darth_ender

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Sometimes I post opinion, sometimes I post zany surreal nonsense and I leave it up to the intelligence of the reader to figure out which is which.

 you admit to this yet are suprised that Ender couldnt figure out whether or not what you said was a dig at him?

Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of the contributors of these boards including yourself. The alternative is to act like you are all children and write very slowly in big text.

 I appreciate Warbler coming to my defense, but I wish that my ongoing attempts at smoothing over the personal hurt (though admittedly trying to continue a reasonable and respectful debate) don't seem to be working.  Instead of getting worked up and making personal jabs, why not address points I've made.  I have what I feel is an excellent example of a comatose man.  I'd love to hear your rebuttal.

Too often I make deep points, points that I really want addressed rather than ignored.  Looking back over this thread, I remembered and sought out this post by CP3S.  He never addressed my points because he felt it would be uninteresting.  I found it to be a bit of a cop out, and I wished he'd addressed my thoughts, no matter how boring or philosophical he found them.  Abortion deals with the most fundamental morals of humanity, and too often my best arguments remain ignored.  I often wonder if my arguments are extra strong when folks lack the courage to address them. Or perhaps I've overestimated the intelligence of those who contribute to these boards. 

Along a different train of thought, I remember when Frink shared his first inkling of his story to me.  He asked about another exception to abortion that hadn't come to mind: that of the physical health of the child.  Ah yes, here it is.  At the time I advocated a position of letting nature take its course, but understood his reasoning.  Very recently my opinion has changed somewhat, and admittedly because of a greater understand of LDS Church policy.  This is a quote on that policy:

P-15

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Wouldn't it be funny if the baby had red hair just like my carrots...the colour...I don't have hairy carrots...oh now it sounds rude and weird and I didn't meen too.

To me it occurred that this might have been trying to get back at me.  "Oh look, I said something mean, oops I'm sorry, but not really."  At the same time, I wasn't sure since you make these silly comments a lot.  But you have a tendency to be very oblique, making your points with subtlety, sarcasm, analogy.  I honestly don't get what you mean more than just on this occasion (meaning, probably around 50% of the time when you are using such tactics, if not more).

well said here, Ender.  

And yet you guys believe texts like the Bible and the Book of Mormon which are much more contradictory, include more flights of fancy and use them to arrange the events in your life.

Ooh, good move!  I confess to not understanding what you mean, so you attack my faith in religious texts.  Nice one!  And you said you don't post tactically.

If you want cold logic and bare facts you are digging in the wrong place.

Bingoists make up about 50% of the people in my living room and I'm the only other person in my living room. My utterances in regard to ice-cream and carrots have no political influence and don't limit the chances of people to live their lives the way they see fit.

When I said that you hadn't offended me with the statement and that I'd just wondered what you might have meant, I didn't think it would cause you to get so upset.  It was a flippin' question.  I don't really care.  I was just curious, and you seemed to persist at it, so I wanted honest clarification.  Such a styled response is well within the realm of your methods.  I don't care if you even had meant it to insult me.  However, I trust you (unlike some) when you reassure me that your intentions were not to offend.

I never post tactically by the way.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tactically

Definition 3 seems quite fitting to nearly all your posts, as you employ great linguistic skill to convey your messages, though I must admit, perhaps you have overestimated the intelligence of some of us.  But we are pretty slow.  After all, we believe in some silly old books after all.

Sometimes I post opinion, sometimes I post zany surreal nonsense and I leave it up to the intelligence of the reader to figure out which is which.

 I enjoy your zaniness.  It's part of your charm.  But I don't always understand it.  That's okay.

Thanks buddy.  This week I will end up with more than 60 hours at work, on top of my involvement in local Church leadership, trying to move into a new house (slowly, thank goodness the separate landlords of both houses are friendly), and simply trying to be a husband and father.  Work has been especially busy the past two days.  Hopefully tomorrow is lighter.

