DerveCreaves' forum posts

Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"]*big long-winded post repeating everything*Emerald_Warrior

Okay then

First of all, you asked for my opinion, see the thread title?

No, you didn't mention edutainment, I did, in my first post.

Yes, CD-i is a piece of crap system.

And yes, I think you're tastes in games are terrible if you truly do love the systems.

If those things make me a jerk, then so be it. But I think you really started the thread just to bait someone like me to say the system is crap so you can react just like this. Because the prevailing opinion on the system matches mine.

I didn't say I loved the system either, i said it had good games which you continue to deny by trying to make it look like I said something I did not say. Also butje also corrected some of your ignorant statements. If people mostly agreed with you then they: 1.Think the system only had slightly more than 100 games which is wrong 2.Had no good games at all 3.Have not played more than a couple games 4.Think most of it is edutainment. Which some of those are factually wrong. So again, you don;t like the system, you don;t know much about it, ok, but you don;t have to say I am thinking it's on par with gen or I "love" the system when i said it had SOME good games on it because you don't want the system to have good games good lord. I guess butje is also trolling for saying there was good games to? Bait?
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts
[QUOTE="whiskeystrike"]

To get away from the insults and bush beating let's have a simple question.

Please explain as to why you think gays should not have the same government recognized marriage as any straight couple.

Please do not

  • include religious reasoning (seperation of church and state)
  • say you just don't like it
whiskeystrike
Any takers?

The only reason gay wants marriage is because "Marriage" is the government controlled binding that also at the same time, allows people to take other people seriously and for soe reason mean they REALLY love eachother. Civil unions and non joining are looked down upon. Them staying out and just trying to increase rights with those could have led, or even still could, leave to more freedom in join unions. I don;t understand why they want to be controlled by a government binding contract that is way worse than all other contractual unions out.
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"]2nd of all, I think the actions of homosexuality should be illegal, and by actions I mean certain aspects of how they have intercourse.worlock77

Why is that any concern of your's or the state's?

States do not allow assisting injury of another person purposefully(especially if it's unintended like pain from virgin womens first time or etc. those are intended.) States do not allow assisted suicides. States do not allow assisting others in self-inflicting injury. Anal sex is not intended, no matter how used to it you are, it will cause damage everytime each time, and you and them or both are doing it to eachother on purpose. This also goes for Women as well.
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"]although I believe everyone has the right to preference...I think the actions of homosexuality should be illegalbr0kenrabbit

Contradicting yourself in the same post never bodes well for your argument.

How is it a contradiction? Loving someone is not a physical action. Anal sex is.
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

then most people are wrong, the Jaguar had more good games then just that, like a great port of Wolfenstein 3D with new weapons not found on the PC version, Iron Soldier, Iron Soldier 2, Battle morph (cyber morph isn't very good, but the sequel is much better) and Project Skyhammer.

With that said... it's not the greatest console out there, it has some good games, but I'd sooner reccomend a Saturn or even a 3DO

rilpas

Well yeah, it does have some good games. And it would be a great novelty to pick up at a cheap price. But that's the problem, finding one at a cheap price. They sell for far more than they're worth. The few amount of games that are good on it aren't worth that price, and some of the better ones can be found on other systems now.

And that's even if you find one that works. I friend of a friend who's into collecting far more than me even (his goal is to eventually own every console released in the U.S.) bought 3 before finding one that works as intended.

wow, didn't know it was that bad :\

It's not.
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

then most people are wrong, the Jaguar had more good games then just that, like a great port of Wolfenstein 3D with new weapons not found on the PC version, Iron Soldier, Iron Soldier 2, Battle morph (cyber morph isn't very good, but the sequel is much better) and Project Skyhammer.

With that said... it's not the greatest console out there, it has some good games, but I'd sooner reccomend a Saturn or even a 3DO

rilpas

Well yeah, it does have some good games. And it would be a great novelty to pick up at a cheap price. But that's the problem, finding one at a cheap price. They sell for far more than they're worth. The few amount of games that are good on it aren't worth that price, and some of the better ones can be found on other systems now.

And that's even if you find one that works. I friend of a friend who's into collecting far more than me even (his goal is to eventually own every console released in the U.S.) bought 3 before finding one that works as intended.

wow, didn't know it was that bad :\

It's not.
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Did you read the rest of the thread? In my first post I talk about my school having a CD-i for edutainment stuff, and in another post I talk about how a buddy of mine bought a CD-i with a box of games and we all had a grand time laughing our butts off at most of them.

