foeofthelance

Well, in my case, none really, It was a matter of several factors. 1) I have a mother and two older sisters. 2) My place of employment is a sexual harassment lawyer's wet dream. 3) I'm a geek. Geeks study the hell out of things. Started with porn, ended up here, found a few tips here and there, worked back to porn. 4) The internet in general. Admittedly, I'm still picking up tricks and ideas as I go, but I had a fair idea of what I was getting into.

Dark, as an unabashed, heterosexual 20 year old guy, I can indeed confirm: the girl is hot! Hell, I'd probably get smacked for staring. And this is coming from the internet, where Barbie culture has mixed with everything else to such a degree that when people on the internet think you're hot, you've got to be to have earned it. Just goes to show: It is a damned shame my girlfriend won't let me go out with more girls...

Hmm, honestly? She seems to have a decent build. I wouldn't mind a shot that gave some sign of a bust line, but... (What? I've got a thing for a decent pair of breasts. So sue me! ) And I'd need to see her face before I could personally call her beautiful, but in this case I think I can trust your judgement. Seriously though, you're friend does not have a weight problem. I work in an italian resturaunt, and if I showed her photos of some the people who come in, she would see what a weight problem looks like. I know people who are so fat that they don't so much as walk or waddle as roll into place. Of course, she could always see if she'd be allowed to eat out in Mississippi... http://bligbi.com/2008/02/01/mississippi-t...ting-in-public/

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."---Enough famous people that I'm not going to bother. Personally, I think it depends on what was done. Knocked over a liquor store when you were 14 because you were young and stupid? That I can forgive. Got an abortion? That I can't judge; I have not and never will be in a position to make a decision like that, seeing as how I'm male. Found out you got your girlfriend pregnant and dumped her so your sorry ass could run for the hills? That I wouldn't be able to forgive, not unless you went crawling back to her, begging for forgiveness the next week, and yes, it would be time sensitive with a very small window. I'm big on the idea of personal responsibility. If you made a mistake, you should own up to it. You should also try to set right the mistake that you made. That said, we're all human, and mistakes will be made. The only reason not to be forgiven is if you did lasting, permanent harm, or if you were doing it out of a purely selfish motive.

While I don't agree with her idea, I do find Calenthee's reasoning sound. Ever since the game went free-for-all, it's become much more difficult to advance then when there were limits to who we could and could not attack. It served as a way to keep the higher level players from basically abusing the lower level ones, which is basically what's happened at this point. Before now, Keith and Teeta might not have been able to fight as often, but at least it was reasonable for a lower level player to chance attacking them. Now, they're what 15+ levels higher? So they have higher hitpoints, higher strength, and reload faster than anyone else. I use to be able to show up, take a couple of fights, and may or may not be dead when I checked. Now, out of the last ten times I've tried to play, I've just been told I'm dead. Why did the level caps come off?

New post in the forum orgy. If it helps draw people in, we all just landed in Hogwarts. So won't you please come play with us?

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who actually read the details of the articles, including the attached one from the NYT? First Item: The intent is to monitor international coomunications routed through the U.S., not domestic correspondence. Also, consider the volume of those communications. It it is far more likely that the programs are going to look for a few key words, flag such messages, and then dump 90% of them as false alarms. Second item: According the NYT article, the program was already going on. What the government did was create a framework for how it has to operate, rather than allowing it to remain in the black so to speak. That is what Congress is supposed to do: investigate and limit the actions of the intelligence agencies, and punish them as need be. This isn't the rise of Big Brother, or a move to dictatorship (which would involve heavy military action, and I doubt any politician could muster that kind of power) but simply business as usual. I'm afriad I don't understand how the government putting up rules for an intelligence gathering operation is a bad thing...

There should be several programs running around the internet, though they were originally intended for AMV creation, which is sort of similar, I guess. Try looking for http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/amvapp.html The DVDecyrpter file set is probably good for ripping it straight to your computer, and the other files should allow you to alter the format for use with an editing program that can burn it straight to disc. (I will note though, that I have never personally attempted this. I use anime downloads for my footage, which I need to change for this con season.) If this works, I only demand one favor in return...a copy of that film!

Nah, I doubt it. I'm a Boy Scout with plenty of mileage of heavy backpacking under my belt, walk rahter than drive, and wear thinck, heavy boots. And I dont pull my kicks.

