James

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B] Another game no one seems to talk about anymore is Uniracers. I thought that was pretty damn cool. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I remember that. My cousin had it...and I played it a few times at his place. It was alright. It got a little boring/monotonous after a while. But it was certainly a unique game. I remember it feeling very Sonic-like, for obvious reasons.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Molleta [/i] [B][color=green] As to the American Patriot Act, I hate it. I think it is an outragiously overboard effort, and I don't want to be put on a list somewhere because of what I check out at the library or what I talk about on my cell phone. I am not a terrorist, but with my reading lists I could be tagged and probably already have. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]With all due respect, Molleta, I find this to be one of the problematic aspects of this debate. What you've said here is really very emotional...but it's also kind of moving into conspiracy territory. If your communications had been intercepted and you'd been "tagged" as a terrorist, you'd probably know about it. I took the liberty of looking at the [i]actual[/i] Patriot Act documentation, published by the 107th Congress on October 24, 2001. Obviously, the actual contents of the act are enormous. So what I will do is provide a summary of sections covered in the act:[/color] [quote][b]TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM[/b] [b]TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES[/b] TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING ABATEMENT AND ANTI-TERRORIST FINANCING ACT OF 2001 TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER [b]TITLE V--REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM[/b] TITLE VI--PROVIDING FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES TITLE VII--INCREASED INFORMATION SHARING FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION TITLE VIII--STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM TITLE IX--IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS[/quote] [color=#707875]These are the primary articles of the act, which are then subdivided into more specific categories. I've bolded the articles that you seem to disagree with. I'll expand on those just a little. [b]TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM[/b] There are the subdivisions: Sec. 101. Counterterrorism fund. Sec. 102. Sense of Congress condemning discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans. Sec. 103. Increased funding for the technical support center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies. Sec. 105. Expansion of National Electronic Crime Task Force Initiative. Sec. 106. Presidential authority. [b]TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES[/b] Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information. Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power. Sec. 208. Designation of judges. Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants. Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications. Sec. 211. Clarification of scope. Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb. Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant. Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA. Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices. Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information. Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism. Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence. Sec. 221. Trade sanctions. Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies. Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures. Sec. 224. Sunset. Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap. [b]TITLE V--REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM[/b] Sec. 501. Attorney General's authority to pay rewards to combat terrorism. Sec. 502. Secretary of State's authority to pay rewards. Sec. 503. DNA identification of terrorists and other violent offenders. Sec. 504. Coordination with law enforcement. Sec. 505. Miscellaneous national security authorities. Sec. 506. Extension of Secret Service jurisdiction. Sec. 507. Disclosure of educational records. Sec. 508. Disclosure of information from NCES surveys. Okay, so, there are the primary articles and summaries of the sections contained within them. As I said, these are the articles that would seem to be the most controversial. It's worth pointing out that around 50% of this act actually relates to international activities; particularly terrorist financing, intelligence gathering and information sharing between agencies. Of the domestic portion of the act, it looks like about another half relates to responses to terrorist threats/actions as well as security coordination and a tightening of restrictions on banks, as well as an increased requirement for information sharing between banks, educational facilities and security services. Without copying and pasting the [i]entire[/i] act here, there are specific areas that I'd like to show you.[/color] [quote]`(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS- The regulations shall, at a minimum, require financial institutions to implement, and customers (after being given adequate notice) to comply with, reasonable procedures for-- `(A) verifying the identity of any person seeking to open an account to the extent reasonable and practicable; `(B) maintaining records of the information used to verify a person's identity, including name, address, and other identifying information; and [b]`(C) consulting lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency to determine whether a person seeking to open an account appears on any such list. [/b] `(3) FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED- In prescribing regulations under this subsection, the Secretary shall take into consideration the various types of accounts maintained by various types of financial institutions, the various methods of opening accounts, and the various types of identifying information available. [/quote] [color=#707875]This section of the act relates to opening bank accounts and verifying one's identity for transactions. I highlighted point C, because I felt that it related to what you were talking about somewhat. It relates to your identity being crosschecked with existing lists of terrorist suspects. In this case, I don't see a problem. If you [i]were[/i] on a terrorist list, you'd know about it. The Government isn't going to hide it from you and suddenly come and grab you when you're on your way to school or something. It just doesn't work that way. There is plenty more to discuss with this one act, but I did want to take the opportunity to point out a few major aspects of it. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In particular, I don't believe that this act is the violation of civil liberties that many say it is. And if any of you have seen my comments on civil rights before, you [i]know[/i] that I care very much about them. So I don't say this lightly.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]It's just that the ONLY two people that are making a fuss about are Australian, so there ya go. They are not breaking any laws, they just think it is unfair and they are all pissed off because two of 'their own people' are being held there. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Have you been living under a rock? The British Government as well as other countries have complained about their citizens being detained in Cuba. So that's the first point. The second point is very simple; if two Americans were held by Australian authorities under vague laws, would [i]you[/i] be upset? Probably. Don't be so self-centered. As I said, I believe that the first detainee should suffer whatever fate America has in store for him. I think he deserves to be prosecuted for his involvement in various wars. As I said, he's a complete nut. The second guy is a different case. The situation surrounding him is very vague. So I think it's reasonable that our Government would ask for evidence and would request that he be returned to Australia -- whether for prosecution or something else, who knows. Regarding the Patriot Act...Chris, what freedoms of yours are being violated? Have you directly experienced a removal of personal freedoms as a result of the Patriot Act? You seem to be talking about very vague things here. "That's what our country was founded on". That's all fine and good, but would you rather sit there and talk about your founding fathers, or stop a few thousand people from being murdered? Believe me, I understand your position -- especially when I know that minorities are always fighting for civil rights. You know how strongly I feel about that. Yet at the same time, I can support stronger security measures. I don't believe that these measures significantly impede people's personal freedoms. I haven't seen examples of where someone has been directly blocked from doing something that they could have done yesterday, as a result of these laws. From my perspective, it seems that most of these laws relate to criminal investigation and communications monitoring. And even then, there are limits on these laws; they aren't all-encompassing, as far as law enforcement agencies go.[/color]

