Windows 7 'GodMode' (in Off-topic)

1. Create a new folder
2. Name it: GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}
3. Open it.

see the news here http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10423985-56.html

That's funny. I can see a lawsuit in the near future against Microsoft from angry ... uhh... atheists >_<

Thanks for the tip. I use XP, but I know some people who use 7 who will appreciate this info.



That was just plain stupid.

GOD MODE ACTIVATED!!! Its pretty cool! ^.^

>

About as stupid as people trying to take the word "God" out of the pledge of allegiance, and Christmas out of schools.

Drunk tonight Jiraiya?



So, smart?

No, your post was way, way stupider than that.

That was actually a very smart statement. Very sarcastic about how PC our society has become. At least in America.

Here is a nice article to look at:

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/capitol.atheist.display.2.1387754.html

I can see the sarcasm dripping in reality.

Can we please not immediately move to groundless insults against another person's comments? I mean, sure, maybe eventually. But replying to something with "That's just stupid." is typically not the mature/intelligent way to handle it.

just an FYI, you can name the folder whatever you want... It does not have to be named GodMode. As long as the name of the folder finishes by .{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}

Gunna have to try typing in 'power overwhelming' at the cmd prompt! (the only other God mode code I know, from Blizzard)


>Can we please not immediately move to groundless insults against another person's comments?

*nods*

It wasn't a mature or intelligent post that he made. I just pointed that out.

Bob, you're brash a lot when it comes to political/religious posts. You could tone it down in a big way. Just because you don't think something is intelligent doesn't mean you have the right to call someone stupid or accuse them of being drunk. Grow up.

In the world of Lord Bob all sarcasm and jokes must be mature and intelligent. There goes all fart jokes, your momma jokes, and the worst of all....blond jokes :(.

Heh *looks at bob's blond mom stepping out the room farting* alright, now let's go back to the subject...

Sorry Bob, I just couldn't hold myself :)

Actually it was a very intelligent and very astute post.

So what's GodMode do?

What are you, stupid?

Ranger, why would you think that response was particularly "astute" (except to try to get under LB's skin)?

The word "god" has absolutely nothing to do with religion. There was a God-Mode in DOOM for goodness sake, and no one ever said boo about it (by the way, in this context I would bet an atheist would be the LAST person to say anything). There are Norse gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Egyptian gods, Hindu gods -- all dating back before "G"od started defining monotheism in many different cultures.

It's not called Mohammad-Mode, John-Smith-Mode, Jesus-Mode or Christ-Mode, so no one is going to have a problem with it. So, while I understand you think the world is just way too PC, taking Jir's post seriously (I actually thought he was just joking around) just tends to make that aspect worse. Why even comment on it?

As for LB's response... Atheists have feelings too, you know. *smile* Maybe his response was a tad bit over-reactive, but he has a right to his opinions.

THREAD DERAILED, ORIGINAL POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION


oooh, godmode.

As for your link, Ranger, what does it have to do with a PC society, etc?

The link if about freedom of speech, pure and simple. If the State Capitol is going to have a Christmas Tree, nativity scene, menorah, and a festivus pole (no joke) on display, why can't an alternative viewpoint also be on display?

For being a "get out of my face, gov't!" and "Capitalism rules!" kind of guy, you sure seem to cherry pick the Bill of Rights. :\

And next, you'll be saying the number zero shouldn't be supported. After all, it is pretty radical! It represents the lack of all other numbers!

Why does a christmas display have to have an aethiests poster decrying religion?

Is that how PC we have become?

Not sure why you keep using the term "PC" -- we aren't talking about political correctness, we're talking about freedom of speech.

Any question starting with, "why do we have to have..." is bound to be easily answered with, "we don't have to, we GET to."

No one said we HAVE to have an atheist sign on display. To discuss that is to be completely missing the point. The simple fact is that an atheist sign WAS on display, had every right to be, and the folks trying to censor it, whether it be via turning the sign around, hiding it, or throwing acid at it (yeah, way to go, Wisconsin. *sigh*)

To come at it from another angle, if you want to talk "correctness" (I am leaving the "political" out of it, since, as I said, this has nothing to do with politics and never has), which do you find more "correct", as in a right supported by the Constitution:

-- Displaying a sign with your opinion (non-slanderous, non-libelous, non-panic-inducing) on it in a public place.
-- Throwing acid at said sign (and all that would entail, including the potential to burn someone with the acid).

