646
Way Off Topic Box / Re: Post a picture of your self here because....
« on: 30 Dec, 2012 19:37 »
I feel he has some kind of unsufferable hump and thats why hes always arching over in his pictures.
Show Posts - Kwaurtz
Back
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 »
647
General Gaming Talk / Re: Natural selection 2
« on: 29 Dec, 2012 17:21 »
I played the shit out of the first one. Jorgen, Innershea, Krolin and I played a bit together on the sequal, I like it, but me being me I get frustrated when my teammates don't work together.
649
Solved Admin Abuse / Re: Caboose randomly slaying
« on: 27 Dec, 2012 22:25 »From that I assumed
You assumed. Im pretty sure that the rule is you cant kill on assumption, but ask an admin to be sure. And did you try to message caboose on steam? Normally people answer if you try that. I would wait until Caboose posts to see what happened.
Generally, its fairly safe to assume when someone is with someone else, and they kill them, and don't say a pip about an un-ided body or anything about it, they are probably a traitor. If you actually read the circumstances, I'd have done the same thing in Symbolzzz shoes.
650
Solved Admin Abuse / Re: Caboose randomly slaying
« on: 27 Dec, 2012 22:19 »
With the situation described, and the fact that Symbolzzz was a long time TTT admin, I'd have to say that this was unwarranted, and rdm. The lack of addressing a concern with a player also shows a lack of professionalism. When you volunteer to admin the server, you administrate first, play second.
651
Solved Applications / Re: [TTT] Prince Lunashy
« on: 27 Dec, 2012 15:57 »
I have had some issues with him in the past, so I'm gonna go ahead and stay neutral with my vote until I see how he handles some situations better.
652
Debate Forum / Re: Do you think it was a mistake for Obama to be elected?
« on: 26 Dec, 2012 05:24 »
First of all, I understand you are fairly young, and so a lot of what you hear politically will be based on your parents and whatever other adults whom influence your life either agree with or disagree with. And yeah, you're gonna be exposed to other sides of arguments and you are gonna form your own opinion on subjects like this. However, lets look at the possibilities and what exactly Obama has or hasn't done.
Obama is a single person, and while he is an important person, he doesn't have the sort of power that people think he has. In order for a bill to become a law, it must be introduced into one of the various levels of government, usually, this starts at the base level, the house of representatives. Members of the house are elected from their states populations, and the number of representatives a state gets is based on its population, the more people you have, the more people you need to represent them, hoping to expand the vast possibilities of conditions of life in your state and individual regions needs and concerns. Unfortunately, this hardly works. Especially when things like this happen.
As you can see by this graph, the republicans outweigh the democrats, but a lot of the republicans are closer to being centralist than people give them credit for. However, this is still a large number of democrats whom are die hard liberals, and a cluster of republicans who are a tight-knight and hard set in their conservative ways. This makes it hard for ANY sort of piece of legislation to make a move through congress due to the opposition that most liberal bills will face, due to the fact that Republicans outnumber Democrats.
Now, lets say something does get through. It goes to the Senate now.
This is the current makeup of the United States senate. Democrats have the majority at this point, which doesn't necessarily mean every piece of legislature will pass through, but for Obama, and the fact that he has a like-minded majority here, it gives him better leverage on a piece of legislation than in the house.
So yeah, just before we jump to blame the figurehead, we have to look at the whole picture, hes just one man, and is not an absolute ruler. As much as I dislike Obama's politics in terms of economical reasons, and a couple of his social issues, I'd rather have him over Romney, even though in all reality, they aren't that different.
Also, if my post doesn't help you, this website will: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Obama is a single person, and while he is an important person, he doesn't have the sort of power that people think he has. In order for a bill to become a law, it must be introduced into one of the various levels of government, usually, this starts at the base level, the house of representatives. Members of the house are elected from their states populations, and the number of representatives a state gets is based on its population, the more people you have, the more people you need to represent them, hoping to expand the vast possibilities of conditions of life in your state and individual regions needs and concerns. Unfortunately, this hardly works. Especially when things like this happen.
As you can see by this graph, the republicans outweigh the democrats, but a lot of the republicans are closer to being centralist than people give them credit for. However, this is still a large number of democrats whom are die hard liberals, and a cluster of republicans who are a tight-knight and hard set in their conservative ways. This makes it hard for ANY sort of piece of legislation to make a move through congress due to the opposition that most liberal bills will face, due to the fact that Republicans outnumber Democrats.
