Fair enough. I suppose I was mostly worried about losing half my pieces before I would be able to do anything, since I began a game against a computer and was reduced to shreds before I finally got the opposing lion. I just think the game revolves too much around the lion, but maybe it will be different playing a human player.
Do you think we could try playing a game without the lion? It's a really destructive and hard-to-kill piece, I think, so it would be nice to get a good grasp on the way the other pieces move before having such a powerful piece in play. We'd still be able to get a lion through promotion of our kirin, but it wouldn't come into to play early in the game. I'm fine with playing with it if that's what you want, but I'd rather save it for a second game.
I think I've got this mostly figured out. It'll take a while for me to figure out any kind of strategy, but here goes.
p-8h
I'm interested in Chu Shogi too. I've already downloaded the Zillions file, so I'm ready to go. I don't think I'll be able to make a mock up quite yet anyway, because I've got to take care of a crabby baby and finish up some schoolwork. Chu Shogi shouldn't be too hard to manage while I'm doing that.
How do the annotations work for this game? There are a lot of pieces with two-word names and pieces that share the same initials.
I think I'll mock something up on an excel spreadsheet. I'll have to take another look at the different moves. I think I have the general idea, but I'm not familiar with all the pieces.
So I figured. Alright, good game. What do you want to do next? Ito Shogi?
K-1iii
Don't worry, I remembered. Kx2iv
I said non-organized religion which means it wouldn't have a specific name and its believers wouldn't all meet and discuss the Loch Ness Monster. It's a terrible example though.
I am partially referring to dogmatism, but also to those atheists who have faith in things like bigfeet or the Loch Ness Monster. For them, the lack of evidence doesn't seem to hinder their beliefs and I call them religious. Or how about those who were convinced the world was going to end in 2012? Some of them believed it like a Christian might believe in the second coming. Maybe they aren't really religious in the normal sense of the word, but their beliefs have elements of religiousity (is that a word?) in them.
Jaitea said:
RicOlie_2 said:
It's kind of like saying a-"bigfootism" isn't a religion, but many "bigfootists" are religious, if you get what I mean (and even if you don't, it's still like saying that). I mean they might not call themselves religious, but they behave like they belong to a religion in the way that they are superstitious, are convinced of some conspiracy theories, which shape their worldview, or believe that all religious people need to be converted to atheism (and therefore "preach" atheism just as a Christian might preach their religion to others).
I don't know of any atheist clubs or churches,.....wouldn't be interested in them anyway, I've got more important things to do than not worshiping
J
'T'ain't what I mean. Religious people don't need churches to be religious. Nor do they need a leading body or a specific organization. I'm not talking about organized religion here, as you seem to think, but unorganized religion.
It's kind of like saying a-"bigfootism" isn't a religion, but many "bigfootists" are religious, if you get what I mean (and even if you don't, it's still like saying that). I mean they might not call themselves religious, but they behave like they belong to a religion in the way that they are superstitious, are convinced of some conspiracy theories, which shape their worldview, or believe that all religious people need to be converted to atheism (and therefore "preach" atheism just as a Christian might preach their religion to others).
Atheism isn't a religion, but many atheists are arguably religious (I mean aside from Buddhists, etc.).
There we go. Thanks.
Diagram:
r---k--r
ppp---pp
--nb--q-
----pb--
--------
--NPBQ--
PPP--P-P
--KR--NR
Thanks. The latter bit would be a question for ender, since it's the program both he and I are using.
The double "yeah" would work if two different shots were used. But since they're pretty much duplicate shots right now, it doesn't work as well.
Just to make sure I have this right, Warbler is castling queen-side. Is that correct? And how do you castle in Zillions?
I think a lot of atheists are religious and unfortunately for those who aren't, religious people (who belong to organized religions) lump all atheists together.
February 3:
A.D. 1451: Mehmed II inherits the Ottoman sultanate.
A.D. 1690: First paper money in America is issued.
A.D. 1870: The 15th Amendment to the U.S. constitution is passed, emancipating black slaves.
Well done Frink, well done. One thing though--at 19:47, Shatner (not having seen the movie, I only know the actor) says "close off the bridge" when I believe he should be saying "tower." Unless I misunderstood something, there's no bridge, only a tower.
Gee, I wrote that so badly you thought I might be serious?! :(
darth_ender said:
Not sure what you mean. Sx2iv+L
...
I mean that my king was pinned and I could only move my rook to take your piece. Since I only had one available move, you could have just called it and saved time. It doesn't matter though.
Bx3ii
TV's Frink said:
lol at King Example.
I know--it was honestly the best I could come up with at the time. :P I must have been tired.
ray_afraid said:
Doh.. hold on...
Fixed?
Yes.
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
RicOlie_2 said:
[...stuff...]
Apologies, it was just an odd usage of the word. Most people would have said it differently when using it to refer to the first definition. I just misunderstood, that's all.
^ The first is what it means, the second is what you believe it to mean. You keep suggesting I and others have made silly "mistakes" in our posts which comes across as quite patronising (Especially when you are infact incorrect yourself), I'm sure it is not your intent to do so. I let it go the first few times but thought it time to mention that.
You may not realize it, but you have come across as being condescending and patronizing a few times. You have also been wrong about some things regarding religion. I don't mean that to sound/look condescending, but please realize that both of us are doing the same things.
Apologies if I come of like that, it's not my intent either. I tend to pepper my arguments with a little humour, even light sarcasm but it is meant in jest (Gives a debate some zest IMO). But there is a subtle difference between poking a bit of fun at the content of somebody's argument and suggesting that somebody lacks the basic language skills to make that argument.
The best of us are guilty of that. Humour tends to come across badly over the internet. In the heat of a debate, things can be taken more personally than normal, or things you say might seem OK from your perspective, but appear rude to the other person.
RicOlie_2 said:
This is the kind of story that only confirms my belief in the non-existence of God.
I don't think it is evidence against God's existence. I think it is evidence, albeit weak, for the existence of God.
For me, it is a story of the kind of crazy stuff the human mind can dream up when it is pushed to the limits. If it was a story of a totally rational and sober man seeing Angels, it would be less easy to dismiss.
[story]
Exactly, that story is less easy for me to dismiss or explain. I still don't believe it and am sure there must be a rational explanation somewhere in there if I had more information like Doctor's notes, pathologist's reports, a library of similar case notes, patient history, multiple witness testimonies, a degree in medicine etc etc.
It is certainly impossible to refute some purported miracles, and equally hard to prove they happened. I choose to accept many of them, but you choose to believe there is a natural explanation. Both work, I guess, but each side shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the other.