Grand_Admiral_Thrawn

Hmm, I don't think anyone has made an aggressive move against me. I was thinking of attacking some one, but I found that most peopl ranked below me have friends in high places .

Good to have you posting man! No need to lurk around here. we always appreciate new posters and their ideas! As for the link, I get a "connection refused" message

At least you shouldn't have been bored whith your reading. There was a few pages in there of a debate between Scath and I that was revived by the arrival of SOCL. It was very engaging.

Well, it's not really a matter of travelling through a black hole. "Black Hole" is a decieving title. There is actually a mass at the centre of each black hole, a massive ammount of mass packed into a small sphere. In order to take advantage of the seaparation of time and space, you would have to reach the surface of the core, which, as you suggested, would be difficult seeing as you would be torn appart atom-by-atom on your journey .

Well, polygamy happens in many segragated towns in the US already, yet the Government doesn't seem to be making any move against that. The otehr two, well, there is a slight difference. Pedophilia and bestiality encroch on the rights of another person, as well as violate other laws. Gay marriage does not. It is not illegal for some one to be gay (not in America anyhow). If gay marriage (though I think you meant homosexuality in general as well) goes against the natural order, how is it that it persists in society? Hmm, if I'm not mistaken Rome was ultimately destroyed by a little thing called Christianity. You see, when it was evident that Jesus was a hit with the masses, the Roman Emperor of the time decided that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. And thus the Roman Catholic Church was founded. Odd that such an institution's first leader was a pagan priest, and that most of the symbols still used today go back to pagan religions, but that's not what's at issue... Well, marriage predates even the Hebrews. I should also point out that marriage isn't strictly a religous affair. I could go to my local City Hall and simply apply for a Marriage Cirtificate, have my wife sign it, and BAM, we're married. I agree, my P.O.V. is quite biased by my "beliefs" and opinoins, and that my expecting you to put your beliefs and opinoins aside is quite unfair. However, if you remove crutch, ploy, your not truly believing scriptrue, well, yes that would be my opinion of Christianity and of religion in general. I in no way think that athiesim is infallable, but I can no more budge from my beliefs than you can from yours. Odd. For the last five or so months Gay Marriage has been quite legal here in Canada. I have yet to see the buildings crumbling, ruits in the streets, mass orgies, the corruption of our youth, or the destruction of society in any way. Things are going just as they were before. Maybe we need to add water? The rhino is also a Republican symbol. I had it there to begin with, but then I had an inkling that elephant was more corect. Again, a marriage doesn't have to occur in a Church, nor does it have to be performed by a priest or member of the cloth for other sects. My cousin, though Catholic, was married at a Golf course (quite beyond me why), and they were married by some one certainly not of a religous background. If you look at the "Gay Marriage" bill here in Canada, no Church can be forced to perform a Gay union. That would be against their freedom of religion. Since when are children a prerequesite of a relationship? Many people get married yet never reproduce. Whta of the elderly? It's not uncommon for two 60-year-olds to wed, and I doubt at least one of them can't reproduce anymore. Oddly enough this topic came up between some co-workers last night. One was opposed and one was for gay marriage. Sitting back I was able to see that both sides are equally stubborn in their support of their views. Those for want equality. Sounds good, but they also want to impose something that is against the beliefs of a good number of people. It would hardly be fair to say "Yea, well suck it up. We're changing marriage!" On the other side, the opposition wants to preserve their beliefs. This is completely fair. Why should they change them against their will. However, the majority religion and belief cannot overrule all (that's what happened in Germany, 1936). So, would the following serve: Gays want to be able to be joined in some sort of union that gives them the same rights as a couple as a strait couple. So, create a new term rather than change an existing one. "Gay Union" or some such. They would have all of the benefits of a strait couple, but it does not change the definition of marriage, would be specific enough to avoid other groups, such as polygamists, from moving forward. and in general would keep every one happy. Though this would still be contradicted by some of Fett's arguments, I would point to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a UN document, signed by every nation represented here in the forums).

Well, I have learned of a website that is quite possibly the most useless website in existance. RateMyPoo.com is the name of this website. I don't think I really need to explain what it's about, and I really don't reccomend it to any one. Why someone would waste their time on such a site is beyond me, but there you have it.

