DiabloFans

Quote from LinkX

Anyway, the way I see it, and the way Science sees it, there is Theism, Strong Atheism, and Weak Atheism. We all know what Theists are, so lets forego that. Strong Atheists assert that there is no god, none. They say that the world exists without any god of any form. Weak Atheists assert that there is no evidence to prove a god exists, but that evidence may one day be found, just not yet.

There is no such thing as strong or weak atheists. It all has to do with humility.
Given the current circumstances and evidence available, one can conclude that at this point in time there is no God (as described by most major religions) but in the event of surfacing evidence/tangible proof, one is willing to reconsider their position.

Atheism bases itself on scientific methodology whereby all hypotheses are evaluated within a certain confidence interval and a given estimated error margin.
Science can thus offer itself the luxury of constantly improving its knowledge of the world. A steadfast position cannot yield such a progressive attitude- which is why science cannot be considered a religion since very little to nothing is definitive, absolute or beyond challenge.

Quote from enkeria

Its my shirt if anyone wonder.

Don't forget to lend her some of your pants next time.

@Don
I'm assuming you've chosen that title and opening line for its shocking value and not much else.
Otherwise nothing of what you said makes much sense. It's not like they were playing a match and you get to blow the final whistle at the end of 10 years to proclaim a winner.

The reasons for going into Iraq turned out to be complete bogus but once they were there, they couldn't just bail out since they literally had the responsibility to make that place a stable one, lest it becomes another festering breeding hole for scum (aka terrorists).
About those thinking 9/11 was an inside job, I just feel sad for them. Seriously. If despite the overwhelming evidence available, they persist in cherishing conspiracy theories,I'm inclined to think it's just another fad. A way to lose time and hate the world for not having what you think you deserve or what you think it owes you.

Terrorists made their mark though. How the world reacts and cope will be a much longer struggle than a mere 10 years I feel.

Quote from Don_guillotine

Quote from Nekrodrac

All the evidence points to the activity of a poltergeist.

I think rats would freak me out more than a poltergeist, to be honest.

I can understand. The rumors go that rats from Finland wield nunchucks.

Quote from Baracuda

The only comic I've read is Donald Duck, when I was a child, so that would be my favourite I guess.

I'm more into... real books with maybe 3-4 pictures and lots of text ^^

+1 for that.

Quote from Akuma_Gin

A fast question: can we list any mangas (cause Im mainly a manga reader) or the thread is about comics strictly?

Well, according to wikipedia and my own infinite wisdom, manga is just the japanese term for comics.
So, fire away!

So my favorite comics-
French stuff
Tintin et Milou- (the trailer for movie is already out, I'll probably wait for the French dub)
Lucky Luke
Asterix et Obelix
These 3 comic books have very similar designs. The way the stories are told are extremely interesting to follow, with stream of small frames of pictures seizing the moment perfectly and always keeping things moving.
Tintin is my favorite in that list; I feel the adventures are on a much grander scale since they relate much more effectively to reality.

Manga
One piece: Funny and original. Quite lengthy compared to most other mangas. No end in sight.
Naruto: Is currently nearing its finale. The beginning of the story was really gripping and got me hooked even when the the quality of the story seemed to fade to some extent as the plot moved on.
Hajime No Ippo (Thanks to Gulli for pointing that one out to me): Lengthiest manga out there. No end in sight.
Kenshin: Pretty good story with likable characters. It managed to keep its cast small and meaningful and avoid the routine of assembling a huge amount of chars that quickly become disposable material as seen in many other mangas.
Death Note: Very original. I can't say much without spoiling but I was really disappointed around halfway through when the story seemed to be stretching beyond its limits and it became rather tedious. A shortened plot would have made this a masterpiece.

And probably a few more that I am forgetting right now...

Marvel- I know there are different artists, narrators and stuffs at different points in these series but I can't remember my favorite (authors) right now.
Wolverine(by far my favorite character): He's always either cool or pissed. Awesome.
Spiderman: I found the humor very entertaining.
Iron Man: A guy puts on a suit and can fly and fire weapons. Yep, put my name down please.
I've read a few 'Avengers' and 'Namor' also- wasn't that interesting...