[color=#707875]I don't understand the complaint here. From what I have seen/heard, the Patriot Act gives various Government and non-Government agencies slightly more leeway in dealing with suspected criminals. I mean, the amount of time you can be held for questioning before being released has increased marginally, for example. And obviously there are security-related background checks that now occur, relating to travel and so on. Out of all the people complaining about the Patriot Act, I haven't really seen anyone come up with very specific elements of it that significantly violate a person's rights. I'm not trying to outright defend it, because I do understand civil liberty concerns. However, you have to be realistic here. You have to weigh your options. Would you rather have a slightly broader security system, which significantly reduces the threat of a major terror attack...or would you rather have every civil liberty -- even ones that you apparently don't notice -- and be absolutely wide open to a major incident? Obviously you can't have less strenuous security [i]and[/i] less terror attacks. It doesn't work that way. I don't think this is a case of someone in office sitting there thinking "Hm, how can we kill off more civil rights today?" That kind of conspiracy theory just doesn't fly with me. This is all a matter of security and how far we must go to ensure that society is both free [i]and[/i] appropriately protected. In addition, it's important to remember the tactics that terrorists have and are using. They [i]are[/i] able to get through many traditional security checks and so on. I think that terrorists somewhat force your hand in that regard; you simply have no choice but to increase security if you want to decrease the chances of a major terrorist incident. As for Camp X-Ray...again, I don't completely agree with everything that's going on there. However, we must understand the context with which the people there were arrested. They weren't just plucked out of thin air; they were obviously arrested/detained as a result of security concerns. Moreover, time in Camp X-Ray has actually allowed various individuals to be interrogated -- which has directly resulted in the prevention of various attacks around the world, as well as providing information that led to one of Al-Qaeda's top strategists earlier in the year. Many of these detainees do not speak willingly at the start; it takes time and effort to extract truthful statements and intelligence, without resorting to torture. And we [i]have[/i] seen the results. We've seen the capture of various Al-Qaeda officials and even top members of Saddam Hussein's former regime. Much of this intelligence came from the detainees at Camp X-Ray and obviously, much of it was accurate and important. So, the situation is far from perfect. But the world isn't some ideological paradise; it's a very real place and it can be a very dangerous place. I think sometimes you do have to be a little "all-encompassing" in order to [i]ensure[/i] that you're doing all you can to protect the lives of innocent people; even those who are opposed to your methods.[/color]

