AdmiralToguroAni

I disagree about it being complex because the majority believes it. It may make them upset, but its still a belief system and nothing more. Our laws, which are based on Christian principles, are also a belief system, and if all of the "Dumb Laws" books being published in the US are any indication, they're fair game for mocking, too. Just because many people believe it doesn't make it more complex. Consider: 1300: the majority of people believed that the world was flat. The world is not flat. We agree that the majority can be wrong, but as we can see above, the majority can also be flat-out-unmistakably-wrong. Just because they believed it didn't make it more complex. Perhaps HANDLING the problem is more complex, but what it is is quite simple. Religion is the same way. Its a simple belief system and nothing more, like our laws and politics. Thus, it should be mocked accordingly, no matter how many people get red in the face because of it.

What?! you hate my avatar? This is classic MSpaint cropping!

Looking at the movies, I'm going to agree with Tofu that X-wings don't appear to have shields, or at least they have very weak ones that don't do anything. The EU did screw over TIEs, it seems. Of course the EU also gave us Xizor, Mara Jade, Thrawn and Clone Palpy, so that makes up for it.

I believe the human race is actually quite intelligent. We're quite handy with tools, we haven't wiped ourselves out with war yet, and it honestly doesn't look like we're going to. Technologically speaking, we've created machines that enable us to work fewer hours and enjoy more recreational activities. The fact that I'm sitting here typing on a computer, making a post that can be read and ignored by thousands of people who can comprehend this abstact concept is evidence that we're intelligent. I'll admit we have our problems: overpopulation, disease, religion, war, but I don't think thats enough to label us as stupid. Rather, I believe "immature" is the word to use. Perhaps ignorant. We're definately intelligent, we just haven't learned to play nice.

I dunno, Scath. I doubt I'm oversimplifying it. I'll wager 2/3s of the world or more is political, and a minority will be very upset if someone makes fun of their political ideology, much like most religious people are fine with having their higher power being poked at. Its the loud minority that draws the most attention. Dress it up all you want, religion is nothing more than a belief system, and so there's no problem with taking potshots at it.

I submitted this for a download on the downloads page. Any idea when it'll be up, Evaders? Edit: Still waiting for it to show up on the downloads page.

Personally, they can draw Jesus and Mohammad frenching each other for all I care. Religion is nothing but a belief system, much like politics, so why not make fun of it? Freedom of speech is far more important.

I think a lot of the EU stories, at least the ones I've read, are better than the movies. Well, the prequels and RotJ at least. I loved Dark Empire, as it expanded on Palpatine's character somewhat. My favorite Star Wars story, not counting ESB, is Shadows of the Empire. I loved every page of it. Oh yeah, if any of you havent read it yet, I highly recommend the one-shot comic book "Star Wars: Purge." It explains how the whole Vader hunting down the Jedi thing got started, and is a really good story.

Jesus would have to be Arab or black, I think. He wouldn't be the tall white guy we see plastered all over the place. People of African descent were in the middle east at the time, and many of them weren't slaves, so Jesus could be black. More likely he was Arab, however, since that would put him in the right position to be a charismatic leader. Here's a wiki entry on it. Its pretty informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus

I want to play Empie at War. Is that where Palpatine constructs superweapons with real fruit fillings? Seriously though, I didnt know this was coming out on thursday. Awesome.

Its all in the download section. SWRE came first as a command line, then Rebed came, then someone was nice enough to create a GUI for SWRE. All of this is explained and hosted on the download forums. I've never used SWRE, but I think theres a couple things it can do that Rebed can't, though I'm not sure what that is.

My changes are available for download on the URPG Supremacy topic. All characters have been changed to anime and game characters, new agents, new backgrounds and event pics, etc.

You guys aren't giving us a lot of incentive to help you out here, but I'll see if theres a couple potential problems: Is your Rebellion game installed into C: Program Files\Lucasarts\STAR WARS Rebellion? Thats what Rebed looks for, and if its not there, it will give you some weird message in french when you try to access the cards. Did you do a complete install? If not, make sure the CD is inside. Also, remember that cards can only be edited if theres a full install.

