Search returned 3274 results (showing page 1 of 328).
Conditions: Posted by Elodin.  posts first. Sorting by posts, newest first. Shortening long posts to 2000 characters.
Try using quotes to narrow the search to specific phrases, ex: "best town". Modify Search |
 Other Games Exist Too:   Diabo II, Questions and opinions. ( Pages: 1 2 3 )
Thread with 10597 views started by disturbed-Gnu on 13 Aug 2012, last reply 09:06, 04 Sep 2012. | Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 17:14, 13 Aug 2012
Orb and Blizzard are both viable choices. And don't discount that seemingly small boost in Orb damage from its synergy. It actually makes Orb quite a bit more powerful. To use orb most effectively against bosses you want the orb to explode inside the boss. A synergized orb can take down bosses as quickly as a synergized Blizzard can.
I personally prefer Orb because it is the "safer" spell. You can keep everything on the screen constantly chilled due to the orb shards going all over the place. Also, Blizzard shards sometimes miss monsters and monsters standing still take less Blizzard damage.
Firewall can make a good secondary attack for either Blizzard or Orb. But you have to learn how to use firewall properly. It is a great damage spell for few points invested. You do need a good merc to help keep monsters standing in the firewall. If you are running Baal your most challenging wave will be the one with the skeletons as they tend to move out of the firewall and are cold immune.
Don't forget that you also have glacier spike even if you did not invest in it. You'll be surprised at how effective it can be with that one hard point + skill boosters.
Blizzard-firewall is good untwinked. Blizzard-fireball can be played untwinked though it will fell a little underpowered until you get some better gear. Orb-firewall or Orb-fireball are both good untwinked. You can chose to invest the extra skillpoints to get meteor. Then you would invest in both meteor and fireball but fireball would still be your main fire spell. Meteor against bosses that stand still. Or you can chose to save some skill points and invest in fireball with firebolt as the synergy. You'd never be using the firebolt beyond your starting levels though.
Hydra-Orb is another great fire/cold choice though some people don't like hydras. If you play hardcore it is the safest build.
My pick: Orb-fireball. Have a mid level orb by the time you hit nightmare.
A bowzon can be quite good, b ... post shortened to 2000 characters.
|
Other Side of the Monitor: Questions about religion ( Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 )
Thread with 249960 views started by Seraphim on 14 Jul 2011, last reply 00:46, 12 Dec 2016. | Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 07:28, 19 Jul 2012
@Mvass
Below I have edited and expanded an answer I gave on the question of the basis morality some time ago. I hope this helps you understand what I believe.
Deity, humanity, and morality
Why there is no basis for morality if there is no God
Morality poses a very difficult problem for a materialistic atheistic world view. Certainly atheists can be moral people with great integrity. Most believe in the concepts of right and wrong. However, these concepts are illogical and inconsistent within a worldview in which God does not exist. When a materialistic atheist uses the concepts of morality and immorality he is borrowing from a theistic worldview. If the universe came into being from a steady state of absolute nothing without a cause that means evolution is non-theistic--there is no guiding hand behind it which means there is no basis for morality.
Non-theistic evolution
1) is based merely on chance--random events. It is a blind, with no purpose other than to benefit the propagation of one’s genes.
2) is merely survival of the fittest with the weak dying out or being exterminated to make way for "the strong ."
3) implies there is no such thing as a moral or immoral action.
In a world without God there is no absolute morality. No objective standard by which to measure what is ‘good’. What is moral or immoral is merely a matter of personal opinion and indeed the concept of morality makes no sense. "Might" is "right." The strong exterminating the weak is natural. There is no basis in such a worldview to say a person who kills another to take what is wanted committed an immoral act. Might is right.
Hitler (the ultimate "strong" person in Germany) decided to exterminate the Jews, who were in no position to oppose him (they were "weak.") So, on what basis would an atheist say Hitler committed an immoral act and on what basis is that the objective standard for judging morality? There have obviously been people who agr ... post shortened to 2000 characters.
|
Other Side of the Monitor: Everyday Moral Dilemmas ( Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 )
Thread with 95490 views started by Corribus on 17 Mar 2010, rated intriguing, last reply 16:53, 31 Jan 2013. | Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 23:48, 17 Sep 2011
In my mother's case, trouble with her eyesight was probably the first symptom of Alzheimer's though we did not recognize it as such. She had cataract surgery on both her eyes around four years ago but still complained about not being able to see well. A couple of years ago she became more forgetful and would sometimes have to pause to think about where she was going even in her house and she forgot how to cook. She was once a really great cook.
When she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's a couple of years ago or so the MRI showed the part of her brain most affected was her octal lobe, that governs sight. My father took care of her at home for as long as he could. She had trouble dressing herself and finally Dad had to dress her. She got to where she could not carry her plate from the stove to the dining table (she'd forget what she was doing sometimes) and so he fixed her plate for her. Then she had trouble feeding herself and he fed her. And Mom had trouble taking care of all the bathroom stuff by herself so Dad helped her. Mom started getting up at night walking and trying to go outside but she could not figure out how to open the locks. She seeing things that were not there and talking to people who weren't there as she began to live in her memories.