Anyway Marvel must be my least favorite. The story just seems to drag a lot of times.

I use a computer and things usually appear on the screen when I switch it on.
It's crazy!

Once while I was calmly walking down some road, I noticed someone breaking into a house. I immediately took out the D2 disc-that I always carry in my pocket(it's a big pocket!)- and used it as a shuriken to stop the bloody thief.

I wish I had a video of that event because that would have immediately got me a beta key I am sure.

Edit- You guys believe me, don't you? You know I would never lie about something like that.

Quote from paralleluniverse

You still haven't stated a valid way in which more money will lead to improvements to D3 such that it is worth playing, while an item and gear selling store is operating.

Come on now. Let's be serious for a moment. You want me to say what specifically more money can do to improve D3 with the presence of a store when I have never played the game? If that is what it takes to make my argument valid, we'll need to wait a couple of years after release, see how the in-game economy is fairing and then only will we be able to resume this discussion. Since this is not a viable option, the next best thing is to be rational about the situation. What does a game need to be better? More frequent patches and content perhaps?
How do the latter come into existence? Magic? I doubt it.
It's well-known fact that it is usually gnomes and elves at blizzard who work tirelessly through the night, away from human eyes, to make it possible. More money means
-that blizzard can now buy more candy for the gnomes and elves that are hired from Santa Claus to do the work
-and has also a stronger incentive to give us 'regular' updates.
I said it in my first post- this is not an automatic course of action but a probable one.

Regarding the store, it's not so much the integrity of the game at stake here but the integrity of the gamer as a person. Because not everyone is willing to consider spending real-life money as one of the variables to their approach to the game. You can see it this way- if you have time to farm and luck is on your side, you don't need to spend money. In the other case, you always have the option to spend cash and save yourself time. One possible advantage(I'm only speculating) is a faster way to build a PvP character. You can argue it will be unfair but the counter to this is that you won't get someone in the arena until you feel they are ready, independent of how they acquired their gear.

As for the possibility of the in-game economy being affected, I'm assuming the range of items offered in the store will be limited. Other illegal sites can profit from that but my point is that blizzard can earn substantial revenue from selling a good range of gear so that if ever buying items from the store becomes common-place, there will still be items in the game that will have a high fetching price, thereby not completely invalidating your farming efforts. So I'm expecting the economy to adjust by itself. I know that bit was nowhere in your argument but I'm just considering the different aspects of the game that can be hit by the presence of the store.

The way Sixen worded his post made me interpret it as there being a market out there for buying items with real-life money. And these items make it into the game.
With a blizzard hosted store, that market will still exist but this time the game developers will benefit from it. Of course, there's always the issue of competitive prices but that's a whole another matter.
They key difference is that this time, it's in the open and not a backyard deal. If D2 was not broken due to that, I find it an exaggeration to claim that D3 suddenly will be unplayable because of the store.

Quote from paralleluniverse

You seemed to have completely missed the point. What you're talking about is continued support and development for the game. But I've already shown in my previous post, with examples of possible additional content, (requoted below) that once there is an item selling store operating, why the game wouldn't even be worth playing, let alone supporting.

Refer to above.

Quote from paralleluniverse

Additionally, D2, WC3, and SC2 didn't need continued revenue from an item-selling store. If your concern is that Blizzard requires continued revenue in order to support Diablo 3 into the future, then why don't you suggest a subscription model? While a subscription model may not be as popular as a pay-once game, at least it doesn't cause the game to be unfair the same way an item-selling store will. At least, everyone will still have equal access to the same content and gear. Compared to an item-selling store, a subscription model is also the lesser of the two evils.

In summary, there's no point in supporting a shit game through additional dungeons, features, systems, and content.

