Pete_the_Viscous

I can't tell if you're * ** ***sarcastic there or not: if so--remember the guns and the threatening, and all that; if not, yeah: what you said. Edit: * I removed the word "trying": that was just rude of me, and I didn't notice I'd put it in there, sorry :oops: . Second Edit: ** I removed the word "to", :oops: :oops: . Third Edit: *** What's wrong with me tonight! Now I've removed the word "be". I'm the one that needs shooting--for not thinking about what I'm typing. Fourth Edit: for consistency's sake, I added the three asterisks into the third edit there. --ok, maybe I'm just bored and am subconsciously trying to bulk out what I wrote.

Yet another reminder for me to get a thermometer! I keep forgetting. I think it's about 22-27 celsius during the day where I am, though--that's what it says in the car, at least.

I've said it before, but I think it's relevant again: If anyone pointed a gun at me and told shouted "stop or we'll shoot" at me, I'd stop; policeman, terrorist, bank manager, whoever. I've not paid any attention to this: I'm going to do that once it's not longer in the spotlight so that I leave out most of the hype. I gather from what I've read here that he's innocent. Regardless, perhaps the only thing that would make me run from an armed person who wanted me to stop would be if my life were somehow already forfeit, and I would have "failed my task" by standing still and being arrested. As I say, I gather he was innocent. Respect for the dead, and all, but either he had a good reason to run from the police, or he wasn't all that bright: which is more important, his life, or avoiding some manner of punishment for not having a visa? After all, since we don't have the death penalty in England (we're not that high on brute force, after all (ahem)) he stood a 100% chance of living if he turned himself in, which he would know, having lived here for more than 3 years. (Once again; I really have nothing against the guy, assuming he was innocent, and take back anything I said against him or his mental prowess if there was a good reason for his alleged actions. I just don't think we're being told everything here).

My bet is on infinite :lol: I imagine it's both infinite and spherical, which sound mutually exclusive, but if you think about it, if it's infinite, it's the same distance (infinity and beyond!) in all directions, which makes it a sphere, of sorts. Edit: The nice thing about science (and open minded religions), is that it (they) is (are...I'll stop that now) willing to admit when it is wrong. Hence, though science does not at the moment have any way of explaining the big bang--and so many other things--this is not because it's impossible: perhaps we just don't know how yet. Therefore, while I do agree that those are the correct places for religion to stand in and do it's very respectable bit, it's not (necessarily) because logic and reason fall appart--it might be that something somewhere in the laws of phsyics is wrong. Let's face it--something, somewhere, IS wrong with physics; it has to be, or there wouldn't be problems like this. I think, then, that science and religion complement each other very well in this sort of case, in that, while science provides practical, reasonable explanations for things close to home (most things--well, not most, but a lot, that can be "proved" (if you believe in proof and truth)), religion is the only thing that can explain things like the big bang (or rather, explain away the big bang); at least, until science catches up, at which point religion will deal with the next step and generally stop people going mad and give them things to think about. After all; we can all argue about religion*, even if we know nothing about it: all we need for that sort of argument is some belief. So after saying that, I'm just going to admit that I don't know anything about string theory (and to be quite frank, I don't think anyone here, or in fact anywhere in the world does--it's just another explanation, after all; there's no reason to believe (in) it other than that it has been blathered all over the TV so much recently), the big bang, god/s, or anything else of that nature. Oh, and to bring me back on topic: I don't know anything about the universe, either--I've never been to most of it, and I'm not sure it exists at all. *though obviously not the finer points of a particular religion; I mean rather that people can say "I think it does," and "well I think it doesn't!"

I've never had that problem, because I have a different problem: I always spend ages* thinking up names of even minor characters in things I design/write or accounts for things. I can't imagine not being happy with a name I had, even if it were stupid and childish--as phil said, it's not about the name, really. As I say, though, I always make sure I've got the right name before I make any big desisions. *Really--I spend a long, long time thinking up a name (unless it's really not serious).

Loath though I am to compliment such a thing as a Christian video game, I must say, having seen it on TV, it doesn't actually look terrible :oops:. I mean, no, it doesn't stand up to any of the modern "normal" games, but 4 or 5 years ago that would've been amasing. I think, however, that that game deserves an AOCO (Adult Or Chrisitan Only), because of how it could influence young children of other religious persuasions--seriously, give that game to an impressionable youngster of another religion, let them play it without adult supervision, and they might believe what it shows them, and start trying to convertRomans with their swords of light! OK, so that was a bit over the top, but I am serious about how dangerous it could be to introduce that sort of thing to young kids who don't know any better. After all, if we're being open minded about this*, their religious beliefs are just as valid as those in that game. *I once again remind people of my agnostisism, in case they saw what I just said as in any way favoring one religion over another--can't be too careful, you know; there're probably a host of people out there who'd want to jump down my throat for hypocricy (what with me being the biggest hypocrite in the world, after all (do what I say, not what I do)).

