Creston wrote on Oct 7, 2010, 11:04:
I'm curious. When does a prepaid card go 'active'? When it's sold, or when it's tied to an account?

Because if it's the former, then they'd be doing a lot of double counting if someone buys a bunch of cards at once, right?

Still, that is a staggering number. Don't people get bored of it ever?

Creston

Elessar wrote on Jul 14, 2010, 10:46:
And the obligatory self-entitled PC gamer responses ensue. It's their fucking wallet and they're well within their right to consider how a new game mode fits into their business model.

I'm pro-PC gaming through and through, but you whiny bitches just give it a bad name. No wonder dev interest is waning.

jdreyer wrote on May 10, 2010, 02:54:
Can I say I'm disappointed that people would actually spend the money on the Stimulus package? People should vote with their pocketbooks and let that tripe stew. Overpriced mediocre map packs shouldn't get hard earned dollars.

Cutter wrote on Apr 27, 2010, 21:19:
The real problem? Most of us were here for gaming in its infancy when it was about the games. Now it's just another big business that's about profits first. Meh, sucks but it had to happen sooner or later. I guess a lot of us are just getting too old to either care about or want to deal with the greed and BS anymore. While I won't be quitting gaming any time soon, I've certainly slowed down a lot and will probably continue to do so from this point forward. Time to take up a new hobby methinks, wood carving, or stained glass or something.

PHJF wrote on Apr 21, 2010, 00:42:
They increase the drop rate because it takes 112 weapons to craft a single class-specific hat.

112

nin wrote on Apr 13, 2010, 14:04:

there's nowhere you couldn't get to in 60 seconds.

I disagree. Towards the end, it made a habit of you driving across two islands to get to your destination.

OldScho0l wrote on Apr 5, 2010, 19:07:
This might be a bit rude, but I hope the Valve falls flat on their faces and never manage to release another game again. They screwed us all with their frikin episodic gaming and can kiss my ass if they think I'll ever buy another one of their games. "Oh, We're going to release a new episode every 6 months!" Lies! Valve = FAIL in my opinion. Half-Life series is dead to me.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 29, 2010, 01:05:

Even if the sequel is technically worse, its more interesting if its 'different'.

I'm inclined to disagree. "Different" these days means "dumbed down," with everything that fans liked about the first game being removed in the second. That's not interesting, it's just depressing. A sequel should take what fans liked about the original and expand and improve it. That's what makes for a good sequel. What doesn't make for a good sequel is taking out things that fans loved or "streamlining" them to the point where they might as well be taken out.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 29, 2010, 00:19:

But regression might be better than stagnation (starcraft 2).

How is regression better than stagnation? Regression = things get worse. Stagnation = things stay the same. I'd rather things stay the same than get worse.

LittleMe wrote on Mar 10, 2010, 22:02:

The official price is $50, your either ignorant or trolling.

Neither. I saw it for $60. Your use of the word "your" shows who is the real ignorant person here, as the correct word is "you're".

I wasn't trolling, just pointing out the fact that SC1+FA is supposed to be a better, less dumbed down RTS and costs a fraction of SC2.

PacoTaco wrote on Feb 20, 2010, 22:48:
Make 3b in a two weeks easy by plexing in 0 space 5 hours a day or less, or moon mining if you control them, some people create trade routes, and make even more all in high sec empire. 3b = 12 months of GTC's FREE as can be.

Also, spearmen vs AH64 battles don't take months. They take exactly the amount of time it takes for the AH64 to fly within a mile or so of the spearmen, press one button, and then fly home.

Amillennialist wrote on Dec 30, 2009, 07:23:
That's entia multiplicanda praeter necessitatem!

Yes, in places the wording is so similar that it appears that authors borrowed from one another. Rather than argue that (which is reasonable, but just speculation), you claim it was "ONE" author.

Here's what Luke wrote regarding his Gospel. Note the eyewitness testimony:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses . . . have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account . . . " (Luke 1).

But John says he was present during the crucifixion:

"Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek . . .

"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved [John] standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:20, 26-27).

And at the empty tomb:

"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb . . . the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead" (John 20).

