tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63189713745886842462024-02-18T23:52:33.146-08:00Quagthistle's LilypadQuagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-64410796232579925582011-11-21T20:22:00.000-08:002011-11-21T20:27:09.470-08:00About MormonsI wrote this post in answer to a request on Amazon's discussion forum asking for opinions of Mormons...<br /><br />I find it interesting that, in this day and age, not only do a rather large percent of the younger generation totally reject the restored Gospel (i.e. the Book of Mormon), but they are, in ever-increasing numbers, rejecting the Bible and, by association, the Savior, as well. I'm a child of the 80s, so I can relate to many of the younger generation, but it saddens me that it seems pride is more often than not being lifted up as the God of the populace. More and more of my generation believe words prophesied against in the Book of Mormon, such as: "I am no devil, for there is none.", "...That every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature ... and whatsoever a man did was no crime.", "if they shall say there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles; he hath done his work.", "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us", and, of course, "A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible.". It has been said, "Woe unto the generation that understands this book!", and I can see why. When we start living the teachings of those who were wicked in the Book of Mormon, it stands to reason that the same consequences which befell them might very well befall us.<br /><br />I also see many young people turn away from religion because they mistakenly believe that our Father in Heaven should rob us of free will when we might hurt ourselves or someone else and should never allow us to pass through the kind of trials that will mold us and shape us into beings more like Himself with each passing day. Many of them really want, for their God, someone who will throw them regular frat-style keggers, never expect them to do or learn anything that isn't fully fun and entertaining every nanosecond of the time spent thereon, and always permit any action without consequence, no matter how damaging to themselves or others (because they want Him to stop others from hurting people, but they absolutely do NOT want anyone stopping them from having "a good time").<br /><br />As for my opinion of Mormons, well, like any religion, we have our more sanity-challenged people on the outskirts, but the core of the Church seems, in my opinion, to be mostly very kind and caring individuals who love others regardless of their religion (there is good in all religions, after all). As to one comment made about our "special kind of crazy", I fail to see how believing that God gave a gift of tongues (i.e. the ability to translate languages you do not know) to an uneducated farm boy so we could have a new, more complete account of His Gospel (especially since they were inhabiting the continents upon which the distant descendants or relatives of the civilization that wrote the record existed) is so much more crazy than believing that a 34-year-old Carpenter's Son preformed a plethora of miracles (from walking on water to healing leprosy) was publicly executed and came back to life about 36 hours later (executed on Friday evening, rose on Sunday morning). Now, I personally believe in both, quite strongly, but I fail to see how the gift of tongues is so much more difficult to swallow than all the miracles Jesus did, other than modern stigmas and assumptions. Honestly, if the ancient creeds and traditions, most of which have nothing to do with the Bible, had never existed, would people still find it so hard to accept the Book of Mormon? In my experience, the more familiar a person is with the actual teachings of the Bible (instead of just what small portion most preachers talk about on Sundays), the more likely they are to accept the Book of Mormon. Those less familiar with the Bible (and more "preacher-dependant", as I prefer to call them) seem less likely to accept more scripture (and why should they if they can't really be bothered to read and search the scripture they already have, no offence intended, of course). Outside of the dual scriptures in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:18-19 (which prohibit altering, i.e. adding to or deleting from, the words written in the Bible and have no bearing on the Book of Mormon because it isn't a book of the NT or OT, it's a new record of Holy Scripture) show me a single part of the Bible that gives us permission to tell our Father in Heaven to shut up and stop bothering us. Show me a single passage that says, "I have spoken and acted and I will never again speak to man which I have created nor will I act to do anything for or against them, no matter how much they might pray or believe in me. If you blow yourselves up, don't say I didn't warn you. Have a nice life." I'll give you a hint, you won't find this, or anything similar, in all of sacred writ (Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.).<br /><br />In short, if the fact that God speaks and acts (i.e. lives) today is so offensive to so many people, I fail to see how the Bible can be deemed acceptable. If the Bible is thrown out of the heart, the people seem to turn almost instinctively to following Korihor's teachings, and we Mormons know how "well" THAT worked out. So, mock all you will, but remember not to say to us a couple hundred years from now that we didn't warn you. :)<br /><br />~QuaggyQuagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-54190176077939566092011-11-04T04:15:00.000-07:002011-11-04T04:20:07.675-07:00US Politics and the God of AmericaThere seem to be many "talking points" thrown around in this war of words perpetuated by our political leaders to stir up "great contentions" among the people. To an ordinary person, these terms can seem to be quite confusing. Basically, the source of contention is simple. Both sides claim they want to "balance the budget", which means they want to alter our laws so that America not only gets rid of it's deficit (the amount our government spends each year beyond what it actually has, in other words, the amount of money our nation borrows every year to pay its bills) but also actually pays its incredible debts down (something I personally feel is likely to be impossible at this point).<br /><br />The first question many might ask is "What is our debt?". Our national debt, as of the moment of writing this article (and it goes up by the second) is just under 15 trillion US dollars. To put that in perspective, our GDP (Gross Domestic Product, i.e. the total value of everything made in the US in a year) is just over 15 trillion dollars. Our tax revenue (the amount of money the government has to spend in any given year) is about 2.3 trillion dollars. So, imagine the amount of money you make in a year. Multiply that by 6.5, and then imagine that this is the total amount of your personal debt.<br /><br />The next question one might ask is "How did it get so high?". That's actually an interesting point (in the current political situation here). In the 1970s, the national debt wasn't even measured in trillions yet. It was measured in billions. The national debt rose above 1 trillion in or around 1981-2 (just after the presidency of Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and at the start of the presidency of Ronald Regan, a Republican). By the time President Regan left office after his two consecutive 4-year terms, our debt stood at around 2.75 trillion US dollars (yes, it nearly tripled, i.e. it increased by 175%). The next president, serving a single 4-year term, was also a Republican (George Bush, the first one). By the end of his presidency in January of 1993, the debt had risen by 53% to around 4.2 trillion dollars. The following president was a two-term Democrat (Bill Clinton). By the end of his presidency, the debt had risen a mere 35% (1.5 trillion) to a total of 5.7 trillion dollars. The following president was a two-term Republican (George W. Bush, son of the first one). By the end of his presidency in 2009, the national debt had risen to around 11 trillion dollars (yes, it basically doubled again). Despite the whole matter of the 700 billion dollars (0.7 trillion) President G.W. Bush left to the banks as his parting gift (without any strings attached such as accountability or paying it back) and the costly war in Iraq mess he left for the next president to solve, the national debt during the single term of our current president (Obama, a Democrat) has risen by about 35% to 15 trillion. It never ceases to amaze me that the Republicans stand on their high horse about the national debt when it seems that their presidents are the largest promoters of the debt (yet they seem to fall silent about debt when Republicans are in office).<br /><br />Now, some might ask why this is relevant to us today. One of the largest points of contention in current US politics is figuring out how to "live within our means", i.e. spend less than we make in a year. Any reasonable person will tell you that if you have a lot of debt and spend more than you make or get in a year, then you have to either increase your income or decrease your spending (or, preferably, both). This is where we hit the impasse. The Republicans primarily represent the rich, the upper 1-2% who own something like 90-95% of resources in America (and they also tend to gain a lot of support from "mainstream" Christianity, but I'll come back to that later). The Democrats tend to represent the poor and the minorities (people of races other than White European, and/or religions that aren't Protestant Christian, with a few exceptions on both sides). The Republicans (and those they represent) do not want the rich to have to pay their full share of taxes (90-95%, since taxes are based on material possessions, of which they own the greatest portion) nor do they want to give up government programs that help the rich (such as highly lucrative military contracts and other such back-room deals). The Democrats don't want to increase taxes on the struggling poor, nor do they want to give up the government programs that help the poor and are funded by tax dollars. With neither side willing to give much on this issue, it's unlikely to be resolved, no matter who wins our next presidential race.