Leo, for the life of me, I can't even think of a slightly reasonable answer to your red sheep one. And the other is a stumper too, since it seems all the best answers were already given, yet wrong. I'll keep pondering.
I assume Bingowings was deliberately deflating the riddle for his private enjoyment, as he has a demonstrated history of sadistic derailment ;) However, as these sorts of riddles are clearly not always literal or precise, if he's truly getting hung up on anything, he would have a hard time enjoying the intended nature of this thread. It's often very figurative. And if he's got an issue with the fish one, he should take it up with Tolkein ;)
Mrebo has it and wins $10 thousand dollars, which I'll be sure to give him the next time I see him. You were quite close, Bingowings ;) Anyone want to take a stab at riddling the rest of us?
So I'm having fun in class answering riddles on the Hobbit website. It makes me think such a game would be fun here. Here are the rules. Ask a riddle. Everyone can guess, but please no one cheat and look it up. Since a person can't always respond if it's right or wrong, I suggest that people post riddles whenever they want as well. I'll go first with my favorite straight from The Hobbit:
Alive without breath
As cold as death
Never thirsty, always drinking
All in mail, never clinking
What am I?
mrdmv said:
In the original Star Wars movie is that a shit stain on Princess Lea's dress when she and Luke swing across to the other landing? See if you don't agree that right after she kisses him for luck and they land on the other side she has a big Hershey squirt on her dress.
Welcome to the forum. Aren't you glad that first impressions are hardest to overcome?
Is ther anyway too calibrate teh colar... ?
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, ‘Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.’ The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, ‘You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.’
She rolled her eyes and said, ‘You must be a Republican.’ ‘I am,’ replied the man. ‘How did you know?’ ‘Well,’ answered the balloonist, ‘everything you told me is technically correct , but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.’
The man smiled and responded, ‘You must be a Democrat.’ ‘I am,’ replied the balloonist. ‘How did you know?’ ‘Well,’ said the man, ‘you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my fault.’
Kinda lame, but I heard it this morning, and it's fitting for the season.
It's over. It's all over. I was so happy to meet such a blissfully ignorant youth. Now I know the truth. I'm sad. Will I ever be happy again?
I think I'm gonna throw up from laughing so hard!!!
Oh my gosh! Did anyone else see that fly on Belloq's lip when he called Indy's bluff on that island? Now I've ruined the whole movie for you!
I prefer eat Crisco out of the can, but my uptight wife always insists that I use a spoon.
ALLOL
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm definitely very interested now with your recommendation. It sounds like a blast, and while I came to this thread to *ahem* complain, I leave this conversation feeling excited and in the mood to be a hypocrite, building some big Imperial vessels and blowing up those pathetic little Rebels heh heh heh! I just won't post it on YouTube ;)
I should add that I too am very impressed by what I've seen on those videos. Seriously, there is some amazing detail, and I think that the work of the amateur (not in the pejorative sense, but the guy not payed to produce such a fine product) is far superior to that of the professionals at Lucasarts who made Empire at War. It's pretty awesome looking!
Every one is pirated. I downloaded them off the Internet with my dial-up in '99, but since DVD burners were cost prohibitive, I played them on the screen and recorded them from there with my VHS camcorder.
Examples include Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman: The Movie--extended cut; rare VeggieTales early episodes predating their first official first episode; Fire in the Sky with Diamonds--a movie about alien abduction set to Beatles music; Young Indiana Jones and the Fires of Zarathustra; Old Indiana Jones and Muhammad's Loafers; The Land of Faraway (a film needing no joke).
You know, if I owned either game and had the capacity to make these fleets, I'm sure I'd play around at least once like this. But I wouldn't do it all the time. I wouldn't make every YouTube video like every other one ("Look, I crushed six Corellian Corvettes with six Executors and an Eclipse! The last guy to post a video only had four Executors. I'm so cool!") I love big ships, I love many of the Empire's vessels. I just also love a challenge.
So what I'm saying is that your pictures are justifiably very cool.
I've never played, but is there no option to be the good guys? And if not, does it always have to be such a dumb one-sided battle? :(
I noticed you emphasized the Darth in my name...Well, Bingowings, every teacher I ever had with flabby arms was plenty evil on her own ;)
So I'm looking for interesting Star Wars space battle scenes. Empire at War and the Warlords mod for Homeworld 2 seem like great prospects for interesting footage. However, it seems every Star Wars nerd who posts a video is on a power trip (probably because they lack any power in their own lives). They all think it's necessary to amass giant fleets of the Eclipse, the Executor, and 40 star destroyers vs. a pathetic Rebel fleet. Then as they destroy the Rebels, they all seem so pleased with themselves. No one likes a challenge I guess. Kind of hard to find actually interesting battles.
I wanted to add something to this thread. So I...aw, whatever...The Scary Door!
Rope walks into a bar. Bartended says, "Hey! Didn't you read the sign? No ropes allowed! Get outta here!"
With a huff, the rope storms out, frays both of his ends, and ties himself in a knot. Then he marches right back into the bar.
"Hey! Ain't you that rope that was just in here a minute ago?!"
"Nope. I'm a frayed knot."
Hey, don't ask, don't tell. Do what you will with it. Here's a map to my place.
Note: walking may be hazardous to your health.
I don't see it as that bizarre. Present day science talks of an infinite universe, yet with existing parallel universes.
