Re:So are any of the data sets Useful yet?
on
PCGen 5.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Actually, we ahve almost 100 books available for free, and the splatbooks and such are sold but an unaffiliated company called Code Monkey Publishing. We would love to offer then for free on the project, but WotC simply will not let us do that.
As for Sword and Sorcery, we have Relics and Rituals, The book of eldritch might, the book of hallowed might, Book of Eldritch might 2, complete book of eldritch might, If Thoughts Could Kill, and Demon God's Fane.
S&S publishes books from a number of smaller companies, so it's possible we have a number of other S&S books.
We also have quite a few more that one can track down that are incomplete.
Devon Jones PCGen Board of Directors
Re:So are any of the data sets Useful yet?
on
PCGen 5.8 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
We specifically had to do that becasue of legal reasons. I would love to offer more information for the players, but most publishers are uncomfortable with that. We have been in discussions with some to try to precure rights to include more information in books that have been out for a while.
I have never had any American president come knocking on my door nor trying and to hand me pamphlets on the street. Fundamentalist Christians do more to try and force fundamentalist Christianity on me than Bush ever possibly could.
Bush *is* a fundamentalist chriastian, and he is pushing their agenda of hatred and intolerance. He doesn't need to show up at your door, with the laws that will be passed under him, likely it'll be his police instead.
Speaking of loving the sinner, but hating the sin, why would a Christian ever be violent towards a homosexual? Even if a non-believer doesn't suscribe to Christian doctrine, the Christian should (implying that there should never be any "hate crimes" committed by a Christian)
I don't know, ask Matthew Shepard.
Oh, wait, you can't, because he was beaten, tied up like a scarecrow and eventually killed by christians for being gay. To add insult to injury, the christian community send preachers to his funeral with signs that said "God Hates Fags". This is the face of christian extremnisim in america.
If you look at our genetic make up, we are slowly finding more and more genetic mutations. We are decaying the more we reproduce. And as far as thermodynamics go, we are always heading towards entropy, and eventually 0 Kelvin. So what part of the revelation of God's creation makes us thing that we came from frogs, or birds, or fish or whatever. "Given enough time, frogs turn into princes. In some places that's called a fairy tale. In a laboratory, it's called science."
Your understanding of Newton's laws is very very deep. Entropy only is the primary force in systems where there is no energy being added to the system. Because of the sun's energy being bathed on this planet, this more then counteracts Entropy. Feel free to hold on to this ignorant interpretation if you wish, but it doesn't even resemble science.
As far as your views on abortion, fine. feel free to believe what you want. What makes me angry is that on this ery open issue, your side seeks to force all of society to obey your beliefs. If you don't like abortions, fine, don't have one, but keep your laws off my body.
Prayer in school will never be a requirement. You don't have to participate, but one person shouldn't be able to stop the prayer when a significant majority of people in that school want it.
Clearly you have never been a victim of christian violence. Just *try* being an atheist kid in a shcool where prayer time is allotted and then not using it to pray and see how many black eyes and bruises.
Prayer in school is an underhanded way to force conversion on non-believers using the fact that kids have little problem picking on the different kid.
Nobody is pushing for compulsory prayer. Just the freedom to pray. That is an exercise of religion. Congress shall make no law prohibiting it.
This is a lie. "Prayer time" in school is a method of coersion. People notice the kid who won't pray, and they beat the hell out of him for not doing it. I know, becuase that was my childhood. Public prayer in school is a way of forcing christianity on kids by using the inherant brutality kids practice on one another.
Why do you have to spend my learning time so you can pray? Why can't you do it on your own time? It's not like a kid can't pray at lunch. The problem for the fundamentalist christians is that all the kids aren't forced to lose time out of their day in observance to their god.
Nobody is trying to discriminate against gays. They're just trying to uphold the definition of marraige.
The whole argument of marriage as a religious obeservance is a load of hocum. I'm an atheist. My marriage is an abomination to your god. Why is that one ok, but other abominations before god are not? Gays being married do no harm to your marriage. The religious right bigots need to leave them alone
Creationism is a widely held, not disproved, and scientifically sound theory. Teach it as a theory. Teach the other theories as theories as well. Show how they may coexist and how particular theories conflict with each other.