A shit game probably not. A good one, definitely yes.
Isn't a subscription model much more suitable for MMORPGs that have considerable server costs? I really can't see how the expenses involved in D3 would warrant one- which is why I deem a simple vanity store to be fair(your favorite word) as a form of constant revenue and why a subscription-based system never crossed my mind.

Quote from paralleluniverse

You think I'm the only person who would not play a game that is trivialized by players buying gear off a store? Look at the poll result. My claim was not that more money will not lead to more improvements. My claim was that more money generated from an item selling store will not lead to improvements, because the very existence of an item selling store causes irreparable damage: "I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning".

I don't know, man. I would love to think the poll is representative of what the majority of players feel about the whole thing but I haven't seen anything so far that would suggest that the people who voted constitute a normative sample. I might be totally wrong though and only 400 or so people are going to play D3.
Also nobody knows the exact financial model D3 is going to be based on and the level of control the team has over it, in the case of imminent failure as you have predicted should item-selling stores form part the game. Best bet is to wait and see I guess.

Quote from paralleluniverse

My post was directed at Sixen's news post (I even quoted it), in which he was clearly talking about an item and gear selling store, and not a vanity store, as he has a separate category for vanity stores. So why are you talking about vanity stores in a part of the discussion that is about an item and gear selling store? While the discussion of my response to Sixen's post is about an item and gear selling store, everything else is about selling vanity items.

It is also not clear to me why you've wrote this in response to what you've quoted, as it doesn't address or even relate to what is in the quote.

As I've stated before, there is no point in putting resources and money into a game that has been shitted on by an item selling store.

True. Editing mistake on my behalf and I got things mixed up when I originally(first post I replied to you) quoted two of your posts- Sixen one and the other from Sabvre.
My bad.

Quote from paralleluniverse

A game is not the same as a car. Vanity items are a core part of the game. They come with the game. It is not unusual for games to offer the entire feature set, all of the content, equally to everyone, in one transaction. This is how D2 and WC3 worked. Everyone buys the same game, everyone has the same access to all of the content, vanity or otherwise.

I do not regard vanity items as core of the game.
End.

Quote from paralleluniverse

I'm not measuring anything for myself. I'm stating the obvious fact that people place different values on gear and vanity items, as measured by ones enjoyment of the game.

While most people would derive greater enjoyment in the game from getting a best-in-slot item compared to dying their headpiece purple, others may derive more enjoyment from the game from dying their headpiece purple, compared to getting a weapon upgrade that amounted to +1 stamina.

And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.

It only fails if you see vanity items as core of the game and our views differ on this one.

Quote from paralleluniverse

I'm not even suggesting that Blizzard raise the price of D3, so I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion that the idea of predicting how much profit a store would generate would be unfeasible. I'm only saying hypothetically that raising the price is not as bad as any form of store, because it keeps the game fair.

This was an argument to point out the importance of fairness in a game.

You completely lost me on this one. You are not suggesting but you are saying hypothetically... Language barrier I fear.
Also you can't just randomly mention an idea if it is not even feasible which is I why I actually considered it as a possible alternative since our perceptions of fairness is different.

Quote from paralleluniverse

If you want that vanity item, and it was only available through a store, then there is no other way to have that item, therefore, by definition, you are forced to pay for it. There is no other way to legally acquire the item.

How is it "spoiled" to want everyone to have the same and equal access to all features of the game? It seems that it would be more "spoiled" for some players to get access to additional vanity items and customization features, just because they are willing to spend more real life money, as opposed to having all of this be obtainable by in-game means only.

Vanity is extra. Paying for extra is completely justifiable. Wanting extra for free is 'spoiled' to me.

Quote from paralleluniverse

This is an argument I've already debunked. Different players place different values on gear compared to vanity items as measured by their enjoyment of the game. I've even given 2 examples above. So it's unfair that some players can have unequal access to these vanity items. It's not always about ability to compete.

Refer to above reply.

Quote from paralleluniverse

I called Sixen's argument as "moronic", I didn't directly call him a moron, this is different from what you've done. But this isn't related to the issues in this thread.

