Still my #1 game of all time. I've always been a fan of the Twilight Zone, Amazing Stories, Weird Tales, etc., so the idea of an every man unleashing who-knows-what-upon-the-world was really appealing. Not to mention the variety of guns, the variety and originality of the monsters, the way each section felt like a real place. [spoiler]You race to the surface dependent on being rescued only to be driven back down underground, realizing as you wander through areas of the facility that no one normally goes that you're now entirely self-reliant. Top that off with other little psychological tricks they used: passage of time (when you first run into the military it's sunny, the next time you hit the surface it's night time), mortality (getting caught and thrown to your doom in the trash compactor, knowing you're about to become a footnote, only to escape again). I still get tingles when I remember dropping down off the roof into that pit of water, hoisting myself up into the pipe and starting to scurry down it when, at the other end, I see a soldier pop open the door and throw in a satchel charge. (Read: OH SHIT!!! *backpedal* *backpedal*) Hell, I'm pretty sure I even held my breath in real life when I dropped back into the water; that's how engrossing the experience was. [/spoiler]


Unfortunately, I think Valve took the idea of spit and polish to absurd levels in every game they've made since, with it culminating in Portal 2. I'm not talking about the story; that was great. I'm talking about the "Here, let us spoon feed you each level by pointing out that this is the only wall that you can put a portal on, oh good, you did it, see? Aren't you having fun?"-type gameplay. The only way they could have been more direct is by putting a giant, flashing sign that says "DO THIS NEXT". [spoiler]To be fair, I felt a small tinge of it again in Half-Life 2, when you reach the bridge and have to make your way across the under-belly of it. I think this was do to the fact that there was nothing there (ie. a convenient arrow sign) to indicate that's what you needed to do. I remember looking around, seeing the path leading down behind the house, following it with my eye to the bridge and thinking "Are you serious??" Sure enough, 2 minutes later I'm grasping on the rusted metal and cursing under my breath at the developers. [/spoiler]
Regardless, something has gotten lost in the translation since Half-Life. Gone is the wonder and sense of freedom I felt; now I feel that I'm only playing the game the way they require me to, and not on my own. They may have been directing me where to go in Half-Life, but they did it with such slyness that it never felt forced, or blatant.
Sadly, I think their cabal process has become a double-edged sword, allowing them to create some of the most memorable video games, but tailoring it to the lowest common denominator. (A great read if you have a minute or two.)

And on that note, I'm off to hunt down some really, really good weed that will make me forget about everything I liked about Half-Life 1. Just so I can replay it again.

>> ^DuoJet:
I don't get it. Everyone in the band stopped playing, nearly simultaneously, when the flag fell? Why?
(Psst...did you forget to check the sarcasm box? There is no spoon band.)

If you don't feel like driving a knife through a reusable lid you can also just tap the edge of the lid vigorously with the handle of a knife or a spoon

We have similar ones in the aussie army, cept it has a spoon on the end of it too. Call it a FRED.

Fucking Ridiculous Eating Device.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

*downunder. metal spoon on a non-stick pan hurts me.

>> ^dahauns:

>> ^raverman:
Seriously... Did mummy never teach him how to hold a spoon? Spoon fisting really irritates me.>> ^A10anis:
Ignorant mong. Note the trousers, and the neanderthal method of holding implement..


I dare you to google "spoon fisting".


Turn SafeSearch off...

>> ^raverman:

Seriously... Did mummy never teach him how to hold a spoon? Spoon fisting really irritates me.>> ^A10anis:
Ignorant mong. Note the trousers, and the neanderthal method of holding implement..



I dare you to google "spoon fisting".

>> ^raverman:

Seriously... Did mummy never teach him how to hold a spoon? Spoon fisting really irritates me.>> ^A10anis:
Ignorant mong. Note the trousers, and the neanderthal method of holding implement..



Man, 1st world problems eh?

Except that all those SuperPacs? The majority of the funds have been traced back to 22 billionaires. So the "individual cap" has been blown to smithereens.

We are in trouble, friends. There aren't enough smart people able to smell the BS in these SuperPac ads. They eat it up instead, with fork and spoon.

Obama isn't above it, either. Don't much like that he is using the same tactics. I also figure he doesn't have a choice.