<br /><br />But this brings us to an interesting subject, namely that of religion and US politics. As I mentioned previously, Christians seem to be largely in the camp of the Republicans, something that personally boggles my mind. We are talking about a political party that honestly feels the people at the bottom of our society, people who make choices every day between medicine and food, who struggle to keep a roof over their heads, who work 2 or 3 jobs just to survive, should pay <span style="font-weight:bold;">more</span> taxes. Forgive me for saying so, but where did Jesus say, "If a man have two coats, let him take the rags from the beggars" or "If a man have meat, let him take the crusts of bread from the orphans"? Instead He said, and I quote, "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." (Luke 3:11 KJV). So, if Christians believe that Jesus was, at minimum, a wise man, shouldn't they desire political candidates who try to follow His teachings?<br /><br />However, Republicans don't frame the issues as "take from the starving to buy a yacht for the rich". No one would vote for them if they did. They tell stories about people on drugs or welfare buying big screen TVs (which have, incidentally, come down quite a bit in price in recent years). I could point out that a struggling family might save a lot of money watching rented DVDs on a nice media center at home instead of going out to cinemas at $10 a head, but the point they are really making is that the poor shouldn't have any luxuries, not that they are saying the rich live without luxuries or calling all those who have two flat-screen TVs to give one to him that has none (or only an old box TV). They use terms like "class warfare", i.e. the poor "persecuting" the rich (it never seems to be used when the rich profit from the poor because that's called "Capitalism" or "good business").<br /><br />Now I'm going to ask some admittedly "charged" questions. First, should a "good business" be defined as the business that makes the most money annually or the one that best serves the people, both customers and employees? Second, is Capitalism (a system centered around the laws and ordinances of the "almighty dollar") really compatible with Christianity (which centers around the laws and ordinances of an almighty God who counseled us to "sell all and give to the poor" and whose followers lived with "all things common", i.e. shared, among them)? How can we claim to be a Christian Capitalist country? Isn't that an oxymoron, like calling someone a militant pacifist or a democratic dictator? Third, do we really want to live in a country that turns its back on the poor? Would we really rather trade, for example, food, housing, and medical care for a year for a hundred homeless, even if they are high on drugs and/or drunk on moonshine, for another sea-side vacation home for one more rich businessman? Is this the kind of society we really want?<br /><br />More and more these days, I find myself wondering what or who we support as the God of America. If it really is the Christian God, we have a funny way of showing it. We twist His words to attack science classrooms and Stem Cell Research, but we support the decadent lifestyles of the rich. It seems to me that if our actions were used to elect the God of America, money would defeat the Judeo-Christian God by a landslide (I doubt God/Jesus would even have enough votes to get on the ballot). Unfortunately, the "god" behind the love of money cares nothing for good judgment, mercy, compassion, or peace. Following him will lead us, as it has nations before us, into utter ruin.<br /><br />~QuaggyQuagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-33211354931177325122011-10-27T11:49:00.000-07:002011-10-27T11:51:05.719-07:00No Good Deed...<P>To understand this event, I need to give a little background about myself personally. I am, at the time of writing, a 30-year-old vegetarian woman who lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 6 cats, 2 dogs, fishtanks, and numerous houseplants (including some fascinating carnivorous species). Due to a multitude of health issues, I have never had a chance to marry, nor do I have the energy to spare for courtship. To make matters worse, even if I did someday wish to pursue a romantic relationship, my health would make it nearly impossible for my boyfriend/husband to touch me, and absolutely impossible to do anything "else".<br /><P>Because my health also limits my ability to get out of the house and get my much-needed doses of social interaction, I invite the few local kids who still live in my tiny, western Kansas farm town to come over to my place to hang out. I have a laptop computer with internet, a Wii (also with internet), a PS2, 2 DS game systems (a DSi and a 3DS), and numerous boardgames they are welcome to play with while visiting my home. I also buy them a nice amount of snack food every month (when I go on my monthly shopping trips) and some small "fun size" candy bars, of which they are allowed to pick 2 per day. Since our local library is only open a few times a week for a couple hours at a time, my house has become the local hang-out for the two families of pre-teens and teens (as well as a few young adults from those families) who live in this town.<br /><P>As a final personal note, I should mention the rules of my house. I do not permit profanity (at least not within my hearing range), nor do I permit lude or inappropriate jokes. As I tell them, "If it's not G-rated, it doesn't need repeated." I also ask that if they use something, they put it away when they're done, and if they make a mess, they clean it up. If they want to earn a few extra dollars for themselves, I frequently have chores they may do for me to get paid, if they wish to do so. As for the computer, the first rule I tell every person who comes over to use it is, "No porn". I will not tolerate any use porn in my home, and it's one of two things that they've been told will earn them a permanent ban from my house (the other is stealing).<br /><P>On that note, I'll relate what one of the kids told me yesterday. He has a friend from a town about 15 minutes drive away who sometimes comes over to visit or stay the night with him. When his friend comes over, he says that they can't come over to my house because his parents forbid him to come to my house. They think, according to him, that any 30-year-old woman who lets kids come over to her house and gives them free candy must be a child molester.<br /><P>Now, I'm not offended by this baseless accusation. Goodness knows I've been accused of other crazy things before, such as a few supposedly religious people saying that all my health problems stem from the fact that I play a video game as evil and Satanic as Pokemon *eyeroll*. It did, however, make me stop and think. I had always assumed that it was impossible to offend people merely by being kind. I now see that this is, in fact, not true. I considered what I would do in such a situation, and I honestly feel that a better solution would be to come and meet the 30-year-old woman. Sit down and talk with her. Find out why she has no children of her own and yet loves to be around children and makes a place in her home for them to visit and enjoy themselves. I think that I would find out more about someone before I proposed the possibility that they might be a child molester and forbad my child from visiting their home.<br /><P>In short, I feel that we should all try to be slower to take offence and quicker to bear one another's burdens that they may be light. Perhaps, if we do so, we'll be able to change the common saying from "No good deed goes unpunished" to something more positive, such as "No good deed is ignored" or "No good deed goes unpraised".<br /><P>~QuaggyQuagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-82545194896549918292011-10-27T11:28:00.000-07:002011-10-27T11:38:09.140-07:00Jehovah Who?<P><FONT face=Verdana><I>(Reposted from my Website Blog Page - Original Post from October 7th, 2011)</I></FONT><br /><P><FONT face=Verdana>I recently participated in a lengthy (but friendly) discussion on Click Critters with a couple of people who insisted that Jehovah was the name of God the Father, not Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Afterward, I wanted to see if this is a point of confusion for most of the Christian world or unique to those with whom I was speaking. Looking up the word "Jehovah" in a normal dictionary quickly told me that this misconception is quite common, and I find myself perplexed by it. I had always thought the Bible more than sufficient to ascertain the identity of Jehovah (and with modern scripture, it becomes unmistakable). Thus, I decided to compile a list of scriptures that seem to make this point abundantly clear.</FONT><br /><br /><CENTER><B>Creator</B></CENTER><br /><OL><LI>"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men." (John 1:1-4)<br /><ul><LI><I>If he was with God, i.e. the Father, and all things were created by him, then John is saying that the "word", i.e. Jesus the Christ, is the creator.