grasshopper

Ah, my thai is not so good! You can choose the difficulty level at the start of the game,I usually play on hard, lots here play on the hardest, torment.

欢迎！我感觉你应该是中国人吧 huanying! ganjue ni yinggai shi zhongguoren ba?

Dikiyoba, Official warning considered. I lasted how many days this time? Time to retract the claws and head for pastures new. Feel free to delete my belittling posts and patch up DragoWaffle's wounds; for I meant to cause no lasting harm. Definitely nothing to remotely necessitate a warning. Ah, well. Please continue with your fantastic story Pyrrhus. veni vidi exivi.

Your handle, DragoWaffle, is quite apt. It would be even better suited if you changed it to DragoWaffleNonsense. Edit: I will stop now, as this is boring.

Originally Posted By: DragoWaffle Okay? not sure why your still going on about this... DragoWaffle, if you are from an English speaking country you might want to consider changing schools. As far as I can tell, your English teachers have done a terrible job on your grammar.

I'd love to see new geneforge games, but I'd much rather see updates of all the earlier ones pushed out and pushed out quick, even if just with a new inventory screen and adjustable screen size. I can't play any of them earlier than g5 any more because of it.

I'd like to be the Left Shoe Of Dexterity, if there's a place for me.

Thanks for your feedback guys. If you would like to see what I've done, the main ghosty description bit so far is , in the first part of the scene. If you would like to see the scene in perspective you may read from part one. If you do read from part one and all the way through, probably be best for you to be at least umm 14 or 15, as there are a couple of swear words coupled with the odd bit of mild nastiness. I think the nastiness works in context though. If you choose to read it, bear in mind that the story is as yet unfinished and finished parts have not had a final edit, and the whole ghosty thread is still underdevloped and a bit on probation, so suspense of disbelief maybe required in parts.

That quote by Tolkien is fantastic.

In the past week, as I read books concurrently: Ark, stephan Baxter Man in the High Castle, P K Dick Road to Serfdom, Hayek

Phasmae ex machina perhaps? Yep, point taken, and thanks everyone for the input. It is a matter of deciding what you are writing is hard because it is out of your area of expertise, or hard because it just don't fit. If after considering what I've done I decide the ghosts don't work, I'll swap them out for something more substantial! Coming back to Tolkien, apparently he wrote LoR at a pace of 250 words a day for 11 years, that suggests to me he struggled a bit with believing some of the parts himself. Thanks

I don't post on these forums too much, and the last time I did there was a little misunderstanding; but you guys seem to be the best people to ask for advice on a little problem I have at the moment: I'm writing a story based in Roman times, this story among other things has some ghosts as a plot device. I've finished almost the entire story except the fantasy strand with the ghosts in it. I don't believe in ghosts, so this part is making me spit at the computer screen. So, my question is, in fiction, what makes a believable ghost? what kind of ghost drags you deeper in to the story, and what kind makes you put the book down, say whaddeva and watch the tv instead? Thanks in advance!

As I said, my last post, i'll let you all have the final say, and I'm sorry to have upset Lilith.

Alorael, your last post is great. There is one thing that I'd like to draw your attention to: money. It is OK to talk about having faith in a group of people who say things you don't understand if they have no impact on your day to day life. This, however, is not the case here. Global warming, and the preventative measures to prevent/ameliorate it are going to hit the average Joe hard, and the poor harder than most, and in the case of for example, peak oil, where it hurts the most: food prices. If people are struggling to get by, or they see those more disadvantaged than them struggling to get by owing to the placement of the conjectures of a consensus of scientists at the heart of government's policies, and they are upset, or outraged, these people are not crazy, they are not stupid, they just care about themselves and other people. Monetary costs of actions will at some level trickle down to create very real human costs. This is why some people may post about these issues with such anger, and also resort to personal attacks. I care about these things for the exact same reason, I see people struggling, and it makes me stop and think. Does my grandmother, because some of the cost of new technologies is now hidden in her energy bill, choose between food and heating during the winter? I don't know, but I hope not. You ask, are we letting climate change down, others are asking, are we letting the disadvantaged down. There is an election in Australia in 5 days time, and lots of people are thinking about these issues, do we vote for the party that will shut down coal mines and raise energy prices, for a better day after tomorrow, or do we try and create the best possible environment for today. We do not understand the issues, and have no hope of ever fully understanding the issues, but we are asked to make choices that directly affect the people around us based on our relative ignorance of these issues. I don't want to get in to a big debate about every single issue, because I am not in the slightest up to the task, I am a lurker, and there are many like me. I lurk because I don't understand, but feel it is vitally important that I do understand. Slarty, if you go back to the first page you will notice that no perceived slurs on lesbians were posted on this board by me; I linked to the site for a reason. But I will make a slur now, I do not believe that lesbians, dykes, whatever name you wish to call them have ever historically been as disadvantaged as blacks, or if you wish, niggers. I understand the point you are trying to prove, but I think it was not a wise choice of example. Lesbians on the whole have even had an easier ride than gays. No pun intended. And also if you do not know how many men have fantasies about lesbians, you have been living under a rock. It was not an completely inappropriate post for what is pretty much, as far as we know, an all male audience. Again, with all the interests in the world, why would people suddenly become interested in something as tedious and dense and unfathomable as climate science... Are you letting climate change down...? Well I offered an invite nothing more nothing less. I'm sorry that you all got so offended in the process of me extending that invite, but it can't be helped now. It is important to understand that in the fight about climate change, both sides are coming from completely different angles. Planet first, or people first? The science is just the battleground for the war. Anyways, I will post no more, as I am already at the limits of my knowledge and understanding.