[color=#707875]I agree with Ken. It would probably be possible to sit there and talk about chemicals in the brain and provide some kind of mathematical logic to love. But that would be pointless and I think it would ruin the beauty of the human experience. Love is definitely at its best when it's mysterious and new. It's something to be explored. It's an adventure. It's not a series of numbers.[/color]

[color=#707875]Guys, let's just keep ourselves focused on the discussion at hand. There's no need to have this silly back-and-forth. I'm saying that to [i]everyone[/i], too, not just one or two people. Obviously these debates get heated, but at least make sure that the vast majority of your posts are discussion/debate-related. lol[/color]

[color=#707875]Stories like this only make me shake my head in annoyance. Whoever invented the word "player" should be shot, at least in the context some men seem to use it. A man should treat his partner with the utmost respect and dignity. It shouldn't be a case of "Oh, you're so privileged to be with me". It should be more like "I'm so privileged to be with [i]you[/i]." What happened to being humble and being genuinely interested in someone else's intelligence and ideas? Does it take too much effort to cherish one person? I don't know. But I think that if it [i]does[/i] take too much effort to get over yourself, you probably don't deserve to be in a lasting relationship anyway (that is, to all the men out there who treat their partners with arrogance and disrespect).[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]I have never read the convention but from the array of high profile lawyers in Australia who consider it strictly illegal and state this on national TV with evidence I'd say it's either not completely legal, they are making use of a grey area or they are just out right breaking it. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I don't think it's illegal, but I do think that it's questionable. Of course, all of the people at Camp X-Ray were individuals who were caught in battle, fighting alongside the Taliban and so on. I'm sure there are innocent people there, but I also think that it would be dangerous to simply dump all of these people in a civil court at the moment. As far as Australians held at the camp...that David Hicks guy should really not be sent back here, in my opinion. I think that he should be prosecuted in front of a military tribunal in the United States. The guy was not only fighting alongside the Taliban, but he was nutty enough to go and fight in the Afghan/Soviet war. I mean, he's obviously a complete psychopath. And in terms of Mr. Habib...I don't know. I don't know what the situation is there. I don't know what kind of evidence they have against him, or what circumstances they found him in. So with an absence of any such information, I personally can't make a determination either way. That is, I can't say whether he should be sent to Australia or remain in Camp X-Ray. Obviously, due to the secrecy at the camp, it's incredibly difficult -- if not impossible -- to determine how or why he was picked up in the first place. So that's obviously a concern.[/color]

[color=#707875]I'm going to close this thread. Why? For one thing, there are more single-word posts here than I've seen in a while. Secondly, the post quality is appalling. So many of you have totally ignored our rules, or you simply haven't read them. And thirdly...I think some of you just need to be sent to boot camp, honestly. Some of you seem to be whining about such tiny things (I've moved school. Solution? Kill myself). It's just getting silly, in my opinion. Those of you who decided to post absolutely inane posts (I'm thinking of w9874563210, Shorty, SanaofAsgard and LokiofAsgard) are going to be banned. I really don't think that OtakuBoards is the place for you. I'm sorry, but there isn't even a hint of quality about your posts whatsoever.[/color]