No, actually, it's not. A scientifically sound theory needs to have a) repeatable evidence (and no, authoritatian evidence is not scientific evidence. no matter how much you want it to be, the bible is not a source for scientific facts). and b) a scientific theory needs to make *testable* predicitons. If you do not have these two things, your so caled theory is definitionally an asserion, not a theory.
Sorry, your points have been weighted, and have been found wanting.
Here is the realistic situation. 80 columns was created as a formatting standard because of punchcards. Mosto fthe people I know have moved to 120, with the following justifications:
A) pretty much all editors support more then 80 columns, and if you want to use an old version of VI that can't do mroe then 80, it's not really yopur right to enforce your unwillingness to stick even remotly code to the state of the art on everyone else.
B) most programmers have a screen roughly in the 1280x1024 category, and it is a benefit to be able to *use* the extra real estate
Ok, fair point - But I look back at the clinton years, and at what has happened since then, and ignoring the hopping idiots got us to a position where the right *does* control teh federal government - albeit weakly, but still completly. When the only tool one side has is a filibuster, that's not alive and well, that's the virge of losing one's grip totally.
I would like to believe as you do in my heart of hearts that we can rise above tit for tat, but I just don't see the proof. Yes, Democracy is self correcting, and eventually it will balance out, but consider that perhaps getting the people hopping mad such that some step out and make movies like this is perhaps *how* democracy is self correcting.
I think it's clear that giving in all the time, and letting the conservatives walk all over us, and trash talk us all they want was *not* working. Maybe this is not the right solution, but at least it is a new approach from the left, and it's better then just being a punching bag that takes all the swings the right has to offer.
Oh, that's right. I'm a liberal in america, and accorting to Coulter I'm a traitor anyway, so you probably should dismiss my view point....coming from a traitor and all.
Cause only Conservatives are real red blooded Americans. All liberals hate freedom, and hate America.
First off, the film does not idolize him - you clearly have not seen it - yet you clearly *are* reading from the talking points of conservatives who are attacking the film. I have seen it, and it does no such thing.
Now, from michael moor's website, he has a response to this criticism as well: (if you go to the link, look at the bottom for more on the airplane thing) http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestne ws/f911f acts/
What does the film say about the Saudi and bin laden family flights out of the country after 9/11?
For a complete analysis of this topic, go here. One thing the film does NOT say, is that these flights left the county while other flights were grounded. Rather, the film says these flights left the country after September 13. These facts are based on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12.
Some critics have said that the film hides the fact that former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Is this criticism valid?
Absolutely not. If the film were trying to hide Clarke's involvement, we would not have included a visual reproduction of the actual New York Times article about the White House decision to approve the flights that prominently mentions Clarke's name. Clarke has testified, "Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.
Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he would approve these flights again. Doesn't this undermine the film's point?
Absolutely not. The main question raised by the film, which neither Richard Clarke nor anyone at the White House has ever answered, is why? Why did this happen? What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history? Why did these Saudi Royals and bin laden family members receive such special treatment, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Imagine if the hijackers were North Koreans. It is inconceivable that a group of North Koreans, let alone relatives of the individual who had mastermind the attack, would have been given a one-way ticket out of the country with the cooperation of the White House as soon as airspace was open. Or Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. The bottom line is that we really do not know why it was necessary for the White House to approve the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.
oh, they do, the difference is this: When michael moore is attacked, it's all over the news papers, and very visible. When Coulter is attacked, it's in the back pages (if it's in the paper at all), or more likely, it's on Salon.
Big media refuses to even consider questioning conservative icons.
You would never find an article tearking Coulter apart in something like the NY Times, but I'm certain you can find an article critical of Moore.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...find me evidence and I'll recant that.
Actually, I completly agree with you. The problem is, as a liberal, allowing one side to stand on a pulpit and defame my views essentially unchallanged has lead to a position where democrats no have totally lsot any control in washington.
I fully believe taht alloing talking heads like Rush and Savage to continue their very partisan and constant attacks from the right without answering them and fireing back is a major reason why the we lsot both houses of congress and the white house. I think that partisan talk bickering like this, that is also consistantly getting louder is inherantly damaging to the country - but I think one party controlling everything is *far* more damaging. Our government works best when the middle runs things instead of the fringe zealots.
SO, In order to balance things again, teh left needs to grow a spine, roll up it's sleeves, and start fighting the conservatives at their own level - if nothing else it will restore balance so the people in the middle can start talking again some day.
