1  2  3  4  5  |   Order by default

Jul 7, 2003, 10:18pm

Which brings up a point I've been meaning to make .... option to disable 3rd
person in your world. Game worlds can be seriously harmed by the way the 3rd
person cams currently work.

And, IMO, minimum vis is extremely important to some worlds. I don't think
people who aren't running games should have any reason to use it though,
that's just irritating.

[View Quote]

Jan 15, 2004, 4:26pm

This has been requested numerous times; the feature was originally rejected
personally by Roland, not due it being an unpleasant idea, but because at
the time he had planned to entirely rewrite the action scripting system.

It goes something like this:
Current commands for AW behaviors needn't be as long as they are. There's no
reasonable reason to be forced to use "create move" when an abbreviation of
some sort could easy save large amounts of cell space. "cr mv" would be
quite intuitive for AW veterans, and the long form commands would remain
intact.

Possible Aliases
Create - cr
Activate - ac
Bump - bp
Animate - an
Move - mv
Rotate - rt
Name - nm
Adone - ad
Astop - asp
Astart -ast
Light - lt
Corona - cn
Sound - sn
Noise - ns
Solid - sd
Visible - vs
Sign - sg
Picture - pc
Sign - sg
URL - url
Teleport - tp
Texture - tx
Warp - wp
Examine - ex
Frame - fr
Color - cl

I think that covers everything. Aliases for the commands could go a long way
towards reducing used cell data for complex animations and such; imagine, a
door trigger command:
"create name el_mg1_1t,animate el_mg1_1t . 1 1 0,astop;adone move 0 4 0
time=2 wait=10 name=el_mg1_1"
becomes:
"cr nm el_mg1_1t,an el_mg1_1t . 1 1 0,asp;ad mv 0 4 0 time=2 wait=10
name=el_mg1_1"
Which saves 17 characters. We could do a bit more if we also abbreviate
parameters like "time," "wait," and "name."

This would be a rather simple method to deal with current packet-related
cell data limitations. From a programmer's perspective, this cannot be an
entirely difficult change to make.

Obvious Counter-Argument

I've been in AW long enough to know that everything you post is going to be
attacked, so I'll cover the most severe counter to this suggestion: It's
completely unintuitive to the new user. Correct, however the old command set
would still be available for those uninterested in saving cell space or too
new to the program to use cryptic abbreviations.

-Monkey

Jan 15, 2004, 10:46pm

http://www.activeworlds.com/help/aw34/frame_command.html

Can't say I've ever used that one.

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2004, 12:01am

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple; The cell limits are based on
data, with a cap at 4000 bytes due to the current architecture using only
one packet per cell. In order to increase this amount, the client/server
interface needs to be redesigned to allow for cell data to be split into
multiple packets, otherwise some users will begin to experience significant
packet loss during transmission.

It's all right here:
http://www.activeworlds.com/roland/features/increase_cell_limit.html

While I'm certain you could take a vertex count of all the objects in a
cell, and then allow for a second "vertex limit" to be applied from the
world options, it would not be able to override the current data limit, only
apply a second type of limitation (not allowing more than, say, 2000 verts
in a cell regardless of data use, however you would still be stopped at 4kb
even if you were only using 2 verts). Also, just on a personal note, I would
hope such an option could be set to "disabled" in the world features, as
it's of little use to any worlds aside from public build.

-Monkey

[View Quote]

Jan 31, 2004, 7:27pm

I remind you that for every "high-end" feature, there can be an option to
disable it. Modern games actually scan your hardware and set these settings
accordingly, so people on low-end systems will still be able to run with the
"defaults," but can turn these additional features on if they don't mind the
performance drop. I do not see this as a valid argument.

By the way, as far as 3.5 not having many significant notable end-user
additions, my guess is that many proposed features have been moved to 4.0,
most-likely to avoid a recreation of 3.4's unending beta cycle.

-Monkey

[View Quote]

Feb 3, 2004, 11:16pm

Let's go over this one again, it seems like it could have a lot of uses, and
be relatively simple to handle in code:

It would be nice to have variable avatar movement speeds. What I mean by
this is some kind of parameter in avatars.dat (of course, other means of
setting this could be considered, such as a bot command, however this seems
the easiest to implement for most users) which sets the movement speed for
each avatar.

