RicOlie_2

g6

Nb6

I don't think I stand a chance at this point.... I'm getting better at Shogi, but my chess skills aren't well developed.

It's interesting how one can take their own king--at least with the Zillions software. 

K-3h

K-4i

Nd7

Bc8

P-8d

8,042

I've been consistently posting more than Frink. I wonder how long it will be before I catch up to him. ;)

Qa5

March 29:

A.D. 1461: 30,000 are killed in the Battle near Towton Field in the War of the Roses.

A.D. 1632: The Treaty of St. Germain is signed, returning Quebec to French control from the British, who had possessed it since 1629.

A.D. 1795: Ludwig van Beethoven debuts as a pianist in Vienna.

March 30:

A.D. 1282: The Sicilian Vespers; Sicilians rise up against King Charles I.

A.D. 1492: A decree expelling Jews from Spain is signed by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

A.D. 1856: The Crimean War ends with Russia's signing of the Peace of Paris.

A.D. 1858: The pencil with an attached eraser is patented.

Um...I don't think a blank screen counts as a scene.*

No worries, I've been there too (a couple summers ago it wasn't uncommon for me to be working till midnight--but not every day, of course).

Nc6

+B-6f

+B-2b

Na5

Darn, I went to bed about five minutes before you moved. :P

OK, sounds good. :)

Hey, ender, since you have the time to post long posts here, I was wondering if you'd be interested in checking these two threads out:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/How-about-a-game-of-Japanese-Chess-ie-Shogi-darth-ender-and-RicOlie-2-ironing-out-rules-for-a-one-dimensional-variant-Ito-Shogi/topic/16176/page/54/

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Who-d-like-to-try-a-chess-variant/topic/16332/page/2/

;)

P.S. If you're posting from work, then that's fine, though I can make diagrams for you if you want....

TV's Frink said:

I failed to notice this was a nearly five year bump, and briefly got excited because I thought C3PX was back....of course, it should have occurred to me that it would be CP3S if he was really back, but...

...

:-(

 Haha, so did I... :)

hairy_hen, TV's Frink, et al., I think you may be misunderstanding what "hate the sin, love the sinner" means. It doesn't mean "judge what others do and look down on their actions, but still love them," or "tell everyone to repent and that what they do is evil, but make sure you tell them you love them." It means that one shouldn't hate or dislike someone just for doing something wrong, though one shouldn't approve of their misdeeds.

hairy_hen said:

Okay, so I'm a hateful douche, because I defend the rights of gays against judgemental pricks who put them down by condescendingly claiming to have absolute moral authority on their side.

No, you aren't hateful, and I don't know what rights you're defending. As far as I am aware, Ender, Warb, Fo, and myself all agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. All of us besides Fo think it is wrong, but there are no gay rights that we are attacking and thus you are defending those rights for nothing.

Yep.  This thread is officially hilarious.

"Oh no, we don't hate you, dear.  We just loathe and abhor everything about your inner self that makes you behave the way you do, but we don't hate you, we promise!"

This is a complete misportrayal and misunderstanding of what I meant. I already clarified what I meant, so I won't do it again.

Yeah, excuse me while I don't believe a word of this nonsense.

Neither do I. Thank goodness no one around here is peddling it...

Bottom line: being gay isn't a sin.  God never said it was, because it's only an outdated superstition that got mixed up with a bunch of other unrelated writings.  Folks who believe every literal word of such things really need to take a step back and get with the times, because that kind of thinking is seriously outmoded and has no place in any modern society claiming to be civilized.  It's what gives religion a bad name, when if it actually followed the true spirit of Christ's message, it would be very wonderful indeed.

Nope, being gay isn't a sin and neither God, darth_ender, Warbler, or myself indicated such.

Now, if God actually had said that being gay was a sin, then I would say that God was a worthless sh!tbag, completely unworthy of being paid attention to in any way.  But he didn't.  I will, however, say that there is no such thing as Christianity, nor has there ever been, since hardly anyone in the history of the world has ever really tried to live life in accordance with his philosophies.  'Judge not', he said, and yet judging others for their differences is practically the only thing many so-called 'Christians' know how to do.  'Live and let live, and don't be a douchebag' is how it might be put in modern terms, but I guess that's just too complicated for some to figure out.

There is no such thing as Christianity! That's a bold claim! Perhaps you mean that no one is perfect like Christ was, and that would be a correct statement. A Christian's goal is to be perfect, but it is not an achievable goal. But by trying to reach it, a person can get reasonably close.

