Profile for The Immortal
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | The Immortal |
| Member number | 4 |
| Title | BANNED |
| Postcount | 6936 |
| Homepage | http://www.geocities.com/terrorsmartyr/ |
| Registered | Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| What do YOU want to see in G4? in Geneforge Series | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 14:34
Profile
Homepage
Finally! Then we won't have dialogue that consists of "press 1 for Shapers, 2 for Rogues, 3 for Medium"? -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Tough NPC Tournament round two in Blades of Exile | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 14:28
Profile
Homepage
Oh, please. I said "Kaleb," "Sajon" and "Sovereign" to half of the NPCs in FS. :P -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Favorite Author in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 14:27
Profile
Homepage
I never claimed to be a radical, and I also never said that these texts are revolutionary (although they really are). -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Phaedra in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 12:04
Profile
Homepage
Thanks to Morgan for being the only person to argue against me without feeling the need to mock me for anything. "By the same measure, if curries give pleasure to people, and there is a social pull for Indians to make it, then it is an act of dominance, which intrinsically reflects racism?" I'm not arguing that bikinis are intrinsically "evil"- they're just fabric. But insomuch as women know that they are filling the shoes we made for them, then yes- it does! "What's wrong with being sexy?" Only the same thing that's wrong with being ethnic. "This is what aggrevates me. I take pleasure in the female form. Does this mean that I am objectifying her? Of course not. It's only a short logical jump from here to inferring that taking pleasure in a woman's company is sexist." If taking pleasure in a woman's company demands appreciating her body, then yes, absolutely. Appreciating the female body and so-forth isn't the subject at hand- the subject at hand is placing caveats or eliminating entirely aspects of her personality for the sake of her body. "This is you trying to apply your own insecurities and problems onto the rest of us. Just because you cannot view women as anything other than sexual objects, does not mean the rest of us are incapable." Right- and I'm not saying that you shouldn't be friends and even intimate with women. Did you read me correctly, or are you just putting steeples in my stead? (Not that any religion argues against that anyway, but...) The problem comes when her dignity is compromised (and yours as well, but I won't get into that). "If anything, the freedom of women in the US to wear whatever they want, bikinis and all, is indicative of the power they possess in western society." Stop deluding yourself- the 60s brought you playboy, flavored douches and an end to intimacy. (I find it particularly interesting that most 60s hippies now constitute the hard-right wing of politics.) "Consider the alternative - the Middle Eastern cultures - where women have many fewer rights and are forced to conceal themselves almost entirely from view. Which society is more sexist?" You're right, massah. Calling blacks "negroe" is much more polite than "nigger". I'm 100% sorry for complaining about us darkies' position in our society, massah. (I hope you're joking.) "I think the capacity to attract and beguile is a quite potent tool in its own right, and I definitely don't begrudge women the right to it; I wish I had something comparable." Right- so you can act all animalistic and chuck your self-respect and dignity in the waste basket for the sake of being a more marketable quantity? I think Team America had a song that reflects the dead-pan stupidity in this notion. "I agree, it's possible to view women/men on more than one level. I certainly am as guilty as anyone else for constantly scoping, and at some base level aspects of sexuality are always in my thoughts. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting and interacting with all the women in my life, many of whom are my good friends, and several of whom at this point are like sisters." How many are cute? No, really. How many women who you are close to are good on the eyes? Thing is, sexism ain't always sexual. (Well, no duh, but...) The whole concept of "cute" is to infantize, disenfranchize and subjugate women. How do your relations with these sisters treat them in their stereotypical roles? Are you closer to the prettier ones or the uglier ones? If I'm shooting in the breeze and you're actually able to relate to them, I'm sorry, Mr. Yahweh-bar-Yeshua. "As for TM, I reckon you just need to get some action. [Smile] It definitely adds perspective." [Smile] to you too. I'd rather not have faceless intercourse under any situation, though- I've already become calloused enough as-is. ... And I can think of nothing even remotely nice to say to Abu Dhabi, so I'll abstain from commenting. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Favorite Author in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 07:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:Apart from the fact that your misuse of commas does little to grant you credentials of literary criticism, I'm not sure how melodramatic and nonsensical fru-fru dramaticism with overtones of traditional morality and metaphors as opaque and open as your mother's legs actually beats masterfully crafted writing with seemless metaphor and pertinent comments about the market economy. Actually, let me ammend that. It's not that I'm not sure how you're right; I'm sure that you're wrong. EDIT: And for having such a disdain for classics that are popular trash, your support of shakespeare is blatantly hypocritical. [ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 07:24: Message edited by: Le Martyre de la Terreur ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Phaedra in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 07:15