I see something like this:
beginspeeds
walk=400
run=800
fly=600
fastfly=1200
swim=300
fastswim=600
endspeeds

Or whatever other format is preferred. Of course, if a speed is not
specified, the defaults are used. Note that my examples are intended to be
cm/sec. This also allows one to give flight to only certain avatars (fly=0
would imply no flight for that avatar, for example). Very useful for games,
especially considering the unrealistic movement speeds currently used.

-Monkey

Feb 9, 2004, 7:43pm

Sort of like a medium for communicating with the dead, yes?

Seriously, though, this is a good idea. At least, it's a good idea for us. I
don't know what AWI would think. ;D

-Monkey

[View Quote]

Mar 5, 2004, 3:41pm

Before I begin, I am aware that it is possible to use macros with AW via an
external program, however that is not exactly when I am referring to.

What I am proposing is an option in the client to bind a key to a line of
text. This could be a command for some bot (/reload to load a weapon in
Proxima, for example) or simply a line of text you say quite often and would
like to be able to send by simply pressing a key.

It would function quite simply; in Configure Controls, there would be a set
of blank keybinds, each with a space to enter a line of text and two key
selection buttons. You enter a text command, choose a key, and you're set.
When the key is pressed, the client sends the line of text as though you had
typed it and sent it manually (however it bypasses the chat bar entirely,
and as such works without interrupting move mode).

Potential here is unlimited. Instead of worrying about using gesture buttons
or custom toolbars for your game/bot, you can simply bind keys to the most
commonly-used text commands. Excellent for game worlds, as I'm sure the
other cits running RPGs will confirm. Also excellent for controlling
utlility bots (X1, Demeter, etc.) quickly. As a quick note, this does not
enhance the chat flood potential; it is already painfully simple to flood
chat, and this makes little real difference. Besides, the AW server already
has its own methods to control chat flooding.

If you find this idea interresting, please confirm your support with a quick
note to the AW suggestion box. AWI does not read this NG as far as anyone is
aware, thus responses of support will go unheard here. The more support
there is for the idea, the sooner we can see this implemented. I will be
submitting this myself shortly.

-Da' Monkey

Mar 5, 2004, 11:45pm

Hmm. I have to agree that it would be excellent to include combinations in
the key bindings.

[View Quote]

May 9, 2004, 6:06pm

IMO appropriate third person pronoun for a genderless person is "one." "It"
is specifically a negative implication here, as it suggets an object such as
a chair or a lamp. I'll concede that using "one" as a pronoun in this case
feels a little awkward, however I do believe it's correct.

Not trying to be offensive or make any kind of statement about you or
anything or anyone, I just thought since we were talking vaguely about
linguistics I'd say something.. :D

[View Quote]

May 9, 2004, 12:41pm

Actually, the code behind a vehicles wouldn't have to be too ugly. The most
difficult part, I imagine, would be that you'll need some decent physics to
handle it properly. Code-modeling a moving box with some spinning cylinders
which grip terrain isn't exactly rocket science, the problem is fitting all
this into AW's extremely complicated existing code, I would guess. You need
a way for an avatar to be attached to another world entity which, once
attached to an avatar, reacts to the user's input in a realistic way; using
the "move forward" key as an accelerator pedal. Effectively, once the user
enters the vehicle, the user needs to become the vehicle, however through a
smooth transition instead of some sudden shift (avatar would need to get
into the vehicle and sit down, obviously, and then the vehicle becomes some
sort of "avatar attachment", much like a gun or a hat or some other similar
object -- this presents another fun idea, objects which can be attached to
avatars at certain locations, such as clothing accessories, which would
allow for some user av customization without going to a full-scale custom
avatar generation system a la second life).

In theory, you can accomplish most of this with a bot; it can look like a
vehicle, turn in the direction the user faces, accelerate realistically over
terrain (more or less, depending on how much time you're willing to put into
the actual "ground vehicle simulation..." personally I've only put air
vehicles into my world).. the problems here are that 1) the vehicle lags if
the user is on a slow connection since the vehicle itself is on the server,
2) The user cannot actually have his/her avatar inside the vehicle; they
have to drag along behind in warp, which really limits certain fun
possibilities like having an interesting aircraft cockpit the user can look
at (perhaps with working instruments? O_O) 3) The user cannot input their
intention to alter the speed of the vehicle without resorting to text
commands, gesture buttons, or some kind of custom toolbar interface.
Obviously there needs to be some way for an avatar to go into "vehicle
mode," causing it to use a whole second set of movement physics when you
attempt to "walk/run."

After all that absurd stuff above I'll finish by saying that I don't doubt
AWI knows how much the users would appreciate vehicles, and I wouldn't be
very surprised if I found them implemented in some upcoming beta version in
the relatively near future.

[View Quote]

May 9, 2004, 3:38pm

[Editor's Note: The following is very long. It may also be made from at
least 45% tangents to the original subject -- you have been warned. In fact,
you're best off just not reading it. To be honest, you should really be
going home now anyway; you've been staying in my guest room for a week
already and I don't even know you. Bye. ]

I personally think AW can still win out by, as they have in the past,
focusing on 3rd party developer innovations. I know a lot of people see the
bot interface as a limited-capability system, however I feel that it
provides an exceptional degree of user freedom to develop AW-based
applications such as games, something which is much harder in environments
like SL or There. I do not mean to imply that one cannot create a game in
these environments, however as far as I know it is not possible to create a
piece of C++ software using an SDK for these environments. In AW, I can
create a game and it will still remain my intellectual property; I have
source code and an EXE, among other things, which I could, if I wanted to,
sell to another developer or a user.

In AW, I can buy a world and it becomes my environment; it runs on my PC, I
alter the rules, I change everything about the appearance, I write a game to
run on top of it and it's completely different in every way from other AW
environments owned by other users. In the future, we'll be able to have
custom physics rules and more complex server/client plugins. In effect, when
I buy an environment from AW, I'm buying a liscense to use their technology
(rendering engine, physics, netcode) to make whatever I want; in most cases,
users just make a chat/build world, however I could also make an RPG, a
first person shooter, a place to showcase my company's new car design, an
interactive simulation of aircraft design, etc. (woo, that's a fun idea for
prox.. "build your own spaceship." ;D)

It's interesting... I feel as though I'm finally beginning to understand
part of how AWI behaves. The users tend to berate them quite a bit, to
attack their business practices and whatnot, but I feel it's important for
us (the vocal minority of users) to remember that we really don't know
anything about building/marketing a piece of software like this (unless you
happen to be a software developer from a competing company, in which case...
what are you doing here reading this?? ;D). I think they're trying very hard
to make this work in a marketplace that sees AW as effectively a game
without gameplay. AW-copys (and I call them that remembering that AlphaWorld
first came to be (in public) in 1995, long before, as far as I know,
There.com or SL ever existed) deal with this by pretending to be games;
sacrificing developer freedom for features that will catch the attention of
the average user, like guns that actually make a sound and fire little
bullets, or little vehicles you can ride. In my opinion, AW doesn't have
these features because (aside from because There and SL are backed by
$millions and AW is financially limited) its focus has always been on
creating a true VR instead of a cheap thrill for the 10-18 age range. Call
me in eight years and tell me how There.com is doing, won't you? Oh, wait, I
guess it's rather unlikely that current users will be around in eight years,
assuming the SW itself even is. Another strange AW difference...

[Editorial rant: In fact, overall I'm glad [AWI doesn't] listen to us. If
they did, AW would be nothing but Alpha Prime GZ and other builds from 5+
years ago; we'd only be able to look at terrible, ugly historical builds and
chat about how nice the sky is today while running bingo tournaments, riding
flying skateboards, and organizing weekly "Hentai Hunts" where the citizens
rummage through the personal lives and criminal histories of 10 lucky
"citizens of the week" trying to find some act of perversion or other
questionable behavior which can be used to psychologically skewer them and
then kick them entirely out of AW. It would have a fullscreen mode and a
scale command, but half the users would still be running a 2.0 variant... :O
End rant :D]

AW's primary goal from the start has been "virtual reality," a highly
ambiguous term and a difficult goal to live up to. Concepts like "chat" and
"building" were temporary features to keep the users amused during the alpha
testing phases of the product development--I don't mean to imply that they
were to be removed, simply that they were likely not intended to be the
primary driving force behind the software. Virtual Reality implies something
more significant than chat.. it implies a living world which the user can
interact with, not just as a player carrying out some role for his or her
amusement, but as anything they desire: As a simple participant, talking to
other users and possibly making a little home for themselves, as a
full-scale developer, using their knowledge of technology to shape a part of
the "virtual world," or in fact as a player in a game made by one of these
other users! The best part, of course, is that you can do all this and more
if you're up to the challenge.

Okay, enough of that..
-Monkey v.34a

[View Quote]

May 10, 2004, 3:52am

I don't see how that's going to take away from AW from becoming a "massive
distributed computing AI which eventually takes control of the Earth and
finally erradicates all remaining biological life." Unless you mean that the
added physics for the vehicles would take away CPU time which would
otherwise be used to run the genocide machines, of course. :O

Furthermore, I would like to officially request consideration for a change
of the AW Statement of Purpose which better reflects its function as VR
software rather than an AI command for science fiction genocide bots.

Furthermore (II), I would like to appologize to anyone who has read this
message.

[View Quote]

Jul 21, 2004, 4:48am

Just want to put out a loud "w00t!" of support for this. Let's try and keep
it that way as long as we can, eh? I know there are quite a few government
organizations out there which would love to legislate the 'net.

That is all.
-Monkey

[View Quote]

Jul 25, 2004, 10:02pm

How about custom-defined shortcuts for these functions? I for one don't want
any controls to be locked if they don't have to be.

[View Quote]

Aug 11, 2004, 1:13am

Specular lighting support was removed in the transition to RW3, in other
words, in version 3.0, because RW3 does not natively support this effect. It
is the lighting effect which simulates a shine on an object.

[View Quote]

Sep 26, 2004, 11:48pm

I do believe he's referring to the process of uploading a propdump via
remote admin client.

If this is correct, then I'd suggest checking with your host (err, unless
you're hosting it yourself) to make sure they haven't implemented some kind
of bandwidth cap for incoming data to the AW server. Otherwise, I don't know
anything about it, since I've never used the remote admin to connect to
anything but localhost.

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2004, 8:26pm

[View Quote] I'd like to see options on the world side via SDK to take control of the
voice chat and force it to function how you like - for example, setting up
automatic "conference calls" with anyone who has voice enabled when they're
within a certain range - effectively reproducing a natural "talking range."
You could also expand this to cell phones for private messages and whatnot.
Obviously this sort of functionality is for *GAME* environments *ONLY* where
the user consents to this level of control by the server, so whoever is
going to come back telling me that giving world owner bots control of your
voice chat options is not acceptable can shove off right now.

>
> one third thing not in the title...reflections? everything has them now
> room behind it displayed backwards, and then using your avatars location
> in the radius aaround it....it displays that angle >_<

There's no actual issue with using a reflection system, contrary to what
people say -- it's easy to create a camera at the appropriate location,
render the appropriate scene (and invert it) and paste that onto a "mirror"
object to create the illusion of a reflection. The only dilema comes from
the obvious doubling of the render time for the scene. Since AW has no
concept of "portals" or inside vs. outside, any mirror has to theoretically
reflect everything that could be in scene, even if it's obscured by
something (a wall, or whatever); in many cases this is going to turn a
framerate of 30 into 15 or less. This doesn't make it impossible, but it
does mean that reflections would need to be used with extreme caution. An
environment with several reflection objects would be enough to kill most AW
users' computers instantly.

Obviously, the engine can impose some limits here; mirrors may only render
from a certain distance away (so, when viewing a mirror from 100m away you
might see just a placeholder texture) or they might dynamically rescale
their render framerates based on your distance from them (at 100m, it might
use 1fps because you won't notice, while at close range it uses the max
possible framerate in order to look highly realistic). You may have an
option to set the "render depth" of a reflecting object, such that some
mirrors may be set to only reflect objects within 10 meters if they are
indoors. Obviously, a mirror will be a flat poly and only reflect objects
which are already loaded into the scene by the client seeing it as it would
be too much of an additional performance and coding issue to have it also
load all objects within range of the mirror. There would also need to be a
client-side mirror on/off toggle, since some PCs would just not be up to the
task.

As a side rant, I'd love to see pixel shader support in the next version,
but I think the only way we can count on that is if AW upgrades to a new
version of RW or starts to do their own internal rendering engine tweaks. If
you've played any game in the past year you've probably seen shaders in
action (for example in Half-Life 2) giving textures a more realistic
appearence (real-time shine and bump-mapping for example, but moving to more
intense things like water refractions as well). Shaders would go a long way
to improve the overall visual quality, but would not have any negative
impact on those with older systems, where they would simply be ignored and
normal textures used in place.

Jan 28, 2005, 3:33am

Okay, well, basically if you want reactive physics entities you have to
write some physics code and then link it to a bot's position in-world. The
hardest part is that you're going to have to write the terrain, avatar, and
object collision code for this object and know enough about the math and
such to create at least semi-realistic reactions. Also, the object won't be
able to roll very realistically in all directions since pitch only goes
from -90 (facing up?!) to 90 (yes, facing down) degrees.

My suggestion is that objects and avatars be treated as their bounding boxes
(get this info from the registry), as writing a full per-triangle collision
engine is not so easy (if it was, AWI might get around to refining the one
in the browser a bit). Doing terrain collision is easy (I've got that code
around here somewhere if anyone wants it, though it's really only useful as
a "how to" since it relies on my PGC's internal data structures).

Once you've got your collision code you encapsulate it, forget about it, and
set up a simple method to handle collision events. Depending on the types
and masses of objects involved, create the appropriate reaction forces.

I'll get you started.

while(!aw_wait(50))
{
physEngine.collisionScan(); // execute the function that checks if any
objects are colliding with other objects here. 20 frames per second.
}

Sorry, I have delusions of being witty, but anyway, it's not exactly a
simple task if you want it to be realistic. If you want it to be only
semi-realistic, then things are a little easier. Instead of writing a
collision engine for all the objects, you could just use a distance check;
if the ball is within 1m or so of an avatar or another ball it's considered
to be in contact with it. Combine that with the terrain collision engine and
you have a working system for playing soccer on terrain. Getting a little
fancier, you could optionally set certain physics objects to stay only
within a certain area (for example, the soccer ball hits an invisible wall
if it tries to leave the defined soccer field area). You might then also
want to place some collision beacons which link to specific scriptable
events; in this case, goals.

If you want realism without effort, you could pick up an open source physics
engine (ODE I think it's called?) and link that up to your bot, though I
don't know how hard that would be (probably rather hard).

Suffice it to say, this *can* be done (it's much like those silly
manually-flyable plane bots I had in Proxima), but it's really a task for an
at least semi-experienced programmer. In order to actually be a playable
game, server->bot lag would have to be removed by having both on one PC, and
the avatar updates would have to be increased for more accuracy in collision
detection (a little bot-side movement prediction a la most multiplayer games
would also help here, and is easy to do; until new data has arrived from the
server, assume the player is still moving at the same velocity it was).

And there we have the physics in AW issue. If there's really interest in a
little physics model bot to play with I might think about tossing something
simple together and putting it up as open source, but it all depends on 1)
interest, 2) has it been done already? and 3) my time constraints. If anyone
cares, let me know and I might put together a soccer ball bot demo or
something.

-Monkies

[View Quote]

Jan 28, 2005, 2:40am

The entire arrangement could be set up using a PHP script, which would allow
each world to have a "priority" setup. So, for example, in Mars the first
path to check would be the default Mars OP. This way, using "door5" will
give you the Mars door even though there is an AW door5, since it stops
looking once it finds the first match. Likewise, in AW the AW path's door5
will be used because the path priority is set up as such. This avoids any
damage to existing builds or objects in each world affected.

