Paradox

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.
"You!"
*Bang!*
'Ah what'd you do that for?!'
"Cowardice in the face of the enemy! Now does anyone else want to hide?!"

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.

[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.

"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.

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?