The whole "No relationships" thing, I remember a few speeches from KOTOR. Basically, the Jedi Order feels that love makes one do irrational things. Hate leads to the Dark Side, and I think if a Sith killed your love, you'd certainly act out of hate and revenge. Sort of how Anakin acted when the Sand People killed his mother. That's why a Jedi is supposed to distance himself or herself far from family, too.
Keep in mind, neither in the game nor the movies do many Jedi actually follow this rule. There's still a lot of love, which does lead to some problems. Hey, they're only human... and Wookies, Twi'leks, etc.
Well, I have to give you credit: That is a nice idea. But I'm not really sure that fits the image I saw. I saw something that is, in a sense, unseeable (Is that a word? Don't care.). Maybe I just can't picture the hand gesture of conjuring something from the great beyond, especially a pot of flowers. But, maybe everyone sees it a little bit differently.
Besides, this scene is from Life, the Universe, and Everything. So, let's set it aside for now (ignoring the fact that I was the one that brought it up). I reserve true judgment until I see the flick for myself.
I just finished Mostly Harmless about 4 weeks ago, so also note that not everyone here that read it read it back when it originally came out.
I, too, have high hopes for the movie. I've heard a lot of negative comments here, but, with all due respect, this IS/. which houses many geeks who hate pretty much anything they haven't seen/read/memorized years ago. Or so the trend appears.
I have to agree with you here. I find it hard to imagine how a two-headed man could look "normal" (relatively speaking) without just looking... awkward. Some jokes were meant for books and radio, and some were meant for movies (For example, in one trailer, there was a claymation [I could be mistaken] sequence. While using the Improbability drive. Now, this would be rather hard to show in a book, wouldn't it?).
Warning: Book spoilers below!
Also, in Life, the Universe, and Everything, there's a humongous statue of Arthur, killing various forms of Agrajag. One of the arms, Arthur noticed, was doing something strange, but he couldn't understand what. Later, he realized it was conjuring up a pot of petunias into existence. Now, this joke was hilarious. But if anyone can actually think of a way to put this gag into a movie, I'll do everything I can to win you a Nobel Prize for being an utter genius.
It's hard to rank famous Science Guys. Personally, I'll just stick with the fact that Bill Nye, Mr. Wizard, and Beakman's World were truly examples of great shows.
Well, I'm 18, so I think I'd fit in their target demographic, but quite frankly, there's very little television out there I find worth watching. I can't stand these teen dramas and I am the group they're targeting. The only channel with characters I can identify with is, ironically, Cartoon Network. So the only semi-identifiable characters are fictional people. (Thank you, Adult Swim, for shows like Fullmetal Alchemist and Ghost in the Shell.)
As to the appeal of these shows, I'm really at just as much of a loss as you. What I've seen of these shows is nothing at all like anyone's real life. I did ask one girl who said she liked it and she told me it was because the protagonist was hot. I think that says it all, really.
Sadly, all of my news stations do that pretty much all year round.
"Next on FOX 5 news at 5, a serial rapist has escaped prison, and he wants to hunt down YOUR family. Tune in to FOX 5 news at 5 to learn how you can save your family!" "Tonight on Eyewitness news at 11, your TV might actually be an explosive! Tune in tonight to find out which brands may suddenly turn your house into a raging inferno!"
Once again, this proves that no news show is worth watching, excluding the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. (Better to just get your news from other non-TV sources, too)
Well, I live just north of you in New York (Dutchess County) and I have to say this has been one of the coldest winters I can remember. Not that it was always cold. Sometimes it did reach 15C, but at the same time, when you go a week with never going above 0C, it is a cold one. In fact, I was startled recently to go outside and say "boy, it's warm out here, a lot more than last week," to find it was still below freezing.
I'm not so sure I agree it's a plan to drive towards the military... but I do think it's something suspicious. Most likely, it's just a plan to ensure re-election. In my opinion, the real problem in America is poor parenting that can't provide what children need (I was lucky enough to grow up in a household where my parents paid attention to me when needed but understood I was mature enough for certain decisions, thus restricting SOME things but not all, based on how they saw me develop).
Now, the proper way to rectify this situation would be for parents to take up more active roles in their parenting. It would involve them having to get up, observe their children, and judge their needs accordingly. That would require WORK. It's much easier to just have a guy in a suit tell you what your child(ren)'s problems are and do that FOR you. After all, it's always easier to point a finger than to actually lift it.