This is something that has fonfused me for some time. How is it that every Republican, and indeed much of the American population, seems to think that the term "Liberal" bares a negotive connotation? There are nine judges in the Canadian Supreme Court, one of whom is the Cheif Justice. Each is apppointed by the Governor General, a neutral member of the Canadian Government, who represents the King or Queen of England in Canadian government. I should point out that if you want to accuse any judges of being politically biased, perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States should be your target, as the Justices there are appointed by the President (although the Senate must approve them). I turn to the Oxford Dictionary: I think that 1 of both equivocal and equicovate are applicable here. You stated that gays have the same rights as you. As individuals, this would be correct. Taken into consideration with a gay couple, however, this changes. You could say that they have hte exact same rights as you, but they do not have the right to become joined in a civil union with their significant other. They do not have the right to the same benefits as a non-gay couple. Your words fit into the above because, though they have the same rights as you, those rights are not at all applicable to their situation. My argument was not that they are being denied rights. That woud imply that the rights are there, but that they are not being permitted to exercise them. My argument is that they are being discriminated against because of their sexual preference. Let us, for arguments sake, reverse the situation. If the opposite were true, and only members of the same sex could be married, would it be fare to prevent couples of different sex from marriage? Again, if you were in a society where only homosexual marriage was permitted, would you marry another man simply because that was your right? I have the right to own a gun, and yet I do not. Perhaps I should exercise that right because it's there? Yes, heaven forbid you might make new rights! I don't think that's ever been done before... oh wait, I'm pretty sure it has. New laws are created and rights affirmed to adapt to the ever changing world. That's how democracy works. Ou do your best to provide equally for all. Marriage predates Christianity, and before that, there wasn't any set rules or guidlines, and therefor nothing that stated "a woman cannont wed another woman, nor a man another man". I would suggest that you try and look at this by putting your religion asside. I know it is a difficult thing to do, I find it hard to look at things from the perspective of Christians, Muslems or Jews, but I do my best. Tax break? Yes, I'm certian that is exactly what every gay couple is thinking of when they press for the right to wed. Might I suggest that you step off of that giant elephant for a moment and look at the issue? Yes, freedom of religion. So, are there Christian gays? I think there are. And accepting that they are married is not encroaching on your religion. An athiest can be married, and yet such a union certainly has no religous bearings on them. How is it any different for gays? Certianly a church should not be forced to perform such unions, that would be unfair. I am having a difficult time seeing how you differentiate between a gay and a strait couple. They are the same thing in terms of a relationship... And as I said, their cause is nowhere near as serious. But allow me to use another analogy. For hundreds of years women were not people, they were property. Even in the early 20th century they could not be doctors, nor could they vote. I think you will find that this, too, is rooted in religous beliefs. Despite this, we've all learned that it was wrong, and that equality was very much deserving, and long overdue. [/i]Legally[/i] there was nothing wrong with those limitations, but morally there very much was.

Well, not in the US, and that is quite unfortunate. Here, howver, it seems that we are able to take the values and ideas codified in our national Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, analyse them, and come to the conlcusion that the spirit in which they are enacted must certainly extend to homosexual couples. There is no section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that even mentions homosexuality, and yet it has been the fundamental source of support in he case fur same sex unions, and even the supreme court upheld that. Now, you arguments are quite equivocational. No, you do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex, but you do have the right ot marry someone of the smae sexual preference as you (a person of the opposite sex). As the gay population is growing, I think such legislation is inevitable, or at least appropriate. If I recall, there was a time in your nations history that it was legal for white citizens to own black slaves. While this is certainly nowhere near the level of severity as that, I tink the equality concers are just as real...

Well, as it stands, they will be able to be married in a church, so long as the church agrees to it. No church, mosque or sinagogue (sp?) can be forced to perform the ceremony. Remember, if they weren't permitted a religious ceremony it would be discrimination again. The main opposition resides in the fact that the definition of marriage will be changed. IMO opposers are using the "but that's the way it's always been" defence simply to justify their religous beliefs.

Well, after ANH, the Director's Guild (which GL was a part of at the time) tried to force him to put the credits at the beginning of the movie (listing the actors and producers and whatnot), but that would ruin the whole effect. So, he quit the guild, and several other orginizations in Hollywood. The problem with this is, when he went to make ESB and RotJ, he wanted to have someone else direct. Well, most directors are members of the DG (including GL's friend Spielberg), and if you're not a member, you can't hire members. I think there were assorted other issues relating to production lots and what not. So, the result was that Lucas filmed his movies at other lots than those in Holleywood, hired directors that weren't in the Guild (a tough job), and worked outside the workings of the Movie Making Machine. It's really quite inspiring to see the little guy make it without the help of such a big pool of resources. If he had stuck with the Guild, we'd have a more Star Trek-like movie...

