Thanks for playing Twister. Are you familiar with the algebraic notation for Shogi? I'll make the first move I guess.
R-5h
I don't suppose anyone else besides Twister has been visiting this thread?
Well, this year will be most memorable to me as the year I became an active member of the internet. ;)
It's the year I joined my first forum (this one) and the first year I contributed to anything over the internet (Frink's edits) and the first year I did a bunch of other things, including watching my first fanedits (ANH:R, TRM, and AOTR).
You ended 2013 with 30,000 minus 176. Close...but not quite.
2014 just began over here. Hope you all have a great year!
darth_ender said:
RicOlie_2 said:
So...Twister? Darth_ender? What say you--who wants to play the next game?
Crap! I hadn't posted for a while, and now that I did, I lost all my pictures, as it took a long time. I won't have much time, so I hope twister can take you on. If not, I'll play you again soon. Just give me a few days to get through some busy stuff. Thanks again for playing me. It's really so much fun!
No worries, I can wait.
Twister, if you're there I am willing to help you get set up for a game and play with you if you wish.
darth_ender said:
... I hope he did too, and I hope that my commentary is instructive and not demeaning.
Ha! Don't worry about that. Your commentary made my mistakes clearer and further enlightened me on your strategy throughout the game.
So...Twister? Darth_ender? What say you--who wants to play the next game?
182
I guess you won't make it. Oh, well, you'll likely finish within a week of the New Year even if you don't make it for the beginning of 2014.
Depends why they're holding hands. :)
I am opposed to any sort of romantic relationship between homosexuals if that is what you mean, just as I would be against such relationships between siblings, regardless of whether or not sex acts were part of the relationship.
To put it loosely and simply, sexual relations are an act between people which causes sexual pleasure/stimulation. A sex act is any act which stimulates the sexual organs/causes sexual pleasure.
I don't mean homosexuality is an activity. That's ridiculous. I may as well call psychopathy an activity. Homosexual sex is an activity, just like heterosexual sex can be considered such. Homosexuality itself is not an activity though.
Warbler said:
So how come they haven't been changed?
Not sure. They probably have few enough weddings anyway that there's no motivation to change it. Also, I doubt anyone that young would get married anyway--leastwise not in Vatican City. If there was some problem caused by the laws, they would no doubt change it, but right now they probably don't have much reason to do so.
MrBrown said:
RicOlie_2 said:
I meant insulting people, not making jokes.
"Then I demand my right to shot the one who is insulting me, because I took my honor."
(No I don't think killing someone is the correct answer to an insult, I just want to show that, what you demand, can, and will start some kind of chain reaction, ending in what I "demanded". Insult someone always has to face consequences, but it has not neccesary to be always some kind of lawyer needed consequences. If you insult someone in a bar, you mostly would only get a bloody nose.)
I don't even see it to be a right for me to insult someone, because an insult is an action directly AGAINST someone. It is a right to have a different opinion. Even to express the opinion, but I don't think it is a right to act against someone, because he doesn't match your opinion.
And here is the point:
Sure the anti-homosexual-marriage demonstrants have their right to say "In my opinion it is not right that homosexuals get married." But often it is more that they don't express their opinion, but try to act against the people trying to get equality rights. (And there are also exsamples the way around, not questioning that.)
In my opinion the anti-homosexual-marriage movement is very wrong, because they base (I would say "all") their arguments on hate and antique texts, which have nothing to do with a stat legislative.
You see the difference between the sentence: "homosexuals shall burn" and "I don't believe you are right with equal marriage rights."
With whom you would prefer to discuss the topic? :)
I meant more that you shouldn't have to watch your back if you call someone a nasty name, hoping you wouldn't get sued or arrested or fined.
I think 12 and 16 is kind of young nowadays. The age difference is probably because, like you said Mr. Brown, when the laws were made the man needed to be of an age at which he was capable of providing for his family, while the woman needed to be able to keep house and raise children.
MrBrown said:
RicOlie_2 said:
MrBrown said:
RicOlie_2 said:
...Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.
...You are aware that much from the Qur'an is taken from the bible?
And regarding this point the bible is as bloody and bloodthirsty as the Qur'an. With both books, it is often more a question of the interpreting priests.A lot taken from the Bible is warped into a different story or the stories are drawn from different traditions (the latter being just a guess based on what I have read in the Qur'an). A new law of love and peace was given by Christ, so only the Old Testament contains the comparatively violent religion of the Jews/Israelites which was largely due to the way the world was at the time. Their violent behaviour was entirely normal back then. Muslims, at least according to the Qur'an, are still required to kill non-believers.
I really would love to read the Qur'an in its original language, but I am very bad at learning languages, so this would never happen. I think most of the "kill non-believers" is some kind of more or less mistranslation and misinterpreting by people, which want to bring people in a certain way. But as long as I don't know it literal words, I can only assume, and hope for the best.
