User information for Steve

Real Name
Steve
Nickname
JediLuke
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Signed On
April 12, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
321 (Amateur)
User ID
20620
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 15.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older
85.
 
Re: Congratulations!
Apr 27, 2004, 21:44
85.
Re: Congratulations! Apr 27, 2004, 21:44
Apr 27, 2004, 21:44
 
I am priveleged to be the first to inform everyone of the wonderful news that Blue has the title line (titular) in Half Life 2

I had the title line in Star Wars. And the titular line.

~Steve

30.
 
Re: No mis-spelling
Apr 27, 2004, 16:02
30.
Re: No mis-spelling Apr 27, 2004, 16:02
Apr 27, 2004, 16:02
 
No, you don't use sic because it's not a spelling error, only a variance of the word.

Sic means "thus" and indicates that the text is being reproduced as it originally appeared, implying that any error (spelling or grammar) was not introduced by the person reprinting the quote. I'd agree that it isn't necessary here, however.

Technically speaking, it's the actual correct spelling of the word seeing as that's wher the language originated.

Nonsense. There were plenty of other spellings for words that we don't use anymore. Languages evolve, and "color" is the correct spelling in American English.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 27, 16:06.
37.
 
Re: Told ya!
Apr 27, 2004, 14:41
37.
Re: Told ya! Apr 27, 2004, 14:41
Apr 27, 2004, 14:41
 
Sit down troll.

Not quite. I just save my venom for more significant things than the release date of HL2, something some of you jackasses can't seem to fathom.

~Steve

19.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 27, 2004, 13:25
19.
Re: No subject Apr 27, 2004, 13:25
Apr 27, 2004, 13:25
 
KOTOR was so unbelievably over-hyped and over-rated... this news is like "big deal"

Not really.

~Steve

11.
 
Re: Told ya!
Apr 27, 2004, 13:20
11.
Re: Told ya! Apr 27, 2004, 13:20
Apr 27, 2004, 13:20
 
Did Valve ever announce that the delay was because of the code theft?

Oh, and you guys are all lame.

~Steve

14.
 
Re: Good writing revisited
Apr 24, 2004, 22:10
14.
Re: Good writing revisited Apr 24, 2004, 22:10
Apr 24, 2004, 22:10
 
Using the plural pronoun to refer to a single person of unspecified gender is an old and honorable pattern in English, not a newfangled bit of degeneracy or a politically correct plot to avoid sexism (though it often serves the latter purpose). People who insist that “Everyone has brought his own lunch” is the only correct form do not reflect the usage of centuries of fine writers. A good general rule is that only when the singular noun does not specify an individual can it be replaced plausibly with a plural pronoun: “Everybody” is a good example. We know that “everybody” is singular because we say "everybody is here, “ not “everybody are here” yet we tend to think of “everybody” as a group of individuals, so we usually say “everybody brought their own grievances to the bargaining table.” “Anybody” is treated similarly.

However, in many written sentences the use of singular “their” and "they” creates an irritating clash even when it passes unnoticed in speech. It is wise to shun this popular pattern in formal writing. Often expressions can be pluralized to make the "they” or “their” indisputably proper: “All of them have brought their own lunches.” “People” can often be substituted for “each.” Americans seldom avail themselves of the otherwise very handy British “one” to avoid specifying gender because it sounds to our ears rather pretentious: “One” s hound should retrieve only one” s own grouse.” If you decide to try "one,” don’t switch to “they” in mid-sentence: "One has to be careful about how they speak” sounds absurd because the word “one” so emphatically calls attention to its singleness. The British also quite sensibly treat collective bodies like governmental units and corporations as plural ("Parliament have approved their agenda") whereas Americans insist on treating them as singular.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/they.html

~Steve

5.
 
Re: Far Cry Review
Apr 22, 2004, 15:13
5.
Re: Far Cry Review Apr 22, 2004, 15:13
Apr 22, 2004, 15:13
 
The story to this game is hard to understand at first. Once you start playing through, the pieces fall together. The way the story unfolds is kind of cool. The story starts out pretty bluntly. You are Jack Carver. A gentleman that is escorting a journalist to a secluded island.

This review was bad. The writing is shitty. It was hard to understand at first. Because it was so poorly written. This guy doesn't know anything about games. First person shooter games. He thinks it's too hard. Because he can't use a joystick. He is dumb.

~Steve

EDIT: Actually, he says "joypad." So is he talking about a joystick or a gamepad? And why the hell would anyone want to play an FPS with either? Dumbass.
This comment was edited on Apr 22, 15:14.
14.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 22, 2004, 15:03
14.
Re: No subject Apr 22, 2004, 15:03
Apr 22, 2004, 15:03
 
Oh please do explain THAT logic.

I'm not for drugs at all, but that seems to be a bit of an over generalization. I'd love to see some facts to prove that.

Yeah, I'll take "He was kidding, dumbass" for 300, Alex.

~Steve

P.S. Time to pack the bong!

This comment was edited on Apr 22, 15:04.
20.
 
Re: What are you smoking?
Apr 21, 2004, 18:35
20.
Re: What are you smoking? Apr 21, 2004, 18:35
Apr 21, 2004, 18:35
 
Whats so special about newwer games? I mean it would still be the same amount of data that needs to be sent,
They only need to know the player info, the server shouldnt track shell cassings or waving grass, stuff like that just just be done on the client side.

No, it's not the same amount of data, this should be pretty obvious. This isn't the sole reason, but when you've got more advanced physics models, including ballistics, multiple vehicle types, multi-user vehicles, etc., things get more complicated than Quake.

~Steve

5.
 
Re: As a non-SWG player
Apr 21, 2004, 12:51
5.
Re: As a non-SWG player Apr 21, 2004, 12:51
Apr 21, 2004, 12:51
 
the first expansion for the award-winning Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing game set in the Star Wars(r) universe.