Resoundingly, demonstrably false, as shown above and in this: Besides Luke and John taking credit for their work, we have also Aristion and John the Presbyter (first-century); Clement of Rome (c. AD 96); and Papias (c. AD 60-130)

As noted above: Matthew, AD 50; Mark, AD 50-60; Luke, AD 55-60; and Paul's letter to the Galatians, AD 51.

So, even if it were "the oldest" -- which it may not be -- you still have eyewitness testimony from the others regarding the Resurrection.

(What do you think Peter, whose testimony Mark records, was preaching all those years?)]

Since the "issues" with Mark are either factual errors, misunderstandings, or faulty reasoning, that should settle it.

Yes, the ending of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts we possess, so they should not have been included.

None of which means they are necessarily fabrications, for John writes that "there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).

Significantly, these (apparent) additions do not contradict Scripture.

The point I was making was that typos alter or abolish neither the authorship, message, nor value of a text.

That's the simplest logical explanation only if you exclude all the other evidence we possess.

First, Romans knew how to crucify a person.

Second, according to the accounts, the Jewish authorities who had Christ murdered asked for and received a Roman guard to prevent the theft of Christ's body.

Third, the Apostles were in hiding for fear of the authorities after the Crucifixion. What could have motivated them to go out and "turn the world upside down" -- even to the point of death -- but the resurrected Christ?

You're not the first with this fiction:

"some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place [the Resurrection]. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (Matthew 28:11-15).

You're two thousand years too late.

You only need one part -- the living Christ -- and on numerous occasions He appeared to His followers, including 500 at one time.

Not according to Matthew:

Nor Mark:

Nor Luke:

Nor John; see the twentieth and twenty-first chapters of his Gospel.

By Luke, the author.

Complete fabrication.

Have you no shame?

Amillennialist wrote on Dec 28, 2009, 15:37:

They weren't written by eye-witnesses, (matter of fact the true authors are likely anonymous)

"likely"? That's an admission that you don't know.

Not only is your claim without empirical evidence, the documents themselves and the testimony of the early church put the lie to it.

All the Apostles (but Judas) and thousands of eyewitnesses to Christ's words and deeds (and at least hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ) lived well past that, long enough to disseminate their oral and written accounts of what they witnessed.

The Apostle John himself -- author of his Gospel, three Epistles, and Revelation -- lived to the end of the first century.

Neither did the Apostles live in a vacuum. Many of the Church Fathers were disciples of the Apostles themselves. They were part of the larger Roman world in general, and Israel in particular.

That is true (as far as we know; you can't rule out another discovery like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the next time of New Testament texts); but we have thousands of manuscript copies from various regions around the Mediterranean.

Yes, and by comparing those manuscript families, it is possible to guarantee with near complete certainty what the original documents stated.

The "edits" were marginal notes copied accidentally into the text or portions added for clarification (Mark 16:9 and following; a portion of John 7 and 8).

Transcription errors are a punctuation mark here, a numeral there; significantly, you're not finding contradictions in doctrine.

You don't find any manuscript -- even the oldest and most reliable -- stating "P.S.: The resurrection? We were only kidding!"

The fact that we can state that these passages do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts means that we know so much about the ancient texts that we can point out what is an addendum or copying error.

Do the words of the Declaration of Independence become less relevant if a copy of it is used? Does the difference between "inalienable" and "unalienable" matter?

Various published editions of The Lord of the Rings contain revisions. Does that mean that we can't know, understand, and enjoy what Tolkien intended?

While I'd love to have the originals, reliable copies are an acceptable substitute.

No, Mark 16:1-8 details angels telling the women (the first to the empty tomb were women!) that Christ had risen, just as He said.

If Christ were still dead, the tomb would have been sealed with the corpse inside.

And you still have to silence Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the Church Fathers.

So, an empty tomb and an angel proclaiming that Christ had resurrected (just as He had predicted on several occasions) is inconsistent with . . . a resurrection?

Except that you have a history of the Apostles words and works recorded in Acts and in their own accounts.

Multiple eyewitness accounts you dismiss, but speculating from a void? That's reasonable!

Amillennialist wrote on Dec 28, 2009, 02:26:

Reasonably-stated.

Accepting the historical evidence for the existence of Christ necessitates dealing with what those eyewitness accounts declare He said and did.

Apparently "Charm Lawyer" didn't work...