Iin my opinion, a complete separation of Church and State isn't really possible, nor is it completely desireable. I'll speak in terms of Canada, since that is where my experience lies. For the past twelve years Canada's ruling political party has been the Liberal Party of Canada (liberal here doesn't seem to carry the almost negative connotation it does south of the border), which is relatively neutral regarding religion. They still provide government funding to the nation's Catholic schools, though it is decidedly less than what the public schools get. The Government does not, nowever, provide funding to the various Muslem and Jewish schools in the country, nor do the provincial governments (though not all of the provinces are controled by a Liberal government. Some are Conservative). In addition, the Canadian constitution (which is far less cited than the American, and is probably less known), states that Canada is founded "under the supremacy of God" (which is apparently the chief difference between the Canadian and American constitutions). We also maintain the Queen/King of England as our Head of State, which is a religous position (as leader of the Anglican Church that is). Despite this, most Canadian political parties (save for the current opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada) have done their best to be neutral in regards to religion while running the country. We do not have the ten commandments in our courts, we do not pray in our schools (well, not the public ones anyhow), and no province could declare a provincial religion. I think the current bill that is being pushed through Parliment is a perfect example of this. Bill C-38 (I think) would establish the right for gay couples to marry. Now, the primary opposition for this bill are the religous organizations (sorry to say, but primarily Christian). Despite this, the Government is pushing ahead. There are arguments that marriage is sacred and what not, but as these areguments hinge on a religous base, the Government cannon in good concience consider them. Of course, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensures religous freedom, which is the primary reason the Government can't pass any legislation based on such grounds. and I think it's a good thing to have. That said, I think that the move toward neutrality in religion can go too far. American and Canada were founded on such principals, and some things should be left alone. I'm not against praying in schools, though I would rather it be kept to the Catholic schools. Public schools are intended to be neutral (teachers are prohibited from sharing their political views as well). The Ten Commandmends, though religous. are a good thing. Even if you're not Christian or Hewish, they represent a fundamental conept of right and wrong. A courthouse is a good place to have them displayed. A State or Provincial religion... well, that might be too far. I know that a while ago there was a move to have a line cut from the Canadian National Anthem. In O'Canada there is a line tha goes "God keep our land". Some extreemests wanted to have it removed saying it was too one sided. Of course, this was thrown out, but there are other movements in this direction. Well, this post may be a little disconnected, and for that I appologise, I'm trying to get some ideas down in as organized a way possible. Just to put a little more light on this: everything above is from an atheist. I have no religion, and I think a perfect world would be one with no religion. I know that that isn't going to happen any time soon, and so I think that equality is the best way to go. Even in equality there must be some sacrifice. If we were to move to Iran we wouldn't expect them to suddenly change their ways to accomodate Christians in every way possible, as such the reverse is true. We do our best, but things (just using TF's examples) like praying in some schools (even ifthey are publically funded), or the Ten Commandments in a court room are not oppressing them, and so can be tolerated. Of course, once things move into discrimination you have problem... I'll have to read this through and see if it makes any sense...

First off, what is CH? Just a question... Honestly, shows of solidarity regarding the Pope are entirely political in motivation. The fact that there were French representatives there is of little coniquence. Why is it that you didn't point out the leaders there from Middle Eastern countries? I would think that a representative from a country who's religious beliefs are so different was there would be more interesting than a relatively neutral party being there. Add on to that the fact that Prince Charles, an anglican, was there, yet this is of no consiquence. At one point you couldn't serve in any important British office unless you signed a paper denouncing the Pope. You couldn't even be an officer in the army/navy if you were a papist. I think that these officials being there make it obvious that these representatives were not there in relation to any religious statement, but in a show of respect for the man. The same can be said for flags being at half-mast. Just as a side note, you might be interested TF, that the First and Fourteenth Amendmants to the US Constitution, though not using the exact phrase, essentially support such a separation. That's not to say there is a complete separation, but it is in your constitution.

I think it should be noted that most people ignore Dark Empire as a complete load. Too many people look at the artwork and thing that everything there exists, but the art, as well as the story, was an artists spin on events. Pretty much every one ignores most of what is contained in there...

Imagine Darth Vader mixed with Martha Stuart. He would only wear robes made of the finest Telosian cotton, he insisted on the highest-quality corusca gems for his lightsaber, he ate only the best cuts of nerf steak, and may the Force save you if you were working on the shift when he came in to get his Ithorian skin therapy cream only to find out you were sold out! . I wonder if any one has actually read those novels. Every time I stop at the local Chapters the same books are there as when it was released (no paper-backs yet).