What awards did they win, exactly? Biggest disappointment? Crappiest launch? Most missing features?

~Steve

90.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 21, 2004, 10:06
90.
Re: No subject Apr 21, 2004, 10:06
Apr 21, 2004, 10:06
 
You obviously know zero about middle-eastern politics and history, but it's always amusing to hear from the peanut gallery. Try getting yourself an actual education sometime, scooter.

Does anyone find it comical that Halsy doesn't even specify whom he's addressing? He may as well be talking to everyone, it wouldn't surprise me.

~Steve

87.
 
Re: History Channel program
Apr 21, 2004, 02:08
87.
Re: History Channel program Apr 21, 2004, 02:08
Apr 21, 2004, 02:08
 
The History channel just had a program in which they discussed how Krystalnacht was orchestrated by Kosher Hot Dog vendors

I think maybe you misunderstood something.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/knacht.html

~Steve

28.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 20, 2004, 23:38
28.
Re: No subject Apr 20, 2004, 23:38
Apr 20, 2004, 23:38
 
Well, I'm in PA right now, but I'm not sure what the university policy would be regarding replica firearms, but anyway, yeah, I wish I had some sweet AEGs. Too expensive for me right now though. My money goes to music equipment and computer stuff before it goes to BB guns, cool though they may be.

~Steve

26.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 20, 2004, 20:52
26.
Re: No subject Apr 20, 2004, 20:52
Apr 20, 2004, 20:52
 
Those screams haunt me to this day... "Oh no, oh no, this guy is PACKEY"

Hm, you've said that twice now.

Also, airsoft is cool, but it was a pain in the ass in New Jersey. I just had 2 spring pistols, brought back from Spain and Russia.

~Steve

82.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 20, 2004, 20:41
82.
Re: No subject Apr 20, 2004, 20:41
Apr 20, 2004, 20:41
 
The definition of Judaism definitely goes beyond religion. That's why you can have secular Jews. I'm an atheist, but I'm also Jewish.

Jew ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j)
n.

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 20, 20:43.
187.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 16, 2004, 20:02
Re: $0.02 Apr 16, 2004, 20:02
Apr 16, 2004, 20:02
 
We are not all the same, our relationships are not all the same, and no matter how hard leftists try to make humanity otherwise, they will always fail.

That's completely and totally irrelevant to the issue.

The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.

They wan't the right to get married.

They have the right to get married.

This is your entire argument right here, the rest is just babble. It's childish in its stupidity. Just stop posting, your pages of ramblings are leading absolutely nowhere.

~Steve

185.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 16, 2004, 13:32
Re: $0.02 Apr 16, 2004, 13:32
Apr 16, 2004, 13:32
 
"Restricting people's soliciting of their religion is not necessarily restricting their "free exercise.""

Actually, unfortunately it does. I think what we are confusing here is the right of government to impose or make laws in respect to religion, down to the individual’s right to exercise it.

No, I said it doesn't necessarily restrict their free exercise, and that's true. People can solicit, but there are limites like on all freedoms. I didn't say disallowing solicitation, but restricting it. If a Christian wants to stand outside of a synagogue and preach at people about converting, is that his free exercise? Or is he infringing on someone else's free exercise? I don't think it's necessarily anyone's right to have a giant neon sign outside of their house so that cars on nearby high ways can see their beliefs.

EDIT: Knocking on someone's door and discussing something on a forum are completely different. I've come here for the conversation, but if I didn't invite someone to my house I'd rather they not show up. I don't have any respect for people pushing their beliefs on random strangers.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 13:34.
12.
 
Re: Very Impressive
Apr 16, 2004, 01:30
12.
Re: Very Impressive Apr 16, 2004, 01:30
Apr 16, 2004, 01:30
 
Paying attention in high-school instead of smoking weed in my buddies car may have been a good start

Nonsense. Only would have made you a boring person.

~Steve

181.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 15, 2004, 22:35
Re: $0.02 Apr 15, 2004, 22:35
Apr 15, 2004, 22:35
 
If indeed the first amendment is the basis of "separation of church and state," then I would still argue that it doesn't work both ways. The first amendment doesn't say "legislators shall not legislate according to their beliefs," or even that church and state shall remain separate. It simply says that congress isn't allowed to go mucking about with peoples beliefs by way of legislation. The wording is, "regarding the establishment of religion." Basically it's saying that congress isn't allowed to outlaw religions or make one religion the official religion of the state or the people.

If you understand the last part I don't see why this is difficult. If the government enforces a particular set of religious beliefs by law or endorses one religion over another that can be seen as a state religion, or a step towards one. The government has always been meant to be secular.

Their job is to allow everyone free exercise of religion, but of course that's limited. If my religion involves human sacrifice, that's not legal justification for murder. And if you exercising you belief prevents me from doing the same, the government steps in. This is a democracy, but the individual is always protected and provided with basic rights. This has always been the (intended) case in our government. If 99% of people all agree that 1% of the people should be exterminated, that doesn't mean it will happen; those people have the right to live. Restricting people's soliciting of their religion is not necessarily restricting their "free exercise."

~Steve

172.
 
Re: $0.02
Apr 15, 2004, 13:05
Re: $0.02 Apr 15, 2004, 13:05
Apr 15, 2004, 13:05
 
Look at this mans run in with the government.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32743

Oh man, boo fucking hoo. I don't see how asking this guy to remove a giant sign is infringing on his right to practice his religion. If someone had a giant sign that said "God doesn't exist" in a southern town, how do you think people would react to it? WorldNetDaily is a pretty hilarious name for that site. A nice objective sounding title.

~Steve

321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 15.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older