Recent posts by Johnwater on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Game Programming / Remove itself once the mc hits certain frame (AS3)

How do we remove a movieclip from code in a frame?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Game Programming / Efficient pause methods? (AS3)

Hmm. If your game is ENTER_FRAME based, you could simply set the frame rate to zero.
public function pauseGame(e:KeyboardEvent):void
{
if (e.keyCode == 27)
{
if(currentFrame > 118)
{
if(!ispaused)
{
pauseScreen.x = 0;
pauseScreen.y = 0;
stage.frameRate = 0;
//saves a reference to current point in background music
pausePosition = musicChannel.position;
//pauses the background music
musicChannel.stop();
}

else

{
stage.frameRate = 24;
removeChild(pauseScreen);
//continues the music
musicChannel = playtrack.play(pausePosition);
}
}
}
}
Erm, ignore the bad indents

 
Flag Post

Topic: MARDEK RPG: Chapter 3 / 20 hours of gameplay wasted! (spoilers)

So I opened the throne room door, when inside, owned everything, and saved. Guess what! I over wrote my most recent file, in the mistaken belief that I could continue after killing qualna, watching the play, etc. But then I realised that I couldn’t finish the rest of the arena challenges, and the bone demon, and the annihliators! Is there any way around this? If not, can we like say that we should save in a separate file in the astral tunnel?

 
Flag Post

Topic: MARDEK RPG: Chapter 3 / Favourite Mardek Moments

The book in Elwyen’s house. If you read it in chapter 2…
Book: (…)
Mardek: ! (excited)
Emela: ! (alarmed)
Try in chapter 3 with elwyen! It’s funnier!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

What have I done? What a fool I’ve been!
I’ve posted too much and sparked an inferno within.
The situation must be controlled
Or there will be chaos untold
All alone in this fight
Left with only the belief that I’m right
All I need is another chance
To once again dance this dance
The fight against bigotry and hate
Is defeat and disgrace my fate?
No! There’s no time to reflect!
I must bury all regret!
The forum depends on me!
The forum depends on me!
The forum depends on me!

Fighting the fight!
Fighting the fight!
The battle’s just beginning!
Fighting the fight!
Fighting the fight!
I won’t live to see the ending
I shall endure, long and far
And fight with all my heart!
I will fight on with all my heart!
I will fight on with all my heart!
I will fight with all my heart
(please don’t comment on my sucky poem/song. I just had to vent all the stress from the fight.)

Well basically i realised that in my second post I deviated. Therefore leading to a massive forum debate. It would have been nice to have some more support, but it seems like a one sided thing. So let me summarise. All I meant was for you guys to be less brutal towards religion, and more understanding. I realised that there were more and more threads basically insulting evidence, without even arguing or supporting it wwith evidence. Apparently all I have done is aggravated the situation. You guys should stop punishing religion. Because even if everyone in this forum says it sucks, there are still billions around the world who severely disagree. I have much more to argue, not enough time, not nearly enough persistence. But if you keep this up, one day you shall be judged. Not by me, maybe not even by God, but by the people of the world. Vox populi, vox Dei.

This is gonna be my last post. Stop punishing my posts. Please. If I insulted or offended anyone, I apologise. If I did anything bad, I beg forgiveness. Goodbye. but remember, I will be watching

Some of you claim there is no morality. I have nothing to say to you. Some of you claim religion and morality should be separated. Then show me religion outside of morality. Don’t post any more anti-religion stuff.There are religious people out there who will be offended or hurt by the things you have said. This is in violation of rule number 1, which I think was “don’t be a jerk”. Younger readers might weep, nnot bbecause their position is not defensible but because they don’t know how. Ask yourselves, is this moral?
Love/Hate,
John

