marharth

So you propose we waste resources trying to land on mars to get... what exactly? We are simply not ready to fully explore space. We can't even get a base on the moon. I can imagine similar conversations and trains of thought occurring before they put man on the moon. Were they wrong to go? What if Columbus never returned to the Free World? What if Cook never sailed south of the equator? What if Magellan never sailed around the bottom of South America? What if...? What if...? What if...? We're not ready because there are people who make a living out of (or at least a lot of noise about) holding us back. Would you be one of them? A giant firecracker won't help us explore the universe. We need to be reaching a better method to get us into space before anything else. As I said before, Columbus did not go to the new world in a log raft.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but you should also realize that you are not a normal outsider. They saw you as an extremely valuable asset, and they were willing to bend the rules slightly just for you.

That is how it works. If you wait to buy a game its cheaper, nothing new here.

What we have now is comparable to log rafts. You are not going to sail to the new world in a log raft. What we need to be doing is researching a better boat.

This is actually an extremely good point.

I don't even know why this got bumped p.p Anyways I won't be replying to this topic anymore. I am sure other people can say everything I want to say on it anyways.

So you propose we waste resources trying to land on mars to get... what exactly? We are simply not ready to fully explore space. We can't even get a base on the moon.

if that were true, there would be no such things as volunteers or charities or nonprofit. people do help people. a lot more then you may think. but weve all become pessimists because weve had to be such because of the economy. people do look out for themselves (or their families) first. and today, thats all anyone can afford to look out for. and thats why you think people only care about themselves. Charities are a small portion of people. If the current state of the economy is causing people to not be nice then why do people who are fine (and actually benefit from the current economy) prefer to donate money to politicians over charities? I don't think money has anything to do with it honestly. I don't see most people willingly giving up their money to help, even if they have a few million dollars.

I think you have too much faith in humanity. Very few people will help others unless they are forced to.

The civil war will probably be continued in a DLC, not the next game.

How many people do you think would donate to the government? I would bet about ten, on lucky years the government might get a few dozen people donating :whistling:

I was thinking if you died you would be regenerated at a "hospital" location. Haven't played FO3 in a while so I will use NV as my example. There is a clinic right outside of vegas, and a entire doctors camp inside of freeside. You also have Doc Michells house as well as multiple NCR and Legion bases (depending on who you are siding with more, the legion would probably have worse medical care though.)

People who buy food with welfare and food stamps are a small part of the US. Welfare is not for people who are lazy, it is for people to temporally live until they can find a job. The system is abused by a few and it needs to be slightly reformed. To be quite honest, inherited money causes a rather large problem with the upper class. I don't even want to go into that.

There was a topic on this in the debate section. Ill say pretty much the same thing, I don't like them. I don't care if you do like them. It takes away immersion from me however, and I personally won't use them.

You're being a smartass when you say you're a general implying I'm doing the same. That's being a smartass and calling me a liar. First you say you want evidence, then you don't, then you do. You won't accept what I say without proof/evidence, yet you don't want evidence. I don't see anyone else here having to backup personal history or claims, such as Ginnyfizz or Syco21 for two recent examples, when they talk of past experience. Once again, I am speaking of things I actually can back up and prove it......I just won't to you, marharth. Try to read what I said next time. And again, look at the example I gave last time to see how I have replied to you in the past. I think I'm done "talking" to you. You ignore every example I've given, even repeating them, and here I am once again actually replying to you and actually answering your questions. No its not being a smart ass. I am not even calling you a lair. I simply do not think personal experience is valid if you can not prove it, that is all. You just did the exact same thing you said was a cop out. If you don't want to answer my questions I think everyone here can see why.

