Profile for Drew

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
Homeland : The Stone of Night is now officially a freeware game in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, January 30 2008 08:55 Profile #52
It's his opinion on a game that is no longer associated with this site. What's wrong with him expressing his opinion? He's equally free, as far as I'm concerned, to disparage movies that came out this year, for example, or the Beatles, as has been done in other threads. Further, Imban expressing that he doesn't think the game is worth waiting ten minutes to download != "this game is suXX0rz, and anyone who plays it is dumb." So don't get bent out of shape! You seem to be taking the criticism personally. Don't.

[ Wednesday, January 30, 2008 09:31: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Homeland : The Stone of Night is now officially a freeware game in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, January 29 2008 07:23 Profile #38
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

I only remember this board being reasonably active during my first few months here.
Coincidence, correlation, or causation, I wonder?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Heath Ledger in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, January 29 2008 07:18 Profile #12
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

The problem with life is that no one can get out of it alive.
Yep - the world death rate is still holding steady at 100%. :)
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
2007 Movies in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, January 29 2008 07:09 Profile #12
I really enjoyed Stardust (I had no expectations going into it, but I'm a sucker for fairy tales) and the Bourne Ultimatum (solid, solid sequel in a breath-of-fresh-air-to-the-genre action movie series).

I wasn't crazy about Spider-Man 3 - perhaps my expectations were too high. Likewise, the third installment in the Pirates series, while incredible effects-wise, was pitiful when it came to plot. They ended what started as a campy, fun series as an epic tragedy, where none of the characters were really likable, and the other jokes were getting old. The appearance of Keith Richards was needlessly gratuitous.

Harry Potter was okay. Perhaps some of the magic has diminished with knowing how it's all going to end. Live Free or Die Hard was also a fairly worthy addition to the series (certainly better than the second one), though the pacing at times was a bit too slow - I think I was spoiled by the third one. I actually really liked the Transformers movie. Maybe it's flawed (the selling out to GM was gratuitous), but hearing the original voice actor for Optimus Prime do his thing really tugged at my nostalgic heart strings. I certainly feel though that it's come closer to the spirit of the original series than more recent additions (Beast Wars, the CG one, any of the new series on CN). The girl was also smokin' hot too. :)

(P.S. - Nija: it's Megatron.)

Haven't seen Sweeney Todd yet, but I'm planning to, and it likely will end up being my favorite for the year - Sondheim is amazing. Other than that, the rest of the movies really haven't registered with me.

[ Tuesday, January 29, 2008 07:15: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
SimCity: the greatest evil? in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, January 29 2008 06:45 Profile #27
Yeah, because Europe is really doing so poorly right now. And how are those societies that just support no one doing? Oh yeah...
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
SimCity: the greatest evil? in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, January 28 2008 05:13 Profile #22
Wow, that's a lot of assertions without any supporting evidence! No system is "free"; money has to come from somewhere, and in the case of single-payer systems, it's the taxpayer. Furthermore, systems on that scale that work well pretty much exist in all other industrialized nations in the world. While there would likely be much pain in transitioning to such a system, once it's established, there's no reason it wouldn't be very effective. Consider also that the US would have the benefit of every other nation's experiences to draw from.

"Bureaucrats and politicians have a way of taking a problem and making it worse."

They also have a way of taking a problem and making it better. I invite you to open your eyes and consider all of the infrastructure surrounding you that you take advantage of everyday without a second thought, among the myriad other things that your tax dollars support and that would never exist otherwise, thanks to the problems of collective action and how the "rational" mind functions. See the Tragedy of the Commons.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
I seek the meaningless approbation of my fellows in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, January 23 2008 06:06 Profile #4
Mods: please make this thread go away.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Deathmatch Tournament -- Round Two, Part One in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, January 18 2008 09:34 Profile #141
I'm just surprised this thread has survived since MagmaDragoon left. You know it's time for a thread to die when many members who were originally included are long, long gone.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, January 17 2008 04:10 Profile #6
The signals are easy to find out on the internet. Give the police some credit.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Deathmatch Tournament -- Round Two, Part One in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, January 15 2008 11:00 Profile #120
...and a +11 Hackmaster as well, I suppose, because that would be the KEWLEST!!! :rolleyes:

[ Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:00: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
[censored]! in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Sunday, January 13 2008 12:07 Profile #22
I don't think anyone here has said that it will work. I in fact said that it was unconstitutional. I really don't understand what your beef is.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
[censored]! in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Sunday, January 13 2008 11:12 Profile #20
That's great. Town councils, on the other hand, are in the business of managing municipalities, and can't just drop everything to brood over the nature of the war. While their methods here in dealing with this issue are poor, it doesn't change the fact that there are very real day to day problems that have to be addressed - here, the matter of making sure that civic order is kept. I don't know about you, but I sure prefer attending bars where I believe fights are less likely to occur.

[ Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:17: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
[censored]! in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Sunday, January 13 2008 09:40 Profile #18
Yeah? How much worrying about Iraq do *you* do on a daily basis?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
A Bile Crux in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Sunday, January 13 2008 07:24 Profile #13
Probably one of the original Cult of Richard White threads back in the old Richard White Games forum. Pan lever in eternum!
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
[censored]! in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Saturday, January 12 2008 15:42 Profile #15
Well, it's completely unconstitutional, and as soon as it's challenged in court, it will fail.

Mainly, I think these town council wonders just want to score some political points with people who don't even go in bars very often. It's pretty idiotic, though.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Locking in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, January 11 2008 14:23 Profile #163
It's points 2 and 7 that are the non-sequitors. Given the VAST amount of the universe and even the Earth that we haven't observed, I think that the jury is still way, way out on whether we can make such statements with confidence. As Salmon alluded, we're missing a number of puzzle pieces due to the effects of the ages. Much of the evidence is being burned up and blown out the tail pipes of our cars as we speak.