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Before i forget, flypurplehamster, I’m sure I solved the problem of evil in the post you quoted, at the part after you stopped quoting. I mean that evil exists to trial and train us. More solutions here And the reason why I type so “slowly” is because I went to play a game on another tab, so I didn’t refresh the page. and I don’t insult beliefs. My stating the idiocy of certain persons is about as true as FuzzyBacon thinks his stating of my arrogance is. EDIT: Before mentioning it again, be sure to check that you neutralized ALL the solutions to the problem of evil.
+I really think everyone can benefit from reading this and this.
and a couplke more rebuttals (i can’t sleep without makinbg them):

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

You have not addressed the major points made by me or others. Instead you sprout more rubbish. If the Bible gives arguments for morality besides god said so, why do we need religion? If i can make an reasonable Argument for behaving in a certain way i don´t need to hang it up on some supernatural Being.

Actually, perhaps you do. Some arguments for morality either directly or indirectly require a God, but not because “God said so”. And even if the incentive is “god said so”, it’s still an incentive, and still makes the world a better place.

Originally posted by FuzzyBacon:

@Johnwaters:



So for every saint (there are hundreds) there must be at least one scientifically impossible to explain miracle. Is that enough proof?

Given that the definition for a miracle as used by the church could just as easily be described as “mass hallucination”, no, not really. Even if the definition was more airtight, it would have to happen in a closed and controlled environment – otherwise, it’s far more likely that we’re simply not accounting for all of the variables.

Ah, i believe I may have forgotten to mention that all miracles must be scientifically verified to be impossible. there are many such examples on wikipedia and on the web. You just have to look.+

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

the previous post took a while to type so i didn’t see the above two. Anyway, as for ad hominem, it is imperative that you know that i drop false hints. a lot. So you may have committed it, but I won’t say when. Or if.
Secondly, I’m not that experienced in formal philosophy, but the fallacy of yours is basically jumping to conclusions about what i say. In addition, the ad populum one, well, I never made any reference to anyone saying the bible shouldn’t be taken literally. Well of course, the magisterium (papacy) does, but they hold authority. See my above post.
also, you deviate quite a bit. this is what I mean by misanalyzing and lying. To give a more specific example, any idiot could know what I meant by “integral part of human psychology”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Ok, now to crush fuzzybacons argument. you can tell from my lack of forum posts that my posts would be convoluted and a little insulting, but here goes. Along with being all-loving (omnibenevolence), god is also all-konowing (omni-science), all-being (omni-presence) and all-powerful (omnipotence). therefore, since he has planned for every one of us, he knows just what to give us so that we will grow in mind, body and spirit, and he arranges the world such that it happens to everyone. he does not punish, he does not reward, at least not here (Biblical books of Job and Ecclasiatus, not stories, more teaching). This is the standard solution to the problem of evil. as for the bible being taken literally, you might as well blame it on the translators. Unless you have fully studied hebrew and greek and read the original biblical texts, you are no qualified to intepret whther the bible is to be taken literally or not. On the other hand, the papacy has ruled that the bible is not to be taken literally. This is the same papacy that, years ago, was so vehemently opposed to Galileo’s opposition to geocentrism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Maybe I made a mistake highlighting how fallacious a large number of poster’s arguments are. I can see now, each lie, each twist, being highlighted. I am being besieged as fast as my fingers come down. And I don’t recall actually insulting anyone. Just because i don’t put a “lol” or a smiley to signify a joke makes me a valid target for criticism. You claim to see reeason. You claim to think. All you are doing is barraging any protest to your beliefs, attributing anything I said to something else for which contrary evidence exists (wikipedia, its more reliable than you think). i’m not sure how long more I have to stand up to bigotry. Maybe Is hould just donate this computer to the salvation army, crawl up ina corner and cry.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

@Key_Bearer That’s what I meant. In addition to the broader category.
I would appreciate it if you guys could sum up everything you have against my arguments in one post. And I will probably destroy them all in one post.
But, please stop hitting the Bible. I don’t believe I ever mentioned it should be taken literally. I, in fact, do not believe many of the events in there myself. You must understand that the timespan between now and then is milliena, so if you see it in a modern light you may not understand. My main point is, we should just stop saying religion is dumb. Neither is dumb, if understood in the right way.
Also, the Dark Ages is a term that historians tend to avoid. And philantrophy probabaly started with alms-giving. Sorry for not thinking that up earlier.
Oh, and before I forget, the part about challenging me is a joke.
Ok, go ahead and try to smash me now.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

I’m starting to regret throwing myself into this. Thinking up more weak arguments just make me write longer rebuttals. I guess that in the end, there are still the die-hard, hardcore atheeists that are beyond reason. As well as a couple of religious ones. I’m not trying to be insulting or sarcastic or condescending or anything, but frankly I pity you guys.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

I wonder how long it takes for some idiot to come challenge me? Record is about half an hour.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Sorry for the delay. I had to write all this in Microsoft Word.
I am feeling rather lonely. Like throwing pebbles at a giant. An ignorant, stupid, stubborn brutish giant that is the world’s morality-hating atheists (that is to say, the atheists that are moral-hating, not atheists in general). Many of the rebuttals/comments/insults to the intelligence of humanity are easily refuted or proven wrong.
First of, let me start by stating what I mean. I have not encountered a single post saying things like “science sucks”. Since I like science and am religious, and I know that they are not, in fact enemies but allies to advance civilisation, I have decided to help add a point or two to religion. But apparently our stupid giants won’t have any of that.
Next, I’d like to apologize for typing my other post so hastily. I chose language for effect, not accuracy. Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding by that.
Now, religion is not stupid. Atheism has only started to become popular in the last couple of centuries. Are you saying that virtually everyone in the past that has used religion to explain phenomena is stupid? In fact they should be considered imaginative if they could think up such complex mythologies to explain the world around them.
Secondly, if you believe religious people today are stupid because they refuse to accept evidence, find a list of saints. Saints are only canonised if they have performed at least one miracle after their death (I won’t bore you with the other details, its all on Wikipedia). So for every saint (there are hundreds) there must be at least one scientifically impossible to explain miracle. Is that enough proof?
Now for the specific defence of certain points that should not even have been threatened in the first place.
@Captain_Catface Just because it’s on TV doesn’t mean its correct or true. But thanks anyway.
@Cammy_G I don’t quite think so. No morals are needed. All you need is half a brain and a bit of tolerance. Even if they did, why do our morals carry outside the workplace? Why do we help old ladies cross the street? Why do we donate to charities? (unless you’re in a country that rebates tax for donations, and you’re only after the tax rebate). And I’m sure it’s not just some primal urge. Certainly we humans can control that. We need to have another incentive for doing so, which is morals which developed from religion.
Criticsms for dating system argument: Deviating. The AD/BC (or CE/BCE as you atheists call it) system is the most widely used dating system in the world, and is based on the birth of Jesus Christ (presumably no annotation needed) and popularised by religious authorities. Just because it was not Jesus who put it into use doesn’t change the fact that it was based on his life. If not, we’d probably still use things like “The Second Year of Obama”.
@EPR89 Hahaha. You’re deviating but at least it’s funny. So, whose side are you on? And secondly, belief that the world is 6000 years old is about as funny as geocentrism. Even if you do kill puppies, babies and old people every week, it just shows that you need religion to push you back on track to become a proper member of the human race. If you’re supporting the enemy then I say you’ve stabbed yourself in the crotch.
@JohnnyBeGood (rather ironic name to use if you want to argue with me) Three words: Read the Bible. You’ll find most of the laws are justified. Secondly, I never said there was anything wrong with atheism. Some atheists, like fuzzybacon above, actually do good so that they leave a better world. My only problem is with amoral people. And Satanists, they’re not atheists, but they are probably worse than any a theists I know. And the charities point is that, had there not been religion, some of these charities would not have been formed. And the more the charities the better, even if one or two do engage in proselytization (is that the correct spelling?)
WARNING: The next couple of enemy arguments are so gut-wrenchingly stupid you may want to stop reading.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
1) (curse my lack of formatting skill and experience) What I mean is, it is a manifestation of the human need to understand, and the method of their explaining gives us insight into human psychology.
2) Again, what I meant is, with all these new technological advances that allow for casual sex without any consequences, what stops us from raping any mildly attractive person we meet? Other than laws, but then again what’s holding the law-makers back? Morality, which comes from religion.
3) It may be a primal urge but I’m sure it’s one we can control, or at least weigh the benefits of killing and sparing him. Then there’s also the law argument, neatly disabled by the above point. But then again, I may be wrong. It is also a primal urge to be correct, even if it means lying to support your case or misanalysing. But then that could just for level 45 moderators.
4) Answered already
5) What I meant is, if you try to force everyone to stop practicing religion, or even a smaller but still significant percentage, you will meet massive disagreement, even rioting. Trying to use force is not a solution. The Roman Christians faced severe persecution, and were forced to go underground (both literally and figuratively) into the catacombs to practice their beliefs. The more Christians they killed, the more joined them. Eventually the emperor and the whole of Rome became Christian. IF you ever become powerful enough (I doubt you will), I won’t encourage you to test this out.
6) Answered.
7) Psychology part answered above. Yes, so does all philosophy that supports morality, but outside of religion, most philosophies are much less morally inclined. As for the good deeds thing, while it’s true that some people (including you, and you should thank god for that or you wouldn’t have seen the next sunrise) do good to improve the world alone, most others need religion and suchlike to encourage that. And think about it, isn’t that good? Because if everyone does a little good, the world will become a much better place. And religion encourages good behaviour. You have stabbed yourself in the crotch.
8) Finally (my fingers are sore) science and religion must go hand in hand. As Albert Einstein, one of my role models, said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Science moves us forward technologically, but religion keeps society together with morality, encourages people to do good, and if you have read my first post, you’ll see that the media has distorted religion as an enemy of science. If you’re feeling lazy, then I’ll give you an example. Recently, the Catholic Church has announced that 1) Evolution, or some form thereof, is correct. 2) Instead of going to Limbo, as the belief has been for centuries, unborn, unbaptised babies go straight to heaven. I hope this changes some of your bigoted viewpoints. All of you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Stop bashing religion. It is an integral part of human psychology and a source of various multitudous moral incentives to behave. Why don’t we all go for vasectonomy and have sex with each other without any consequences? Religion. Why don’t we kill anyone we don’t like? Religion. A large number of charities and non-profit organistions that have helped the poor and suffering are created along the lines of…Religion. Now you might say that this is for moral and ethical reasons. But why do we have morals and ethics? Religion. Still it is true that religion cannot advance human knowledge of the natural world like science, but nonetheless you can’t do away with it. It gave us our dating system for God’s sake (pun intended). It offers consolation to the despairing and an interesting insight to human psychology. So you could say that religion is to the mind and soul as science is to the body and the natural world, with some overlap at the mind. Both need each other to move civilisation along.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Frankly, much of the debate is illogical. Science and religion may have been at loggerheads once, but not that much anymore. I mean, how long can you hold on to the belief that the world is flat, the sun revolves round the earth, the world is made of water, earth, air and fire with all the evidence blasting you in the face. Science was formerly oppressed by superstition and corrupt and powerful religious authorities, but now they are equal. And you can see now that they don’t actually conflict that much! Look, people as early as the ANCIENT GREEKS knew the Earth was round. Columbus was not opposed because he thought the earth was round; the main issue was wheether a ship could survive the long journey around the world. the myth that midieval people believed the world was flat has been traced to Protestant propaganda intending to make the Catholic Church look bad. So there!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / If you had to carry a sword into battle, which type would you pick?

Honestly. You silly humans. With your swords that would probably break your puny geekified arms off before rreaching your waist. Anyway, I would carry a longsword and shield into battle. If I can’t use magic enhancements to make it super-strong and able to control water and light and banish evil monsters and shapeshift, well i’d choose one that’s made with good quality smithing techniques, like katana-type metal. However, I’d take your standard double-edged, cruciform (cross-shaped), diamond-cross-section longsword with nice blue and purple motfs concerning God, water, books, a heart, the yin-yang symbol, a clock, a dolphin, a wyvern and a dog, with similair designs on the kiteshield. Also, my blade will have a hole half the width of the blade near the tip. This is for trapping enemy blades.

 
Flag Post

Topic: MARDEK RPG: Chapter 3 / Suggestions for MARDEK 4

C’mon, I was just kidding.Anyway, it can be a bonus content thingy, like maybe you have to solve a puzzle to get it like, Fig+Cat=? and the answer is “Baby” (If you dont know why its best that you dont ask)

 
Flag Post

Topic: MARDEK RPG: Chapter 3 / Suggestions for MARDEK 4

A sex scene. SO many sexual references, but not a single act.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Suggestions for Warlords: Heroes Sequel

Here’s a story for it I thought of. Say, after the war, the leaders from all the races gathered to discuss peace. Then suddenly a guard bursts in and says that the demons have formed an alliance wth the undead (who are unaccountably absent) and are now ravaging the land, spreadin disease, madness and violence. Now there are 9 demon sorcerers, one for each race, who will stay in the capital (hardest region) and act as boss. One of them was killed by Ellder in the first game. Then there are 25 demon knights who serve as bosses for each map, with different weapons. There will be only one story, but you can play one of 14 characters, two from each race, male and female (avoid sexism issues), who develop romantic feelings. Also, each character has their own number of lives and are custoimizable. For e.g. Prince Aldon’s shirt is red. Maybe you can switch your breastplate, footwear, greaves, bracers, etc. to purple or something.
And maybe we can upgrade the equipment through stages. Like the mithril vest can be upgraded to block throwing axes and javelins, then magic, then reduce damage, then ability to deflect weapons back at the enemy! And how about wielding magic? Or a 2-player mode? And maybe you get your money in the form of dark energies that can be harvested by your magical blade (saves the trouble of grabbing the coins and spares you the disturbing sight of coins flying out of a neck) that can be harnessed to upgrade and combine weapons? Maybe we can collect enemy weapons, transmute them with those energies and combine them to enhance your weapon?
Here’s my sample of the story, from the point of view of the Human allaince. You are the captain of the King’s Guard. During the conference in a central location, and army of demons and skeletons attacks. Many of your men die defending the royal family. You, 2 survivor guards, and the four members of the royal family must make it back to Human Alliance territory to prepare for war against the demons. You start with 3 moves of your choice. Then as you go along, you meet an old man and his wife. The man is a mage and the wife is a skilled ranger.You can choose to learn from one of them. Then you travel on, reading from amagical book they have given you, and using the harvested dark energies to learn how to control the magic or better archery techniques. When you return to your homeland, it is too late. All members of the royal family are killed, except for the princess. Then the king tells you two to fight the demons and gatehr other heroes, then kill the demon leader. And yeah, you start with all the items from the original game but you can upgrade them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Suggestions for Warlords: Heroes Sequel

Now I know there is a sequel for Warlords: Call to arms, the strategy game. But how about on for warlords: heroes, the action game? Post your suggestions here!

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / The "What was that game called?" Thread

I remember another one, a cross between shooter and defence. You get four slots to place turrets ona cliff face or something like that. You can click on one during a wave and use it to fire at the oncoming waves. i remember there was on Kongregate-themed level for this one. Something like, “A innocent-seeming flash game portal has attempoted to take over the world! Stop the forces of Kongregate before its too late!” But what is the annoying title??