[color=#707875]Every single thing I've heard about this game so far makes me excited about it -- moreso than I was about FFX or FFX-2. In fact, I think I'm more excited about this game than any Final Fantasy since FFVII. I am glad that they're taking it in a new direction. So far, it sounds like the general theme to the game is going to be great. And I'm also interested to read about the architecture and the amount of attention that is being paid to these elements. It's nice to know that everything won't look the same; that everything will have a distinctive feel of its own. In terms of visual design, this game looks more gritty than FFX. Some shots remind me of FFVII, only with a little more decorative flair. So visually speaking at least, that's great news for me. [/color]

[color=#707875]Well, what are you doing now? You're on OB. Instead of posting here...go and study. That's my fatherly advice to you.[/color]

[center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/killadam/KIlogo.gif[/img] [size=4]Chapter 9: Osaka Underground [/size][/center] [b]Summary:[/b] In this chapter, Jamie, Joshua and Shinmaru manage to trace Adam to the Osaka Underground. Adam has just arrived at the station by bullet train and is just about to enter his limosine as the Vipers show up. Adam and his Angels manage to escape, however, Adam doesn't let the Vipers go without leaving them a little surprise. [b]Characters:[/b] Joshua (AKA "Cowboy"), Jamie Kidd, Shinmaru Hazuki, Persona. [b]Setting:[/b] Osaka Underground EDIT: Urk...I don't know how to start this chapter. lol Not to mention that I'm still feeling a bit sore from tonsilitis. I don't want to delay this chapter any longer though, so...anyone involved in it can provide the opening post. I'll join in from there. ^_^;

[color=#707875]Well, as far as guilty pleasures go...I can only concur with Break. But then I read this:[/color] [quote][i]Originally posted by Amity:[/i][b] I think I'm not that lonely to do that though. No offense to the ones who do.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]*takes offence*[/color]

[color=#707875]Oh, Amity...I'm sorry, but I think you're heading down the Road to Banville here. Ahem. I'll move this to the Suggestions & Feedback forum, in the hope that someone will be nice enough to run through the different post numbers/ranks for you.[/color]

[color=#707875]Fantastic chapter, Solo. I liked your representation of the n00bies. You were frighteningly realistic there. I also liked your solution to the problem. If only we could lock problem members in giant rooms and then make the doors disappear...*sighs*[/color]

