencing the whole human genome. DNA chips let us look at protein expression regulation in thousands of genes simultaneously. Proteomics now includes modeling fantastically complicated structures and understanding their function and, yes, where their energy comes from. Bioinformatics lets scientists sift through vast amounts of data. How do all these amount to Dark Ages?

For the record, a great deal is known about where cancer comes from. It's usually not diseased immune systems. Genetic predispositions, chemical carcinogens, and even energy in the form of radiation all have their roles. There is plenty of focus on how to prevent or reduce the occurrence of cancer from a purely physical point of view.

—Alorael, who would like one serious suggestion of a specific area into which scientific investigation is lacking and could lead to novel new treatments. Claiming that mysticism isn't taken seriously isn't a very strong argument for those who don't take mysticism seriously.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
I was afraid this day would come.... in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 16:04 Profile Homepage #40
TM has been banned since the beginning of August. It doesn't seem like he's been gone that long...

—Alorael, who actually thought it was only since early November. Maybe it's the long shadow he casts across Spiderweb. In fact, one could probably go far in making Sauron metaphors for TM.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
8000: Pseudoscience Postravaganza in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 10:24 Profile Homepage #26
That's true for your general practitioner, but cutting-edge (sometimes literally) medical science is very much aware of energy and quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics have their place, such as in analyzing forces at play in muscle and skeletal movements, but biochemistry tends towards chemistry, and chemistry requires quantifiable answers.

—Alorael, who just Thuryled. He's quite proud of it, too, although he's a bit sorry that he didn't stoop all that low.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Avernum 5 Early, Early Notes in Avernum 4
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Tuesday, December 12 2006 10:20 Profile Homepage #95
Avernum is much smaller than Valorim, much less densely settled, and much more wildernessy. And since Avernum-Silvar is supposedly named after surface Silvar, I think the timeline can once again be put down to Jeff not thinking too hard about it.

—Alorael, who can live with loose timelines. It makes the EE a little messier, though.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Avernum 5 Early, Early Notes in Avernum 4
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 21:27 Profile Homepage #91
quote:
Originally written by Randomizer:

Actually with the power requirements to reach that far underground their were only two portals. The prisoner one to Fort Avernum and the military one that led to the base near the Abyss.
Those are two exits (plus one more for the nephilim), but who knows how many entrances there are? On the other hand, there may be one big central portal down to Fort Avernum with many smaller portals from all over the Empire that go send prisoners to the banishment portal.

There was a two year gap between the portal's closing and the Empire War and then 12 more years until A3. That's not enough time to settle Valorim! The Empire might use magic to build its major forts, but I think even province capitals are likely to be plain old stone. There's no indication that the construction is unusual in the games, and there's no uniform style (Lorelei stands out!) to indicate a common origin. Even Krizsan, presumably the last city to be setled because of its location, is fairly large and bustling. Even with magical help, it would take decades for settlement to reach that far south unless every town started with only one family.

—Alorael, who checked the Encyclopedia Ermariana and discovered that Valorim is home to about 10 million humans, most of whom are second and third generation settlers. That indicates somewhere between 50 and 75 years of settlement, and to him personally it reinforces his lack of faith in the EE.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Best Game Ever? in Geneforge 4: Rebellion
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 21:15 Profile Homepage #12
And I still think that Nethergate's engine is better than Geneforge's. Different tastes, folks.

—Alorael, who likes being able to click to move. He likes being able to press a button to move more, though, and selection by letters is great. You can play the game fairly well with no mouse use.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Is the Shaper Camp unbeatable? in Geneforge 4: Rebellion
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 21:09 Profile Homepage #6
I gave up on Turabi quickly, but Thornton and the Barrier Zone both fell to my combined might and willingness to reload and try again a lot.

In retrospect it's fairly obvious. The only thing missing is a notice that some areas aren't supposed to be tackled.

—Alorael, who has a new strategy for the lifecrafter: go in with an army and send them ahead while you cower by the exit. When they're dead it's time to leave the zone, make a new army, and repeat. If you are in grave danger you can always absorb all the creations and flee. That's beating the system at its best!
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Avernum 5 Early, Early Notes in Avernum 4
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 19:25 Profile Homepage #85
I find the whole "wild frontier" aspect of Valorim overdone. It's got large cities and plenty of towns. It has roads everywhere. It has ancient ruins! I think people have been there for a century at least, and there's definitely no way everything from Delis to Blackcrag could have been settled in the few years between the Empire War and A3.

I agree that there must have been many portals into Avernum, but they probably all dumped into the same terminus. Finding more than one exit would take more work, not less, and the Empire isn't keen on the comfort of its rejects.

—Alorael, who now can't remember what, if anything, came of the various mentions of the nephilim having a separate portal into Avernum in A1. This is just his day for not remembering.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Nethergate 2.0!, 2.0!,2.0! in Nethergate
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 19:21 Profile Homepage #5
You play as some very bewildered sidhe who get dumped into an entirely different setting. I'm seeing space ships and blasters against faerie magic and crystal wands.

Okay, so it's a bad idea.

—Alorael, who still thinks there's a little mileage in prequels. Or same-vein-quels.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Use Other Message Icons! in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 19:18 Profile Homepage #2
I ignore them entirely. I don't use them and I don't look at them. I don't like emoticons, graemlins, smilies, or any of their ilk very much, and having the opportunity to use another one doesn't fill me with joy.

—Alorael, who supposes he should have put more effort into it. Using all grouchy faces got someone a custom title once upon a time, or so the story goes.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Avernum 5 Early, Early Notes in Avernum 4
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 17:26 Profile Homepage #79
I was confusing the two. I remember Aydin's Tower, but I also have a false memory of talking to Aimee there and then getting her message and gift in A2 there.

—Alorael, who now can't remember if Aydin ever reappears or gets any recognition. An A2 mention would be logical, at least.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
I was afraid this day would come.... in General
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Monday, December 11 2006 15:15 Profile Homepage #21
Digging up dirt on those in power is a very effective tactic.

—Alorael, who is glad that there is no hidden dirt in his past. All his dirt is common knowledge and most of it is proudly claimed.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00

Pages