Yes, it is a cop out because I actually have replied to you. And you don't need to explain things "carefully" because I already understood everything you said. You can get down off the horse. I read all your posts, and have replied specifically to what I thought required replying to. Everyone here is talking of their experiences. Have you jumped on their cases? No. Mine? yes. Okay, fine. I can actually prove what I say, it's just that I won't to you because you are unworthy of that consideration. If anyone knows the field of which I am speaking as an expert, they will know I'm speaking the truth in my examples. You don't. I already knew that but tried, with my examples, to lead you to a greater understanding of the matter. Didn't work. At least I tried. You want to dismiss my experience and the examples I've given that actually rather prove I know what I'm talking about. If you were experienced in this matter, you would hear the truth of what I'm saying, in for example, self-defense matters. You don't know me, you are not an expert in these matters, and that's why you're relying on this as a cop out. Example: you said guns were of no use in a self-defense situation unless against a gun armed opponent. I, as a reply, proved you wrong with a very clear example. Saying you're a general is just being a smartass, implying I'm a liar when I am most certainly not. I haven't called you a liar, yet you continue to do the same to me. You've said naive and not very intelligent things (experience does not equal fact, for example, when experience actually is the basis of fact) but I'm not calling you a liar. At most, I've called you inexpert, which in these matters you have shown yourself to be by not knowing a gun's capabilities and uses in life-threatening situations. Calling me a smart ass isn't very nice. I said that to prove my point, and you didn't really counter that at all. I am not a general, but I do work for a gun store. You did not prove I was wrong with an example by the way, read my reply to that. Ill just start reposting my questions until you reply to them then since you are having a hard time not ignoring the big parts of my posts. Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true? Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it? If you think guns do not do anything without a person, you also think nukes are harmless without a person correct?

If you'd read her posts, she said to stop attacking people. She also said that debates often get whipped up rather quickly and evidence is often lacking so you have to follow the logic of the argument put forth. I have the documents, but as anon and you being you, I'm not going to give them to you. Read Ginnyfizz's post. You've done this before, marharth. This is your short-cut when someone knows more than you from their own experience and you are unwilling or unable to follow the logic of their arguments. It's a cop out. Many, many people here are claiming experience of this or that in their posts. Haven't you seen that? You're just falling back on this, against me this time. That's okay, but you should realize that giving personal documentation over an anonymous forum isn't normal. People's statements are taken as is, based on their own internal merit. Mine have it, and as a professional I would see it in another's posts, too. You aren't a professional in this field, that's visible from how you treat self-defense situations in your mind, so you don't see it in my posts. I understand that, but try to see what I and others are saying. Oh, and Marxist B-astard (sorry, strange keyboard, can't find correct symbol), you'd be right if you wanted to apply your example in an actually productive sense: those experienced with rape would make great judges and juries of those crimes. I think if the poor victims had their way, there would be fewer rapes in the future. What have I "done before?" Asked people to stop taking the route of making a claim of experience and ignoring any facts or statistics? You are seriously going to suggest that what I am doing is a cop out? This is probably going to be the last time now, but let me explain a bit more carefully. You do not need to send me documents. You shouldn't be sending me documents. That is the entire reason you can't use experience as your sole evidence on an anonymous internet forum. Because no one can prove your experience is valid. It is that simple. I will ask a few questions to you. I hope you answer them this time. Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true? Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it? By the way I actually AM a general. True story. My experience is greater then yours so I am instantly right. No need for this topic anymore, everyone move along :whistling:

I don't know. Before fixing your pet peeves, I would like to see the more mundane aspects of life in Skyrim fleshed out. I want a starvation mechanic that weakens and eventually kills you. I want to get my character drunk and watch him stumble around. Then when he passes out, I want to actually SEE HIM GET INTO BED. But does that really mean food, alcohol or sleep are unfinished? Marriage, vampirism, werewolves, they serve their purpose. That is, they add the illusion of depth and give RP'ers something to hook into. Would it be nice if there was more to it? Sure! But as far as the project goes none of this stuff is incomplete. I still think it would have been fine if they just extended the release date to expand on existing features. I mean vampires are really bad, and werewolves don't have much purpose because you can't use your inventory. It is easier to kill people with the ability to heal with magic and potions. Some of the things in the video are not needed, but things like a expansion on marriage and some other features would have been good. I personally think they should of put in a hardcore mode like FONV as well. I think mod makers can do that fine, not sure how well mod makers can balance werewolves, vampires, and marriage though.

The cold and weather should effect you. This is never done in realism mods for some reason. This makes cold resistance a bit more useful too.

It isn't very hard to read your post in four minutes, not sure what the reply to MB is about. Would you go to a dentist who claimed they had a degree and went through school, but couldn't provide any documents to prove it? That is the last I am going to say on this because Lins said to stop. Claiming experience in a debate over a anonymous internet forum is simply ridiculous.

Just because its a MMO doesn't mean it has to have the WoW formula. It can be done through other means, if it just as big as fallout NV and it has the same gameplay mechanics, all you really need to do is make a respawn system and some other minor things. I don't see why it needs to be like WoW or other mmos. Just make it like fallout 3/NV but online. You just need a few syncing things.

