Profile for Najosz Thjsza Kjras

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).

Field	Value
Displayed name	Najosz Thjsza Kjras
Member number	6388
Title	Lifecrafter
Postcount	794
Homepage
Registered	Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00

Recent posts

Pages

Author	Recent posts
A nation of immigrants in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Wednesday, December 14 2005 14:29 Profile #8 This is where the 'race' refers to. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
A nation of immigrants in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Wednesday, December 14 2005 12:15 Profile #0 So, you are from the Americas or perhaps Australia. This naturally means that at least some part of you came from somewhere else. Which raises a question: If you were to remove as much emigration as plausible in your family tree and have it remain, well, a single tree, where would you be now? (And for foreigners who feel left out: consider your ancestry - where, if anywhere, would they have likely moved, had they gotten a mind to? A harder question, to be certain.) For myself, somewhere in the Irish south. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Short Political Quiz in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Sunday, December 11 2005 22:00 Profile #23 Yeah, but the problem is that Paris Hilton is a lot closer to the #2 level of labor than the #1 level of labor, and unless you've got hotel billions laying around somewhere, chances are she's making a lot more than you doing it no matter what you're up to. I don't think it's particularly moral for billionaires to exist in a world where people starve. At some point, it becomes impossible to justify the amount of capital accumulated by personal contribution to society, and the majority of the money can be explained quite easily by more or less random coincidences - the same that put hard-working men and women out of work and onto the street. Get born rich, get into the right market at the right time (if Bill Gates had gone into telephony - another hip, frontierish market in the time of his youth - we would have no special reason to know his name today), work with the right people (Steve Jobs, who is a billionaire, would be nowhere without Steve Wozniak, who is not), and so on. Attributing all of these factors to 'work harder, get rewarded better' turns wealth into a self-sustaining virtue, a figure of religious importance, and I vigorously disagree with that. You're a Christian, aren't you? Why would you contribute to the worship of lucre? [ Sunday, December 11, 2005 22:06: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Movie Trivia Challenge: ROUND VIII in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Sunday, December 11 2005 16:27 Profile #32 I edited it because I wanted someone else to get Henry Winker in Happy Days (Pat Morita in "Happy Days" might have been less obvious, after all - whereas Winkler is mostly known for Happy Days). And I forgot about the time thing. Doh. :( Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Movie Trivia Challenge: ROUND VIII in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Sunday, December 11 2005 16:09 Profile #30 Henry Winkler in "Happy Days". Tony Randall in "Fatal Instinct". Armand Assante in "Fatal Instinct". Armand Assante in "Hoffa". Jack Nicholson in "Hoffa". Jack Nicholson in "Anger Management". Adam Sandler in "Anger Management". Adam Sandler in "The Waterboy". Henry Winkler in "The Waterboy". Henry Winkler in "Happy Days". Pat Morita in "Happy Days". A remarkably circuitous road, but it works. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Movie Trivia Challenge: ROUND VIII in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Sunday, December 11 2005 14:28 Profile #27 EDIT: Changed my mind again. Pat Morita in Happy Days. [ Sunday, December 11, 2005 14:35: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Short Political Quiz in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Friday, December 9 2005 19:49 Profile #12 quote: Originally written by i: If your enemy knows everything about you, it is easy to exploit your system, as nothing is perfect and without weakness.* Thankfully, there's so much intelligence floating around that the prospect of someone getting us really bad because ours is too free is pretty dismal - after all, wars up to this point have shown spycraft interesting but remarkably ineffective. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
INTJ? ESFP? in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Thursday, December 8 2005 23:18 Profile #22 The tests are too broad and subjective to be of any real use, you're aware of that, right? Someone asks you to fill out a Myers-Briggs or other such test as part of a job, politely find the door: they're willing to rely on specious methods to manage human resources and are probably not destined for great things. Someone takes these tests as gospel, well, take their advice on anything else with a psychological component. I'm not even telling you mine, because whatever I tell you you'll start stereotyping me as anyway. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Which Russian composer... in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, December 6 2005 14:15 Profile #9 This is a patently ridiculous poll. There are seven options, of which as many are austro-Czechs as Russians, and this is not from want of prominent Russians: where are Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Glinka, Gliere, Prokoviev? That'd make seven Russians, and that's without even checking Wikipedia for more. A quick look of the list says you're looking mostly at terminal Romantic composers more than Russians: why make the poll about Russians at all, then? What will be next: a Favorite American President poll which includes Napoleon III, Gladstone, and Yeltsin? A Favorite Exile Game poll incorporating World of Warcraft and Diablo, and yet not Exile III? I find this poll particularly amusing/unfortunate because I find Tchaikovsky uninteresting and I've never heard of the other Russian, and yet two of my favorites (Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky) aren't even on the list. [ Tuesday, December 06, 2005 14:21: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Some Irony in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Thursday, December 1 2005 17:36 Profile #6 That isn't ironic. It's just an unusual juxtaposition of elements. There's nothing in particular about Lasik which would make anyone reading the article any less likely to use it, or anything about the Oregonian which makes it less likely to advertise Lasik. The Lasik ad isn't even in small font. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
