Drix D'Zanth

LeglSupprt 40453: Hello, is this Natalie DiSantis? LeglSupprt 40453: This is Erik Pulsen of AOL/Time Warner Legal Support divison, can you spare a moment of time? LeglSupprt 40453: Ma'am? yellowflames2: hello? yellowflames2: hello? LeglSupprt 40453: Hello , ma'am LeglSupprt 40453: I'm from the Legal Division of AOL Time warner YellowFlames2: yes? LeglSupprt 40453: We have serious legal accusations indibted against your account. YellowFlames2: against my account? LeglSupprt 40453: This is Natalie DiSantis, am I correct? YellowFlames2: why would you inform me this way. i would like to see it officially YellowFlames2: i think you have the wrong person. i am sorry LeglSupprt 40453: We at AOL Time warner find the IM account far easier to referr to legal matters LeglSupprt 40453: We are going to be sending you your court order soon LeglSupprt 40453: I was assigned to properly inform you of the allegations against you. YellowFlames2: what are they? LeglSupprt 40453: We have recorded evidence of you soliciting electronic sex via our Instant Messaging.. LeglSupprt 40453: To a minor. YellowFlames2: i have never done anything of the sort LeglSupprt 40453: Ma'am I'm not sure if you realize the severity of these acusations LeglSupprt 40453: I have an example on record LeglSupprt 40453: Would you like to review it? YellowFlames2: i will, but i assure you it is untrue LeglSupprt 40453: Please verify this. Did this ever happen? LeglSupprt 40453: recorded at 9/21/03, 11:13 pm , Eastern. ren7ee: Hello? Is this margie? yellowflames2: no but your ***** is mine, ahah ren7ee: uhh wat r u talkin bout? lol.. ^^" yellowflames2: comon, suck my clit.. juicy isnt it ***** ren7ee: gross.. stop plz. I dont want to msg u yellowflames2: *****.. obey me ur master ren7ee: seriously plz stpo Imy mom's comin this is sick YellowFlames2: no. that never happened YellowFlames2: i don't know that screen name YellowFlames2: listen please send it to me officially LeglSupprt 40453: Have you ever given your screen name to anyone? Or password? YellowFlames2: im in college it could happen. LeglSupprt 40453: If you are unwilling to comply, AOL willl be forced to use these accusations and internet records against you in court YellowFlames2: what do i have to comply with? i have never done that LeglSupprt 40453: Did you realize that when reading the Terms of Agreement, it states that all actions under your designed screen name fall upon the owner in terms of legal allegations? LeglSupprt 40453: I also have records of you describing oral sex, anal sex, various forms of intercourse, and other sexual profanity. LeglSupprt 40453: This is a very serious issue Ma'am YellowFlames2: send it to me officially. LeglSupprt 40453: Ma'am I probably won't be doing that, before the court order. YellowFlames2: thank you for informing me. send it to my billing address. thank you, LeglSupprt 40453: If I get a response from you LeglSupprt 40453: I can provide it as pre-statiatory evidence, possibly removing the indibtment LeglSupprt 40453: I have a few questions to ask you ma'am YellowFlames2: this is extremely unprofessional LeglSupprt 40453: I understand Ma'am but in this age of technology, AOL is assured of it's abilities. YellowFlames2: send this to my billing address, and i will deal with legally at that point LeglSupprt 40453: We have this conversation on record. LeglSupprt 40453: Ma'am you will be recieving a letter through court order. YellowFlames2: send it. LeglSupprt 40453: Our Informations Director, Lou Nash, has informed me that if you send a letter of Apology to the user that has been abused, we may be able to half, or erase all legal penalties YellowFlames2: thank you for informing me. send it officially to my billing adress, and i will deal with it at that time. LeglSupprt 40453: We cannot offer this before the court order arrives at your adress. LeglSupprt 40453: Unless you respond through this Instant Message (secured by a 512kb encryption, if you are unsure of the validity of these accusations), we have no choice but to dismiss your plea under our legal condition, and represent against you. LeglSupprt 40453: Ms.DiSantis... AOL time warner is prepared to press charges as well. Under Terms and Conditions it is read , Term 16, paraphrase B2: "Under accordance with the terms and conditions,all legal and hereby effective indibtments against an occupying or active AOL subscriber may be charged to the full extent of legal improsures." This means, that we can submit our own internary bargain on your behalf, or you will be charged with Statiatory Sexual Harassment to the Second Degree LeglSupprt 40453: The charge is a minimum penalty of five years in prison, Ms. DiSantis LeglSupprt 40453: Ms DiSantis, we aren't finished, here. LeglSupprt 40453: At approximately 1:30 AM , your account will be permanently suspended as per breaking the Terms of Conditions LeglSupprt 40453: I'm required by law to inform you of this. YellowFlames2: ok ok what do you want? LeglSupprt 40453: You are required to admit the charge via instant messenger, ma?am. Then you must submit a 2500 word paper to this adress: This paper must be a full written apology to Erika Woodard, AIM handle: ren7ee. YellowFlames2: that?s so much. I want to see your writing. LeglSupprt 40453: Ma?am you are aware I?m writing to you now? YellowFlames2: huh? YellowFlames2: what? I dont. Understand. Ok I?ll send you the paper tommorow. LeglSupprt 40453: Ma?am, I must receive a valid internet response to the allegations imposed against you. YellowFlames2: Fine.. whatever. I didn?t do it. LeglSupprt 40453: Our records say otherwise.. do you realize the penalty for perjury? YellowFlames2: But I dindt do it! LeglSupprt 40453: You already stated on record that you did not stay in control of your screen name. We cannot be held responsible for this. Unfortunately you have to be. YellowFlames2: Fine. I did it.. is that what you want? LeglSupprt 40453: Ma?am I need a statement of what you did. YellowFlames2: whatever. I said sexual things to a kid. Ok? LeglSupprt 40453: What kinds of things Ma?am? YellowFlames2: You tell me! I didn?t say it. LeglSupprt 40453: Please do not lie, Ma?am this is on file. YellowFlames2: fine.. I talked about sex, ok? I said oral sex. Can I just go now? LeglSupprt 40453: Last thing Ma?am. I am required to inform you that this conversation is recorded and will be used against you in the court of Law. You will most likely receive a sentence of a minimum four years. YellowFlames2 signed off at 1:04:53 AM. ------------------ You may have eluded my ploy, but your friend fell swift victim. This was total mind-nuke. I got a person completely innocent of something to reluctantly admit she solicited sexual intentions to a minor.

