Profile for Kelandon


Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Blades Chat! (Time TBA) in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #18
It's still kind of going, if anyone is thinking about joining.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Links updated in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #0
I just updated my links list for BoA. If anyone has anything to add or fix, let me know.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bipolar in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #116
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

God seems to have an inordinate fondness for partial differential equations. I'd like to know why.
Wouldn't we all! :P

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Who Killed General? in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #41
quote:
Originally written by Arancaytar:

About OMS being cut short: Database hickup. No data loss, the topic record was set to a length of 194 for no obvious reason. Fixed now. I'd look into what caused it (I suspect it's happened at least once with another topic), but it's so rare and non-fatal that I'm putting it a bit further down the todo list.
When I look at the last few pages now, I get this: "Uh-oh! This topic is empty. That means either the file is missing, the file is corrupted, or the program is messed up."

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bipolar in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #114
Synergy: I think I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I would want to say it in a somewhat different way. Your brain (and the rest of you) are sufficient to produce your mind, emotions, spirit, whatever. That means that all of your decisions are physically just chemical reactions in your brain. But they're still your decisions; the fact that they arise from physical processes doesn't mean that you don't have responsibility for them.

You say that you like to think in paradoxical ways. Well, try this one on: Your chemicals completely determine your mind, and so in a very physical way, you are completely controlled by your biology. But at the same time, in a very practical and real way, you do have the ability to make decisions, and so you are completely in control of your biology.

It's much like what SoT has proposed, that in any physical sense, the biology is all, but that doesn't negate the effectiveness of talking about emotions, mental states, maybe even spiritual things. They are fundamentally physical things, but talking about them in a physical way is not even completely possible with current science, so we may as well use simpler (though somewhat less exact) terms.

(That post was incoherent. Huh. Maybe this is a particularly difficult subject to discuss.)

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Exodush.. in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #11
Well, if you messed with the scripts, yes, but there's nothing that players can do that I'm aware of that will have this effect.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Exodush.. in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #8
Exodus pushes the edges of the BoA engine, and BoA is very ragged at the edges.

But the automap thing is new to me. I've never heard of that happening and don't have any idea how it could.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Problem in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #13
Goldenking, PM sent.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bipolar in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #102
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Based on your statement above you are impossible to convince as you require an impossible burden to be met.
You misunderstand, I think. You can convince me without proving anything. It just happens that, in this case, you'd need some pretty impressive evidence to convince me.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bipolar in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #99
I think ADoS meant "curative effect" when he said "effect." I mean, sure, a significant effect of Thorazine is noticeable amounts of CPZ in the blood, but in context, that's clearly not what was intended.

You wouldn't expect the same drug to work exactly the same in everybody, because people have different body chemistries.

A non-material cause is in principle fine in the scientific method, as long as it can be measured or analyzed in some way. In practice, such explanations tend to answer one question by begging ten more.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Blades Chat! (Time TBA) in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #8
I believe Colorado is Mountain time, so it's 2 p.m. in Colorado at 4 p.m. EST.

And it's an AIM chat. You invite yourself to join the chatroom "blades" (or ask a Spiderwebber to invite you, if that's too technically challenging).

[ Thursday, December 27, 2007 16:48: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Avernum , Geneforge or ? in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #5
The game engine and the universe are different. The graphics are different (and different people prefer one or the other) — a screenshot will tell you more than I can in words. In Avernum, you're an adventuring party in a fairly normal sense. In GF, you create a host of monsters to help you. Avernum is completely turn-based; GF is real-time, except in combat.

All of this is in reference to Avernums 1-3, of course; A4 and A5 are a little different. Personally, I'd recommend starting with Avernum 1, but there are those who would put forward A2, GF1, GF4, or Nethergate (also a very fine game).

[ Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:44: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Exodush.. in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #3
I was assuming from the title that you were experimenting with playing Exodus while drunk, but I shall try not to be too disappointed that I am mistaken. :P

Ignore the "skill too high" thing. That just happens in high-level parties. It has no in-game effect (except that your stat sheet will now swear that your maximum health is zero).

[ Thursday, December 27, 2007 02:26: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Who Killed General? in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #18
I'm still getting some 500 errors, but it's not as bad as it was yesterday or this morning.

So Aran, is it the case that a thread vanishes from view on PPP while it's being updated? Omaha Mall Shooting definitely wasn't there last night, and it's definitely there now.

And clearly Misc killed General. In the hall. With the revolver.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #472
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Why on earth would I need to show that?
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

It’s only discrimination when gender has nothing to do with a matter. Since gender does have something to do with sex and sex is related to marriage it is not wrong to make a distinction on the basis of sex. For the same reasons, you can marry my sister, but I can’t. That’s not discriminatory. Again, you may think it should be allowed and make a case for it, but this doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

Ah, I think there was a misunderstanding regarding the word "sex." It can mean either the act ("sexual intercourse") or the physical trait ("biological sex"). In any possible case of confusion, it would be good to specify. I took you to mean sexual intercourse, but from your reply, I suspect you meant biological sex.