Wasn't there already a search function? There was for TF2, why didn't they instantly move it over to Skyrim? I am not keeping up with this stuff, going to wait a year or so for the mods to come out before I get back into Skyrim.

Yeah, some of us know how you like to doubt other people's life experiences as valid. That's why some people are forced to stop talking to you, for a time, at least. It would actually be very easy for a person or maybe two here to put together who I am in real life, but I'd rather keep myself anon so I'm glad they don't. If you were wiser, you'd be able to better tell the BS'ers. Since I am a professional, however, I feel urged to correct you in thinking, quite falsely, that a gun is only useful and/or necessary against another person armed with a gun. Let's give you an obvious example/worst case scenario. What would you do, then, against four or five convinced and armed assailants? Armed, let's say, with knives, axes, baseball bats, and such? I am trained for that kind of situation, but the average person hardly is, so you see, the self-defense argument is not flawed. Your understanding of it is. A trained person doesn't even need to shoot a gun to use it in a situation: that's an option that hardly if ever enters into the minds of most people. Yet having it counts, on all levels of an encounter-physical, psychological, etc-even when you don't pull the trigger. Guns don't end up doing anything, marharth. They are inanimate objects and yet you seem to find it difficult to talk about them as if they were not. People end up making mistakes, like you said, but that's it. The gun doesn't ever end up doing anything on its own. Even for it to have a psychological effect it must be used. You say some funny things at times. Such as that I "hate" certain ideas, et al. You must be polishing that crystal ball a lot, but I can't see that it's giving you the right answers about me. It doesn't matter if I doubt them or not. It is simply not valid as evidence in a debate. You are seriously suggesting that it would be perfectly okay for me to say "Yes, guns should be illegal. I know this because I am a general!" or "I know guns should be legal because I was previously in the military." I don't see why I even need to explain this. Seriously people? You can't understand that anyone anywhere can say anything they want to help their argument without facts, statistics, or logic? Unless you can make a argument based on your experience, your experience is void. Also I find it rather unfortunate that some people wish to ignore me because they can't deal with a counter argument and prefer insults. That is not my problem, but I am not sure why these people are on a debate forum if they can't stand different views and different methods of argument. If you are being attacked by multiple people someone not trained with a firearm won't be able to fend them all off. Not to mention you are kind of screwed if they are already close enough to attack you anyways. You can say that you can be trained in unarmed combat, but guess what? You also have to be trained with firearms to properly use them. The average person is not properly trained with a firearm. A pistol can only do so much, and if you are already in a situation where your attackers are close enough and outnumber you, I doubt the average person could even draw their pistol. Previously quite a few of you who support guns said you do need to be trained with firearms to properly use them. Did some of you change your opinion for some reason? Do you fail to understand that guns make killing easier? Do you fail to understand that pulling a trigger is easier then stabbing someone to death? It is easier for someone to make a mistake with a gun then with a baseball bat or a knife. Nukes don't do anything on their own either, after all you need a person to launch it right?

Feature creep isn't really a valid point when you look at how pointless marriage is right now and how useless being a vampire or werewolf is. Some of these features really should of been added really as bug fixes honestly. Marriage is so pointless you need something to fix it. Same thing with vampires and werewolves. Its not feature creep when you add in a feature and never expand on it or make it useful.

Unlike me? You say foolish things about people as if you knew them. I can count among my teachers and those whom I hold as mentors members of the special forces, in varying degrees, from the United States, England, and Russia. I teach military martial arts for a living. Unlike me, huh? Personal experience that can not be backed up is not a valid method of argument. That is great that you teach stuff, but that really isn't a argument. You said multiple things that made me think you don't take guns very seriously. You do not "play" with guns, and I am sure someone that professionally teaches these kinds of things would know that. The fact of the matter is that you do not need to have a gun if you do not need to defend against a gun. The self defense argument is seriously flawed due to that. Criminals might get guns somehow anyways, but not all criminals. Some will, but the man who kills someone out of rage or the kid who accidentally pulls a trigger will no longer be in the equation. One of the big issues with society and this gun control thing is people assume that every single person convicted is a evil person. Sometimes crime happens that was not planned that would have not happened if the person did not have a gun. Sometimes there are deadly accidents. Sometimes someone feels like they need to steal to feed their family. Once people get the idea out of their head that every single criminal is a bad person, maybe this discussion could go a lot better. Guns end up causing deadly mistakes. A gun wielding store owner ends up risking his life and becoming a threat. The robber might end up making a deadly mistake.