When Dad finally reached the point where he could not take care of her any longer we had to put Mom in a nursing home. Like I said before, Dad is there twice a day to feed her lunch and supper. I stayed with her for 11 days in a hospital while they ran every test that could be run but in the end the doctors concluded her case was just an unusual case of rapidly advancing Alzheimer's. My time spent with her in the hospital in really when I came to terms with the fact that my mother is dying.
I helped Mom walk twice a week until she reached the point where she could no longer walk even with my assistance. She leans heavily to her left unless a pillow is placed on that side to support her so she has lost the ... post shortened to 2000 characters.
|
Other Side of the Monitor: San Franscisco considers declaring ex-cons a protected minority group ( Pages: 1 2 3 4 )
Thread with 11198 views started by Elodin on 23 Jul 2011, last reply 21:12, 26 Jul 2012. | Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 19:34, 24 Jul 2011
JJ, I agree that criminals were never integrated into society to begin with. Rehabilitation fails because the criminal was never "habilitated." He has a human body like the rest of us but his mind is alien to us. His mind is not different because of a brain disorder but because of the way he has chosen to develop his thinking.
The rehabilitation programs don't hold up a mirror and make criminals look at themselves. Until a criminal sees himself for who he is and WANTS to change he will not change no matter how much money you pump into the system. Instead of holding up a mirror and showing the criminal that he is scum that needs to change the rehabilitators make excuses for the criminal and the criminal is more than happy to agree that somebody else (society, Mommy, Daddy, his friends, the TV shows, ect) is responsible for his crimes. So the criminal in "rehabilitation" never sees himself for who he is or holds himself accountable for his actions.
Criminals don't think like the rest of us or behave like the rest of us. They tend to be very self-centered and manipulative people. They want what they want, they want it now, They will not take "no" for an answer, and they'll do what it takes to get it. People are a means to get what the criminal wants. The criminal starts off violating the rights of others in small ways and moves on to more heinous ways of getting what he wants. The criminal thinks the world revolves around him and that he deserves what he wants. He has a right to it.
The criminal may go on for years committing crime but usually sooner or late he gets caught. When caught, does the criminal confess and take responsibility for what he did? Ordinarily, no. The criminal starts off denying his guilt. "I'm innocent" often eventually becomes "It wasn't my fault" when there is no longer any doubt of guilt.
Criminals are often liars. They will tell you what they think will cause you to have sympathy towards them to try to get out of ... post shortened to 2000 characters.
|
Other Side of the Monitor: Jehova's Witnesses ( Pages: 1 2 )
Thread with 7075 views started by radar on 10 Oct 2010, last reply 13:41, 29 Oct 2010. | Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 10:10, 11 Oct 2010
Quote:
In any case it's an interesting sect with interesting opinions, a mix of fundamentalism and elitism that leads to the interesting position, that they cling to their own versions of things when there are differences with science, but don't undertake any effort to fight for official recognition of their views.
I don't think it is fair to call JWs elitists. They certainly don't seem to come across with an attitude of "I'm better than you are" to me.
I'm not sure you understand what Christian fundamentalism is either. JWs reject the divinity of Christ and so can't be considered fundamentalist Christians.
Perhaps you can point out what views they hold that are contradicted by science. I think pretty much everyone, including atheists, hold viewpoints that can't be proven by science. Holding a viewpoint that can't be confirmed by science does not mean the viewpoint is not valid.
http://www.victorious.org/chur21.htm
Quote:
From a Bible conference of Conservative Protestants meeting in Niagara in 1895, a statement was issued containing what came to be known as the five points of fundamentalism: The verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, a substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ.¹ In the first half of the 20th century, most Protestant churches in the U.S. were divided into either Fundamentalist or Modernist groups. The term has generally been applied to all those who adhere to strict, conservative (Protestant) orthodoxy in the matter of Biblical inspiration.
Quote:
They are, for example, creationists - but they don't attempt to make creationism part of the curriculum of schools.
Christians such as Augustine proposed evolution long before Darwin did. However, evolution remains a theory that can't be proven and so can't really say that science contradicts creationism. There are in fact many creationists who a ... post shortened to 2000 characters.
|
Other Side of the Monitor: Limited Rights or Limited Government? [religious opinions not banned from this thread ( Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 )
Thread with 23375 views started by Elodin on 02 Sep 2009, rated inspiring, last reply 13:55, 24 Apr 2013. | Go To Post: Limited Rights or Limited Government? [religious opinions not banned from this thread
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 00:01, 02 Sep 2009
Limited Rights or Limited Government?
Introduction: Government Conrol In Our Lives
Recently I have observed that government seems to want more and more direct and indirect control of things in our lives. The pace of its expansion of power seems to be increasing.
Should we trust the government? How much government control of our lives should we allow? Is government the "benevolent father" who knows what is best for us or is it a threat to our liberties?