Strange. I was pretty sure the perpetrator of any moronicity (yay for new word!) needs to be a moron, at least temporarily, until the act is done.
Excuse me if I am more direct.

Quote from paralleluniverse

I'm not being close-minded, I have considered the implications of any store and have come to the conclusion that they are all bad. The concept of fairness is a simple one: that everyone has equal access to all features of the game. This is not a new definition, I've been saying it in my previous thread. What is your problem with this? Why would you prefer that in order to get certain vanity items someone may want, that they be forced to pay for it through a store, or go without it?

Ultimately, D3 is a game, it is not real life, and therefore the amount of real life money you are willing to spend, above the core game that everyone buys should not come into the equation, nor affect ones enjoyment of the game. That is why I've stated that the strongest argument against any store is because it destroys fairness.

Alright let's talk a bit about this fairness business.

First of all I simply cannot stomach that notion of being 'forced' to get a vanity item if you want it. Just like the extra in a collector's edition that you have to pay more for, vanity items are the extra of the game. Should you feel you absolutely need it to enjoy the game, then you should pay for it.
D3 is not real life but the financial model will be based on real-life applications. Like, if you are willing to pay more, you are entitled for more. I partially agree with you that item-selling stores might probably have too much of a consequential disadvantage upon gameplay but as far as vanity items go, the whole playing field changes.
Obviously your perception will be different because of the importance you attribute to these, but understand that for some vanity is fluff and such a store generating revenue is hence perfectly alright.

Quote from Rejuvyn

You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra.

Not to nitpick, but this is a terrible example. What if those tires were Azure Tires of Dexterity? Now some smirking Paladin who paid real money for them is going to round that curve *slightly faster than you*, and look better to boot (Azure tires DO look good with the right chassis color and Paladin aura).

Unfair advantage? You bet.

I think we should stick to the example in my previous post. A better sound system isn't going to make my car faster, handle better, or even look different. The only thing it will do is amuse me while I drive, and annoy the cop who pulls me over (and also irritate the guy holding the "Fight the Inequality!" sign over at the car dealership).

Allow me to return the favor.

A better sound system will make me enjoy my car more which is one of the arguments of paralleluniverse claiming that vanity items may play a substantial part in his appreciation of the game. So in the end while the car doesn't drive faster or handle better it all comes down to personal satisfaction which suddenly makes your analogy as bad (or worse) than mine.

However I do understand the basic principles behind an analogy, which is the reproduction of some highlighting feature of an idea/statement in a different, common and much more relatable medium.
Therefore in order to grasp this 'highlighting feature', you are required to make some level of compromise (which I didn't do when talking about the sound system just to illustrate my point) as to the actual details of the analogy. Why? For the simple fact that as soon as you over-analyze (nit-pick), you are doing so in a different context to the original idea and the analogy just won't hold. And that goes for the best analogies out there.
End note- debating on analogy specifics is definitely the low point of any discussion.

Class dismissed.

Quote from paralleluniverse

You've completely dodged the challenge in the quote.

Challenge? I dodged the stupidity yes, since I assumed you would actually make your brain work on your own. However that has been a large oversight on my behalf. I apologize.

Quote from paralleluniverse

No, I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning, that is a store that sells useful items and gear. If you do, please enlighten us all.

Here's a quote from Ophion. Pointless for me to write it all up again- he explained it really well.

Quote from Ophion

1. We pay Blizzard once, when we purchase the game. That money won't last forever if we want them to pay for servers, support staff and patches. If we want them to stay dedicated to this game and continuously work on it then they are going to need a steady income to compensate for their work. If no continuous stream of money is going to Blizzard, what will happen? They will eventually have to cut down on everything in order to minimize expenses, because otherwise they would start losing money. If a couple of million dollars are going to Blizzard every year from micro-transactions, then that is a couple of million dollars (- the cost to make more micro-transaction content) to be spent on patches, for example.