I don't disagree with you, but unless I want to live in a country where liberalism is dead, and conservativism runs everything, I don't see a choice.
That's fair, and my last line is uncalled for. Please accept my appology.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country.
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In the interests of dialog, I'll try to respond to this when I get back (I have a wedding to go to), but I believe this article is deeply flawed. An example I can whip out real quickly: The person who wrote the article states that the 9/11 commission found that the bin ladens left the country after the airspace had been re-opened. This is a VERY deceptive statement. on September 13th, the air space had been re-opened, but no passengers were allowed to fly until sept 14th. Sept 13th was used to reshuffle the airplanes back to where they should be so that flights could resume the 14th.
No passengers were allowed, *except* for these special charter flights that took the Bin Ladens and the Saudi royalists out of the country.
Hitchens then states that Clark allowed these flights - and thus Moore is a liar.
Well, these saudis were allowed to fly befor anyone else, were not questioned, and were allowed to do so by a member of the Bush administration (Clark was indeed a member of the bush administration, or do you dispute that fact as well). Not one iota of this contradicts Moore and Ferenheit 9/11.
Once again, Moore uses facts, while the talking heads on the right jsut say wheever they want to, so long as it's consistant with their idology - facts be damned.
I'll try to reply more to it when I get back from the wedding.
Ann Coulter's screed is provably full of outright lies. Her sources don't even match up to her attributions, something that I have confirmed for myself. The woman considers the capability to type a footnote somehow gives her the right to say anything she wants.
Moore has hard facts. He doesn't present the counter argument is teh standard attack on him. Lemme ask you a question - who makes an argument and then publically tries to attack it. This is not Moore's job, it is the job of his opponents. The facts he has are sound - and can be retrieved from multiple sources.....Coulter is no where near up to this level.
Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country.
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Ya know. I'm sick and tired of the "leaving information out" argument against Michael Moore. When is the last time *you* made an argument and you brought mentioned every last possible fact that could harm your argument? When a person makes anargument, it *is not their responsibility to make the counter argument*. It is the responsibility of the opposing party in the argument. Arguments have always been constructed with the set of facts that support your hypothesis - you have aproblem with moore, you are always free to produce facts that undermine his argument - something you can't do with outright liars.
Beyond that, look at the right. Ann Coulier clearly and repeatedly lies outright in her books. In many casses her attributions are ourtight fabrications. Yet no one says a damn thing about her. Look at Rush. The man also lies on a repeated and regular basis. The chorus of silence criticizing him is deafening. The same goes for almost all of the crackpot commentators on the right like Michael Savage and even Bill O'Reilly. These people have a political agenda, and have no concern for the truth whatsoever.
Compare this to Michael Moore who at least has facts to back up his claims. Does he make the counterargument against himself? No. Is that his job? No.
I'm just sick of the hipocracy in this country that hold the left to a *much much* higher standard then the right. Progressives can't make tiny mistakes without being torn apart by the wolves, yet the right gets free reign to do and say anythign they want and essentially recieve no accountability for their actions.
All you have to look at to see this is a man who has suggested life imprisonment for drug offenders, and I believe at least once executions who turned out to be a drug abuser himself - and *nothing* happened to him. Rush Limbaugh.
SO if you are going to throw your stones at the left, you might want to watch out for your conservative glass house first.
Well, if you are using a D20 game system, recently a bunch of GM's tools have been added. The eventual goal of this is to allow better tabletop play, as well as networked play.
Currently, your best bet is using GMGen + PCGen + OpenRPG. PCGen allows you to create an electronic character for each player, GMGen can allow some control over combats, as well as giving the GM E character sheets for each person, OpenRPG will give you a minuature tabletop, as well as dice and such.
Devon Jones GMGen Silverback (Benevolent Dictator) PCGen Board of Directors
I couldn't agree more. The concept of a nipple on TV being the end of decency is a farce.
One of (I think it was MSNBC's anchors) referred to it as the biggest scandle he could/think/ of. *pshaw* this is nothign compared to gettign US servicement killed in another country based on a mound of lies and damn lies.
That's a complete load of horse pucky. I jsut don't get he naderites. By every measure I can think of our country is worse off after 4 years of Bush. Sure, Kerry may represent special interests, but the democrat special interstes are FAR less repugnant then the republican ones. Hmm Bush's: Big Oil. Kerry's: The national teacher's union.