New Custom Art: Take a peek inside in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, November 29 2005 20:58 Profile #31 quote: Originally written by Eldibs: I'm just upset that my Constitutional right to free speech was ignored because someone found my site "offensive."[/URL]. The right to free speech applies to the government and pretty much only to the government. Angelfire is a private corporation and it can host whatever it pleases, and if it chooses not to please carrying your stuff any more, well, that's their call. No Constitution required. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Movie Trivia Challenge: ROUND V in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, November 29 2005 20:37 Profile #2 Jerry Orbach in Law & Order. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Movie Trivia Challenge: ROUND IV in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, November 29 2005 17:59 Profile #1 Sir Roger Moore in The Man With The Golden Gun. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Number words in English in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, November 22 2005 16:34 Profile #14 quote: Originally written by NaNoWriMo: Need a bit of help with writing out numbers. Or rather, I need to confirm some assumptions I'm making while correcting someone's use of English, meaning that not only do I run the risk of using something wrongly, but I also run the risk of claiming something to be wrong where no rule actually exists. 1. English being non-agglutinative, it follows that while "one hundred" is correct, "onehundred" is not. Right? You are correct, although partly: 'one hundred' is correct, 'twenty three' is not, 'twenty-three' is correct, 'one-hundred' is not. We are tricky that way. quote: 2. "One hundred and one". Is the "and" essential? I've seen "one hundred one" and "one hundred and one" being used equally often, but I'm more used to seeing the latter. Are there any circumstances under which the "and" is actually incorrect - say, "one thousand and two hundred"? In some English dialects, you pronounce '101' 'one hundred and one'. In the past, '99' would have been 'nine and ninety' or 'ninety and nine', but it's not any more (ninety-nine). But written, 'one hundred and one' is incorrect. The 'and' does NOT come in until you start adding fractions: the proper form is 'one hundred one'. If you've got a half to add, it is 'one hundred one and one half'. Bear in mind that if you are quoting someone, 'one hundred and one' (or 'a hundred and one', really - hundred, thousand, million etc. are stand-alone nouns in English) will seem more natural. But if you're describing something or doing this for a class, 'one hundred one' is how you will want to do this. quote: 3. Can "hundred" (and other such words) be used without an indefinite article ("a hundred") or a number word ("one hundred")? Under what circumstances can the indefinite article be used - can you say "a thousand two hundred", or is it "one thousand two hundred"? Ask anyone how to pronounce '101 Dalmatians', and you will hear 'a hundred and one dalmatians' pretty frequently. However, for some odd reason, this only works in select circumstances: 'one thousand two hundred' feels more natural to me, 'a thousand one' feels more natural than 'one thousand one'; and personally I prefer 'a hundred twenty' over 'one hundred twenty', but 'a million twenty' or 'a million one' feels weird. Maybe it's just the small numbers, I dunno. 'Hundred' is, after all, a relatively recent invention (a couple centuries ago and we would be talking about scores), which makes its usage less consistent. Also, you can never generally use a noun without an article or at least some kind of helping word, unless it's plural. ('Hundreds died' is appropriate, 'Hundred curses on your line' is not; same goes with 'thousand[s]' and 'million[s]', and so on up the line. On some rare occasions, it can be incorporated into an adjective and thus have the need for the helping word obviated: the million-man army, the dozen-ton weight, etc. (But in that case, the 'the' is only just sufficing for one noun instead of two.) quote: One thousand five hundred sixty-two thanks! :) [ Tuesday, November 22, 2005 16:36: Message edited by: Belisarius ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
If you could, when would you... in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Friday, November 18 2005 15:50 Profile #10 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: quote: Originally written by Spring: 1917. So I could buy some Coke shares and come back forward and sell them: A single Coke share bought back then and sold today is worth about $90,000. With what money? Where are you going to find cash that would have been legal tender back in 1917? Obviously, your bank account details aren't going to be travelling back in time with you, after all. I suppose you could buy gold bullion or something today and take it into the past, or even get a job and earn some money whilst in the past, but there still remains the issue of proving that the stock you bought in 1917 and have not touched since is actually yours without letting anyone on to the fact that you've travelled in time. Seems to me that it'd be easier to buy something tangible that you can take back into the present with you, and that you know is going to be much more valuable now than then. And all of this is ignoring the fact that by investing in Coca-Cola in 1917, you could drastically alter the course of history. I don't think I even need to go over what the global economy collapsing much earlier would make the world look like today. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