You have 10 bucks. You can buy 3 cookies with it.
You have 20 bucks. Guess what? You can buy 6 cookies with it.
Holy cow! The miracle of more money. Now don't try to directly compare cookies with D3 (as I am sure you are dying to) but essentially more money allows for more work to be done on D3.

Whether it is worth playing to you is completely irrelevant since my point was that more money can lead to more improvements. And that's pretty much a fact.

Quote from paralleluniverse

What would they spend that money on? More PvP features such as ladders and tournaments? What legitimacy would this have when a significant contributor to winning or losing is the gear that you and others have bought? More dungeons and quests? What would be the point when you can just buy the gear anyway? To drag the lore out beyond the stories in the games already planned? At this point, D3 would have lost all legitimacy as a game and more importantly, as a form of escapism, because the items and gear you have can be determined by how much real life money you are willing to spend. It won't be a form of escapism, because at every frame we will be reminded that the items and gear of other players have been bought with real life money.

This is truly touching. I almost shed a tear.
Oh and I will completely disregard your little drama-queen act of item-selling store because it is quite clear in my post that I was referring to vanity ones that don't affect your character's power.
IF the store system works and generates money and that somehow D3 lasts as long as D2, more resources will be welcome.
D2 got stale- like real stale with the last patch having a 1 YEAR delay. I suspect the reason why there were even any patches at all was to keep the interest in the diablo series alive long enough for D3 to hit the scene.
Now for the store to continue working, such delays become a big no-no. In essence it's more power to customers- to be entitled to more regular updates.

Quote from paralleluniverse

Yes, fairness. Fairness isn't about the fact that gear has greater "bragging value", fairness is related to everyone having equal access to the entire feature set of the game, that includes both gear and vanity items.

Uhm no. If vanity items are not planned as being part of the original game, then no. It's pretty simple to understand.
You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra. You don't need them to play the game or compete. What you are claiming here is not only illogical but senseless whining.

Quote from paralleluniverse

Despite that gear is usually considered more important than vanity items, it is still unfair, by definition, that players can have different levels of access to vanity items, depending on whether they buy it for real life money.

Furthermore, the importance of gear, compared to vanity items, measured by its effect on ones enjoyment of the game is ultimately subjective and arbitrary. And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.

You measure importance of gear as enjoyment of game? Ok. So, a vanity feature that doesn't allow you to kill any faster or better makes you enjoy the game more, when compared to what you experience with a useful gear, huh? I guess I simply can't relate.

Quote from paralleluniverse

I never said that Blizzard should raise the price of the game. In fact, I hope that Blizzard does not raise the price of the game.

But raising the price of the game is better than selling items, and even better than selling only vanity items. It is the lesser of the two evils.

While raising the price of the game may make the game slightly less accessible in the short term, at least it keeps the game fair and equal for everyone. And because of this, it maintains the integrity of the game. Selling items, even vanity items, fundamentally undermines the notion of fairness that games should offer. Real life money should not factor into anything, as long as you've bought the game. Selling any items destroys fairness, and therefore raising the price, while unfavorable, is not as bad as this.

I completely disagree. Also do realize that what you are saying is almost impossible to do since you cannot predict how much stores would generate and therefore cannot adjust the game's value with respect to that.
This is a far worse idea than stores. Just my opinion.

Quote from paralleluniverse

The point I was making is that if you want to get the magenta headpiece, and it was only available from a store, then you would be forced to pay for it.

No you wouldn't. End of story.
The very idea that you will feel forced to buy such an item is strongly indicative of a person's immaturity and spoiled-brat nature.

Quote from paralleluniverse

Further, the existance of game mechanics like runes, which can be used to customize spell functionality, doesn't change my argument. Indeed, it isn't even relevant to my argument. That being, if there is any form of store at all, then players can pay more to access additional customization features, which is unfair and unequal. The observation that the game already includes customization features doesn't change this obvious fact.

My point is that that the relevant customization features still make the game playable with no effect to a character's power and ability to compete if vanity stores were present.
Customization as eye-candy alone brings me back to an earlier point in my previous post- vanity items can't compete with a rare farmed one. So the real eye-candy remains non-vanity items, at least among the less-casual gamers of Diablo.