A: Aduin, or great river. Q: What conditions (2 objects) must Aragorn posess before Elrond would let Aragorn marry Arwen?

Ok, I'm going to pick this one apart a bit. *cracks knuckes* Before I start, remember, I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it :D [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] Obviously it should be noted that I didn't say anything about mutations not having to happen in order for Natural Selection to work...it should be obvious. [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] That?s why I said, "when pertaining to MACROevolution". I didn?t say Natural Selection wouldn?t exist. Of course it would, but it wouldn?t be proving ANYTHING without variation within a species. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] If by random chance a species is able to conceptualize a mutated oragnism which has some special traits, bad or not, then tha same species of that organism is either going to surpass and live on while that one dies due to its hinderances..or it will live on, and pass on its genes, making little tweaks here and there as more mutations occur. This is why if someone only gets a few more chromosomes during replication...then they are totally messed up: that's a negative, and that is why the die most often from it, and are fail-safed to not be able to replicate. How this fail-safe came to be, I do not know...but it's obvious to see that it does what it does. [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Firstly, the number of chromosomes never changes through mutation, the chromosome itself changes through mutation (during DNA replication usually). Secondly, you happened to inadvertently point out an inherent flaw in Natural Selection. Evolution tends to occur over small bits and pieces, as per definition, however with such a large margin of error in genetic mutation, combined with the fact that even the helpful mutations may not ensure the survival of an individual (because they tend to be so minor or subtle); Natural Selection pertaining to macroevolution is flawed. There is no guarantee, it?s all random. I don?t believe creatures like this came into being through random events. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] So this is what Natural Selection is...those that are given some special mutation, and somehow, in even smaller occurances, are able to survive, further on their genes, and then it keeps going on and on and on. Survival of the fittest is a simple way to see it. [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Your right, but this still doesn?t explain why Bats have sonar :toothy: [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] As for having faith in evolution and God. God himself, as far as I am concerned, isn't based on purely [i]FACTUAL[/i] evidence, whereas evolution IS. That said, the only true evidence I see, and still I see it as a facade, is the bible. [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Oh, no they take the same facts. Take a tree, for instance. Evolution says the tree evolved into that specific species through random occurrences. Intelligent design states that some higher power created this species of tree for a reason. The fact remains: there?s a tree. size=1] That being the factual understanding...believing in evolution and believing in God aren't comparable upon this level which you seem to place them. I do understand that it's easy to see there could be a God...but there isn't purely factual evidence. Therefore believing in subjects of science, such as evolution, is not faith.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Evolution isn?t purely factual either. In fact, it?s taking the SAME facts, and wielding a system to them . Believing microorganisms were created by some higher power, believing that god shaped some sort of evolution, or believing that the microorganism evolved through random genetic mutation (and nearly impossible odds in it?s very conception) all require faith. Sorry :-\ , believing in evolution is as faith-based as believing in any religion, the fact remains: You can?t prove it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i] [B] Drix- In relation to your post Re: Positioning of sun etc., think of all the planets that aren't positioned correctly for (what we know to be the conditions for survival). Now, we know very few planets and systems, but we know that their are many millions more at least, so, does that not suggest, that despite the awesome odds of it happening, there is another planet out their with similar conditions? That there is enough planets to make the odds, not so bad as they seem? [/B] [/QUOTE] Hehe, think about the odds. If this planet were tipped off it?s axis maybe a few relative degrees