Well, its not really "at" anywhere . Its more of a chatroom RPG I've been running for years now. We're in version 11, and the Rebellion mod covers characters in URPGs 1-9. If you're into that kind of stuff, then send me a PM. As a side note, I'm using RPG Maker XP now to create a game based on URPG8, which is where many of my characters like Yuba, Vyers, Flonne, Jacques, etc were in. Back on topic though, what did you think of the mod as a whole. Did you like the pictures, voice acting, movies, etc?

Its a mixed media thing. Players assume the role of different video game, anime, original and comic characters, and they get together in a world that encompasses all the genre. Thats why there are so many weird characters in my game!

I was thinking about midichlorians. They live in your cells and connect you to the force. Apparently they can be cloned, which is one of the reasons why clone Palpy was so powerful. They can also be passed down genetically, which is why Luke is powerful too. Knowing this, wouldn't it be feasible to grow a culture of people from the strongest force users in the galaxy? I'd get it this way: In Star Wars: Galaxy of Fear, there was a clone of Vader. Grab his DNA. Luke's could be picked up easily enough from the NR hospital. Leia's and her children would be the same way. Just keep doing this until you have a ton of midichlorian rich samples, then start cloning using whatever method Palpy was using on Byss, since Spaarti methods block the force somehow. Use whatever techniques was used on the Clonetroopers to inhibit their independence, then force them to breed a few times, selectively taking the strongest Jedi available. You'd have at least 3 females to start this culture, Mara Jade clone, Leia clone and Jaina clone, but you could probably get Lady Luminara clone too if you tried hard enough. Grow, interbreed, euthanize, continue. Within a decade or so (since the growth is so fast and you'd only have to get them to about age 13-15 before you could breed them), you'd have at least one, probably several, Uber Jedi with an incredible amount of midichlorian power. It gets even better. Star Wars tends to make clones inherit learned skills through genetics. Examples being Vader clone thinking he was a Sith Lord in Galaxy of Fear, C'Boaath thinking he was a Jedi master AND remembering his past, Luuke knowing how to use a lightsaber, etc. With this technique, its very likely that this uber-jedi would possess the "genetic memory" necessary to learn all the styles of lightsaber combat! Knowing my luck, this has probably already happened in a Star Wars book or game, but the idea just hit me. I think it'd be a pretty good idea

Thats odd. Are the movies all new and everything? Voices and encyclopedia entries are all changed? Also, don't trust those dates. A lot of the dll files have been finished for almost a year. The only things that I havent changed are the RCdata files, and I doubt they're 800mb in total.

Its in the download section on the site. Just search for Movie Patch. Anyone try my mod yet? I'm interested in hearing your opinion of it

Try Mask's movie patch on his website. That lets you edit the movies. For those of you that can't get the game to play with the MDATA folder in your directory, try running that.

Sorry for the delay in the response. My father is getting a biopsy today, and we're afraid its cancer. I'll get back into this topic once I find out whats going on with him. Of course, Val is the real expert on evolution of the two of us so you should ask her.

I guess it was too long a wait to really expect anyone to download my game, so I went ahead and put it on filefront. Hope you enjoy! http://download.filefront.com/4730503;4ed8dd15f2dddccc9bc4548087fecd3ccda34f69aca6a32d513f9e4c47f8d21f995cfdd4a2e24262

I agree with you. Systems with high loyalty to you should automatically send you information every few days. Did this really need a bump though?

Darth Tex wrote: Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's called "free will". A gift from God, "to choose" what you want to do; destroy or create, help or kill, etc. If God was to make everything perfect (with no choices by the beings living therein) ... what's the point? Might as well leave the universe empty. That doesn't hold for a couple reasons. The first being that "free will" implies conscious thought. Animals such as crickets, mealworms, and fish aren't intelligent enough to have decision making capability, and therefore must not have free will. Even if Free Will is a viable option for HUMANS, it doesn't hold for all the other living creatures, for whom death and pain (for some of the more complex animals) is part of everyday existance. Even without getting into the "do we REALLY have free will?" debate, which is more for another topic, we see that God in fact has established a a world filled with death and suffering. Sure, one could argue that no one died or suffered in the Garden of Eden (if you believe in it), but then you face the problem of a compassionate and benevolent God punishing a Panda Bear which is incapable of making choices, for the actions of a human.