Quote from paralleluniverse

Your only contribution to this thread is a bit of pseudo-logic and a lot of name calling. You really haven't offered anything substantive.

While selling gear, in comparison to selling vanity items, is more damaging to the game, any form of store at all damages the integrity of the game and undermines basic principles of fairness. Therefore, I maintain that there is no room for compromise.

I am AGAINST stores but to be so close-minded as you are being with the fairy tale stories(or pseudo logic if you prefer) of how your happy ending is all messed-up is laughable at best.
I thought you were ok with name-calling since your first post in the thread suggested you quite enjoyed it.
We differ on these so-called principles of fairness so while you are welcome to reply to me, this discussion is becoming circular.
Your arguments are based on abstract concepts like fairness, integrity and enjoyment (of game), all of which vary from person to person and simply cannot be really debated upon unless we agree on a universal definition. Something not likely to happen.

As we all know, Diablo appears to have a female host this time.
So, what kind of New Threaths, Horrors and Challenges will the heroes have to put up with!?

I give you, Diablette!



Edit: Fixed some texts, thanks Nekrodrac!

I pulled the ultimate Diablo III plug today at work! My smart ass knows no bounds!

Our company is growing like a banshee and is up on the block be acquired to the highest bidder because of that. So we have been holding high level meetings with a number of multi-billion dollar corporations interested in acquiring us. Today we had an on-sight visit by a party to go over all of our information technology. For this visit the prospective buyers CEO, CIO, 2 VP's in IT, and a number of analysts we're on hand for an all day meeting.

I capped the days presentation around 4:30PM by covering systems and network security. I go into a 30 minute speech about our 3 tier DMZ, perimeter and host intrusion detection and prevention, data leak prevention, event correlation, disaster recovery, and following government security guidelines etc. The meeting up to this point is all heavy and serious, then the CEO lays the pat question I always get to see if there are any holes in our network that worry me. Bear in mind I'm 45 and wearing a suit and tie, so the CEO is expecting a serious answer from me.

He asks "What keeps you up at night."

I answer "Diablo 3"

Bewildered he asks "I... I'm sorry what's Diablo 3?"

I continue "I'm waiting for Diablo 3 to be released, it's just the most anticipated RPG computer game of the decade and I spend my evenings trying to get a beta key so I can play it."

The room rolled because I stopped him in his tracks and he didn't quite know how to recover.



Yeah baby I still got it!

Quote from Graphite

Quote from proletaria

Quote from Graphite

Why are some people unable to believe that there is something that can not be explained? Everything can not be proven and it is a waste to attempt to do so.

Prove to me that gravity exists.

The idea that gravity is in every way as unknowable as the assertion of an almighty god is rediculous and a slap in the face to all physicists since newton who helped us form our understanding of gravity and further explain our universe.

Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.

I tend to be open-minded and leave others on their business but I can’t stand your way of talking.

You don’t deserve to talk about science because probably you haven’t passed your fist class of math or physics. And so you don’t deserve to mention great people like Newton.

Your foolish religions have burned this people alive because they were right in their claims that the earth circled around the sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

The religion should have fallen apart the first moment that humanity finally accepted that is the earth that circle around the sun and that we are not the center of be all and end all.
But you have always found way to circumvent what your religion had sad in the past. It’s the same as the discussion we are having here about literal and not literal scripts. In short everything written in this holly books is literal and the word of god until, science prove otherwise, or it fall against our human moral/ethic.

I’m not saying those books are useless actually they are quite useful to understand how stupid a civilization can be.
The only true value this books hand out are matters of ethic and moral, like: don’t still, don’t lie, don’t harm the other, help the one in need, etc. You don’t need a religion to teach to a child these things.
Everything else is bullsh*t. Who ever come from the dead to say if there is a heaven or hell?
Live your life while you can because is the only one you have. After you’re dead you will just be dead and you won’t have a second chance.