I'll admit. When I play Grand Theft Auto (3, VC, SA, all of them apply), there are a lot of jokes I find a little tasteless at times. But it was the developers decision to put them in there. Sure, I don't like all of the jokes, but somebody does. It was Rockstar's idea to put them in and that's their choice. They felt it improved the GTA experience.
But then I ask myself a question. Who decided that at 18, you're magically mature enough to play these games, anyway? I know 14 year olds who are mature enough to play any violent game, yet I also know 20-something year old immature idiots who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a piece of string. The ability to decipher the difference between fantasy and reality is something that can't be checked on a card or with age. But to punish the vast majority because of the pre-existing idiocy of the few is wrong. (It's in my own opinion that anyone who would emulate an act of violence in a video game would just have easily been affected by a movie, magazine, or, hell, the evening news these days)
Besides, it's not like there isn't a million easy ways to get around any such legislation. Like say, an uninformed parent buying the game for you. (And here's a bit of a paradox: A parent who would actually go so far to check what his or her kid is playing is more likely to be a more involved parent and would probably have a better grip on reality anyway. Though that may be a bit too much of a generalization.)
I learned everything about WWII from Command and Conquer: Red Alert. You know, where Einstein goes back in time and kills Hitler, so Stalin comes to power and the Allies use temporal weaponry to beat the Soviet nukes? This is real edumacashunal stuff!
Speaking of Half-Life, what about the crowbar? It's nigh impossible to look at a crowbar the same way again. Now that I've played Half-Life 2, I get this random urge to crack crates open with them, or at least pick them up with a gun and throw them across the sky.
I suppose hours of alien and soldier sniping wears out the mind with time.
I get similar thoughts thanks to Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell. "Look at those puny shoppers on the floor below me... I could so easily drop onto their heads from here and knock them out in one fell swoop." Or I'll press my back up against a wall, just peeking over to see if anyone is coming before I dive into the next wall. I even hope to find a decent sized cardboard box one of these days...
But as the parent said, don't arrest me. I'm both afraid of heights and any sort of weaponry, so the odds of me going super-spy are rather low.
Katamari Damacy has the same effect on me. The fact that I'm listening to its soundtrack right now is not a good sign. Plus, it's snowing. So, I sit down and think, "well, if I start with a small snowball, I can pick up pinecones until I can get squirrels and birds, then its on to small stones... I can probably get around to cars by dusk."
Damn the Japanese for making insanity both easy, fun, and addictive. Not to mention that by law, all insane Japanese games have to have insanely addictive music.
I agree. I have not been one to try and get involved in too many political debates here. In general, the high levels of flaming either sickened me or scared me beyond the ability to post.
Not that I am innocent in person. I have been a bit whiney about Bush. And I really did want Kerry to win pretty badly. However, I am doing my damndest to be a good loser. I don't believe Bush is good for America or the world. I still think he's a pretty terrible leader (Then again, I feel all of these candidates were pretty lousy). But like it or not, Bush won fair and square (relatively speaking. Not that either side ever plays perfectly fair. In that sense it is fair.). Like it or not, I accept that. And as a loser in this election, I feel it's my civic duty to uphold my beliefs still. But not in a way as to encourage flame wars. If Bush tries to do something that I disagree with, well, it's my job to join the protest. It's NOT my job to say anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.
So, let's all join hands, enjoy the ideas of free will/thought, and go back to debating about the important things. Like which game system (or PC is best.) Or whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better/worse.
You know, I've never liked a rap song in my life, save for a few Run DMC songs, and Eminem was one of my least favorite artists ever, but, dayum, I liked that video (And not just because it was anti-Bush, but because it actually did give some good moral points). Not really what I expected from him.
I know this is completely off topic from your well-made points, but it makes me wonder: What defines pornography as pornography? When does something stop being "art" (And I just KNOW I'm going to get flak for that, hence the quotation marks) and become porn?