EDIT: Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post. Maybe it's good ol' fashion Bingowings subtlety. Perhaps you refer to Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr.'s non-doctrinal statement when he stood in a position of no authority to actually determine doctrine. My point was that Maxwell was indeed in a position to make an official comment on the topic, whereas Smith at the time of that statement was merely providing his own opinion. Does that make sense? Am I just taking your comment too seriously?
corellian77 said:
Hey, that is funny now that I can see the picture. Don't know why it didn't show up before. Glad I could rain on everyone's parade ;)
With regards to your first points, we actually feel very much that science and religion will ultimately harmonize. But a personal view held by many (though certainly not all) is that not everything in the Bible is literal either. The extent of figurative and literal interpretation is subject to debate, but I personally have no problem acknowledging that I don't know it all, nor that I will in this life. Whatever is literal, whatever is figurative, I work within the framework of understanding that I am dealing with. As I stated once before somewhere in this thread, if I'm taking a biology test, I feel no guilt when I answer that man evolved. When I teach Sunday school (and I am the adult class teacher at my local congregation), I have no trouble saying Adam and Eve were the first man and woman. One day it will fit in my mind, and the only reason it does not now is because of our limited understanding and God's limited revelation. *Upon review, I remembered something I posted on another site over a year ago. I quote myself here, in spite of repeating myself:
I am reminded of an article by Warren Weaver, a scientist and believer. He makes the comparison of science and religion to two scientific principles, that of complementarity, and that of uncertainty.
To be brief, Mr. Weaver points out that photons, electrons, and other particles at times behave like waves (which are nothing more than disruptions in a medium), and at other times like particles (actual self-contained objects). The fact that they do this is seemingly incomprehensible, as they cannot truly be both. And yet they are, and all our scientific evidence indicates that they are. We are forced to accept two different conflicting views. When it suits our purpose, we treat light, etc. as a wave, and when it is convenient, we treat it as a particle. Perhaps one day we will understand this strange dichotomy, but at the present, we just allow these two separate principles to complement each other.
With respect to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we learn as we observe electrons in orbit that the more accurately we gauge their trajectory, the less accurately we ascertain its position, and vice versa. We cannot accurately determine both simultaneously.
This leads to the author’s conclusions which I largely share as well. When I am teaching Sunday school, I will appeal to what I know from the scriptures. When I am studying for a biology exam, I will refer instead to what I know from the textbook. Are both books inerrant? While some would argue with me in favor of one or the other, I feel quite comfortable stating that both are flawed and/or limited. I understand that I am relying on mutually exclusive understandings of truth at times, and that the more closely I examine the truth in one field, the more I may part from truth in the other. I believe that one day it will all be clear and there will be no exclusivity. I don’t understand how Adam can be the first man, and yet humans evolved from lower species. But I believe that my understanding will be reconciled one day. Meanwhile, I continue to seek truth from every possible avenue, accepting their limitations and the limitations of my finite mind.
As for the literality of God having a physical body, this is not figurative. That is a pretty definitive doctrine. We believe that God does have a physical body, though we do not believe this limits his power in the least. He is still omnipotent and omnipresent. His influence and authority are omnipresent, and he can go anywhere he pleases whenever he pleases (God does not want or need a starship ;). But we believe that numerous statements such as man being created in God's image, that we are the children of God, and that we may be made partakers of his glory are all quite literal, that we are of the same "species" as God, and that one day we may be like him.
As for the "tenet" of one day reigning on our own planet, that sounds more like another deliberate and perpetrated misrepresentation, or else just a simple misunderstanding that will seem to never go away. I'm not ascribing any fault to you of course. Simply put, if we may become like God, we believe that we may one day become gods ourselves. This is not new to the Christian scene, but we are the most prominent and recent subscribers to this theology. Many feel this is offensive and that this detracts from the glory of God, but we feel it adds to his glory as we, one day diving beings ourselves, will continue to worship God the Father in the name of Christ. Don't limit yourself with the idea of our own planet. We believe that one day we too can have infinite universes to reign over!
I know this sounds radical to many, and it's easy to say "cultist." But I assure you, this is a beautiful doctrine to those who take the time to ponder it and consider its biblical soundness. I can look up some scriptures for you, but for now I must go. Just know that it's not the Starbase Kolob thing that the extremely inaccurate The Godmakers film portrays (don't know if anyone's seen that, but it's quite laughable). It's a marvelous doctrine!
I believe that is the exact quote I was thinking of. However, it occurs to me the distinction we must make in our Mr. Smiths.
The founder of this church in this day and age is Joseph Smith, Jr., the one we generally refer to as Joseph Smith. His father, Joseph Smith, Sr., served as patriarch to the Church. But young Joseph also had a brother named Hyrum, and this brother had a son named Joseph Fielding Smith, Sr., but generally in historical terms we refer to him as Joseph F. Smith. He too sired a son of the same name, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. We generally refer to him simply as Joseph Fielding Smith. This final Smith served as Church historian for a time, and during this time he wrote numerous books, including Answers to Gospel Questions, originally in 5 volumes, though I have the 5 combined. Later he became an apostle and ultimately the prophet. None of his statements in this capacity definitively state this as far as I'm aware.
Googled your quote, and yes, that is the source. I'll have to check out the wiki page and see how much I agree with.
So let me make a diagram to clarify again the roles of the various Joseph Smiths.
Joseph Smith, Sr.
(patriarch)
| |
Joseph Smith, Jr. Hyrum Smith
(founder, prophet) (assistant prophet)
|
Joseph Fielding Smith, Sr. (Joseph F. Smith)
(prophet)
|
Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. (Joseph Fielding Smith)
(historian, prophet)
This younger man was very outspoken, though not all he said is doctrine. Hope this helps!
Oh, final quote before I post this:
"I testify that Jesus is truly the Lord of the universe, 'that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God' (D&C 76:24."
-Neal A. Maxwell, apostle (a position of much greater doctrinal authority)
