 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Indeed. But looking at the Official rules... well let me put it this
>> way. If you need to actually include a flowchart just to explain what
>> the rules are, the rules are too complicated. :-P
>
> Why do you think I don't play? (other than the cost of all the cards)
Hahaha! Riiight...
(Wait - so you're saying if the rules were simpler, you *would* be
playing it?)
>> (Also... how do you know it's still getting new additions? Oh, wait,
>> it's Gail. Heh. OK, I rephrase: how would anybody else know that?)
>
> It's kinda like asking if you would know when a new edition of Haskall
> is released.
Actually, that's not a bad analogy.
When the next revision of the Haskell language standard is released (due
to be next year or so), *nobody* except me will actually know [or care]
about it. :-(
>> BTW, I attempted to visit the official site shortly after this thread
>> began. But I figured I'd have to cast some kind of time-travel spell
>> to get to the part where the site finishes loading. Jesus it was slow!
>> o_O
>
> Yeah. Wizards is pretty good at games, terrible at websites and web apps.
Heh. This is apparently quite common... I've seen no end of websites for
pipe organ builders. Some of these firms have been in business for
centuries - yet their websites look like something from the Web 0.5 era.
> You're lucky it loads at all. I keep getting errors. It worked a lot
> better (faster, more reliable) before they decided to move the entire
> site to flash.
Yeah, I'll bet!
I don't get any errors, it just loads very slowly. OTOH, there seems to
be something strange going on with my home PC... I don't know if it's my
actual Internet connection or just my copy of Firefox, but I'm noticing
multiple websites being extremely slow lately...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
web.490ec3ec23dd7dce208d05c80@news.povray.org...
> I thought the colour of magic was Octarine. :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Discworld_concepts#Octarine
>
>
> Stephen
>
Does anybody knows where are Stephen's dried frog pills?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Yeah. Like somebody said "each turn you lay down a card and then the
> other person does"... and sure, that's "essentially" how you play it...
> but the Official rules are *way* more complicated than that! Each turn
> there are half a dozen optional things you can do if you want to ("but
> usually players don't"), and rules that apply in special obscure cases
> and... Jesus, does anybody actually *play* this game?! o_O
Sounds like Perl.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Indeed. But looking at the Official rules... well let me put it this
> way. If you need to actually include a flowchart just to explain what
> the rules are, the rules are too complicated. :-P
I have played a card game called FLUXX. The rules are printed on the
cards, and change as you play the game. It's really quite fun and
hilarious. Not really something young kids could get into, but a game
with family and friends is very entertaining.
> (Also... how do you know it's still getting new additions?
The same way you know the next version of Windows will be shinier and
have more not-really-needed features: the authors don't make money
otherwise.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Yeah. Like somebody said "each turn you lay down a card and then the
>> other person does"... and sure, that's "essentially" how you play
>> it... but the Official rules are *way* more complicated than that!
>> Each turn there are half a dozen optional things you can do if you
>> want to ("but usually players don't"), and rules that apply in special
>> obscure cases and... Jesus, does anybody actually *play* this game?! o_O
>
> Sounds like Perl.
LMAO!
I'm not sure who's 0wned the most - Magic or Perl! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoo fr> wrote:
> web.490ec3ec23dd7dce208d05c80@news.povray.org...
> > I thought the colour of magic was Octarine. :)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Discworld_concepts#Octarine
> >
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> Does anybody knows where are Stephen's dried frog pills?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Then again, this is damn near the modern American standard for
> "immoral". If you value knowledge, instead of wallowing in
> ignorance, you use logic, instead of tradition, then you are
> a) immoral, b) probably an atheist, c) liberal, d) elitist, and
> e) Anti-American.
Would that be 'l'ogic or 'L'ogic? The big L version as I have seen it
applied is 95% moral equivalency, so most of those would apply.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Sounds like Perl.
>
> LMAO!
>
> I'm not sure who's 0wned the most - Magic or Perl! :-D
The creator of Brainfuck once was asked why he had created that language. He
answered he didn't know Perl existed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
> news:490e1665@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Think they got something wrong there.. In my experience, people that
>> value knowledge and logic ***despise*** deceit, its the insane people
>> that value wishful thinking and *belief* that use deceit all the time
>> to not just lie about everyone that doesn't think like they do, but
>> prop up the beliefs, so they can pretend that "wishing" does something
>> for anybody.
>
> It's got nothing to do with people. It's talking about colours of magic
> for a card game and the traits those colour embody.
>
> White is order, righteousness, healing, law, community.
> Green is life, nature, evolution, interdependence.
> Blue is intellect, reason, illusion, trickery, dreams
> Red is chaos, destruction, passion, fury, freedom
> Black is death, power, ambition, greed, corruption.
>
Yeah. Figure that out later. But.. its damn near the **exact** argument
that the GOP uses to disparage every idea, person or social concept they
don't like recently. Its, "Oh, you are an elitist (knowledgable)
materialist (logic oriented), so... by definition you must lie all the
time!" Its just funny that this is expressed so succinctly in a
fictional game, given how common place the association has become IRL.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>
>> Then again, this is damn near the modern American standard for
>> "immoral". If you value knowledge, instead of wallowing in
>> ignorance, you use logic, instead of tradition, then you are
>> a) immoral, b) probably an atheist, c) liberal, d) elitist, and
>> e) Anti-American.
>
> Would that be 'l'ogic or 'L'ogic? The big L version as I have seen it
> applied is 95% moral equivalency, so most of those would apply.
>
If you don't think that anyone making such claims doesn't apply moral
equivalences, then you are not paying attention. Seriously, they have
to. The only way they can manage to remain sane, and still claim that
their belief system guides their morals, instead of their
"interpretation" of the belief system being based on their morals, is by
spinning like a bloody top.
Most of what gets called "moral equivalence" is people honestly trying
to work out what is right and wrong, based on how it effects others, and
not based on the backwards method of deciding that X must be true,
therefor it **must** have Y effect, even without evidence, and
therefore, somehow, belief Z must **say so** some place, then spending a
lot of time turning the "l" logic into a pretzel, along with their
mythologies, looking for some way to justify that conclusion. I have yet
to find any "honest" person on that side of things that can "prove"
their moral code, without, when pressed, resorting to repeating
assertions, or admitting that it was either **purely** what they where
a) taught to believe, or b) they fell should be true. Its A = B, so B =
A, where A in fruit, and B is an orange, but since their conclusion
"demands" that all fruit be oranges, they simply "assert" this to be
true, then stare in confusion at you when you dare to point out that no
such correlation has been proven.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
