Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Fineus on December 29, 2002, 03:52:49 am
-
Hey all, sorry to keep asking but I don't want to bump the old thread but since it's about hardware, things have changed a bit since I last asked.
The current Mobo I'm looking at is this:
http://www.chaintech.com.tw/eng/products/SOCKA/7NJS.asp#top
The Chaintech Zenith 7NJS, it looks to be a good choice but does anyone know of a better offer, I'm going for high end performance but will settle for slightly less if it's that much cheaper.
To go in this thing I want to get an Athlon 2.6GHz XP but again, is this the most effective price/performance offer? I've waited untill after Christmas to try and take advantage of any online special offers that may occur but if anyone knows of anything else please let me know. Again, does anyone know of a particularly cheap place to buy chips or the above motherboard from? I can ship from overseas (am in the UK) if I need to.
Finally, any other advice?
Thanks all :)
-
The 7NJS is a very nice board - top performance and tweakability, and loaded with features. However you do have to pay for all that with a lighter wallet. Some more info on the 7NJS can be found here (http://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/Chaintech/7NJS/).
I'd also recommend the Asus A7N8X again a great feature set and performance, with the resulting pricetag, or the EPoX 8RDA+ if you're looking for the best price/performance mix. A word of caution with the 8RDA+ though, they put the memory slots too close to the line the video cards take, so if you're using a video card such as Ti4600, or with a similar large PCB you'd have to bend the card slightly during installation to avoid a transistor being knocked off.
The XP2600+ will make for a great CPU, the ones being produced now come with a 333Mhz DDR FSB by default, allowing it to make more effective use of the available memory bandwidth. Below that, and you go back to the 266FSB, above that and the prices jump substantually to the XP2700+ and XP2800+.
-
Really helpful advice there, thanks - I have got a problem with the CPU though - I'll tell the story:
For christmas as a "main" present I arranged with dad for an IOU for a new CPU and motherboard. We aren't exactly a "rich" family so price is a factor in all of this and obviously as far as he's concerned anything above a P2 350Mhz is unneccessary since he only uses business applications. Right now he's looking at the 2400XP with the 266FSB but I want to take advantage of the 333FSB and extra power of the 2600.
Like I said though, prices are a factor. The motherboards price I can explain away but the CPU needs to be as cheap as I can make it. When will the next big price drop occur (approximately) since theres about 50 or 60 pounds between the 2.4 and the 2.6, I'd like to get a 2.6 for around £170 but right now that's the going price of the 2.4. I don't want to wait forever and yes I know that prices and parts change like the wind in the computer industry but I've got to draw a line somewhere... how long can I expect to wait before I can take advantage of the 2.6 but at a cheaper price (or indeed... is there a special retailer in the UK I should look at for cheaper prices already?)
Thanks again!
-
just do make sure, you get a good cooling system with the AMD, and try not to use the PC in a sauna. AMD is really touchy about that.
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Really helpful advice there, thanks - I have got a problem with the CPU though - I'll tell the story:
For christmas as a "main" present I arranged with dad for an IOU for a new CPU and motherboard. We aren't exactly a "rich" family so price is a factor in all of this and obviously as far as he's concerned anything above a P2 350Mhz is unneccessary since he only uses business applications. Right now he's looking at the 2400XP with the 266FSB but I want to take advantage of the 333FSB and extra power of the 2600.
Like I said though, prices are a factor. The motherboards price I can explain away but the CPU needs to be as cheap as I can make it. When will the next big price drop occur (approximately) since theres about 50 or 60 pounds between the 2.4 and the 2.6, I'd like to get a 2.6 for around £170 but right now that's the going price of the 2.4. I don't want to wait forever and yes I know that prices and parts change like the wind in the computer industry but I've got to draw a line somewhere... how long can I expect to wait before I can take advantage of the 2.6 but at a cheaper price (or indeed... is there a special retailer in the UK I should look at for cheaper prices already?)
Thanks again!
Your best bet's gonna be a computer fair. Go here (http://www.theshowguide.co.uk) and see where the one nearest to you is.
-
well i cant help you decide because i cant do that myself
ether asus or chaintech
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/20021111/index.html
hers a good read about those boards
-
Get the 2.4, spend the saved cash on a monster-fan and overclock it to a 2.8 :D
-
Thunder, have you checked pricewatch (www.pricewatch.com) or techbargains (www.techbargains.com)? You can usually find some really good online deals there.
(and if I didn't spell it right...fix it yourself...)
-
Yo T, check this out:
http://usa.asus.com/mb/socketa/a7n8x/overview.htm
nForce2 is your best bet right now.
-
Thanks for the links and thoughts guys - this is really helping me out, lots of ideas flowing but I've one last question. Is it worth paying twice the price of a 2.4XP to get a 2.6XP? I've not seen benchmark comparisons for them so I've no idea wether its' worth all that extra cash for the faster model. I am a gamer and a net user but will I be making the best use of the extra power I get from the 2.6 or is it really not worth it at the cost?
-
Better save your money for something else. Don't waste it this way, it's not just worth it. :)
-
BTW, am I the only one who sees vadar_1 online?
-
Yes? :)
And thanks for the advice... anyone strongly disagree? If not I'm inclined to go with what the man says and save myself a substantial amount of cash.
-
No, Stunaep saw it too. Vadar was here, doing something in his control panel. Or it was was just you? :p
-
Wasn't me :)
Oh, and I read up about the Asus... I'm a little worried about space on the motherboard since a powerful CPU like a 2.4+ would need a decent sized cooler. By the looks of things there's trouble with spacing on that thing - the Chaintech also has that issue but it doesn't seem to be considered so serious. Any thoughts on that?