Social Darwinism would imply that evolution has a direction. However, since evolution is random, social Darwinism is mistaken, and those who say that "higher/lower" is a synonym for more or less complex must be true. Evolution of the brain wasn't the result of higher requirements to keep humans alive, ToguroAni. If you believe that, then you truly fail to grasp what evolution and natural selection are about. The evolution of a more complex brain was rather triggered by random adaptations, remember? Of course I remember. However, my argument stands. If humans were in a situation where food could only be obtained through the use of tools, then only the humans whose brains had mutated to the point where they were smart enough to invent these tools would survive. Its a random event, but their survival over the others was caused by their environment. Likewise if humans had to be really strong to survive, those smart, tool-using humans would die in favor of the brutes, because thats what the environment demanded. AdmiralToguroAni wrote: I'll agree that "higher" and "lower" might not be the best term for what happens in evolution, but those are the terms used by evolutionary theorists. Not by all, my friend: Nevertheless, many critiques of the modern theory of evolution involve misunderstandings of the theory itself, or of science in general. One of the most common misunderstandings of the theory is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive, or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations. This claim was often made in pursuit of Social Darwinism, a 19th-20th century political ideology which held that the subjection of the poor and minority groups was favored by evolution. You see, ToguroAni? The quote can be found in wikipedia's entry for evolution. In effect, this dubs you a Social Darwinist... Social Darwinism is a philosophy, not a science. Regardless, evolution itself offers no guarantees, but the environment helps ensure that the most "fit" species survive. A penguin with a mutation that causes it to be born without webbed feet wouldn't last long, for example. Quote: Primates have tools to communicate and even perform basic tasks (such as getting food from anthills with a stick) and for them, assuming that nothing changes their habitate or lifestyle, that is enough if it keeps them alive. The tools and tasks you mention are enough to keep humans alive as well... Quote: However, the requirements for keeping a human alive at one point must have been greater than keeping a primate alive... In what terms? Quote: ...else we wouldn't have evolved a more complex brain structure... Evolution of the brain wasn't the result of higher requirements to keep humans alive, ToguroAni. If you believe that, then you truly fail to grasp what evolution and natural selection are about. The evolution of a more complex brain was rather triggered by random adaptations, remember? See my response about the penguin. Humans evolved, through randomness, into a smarter species. Whatever environment they were in at the time weeded out the ones with more feeble intelligence. Quote: (as only those with mutations in the brain that caused more complex, i.e. "higher", thought managed to survive whatever physical change the primates' environment was undergoing). Once that initial batch of "smarter-than-average" apes became the norm, the process repeated until you had humans. You're absolutely correct when you say that using the phrase "higher" is biased, but while the word usage might be biased, since it simply means "more compex", then despite the biasedd usage, it still stands.[/b] Which I think we can agree, it doesn't... Moreover, it seems it's not only by word usage... If you disagree with that particular section, I suggest you propose your arguments in the article's discussion page... From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, considering Social Darwinism isnt a science but rather a philosophy, The higher=more complex argument still stands. People? Which people? Anyway, whether or not this is true is completely beside the point because viruses are eukaryotes... In other words, they're organisms, which I believe, makes them highly qualified to appear in this thread. Not quite. Viruses are NOT Eukaryotes. http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/pev/main.html Basically a Eukaryote has cytoplasm, cytoskeletons, and other internal workings, and have more structures than a virus. And you chastise ME for not having enough information ...but we'll assume they are since its important for this point. Viruses are excellent at survival, but are not very complex. Come again?! For one, my guess is that loads of evolutionists as well as virologists would disagree with you... Moreover, I think (and this is my opinion) it quite arrogant for scientists to state that viruses are less complex, since they have a very, very hard time understanding what certain viruses are, how they work or can be stopped. In fact, they are often unable to do so. Thats your opinion. Valerina gave us the way complexity is determined, and Viruses don't have very many genes. Therefore, they aren't complex by the definition of complex.

Han's combat rating plays a role. If you lower his combat rating (either in Rebed or injure him), he has a better chance of getting nabbed