Gofigure, I hate being in love...

if there isn't at least a balanced competition aspect then what other factors would influence the game as being interesting to play, observe or study?

Obviously I understand that. Everyone plays game for fun but what I'm wondering whether you associate levels of fun you experience from playing a game directly based on the level of the game's simplicity cause that would imply that you only enjoy playing games which, according to their design give you an easier chance of achieving success.

Who ever said anything about chinese checkers? You almost make it sound as though you're completely unaware of, or simply no willing to discover any other game that exists.

depends if your clothes are included or not

coffee or tea?

Am I not tempting enough for you to make the necessary travel arrangements?...

The way I see it strategic board game could be viewed as visual puzzle problems. If you don't even set finding the solution to the puzzle as your primary objective than the game itself is played without purpose. If you worked on solving a problem over and over again over and over again without ever winning (or at least improving your potential to solve the problem) would you ever really enjoy yourself or would you just get frustrated by your own incompetence? On the contrary a puzzle who's solution is too easy (or obvious) to solve is even less entertaining because it doesn't even provide the player with a mental challenge whatsoever. Mastering every game requires curiosity, experimental effort, and time but without a simple disire to improve ones playing ability I couldn't even understand why someone would continue playing any particular game in the first place.

I'd honestly give you at least 20-1 gambling odds caause I'm that confident you'd still lose every time

and that would make you what, a glitch?

Sorry but that's not very impressive. The only strategic game I can think of that's less challenging than checkers is tic-tac-toe...

Lol. Its not as if he could get pregnant or impregnate another man anyways...

-Rules were made to be broken-

NO FEAR!

Mario Kart was actually one of the games I really enjoyed for a long time cause ti was entertaining and financial profitable if you gamble at it correctly (which I suppose could be applied to any game). I see what you're saying about the lack of education value in most games which, if anything help the player develop strategy on a minimal level. Contrary to that they help increase hand-eye coordination which is why video simulations have been, and are still used (obviously along with other forms of physical and psychological training) to help train pilots, military personnel, as well as many other specialized professional in a variety of fields.

Video games are used for entertainment purposes and not as educational tools. You could use the same argument with any game & say that skills developed in the process of learning a sport for example are comlpetely useless since they wont be useful outside of the sport's environment. Even if you havent seemingly learnt anything of great importance almost all games help develop stategy on some level keeping the brain active and forcing it to use creativity if nothing else.

This could potentially be the plurest avatar...

yeah, great game indeed!

lol, you should've added "Confucius says" right before that statement...

If vengence is logic than I suppose that makes my opinion completely irrational and overly emotional but who knows, maybe society should let go of the lingering respect it has left for human life and just execute anyone who breaks any law under any circumstances whatsoever. Obviously people have an easier time reading black text on white backgrounds but sometimes we forget that every rule is written in grey ink since they're constantly subject to review and change as time goes on and those in power gain and lose their authority to modify the rules already in place.

Anyways, its coincidental that I'm replying to this now because they're discussing the Pinkton trial (for 6 of the 49 victims) on CBC news and the guy is sticking to his story claiming he hasn’t killed anyone and was setup. So let's see what we've got here, no convictions, lots of media, and millions of people each providing their own speculation of what could've happened. Since you didn't witness any crime being committed and neither did I so how could we possibly come to the conclusion that he's guilty? Now I'm not going to completely insult your intelligence and say that it's not possible or even probably that he is responsible for some (if not all) of those deaths. Obviously I acknowledge the reason why one might label this man guilty however all I've really done was read a few news paper articles on paper and online, watch a television beam some light and sound into my brain from the perspective of the reporters, news agencies, media networks, law enforcement officials, and other random people involved in the case who, as I shouldn't have to remind you have credentials and/or evidence that we can't even certify… at least not yet. Everything is hearsay as far as the public is concerned and unless someone has enough forensic evidence to convict that man as the sole accountable party, and either witnessed the crimes in person as they occured or had video footage (via satellite, camcorder, or otherwise) showing the crimes as they occurred which more than one person has to authenticate in court anyways, nobody could know without a minimal shred of doubt that he was 100% responsible and should be punished accordingly as stipulated in subsection whatever.