And again with the "anyone disagree with the 2.4XP?" question ;)
-
Well, you got the motherboard for christmas, if my memory still serves me so you can't change that...
I recommend you to find some professional IT dude. Most of the time they're very friendly and give some good advice.
and aren't you just a little bit worried that vadar still has access here? I know it's not my problem but...I don't like any hackers nosing around here - HLP's cool and I'd like to keep it that way. :p
-
I've got an IOU on the parts - I just have to find what I want, hence me worrying and asking questions to get it right now :)
And I rank the advice from here much higher than my local hardware specialists. They try and sell GeForce2s as "cutting edge"....
As for Vadar... I'll ask around :)
-
It's not 2.4+ XP. It's 2400+ XP. And it's not 2.4GHz either, but 2.0GHz. :)
2600+ is 2.13GHz, so that's not a too big difference, not enough to pay the double price, in my opinion. Though if you have the money...
Of course, the 166MHz (333MHz effective) front-side bus is nice, and should help the performance if you have good DDR333 or faster memory.
And yeah, the cooler might take too much space. You might want to check the AMD pages and motherboard manufacturer pages and cooler manufacturer pages. Good luck! ;)
-
Originally posted by ToT
and aren't you just a little bit worried that vadar still has access here? I know it's not my problem but...I don't like any hackers nosing around here - HLP's cool and I'd like to keep it that way. :p
I don't know about access, but if you watch the who's online list, he comes on every so often and tries to mess with his control panel..
-
Originally posted by Thunder
They try and sell GeForce2s as "cutting edge"....
:D now I understand you completely.
Thunder, since you're doing the motherboard-CPU thing, maybe you could give me some details about their compatibility :)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I don't know about access, but if you watch the who's online list, he comes on every so often and tries to mess with his control panel..
oh, I thought he was IP banned
-
there's ways around that
-
hmmm, I don't see any possible way to change your IP...
and your location...it's a little bit insulting you know. :)
-
location?
heh haven't touched hat in months. It's funny if you look at it from a certain point of view.
-
well yeah, but since Setekh is a devoted christian...
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
hmmm, I don't see any possible way to change your IP...
and your location...it's a little bit insulting you know. :)
Well. Dynamic IP's change when you disconnect and reconnect again. And there's a way to mask your IP with programs. It isn't that hard, though I don't know how to do it. :nod:
-
well yeah, but since Setekh is a devoted christian...
well yes, but so Is the rest of my family and myself was.. is.. am.. whatever.
And I did think of that when he came back, but as a christian (semi.. whatever) myself, it is more amusing than insulting.
-
Yeah it is insulting, but i just ignore it.
-
If we can ignore Vadars attempts for the moment? Thanks :)
And also thanks for the advice - ToT if you need any advice (specifically) then please let me know, as it is it's a fairly broad topic which is why I've specified as much as I can from the off....
Redfang, I knew about the difference in speeds etc - but it helps to refer to them "as they're called" :) Nice idea about checking the manufacturers sites before buying though... I'll look into that.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Yeah it is insulting, but i just ignore it.
Well now..
mark the day down.
*goes back to Carlinism*
-
This went off-topic. Ah well.
But anyway, I don't care about it. It's not funny, either. :p (Just my opinion, I'm not a religious person (yes, I'm a Christian but that doesn't make me a person who gets easily offended:) )).
-
*note till Setekh leaves again*
*feels naked*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So somebody wanted a Mobo ?
-
Thanks Thunder but I already found my motherboards manual and it only supports CPUs up to 700 Mhz so I'm gonna need a new motherboard too...crap - they're pretty expensive.
Do you know if they sell motherboards that support sdram or are they all gone over to ddram already?
Plus, I'm planning to buy AMD Athlon. I dunno...2 Ghz maybe. Any thoughts? :)
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
and your location...it's a little bit insulting you know. :)
Yes, my people feel offended and humiliated. One week banning and a very embarrassing new title should begin the recovering process.
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
I recommend you to find some professional IT dude. Most of the time they're very friendly and give some good advice.
By professional he means working as head IT man in some bigass company, that does NOT sell computers.
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
Yes, my people feels offended and humiliated. One week banning and a very embarrassing new title should begin the recovering process.
stfu
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
:D now I understand you completely.
Thunder, since you're doing the motherboard-CPU thing, maybe you could give me some details about their compatibility :)
the most direct relation of motherboard cpu said really simply is that AMD (Athlon and Duron to be more specific) need a Socket A, Pentium III and Celeron require Socket 370 , Pentium 4 goes with Socket 423 or 473. You can get an Socket A motherboard for about 1300 EEK these days (thats some 65-70 USD), with built in soundcard, although I'd reccomend going for an Audigy II, but that requires another 750 EEK.
SDRAM is still out there, and so are motherboards, so that should not be a conflict. I can see right here a perfectly good motherboard for 1200 EEK, with an nForce2 SDRAM chipset.
-
KT, Levyathan...
Both of you kindly shut up or I'll take up Levyathan on his idea in both your cases without a backward glance, some of you guys are spamming a little to much lately - cut back :)
ToT - You'll be lucky to find an SDRAM motherboard anymore, but to be honest I wouldn't go with one. If you can afford a 2GHz CPU then I'd shell out on 256Mb of DDR RAM as well. It's worth a bit of saving or else the bottleneck will very much be with your RAM.
Edit: Looks above... I stand corrected. Probably because I've only been looking at DDR motherboards, but if you can afford them I still say it's worth the step up.
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
Plus, I'm planning to buy AMD Athlon. I dunno...2 Ghz maybe. Any thoughts? :)
a 2400+ Athlon XP would make that clock speed approx, though you might get it out by overclocking older ones. I myself would take a 2200+ Athlon, since the price difference is a good 600 EEK, do prepare for a 2800 approx. loss of money. that would give you some 1,8 GHz.
-
Originally posted by Thunder
ToT - You'll be lucky to find an SDRAM motherboard anymore, but to be honest I wouldn't go with one. If you can afford a 2GHz CPU then I'd shell out on 256Mb of DDR RAM as well. It's worth a bit of saving or else the bottleneck will very much be with your RAM.
AFAIK, he just bought 256 megs of SDRAM, so that would be a waste of money then still.
also, SDRAM motherboards are still pretty common here in Estonia, even though no new computers are shipped with it.
ToT, check www.hinnavaatlus.ee for the best look at prices.
-
Oh, if thats the case then by all means go with what you have - I was under the impression that you'd be starting from scratch on that kind of thing and would benefit from looking at DDR solutions - my bad :)
-
The thing is that I'm just upgrading my computer a little bit since my power computer's on the way. (should arrive after summer). I have enough ram and not so good but acceptable GeForce 4 MX. the problem is that my crappy Celeron 600 is powering the whole thing down. :)
-
In that case go for the 2GHz CPU, they aren't to expensive at the moment compared to everything else (under £100!) so it'd be a good investment. Just make sure the motherboard is a balance of price and what you need from it...
-
Thanks for the advice Thunder. I'll do that. :)
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
Thanks for the advice Thunder. I'll do that. :)
and do very much check hinnavaatlus, cuz that place rawks.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
and do very much check hinnavaatlus, cuz that place rawks.
I'll do that too :)
gaah...to many smilies
-
Originally posted by Thunder
KT, Levyathan...
Both of you kindly shut up or I'll take up Levyathan on his idea in both your cases without a backward glance, some of you guys are spamming a little to much lately - cut back :)
Fair enough. But before I kindly shut up just answer me one question: what would you have done if, instead of christians, his location said blacks? And don't even try to convince me that there's a difference between the two. The former is offensive against a religious group, while the latter is offensive against a racial group. That's as far as it goes.
And the funny thing is that you don't mind religiously offensive statements, but a little spam would be enough for you to hit the BAN button without thinking twice. Because admins have never spammed, of course.
Anyway, my post wasn't even serious. It seems people can't tell the difference without the use of smilies.
I've said what I wanted to say, now make your judgement. Ban me if it seems suitable - it's all up to you now.
*suspense music*
-
No no, I'd have told him off for it more directly but the fact of the matter is I don't want any more threads turned away from the purpose for which they were created just so I can tell you or him or anyone else off for spamming or making stupid comments. Yes it was a stupid comment but you don't seem that upset - in the mean time I'll remember it the next time he does something wrong (if there is a next time) and he'll be punished accordingly for continued idiocy.
For the time being though, I assume we can all move on? If you want to discuss it further then feel free to contact me :)
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
Fair enough. But before I kindly shut up just answer me one question: what would you have done if, instead of christians, his location said blacks? And don't even try to convince me that there's a difference between the two. The former is offensive against a religious group, while the latter is offensive against a racial group. That's as far as it goes.
And the funny thing is that you don't mind religiously offensive statements, but a little spam would be enough for you to hit the BAN button without thinking twice. Because admins have never spammed, of course.
Anyway, my post wasn't even serious. It seems people can't tell the difference without the use of smilies.
I've said what I wanted to say, now make your judgement. Ban me if it seems suitable - it's all up to you now.
*suspense music*
My God, shut the hell up right now and don't even try to bring that in. If you knew half of what you were talking about, you'd know that It directly correlates with my name and religon.
Knight Templar = Christian Crusader
Christian Crusdaer = "The Crusdaes"
The crusdaes, as you may or may not know, where the Religous wars fought in the middles east during the middles ages. European Christians fought and killed many of the native Jews and Muslims over land and Reliogon because they would not convert to christianity. Note that this was backed by the Church and at the time.
Now my location was 1) a driect quote from my favorite comedian, George Carlin, and 2) directly correlated with my name.
It was a play on words, at best, but a joke and inteded to be taken that way. As A christian myself, I find no offense at all. It was a funny fact if you will, I wasn't going around saying "Burn the Christians" or anything equally as homo, and don't even try to bring racism or blacks into this before you know what you are talking about.
EDIT To Thunder: I was typing this while you posted.. whatever. If you find it as "Continued Idiocy" and feel it needs "punishing" then whatever. It's your place, you'll do what you like, but look at full damn picture before you do anything and recognize somebody trying to be funny, at the expense of showing off his ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Thunder
For the time being though, I assume we can all move on? If you want to discuss it further then feel free to contact me :)
Thanks, Thunder. Now, can I reply to Knight Templar's post right here or should I PM him?
-
If you have something you need to say, spill it. PM's are A-1 supar, and I don't think you can justifiably be told not to use PM's unless you absolutely need to post it in public for whatever reason (post count risage/showing off ignorance/attempting to diss me)
and I suppose thunder would feel happy going about deleting said posts above.
-
Meh, whatever - this thread has served its purpose as best it can I think... but if this turns to flames or spam then you'll know what's going to happen :)
-
I'll post this here because some points should be noted not only by Knight Templar. It's certainly not spam, and if it's considered flames, then by all means, delete it.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
The crusdaes, as you may or may not know, where the Religous wars fought in the middles east during the middles ages.
I take it that by Crusdaes you mean Crusades, no?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now my location was 1) a driect quote from my favorite comedian, George Carlin, and 2) directly correlated with my name.
Okay, so someone else said it before, and it's related to your name - big deal. Explain to me exactly how that makes it less offensive.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
It was a play on words, at best, but a joke and inteded to be taken that way. As A christian myself, I find no offense at all.
Neither do I, but other people could understandably feel offended by it.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
It was a funny fact if you will, I wasn't going around saying "Burn the Christians" or anything equally as homo,
Now explain to me what you meant by homo. Homosexual, perhaps? Careful how you use words, son - you might get yourself in trouble.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
and don't even try to bring racism or blacks into this before you know what you are talking about.
Believe me, I knew what I was doing when I mentioned blacks. I didn't use the word as a pejorative term - that'd be stupid.
-
I find it amusing that you state nothing of value other than
Okay, so someone else said it before, and it's related to your name - big deal. Explain to me exactly how that makes it less offensive.
Less offensive hmm? Well would it be less offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?
and wtf is the deal with this?
Neither do I, but other people could understandably feel offended by it.
If you aren't offended by it, then why are you worrying about stuff that needent be worried about? If you don't care, then fine, ignore it like everyone else did/does/whatever.
And out of curiousity.. say it read "The nazi's are comming to get you and they are unpleasant" Would that be equally offensive? How about the Shivan's? Or one man perhaps? Al Qaeda?
-
C'mon now dudes. Calm down... :)
-
meh.. calm as a kitten
*awaits shrikes inevitable picture response*
-
I hope this hasn't been pointed out before, but it might be a bit of use as far as some case-mods go.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/casemods
(http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/pc65-black.jpg)
;7
-
Those things are a bit freaky. Like the upcoming Nokia model 3650:
(http://www.nokia.com/pics/phones/phone_models/mainpage/phone_models_3650_soon.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I find it amusing that you state nothing of value other than
Nothing of value, huh? Then why are you having such a hard time explaining what I asked? Maybe you should read it again, trying to understand the meaning of the words you see.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Less offensive hmm? Well would it be less offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?
How's that answering my question?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
If you aren't offended by it, then why are you worrying about stuff that needent be worried about?
So you're telling me I should only worry when it's offensive against me. That's rather selfish.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And out of curiousity.. say it read "The nazi's are comming to get you and they are unpleasant" Would that be equally offensive? How about the Shivan's? Or one man perhaps? Al Qaeda?
Of course it would be equally offensive - against them. But in this case those groups are already generally disliked, and for a reason. So no one would care if you said that, except them.
Now read my previous post again and give me a proper reply. You left too many unanswered points.
-
Nothing of value, huh? Then why are you having such a hard time explaining what I asked? Maybe you should read it again, trying to understand the meaning of the words you see.
i'm not. I'm reffering to the fact that you resorted to pointing out several spelling errors instead of argueing your point further.
How's that answering my question?
I'm answering your question with a question myself. And the point was, would you still find it offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?
Granted my version was shorter and said nothing of exact 12th century christians, but it seems more to the point and less :blah:
Perhaps I should make my own quote..
So you're telling me I should only worry when it's offensive against me. That's rather selfish.
So you're saying that you are "sticking up for the little guy" then? fair enough I guess.... whatever..
Of course it would be equally offensive - against them. But in this case those groups are already generally disliked, and for a reason. So no one would care if you said that, except them.
Ah yes, they are disliked by large amounts of people, but does that make it right? Just because a large mass of bodies say it is ok, then is it?
And you say nobody likes them? I highly doubt that. Watch the news. Al-Qaeda un particukar. There seems to be a lot of people that liked them. Especially when Bin Laden was kickin' it with them, blowing up innocent people.. sick yes? but did nobody like them? I think that is incorrect.
I'll admit the Nazist party is an assumption, but I know some people did like them. Sick ****s? Perhaps, yes, but that doesn't change it.
As for Shivans, that one is blatently obvious as modeled by our buddy and administrator, Carl.
-
one rather interesting thing...the whole Nazi thing brought germany out of a depression. The japaniese decided to join the whole thing by attacking the US...causing the US to come out of its own depression. Actions can have highly interesting consequences...
-
Originally posted by Analazon
one rather interesting thing...the whole Nazi thing brought germany out of a depression. The japaniese decided to join the whole thing by attacking the US...causing the US to come out of its own depression. Actions can have highly interesting consequences...
yes, yes they do.. :wtf:
like the world trade center and al quaeda being blown to hell in return (hey, its a fair analogy :p ) or Teno and how he brought up this entire sbject *glares*
;)
-
Personally I don't think the whole "The Christians are coming" thing is really that insulting or offending, if at all. I thought it was obviously a joke. :rolleyes: Besides, if anyone doesn't like it, they should take it up with George Carlin, not KT. :nod:
-
This is would oh so much easier if you actually read my post.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
i'm not. I'm reffering to the fact that you resorted to pointing out several spelling errors instead of argueing your point further.
If one counts as several, then yeah, I've pointed out several spelling errors.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I'm answering your question with a question myself.
No, you're asking something completely unrelated to my question.
Look at these quotes and tell me if they make any sense whatsoever:
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now my location was 1) a driect quote from my favorite comedian, George Carlin, and 2) directly correlated with my name.
Note how you're obviously using that information to make your location seem less offensive.
Originally posted by Levyathan
Okay, so someone else said it before, and it's related to your name - big deal. Explain to me exactly how that makes it less offensive.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Less offensive hmm? Well would it be less offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?
I asked how that first piece of information made your location less offensive, and you answered asking if it would be less offensive if you had said all that. Not a proper answer.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And the point was, would you still find it offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?
But that wasn't my question. And answering that - no, I wouldn't. There you are pointing a historical fact, in the other you were simply saying that christians are evil.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
So you're saying that you are "sticking up for the little guy" then? fair enough I guess.... whatever..
Actually, I'm defending their religious freedom.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ah yes, they are disliked by large amounts of people, but does that make it right? Just because a large mass of bodies say it is ok, then is it?
As I said, there's a reason why they're disliked - they've killed a bunch of people. Now there's an opportunity for you to say "But Christians also killed a lot of people in the Crusdaes! Hah!". Remember, though, that those Christians are not the same christians you're talking to today - these ones can't be blamed for and don't agree with what the Crusaders did.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And you say nobody likes them? I highly doubt that. Watch the news. Al-Qaeda un particukar. There seems to be a lot of people that liked them. Especially when Bin Laden was kickin' it with them, blowing up innocent people.. sick yes? but did nobody like them? I think that is incorrect.
I'll admit the Nazist party is an assumption, but I know some people did like them. Sick ****s? Perhaps, yes, but that doesn't change it.
That's irrelevant for the discussion. People who like those groups might as well be considered part of them in this case.
You still left these points unanswered. Read them once again and reply properly.
Originally posted by Levyathan
Okay, so someone else said it before, and it's related to your name - big deal. Explain to me exactly how that makes it less offensive.
Originally posted by Levyathan
Now explain to me what you meant by homo. Homosexual, perhaps? Careful how you use words, son - you might get yourself in trouble.
-
There you are pointing a historical fact, in the other you were simply saying that christians are evil.
:wtf: There is a big difference between calling people unpleasant and calling them[glow=limegreen]EVIL[/glow]
-
In his statement unpleasant and evil were equivalent.
-
Umm.....how can you compare unpleasant and evil? You use unpleasant to describe the weather. You use evil to describe Hitler...
-
No, you're asking something completely unrelated to my question.
Look at these quotes and tell me if they make any sense whatsoever:
oh, but it is related. look hard and sift through all the quotes and you will see.
Note how you're obviously using that information to make your location seem less offensive.
I am? I wasn't aware of that. How so?
I asked how that first piece of information made your location less offensive, and you answered asking if it would be less offensive if you had said all that. Not a proper answer.
really? Seemed like a wonderfully proper answer to myself.
But that wasn't my question. And answering that - no, I wouldn't. There you are pointing a historical fact, in the other you were simply saying that christians are evil.
Now you are simply changing my words. unpleasant and evil are hardly interchangable.
now according to dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com), you could replace unpleasant with any of the following
abhorrent, bad news, bad scene, disagreeable, displeasing, displeasing, distasteful, fierce, grody, gross, hard time, icky, irksome, lousy, nasty, objectionable, obnoxious, poison, repulsive, rotten, sour, troublesome, unacceptable, unattractive, uncool, undesirable, unhappy, unlikable, unlovely, unpalatable, unpalatable, yucky
note that making any replacement is still changing the original quote. Also note that Evil is not among those words.
Actually, I'm defending their religious freedom.
:lol:
Oh the irony...
As I said, there's a reason why they're disliked - they've killed a bunch of people. Now there's an opportunity for you to say "But Christians also killed a lot of people in the Crusdaes! Hah!". Remember, though, that those Christians are not the same christians you're talking to today - these ones can't be blamed for and don't agree with what the Crusaders did.
Note my examples were there as ones that you may recognize and be able to see a relation. Rightly so, the people that still beleive in the Nazi party today, are not the same nazi's as a generation ago. The same would be with those that agree with slavery (i.e. confederates) they have not commited the same atrocities, but they beleive in the same ideals.
That's irrelevant for the discussion. People who like those groups might as well be considered part of them in this case.
Oh but it is ever so relevant. And if they are part of those same groups, then that would also meant that 12th century christians are apart of the same christians today, which cleary is not true as you stated. Don't contractadict yourself kiddo.
EDIT: and concerning your "un replied" statesments or whatever, I feel i annswered your question sufficently and yes you did read it right
-
Originally posted by lobsterclaw
Umm.....how can you compare unpleasant and evil? You use unpleasant to describe the weather. You use evil to describe Hitler...
The Christians are coming to get you, and they are unpleasant people.
The Christians are coming to get you, and they are evil people.
Of course, the original didn't use unpleasant, it used not pleasant.
The Christians are coming to get you. And they are not pleasant people.
By the Christians are coming to get you you can understand that they're evil.
Why do I bother?
-
*gets popcorn*
I got $5 on KT...
-
I got $5 on KT...
Ditto :)
-
The Christians are coming to get you, and they are unpleasant people.
The Christians are coming to get you, and they are evil people.
Of course, the original didn't use unpleasant, it used not pleasant.
The Christians are coming to get you. And they are not pleasant people.
By the Christians are coming to get you you can understand that they're evil.
Why do I bother?
I'll admit, I did err on that part. The original quote did say "not pleasant"
Now don't get my wrong, I'm not an english major, and I never thought grammar was my strongest subject, but aren't "not" and "un" both negatives? Like I said, not my strong point, but from my understanding, they both mean more or less the same thing. If you can prove me otherwise, please, go ahead. I could use some grammatical improvement.
Now grammar aside, wether it would've changed the meaning or not, that is still changing the words of what I said. in now way that I can perceive can you derive "By the Christians are coming to get you you can understand that they're evil." from "The Christians are coming to get you. And they are not pleasant people."
Please don't change people's words. It'll only get you into trouble.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
oh, but it is related. look hard and sift through all the quotes and you will see.
Enlighten me.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I am? I wasn't aware of that. How so?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now my location was 1) a driect quote from my favorite comedian, George Carlin, and 2) directly correlated with my name.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
It was a play on words, at best, but a joke and inteded to be taken that way. As A christian myself, I find no offense at all.
In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second, you said it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. That's how.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
really? Seemed like a wonderfully proper answer to myself.
Well, that's a brilliant piece of argument!
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now you are simply changing my words. unpleasant and evil are hardly interchangable.
Interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Coming to get you obviously means an evil act. Or are you going to say they were coming to get you to give you icecream?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
:lol:
Oh the irony...
Your statement violated they're freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they're freedom.
One's freedom goes until the point where another's freedom begins.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Note my examples were there as ones that you may recognize and be able to see a relation. Rightly so, the people that still beleive in the Nazi party today, are not the same nazi's as a generation ago. The same would be with those that agree with slavery (i.e. confederates) they have not commited the same atrocities, but they beleive in the same ideals.
Read carefully. I specifically said that today's Christians do not agree with what the Crusaders did. Today's nazis agree wholeheartedly with what their World War II counterparts did.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Oh but it is ever so relevant. And if they are part of those same groups, then that would also meant that 12th century christians are apart of the same christians today, which cleary is not true as you stated. Don't contractadict yourself kiddo.
As I said, the agreement factor plays a major role here.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
EDIT: and concerning your "un replied" statesments or whatever, I feel i annswered your question sufficently and yes you did read it right
One of them you replied with an evasive question. The other you didn't even mention.
-
both of you...please run your arguments through a grammar checker...even if all that you do is paste it in to word...
-
Well, I can use the fact that I'm not a native speaker as an excuse. If you could point the errors I'd be really grateful, as it'd help me improve my English.
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second,
Your statement violated they're freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they're freedom.
right here is my major gripe...
they're = they are
so...
Originally posted by Levyathan
In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second,
Your statement violated they are freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they are freedom.
doesn't quite work.
The form you need to use is their, which is posessive. The other two forms of it is they're which is they are, and there, which is a place.
I am no english major myself, but it still drives me up the wall when people do that...
(I can't spell, I know...)
-
Enlighten me.
Sorry, time is not on my side today, please, refer back to the original of whatever you want as I don't really want or have the time to go back through all of this.
In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second, you said it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. That's how.
Yes I did. :) is that ok with you? further to the point, it was an early defense and I was hoping the mature enough would understand where the said joke was coming from. Thus hopefully neutralizing whatever heavy malice they saw in it.
Well, that's a brilliant piece of argument!
And how!
Interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Coming to get you obviously means an evil act. Or are you going to say they were coming to get you to give you icecream?
Oh really? Coming to get you isn't even a complete sentence within itself? How can it even be evil? Your mother is coming to get you. I am coming to get you. Those are examples. the phrase coming to get you is in no way evil.
Your statement violated they're freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they're freedom.
Violoated their freedom? I highly doubt that.
Read carefully. I specifically said that today's Christians do not agree with what the Crusaders did. Today's nazis agree wholeheartedly with what their World War II counterparts did.
And what about todays "Confederates" ? Besides, you do not know that no christian agrees with what happened during the Crusades.
As I said, the agreement factor plays a major role here.
And I think everyone see's how well the "agreement"" facotr works here :doubt:
One of them you replied with an evasive question. The other you didn't even mention.
well that's half true...
-
Originally posted by Analazon
right here is my major gripe...
they're = they are
so...
I'm so ashamed. That's something I always notice in other people's posts. I even think "How the hell do they manage to do THAT?!".
Even in the Art forum's description they made this mistake.
-
"comming to get you" implies something of malice or ill intent will happen, it always has. "The boogie man is comming to get you"
-
My suggestion is for KT to change his location to the whole big '12th century Christians' line. Mainly to see what happens, more than anything else...
One thing I never understood, KT - why was that quote in your location and not in your sig?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
"comming to get you" implies something of malice or ill intent will happen, it always has. "The boogie man is comming to get you"
thats the point...it is about the crusades...the crusaders killed non-christians...
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
"comming to get you" implies something of malice or ill intent will happen, it always has. "The boogie man is comming to get you"
Yes it has, but that does not mean it is or always will. That is just incorrect. What if Me and my best friend Ned were talking. Ned wants me to pick him up at the airport. I say "Ok Ned. I am coming to get you. Be at ready by 3pm. Bye."
Are you saying that in that tone, I am speaking maliciously to Ned?
Rightfully so, Analazon does have a point.
-
bottom line: "coming to get you" only implies bad things if party "A" (which is "coming to get "you"") means ill-intent to "you"
happy?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
My suggestion is for KT to change his location to the whole big '12th century Christians' line. Mainly to see what happens, more than anything else...
One thing I never understood, KT - why was that quote in your location and not in your sig?
I fully intend to :D been kinda pre-occupied at the moment though as you see. Will do though.
And as for the location, it was kind of a stretch. When I joined I hade a rather long siggy already ( :o ) and so I put it in the location slot as it seemed more unique and made the siggy smaller :D . That and it was sort of relating as in I am a crusader. Where am I? Well I am coming to get you.
that sorta thing :D
*skips over to control panel*
EDIT: On second thought.. Maybe we can make this intresting. I'll change it based on the outcome of this. I want to see what happens next, without provocation. Only if this gets boring :D
-
Originally posted by Anazalon
bottom line: "coming to get you" only implies bad things if party "A" (which is "coming to get "you"") means ill-intent to "you"
happy?
Sorry Anaz (can we change your name? ;) )
I was writing while you said that.
I fully agree with what you said. I was only defending the fact that Coming to get you. by itself is not malicious at all.
:D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Sorry Anaz (can we change your name? ;) )
I was writing while you said that.
I fully agree with what you said. I was only defending the fact that Coming to get you. by itself is not malicious at all.
:D
yes KT, that is a very good shortening of my name :D
-
Don't you just hate it when Windows crashes while you're typing a very long reply?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Sorry, time is not on my side today, please, refer back to the original of whatever you want as I don't really want or have the time to go back through all of this.
From your previous posts it's not evident how the two things are related. If you're trying to make a valid point, now's the right time to do so.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Yes I did. :) is that ok with you? further to the point, it was an early defense and I was hoping the mature enough would understand where the said joke was coming from. Thus hopefully neutralizing whatever heavy malice they saw in it.
Yes, you did? As in yes, you did use that information to make your statement seem less offensive?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And how!
Actually, it isn't.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Oh really? Coming to get you isn't even a complete sentence within itself? How can it even be evil? Your mother is coming to get you. I am coming to get you. Those are examples. the phrase coming to get you is in no way evil.
Talk about being evasive! In the context of that statement, it's obvious that coming to get you implies an evil act. It would make no sense otherwise.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Violoated their freedom? I highly doubt that.
Defamation.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Besides, you do not know that no christian agrees with what happened during the Crusades.
The average Christian doesn't. If one does, he shouldn't even be called Christian. Don't tell me you think every single Christian agrees with what the Church did back on the Crusades. Not even the Pope does. We're talking about the majority here.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And I think everyone see's how well the "agreement"" facotr works here :doubt:
It works perfectly. If you don't think so just give me some substantial arguments.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
well that's half true...
Do you mean that your question wasn't evasive or that you did reply to the other argument?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
"comming to get you" implies something of malice or ill intent will happen, it always has. "The boogie man is comming to get you"
Exactly! Otherwise it's coming to pick you up or something like that, but not coming to get you.
-
I hate it when truespace crashes after spending an hour working on a mesh...
-
Yes, you did? As in yes, you did use that information to make your statement seem less offensive?
As in yes I did. That seemed kinda obvious, no?
The average Christian doesn't. If one does, he shouldn't even be called Christian. Don't tell me you think every single Christian agrees with what the Church did back on the Crusades. Not even the Pope does. We're talking about the majority here.
Ok I won't tell you that. But what I will tell you is they did back then. And the quote pertains to "back then". Back then (being the 12th century) the pope fully backed it and so did the christians.
It works perfectly. If you don't think so just give me some substancial arguments.
Confederates
Do you mean that your question wasn't evasive or that you did reply to the other argument?
Take your pick.
From your previous posts it's not evident how the two things are related. If you're trying to make a valid point, now's the right time to do so.
ask Lobsterclaw.
Actually, it isn't.
Defamation.
and you get the great big canadian Eh'? of the day.
-
It seems to be getting shorter!
Originally posted by Knight Templar
As in yes I did. That seemed kinda obvious, no?
Great! Now answer my question then: how does that information make your statement seem less offensive?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ok I won't tell you that. But what I will tell you is they did back then. And the quote pertains to "back then". Back then (being the 12th century) the pope fully backed it and so did the christians.
But with that statement you're insulting today's Christians, not some Christians that died eight hundred years ago. Therefore, you are insulting the wrong people.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Confederates
What about them?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Take your pick.
Both, obviously.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
ask Lobsterclaw.
Nope, you should be able to answer yourself. Not nice asking for help in this kind of discussion, son.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
and you get the great big canadian Eh'? of the day.
Actually, it isn't like in actually, it isn't a brilliant piece of argument. And defamation as in you violated their freedom by defaming them.
Next!
-
Right, let's get this settled. All those in favour of KT's 'offensive' location say aye.
Aye.
-
Aye
don't really matter...one person is unhappy out of...30 or so active posters..?
-
Ack. I said three times already, I didn't feel offended by it. Some people might feel, though...
But if he keeps it I'm damn well gonna find a comedian quote about blacks and use it. It's prejudice all the same.
-
As I said, I have much to do, and this is taking way longer than I anticipated.
Great! Now answer my question then: how does that information make your statement seem less offensive?
You're asking how again? For some reason it strikes me as a thing that has to do with points of view.
My most objective response would be that it is a harmless joke, much like you said that banning me for a week and giving me a humilating title was, or so you said then.
But with that statement you're insulting today's Christians, not some Christians that died eight hundred years ago. Therefore, you are insulting the wrong people.
Are you sure of that?
What about them?
Confederates would be your main error. Many modern-day confederates still hate african americans, want them as slaves, dead, not equal. note that I am trying to politically correct and not outright call them "rednecks" "hicks" or "cracka's"
Nope, you should be able to answer yourself. Not nice asking for help in this kind of discussion, son.
Lobsterclaw knows fdirst hand why this is consuming my time and I need to cut it soon. Lets say I am "working on something special".
Actually, it isn't like in actually, it isn't a brilliant piece of argument. And defamation as in you violated their freedom by defaming them.
[size=10] Eh'? [/size]
-
But if he keeps it I'm damn well gonna find a comedian quote about blacks and use it. It's prejudice all the same.
what a tard'. You guys know this is his covert way of getting to 500 without us realizing ;)
Note: Using a "prejudice" comment wouldn't quite make you the defender you are trying to live up to, now would it?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
what a tard'. You guys know this is his covert way of getting to 500 without us realizing ;)
well...just stop now...he's at 495...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
You're asking how again? For some reason it strikes me as a thing that has to do with points of view.
Then, as a matter of point of view, can't you even concieve the possibility of it being understandably offensive to Christians?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
My most objective response would be that it is a harmless joke, much like you said that banning me for a week and giving me a humilating title was, or so you said then.
But yours isn't a harmless joke. It's an offensive joke. And it isn't less offensive just because it's a joke, either. Mine was just a reply to your joke.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Are you sure of that?
Unless there's an 800 year old Crusader roaming around, yes.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Confederates would be your main error. Many modern-day confederates still hate african americans, want them as slaves, dead, not equal.
And what's the problem with that? They agree with their old counterparts, so they may be considered the same group. I can't see that as a substantial argument against the agreement factor, but as one more evidence for it.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Lobsterclaw knows fdirst hand why this is consuming my time and I need to cut it soon. Lets say I am "working on something special".
There's no rush. You can answer whenever you have the time. I'll be waiting.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
[size=10] Eh'? [/size]
Running out of arguments, huh?
So, we're still left with this unanswered point - which you seem to be forcefully evading:
Originally posted by Levyathan
Now explain to me what you meant by homo. Homosexual, perhaps? Careful how you use words, son - you might get yourself in trouble.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
what a tard'. You guys know this is his covert way of getting to 500 without us realizing ;)
What did you call me?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Note: Using a "prejudice" comment wouldn't quite make you the defender you are trying to live up to, now would it?
Heck, no. But who cares - if it's allowed, I might as well do it!
-
Then, as a matter of point of view, can't you even concieve the possibility of it being understandably offensive to Christians?
I can, but I'm saying that it wasn't meant to be and shouldn't. It obviously is, you are a testimonial. And for that matter, how come you can't even conceive of it being a joke that shouldn't be taken heavily at all?
But yours isn't a harmless joke. It's an offensive joke. And it isn't less offensive just because it's a joke, either. Mine was just a reply to your joke.
well then you must ask, is any joke really harmless?
Unless there's an 800 year old Crusader roaming around, yes.
Someone has to protect the holy grail.
And what's the problem with that? They agree with their old counterparts, so they may be considered the same group. I can't see that as a substantial argument against the agreement factor, but as one more evidence for it.
out of curiousity, who agrees with that statement? You're being hypocritical again though.. you said that it wouldn't make today's christians christian if they agreed with what happened during the crusades. Yet todays Confed's agree with yesteryears. So can they still be considered loyal confederates after they beleive in the same ideals and want the same results, have the same flag, recognize everything they do.
Running out of arguments, huh?
hardly
And I did answer your "forcefully evaded statement"
-
What did you call me?
Tard'. get to 500 and I will call you a spammer.
:p ;) :p
Heck, no. But who cares - if it's allowed, I might as well do it!
That's the Spirit!
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I can, but I'm saying that it wasn't meant to be and shouldn't. It obviously is, you are a testimonial. And for that matter, how come you can't even conceive of it being a joke that shouldn't be taken heavily at all?
But I can. How do you explain the fact that I didn't feel offended otherwise?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
well then you must ask, is any joke really harmless?
I'm pretty sure there are harmless jokes.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Someone has to protect the holy grail.
Didn't Indiana Jones take it from its keeper? I can't remember that part of the movie.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
out of curiousity, who agrees with that statement? You're being hypocritical again though.. you said that it wouldn't make today's christians christian if they agreed with what happened during the crusades. Yet todays Confed's agree with yesteryears. So can they still be considered loyal confederates after they beleive in the same ideals and want the same results, have the same flag, recognize everything they do.
Majority rules.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
hardly
Of course. A giant red Eh is another example of brilliant pieces of argument.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And I did answer your "forcefully evaded statement"
Must have missed that. How long ago did you reply to it?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Tard'. get to 500 and I will call you a spammer.
:p ;) :p
I think I'm better off as a spammer than as a tard'.
*looks at Knight Templars post count*
Oh, so you're both already?
Now I'm off to bed. If I don't reply in the next eighteen hours it's because I'm sleeping.
-
But I can. How do you explain the fact that I didn't feel offended otherwise?
*doesn't know* I'm still trying to figure out why you are talking of this in the first place... your motives like I said, don't fit.
I'm pretty sure there are harmless jokes.
yeah?
Didn't Indiana Jones take it from its keeper? I can't remember that part of the movie.
Ahem, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Majority rules.
In that case you are wrong.
Of course. A giant red Eh is another example of brilliant pieces of argument.
:nod:
Must have missed that. How long ago did you reply to it?
Between now and 2 hours ago :doubt:
I think I'm better off as a spammer than as a tard'.
*looks at Knight Templars post count*
Oh, so you're both already?
better off spammer than a tard... who said you can't be both?
Now I'm off to bed. If I don't reply in the next eighteen hours it's because I'm sleeping.
Fair enough. *Can't help but look at post count*
:p
-
A rich comment coming from you KT, given this thread has nothing to do with Christianity untill you came along to it I'd say fairly openly that you are spamming every bit as much as you think he is.
And on that note, thread locked. If you want to discuss it further then do it on your own turf.