closer to the sun, we?d fry. Vice versa, and we?d freeze. Not only that, but somehow we have the perfect mix of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon to support life (if it evolved , or if created, this applies to both). No, I don?t believe another planet has the same conditions as this? even in our vast expanse. I don?t think God had only needed to create us, but I?m not going to say I know for sure! You don?t , neither do I, but we both know that at the present moment the only habitable planet is earth (according to life system standards (i.e. it?s got more than a fossilized microbe on it, maybe god stuck one on mars for kicks ;) ). And, well, if you want to believe in Aliens.. Go right ahead. I?m content believing we are the only living planet in the universe. I don?t consider us alone, we have more companionship than we ever need (through each other and religion). The odds that we even exist under the mechanics are staggering enough for me to not believe in aliens Edit: Circuit/J before critisizing my post, read it please. I stated that 7 days in the eyes of god may be unknown to human measures of time. ( "God may have had a sequence of order in the Seven days he worked his magic what is a day to God.. is it 24 hours? Who?s to say") Then you say 7 rotations of the earth? Yes, I know the current model of evolution definately has PLENTY of time to create our planet as it is in seven years! "That would give time enough for evolution" ~ Circuit/J :rolleyes: Lastly, as it seems you for some reason decided against thinking before you posted, I'll pose a question for you. This one will make you think, ready? Why would the human ear, a structurally complex body part, have any reason to evolve whatsoever without it being some evolutionary fluke?

Not sure if you planned on closing this TN. I'll just go ahead and do it. I hate to be an OB Nazi, but.. well let's advertise our own issues instead of directing members elsewhere, Emancipist.

Welcome to the boards Polaris, unfortunately introduction threads aren't really common here as they would be clogging the boards up with so many new members. Enjoy your experience on OB! I'm sure you'll find many people here who share your interests.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] And no, I'm not misinformed between micro and macro... I think I understand prefixes... adaptation is not microevolution or it would be called MICROEVOLUTION, and it's not, therefor, it's not. I don't think adaptation is a form of evolution because evolving tends to be permanent while adaptations change. [/B][/QUOTE] I'll be addressing the issue with the "faith blinded" person via PM, Chris, so we don't drag it onto the boards. Using evolving and permanent in the same sentence is oxymoronic. In lamens, you're saying that "changing" is "permanent". Then you say "adpations" "change". So adaptions are permanent? No, microevolution is VARIATION within a species, whether you call that genetic fluke, or adaptation, I don't care. Microevolution is any change within a species that does NOT change the species of an individual (i.e. it can still reproduce with members of it's species). Therefore adaption IS microevolution, just a form of it, a form of the genetic change. I'll reiterate once more. Species don't just CHANGE to their environments. A bear doesn't suddenly GROW more hair because it's cold, no, it's genetics may change a bit through a mutation. This mutation gives the bear more fur. The extra fur helps the bear survive, the bear passes it onto its young. This is microevolution, considered "adaption", even though it is indirect adaption. Get it now? I'm going by scientific definition here, Chris, the lamen's dictionary definition refers to the typical term ("to evovle" is a verb, perfectly acceptable when not even pertaining to biology, just means "to change"). I'm talking about the Evolutionary Model here (this is more in reference to your FIRST post, because it seems like you're riding the momentum of it). Oh, to explain the bat thing... The point that person was trying to get across was that sonar requires EXTREMELY complex workings, precise organs. There's no trial and error in the formation of a Bat's sonar. Which means, by the evolutionary model, either the sonar just mutated within a VERY short period of time (in order to be effective) just appearing, and the bat passes it to it's offspring (this is exremely unprobable, but it seems perfectly acceptable to evolutionary theorists). OR, the bat slowly evolved sonar, which is unlikely, unprobable, and usless until all the correct organs fall into place. So, he's just saying, either the bat is a one in a trillion fluke of evolution, or evolution has a big gaping hole in its "theory".

