The GORE Dream Catches On

DreamCatcher Acquires 3D PC Blast-Fest GORE by 4D Rulers is the announcement that this first-person shooter that's been an independent project until now has found a publisher, as they've signed on with DreamCatcher Interactive. The release, which lists Spring 2002 as the game's projected release date, offers the gory GORE story, their unique weapon and stamina systems, and a description of gameplay: "In GORE’s revolutionary gameplay world, players will need more than a quick trigger-finger to demolish their opponents. The game’s 8 to 10 unique player classes allow each player to choose the character with the right weapons, strengths, and abilities for them. Most of GORE’s frighteningly lethal weapons have secondary-fire modes, a feature that gives players over 30 ways to demolish their opponents. But that’s just the beginning. Almost anything you see in GORE can be destroyed: weapons, health and stamina packs, ammo boxes, gas tanks and more. Don’t want a wounded enemy to get a health pack? Shoot it right before he touches it, and watch the pack explode with lethal force. Four game modes (Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, and Tactical warfare) make GORE challenging for any level of player."
View : : :
44.
 
No subject
Jan 18, 2002, 13:49
44.
No subject Jan 18, 2002, 13:49
Jan 18, 2002, 13:49
 
anon@62.30

"you might not be a troll, but you are a fuckin lamer..."

Well that's your opinion you're entitled to, and I respect that.

"sheesh, get a grip will ya and don't take things so bloody seriously!!!"

Actually, I have quite a grip. You know, I'm not that tense or serious about most matters. Sorry if it seemed that way.

"Go outside, get some fresh air, and whilst at it get a life too."

I'll take your suggestion some time, but it's pretty cold outside.

"How fuckin off topic is this thread !?!"

Sorry, just had to make a few points clear.

* * *

anon@195.198

"It doesn´t matter, you have NO evidence that he raped that girl and who ever says otherwise is lying, I know."

Who are you referring to and what does that have to do with this thread (sorry if I don't see whatever comedic value this posts conveys).

* * *

Definition supplied:

"troll

An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message."

This is not an e-mail or Usenet post. My posts are not intentionally incorrect, they are intentionally correct. These are controversial to the fact that the posts contradicted and corrected differ much from my posts.

anon@216.227

"Maybe your really just trying to start a flame war?"

No, I'm putting my point across.

"You say yourself you are controversal and you like to play on peoples emotions."

I am a controversial man, but never have I ever said that I play on people's emotions. You can quote me on that.

"And I thought I quoted the entire dictionary definition of 'right' and you said you where WRONG and it wasn't a RIGHT but a ABILITY to rape."

It's simple. If you can not understand what I had written one way I must try another method (in this case using the word 'ability'). No, I may have been wrong, but I had explained what it was in a later post.

"So now your backtracking to your 'rape is right' argument?"

No, I never backtracked, I tried to get my point across with another definition of 'rights'.

Second definition supplied:

"troll v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself."

I had no intention of posting for the sheer fact of a predictable response of discomfort.

"Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite."

Your discomfort is derived from the fact that you can not handle being wrong. This is normal.

"The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll."

These posts of mine have nothing to do with electronics knowledge. They has to do with reasoning and logic.

"If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it."

Rather, if you don't fall for the joke, you are fine and safe from discomfort.

"YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion."

No specious argument is to be had here from my point of view. These posts are not flames, they are not personal attacks, they corrections of posts. They are not intended to annoy anyone or disrupt any discussion (in which, there was none to be had, anyway).

"Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait."

There is no discussion or topic to be learnt when dealing with post correction.

"Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, 'Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.'"

I find the author's definition to be quite jejune and unjustly.

"[Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners."

It seems as though the author has changed tone. There is no reason to respond to this passage.

"Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter."

I am not wrong in my arguments. There is no controversy to be had with factual statements, except with the controversial emotions of others.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@199.22
2.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
4.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
5.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@199.22
3.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
6.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@62.30
17.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
7.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@24.70
8.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@216.227
13.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
14.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
16.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
9.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
10.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
  SP?
11.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
   Re: SP?
12.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@144.96
15.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
19.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
20.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
22.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@24.229
27.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
18.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
anon@129.8
21.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
23.
Jan 16, 2002Jan 16 2002
24.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
anon@64.133
25.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
26.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
42.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@207.18
28.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
29.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
30.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
31.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
33.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
anon@216.227
50.
Jan 19, 2002Jan 19 2002
 Re:
anon@216.150
32.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
34.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
35.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
36.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
37.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
38.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
anon@216.227
39.
Jan 17, 2002Jan 17 2002
40.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@62.30
43.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@216.227
41.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@195.198
 44.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
No subject
45.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
anon@216.227
46.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
51.
Jan 21, 2002Jan 21 2002
anon@159.231
52.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
58.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
59.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
anon@24.197
47.
Jan 18, 2002Jan 18 2002
48.
Jan 19, 2002Jan 19 2002
 LOL
anon@168.100
49.
Jan 19, 2002Jan 19 2002
53.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
anon@195.255
54.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
55.
Jan 22, 2002Jan 22 2002
56.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
57.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002
anon@212.73
60.
Jan 23, 2002Jan 23 2002