posted 03-22-99 05:36 PM ET            

(Yin, this is all in good fun and I couldn't resist. I only post it as joke because I know you can handle it. It's sincerely meant in complete jest and good fun. If I didn't think you were intelligent enough to handle this in good fun I would not have posted it. Cheers.)

posted 03-22-99 07:22 PM ET            

My best guess:

posted 03-22-99 07:42 PM ET            

Maybe you have "Ascended" to "something" and our comparably tiny human brains are no longer able to categorize your "special brand of greatness"

BTW, your post has left open a massive door in which I am so tempted to drive a huge truck of a joke through... but I have already overstepped my bounds at your expense, so I will pass this time )

But seriously, I admire your ability to take a joke graciously I now fully expect one from you in the future at my expense... t'would only be fair, no?

posted 03-22-99 07:47 PM ET            

Tough choice, isn't it?

posted 03-22-99 11:56 PM ET            

I find it quite flattering that I'm getting marriage proposals already- shouldn't we get to know each other first, Mr. Romantic?

posted 03-23-99 12:51 AM ET            

What would football be without the cheerleaders? Pat Sajak without Vanna White? Anime' without its feloniously-underaged way-underdressed heavily-armed wide-eyed heroines? Santiago purring the "Spartan Battle Manual" only makes us men randier ...

The only way to be sure if a video game with chicks in it is actually women-oriented is if said female characters talk about their feelings to exhaustion and if said feelings encompass the full spectrum of contempt for, disgust with, dislike of, and especially disappointment in men. (The appearance of horses in any role other than "cavalry" is also a leading indicator ...)

posted 03-23-99 01:15 PM ET            

�If you are going to play a silly game with a silly ball, it may as well be one where the ball comes BACK on its own��

posted 03-23-99 03:31 PM ET            

Person 1: Why do they call it golf
Person 2: Because sh*t was already taken

Bizarre attitude from someone who goes to university at St.Andrews (the home of golf)

posted 03-23-99 03:31 PM ET            

Person 1: Why do they call it golf
Person 2: Because sh*t was already taken

Bizarre attitude from someone who goes to university at St.Andrews (the home of golf)

posted 03-23-99 03:31 PM ET            

Person 1: Why do they call it golf
Person 2: Because sh*t was already taken

Bizarre attitude from someone who goes to university at St.Andrews (the home of golf)

posted 03-23-99 06:43 PM ET            

Science and religion are by no means mutually exclusive. They are both, in essence, the pursuit of truth, of existence. They both tell us that what is out there is bigger than we can comprehend. However, religion takes a "top down" look on things (God created the universe, etc.), while science seems to go from the bottom up (how do we combine these two theories to explain this phenomenon?). I myself am a devout Christian, as well as scientifcally adept (especially for my age ), and I find that by following both paths you gain a holistic view of creation. Thank you, that is all.

posted 03-23-99 07:06 PM ET            

DHE : sorry to jump on you but I just can't reconcile religion with science. Fundamentally science is about the necessity for proof. If you can't prove it it isn't true. It might or might not be true, but until it is proven it is merely a hypothesis. Religion on the other hand is at its most basic about the belief that the unexplainable and un-provable is true. I mean if religion was about provability we'd be doing experiments to prove god's existance. Sorry for the rabid scientist attitude, I've just always had trouble accepting people who say they are both religious and scientific. E-mail me if you want to discuss it.

Once again, sorry for the off-topic post.

BTW I also have a girlfriend thus proving that not all of us SMAC guys are losers .

posted 03-23-99 07:20 PM ET            

I guess you could say science and religion are both the pursuit of truth of existence. The difference lies in "how". Science relies on empirical evidence and logical reasoning, religion relies on... I don't know what religion relies on. Fear and ignorance of proto-human perahps, which even after thousands of years of civilization advances still linger in our society.

