Zonorhc

I'm sure I've said this here before, but to quote Bash once more... Sever the main neck tendons before cutting through the spinal cord. That will allow you more opportunity to separate the vertebrae prior to removing the head.

Who the hell are you? No, seriously, I've never seen you around. Who are you?

That was my other question though. What makes a book anymore trustworthy? Doing papers in the past I've noticed some conflicts between books when writing on a topic. I'm simply wondering how you can be SURE if info from ANYTHING can be right? Difference of opinion. Bias is one of the most useful pieces of information you can use from books. You can analyse it to examine the individual historian's own opinions and how those mesh with their context. Also, cross-referencing between books is highly recommended, because it is very likely the historians are using different sources, or, if the same, then different interpretations of the sources. If you have access to the sources they used, check those as well. Books are simply more reliable as sources, especially for history, because they have a tendency to be written by people with some amount of credibility, and since it is highly unlikely that their content will change since you used them, it makes it easier for anyone reading your work to check up on your citations.

I would advise against using online sources for most academic writing. If it's history, you're better off going to a library. Personally, I would only use the internet for quick information I won't have to cite, or statistics.

Yeah, and I can't believe you failed to mention the poor sod who tried to play Russian Roulette with a 9mm.

If Wikipedia is cited as a source, it can later change in such a way that the original citation becomes invalid. As a corollary, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to cite the specific time and date of the Wikipedia article they are quoting or deriving information from. The way I see it, that's a very good reason to dismiss Wikipedia as an academic source. You're better off looking at an article's references and using those.

Of course you do. There's a lot to be learned, first of all, about making sure everyone is doing what they're supposed to be doing at any given moment. If they're not, that's a cue for you to use leadership skills, in this case, the time-honoured, "What the hell are you doing, get back here, do what you're supposed to be doing, jerk," which, unfortunately, is not actually as easy as it seems when you're trying to co-ordinate your own movements and giving orders to the rest of the team. One person will normally take the lead role in these. The others have to concentrate on other things: namely, following orders that are sometimes counter-intuitive and doing that as soon as the order is given, at the same time as trying to stay alive and do their jobs. Of course you need to know game mechanics, but there's a lot more to be learned about co-ordination. As a leader, you learn to trust whoever you're in charge of to do their jobs properly. It's all too easy to fall back to checking what everyone's doing every few seconds and making sure everything is perfect. Past a certain point, you just have to trust your team so you can concentrate on the big picture. Even things like forcing the line of battle forward at the flag stand or suppressing the enemy while someone else fires the catapult take much more leadership than would be readily apparent. It's the difference between the Roman legion and the screaming Gallic hordes. For people who live too far away from each other to play soccer or whatever, it's a great way to build bonds and kick arse at the same time. Of course, given that you used single-player games as a reference, that's a bit of a straw man argument because a number of them don't develop much beyond reaction times and hand-eye coordination. Other games like RTSs have much more value than, say, Pong.

In the same vein, darts doesn't teach you situational awareness or team co-ordination and leadership in the way that a guild battle on Guild Wars does. So where's your argument going?

Anecdotal evidence is not admissible. This is on the same level as people claiming to have experienced interactions with the supernatural while driving down country roads with nobody else in sight and then seeing a "ghost". Nobody can prove the negative and call their bluff, so they feel they don't have to reinforce their claims. Of course people will claim their compasses messed up in the Bermuda Triangle. It's where people expect them to mess up, and, I believe, where people want them to mess up so they can pretend they're just that much more interesting to have conversations with. The burden of proof is on the people who make the claims, not the people who don't believe them for lack of actual, admissible evidence. I could say that I killed a sal[bleep]er crocodile with my bare hands yesterday while nobody was around, then ate the corpse. Nobody can prove I didn't, so going by your logic, there is a good chance that I might have done it, or that there's some level of truth behind the story. There isn't. The story is a load of bull and would probably make a good icebreaker in a pub, but that's about it.

Without a doubt, Dungeons and Dragons.

The real man's fishing rod:

What do they define as legitimate reasons? "Meeting new people" could be seen as a legitimate reason for him. And certainly, since it's limited to open-air interactions, there's nothing stopping him from having a gander and a squeeze in the lift.

You're welcome to review the two pieces I have in my signature. They're both fairly short.

There is nothing to suggest that there is any more "truth" behind the Bermuda Triangle myths than behind the nutjob theory that aliens actually built the Great Pyramid of Khufu. It's just people willfully inserting something to be ignorant about into their lives because they feel they already know everything, which they don't.

I dunno how many of you guys know what the bolded words up there in the quote means, but I love to show-off my knowledge. It means like a sudden happening of a item/person/ect suddenly appears or comes and saves the moments. Example- Eragon is standing there with two guys about to chop off his head, then suddenly Brom and Murtagh pop up and shoot arrows threw those two guys heads - thats a deus ex machina sorry, just had to point that out Another name for it is authorial fiat. J.K. Rowling is extremely guilty of it.

Oh, yes, don't forget to read Terry Pratchett. If you can get your hands on a copy of Beowulf, read that as well.

So, you feel that there is no admissible evidence except anecdotal evidence - which, as far as the overwhelming majority of academics are concerned, is not actually admissible?

Chrono Cross. Honourable mentions: FFVI, Chrono Trigger, Tyrian, Morrowind, Oblivion, Guild Wars: Factions, Total Annihilation and Tales of Phantasia.

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. You can come back and ask your question again in a few months' time.

Which isn't a point of contention, because nowhere did I say that people are practicing it today in the way it was envisioned back then. The point was one of observation. Mine being that people seem to be intolerant as an outgrowth of the eugenics movement which made people intolerant of physical imperfection.

We don't have to live there to realise your administration is crap. Hell, you lot didn't have to live near Iraq to realise Saddam's administration was crap.

And professional gamers don't have their own training regimes? I don't see being able to micro like some of those insane Starcraft players as something you are born with. Oh, and obviously gaming can't possibly teach anything, like leadership, problem solving, organisation and situational awareness skills. No, not at all. Tae kwon do is a sport. It is nothing but.

Faux News seems to have forgotten the cardinal rules: Anonymous does not forgive; and Anonymous is always right. Anyhow, that raid on Habbo was because someone was banned for being black, so the /i/ people flooded the game with black characters. Now the admins ban black characters on sight, which, as you can probably tell, isn't a Good Thing. Anti-semitic invasion my arse. The bomb threats were posted on a board whose description specifically states that only a fool would take anything posted on it seriously. And that kid who was "hacked"? He tried to get Anonymous to do a raid on an ex-girlfriend. Anonymous is not your personal army. Of course, this little taste of what manages to make it onto American media has eradicated any notion I might have had that Fox might still possess some credibility.

I've heard stories of Templar Knights holding babies in that painting, which just goes to show the consistency and veracity of all this overblown speculation.

Did you even read the background I wrote up? Eugenics in the 19th century was trying to stamp out physical, economic and mental "defects", which were seen as interrelated. The improvement of the individual's body was an outgrowth of that.