Firstly, I'd like to address TN's behavior. Seriously, lay off. You can't prove that God [I]doesn't[/I] exist, bud. Secondly, most of the evolutionary examples you are placing are between DIFFERENT species. People, we don?t really know if this small horse-like creature died off, extinct. We don?t know if it is a common ancestor to anything. Secondly, according to most evolutionary ?facts?, humans had evolved from the chimpanzee. Yes, the chimpanzee. I know we share almost 98% of our DNA with a Chimp, however, we share 75% of our DNA in common with a blue-green algae. DNA is a horrible determinate in evolutionary progress, as it is impossible to determine exactly what has evolved, or what advantages arise from it. Secondly, all DNA in EVERY life from is Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cortisol (I believe). Because every creature uses the same nucleotides, it?s [B]inevitable[/B] that we share similar DNA (how many combinations are there.. think about it). In order to believe in natural selection, or other mechanisms of macro-evolution, you MUST believe it applies to all major examples of life, including the original conception. If you think evolution just ?kicked in? sometime after we had complex organisms, you might as well stop posting on this thread. [quote] [B]Originally posted by Terra [/B] Let's see *digs out what she learned in biochemistry last year*. There's been an experiment done in which the four gases postulated to be necessary for life (CH3, water vapor, ammonia, and hydrogen gas, if anyone cared) were put into a container and provided with energy (UV, or a spark, or whatever). It formed this black gunk, and within the gunk they discovered amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins, and the things that probably made up the first cell. I guess what this means is that provided those things were on Earth and were given some form of energy (from the sun perhaps), it's very possible from that formed the first amino acids and from there, the first cell. [/quote] Amino acids are just the START of organic cataclysms to form some discernable organism. Think about it, proteins and the amino acids coordinate most of cell structure. In order to arrange amino acids into applicable chains, you must have some sort of RNA or transcription protein. DNA cannot even be created without the help of protein. DNA cannot replicate without some sort of protein to replicate it. This all goes back to the chicken and egg. Without a subsidiary base of proteins, DNA cannot sustain itself. Without DNA, proteins cannot be created, and are effectively useless. You could get a vat of MILLIONS of amino acids, wait millions of years, and they couldn?t possibly create even the most basic cell structures. [QUOTE] [B]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/B] There are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of species on this planet and even more sub-species, and you actually though he did all that in 7 days or whatever? [/QUOTE] Why, yes I do! It?s not any more or any less unbelievable than believing a single celled organism suddenly came together in the PERFECT proportions to sustain itself, in a puddle of goo. While we are on the ?first? cell, let?s talk about your previous point. You said that mutation doesn?t necessarily provide the drive towards evolution? [QUOTE] [B]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/B] Evolution doesn't happen to everything. It doesn't go "ok, this species gets a possitive evolution, this one gets a negative".... The term evolution nearly means a possitive growth... It's a pick and choose sort of thing. It doesn't happen to everything. Evolution (n.) A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Mutation (n.) The act or process of being altered or changed. While they are similar, mutation, I tend to think, is something that happens much faster. (Ie: If I pour toxic chemicals on you, it would mutate your cells, not evolve them.) Evolution has happened.... Some elephants used to be the size of horses. Horses used to be the size of your left foot. Dragonflys used to be 20 times the size they are now. If you don't believe me, look it up. Human skull shave significantlt changed shape as we've grown over the last 2 million years. These are examples of evolution. They aren't quite as big as evolutioon from ape to man... which I guess is what you mean by macro-evolution.... evolving from one species to the next step (ie: another species) Whether you believe in the evolution from ape to man, there's simply no doubt that apes and humans are very similar to each other and that we are probably related somewhere down the line, wherever that may be. And being accustomed to heat or cold isn't micro-evolution... thats adaptation... something a little different from evolution. Usually has to do with your environment. (ie: wheatear)[/QUOTE] According to the most basic principles of evolution, it can only be DRIVEN by mutation. No species can change its genetic chemistry purposely without destroying itself. Mutations during conception (which do occur, however rare) are the only way a species can change. Genetic mutation occurs without rhyme or reason. It is random, and MOST mutations are harmful to an individual, killing it. Did you see a horse-sized creature turn into an elephant? Sorry, you saw a picture of some extinct creature?s skeleton, and some scientist jabbering on about how it was an elephant descendant. So it looked like an elephant, or a horse? Maybe it died because it wasn?t as good as the elephant or horse. Human skulls have varied in the last two thousand years, Chris, even amongst other nations. This is microevolution, or variation in the species. Some people have wide set eyes, some people have larger noses. It?s all passing down traits. However, there is no proof that they were different species. Ever seen the Australopithecus? It?s a fairly vague collections of some bones, only three plate shaped bones are all that scientists have of it?s ?head? and it?s heralded as the ?missing link?, please.. excuse me while I go plug in ?reality?. Also, according to the randomness of genetic mutation, the driving force behind any and ALL evolutionary ?adaptation?; it DOES happen to every creature. And, your little line about adaptation is microevolution. I think you are misinformed on the difference between micro, and macro. Evolution is flawed at it?s most basic level. Unless some random mutation happened to somehow drive a single-celled organism to replicate, there wouldn?t be really any reason. It has no competition, no environment to adapt to, as being conceived from NOTHING for no reason is most definitely proof enough that the organism could survive. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the single-celled organism should survive? the chances of one organism forming from nothing are STAGGERING (the average lifespan of such a simple organism is rarely enough to replicate it?s genetic material, if it [b]could[/b]), so there?s no reason OTHER micro-organisms should have formed. Then take into consideration: -The perfect positioning from our sun. -the perfect amount of gasses -Water Did these fairly random occurrences, perfectly shaped into one evolutionary breakthrough? Sorry, something or SOMEONE had a hand in this. Thusly, I believe in Intelligent Design. [QUOTE] [B]Originally posted by Mitch[/B] Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is one of the most beautiful theories I have seen...and I wouldn't even call it much of a theory any longer. It's pretty much easy to see. Survival of the fittest is seen all over. In economics, Darwinists are those that belive in the surviving of the fittest. And history shows most of this...showing Rockafeller and his Stand Oil Company either crushing his competitors or buying them out like little toys. It's even happening today. So that said, it's obviously factual, in some part, what evolution has showed. And sometimes things just happen. I myself don't boggle myself with probabilities and "how this could happens," but much rather, I see that it has happened. What's the point of knowing the probabilities when it's happened anyways? It doesn't help anything, really. More or less just shows that things...as unlikely as they can be...happen.[/QUOTE] Darwin?s natural selection basically could never happen WITHOUT genetic mutations, in order to support MACROevolution. It does however support microevolution, and this is easily enough proven. If a cat species jumps higher than another cat species, it will probably survive! Will this eventually evolve the cat species into a totally new, efficient species? Nope. Wow, I didn?t think [I]fact[/I] could be argued with.. Hmmmm shrug. People, realize that evolution is just taking FACTUAL evidence, pieces of bone, or extinct creatures, and trying to link them together! Evolution and Intelligent Design use the same information, it?s just the application that differs. Scientists are just trying to explain the world, what they don?t realize is that all the evidence in the world cannot prove what cannot be tested. [QUOTE] [B]Originally posted by Dagger IX1[/B] Scientists believe that the most primitive cells began to develop around 3 million years ago. More advanced cells didn't even appear until 1.5 million years later. Isn't that enough time for sophisticated organelles to evolve? Animals, for the most part, cease evolving when they find an evolutionary "niche"-- that is, when they're developed to the degree that they can survive competition and predation without dying out. That's why some species seem to have stopped evolving.[/QUOTE] Ok, let?s get some actual substantial evidence for or against evolution please? Stuff like this? this is not good. The FIRST cell came around 3 million years ago, and dinosaurs died off about 65 million years ago. So what does that make dinosaurs? I think you should actually research this topic before stating your opinion, please. I don?t suggest you continue to post on the thread without knowing what you are talking about. Now, I?m not saying God didn?t do something, shape SOMETHING. I think God have molded the earth to his will, shaping and destroying what he wanted, then leaving it to it?s beautiful mechanisms. It?s impossible to believe that species wont change a bit, and species don?t go extinct. However, I don?t condone the belief that this was all some RANDOM occurrence, especially in reference to humans. God may have had a sequence of order in the Seven days he worked his magic (what is a day to God.. is it 24 hours? Who?s to say). But I have as much faith in my principle belief as evolutionary theorists have in theirs. That?s what?s required: Faith. I hate to bring up God, but it?s kind of required, as it?s the only model opposing evolution. I?ll write more later as I get the time.

Stop being so reactive Brolli. It's not about finding that magical person who's undying love will live forever. Marriages fail because the couples say , "the love won't last.. it faded away." Love is a VERB, something you DO, something to work for. Take the initiative, keep a positive mind and stop feeling sorry for yourself. Ask girls out and make an effort to show them how much you care, to impress them. Don't go around whining that you really go out of your way for people, you have to DO it! I'm sure you can. Just keep a positive mental outlook on the situation. There ARE more fish in the sea. chances are, youll find someone better suited to your tastes! Then the two of you can work at creating a relationship with love, and grow close together. Best of Luck, Drix

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ssjBrolli [/i] [B]Well the thing is: I'm 17 and she's 16 turning 17. I have been regected by women as long as I can remember and she's one other the two women that accepted me for who I am. I am a lonely teen who wants to find love. (not that type of love) More like acceptance in another person's life. The first girlfriend I had took advantage of me by making me wait for years to go a little further in a relationship. For example: We only hugged and kissed but nothing else and I (being a gentleman) never complained untill a year had past and then when she said it was fine she broke up with me. Others before her always said things like: Yah right like me with you?, No way, Eww, and the most painful one Nice try! *sigh* maybe I'm not meant for love. *maybe I should just give up. :bawl: [/B][/QUOTE] Anyone can accept you for who you are. Accepting someone doesn't mean agreeing with them. I accept you as a slightly emotionally immature, still young, and with plenty to learn. I also see you as a huge DBZ fan, and someone who's extremely sensetive. It's impossible to accept someone for who they are, as you accept yourself based upon how others reflect their vision of you, for the most part. I could elaborate on this, however, it seems like a bit of a wasted effort. I agree with Queen Asuka, things like this will be the downfall of the Internet. ;) Just push forward, and live life to the fullest, you'll survive, man :).

Yes Zealots are. I hate once sentence posts. So here. I'll make it four :).

Uhh SailorStar, Dragoons are spider-like machines that you put fallen protoss in. You have described a pretty contemporary kid. Anyway, I suggest everyone read up on SC. There's alot of units that you can learn about online, and their qualities. Heh, so I'd suggest givin it another shot in the ribs :)

OOC: Why the hell are you using a Sig-Sauer P226 ? You realize that's a real weapon... we're talking about SC ^_^. (I'm gosu :D) Anyway... A few questions before I edit my post into a signup. -Considering the nature of a zerg, and it's completely complex hive-mind, there's no sense in more than one person playing a Zerg, as they all share the same consciousness, right? The cerebrates only fought when the Overmind was rebuilding itself. Now they are just extensions of the Overmind's will, without much of a personality. -Can I be Kerrigan? She seems to be the only Zerg NOT controlled by the Overmind. I would really appreciate it :) -If i cant be Kerrigan.. I get dibs on the overmind :p I'll edit once Shin answers my questions :). Thanks

I like scaring small groups of little children. I love to jump out at them and hear their screams. It's like candy to me :devil: Sometimes it's fun to stalk people I know, through the woods and such.. then continue to terrorize them... it puts them on such edge! Ahh, If you wish to try this, and you have a distinct lack of intelligence, follow these rules: -Do not TOUCH.. they may get a little angry, but most people realize it as just a holloween joke and go on with their Trick o Treating. If you touch people.. then it's serious. -Do not threaten- don't carry around weapons..even plastic ones... not fun when you are scaring them already. Don't be verbally abusive, just jump out, yell "boo" , and run off. -No childlren under the age of 7- you know.. the tiny people.. Ok, those guys are off limits. Usually there's a parent close behind who would have no problem beating your sorry ***. -Only groups of kids- Not only is it more fun, Kids recover from the fright when in groups, and scaring one or two kids is almost cruel... :\. -Try to dress up- Usually this makes it easier to explain to the cops you were just having some fun if you are dressed as a Gorilla, than if you were dressed in Abercrombie.... -Don't be an idiot- I guess this one is self explanitory.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SailorStar [/i] [B]i also think bing Drix D'Zanth would b neat. he thinks wierd. maybe i could find out if he actuall thinks like most wierd people, em included. so that is my say. [/B][/QUOTE] There's a fine line between genius and insanity. That fine line is called "progress". I guess that makes me insane *laf*. Nono, no one can understand the strange things that contort my consciousness! Someone could get seriously hurt in trying to imitate or become me.. i destroy psyches and shatter egos on a daily basis. Have a nice day. Drix

This thread is basically beginning to descend into pointless blather over nothing of substance. I think people basically rounded the bases on this one. Unless any other Mod's have a problem with me doing so, thread closed.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by stardust [/i] [B]I believe in evolution,actually,it's pretty near a proven fact. Since animals adapt to respond to their environment. It's a lot to think about. [/B][/QUOTE] Proven ?... *wide evil grin*:devil: Well it seems obvious that you don't understand the mechanics of natural selection, so I'll explain them for future reference on this thread. Let's say , hypothetically, that macroevolution is real.. hehe. Well, first the organism must have a RANDOM genetic mutation. According to the laws of Natural Selection, the mutation could be GOOD or BAD. If it is a good mutation, it supposedly helps a creature survive long enough to reproduce and pass on the trait. Eventually all the organisms with the recessive trait either die off, and the species moves forward. Or, the trait breaks it into a new species I must be going now. I'll post why evolution is nearly impossible... not so easily explainable as before.

Well , I'm sure we all can anticipate the rise of Hillary Clinton in the near future. Most likely, 2008, she will make her bid for Presidency. I'd like to give some juicy little tidbits of info about Hillary's career! :) -When Bill was Governor of Arkansas she turned $1,000 into $100,000, or at least she claimed. According to the Journal of Economics and nStatistics, the odds of that are 250 million to 1! hehe odd... -In the whitewater fiasco, her billing records dissapeared from the computer system of her employer, the Rose law firm. Then two years later they mysteriously turned up inside the white house living quarters with her fingerprints on them... 0_o -She opposes vouchers for poor parents who may want to send their children to private schools, while she sent Chelsea to a private establishment... hmmm... -45 minutes after the suicide of her friend White House counsel Vince Foster, she called her assistant Maggie williams, and sent her to Foster's office .. no reasoning to this has been explained... -One of Hillary's strongest issues is Education. when Bill was Arkansas governor for eight years, she oversaw all the educational programs. Arkansas went from 49th to 49th in the national rankings. Mississippi was 50th. -It's amazing what being a charismatic spokesman can do for you. You don't even have to do a damn thing for a state, even live there, and they'll elect you senator! -During her First Lady position, she used millions of taxpayer's dollars to campaign in New York, including air force campaign stops, and logging these trips as "duties" as the First Lady... I'll dig up more stuff on her later, but I'm not liking Hillary at all. She votes straight Democrat on every issue... I doubt she really takes any serious consideration of politics, instead taking advantage of the liberalist mentality and spurning their multitude of "causes." She's a wonderfull actress.. that Hillary. You know what? Condaleeza Rice (sp, I know) should campaign the SAME time Hillary does. Condaleeza will not only take the Minority vote (admit it... you think the black population is going to pass up an opportunity to vote in a BLACK president? Hell no, that would be making history.). She is smarter than Hillary, she is far more politically savvy, she seems FAR more genuine than Hillary... did I mention she is SMARTER? I would trust a woman like Condaleeza in office. Vote Rice 2008 :toothy: . Any thoughts? Opinions? Dirt?

I'm not going to answer this one purposefully. I know the answer like I know the black spot on the back of my palm, and the strange mass of hair growing from it (i'm kidding). But I think we are driving this thread a bit beyond other people's reach... *shrug* let's find out.

Well we know that Potaura earrings create a far purer fusion between the two characters. The fusion is unlimited, and unbreakable (they can't remove the earrings on purpose, it is mentioned) I don't even recognize DBGT as a valid series. Toriyama gave his "ok's " to the producers and writers, then washed his hands of the whole series. Therefore, I don't even see SSJ 4 as a real transformation, I don't belive that would have ever happened.

God xyandar, can you please go into SOME sort of discernable detail? It's not kiddy at all. I suppose if you think clashing battles full of "hidden powers" and "new ssj levels" are any more mature than plot development.. then.. I gues I understand why you cannot substantiate your opinion to the LEAST. *sigh*

I could be a judge, I have no problem being objectionable and fair. I suppose I've got a reputation on OB.. if you want references *shrug*. Remember, post number doesn't really mean more or less experience. OB isn't the ONLY board out there, even if it is the BEST.

This movie tops queen of the dammned and Blade. I agree that it wasn't anything spectacular. I encourage anyone who wishes to see a GOOD vampire movie see Interview with a Vampire, Nosferatu (the really old one), or Bram Stoker's Dracula (trailing third, but it was ok in it's own right.). I've yet to see shadows of the vampire.. about the movie.. or something. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by terra [/i] [B]I hope you meant 3AM ... otherwise you are pretty darn lazy. :D Selene's fight scenes tended towards the ridiculously impossible, in my opinion. She was a bit invincible, really. Werewolves could shoot entire clips off their machine guns at her, and she would be standing completely without cover and yet they would all miss. (Terrible aim, these lycans have.) Plus, she knocked out three of Viktor's guards without any trouble, not to mention her final attack on Viktor. I guess he was weakened from the fight with Michael, but still. Also, I had an issue with the scene that's in the ad, where she shot a circle through the floor of the building so that she could fall to the floor below. It seemed in the time it took her to do that, the werewolves would've been upon her (I don't think she shot all of them down). I agree, it definitely had a lot of style. Along with this, though, was one of the movie's problems -- the passage of time. Since they never showed anything in the daytime, it at times felt like one ... very ... long ... night. I didn't think he was half as bad as CRAVEN. Worst. Casting. Ever. I'm okay with there being a random American among all the cool British vampires, whatever. But at least have someone who can act. [/B][/QUOTE] Ahh I forgot to mention the [B]unlimited ammo![/B] Yeah, every side had about millions of clips to fire, full of silver nitrate or sunlight (how the hell do you capture sunlight? Is it some sort of UV emmitting bullet? Why didn't they just use UV lights?????). I hated the whole "lets stand here and shoot off more ammo than concievebly possible". I was referring to the fact that Selene sometimes DID use some sort of cover, and she ran away (wisely) from the Lycans. And I forgot Craven, thankfully, he was absolutely drab. The vampires tended to lack personality in general, except for selene to a certain extent. Alot of the OK things they did was absolutely random (why did selene not jump earlier in the movie like she didn in the end? Why the hell don't other vampires cling to the wall when it's USEFUL?).

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B]Oh come on, sure "many" guys go out with multiple girls at once (which is stupid to say in the first place), but these guys don't go out with 4 girls at once that are all best friends. [/B][/QUOTE] Heh, then you've never seen the Drix-masta in action. I'm a pimp to the X-treme (notice the "X" putting the new age stress on a relatively mundane word !). I gots 15 ho's in my hooptie all up in he'eah! .... :D Good luck with your girl troubles. My advice, don't bother until your friends/the girls you like, are mature enough to handle such a situation without it being such a drama party.

A: Throrondor Ok, this one is nearly impossible... I'll check back as often as I can... PM me PLEASE before posting your question, to see if it is right. Q: In what month did Túrin gaze on the host of the Lord of Dor-Lómin assembled in his hall?

I merged the threads, as the topic no longer had been pertaining to the specific example Magdalena posted, it's moving back into general racism. -Drix