>> ^bmacs27:

I've been thinking about this more, and the Roberts court kind of had a point. If corporations don't have the right to speech, then what, can the government tell the NYT what to print? How many free ads they can offer? I don't get it. It kind of had to be this way.
Really, the main issue is that individual contributions are capped, but for those of us on the side of the working man that wouldn't really help us.

"My spoon is too big!"

You should see where she keeps the spoon!

using a metal spoon in tfal pan, breaking a kitchen commandment

Tell me she does Soundgarden's 'Spoon Man'.

And, um, *rocknroll

You're welcome, but I think you took a wrong turn somewhere when you followed that link, because Hitchens lost that debate pretty badly. Don't get me wrong, because I think Hitchens did win most of his debates, if only on his rhetorical abilities, but on that one he floundered..which is particularly clear when watching from 1:19:00 or so when he was subject to direct questioning by Craig.

In any case, the fallacious claims are all on your side, considering the rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. Congratulations, you defeated me in your imagination..did you get a boost of self-esteem? I also wonder how a self-described militant antitheist could escape the label of zealotry?

Let's say that I told you that I buried one million dollars somewhere in your neighborhood, and I gave you the GPS coordinates for its location. I also told you that if you didn't dig up the money within 48 hours, it would go back into my bank account. The GPS coordinates are very convenient to your location and are on public property. All you would have to do is go and check it out for yourself.

But, instead of going over to the location to dig, you start doing some research. You interview a lot of people in the neighborhood and you find out that no one actually saw me bury the money. You also find out that many other people have claimed to have buried treasure in the past, and many of those claims have turned out to be false. Further, on the basis of speculation as to what I was doing that day, you dig around many other locations where I was said to have been. After this, you finally come to the GPS location and look for forensic evidence, such as foot prints, that I was there. You test the malleability of the dirt at the location to see if it feels like it had been dug in recently. In that 48 hour time period, you do absolutely everything except putting your shovel into the ground and directly investigating the claim. At the end of the time period, you tell me that on the basis of your investigation, you have rejected my claim as false. I take you over to the location, dig up a suitcase and show you the money. It would have been yours if you had just taken a leap of faith and spent 5 minutes of your time investigating it.

Do you think the way you investigated this made any sense? If not, then why you do you think that the way you investigate the question of Jesus Christ makes any sense? You want to investigate it on your own terms, in your own way, stubbornly refusing to even consider the only actual way you would find evidence for the claim; the way that He told us to find Him. In all the time you have ever invested in this, you have refused to do the one thing that could yield up the truth. Does that make sense?

Jesus specifically said you wouldn't find any evidence for God any other way. He said He is the only way, and if you want to know God, you have to go through Him. Why are you so against actually testing His claim to see if it is true? Do you think the Lord of all Creation is incapable of proving His existence to you? Is it because you would feel silly? Isn't it worth feeling silly for a few minutes to potentially gain an eternal reward? Isn't it worth stepping outside your comfort zone for a few minutes to potentially avoid an eternal consequence? The only thing which is stopping you is pride.

I wasn't spoon fed anything; I was agnostic for most of my life. I had no predisposition towards Christianity, and actually many against it. I was opposed to religion in general, and the claims of Christianity in particular. I did just what you're doing; I dismissed it, thinking I knew enough about it to rule it out, when it was all just based on my superficial understanding. My proof constituted a few verses taken out of context, my rejection of any judgment for my sins, and the hypocripsy I had seen in Christians in general. Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.

Yet, God was merciful to me. He drew me near to His Son, and when I finally gave my life to Him, Jesus revealed Himself to me. He will do the same for you, if you came to Him in humility and asked Him into your life. If you just asked Him what the real truth is, instead of arrogantly believing that you have it all figured out, He would show it to you. He makes it plain to everyone that He exists, it's just that people write these things off or deny them to themselves because they don't want to submit to God. They don't want to believe it is true.

Only God can reveal Himself to someone; I can only point to Him. No amount of argument is going to give you faith. You have to choose to want to know Him, to want to know what the actual truth is. It's something that happens in your heart, when you desire to know the love of God, and you simply do not have any idea how much He loves you. It is what you are here on Earth for, to know that love of His; to be in relationship with your Creator.

I pray that you learn that and understand that. You have to realize that you don't actually know either way. Step outside your comfort zone and listen to your conscience, because it witnesses against you that you have sinned against a holy God. There is forgiveness for you, but it is your choice to receive it or not.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.
First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.
Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.
Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.
No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.
You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.
You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...
...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.