John Romero still finding work -- Gauntlet remake in the w..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:

>Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with that?

Depends. Is he a music producer, Bono, or a movie director?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"bioderm" <shavolsky@ladavisky.com> wrote in
news:111po45nspbql6a@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "James Garvin" <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:FeudnQ_guLx3uYHfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>> Dirty Redpool wrote:
>>
>> > Knight37 wrote:
>> >
>> >>Here's the story:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=2182005-23743
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>In a nutshell, they're remaking Gauntlet with a new story and all
>> >>new everything (basically just taking the name it sounds like).
>> >>Will be developed for the PS2, Xbox, and PC. Supposed to be out by
>> >>the end of the year. And Josh Sawyer, who I guess did Icewind Dale
>> >>(an above average RPG in my book), is on it, so perhaps it won't be
>> >>a total loss.
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>
>> >>Knight37
>> >>
>> >>The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
>> >
>> >
>> > But is Romero still a pedophile?
>>
>> ?????????
>
>
> He recently married some 18 year old from some east European shithole.
> He first made contact with her online when she was 15 or 16 and then
> flew her over the States and married her.


What's 15 and 16 year olds got to do with pedophilia?
Pedophilia is an attraction to *prepubescents*, not under some arbitrary
age.

C

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>
> Bah, you're projecting. I mean, who wouldn't want a depraved
> 40-year-old dating his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter?
>
> (Then again, who wouldn't want a 15-year-old oversexed moron dating
> his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter either? It's a lose-lose
> situation.)
>

Tell me about it :-( Two teenage fdaughters here. On the other
hand... if they were very rich with contacts in the game industry.... ;-)


--
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are
fear, and surprise, and the ruthless efficiency...and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Amongst our weapons...are fear,
surprise, ruth... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear...
I'll come in again"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <Xns9607F05EBC454knight37m@130.133.1.4>
, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>> Stupid question Knight.
>
>Not a stupid question. She was NOT 7, he was NOT 27. She was 18, remember?
>If there's something "morally wrong" with an older person marrying someone
>much younger what's the point at which it becomes immoral? Society says 18.
>I see nothing immoral here.


I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said it was a stupid question. She was
not 18 when he started ' courting ' her--she was 15 and in most,
if not all, jurisdictions, a minor.

But my post was intended to raise the exact point you make above..at what
point does the relationship become unacceptable to society. The 7 / 27 is
the same age difference as 70 / 90 but it clearly isn't the same, and
demonstrates that age_difference_ isn't as important as the age of the
younger person.

Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

foamy wrote:

> In article <Xns9607F05EBC454knight37m@130.133.1.4>
> , Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Stupid question Knight.
>>
>>Not a stupid question. She was NOT 7, he was NOT 27. She was 18, remember?
>>If there's something "morally wrong" with an older person marrying someone
>>much younger what's the point at which it becomes immoral? Society says 18.
>>I see nothing immoral here.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said it was a stupid question. She was
> not 18 when he started ' courting ' her--she was 15 and in most,
> if not all, jurisdictions, a minor.
>
> But my post was intended to raise the exact point you make above..at what
> point does the relationship become unacceptable to society. The 7 / 27 is
> the same age difference as 70 / 90 but it clearly isn't the same, and
> demonstrates that age_difference_ isn't as important as the age of the
> younger person.

A 7 year old is not sexually mature, so biologically it is pointless.
Society also sees this as a corruption of an innocent by someone who
knows how to take advantage of the situation. Further, society doesn't
feel that a 15 year old is emotionally mature, but is sexually mature.
Taking advantage of a 15 year old is harder than a 7 year old, because a
15 year old has life tools and reasoning that a 7 year old just doesn't
have.

So, the twenty-seven year old is able to completely manipulate a
situation where a seven year old doesn't have the tools to comprehend
what is happening. However, the 15 year old can, at some level, control
the situation, but is unable to fully comprehend the emotional aspects
of the relationship.

I'm not saying it is right, I'm just saying it is different.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

emilo@comcast.com once tried to test me with:

> On 25 Feb 2005 05:37:45 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9607CC88DB85Dknight37m@130.133.1.4>,
>>> Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with
>>>>that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say she was 7 and he was 27, anything wrong with that ? After
>>> all, when he was 90 she'd be 70.
>>>
>>> Stupid question Knight.
>>
>>Not a stupid question. She was NOT 7, he was NOT 27. She was 18,
>>remember? If there's something "morally wrong" with an older person
>>marrying someone much younger what's the point at which it becomes
>>immoral? Society says 18. I see nothing immoral here.
> I bet that if you had a 15 year old daughter that was being contacted
> on the Internet by a much older man you would feel different.

First of all, just because I can think of a lot of reasons why I wouldn't
want my theoretical 15yo daughter to be doing "cyber" with 27 year old
gaming geeks doesn't mean I feel there is something MORALLY WRONG with what
happened. What great sin was done here? Maybe for this particular girl John
Romero was the best damn thing that could have happened to her. I don't
know, you don't know, because we do not know her situation.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:

> In article <Xns9607F05EBC454knight37m@130.133.1.4>
> , Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> Stupid question Knight.
>>
>>Not a stupid question. She was NOT 7, he was NOT 27. She was 18,
>>remember? If there's something "morally wrong" with an older person
>>marrying someone much younger what's the point at which it becomes
>>immoral? Society says 18. I see nothing immoral here.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said it was a stupid question. She was
> not 18 when he started ' courting ' her--she was 15 and in most,
> if not all, jurisdictions, a minor.
>
> But my post was intended to raise the exact point you make above..at
> what point does the relationship become unacceptable to society. The 7
> / 27 is the same age difference as 70 / 90 but it clearly isn't the
> same, and demonstrates that age_difference_ isn't as important as the
> age of the younger person.

I totally agree.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> once tried to test me with:

> Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>>
>> Bah, you're projecting. I mean, who wouldn't want a depraved
>> 40-year-old dating his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter?
>>
>> (Then again, who wouldn't want a 15-year-old oversexed moron dating
>> his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter either? It's a lose-lose
>> situation.)
>>
>
> Tell me about it :-( Two teenage fdaughters here. On the other
> hand... if they were very rich with contacts in the game industry.... ;-)

LOL. Sure, you can date my daughter. Now about that ride in the Ferrarri,
John...


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
with:

> Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with that?
>
> Depends. Is he a music producer, Bono, or a movie director?

LOL.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Knight37 wrote:
> "Dirty Redpool" <dirtredpooll@something.something> once tried to test
> me with:
>
>> Hermann wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but they started their relationship years before she
>>>> turned 18.
>>>
>>> In most of Europe, as well as in most of America, the age of sexual
>>> consent is lower than age of legal majority.
>>>
>>> Regardless, a 15-year-old is hardly considered prepubescent.
>>
>> Isn't 16 the age of sexual consent in most of the US. Regardless, I
>> still find it morally wrong for a guy as old as him to hook up with
>> someone as young as her. I seem to recall reading that he has 2
>> children who are around the same age as her.
>
> Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with that?

In my opinion that's messed, but that's just my opinion.

--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>foamy wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9607CC88DB85Dknight37m@130.133.1.4>,
>> Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's say she was 7 and he was 27, anything wrong with that ? After all, when
>> he was 90 she'd be 70.
>>
>> Stupid question Knight.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
>I think it is pretty apt Jim. If she was 20 and he was 40, few people
>would complain...and mostly it would be off comments like "robbing the
>cradle" and "couldn't he find some his own age" or "she must have some
>nice tang"
>
>The problem is that there is a moral quandary when he is 35ish and she
>is 18ish..

You're all stupid.
If your morals are confusing you then they're not yours. You've adopted
someone else's and you don't know how to use them.

 

[vinCe]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Bateau" wrote
> James Garvin wrote:

>>The problem is that there is a moral quandary when he is 35ish and she
>>is 18ish..

> You're all stupid.
> If your morals are confusing you then they're not yours. You've adopted
> someone else's and you don't know how to use them.

I think adopted morals deserve the same rights as natural ones.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:40:32 GMT, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>"Bateau" wrote
>> James Garvin wrote:
>
>>>The problem is that there is a moral quandary when he is 35ish and she
>>>is 18ish..
>
>> You're all stupid.
>> If your morals are confusing you then they're not yours. You've adopted
>> someone else's and you don't know how to use them.
>
>I think adopted morals deserve the same rights as natural ones.

What about Genetically Modified morals? If you try to use them without
the proper license, you're going to have IP lawyers coming after you!

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

emilo@comcast.com wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2005 05:37:45 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9607CC88DB85Dknight37m@130.133.1.4>,
>>> Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say she was 7 and he was 27, anything wrong with that ? After
>>> all, when he was 90 she'd be 70.
>>>
>>> Stupid question Knight.
>>
>>Not a stupid question. She was NOT 7, he was NOT 27. She was 18, remember?
>>If there's something "morally wrong" with an older person marrying someone
>>much younger what's the point at which it becomes immoral? Society says 18.
>>I see nothing immoral here.
> I bet that if you had a 15 year old daughter that was being contacted
>on the Internet by a much older man you would feel different.

"I BET IF YOU HAD A BIAS YOU WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY!"
WHAT A STUPID ARGUMENT. YOU PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>>
>> Bah, you're projecting. I mean, who wouldn't want a depraved
>> 40-year-old dating his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter?
>>
>> (Then again, who wouldn't want a 15-year-old oversexed moron dating
>> his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter either? It's a lose-lose
>> situation.)
>>
>
>Tell me about it :-( Two teenage fdaughters here. On the other
>hand... if they were very rich with contacts in the game industry.... ;-)

Send me a pic.

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> Isn't 16 the age of sexual consent in most of the US.

It is, I was merely making a point about your using the age of legal
majority in the context of pedophilia.

> Regardless, I still find it morally wrong for a guy as
> old as him to hook up with someone as young as her. I
> seem to recall reading that he has 2 children who are
> around the same age as her.

I'm not sure I agree about his lolita fetish being morally wrong - at least
not given the history of cross-generation relationships. For me, it falls
more under the category of good old perversion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Michael Cecil <macecil@comcast.net> once tried to test me with:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:40:32 GMT, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>"Bateau" wrote
>>> James Garvin wrote:
>>
>>>>The problem is that there is a moral quandary when he is 35ish and she
>>>>is 18ish..
>>
>>> You're all stupid.
>>> If your morals are confusing you then they're not yours. You've adopted
>>> someone else's and you don't know how to use them.
>>
>>I think adopted morals deserve the same rights as natural ones.
>
> What about Genetically Modified morals? If you try to use them without
> the proper license, you're going to have IP lawyers coming after you!
>

THe only good moral is a dead moral.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Dirty Redpool" <dirtredpooll@something.something> once tried to test me
with:

>> Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with that?
>
> In my opinion that's messed, but that's just my opinion.
>

I agree it's "messed" but is it immoral? I mean, there's a lot of reasons
why it's stupid. From both sides.

Just on the practical side of it, what happens when he's 65 and on his
death bed and she's only 45, still in her sexual glory? Guess that milk man
is lookin' pretty good.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2005-02-27, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
> "Dirty Redpool" <dirtredpooll@something.something> once tried to test me
> with:
>
>>> Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with that?
>>
>> In my opinion that's messed, but that's just my opinion.
>>
>
> I agree it's "messed" but is it immoral? I mean, there's a lot of reasons
> why it's stupid. From both sides.

It's neither. You're passing judgement when its clearly none of
your business.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:

>> Isn't 16 the age of sexual consent in most of the US.
>
> It is, I was merely making a point about your using the age of legal
> majority in the context of pedophilia.
>
>> Regardless, I still find it morally wrong for a guy as
>> old as him to hook up with someone as young as her. I
>> seem to recall reading that he has 2 children who are
>> around the same age as her.
>
> I'm not sure I agree about his lolita fetish being morally wrong - at
> least not given the history of cross-generation relationships. For me,
> it falls more under the category of good old perversion.

I told my wife about this conversation.


She now thinks I have "moral issues" because I don't think like she does on
the subject.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza> once tried to test me with:

> Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>>Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>>>
>>> Bah, you're projecting. I mean, who wouldn't want a depraved
>>> 40-year-old dating his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter?
>>>
>>> (Then again, who wouldn't want a 15-year-old oversexed moron dating
>>> his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter either? It's a lose-lose
>>> situation.)
>>>
>>
>>Tell me about it :-( Two teenage fdaughters here. On the other
>>hand... if they were very rich with contacts in the game industry.... ;-)
>
> Send me a pic.
>

ROFL...

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Bateau wrote:
> Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>
>>Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>>
>>>Bah, you're projecting. I mean, who wouldn't want a depraved
>>>40-year-old dating his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter?
>>>
>>>(Then again, who wouldn't want a 15-year-old oversexed moron dating
>>>his sweet innocent 15-year-old daughter either? It's a lose-lose
>>>situation.)
>>>
>>
>>Tell me about it :-( Two teenage fdaughters here. On the other
>>hand... if they were very rich with contacts in the game industry.... ;-)
>
>
> Send me a pic.

No probs. Should be right up your street...

http://tinyurl.com/32zor


--
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are
fear, and surprise, and the ruthless efficiency...and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Amongst our weapons...are fear,
surprise, ruth... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear...
I'll come in again"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> once tried to test me with:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
> On 2005-02-27, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>> "Dirty Redpool" <dirtredpooll@something.something> once tried to test
>> me with:
>>
>>>> Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> In my opinion that's messed, but that's just my opinion.
>>>
>>
>> I agree it's "messed" but is it immoral? I mean, there's a lot of
>> reasons why it's stupid. From both sides.
>
> It's neither. You're passing judgement when its clearly none of
> your business.

What is none of my business?

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-28, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
> shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> once tried to test me with:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
>> On 2005-02-27, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>>> "Dirty Redpool" <dirtredpooll@something.something> once tried to test
>>> me with:
>>>
>>>>> Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with
>>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion that's messed, but that's just my opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree it's "messed" but is it immoral? I mean, there's a lot of
>>> reasons why it's stupid. From both sides.
>>
>> It's neither. You're passing judgement when its clearly none of
>> your business.
>
> What is none of my business?

What Romero and his wife are doing. It is exactly 0% of your
business.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:
> On 2005-02-28, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> once tried to test me with:
>>
>>
>>>["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
>>>On 2005-02-27, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dirty Redpool" <dirtredpooll@something.something> once tried to test
>>>>me with:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Lets say she was 20 and he was 40. Something morally wrong with
>>>>>>that?
>>>>>
>>>>>In my opinion that's messed, but that's just my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agree it's "messed" but is it immoral? I mean, there's a lot of
>>>>reasons why it's stupid. From both sides.
>>>
>>>It's neither. You're passing judgement when its clearly none of
>>>your business.
>>
>>What is none of my business?
>
>
> What Romero and his wife are doing. It is exactly 0% of your
> business.

But it is your business to tell us it isn't our business? BRILLIANT!