Profile
Homepage
Thanks to Kel for not responding to the invective and apologies. Meanwhile, bikinis:  Not much is left to guess at. From this, the conclusion can be drawn that an attractive woman wearing a bikini is wearing an outfit which is pleasurable to men. Simultaneously, we do not live in a particularly austere society. People are open about sexuality to the extent where it is an element of casuality rather than intimacy. Manichianism is a wrong unto itself, but total sexual deregulation has become a powerful force since the sexual revolution, and females are now wholeheartedly encouraged to display more skin. Thus, it can be concluded that for many females, showing skin is far more than a comfort issue- there are social pulls. If wearing bikinis is pleasurable for men and there is a social pull for it, then it is an act of dominance which intrinsically reflects sexism. Furthermore, women are being relegated to objects. People have more aspects to themselves than their sexualities, and when the intellects and emotive capacities of women are discarded or valued only as aphrodisiacs, then they lose their value and women become sex dolls with blood and natural lubricant or walking porno mags. From the perspective of the woman wearing the bikini, it is submitting to sexism. She is deigning to wear an outfit which she KNOWS will have an effect on the men around her- halter tops are not worn for comfort, nor are bikinis, nor are thongs. If they are worn to get a rise out of men, it is women selling their dignities for palpable control, which is akin to selling one's self for intercourse for capital. In other words, whoredom. If women wear such garb for the purpose of getting laid, then it is often for gaining social standing. (For instance, statistics report that most women do not find pleasure in sex, especially after repeated instances.) And then there's the whole aspect of women becoming commodities- by displaying themselves as beautiful objects to be taken, they re-inforce the moral values of the free market. If it is for the sheer sexual pleasure of getting laid or "feeling sexy," then women are discarding their dignities for the sake of hedonism, often because they are taught not to value aphysical pleasures in the first place. And so it goes increasingly moreso as of late for men as well- although I'm not sure how this is a good thing. I cannot describe to you how gut-wrenching it is dealing with masculine insecurity, although I would think that I wouldn't have to. (Posting on SW is a great way to advertise one's own impotency.) Being comparably unattractive has been a force of incredible isolation for me, and not having "gotten the girl" (as it is inevitably the man's position to be the power broker of coochies and cooters) torments me. Women as sexual objects has dragged me to a level where I cannot see any woman beyond her sexual potency- it is a struggle to view girls even down to the age of twelve and lower as actual human beings beyond their sexual capabilities, and it has been rigorous to try and reverse my training as a capitalist stormtrooper as such. Having constraints on any relationships with the other 51% of humanity (and also constraints amongst men due to my woeful inaptitude that has wracked me with guilt and feelings of incompetence) is a damning feeling that licentious behavior unwittingly furthers. ... So what about sex among emotionally involved partners? I'm fine with that- no, I encourage that. An expression of exposing one another's vulnerabilities is an excellent way to further intimacy. (This is, inevitably, another reason why faceless sex is bad- it devalues this form of expression with a partner whom one actually values.) Sex isn't bad. I just have an immutable detest for domination, superiority, liquidation of dignity, and social pulls for faceless and emotionless encouters that devalue any and all relationships down the road. But don't take my word for it. If you think that pornography leaves you unphased and that faceless sex and that women pandering into demands etc are all amoral activities, so be it- but also note your personal reactions to each of these things and how your doing them or others' doing them makes you think and feel. (And I dunno. I feel sorta embarassed for trusting in the sincerity of those around me- I expect to be scorned as such, but wouldn't entirely mind being surprised in this instance. And also, this thread should probably be duplicated and sent to general for more generalized discussion.) -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Phaedra in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 03:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yes. Sexism is one of a few issues that genuinely disturbs and angers me. Seeing it in my backyard irritates me. Having it denied angers me. Being laughed at it infuriates me. [ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 06:41: Message edited by: Le Martyre de la Terreur ] -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| post-canopy badness in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 03:46
