Messages

1

Quake / Re: Last ditch hair brain idea

« on: July 13, 2021, 04:53:40 PM »

I sent you a PM Quazy - dealing with situations like this is what I do for a living - respond when you can, I'm happy to help with funding and expertise at least in the short term to get the servers hosted on a new stable platform.

2

Quake / Re: Quadz, the Loquaciously Multiloquent Member

« on: July 13, 2021, 04:21:32 PM »

Sad news indeed.

If anyone has access to the existing infrastructure I am willing to help fund/administer it - the only thing more sad than quadz passing away would be if we lost this forum and the servers and community.

3

dm / Re: DM server could be great, but...

« on: October 05, 2014, 07:50:03 PM »

dm4 is cool.

The best way to get over the map quickly is to reach the frag limit fast.

the map is too large and unskillful for any kind of expediency

4

dm / DM server could be great, but...

« on: October 05, 2014, 02:31:29 PM »

Would any of you regularly DM players object to removing q2dm4 and q2dm6 from the rotation? I like FFA and would play more often except for the inclusion of these unacceptable maps in the rotation.

I could live with dm6, but dm4 is so so stupid

5

Registration / Re: Rocket Arena 2 Draft - Signups Open Now!

« on: April 14, 2014, 03:12:14 PM »

lol yeah ok, I'm in

better put me with good people, I bring the suck now

6

General Ownage / Re: Visit quakeskillz.com and tell me what u think

« on: August 19, 2009, 08:53:20 PM »

how is it lame ?
quake 2 has been dead for years, and you guys still care about who cheats and who doesnt, q2 is dead !

Wow.  Words cannot express the contempt I feel for your stupidity.  Or pity.  Or something.



First of all, you have a link to ANTICHEAT on your own website where you posted your hacking screenshots.  Obviously you have some awareness that the Q2 community doesn't condone cheating.

Second, Q2 has a small community.  If you choose to refer to that community as "dead", that merely shows that YOU don't care about Q2, not that we don't care about it.

Third, you fail.

Go away.

Regards,

quadz

The funniest part of these arguments "Who cares who cheats, q2 is old and nobody should care about it" - is that if you don't care about q2, you wouldn't cheat in the first place.

Honestly I've played against this [EoM]retard person before, if I was as hopeless as him AND I cared about the game I might think about cheating too.

You can ban him, but it will be a death sentence in real life as someone this stupid with nothing to do will invariably fall down a hole or accidentally stop breathing and die.

7

1v1 and TDM Demos / Re: goodbye granny posts

« on: July 30, 2009, 11:39:36 AM »

It's been 3 years since this thread started, and whirling is STILL posting a fake quote and encouraging others to do the same.

Here's an  :

Stop embracing patheticism wholesale.  If this thread got attention it wasn't because of you or any fake quote posting, it was because of ME, and my purity unrivaled by any whirling sub-sentient.



Also: play RA2 more often all of you, every once in awhile when I load qtracker there is never anyone there.

8

Religion, and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist / Re: Ye Religion Thread

« on: November 19, 2008, 06:32:42 AM »

You arbitrarily proclaiming that they're the "best minds in history" means nothing to me...

You didn't even read it, did you?  Neil deGrasse Tyson gave specific examples from historical figures who he referred to as the greatest minds in science.

If you want to investigate the origins of humanity as a hobby be my guest, but keep it to yourself until you discover something definitive. 

Plenty of definitive examples were given.  Troll?

The 'great minds' you speak of did not remind everyone of every possible theory in existence...

Utter nonsense.

I suppose you are attempting to demonstrate the technique by which "apathetic fundamentalists will rule the land", by exemplifying a zero-energy form of trolling.

Big deal.

Why would I read any of your posts?  You have no argument, your little hobby of pretending that you can determine where life came from or pretending that others can determine where life came from is no concern of mine.  You just aren't understanding, its just a hobby, nothing that you should be sharing with people.

Religion causes controversy, hatred, and death.  Find something more productive to be involved with.

9

Religion, and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist / Re: Ye Religion Thread

« on: November 18, 2008, 08:17:17 PM »

Okay...

Attempting to discern the impossible must be discouraged wherever possible - apathetic fundamentalists will rule the land (by default).

The difficulty and challenge, though, is that it's often far from clear what the limits of our understanding will be.  If one weeds out the easy, axiomatic limits, like "science can never prove that no god exists", we are still left with an infinitude of questions about the nature and origin of the universe, some of which we may some day be able to discover answers to.

And as we'll see below, there's plenty of evidence of the best scientific minds in history stopping short--being unwilling to "attempt to discern the impossible"--categorizing these impossibly undescernable aspects of the cosmos as the sole province and domain of a divine being.  And then, hundreds of years later, the next brilliant mind solves what the previous guy thought was impossible to discern, only to yet again pull the same cop-out with the next problem.

This brings us to an excellent and engaging talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson, given at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference.

"The Perimeter of Ignorance"
A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=275693092937060684

I've transcribed parts of the talk, here:

4:00 talk begins

4:30 Ptolemy - AD 150
  - one of the greatest, most influential scientists ever
  - greatest work "Almagest" - in it he codifies the Geocentric Universe
  - this Earth-centric prevailed for centuries until Copernicus and
    Galileo turned that around
  - Back then, you'd look at the night sky, and the planets would move,
    against the background stars.  They would wander--that's what the
    word means in Greek is wanderer.  And there were seven of these
    objects, the sun and moon included.  And they would just kind of
    move, they'd go to the left, they'd slow down and pause, then
    they'd reverse again.  And this was a mystery.  Complete mystery.
    And of course the 'heavens' were not 'earth', and so the fact
    that you didn't really understand what was going on up there was
    kind of OK, and expected, because that was the work of the Gods.
    And we, being mortal, down here on Earth: If you can't understand
    it, don't lose sleep over that fact.  You perhaps never will!
  - Ptolemy had sort of the best going explanation anyone had put forth,
    with the epicycles and the like.  But nonetheless, this is the
    boundary between what is known and unknown about how the machinery
    of the universe works, and he pens these words:
  - Notes penned in the margin of the manuscript of Almagest:
    I know that I am moral by nature, and ephemeral.  But when I trace
    at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies,
    I no longer touch Earth with my feet.  I stand in the presence of
    Zeus himself, and take my fill of ambrosia.
  - And so therein, is this emotional--he's got this sort of religious
    feeling at the limits of his knowledge.  And this is a trend that
    will continue, for thousands of years to follow this.
  - This is Ingelligent Design.  This quote that I just read to you,
    is Ptolemy invoking Intelligent Design.  No, he's not trying to
    get that into the classroom--you know, there's the politics of
    Intelligent Design in modern times.  But: what I think has been
    swept under the rug, that we have to contend with as a community
    of people who are sort of truth-seekers, is the fact that some
    of the greatest minds that have preceeded us, have done just this.

7:20 - Galileo

8:50 - Sir Isacc Newton
  - Now, I don't know what you know of Isacc Newton, but everything I've
    read of his tells me that there's no greater genius to ever walk
    the surface of this earth.  I don't know if you've ever felt that
    way about anybody--I didn't feel that about anybody, till you just
    read what this man wrote.  OK, line by line by line.  This guy was
    plugged in to the machinery of the universe.  He's unimpeachably
    brilliant.  Unimpeachably brilliant.
  - Here's page zero of his Principia. In it, he discovers the laws of
    motion, F=ma, discovers the laws of gravity... it's all there.
    And he did this all before he turned 26.  And in this, when he
    talks about motion, there's no reference to God.  When he talks about
    his two body force, that he deduced--this universal law of gravitation,
    there is no mention of God.  It's just not anywhere there.  Because
    he understood it, he was on top of it, he was there.  Even though,
    the understanding of the motions of the planets before he came
    along, *was* given unto God.  Because nobody understood it.  Or
    nobody understood well enough to really believe that they had a
    full, predictive handle on it in the way the universal law of
    gravitation supplied.
  - So what you have is, Isaac Newton, abandoning reference to God,
    until he realizes: If all you do is calculate the two-body problem...
    Here we have like, the Moon and Earth--yes, he's got that calculated.
    Now you have the Sun and the Earth--you've got that.  But wait a
    minute, now the Earth and the Moon go around the Sun, and sometimes
    we're close to Mars and sometimes we're not.  And when it comes near
    Mars, there's a tug--that's stronger there than in any part in the
    orbit.  And then it comes over here, and then Jupiter tugs.  All these
    mini-tugs.  And so he's got to do this two-body problem, for Earth,
    the Moon, Earth and the Sun; Earth, Moon, and Mars; Earth, Moon, Mars,
    and Jupiter, and it becomes a rapidly complex problem.  And he
    realizes, that in fact, applying this simple sort of approach to
    calculating the stability of the solar system--he finds he can't
    stabilize the solar system.  He can't account for how we have
    stayed this way for as long as what was possibly necessary from
    the beginning of the universe.
  - And so what does he say?  He's at his limits.  You read Principia,
    God is nowhere!  Until you get to the General Scholium [a supplemental
    text to the Principia.]  And then
    he says, "the six primary planets are revolved about the sun in
    circles concentric with the sun. And with motions directed towards
    the same parts, and almost in the same plane."
    He's got the whole picture now, and
    he's trying to sort of account for that.  But he can't, just
    simply doing two-body calcuations.  Certainly not without a
    computer or with a new kind of mathematics.  He says, "But it is
    not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth
    to _so many_ regular motions.  This most beautiful system of the
    sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and
    dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
    This is Isacc Newton, invoking Intelligent Design!  At the limits
    of his knowledge. 

15:45 - C. Huygens - 1696

18:20 - P.S. Laplace - 1799   
  - Wrote a five volume tome on Celestial Mechanics.
  - What it does is, it takes Newton's laws of gravity, and brings
    them into a full expression with the hammer of calculus.  He brings
    all the armament of mathematics to bear on the laws of physics that
    were put forth by Isacc Newton.  Isaac Newton only touched on them,
    they were not fully developed.  And in this work, he demonstrates--
    he further develops something that had been percolating in the
    mathematical community--but he developed and one might even say
    perfects a branch of math we could call perturbation theory.
  - In perturbation theory, it allows you to systematically and
    reliably calculate the effect of a series of small tugs in the
    presence of singular big tugs.  And that's kind of what's going on
    in most of the solar system. [...]  You can demonstrate that in
    fact the solar system was stable beyond the predictions of
    Isaac Newton.
  - So, he figures this out, does _not_ invoke God.  Because he
    figured it out!
  - Napolean asks Laplace what role God played in the construction
    and regulation of the heavens.  That's what Newton would ask,
    right?  Lapace replies, "Sir, I had no need for that hypothesis."

20:50 - ...and so what concerns me now is, even if you're as brilliant as
Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God,
and then your discovery stops. It just stops! You're kind of no good
anymore for advancing that frontier. Waiting for somebody else to
come behind you, who doesn't have God on the brain, and who says:
That's a really cool problem, I want to solve it!
They come in and solve it.
But look at the time delay!
This was 100 year time delay. And the math that's in perturbation
theory is like _crumbs_ for Newton. He could have come up with that.
The guy invented calculus just on a dare, practiclly.
When someone asked him, you know, Ike, how come planets orbit in
elipses and not some other shape? And he couldn't answer that.
He goes home for two months, comes back, and out comes integral
differential calculus 'cause he needed that to answer that question.
And so - so this is, this is the kind of mind we were dealing with
with Newton: He could have gone there, but he *didn't*.
His religiosity STOPPED HIM. And so, we're left with the
realization of course that Intelligent Design, while 'real' in the
history of science, while 'real' in the presence of sort of
philosophical drivers, is nonetheless a philosophy of
ignorance.

And so, regardless of what our political agenda is, all you have
to say is, science is a philosophy of discovery.  Intelligent
Design is a philosophy of ignorance.  Have you discovered anything
lately?  If not, get out of the science classroom.
 
But I'm not going to say, "don't teach this."  Because it's real,
it happened.  So I don't want people to sweep it under the rug,
because if you do, you're neglecting something fundamental that's
going on in people's minds when they confront things they don't
understand. And it happens to the greatest of the minds, as it
happens to everyone else.

So.

A philosophy of apathy is no better than an invocation of intelligent design.  Neither leads to discovery.

And the best minds in history have been wrong over and over about "attempting to discern the impossible."


Regards,

quadz

You arbitrarily proclaiming that they're the "best minds in history" means nothing to me...
If you want to investigate the origins of humanity as a hobby be my guest, but keep it to yourself until you discover something definitive. 

The 'great minds' you speak of did not remind everyone of every possible theory in existence...

10

Religion, and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist / Re: Ye Religion Thread

« on: November 18, 2008, 03:58:43 PM »

All of the points I made are inexplicably inarguable.

Inexplicably?  No doubt.

In any case, I look forward to your efforts to make a supporting argument for or produce any evidence in favor of the claims you've made.

(Although, I have a hunch that when you try, you may indeed find your claims to be "inexplicable".)


Regards,

I didn't want to offend you by reminding you that I am a superior being to you and any others who post on this forum, and by default my statements are inarguable.  I was happy to leave it relatively unknown.

You attempting to convince someone that there is no god is no different from someone trying to explain that there is.  Neither claim is based on evidence, neither has merit.  Attempting to discern the impossible must be discouraged wherever possible - apathetic fundamentalists will rule the land (by default).