You what they say "ass"uming makes you, right?

Emerald_Warrior

I didn't name one edutainment game, which is not even the majority of games. And only 2 f the game listed are "FMV games" This is you trying to dodge the fact you haven't played any of the games on that list. I'm not assuming anything you're being a jerk.

If you truly believe that the CD-i's game libarary even has a chance against standing against it's competition's libraries (SNES, Genesis, 3DO), then I have to say that you have very poor tastes in games, or you're just really trying to spark a debate here.

I didn't say that though. I never implied it either. You are literally being a jerk and changing goal posts. Let's go over this: 1.You say the games are garbage and there are only slightly over 100. 2.Butje shows there are more games. 3.I list some good games off the top of my head you never played. 4.You talk about edutainment. 5.I listed no edutainment. 6.you accuse me of saying that the games are comparable to genesis or SNES, which I never said, and if I did you would have basically sad my opinion was wrong. but i didn't, so both scenarios are you being a jerk and calling people without your gaming tastes bad in general because of one system. because that makes sense right? I never said that, all I am saying is that there are good games on the system.
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts
So let me state my opinion so people don;t lump me in with the TC. First of all I don't agree with gay people, although I believe everyone has the right to preference. So I will not care if they like eachother or not. 2nd of all, I think the actions of homosexuality should be illegal, and by actions I mean certain aspects of how they have intercourse. However, homosexuality itself, i don't give a crap. I however believe marriage now and in the past are two different things, and at the moment marriage is irrelevant and is a third-party controlling contract on two people which makes me believe the current form is not actually a right. More like something you are Supposed to do to make certain parties take you seriously. 3rd, not including the above statement, I don't like gay people being married, however, if they are I do not care. i don't like it as in i myself would not do it. But i will not stop others, all people are not me. 4th, religion is a stupid argument against them, religion has no control over entire populaces anymore as much as it used to, so they can't force their imaginary books of fairy tales on people. I believe in god, but when you read all 3 books side by side it' salmost like someone trolled. Makes as much sense as putting out fire with propane. 5th, I do however currently do not believe that the current movement for gay marriage is correct since it is starting with a President that openly stated opposite preferences and only jumped on it to get votes in the first place. Obama, was never going to go with it, and looking back it shows quite clearly Obama is a jackass. He is Romney but hiding behind things to make people believe he is for the, 6th, Gay people should keep out of religions if they want to that do not technically allow them, it causes controversy, and it makes no sense. Protesting gay rights is one thing, trying to make people allow you into things is another. The vatican is an example, apparently people were taking off their shirts IIRC. The Vatican was no better but two wrongs do not make a right.
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Intended by who? Prove it wasn't intended 'when it first went around'. You made the claim, now provide the proof.

And as discussed before, gay is quite natural, as most species have members who exhibit homosexual behaviour.

We're animals, it's natural, get over it.

worlock77

You can read, so are you telling me when the idea of marriage first came up it was made for men on men and woman on woman? I also never said anything about natrality, I am not shadowmoses, and that has nothing to do with the conversation. The excuse of Marriage history is that it's ancient yes. but the idea did not come from having sex with the same couple.

Do you think there's some singular point in history in which the idea of marriage was suddenly formulated, written down and branched off from there?

I am not saying that marriage afte it's creation did not spread and it was adapted early as hell for gay couples, it;s the fact it was not intended at the start, things just happened and that's fine. BUT, it still was not intended from the start, which is why using gay marriage have been around as a worthwhile excuse. Especially when religion got it almost just as early. Which btw, I am not aware of how religion was able to lock gays closets so fast and for such a long time in places that had them constantly in ancient times. Anyone know this?
Avatar image for DerveCreaves
DerveCreaves

345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 DerveCreaves
Member since 2013 • 345 Posts

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"] Ok, but still was not intended and was not when it first went around which makes that excuse invalid and because of that it will never work and there will be threads like this.br0kenrabbit

Intended by who? Prove it wasn't intended 'when it first went around'. You made the claim, now provide the proof.

And as discussed before, gay is quite natural, as most species have members who exhibit homosexual behaviour.

We're animals, it's natural, get over it.

You can read, so are you telling me when the idea of marriage first came up it was made for men on men and woman on woman? I also never said anything about natrality, I am not shadowmoses, and that has nothing to do with the conversation. The excuse of Marriage history is that it's ancient yes. but the idea did not come from having sex with the same couple.