Leveller

Agreed, I wouldn't have subscribed for just 1 beta, but I signed up a couple of years ago and have just kept the subscription I don't like waiting in a line for a download and have over the last couple of years had plenty of "exclusive" beta events I've tried, several of which have saved me money as I realized I didn't like the gameplay of a game I'd been convinced I wanted.

It's a fileplanet subscriber beta, it's not meant to go live until the 2nd of May according to the site (which is probably why I couldn't get it running properly yesterday evening, even after the 200mb patch download). I don't agree in the way it's been done in all honesty, the only way to sign up was to download "comrade" which is basically Gamespy's answer to x-fire and get notified through there of key release times which I thought was a cheap way of getting this bloated piece of software out to market, but there we go, I did it and should be merrily playing AoC having uninstalled comrade tomorrow with any luck. edit: to put the patch size into perspective, there was another 20+mb patch 2 days ago, and the original "packed" file I had to download was 12.7GB...............................

The Fileplanet beta is meant to start today/tomorrow. It appeared to let me start the game yesterday, but I could only see a cursor. I'll try again today and see how it pans out. From all I've read about it, seems to be a great game, but I think I'm going to spending most/all my spare time in Liberty City for the next couple of months.....

This reminds me of an extract from a joke I was sent earlier today: "Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell." If you want the full joke read below (I apologize that this isn't the correct forum for jokes, but it puts the above in context): "Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following: First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, “It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,†and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct……leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting “Oh my God.â€Â"

5822

Congratulations

Why? ZD, I've just read through the posts above and from what I can see you made the first "let me tell you how this works" comment to shoot, which to me sounds like a parent addressing a child rather than a reasoned discussion, go back and re-read your blog post, are you sure you didn't want it to become an argument? You're not the only person who doesn't appreciate being addressed in a condescending manner. You say to shoot that you're not interested in arguing semantics, but isn't that exactly what you were doing with the Apple rep.? If you had a bad experience with the rep, don't buy the product, that's your choice (the number of home furnishing stores I've walked out of because of "hovering" sales people is well into 3 figures), but to say that shoot just wanted to argue with you on your blog/rant isn't exactly fair based on who from what I can see above fired off the first insult. He stated that the original price was $599, which it was, I don't think anyone will argue that the original price for an iPhone was $599. The new price today, may well be $399, but that is not the original price. False advertising or a lie, no, questionable ethically, yes. As has been said before, this isn't an uncommon practise, and while it may be borderline unethical, it doesn't actually show it as inaccurate. Lev

Thanks gents, I've not been playing much recently, when I have it's normally been COD4. Guess I should show the large target that is my head in Retro more often....

Not personally but we do have 2 BI practices here in the US, 1 focussed around SAP's BI/BW solution, the other more generic. What are you after?

I almost always get kicked by punkbuster once about 30 seconds after I join, but I reconnect through console and don't have any more issues.....

Not sure why, but I kind of expected to see a CT and T racing, Tron stylee, on pony shaped lightcycles.

Dark, that's exactly what I expected the response to be. For some the Bible appears to be the foundation of their belief, however in other cases (such as yours) it's an extension of that belief/faith. It's healthy to hear. Edit: and I see my x-fire link appears to have died in my sig....................

This is precisely why I'm not an atheist. Can we get an E ) in there too? E ) I don't think it's possible to know if God exists or not, and which religion is the right one. I'm not sure E is valid, you might want to explain it more. I think I see where you're coming from, but it seems to be an "anyone of the above", hedging your bets kind of answer. We know that God's not "provable" in the scientific sense, nor is the belief that the Bible is god's word, and I believe that this is where faith comes in. If the Bible was "proven" would that change people's faith in God or purely their belief in his existence? I know that mosquito's exist but I don't have faith in them. Equally, if someone was able to disprove the Bible being "God's word" would that destroy my faith in God, no it would not. Would it have an impact on those who believe that it is God's word, yes, but would it destroy their faith, it would certainly get them to question their beliefs, but probably have no impact on their faith in God. I'd be very interested to hear feedback from those who know the Bible to be God's word on my last statement because it isn't my stance so I'm really stating something based on what I think I have understood from this thread, (I know that there's the argument you couldn't disprove it because it is God's word, but questioning and understanding your beliefs and in what your faith lies is healthy isn't it?). I guess this is becoming an increasingly controversial thread, but I've found it really interesting and enlightening to understand other people's take on the Bible.

