Jump to content

Paradox's Content

There have been 13 items by Paradox (Search limited from 29-March 95)

By content type

See this member's

Sort by                Order  

#361 Rapid Fire Guns

Posted by Paradox on 06 January 2003 - 07:11 PM in General Nerf

If people start hanging back, kill them. No really, I found being agressive won 3/4 games. Lead by example. The only times it didn't work too well was when someone with a modded 5000 teamed up with a WildFire. Damn that sucked. We couldn't do a bloody thing without getting slaughtered.

Also me and my friends always played OHK wars. Mostly because I was the only one on the internet community and it was the only one I knew. So we were all ingrained with a sort of insanity and blindly ran around getting pegged like Civil War soldiers without trenches.

I mean, once for example we were having a big war (by our standards) at a playground. Everytime, one team would take the play structure and the other team would start outside. Whenever my team was inside, we abbandoned the playstructure as soon as the other team started to commit and attacked. We didn't win all of them that way, but the other team stayed in the playstructure every time, and got slaughtered.

Basically, in Nerf, at least in my experience, no matter how good your improvised defensive position is, its still a deathtrap. If someone wants to kindly set themselves up to get tapped, oblige them.

Heh. You could kill people for 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' on your team too. That'd be pretty funny but your friends would hate you. Damn that'd be a laugh.
'Ah what'd you do that for?!'
"Cowardice in the face of the enemy! Now does anyone else want to hide?!"

#353 The Great Debate!

Posted by Paradox on 06 January 2003 - 01:11 AM in General Nerf

Ah, can't beat that.

I do like micros. But they just get lost too darn easy and it takes to long to replace them! Mega Stefans from 1/2" PVC is all I need (well, using a 1500 anyway). Extremely cheap and reliable.

I can't think of why I'd use mega nerf-brand darts though.

#312 Are You An Old Nerfer?

Posted by Paradox on 04 January 2003 - 03:19 AM in General Nerf

[rant]The original max force line! What the hell? That was basically the beggining of the five-year long fall of cool nerf products. Total shift to cheap guns that were shaped funny with no redeeming qualities except maybe 20% of each line, until the LNL and BBB.
Now if you remember the ChainBlazer being hardcore, then yeah... I remember fighting with a few people over the CB's actual effectiveness in combat. Though I came too late to purchase excellent weapons from the Nerf Action line *sniff* and had to put up with the MF, MF2002, and most of the CyberStrike, and all the shoot-all-your-ammo-at-once-and-show-the-gun-magically-reloaded-somehow-commercials of the Lightning Blitz line. So I'm bitter as unholy hell.[/rant]

Huh... I geuss if you were a nerf newb when they were released then you might've thought they were hardcore... Oh yeah... Whatever. Now where IS my original sharpshooter dart? I think its in a bag with all my dead gun parts in the back of my closet somewhere...

Hmmm, well I got about 7 of those.

#258 Bush Revisionist Health Information

Posted by Paradox on 01 January 2003 - 11:30 PM in Off Topic

"Uninhibited scientific progress does not happen in individual cases. As you have said, there will always be political and religious bias present. Uninhibited scientific progress is the absolute progress, which can not be achieved in an individual instance. It is the progress of science as a whole, the level of human development as a whole. Absolute scientific progress is what has occured since we first started using rocks as tools. Absolute scientific progress is what has allowed us to reach greater understandings of both the infinitely large (the universe) and the infinitely small. Every small step is biased, as you have stated, but every small step contributes to our absolute understanding. And despite the fact that human interpretation is flawed, we have reached the level that we are at now. This, more than anything else, is evidence that despite human error science progresses."

In that case, wouldn't such progress transcend immediate politics? Making it rather irrelevent if a field was temporarily blocked, or slowed in some way? After all, a reversal is more or less inevitible.

"As for whether I would oppose a group based on their feelings towards scientific research, it would depend on whether I agree or disagree with their goals. My political beliefs play a huge part in whether I would agree with a group when they object to scientific research."

...And so if a majority of people agreed that they did not approve, becuase they believe it can be abused (or when an elected representitive feels that way), of a field of scientific endevour would it not be appropiate to speak out against or enact laws as precaution against abusive use of a technology? I am speaking in general terms. If you wish to reserve the right to object to a form of what may be termed as scientific progress others must have that right also.

#252 Bush Revisionist Health Information

Posted by Paradox on 01 January 2003 - 01:32 PM in Off Topic

Flawed ideas are not the problem. It is academic's acceptance of flawed ideas and resistence to the antithesies of those ideas. In other words, human error. I do not doubt that scientific principles will remain the same, however the understanding and acceptance of them is based on human interpretation. Which can easily be flawed.