And no, science doesn't tell us that what is out there is bigger than we can comprehend. The ultimate goal of science is to find the ultimate truth, to build The Theory of Everything. Religion, on the other hand, RERUIRES that certain topics untouched, certain area unexplored, otherwise where would God go? Another Universe?

posted 03-23-99 07:24 PM ET            

My first cousin (female?) visits my basement on Tuesdays.

posted 03-23-99 09:42 PM ET            

Creationism sucks. It should only be taught properly in class if the Priests agree to teach evolution properly in sunday school. Which they won't, because the main reason they're against it is that they don't have a clue how it works. If you believe the universe is 6000 years old, how can you understand the idea of a single species evolving over a time of 100 million years? You can't. Creationism belongs purely in the realms of the self obsessed, and the only way to have any faith in both systems is to ignore one when you look at the other.

posted 03-23-99 11:29 PM ET            

First off, you can't really dismiss me as some ignorant religious fanatic because 1) I spent the last 5 years getting a Ph.D. in Genetics (the science of life in a way) and 2) I am NOT part of any organized religion.

But I do NOT think that science is too much different from religion. Science's mandate is logical and critical analysis of empirical data. But it relies on the EMPIRICAL as its God. The almost fanatical reliance on the empirical is the biggest fundamentalist movement of the present age. If you search for an ultimate truth, you are also putting FAITH in an ultimate truth. Like the quote from Kant when you discover Secrets of the Human Brain, we do NOT know if sensical data exists a priori outside of ourselves or whether they are a creation FROM ourselves. If this were the case, then God is an equally valid creation as the empirical world. But we do not know which is which or whether it's somewhere in between. What's scarier is that we don't even know HOW to find out. Hence, we put FAITH in the empirical.

And don't think Science is so objective. I deal with scientists everyday. Not only are the f@#*ed up, but they have their own version of the Truth, and I feel like Galileo persecuted by the Church if I try to persuade them to look at things differently.

At some of the scientific meetings, I feel like I'm at Church.....the Church of Science. Western civilization has gone from the vengeful God (Old Testament)to the merciful God (New Testament) to the cold, sterile God (Scientific American).

Did you guys watch the movie 'Contact' with Jodie Foster as a scientist. When Mathew Macconnaughtery (sp) was trying to convince her the validity of religion, she said that scientific truth was the only valid truth because it can be tested and proven. Mathew then asked her if she loved her Dad. She replied "Of course!". He then, "Prove it". She was speechless.

posted 03-24-99 12:05 AM ET            

Just what exactly did you go through to achieve that goal (the Ph.d in genetics). I'm 18, entering college (University of Washington) and that just happens to be my goal. Since that kind of thing isn't really meant for these boards, email me at [email protected] any time you can. Thanks. I'm really interested in finding out what you did!

posted 03-24-99 02:43 AM ET            

What the hell does that have to do with the scene EnBee is making a reference to?

posted 03-24-99 03:50 AM ET            

Hmmm...

posted 03-24-99 07:48 AM ET            

To go off on a tangent. 95% may be a bit high, but I read in Maclean's magazine (Canadian) that 80% of Americans believe in God (Don't quote me on that; I just remember it was higher than I thought; and don't use it as a weapon for Canadian bashing... ....please. People in China weren't really religious in a definitive way. They did practice a philosophical religion, and they are very superstitious. Despite Communism, a lot of people were converted to Christians in the days of the republic. Also, the biggest religion in the world is Islam or Judaism (one of those), not Christianity. It's very easy to forget those guys. And I think we're all atheists here because we are all in an age group that has been histroically nihilistic.

(at the heart of all this intelligent discussion, we're probably all just trying to impress Lady Vanessa

posted 03-24-99 11:51 AM ET            

As amends I have created a 'Science v. Religion: Two sides of the same coin?' thread in the non-SMAC forum. If you want to debate this, and DHE I surely want to hear your points (Enbee, Rong, Shining1, and Ice99 you're included as well), please go post on that thread.

posted 03-24-99 04:21 PM ET            

You want the straight answer? Of course you can prove you love someone. When you come down to it, human emotion is simply a biochemical process. Granted it is a complex process and in the future we may discover some yet unknown factors (like Psi in SMAC), but that doesn't mean it's unprovable. Even with current technology, for example we could try to extract her memory and we'd find her father's image has a strong representation in her neurons, and evoking that image would cause intense neuron firings which represents deep emotions. Well, this is just an example, I am not an expert on neuron science.

posted 03-25-99 01:04 AM ET            

micje: The last computer orientated females I met were both much happier with Starcraft and Street fighter than they were with CivII.