Willful agent may as well equal magical god - I think they're synonymous (for your purposes), so I just figured I'd call a spade a spade. What your answers sound like are the big cop out used when things are too complicated to be immediately explained. The fault then lies in our (current) inability to comprehend things fully, whether due to a lack of tools, formulae, evidence, or even raw mental ability. If we're keeping score, however, science has done a much better job of figuring out the nature of these things than religion, historically.

I think you are giving current scientific authorities too much credit if you're going to assume that because they don't have a satisfying answer, you must be right. As I've mentioned, I think the jury is still out, so to speak, and if that's the case, why throw your hat so willingly into the ring with less compelling evidence?

[ Friday, January 11, 2008 14:26: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Locking in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, January 11 2008 07:45 Profile #149
Yeah, because obviously, lack of an immediate compelling answer on a web forum = support for a role played by a magical god. :rolleyes:

Let's turn it around:

Please show the logical premises that support the conclusion that a magical god is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Debateable Question in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, January 7 2008 17:47 Profile #3
This isn't debatable. Christ! Get some taste. In before this disappears from the forum.

[ Monday, January 07, 2008 17:48: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Locking in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, January 7 2008 12:12 Profile #3
It violates the Code of Conduct.

You cruisin' for a "Canned" custom title?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
300 in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, January 4 2008 14:26 Profile #24
quote:
Originally written by It hates Iffy:

The post count celebrations I guess are based on how people post. People like Alorael and I probably will have higher post count celebrations (Well, then again my activity has slowed). And people who aren't as post happy like Taliesin will have lower post count celebrations.

This is theoretical, of course.
Frequency of post celebration topics is negatively correlated with relative awesomeness.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Who Killed General? in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, December 27 2007 17:31 Profile #28
Aran, is there a reason I'm only getting 8 pages of Omaha Mall Shooting in the archive? Thanks!

(Of course, I'm only interested if there are replies after mine. If there weren't, ah well.)
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Who Killed General? in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, December 26 2007 11:27 Profile #6
So did the boards eat the "Omaha Mall Shooting" topic, or was it *i/Drakey/Saunders? 'cause I thought we were really starting to get somewhere there. :rolleyes:
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, December 25 2007 15:47 Profile #469
(1) I am not Kelandon. Though I think he's a swell guy and I largely agree with him, it's a bit unsportsmanlike to me to his assertions;

(2) It is disingenuous of you to conveniently omit parts of my argument that don't fit nicely with your points of contention; the work stands as a whole;

(3) As far as I'm aware, "regardless" has never equaled "because";

(4) When those lawmakers were writing those bigoty laws, it was because they fear gay people being gay. Furthermore, if the institution they cherish is so strong, why does or should it need legal protection? If anything, that belittles the institution, much like any other sort of legal "propping up" of any institution, be it a farming industry or other religious handout (like exempting churches from paying property taxes).

(5) Laws can be enacted that aren't constitutional. Laws are created by elected officials, who care far more about what their (often times mouthbreathing) electorate think of them than the Constitution under which our nation was founded. There is no constitutional test required before laws are passed.

(6) At the end of the day, it's the Constitution that matters most, because it is the "core rules" of our system, so to speak. Believe in God (or not)all you want, but the Constitution is the standard against which all laws in our nation are measured. Whatever either side on this issue believes or asserts, it will be by this standard, and no other, that this issue is decided. So tell me: why do you think the Constitution allows for the government to discriminate in favor of heterosexual couples for purposes of regulating marriage?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, December 24 2007 20:41 Profile #459
"Prejudice is not illegal" is a straw man, Stillness. What is of concern is that legislating based on a prejudice that violates one of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution is unconstitutional.

"What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage."

Once again, you're setting up a straw man. What we need to prove (and have, I think) is that sex has nothing to do with marriage for purposes of government recognition and regulation. I think we've pretty much covered the bases for the reasons why the government has regulated marriage the way it has historically, and we've determined that it hasn't had anything to do with a couple's respective sexes. It has only been since relatively recently that the general population (and in particular, the reactionary Right) have become aware that gay couples want legal recognition. It isn't listed in the law books as "heterosexual marriage"; it's just "marriage." Why do you think there've been all the recent knee-jerk passages of various and sundry "marriage is between one man and one woman" laws and amendments in the several states? It's because the definition was ambiguous, and homophobes were frightened that a "lifestyle" that they loath would be further validated if they didn't act. What this demonstrates is that there is not a settled precedent in law, but that there is a genuine constitutional question here, and that it will be a question of first impression before the court, i.e. carte blanche.

Ultimately, none of those laws or amendments will matter in the US if they don't pass constitutional muster. Hopefully the Justices other than Scalia (whose mind seems pretty made up, given his dissent in Lawrence) will do the right and brave thing, should the question rise to the Supreme Court. It's probable though that they'll simply say it's an issue for the states, because even the Supreme Court is touched by politics.

And we aren't speaking out of both sides of our mouth, dude. What we are saying is that irrespective of whether someone fancies the opposite sex or no, this should be of no consequence when it comes to the government's regulation of the institution.

[ Monday, December 24, 2007 20:59: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, December 24 2007 12:55 Profile #457
To the extent that religion is man-made, any discussion involving it is like getting into an argument over interpreting the rules of Dungeons and Dragons.

I agree that man casts God in man's own image. After all, we do the same thing to everything else in the world; why should the unfathomable divine be excluded?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00

Pages