Besides, your comment is TOTALLY wrong. need I remind you that Powell and teh two republicans running the fcc voted to raise the ownership caps. The dems in the FCC voted against it. That right there gives lie to your statement.
A vote for nader is a vote for bush, and 4 more years of losing freedoms, and widening gaps between the rich and the poor. If you think a vote for nader is anything else, you are fooling yourself, and to the detriment of everyone around you.
Not to be cynical, because I respect people participating in our democracy, but what's the point? Michael Powell blatently ignores the public commentary EVERY time, and sides with big business 100% of the time over the comsumer. The man has yet to make even one pro consumer decision since taking the reigns of the FCC.
Realistically, we are not going to make a difference on this no matter how many of us post, because the FCC doesn't give one whit about consumers currently. If you really want this to have even a remote chance of working out for the best, take action by voting Kerry.
Are the justices trying to re-establish a reputation for primacy of the legislative branch? Why?
Because all but one of those justices has a paersona and deep interest in republicans controlling politics. Now that the republicans own teh white house (Thanks to them) and the Congress - the 6 biased judges have no issue extending as much power as they can to this congress.
Let's say if we charge 1M dollars per year for every copyright that they wish to extend. Every copyright that they extend would cost them a lot of money and they'd be damn sure that they're getting their money's worth on them. They would NOT just keep on extending all of them, on the off chance that one of them might be worth a little something, because they would not pay off.
But that's not his point. The point is that every 20 years Disney is gonna call up their totally owned senators and representatives, give them a couple hundred thousand in campaign contributions, and next thing you know, copyright is extended for another 20 years.
Remember, here in the United States, you don't have to register works to get copyright protection - so they don't have to do anything - they can just sit on the library of 'owned' works, and when in 500 years, for some reason the Uncle Remus stuff becomes acceptable again (ok, not likely) - they can whip it back out. As a result, nothing of our culture's history becomes owned by our culture....ever again...from 1923 on.
Yes - registering copyrights again would greatly assist here. But the reality is that you don't have to, and likely never will again.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we ahve almost 100 books available for free, and the splatbooks and such are sold but an unaffiliated company called Code Monkey Publishing. We would love to offer then for free on the project, but WotC simply will not let us do that.
As for Sword and Sorcery, we have Relics and Rituals, The book of eldritch might, the book of hallowed might, Book of Eldritch might 2, complete book of eldritch might, If Thoughts Could Kill, and Demon God's Fane.
S&S publishes books from a number of smaller companies, so it's possible we have a number of other S&S books.
We also have quite a few more that one can track down that are incomplete.
Devon Jones
PCGen Board of Directors
We specifically had to do that becasue of legal reasons. I would love to offer more information for the players, but most publishers are uncomfortable with that. We have been in discussions with some to try to precure rights to include more information in books that have been out for a while.
Devon Jones
PCGen Board of Directors
I have never had any American president come knocking on my door nor trying and to hand me pamphlets on the street. Fundamentalist Christians do more to try and force fundamentalist Christianity on me than Bush ever possibly could.
Bush *is* a fundamentalist chriastian, and he is pushing their agenda of hatred and intolerance. He doesn't need to show up at your door, with the laws that will be passed under him, likely it'll be his police instead.
Speaking of loving the sinner, but hating the sin, why would a Christian ever be violent towards a homosexual? Even if a non-believer doesn't suscribe to Christian doctrine, the Christian should (implying that there should never be any "hate crimes" committed by a Christian)
I don't know, ask Matthew Shepard.
Oh, wait, you can't, because he was beaten, tied up like a scarecrow and eventually killed by christians for being gay. To add insult to injury, the christian community send preachers to his funeral with signs that said "God Hates Fags". This is the face of christian extremnisim in america.
If you look at our genetic make up, we are slowly finding more and more genetic mutations. We are decaying the more we reproduce. And as far as thermodynamics go, we are always heading towards entropy, and eventually 0 Kelvin. So what part of the revelation of God's creation makes us thing that we came from frogs, or birds, or fish or whatever. "Given enough time, frogs turn into princes. In some places that's called a fairy tale. In a laboratory, it's called science."
