Milky Jade

@@Steel Accord, Yeah, pretty much It doesn't mean that you cannot arrive at constructive ends by making, for instance, your building fire-proof but that line of reasoning requires more thought that a clear ban or sanction to a potent force, and people wonder why no problems are being solved, like, ever.

If there's still any kind of debate over this, Claim: Objects cannot be evil. The distinction between good and bad is a moral one, morality presupposes a consciousness and freedom of choice. Where there is no choice, there can be no 'good' and 'bad', or 'right' and 'wrong'. You are literally unable to choose between either, which voids your morality, as your hands have been forced to act (lack of alternative). This applies to some human actions, but mostly, to non-human things, such to include: inanimate objects. For an object to be moral, it must have the capacity for rational decisionmaking (first and foremost, between 'moral' and 'immoral'), which it doesn't possess. It is said thus, that weapons can be neither evil, nor good*. QED Furthermore, the same line of reasoning applies to fire and water.. evidently, we need both of those things, because of their constructive properties. However, do you blame the fire for killing that orphanage? Do you blame the water when you drown? You don't, because they cannot be held responsible for their actions, they have no choice but to act in one way, and one way only. You would be merely sanctioning the actions of an arson, or freak that tossed you in the ocean, or the burglar that shot you, if you were to do that.

One stupid habit I picked up from this is that I don't say "weapon", but "wepma" There can be no understanding

@@TenorSounds, It's best played with 3-4 people, just like MtG (imo) If it's just 2, there is no concept of 'aggressor', 'fraternizing' and 'backstabbing' Properties of games that people never fail to undervalue ________________________________ Obligatory I'm sorry, it just is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVSahgCegk

@@TenorSounds, In a way this game deliberately omits rule specifications such that people would fight over them From: http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/rules/munchkin_rules.pdf "(...) Any other disputes should be settled by loud arguments, with the owner of the game having the last word. You could also read the Munchkin FAQ and errata pages at www.worldofmunchkin.com, or start a discussion at forums.sjgames.com . . . unless it's more fun to argue."

Oh, does anyone know Munchkin? It's a game that could turn your friends into enemies by necessity If you had any

I don't think there is anything left to say

@@Antismurf9001, Hue To anyone that is into nordic swords, I present to you The Ulfberht https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeGv_PU4ZkA The true pinnacle of metalurgy of its time. They re-forge it, too.

I don't know, maybe superman?

In case of the Francisca and Scramasax, it is not that their name is based on the people who used it (franks and saxons); but their great utility in battle brought about many victories, so it was actually that "the franks" means "the francisca using people", and the same for the saxons. They named themselves after the weapons they capitalized on. Also, one quote i cannot forgo "I don't know why people say a double-edged sword is bad. It's a sword. With two edges." —Kamahl, pit fighter.

Dire Straits record Years back That pretty much covers it, but it sounds amazing. That quality.

In terms of getting shit done, the night is actually terrible But for all the other possible things, like fun... The night and me, let's say, go way back. Nature thrives at night, and that is why.

Literally everything I don't wear Clothing becomes absolved of sin-hood once it drapes my skin

Well, to put it simply, if you wanna be constructive, then you will have to deliberate if Jerry would've rather have his plants dehydrated than you to break into his house. If his rule is to keep out of his house, then you better have a good reason for doing it anyway (refering to the topic of the thread), because I'm sure Jerry won't thank you for "meaning it well" Now if, say, your house was burning, you could have it either like in that movie UnCivil Liberties, or otherwise.. If your goal is to be constructive, you shouldn't find problems figuring that stuff out for yourself. @@Lightning Bliss, Let's say I don't think you should be asking that question, frankly Because if you thought your money was better invested with no returns, then that is what you think But I personally think it wouldn't be, and you'll get varying answers from us if you put that question out in the open... but which one of us really matters more to you than the other? I know for a fact that the.. "private charity" business is one of .. diminishing returns... People like telling themselves they did good, so as to feel good about what they just did, and the end of it is that most of these mendicants and buskers can suddenly walk again and drive off in a mercedes sprinter. That is all well, but I think if you want to know about the principle behind it, then you'd have to first ask yourself a few questions: 1) What does my money represent? 2) What do I value the most? 3) Do I prioritize the wellbeing of a stranger so long they're worse off than us? 4) Then why am I not giving all my savings to them and join them in the streets with my fiance? Eventually you'll hit that point where you realize that cooperation and productiveness is a much better way to secure a future, and then eventually you may think about private charities based on money that *isn't* crucial to making haste towards that future and security once you have achieved it, that is It hurts to say, but ignorance of the above is what got many people into that kind of situation in the first place So think on it, maybe I am just putting it out there

I'm not counting game soundtracks because of an arbitrary whimsical late-night decision that I just made So, uno i deux drei

Also, to anyone that has hate- or love- relationship with logic (mathematical logic), read Carrol's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and try to keep in mind that logic (and pop math) was on the uprise during the mid 19th century; and Lewis (being a mathematician himself) dropped lots of references in little's Alice's path (the whole book is kind of digesting inverse relationships in math and other stuff). If after that you're still wondering why it's called "Wonderland", and why everyone seems to be loopy, jumpy or nutty, or in the mood for beheading.... well....

I am good at this I am good at that Ermagerd Strowking muh e-peen Seriously though, math was a vital part of my studies and therefore, the most boring. The only torus area I want to hear about is that of my doughnut.

@@Bojo, We were never talkative actually, and food tends to disappear after 10 minutes tops. That's actually, what do you say... the upside to it?

@@Bojo, Aye You seem to be on the same page as me, but not everyone is, and that is where problems might occur. I never have minded eating with friends, since we would always eat while pursuing something else, too. But family, then, would have meant to eat in the dining room in silence and with boring conversation. I say, thanks, but no thanks. No, Sir!

I'm actually at the point at which I can't enjoy a meal, properly, unless I eat it alone or with friends. With huge family gatherings, it's different, but I almost always have something I would like to do >while< eating. To eat for the purpose of eating, kind of feels like.. like I'm wasting the food, really. It is supposed to magnify the satisfaction I have when watching a show I love, for example, and not just be consumed and disappear forever like some crappy art. Sadly, that is what family used to be all about. Eating time was family time, It was more ritualistic and unrewarding than plucking weeds. And just as fun.

I think the 80's were pretty baller, so I will have to pass.

As long as I don't have to come within a 10 feet distance to them, hairy guys don't bother me much