And how do you define such progress? Obvivously political and social groups oppose other branches than stem-cells and human cloning. Enviromentalists oppose many areas of scientific endevour, that are arguably just as valid as any as long as they produce knowledge. Pascificists would oppose weapons research. Do you have sympathy with any such group? Say these things about those that oppose your interpretation of scientific progress?

We've gone pretty far afield. I believe the point was that
"Religous or political groups interfering with scientific progress is, like I said, a harmful thing. Religions change with time. Science does not, and our perception of science only becomes clearer."
And my counterpoint was that even advocates of unhibbeted scientific research doubtless have their own agendas. Because the researchers themselves have political, social, moral, and religious or antireligious ties. This condom usage CDC statement is case-in-point. Previvously the CDC may've underplayed the fact that condoms can fail, because they were biased in the oppisite direction.
Is that uninhibbeted scientific progress? Or science turned to serve a political or social agenda?

#232 Bush Revisionist Health Information

Posted by Paradox on 31 December 2002 - 11:03 PM in Off Topic

...In your opinion that is what religion is. And in my opinion, so little is actually understood and so much is assumed, based on idealogy, politics, religion, emotion, and the posturing of academics, about the unchanging makeup of the universe that it is irrelevent to this discussion. I also believe that there is an absolute truth, which is what you are saying. But we will never understand it the way you're suggesting. There is simply too much data and too much imagination to effectively explain it. And I also feel like the people that are supposed to be pursuing these goals are locked into set thinking more than some religious.

Physcian, heal thyself.

From this topic; science to you, is your religion. You believe science is the absolute truth, you believe that unfettered scientific research will basically lead us into paradice, science makes you feel safe... which is why people tampering with it bothers you. But the people that say others are tampering with it tamper with it also. And, in the continuing age of mass literacy which give partial but incomplete understanding, invalid scientific viewpoints will continue to appear, and gain support, and obfuscate the truth. And when such an invalidity solidifies in the mainstream, no doubt later scientists will in turn base hypothesies and theorems upon it; and will resist when others attempt to disprove what they see as an underlying fact. Again, this only serves to destroy the progression of science. My point? I won't sit here and watch someone attempt to take the infinently flawed scientific high ground. Everything uttered by a scientist should be carefully qualified, but most of it is presented as fact. Also, I'd like to note that the processes of discovery and defining of scientific principles are purely human.

#223 Bush Revisionist Health Information

Posted by Paradox on 31 December 2002 - 05:19 PM in Off Topic

No, most people that are part of a political party in the United States don't completely agree with all that party's actions, policies, or agenda. For example, some people that are generally pro-abortion don't support abortion in the third trimester because the infant has brainwaves. Some people support contraception but not abortion. Basically, its not so cut-and-dried. I believe the department for homeland security is a potential mistake, and the very idea is too big-government. But I believe that was my point; they're all politicians and they do what makes them look good next week or next year. They are shortsighted, in general, in my opinion.

So why can't you apply the same principle to religion and morals? In fact, some people do... There are multitudes of religions based around the idea that revealation is incomplete. There are lots of people that aren't members of a particular religions but do have a set of morals, that they change based on experience. Which is exactly what you're claiming is scientific. And most often it is those religions or moral systems that adopt modern social and ethical changes most readily.

Of course there are many religions whose underlying postulates haven't changed in centuries, or even millenia. And continue to apply their basic morals and systems to the modern world. I have no idea, but I assume that that is what you actually meant, religions that don't change enough to satisfy scientific progression.

In this particular occurance, it is rather moot. The issue is, again in my opinion, fairly minor. Promoting abstaination and single-partner sex before condom usage is not only moral according to the current administration, but its also just common sense. Its also a way of covering their collective ass when you think about it. If the possibilty of condom failure is played down too far by the CDC there is potential for litagation if someone gets an STD despite condom use. Admittadely, less potential for the CDC or the government to get sued but it is present to some extent. The alteration of the abortion statement may only be political, but then again it could be scientific. Or at least as scientific as any cancer research can be. Which is not very in my experience. Well, people actually researching cancer with scientific experimentation are, but people that wander around telling the public that coffee and fast food are to blame for cancer are a few bricks shy.