Well, to be fair, she's learned that she needs to be careful, as if she crosses a line I will get back, normally with the toe of one of my boots. If pressed, the bosses will just go, "What kick?" As do the customers, my family, her kids...

Hey, what about us young'uns who have to deal with asshole older coworkers/bosses? P (60+)- I can't pull my laptop without him going, "Foe is looking at the naked ladies!" And it is ALL he says. N (33+)- Bad enough she runs around telling everyone that I'm either hitting on her or hitting her. No, she also happens to think she's a MILF, which, trust me, she is not. Kind of the opposite, really. Bad enough even the customers her age comment on it. Then there's the fact that she's always trying cop a feel or asking for details of what me and my girlfriend got into over the weekend. Work? What work? I've got to spend all of my time covering for her, because if something goes wrong her customers can't find her because she's outback smoking a cigarette! V (40+)- Not that bad actually, save for the fact he acts like he's sixteen. Fault of anyuresm a while back. I treat him like a younger kid brother, and it all works out ok. And it goes on and on. I could probably fill a rant on N alone. So to all the old foggies who think the younger generation doesn't have a work ethic... You guys are just as bad!

That's why I invited you into my guild, was to protect you from some of the predation. At our level, there's just not enough competition.

I've got 5, all from trying to take on people of equal level to me, which sort of pissed me off. Though not as bad as when I managed to kill DrakInuLord. I was level 5 or 6, and I get the message. "The person you have killed is 10 or more levels higher than you, therefore no reward is earned." What's the point of launching a daring attack against a superpower if you can't get rewarded for it?

Nah, you're just one of the few targets I've been able to hit. GW, I normally play mainly PvE. So if you join, I dobut we'd be doing much fighting against each other.

So, any players here? I've got a guild I'm trying to fill out, and I figured I'd fill it with friendly faces.

I was reading through the NY Post this morning on my way to school, when I came across this Opinion Article: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01242008/posto...1868.htm?page=0 After reading it, I couldn't help but wonder whether or not he had a point. So I sat down and wrote out a list of titles of works we had covered, starting in middleschool and working my way through high school. (College was left out, as we had dealt mostly with essays, rather than fiction pieces.) Wouldn't you know it? He was right! Everything from Shakespeare to Herman Melville, all had unbalanced, mentally troubled, or unethical male centers. The only two books which didn't have troubled men in it were the ones which had strong female leads. Apparently if a guy is the lead, then he has to have problems with his identity and/or morals, yet its ok for women to be perfect! I was curious if this was something that held true for others, and what people might have to say in response to the article.

I voted Other as well, as that at least, is a provable fact. Yes, religion has inspired plenty of atrocities, from the Crusades to the current War on Terror. (I deliberately specified those two. They are exact inverses of either in all but execution.) Yet at the same time it has also proven itself to be a great tool for good, in the form of organziations such as the Salvation Army and Red Cross. The Islamic religion inspired many great astronomers, physicians, and philosophers. Heck, even the Indians managed to give us the Kama Sutra! So to try and portray religion as an absolute evil or absolute good is, to me, a flawed idea. As with all of mankind's tools it is more easy to determine its alignment based on the actions and intents of those who use it. As for my personal beliefs, I'm a rather religious agnostic. I do believe there is at least one God, perhaps two or three. (Either that or Murphy is some sort of demi-god incarnation of chaos.) Yet I find that the regimented existance of church to be less than satisfying. That's not to say that the Bible isn't an interesting read. (I was raised and confirmed Catholic. Due to the way the ceremony was performed, I managed to get confirmed despite not agreeing with several things.) I'll still toss of a lord's prayer when I pass a church or graveyeard, and give a good word for those who have gone before, but I no longer participate in the pageantry and ceremonies.