Theoretically, nearly anything may be used, by someone, to cause sexual arrousal. However, the main point, the main design may not be for that purpose. But then that begs a few questions. What if two people create an image of two people having sex. The style, genders, etc. do not have any effect on this. In any case, the images are nigh exact. However, one did it to express his take on the sexuality of mankind (in essense, he is expressing himself, so many would call it art.) The other artist creates the same image as pornography, either for his own personal enjoyment or to sell it. Is it then possible for one of those images to be "art" while the other is "pr0n?" Or are both one in the same? Where does that ever so blurry line lie?
To apply that to this situation, these girls are expressing themselves, and some men are using as they would pornography. Is it then porn to them, but art and self expression to others? (This same argement can be used over the perception of all, objects. I have a chair. I use it as a chair because I sit in it. A man has the same chair but only uses it as a stool. Is it a stool to him and a chair to me? Can the same object be classified as two different things, changed only by perception?)
Very good points indeed. Though, in actuallity, I knew that wasn't the point. It was more of me going off on a tangent, which I'm very prone to doing.
But I suppose people who want to roleplay in what is, at least to some degree, based on racism. After all, one of the most common battles in fantasy is Human vs. Orc. Orcs are, of course, the evil, gruesome, murderous bastards who deserve death on sight. Humans think the same of humans. If that ain't racism... So, yes, good point.
To be fair, I know a lot of women who play video games. The most popular among them, though, are MMORPG's (and for some, offline RPGs). Ragnarok Online tends to be a rather female heavy MMORPG. Well, at least if my purely scientific and 100% accurate poll is true (My poll consists of knowing about 10 people who play it, about 7 of them women.)
I didn't say that I couldn't really find a third party that I agree with. Well, actually, I did (words are not my friends). What was more intended was that I don't support the candidate, not the leader. For example, let's do this hypothetically. Suppose I were a Republican. Just because I'm a Republican does not mean that I support George Bush right now. If I were a Democrat, that doesn't mean I like Kerry.
Currently, I can think of some parties that I like the ideals of. However, this doesn't mean I think that the party is going about the right way of doing it. Doesn't mean I trust the head honcho.
And if my views really are in the 1%... Well, so be it. To each his own. I'll still debate things with people, regardless of how popular they are. I'd never learn anything, never trust any groups, perfect my current ideas, or reach any new ones if I didn't discuss my current ones with others, now would I?
Irony is truly lost here. Part of the whole discussion here is that there are ways to help people that do not require voting. (I'm turning 17 in November and am already registered to vote. I will miss the Presidential election, but this discussion is actually more academic than situational.)
So I'm 17. No, I can't legally vote. So, I'm utterly hopeless? I can't do anything? Woe be unto the world where the only credentials required for voicing one's opinion is age.
Also, in what way does flaming and insulting from behind the wall of anonymity add to this discussion? (Ironically, nothing is also added by my pointing this out.)
Well, see, that, too, is a problem. I'm not 35, thus, inelligible for running for President. There are people out there that I know of who, in my opinion, would make great presidents. Unfortunately, as a standard rule of thumb, the best person for a job of high power is someone who qualifies for the job, but does not want it. (To put this in an example, for a lawyer, I'd rather have a guy who has all the brains and charisma you need to be one, but WOULDN'T want to be one because he has little respect for the job.)
But perhaps that just falls back onto what you said. If this person hates lawyers so much, why not be one himself so he can change the profession?
But in cases like this, one person can't make much of a difference. (See the poster above me on his comments of what it takes to run for president) However, one person can start a snowball effect, gaining more and more support so he CAN run. Granted, such a thing is not easy. You try to convince a bunch of millionaires as to why they should support your campaign (especially if, say, one of your ideas as president is to increase taxes for the rich).
And, I'll admit it right here. I'm 17. I don't know everything. Hell, I'd be surprised if I knew ANYTHING with great detail. But if I see someone I think should run, someone I feel is truly capable, I'd support him in a heartbeat, regardless of his party affiliations. And until I'm old (and probably welathy) enough to run for Preisdent, all I can do is support who I think is best.
One problem I have, though, is that my respect for third parties isn't much higher than it is for the "main" two. Usually, when one says, for example, "I hate Bush and Kerry," one is usually instructed to vote third party. But where does one turn when one feels that NO ONE up there is even semi-decent?
Though, to be fair, the grandparent post was modded Overrated and Troll, too. So it looks like one mod based his point on the fact that he, too, doubted Bush would not answer without considering that Kerry isn't well known for straight answers, either.