Now, lets say something does get through. It goes to the Senate now.
This is the current makeup of the United States senate. Democrats have the majority at this point, which doesn't necessarily mean every piece of legislature will pass through, but for Obama, and the fact that he has a like-minded majority here, it gives him better leverage on a piece of legislation than in the house.
So yeah, just before we jump to blame the figurehead, we have to look at the whole picture, hes just one man, and is not an absolute ruler. As much as I dislike Obama's politics in terms of economical reasons, and a couple of his social issues, I'd rather have him over Romney, even though in all reality, they aren't that different.
Also, if my post doesn't help you, this website will: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
653
General Gaming Talk / Re: NRA president blames videogames for school shooting
« on: 23 Dec, 2012 00:08 »
Just like you wouldn't blame the gun, but the shooter, you should blame the gamer, not the game.
654
General Gaming Talk / Re: Why The War Z is a scam and a "Cybernetic piece of horse cum"
« on: 18 Dec, 2012 05:35 »
Search feature brah, we've had numerous threads about this.
655
Solved Ban Requests / Re: Hairslut ban request
« on: 17 Dec, 2012 03:55 »
I saw this get locked by old crow. Also, until you guys provide actual conclusive evidence, you're just wasting time and energy. I suggest you guys listen to the administrators and stop giving them shit about being stubborn when they are asking you to follow the basic rules for posting ban requests. I see hairslut on all the time and never see him act like this. Rebel, you were told not to incite shit yet you keep posting threads like this without any evidence.
657
The Art Forum / Re: Once again I'm taking signature requests
« on: 16 Dec, 2012 17:44 »
No, look at Jorgens'. I'm doing them, but have taken a small un-notified hiatus due to having been working/lack of inspiration. I'll more than likely knock them all out this week since I no longer have a job.
658
Solved Applications / Re: [TTT] Tyber Xan
« on: 15 Dec, 2012 04:13 »Just gonna through this out here. The admin requirements say 7.5 hours a week for 4 consectutive weeks.You joined the server quiet recently, which in my opinion it's a bit early to already have an admin app and a lot of your posts were from your ban appeal thread. You know the rules and such and are a good player, but +0 for nowNot that I'm arguing with your opinion, not at all, but I just want to put it in perspective. I joined the server when Tendovvi (That's how I found the server, through his videos.) had his Traitor Gameplay #11 up as his most recent video. That was back in November and if I'm correct (Again correct me if I'm wrong.) that was about 3 weeks ago. And when I joined the server I had about 96 hours put into Gmod (A.K.A. TTT) and now, considering I've been on the server 3 weeks, I have put more that 240 hours into the server. I don't know if it counts for anything, but I just wanted you to know the full picture.Quote
- Must have a minimum average of 7.5 hours a week, for a month, for the server you are apply for. That is 7.5 hours a week, for 4 consecutive weeks.
You joined the server quiet recently, which in my opinion it's a bit early to already have an admin app and a lot of your posts were from your ban appeal thread. You know the rules and such and are a good player, but +0 for now
/agree
adding to this: Not meeting the requirements of the application regardless of whether or not your are of a mature nature. If you had read the application and realized you were not of age, you should have found it wise to PM a CL or HA to ask if you could be considered for administrator despite your age. Since this did not take place...
-1 for me.
May I point out that NUMEROUS times that when an applicant is underage, leeway has been given if they have shown the maturity that someone like Tyber, for example, Coreybush is a veteran admin, and his approved across multiple servers. Also, 144 hours of TTT on the CG server within three weeks is more time then most of the current admins. He also meets the post requirement. We need more admins who are actually active on the server. The only time I get on the TTT server the admins that I see on are Blazyd, Nexus, Oobla, and Caboose, occasionally mutligrain and leetgrain are there (Timezone difference alotted for Leet).
659
Debate Forum / Re: Gun control: Due to recent events
« on: 15 Dec, 2012 03:51 »
Since I wasn't here to really put my two cents in, I'm doing such now:
Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, and in fact, would essentially cause many problems in the united states at this point in time if such a thing was even considered. I live in Kentucky, known as a class 3 state. For those who may not know what that means, is that I as a private citizen, am allowed to own both a silencer for my weapons, and I'm allowed to own military grade weaponry, including semi-automatic and fully-automatic weaponry. I've fired several varities of these weapons, including but not up to .38 special, 9mm glock, and an ak-47with hollowpoints (I don't know why they'd waste hollowpoints on an AK, but that is besides the point).