In regards to this, all I will ask is one question: Is it bad to cling to those beliefs? I'm not trying to sway you from your opinion; both of us have already made our positions quite clear and simply disagree. It appears to me that you would be more than willing to deny the role faith plays in the inherent belief in those rights. Not that faith is required for them, but that for someone to believe in those rights based on their faith is wrong. There are people who live their lives according to the tenets of their religion, both for the security of mind it brings them to have answers proivded, as well as the comfort of knowing that there is something more to their existance than just the ordinary drudge. Is it wrong for those people to believe in their rights based on their faith? And if so, how is it anymore right or wrong as compared to your own philosophy. In either case the end result is the same, merely reached by different paths. As for the rest, we shall simply agreed to disagree. While I heartily agree in regards to voting based on religious beliefs vs. drafting laws based on religion, I simply find that there is too much in reality that hints at a greater being, whereas you seem to see the opposite. Ah well, and tis a shame I can't have your share! One last question though. If I were to be elected president, and I plan on running hopefully in the '24 election, and changed my name to God, legally, would there still be a problem with printing in God We Trust on money? I mean, hopefully you can trust me, even if I do become a politician. I do want to try and actually solve most of the current problems, and if the best solution for this is to just give athiests a secular God...

Not at all, actually! What I was questioning was your apparent dismissal of the origins of those rights, especially through the comparisons to slavery and violence. (The second point on which I also disagree. Personally, I believe that anyone who does not accept that a certain point there comes a time to stop talking and actively defend themselves deserves what comes to them. By that same token, anyone who seeks to impede my own ability to defend myself is actively trying to expose me to danger, and thus any action I seek to take against them can in part be justified. Admittedly this breaks down with the more extreme courses of action...) Faith, as far as I am concerned, is no less a too for the advancement of humanity than philosophy is, and to dismiss it simply because it is founded on the basis of an unseen/unheard/unknown outside power, rather than the fact that we learned to walk on two legs and beat each other with knives and guns instead of sticks and stones, is false. The concepts of human and civil rights have their basis in both of those categories, so being hostile to one or the other just seems wrong to me. As to the Texas Constitution, I do in fact believe in a Supreme Being. I call her Mother. For even I was the Governor of the state, I'm sure she'd have no problem showing up to tan my hide! I hold a similar idea when it comes to science. I don't question that evolution or any of the other scientific explanations for the origins of life and the universe. What I question is how that suspposedly proves the non-existance of god(s). As I mentioned before, the definiton of a god is an omniescent being, with unlimited knowledge and power. So why such a being would willingly create a system it is going to have to interfere with every billion years or so just doesn't make sense to me. I've spent enough time looking into time and space and all the various things we think we've discovered, that I sincerely hope that there is something running around out there making sure everything does what it is supposed to. I will question whether or not man is God's ultimate creation. If you had that kind of time and awareness, would you spend so much time concentrating on one little mudball? Granted, we could be some generic experiment to see if life is worth exporting to other planets... Oh, and what's this about a flame war? No one told me to expect to be going into battle! Give me a moment to dress and arm myself, please! Now, where did I leave that hydrant...

Actually, Shinju, it tends to be more about the way it gets carried out. For right now the biggest proponents of polygamy in America are some very orthodox Mormon sects, which also tend to think the best age to marry a girl is around 13 or 14, even when her husband is in his mid to late 50s. If it was proposed by another group, one with out the Mormon's history, then I think it would likely pass, especially in today's modern world. We've already accepted gay rights. (Actually, the entire gay rights movement is, in my opinion bull. I was fairly we'd taken care of all that back when we passed the Civil Right's act of the sixties. What was the line again? "May not be discriminated against based on sex, race, age, or creed?" I'm sure we can define homosexuality based upon one of those... Either it's genetic, which makes it a sex, or its a personal choice, which makes it a creed...)