I Made You, I Can Unmake You in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Saturday, November 12 2005 10:35 Profile #1 Welcome to General. Leave your sanity at the door. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Kiwis ban virtual drugs in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, November 8 2005 23:02 Profile #58 In an ideal world, retail would not exist. The closest thing we'd have to it would be McDonalds: more light manufacture than anything. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
What's your best joke? in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, November 7 2005 22:17 Profile #50 Why did Hellen Keller learn to play the piano one-handed? So she could sing at the same time. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Civilization IV in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, November 7 2005 15:10 Profile #15 I find Civ IV distinctly disappointing. Its graphical capabilities have exceeded my machine's abilities for some obscene reason, it's intentionally ugly (The Tech Is There And Must Be Used syndrome; the same reason we swapped out pretty pixel renders for hideous polygonated uglies in the 90s. Apparently using sprites is now like beating up Jesus.) and what's more, it's got an obscenely confusing and counterintuitive system of resource development. Doesn't feel like Civ, in other words. As opposed to Civ III, which felt very much like Alpha Centauri and Civ II making love - this is good - it feels weird, like they took Civ III and threw out absolutely anything by which you might mistake it for the earlier series (little bobble-head citizens, icon-driven advisor screens, 'visible' combat damage, etc.), including a lot of neat stuff. Playing it is a headache, the learning curve is too steep to be justified by the entertainment value, and attaching the Civ name to it seems almost heretical. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
God Stuff (Antichrist! You better spell it right! ) in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, November 7 2005 02:10 Profile #113 quote: Originally written by Jewels: t Synergy - It is scary to think outside the box. I really cannot stop laughing, I am very sorry. quote: There are some very basic, very fundamental things that my church/denomination teaches must be present for correct thinking. You have thrown out almost all of them. 'Correct thinking' is a somewhat ominous phrase: I'm hoping that it implies that without certain inherent axioms, it is impossible to reach a valid theological conclusion, right? That's scary enough, but it really has brainwashy overtones. quote: The Bible is the inspired word of God to be wholy trusted as complete truth. (Or as complete as translation to English allows) Which Bible? There are dozens of them, all with some passages, paragraphs, books, etc. - entire theological stepping stones, suggesting the trinity, the Apostolic succession, the virgin birth, whatever - added or removed. It's impossible for them all to be the complete truth, even taking into account differences in translation. This variation occurs even within the original Greek and (such as it is) the original Hebrew, with some canons varying drastically and drastic contradictions internally and externally abound no matter what language you're using. How can you justify all of that with a belief in the Bible as literal truth? quote: The Trinity, there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Everything else is a creation of God, but not God. The Bible, and especially different canons thereof, contradicts itself wildly on the issue of whether God is one or God is three. How can you, accepting the Bible as the whole and literal truth, believe one way or the other with absolute certainty? quote: The Sinful Nature, since the first sin of Adam and Eve, we are all born with the tendancy to sin and pull away from God. No one is without sin. What is sin? What does it mean? I understand that eating pork, being menstruated on, and pissing against the wall are all things you are not supposed to do, but why? Does God enforce this covenant because it is righteous or is the covenant righteous because it is enforced by God? If so, is it righteous to kill a man because God so instructs you? If not, is God capable of error? quote: The Virgin Birth, showing that Jesus truly did come from God and that he was born without the 'sinful nature' and ultimately completely without sin in his own life. The virgin birth is a translational fallacy. Under no reasonable circumstances does the word translated to virgin mean virgin; it is an exact translation for 'maiden' (unmarried), where an exact translation for 'virgin' exists and is used many times, but not in the passage describing Mary at the moment of divine conception. Jesus being a bastard is less notable than Jesus being the child of a virgin; why would the pre-translation text see fit to mention the former and not the latter if the latter is true? How can you simultaneously believe in the whole truth of the Bible and the virgin birth of the Christ when the Bible does not state Mary to be a virgin? quote: Hell, there is punishment for complete rebellion. Those who are offered a personal relationship with Jesus but reject him will also be rejected by him on judgement day. If I am created by God, my faculties are created by God: and my God-given faculties tell me the personal relationship you speak of is abusive and debasing and a benevolent deity would want me to take no part in it. Further, those God-given faculties tell me any immediate moment of revelation to the contrary is to be avoided, much like any immediate revelation stating I can fly or this doomsday cult is above-board. Why would a just God give me such faculties, then, if He knows that they are to condemn me to eternal punishment? quote: All of these things are very important to me and to my 'religion'. The latter four all because of the first. I like how you put your 'religion' in quotes so I didn't have to. Also, the first clearly contradicts the fourth and leaves the rest muddy. quote: Actually by my church's teaching, your views are like that of a cult. Because they disagree? If there is a difference, please explain: I am afraid I cannot suffer his verbosity as well as you apparently can. quote: All you lack is the leader of an organized group who wishes you to fund his ministry. Your words are as sweet as honey, painting the most beautiful pictures of life and death and God. But words are also very dangerous. Using sweet words was the very first way that Satan tricked mankind. "Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?... You will not surely die... when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God..."