Ok, fair point and I hope I understood what you were saying. However, you've really hit the nail on the head with regards to how I've phrased C). The way it was phrased is that a lot of the arguments discounting the bible require logic/reason to be applicable, hence the "if it can't be proven, then I won't believe it". If the Bible deals with/is supernatural and beyond the realm of science/provability, then is it simply impossible to discount that it could well be "the word of God", unless quite simply you don't believe in God. This is where perhaps a D comes in. A ) I believe the bible is the word of God. B ) I believe in God, but am not convinced/have serious doubt that the bible is the word of God (proof either way doesn't really matter because I have faith in God) C ) prove it with science or I won't believe it, and D ) I don't believe in God: so the argument around the Bible being God's word is irrelevant regardless of logic/science or the supernatural. I don't know if the question was aimed at a broader audience or to me, however, I'd like to know who "non-believer" applies to, I'm a believer, but I don't adhere to the view that the Bible is God's word. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the question seems to suggest to me, that if you don't believe the Bible is God's word then you're a "non-believer". For me, proof of the Bible's validity is really irrelevant as I have faith in a God which is not currently hinged on the Bible existence (although I will not discount that with it being very core to the way I was raised, it has certainly had an impact on my beliefs and understanding of God). Edit: The bible does have a place in our home, my life and the way my wife and I raise our children. We use it as a teaching aid, a moral guide and a means to clarify what could be termed a good way of living.

This I agree with, and it's precisely why I find myself having faith in there being a God, but at the same time have issues with the concept of the Bible being "God's word". Using the blind faith statement, I personally see a lot of people's belief in the Bible's validity being an example of blind faith. (This argument is open for interpretation, I'm not saying that I'm correct, but trying to explain my stance). If you read enough horoscopes you can find those which match your day to day life, if you speak to an astrologer they'll tell you how it apparently works and will give you a book to read about it, does that make astrology or horoscopes real? I don't believe so, despite it predating Christianity as a concept. My faith in God is based around the influence he has in my life and how I can better serve him, much the same as an astrologers faith in the stars is based on their faith in there being a cosmic force acting on all of us. (Again this isn't me trying to pick fault with those who believe the Bible to be God's word, merely me trying to explain my stance on the Bible). As a "thoughts/perspectives on the bible" thread, from what I can see people fall into 3 main areas (I'm going to change to letters for my points): A ) Those who believe the bible to be God's word. (Preacher, Dark etc.) For whom dismissing the bible is effectively attacking the core of their belief/faith. B ) Those who believe in there being a God (or a spiritual something greater than man), but don't necessarily believe the Bible to be God's word but perhaps a great "instruction book". This is very much a grey area, which I think depends on interpretation and life experiences, my interpretation that God is defined by his actions in my life instead of the written word (I see myself in this category). C ) Those who need quantifiable proof before they can have faith or belief in anything (I made this statement to be quite black and white to encourage debate, if this is not the case, please elaborate because to dismiss the Bible based on a lack of quantifiable proof, would suggest to me that you dismiss anything that has not been scientifically proven). While I personally don't believe the Bible to be "God's word", I am not going to even try to dismiss it as either a possibility or impossibility. For those in categories a) and B ), we both have a belief/faith in god, but it appears our stance on "the manifestation of God's word" differs. edit: remove the and replace with B )

If we're going to do tonight, I can get out the office here in a little bit, be home probably by 8-9 EST.

Wayfarer, not sure you read my post from beginning to end....

That definitely is interesting, it's a question I asked myself many years ago, and it's why I find myself today having faith in God but having a differing standpoint on the Bible. I respect those who believe the Bible to be God's word, it's certainly a confirmation of your belief to be in that situation, I was just unable to reconcile it with my understanding of the world and my experiences.

Personally I believe in Evolution and big bang theory, I spoke with someone not too long ago who dismissed the dinosaurs as a being created by science to discount the Bible. While I do believe in Evolution and big bang theory, I do have faith in that there was/is a catalyst behind it, hence me having faith in a God but not so much in the Bible's representation of how the World came to be. My faith in God and that my family and I lead "Christian" lives may seem in contradiction to this, but I know in the Bible thread I tried to explain this already. My take on the Bible and creation theory is a little different to more traditional Christian beliefs, in no way do I want to appear to be offering up "the answer", purely my take on it. I guess what it comes down to is that I see the Bible in a few ways, historical documentation, moral teachings AND ancient man's attempt to explain the unknown. The creation falling into the last category.

Indeed.

To follow on from Unclean's question above, what about Harappan writings which are dated between 3,500 and 2,500BC? Sumerian writings c. 3000BC? I was under the impression that the oldest "Bibilical" texts in existance were the Dead sea scrolls which are within 2-300 years of year 0.... From what I can see it seems most historians agree that the Pentateuch dates to between 1000 and 500BC. The oldest Harappan writing clearly pre-dates the bible and I believe the oldest section translated, reads as: ''Ila surrounds the blessed land.'' I would suggest that this could be defined as a semi religious text with the terminology "blessed land".