Hey, you can't be that bad. You seem to understand English quite well and you write it pretty well too.
I think the Qur'an was clear enough on that point that it one would find the same message in its original language.
Also I may add, that inquisition, witch hunting, holy war, and purge the pagan was a catholic invention. Just to mention "Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy" Night of August the 23rd to August 24th 1572.
None of which would have been anything but appalling to the members of the early Church. None of those were right, none of those are in accordance with the Catholic religion. Holy wars and massacres are not only allowed in the Qur'an, but are also required.
The point I was trying to take is, again, I think most problems of religions are created not by just believing in God, but by interpretation done by (wo)men. These activities in the Name of the Catholic Church maybe wrong today, they even were wrong thatdays, but for the catholics and the catholic church they were in the name and word of the Lord.
They were in the name of the Lord, yes, but those actions contradicted what was written in the Bible. In most cases kings, queens, and emperors were responsible for those actions, not the Pope (though, since there were bad Popes, some of those atrocities were approved by him).
I really beliefe that Earth with its live on it is just a coincidence, and that we are only a little bit of dust in the whole existence of all. I don't dare to beliefe that we are the most intelligent beeings, also not the most reasonable.
Though I believe our existence was planned from the beginning, I don't believe we are the most intelligent or reasonable beings. I believe the angels are both more intelligent and more reasonable, and of course that God is infinitely intelligent and reasonable.
And now a really challenging question(s):
Do you need the catholic church for your believe in God?You said, in the homosexual thread, that a homosexual who does act against the catholic church, if he commit homosexual acts (if I interporeted your words correctly). But you also said that actions in the past, like inquisition, were against what the catholic church stands for. As I said: Today these acts would be against it, but in past times it was exactly what the catholic chruch stands for that days. So what makes the conter homosexual teachings of the catholic church any more trustworthy, as the past time teachings against wiches and non-believers?
Homosexual sex acts are wrong according to Church doctrine, which is permanent. Witches were burned at the stake because they were thought to be users of black magic, but it is not and never was an actual doctrine, or even rule of the Church. The same goes for the Inquisition. The Inquisition as we know it was not formally approved by the Church, but a less severe form of it was in order to root out heresies. It was never a Church doctrine that heretics should be rooted out and killed, though it was permitted and at times encouraged. So the question isn't really that hard. It is important to distinguish between Church doctrine, which we believe is infallible and permanent, and actions permitted or encouraged by the Pope, since those actions may be fallible.
But I also think it is more complicate than that. There are some very delicate topics, which are not scrateched with that.
in Exsample what topic is not even scratched:
In the State of Vatikan it is illegal to commit sex out of marriage, you have to be marriaged to commit sex. (So it is illegal to commit homosexual sex at all, because you would not be married in the state of Vatikan.) Nice thing, but: The age for being marriaged depends in the State of Vatikan on the sex: Male may marriage with 16 years, female with the age of 12... (I didn't find any news, if the Age of marriage was raised, I only can find that in Spain the age of marriage was raised from 14 to 16.)
In Vatican City, I think it is fine to have restrictions like that since it has a population of something like 400 people, almost all of which are Roman Catholic, I am sure.
I am willing to play two games at once, and I'm guessing you are too, d_e, so if Twister wishes to play a game, I would be happy to play as well.
I'm up for as many games as you want, but I'll wait for Twister's response in case he wants to play the next game.
I think I have too much of a defensive strategy, both in Shogi and Chess. I'm never aggressive enough to put my opponent in check, never mind win a game.
I think we both had a good strong defense around our kings, but once you got those two nasty rooks behind my ranks I was doomed to failure. If I had payed more attention to your pieces advancing in the eighth file I would have defended my turf on that side of the board a little better. Unfortunately for me, I was too concerned with getting my king protected that I largely ignored anything not directly threatening at the time.
I managed to set up a decent defense on the left side of the board, but like last game, I didn't account for the paratroopers as much as I should, and when I lost my rook, my defense was weakened a lot while your offense was strengthened nearly as much. I think I did better than last time in regards to forming a defense around my king, but since that was my only strong defense, I didn't hold out as long as last game.
I think I ought to have put my king and my lance in opposite spots, since only two pieces were directly defending my king, while four were defending the lance. :P Had I done that, there would have been four pieces defending the king, and three defending the lance. I guess it's just something to consider next game.
Yes I did want to promote it. Now I see where I'm getting confused. I've got it now.
Gx2i
OK, thanks, I thought the plus sign was used to indicate a promotion as well as a promoted piece.
You made a very good move, and it's going to cost me.
Px2c
+Px8a
S-8g
S*2i
No sigh of resignation from Warbler this time! He must really want to know. :)
G-2h