Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

moda's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Chaotic Evil Human Wizard (3rd Level) Ability Scores: Strength- 11 Dexterity- 9 Constitution- 14 Intelligence- 20 Wisdom- 19 Charisma- 14 Alignment: Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXX (7) Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17) Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19) Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13) True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23) Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25) Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21) Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (31) Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (33) Law & Chaos: Law ----- XXX (3) Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13) Chaos --- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15) Good & Evil: Good ---- XXXX (4) Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10) Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18) Race: Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13) Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXX (8) Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXX (10) Gnome ---- XXXXXXXX (8) Halfling - XXXXXXXXXX (10) Half-Elf - XXXXXXXX (8) Half-Orc - XXXX (4) Class: Barbarian - (0) Bard ------ (-4) Cleric ---- XX (2) Druid ----- (-25) Fighter --- (-6) Monk ------ (-15) Paladin --- (-23) Ranger ---- XX (2) Rogue ----- (-4) Sorcerer -- (0) Wizard ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10) the set actually reminds me of my old dnd character
  2. you need both nss files in the same directory then compile K_sp1_generic and put that compiled file in the over ride. K_inc_force is an include file which cannot be compiled directly. all files with _inc in the name cannot be compiled
  3. I tried searching the forums and couldnt find one...
  4. id really like a palpatine pc head for tsl. With perhaps the final darkside transition being the hideous face he has in Rotj or something similar, and the lightside and neutral face being more like how he looked in the prequel movies before his unmasking
  5. have the troops complained though.... worrying about the enemy is weakness. if the troops complain, then thats a different story.
  6. the only danger is thinking you understand the enemy. when the enemy has such a violently different mental prerogative you cannot understand them. you also cannot afford to believe they will play by your rules. in such a case all you can really do is use pure and overwhelming military force. Isnt the Islamic faith intrinsically pacifistic in nature, or so they keep claiming, if they are so willing to claim something which is minor, and has been the case for 20 years, as religious provocation, well that surely would imply they themselves are simply intolerant and militaristic in nature.
  7. but i dont see how this will get people killed, oh and for the record i am not american, i am australian, so this really doesnt entirely reflect on me, i just dont see what the big issue with it all is
  8. but on the same token, wasting all this energy arguing about it, it is a pointles semantic, it is a custom of the company who makes the material, i can see the argument if it was put there by request, but this is a trait and practice of the company who makes the equipment. i also cannot see how something this minor can cause someone to seriously take up arms. if something so small can inspire someone to take up arms it is likely that they would've done it anyway for some other reason. If they are so close to the edge, they will fall over eventually, it doesnt matter what is the trigger, all that matters is that it is dealt with as it happens. if we start looking at from the whatifs we will become paralyzed with indecision, it is in the face of that that i support inflexibility, one must know when to bend, and when to stand firm, bend and never stand and your foe conquers because you will become like them in an effort to adapt, stand resilient and your foe may just adapt to be like you. its a careful balance but it must be done. Adapting for the sake of adapting can be far more detrimental than not adapting at all.
  9. Sorry. one thing i do not understand though, is why this simple thing is such an issue to those of the opinion that it is a politically incorrect thing. why does it matter. is this not a war that is being waged. or is it a continued military engagement. If the conflict in the middle east is not a proper war, then J7 i must concede you are right. however if the engagments in afghanistan and iraq are proper wars, then i will argue that the imprinted of bible passages on weapons of war, which ultimately reflect the convictions and beliefs of one of the nations involved in this war are not wrong in any way shape or form, and the criticizing such things is ultimately more harmful overall than any damage such things would cause on their own
  10. I was not quoting beyond good and evil. i was referring more to implications which become visible across multiple works of his, an idea of conflict of cultures, with gods being the most visible of this conflict because of their nature. Besides in beyond good and evil does he not refer to the jewish abuse of their god, and the transformation of their god into an imperialistic justification. and yes i remember that famous quote of nietzsche, but it was merely an aphorism without much support or indication of context. But did not Nietzsche also advocate strength, and unflinching intent, do it as you will because you will, not because someone else wills it. did he not also celebrate the great men in history who would stand unflinching and willing to commit acts of the greatest barbarity. and i am not all that eager for bible verses on weapons, i just dont see what is so bad about it. trial by ordeal is a dead concept in most legal bases i will concede, But i would claim the Napoleonic first and second world wars as a trial by ordeal. Especially the first world war . the first world war was a clashing of the old and new styles of european culture, germany representing the future, england and france the old way of life. the first world war in my honest opinion became a clash between the old way of life and the new way of life. a clash between what was and what was to be.