Thanks for clarifying.  Hopefully you understand our reasoning for not necessarily accepting it as canon.  Again, if you read the Doctrine and Covenants reference, it states that most of the material is correct, though there are substantial errors in other parts.  I am particularly fond of 1 Maccabees for its historical value, and there are other aspects of those books that I find interesting and worthwhile.  We don't reject them outright.  We simply haven't canonized them or feel they are necessary, in part based on unspecific inaccuracies.

You might be right about the meaning, being questioned by some.

Those are fantastic links, BTW!  I would love to read many of the linked texts, including Church Fathers material.

I understand the reasoning, but I don't much care for terms that refer to female parts.  I find it extremely crude and disrespectful, less to me, more to women.

That said, I don't want to be your enemy.  I have always liked you in spite of our vastly different opinions on so many subjects.  This isn't the first time I have misspoken.  I don't want that to ever ruin a friendship.

RC-2

Muddy has said my thoughts extremely well.  It's bugged me for years that their sacrifice was utterly meaningless.  Their action served no delay, and they should have retreated sooner.  Their leadership should have authorized such a retreat almost immediately.  But as it stands, the efforts of the ground troops didn't even leave a dark spot on AT-AT armor, and thus they continued to give their lives and resources (which, as we know, are very finite compared to the Imperials'), and made no difference.  Better to live and fight another day than pointlessly waste life and ammo.

RicOlie_2 said:

I agree with that and that was what I was worried about. There's probably a better way to limit them and perhaps it's enough just to drop them out of the game when they're captured instead of being able to paratroop them back onto the board. Or maybe that's the rule I should discard. I'll have to think about a good way to limit them without making them to complicated to remember easily.

 I look forward to seeing what you come up with.  I honestly am especially interested in seeing if the bishop and vice generals can be used, as they could be a great way to prevent the game from locking up too much.

Gs-10

RicOlie_2 said:

I'm curious about your thoughts on version 13. Do you think the addition of those pieces is a bad idea? Did I place too many restrictions on them, not enough, or do you think I limited them enough but not more than enough? Would they work in a version of the game with more powerful pieces? If so, should they have fewer or the same limitations?

I'll hear/see from you in the morning, hopefully. Good night.

 I feel that they are a bit complex.  Obviously complex games lose the intuitiveness of their pieces when there are so many to remember and so many different moves invented.  Creating rules about piece moves and then creating a number of exceptions make it harder to remember.  I honestly have little desire to play larger shogi variants in part because of this tendency.  Doing it to what is supposed to be a relatively simple and straightforward game seems against the spirit of a 1D game.  Yes I want it to be complex enough to be enjoyable, but not so complex that it is actually hard to remember how to play.  You know what I'm saying?  That's not to say such pieces are not usable or that we should dump them.  I just suggest simplification of the associated rules of using, and trying to lean more towards the original moves as much as possible, with alteration only when absolutely needed.  Just my thoughts.

RicOlie_2 said:

If Christianity became corrupt soon after the death of all the apostles, then why do Mormons accept the New Testament as Scripture since it wasn't affirmed as such until the fourth century or so?

The extent of the corruption was not so severe, and the inspiration of good men continued as the New Testament canon was formulated, in spite of the deaths of the apostles.

Also, do Mormons use the Protestant Bible rather than the Catholic one (the difference I am referring to being not the translation, but the books included in the Old Testament)?

Yes, we accept the Protestant version of the Bible, that is, minus what is generally termed among Protestants as The Apocrypha.

If so, then why accept Martin Luther's changes to the Bible which were made long after you believe Christianity became corrupt? Those books were affirmed as Scripture and included in the Bible at the same time as the books in the New Testament, so why reject the seven OT books but not the NT ones?