Any thoughts on that? I'm assuming you read the full article to which you linked, so you understand whence I am getting the acid scenario.

There is something to be said for customs in any country, regardless of beliefs.

Absolutely. And the atheist sign did nothing to detract from those beliefs. They didn't hide the nativity scene, mess with the layout, or throw acid at any of the other displays.

Pity their display of belief (lack of belief IS a belief, you see) didn't receive the same treatment.

And if one's customs and beliefs are so easily shaken, that's on the believer, not the person with the opposing point of view. If someone don't want to face that fact, and fights against even having to look at opposing points of view, then they are implicitly saying dissent of any kind really shouldn't exist.

Gratuitous internet hyperbole: A lot of folks used to believe in slavery, and it was an entrenched way of life. Hell, it was an industry/economy. I'm glad folks eventually exercised their right to free speech and got that way of life changed.

(and the atheists aren't even asking for that in their sign -- they just want to have the right to express themselves...)

"And if one's customs and beliefs are so easily shaken, that's on the believer, not the person with the opposing point of view."

Don't know if you have kids or not. But, if you did, I'd imagine you wouldn't want people countering what you were teaching them all the time. Especially if you went to see something that was related to your religion (a Christmas tree for Christmas), and there was a sign right next to it arguing against your religion. I have no problem with freedom of speech, I guess I have a problem of where that speech is taking place. One of the reason I especially dislike the Westbro Baptist Church (Don't get carried away at this statement, I'm not comparing atheist to those crazy people). If I were an atheist, I wouldn't like it if Christians put Christmas trees or crosses near one of my signs, or symbols of belief.

Exactly!

I grew up in eastern Germany, where freedom of speech isn't even guaranteed nowadays. One has to life with criticism, even if his/her children are involved. When you switch on television there are a billion more things that might shake children believes, compared to this sign. And well, if your kids are old enough to read they will know atheism by then. Destroying such signs and support of these crimes are the roots for totalitarian regimes. Guess what would happen to such a sign in Iran?

"And well, if your kids are old enough to read they will know atheism by then."

You've obviously never been to the bible belt of the US.

Just because he may or may not have visited some part of America doesn't make his points any less legitimate.

Titan, don't worry, I'm not taking anything you say as something to get carried away about or anything -- you're making good discussion points, and I appreciate it.

If and when I have children (I don't now, but that doesn't mean I don't have people in my life that meet the criteria you are going for), I will absolutely want multiple viewpoints showed to them, and will strive to be there to help interpret for and teach my child until such time as they can reason for themselves. A human is going to see dissent eventually -- I'd love to have it be on an open playing field where the "meta" topic (free speech) is made abundantly clear. That is a wonderful teachable moment!

Now, sure, there are things I will want to shield my child from. I'd like them to believe in some magic, like Santa Claus. I don't want them to see ghastly violence or death until they are equipped to handle it emotionally. In other words, I need to make judgment calls on the things that take a while to figure out, or require help in understanding.

I see your closing line as being at odds with the rest of your point, though. The Christmas tree WAS next to the atheists sign. If you are saying, "well, the tree was there first", I an sure you can see how spurious that argument is. All the atheists would have to do is get there first, and you'd be saying "take that tree down!" *smile*

For the record, here is what the atheist sign said:

"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

None of that is personal, and none of that specifically takes a shot at any one symbol. They don't say "Christmas trees are dumb", or "People who look at nativity scenes suck." No ad hominem attacks, and nothing specific. The closing line is definitely blunt, and subjective, but it isn't libelous. It is generic opinion, and opinion many, many people (taxpayers, voters, etc.) share.

It is also an opinion that will definitely be one aspect of the world I hope to teach my children one day, along with other belief systems. At that point, the only thing I might lack, if I am honest, would be the maturity and strength not to project my own beliefs on my children, or disparage them for theirs. I hope I'm up to the task.

I think you might be missing Titan's point, Marl, though I am not entirely sure...

Either way, no matter what this point is, going back to Jir's statement:

I thought it was very comical and very sarcastic, but rooted in some form of reality.

Not a "stupid" statement as others seem to think.

I actually was thinking about this, and I have come to this. If the atheist had up a sign or symbol of something that they held of importance. I would want a cross, or tree or any other religious symbol, Christian or other, moved. I just see it as a courtesy. Although, I guess it shouldn't really be illegal, I just find it "toolish."

MarlFawkes = OpVines, for the record.

^ I was just kidding. I am the real Marlfox.

Haha! You dang Marls!

Ranger, I agree "stupid" is a harsh word, I just don't personally like it... But some folks aren't as sensitive as I, and "stupid" does kind of mean "comical" to a lot of people I know. So, I understand where LB was coming from.

Titan, I am all for courtesy, and yes, there are times when I look at some free speech scenarios and just want to say, "Is this just a cry for help? A 'look at me!' scenario? Childish!" And, if I then look at myself, there is almost ALWAYS something I am projecting about. People should have the right to say what they want, even if I don't think it's worthy or courteous. I don't know where that person came from, so I don't get to decide worth as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Not to keep banging huge hyperbolic drums (and not to equate this sign spat with the civil rights movement), but I am sure a lot of people thought Rosa Parks was being disrespectful or discourteous on that fateful bus. I am, however, glad she was so terribly rude. *smile*

And just FYI, if an atheist threw acid, vandalized, or hid a symbol of belief from some dissenting viewpoint, I'd be coming down just as hard on that. This isn't about sides, it's meta. It's about the ideas and rights supporting ALL sides, for me.

Oh wow. Well I'm glad at least one person got it. :S

Sut,

There is such a thing as respect.

I am Jewish. But if the town of Davie (where I live) has a large Xmas tree in the middle of a park, I would not rant and rave until they put a Menorah right next to it. I would ask perhaps that a Menorah be put somewhere to celebrate my religion as well.

But out of respect, I would not insist that all views, including one that decries all religions as false be right next to said tree.

We as a society have become so stupidily politically correct. This is yet another example of things taken too far.

Ranger, you keep using the term "PC" in ways I have honestly never seen it used. This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with the Constitution.

And you're straw-manning a bit. The atheists with signs were not "ranting and raving". In fact, the article says nothing about the atheists asking for special privileges or help. They didn't ask for the man messing with their sign to be escorted out -- the security guards took care of that, highlighted by this quote about policy from a State spokesman (Haupt):

"It doesn't matter how we feel about the message on a display," Haupt said. "Our obligation is to protect the property within the state Capitol building, and we would do the same for any other display."

Haupt has crystallized the whole thing right there, and the security guards acted 100% appropriately. If not, it would have been entirely fine for anyone to go and rip down the Christmas tree or steal the Baby Jesus, too.

And the other displays did include a menorah, but I'm guessing no one "ranted and raved" for the State to put it up. The Jewish community in the area simply exercised their right to display their beliefs in a public place (just like the atheists). That's not "hate speech" or "mocking", as the article quotes the sign-messer as stating.

And let's not forget, respect and courtesy have nothing (necessarily) to do with the law. The law is about basic rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you think requiring the police to get a search warrant is being "too PC"? After all, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right? Demanding a warrant is a hogwash technicality, so dang PC! Anyone demanding a warrant must be a criminal, using a PC mindset to get their way.

"Constitutional" is not the same as "politically correct." The link you yourself posted is about Constitutional rights.

To answer The Aftermath's question, GodMode is simply a folder displaying a link to almost all the windows's preference/setting windows...

From "Network Diagnostic" to "Programs and features" passing by Ease of access options. The only real use I can see is to be able to open some settings window when you don't remember how to access it.

If you remember the auto-login trick on windows XP: To make windows stop asking for your username and password uppon windows' start even if there was no password, the only way to access the right window was to use the 'run' option and type "control userpasswords2". It would then open a window for you to change the settings. If XP had godmode, that window would be easier to access with it.

It does not give more access to more stuff or something. Simply unhide some options you might haven't found yet.

Hmm, lots to respond to here...

No, it was stupid.


Partially that. The rest is because Ranger thinks free speech only applies to religious conservatives, as evidenced by that ridiculously biased article he posted.

That bum was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol? Excellent! Now if only an Illinois atheist would make a stand and to the same thing the bum did do the nativity scene to make a point about equality in free speech.


Why does an atheist display have to have a religious one next to it?

Another example of Ranger's "only WE can get what we want!"


If I had kids, I wouldn't want a nativity scene countering what I was teaching them all the time.

Yet another "only WE can get what we want!" post.


Exactly! The tree and the nativity are on PUBLIC property paid by our tax dollars. If you don't want to represent the beliefs of all those taxpayers, including those who reject the lie of gods, then you can't put your display up either.


I would imagine the capital had a specific area set aside to display religious (or not) displays during the holidays. A separate section for every religion (or not, again) would have been a bit intrusive and possibly disruptive to the day to day activities within the building. Not to mention, brings to mind the old phrase "separate but equal" and all the non-equality it brought. "Sure, we'll display your atheist poster away from the others.. right in the basement!"


*nods* That just isn't the way we do things. We're going for equal representation, and recognition of our free speech here. We're not trying to take away everybody else's.

Anyway, since anti-atheist jokes are now officially kosher on these forums, let's see if free speech swings the other way as well, shall we?

Why could Jesus walk on water?
Because crap floats.

How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
One to change it and hundreds to see the light.

Why was Jesus a lucky guy?
cause he got nailed three times in one night!

And one for Ranger:
Why are Jews noses so big?
Cause air is free!

(P.S.: These jokes suck. I couldn't find anything that was actually funny. But if Jirayia can do it, so can I.)

My point.

Titan, I was actually just pointing out the flaw in your argument. I don't want kids, and if I did I would take Sut's approach.

^ That was not Sut's point. Sut said he *would* want the nativity scene there.

LB,

The other points aside, your calling Jir's post stupid just shows who really is stupid.

I understood Jir's joke and thought it was exceptionally funny.

Instead of calling Jir stupid, perhaps next time post that you do not fully understand sarcastic humor.

Question to atheist out there: Did you find Jir's comments insulting? (Just want to know)

No, I said I would utilize two disparate views hitting my kid in the face as a good thing -- teachable moment. That doesn't mean I am ASKING for that (don't worry, unless I put a blindfold on the kid, the world will provide me with PLENTY of such teachable moments!) Please don't mis-quote or mis-understand me on that. I don't require a nativity scene, and I don't require an atheist sign. In fact, I'm a minimalist -- if I had my way, NONE of it would be there. Quit jacking around and let's all get to work, the less crap we have all over the place, the less there is to protect/distract/etc. But it's all or nothing, and we've settled on "all" because of the Constitution of the United States of America. It really is as simple as that.

LB is pointing out that if the nativity scene folks don't want the atheist sign there, then an atheist should raise a huge stink about the nativity scene being next to the sig as a contraposition. As we already agreed (I thought, anyway), that would just reduce to a "whoever got their first wins" methodology, and so that methodology has to be thrown out.

Mind you, if the "whoever is there first, all others please respectfully do not display" style of thought is desired, then atheism wins. By definition, it was "there first" in every way, shape, or form.

Yeah, I like the who's there first approach, that's not me and I don't think it should be used as a law. But personally, that's what I would enforce, even if I went to jail XD. (and I would enforce it for all sides, b/c I'm not a tool)

I didn't say that was Sut's point. I said if I had kids, and hopefully never will, I'd take his approach to child raising.

I posted what I did to make a point on how religious folks seem to think they have the monopoly on free speech and the right to be offensive.


Yes, not me.


Well, it wasn't.


That would have to be true, so instead I'll just call it as I see it, which is what I do now.

And since you can't read - as we've previously established in other threads - I now have to point out that I didn't call Jir stupid. I called his comment stupid.

Maybe if one could throw a stone around here without hitting a conservative's nonsensical ravings I would have let it go. But I made very clear a few months ago that any slam against liberals or atheists will be met with my response.

Titan, it is pretty clear LB did, by my interpretation, though he never actually even used the word "insulting".

As for me, I am not an atheist -- I don't even care enough to be agnostic, so I don't know what you'd call me. I guess I'm a passive atheist then. In any case, I did put Jir's comment in my "sort of ridiculous" box in my head, and actually found Ranger's remark even more ridiculous once I read what he had linked (since it has nothing to do with political correctness, as he keeps insisting). And like I said up further, some people equate "ridiculous" or "inane" with "stupid." LB is not calling Jir stupid, he is calling the comment stupid, a word which runs the gamut from extremely insulting to some people to "who cares" for others.

Like I said, then all beliefs would have to be pushed out in favor of atheism, as it is the void that was there first. You can't go by "who was there first" in regards to something seasonal or area-based. Are you saying the Christians, Jews, and Atheists would need to wait in line and camp out to see who gets in the Capitol first for these holiday displays? You can't be serious. A "get there first" mentality is simply unenforceable, and therefore the "let it all stand together" approach is taken. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy in regards to trying to help people co-exist. Such bureaucracy would serve only to legitimize intolerance and cause even more finger pointing.

I found it to be a cheap jab. He could have said "it was just a joke" and I would have posted my approval then went on to have a shot of Jack.

His second post cemented in my mind that it was a slam and not harmless humor.


Agreed. I'd rather both of the displays go away and people keep their religion private. But if you get to display yours, we get to display ours.

Oh, and just so you all know, this atheist celebrates Christmas. I have no problem with trees, I just want equal rights and representation.


You make my points so much better than I do.


You are most definitely not a tool!

Sut,

You need to read more than the title of that article. I thought you knew that, but my bad I guess.

The fact that the aethiests insisted to put a poster decrying organized religion next to a christmas display reeks of political correctness.

Instead of letting people celebrate Christmas and the holidays, including Chanukah and Kwanzaa etc.., they put up a stink, threatened lawsuits so that they can put up a posted insulting religions.

The link I posted was part of that controversy.

I got Jir's joke, and again, thought it very smart and funny.

For LB to say it was stupid shows how myopic he can be.

The fact that you think religious people can put up a display and we can't reeks of self-importance and, yes it's true, bigotry.


>I got Jir's joke, and again, thought it very smart and funny.
What did you think of my Jew joke?

I thought your Jew joke was just as distasteful as your comment about Jir.

WOW SORRY I CREATED THIS THREAD.

I figured something new for pc users to explore, its jsut another control panel with more options, please if its not about my topic talk amongst yourself or get a debate thread.

For what its worth some people have way too much time and a bit of frustration from life and drives them to eat at each other.

LB,

The only reason they put up that poster was because of the xmas display. That fails the smell test.

Ranger,

First of all, I would like you to apologize to me for lying in a public forum about my behavior. I did read the whole article, as my eloquent responses and quotations clearly indicate. Additionally, I searched the text for the string "political" and "correct" and found none. So, in reading the article, in full, I found nothing that relates to political correctness except your strange, entirely inaccurate definition thereof which apparently links "PC" to anything you damn well want to link it to. The Capitol security guards were not being politically correct. They were enforcing the Constitution. If you think they were merely being PC, then you are stating that every previously segregated area during the civil rights struggle was merely being PC when it decided to start letting blacks in. After all, many places did not want to do so. They did so because they were told by legislation. And the Constitution is the ultimate legislation. Do you believe the civil rights struggle was just one big "political correct" fiasco?

I also searched the article (and let's not forget this is an article you linked us to, somehow believing it has something to do with being PC) for "law", "suit", and "su" (in case I missed some word related to "sue"). I didn't find anything. No one was suing anyone, and the atheists were not the ones ranting, raving, or anything about this. Their sign does absolutely nothing to stop other people from enjoying the holidays.

So, after you apologize, maybe you can explain what you are talking about?

Surprise surprise.
*rolls eyes*


No, don't be! It was excellent information for PC users. It's not your fault a bloody conservative decided to spew his preachy bile all over the thread.


No, that passes the smell test. As noted several times on this thread, that was the entire point. Did you read this line:
No, probably not.

Wow, you truly must be a god among men. You can read minds now? You can divine what all of us are thinking and why we do what we do?

Can you tell what I'm thinking right now? I hope so.

I'll take a guess and say Sut is thinking about... pizza....?

=)

Seriously guys, all this?? really?

..I am.

Yep. All of it. Thread will probably get locked, but I don't care. I'm not going to let Ranger go around telling flat-out lies about me or the article he himself posted the link for. I read the article fully, it has nothing to do with political correctness, and the atheists in the article were not threatening anyone with vandalism, exclusion, or lawsuits.

Pizza does sound good, though. *smile*

So pizza it will be.

the original creator of this thread friendly asked me to close this, as some people already had thought it was going to. Why do people have to go off-topic so easily?