Just want to make sure I'm doing this right. I'm tired of switching discs in Bladur's Gate, since my 3rd disc is so scratched it takes forever to read it, so I'm copying the discs to my HD and then modifying the .ini file.
Here's what the .ini file looks like to begin with:
jesus get with the times guys you don't need all these fancy doohickies to kill vampires and werewolves anymore
apparantly the kids have figured out that you can kill vampires
Does anyone have a link to charts with the history of the federal income tax brackets by year?
Before the 1900s, they used triangular brackets, like this: <$10, $15>
For most of the 20th century, they used curvy brackets, like this: {$500, $1000}
But in the last few decades of the 20th century, they switched it to square brackets, like this: [$10000, $20000]
Hope that helps!
Richy on
0
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Also, if we're talking supernatural beings, isn't a lot of what hurts them rooted in faith?
I'm going by sci-fi here, but I remember cults of vampires that used sunlight in small doses until they built a tolerance to it, or weren't affected by holy water or crosses either because they felt righteous in their beliefs, or the one using the weapons did not.
I mean, it's not the same if we're assuming the supernatural have a weakness due to allergic reaction, but still, other than fire or beheading, I'm not sure any of the other stuff would actually work.
It's all how each individual writer wants to make his vampires.
I like mine sparkly and full of angst.
On the subject, I actually saw new moon, after watching Adventureland about a week earlier, and seeing a preview for remember me right before.
Holy hell Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson can both act, so I don't understand why they can't act in the Twilight series. I get that the writing is horrible and everything, but they are both talented. It doesn't make sense. Now Taylor Lautner there is just no hope for. He will be well remembered on the sci fi channel after Twilight is over.
God damn it don't you quit on me! That's not nearly the hardest pair of sentences in the thing. "Within the conflictual economy of colonial discourse which Edward Said describes as the tension between the synchronic panoptical vision of domination - the demand for identity, stasis - and the counter-pressure of the diachrony of history - change, difference - mimicry represents an ironic compromise."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Does [chat] want to help me parse a pair of sentences? Of course you do!
"Mimicry does not merely destroy narcissistic authority through the repetitious slippage of difference and desire. It is the process of the fixation of the colonial as a form of cross-classificatory, discriminatory knowledge in the defiles of an interdictory discourse, and therefore necessarily raises the question of the authorization of colonial representations"
First sentence makes me think of maybe newspaper editorials/anti-government media that are against the current ruling set. And how with this they question both the need of a colonial government or representation is probably unneeded or at least not necessary at the time.
And then my brain turned to mush and I realized it is someone probably being a pretentious prick.
Also, if we're talking supernatural beings, isn't a lot of what hurts them rooted in faith?
I'm going by sci-fi here, but I remember cults of vampires that used sunlight in small doses until they built a tolerance to it, or weren't affected by holy water or crosses either because they felt righteous in their beliefs, or the one using the weapons did not.
I mean, it's not the same if we're assuming the supernatural have a weakness due to allergic reaction, but still, other than fire or beheading, I'm not sure any of the other stuff would actually work.
It's all how each individual writer wants to make his vampires.
I like mine sparkly and full of angst.
On the subject, I actually saw new moon, after watching Adventureland about a week earlier, and seeing a preview for remember me right before.
Holy hell Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson can both act, so I don't understand why they can't act in the Twilight series. I get that the writing is horrible and everything, but they are both talented. It doesn't make sense. Now Taylor Lautner there is just no hope for. He will be well remembered on the sci fi channel after Twilight is over.