Now, with all of this said, the guns did not kill them, the person wielding the guns did. There were obvious underlying issues not being addressed with this young man that would cause him to kill his own mother, and to barge into a classroom and to gun down a group of children and administrator's at a school his mother did not even work at. Guns do not have conscious, they do not choose whom they kill, the person who wields them does. The mother, whom had purchased the guns, should have had them secured in such a fashion that only she can gain access to them, such as a safe. Whether or not someone chooses to own a gun as at their discretion, but they should take the utmost care and safety when storing the firearm, so that someone who is not the owner, such as children, etc. cannot gain access to said weaponry.
Just because you make something illegal, doesn't stop someone from getting it. I can introduce you to v
Your entire argument is lacking perspective. Hunting is a huge sport, and it is not uncommon for kids whom come from family's who hunt to own rifles here, which is about the only justifiable reason for owning a weapon as a kid. When is the last time that any of these school shootings, etc, happened from a child who was brought up with gun safety training/actually had the legal means of owning the guns themselves? None of them, including columbine. All of the weapons were acquired from others. Its okay for someone to enjoy owning a gun, because it can be used for sport (Skeet shooting, Hunting, Rifiling). I also come from a MJROTC high school, home to the top two marksmen in the country of the graduating class of 2010. Owning and purchasing a weapon through legal means teaches you the respect and the knowledge that what you have can kill, and that is something that is necessary.
Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, and in fact, would essentially cause many problems in the united states at this point in time if such a thing was even considered. I live in Kentucky, known as a class 3 state. For those who may not know what that means, is that I as a private citizen, am allowed to own both a silencer for my weapons, and I'm allowed to own military grade weaponry, including semi-automatic and fully-automatic weaponry. I've fired several varities of these weapons, including but not up to .38 special, 9mm glock, and an ak-47with hollowpoints (I don't know why they'd waste hollowpoints on an AK, but that is besides the point).
Now, with all of this said, the guns did not kill them, the person wielding the guns did. There were obvious underlying issues not being addressed with this young man that would cause him to kill his own mother, and to barge into a classroom and to gun down a group of children and administrator's at a school his mother did not even work at. Guns do not have conscious, they do not choose whom they kill, the person who wields them does. The mother, whom had purchased the guns, should have had them secured in such a fashion that only she can gain access to them, such as a safe. Whether or not someone chooses to own a gun as at their discretion, but they should take the utmost care and safety when storing the firearm, so that someone who is not the owner, such as children, etc. cannot gain access to said weaponry.
Just because you make something illegal, doesn't stop someone from getting it. I can introduce you to v
Stalker much? but i guess your logic makes sinceOnce again though, I apologize for using your post as an example, I had focusing on one person, but you were the only way I could state my point. Now that I'm on my Laptop, I can make a proper post.
When I say Kid, I'm referring to everyone below 19, (Including myself) Sure you can't control everyone who has a gun, but when you make it illegal for anyone say, under the age of 21 to own or operate a fire arm outside of Firing Range, you've already lowered it the crime rate.
There's no more parents thinking Timmy is read for his first shotgun at the age of 13. Sure the cops can't make sure ever kid doesn't have a gun, but the parents can.
And that at the very least is a start, you've already removed such a large chunk of the population in a single shot, then you can begin a proper clean up of the other age ranges.
Your entire argument is lacking perspective. Hunting is a huge sport, and it is not uncommon for kids whom come from family's who hunt to own rifles here, which is about the only justifiable reason for owning a weapon as a kid. When is the last time that any of these school shootings, etc, happened from a child who was brought up with gun safety training/actually had the legal means of owning the guns themselves? None of them, including columbine. All of the weapons were acquired from others. Its okay for someone to enjoy owning a gun, because it can be used for sport (Skeet shooting, Hunting, Rifiling). I also come from a MJROTC high school, home to the top two marksmen in the country of the graduating class of 2010. Owning and purchasing a weapon through legal means teaches you the respect and the knowledge that what you have can kill, and that is something that is necessary.
660
GarrysMod / Re: TENDOVVI BANNED, GG
« on: 13 Dec, 2012 23:34 »
Yeah, going from 1100 karma to 568 in a single round is what the fuck, no matter how you look at it.