Ah--yes, that's a good explanation. I still disagree about the momentum thing (See post above), but yes, that would be a good reason to shoot them more than once. Edit:I spelled "disagree" wrong.

Hang on just a moment, I know how damaging bullets are, but that's not to do with their momentum. Pre-edit edit: Most of you will want to look away now, as I've gone on for a bit. I assume you all know that momentum is Mass * Velocity. Well, bullets are tiny little things (at least, the ones in question probably are). It took me ages, but I found out the muzzle velocity of a pistol; I don't know which--doesn't really matter, though, as it won't make that much difference. It was 269 metres per second (I had to convert it from fps--it sounded a LOT more impressive in fps, by the way). Now, a bullet from that sort of gun is quite small (/goes and looks up the mass of the average bullet). OK, apparently bullet mass is measured in grains (one grain is 0.065 grammes, so 0.000065kg). I looked up some bullet masses, and for some manner of 9mm bullet sold on nationalbullet.com, it was 115 grains, = 0.0074519 kilograms. OK, so 269ms^-1 * 0.0074519kg = 2.0045611kgms^-1. ... so about 2 kilogram metres per second. TINY! This is a miniscule velocity, OK? Yet another edit: OK, so it's not "Tiny"--it's in no way big, though. Imagine swaying your arm (if your arm ways 2kg) through the air; it has about as much momentum as your arm when you do that. When you quoted, you missed off the end bit "Obviously, a little tiny bullet hasn't got much momentum, but it's enough."; I know it's very dangerous and damaging--if it weren't then people wouldn't use guns :). It's NOT the momentum that does the damage, though--it's the fact that you have a lump of metal pass through your vital parts very fast and come out the other side (sometimes) leaving a gaping great hole.

Luckily for me (unluckily for you lot) I've never been shot. Surely, though, being shot would cause one to jerk? Obviously, a little tiny bullet hasn't got much momentum, but it's enough. Also, how would shooting someone again stop their body from jerking after death? Those jerks are... well... I forget the explanation for them, but I'm sure you can all look it up. Left over signals from the brain, that sort of thing. How is putting another bullet into a dead body going to stop it jerking, unless by some chance they hit a nerve (which might itself cause jerking anyway). It's a minor point, and not important really--shoot me for being a pedant, and you can test out my claims.

I suppose... but then, even if it IS so busy, all of those people near the bomber are BOUND to be be killed by the bomb he might set off at any moment--surely it's a greater allowing him to have a nice leisurely press of the detonator button than to risk maybe harming some passers by.

Good point. That said, why not shoot him from afar, and not waste time in grappling with him; time in which he could have detonated "the bomb". Guns aren't exactly your typical hand to hand weapons, are they? Also, five times he'd probably have been dead after the first (if they're good shots, I mean, otherwise at least after the second or third shot), so anything else is just desecration of a corpse, albeit a corpse that deserves all the desecration it gets. ...After hearing that man give his interview, I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere was exaggerating, too. Regardless, I obviously don't know enough about it to make any judgements of the policemen, but yes, I'm sure they did the right thing--I think it's likely sensationalism that's driving this story now, so I'd just be careful what you believe. While I agree with How2PK that people have human rights, etc. (very strongly so, as it happens), I also recognise that it's just not practical (or possible) sometimes, to protect people. Edit: I used one too many "just" in the second last paragraph there.

I assume that was a joke--in case it wasn't, "wife of 31 years" means that they had been married for 31 years.

Spelling =/= grammar, no. Anyway, even if someone is atheist, the proper way to refer to the Christian god is "God", with the capital, not "it"; it's a proper noun, like James, or Surrey, because it's a particular god.

First of all, I need to ask why they give it an adult rating, when they could just remove that part of the code and keep it at whatever rating it was before. Next--I think it should be an adult rated game anyway. This isn't to say I don't approve of violence, or that I think that it'd stop kids getting their hands on it. What it WOULD do, though, is give the idiots like that Mrs. Clinton (from what people have said of her in this topic, I judge her to be an idiot--I have no knowledge of her outside of this topic, so if she's not really an idiot, I take it back) less ammo when it comes to game bashing; If it's already an adult rated game, they can't moan about it not being, if you see what I mean. I myself was a big fan of the GTA games 1 and 2. I didn't much like 3, as it didn't have especially good graphics, wasn't really that violent, and I can't stand those controls--the way he jumps, the way he fights, everything seems wrong to me. Vice city I found to be no improvement, just more of the same, albeit more of the same with a few more vehicles and more talking. I've not played San Andreas myself, but I've sat in a room with someone playing it for long enough to realise that it's just like the other two; at least, not enough has changed for me to really enjoy it. Getteth me not wrong, though: they're good games, and it is fun to run around murdering people on the streets, and seeing how long you can escape the police... I just don't really like "something" about them. Back on topic, though (sort of). Yes... I've not seen the bit of GTA:SA in question, but I'm sure there are far worse things that one could do in most games, with enough effort; the sims, for example, as people mentioned. I've not payed enough attention to gather whether or not the scene is actually there hidden in the code or if it has to be added by something else; if it's there on its own, then I'm against it even though it's innacessable if you don't go looking for it--now that people know about it, they can go looking for it. Anyway, I don't care either way, really--I just think they could've all handled it better.