I think the question we should be asking isn't if Episode III can be saved, but if Episode III can save Star Wars. We really only have a general idea of what Episode III will be like. Because of this, we don't know if it needs to be saved. Sure, we can hypothosize based on Episode I and II, but I think most of us would agree that even those two movies were quite different from each other. It is quite possible that Episode III will be good, though it is equally possible that it will be worse than the first two. I see RotS as GL's last chance to save Star Wars. We'll always have the OT, and not even the latest DVD release and all of it's changes can destroy that. The Prequals destroyed much of the Star Wars fanbase. If RotS is a flop Star Wars will only be kept alive by whatever novelisations people are willing to pay for, and whatever crap LucasArts throws at us. If RotS is good, or, heaven forbit, great, many fans will come back, and it will prolong the life of the Star Wars galaxy, and hopefuly undo some of the damage already done.

Well, by that token could go out and take any copyrighted or patented product, produce my own, and sell it. While you can't go out to your local Computer Store and pick up a copy, you can buy it directly from LucasArts. The game is still under copyright, and as such, and unauthorized reproduction of the game is illegal. Feel free to make a copy for yourself as a backup, that is well within your rights, but to duplicate it to make a profit, or even to distribute duplicated copies of the game to any one who has not paid for it through LucasArts in some manner is illegal. You see, when you buy a game, you are essentially buying the rights to use that game disk. You are authorized to take measures that ensure that, should something happen to the original, you are still able to enjoy the data contained therein, and thus are permitted to make a copy. This is also why you can lend your original game disk to a friend, and why some companies are able to rent these games (you could technically rent your original copy out to your friends). This is also why you can re-sell your game on Ebay. You are essentially transferring your rights to that disk to another consumer, although whoever buys it won't be covered under any warranty. The above also explaines why your book analogy is off. You have purchaised the rights to that particular book. You may read it in any manner you see fit, and you may share it with your friends. You may not, nowever, duplicate the book in any form without permission from the publisher and/or the author (you may quote it though). One has to remember that games are the intillectual property of their creators. By illegally duplicating them you are violating their creators property rights,. The instant those rights are allowed to be waved, all ofthe content within the game is then free game. As I said before, you can make copies of this game, so long as you are using them for backup purposes only, and have no intent of selling or distributing them in any way. Making copies and selling them on Ebay however... well, I can assure you that you would be getting a nice letter from LucasFilm, parent company of LucasArts.

I believe it was called Shadow Hunter. There was also a book entitled Cloak of Deception, though I have no idea wheather it involved Maul or not.

What!? There's a journal? That's news to me.

Many have speculated that Palpy was Sipho Dias (or whatever), but perhaps we will discover that Qui-Gon was .

I believe that this is what you're looking for. It's a bit pricey in my opinion ($29.00 US), but then, you are buying one of the greatest strategy games in history!

Quite right. Force users are very capable of foiling mission teams that have another Force user in them. This is doubley good if your Force user is capable in the rest of their attributes.

But you would also need to place a compitant command in charge of both your ground forces (really only need a General for that) and your defence fleet (an Admiral and a Commander). I don't usually have to worry about this too much, as I tend to simply kill every one. Luke, Leia, Han and Mon Mothma get a room at the Imperial Palace with the Emperor, Vader, Veers, fourty Darktrooper regiments, and a constant stream of agents doing espionage to ensure there are no missions in the works by the Rebellion. That, combined with a sizable fleet in orbit commanded by either Piett or Thrawn (usually the former. Too much of a baby sitting project for the best), and the fact that they're all injured to the point that they have 0 combat (and that there isn't any one left to rescue them), makes life a little easier... if I could just find that bloody base!

There seems to be alot of people looking to get a new copy of Rebellion. Is it a resurgance in popularity, or are we old-timers getting careless with our disks . I think it's been said before in a few threads (in recent days, even hours) that Ebay is always a good place to look, and if that doesn't serve, LucasArts might still have it in their online store. Thanks for the compliment .

I see where you're comming from Scath. We get a small impression of who Qui-Gon is as a person, but we really don't know much more than that. It's as though he was thrown in there simply to justify Obi-Wan's being an apprentice. I would have liked to "get to know" him a little better, have him be more than a shell, a more rounded character as they say in litterary circles. On Maul I can understand why little was said of him. There is a belief that the less you know of or show of an opponent, the more menacing and dangerous they seem. I think this worked well with Maul. I also had the impression that, like Qui-Gon, Maul was only there to justify something. Without Maul there wouldn't have been any Jedi-like opponents to fight (Having Sidious would have ruined the plot for AotC and RotS to some degree), which was needed to portray the mirroring of the loss of a teacher for a padawan (Obi looses Qui-Gon, Luke looses Obi). I did, however, want to know just how deadly Maul was. We really didn't get to see him at his best, I believe.

Thanks Mad. I'll go and re-upload the gif. I think it only shaved 8 pixels off the width anyhow