In that case, you're mistaking my argument for Thuryl's. I think that Thuryl's argument probably has merit, but I haven't made it myself.

Just to remind you, my argument was that same-sex unions are equivalent in all important respects to opposite-sex unions, and the only reason to allow one and not the other is prejudice (or some other form of unconstitutional interference).

quote:
The government can’t interfere, but is it obligated to recognize religious status. I’m not an expert on the Constitution, but if I made a religion that had the rank “Chief of Police” would the government recognize me as the Chief secularly? I think they’d say, “Call yourself whatever you want, but we ain’t buyin’ it.” If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right?
This preceded the posts to which I was referring. I'm also not sure how it's relevant: we're talking about the government choosing to favor certain people over other people ("You here get the benefit of family law applying to you; you over there don't") without any good reason.

quote:
I don’t think the government’s treatment of marriage makes for inequality or takes away liberty. You can have a union with 2 men and 2 women so that each bisexual will have a way to fully express themselves, have a ceremony, a reception, live in a house together or whatever you want. The government not recognizing you doesn’t stop any of that. Does the Constitution say the government has to recognize every decision that a person makes?
This also doesn't address my argument.

quote:
Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor
This does relate, but it supports my point. I'm not sure what you mean by doubting that it means that "sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex," but it doesn't matter. "The government can't interfere in the bedroom" will do: the government is not allowed to promote some kind of sexual intercourse over some other kind of sexual intercourse. (And yes, the stuff that gay people do counts as "sexual intercourse," by Lawrence v. Texas, among others.)

As for your definition of "interfere" down below: use the normal definition of the word, and the statement remains true.

quote:
You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection. It struck the law criminalizing homosexuality, right? We aren’t talking about action against, but inaction in not recognizing.

I object every time you bring this up, but I’m the one not getting a response. And by “interfere in the bedroom” I mean illegalize private sexual behavior.
Uh, not getting a response? If UBB wasn't refusing to show me pages 17 and 18, I'd quote my reply to this very statement. I think it was the thing that you quoted above, though.

Anyway, the reason that I'm bringing up Lawrence v. Texas is as proof that the Griswold decision — the government has no business legislating one kind of sex over another — applies to same-sex intercourse as well. No more, no less. I could also cite the Brown v. Board decision as showing that prejudicial laws are unconstitutional.

In case you're unclear: the decision said more than just, "Sodomy laws are no longer allowed." There was a whole decision explaining the legal reasoning behind that. It's that reasoning that I'm citing, not the actual result itself. You keep referring to the result as if that's all there is, but there's much more to any Supreme Court decision than that.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #461
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Prejudice is not illegal.
No, but laws enacted on the basis of prejudice are unconstitutional. You cannot argue this point, unless you really want to go out on a limb.

quote:
And making distinctions between sexes is not necessarily discrimination.
Well, literally it is, but you might say that it's not prejudicial discrimination. In general, it may not be.

quote:
What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage. The very designation of what you’re pushing for – homosexual marriage – belies any such claim. You all can’t say it should be allowed because some are sexually attracted to their own gender out one side of your mouth and then say it’s not a sexual issue out the other.
Why on earth would I need to show that? As I keep telling you, same-sex partners can have sex, so the occurrence of intercourse is not a difference between same-sex partners and opposite-sex partners. The kind of sex is the difference.

You then replied that the government is within its rights to try to promote opposite-sex intercourse. I then replied that, according to legal decisions from Griswold v. Connecticut out to Lawrence v. Texas, that is not true. The government cannot legislate on the nature of the sex that takes place. A constitutional right to privacy, first articulated in Griswold and most recently extended to same-sex intercourse in Lawrence, prevents that.

You have yet to respond. (When you did respond, you went with the "They think it’s good for society" line, which doesn't address the fact that it's unconstitutional for them to legislate on this issue, whatever their beliefs are.)

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bipolar in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #79
quote:
Originally written by Randomizer:

I once researched drug testing and for psychiatric drugs, there was extreme scientist bias. The so called double blind tests failed because the tested drugs have extremely visible physical side effects that make it impossible not to know who got placebos.
It is possible to get around this — make your placebo something other than a sugar pill, something that will also have definite effects — but it certainly presents non-trivial challenges.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Meep.. in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #9
The Crystal Wand in Exodus is stronger in base damage (though it lacks the extra bonuses that Adlerauge gives).

I designed the items in Exodus to be a step above the items in Canopy. I figured that it's a higher level scenario, so parties might be coming out of Canopy into Exodus, and it would be lame not to get any new gear. So for every item in Canopy, there should be an item in Exodus that's stronger, unless I missed something.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bipolar in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #73
Good call. :)

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #455
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The two points are (1) prejudice against homosexual people and (2) denying gay marriage. Homosexuals are entitled by law to equal protection. That does not mean they are entitled to do something that no one is entitled to do, namely, marry someone of the same sex.
I figured you'd say this, because you've said it before. But you missed the role that the Equal Protection Clause played in the argument. It only shows why prejudice and prejudicial discrimination are unconstitutional. The rest of the argument showed why not allowing same-sex marriage is based on prejudice alone.