[color=#707875]You can be as slutty as you want? I'm going to close this. This is an example of an RPG with "mature themes" that [i]isn't[/i] at all mature. I see this as an attempt to simply provide lots of swearing and sex with no real plot. Take a look at my current RPG for example; there isn't much swearing or sex compared to some more recent RPGs. Yet there is a mature theme running throughout. Mature themes doesn't mean that you swear at every given moment, or that people can just make their characters "slutty". If you can develop a truly good story with true mature themes and then attach swearing and things like that in context, then fine. But please...if you're going to make a "mature RPG", I [i]expect[/i] to see it dealt with in a mature way (ie: longer and more detailed backstory/sign up). If you want to gain access to mature devices like swearing or sex, I think it's only fair that you do the hard work to get there.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Do they?[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]Of course.[/color][quote][b] No he is not, surely you would not have based that on you?re references [i]if[/i] you had searched for the definition of terrorism. "One who governs by terrorism." What a board generalisation, I?ll specify from your source.[/quote][/b] [color=707875]Okay, we'll go by your own definition:[/color][quote][b] ter?ror?ism The [b]unlawful[/b] use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property [i]with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments[/i], often for ideological or political reasons.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Exactly. So? How does this not fit Saddam Hussein's actions in the past? And indeed, if Saddam has anything to do with the current terrorist situations in Iraq (at the very least he's probably bank rolling some of the operations there), then yes...of course he fits the definition. Moreover, I gave you [i]three[/i] examples from three different sources. And you've put "unlawful" in bold. How on Earth does this contradict or disprove my contention that Saddam is a terrorist? Saddam used unlawful and threatened force against people and property. Your definition is as wide open as mine. The bottom line -- by my definition and your own -- is that Saddam Hussein [i]is[/i] a terrorist. All you're doing now is dancing around, playing semantics with me.[/color][quote][b] I know it?s only on technicality but in the interest of protecting what I said and improving my replies I believe you will find that this shows that Saddam was not in fact a terrorist since he [i]was[/i] the government and it was therefore entirely legal and protected by the society. (Even though the Kurds did not consider Iraq to be part of their area the Saddam regime still covered their land so claims that he was a terrorist in that area are still incorrect based on the above definition.) So don?t you think the following fits him better?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Cloricus...this comment only proves that you totally ignored what I mentioned about Saddam's rise to power. Saddam used terrorist tactics to come to power. Moreover, do you really think that just because he was the ruler of Iraq, that he was also acting legally? His actions in Iraq were often violations of Iraqi law -- murder and genocide aren't "legal" in Iraq afterall -- but that didn't stop him. Who was going to stop him, afterall? You're now saying "don't you think this definition fits him better?" Yes...Saddam is a dictator. But he is [i]also[/i] a terrorist, by all definitions provided so far.[/color][quote][b] dic?ta?tor 1. An absolute ruler. 2. A tyrant; a despot. [/quote][/b][color=#707875]Yeah...again...so? What are you trying to prove? Of [i]course[/i] Saddam is a dictator. I never said he wasn't. I simply said that he is also a terrorist. Whether one definition fits him better than the other is irrelevant; he fits [i]both[/i] definitions.[/color][quote][b] Who said North Korea? I?m talking about places that the people are crying out for help and are tiny and powerless compared to a country as powerful as America, most of which would be easier to ?liberate? than Iraq. Or did you forget about Saudi Arabia which has a horrible Islamic dictatorship which even bans dolls because they came from Jews! What about Burma which constantly and blatantly disregards the basic human rights and keeps the major political opponent under house arrest. Should we look at Zimbabwe where whites are killed in the streets and key political opponents are arrested under the orders from the government, which I?ll note isn?t proven but entirely believable, and beaten for weeks at a time which is proven. I think we?ll just leave Chilli, I don?t even want to think about that - if I do I might get shot. Even one that?s [b]yelling[/b] for help [i]now[/i] is being [url=http://www.iht.com/articles/115235.html]ignored[/url]. There are scores of countries around the world all in this position! So why Iraq?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yes, there are other regimes out there like Iraq. Of course. But out of all the examples you've brought up, I'd wager than none were as cruel as the dictatorship in Iraq. It is estimated that each year under Saddam, some 30,000+ Iraqis were sent to prison and/or executed. I'm not trying to downplay other scenarios around the world, but I'm saying that there are very clear reasons why Iraq was chosen. Not only were there concerns about Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbours (as much or moreso than its own citizens), but there was an [i]international mandate[/i] to take action against Iraq. I'm not aware of any such mandates against countries like Chile or Burma.