Mea Tulpa

It isn't a coincidence that his first protagonist was a burglar.

Not to mention the Eddas... I mean sheesh

Well, Ghost in the Machine does predate it by two decades.

Chest armor that decreases your hit chance is usually worthwhile. Gloves, leggings, and helmets that decrease your hit chance are often worthless, due to being heavy and encumbering but not providing much of a defense bonus.

We don't have a finite number of names for them. There is at least one number-naming system which allows for recursive, and therefore potentially infinite, naming. A googolplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplex...

Alorael, don't throw out the baby with the City of Bathwater.

Dantius: Items that decrease to-hit do not cap it, so you can still have the maximum even while wearing it. I believe the maximum is just 99% though.

The latter. Well, actually it means his chance to hit is reduced by 10, which is not quite the same thing as hitting 10% less -- if he had a 50% chance to hit before he'll now have a 40% chance.

Details would help. Computer model, operating system and version, expanding program and version, where you're getting the Exile 2 file from, what its file extension is, etc.

Exile is old. The Mac version predates both OS X and the switch to Intel chips by many years. It won't run natively under OS X and it won't run at all on an Intel Mac. Any Mac sold in the last six years won't be able to run it. Note that this is true of ALL older mac software and is not particular to Exile in any way. (You can get it to run on an Intel Mac by emulating a much older mac, but this is a complicated and somewhat difficult process.)

Right, but that's because 'raven' is an English word. As Wikipedia says: Quote: Kitsune (狐, きつね, ki·tsu·ne?, IPA: [kitsɯne]) is the Japanese word for fox. Foxes are a common subject of Japanese folklore; kitsune usually refers to them in this context, and are akin to European faeries. Stories depict them as intelligent beings and as possessing magical abilities that increase with their age and wisdom. Foremost among these is the ability to assume human form. While some folktales speak of kitsune employing this ability to trick others—as foxes in folklore often do—other stories portray them as faithful guardians, friends, lovers, and wives. Edit: To be fair, this mostly fits "demon" just fine, except for the connotations of evil and infernal that tend to go along with "demon".

Kitsune aren't exactly demons, are they? Outside of Naruto, anyway?

UPON WHAT VIRTUE DOST THOU MEDITATE? > THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE THOU ART NOT ABLE TO FOCUS THY THOUGHTS ON THIS SUBJECT!

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel Nope. It's not the capital letter that makes the difference in meaning; it's the context. Except that a capital letter CAN provide meaning that context alone omits. No. For that to be true we would need to pronounce capital letters differently from lowercase letters. Though I guess you have a point that capitalization can sometimes disambiguate in the lack of context. Unless you're suggesting that disambiguation does not involve specifying meaning, I think you just conceded the point you said "no" to above. But yeah -- speaking is just one modality of language. Meaning is not restricted to spoken language, or we wouldn't be able to read books. Spoken and written language typically present identical meaning as far as words are concerned, but each presents additional peripherals that the other lacks. Written language includes capitalization, punctuation, variation in font and script (think comic books), while spoken language includes prosody, voice, and so on. So really what you are asserting is "capitalization does not impact meaning in spoken language" -- and that's true. It's also about as meaningful as saying "shoe size does not impact meaning in spoken language."

Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES For example: "I like Buffalo" and "I like buffalo". One describes my appreciation for a city, another my appreciation for an animal. The meaning is different even though the context is identical. But the context is not identical. You just gave us a snippet of a conversation or an exchange. Had you given us the entire exchange, we would have been easily able to identify which type of Buffalo/buffalo you mean sans capital. Yes, IF more context had been provided, it would have been easy to distinguish between "buffalo" and "Buffalo" without looking at the capitalization. My point was that WITHOUT the additional context, there is still a difference in meaning. If we don't have that context AND we don't have capitalization, the phrase is ambiguous and we can't understand which meaning is intended. If we have context we CAN understand it; therefore, context impacts the meaning of the word. However, if there is no context but it is written down and so we have capitalization, we can also understand it then; therefore, capitalization impacts the meaning of the word. According to Celtic Minstrel's statement capitalization cannot have any effect on the meaning, therefore we would not be able to disambiguate the phrase by seeing its capitalization. However, as shown above, that is not the case; capitalization IS linked to meaning. Alternately, I suppose CM might have been trying to say that capitalization only reflects meaning, it doesn't dictate it. This, however, is a pretty empty assertion because I could say the same thing about words: "words don't dictate meaning, they only reflect the meaning of what the person is trying to say." It seemed though that his assertion was trying to contrast capitalization with words, so I assume this is not where he was going.

