 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