Then, in order to allow access to identically-named objects from other OPs,
a special prefix in the object name could be used, like "_aw_door5" or
something (could be any format, the idea is just to come up with something
that will probably never conflict with object naming). So, in AW you could
use "_mars_door5" to get the Mars door, or just "door5" if you wanted the AW
door. The PHP script just knows to use the characters between the two _'s
as, for a simple example of how to set it up, a subdirectory to look in for
the object/texture/whatever. So you'd likely have your OP arranged with
directories mirroring the world names, then the standard
models/textures/avatars/etc. under those folders. You could also simply
redirect to the proper AWI-hosted OP for each tag, but it's probably best to
just keep it all on one server to minimize response time. By default, it
would probably use the name of the world you're in as the "hidden tag,"
(meaning that, in AW, "door5" gets translated into "_aw_door5" when the
script processes the download request), but you could also customize this
configuration and have your world default to the OP from, say, AW (probably
by setting your OP to
"whatever.stuff/myopstuff/b0rk.php?default_tag=aw&path=" or something
equally simple. If you were feeling especially picky about the order you
could even do, "b0rk.php?default_tag=aw&default_tag2=mars&......" so that it
checks Mars first if it doesn't find the object in AW, thus allowing you to
minimize the amount of cell space wasted by specifying OPs per-object).

This system should deal with all the concerns people were bringing up about
the implementation of multipath for all public build worlds, aside from the
obvious issue that someone needs to write the PHP script and set up said
ultra-OP for testing. I'd do it, but I've moved away from AW development
towards the Torque engine, so.. I won't. For all I know one of the existing
AW OP scripts already supports this sort of functionality by default. I
guess the real concern would be getting AWI to set it up for the public
worlds, but running this sort of OP system for private worlds wouldn't be
hard; there's not even anything to rename.

Of course, now there's a bit of a matter of the registry. Realistically,
you'd have to
1) create a registery from the whole multipath in the correct order, so that
the data for each object matches the version which is the "highest priority"
and will as such appear when that name is used. In other words, "door5" in
the AW registry had best point to the AW door5's data, not the Mars version.
Then,
2) append this registry with secondary registries created for each OP's tag.
IOW, once you've completed step one, add every object from every OP *again,*
but this time with the _worldname_ tag at the start.

This should cover the registry requirements, but how you're going to go
about generating that I don't know (err, well, paste each OP into the same
folder in reverse order (highest priority goes last) then use that awesome
registery generator tool). At least only step 1 needs to be repeated for
each world; you can just save the full with-tag registery and reuse that
each time. :O

This is about what it'd take to give every public world the megapath without
forcing any changes to existing builds or destroying the registry. Well, you
people asked, it's not my fault I answered. :P
-Monkies(TM)

[View Quote]

Jun 1, 2005, 3:05am

While this would be wonderful fun on the environment creation side, it would
be a nightmare on the code side.

Currently, the terrain is neatly stored on a per-cell basis, which fits in
nicely with the existing property mechanism. Allowing terrain points to be
moved would cause serious concerns on the database side. What if you move a
terrain vertex into another terrain page?

[View Quote]

Jul 22, 2005, 10:23pm

Eh, hold on a second, there are hardly 255 users in the entire AW universe
at peak times, let alone in a single world. I find this highly unlikely to
be an actual concern. Also, it's entirely likely that 255 is a hard-coded
user limit (if that really is the limit -- I actually have no idea) built
into the client and server, which wouldn't be so easy to change.

Or, are you talking about 255 as a limit for total bots and users? In that
case I could see it as a serious issue. Of course, having enough bandwidth
to move all that data around could be a challenge. If it's the bot issue,
then I would suggest doing as much NPC rotation as possible; When an NPC
despawns, either from death or some other cause, that bot changes to a
different NPC type. Set up some rotation rules which account for where more
NPCs are needed (which would be where there tend to be more people) and
which NPCs haven't had enough in-world exposure based on some predetermined
ratios.

[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2005, 2:24pm

Oh. Yeah, that's completely pointless, and a big problem for RPGs that want
visible equipment display and whatnot, but it's also probably hard-coded in
various places.. netcode being the most obvious issue (255 isn't exactly a
randomly-chosen value).


[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2002, 3:19pm

In other words, lunch!
*proceeds to consume shards, bugs, etc.*

[View Quote]

Feb 12, 2003, 2:41pm

Har har har! Funny.

I think the stores of heaven/hell may very well refer to the manner in which
humans create their own hell-on-earth while supposedly attempting to create
a "paradise," fighting and bickering like childish howler monkeys while
talking about creating some "greater good" through a thing they like to call
"progress" (otherwise known as repression, regression, and repetition, the
three R's of civilization!)

Monkey! =)

[View Quote]

Mar 7, 2003, 12:49am

Oh boy, more politics. How hideously uninteresting.

The political interface between nations is such an obvious child's game.

Mar 8, 2003, 5:27am

[I would like to point out that, though there is a lot of second-person text
here, I am not implying anything about the person I'm replying to, as I
don't know him well enough to do such a thing. It's directed at all of
humanity, of which I imagine a number of you are a part. English does not
provide a reasonable 2nd-person plural pronoun (I nominate, "a'yo'ple [all
you people]" because it sounds funny, and languages should be funny. Like
Japanese. Hai!)]

> The last time I checked, if for
> no other reason, the mandate of the UN is to stamp out evil wherever it
> exists in the interests of securing peace.


If this was true, the UN would currently be leading the campaign against
organized religion, the #1 cause of evil, not to mention all world
governments, corporations, industry, all those hideous mutants you see when
you go outside anywhere (aka police, businessmen, tweakers, coke-heads...
the list goes on), and so forth. The methods they really employ are much
like current medicinal tactics; heal the symptoms, screw the patient.

Hopefully I've just insulted almost everyone, and if not, I'll surely try
again in the future, because the people of this world need a serious wakeup
call to realize just how bad a situation they've gotten themselves into.
Psycho-murderer and police officer are just two sides of the same idea, much
like God/Satan. The repressive ways in which we're all living create the
psycho through years of subtle, festering mental torture, which eventually
causes innate creativity (whatever that really is) to erupt in the form of
hideous acts of violence (either to another, or the self, in the form of
drug abuse usually (this includes watching TV and obsessive manners of
thought.. abusing your own endorphin system, effectively)).

What, you think your social institutions are doing a good job?
Then answer me this: Why are you all so pissed off all the time, hanging on
the edge of violence, ready to snap at the first sign of irritation? Why
does everyone become old and feeble before their times? Why do almost all
parents mistreat their children horribly in the name of "teaching" them?
What are you trying to figure out with all this rambling intellectual
interface? The SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE? If that's it, then I can give you
that right now: The secret is... ::leans in close:: There is no secret. Your
religions are based on 2000-year-old satire (everyone forgot to laugh
eventually), your moral beliefs are an absurd recreation in memory of a time
when humans could feel real emotions.

Go ahead and hate me, I couldn't care less. In fact, if hatred for me or the
others like me (and believe me, there are a good number. I think it's
genetic. =D) allows you to get in touch with some genuine emotion, then BY
ALL MEANS, hate away!! But stop worrying yourselves over the childish games
of your long, LONG dead ancestors. Stop listening to the words of
half-zombified old babies in suits and go outside. See the sun, be glad you
ever had the chance to open your eyes and stop holding on to everything so
tightly.


Live now. You'll never get another chance, and you'll never forgive yourself
if you miss it.
MoNKeY!

Mar 8, 2003, 5:55am

I was under the impression that Australia was still in the midst of the
300-year war with Iceland (it's a slow-moving conflict involving light
explosives carried by a complex network of pigeons). Both of them want to
colonize Japan, and there'll be no stopping them unless...

It's super-bean! The kidney bean with the power to thwart oppression and...
taste like... beans. Uh. Yeah.

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2003, 5:42pm

Augh! I can't believe I missed that perfect opportunity for the HHGTTG
refference. Shame on me!

[View Quote]

Mar 12, 2003, 6:47am

I believe he is hideously insulted by the idea that law structures are
inherently wrong.
Personally, I think that anyone who's actually alive should notice that it's
absurd to have a controlling body issuing generalized limitations to all of
humanity.

I would like to point something out: People like me would LEAVE your
god-forsaken horrible societies (all of them!) for good, if it wasn't for
the fact that imperialist bastards have already claimed every available
piece of land for their horrible enterprises. If you want us "crazy
anarchist freaks" out of your hair for good, then stop destroying all the
places we could leave to in order to build shopping malls. =P

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is very funny, better than Snatch (other
movie by same people). Hadn't seen it until tonight.

[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  |   Order by default