No one is in the right here... Though considering the comment about which way/. leans, perhaps I should mention that that was not meant as a pun.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole "No relationships" thing, I remember a few speeches from KOTOR. Basically, the Jedi Order feels that love makes one do irrational things. Hate leads to the Dark Side, and I think if a Sith killed your love, you'd certainly act out of hate and revenge. Sort of how Anakin acted when the Sand People killed his mother. That's why a Jedi is supposed to distance himself or herself far from family, too.
Keep in mind, neither in the game nor the movies do many Jedi actually follow this rule. There's still a lot of love, which does lead to some problems. Hey, they're only human... and Wookies, Twi'leks, etc.
Well, I have to give you credit: That is a nice idea. But I'm not really sure that fits the image I saw. I saw something that is, in a sense, unseeable (Is that a word? Don't care.). Maybe I just can't picture the hand gesture of conjuring something from the great beyond, especially a pot of flowers. But, maybe everyone sees it a little bit differently.
Besides, this scene is from Life, the Universe, and Everything. So, let's set it aside for now (ignoring the fact that I was the one that brought it up). I reserve true judgment until I see the flick for myself.
I just finished Mostly Harmless about 4 weeks ago, so also note that not everyone here that read it read it back when it originally came out.
/. which houses many geeks who hate pretty much anything they haven't seen/read/memorized years ago. Or so the trend appears.
I, too, have high hopes for the movie. I've heard a lot of negative comments here, but, with all due respect, this IS
I have to agree with you here. I find it hard to imagine how a two-headed man could look "normal" (relatively speaking) without just looking... awkward. Some jokes were meant for books and radio, and some were meant for movies (For example, in one trailer, there was a claymation [I could be mistaken] sequence. While using the Improbability drive. Now, this would be rather hard to show in a book, wouldn't it?).
Warning: Book spoilers below!
Also, in Life, the Universe, and Everything, there's a humongous statue of Arthur, killing various forms of Agrajag. One of the arms, Arthur noticed, was doing something strange, but he couldn't understand what. Later, he realized it was conjuring up a pot of petunias into existence. Now, this joke was hilarious. But if anyone can actually think of a way to put this gag into a movie, I'll do everything I can to win you a Nobel Prize for being an utter genius.
It's hard to rank famous Science Guys. Personally, I'll just stick with the fact that Bill Nye, Mr. Wizard, and Beakman's World were truly examples of great shows.
Well, I'm 18, so I think I'd fit in their target demographic, but quite frankly, there's very little television out there I find worth watching. I can't stand these teen dramas and I am the group they're targeting. The only channel with characters I can identify with is, ironically, Cartoon Network. So the only semi-identifiable characters are fictional people. (Thank you, Adult Swim, for shows like Fullmetal Alchemist and Ghost in the Shell.)
As to the appeal of these shows, I'm really at just as much of a loss as you. What I've seen of these shows is nothing at all like anyone's real life. I did ask one girl who said she liked it and she told me it was because the protagonist was hot. I think that says it all, really.
Sadly, all of my news stations do that pretty much all year round.
"Next on FOX 5 news at 5, a serial rapist has escaped prison, and he wants to hunt down YOUR family. Tune in to FOX 5 news at 5 to learn how you can save your family!"
"Tonight on Eyewitness news at 11, your TV might actually be an explosive! Tune in tonight to find out which brands may suddenly turn your house into a raging inferno!"
Once again, this proves that no news show is worth watching, excluding the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. (Better to just get your news from other non-TV sources, too)
Well, I live just north of you in New York (Dutchess County) and I have to say this has been one of the coldest winters I can remember. Not that it was always cold. Sometimes it did reach 15C, but at the same time, when you go a week with never going above 0C, it is a cold one. In fact, I was startled recently to go outside and say "boy, it's warm out here, a lot more than last week," to find it was still below freezing.
Now, the proper way to rectify this situation would be for parents to take up more active roles in their parenting. It would involve them having to get up, observe their children, and judge their needs accordingly. That would require WORK. It's much easier to just have a guy in a suit tell you what your child(ren)'s problems are and do that FOR you. After all, it's always easier to point a finger than to actually lift it.
I hate to interrupt into other people's conversations... but I believe that was sarcasm. Hence the "* offer not available to foster children" bit.