Where, where are you getting this information?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Bhabha has been criticized for using indecipherable jargon and dense prose. In 1998 the journal Philosophy and Literature awarded Bhabha second prize in its "Bad Writing Competition,"[3] which "celebrates bad writing from the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles." Bhabha was awarded the prize for a sentence in his The Location of Culture (Routledge, 1994), which reads:
If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to “normalize” formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality.[4]
Emeritus professor of English at Stanford University, Marjorie Perloff, said that her reaction to Bhabha's appointment at Harvard was one of "dismay," telling the New York Times "He doesn't have anything to say." While Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media studies at New York University, commented on the meaning of Bhabha's writing: "One could finally argue that there is no meaning there, beyond the neologisms and Latinate buzzwords. Most of the time I don't know what he's talking about."[5]
Bhabha's response
In a 2005 interview, Bhabha was asked if he was annoyed by criticisms of his prose style.[6] In response, he stated: "t annoys me that people talk about easy access to a work and a notion of transparency without thinking of what is really involved. For instance, the science section of the New York Times is not immediately comprehensible. Do I therefore say that I am not interested in the whole article? The idea that sources from the humanities have no philosophical language of their own, that they must be continually speaking in the common language of the common person while the scientists can publish in a language that needs more time to get into, is problematic to me."[6]
Basically discourse created by colonizers about those they have colonized.
that's what she Said
Elendil on
0
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
I'm just saying preach, I've seen both of them in other works, and much like Natalie Portman, they're very talented when they're not poorly directed and written for. It's sad really.
I'm just saying preach, I've seen both of them in other works, and much like Natalie Portman, they're very talented when they're not poorly directed and written for. It's sad really.
Man no way, Stewart is a blink machine, and Pattinson is like a modern Richard Grieco.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
God damn it don't you quit on me! That's not nearly the hardest pair of sentences in the thing. "Within the conflictual economy of colonial discourse which Edward Said describes as the tension between the synchronic panoptical vision of domination - the demand for identity, stasis - and the counter-pressure of the diachrony of history - change, difference - mimicry represents an ironic compromise."
I think I read Said's Orientalism in college. Damned if I remember much about it though.
My brain pretty much shut off for the rest of school after Simulacra and Simulation.
Does [chat] want to help me parse a pair of sentences? Of course you do!
"Mimicry does not merely destroy narcissistic authority through the repetitious slippage of difference and desire. It is the process of the fixation of the colonial as a form of cross-classificatory, discriminatory knowledge in the defiles of an interdictory discourse, and therefore necessarily raises the question of the authorization of colonial representations"
Why does mimicry destroy narcissistic authority and what is difference and desire doing slipping repetitiously as a result. What is a colonial except a type of house, and what are you fixing it to except maybe a strong foundation? Is the colonial house something any class could potentially afford to live in? Possibly, but why must we discriminate against race and why is it considered defilement for a minority to live in such a house? Why can't their engagement with the home owner's representation be authorized? Why must we continue to live in such a hateful world?
Sarksus on
0
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
Does [chat] want to help me parse a pair of sentences? Of course you do!
"Mimicry does not merely destroy narcissistic authority through the repetitious slippage of difference and desire. It is the process of the fixation of the colonial as a form of cross-classificatory, discriminatory knowledge in the defiles of an interdictory discourse, and therefore necessarily raises the question of the authorization of colonial representations"
Mimicry of authority figures has a way of humanizing them, letting the oppressed know that their oppressors aren't superhuman, issuing infallible orders from on high. It reveals to the oppressed that those in power don't have some natural right to do what they're doing. They haven't been given the power by some authority, but rather they're just a bunch of guys who put on airs and use that to assert control.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Does [chat] want to help me parse a pair of sentences? Of course you do!
"Mimicry does not merely destroy narcissistic authority through the repetitious slippage of difference and desire. It is the process of the fixation of the colonial as a form of cross-classificatory, discriminatory knowledge in the defiles of an interdictory discourse, and therefore necessarily raises the question of the authorization of colonial representations"
Why does mimicry destroy narcissistic authority and what is difference and desire doing slipping repetitiously as a result. What is a colonial except a type of house, and what are you fixing it to except maybe a strong foundation? Is the colonial house something any class could potentially afford to live in? Possibly, but why must we discriminate against race and why is it considered defilement for a minority to live in such a house? Why can't their engagement with the home owner's representation be authorized? Why must we continue to live in such a hateful world?
Mimicry, as far as I have gathered from the paper, destroys narcissistic authority because on the one had it is making the Other present itself in the authorities image, showing dominance, but, at the same time, if the Other can present itself as the norm is it really Other? Thus undermining the oppositional binary at place. However, mimicry is not mimesis, that is to say that it can only approach reality but it can never reach it. It will always have "slippage" that is to say it will never work. For, to use Bhabha's words, to be Anglicized is to most definitely NOT to be English. Okay and now you are going off on strange house things you silly goose.
Posts
No one? I edited the post a little.
C = Hard drive
F = Disc drive
So let's say I put the CD1 - 6 in this path:
C:/Program Files/Baldur's Gate Discs, then I would modify the INI to show that rather than F:\CD1, right?
Jeffe got it for me a couple years back, too
apparantly the kids have figured out that you can kill vampires
For most of the 20th century, they used curvy brackets, like this: {$500, $1000}
But in the last few decades of the 20th century, they switched it to square brackets, like this: [$10000, $20000]
Hope that helps!
You used that same line on me Sarks
I like mine sparkly and full of angst.
On the subject, I actually saw new moon, after watching Adventureland about a week earlier, and seeing a preview for remember me right before.
Holy hell Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson can both act, so I don't understand why they can't act in the Twilight series. I get that the writing is horrible and everything, but they are both talented. It doesn't make sense. Now Taylor Lautner there is just no hope for. He will be well remembered on the sci fi channel after Twilight is over.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
First sentence makes me think of maybe newspaper editorials/anti-government media that are against the current ruling set. And how with this they question both the need of a colonial government or representation is probably unneeded or at least not necessary at the time.
And then my brain turned to mush and I realized it is someone probably being a pretentious prick.
His weakness is when it's not Halloween.
when you talk while having buttsex
Basically discourse created by colonizers about those they have colonized.
Where, where are you getting this information?
pleasepaypreacher.net
that's what she Said
Man no way, Stewart is a blink machine, and Pattinson is like a modern Richard Grieco.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think I read Said's Orientalism in college. Damned if I remember much about it though.
My brain pretty much shut off for the rest of school after Simulacra and Simulation.
Oh god help me.
Why does mimicry destroy narcissistic authority and what is difference and desire doing slipping repetitiously as a result. What is a colonial except a type of house, and what are you fixing it to except maybe a strong foundation? Is the colonial house something any class could potentially afford to live in? Possibly, but why must we discriminate against race and why is it considered defilement for a minority to live in such a house? Why can't their engagement with the home owner's representation be authorized? Why must we continue to live in such a hateful world?
Mimicry of authority figures has a way of humanizing them, letting the oppressed know that their oppressors aren't superhuman, issuing infallible orders from on high. It reveals to the oppressed that those in power don't have some natural right to do what they're doing. They haven't been given the power by some authority, but rather they're just a bunch of guys who put on airs and use that to assert control.
Why not just hit yourself in the balls with a hammer, just as entertaining.
pleasepaypreacher.net
bravo
Archer, which is what I am watching atm.
i think i can feel a neckbeard coming on
Mimicry, as far as I have gathered from the paper, destroys narcissistic authority because on the one had it is making the Other present itself in the authorities image, showing dominance, but, at the same time, if the Other can present itself as the norm is it really Other? Thus undermining the oppositional binary at place. However, mimicry is not mimesis, that is to say that it can only approach reality but it can never reach it. It will always have "slippage" that is to say it will never work. For, to use Bhabha's words, to be Anglicized is to most definitely NOT to be English. Okay and now you are going off on strange house things you silly goose.
well that is as always an option
You can find Frankenberry, Booberry and Count Chocula in different parts of the country year round, mostly in the midwest.
Now Is The Time For FFXIII
Soft
so soft for the stroking
the stroking
soft
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.