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel Nope. It's not the capital letter that makes the difference in meaning; it's the context. Except that a capital letter CAN provide meaning that context alone omits. It is certainly true that capital letters OFTEN do nothing more than reflect capitalization conventions; in those cases, the amount of meaning they provide is so slim it may as well be nothing (their use or non-use there only indicates whether or not somebody is flouting said conventions). But it doesn't take any technical analysis to find situations where capitals impart meaning. For example: "I like Buffalo" and "I like buffalo". One describes my appreciation for a city, another my appreciation for an animal. The meaning is different even though the context is identical.

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel and the meaning of a word has nothing to do with grammar. Originally Posted By: everyday847 Well, from a linguistic standpoint Celtic Minstrel is right on the second point: the lexicographic representation of a language doesn't have anything to do with its grammar. 1) "The meaning of a word" and "the lexicographic representation of a language" (AKA, the lexicon) are not the same thing. 2) Even if you divorce "meaning" from all utterance-specific context and instead say "the imaginary, perfect dictionary definition of a word has nothing to do with grammar" you are still incorrect. We can perhaps pretend in our heads that we are thinking of the essential concept behind a given word, but the reality is that, when a concept is given representation in a word, that word has phonological, morphological, and of course, syntactic features that depend on the grammar and which, in addition to influencing the lexical form of the word, impact its meaning. To illustrate this point, show me how the intransitive lexical entry for "kill" can have the same meaning in a nominative-accusative and an ergative-absolutive language. It can't, even though the concept of killing is the same in both cases.

I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make, but the linguist in me feels compelled to point out that both of those statements are patently false.

Apparently this is my "indulge the critics" day. Dantius: Yes, it could almost have been acceptable. That's why my original post was just a reminder about the code of conduct. As for your question about my contribution to spam in the form of esoteric posts, I certainly acknowledge that. I addressed this wrinkle before you posted, in fact: Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES Everyone makes posts like that once in a while. By itself, it's not an issue. However, when you make a large number of posts every day and the majority of those posts are spam, there is a problem. (As a side note, I will mention that mods usually just lock these threads because they eventually turn into a barrage of complaints from a user with a chip on his shoulder. I am not locking this one because I think it's worth providing reasonable answers for the community at large, even if I am a little skeptical of Dantdring's motive for posting.)

Originally Posted By: *Logan* I don't see how it's racist to state that Japanese or Chinese or whatever are big time gamers and are a little crazy with there hobby. I didn't say you were being racist. (We could argue about the fact that you characterized an entire country based on something that happened to a few people -- and there are droves of "crazy" addicted gamers in the US, too -- but that's a separate issue.) I said that on the internet it is easy for someone to take something the wrong way and be offended. However, more to the point, what you said above is NOT what you said originally. You originally said: Originally Posted By: *Logan* I of course won't let myself die like those crazy japanese... It's not difficult to see how the phrase "those crazy japanese" could offend somebody, is it? Let me reiterate my original warning. Don't do this again :-D

Velzan, your post above is a perfect example of "spam." It doesn't add anything new to the thread, and isn't funny or interesting or otherwise worth taking up everyone's time with. It isn't horrible, of course. But, remember that when you make a new post, it shows up on the Active Topics and Active Posts lists, which is how many people here browse the forums. When you post, you are effectively broadcasting what you say to hundreds of people. Before you post, ask yourself, "does everybody here really need to hear my voice on this issue, too?" The forums are NOT a chat room. Everyone makes posts like that once in a while. By itself, it's not an issue. However, when you make a large number of posts every day and the majority of those posts are spam, there is a problem. You are in that situation right now. If you stop making so many spammy posts, I believe you will be a valued member of these forums. However, you have already received (very) polite suggestions from non-moderators and moderators alike to think before you post, and the message doesn't seem to be getting through. Therefore, I am giving you an official warning: you need to stop spamming. If you continue to make this many spammy posts, your ability to post may be restricted.

Everyone here should take this moment to check out the Code of Conduct again. Please do not "spam" by making excessive posts and please remember that the forums need to stay "family friendly" and can't have discussion of illegal activities. It's easy to get offended over the internet, so humorous references to a particular race, ethnicity, etc. are not usually a good idea even if you don't mean to be offensive. In other words: Don't do this again :-D

I just wanted to give kudos to Bain, *i, and whoever else is involved with this project (if anyone). The summary topic in particular is great. It's still nice to have the BoE forum header with the longer list of acclaimed stuff, but I think this is a very nice new format, particularly refreshing for BoE.

The Nine-Headed Cave Cow frpwns upon thee.

LAPSE C...