Having said that let's not neglect the minimal possibility that he was framed or had accomplices. How would you feel if he were falsly executed and you were on the jury? Would you in turn be guilty of say... criminal negligence causing bodily harm and death? Technically the entire jury could be charged and potentially convicted for neglecting to properly evaluate the evidence as carefully as the law requires it to. If we are to judge each other based on senses which can easily deceive us and a collection of speculations then we must at least not end life as a result of judgment as to do so would require accuracy no less than perfection which is impossible as we ourselves are all imperfect and socially bias.



Agreed. Violence should always be the last alternative when dealing with any situation. Despite being a primitive behavioral act (which often evolves into a pattern sometimes more noticeable than others) amongst loss evolved species, it’s an action which results directly from fear and panic. People always try to use the argument that violence and murder are “natural” which of course doesn’t mean anything beyond the fact that it’s been in existence for a long period of time. At least that’s my interpretation, there’s no implication stating that it’s still essential for our own survival as individuals or as a species.


We all remember Woody back in Oliver Stones masterpiece Natural Born Killers talking about how “…all of God’s creatures do it” which, in the mind of a psychopathic serial killer might give them all the justification they need to feel no remorse. I found it interesting that he (Woody) expresses regret for the killing the Native American, (which one could describe as accidental although according to the law being under the influence of any drug would never excuse you for committing murder), that it was purely a metaphor for Quentin to create awareness about his own sympathy for Native Americans who were slaughtered and pillaged centuries ago. Unfortunately most tribal societies in North America are given minimal (if any) support from state, provincial, and federal governments and it’s been that way ever since the land was first conquered by the Europeans. Of course any suspicion of Mickey’s compassion for human life beyond the only one he loves (excluding even himself) is eliminated when he betrays Wayne who was readily prepared to leave his life behind and ally with savagery for the couple’s cause, or even more selfishly, to save his own life.

Natural.

You’ve got to love that word. Merriam-Webster defines it fist with: ‘based on an inherent sense of right and wrong (natural justice)’ which, as Zed carefully points out below is as arbitrary as one’s own opinions moral flexibility to act on those opinions followed by a bunch of equally arbitrary definitions described as vaguely as possible. The truth is that they all say everything and nothing simultaneously. I like 5,10 (b), 12, and 13 because I feel they’re the least circumstantial which makes them most accurate. Number 15 is hilarious and disgusting at the same time: ‘Of an off-white or beige color’. I’m no professor but isn’t that implying skin color making it completely racist? Doesn’t that imply that other colors are therefore unnatural and therefore inherently wrong? After reading that who wouldn’t consider writing a letter to the rich white men who wrote and published word definitions in dictionaries about their subliminal contribution to the perpetuation of racial profiling, cultural inequality, and ethnic discrimination in modern society…

And getting back to Woody’s “God argument” I just don’t think it holds water especially in the eyes of a someone who would consider themselves a true religious believer. If God existed as a supreme entity could you really praise it for consciously willing violence amongst its all of it’s creations? Wouldn’t it be fair to assume that God (in all It’s mysterious capacity) could and would find a simple alternative (as far as having God-like powers are concerned) like providing a much larger environment or near-infinite resources for all living organisms so that we might coexist without the need to dominate one another as available resources would greatly exceed their potential greed.




I’m glad you brought this point because laws (not to be confused with the term “Natural Laws” used to define things like gravity which exist on a universal scale) are synonymous with guidelines. One cannot deny that guidelines alone don’t dictate all human behavior. There is never any reassurance that people who are unpredictable and exist within environments or societies which create and enforce their sets of rules and regulations (which are always subject to change over time anyways) cannot, or will not (according to their own free will to make choices) commit an action that is absolutely avoidable, preventable by the law because they are viewed as morally wrong or unjust by the majority of society or those in power who enforce it’s regulations. Even from a Darwinistic point of view it’s not fair to say that survival and evolution were ever even dependant on violence as a major influential factor.

