phart010

I bought this long ago before when it was cheap as I am a huge Castlevania fan. Always intended to buy a CIB Duo RX so I could play it, but $150 seemed like too much at the time.. so I just played it on Magic Engine. Now that I think about, I first started collecting as a Castlevania-only collector in the mid 2000’s, before I actually starting video game collecting for real in 2015

After I learned that these variants were low runs, I had to find the SML2 to match with SML. Well I just found it.

Hi rpghcg, I would recommend enlisting a native English speaking editor to edit and localize the English language portions of your book. This would go a long way. Also, if you have any intention of possibly making a newer edition in the future, I’d recommend taking a humble approach to the introductory statement by not insisting on the completeness of this book. Just say something subjective like “it’s the most comprehensive work that has been published to date.” Don’t mention how objectively complete it is in terms of percentages. This wording of this opening statement will carry a lot of weight with collectors and may determine whether someone will support it or not. For reference, you might want to review the opening statements in other archival references. One such example is “The Guidebook to United States coins”, they’ve already had 74 revisions, so the opening statement has been written well by now.

Secret of Evermore. Better the Secret of Mana in my opinion

Super Adventure Island 2

IGN, Gamesages and Gamefaqs all called it PSX back in the 90’s. The emulation sites and Rom sites then also called it PSX. I don’t know why people are acting like it is so farfetched that there are some people that still call it what everyone was already originally calling it. PS1 was called PSX before the PS2 DVR was called PSX, so it’s grandfathered in.

Hop n bop platformer I like it

It’s not just about whether or not adding the 1 is ok. It’s also about the validity of calling it PSX

Haha good for you. I placed a market order thinking it was going to run away and got it fulfilled at 360

Coinbase just got listed into the stock exchange under ticker: COIN Bought 1 COIN just for the heck of it

Do you guys have Battletoads?

Or the PS One X

Everybody that talked about PlayStation back in the day pre-PS2 called it PSX (not when speaking, but when typing). Whether it’s correct or not isn’t really relevant, if something gets mainstream adoption then it sticks. The PS2 PSX isn’t really relevant either because it plays PS2 games, so if someone says they have PSX games, that should be a clue that they are not talking about PS2 games since PS2 games say PlayStation 2 right on the disc. Not only that, but so few people actually know about the Japan exclusive device, while there are tons of people that refer to the original PlayStation as PSX

A lot of Dragonball Z fight scene videos uploaded to YouTube back in the day had DMX playing in the background

I think this is a real thing. We need to do some research into it

Just trade games for games

I bet parts-wise it’s nearly the same cost to manufacture as the Super NT (minus the high quality metal outer case of the Mini Noir). This is what you call “market level pricing” in business, as opposed to “cost plus”

I found Shin Godzilla to be very strange

Got bored

I read that he had a heart attack, it didn’t mention that he died.. wow RIP

I’ve only ever seen soda in a bag. Stores in the Philippines will pour it into a bag when you buy it so they can keep the bottle and get the recycling credit. If you take it this way, sometimes they’ll give you a little discount.

In which country do they sell milk in a bag?

Well I’m not personally a subscriber to simulation theory, but I find science buffs are better able to relate to through this paradigm. What if we are living in a simulation and prayer is the way of messaging an appeal to the “Grand Moderator” for exceptional treatment that may at times break the normal rules of the simulation?

Point taken. Even so, a prominent theories like Newton’s laws of motion, those relating to electricity, fluid motions, thermodynamics and even more speculative physics theories like relativity, gravity, and so on on can be objectively put to test through experimentation using measurement devices and reproducible results can be achieved that validate the accuracy of these theories. And we can utilize these types of theories to achieve things in our everyday life. I don’t see the same level of objectivity or even the possibility of measuring to the same level of objectivity in all sciences though. I am just wanting to point out that not all sciences are equal, some do require a leap of faith. With that being the case, why do they not extend the same level of “easy treatment” to religious explanations? You can have two parallel explanations for the same phenomena in physics and as the theories become further developed they begin to understand how they are actually in agreement and can find some reconciliation between the two competing theories. But when religious claims are made, they are not always given the same fair treatment, the default position tends to be to discard anything that has any tint of religion in it without much consideration.

As I remember from my studies, the scientific method involves, more or less, the following steps: 1. A Question 2. Hypothesis (an educated guess or a theory) 3. An experimental procedure 4. Analysis of the results (did the experiments affirm your guess or disprove it?) Truths discovered through the Scientific method should produce reproducible results that constantly re-affirm the truth proposed by the theory, proving it to be true. Just out of curiosity, what kind of experiments can an evolutionary biologist perform to prove evolution? It would seem to me that any experiments would have to be ongoing for many generations (longer than a single human lifetime) in order to produce any convincing evidence. Maybe in a controlled environment with many iterations of the lifecycle of a particular species we can witness minor adaptations, but would those adaptations really add up to something as significant as an arm transforming into a wing or two legs joining to become a fin.. It’s impossible to say, because the number of iterations required to make significant evolutionary change would make the experiments prohibitively long. So (correct me if I’m wrong) as far as I’m aware, there are no reproducible experiments to affirm the truth in evolutionary theory, that is why evolutionary theory will remain as a theory. Evolutionary theory makes observations about biology in nature and attempts to explain these observations using analogical evidence (we can observe minor adaptations, we can presume they will eventually add up to major adaptations). But that’s not definitive evidence. To play devils advocate here (or maybe Gods advocate in this case) is this not just the same as trying to affirm the ideas purported by religions. Religion is also using many different forms of indirect evidence to attempt to validate ideas in the religion. The only difference is that evolutionary theory has earned more credibility due to consensus of the scientific community that thinks it sounds like a good explanation.. but substance-wise I don’t see much difference between the approach evolution theory takes from the religious approach. One just happens to be more popular with one group, the other happens to be more popular with another group.