Some friends and I got on to the topic of Harry Potter recently; they mentioned that (and this might be a spoiler to people who've not read the second last book, so I'll small-text it) Sirius dies--I'd completely forgotten, which tells you how much I thought of book 5, eh? I just got book 6 today--I've not started it yet. I'm going to have to read book 5 again, as I really don't remember what happens in it. In fact, I'll just read them all again; it's the Summer holiday for me now--boo-yah--so I've got quite a lot of spare time. Who'd've thought I'd get NO homework from college?

In PCZone there was a section devoted to this, once, and another example was from a beatemup game--I can't find a picture. It was on the "challenge" screen, and showed an old man (the type that is always the really powerful one in that genre) who said, amongst other things "Your fists of fury are about to meet my steel wall of niceness". There were other ones, some of them hilarious, but I can't say them here, as some of them had rude words in them--and others wouldn't make sense without the pictures.

Not only do I like how RBF sound, I also think that their lyrics are quite clever. They're certainly very musical--both accurate and melodic--and though they swear, they don't do it fill space. I watched oasis in what I think was a live concert--on TV, I mean--in the weekend. I liked one or two of the songs (ones I'd heard before)... but could they pose any more? I mean it quite literally: Liam Gallagher, though he sang well, really did go and stand in a statuesque pose against one of the speakers for about two minutes while people took pictures of him and the song faded out.

I don't know why, but those exclamation marks actually did make those ^ commandments seem more credible/reasonable. :D The rest of this post sounds like a rant--bear with me, I don't harbour any bar feelings about satanism itself, or any of you, or anything like that. While I'm sure that the above is true--at least amongst the correct people--the calling it "satanism" seems silly to me. Satan, after all, means "enemy". Also, I don't understand why one would want to associate something that isn't ill-meaning with Satan, who is, like it or not, the Christian bad guy. It's like my saying "I've got this great new idea for a utopia: we all live in happiness with enough food for all, and we're all going to live for ever. It's called the death-death-death-blood-evil project" Obviously that quotation says that they don't believe in Satan; in that case, why "satanism"? That name either links it with Satan, or means (I suppose) Enemy-ism--neither of which seem to come across from what people say about Satanism. Don't get me wrong: I don't have anything against Satanism--though neither do I practice it--I just don't understand the name. I'm determined that this won't become a flame war--at least, not by my making it so--so I'm not going to try and pick holes in that first quotation there. (What I was going to say had to do with the very last sentence, especially the last clause).

I don't know if it's shown outside of the UK, but some of you might be aware of a programme called Badiel and Skinner, Unplanned. Well, in it, to make sure that they don't talk about the same topic again and again, they have a board on which they write each subject they deal with. If people are so bothered about how often new people* bring up old topics, then why not make a sticky on which is listed all the topics that have been done to death. If someone posts something that's on the board, it gets locked--obviously the mod would use his or her discretion--and the poster is asked to look at the sticky. Maybe when each topic is added, a link could be added to the original topic, so that people could find it and add to it, without having to search for vague key-words. I don't know... it's just a suggestion--I've not thought it through, so there's probably some flaws in it. *who likely don't realise that this board has been going long enough to have had their topic come up many times already.

Stop reading now if you get bored by my explanations of things. Well, I wouldn't try it with Fluorine if I were you--which is, by the way, the most reactive of the first 101 elements, even moreso than Francium. It has to do with the arrangement of the electrons in their... in fact, I wrote a bit of an explanation for this, but it wasn't that easy to understand. Instead go here and here. What those "heres" don't explain is why they (the alkaline metals) become more and more reactive as you go down the column. Conversely, the halogens become less and less reactive as you go down the list; of them, fluorine is the most reactive. As I recall, it's all about how close the energy level in question is to the nucleus--and as fluorine has both the right number of electrons (opposite, but equal in effect to francium) AND a short distance between... dah di dah. It's like that, anyway. Still, as a halogen, it's a gas at room temperature. If you were to let some out into the room you might want to wear a mask... and be outside of the room. Even more off topic: ever heard the elements song? I don't know where to find it, but it's a guy singing every one of the elements on the periodic table in a tuneful, rhyming--mostly--song. It's hilarious.