Warning! Following post is going to be slightly combative! Agaib, can you please explain to me how people expressing faith in a higher power is a "poor one"? You mention the fact that the founding father's thought that the country they created was going to fall apart in a few short years. They were right, it did. The American Confederation ran into a few problems, so they threw a convention and then we became the United States of America. These were religious men. They hoped that somewhere there was a being that was infalliable, and had none of man's weaknesses. They expressed this both in their papers and their actions, and yes, this is just as much a part of our heritage as slavery. And from both things we should learn. From slavery, we learned that we were just as pigheaded and capable of cruelty as any one else, but that when it came down to it, we were not only willing to change the nation, but could surivive such a change. From the faith of the founding fathers we can also take a lesson, in that the rights we enjoy as citizens of America are something so natural, that only a being of infinite power could say otherwise. That faith brought about the line "...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those aren't values to worth clinging to? In that case, mind if I have your share? In my opinion, the government is no more swayed by religion than they are the power of any other major special interest group. Just because a series of words are printed on pieces of paper does not mean it has much effect on the government in total. Granted, the more conservative aspects will often cloak themselves in the mantle of religion, both as a means of defining themselves and establishing the reason for their views. Yet somehow I just don't see Nancy Pelosi catering to the religious right, anymore than I can believe George W. Bush of catering to Greenpeace. The seperation of church and state was established to protect the citizens from the government establishing a state religion and persecuting because of it. It was not intended to force politicians to forget the basis on which they built their morals. How does our faith prevent you from participating in any form? You already admitted you have the right to vote. You can campaign for whomever you wish, in what ever (legal) manner you wish. And yes, you can in fact run for office in any state you wish, so long as you meet the eligibility requirements. Which, as far as I know, are residency based, not religious. Would you win? No, but only because people prefer to vote for someone who generally shares their view of the world. That's not prejudice or bias against you because you're an atheist, that's simply disagreeing with you. As for the topic of evolution, I don't see what the big deal is. I believe in both God and evolution. Its not that difficult. After all, it only makes sense that an omnipresent, omniescient being would build an autocorrect feature into It's creations. Things that need to be repaired are for lesser engineers.

Unfortunately, it is only really one long round robin. Equally unfortunately, the old one was taken down after a disagreement between several of the authors. So why not just have fun with the new one?

Zyx, I think part of the problem is how you are trying to define "own". Yes, authors do own their original works. It falls under the Intellectual Property laws, such as copyrights and trademarks. These basically give the author the ability to sell and distribute their work (and there is a good reason we refer to things as works of art) without someone ripping them off big time. Some authors prefer to be strict about their stuff, some don't. AFIK, JK Rowling has admitted to having read some fanfics, would prefer some of it doesn't exist, but also isn't worried about it ruining her books' reputation. There is something known as 'fair use', essentially where a work is bastardized either for parody or satire, and this is where fanfic authors like to make their stand. Whether or not it is fair use is up to the courts to decide, but they've generally been fair about, and either way its not a big enough deal for the publishers themselves to go after people/sites such as AFF, who do it for fun and make no profit. The two cases you cited, the first was an attempt at profit, and I think the second may be one of the "leaked" copies Scholastic was attacking before the release of Deathly Hallows. In those cases the publisher has every right to go after those people. First, as a matter of quality control. Copyrights are tricky things, which need to be defended at every turn. One false step can cost the company the right to claim they hold it. (This is, for example, why Marvel puts out a Captain Marvel title every so often. It prevents DC from taking the title for their Captain Marvel.) There's also a matter of quality control, from fan works. Sites like AFF willingly acknowledge that we're using someone elses world for our fics. From the sounds of things, the two you mentioned didn't. I've got a fairly long winded tale on the website in the originals section, concerning nthe going ons of a high school. Several people have suggested to me that I script it and market it to the CW or some other teen targeting network. I just might. But if some tried to beat me to it, and trust me it would be rather obvious, I'd be taking them to court to not only get them to stop, but to get any money they may have already made. I wrote the story. I dealt with all the headaches and writer block. Why should I they profit? That'd be like spending 8 hours on an assembly line every day of the week just to let someone else pick up the paycheck. Now, can authors ask that people not write fanfics? Sure. Anne Rice did it. People don't like her attitude about it, so they pretty much ignore her requests. She can try and go after every fanfic writer, but that'd be like the RIAA trying to sue every downloader. They go after some, get some publicity, scare a few more, and yet nothing happens in the long run. Other authors have made the same request. I know Larry Niven asked that no one write any more Man-Kzin fanfics after reading one that involved a rather brutal interspecies rape. For the most part I think people have listened, because he asked for the sake of his books being respected, not because he was god. And thats what it comes down to basically. If an author asks that fanfics not be written, all they have to use is the respect that their fans have for them. So fair use is good, plagiarism is bad, and violating copyright gets you a whole lot of lawyers on your head.

Achmed the Dead Terrorist wants to go caroling... Laughed my ass off at least.

I don't know. I doubt there's ever such a thing as a bad plot (having read both the Illuminatus Trilogy and Schrodinger's Cat trilogy), just really crappy authors. Take away the rape and the four year old, and its pretty much any other 'sex prevents the plague/demon/apocalypse themed story. I'd wager that half the people here could take the same central ideas and come up with something not only acceptabel, but enjoyable.