Search Results

Well, there was a an Ecco game released for the Dreamcast. In three-dimensional space, unlike the first & second Ecco games. Perchance that's the one you're thinking of?

Yes, that's it. As in the first obstacle, no one'd have really thought to swim all the way down and to dive out of the water lest they had exhausted all other possibilities. The rest of the game follows a similar method of operation: the open platform, puzzles & lack of actual direction is what appeals to Ecco fans. To some, it's more so a test of patience and they find no appeal in it, it bores them. I guess it's not for everyone.

Pat, yeah. I'm a lousy gamer so anything you find 'slightly difficult' I'd probably define as 'statistically impossible'

Never got it as in, you also could not get past the first stage? Or as in you never possessed a physical copy of the game? If the former, that's not surprising. If the latter, bless. You probably saved yourself from a lot of frustration.

Gibberish might lull you to sleep. Read Finnegans Wake? Preferably in bed, minimal lighting, with physical copy in hand.

Thus began the first chapter.

Pet me.

I mean count me in.

I think the problem is that he's too malleable in the discussion room, there isn't solid conviction behind any of his reasoning. First and foremost he's there to learn from others, but perhaps consequently none of his arguments are particularly strong. Then of course he does have a tendency to rely on emotional intuition, which is pretty much banned in such discourses.

Burn, though, I must say. Jiku says things as they are.

How? How are you not a redhead? My image of you has been irrevocably shattered.

Voted for Styx. As I recall, Makaze relied far too heavily on logical fallacies. Consequently I've begun to resent fallacies because debaters like him liken it to a trump card, which really speaks volumes about the sort of debater he is (one whose sole purpose is to come out on top). Fallacies should never make up the meat of your arguments, they are not trump cards to be substituted for actual responses. A master debater does not regurgitate fallacies. Anyone can apply fallacies. They may help flesh out your argument, but they should never be the whole of it. When in doubt, fallacies should be used cautiously, sparingly, in order to enable readers to better understand whatever concepts you pose. They shouldn't be shortcuts.

I thought Nova's hear was composed of ginger hues.

Not gonna lie, I feel betrayed.

Ten years since it aired, and I'm still pondering over the legality of using stock footage of a preexisting series from Japan. Copyright, anyone?

This article in particular showcases an incredible amount of irony.

Find solace in men, seek out a boyfriend.

People are inherently nothing when they are born. Pure-mindedness is the baseline neutral. Babies lack the mental faculties to form decisions based on morality, thus they cannot be held accountable by the grown-up ethics which we consult when assessing men and women. Following such logic, I do not believe that 'good' is the absence of 'bad,' which this statement seems to be implying. Real selflessness or 'goodness' only enters the playing field when its administers are mature enough to pick whichever side they root for. Likewise, a true baddie acts irrespective of how his actions may affect the lives of other people, despite having an intimate knowledge of human empathy. You can make mean decisions, but simultaneously not be a bad person (in the traditional sense of the word) if you are genuinely out of touch & lack emotional intelligence.

Okay, I had to stop everything I was doing. I haven't read the newer replies to this thread yet.

Care to explain? I don't understand that frame of mind, at all. Nonexistent lifeforms do not grieve over lost potential. They do not exist. There's no 'crime' in not having children. That makes no sense whatsoever. I honestly don't understand... I'm lost here. *flails*

Not everyone is glad they were created. That's a tough decision prospective parents face which is oft overlooked [by the parents themselves, no less]: If I conceive a child, will s/he appreciate the life I have granted them? One must toggle the risks, weigh the benefits. I personally am highly uncomfortable with the notion of bringing conscious life into existence (human intelligence!), hence my unwillingness to have children. Adoption, on the other hand? Guiltless. Owning animals? That's fine, too.

LARiA = living, breathing personification of the Not Good With People trope ; would probably make for a poor parent