Ironically, I've never heard an American call Independence Day "July the Fourth"; only "Fourth of July". I was going to say what Rizla said. Anyway, Runesmithie, though people wouldn't necessarily have said it, that was how it was written on all official documents: "On this, the Fifth day of the Sixth month of the year 1951 of our lord etc.".

Someone mentioned that a lot of Christian bashing goes on. I can think of some reasons for that: 1) Most people on these boards are from countries whose main religion is Christianity--if you were to say "Religion" to them, they would probably think "Christianity" first. 2) It doesn't matter to an atheist which God they are talking about: they're all one and the same for the purposes of this discussion--obviously there are differenences, but most of them aren't important. I suppose one could argue that "MY god doesn't ask his followers to xxxx"... in which case yes, there is a difference in how people might argue the question "What would you do?". 3) I imagine the poser of the question meant the Christian god anyway (see reason one). Regardless, three of the biggies are the abrahamic religions... and they're all the same god anyway--give or take a few holy books here and there. Now, someone mentioned the ancient Greek pantheon. That'd be fun, yes. One of the more important things about that would be that the gods weren't infallible. Another thing is that they weren't perfect, either. That's a good way around the "but there's all this suffering in the world!" business--though I think I gave my views about that when concerned with the Christian God ealier in the topic.

Surely the whole point is that IF! God exists (IF!) then he DOES have a right to kill everyone, and there IS a reason for it, which IS beyond your comprehension. I'm not saying that's true (did you spot the IF!s?) but if God is real, then he can do what he likes, and it's damn well certain to be the right thing; he's perfect, after all. You know I don't believe in god... I just think that, if he did exist, there'd be no question of whether or not what he did was just. If you started beleiving in god, you'd probably see that he had a reason for everything--he's GOD, for god's sake. Again: it's a moot point; there is suffering in the world, whether or not god exists. If he doesn't, then the suffering is there because it just is. If he does, it's there because.... he has a reason--which, as I said, would probably be too complex to understand, him being god, and all. Edit: if I've gone too off topic, then please, powers that be, delete what I've written.

Hear, hear. I'm going to have to go with Evolution... for several reasons. One) there is quite a lot of evidence--by which I mean scientific evidence, not something based on faith alone--for it. No proof, obviously... but what can really be proved, other than abstract things (if even they can). Two) creation sounds so... unrealistic to me. I mean, obviously, if God does exist, then that rules out there needing to be an explanation for anything he does--he's GOD, after all: what he says goes, hypothetically. However, I can't imagine why he would do it like that. Three) not a huge point, but Evolution does allow for some manner of creation story being true--it's quite possible that the world/the universe/life was created by god, then left to do what it felt like--at least, as far as evolution is concerned, it is. Creation, on the other hand, though it DOES allow for some evolution--it's hard to deny that things ARE evolving, whether or not they evolved from dust to what they are now. Etc.) Etc. What it boils down to is this: if the bible is true, then so is Creation... and I'm not going to go any further into whether or not it is. (Oh, I hope you gathered that I'm perfectly willing to believe Creation... if at any point I come across some reason to believe in God, or if he tells me it himself, then I'll believe it--as I said, if God's possible, then so is Creation).

Twelve Monkeys -- starring Bruce Willis, with a cameo appearance from Simon Jones, who played Arthur Dent in the Radio and TV series of HHGTTG. SPOILER The main character has a reccuring nightmare about seeing a man die in an airport. He himself is sent back in time (to all kinds of crazy times--but eventually to the right one, a few years before the "troubles" began). Eventually he has to get on an aeroplane and prevent some huge disaster... but, you guessed it, he (in his disguise, so you don't see the plot twist coming from the start) gets shot.... and that's the end of the film. Weird, huh? I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but Nineteen Eighty-Four was made into a film. SPOILER I won't go into huge detail... it's 1984 (the future, when the book was written) and England (Airstrip one, of the superpower Oceania) is a strict communist nation. The main character, Winston, tries to rebel, meets a lady, falls in love with her... etc. At the end of the book, they're captured, tortured and betray each other. They don't love each other any more, and Winston realises that he loves Big Brother (the figurehead of The Party--the rulers of the superpower). The book is a warning on how NOT to make a commune work--George Orwell (the author) was a strong socialist, who, after seeing how communism was being done in Russia, made huge efforts to warn society about the risks and problems associated with that sort of communism--Animal Farm, another of his books, is about the same sort of thing.