Slarty, I am not silly enough to start a flame war just for the sake of it. That is boring, and I have other things to do. Let me repost my earlier post: Quote: I posted the opening post on that Sunday, because like someone said, a little learning can be a dangerous thing; so I have two choices: to either completely forget everything I have learnt, or learn more. I'm very thankful to those who have responded to memory vault's posts so far, as it has given me more food for thought. And not just me, but also the hundreds of lurkers who read that website. If you can deal with the personal abuse, you will find a friend in Izen, and you will have the opportunity through your posts to let the lurker make up his own mind about who is right and who is wrong. Your reasoned answers have already given lots of people the chance to think about the ozone thing in more detail, which is very very valuable. So I thank you all again, not just on my behalf, but on the behalf of all of the thinking lurkers. So, to explain, I saw a post that I liked, but doubted my liking, so came over here to ask your opinions, then out of interest, posted it back over there, and again the reply over here. Nothing cynical, nothing malicious, just pure interest in the issues. That person has set opinions, you guys have set opinions, but people like me, our opinions are more formless, but we want to form them in those most intelligent manner possible. So, I gave you an option to shoot down this persons post, and also gave the option of coming over to that site and participating when ever you feel like it. Because, after looking at your answers, I realized that there is an opportunity here, as you all have a respectable, well better than mine at least, handle on the science. Now, how each person responds, in facts or attitude, is their own responsibility; and it is the responsibility of the many lurkers to make up his or her own mind as to who has put forward the most rational and coherent argument. If you want to come over, that is fine, and welcome, and Izen will welcome you too! If you'd rather stay in the comfort zone, well, who can blame you? If you go back over my posts, you will see I personally have not insulted Lilith in any way whatsoever; and anyway, like you said, it is the internet! Right, well that post was a bit longer than I was expecting; but like I said, my previous post to this one, was just an invitation to read something that has proved very popular today, there no room for debate, as it is a set piece. If you want to read it, here is the direct link to the writing, with no commenting facility, a book published this year in China, and yet to be fully translated in to English: http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/rare-scribbling/locusts/low-carbon-plot/ And again, thank you all for helping me with this ozone layer issue, your replies have been fantastic.

Haha! Good picture! I'll save that for your reply! But seriously, you seem a bit peed off, and I can't understand why. I also don't know what a book translation has anything to do with being right or wrong. But, well, there you are.

A new post if anybody is interested, on how China views global warming. Again if anyone wants to post, you are more than welcome to. http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/the-dragons-dissent/

Unlucky. The BBC is more poo than it used to be. I gave up on TV a while ago, seems like you may not be too far behind. American TV is so overly dramatic it gives me heart palpitations.

Originally Posted By: Dantius Is it the Daily Mail? Not exactly a keen reader of British journalism that's not The Economist... How awfully refined of you.

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: izen Most of the posters there are refugees from the UK Daily Telegraph comments section - a 'hotbed' of AGW theory rejectionists.... the second-worst UK newspaper that expects to be taken at all seriously the worst also has a name starting in Daily You can say what you want about the Daily Mirror, but don't you dare say a word about the Daily Star!