Like the theme from Species, along the lines that it's a dangerous mistake to think women are naturally more docile and nonviolent. If you've ever seen them play rugby, you'll know what I'm talking about.

posted 03-25-99 01:57 AM ET            

One of the interesting parallels between the Christian religion and science is that both take into account the failings of human beings:

Christianity: "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God."

Science, meanwhile, has "Repeatability" as one of the absolute commandments of the Scientific Method. All humans are prone to bias and error in their observation, so only by multiple scientists repeating an experiment multiple times can any hypothesis ever evolve into a theory.

Now, on to a personal observation. Atheists are like rich people -- "new money", or new atheists, tend to stick it out and show it off, and get into lots of arguments. "Old money", or folks who have been atheists for a few years, learn to appreciate the lessons other walks of life have to teach, and do not need to "prove themselves" in showy, ostentatious display. Furthermore, just as "old money" rolls its eyes at the gaudy newcomers, as a grizzled infidel I am quite exasperated with the smug superiority and intentional confrontationalism of "new atheists". (But as soon as I make a big pile of money I'm gonna buy a surplus MiG and buzz the housing projects 'till they arrest my *ss! Yeah! Then I'm gonna ...)

I have, on occasion, taken up the challenge of enlightening a newly [un]converted on the positive contributions of culture and religion, and of the importance of setting a good example. "Only by respecting the beliefs of others may you justly expect it in return." It hasn't worked yet ...

posted 03-25-99 02:14 AM ET            

I'm tired of this GOD bs. I'm fine with it, if you want to keep it to yourself. But 90%+ of it seems to rotate around simple peer pressure and the desire to blame things on something other than ourselves (or the respective other people involved).

GOD DOES NOT EXIST. He's not in you, he's not in life, he ain't anywhere. Life is life. Enjoy it, without building castles in the air.

If you can't stare at the stars and happily contemplate a universe so vast that you feel as dust to a mountain, then I don't know what's wrong with you. Certainly it beats the notion that the earth, sun, and stars were created by your father in six days.

By all means, tolerate other people's harmless insanity. But don't encourage them to spread it or justify it as something bigger.

posted 03-25-99 02:28 AM ET            

First, God gave Brian the idea for terraforming.

Second, if God weren't so busy playing SMAC (as Miriam--also His idea), He'd probably strike you dead right now.

In His Great and Holy Name,

posted 03-25-99 02:40 AM ET            

Lol! ThoughI know one cutie who loves Civ2. Not my cutie, alas!

Rong,

posted 03-25-99 05:14 PM ET            

i know of two females on this forum.

Maya, a veteran, who doesn't post much anymore.
You can tell it's her post because " *Hugs* " is at the end.

posted 03-25-99 11:38 PM ET            

Thou art the current master of obfusication.

Was that some kind of jib at Sid, or what?

Or maybe you've been around the Nuns too long .

posted 09-13-99 09:40 PM ET            

Me
HelloKitty
AnnC
HeatherWst
Eris
PhatLady (but did she ever post here? If so, I didn't see her)

But maybe there are more now. Is LadyVanessa still around?

posted 09-17-99 08:19 AM ET            

As far as the Workshop weapon design goes, you can't design your own weapons as such, you can only use weapons that you gain when you get the required technology. When you get a new military tech, go to the Workshop and pick any chassis type (Infantry, Rover, etc), then click on the Armour and Weapons slots, and you'll see the currently available Armour and Weapons for you to use. Depending on how advanced your tech progress is, and on what armour type you give your units, you'll often find that you can get a decent weapon for the same cost as "hand weapons" or a lower-powered weapon. The debate of armour vs weapons is a long one, so I won't enter into it here. Just experiment and see what you can build, although on the whole there's often no point paying to put armour on offensive-only units (with some exceptions - but as I say, this is a long debate!). And to see the best available unit that you can build at any given time, use the buttons in the bottom right of the Workshop window. Clicking, for example, on "Air Assault" will bring up a Workshop suggestion, and this will be what is (in the opinion of the AI) the best unit of that type which you can currently build. You might want to change some of the special abilities, as the AI tends to make silly choices there, but it usually picks half-decent armour & weapons combinations. Hope this helps.

Nell

posted 09-17-99 04:23 PM ET            

Mwahahahaha

posted 09-18-99 12:30 AM ET            

That is a real good question, too bad only a few "girls" are here...