Profile
Homepage
Technically, the next best thrown weapon is a Rough Diamond (1-8 + 1-8/level). :P PS- Daemonzerstoerer is actually sorta weak. Did you somehow not get Maximilian? And honestly- the stat bonuses come with the domain. For instance, Maximilian is all of the strength you'll ever need. Adlerauge will be all of the bow skill you'll ever need. The spellshops will keep your magi casting powerfully for a while to come (especially with fireblast/arcane blow), etc. With the Miracle items, Illusory items, etc, Canopy has MORE than enough level gains through artifacts to give parties that extra boost. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Favorite Author in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, April 13 2005 03:39
Profile
Homepage
The "Other" votes are winning by a landslide. What a motherfriggin' surprise. For reference: James Joyce Scott Fitzgerald Ernest Hemmingway William Faulkner Vladimir Nabokov Samuel Clemens Kate Chopin William Carlos Williams T.S. Eliot Ezra Pound William Yeats Kurt Vonnegut Sherman Alexie Richard Wright Ralph Emerson Langston Hughes And that's only a start. I would posit that each and every author here beats each and every author you listed, hands down. And then, since you listed Voltaire, there's a whole slew of philosophical authors who beat him hands down: Kant, Hegel, Marx, Wittenberg, Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, Adorno, Heidegger, Jameson, etc. If the "other" votes actually manage to lose, opinions about this community will become even more cemented. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Do you think there is a Hell? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, April 12 2005 19:15
Profile
Homepage
Let me first state that God is a selfish and cruel bastard. "Because the Bible tells me to and I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired." Way to dodge the subject. If you assume an Abrahamic god, then it is patently easy to argue for its texts. The abortion topic was locked for such patently cyclical logic, and I'm not sure how this topic is any different. (This is, incidentally, why scripture has no real bearing on me- I'm an atheist, and using your book is a damnedly poor way to advocate anything.) "I do not mourn very much for the child who starves to death. Let me tell you why before you call me heartless. That child will never suffer again, will never hunger again, will never thirst again, will never be cold or sick or alone ever again because s/he has a place prepared for him/her in Heaven." That's a very convenient excuse to dismiss the fact that said child has been robbed of a fulfiling life here on earth- You live in middle class suburbia, well-fed, using a computer. This blatant lack of pity for the mind-bogglingly destitute is testament to the fact of christianity's former role as a guardian of classism. (Now it's been overtaken by the undiluted free market, but that's neither here nor there.) Let me put it this way, then- god put us here for us to learn to love him, correct? That doesn't go very far to explain child abductions, infant suffocations, et cetera. Wouldn't a loving god who wanted all human beings to be graced with the opportunity to love him allow said vulnerable peoples to live? (Of course, therein lies a paradox of free will that basically demands Kushner's resolution, but nevertheless.) And if god placed us here without a purpose, then he's a cruel and spiteful bastard. "[. . .that large story I'm not going to quote for sake of saving space. . .]" That story is cute- it also assumes that god's ministry is perfect, which is patently false. Stating that "all things bring people closer to god" is a very conventient argument, which is a pattern with you, I find. What brings people closer to god when they are comitting murder? (And what about the person whose life was destroyed to facilitate this "assistance"? Or do only saved people who don't need it get shot?) So far, all that this world has been bringing all of us towards more prevalent consumerism and the bigotry that it gives us as baggage. And if god's ultimate goal is ruined lives, twisted sexuality, hypocrisy and murder, then she's doing a very good job. "And if you choose to follow God 'only' because you want the rewards of Heaven (or to escape hell) it is at least a first step towards Christlikeness." So it's christlike to paint crosses on shields before going into battle so god can beat the crap out of your enemies, or make you rich? God is a candy dispenser at that point- the relationship becomes an exploitative one. Constantine, for example, wrote the Edict of Milan and converted Rome into a christian state. On the other hand, he declared himself god, continued to practice greco-romanism pantheon paganism, and was a ruthless leader like any previous one. I'm not sure how god's giving him victory aided his development in christ- the christian movement was gaining popularity in the lower class and would have spread anyway. "As for