As far as stem cells are concerned, I feel like that gets misconstrued too often. The point isn't the cells, it is the way they are obtained. Human cloning, which is a field with treamondous potential both for good and evil, much like splitting atoms. Didn't the PRC implant rabbit genes in a human egg? Where is it going to go is what bothers people. There are people unscrupulous enough to do terrible things with such technology. What if you started cloning or altering people? Say, people good at signal analysis. That could be a big-ass edge for a country, but at the expense of abusing human beings. Or started making docile people to take over domestic work, in other words: slaves. Of course, that is not too likely to happen any time soon, or maybe even ever. But until there is some way to prevent such action its better to hold off. Especielly if there are other ways, such as other ways of getting stem cells. And especielly in the case of human cloning. Look at technology turned to the service of war, its not that much of a stretch to envision human cloning technology abused.

#221 Bush Revisionist Health Information

Posted by Paradox on 31 December 2002 - 01:07 PM in Off Topic

"Yes, reverse in the direction of uninhibited progress, and hopefully a renewed effort in the area of stem cells, which are the future of medical science. Religous or political groups interfering with scientific progress is, like I said, a harmful thing. Religions change with time. Science does not, and our perception of science only becomes clearer."

So, I'd geuss you'd say that the now-disproven forgone conclusion that nuetrinos don't have mass was just a case of reaching greater clarity? Or the forgone conclusions about the fossil record and the way layers of earth build were just a little out of focus, given that labratory experiments show they do not build in the generally accepted way. Or the little-reported fact that people with stem-cells implanted to cure (sorry, forgot the name, the disease Micheal J. Fox has) improved for about 6 months before having a relapse that was far worse than the original symptoms.
Actually, come to think of it, science has always been motivated by politics. Military R&D created spads of minor inventions in WW1 and WW2, not to mention the first Nuclear weapons which lead to Nuclear power. Even if you believe its bad, its still probably the most important invention in history.

And on that article, what'd they say that jepordizes people's lives? Nothing... Quite the oppisite, they're retracting statements. In fact one of them, if it is wrong, errs on what you say you want; the side of safety! They're saying now they're not sure wether or not abortion is linked to breast cancer. Ok... What exactly is so dangerous, health-wise, about that? And since no one really has a clue about why cancer happens, and the media seems to come up with a new food, activity, or type of pollution that may cause cancer at least once a week; its not unreasonable. It is safer and more logical than simply leaping to the conclusion that abortion and breast concer are unlinked.

"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for S.T.D.'s, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of S.T.D. transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any S.T.D."

What exactly is so unresonable about that? Again, they're erring on the side of safety, if they are erring at all! Its completely true and its safer than condoms, whose failure rate was dumbed down because of the idealogy of the previvous controlling party!

That very article is a perfect example. They're saying the right allows its idealogy to influence its science. It claims that its dangerous to say that theres inconclusive evidence about linkage between breast cancer and abortion. They are saying its somehow dangerous to promote abstainance. All the while hypocritically ignoring that original positions may well have been idealogically motivated and that the new positions are not claiming anything outrageous.

The entire spin is against the right and (without any evidence of a quid pro quo) against pro-life movements and religious, even though the left is guilty of the same things, and arguably their statements hold more potential danger.

And, if you want to argue that these actions are setting precedent for more extreme actions to be take later, I've got a few things.
Firstly, Bush is a politician, as such he probably doesn't really care all that much. Or rather, if he DOES care it doesn't make much difference because everything pro-right he does is going to get construed like this decision was. The most Presidents and parties in power can do at this time in American history is nibble around the edges of each other.
Secondly, even if he's re-elected, its too short a time to massively change public opinion, so extreme-right actions are pretty unlikely (which is what people actually seem to be fearing, rather than health concerns). First he's gotta get re-elected and then he's gotta keep at least a 50% decent perception of himself by the public on leaving office. America's diversity and diversified power because of democracy and private ownership of means of production prevent that sort of thing.
Third, who's coming up with the conspiracies now? The media being biased is mocked as a conspiracy but you're willing to believe that there is concerted effort in the Bush Adminstration to do some kind of irreversible damage to
Fourth, Bush's (pro-right) domestic policy track record pretty much stinks. He is so in to the War on Terror that he's caved on a lot of domestic issues to the left, again doing anything more extreme is unlikely. And what they have gone through with is actually not all that right-wing, like this 'office of homeland security'. What I believe the right is about is the rule of law and small government. So creating big, powerful, organization with the potential to invade privacy isn't very right-wing. Its also completely unrelated to moral policies like abortion.

#217 Bush Revisionist Health Information

Posted by Paradox on 30 December 2002 - 11:14 PM in Off Topic

The New York Times? Ok... Now you're just biased in the oppisite direction. That publication is pratically a Democrat Propaganda rag (of course, it has a great reputation because the rest of the liberal media endorses it).