What sorts of choices should the government be allowed to make for you? For example, should the government be allowed to:
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
2) require you to buy health insurance?
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
What is a right and where do they come from?
The concept of the founding fathers was that the rights of the people are absolute and come from God. They said that God has endowed all people with certain inalienable rights. Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Rights are basically liberties that are innate to each human being. Rights are absolute. The founding fathers wrote that rights can only be taken away by due process of law, a criminal trial.
The basis of the power of the government
Quote:
"The authority of [the] people [is] a necessary foundation for a constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:28
"[To es ... post shortened to 2000 characters.
|
Other Side of the Monitor:   I gave up on believing in God. ( Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 )
Thread with 590782 views started by TitaniumAlloy on 22 May 2006, rated philosophy, last reply 06:56, 01 Sep 2009. | Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 18:58, 22 Jul 2009
Wow, that is a rather long article you posted and it has some misrepresentations/misperceptions and illogical arguments.
I really wish instead of copy and pasting someone else's article you would have discussed the arguments that you felt were compelling since you obviously want others to comment on it. Anyways, below are my thoughts on the article.
I have stated what the Bible teaches but not provided many scriptures because of the extreme length of the post. And the author of the article had set out to prove positions so the burden of proof was on him. If you desire Scripture backup for a few things I will provide them assuming I have the time. I'll be going out of town early Friday morning however.
Introduction
In one sense, yes, the existence of God is obvious.
When a child begins to speak it does not take him too long before he begins to ask, "Why." His experiences even at that young age have taught him that there is a reason for everything. In order for there to be a second cause or a third cause there had to first be a first cause. That is something that every human being (unless he has a learning disability) learns at a young age.
Aside from the observances of a child we can find that the laws of thermodynamics make it clear that something cannot come from absolute nothing with absolutely no cause.
(Edit: The first cause, the uncaused cause, had to be transcendent and eternal. God.)
Proving a universal negative
Yes, in order to prove God does not exist you would have to have omniscience. You would have to have all knowledge of space and time and knowledge of every minute location. You would have to have knowledge of everything "outside" the creation/universe/multiverse. No dimension could escape your scrutiny and your measurements and observations must be flawless.
Unfortunately for the author of the article he does not have those abilities. And he has been unable to prove what he set out to prove abou ... post shortened to 2000 characters.
|
Other Side of the Monitor: Politics in the U.S. ( Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 )
Thread with 289180 views started by fred79 on 26 Jun 2014, last reply 14:52, 18 Sep 2020. | Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 14:48, 09 Nov 2016
The Bush dynasty did not survive the primaries. The Clinton dynasty was defeated by an outsider who spent far less than she did. Sweet. 
Virtually all Wall Street money went to Clinton. The Saudis financed 20% of her campaign. Trump's campaign was financed mostly by himself and small donations. Trump was the working man's candidate. The globalist candidate was defeated.
Obama ruled by executive fiat. Now Trump can undo those executive orders. Obama has no legacy but corruption, criminality, and divisiveness. He will have one other thing to add to his legacy. Pardoning the Clinton cartel and people who aided them so they can escape justice.
Lots of corruption to clean up in Washington. Hopefully Trump can clean up some of it.
This election went a long way in preserving freedom in America. The Supreme Court is likely safe for another generation.
Trump pledged to push for term limits for Congress. If voters help pressure Congress to pass that as a Constitutional amendment such a measure will help clean up Washington. Trump is also pushing to limit lobbying by former government officials. That too will help.
The establishment was dealt a critical blow by this election but the blow was not mortal. The battle must continue.
| Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 19:43, 28 Oct 2016
The FBI has reopened it's investigation into Hillary Clinton. They say they found more emails. Perhaps some she has deleted and used bleachbit on to try to make them unrecoverable.
Say hello to President Trump. Obama will pardon Hillary if she does lose the election.
| Go To Post: No Subject
posted by Elodin (Promising Legendary Hero) at 04:15, 04 Aug 2016
Blizzardboy said:
Trump is asking Russia to hack into US emails to try to uncover more nasty information on Clinton. This election truly is an election of firsts. Asking foreign entities to perform espionage is a new one. To boldly go where no man has gone before.
Nah, that is not what happened. First of all it is obvious that he was joking about what he said. Second, he suggested Russia find the 33000 emails Hillary deleted from a server that no longer exists.
Hillary used an illegal private server to conduct all personal and State Department emails. The FBI said it believes Hillary was hacked and is working under that assumption. The FBI said Hillary's email server was less secure than gmail and had no full time security staff.
Trump was pointing out through a joke the fact that Russia and other nations probably already have all of her emails.
Besides, Hillary said all the emails she deleted were about yoga and her daughter's wedding. Surely she is not lying about that too, eh?
Hilliary is the criminal, not Trump. She is being protected by the criminal Obama and the criminal Lynch and the criminal democrats in the Senate & House. The Obama administration is corrupt from the top down.
|
| Modify Search | 3274 Results, Pages: 1 2 3 4 Last Page |
|