Put another way: I had already connected not allowing same-sex marriage to prejudice. You asked what this has to do with constitutionality. I replied with the EPC. You then completely forgot my argument and the question that you had asked. Focus, man! :P
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Well, if it's not a choice, but still a sin, then God's got a pretty cruel sense of humor.
See: original sin. You didn't choose for your ancestors to sin way back in the day, but you're still tainted by it, at least according to that line of reasoning.

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:08: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bipolar in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #71
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I am largely not amongst my kind in an environment full of people whose preoccupations are the hard sciences.
As I tried to point out earlier, many of us are not that way. I do study some astronomy, but the reality is that I'm a Classics major who occasionally dabbles in physics. Many of the rest of us are the same way, conversant with basic science but not really scientists.

quote:
And it sometimes I become very angry in response. When I speak at those times, it ain't pretty, and I get into trouble.
I recall a little bit from the equivalent of our CoC over at the Ambrosia Software boards that suggested that one should never post while angry. Walk away from the computer. Wait a few hours. Sleep on it and come back tomorrow. I have found this (when I have the self-control to apply it) to be extremely good advice.

quote:
I am inclined to rail at times against "scientists," because I have found that a person like myself who operates more in the realm of intuition and feeling, is typically despised or discarded by the spirit of science and those who dwell in it.
Even the soft sciences (such as psychology) have embraced the notions of evidence and plausibility.

quote:
Science does look and feel very much like the, yes, stereotypical male mindset in the world to me. I see it as the natural product of the way the male mind seeks to experience, know, manipulate, and control the world in very concrete terms.
I brought up Haraway earlier because you're not the only person who has said something like this. As long as you say that it's the stereotype of a male perspective and not the actual perspective of males, then you're in safer territory.

quote:
It's wonderful. It's also only part of the grand puzzle and experience of life, and it could be more humble to at least consider the possibility that there is much outside its grasp that is relevant to our existence.
This is what I've been trying to point out for a long time. In saying this, you're not making waves. You're not original. You're old news. Really, really old news. People know that science can only answer some of the questions about the universe. But for the questions that it can answer, there's nothing better. And see above about the soft sciences.

quote:
Around this I at times become upset, because I see it negating many wonderful things and people. It denies God. It reduces Love to neurochemistry and hormones. Science is unromantic.
No, no, no, for the love of all that it right and good in this world, NO!!

Science does not deny God. Science has no interest in God, because that's outside the realm of science. Some people claim otherwise. They are wrong.

See SoT's post about "just" neurochemistry. Neurochemistry is an incredibly complicated field, and the chemistry of love is elaborate beyond current reckoning. But (and this is key to understanding why science adds to, not subtracts from, the beauty of a phenomenon) it's in the interplay between the physical causes and the effects that the awesome power and mystery of science can be found.

Put another way: Maxwell's Equations (together with the Lorentz Force Law and some properties of matter) contain basically all of the information of classical electromagnetism. They contain a certain beauty in themselves, in their simplicity and symmetry. But we study Maxwell's Equations not for their own sake, but for the sake of understanding the stuff in the world, like a rainbow. To a scientist, a rainbow is pretty, but looking at a rainbow and then deriving it from first principles is amazing. You can appreciate with intuition and feeling, but appreciating with understanding may be the highest form of appreciation.

When I learned what Rayleigh scattering is, I ran outside and watched the sun setting, because it was beautiful before, but it was many times more beautiful now that I could describe how the colors got to be the way that they are.

I knew a Jewish scientist who uttered a Hebrew prayer in praise of God every time she found out something new and incredible about how the world works.

Science is not unromantic. Science is deeply romantic. Science is profoundly emotional.

quote:
For the kinds of things I do like to talk about, and the way I do like to communicate (which is full of wordplay, irony, paradox, teasing, subtlety, and the seemingly contradictory side by side), I don't know how much better I could make much clear in print alone without derailing and negating all the devices I like to employ.
But people do write with considerably more of those devices than you do and still they are understood. It's not the fault of the devices.

quote:
Anyone with a remote sense of who I am should realize
But you keep saying that we don't really know you. That you can't really communicate. Don't assume that we'll figure out what you're trying to say. Tell us. You're having trouble being understood because you're hoping that we'll follow the same long train of thought that you did as you were writing, but we consistently don't.

This is what I meant by, "Say what you mean." And hell, use a graemlin or two if you need to convey tone. That's what they're there for.

quote:
I don't personally find women difficult to understand or baffling or mysterious. I think the primary reason men do is because they have largely been isolated in gender roles which serve to disconnect them from parts of being which women are permitted to be and express,
This is what I mean when I say that you should lay off the stereotypes.

quote:
Originally written by Pompopsych:

don't blame demographics.
Because when you do, you're stereotyping again.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages