Conquer Club

Fircoal wrote:

NESconqueror wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:No you wouldn't, it makes too much money.

Let us take a look at it all from all the way back to third gen consoles.
NES basically proved its worth with approximately 1000 or so games and made a lot of good games with decent challenge.
Xbox series seems to have made basically most of its stuff from one series being halo
The Wii (Which I so happen to own) seems to bring some good challenge back and also includes GC controller compatitability.
What did Xbox and PS folks do (The makers of the console)? They used the same controller.
Personally, Nintendo > all to summarize it.
Go ahead! sentence me to the guillotine and whatnot! I keep true to the gaming corporation that made great success (NES to SNES to N64 to Gamecube to Wii)Over sony's playstation (Playstation, Playstation 2, playstation 3) Over whoever makes xbox and the xbox 360.

MEGA QFT!

That's why I said it would be a bad idea to "kill" Halo. He disagreed, I still don't quite know why.

I'm not sure what yosevuk means by good and bad. But I think good is how a person cares and contributes to and for himself/herself while doing the same to other people. Bad is how a person only cares and contributes to himself/herself while not doing the same for other people. So in this case, probably at least half of the people in the world are bad.

Honibaz wrote:I'm not sure what yosevuk means by good and bad. But I think good is how a person cares and contributes to and for himself/herself while doing the same to other people. Bad is how a person only cares and contributes to himself/herself while not doing the same for other people. So in this case, probably at least half of the people in the world are bad.

Your definition of bad already has a couple of words..; Selfish, self-centred..

Skittles! wrote:

Honibaz wrote:I'm not sure what yosevuk means by good and bad. But I think good is how a person cares and contributes to and for himself/herself while doing the same to other people. Bad is how a person only cares and contributes to himself/herself while not doing the same for other people. So in this case, probably at least half of the people in the world are bad.

Your definition of bad already has a couple of words..; Selfish, self-centred..

That's true.

Honibaz wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

Honibaz wrote:I'm not sure what yosevuk means by good and bad. But I think good is how a person cares and contributes to and for himself/herself while doing the same to other people. Bad is how a person only cares and contributes to himself/herself while not doing the same for other people. So in this case, probably at least half of the people in the world are bad.

Your definition of bad already has a couple of words..; Selfish, self-centred..

That's true.

And to your good definition.. Generous, springs to mind.

And seeming that your 'bad' definition fits the word of selfish, than more than 3/4 of the world is that.

Skittles! wrote:

Honibaz wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

Honibaz wrote:I'm not sure what yosevuk means by good and bad. But I think good is how a person cares and contributes to and for himself/herself while doing the same to other people. Bad is how a person only cares and contributes to himself/herself while not doing the same for other people. So in this case, probably at least half of the people in the world are bad.

Your definition of bad already has a couple of words..; Selfish, self-centred..

That's true.

And to your good definition.. Generous, springs to mind.

And seeming that your 'bad' definition fits the word of selfish, than more than 3/4 of the world is that.

Well, do you think that is the case?

Cmdr. Peter wrote:

unriggable wrote:It just seems strange that so many people would think that such blind anger against an entire civilization is something that a good, beautiful, creative, wise, loving, integrity (adjective), generous, compassionate, courageous and self-sacrificing God would do.

...you know, I tried to find the word you're looking for, and I couldn't find it either! I'm guessing it doesn't exist, which seems wrong somehow! Maybe we should coin one? "integrious?"

Shouldn't it be integer?

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Cmdr. Peter wrote:

unriggable wrote:It just seems strange that so many people would think that such blind anger against an entire civilization is something that a good, beautiful, creative, wise, loving, integrity (adjective), generous, compassionate, courageous and self-sacrificing God would do.

...you know, I tried to find the word you're looking for, and I couldn't find it either! I'm guessing it doesn't exist, which seems wrong somehow! Maybe we should coin one? "integrious?"

Shouldn't it be integer?

That's also a noun. Mathematicians!

Maybe integral? At least that IS a word, though I've never heard it used that way.

unriggable wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote: Anger at injustice is a virtue. And, yes, that is another good quality of his that we are capable of because we are made in his image. Aren't you?

It just seems strange that so many people would think that such blind anger against an entire civilization is something that a good, beautiful, creative, wise, loving, integrity (adjective), generous, compassionate, courageous and self-sacrificing God would do.

Obviously the answer is yes. You are capable of the virtue of anger at injustice. Even though it was neither relevant to our discussion of whether people are good or bad, nor to my point about how the good and bad qualities in people relate, my mention of God having these qualities touched of the issue of a perceived injustice on God's part, and you were moved enough to turn aside from the topic and be sure to set the record straight concerning that perceived injustice.

It's okay. I understand your seeing it that way. You haven't met him.

daddy1gringo wrote:Maybe integral? At least that IS a word, though I've never heard it used that way.

Hmm. According to dictionary.com, you're right, that isn't one of it's normal contexts, but I rather like it. I can even make a roundabout case for it: they come from the same roots, with meanings "completeness" and "soundness". The implication being that a person of integrity is a complete and sound set of morals. Unhappily, I can also make a case against: even if my case above holds, the word "integral" isn't usually used in quite that way in a structural sense either. An object may have structural integrity, and the parts that give it that integrity are integral to it, yet there still is no adjective for "the act of having structural integrity".

bah! I have a love-hate relationship with the English language...it is so flexible, yet sometimes lacks some simple words that logically should be there. On the other hand, it provides fodder for talks like this!

...so....I vote that we petition Webster or whoever & make up a word! Is anyone with me?