Life is the future, not the past (books of any kind are part of the past).
The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings, we must use our intellect to make rational choices, not a blind devotion to what has come before.

Faith is a device of self-delusion, a sleight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up.
Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes.
Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men.

Willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to one's self.

I will apologies to everyone who is trying to have a civil conversation and take my leave from this thread.

Home made pizza is always the best brand.

Quote from Nekrodrac

@OP
+1 for being a modest and nice bloke.

Now....can somebody explain the winning entry to me.
Seriously.

It was a running gag in the Peanuts comic strip, where Lucy (the girl in the photo) would hold a football (American ellipsoid game ball) for Charlie Brown (main character) to take a running kick at. At the last second, she would always pull the ball away and he would go flying in the air.

Quote from Umpa

"Baseless" is incorrect when there is more in depth historically approved content than in any history book.

That is precisely baseless. I've been a student of history for nearly three of your lifetimes. I have worked with scholars who have made it their life's work to study the history surrounding the bible. Generations of scholars have made this their life's work and I assure you, without any doubt, that this is baseless. The bible has history within it's pages. There is no doubt about that. But if you are to submit to me that the Bible is more historically accurate than any other history book you are being purposefully ignorant of our human body of historical knowledge.

Quote from Umpa

The stories have as much basis as any other historical record from that time period.

Also false. We have MANY more and MUCH more accurate accounts from other cultures during that time period. Do you really think that the Roman empire or the Greeks were poor record keepers compared to a tribe of desert nomads? There were many more literate and prolific histories long before the age of Christianity and there were many more after. This is nonsense. Just go out there and read!

Quote from Umpa

I'm not saying they're not myths. But who are you to say they are?

They are myths until we prove otherwise. As I said, I make no statements of certainty. I don't assume, by calling something a myth, that it is unequivocally false. I am saying that we have no basis on which to call it a fact, thus it is not, at present, a fact.

Quote from Umpa

Historians at one time rejected the existence of Nebuchadnezzar at one point. Until one day, archaeologists proved his existence. They found large slabs with his name on it somehwhere around where Babylon was located( Nebu was the king at one time).Without the bible, it would have been thousands of years without ever knowing he even existed in reality.

Archeologists have also found compelling evidence to suggest that Troy was a real city and the siege of Troy by a Greek armada was a real event. Does that mean that we have evidence for the demi-god status of Achillies or the existence of the Greek Pantheon? It does not.

I have a lot of other posts i'd like to get at today and maybe I will, but it's looking like another round of first-cause and "science will never know," assumptions and if anyone bothers to read a few of the first 17 pages they'll understand why I have already refuted those absolute claims and maintain that we cannot assume god or no god from them. Sufficed to say, if anyone wants to bring any new arguments to my attention, please let me know what they are so I can dig them out of the repeats and reply with care.

And Umpa, I honestly do not have a clue what you're talking about. If you genuinely want me to discuss something with you, quote what you have an issue with and tell me why you disagree. I am not capable of reading your mind and asessing what you feel isn't factual. That is beyond my power as a human being.

First of all, I must say that I'm greatly honored to have been chosen as the winner of this, the first beta key contest of Diablofans. Honored not only for have been chosen, but for having earned the recognition of such an incredible and passionate community. I will wear this prize with pride, and will keep the Diablofans sword high, high in the sky.

There have been a lot of incredible, original, diverse and funny entries in the first contest, and I'm sure that the jury had a very hard time deciding a winner. It was a tough race.
I'm excited to see what people come with the second contest, there's a lot of potential there, and I feel kind of empty inside knowing that I dont have to participate anymore. I really had a fun time while doing this pieces, it was the a great challenge for me.

So guys, keep up the great work. Be original, be funny, be creative, and most of all, be audacious. Things come to those dare to take a step forward.


Ps.
I've seen a lot of hate around here. A lot people are angry at me and my participation in this contest.
Huh, you think you're mad? you should check my girlfriend. She has lost her boyfriend for the next 2/3 weeks. And is not happy AT ALL!