I echo this entirely, I think this is a valuable conversation for a lot of us, but it's so very difficult to hold it through a forum where it's often difficult to convey your true intent. I don't think any of us want to upset each other, challenge anyone's faith etc. and however possible it should be an exchanging of opinion and viewpoint, by no means an "I'm right, you're wrong" approach, which I hope it has been so far....

I'd like to add another question to Shaftiel's above, we're certainly not questioning anyone's religious beliefs, but there does appear to be a very blurred line between what people are saying their faith is in. Th below is probably contentious, but it is me questioning as I'd really like to understand something that seems quite blurred to me. If someone had never read the bible, or it didn't exist, would they still have faith in God? Or is their faith purely in the words in the book that they read? Surely your faith is the strength, not the belief in the validity of a book that we all agree was written by mortal hand? The two questions above may seem really controversial and they are NOT intended to question anyone's faith or beliefs, it's just that the very tight bond being made between people's Christian beliefs and the Bible spurred another thought/question from me as it's something I've had difficulty for several years getting my head around. I'm not expecting the answer to be perfectly logical, but I'm really curious. As stated before I think the bible is a wonderful literary work, with some great life lessons and a code of conduct that it would in general do none of us harm to live our lives by, I genuinely don't know if it was God's word written by man's hand as this is something that is literally impossible to prove or disprove, but if you were to take away the Bible, where would these people's faith come from? Edited, to change the you and your to they and their, the above is not aimed at anyone in particular, just spilling out thoughts I'm having. (I think any question about the Bible is going to have a controversial tone when debated by those who strongly believe it's authenticity as God's word and those who question it).

Just to echo some above posts, I'm certainly not attacking the Bible or people's beliefs in it's "authentisity". They are just that, beliefs. If I had to class myself it would be as a Fideist, I have faith in something bigger/a deity/whatever it may be. This kind of highlights one of my issues with the belief that without doubt the Bible is ultimately God's teaching, dictated to mankind. If "through your faith you will be saved" is a fair representation of some of Christianities beliefs, then with the proof of God's existance i.e. his dictation of the Bible, then there is no need for faith as we've proved he exists? I think the Bible contains great teachings, great moral stories, but as the foundation of a religion it really undermines itself. I hope the above makes sense, I'm just trying to articulate some of my reasoning behind my thoughts on this. Edit: I know that the above is contentious and I know that saying you have faith, but aren't clear what that faith is probably seems illogical. I guess from my stand point, I have studied (although I don't claim to be an expert in any) several religions, and I don't doubt that my knowledge of the Bible is far behind many people here. However, I do have faith but fear that if something were to "prove" a religion or particular theology to me, it would be counter productive as at the same time it would remove my faith and make it a "reality".

I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you Unclean on this. I believe that the bible is a collection of writings by people trying to understand something greater than themselves either through their own faith, a wish for something more than just a mortal life or the demands of ancient society to create a "moral textbook". I am certainly a believer in something more powerful and omnipresent than man but what appears to me as a double standard around Christian belief that the bible is God's word, and “we're rightâ€Â, despite being told not to be arrogant in the same book doesn't gel with me. How is it possible discount the writings within the Qur’an, Torah, Kohiki, Sruti or Tripitaka as "not" the word of God if you not have read them all to make a genuine value judgment on belief in the bible with an impartial and unbiased mind? I was a pupil at a Christian boarding school from the age of 7 until I was 18 and can't count how many times I have in total read the bible, been to church (we had to go at least once a day), hours I have spent dissecting the bible etc. But during all that time the only thing I was convinced of was that there was something greater than humanity. My indecision/non commitment around religion may well be founded in that I did read many other religious texts and studied other religions as part of my scripture classes, there is often a central theme to them which doesn't differ dramatically from one religion to another although the phrasing may be different and open to interpretation. I would describe us having and leading Christian lives within our home, and the moral set that my wife and I raise our children with is very much a mirror of those found in the Bible's teachings. But this is because I believe them to be a good moral standard for human beings to live to rather than them being "the word of God". I am not saying that those who believe the bible to be the word of God are wrong to do so, just that I am certainly not convinced and that more often than not when "the word of God" is used in a phrase by a Christian it's often to back up an opinion that someone else is wrong (where my religious arrogance issue comes from). Some of the most extreme examples of "the word of God" being the Spanish inquisition, the crusades and the AFA’s boycott of Ford, this has been used to control and manipulate people AND government for hundreds of years.