<br /><LI>Note the usage in "the Word was God". We'll come back to this idiomatic expression later in this section.</I></UL><br /><LI>"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)<br /><ul><LI><I>So, the creator is often referred to as God, also.</I></UL><br /><LI>"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:14-17)<br /><ul><LI><I>Through whose blood do we find redemption? By him were all things created. Unless "mainstream" Christianity is trying to say that we find redemption through the blood of God the Father and *not* Jesus Christ, His Son...</I></UL><br /><LI>"Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" (Isaiah 44:24)<br /><ul><LI><I>Again, who is the Redeemer of mankind? We are once more told that the Redeemer "maketh all things".</I></UL><br /><LI>"And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land." (Jonah 1:9)<br /><ul><LI><I>The creator is also called "the Lord, the God of Heaven", another name we can then ascribe to the Savior, Jesus Christ.</I></UL><br /><LI>"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people" (Luke 1:68)<br /><ul><LI><I>So, the Lord God of Israel is also the redeemer, and who is the redeemer, again? Thus, we can add yet another reference to the Savior to our list.</I></UL><br /><LI>"Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. ... Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." (Isaiah 45:11-12 & 15)<br /><ul><LI><I>This passage makes clear a distinction between "the Lord, the Holy One of Israel" and "his Maker". Who could be the Maker of the Lord God of Israel except God the Father? Thus, the Lord God of Israel must not be the Father Himself, especially since God the Father is not our direct Savior. Everyone together now, who is our Savior? :)</I></UL><br /><LI>"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:" (Ephesians 3:8)<br /><ul><LI><I>Again, God (the Father) created all things *by* Jesus Christ, denoting Jesus specifically as the creator. If the Lord God of Israel, Jehovah, created all things, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, created all things, does it not stand to reason that Jesus the Christ *is* Jehovah, the Lord God of Israel?</I></UL><br /><LI>"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)<br /><ul><LI><I>Once again, Jesus is specifically designated as the one by whom the worlds were made.</I></UL><br /><LI>"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:10-11)<br /><ul><LI><I>Christ is once again designated as the creator, but I didn't include this passage just to repeat the point again. I included it to note another occurrence of the idiomatic expression I mentioned in the second note to Point #1 (John 1:1-4). "Christ is all and in all". Obviously we are not all Jesus Christ. This expression, while somewhat difficult for most people (myself included) to understand, seems to denote a close relationship, so close that two become one.</I></UL><br /></OL><br /><CENTER><B>I AM</B></CENTER><br /><OL><LI>"And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." (Exodus 3:13-15)<br />"And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." (Exodus 4:10-12)<br /><ul><LI><I>I lumped both of these together because they are from the same conversation, specifically Moses speaking with God in the burning bush, but for the sake of brevity, I cut out the passages inbetween that don't pertain to our stated topic. Now, we've already established who created all things, thus, if "I AM" created all things (including man's mouth, the seeing, and the blind), then "I AM" must, logically, refer to the creator, which we've already established to be Jesus the Christ.<br /><LI>Also notice that "I AM" promises to be with Moses and, in the verses I didn't include, specifically ones like Exodus 3:20, the Lord promises to "smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go". Thus, the deliverer of Israel is also "I AM", i.e. Jesus the Christ. This will be relevant in a moment...</I></UL><br /><LI>"Then the Lord said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." (Exodus 6:1-3)<br /><ul><LI><I>So, the deliverer of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was and is Jehovah, and, as we've already established, the deliverer of Israel and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was and is "I AM", who is also known as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ = "I AM" = Jehovah. To drive this point home, I'll add the words of the Savior Himself...</I></UL><br /><LI>"Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."<br /><ul><LI><I>The footnote here points out, "The term I Am used here in the Greek is identical with the Septuagint usage in Ex. 3:14 which identifies Jehovah." Since the Septuagint predates by centuries any English translation of the Bible, we can only surmise that the reason the Jews took up stones to kill him (by stoning, a common punishment in that day for blasphemy) was because he claimed to be "I AM", i.e. Jehovah, the God of Israel. If we, who believe on the name of Jesus Christ, believe him to be a sinless man, must we not, therefore, accept his word when he calls himself "I AM", i.e. Jehovah?</I></UL><br /></OL><br /><CENTER><B>Latter-Day Scripture (a.k.a. the Cheat Sheet)</B><br /><I>(I need not make any content notes here. These speak quite clearly for themselves, one obvious advantage to the use of Latter-Day Scripture.)</I></CENTER><br /><OL><LI>"Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him." (2 Nephi 9:5)<br /><LI>"For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. ... And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary." (Mosiah 3:5 & 3:8)<br /><LI>"And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name." (Helaman 14:12)<br /><LI>"And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen." (Moroni 10:34) <I>(See Romans 14:10 if you don't know about "the judgement seat of Christ", or...)</I><br /><LI>"Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?" (Alma 5:14)<br /><LI>"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh." (Ether 3:14-16)<br /><LI>"Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world. And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning." (3 Nephi 11:10-11)<br /><LI>"Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end." (3 Nephi 15:5 - Jesus is speaking)<br /><LI>"We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father." (D&C 110:2-4)<br /><LI>"Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins" (D&C 29:1)<br /><LI>"And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was; Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation— The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men. The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us." (D&C 93:7-11)<br /></OL><br /><br /><CENTER><B>Conclusion</B></CENTER><br /><P><FONT face=Verdana>I feel that I've provided ample evidence, both Biblical and from Latter-Day Scripture, to support the assertion that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. Thus far, I have yet to find any evidence to prove that Jesus is *not* Jehovah other than the traditions of men (which usually have little or no connection to scripture). With Latter-Day Scripture, this fact is unmistakable, but even with just the Bible, I think it's a very clear point. Unfortunately, I suspect that the larger problem is a difficulty finding faith in the divinity of Christ, upon which all Christianity, of necessity, is based and without which it inevitably falls. </FONT><br /><br /><P><FONT face=Verdana>~Quaggy</FONT>Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-68673860679978878322009-04-13T06:24:00.000-07:002009-04-13T07:47:09.260-07:00Advertising and Adoptable SitesYeah, I know it's been a while since I last posted. I tried several times, but I guess I was posting at peak times and the server wouldn't add my post (after half an hour of trying each time). Anyway, hopefully today's post will upload.<br /><br />My first topic today is advertising. It's everywhere these days, and many websites subsist only upon the revenues from advertising. Understandably, advertisers want to get their name into the heads of consumers, and some <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">advertisers</span> seem to think that annoying people is the best way to do this. While I admit that it's a good way to get people to say, "I'll never buy or support *insert the name of company with a horrible ad like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Quiznos</span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Geico</span>*", I can't see how that does the company a service. With <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Internet</span> ads, some advertisers seem to think that they have to make flashing ads to get people to pay attention to the ad. I've got a newsflash for them. First, flashing ads, which are detrimental to certain health problems, make many people disable all ads just to get around them. Second, flashing ads cause complaints to webmasters who then must manually block the offensive ads. Third, people do pay attention to ads if they have something meaningful to say. Most <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">web surfers</span> know to ignore the "Click here for your free <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Wii</span>" and "You are the 1 millionth visitor, click here for your prize!" ads. They are little more than scams. Since many websites gain a limited pool of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">advertisements</span>, most regulars on any given site have seen ads for a game before. Making a new ad that flashes just annoys people (there's a reason that HTML no longer supports the BLINK tag), and makes people want to avoid your website. In short, stop making annoying ads, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">inappropriate</span> ads, and idiotic ads. People are numb to stupid tactics companies concoct to get their money, and an ad that annoys someone is more likely to drive them away than bring them in.