People don’t have to be right to be righteous and civilizations need not necessarily be civilized.
True freedom is the freedom to express oneself. No law made by humanity could ever take that away.

I guess when compared to other addictions fifty cents a day is pretty cheap. I know people who spend almost ten bucks a day on coffee alone but I still wouldnt pay a penny to participate in any game (regardless of the diversity of its online community) simply because I rarely have time to play any games as is it & there are so many other games which are similar enough and completely free to play.

Sorry to burst your bubble but walking around without identification is technically illegal. Police have the right to ask for identification for no reason whatsoever. They also have the right to detain you for as long as it takes (or up to 24 hours if they aren't pressing charges) until someone else (usually a legally recognized guarantor) can identify you if you dont have a piece of identification on your person.

First off let's not forget what's more valuable. Life is real and irreplacable while money is completely fabricated and only has an artificial worth which we assign to it based on how much we think is in circulation. Who honestly cares if we waste an artificial self-renewing, perpetally replicating substance like money which often isn't even tangible and doesnt even represent gold storage anymore anyways? Gathering information and learning what criminals might have to offer far outweighs any financial cost. As it is society overlooks incalculable amounts of financial government spending when it comes to their tax dollars so how could anybody possibly rationalize killing people just to save a few bucks which could easily be saved elsewhere in the budget?

Agreed. The death penalty is a primative, vengeful, barbaric, counter-productive means to an end. Life (or as some might argue consciousness) is the most valuable thing in existence should be preserved at all costs. Those who choose not to or find they cannot co-exist with society should be isolated, studied, educated, and rehabilitated (in that order) so that they may find purpose on either an individual or macro scale. I truely beieve that every person is born with infinite positive and infinite negative influencial potential and just the knowledge alone that an individual possesses is enough to help towards bettering the species and improving the conditions we live in.

I believe that historians and sociologists alike are gonna have a blast studying current events in the centuries to come as I'm sure some are presently. It's quite amazing how globalization and the advancement of technologies have really changed the face of the political world and how wars (especially domestic) are fought.

I can just imagine how as time goes on they'll be an exponentially increased number of social studies done on how governments, media, and " highly influencial" businesses and organizations market fear and distribute misinformation in order to further their own agendas by creating increased general paranoia in order to distract the public. I don't even understand we still bother using words like "suspect" anymore since it's meaning has evidently transformed beyond implying a speculatory guilt possibility pertaining to a particular party in question. How is it that simply labeling someone "suspicious" now gives law enforcement agencies the juristiction or what some might call "unjustified-justification" (essentially arresting someone on security certificates which don't require the arresting officers or agency ATo read a person their rights (which obviously don't apply anymore), BTo present "classified" evidence (whether it exists or not) being used to incriminate the individual under arrest for a particular crime to suspects or even courts, CTo deny suspects the right to seek legal council), Dto completely invade an individual's privacy, Eto abuse any (and every) other constitutional right the individual should have according to the charter (which to the best of my knowledge still exists and therefore should always be in effect, and finally Eto completely destroy the very fabric of what we believe we still have: humanitarian freedom and individual liberty.

BETHLEHEM, Pa. - An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.

....

[ news.yahoo.com ]

It's alright, I'm just buggin' you.
You get an E for effort...

*hands you a sticker*

Thanks

*smokes and passes back*

*yawns*

Have you already met my complete lack of intimidation?...

dryhump

Her wish would hypothetically be my command...

So let it be written.
So let it be done.

castrate

what ever happened to that dred-rape project you were working on Zed?...

he'd probably accept two bags of "shut the fuck up" over your entire life's savings...

'cept it'd probably be worthless unless it were made completely of ivory and/or marble...

Lol...
I love it when you call me big papa...

After seeing the Borat movie my favorite new expression has to be... "I want to make romance explosion on you!"

So when's this orgy happening already?...

It's all about gravity bongs.
All others are just sub-par...

Sounds like almost every woman I've met since high school...