your illistration of Job I would say that God is just in taking away what Job had because He had given it to him in the first place." So you're telling me that god is a kinky dominatrix tease. Thanks for the info. "God is also just by what he gave Job after he proved himself to be a faithful servant. Much more then what he had started with." So god's justice is ultimately measured in material wealth, and Job is fine with losing his family at that point? Now I'm not only questioning this spiteful deity, but its followers as well. "That 'Suffering happens to the good, and god lets it happen' does not make him any less powerful." That's a sin via inaction. Or is god allowed to be a hypocrite? "Sure, He could stop it but in doing so he would stop the growth of our character which cannot be tested, tried, or proven to be true without adversity." I agree 100%; this is basic free will doctrine. Which doesn't go far to explain why you just argued for divine intervention. Eh. "Even with all the tests possible done and available for review, it would still not be enough." Thanks for making the coda to your argument an insult! Have fun living on cloud nine. No, seriously- ignorance is bliss; it's no wonder I'm so irritated. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Phaedra in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, April 12 2005 18:40
Profile
Homepage
Anime has been a staple of modern sexism in Japan. I'm not sure why you underestimate the damage that "fake" sexism can do here- on the other hand, I suppose pornography is harmless and respects females' dignities? (No, don't bother responding. I'm just disgusted by the casuality of oppressive insecurity. This ain't the place to fight it, but as far as I've seen, nowhere is. I'd posit that sexism is the biggest symptom of the free market.) -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| LP Nethergate graphics in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, April 12 2005 13:49
Profile
Homepage
I hope you also realize that everyone hates your use of graphics in Castle Putrid, and your outdoors isn't much better. If you want to stick with 'em both, go ahead, but... -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Tough NPC Tournament round two in Blades of Exile | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, April 12 2005 13:42
Profile
Homepage
I voted for the Master. Again, all it takes to beat San-Racku is to wake up. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Nine Variations Port Released! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, April 12 2005 11:50
Profile
Homepage
Yes and no. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Do you think there is a Hell? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 11 2005 17:54
Profile
Homepage
God could come in and make everything right- but then loving god would not be a voluntary action, it would become mandatory. (Which goes nowhere to explain the OT, but there's a whole slew of issues with that thing.) -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Do you think there is a Hell? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 11 2005 16:34
Profile
Homepage
Alec, this is very related to your point, just in more Christly rhetoric. I'm going to borrow from Kushner, a Rabbi whose ideas (within the context of modern liberal democracy christianity) make a good deal of sense. Let me first posit that you yourself do not and cannot believe this. There is no solice in knowing that your extreme suffering has a "purpose." Did six million jews have to die to teach us that killing is bad? (And honestly, if that's in god's plan, then his plan bites hard- I suppose 24 hours is too many for a baby with an instantly fatal disease?) When you grow up and have children and one of them gets leukemia, you will not be able to believe the same dry, soulless words you're spouting off here. Honestly, it's a little offensive to people who had lost loved ones. In the book of Job, there are three suppositions made about Job, only two of which can logically be true. Let me outline them: 1) Job is a good person. 2) God is just. 3) God is omnipotent. ---- I will go through the three scenarios in turn. 1) Job is not a good person. If god is just and can act in all instances, then any misfortune which falls upon all human beings is 100% deserved, as point three assumes that god is 100% omnipotent. Therefore, Job is not a good person. This sounds ridiculous, but it isn't. In fact, often times, people hide their suffering to protect their own moral integrity at face value. We live in a society that values its individuals by their respective abilities to produce and be prosperous. How do you think Job felt when his friends told him that he had it coming and left him to rot? (And note that this is a phenomenon exclusive to the first world- any third world christian would tell you immediately that this first assumption is easily debunked.) 2) God is unjust. If god is active 100% of the time and Job is a good human being, then any punishment which befalls him is because god is punishing randomly and being very unGodly. 