RicOlie_2

hairy_hen said:

Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?

I 'understand' that this is the most pathetic and laughable excuse for bigotry I've ever heard.  If you can't hear the hypocrisy behind it, then you fail at life.

Ooh, he fails at life! Now that's a good strong argument. We need more of those. ;)

Take the judgemental bullsh!t somewhere else.  People with actual intelligence and compassion have no use for this sort of garbage, which is completely antithetical to anything that remotely resembles what Christ ever really said, or meant.

And I suppose you're the really compassionate type even though you don't hesitate to insult someone for their point of view. A patient and reasoned out post would accomplish far more than a hate-filled rant like this.

In the gospels, Jesus exemplifies the "hate the sin but not the sinner" attitude. For instance, when Judas betrays him, rather than curse Judas or yell at him, he says "Friend, do what you have come to do" (I'm going by memory here, so excuse me if I added or missed a couple words). Do you think the gospels indicate that Jesus condoned adultery? Because he seemed pretty forgiving of that woman he saved from stoning. How about the "love your enemies" line? I'm sure he didn't mean "love what your enemies do to you and the hate they show you." No, he meant just that we should love our enemies.

I have no patience for this kind of rubbish, and am not interested in debating it as if it were a point of view worth granting any consideration to at all.  Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.

 Bigotry:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance for a belief, creed, or opinion that disagrees with one's own; prejudice.

Now tell me, is it bigoted to love someone, even though you disagree with what they do? If so, is it more or less bigoted to call that idea "rubbish" , "judgemental bulls***", and not worthy of consideration, saying that such an idea is only held by those who lack intelligence and compassion and who are hypocrites? Think about that, hairy_hen, and why it is possible to love someone and disagree with what they do at the same time. It is certainly not hypocritical, and I am sure those you have loved have done things you consider wrong at some point or other.

OBI-WAN37 said:

Almost everything.

The cinematography.

Some of it was good, but it didn't look like Star Wars.

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.

The MUSIC.

I can't argue about that, though some of the best music is from the OT.

The lightsaber duels.

There was no emotion in them, but some of them are entertaining to watch. They could have been done far better though.

The vehicles with their sleek looks (Naboo Starfighter, Royal Naboo cruiser, Eta-2 class interceptor, venator, so many more).

To be honest, I like many vehicle designs in the PT, except for the fact that they all looked shiny and new ("all" is an exaggeration, but for the most part, they did). One of the things Star Wars was best known for was the fact that everything looked used and not sleek and shiny. Watch almost any other sci-fi film if you want sleek and shiny.

The tragedy.

There was no tragedy. The story had a happy ending. Anakin turned into an amazing character, the awful Jedi were destroyed, and the silly politicians were killed.

...I do, in actual fact, agree it is a tragedy, but certainly not a good tragedy. It wasn't about good people and a good republic going bad, but bad people and a bad republic getting worse.

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.

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

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

The CGI.

 Some of it is actually OK, but too much of it was used for the characters to deliver a convincing performance.

You know, you are a very entertaining troll/spammer/whatever you are.

Hold on, Ryan just agreed with your point and now you're disagreeing with him? I don't get it...

Bf5

Sx8h

I think Vader was always intended to be Luke's father though, even in the pre-ESB universe. His name even implies it.

c5

P*8g

March 28:

A.D. 193: Roman Emperor Pertinax is assassinated by Praetorian Guards and his throne is auctioned off to Didius Julianus.

A.D. 364: Emperor Valentinian I appoints his brother Flavius Valens co-emperor.

A.D. 845: Paris is sacked by Viking raiders who collect a huge ransom in exchange for leaving.

A.D. 1794: Le Louvre opens to the public.

d6

Bx1a+

Did I get the promotion right this time? :P

EDIT: And this is my last move for today. Good night. :)

N-f6

Px8f

I think you may be right. I'll probably create a version with the combined moves and then make a second version with better balanced pieces and tweak the moves a bit (or create new pieces). I'm creating it on another spreadsheet in the same Ito Shogi document as the other one. I've also made a mini-version (1x18) and plan to make a weak piece and strong piece version of Ito Shogi as well. When I'm done all that, I'll send it to you via PM and you'll have all the versions of Ito Shogi from the Zillions version to our latest one, and be able to give me feedback on the other versions. :)

TV's Frink said:

ferris209 said:

hairy_hen said:

Then a great number of people were raised to believe it, completely failing to see that they'd incorporated hate and fear into a philosophy that was meant to promote loving your neighbour above all.

 Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?

 I understand that it helps you feel better about yourself, but I've never bought it.

 I don't get what's so hard about hating the sin and not the sinner. Don't you still love your kids even when they do something wrong? In some cases, the sin is greater, but the concept can still apply.

I'll let you make the first move so that you have time to get the zillions file if you don't have it yet (search for selfeliminator, without any hyphens or spaces).

Commander Courage said:

Listen to our show! nerdsexplainitall.podomatic.com/

 I divided the words the wrong way when I first read that...it took me a couple seconds to figure it out. :P

B-6f

Did you not see my other comment, or just not have time to respond to it?

Hey, I'm sorry!

;)

Store-bought strawberries aren't worth the money (at least by the time they get to Canada). But freshly picked strawberries...

I'm working on an expanded version of Ito Shogi (if it can still be called that) which is currently 3x34 squares. I am combining pieces' moves from Ito Shogi with their original ones and I wanted to ask you if you thought that was a bad idea or not. It helps facilitate forward movement (especially with pieces like the bishop), but it might be making things too complicated or some pieces too powerful.

Thoughts? Other suggestions for the set-up of the game are also welcome.

Alright, I'm ready for Self-eliminator Chess if you are. It's funny, this thread is the fourth result in a Google search for "Self-eliminator Chess" and first in a search for "Self-eliminator Chess download". I guess it isn't a very common variant. :)

That's how I understood it too, and it seems like most people understood it that way as well. I wasn't sure if Bingowings was just joking around or if he had misunderstood as well.

Since it wasn't a strategic error but a silly mistake, I am going to insist you take that back.

However, since you've been stubborn about that lately, I'll make a move in case you refuse. ;)

B-7e

Nx7g

I must have fallen for a trap...I can't see you throwing away your bishop like that. Problem is, I can't see the trap. :P

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

[stuff]

 [rant]

Yeah I'm selfish and self centred being the lone voice of defense (by the looks of things) for a large minority of the human race against the fairy tales and prejudice of a large majority of the humans race on this planet and clearly represented on these boards.

Defending your position is not self-centred and selfish. It's the way you treat others that is.

Thread after thread after thread based on various religions and the subject is picked up everywhere else too but I'm selfish because I bang the drum for homosexuality.

I bang other drums too.

I don't hear people moaning so much about my repeated mentions of animal rights or Korean horror movies but when the god squad are in town it's very selfish to defend my sexuality which I repeat is not chose or removable or even expressed much in the way of activity.

You don't make nearly as big of a deal over animal rights or repeat it nearly as often. I'm fine with you defending yourself, but rather than slander others, why don't you accept that they don't hate you or condemn you for what you do? Because most of us don't. We may think it's morally wrong, but I don't think anyone on this forum would hate someone just for being gay.

Why should make any special effort to see your point of view?

Because I make an effort to see yours.

It you who might get something new from trying to see my point of view (largely by not make stupid comparisons between homosexuality and a raft of negative activities) because it is the unusual one. The one we don't both share.

This is why I would like you to make more of an effort to understand me. The analogy about car theft was merely to explain to Frink how it was possible for someone to love another person even though the other person did things that were wrong. I used a serious example to further my point, but it could have been stealing from the cookie jar instead of vehicle theft. My point would have remained the same. The analogy didn't even require homosexual acts to even be wrong at all for it to work, so I don't get why you make such a big deal over it.

I can see why the pedophilia statement could have been offensive, and I believe I already apologized for that. Again, I have changed my views on the subject somewhat, and I don't think it was a very good analogy. It was not, however, intended to equate the seriousness of homosexual acts with pedophilic acts.

I've spent over four decades walking in your shoes try mine on for size.

 You've not been in my shoes and I won't be in yours, but I do my best to see your point of view. When someone's view changes, accept that you've won and stop bringing up their original view repeatedly. It is very tiring.