When you're more concerned about whether someone with a cock wants to get with someone else who also has a cock than you are with treating people decently, you're doing exactly the opposite of what Christ wanted.  When you condescendingly look down on someone for doing something you consider wrong or shameful, but which, in fact, informs the entire essence of their being and could no more be changed than the colour of their skin, all the while claiming only to want what's best for them, then you have a serious prejudice you don't want to acknowledge.  It is entirely necessary for such hypocrisy to be exposed for what it really is.

Again, I don't think anyone here was saying that gays are bad or that they should become straight. It does not inform "the entire essence of their being" but is only a part of who they are. An important part to some, but still a part. I don't have any prejudices that I don't want to acknowledge, except against what is immoral. Being gay is certainly never immoral and nowhere in the Bible does it say so. Nowhere in this thread has someone said so. More hypocritical is your condemnation of our point of view and your dismissal of it as not worth considering, yet you think I should be adopting your point of view.

Try this example on for size:

"I don't hate you for being black.  It's so unfortunate you were born into a black family, because God says that all black people will go to Hell when they die, and you're really quite wonderful, dear, despite your disadvantage.  Have you tried being white instead?  It's the only way you could ever be saved, I'm sad to say, and I would really hate for you to have to burn . . ."

I don't think gays are going to hell or even that openly gay people who have sex often will go to hell. No one goes to hell for something that isn't their fault (and that, in my opinion, means that a lot of atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions will be going to heaven, because it is not usually their fault that they belong to that religion or philosophy).

Needless to say, this doesn't fly AT ALL.  

I agree entirely.

And all the anti-gay arguments I've ever heard have exactly this same sort of ridiculously skewed perspective behind them.  

I disagree entirely. You are just misunderstanding those arguments and positions and I suspect you don't want to even try to understand them (based on your statements about it being a position not even worth arguing because it's so stupid and bigoted).

You can claim it's not the same thing all you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you try.  

You're only fooling yourself into thinking that you're morally superior to us because you wouldn't even think about what we actually mean because it's such a stupid position.

People with sense can see right through it, and we don't like what we see.  The world is moving on from this kind of thing, and thank goodness for that.  You should move on from it, too.  Trust me, it feels a lot better.

 I've moved on from the old idea that gays should be killed (which goes against Christ's teachings). I've moved on from the idea that what they do should be illegal (which is also not a position supported by Scripture). I've moved on from condemning gays for their actions.

Please consider what you've said, hh, and try harder to understand what I mean. I've explained myself clearly and any further refusal of yours to see what I mean will only work in my favour.

And there was no condescension, hatred, offense, judging, or anything of the sort intended by what I wrote. I just want to clarify my position and would appreciate a greater effort on your part to understand what we actually think.

I thought wizard was the masculine.

Nc6

P*8e

They were a tragic comedy.

Alright, now try sticking with your apology this time instead of forgetting about it.

OBI-WAN37 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

The dialogue. ("Hello There")

I love how you used an example of dialogue that they borrowed from the OT. Name some original dialogue in the PT that is good.

[a bunch of examples of dialogue from OBI]

I love how many examples you gave are prime examples of the terrible dialogue in the OT. The other dialogue is decent--none of it is "good."

 

The characters.

Some of the characters that are from the OT (Obi-Wan, Palpatine) as well as Qui-Gon and the physical appearances of Darth Maul and General Grievous were good, but the rest (Jar Jar, Anakin, Padmé, Count Dooku, etc.) were pretty terrible.

What about Palpatine, and Mace Windu.

LOL, did you even read what I wrote? :P I mentioned Palpatine, and Mace Windu wasn't that great. He wasn't terrible though.

The huge amount of models, life-size props, and miniatures.

The percentage of models and real sets compared to the OT is very low.

ActuallY i've heard people who prefer the OT admit to the seemingly well know fact that there were more models and miniatures in each singular PT film than in the entire OT. I'm pretty sure I've heard people claim, "it's all fake, and it looks totally fake", on a scene that did in fact have two prominent models (the main jedi starfighters in Episode III)

"More models" doesn't mean "a higher percentage of models." Of course the PT had more models. It was loaded with far more ships and a greater variety of things. The Jedi Starfighters you mention were the only non-CG element in that shot. That's why the shot looked fake.