phil1882

miki has I'm me her card, apparently her cpu is acting up. miki plays 10 C. success! this play violates no rules.

http://www.pathguy.com/chess/TigerHnt.htm how quickly can you capture the tiger?

sure what the heck. 1. Flamebirde 2. EDM 3. Marksmanjay 4. Slick 5. phil1882

well there's only one player who hasn't played other than brainy himself, so...

if its your turn and you don't post within 7 days, you get 2 cards and your turn is skipped. if it happens twice in a row, i guess your eliminated form the game.

penalty! not your turn! broke brainiac100 rule! penalty! invalid card! broke flamebirde rule! 10 D still in play.

flamebirde: penalty! not your turn! broke brainiac100 rule. 10 D still in play Framm: penalty! not your turn! broke brainiac100 rule! penalty! invalid card! broke flamebirde rule! 10 D still in play.

don't need spoilers, just post. result: success! you play violates no rules!

after thinking about it I've decided to add an additional rule. you can pass your turn if you have no legal play, without penalty..note if you try to pass with a legal play. you get the same penalty as if you can't play. (goes to next player and you get 2 cards.) if all 5 players pass consecutively, everyone will be given 1 card.

okay guys, got everyone's rule. I've dubbed flamebird's rule the most restrictive. you guys are gonna have a tough time following it. :-). also i should note that if you play illegally, you also get your card back. if you need at any point to know your current hand you can defiantly ask that in pm. Starting card: J D

brainy, you're all that's left.

still waiting on some people to submit their secret rules.

if you define the word definition, have you achieved anything? if you don't know what it means, defining the word doesn't help since you don't know what definition itself means. for example: dictionary.com defines definition as the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear. but how clear is this definition if you don't know what definition means?

reread the rules please. that's al i can give you.

correct flamebirde I'll go ahead and pm hands let's get this Mao on the road!

well pm boxes can get quite full quite quickly, I'd like to not unnecessarily fill them. also knowing another players hand isn't a big advantage. alright framm, lets make it 7 days.

Mao starts off much like uno: I'll take two decks of 52 standard playing cards, shuffle them, and deal seven out to each player. the goal is to get rid of all your cards. one card starts out face up, and each turn, a player places a card such that either the suit or value match. if its your turn and you cannot play, you get 2 cards, and your turn is skipped. here's the catch however, all players have a secret rule. if you fail to meet a player's secret rule, I'll penalize you by adding a card to your hand, and tell you who's rule you violated. multiple rule violations means multiple cards. some example secret rules you can create: Jacks reverse order of who goes next. kings allow play of any card, spades can only be played on hearts or spades; etc. note that there is no talking about the rules! if you are unsure of who goes next, you have to just gamble and see. (if it's your turn and you haven't posted in more than 14 days, I'll penalize you a card and go to the next player.) I'll be the moderator, making sure all rules are enforced. note that I'll post your current hand in spoilers; please everyone only look at your own hands! moderator: phil1882 sign ups: player 1: player 2: player 3: player 4: player 5:

my guesses for the remaining

Now back to the paradox! What are all the ways this paradox might be resolved? my suggestion would be to hold the paradox up to the highest order truth, and test it's fruit. here, again, it seems to me you've defined God so loosely that there's no real counter argument to existence. i cannot, by your definition, base my moral beliefs in reality, without calling reality God. And again, i would go to the dictionary, look up the meaning of the word God, and use that instead.

phaze: granted, he tries to swat them comfortably on the sofa as they arrest him and take him away. :shrug: granted, see my pic. no genie powers there. i wish for a happy new year.

firstly you're the one that started going off on tangents. i was merely addressing your tangents. God is normally defined as a omnipotent, omnipresent being capable of answering prayers, if you redefine God as any basis for moral judgement; then yes i can't argue against the existence of such a God; since God could be used to mean anything in this context. someone who bases their moral beliefs in communism is equally valid in calling communism God, as someone who bases their moral beliefs in capitalism. but most people do not think of God as someone who merely sets he rules and then doesn't interfere. and as I said even if God did set the rules, how would you know whether such a God has changed them recently? .