I'll admit. When I play Grand Theft Auto (3, VC, SA, all of them apply), there are a lot of jokes I find a little tasteless at times. But it was the developers decision to put them in there. Sure, I don't like all of the jokes, but somebody does. It was Rockstar's idea to put them in and that's their choice. They felt it improved the GTA experience.
But then I ask myself a question. Who decided that at 18, you're magically mature enough to play these games, anyway? I know 14 year olds who are mature enough to play any violent game, yet I also know 20-something year old immature idiots who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a piece of string. The ability to decipher the difference between fantasy and reality is something that can't be checked on a card or with age. But to punish the vast majority because of the pre-existing idiocy of the few is wrong. (It's in my own opinion that anyone who would emulate an act of violence in a video game would just have easily been affected by a movie, magazine, or, hell, the evening news these days)
Besides, it's not like there isn't a million easy ways to get around any such legislation. Like say, an uninformed parent buying the game for you. (And here's a bit of a paradox: A parent who would actually go so far to check what his or her kid is playing is more likely to be a more involved parent and would probably have a better grip on reality anyway. Though that may be a bit too much of a generalization.)
I learned everything about WWII from Command and Conquer: Red Alert. You know, where Einstein goes back in time and kills Hitler, so Stalin comes to power and the Allies use temporal weaponry to beat the Soviet nukes? This is real edumacashunal stuff!
Speaking of Half-Life, what about the crowbar? It's nigh impossible to look at a crowbar the same way again. Now that I've played Half-Life 2, I get this random urge to crack crates open with them, or at least pick them up with a gun and throw them across the sky.
I suppose hours of alien and soldier sniping wears out the mind with time.
I get similar thoughts thanks to Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell. "Look at those puny shoppers on the floor below me... I could so easily drop onto their heads from here and knock them out in one fell swoop." Or I'll press my back up against a wall, just peeking over to see if anyone is coming before I dive into the next wall. I even hope to find a decent sized cardboard box one of these days...
But as the parent said, don't arrest me. I'm both afraid of heights and any sort of weaponry, so the odds of me going super-spy are rather low.
Katamari Damacy has the same effect on me. The fact that I'm listening to its soundtrack right now is not a good sign. Plus, it's snowing. So, I sit down and think, "well, if I start with a small snowball, I can pick up pinecones until I can get squirrels and birds, then its on to small stones... I can probably get around to cars by dusk."
Damn the Japanese for making insanity both easy, fun, and addictive. Not to mention that by law, all insane Japanese games have to have insanely addictive music.
I agree. I have not been one to try and get involved in too many political debates here. In general, the high levels of flaming either sickened me or scared me beyond the ability to post.
Not that I am innocent in person. I have been a bit whiney about Bush. And I really did want Kerry to win pretty badly. However, I am doing my damndest to be a good loser. I don't believe Bush is good for America or the world. I still think he's a pretty terrible leader (Then again, I feel all of these candidates were pretty lousy). But like it or not, Bush won fair and square (relatively speaking. Not that either side ever plays perfectly fair. In that sense it is fair.). Like it or not, I accept that. And as a loser in this election, I feel it's my civic duty to uphold my beliefs still. But not in a way as to encourage flame wars. If Bush tries to do something that I disagree with, well, it's my job to join the protest. It's NOT my job to say anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.
So, let's all join hands, enjoy the ideas of free will/thought, and go back to debating about the important things. Like which game system (or PC is best.) Or whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better/worse.
You know, I've never liked a rap song in my life, save for a few Run DMC songs, and Eminem was one of my least favorite artists ever, but, dayum, I liked that video (And not just because it was anti-Bush, but because it actually did give some good moral points). Not really what I expected from him.
I know this is completely off topic from your well-made points, but it makes me wonder: What defines pornography as pornography? When does something stop being "art" (And I just KNOW I'm going to get flak for that, hence the quotation marks) and become porn?
Theoretically, nearly anything may be used, by someone, to cause sexual arrousal. However, the main point, the main design may not be for that purpose. But then that begs a few questions. What if two people create an image of two people having sex. The style, genders, etc. do not have any effect on this. In any case, the images are nigh exact. However, one did it to express his take on the sexuality of mankind (in essense, he is expressing himself, so many would call it art.) The other artist creates the same image as pornography, either for his own personal enjoyment or to sell it. Is it then possible for one of those images to be "art" while the other is "pr0n?" Or are both one in the same? Where does that ever so blurry line lie?
