Nalytha

No sugarcoating necessary. Answer the question with a simple yes or no (if you don't want to spend time explaining) and link the TOS. We live in a world where we blindly check 'accept' to the plethora of TOSs that are thrown at us. There is no need to pretend that you read every single line of every single TOS you read. If you do, great. You've wasted countless days of your life. Congratulations. When you have a question, yup. Referring to the TOS is great advice. Link the TOS and move on. Edit... general reply meant.

Thank you so much for your responses!

I've been browsing some places. I'm not sure if I am allowed to name names here. But I'm seeking advice for some places that I may not know about in order to check out. I would like to rent or buy land (around 1024m) to place a home in a residential area. I'm well aware that such places do not guarantee social interaction as we all hail from different time zones. I'm particularly interested in a covenant and placing a home in an area that is reliable (long history), and residential in nature (neighborhood). I will list a few places that I have come across and my own personal issues with them. I will premise by saying these are all great places, simply not the perfect fit for me. In order to not offend by listing negatives for particular places, I will list a general list of these places and leave the reviews without the name. Locations: Lionheart, Willowdale, Chung Estates Place A: The most beautiful by far. My issues are the price, size of land (the smallest is still a bit too large for my needs), and that all parcels are separated by tall mountains. Place B: I like these, however they do seem a bit generic in the sense that there are no roads/sidewalks. Just square plots in a grid. My biggest concern however is the apparant lack of enforcement of the covenant. Even a sales rep today told me contradictory information (that residents were permitted to use ban lines even though the written covenant clearly says no ban lines. Also, the covenant and even the sales representative said no large boundery walls were allowed, however I saw many. Place C: I love these the most. They match exactly what I am seeking as far as a residential feel. However, the price is a bit steep. Regardless of what their website says to convince that they are cheaper in the long run, unless you stay for months and months to a year, the prices are quite steep. In my opinion this is a ploy to get that initial big fee, knowing that most users will not stay long. Then they leave and the next person pays that large fee. It's actually quite genious.

It's most likely not your hardware. Have you checked your firewall and antivirus settings?

Actually... I'm veering us way off topic into a zone that is inappropriate for this forum. So I retract my question and will refrain from further religious inquiry. (Please don't judge me too harshly, I am fascinated by theological discussion. I forget sometimes that it has a time and place, however)

How can you claim to have been an Atheist at one point but not admit to have denied the existance of the Holy Spirit during that time? I mean, sure. Atheist simply means a lack of belief of a diety or dieties. I suppose you could believe in the Christian Holy Spirit, if you do not qualify that as a god? But having run an Atheist group for several years now, I have never heard of such a phenomenon. I am extremely intrigued by the idea. Or do you not believe that the denial of existance qualifies as blaspheme? What about this then: Hebrews 6:4-8: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Pamela Galli wrote: Oh, there is an abundance of evidence in the creation alone, but as I said, the most important for believers in Yahweh is the Paraclete. All easily dismissed by the non-religious, as I well know, since I was an atheist existentialist before I became a Christian existentialist. Gaahhh... I can't help myself. I must ask. How do you reconcile your Atheist past with the Christian concept of the Unforgivable Sin?

I have GeForce GTX 970 and everything runs smooth, even on high graphics. I don't know if it matters, but for comparison's sake, I have an i5 (4 core/3.5GHz), 8GB Ram, a SSD. I found this article. https://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/How-to-improve-Viewer-performance/ta-p/1316923

Hello, fellow WoW player! Human Holy Priest here. I'm so excited for Legion! Maybe then people will stop making a mockery of my spec... one can hope! Yes, these forums can be about as toxic as the WoW ones. There are some great people here though, so you just need to shuffle through the crap to find the gems. There are a lot of very helpful people. Just remember though, Second Life is older than WoW. Some of these people have been here a loooooong time. They've seen every question imaginable ... like 1,000 times. So, yeah. They can sound like they belong in WoW Trade Chat at times. Oh well. I can't blame them. Anyways, I understand what you meant about wanting your avatar in Second Life. You only have to wander around a bit to see that there are indeed copies of characters from popular media wandering around. The thing is, I guess that those were built by people, not imported. I think if you learn how to build in Second Life, you may be able to build a lookalike of your WoW toons. Since, again, I see fictional characters from popular media running around all the time. Anyhow, good luck in your adventures!

Phil Deakins wrote: I enjoy arguing. But I only argue when I'm right, which necessarily means that those who oppose my arguments must be wrong The difference is that I am always able to prove my points, which is why I take up an argument, whereas the opposition can only flounder with spurious stuff, and hope for the best. It must be awesome to be you.

"You really are arguing for the sake of, aren't you?" What are you arguing for?

From now on, I shall ask for a cold fizzy. I might die of thirst

I actually think that the verb play has, over time, become associated with various media consumption. Second Life is media. Edit: of course, these relies heavily on colloquialism. Is it soda or pop?

Why are you nitpicking over the verb? Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life.

Interesting. The person who criticized my grasp of the English language shows a lack of reading comprehension. Phil. You keep asking for people to repeat things for you. This thread is 24 pages long. If you are struggling to keep up, perhaps you should bow out.

I actually put forth what my opinion the "objective" of Second Life is and how the players carry out that role.

He sounds like a real gem. I'm glad to hear you dodged that bullet. (Sorry. Replied to wrong person. Intended to OP)

Pamela Galli wrote: A real game changer. =) Perfect

I spoke with a friend yesterday who was genuinely upset to find out that a girl who has been flirting with him for weeks is in fact male. He didn't even find this out firsthand, he found it out through someone else. I honestly don't trust anything anyone tells me about themselves on the internet. Which isn't so bad since I'm not seeking any relationships other than the platonic sort. I just can't imagine the pain of falling for someone only to find out they have been lying to you. I am sorry you went through that, Angel.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I'm content to see where the evidence leads, understanding that the discovery of that evidence will be fraught with error and that I'll have to change my mind often along the way. It's quite possible that everything I know is wrong. I don't recall my philosophy professors admitting to that, certainly they were not being excited by that possibility. Much of what you said resounds greatly with me, but this statement... perfect! I don't find many people, especially on the internet, who are capable of admiting that everything they currently "know" may in fact be wrong. It's how I live my life as well. It makes these sort of discussions (I prefer this term over debates) much more enjoyable for me. Knowing that I can in fact be wrong, opens my ears (eyes) to the possibility that someone else may be right.

Aethelwine wrote: You are both talking about Philosophy as if there is some common conception of it. But even a cursory knowledge of Philosophy reveals its subject areas remain debates with a multitude of sides and differing opinions. Even concepts of truth are debated and the words used by Philosophers often only apply within the context of that particular authors conceptions. For example, Noumenon in Kant is a different usage to Plato. An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. Perhaps when someone says SL is a game and someone else says it is not, there is in fact no actual disagreement, because they are both describing their own experiences not arguing that the other person is wrong, just that they have a different experience and relationship with the meaning they derive from the words game and play and the way they use Secondlife. This resonates well with my interpretation of philosophy. I'll admit, I have only taken a couple of courses on the subject, but I was never given any impression of some inate truth. For example, a philosophy that focuses on the individual would probably not be "logical" for a collectivist society. It helped that my teacher refused to share any personal opinions/stances on the various philosophies until the end of the semester. His approach sounds very similar to what you describe as existential.

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote: Philosophy is not a hard science though, and rules of logic are much looser to interpretation than science. I didn't watch the video being mentioned in this post but just popping in to point out that this quote above is not true at all. Logic is most certainly not loose or open to interpretation. Also one cannot compare science to logic. Science uses logic. Both science and philosophy use logic although science is much more empirical than philosophy which one might argue makes it a good deal more loose and open to interpretation than philosophy. In any case, the only real difference between science and philosophy is the subject matter being dealt with. In fact almost all of what is now called science was once called philosophy. There was simply a change in labeling at some point along the way. With science, a conclusion is usually met. Now, there will often be contention and sometimes that conclusion will ultimately be found to be inaccurate. But for a time, the majority will agree on a scientifically proven fact. If philosophy was the same, we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies. One would be proven to be the most "logical." This simply isn't the case.

Pamela Galli wrote: I just have never heard any full time content ccreator I know say they make a living playing a video game, even if our work is something we used to do for fun. (But the same is true when I was teaching, which was far more fun and more difficult.) The guy who wears the Mickey Mouse costume at Disneyland is working, not playing. Well, here are two examples I can find offhand. I would have to dig a bit deeper to find some of the other videos and articles where I have heard this mentioned.

I would like to share a funny story. I recently became aware that I was spending too much time on Facebook. I set up a personal challenge: 30 days of no Facebook -- my account is temporarily deactivated. I am on day 23. Yay me! I have spent just as much time in the last 23 days on these forums and in Second Life as I did on Facebook. Probably more. The irony that I am posting this on the forums does not escape me. /sigh

Pamela Galli wrote: Well we are not playing anything, that's why it's called work. That we can do it from home is a life saver for many of us but I never have the feeling I am playing a game just because I work in a 3D environment. Evidently some users do but I have no understanding of why . If SL is a game then Blender must be too. Not a real fun one. I don't understand a lot of things people say about Second Life. I won't invalidate them all though, especially on a topic like this. I totally get what you are saying about Second Life being work. But I can't just say those people who say they get to get paid to play a video game are wrong either. They feel like they are playing a game, who am I to say otherwise. Especially since we live in a current climate where it's becoming more and more popular to get paid to play games -- streamers, Youtubers, bloggers, competitive play, etc. So the idea that some SL users lump themselves in with the rest of those players just doesn't seem that ludicrous.