Spoken like a true conservative conspiracy-theorist. As for health information being based on political ideology, I think that any attempts to control the progress of science because of political (or religious) beliefs is both harmful to humanity and, in the long run, an excercise in futility.

No, the New York Times is and has been blatently pro-liberal and pro-left and pro-democrat for years. Same goes for most 'major' newspapers.

Heh... Another fun thing to do is to watch network news.
"Alright folks! Lets see what causes cancer today!"

Ironically, other studies show that condoms have a far higher falure rate than previvously publicized. Something like 17% was the last figure I heard. Of course, they're biased too, but condoms are far from foolprooff. Unlike not engaging in sex with multiple parteners or not using unsterlized needles (meaning for drug injections, meaning not using drugs). Which will protect you from STDs, pretty much garunteed.

There really isn't a point in this topic... Once a leftist is in office no doubt 'science' will reverse (and betcha there will be no peep out of the NY times, or if there is it will be very much in support of the conclusions).

#201 Bush Revisionist Health Information

Posted by Paradox on 29 December 2002 - 10:48 PM in Off Topic

You'd trust the federal government with your health? I hope you enjoy your life... Cause its gunna be short. Another good reason to stay republican... Don't give them more money than they absolutely need.

Anyways... Got anything ELSE? How do you know that it wasn't biased by political idealogy when it was created and now someone has fixed it? Or that they really don't have a clue?

The New York Times? Ok... Now you're just biased in the oppisite direction. That publication is pratically a Democrat Propaganda rag (of course, it has a great reputation because the rest of the liberal media endorses it).

#77 Pants

Posted by Paradox on 16 December 2002 - 06:50 PM in Off Topic

I am defifnently pro-pants. Take a good, long look at your legs and check back. If that doesn't work take a good long look at a bunch of other guy's legs then imagine everyone wandering around pant-less.

*Sigh* What am I doing here? I don't belong... Oh, Vacc, about the new system: I want to vote that all off-topic gets a defualt -1 ranking so I can filter it all out and not be even be tempted to look.

#76 Approach To Modification

Posted by Paradox on 16 December 2002 - 06:44 PM in Modifications

Heh, I'm kind of in the hack&slash catejory. Its never really botched a mod, but I haven't done allot of experimental modding either... Xpheyel was my only truly unique mod, and it started as an attempt to add a clip to a BBB (lucky for me it came out pretty too once I camoflauged it).

#75 Planned Moderation System

Posted by Paradox on 16 December 2002 - 06:34 PM in Site Feedback

Interesting... I gotta few questions though... Please don't be offended if I'm playing devil's advocate in this.

1. Often as not people attacking the board don't care if they are still around tommarow. Is there a way to deal with such people quickly?
2. I'm still of the opinion that allot of 'mod points' will probably go to decreasing a value rather than increasing it. I mean, if a mod comes upon a topic thats gone off-topic and has several off-topic replies, aren't most of the mod points going to go into that? Or if someone flamebaits or flames and gets replied to with additional flamebaits/flames...? Those MPs could go pretty darn quick (if this board becomes more active). And if someone is doing something REALLY inappropiate on several boards the mods will basically have to gank the person with negative MPs, which in turn could temporairly cripple the system. Also if there are organized trollings (heck, didn't we have some of those on the old NO?) then the mods and mod points could be constantly diverted and drained for a period of days with too many posters to organize a response to.
3. Not to mention there could be HUGE potential for large, popular movements abusing the system to kill people that disagree with them, even on Nerf matters. When I joined up to NO when it was nerfonline.com (the one with the white background if you don't know what I'm talking about) a guy got mass flamed for saying the FireStorm (a gun a surprising number of people like now) was his favorite gun. Theoretically, this person could've been unfairly bumped vveeerrrryyyy low on the karma if the flamers had had this power. Also, to be frank, I'm not too sure of my OWN security under such a system given that the Nerfonline community-at-large tends to be leftist and atheist, when I'm a Catholic Right-wing conservative... Even though my arguements have almost always been very appropiate (maybe Cwxq remembers). In short, there is potential for people to be injured because the content of their post, even if valid, is against the general community's opinion (ergo also the majority of the mod pool), which in turn opens that clique to retalition from people they may've bumped down but not out of the mod pool. So much potential for what were personal conflicts to have effects on the board. Heh, wouldn't the Lozi's have loved this?

Admittadely, these are fairly extreme cases. But most of them have basis in the community's history.