Your understanding of Newton's laws is very very deep. Entropy only is the primary force in systems where there is no energy being added to the system. Because of the sun's energy being bathed on this planet, this more then counteracts Entropy. Feel free to hold on to this ignorant interpretation if you wish, but it doesn't even resemble science.
As far as your views on abortion, fine. feel free to believe what you want. What makes me angry is that on this ery open issue, your side seeks to force all of society to obey your beliefs. If you don't like abortions, fine, don't have one, but keep your laws off my body.
Prayer in school will never be a requirement. You don't have to participate, but one person shouldn't be able to stop the prayer when a significant majority of people in that school want it.
Clearly you have never been a victim of christian violence. Just *try* being an atheist kid in a shcool where prayer time is allotted and then not using it to pray and see how many black eyes and bruises.
Prayer in school is an underhanded way to force conversion on non-believers using the fact that kids have little problem picking on the different kid.
This is a lie. "Prayer time" in school is a method of coersion. People notice the kid who won't pray, and they beat the hell out of him for not doing it. I know, becuase that was my childhood. Public prayer in school is a way of forcing christianity on kids by using the inherant brutality kids practice on one another.
Why do you have to spend my learning time so you can pray? Why can't you do it on your own time? It's not like a kid can't pray at lunch. The problem for the fundamentalist christians is that all the kids aren't forced to lose time out of their day in observance to their god.
Nobody is trying to discriminate against gays. They're just trying to uphold the definition of marraige.
The whole argument of marriage as a religious obeservance is a load of hocum. I'm an atheist. My marriage is an abomination to your god. Why is that one ok, but other abominations before god are not? Gays being married do no harm to your marriage. The religious right bigots need to leave them alone
Creationism is a widely held, not disproved, and scientifically sound theory. Teach it as a theory. Teach the other theories as theories as well. Show how they may coexist and how particular theories conflict with each other.
No, actually, it's not. A scientifically sound theory needs to have a) repeatable evidence (and no, authoritatian evidence is not scientific evidence. no matter how much you want it to be, the bible is not a source for scientific facts). and b) a scientific theory needs to make *testable* predicitons. If you do not have these two things, your so caled theory is definitionally an asserion, not a theory.
Sorry, your points have been weighted, and have been found wanting.
Here is the realistic situation. 80 columns was created as a formatting standard because of punchcards. Mosto fthe people I know have moved to 120, with the following justifications:
A) pretty much all editors support more then 80 columns, and if you want to use an old version of VI that can't do mroe then 80, it's not really yopur right to enforce your unwillingness to stick even remotly code to the state of the art on everyone else.
B) most programmers have a screen roughly in the 1280x1024 category, and it is a benefit to be able to *use* the extra real estate
C) 120 works fine for printing in landscape.
Ok, fair point - But I look back at the clinton years, and at what has happened since then, and ignoring the hopping idiots got us to a position where the right *does* control teh federal government - albeit weakly, but still completly. When the only tool one side has is a filibuster, that's not alive and well, that's the virge of losing one's grip totally.
I would like to believe as you do in my heart of hearts that we can rise above tit for tat, but I just don't see the proof. Yes, Democracy is self correcting, and eventually it will balance out, but consider that perhaps getting the people hopping mad such that some step out and make movies like this is perhaps *how* democracy is self correcting.
I think it's clear that giving in all the time, and letting the conservatives walk all over us, and trash talk us all they want was *not* working. Maybe this is not the right solution, but at least it is a new approach from the left, and it's better then just being a punching bag that takes all the swings the right has to offer.
That being said, I'm open to other ideas.
Sorry, feeling a little under fire :)
Yeah, and?
Oh, that's right. I'm a liberal in america, and accorting to Coulter I'm a traitor anyway, so you probably should dismiss my view point....coming from a traitor and all.
Cause only Conservatives are real red blooded Americans. All liberals hate freedom, and hate America.
First off, the film does not idolize him - you clearly have not seen it - yet you clearly *are* reading from the talking points of conservatives who are attacking the film. I have seen it, and it does no such thing.
e ws/f911f acts/
Now, from michael moor's website, he has a response to this criticism as well: (if you go to the link, look at the bottom for more on the airplane thing)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestn
What does the film say about the Saudi and bin laden family flights out of the country after 9/11?