<br /><br />Now on to my second topic, which is only tenuously connected to the first: Adoptable sites. (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Adoptables</span> are, in themselves, a form of advertisement for the website that <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">distributes</span> them.) These seem to be the fad of the year, with new ones cropping up regularly and a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">pre</span>-made script or two being distributed for use by anyone with the inclination to do so. Everyone seems to have their own way of encouraging players to click other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">adoptables</span> on their site such as: paying site-specific currency (ex: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Valenth</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Whimpsters</span>), giving random site rewards (ex: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">DragonAdopters</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">UniCreatures</span>), giving out exclusive <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">adoptables</span> (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">PokePlushies</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Virtuadopt</span>), listing those who have clicked on one's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">adoptables</span> that day (ex: Global <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Pokedex</span> Plus), and some sites have no incentive at all (ex: Dragon Cave and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Arvyre</span>, as well as all the other sites using the same cookie-cutter code that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Arvyre</span> uses). Of all of these methods, I'd have to say that none of them seem to be especially effective. There is another option that many adoptable site players use: Click/Link exchanges. These exchanges give click for click. If you click on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">another's</span> adoptable, you eventually get a click in return from someone else. There are downsides to these systems also, such as the resources required to run them. In short, it seems that no adoptable website I've seen has managed to solve the problems with making <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">adoptables</span> more interactive without rewarding unwanted behavior (like spamming or leeching).<br /><br />~<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Quag</span><br /><br />PS: The idea of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">adoptables</span> is not really new. My first computer graphics projects over 10 years ago were animating "adoptable" Care Bear images, but the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">adoptables</span> were nothing more than HTML image links back then. There was no "leveling" involved, primarily because it was very expensive to purchase a hosting package that allowed the user access to the kind of server-side programming needed to give adoptable images levels and names.Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-57503654249112429222007-12-03T04:10:00.000-08:002007-12-03T04:39:46.647-08:00Is The Golden Compass Anti-Christian?In the past month, two friends have directly asked me about this topic and a third has discussed it in passing with me. I read the Golden Compass in High School years ago, and I am <span style="font-weight: bold;">very</span> excited about the new movie. Of course, I suppose I should have expected these questions and comments, since the news channels keep running idiotic stories about it. So, here is my answer to the question, "Is The Golden Compass anti-Christian?"<br /><br />First, let me summarize the book. A young girl, Lyra <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Belaqua</span>, lives in a world in which a religious organization, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Magesterium</span>, concocts secret plots for power, in more ways than one. Their Oblation Board, overseen by Lyra's own mother, seeks out children they consider of low worth to abduct and conduct medical experiments on, experiments that ultimately lead to the childrens' deaths. When a friend of Lyra's is taken by the Oblation Board, she turns her back on the prospects of riches and power her parents could gain her to set out into the dangerous frozen north to rescue her friend. Along the way, she uncovers a plot by the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Magesterium</span> to gain control of the warrior nation of snow bears by holding the promise of "baptism" over the head of the leader, if he can prove that he is equal to the Human race (and does what the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Magesterium</span> wishes).<br /><br />I suppose one's answer to the question at hand depends entirely on how you personally define Christianity. If you believe that Christianity is best exemplified by the actions of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Magesterium</span> in this book, by deception, murder, kidnapping, and an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">insatiable</span> lust for power and money, then you would be correct in saying that this film speaks out against such things. If you believe that Christianity is best defined by the courage to turn your back on money and power for a friend in need, by honesty, loyalty, courage, and kindness, then this movie honors Christianity.<br /><br />Perhaps most ironic of all, is that those who stand on their soapboxes screaming about how this movie dishonors their religion are themselves saying that they belong to a religion that practices dishonesty, murder, and secret combinations, which are built up to get power, gain, and glory of the world. If their religion does practice such things, I would reply to them that they would be better off looking for the source of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">corruption</span> within their organization, the reason that such secret combinations have hold upon them, than to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">criticize</span> a movie or suggest that all religion is represented by the evil <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Magesterium</span> of The Golden Compass.<br /><br />~<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Quaggy</span>Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-16081100648664014012007-11-03T10:38:00.000-07:002007-11-03T10:56:58.230-07:00A Fix For Maple Story's Shop System<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.quagthistle.com/img/Super_Market.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW4rpdhMFJhhEdy6fhTMyFt_vHHYzSZh2_Dw6eTYpkae0kpOl08bIzbzM2Ig45RnzRODXT8UJO2MvZUi4YZMimc4aUXobMF0ingY9b-RPmg9iDPkP6Hp8srkaPdoQ-HolJ8MngmADuK1cX/s400/Super_Market.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128670870888228242" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">I've had this in my head for months, so I finally decided to do up a post about it. Though I feel it unlikely this will be seen by anyone with the power to consider the idea, still I will do my best to convey the idea whether or not it is ever implemented (because I think it would greatly improve the experience of </span><span style="font-family:arial;">playing Maple Story). Above is an image I've drawn up to show the new addition to the Free Market that I'd love to see added to Maple Story Global someday.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;">It would work something like this: players wishing to sell in the Super Market would stop at the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">NPC</span> sitting behind the Front Desk to retrieve Sale Tags (a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">stackable</span> item that would look somewhat like the rough image below). Those who cannot or will not buy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">NX</span> would get 1 Sale Tag for free. Additional ones could be purchased for a certain amount, like 5,000 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">NX</span> each. Once an item sold, the tag would return to the desk for the </span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMruqEpZfoDFn_yLm0-JhMb5LijxsyMkCYmt9muMINM7E-f7T-BAVho9aZFZAv0bHM1WZh0kv0_VlWpYatlkCHhNEUhbPKBhVx1uvWbNbXON0e83fSlPsYGluBFUeorxMnZ-oUPecpOCVC/s1600-h/saletag.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMruqEpZfoDFn_yLm0-JhMb5LijxsyMkCYmt9muMINM7E-f7T-BAVho9aZFZAv0bHM1WZh0kv0_VlWpYatlkCHhNEUhbPKBhVx1uvWbNbXON0e83fSlPsYGluBFUeorxMnZ-oUPecpOCVC/s320/saletag.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128671777126327714" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">user to retrieve (along with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">mesos</span> from the item(s) sold). To be absolutely clear here, these tags would be PERMANENT. The Cash Shop has enough temporary stuff in it already that too few people buy. The last thing we need is more temporary electronic items to pay real money for, especially when there is a whole game full of free items that last forever. But I digress, back to the point...<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;">Those who wish to buy from the Super Market would go right past the front desk to the 4 door portals, each marked with a sign over it saying (in order) "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Eq</span>.", "Use", "Set-up", and "Etc.". Depending on the type of item the user wishes to buy, they would choose a door. Items for sale would be displayed as if they were drops laying on a shelf (that no one can pick up). Below each item would be a crate (that players can't break), which sellers would click on to leave one of that item for sale at whatever price they feel is reasonable. Above the shelf would be a blackboard which buyers could click on to see a list of that item currently for sale on their server, in order by price. (If they want certain stats on <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Equipment</span> items, they would still have to scroll down through the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">available</span> items to find what they want.) Leaving an item or single stack of items would require 1 Sale Tag. When the item or stack is sold out, the Sale Tag returns to the desk to be claimed by the owner so they can sell something else.<br /><br />While I realize that this would reduce the number of players using Owls of Minerva and Shop Elves, it would also improve the game (which should be the first concern of any game developer). So many players I know just <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">NPC</span> their unwanted items instead of trying to deal with the hassles of the Free Market (and some of them on slower connections can't even use the Free Market because they lag and then DC). Many buyers go to websites like Basil Street to deal in items or stand and spam the ch. 1 Free Market until they get what they want instead of trying to spend hours searching for the right item and price checking it. The Free Market is chaos, and I know I hate dealing with it. To make matters worse, players who have no <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">NX</span> often plant themselves in the Free Market and spam it like there is no tomorrow (because they have no other choice). Players with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">NX</span> do anything they can to get a good spot to leave their character and computer on all night (or school day) in the hopes that someone who <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">happens</span> to want what they are selling might find them and buy from them. Not only does this add <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">unnecessary</span> drain to the Maple servers, but it causes <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">unnecessary</span> wear and tear to people's computers. My new system could be implemented without getting rid of the Free Market stalls, though if I were a betting person, I'd bet people would drop the Free Market stalls like a hot potato within a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">week</span> of this being released.<br /><br />The only downside to this idea that I can think of would be revenue. I'm not sure if the revenue from this idea would be more or less than is currently earned through the Maple Story shop system. It could be more profitable because people are always more willing to buy something permanent, especially in a game, than they are to buy temporary electronic items. On the other hand, the revenue could be slightly less because people aren't being scalped every which way to try and buy and sell in-game items. If the latter case happens, the lost revenue could easily be made up and exceeded (in my opinion) by simply offering some Cash Shop clothes that never expire (perhaps at slightly higher prices). Perhaps other types of items could be added too, like a $15 Water or Eternal Life for pets (so they never turn back into dolls). As Ive said, players always seem to be more willing to spend money in support of a game when the items they buy are permanent.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">It's just an idea, but it's one that I think would greatly improve the experience of playing Maple Story.<br /><br />~<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Quaggy</span><br /></span>Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-84863267809887789782007-10-11T19:11:00.000-07:002007-10-11T20:38:27.065-07:00Today's Featured Wiki Article<span style="font-family:arial;">When the Wikipedia makes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design">this</a> article the day's featured article, I have to comment. I have very strong opinions on this issue and have spent countless hours researching the "debate" from both sides. As both a person who has had a passion for science from an early age and a person with a very strong belief in a Higher Being, two concepts that in a sane world would be in no way contradictory, this long running argument is an attack that seems directed at reason out of ignorance and fear. (And could prove quite dangerous if followed to it's obvious conclusions, but I'll come back to that.)<br /><br />For those who might be interested, I believe very strongly in a Higher Being (specifically, God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, three separate and distinct beings acting as one in purpose). I believe that He "created the Heavens and the Earth and all things that in them are", including the natural laws and order of our world. The God that I believe in is a God of order, and His glory is intelligence. I see no obvious contradiction between my religious beliefs and science (including evolution). I feel that the teaching of religion should be taught in homes and churches, but spiritual matters are and should be a personal choice. No one should be forced to believe in any religion or religious concept, and the purpose of school is to teach unbiased science, not some completely unscientific concoction made up to get a circle of televangelists more spending cash.<br /><br />ID as a "debate" sounds a lot like this: Someone says that they believe a Carpenter made their wooden chair, and that the Master Carpenter is all powerful. Because of His power, He, of course, did not use a hammer to pound in the nails, because He has the power to make the nails go in without using a hammer, that's what it means to be all-powerful. (And, of course, one is not supposed to think about whether or not it denotes great intelligence to use a supernatural power to pound in nails when there is a hammer sitting there next to you.) Therefore, studying the hammer as a tool useful to create the chair is blasphemy, and one should only be concerned with the Carpenter not any tools or means used in the creation of the chair. However, refusing to study the hammer and blueprints for the chair will not bring the student any closer to being able to build a chair, nor will it bring them any closer to being a carpenter themselves. In short, just sitting there staring at the Master Carpenter without any concern for learning from Him is neither a wise use of time nor a fulfillment of the Carpenter's plans for His children. It serves no good purpose.<br /><br />It's like when I was in high school and we would make up debates just before the history teacher got there so we could argue all class long and not have to go into comas listening to the ever-boring procession of historical dates, names, and places (none of which struck any of us as being important or useful). ID (as purported by placed like the Discovery Institute), in my opinion, is nothing more than an attempt to drudge up an argument to avoid learning that which they dislike or fear.<br /><br />The fact that many religious people have a fantasy, fairy tale idea of Deity should not impede scientific knowledge. This isn't the Dark Ages. Just because God could theoretically make the animals pop out of the ground like popcorn, it doesn't mean that He did, especially when the fossil evidence supports the idea that He didn't. If one believes that God created the Earth, it seems reasonable to believe that they also acknowledge His creation of the laws that govern the Earth. If they believe in the laws that govern the Earth, it is also reasonable to believe that an intelligent God would use those laws He created to accomplish His designs. Once you reach this point, you realize that science is just a means of studying the physical manifestations of God's handiwork, and that the study of it is a good way of learning about this marvelous and beautiful world we've been given and how to be responsible in our stewardship over it.<br /><br />As to those who go out on the opposite limb of the tree by saying that we are not that well designed, or that nature isn't perfect in their eyes, that strikes me as an extremely narrow minded and arrogant assertion. What are they using as a comparison? What other sentient beings have they been studying, since we are the only forms of "higher life" on the planet? What alterations would they make, and more importantly, how would it effect the nature and purpose of life? In short, they have no frame of reference for their criticism, nor any concept of the possible ramifications of their purposed alterations.<br /><br />It's like people who ignorantly say they wish they could go back in time and eliminate Hitler before he came to power, without any concept of the good things that were born from such a horrible atrocity (new laws to govern wars and conflicts, Israel being reinstated, and countless moral lessons learned from stories told by survivors, to name a few). True, what Hitler did was terrible to the point of being incomprehensible, but as often happens in life, good can come from the bad. To eliminate the bad is to eliminate the good that comes from it. Not that we should seek to do bad things so good can come out of it, however, we do learn as much (if not more) from the bad as we do from the good. Besides, in the end, Hitler and his followers reaped what they had sewn. They sewed death and destruction, and reaped it in their own turn. They sought to destroy a nation, and were instead destroyed themselves.<br /><br />Back to the point, the entire "religion should fight all science it does not approve of" concept seems to me to be more dangerous than the religious people realize. By making such a stance (and in the process showing a complete ignorance of or lack of respect for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method">scientific method</a>), they paint all religious people as being ignorant and combative. We are beginning to see the harvest of their efforts, as more and more young people speak out against religion and, by association, many basic moral codes. By the actions of some religious people, thousands turn their back on religion, thinking that all religion is as ignorant and comical as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Dino">Dr. Dino</a>. I wonder how many more years it will take this "debate" to make the majority of Americans anti-religious. I wonder how many more years it will take for that movement away from religion to bring a movement against morality. In the end, I wonder if the televangelists realize, or care about, the inevitable consequences of their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_mongering">fear mongering</a>. (As you can probably tell, my opinion of televangelism is so low it's subterranean. Money and preaching do not belong in the same sentence, and if people really think that the laborer being worthy of his hire means that preachers are entitled to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee">Hagee</a>'s $250-$1200 an hour, or $1,000,000 a year, salary taken from his "non-profit" organization, I'd love for them to define the words "Humility" and "Charity" to me with a straight face and preferably an actual grain of logic.)<br /><br />Why do people get so up at arms fighting over which of two sides of a coin is better than the other? They are both the same coin, so can we stop bickering about it and get on to doing something useful?<br /><br />~Quaggy<br /></span>Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-11099529318930443332007-09-17T11:18:00.000-07:002007-09-17T15:46:34.622-07:00Review: Maplestory<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><a href="http://maplestory.nexon.net/">Maplestory</a> is an MMORPG from Korea, which features some of the best music I've ever heard in any RPG and some of the most beautiful backgrounds and artwork I've ever seen. It plays like a 2D sidescroller (think Mario with swords and magic), but has a lot of the gameplay elements of an action/adventure RPG (like the Legend of Zelda). Despite it's stunningly well-made art and music, the game play itself is lacking. Getting past lv 40 usually requires either wading through the cesspool of Party Quest limbo or grinding for endless hours, days, and weeks on the same monsters. The player shop system is one of the worst, if not the worst, I've ever seen. The Cash Shop underachieves, and has significant room for improvement. Hacking, formerly Maplestory's largest problem, seems to have died down a bit now.<br /><br /><br />My ratings of the game:<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Graphics: </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 102, 204); font-weight: bold;">9.5 </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 102, 204);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(The artwork is very nicely drawn,</span> </span>especially Aqua Road.)<span style="color: rgb(204, 102, 204);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Music: </span><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153); font-weight: bold;">10 </span><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(What can I say? I love the music, especially Orbis Tower.)</span></span><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153); font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Gameplay:</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-weight: bold;">5.5 </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(After lv. 40, gameplay becomes terribly repetitive. The quests are all "hunt this many", "hunt and find", or "go talk to this person" quests. Party Quests are overcrowded and full of a lot of rude people. There is a lot of room for improvement here.)</span><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Community: </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">1 </span>(The community is low due to a high occurrence of greedy, disrespectful, immature players, and little in the game code to keep them in check.)</li><li><span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Replay Value: </span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255); font-weight: bold;">8</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (Very few players have only 1 character, and playing different jobs helps stave off boredom.)</span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Economy: </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">N/A</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (Without a decent Player Shop System, this is impossible to rate.)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cash Support System: <span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);">6.5 </span></span><span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(It is a decent system, despite it's great potential for improvement.)</span></span></li><li><span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Overall: <span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);">7.5<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(The game is very well made, and if you like the music and artwork, it makes up for the cruddy community and lack of gameplay at higher levels.)</span></span></span></span></span></li></ul><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />How I Would Improve The Game<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Community<br /><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The first thing I would fix in the current community is KSing<span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);">*</span>, especially at high demand monsters like Mushmom. I wouldn't mind spending the required 45 minutes hunting the Iron Boars if I had some assurance that a lv 98 idiot won't wander by right when it spawns and kill it in two shots, leaving me 45 minutes of Boar-hunting to do all over again. I would fix this problem by making limited spawn monsters attackable by certain people first. For example: When Mushmom spawns, the amount of Boars taken out in the last 45 minutes determines how soon a monster is attackable. If you've been fighting the Boars alone for half an hour, you get, say, 2 minutes to fight Mushmom before anyone else can touch her. If there were 3 of you taking out Boars, and your counts are close to equal (or you are a party), then Mushmom would be attackable by the three of you for a period of time before that lv 98 KSing noob</span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);">*</span></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> can touch her.<br /><br />Another fix I would make to the community is to create a system where people can hunt or train privately on certain boards, probably by purchasing some kind of privacy pass that when used, takes the user to a different "dimension" of the same board (like a different channel) where they can hunt for the duration of the time on their pass in complete privacy. That would reduce strain on over hunted boards. I'd also add some more hunting options, like the ability to build private hunting grounds (again, probably by purchasing Cash Shop items, this time permanent ones), probably as an extension of a player's custom-made house. The monsters attracted to the hunting grounds would depend on the furnishings the player places within and the location chosen. (More on this later.)<br /><br />I would also fix the Party Quest system. Currently, getting into a Party Quest, involves going to ch. 1, waiting for someone to take you into their party (and hoping that they are at least near your level), and then going from channel to channel until you either find a "track" on someone inside a Party Quest at the moment or, by some amazingly rare twist of fate, find an empty room. I would fix this by making more than one Party Quest "room" per channel (designated by A, B, C, etc.) or, if that would simply make things too easy, I'd add a ticket system, where a Party had to take a ticket for a room, allowing them to be the next ones in if they have been waiting and enter within a certain amount of time, say 60 seconds. The act of "rushing" is not fair to other players (and yes, I've been in parties that rushed from one PQ into the next, but that still doesn't make it fair to those who've waited). I would also make a display board that showed the status of each channel's room and how many tickets are waiting to get in. Players who are in a party with a ticket would have a little PQ helper window (like the Quest Helper) that would show them the current status of their ticket. That way players could see how long their wait might be and plan accordingly. The last thing I would add is a bulletin board spanning all channels to post your desire to Party Quest so that parties might more easily find those who wish to play who are close to their level. That way, if a party had a good ticket and 1 or more stupid people who had wandered so far away that they were going to miss their chance, the party leader can kick the people who can't make it and quickly get someone else.<br /><br /></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Gameplay</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There are numerous ways that game play could be improved. The problem with the current system is that once you get to higher levels, there is nothing worthwhile to break the monotony of training. I think new areas of gameplay could be added to make training more fun.<br /><br />First, a new ability system would add something if it were implemented. I'd love to see the ability to use skills from other job classes by "earning" them. By doing some kind of quest for each of the job class trainers one didn't choose, the player could earn access to an "Effort Skill Book" for that job class. The Effort Skills could be used just like the people of that job, however, they would have long cool down timers and could only be leveled by increasing one's Effort Skill Points in that skill. Effort Skill Points wouldn't be given based on a player's level, but would instead by given based on experience using the skill (number of times it's been used). The more Effort Skill Points, the shorter the cool down timer and the more powerful the skill becomes. Also, the requirements to earn access to higher skills would increase, and new requirements would be added in the "Effort Skill Books". For example, instead of having access to a Magician's Magic Claw with only 1 point on Energy Bolt, you might require 10 points in Energy Bolt with Energy Bolt. Passive skills would either not be included (if they wouldn't apply to other job classes, why include them?) or would gain Skill Experience Points much more slowly based on the levels of other Effort Skills in that same book. Once all of the skills in an Effort Skill Book were maxed out, the player could do another quest for the trainer who would normally give that job advance (provided their character's level exceeds the level normally required for the advance). Continued training with the Effort Skills in the maxed Effort Skill Book would shorten the cool down timers and lower the cost of casting those abilities (though no amount of training the Effort Skills would make them as good as actually being that job class).<br /><br />I would also add single-player Adventure Quests (AQ). Each level of the AQ would have a timer, say 5 minutes, and only one person could be in any level on that channel at a certain time. When a player entered a level of the quest, they would be presented with a randomized puzzle or activity to complete. (Examples: breaking boxes to find a pass, standing on platforms until you find the right one, fighting monsters on a board, climbing through a vine maze that changes every time it's played, picking up items and dropping them on the right platforms, etc.). Once a player completes a level, they would be taken to a waiting room in between stages where they could talk to others going through the AQ at the same time who had finished their levels and were waiting to continue. Once the player ahead of each player in the waiting room either completes their level or runs out of time and is removed from the quest (having failed), the player in the waiting room is automatically taken to their next level. Completing the AQ would earn a prize for the player, as well as experience.<br /><br />I would also add player houses, which they could gather items to furnish with the decor items found in places throughout Maplestory. For example: gathering 500 cotton, 250 stuffed pandas, and 100 snail shells, slime gels, or curse eye tails might produce 1 giant panda plushie, like the one at the foot of Big Ben in NLC. That giant panda could then be placed anywhere in a player's home or private hunting grounds, and if placed in the hunting grounds would attract certain kinds of monsters based on the terrain and other items on that hunting ground board. Additional room and hunting grounds space could be purchased in the Cash Shop. Perhaps one could also purchase in the Cash Shop portals for their home, allowing permanent transit to certain areas quickly. Since we are now getting into the Cash Shop, let's move on to that topic.<br /></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Cash Shop</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The Cash Shop on Maplestory is the fiscal support structure for the game. It's where people can donate money to keep the game running and buy items to use in-game in return. Currently, many Maplestory players frown on Cash Shop clothes (clothes with no stat bonuses that a player can wear over their boring armor for 90 days after they purchase them). There is a prevailing opinion that only spoiled brats or people with more money than sense buy the clothes, and a lot of veteran players don't. I think this entire attitude could be reversed by merely removing the 90 day limit on the clothes. The revenues lost to the few people who rebuy their clothes would certainly be made up and greatly exceeded by the people who buy clothes when normally they would not because they expire in 90 days. Making them tradeable in-game would also help increase their desirability and sales, especially if some clothes were limited editions only sold for a few weeks to a month before being retired. This would make Cash Shop clothes collectible, and would probably change the overwhelming number of complaints when Cash Shop clothes are added into more neutral or I'm sure if Maplestory tested this theory by having a sale of permanent items, even if they were slightly higher in price, they would see my point about revenue. (And if they did, perhaps they could use the extra money to offset the loss of revenue from the next improvement.)</span></span></span><br /><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Economy</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (Player Shop System)<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The current player shop system is basically like going to garage sales, except these garage sales are crammed 25 or so to a room, often with 8 or more rooms filled to capacity. Each garage sale only has 16-24 items, and there is no free way to search for whatever item you want or price check your items. In short, it's chaos with a few quick fixes slapped on it that require buying highly overpriced Cash Shop items to use. Though they would probably not make as much long-term revenue, changing the system would improve their game.<br /><br />If it were me, I'd change the Free Market into a Super Market with many floors and areas. When you walk in the door, you'd see a front desk where you could pick up money and retrieve "Sale Tags" from items that had been sold. Every player would get 1 free sale tag, entitling them to 1 "slot" of sale space (meaning they could sell 1 piece of armor or equipment, 200 of a drop item, 100-150 potions, etc.). Beyond the desk would be a series of doors marked for each of the inventory slots (Equip, Use, Set-up, Etc., Cash). Each door would then be further divided. Equip would divide by job class (Beginner, Warrior, Magician, Bowman, Thief), and then a long series of staircases leading to each "Level" (0-10, 11-20, 21-30, etc.) which would display mannequins wearing each piece of equipment. Above each mannequin would be a for sale board which, when clicked, would bring up a list of that item for sale, sorted with the lowest price first. Those who have a Sale Tag and wish to sell something would open the sale board and drag their item to the board, assigning a price for their item (much like shops work now). The game would then take their sale token and item, placing the item up for sale. When the item sells, their sale tag would be at the front desk waiting for the player with their mesos (in-game currency). Use, Set-up, and Etc. items would be sorted into groups, as well, and then shown in display cases over their sale board. Additional Sale Tags could be purchased in the Cash Shop for a set price and would allow an additional item to be sold permanently (kind of like upgrading one's inventory slots).<br /><br />Not only would this system help alleviate the massive spamming of messages in the Free Market by people who can't buy Cash Shop items, the horrid overcrowding in the Free market stalls, and the highly frustrating process of spending hours searching for what you want only to find none of that item reasonably priced, but it would make it easier to be sure your items are reasonably priced and price check something you have. True, it probably wouldn't bring in the revenue the Robot/Bear/Elf shop stalls do, but it would be a much more fair system and much easier to use.<br /><br /></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Overall</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Maplestory has a lot going for it, and I hope they have some new and creative ideas on the horizon. Even if none of my ideas ever appear in Maplestory, I hope they will continue to advance and improve the game. It has a lot of untapped potential as a game, and I'd love to see where it could go!</span></span></span><br /><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Signed, Quag<br /><br /></span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 204, 204);">*A Short Glossary of Terms:</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kill Stealing (KSing):</span> The act of attacking a monster someone else is attacking in order to take it down more quickly and get the items it may drop.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Noob:</span> A derogatory name for someone who is rude, immature, inconsiderate, or selfish. (Not to be confused with Newb: Someone who is new to a game.)</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span></span></span>Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-84347564929051406362007-09-14T22:25:00.001-07:002007-09-14T23:57:21.646-07:00The Cardinal Rules of Game Design<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >After many years spent studying games and what makes people like or dislike them, I've found several general rules that seem to draw mass amounts of players to a game (and when absent, seem to drive players away). These rules are the measuring stick whereby I analyze the games I play. Put briefly (or as briefly as possible for me), they are:<br /><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The primary purpose of the game should include some kind of permanent gain to the player's personal account or character. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Players like to see some reward for the hours spent playing games, and permanent increases to their character(s), increases in the amount of money or useful items they have, and/or advancements of storyline or exploration ability are usually decent enough incentives to keep gamers playing. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-weight: bold;">Good Example:</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> Chrono Trigger (SNES) allowed players to start a new game and retain all of the equipment left over from the last time they beat the game, thus allowing the game to be replayed without losing ones accumulated progress. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Bad Example:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Arcade games like Adventure Island (SNES) forced the player to start over every time they died with no benefit for previous progress, hence their replay value died as soon as they (or a friend) beat the game. (More on this with Rule #5.)</span><br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Progress should not take so long to acquire<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">that many players give up from boredom, and on the other side, if a game is too easy, beating it takes too little time and effort and the game is quickly forgotten. A well-made game must achieve a good balance of these two extremes. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">If it takes 10 hours of game play to gain a level, many players will grow bored before they level. If the player is gaining levels every few minutes, it becomes tedious and lacks meaning to the player (because it basically took no effort). A well-designed game must balance the boredom of "grinding", usually by adding other game play elements, with the lackluster feeling of gaining something too easily (usually only a problem in the initial stages of a new character or game, and rarely, if ever, a problem throughout the course of an entire game).</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-weight: bold;">Good example:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Golden Sun 1 & 2 both used a battle system which allowed the player to level rather quickly while also gaining decent drops from the monsters defeated. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Bad Example:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Maple Story may be easy to level in during the first stages of the game, but once a player reaches lv. 40 and up, they soon grow bored with grinding, repetitive quests, and the long hours of playing between leveling up.<br /><br /></span>3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The economic support for the game should not unbalance the game play for non-paying players (where applicable), but it also should not cost so much that a large number of players can't afford it or won't spend that kind of money on a game. Also, items that people pay real money for should be better in most or all ways than their free counterparts in-game. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Mostly relating to Free-To-Play MMORPGs, this rule generally covers the game's Donation Shop and how things are priced within it. Donation Shops allow MMORPGs to pay for servers and staff, however, many companies overprice items or make them temporary (which many players seem to dislike), lowering their profits since players often do not buy what they do not like. </span><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 204); font-weight: bold;">Example:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Maple Story is both a good and bad example in this case because it's Cash Shop has both sides of this rule. They have Cash Shop clothes which, unlike their free in-game counterparts, decay after 90 days and have a very low popularity with many players. Additionally, wearing Cash Shop clothes may earn a player insults and bad reputation in-game from other players who are either envious or assume that their purchasing Cash Shop clothes means they are "just another dumb noob". The Maple Story Cash Shop also has many very reasonably priced permanent items, most notably Gachupon, hair/face/eye changes, and Inventory slot upgrades, </span><span style="font-style: italic;">which are normally popular among veteran players.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span>4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Game designers should always consider the audience their game appeals to, and update accordingly. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">An action game usually appeals to those who like pushing sequences of buttons and reacting quickly. An RPG usually appeals to players who like character depth and storyline. A cute and beautiful MMORPG normally appeals to younger players and their parents, while a dark and violent MMORPG typically appeals to teens and young adults (typically male). Adding content that encourages violence and rude behavior to a cute and beautiful MMORPG typically drives away players, just as restricting language in dark and violent MMORPGs typically drives away their prime demographic of players.<br /><br /></span>5. <span style="font-weight: bold;">A well-made game has a high "replay value" (which means players who have played and/or beaten the game wish to do so again). </span><span style="font-style: italic;">The best classic games are normally games with high replay value, either for nostalgic reasons unique to the individual player or due to generally good game design incorporating many game paths, endings, characters, etc. </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-weight: bold;">Good Example:</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> Pokemon games (such as Diamond, Emerald, LeafGreen, and so on) all have a high replay value due to the large number of Pokemon creatures to capture, raise, breed, and train. Each time you play the game, you can do so with any number of Pokemon, and there is a great diversity in types, teams, strategies, and favorites typically called out by any individual player. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Bad Example:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Arcade games like Contra 3 and Super Ghouls and Ghosts featured very linear game progression and single characters who started over in the game once all lives were expended. The only replay value was in mastering the controls fully enough to win the game. Once completed, the game was frequently forgotten and replayed only to show off gaming skill to a player's friends.<br /><br /></span>6. <span style="font-weight: bold;">A well-made game incorporates varied playing styles and personalities into the game without favoring one style over another. Well-designed game series have varied titles that all appeal to their target audience but offer unique and interesting game play changes in each title. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Players like to personalize everything. Benevolent people often like to heal others, and "tough guys" often like to be strong and independent. Players like to wear their favorite colors, and play the game their own way (as a merchant, warrior, mage, cook, or whatever else a game allows).</span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-weight: bold;"> Good Example:</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> Runescape allows for an extreme variety of players, from craftsmen who make armour, projectiles, potions, and food, to warriors, who can bring down the strongest "baddies" in the game. Any path is a viable option for playing and enjoying the game. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Bad Example:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> Puzzle Pirates allows for very little variability in playing style. One can be a merchant or run a shop, but everyone will tell you (especially on the Free servers) that pillaging is really the only way to get rich. If a player grows tired of pillaging, there is little else they can do to earn a decent income, and unfortunately most other styles of game play (such as shops) require large and continuous amounts of both real and in-game currency.<br /><br /></span>These rules generally define my criteria for game analysis. Most games I play excel in at least one of these rules but almost always fail in one or more of the others. By studying what does and does not work in games that have already been made, we can learn to make better games in the future.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span>Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6318971374588684246.post-33990576566993108232007-09-14T22:20:00.000-07:002007-09-14T22:24:47.053-07:00Greetings!<span style="font-family: arial;">After reading several blogs regularly, I finally decided to make an attempt at creating my own place to dump ideas and ruminations, mostly on games and deep thoughts, my two favorite topics. To whomever might have stubbled across this, welcome, and may you find my random thoughts interesting.</span>Quagthistlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144430436417768325noreply@blogger.com0