[/color][quote][b] Did I say he was bad for America in the eyes of its people? He might be perfect and for all I care he could be a cat! All I?m saying is what I said, his actions are having a negative effect on [url=http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2003/s874512.htm]certain area?s[/url] and if they don?t have some one or a government team that can balance the load (effectively) they might be in a lot of trouble in the future.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Cloricus, you cannot sit there and talk to me about Bush and his domestic politics and then somehow claim that you weren't making certain assertions. That just doesn't seem right to me. In terms of the international viewpoint...I read the article you linked to. It doesn't surprise me. Is your point simply that a consequence of Bush's actions in Iraq is that America will become less popular internationally? If that's the case, I agree. But unfortunately, that's often the price you pay when you are involved in a military conflict of this nature. Does it mean that the conflict itself isn't justified, or that a vast majority of "America-haters" are either behaving in a naive fashion or are being fed propaganda? No, I'd say not.[/color][quote][b] That?s nice, too bad it was a year later than promised and in response to damning criticism of Bush?s team [url=http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/03/11/opinion/7576.shtml]forgetting[/url] it.[/quote][/b][/quote][/b] [color=#707875]There are two points I'd make about this. Firstly, just look at the publications you're pointing me to. Project Censored? Come on! Most of this stuff is insanely biased. Secondly, the situation in Afghanistan is not one for the US alone; Afghanistan has largely been "internationalised" since the changeover to a provisional government. Again, I'm not trying to paint the US contribution as perfect or even adequate. I'm simply saying that it's not fair to attack the US frequently over these issues -- nor is it fair to question America's motives all the time, particularly when it's being done in a decidedly unfair fashion.[/color][quote][b] Sorry I should have mentioned that it was past tense, though the effects of Bush forgetting the first time are [url=http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/9.html]still[/url] being [url=http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/afghanistan/051403_bush_afghanistan.htm]felt[/url](M). When Bush originally went into Afghanistan he made promise to commit money and troop support but according to the several sources after the media attention left the pentagon denied requested from the Afghanistan council and high ranking American personnel for thousands more troops needed to secure more than the main city, he then started [url=http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2003/01/31/42828.html]removing[/url] them. Though it?s is good to see he finally did carry out his promise to contribute the money and troop?s that the country would need, though looking at some of these links it might be a bit late to convince the people that the original intensions were ?noble?.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]That's an incredibly cynical and predictable viewpoint, Cloricus. So, because the United States hasn't handled everything perfectly, this casts doubt on their original intentions? Give me a break. If you're actually [i]happy[/i] that the Taliban and Al Qaeda had Afghanistan in their venomous grip for so long, that's fine. But I don't share your opinion.[/color][quote][b] Not at all, he?d be shot in the best case if he could ever find him, lol. Though in a documentary I watched about five months ago on SBS a French team talked to several of the key warlords and they say they are open anything including talking to the US which would seem the smart thing considering that they have a lot of power and sway.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yeah...that's right. It seems to me that right now, the Governing Council is trying to talk to the warlords and arrange a situation whereby they submit to elections in their own provincial areas.[/color][quote][b] I?ve sorry this doesn?t answer all of your rebuttals James but I haven?t included responses to things you expanded on that did not reflect what I believed I said and I hope that this clear up my points for my original criticism of how Bush?s administration governs. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Well, Cloricus...I'm only going by what you write here. If you are unable to convey your views clearly, then don't convey them at all. I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's a fundametnally flawed position. You consume a huge amount of ABC-esque media tripe and you seem to frequently try to bash America at any stage. But I don't think you've shown much of an understanding of Bush's policies, nor do I feel that you've demonstrated an understanding of International law issues. So, my opinion on that really hasn't changed. [/color]