For a complete analysis of this topic, go here. One thing the film does NOT say, is that these flights left the county while other flights were grounded. Rather, the film says these flights left the country after September 13. These facts are based on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12.
Some critics have said that the film hides the fact that former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Is this criticism valid?
Absolutely not. If the film were trying to hide Clarke's involvement, we would not have included a visual reproduction of the actual New York Times article about the White House decision to approve the flights that prominently mentions Clarke's name. Clarke has testified, "Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.
Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he would approve these flights again. Doesn't this undermine the film's point?
Absolutely not. The main question raised by the film, which neither Richard Clarke nor anyone at the White House has ever answered, is why? Why did this happen? What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history? Why did these Saudi Royals and bin laden family members receive such special treatment, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Imagine if the hijackers were North Koreans. It is inconceivable that a group of North Koreans, let alone relatives of the individual who had mastermind the attack, would have been given a one-way ticket out of the country with the cooperation of the White House as soon as airspace was open. Or Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. The bottom line is that we really do not know why it was necessary for the White House to approve the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.
Those people don't get a shred of time from the media. The media can't bend over backwards far enough to please people who want to attack Moore.
So I'll alter my statement "Yet the media won't say a damn thing about her"
What normal people say and feel and what actually gets media attention are two totally different things.
oh, they do, the difference is this:
When michael moore is attacked, it's all over the news papers, and very visible. When Coulter is attacked, it's in the back pages (if it's in the paper at all), or more likely, it's on Salon.
Big media refuses to even consider questioning conservative icons.
You would never find an article tearking Coulter apart in something like the NY Times, but I'm certain you can find an article critical of Moore.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...find me evidence and I'll recant that.
Actually, I completly agree with you. The problem is, as a liberal, allowing one side to stand on a pulpit and defame my views essentially unchallanged has lead to a position where democrats no have totally lsot any control in washington.
I fully believe taht alloing talking heads like Rush and Savage to continue their very partisan and constant attacks from the right without answering them and fireing back is a major reason why the we lsot both houses of congress and the white house. I think that partisan talk bickering like this, that is also consistantly getting louder is inherantly damaging to the country - but I think one party controlling everything is *far* more damaging. Our government works best when the middle runs things instead of the fringe zealots.
SO, In order to balance things again, teh left needs to grow a spine, roll up it's sleeves, and start fighting the conservatives at their own level - if nothing else it will restore balance so the people in the middle can start talking again some day.
I don't disagree with you, but unless I want to live in a country where liberalism is dead, and conservativism runs everything, I don't see a choice.
Ok, please give me a day. Finding actual verfiable evidence of something like that *does* take time.
I'll try to post something in the next 24 hours if I can.
That's fair, and my last line is uncalled for. Please accept my appology.
In the interests of dialog, I'll try to respond to this when I get back (I have a wedding to go to), but I believe this article is deeply flawed. An example I can whip out real quickly: The person who wrote the article states that the 9/11 commission found that the bin ladens left the country after the airspace had been re-opened. This is a VERY deceptive statement. on September 13th, the air space had been re-opened, but no passengers were allowed to fly until sept 14th. Sept 13th was used to reshuffle the airplanes back to where they should be so that flights could resume the 14th.
No passengers were allowed, *except* for these special charter flights that took the Bin Ladens and the Saudi royalists out of the country.
Hitchens then states that Clark allowed these flights - and thus Moore is a liar.
Well, these saudis were allowed to fly befor anyone else, were not questioned, and were allowed to do so by a member of the Bush administration (Clark was indeed a member of the bush administration, or do you dispute that fact as well). Not one iota of this contradicts Moore and Ferenheit 9/11.
Once again, Moore uses facts, while the talking heads on the right jsut say wheever they want to, so long as it's consistant with their idology - facts be damned.
I'll try to reply more to it when I get back from the wedding.
Ann Coulter's screed is provably full of outright lies. Her sources don't even match up to her attributions, something that I have confirmed for myself. The woman considers the capability to type a footnote somehow gives her the right to say anything she wants.
Moore has hard facts. He doesn't present the counter argument is teh standard attack on him. Lemme ask you a question - who makes an argument and then publically tries to attack it. This is not Moore's job, it is the job of his opponents. The facts he has are sound - and can be retrieved from multiple sources.....Coulter is no where near up to this level.