 Remember first what your church calls such books: deuterocanonical, meaning secondary canon.  Implicitly they are not valued as highly in Catholic canon either.  These books were never included in Jewish canon.  They were part of the Greek Septuagint, coming from Jewish texts but already of dubious authenticity, and ultimately rejected by Jewish authorities, though Christian authorities did ultimately accept them.  That said, we do not reject them wholly, but believe them to be somewhat unreliable, some more than others:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/apocrypha

I happen to have a parallel translation of I believe eight different translations of the Apocrypha, 4 Protestant, 4 Catholic, and it includes a few other books not found canonical by either, but esteemed as canon by Oriental Orthodox branches.  I've actually enjoyed collecting such books, and I hope to obtain a few books that contain large collections of pseudepigriphial Old and New Testament writings.  There is something to learn from many of them, even if some are very inaccurate.

P-14

Nxf1

Warbler said:

and I think the way you stated your opinion was rude.   You could easily have a found a much more polite way of telling he was wrong for saying what he said to Frink.   (notice that in critizing you for what you said to Ender, that I didn't use any rude terms like c**T)

 Oh, but Warbler, didn't you know that men who really respect women (the non-darth_enders of the world, as we know he tramples on their rights) are at liberty to make crude use of terms meaning female genitalia while maintaining their lofty status?

Sorry it's been such a busy couple of  days.  I haven't even had time to look at anything.  I'll look at making a move in just a minute.

Bingowings said:

You were clearly hip to the hurt this subject churns up when you started this thread, going by the title and yet for whatever reason you wrote what you wrote and let it hang there long enough for me to respond to it (more than microsecond it usually takes someone chirp in about a dead link or a typo).

Yes, I was aware this subject could offend or that I might be offended by it.  It 

When people give their life experiences on a thread like this it's not attention seeking, it's making a valid point that blanket believers in a non-abortion world ride over or remain ignorant of.

Valid points are pertinent.  I very much appreciate his story, as I'm pretty darn sure I've said before, and pointed out that there are many cases where it is appropriate.  But I also said that it is not always appropriate

There is a rise in "I believe" politics which frankly disturbs me.

Yes I believe that animals shouldn't be slaughtered by humans for food but I don't politically lobby to limit the rights of meat eaters. I speak my mind when I'm asked but I don't picket restaurants of leather goods shops.

That's wonderful that you exercise your right not to picket.  I don't picket either.  I speak my mind when the opportunity presents itself.  As do you, and not always when asked:

http://originaltrilogy.com/FORUM/topic.cfm/Random-Thoughts/post/525250/#TopicPost525250

And just so you know, if you chose to exercise your right to picket such establishments, I would be equally proud of you.  People have a right to advocate for what they believe in, and picketing (with appropriate permissions and permits) is a fine example of such a right.  As you and I have discussed numerous times in the past, our morals, our legal system is based very much on morals, which in a a very real sense, without a higher Lawgiver, are ultimately based on "I believe".  Sure, the level may be different, and scientific evidence may be used to back up the validity of a claim, but let's look at the near-universally accepted immorality of murder (referring to post-birth people).  There is evidence that shows that society functions better without murder.  But ultimately, is it really wrong?  Some could argue that killing should be more permissible, at least in more instances, as it would allow weaker members of our species to be weeded out and thus strengthen the gene pool and improve the longevity of our species as a whole.  But most of us go on the "I believe" feeling that really that is still not right.  More subtle could be things like sterilizing those who are genetically flawed, imposing population limits, reducing individual privacy rights, as there are arguments that such produce necessary positive results in spite of the negative repercussions.  But "I believe," and I presume you do as well, that such things are not right, and therefore we support and uphold  laws against them.

The winter Olympics drew attention to how the Russian Orthodox church is driving politics in that country also the Ugandan 'hang the homos' situation is being fueled by American Christian Evangelists. I'm sure you don't want a death list of women who have aborted pregnancies in your town but it comes from the same reflex against the advances in human rights over religious authority in the last four decades or so.