11

Religion, and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist / Re: Ye Religion Thread

« on: November 18, 2008, 03:54:14 PM »

Speaking of arguing the "inarguable truth", and "escaping reality"...
http://tastyspleen.net/quake/forums/index.php?topic=3936.msg45488#msg45488

Did you ever say this, Nick?

No, I didn't.
 

12

Religion, and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist / Re: Ye Religion Thread

« on: November 18, 2008, 03:18:41 PM »

Or maybe if you just stopped trying to spread your atheist zealotry to others like the disease that it is.
Atheism is a religion, and is just as bad as other religions.  Your "refusal to believe without evidence" and adherence to Dawkinism is just as much something that harms the world as the idiotic belief of Christians and Muslims.  It creates pointless arguments and accomplishes nothing.

Fundamental Apathy is the only way to go.  Do not care about where you came from, because you'll never know.

I suspect ni-ux was probably just venting rather than attempting to construct a defensible argument.  But in any case, the above makes several claims which vary between arguably untrue, and arguably nonsensical.

As I read it, the claims made are:

1. Atheism is a religion, and is just as bad as other religions.
2. "Refusal to believe without evidence" is just as much something that harms the world as the idiotic belief of Christians and Muslims.
3. Adherence to Dawkinism is just as much something that harms the world as the idiotic belief of Christians and Muslims.
4. (a) Fundamental Apathy is the only way to go. (b) Do not care about where you came from, (c) because you'll never know.
5. The disease of athiest zealotry (challenging religious dogma?) creates pointless arguments and accomplishes nothing.

I believe claims 1 and 2 are easily argued to be false, and that claim 3 is nonsensical.  Claim 4 is wrong on (a) and (b), and historically wrong on (c), despite there being some truths about our origins we are likely to never discover.  Claim 5 can be true but is not always true.

If anyone disagrees and would like to take up a position in support of any of the above claims, I'll be happy to engage.

Stripped of all of the above claims, all that remains of ni-ux's post is, "Or maybe if you just stopped trying."


Regards,

All of the points I made are inexplicably inarguable.  You cannot escape reality.

I can only assume (giving you the benefit of the doubt) that your post was for comedic purposes rather than actually trying to argue anything.

13

1v1 and TDM Demos / Re: KICKASS TDM game 187 Slugs vs Kickr0! 3on3

« on: November 04, 2008, 08:59:36 PM »

uninteresting.

lame

we need to institute an immediate and far reaching boycotte of all tastyspleen servers, irc channels, and forums.

This will be my last post.

Posting a fake quote over and over does not make it any less fake, 

 

14

1v1 and TDM Demos / Re: BL00D pwned once again...

« on: November 04, 2008, 08:57:23 PM »

Actually its a reference to one of krez's rap recordings where he says "kickr0, you may be a nigger, but my dick is still bigger".  It was a comedic post to be understood only by others who have been in on the 'joke' before, as it were.

 
Where's the funny, the "comedic" content? I've heard all of Krez's posted rap recordings, some posted here, some posted at q2players.org -- but more importantly, they were funny precisely BECAUSE of Krez's monotone voice, completely lost in your transcription to disconnected text. So really to be "in on" the joke is to HEAR the raps...as it were[sic].
 

And here's a great joke I wish everybody was in on:

lame

we need to institute an immediate and far reaching boycotte of all tastyspleen servers, irc channels, and forums.

This will be my last post.

The fake quote posted again and again by whirling idiot due to a lack of anything valid to say should not make you feel empowered.  It is no less valid coming from you.

All of your pointless reviews and post over-tones are indicative of something easily identified.

From Wikipedia:

Symptoms
Common characteristics of those with psychopathy are:
Grandiose sense of self-worth

15

1v1 and TDM Demos / Re: BL00D pwned once again...

« on: November 03, 2008, 11:54:42 AM »

+backr0 is one of the most boring players to watch

+backr0, it is sometimes said that you're a ..., but I can assure you that my ... is still bigger.

excellent post nick.

Nick wanted SOMEBODY to play MadLibs with him -- so excuse that socially awkward, passive aggressive, and indirect plea/random posting-style -- I'll give him a little cyberburping over my shoulder and use my variable noun generator to complete the lib:

"+backr0, it is sometimes said that you're a...polygon, but I can assure you that my...penguin is still bigger."

Hmmm, that's randomness for ya! Now go back to your nap little canuckian.
 

Actually its a reference to one of krez's rap recordings where he says "kickr0, you may be a nigger, but my dick is still bigger".  It was a comedic post to be understood only by others who have been in on the 'joke' before, as it were.