  11. j7 i was using an old political definition of trial by ordeal, which essentially is a trial by ordeal is when a dispute is decided by a contest of strength, and the favour of god. paraphrased from an english law maker whose name escapes me at the moment. it is developed from a medieval concept which involved the honourable duel, to be a final recourse in a dispute by which the final decision was left up to god the idea behind the statement is that the chaotic factor in a trial by ordeal is the will of the god, or gods to whom that culture gives worship, in a case between two warring cultures their dispute is then decided by either the will of their gods, or by the conquest of one cultures god over another. that is paraphrased from Nietzsche in his work as a philologist. you talk about winning the hearts and minds and that is something which i will admit i have little to no knowledge of, except to say it a is baseless stupidity on the parts of those who decided it, and if that is the underlying goal then i will have to admit you to be right. but if the underlying goal was to introduce democracy, remove dictators and tyrannical governments then it is not an issue. winning the hearts and minds to me sounds like a political rhetoric to make things sound better. the mistake johnson made in vietnam was expecting the enemy to think like they did. he pulled the punches and fought what was essentially a half war. you cannot be victorious in war when you are removing your own cultural influences so as to make an impartial war, such a thing is indeed impossible. J7 you say this is not a war of religion, but in here you make the mistake of the politicians, war is a cultural struggle, the differences of the cultures and peoples involved are always going to be the primary focus of the war, if the religion is different, then religion will be a focus of the war, it is unavoidable. if they are nations of the same religion, then it will be others differences which will act as a focal point. inflexibility as a strength only happens when you are facing an enemy who is insidious, they will take your attempts to compromise, and show mercy and bend it, use it to their advantage. for example in vietnam, the american pilots were not allowed to attack surface to air missile batteries unless that missile battery was operation, in other words shooting at them. this is where being inflexible works to your advantage, if you take the iron arm approach your enemy has less which they can instinctively use against you. they will of course have a propaganda vehicle of your intolerance but that is unavoidable, if you have invaded you can always be portrayed as being the one who is evil.
  12. all i am saying is this is a part of war, it might be bad PR, but it is still a part of war. I am i will admit a historian, and because of this i am also more orientated in history, in which PR was a non-issue at most points. however, as i understand it, you are shooting, you are killing, why the hell would you worry about PR, surely the other two facts would mean it almost impossible for you to have good PR. War is a means by which God (or the Gods) shall determine the rightful victor. That is the earliest conception of war, a massive trial by ordeal. you cannot and should not worry about how it is conceived by those whom you are at war with. it defeats the purpose, for you are engaged in a contest which judges the individual strength of you and your enemy, if you try to make yourself look desirable to your enemy, you will undermine your own values for which you are fighting. but could they not also manipulate it to appear as if you lack conviction, if you are so willing to change your custom and conduct to appear to be PR friendly, they can easily use your willingness to bend, as a rallying call to show just how little you actually believe in this war. would it not then be better to be seen as inflexible, than to be seen as weak. you wouldnt want to make the same mistake that Johnson made in vietnam would you.
  13. what ever happened to the american attitude of telling people who bitch about them to stick up their rectal orifice. the imprinting of religious or political messages on weaponry or munitions has been a tradition for hundreds of years, any sensible war historian can tell you that. it usually was confined to the artillery corps though, i mean who doesn't remember the film of the royal artillery troops lying around the the half man size artillery shell with "to willie with love" written on it. an american example would be the bombs use on the doolittle raid of Tokyo, they all had obscene or racist remarks written on them by the pilots and crew who flew the planes which dropped them. it is an aspect of war, a way to give another stab at your enemy, dont let them ruin an aspect of military custom any further. dont let the political correctness mob take away any more of the individuality and character than it already has
  14. nope they were quite honestly metal objects, nuts bolts screws a few nails... and i saw no real distortion of light, oh and a screw driver started floating.
  15. reality is only the sum of the objective observations which give it form. physics tells us this in the form of Copenhagen interpretation. well essentially
  • Create New...