(Genesis 3:1-4) The best meterstick of when an organization is a cult is its including a clear injunction against trusting anything outsiders say. That is what allows it to maintain belief in the charismatic leadership's dogma, no matter how absurd. Any other factors are merely trappings without a way to keep believers trapped. quote: I have every reason to fear you and your words. 'The Antichrist' is truly never named as such in Revelation (just another name we have attached to our supposed biggest foe), but the verses that do mention the antichrist tell us to beware of all false prophets. (Not that you consider yourself a prophet ;) ) If your beliefs cannot hold up against his sweet-as-honey words on their own, what makes them valid? Whatever your views of your Almighty, certainly you do not consider yourself infallible; is it not a real possibility your beliefs, as much as any beliefs you had before your conversion and as much as any beliefs he has, are in error? quote: If though, I put all on the wayside and ask myself what belief will really matter in the end, it's not any of the things I have listed. In the end, I know, it will be my belief in Jesus that will matter. But more then just belief, for even the demons believe and tremble, but my acceptance of Him as my personal Lord and Savior. What does that mean? I have heard it said a lot, and I used to believe in something like it, but does it really mean anything? quote: So my last question for you is, do you consider Jesus as just a brother to be admired for being the first(and as far as I can tell only) one to achieve perfect love? Or is he your personal savior? Feel free to run around as much fluff as you like, but in the end I would like a clear cut answer: brother/savior/both. What if your Jesus never lived? What if the genuine article is ashes in Palestine, what if the genuine article is uninterested in lording over or saving anyone, what if the genuine article is the first among servants of Mohammed? Where is your soul if you are wrong? More importantly, where is your life if you are wrong? I have always suspected it would be a better use of my limited years to worry about the sufferings of others while I am alive rather than my own sufferings while I am dead. I want to do good in the world, and I don't want to draw borders on my good or limit its time or bring its motives into question by being bogged down by religion, and if your God Almighty wants to beat the hell out of me forever for that, well - I've always been comfortable with martyrdom. You want me to answer your question? Jesus doesn't matter the most to me. He's not my monomania. Maybe he's yours and Synergy's, but not mine. Unless the entire testament of his life was a complete fiction, he was an instrument of goodwill on the Earth, and for that I owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude and for him and all of the other great and good men and women now gone I live a better life. But I'm not convinced anyone couldn't do better. Jesus matters to me as a hero, as a deliverer from darkness, and as a fighter of the good fight. But a savior? Not on your life. There's still work to be done, and if he were here today he'd tell you the same. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Undead Topics Need Loving Too (aka "Give Me Your First-Born") in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Saturday, November 5 2005 13:22 Profile #770 Does anyone understand... that Naught Eye... was clearly... being... sarcastic? Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
E2: Garzahd in The Exile Trilogy
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Friday, November 4 2005 14:11 Profile #3 To be fair, Mindduel is presented as an exceptionally rare ability with exceptionally strenuous requirements, and I'm pretty sure there isn't but one Ring of Will in the game. It's not as if any competent mage can just walk up and mindduel the guy; for one, he's got exceptionally powerful defenses and is one of the better mages around. And for another, the basic impression the game gives is that by achieving a level of skill at which you can defeat Garzahd in a mindduel, you have attained a feat unmatched by any other mage. Sure, they've probably got more overall magical competence than you, but not in minddueling. Me, I took Garzahd down with mass Wound, which poses an entirely different set of problems. It could just be that your god(s) can beat up his god(s), and that is that. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
God Stuff (Antichrist! You better spell it right! ) in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Thursday, November 3 2005 17:43 Profile #87 quote: Originally written by ben ben: God does not have a name. Call him God. ;) God refers to himself point-blank as YHWH (or, within the realm of reason, JHVH), which is the Hebrew verb for 'being' in the present or future tense. Haven't you read the Bible? Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Kiwis ban virtual drugs in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 21:43 Profile #15 Fair point, but libel/defamation laws are restricted to cases in which there is clear intent and perjury laws are specific to speaking under oath. They're not restrictions on free expression for the general welfare. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Avernum IRC, anyone? in General
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Wednesday, November 2 2005 19:35 Profile #6 <belisarius> Well, I dunno. <belisarius> I guess you could think of /me commands as awesome if you didn't have to deal with your name before everything you said. <belisarius> I mean, look at it. * belisarius is finally free of the angle brackets <belisarius> Seems downright civilized after all that, dunnit? Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00

Pages