Meh. If he fired a grappling hook and climbed a building, that would be cool.

Besides the 1997/1998 the being the golden era for CRPGs, I'm really nostalgic for the Quake I days. The community seemed to be way into, not everyone and their grandparents were on the net yet and the mods that came out for a while were truly awesome for their time. Sometimes I play TF2 and I like it... but it is absolutely nothing compared to the original. I also don't think I've ever played any other CTF game as good as the Threewave CTF besides maybe Tribes CTF. That grappling hook [in 3wave] made it awesome - why the hell has it been forgotten about?

>> ^BoneRemake:
I dont see how you can tell , its just a black blob. But I am not saying your wrong. I just see a blob and the engine sounds familiar.
Payback
yea, I think one can see the grapple on the back.


Voiceover at beginning says "...bring the skidder down on it, see what'll happen"

I dont see how you can tell , its just a black blob. But I am not saying your wrong. I just see a blob and the engine sounds familiar.

@Payback

* yea, I think one can see the grapple on the back.

Vanilla Q1 CTF is still the best FPS of all time in term of enjoyment out of any FPS game I've ever played. I nearly cried when I heard they were taking out the grappling gun mechanism from future games.

Summary from imdb:

Shake is a powerful shaman of the Yanomami people. He wields his power to heal and to protect his people against their enemies in this world and beyond. Tracing his life and the life of his community over 40 years of their history, Shake tells how he and his people grapple with new ideas that come from the outside world and the challenging decisions they make in order to maintain their identity and survive as a people.

I'm not sure how to feel about this film. Christian reviewers love it--they claim it shows how Christianity rescued the Yanomamo's from themselves. However, that message is apparently never overtly stated in the film and is an interpretation of the reviewers themselves. The filmmakers have denied (see the comments for this video on YouTube) having that agenda. Other reviewers have hailed the film as accurately documenting the difficulties indigenous peoples still living a traditional lifestyle face when suddenly confronted with the radical outside ideas of "the modern world."

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

I enjoy a good UFC match and the surrounding drama, but does anyone else wish they'd go back to the days of UFC I through III where it was a lot more like Street Fighter II? It used to be a crazy clash of styles and personalities... now everyone does "MMA style striking plus grappling" and the main difference between fighters is their specific mix of striking (do they also kick?) and grappling (are they former wrestlers or life-long jiu-jitsu practicioners?).

I've always thought of sports as a substitute for combat... all those guys in the NHL, NBA, NFL would have been renowned warriors if they were born vikings, celts, moors, vassals, etc. at certain times throughout history. They do sports because they're extraordinarily good with their bodies... biomechanical geniuses. Fortunately their placement in time allows them to use these skills to their own betterment without mortal risk. Because sports are only analagous to combat. So I can appreciate the point of putting the words "sport" in sarcasm-quotes when talking about a sport that is about beating the shit out of another person. Once the sport becomes actual combat, the metaphor is so direct (if all sports are a metaphor for combat) that instead of a "sport" they should just call it "professional combat". Of course, this is just semantic wankery. It's a sport.

From a spectator standpoint Pride fights are more intense to watch. Due to the lack of ruling against head kicks while the opponent is on the ground, the grappling stalemates common in the UFC are fewer.

Here's Joe Rogan's opinion on the matter. It's not too absolute, but he points out benefits of both: http://blog.joerogan.net/archives/1772

Boxing just never made as much sense to me as MMA. Boxing just feels so limited in comparison, no grappling, no submissions. Sure an MMA fighter wouldnt stand a chance going up against a boxer if he had to use boxing rules, but it doesnt make sense to limit yourself to only one way of defeating your oponent when it comes to fighting. If you have trouble seeing my point, imagine a new form of boxing where you could only use one arm and had to keep the other one on your back. How much sense would that make?

Now there are rules and limits to what you can do in MMA, but I imagine they evolved to make sure fighters spent less time in hospitals and more time on the screen making money for people like Dana White.

I think you're taking it a lil' too far. Like I don't watch major networks and I didn't hear about this whole drawing muhammed thing like ever before. Bar the original BBC/CNN debacle a couple of years back which did happen during a slow news day. I think most of this is manufactured totally and gives some free publicity to some small sector of nutters.

Like this past year some group announced some plans to hold a rally carrying caskets of dead muslims around the city in the UK where almost all UK troops killed in Afghanistan are carried through.

What followed was NATIONWIDE coverage and outrage from all sectors of the public from MPs to the SUN to the fucking mail about how fucking horrible and insensitive it was and what not.

The rally never happened, it was just announced and PRed into the mainstream media and made the group who wanted to hold it national news they had the head guy up on telly chatting shit. Their representantive actually said that they did this for Pr and the media bought and spewed it back to the masses.

Its just like those pictures of muslims in the UK with signs that read SHARIA is GOOD for UK, all zoomed in with cops around made to look like there are hundreds of people pull back and theres like 12 of them...

Its just yellow journalism of another sort.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'd like to see that, god yes. Major networks want to spark the controversy even more, it's good news, gives good ratings. I'd like to see muslims unite against muslim hatred, on the inter-web for instance. There's not censorship here other than what we make ourselves (and china and so on), but there's far less censorship than on any network.
Every muslim who says "oh that's only the fundamentalists, most of us aren't like that, so I'm just going to stay muslim and mind my own business" is in essence undermining the effort to destroy the fundamentalists and their stupid beliefs. Why don't they make "neo-islam" a thing akin to protestants breaking off from the crazier outliers of their religion, so we know more clearly who to hat and who not to? That would be a good start.
I'm speaking out against islam, christianity, mormonism etc. because I cannot just stand by while we devolve into the dark ages again. Why can't more people just voice their disdain, dislike, disgust or whatever they have for the fundamentalists, who more than anything else sullies their religion, their persons, their families?? Why aren't they OUTRAGED!?>> ^Farhad2000:
Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.
>> ^gwiz665:
I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

I'd like to see that, god yes. Major networks want to spark the controversy even more, it's good news, gives good ratings. I'd like to see muslims unite against muslim hatred, on the inter-web for instance. There's not censorship here other than what we make ourselves (and china and so on), but there's far less censorship than on any network.

Every muslim who says "oh that's only the fundamentalists, most of us aren't like that, so I'm just going to stay muslim and mind my own business" is in essence undermining the effort to destroy the fundamentalists and their stupid beliefs. Why don't they make "neo-islam" a thing akin to protestants breaking off from the crazier outliers of their religion, so we know more clearly who to hat and who not to? That would be a good start.

I'm speaking out against islam, christianity, mormonism etc. because I cannot just stand by while we devolve into the dark ages again. Why can't more people just voice their disdain, dislike, disgust or whatever they have for the fundamentalists, who more than anything else sullies their religion, their persons, their families?? Why aren't they OUTRAGED!?>> ^Farhad2000:

Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.
>> ^gwiz665:
I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.

>> ^gwiz665:

I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

>> ^MrFisk:

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

If moderate Muslims exist (the ones critical of Muslim irrationality), then they are doing as good a job of hiding as moderate Christians did in the 14th Century. And for similar reasons. Because of this, yes, it is fair to blame the entire religion, which can be described as a religion of conquest like no other before it.

I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.

>> ^MrFisk:

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.