To apply that to this situation, these girls are expressing themselves, and some men are using as they would pornography. Is it then porn to them, but art and self expression to others? (This same argement can be used over the perception of all, objects. I have a chair. I use it as a chair because I sit in it. A man has the same chair but only uses it as a stool. Is it a stool to him and a chair to me? Can the same object be classified as two different things, changed only by perception?)
Very good points indeed. Though, in actuallity, I knew that wasn't the point. It was more of me going off on a tangent, which I'm very prone to doing.
But I suppose people who want to roleplay in what is, at least to some degree, based on racism. After all, one of the most common battles in fantasy is Human vs. Orc. Orcs are, of course, the evil, gruesome, murderous bastards who deserve death on sight. Humans think the same of humans. If that ain't racism... So, yes, good point.
To be fair, I know a lot of women who play video games. The most popular among them, though, are MMORPG's (and for some, offline RPGs). Ragnarok Online tends to be a rather female heavy MMORPG. Well, at least if my purely scientific and 100% accurate poll is true (My poll consists of knowing about 10 people who play it, about 7 of them women.)
I didn't say that I couldn't really find a third party that I agree with. Well, actually, I did (words are not my friends). What was more intended was that I don't support the candidate, not the leader. For example, let's do this hypothetically. Suppose I were a Republican. Just because I'm a Republican does not mean that I support George Bush right now. If I were a Democrat, that doesn't mean I like Kerry.
Currently, I can think of some parties that I like the ideals of. However, this doesn't mean I think that the party is going about the right way of doing it. Doesn't mean I trust the head honcho.
And if my views really are in the 1%... Well, so be it. To each his own. I'll still debate things with people, regardless of how popular they are. I'd never learn anything, never trust any groups, perfect my current ideas, or reach any new ones if I didn't discuss my current ones with others, now would I?
Irony is truly lost here. Part of the whole discussion here is that there are ways to help people that do not require voting. (I'm turning 17 in November and am already registered to vote. I will miss the Presidential election, but this discussion is actually more academic than situational.)
So I'm 17. No, I can't legally vote. So, I'm utterly hopeless? I can't do anything? Woe be unto the world where the only credentials required for voicing one's opinion is age.
Also, in what way does flaming and insulting from behind the wall of anonymity add to this discussion? (Ironically, nothing is also added by my pointing this out.)
Well, see, that, too, is a problem. I'm not 35, thus, inelligible for running for President. There are people out there that I know of who, in my opinion, would make great presidents. Unfortunately, as a standard rule of thumb, the best person for a job of high power is someone who qualifies for the job, but does not want it. (To put this in an example, for a lawyer, I'd rather have a guy who has all the brains and charisma you need to be one, but WOULDN'T want to be one because he has little respect for the job.)
But perhaps that just falls back onto what you said. If this person hates lawyers so much, why not be one himself so he can change the profession?
But in cases like this, one person can't make much of a difference. (See the poster above me on his comments of what it takes to run for president) However, one person can start a snowball effect, gaining more and more support so he CAN run. Granted, such a thing is not easy. You try to convince a bunch of millionaires as to why they should support your campaign (especially if, say, one of your ideas as president is to increase taxes for the rich).
And, I'll admit it right here. I'm 17. I don't know everything. Hell, I'd be surprised if I knew ANYTHING with great detail. But if I see someone I think should run, someone I feel is truly capable, I'd support him in a heartbeat, regardless of his party affiliations. And until I'm old (and probably welathy) enough to run for Preisdent, all I can do is support who I think is best.
Too bad he's too late to start running.
One problem I have, though, is that my respect for third parties isn't much higher than it is for the "main" two. Usually, when one says, for example, "I hate Bush and Kerry," one is usually instructed to vote third party. But where does one turn when one feels that NO ONE up there is even semi-decent?
Though, to be fair, the grandparent post was modded Overrated and Troll, too. So it looks like one mod based his point on the fact that he, too, doubted Bush would not answer without considering that Kerry isn't well known for straight answers, either.
/. leans, perhaps I should mention that that was not meant as a pun.
No one is in the right here... Though considering the comment about which way