Ya know. I'm sick and tired of the "leaving information out" argument against Michael Moore. When is the last time *you* made an argument and you brought mentioned every last possible fact that could harm your argument? When a person makes anargument, it *is not their responsibility to make the counter argument*. It is the responsibility of the opposing party in the argument. Arguments have always been constructed with the set of facts that support your hypothesis - you have aproblem with moore, you are always free to produce facts that undermine his argument - something you can't do with outright liars.
Beyond that, look at the right. Ann Coulier clearly and repeatedly lies outright in her books. In many casses her attributions are ourtight fabrications. Yet no one says a damn thing about her. Look at Rush. The man also lies on a repeated and regular basis. The chorus of silence criticizing him is deafening. The same goes for almost all of the crackpot commentators on the right like Michael Savage and even Bill O'Reilly. These people have a political agenda, and have no concern for the truth whatsoever.
Compare this to Michael Moore who at least has facts to back up his claims. Does he make the counterargument against himself? No. Is that his job? No.
I'm just sick of the hipocracy in this country that hold the left to a *much much* higher standard then the right. Progressives can't make tiny mistakes without being torn apart by the wolves, yet the right gets free reign to do and say anythign they want and essentially recieve no accountability for their actions.
All you have to look at to see this is a man who has suggested life imprisonment for drug offenders, and I believe at least once executions who turned out to be a drug abuser himself - and *nothing* happened to him. Rush Limbaugh.
SO if you are going to throw your stones at the left, you might want to watch out for your conservative glass house first.
Well, if you are using a D20 game system, recently a bunch of GM's tools have been added. The eventual goal of this is to allow better tabletop play, as well as networked play.
Currently, your best bet is using GMGen + PCGen + OpenRPG. PCGen allows you to create an electronic character for each player, GMGen can allow some control over combats, as well as giving the GM E character sheets for each person, OpenRPG will give you a minuature tabletop, as well as dice and such.
Devon Jones
GMGen Silverback (Benevolent Dictator)
PCGen Board of Directors
I couldn't agree more. The concept of a nipple on TV being the end of decency is a farce.
/think/ of. *pshaw* this is nothign compared to gettign US servicement killed in another country based on a mound of lies and damn lies.
One of (I think it was MSNBC's anchors) referred to it as the biggest scandle he could
That's a complete load of horse pucky. I jsut don't get he naderites. By every measure I can think of our country is worse off after 4 years of Bush. Sure, Kerry may represent special interests, but the democrat special interstes are FAR less repugnant then the republican ones. Hmm Bush's: Big Oil. Kerry's: The national teacher's union.
Besides, your comment is TOTALLY wrong. need I remind you that Powell and teh two republicans running the fcc voted to raise the ownership caps. The dems in the FCC voted against it. That right there gives lie to your statement.
A vote for nader is a vote for bush, and 4 more years of losing freedoms, and widening gaps between the rich and the poor. If you think a vote for nader is anything else, you are fooling yourself, and to the detriment of everyone around you.
Not to be cynical, because I respect people participating in our democracy, but what's the point? Michael Powell blatently ignores the public commentary EVERY time, and sides with big business 100% of the time over the comsumer. The man has yet to make even one pro consumer decision since taking the reigns of the FCC.
Realistically, we are not going to make a difference on this no matter how many of us post, because the FCC doesn't give one whit about consumers currently. If you really want this to have even a remote chance of working out for the best, take action by voting Kerry.
Devon Jones
Because all but one of those justices has a paersona and deep interest in republicans controlling politics. Now that the republicans own teh white house (Thanks to them) and the Congress - the 6 biased judges have no issue extending as much power as they can to this congress.
At least, that's my opinion when I'm pissed off.
But that's not his point. The point is that every 20 years Disney is gonna call up their totally owned senators and representatives, give them a couple hundred thousand in campaign contributions, and next thing you know, copyright is extended for another 20 years.
Remember, here in the United States, you don't have to register works to get copyright protection - so they don't have to do anything - they can just sit on the library of 'owned' works, and when in 500 years, for some reason the Uncle Remus stuff becomes acceptable again (ok, not likely) - they can whip it back out. As a result, nothing of our culture's history becomes owned by our culture....ever again...from 1923 on.
Yes - registering copyrights again would greatly assist here. But the reality is that you don't have to, and likely never will again.