Yes, there are those who do this.  But it seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me to assume that because such extremism is present when looking at an issue from one angle, we must then assume that the extreme opposite view is correct.  To me, compromise between moderate views usually presents the most satisfactory results.

If I were a female Doctor who trained under the pretty corrupt regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi only to find I now can't leave the house unattended or drive a car let alone find a cure for cancer because some tit with one eye on the bronze age says God says it's dirty, I'd be pretty pissed off.

Similarly I thank fate that I'm not an eleven year old girl raped in Chile and forced to carry full term based on the Catholic church's teaching.

Yep, people do that, governments do that.  It's very sad.  It's also impertinent to this discussion.  I do not advocate that.  I do not believe that because others do, we must therefore assume that abortion should be acceptable in most cases.  I pointed out Ireland many months ago to you.  Such extremism is not present everywhere.  And again, just because one extreme is false, it doesn't make the opposite extreme true.

These laws are based on feelings, myths and prejudices not on something measurable or provable.

You might as well bill the same gendered married for the floods in England.

Having a debate about religions or abortion or anything is fine but to expect civility when you call people who place examples of life experiences that challenge 'tummy feel' based ideas as nothing more than appeals for sympathy or attention is astonishingly brass-headed. Even if it is for a limited run and in lieu of alternative phrase.

Oh yeah, I addressed the sympathy thing before.  Oh, but then you doubt my sincerity, hence...

You started a thread about good news and reported your happy event, my happy event was a bumper crop of golden carrots. I grow my own food, getting a bumper crop is good news to me. But somehow this is what a dig at you or something?

You can't figure this sort of stuff out with out prompting?

Let me explain why I thought it was a dig.

Bingowings said:

Wouldn't it be funny if the baby had red hair just like my carrots...the colour...I don't have hairy carrots...oh now it sounds rude and weird and I didn't meen too.

To me it occurred that this might have been trying to get back at me.  "Oh look, I said something mean, oops I'm sorry, but not really."  At the same time, I wasn't sure since you make these silly comments a lot.  But you have a tendency to be very oblique, making your points with subtlety, sarcasm, analogy.  I honestly don't get what you mean more than just on this occasion (meaning, probably around 50% of the time when you are using such tactics, if not more).  I think it's quite fair that I was confused in this case.  Since it's obvious you don't believe my phrasing was not what  I'd intended, I thought perhaps the underlined phrasing above was meant to illustrate that.  Such is your style.

SilverWook said:

 In a similar vein...

Sad stuff :(

My previous field included much work with Child Protective Services.  While they provide a valuable service, the following story shows the dangers of too much governmental power when able to trump parental rights.  Same thing with our flawed judicial system.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/justina-pelletier-mom-faints-decision-place-teen-foster-care-article-1.1701640

Light said:

Thanks for the info. It seems signups on that site are closed however, so I can't access them. Are they anywhere that's publicly available, or anywhere that I can get them on Usenet?

When you say "Japanese Laserdisc", do you mean for TPM or AotC?

Thanks!

 There is a thread to request invites in Off Topic somewhere.  The Japanese Laserdisc refers to TPM.  The bootleg I shared refers to AOTC.  I'm at work and don't have the time to find the thread for invites, but it's not too hard to find.

Thank you :)

There are no restorations that I know of, only bootlegs.  I upped one to MySpleen about a year ago.  Just so you know, while Adywan's preservation is fantastic, it is inperfect in at least one place.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Prequel-Bootlegs/post/611716/#TopicPost611716

I recommend the Japanese laserdisc also preserved on MySpleen.

Don't have the board in front of me, and last time it was a serious error, but I'm pretty sure I want to play Nxh2.

I'm interested in it.  Like I said, I want to try perfecting a more balanced game first, but I'm definitely willing to test out the other pieces.  It might in the end be good to use those generals in order to prevent stagnant positions like the previous game, but I still want to try the other setup first.

I'm working, so I'll make a move when I can.