3) God is not omnipotent. It has to be so. The book of Job clearly states that Job is a good man and it can also be reasonably assumed that god is just, and therefore the only assumed that god is not omnipotent. Suffering happens to the good, and god lets it happen- assuming that he can. The Jews are not evil, nor did god support the Nazis. He was on the side of those being killed. It's like I said before. Christ has no hands but ours. (And as an aside, if your main argument is "Christians suffer less from lethal diseases," then it is either totally baseless or stated, or verifiable due to the emotional stability granted by the child's religion due to the people who taught her/him.) ---- EDIT: And yes, that's my point. When god becomes a doling machine for free christian goodies, religion becomes a cruel joke. If being christian means being rich, not feeling pain, etc., not only does god become subject to man's whims, but it's an exploitative relationship rather than a loving one. (Ooh- I wonder if you know about the LIFE dichotomy? But that's obscure catholic doctrine for another day.) Put blunty, if god intercedes on the behalf of the faithful, religion becomes a shopping network for divine lewt. [ Monday, April 11, 2005 16:37: Message edited by: Le Martyre de la Terreur ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| science, philosophy or religion? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 11 2005 14:29
Profile
Homepage
"philosophy= *angst*" Sure. If you replace "philosophy" with "that emotionally ruinous nonsense teenagers spout off at regular intervals". "Philosophy isn't much better than religion without wanting to bring in gods to back up your ideas. You could also call philosophy science without any kind of measuring, experiments, math, or physical justification." Where have you been since, um, the 1500s? I guarantee you, non-platonic philosophies have become INCREDIBLY scrutinous. "it so happens that philosophy, which in gaining popularity these days," Where have you been since, um, never? "this is very well represented in geneforge, by the Awakened (omg, i manage to embarass myself)" Don't worry, I feel just as stained for replying in this cesspit. "-Philosophy: ...On the other hand, we often wind up arguing over how a certain term is defined (i.e.: what is "good"?), and we get nowhere." That's not an argument against philosophy, just one against Derrida. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Cutscenes and Talkmode... in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 11 2005 12:32
Profile
Homepage
"But it looks very stupid." *laughs at Bahss* No, really. There's no real way to do this- whatever "dialogue" you need can be done in a Treason/Tarquin fashion: Have the villain spew something (cutscene, dialog box, it's your choice), and then give the party 2-3 responses via dialog box. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Cutscenes and Talkmode... in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 11 2005 12:32
Profile
Homepage
"But it looks very stupid." *laughs at Bahss* No, really. There's no real way to do this- whatever "dialogue" you need can be done in a Treason/Tarquin fashion: Have the villain spew something (cutscene, dialog box, it's your choice), and then give the party 2-3 responses via dialog box. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Character Portraits in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 11 2005 11:38
Profile
Homepage
Actually, the custom graphics sheet doesn't have problems- ANY graphics placed in the scenario folder (PCs) or the .cmg file (Macs) are updated within the scenario harmlessly. This superimposition of graphics could have been used in Putidus, for example. (And, all things considered, probably should have been.) -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Character Portraits in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 11 2005 11:38
Profile
Homepage
Actually, the custom graphics sheet doesn't have problems- ANY graphics placed in the scenario folder (PCs) or the .cmg file (Macs) are updated within the scenario harmlessly. This superimposition of graphics could have been used in Putidus, for example. (And, all things considered, probably should have been.) -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Do you think there is a Hell? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, April 10 2005 18:05
Profile
Homepage
Or, here's another way to put it- if you are forced or bribed to follow God, then are you really choosing voluntarily to love him with all of your heart and so-forth? (Now of course, that states that believing in god is more important than staying alive and happy, but it makes sense with a theist standpoint that I'm divorced from.) -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Phaedra in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, April 10 2005 09:43
Profile
Homepage
Nevermind. This is what I get for trying to fight golden shower boy for the spigot. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Several Issues with Canopy in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, April 10 2005 08:15
Profile
Homepage
The scenario text file is corrupted- how, I do not know. I just re-downloaded the scenario from Spidweb myself, and it worked just fine. Are you sure that you have the correct version of BoA as is demanded by the scenario? -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| What Movies Are You Looking Forward To? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, April 10 2005 08:12
Profile
Homepage
spy.there, Jung-oriented rubbish usually does. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |