The proof that women are evil!

[freemen2]

Har! ye blooody tease you, NEXUS7 :p Their next convention be in May 2005 :s

[Harloff]

freemen2 - 11/28/2005 10:53 PM Hey! I resent that you poor excuse for a viking decendant :p I'll have you known I can drink you under the table and still keep a serious converstaion going...that's how silly I be

 I am not a poor excuse for viking decesdant, I am 1.92 m 120 kg and the beard on Skarp's picture is my own beard pastet onto the picture. SO TAKE THAT BACK. Besides i don't believe that you can drink me under the table. You puny little frogeater you. *shakes his fist at path* My ancestors have beaten your ancestors, and we could do it again if we wanted to. Unfortunately you guys have nothing we want so we stay where we are.
 

freemen2 - 11/28/2005 10:53 PM  Well no jalousy is just another plug-in as well as a bunch of, tidious, others that seems to come with beeing in love with someone, for most people. If you want to use the coin bit for an example I would say that hate would be the other side of the coin. Try and look at the emotion of loving someone at it's core, until you see only that. Then you'll be able to see why and how those pesky plug-ins come into play...and only then. Jalousy is just another emotion that can only comme from a sense of propriety of the person you're in love with. Feeling you own a person isn't loving them. And actually this has nothing to do with philosophy, psycology would come a little bit closer to it but then again, depending on which psy school is looking at it would depend on it's real distance away from it. It always makes me smile to hear things like: "that you cannot discriminate between the two, look at the one seperately from the other." Of course you can, anyone can if they really want to. That sentence is just a cope-out in order to not dig deeper, not look closer at something. In anycase, how can you truly see what a whole is made out of if you do not differiencate all the pieces that supposedly, makes it a whole? Since you like equations try this one: X(how you feel about anyone) = [L(love)] + (H(hate) = (F(fear) = s(sum of all plug-ins)) but wheras L is a constant H is defined by F, which in turn is dependent on s.

  *shakes his head* you are assuming a lot of things here, one of the major assumptions is that you are holding the one true answer. The next big assumption is that I don't see the light because I don't want to look deeper into it. The first assumption is in my view rather arogant, no single person holds all the answers not even a frenchmen. The second assumption is rather strange i think you don't know me very well so how can you assume that haven't looked deeper.
  As I said before, I don't agree with you. There is in my openion no such thing as unconditional love, you might love someone highly but if they don't live up to your exspectations you will sease loving them at some point. Like some people stop loving god when they feel that he has led them down. And I don't agree with you that Jelosy originates from ownership but rather fear of lossing your loved one. Which is why I think that jelosy is a natural part of loving someone, since you depend on the other persons love and therefor fears loosing it.
  I have tried to understand your equation but it doesn't seem to make any sence to me at all. Are you saying that X = L + H where H = F = plugins? If this is what you are saying i must disagrre with you, the few people that I truely hate are persons that has dne me or my family wrong, which has absolutely nothing to do with me fearing them it is just old fashioned hate. Besides that you say that L is a constant, is it a constant for all people, e.i. you love all people equally much, some people you just hate a bit which is why you don't love them? I disagree with all of it, I don't see love as constant in any way it is a function of how you feel that person is treating you. Furthermore, I don't have positive or negative feeling for persons that i don't know which means that love is not a constant in that relation either.
  What i was trying to say in my last post is that, I thik we are fundamentally different in our worldview. From my point of view feelings can not be divided into bits, they are all internally correlated, which is why I say that you cannot look on love as a only positive feeling since it has s many side effects.

[Harlas Ravelkione]

Skarp: "My ancestors have beaten your ancestors, and we could do it again if we wanted to. Unfortunately you guys have nothing we want so we stay where we are."

-> Soooo true! *grinning*

Unfortunately wars are not fought one-on-one.

[NEXUS7]

Niles09

ya right I have just had a run of very bad luck so there must be a God
I wont go into detailes but BUGGERATION! how can all this happon in one day..

Serves me right for pushing the Logic v Faith thing to for

Bad Nexus7 bad!

[Niles09]

whaaaaaat?!?!?!?!? why do you take a note my char has said into this??? it has nothing to do with anything. The point of it is that she earlier hated her peolpe, now she just thinks its sad that they cant see the wonders of the surface, that have absolutly nothing to do with this.

So please stop trying to say your faith (as it is now) is logical and scientific just is not.
“Feeling” it is and saying “it makes sense to be logic” just will not cut it sorry
So you are going to stop hiding behind pseudoscience and start saying.
My faith and my science are separate.

If not then god help you because Science can not.

well that is the end of that discussion. Either we dont think pn logic the same way if we do, then its with the develoment of this I think its best if we end here, cause it wont end out in anything good.

[NEXUS7]

>Either we dont think pn logic the same way if we do, then its with the develoment of this
> I think its best if we end here

Like I said some posts back
lets let it go agrae to disagre and have some fun
ya mad religus nut you )

Spugly will still play with ya

[NEXUS7]

Freeman2
>Har! ye blooody tease you, NEXUS7 :p Their next convention be in May 2005 :s

Come on thats not that long and man is it the con to drink at
Casel above rine with its own vinyard

The chaps that run it have beer at 1 euro
and Mead by the bottel
Its cheap as chips that con and just grate fun
and the LARPS man I have played some garte LARPS there
I think its the setting and all.

Go grap ye Axe and long bout and set sail
Book soon last time it was filled way to erly

[Niles09]

no, damn it! "ya mad religus nut you:o) heh nah I just defend my belives, and Im stronger in it after this, then Ill forgot about the bad things, that is what God would say
and I

Hmmm what about the giants Kloss talked about, never really seen one myself

[freemen2]

Hmmmmmmmmmm, meeeeeade *starts drooling* WAIT A MINUTE!  May 2005 ye daft giant, we be in November 2005! *grumbles walking away wondering if he can get his hands on a bottle of mead now*

[NEXUS7]

Yep but there will be one in 2006 belive me they are just slakers and have not been updateung the bloody web site
Fabs will get it from me ill tell ya

Niles09 just some fun:-
"Enter no conflict against fanatics unless you can defuse them. Oppose a religion with another religion only if your proofs (miracles)
are irrefutable or if you can mesh in a way that the fanatics accept you as god-inspired.
This has long been the barrier to science assuming a mantle of divine revelation. Science is so obviously man-made.
Fanatics know where you stand, but more important, must recognize who whispers in your ear.
Missionaria Protectiva Primary Teaching"
Chapterhouse: Dune

[Niles09]

*Mumbles while picking on his C4-west* ignorant bastard mmhmh son of a jackal mhm *the west shows to be difficult, mumbles again* Damn ebay, I did not order a small! HAH! and it is defuse-proof!

[NEXUS7]

>*Mumbles while picking on his C4-west*

So heres a thing

Evil in NWNs as I see it in the DnD world evil is apsalut a real and tangebel thing
its not about perspective its a phiscal thing you have
called Alinment

Evil gods
Evil Goblins
etc

So you just cast a spell and POW hit the evil dooer true
or im I wrong

[Niles09]

Given up! No way! Harloff
well Im gonna make this as short as posible, and its not to start the discussion all over again, so any other than Harloff shouldnt care about this, and Harloff I would ask that you only answer on the most critical things here, and not those things we cant agree on anyway.

ok, the eye, I find it a bag since I think its the change that it would succed is to small, you got a good point that when a specie got the eye, most thing would go from there, but my point is the space between having the cells in the brain and actually getting a slight version, involves so much time and so much chance for going lost, so its too far out. Other examples is the organ system, that must be created somehow at the same time. About God doing it my point is he does push the evolution a bit, not so it is instant, he makes sure that those species which is beginnig to get the eye dont dissapear. About our useless parts, they are parts we had earlier in the evolution, to help us survive at that time, and I dont think they are disturbing in anyway, so why should God remove them? About scientic proofs, well I cant put it under a scope, but there is fx the history I told before, which is true, and there are others, besides as Ive said the world is so complicated putted toegether yet so logical, that I dont think its made by noone, for ME its "logic" that there would be something greater.
when I talk about darwism I talk about the evolution, which so far I know mostly is controlled by the survival of the fittest, and (now Im past teh what darwism is) God
and well Im happy you dont think my religion is a virus

[Niles09]

well about the aligment thing. THe preprogrammed monsters is programmed to kill you no matter what, and thats a little sad cause it distrubts the roleplay, but it would be very hard to make it different.
About  DM quests, its up to the DM to make it more than nine aligments, but yes if you play it right after the book aligments can be disturbing. I mean there are many palas who never have been actually good the good way? but only the the duty way? (which isnt good)

[Niles09]

and about the viking thing. HAH! I live in the most drunken municipality in all Denmark! Tørring-Uldum kommune hah! in your face Copenhagen! no hey wait a moment we've been putted into the Juelminde-municipality! And the little village I live in was splitted away to Vejle! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*scratch scratch* hey I dont drink much anyway?!

[NEXUS7]

>well Im gonna make this as short as posible, and its not to start the discussion all over again,
BUT!

See Niles09 ya just will not let it go

>its not to start the discussion
to late

>for ME its "logic"

This is not  logic its just your world view and a religes one at that based on faith thats all just faith, if you ever stud up in a scince convention and said
Will my proof is "I think it makes scance" and to me its "logical" IF you did that out HARD FACTS! to back it up
then you would be asked to go see a docter as you would be seen as STACK RAVING MAD.

Stop parming your faith of as logic it is not and never will be if all you can ever do is say
"Will i think im right so I am" Then your just making storys thats all.

Now right a paper and sumit it pear revue and stop preching you MAD LOGIC to the sain.
We have better things to do like findng out how the world works than wasting it on none thirsy and half baked
rubesh parmed off as logic

Look your are wrong I know you think you are right but to the sain you have proven
that you are mad so your view are suspect.

Saying that
Good luck and my your god go with you

[Niles09]

Nexus this was to Harloff, I just wanted to answer his questions ok, just to be nice not to ignore him, and STOP that logic thing we have a different view of waht logic is so stop it, I dont believe logic is science ok? The stratego game requires a bit of logic the tacticvs in Layo requires a bit of logic but it aint science, and if you think such think aint logic then it becuase we do have a different view of logic and then DO NOT answer cause then we can keep discussing something where we actually aint discussin the same. AND STOP CALLING IT MAD LOGIC, adn do not at all %¤&¤%¤%#% call me mad, so far Ive been really nice so shut the hell up
some GM please freeze this threat, or no wait! let Nexus get his last word first so he can feel fine.

[NEXUS7]

>AND STOP CALLING IT MAD LOGIC
Hay Niles09 if your a christen

Then Forgive me

>different view of waht logic is so stop it
Look go read up on LOGIC please.

and you did say you wonted to "end this".
But I see now what you ment with "end this" was you wonted me to stop pushing you.
so alowing you to keep on pushing you piont of view.
Sorry thats not how an open and free debate works.
Just like all religens in history when the fact stop fiting the thirey
they try and silance the criticks. It use to the at the stake now its by calling on the GMS.

If as you say your faith can take this then dont ask thows that push you to stop
and then when things dont go your own way ask that the whole debat be ended.

It just seems rude.

Like I said befor
Right a papaer on your new and astounding form of logic and send it in for review to a scintifc genrnel.
I would realy like to see what they say out it.

From what I can see it will go some thing like this
evaltion is wrong becosue
"Well you have not got all the ansers"
So ID must be right as it dos"

The ansers to all being "we have faith that god did it"
Becouse well "That looks logicl to me"


If thats all then you have them im going to be on your back all the way in this open debate.

Good luck and my your god go with you

[Niles09]

I did read it up. It means things that have a connection, and I KNOW that there a connections between my faith and the real world, and listen, we are different here, cause you do not believe in anything greater, so accept it, thats my view, consider seeing things like I do before you call me or my logic mad, cause it really hurts ok. I why like this debat to end cause its not sane anymore, not in our believes,  but in the way we throw rocks at eachother. respond if you like, if you would like to have the last word then dont wriet thing as a question. And the thing before was to Harloff.  yes Im a christian, and indeed I would be happy to forgive you, after all we've spent some good hours in the game. But you must regret what you've said or It wont do anything good. If you started writing all that >_< because Ive offended you then sorry.

[Harloff]

I didn't see that you had postet an answer before just now. That is why it has taken me so long not becuase i gave up...
 

Niles09 - 11/30/2005 2:17 ok, the eye, I find it a bag since I think its the change that it would succed is to small, you got a good point that when a specie got the eye, most thing would go from there, but my point is the space between having the cells in the brain and actually getting a slight version, involves so much time and so much chance for going lost, so its too far out. Other examples is the organ system, that must be created somehow at the same time.

 There is no one that states that the eye was created just like that *snaps his fingers* the basic thing for an eye is a light sensitive cell of sorts. These do exist for species much further down in the evolutionairy chain. Hence the could have evolved into an eye by slowly growing more and more light sensitive cells and a better system for interpreting the informations coming from these cells. But the real issue here is whether it can be shown that it is unlikly that such an evolution would take place. No one can look on a system and just saying i didn't think it is possible. You would have to prove that it is indeed impossible by model calculations or by experiments. These systems are simply to complex for the human brain to calculate likelyhood without the help of a computer. Or you can present a model that is a refinement of the other model and show that your new parts to the model exist. But you cannot implement a "designer" without naming this designer and proving its exsistance. This is the crusial part, and I don't think many scientist question that Jesus has lived but there is no proof that he was gods son.
 

Niles09 - 11/30/2005 2:17 About God doing it my point is he does push the evolution a bit, not so it is instant, he makes sure that those species which is beginnig to get the eye dont dissapear.

 As I stated earlier there is no reason why a designer should interfere at this point, since species with superior genes will survive acording to the theory of survival of the fittest.
 

Niles09 - 11/30/2005 2:17 About our useless parts, they are parts we had earlier in the evolution, to help us survive at that time, and I dont think they are disturbing in anyway, so why should God remove them? About scientic proofs, well I cant put it under a scope, but there is fx the history I told before, which is true, and there are others, besides as Ive said the world is so complicated putted toegether yet so logical, that I dont think its made by noone, for ME its "logic" that there would be something greater. when I talk about darwism I talk about the evolution, which so far I know mostly is controlled by the survival of the fittest, and (now Im past teh what darwism is) God

  One of major constituenst to the evolutionairy theory is "the survivel of the fittest" but changes are driven by mutation and DNA exchange between species.
  But the main point here is that, the scientific logic is "things that can be disproven and things tha can't" if you suggest something that cannot be verified by hard facts e.g. the existance of god. that is simply not science. This might seem ilogical to you but that is the hard facts of modern science. If you go back to the greeks you would see a logic/philosofi based science and most of the theories have been proven false since that. Eventhough the idea of an atom constituing all things was invented by the greeks.