What is better--SMAC or SMAX

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Senethro
I, Senethro of the Hive propose a new motion before the Chironian Planetary Council; That this thread be buried and bumped no more, as it is in clear violation of the Forum Necromancy Act of 2123 and the Prohibition of Entirely Subjective Religious Discussion Act.

I further more propose that if the conflict is not resolved or at least off the AC G/H/S front page in 10 days time that extensive carpet bombing using kitten and puppy jpegs be conducted until all thread participants cease activity under a hail of cuteness.

How does the rest of the council vote?

I vote aye

[spartak]

SMAX baby

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by Senethro
I, Senethro of the Hive propose a new motion before the Chironian Planetary Council; That this thread be buried and bumped no more, as it is in clear violation of the Forum Necromancy Act of 2123 and the Prohibition of Entirely Subjective Religious Discussion Act.

I further more propose that if the conflict is not resolved or at least off the AC G/H/S front page in 10 days time that extensive carpet bombing using kitten and puppy jpegs be conducted until all thread participants cease activity under a hail of cuteness.

How does the rest of the council vote?

I vote nay: those that forget the past are condemned to repeating it. By being reminded of the thoughts of those who have gone before us, we are given the opportunity to not repeat the same mistakes as they had done.....
Also, in reference to the "Prohibition of Entirely Subjective Religious Discussion Act" (or PESRDA? ) , why the Bureau of Uniform Legal Litigation (or "BULL") takes the stance that this argument has no legal basis, and therefore all free citizens are allowed to either choose to read and contemplate these thoughts, or not: it is their choice ....


Anyways, I've seen people dig up a lot of good stuff from the past that either I hadn't been aware of, or had saved me time from having to explore the options myself. Digging up old threads (or "Thread Necromancy") isn't a bad thing, IMO.



D

[Kataphraktoi]

in that case senethro i advise you to keep a sharp eye out for hood-wearing nutcases tonight

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Darsnan

Anyways, I've seen people dig up a lot of good stuff from the past that either I hadn't been aware of, or had saved me time from having to explore the options myself. Digging up old threads (or "Thread Necromancy") isn't a bad thing, IMO.



D

I agree with that -- I see no problem bumping old threads-- I merely thought his motion was largely aimed at the very off-topic turn this particular thread had taken and which had been "resurrected"

Old Smax threads
Old off-topic in this forum

[Net Warrior]

I find it interesting that some posters think that SMAC/X's Believers aren't a Christian Sect. I'll partially reproduce some game text to make the point:

The Lord's Believers
BACKGROUND: Christian States of America
-Fundamentalist bible thumping
-Embrace the truth of the Lord's Scripture
-Pounding her cherished bible
-Bible thumping extremism

-BASES
New Jerusalem
Great Zion
Far Jericho
Noah's Rainbow
Blessed Redeemer
New Eden
The Lord's Mercy
The Coming of the Lord
Blessed Saviour
He Walked on Water
Loaves and Fishes
Belly of the Whale
Fisher of Men
Water to Wine
Consecrated Waters

I'm not making any political statement here, and I hope I'm not offending anyone. I just want to keep the facts straight.

[Senethro]

NO STOP THIS THREAD MUST TDIE

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Net Warrior
I find it interesting that some posters think that SMAC/X's Believers aren't a Christian Sect. I'll partially reproduce some game text to make the point:

I'm not making any political statement here, and I hope I'm not offending anyone. I just want to keep the facts straight.

I don't believe that they are trying to imply that Believers are not a Christian sect, although sentry33 mistakenly believes they are not solely based on Christianity, but that they are different than real life Christians which some other posters don't get it. They are making a mistake by identifying Believers with normal Christians.

They are based on Christianity, but Believers aren't meant to represent Christians but religious Fundamentalism, as Xian has nicely summarized, and this is what is causing the disagreement. Old testament and New testament are different, and can be used to support many different courses of action.

[BlackCat]

SMAX - mostly because of some annoying faults in SMAC. Though, somehow I'm some kind of fond of the music in smac.

* hey, don't take that straightjacket, it's mine

[Commy]

I have to say, who ever came up with the idea of montheism is a true genius...think about it...

People are stupid...especially back in time...maybe stupid isn't the right word, perhaps gullible...you see, people believed almost everything...they believed the world was flat, and they believed God existed...

Now, I do give them credit, all the evidence they had and their lack of understanding of science seemed to indicate that God really did exist, but all the same...

So now, people believe God exists...okay, so someone smart uses that to "force" people to do whatever..."if you don't do it, God will strike you down with lightning" and that sort of thing really would have worked...people believe in God, and fear it because they don't understand it...so, you add a fancy little storyline with characters in it (mostly factual), but tie it all up with God, and then you write a moral code...

Now, everyone fears God, and believes your little story of creation and whatever, and so, because of their fear, they do what God says...and if God "says" do this and don't do that, then we have a moral code that people will follow...now, all you have to do is slip in something like tithing, and not only do you have people following you, listening to you, but you have people paying you as well...

I absolutely hate Scientology, but I give its creator credit...if you want to make money, make a religion...

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory


How ironic. What do you know about Islam, anyway?

I've lived in Muslim countries for years at a time. I know everything about Islam (at least compared to most Western Hemisphere dwellers). That guy who was fighting with you is right. I should know. I do know.

[Chaos Theory]

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't quote me misleadingly. The way you used my quote makes it appear to be a response to you.

If you're going to dredge up a dead argument, at least say more than that someone is right.

[NanoDingo]

I haven't got SMAX yet (it's too expensive ) (and I'm too lazy to get a job...anyone wanna bop me a copy on the cheap? ), but I plan to play a couple of games with the new SMAX factions, just to see what it's like and to get a feel for the new Techs and stuff, then go back to playing SMAX with the SMAC Factions. Reason being, I think the original Factions are more "pure" - they're sort of ideological pillars, whereas the new Factions are more narrow in their agendas. Also, the new Factions (especially the Aliens) tend to over-power the old ones, or so I'm told. Either way, I wouldn't mix the two groups, else the continuity is shot to Hell - the original Factions are based upon the Unity crashing, whereas the new Factions are based upon groups created forming once Planet has been colonised. So basically, I just want the play good old SMAC with the new Techs, Facilities and so forth from SMAX.

[Senethro]

"continuity", "pure".

Someone translate please.

Oh, and you've been PMed NanoDingo.

[NanoDingo]

continuity
Unbroken sequential link between...things...

pure
Untainted; delusion ally idealistic; suitable for people with mild obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

Originally posted by Senethro
Oh, and you've been PMed NanoDingo.

Ooh.
-