Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

I just did 2 minutes research and found the story for manhunt. Yes, it has a story (its extremely similar to the Arnie film 'Running Man' which, while not a great film, wasn't really violent for the sake of it). No, it's not about killing for the sake of killing. Its about killing to survive. It is story driven. It IS glorified, but then so is violence in other games. Still waiting for anyone to give me an example of how to ban 'bad' games without banning good games (GTA counts as a good game, BTW)

No, I don´t seem to be saying that. You´re trying to make it look like that but I don´t say such. And as I made no statement like that you´re obviously having a problem with something you are trying to make up. As I said . Read my posts. It´s my opinion that games wich celebrate manslaughter in a very disturbing way should be forbidden. As snuff videos are forbidden. Can you see the diffence anymore ? Bals, I am not trying to make it look like anything. I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. If you are using some other meaning of forbidden then please tell me, but as far as I am aware its fairly synonymous with 'banned.' I notice you have not answered anything to do with the censorship issue. I don't expect you to; its impossible. You cannot ban 'bad' games without banning good games.

I apologise; that was not my intention. You are maintaining a stronger link than exists between magazine journalists and games companies though- beyond some corrupt journos taking money for inflating scores, the game makers don't have much of a say in what the article says. The simple way to protest about that is not to buy the games. That is all you need to do. The makers give the public what they appear to want. If you want to blame someone for violent, sensationalist games, blame the idiots who buy them - the public. Don't buy magazines which give inflated scores to shitty games. Tell them. Who does then? They do, I have to disagree. They start phoning up and emailing everywhere they can think of, kick up a disproportionate fuss, and get 'news.' The mother of the killer in this case immediately started blaming games, instead of her bad parenting. A lot of journalists, especially tabloid journalists, wouldn't know the truth if it battered fuck out of them in their local pub during their hour long lunchbreak, and wouldn't care anyway; all they care about is ratings and viewers. (Although not all of them, by any means)

What if certain cronies of a certain 'president' tamper with the way the votes are counted and who can and cannot vote?

I was saying that other people before Bush used the term before him (WWII and the Cold War). What has that to do with the price of cheese?

He doesn't say 'all Americans will immediately get health care' - he just says he will make it a right. Theres a difference. And as I said, I don't see that big a change coming quickly to selfish americans. You will need a little time to get used to the idea. ...You're not saying you're one of those fuckwits who are against abortion, are you? And that sentence doesn't make sense. Do you mean pro-choice? *edit* Yes, you did. How many babies have you brought up on a single mothers income? None? Then I don't think you have any idea or right to speak about abortion, thank you very much.

Hmm. I'm on a dynamic IP, and I don't have a warezed copy of OFP; (and I'm not in the habit of doing things to get banned from servers) - maybe my IP range was banned. I'll ask Balschiow

I found alternate sources for the speech. Its quite good. I think I'd vote for Kerry if I was American. This is the only part I don't like: "And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country." And its not that bad. Could have had more reference to the other 15% of Americans that are totally missing from that statement. But its far better than Bush's claims to be a messenger from god or whatever religious crap he spouts. Is the writer stupid or does he not realise that 16 million without coverage is better than 43 million without coverage? I don't see such a fundamental change to US policies (you guys are really opposed to helping other Americans, aren't you?) being done in one step ; and that seems like a good first step to me. He didn't even say he would give all americans health coverage; he said they should have coverage. Whats the problem? The other thing: I don't quite get it. Was Kerry voting for something that would hinder abortion, or for something that would leave women with their right to choose?

Ah right, you just ignore the parts that malign Bush. I see.

Need to register to read the article. That website you keep referring to seems to be very, very biased towards republicans (in favour of republicans.) Does it ever say anything remotely bad about them? Anyway: how Kerry could have been in East Germany: Whatever the US/ Nato equivalent of Brixmis was. (I don't know what specifically you are referring to but I think you mean at some point in the cold war) That is; he could have been going across as part of a spotting team to view the soviet parade (and unofficially anything else around.) - this was in order to check the other side wasn't cheating on the terms of the peace accords they had. Soviet teams ran similar inspections on the other side of the border. Or it could have been some political thing.

Another thing to consider Bals: I really don't see the appeal of this particular game. I don't want to play it. But I cannot see how you would make a law, or edict, or whatever that would stop this game and not stop almost any other 18 rated game. The key thing here is that once you start censoring things, there is a VERY slippery slope. Its far better to have people that can think for themselves and follow a simple age recommendation, than to start banning things left right and centre. I think my point is made, but other examples: Give me a law that would stop 'sick' films that glorify violence, are very distasteful and all that stuff, but would not stop any of these films: Apocalypse Now The Godfather Goodfellas Scarface Platoon The Silence of the Lambs Alien Leon Kill Bill Reservoir Dogs The list goes on and on. Censorship is a BAD idea, except for matters of national security and even then I'm against it.

Maybe Hassle the Hoff, the newest rap sensation, can sign it.

Well I don't think I really understand you. You seem to be saying 'some games should be banned because I don't like them.' I have a problem with that statement. I do not have a problem with 'I don't like such games and I will never buy one like it.' If that is what you mean, then I don't have a problem with it nor any wish to argue.

Snuff films are forbidden because they involve ACTUALLY killing people. Games are NOT real. Do you see the difference? NO censorship. That doesn't mean that you can break other laws in order to make films, or games, or whatever.

No, I dont say such. I just say that I don´t need such games. They are beyond a limit for me. That´s just my solo standing golden opinion, nothing else Ummm.. [/b]Did someone else write that into your post?

I don't like CS; I don't need such stuff. A really tasteless and disgusting game: I think it should be forbidden. 'I don't like OFP; I don't need such stuff. A really tasteless and disgusting game: I think it should be forbidden.' Just because we might not like something, does not mean it shoud be banned. Censorship is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Parents should take responsibility for their children, and adults should be able to decide things for themselves, not have it enforced on them.

Ummm. Yes, it does. The games industry, like the film industry, like the 'book industy' makes what sells. What idiots with little grasp of reality do is neither the authors fault, the actors fault, the screenwriters fault, the artists fault nor the programmers fault. There is no absolution needed; it is NOTHING to do with these industries what psychopaths do. The psychopaths may (still not proven) be influenced by the industries: they are definitely not created by the industries. They may use a claw hammer instead of an aluminium baseball bat; they are still crazies and they are not created by playing games. There are millions of people playing games; these supposed 'murder trainers.' BUT, the rate of crazies going apeshit and killing others is NOT getting higher. News companies make a bigger deal about individual incidents but the actual rate per head of population is not rising at what it would be if there was the slightest truth to this pseudoscientific crap. In other words: if the claims of crazies like Joe Lieberman were true, we'd all be out killing people. Yes, even you Avon; we do play a realistic 'murder simulator.' And? You have a problem with the press now? The magazines are NOT the games makers. The makers make what sells. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. Have you even played manhunt? (I haven't - but then I'm not complaining about its quality) BECAUSE THE SAME FUCKTARDS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT GAMES NOW It is not so much the press as these know-nothing pressure groups. They would not see the difference between manhunt and OFP, to be honest.

The 'CS idiot' would crash the chopper if the controls consisted of two buttons, stop and start. The best solution is to make the piloting at least semi-realistic, so that you only get in vehicles with people you trust.

The 'CS idiot' would crash the chopper if the controls consisted of two buttons, stop and start. The best solution is to make the piloting at least semi-realistic, so that you only get in vehicles with people you trust.

It does though- what if this type of shite leads to games rated over 18 not being sold in shops. That would include OFP2, and probably any other game you want in the future, which would mean companies would stop making so many of them.

Balls. It is not being dismissed because we don't like it (although we don't) - its being dismissed because its nonsense. Some greek elders tried to get a ban on popular music of the time in about 62 BCE 'because they caused a lowering of morals' etc. When photography was available to the masses, it was claimed to cause the same things. When cinema took off, it was claimed to cause the same things. When home television took off, it was claimed to cause the same things. When home video recorders became commercially available, it was claimed to cause the same things. Now the whiney 'conservative' (as in 'dont want things to change') types are claiming the same utter shite about games.

For me I had port forwarding set up for another machine, which was blocking this client. If you are a simple client on a router trying to play OFP, disable forwarding on OFP ports and it should work, otherwise you are being blocked by CIA server. Thanks! I'm not sure which are the OFP ports though: AFAIR its UDP 2234? Disabled all port forwarding anyway; didnt work. Still can't/ couldn't see server, or CIA homepage.

And the more sensible side of the story, from another BBC source Experts have warned against a knee-jerk reaction after the parents of a murdered teenager blamed his killer's obsession with a violent video game.

Gordy's right. As well as that; if a child plays a game rated too old for him/ her, whose fault is that? The game companies? NO, its the lazy, irresponsible PARENTS fault. All this is is an excuse for shitty parenting.

No. But then our media is not owned by the people in government, to such an extent.