[color=#707875]Eclectic, I'd like you to please clarify what you mean by "PG13 to R". Your RPG is either R rated or PG13 rated. Maybe you can clarify that for me.[/color]

[color=#707875]Hm...I'll ask you to read the rules, in the OtakuBoards Information Center (you can't miss it, it's at the top of the page). t0pic cl0z3d[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]I know and that's stupid, they should hate him [i]because[/i] of his policies. Though if that was aimed at me I'd like to state that it's not Bush that I disagree with, it's the people who create his policies. I'm sure Bush is a great guy and I really wouldn't mind meeting him with a small disagreement of what he allows to happen.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The problem I have is that too many people seem to hate Bush in a [i]personal[/i] way, as if he's the personification of evil or something. Whether you disagree with Bush or not, his intentions are noble. It's the execution where everybody differs. Obviously everyone wants to stop terrorism...but we all have different thoughts on how it could/should be done.[/color][quote][b] James you point out holes in my arguments but hardly ever support it and when you do it's normally from bias sources and you do not present the "other side" of the argument so based on this and my access to large amounts of news sources on the internet plus analytical evidence on tv from people who are in Iraq I base my views. Their views haven't changed so neither have mine, I like to follow reality.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]How do I not support my views any less than you? You never support your views. It's always "I think" or "I'm not sure if" or "that could be wrong but". Firstly, I do cite sources for my information when it is necessary. Secondly, if you [i]want[/i] me to cite more sources, I'll be happy to. The reason I don't cite more is because nobody else does. Thirdly...you [i]obviously[/i] aren't consuming a lot of objective news. Either that, or you are misinterpreting the news. I think the latter is the bigger problem. You constantly make erroneous statements about the situation in Iraq. And you constantly spew an extremely biased and unfounded political rhetoric. It sounds like you're simply regurgitating something from ABC or whatever. And I take issue with that. And it's why I will continue to point out the flaws in your arguments -- not to be mean or confrontational, but to encourage you to see the other side. I [i]do[/i] see the other side and I [i]have[/i] discussed the negatives about Iraq. The difference is that I'm talking about realistic standards...you're not. I'm not trying to be confrontational, as I said. I'm just trying to get you to be more objective.[/color][quote][b] Also Saddam was a dictator, not a terrorist. I believe the average dictionary should support that? Though really we should keep off this topic considering it lowers Bushs "niceness factor" since there are several worse dictators in the world and he hasn't even thought about (or has rejected) the idea of "removing" them. This shows he?s not doing it for the people.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Well, this is just another Cloricus-esque comment. Do I dare deconstruct it? Firstly, let's look at the word "terrorist": ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st) n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. adj. Of or relating to terrorism. This definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionary. Here's another definition, from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: \Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke. Here's [i]another[/i] definition, from Princeton University's WordNet: adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon Now tell me, Cloricus...is Saddam Hussein a terrorist or not? You bet he is. Secondly, let me briefly mention your comment about Bush not removing "worse" dictators. Do you need me to tell you how utterly sweeping and indiscriminate that comment is? You are assuming that all dictators are the same, by that standard. That removing each one has the same outcome and that removing each one requires similar resources. We already [i]know[/i] why the North Korean dictator hasn't been removed -- because he has 30,000 pieces of artillery aimed at Seoul. Within hours, he could murder millions of South Koreans. I don't even know where to begin with this. There are just so many variations with each situation -- Iraq is a particular set of circumstances. It's not some cookie-cutter operation. For you to make a comment like that only demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to geopolitical issues. [/color][quote][b] I hope to god that America has some one better than Bush other wise I fear for how such a good country America is could end up...[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Again, a Cloricus-esque comment. Where is your support, Cloricus? Where's your evidence that he's bad for America? Are you going to debate me on Iraq [i]again[/i], with the same tired "arguments"? Or are you going to clumsily walk me through the state of the US economy? If you are going to try and debate with me, Cloricus...and [i]especially[/i] if you're going to critique the credibility of my statements, it's worth knowing that you are setting yourself up for a very long discussion.[/color][quote][b] [added] Heaven's Cloud's I think you need to take a history lesson, I'm not even American and I know the past events that caused the Muslim world to dislike America, they are simple. America screwed them over in the past and they are still doing it, Afghanistan is a reck now and Bush promised to fund them and help them which he hasn't done, oh wait he officially "forgot to". There are now new very strong people there that are extremely anti-American so now in stead of one osama bin laden you have three to replace him who are all pissed for a very good reason! The simplest way for America to fix this is not to go off and kill these people it's to go to them and see what they want changed because America is the aggressor here; it has been for over 40 years, so they are the ones that have to move on their position. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]America screwed them over and they still are? Give me some facts to back that up, Cloricus. And what are you talking about with "forgot to"? Are you forgetting the millions of dollars that the United States and its allies have contributed to Afghanistan [b]this year[/b]? Are you forgetting that America has now committed further troops to Afghanistan? Apparently so. Your second contention is absolutely, [i]utterly[/i] careless. America has been the aggressor for 40 years? What history books are you reading? Do you have [i]any[/i] idea how bizarre that statement is? Again, please support it with facts and examples. And further...you expect Bush to sit down and have a friendly chat with bin Laden? Do you even begin to understand bin Laden's motivations for attacking the United States? The [i]reason[/i] -- the primary reason -- why bin Laden is out for the US is because the US used Saudi Arabian soil as a launching pad to [b]expel Iraqi invaders from Kuwait[/b] in the Gulf War. He was offended that Americans had been placed in the Holy Land. And that's where it started. Did he care that Kuwait was being invaded? No. Does he care about the Palsetineans? No. That is a complete and utter excuse. If he didn't have that, he'd find something else. bin Laden is a religious zealot -- he's no different from some right wing idiot who shoots a doctor outside an abortion clinic. It's the same deal. It is a question of religious zeal and religious zeal [i]only[/i]. The only difference is that people like bin Laden are able to spread their venomous messages throughout the Middle East -- to people who are often uneducated and impoverished -- and thus, he's able to recruit them. He offers them a head full of propaganda, offers a little warmth and food and he has them. And that doesn't even begin to mention the hardcore religious schools throughout the Middle East, who teach hate of Jews and western powers. Cloricus, I think that you are a personification of the naivete that the protestors in London have recently displayed. Your post here completely proves it. You haven't shown a single, cohesive thought that demonstrates an understanding of 20th century history. You've frequently and predictably misinterpreted the news. And you have selective hearing/reading skills. I'm sorry, but posts like your last one are just so full of error and misnoma that I can't help but feel hopeless about it.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i] [B] I have no idea why what is known as "Satanism" was ever given that name, given it's lack of Satanic worship [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Well, as I mentioned above...Satanists don't believe in Satan as a demon or devil. They merely see Satan as a symbol of opposition -- a challenge to the mainstream. So that's where that comes from. But yeah, I do see what you mean. And I understand your intention with your phrasing...I guess that my post was mostly trying to point this out to other readers who may want to lump Satanists in with Satanic cults and so forth. [/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, I've read a lot about Satanism (particularly on the Church of Satan's website) and I've seen interviews with La Vey's daughter. The main reason that I even mention it is because I think it's an interesting take on traditional religion. People make a common misconception, by saying that Satanists (at least La Vey's Satanists) worship Satan...when in fact, Satan is just a symbol used to express opposition and such. But yeah, it's interesting nonetheless. I'm not religious myself, but I do find it interesting to discuss and examine different religions and how they came into being. [/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i] [B]What I said was NOT a means of saying that Wicca is Satanic, but it was in response to the SPECIFIC point that "when you belive in something evil you give it power". [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]It's important to note that while there are religions that believe in and worship Satan..."Satanism" isn't one of them. Satanism is a specific religion, which actually seems much closer to athiesm than anything else. As far as being Wiccan and such...well, obviously this kind of belief system can't be dead if people believe in it. Obviously religion, in any form, can only last as long as it is being actively followed and practiced. To me it just seems like a redundant question. *shrug*[/color]

[color=#707875]I think it's probably fair to expect .hack//SIGN to be in the Series area, actually. When you consider that the majority of stuff related to it is now video games and manga...the anime plays a less central role (as with Pokemon). So yeah. I agree. The only reason I'm reluctant to make the change is because I already have plans for the future of that forum on v7. For now, it's best to keep things as they are so that we don't create even more confusion over it. And I don't think it's [i]too[/i] complex to ask people to post about the games in the [b]gaming[/b] areas. The .hack//SIGN forum is for .hack//[b]SIGN[/b]. It's for the anime. All manga discussions and game discussions should be in their respective forums.[/color]

[color=#707875]Hasn't that happened to you in multiplayer though? I mean, you know...with those kind of weapons and so many players, it's going to happen. I see your point, in the sense that it's frustrating. But I don't know if it's really unfair or not. I never really felt that way about it myself.[/color]