Originally Posted By: RCCCL Dyke is a slur against Lesbians. I thought it was just an analogy of the The Little Dutch Boy trying to plug that hole in the dyke/ozone layer. About the abuse, when you get the chance and you are in the UK, you should visit the Houses of Parliament. And congratulations to Yeovil, who seems to have managed to crash the spiderweb forums with the posting of that link, which also brings us to the nub of the issue. I posted the opening post on that Sunday, because like someone said, a little learning can be a dangerous thing; so I have two choices: to either completely forget everything I have learnt, or learn more. I'm very thankful to those who have responded to memory vault's posts so far, as it has given me more food for thought. And not just me, but also the hundreds of lurkers who read that website. If you can deal with the personal abuse, you will find a friend in Izen, and you will have the opportunity through your posts to let the lurker make up his own mind about who is right and who is wrong. Your reasoned answers have already given lots of people the chance to think about the ozone thing in more detail, which is very very valuable. So I thank you all again, not just on my behalf, but on the behalf of all of the thinking lurkers.

Where was the slur?

I've been away from the computer for a few days, and missed this dedicated post to your comments: http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/dobson-dykes-and-diverse-disputes/ I won't paste it here, as the debate is getting very long now! Please feel free to comment if you want to, we have one warmist, Izen, who is a good chap, and would appreciate the moral support. I don't know the arguments in depth myself, but think it is very important at this time when people are beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the scientific establishment that as many people as possible have access to the facts; and that these facts are explained and discussed in terms of the layman! Thanks for your responses so far!

Originally Posted By: waterplant I think Boggle means... Boggle means nothing of the sort! I've forgotten most of the science I learnt at school, but am still very interested in these issues. All I have done is copy and paste, and acted as a go-between. I'd like to thank everyone for their answers so far, they really have been fantastic.

Another viewpoint: Quote: “If the experiment was conducted correctly, it may very well be entirely beside thet point: if the volcano is active pretty much all the time, and one observes an increase in chlorine at a particular time in the year, t is entirely plausible that the volcano isn’t responsible. This is called ‘distinguishing signal from background’, and while not all experimenters always do it correctly, they are trained, by and large, to try. ” There is another reason why the eruptions from Erubus are an irrelevance. They don’t make it into the stratosphere. In fact no significant amounts of chemically active chlorine from the surface or volcanoes (except from major explosive events like Pinatubo) does reach the stratosphere according to direct measurement. It combines with H2O and gets rained out of the troposphere. There is a ‘gap’ between the lower troposphere and the stratosphere where water vapour and chemically reactive chlorine compounds disappear. The only way for significant amounts of chlorine to reach the stratosphere is in a nonreactive form – CFCs. All of this was established with balloon measurements, and that refurbished U2 spy-plane that NASA used! You are also right about the requirement for sunlight to destroy the ozone. The CFC’s in the stratosphere are chemically unreactive, but are susceptible to UV. The chemically active chlorine compounds formed further react on stratospheric clouds and more UV provides the atomic chlorine that catalysis’s the increased O3 breakdown. More detail here, but simply explained….- http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html None of this has been at all controversial since the late seventies, and was certainly scientifically legitimate by the mid 1980s. This did not stop Du-Pont from continuing to claim that ozone depletion from CFC’s was ‘science-fiction or that “No ozone depletion has ever been detected…all ozone depletion figures to date are based on a series of uncertain projections.” Through the 70s and 80s they actively lobbied to block any regulation of CFCs engaging in the sort of anti-science spin that is once again eerily familiar…. Even after the signing of the Montreal protocol Du Pont Chair Richard E. Heckert wrote to U.S. senators:…. At the moment, scientific evidence does not point to the need for dramatic CFC emission reductions. There is no available measure of the contribution of CFCs to any observed ozone change…” Note the ambiguity of this statement, it does not deny that CFCs destroy ozone – that was well established – but it implies that the lack of a quantitative measurement of how much is being destroyed makes it unnecessary to make dramatic reductions. This at a time when dramatic reductions in ozone levels over the Antarctic when sunlight returns and the known chemistry is operating where being detected. However I doubt any of this will alter memoryvault’s fixed conviction that the ozone hole is a fraud invented and perpetrated by the jewish financier Bronfman who was leading Du Pont from 1980 as a scam to sell its patented alternatives…. Conspiracy theories are so much more satisfying for some… -grin-