Drix D'Zanth

*snicker* I love your reference, the banner that says "Infinately cool, forever wicked. A style that will kick you in the pants." Sounds alot like [url]www.realultimatepower.net[/url] to me, but that's beside the point. So the ninja sword was used for stabbing, and the samurai for slashing. Alright, I can belive that :D And you must understand, samurai were traditinally hired nobles or extremely skilled generals(except the yari samurai, etc I'm talking no-datchi). Samurai could afford this stuff. If the ninja-to was affordable, the ninja used it, primary weapon, pure and simple. Sure it was poorer, but they made up for it in a change in fighting style (stabbing). *sighs* I'll admit they weren't 'exactly' like samurai swords. You also support my fact that the ninja could not handle the samurai in one on one combat. :) But, no info on the magical 10-foot jumping, poision noose-weilding, heart-ripping ninjas that you seem to be so fond of.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B]Sorry... ^.^ I got the dates wrong. It was the actually mid 7th century that they began (They ended in the 19th century.) [/B][/QUOTE] I forgive you :P [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B] The ninja sword was nothing like the samurai sword. It was less quality because they rarely used it in a battle. [/B][/QUOTE] No, the Ninja-to was almost exactly like the samurai sword, the length being the only difference. It allowed the ninja-to to be wielded with the same speed one-handed. And this was their primary weapon. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B]The death blow I did not make up. It is said they when they were noticed, they used that to eliminate their opponent. They were much weaker than samurais, so it much needed. [/B][/QUOTE] Uhh yeah, I bet you saw it on TV then. When I think unblockable attack, i think ultimate corc-screw. A nice Nagitana pointed a bit over my head could easily abate the ninja's actions. Also, they weren't weaker than samurai (no s), they just killed in stealth. Samurai had a habit of meeting on open ground, duel or battlefeild. Any samurai could probably whoop a ninja hand to hand, that's why a ninja would happily slit the samurai's throat while he slept. I know I would. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B] It may be a myth, but most information about ninja are myths. For instance, becoming invisable, having the strenght of 10 men, and flying. [/B][/QUOTE] Most of the info is fact. Becoming invisible... flying? Nono, that is myth if you SEARCH for that kind of junk. Ninja never claimed to fly.... You are riding on some "iron monkey' hollywood stereotype. Stop. Please. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B] Also the handle of the Ninja-to was longer than a samurai's because Ninja used it to store poison darts and other items. Another thing is that they mostly used poison rings to strangle their target. Ninja were said to be able to jump 10 feet into the air.... The highest now is... 7-9 feet? [/B][/QUOTE] ... Honestly, a nice dart to the corotid artery would do nicely without poision. The handle wasn't longer than a samurai sword, as I said before the ninja-to is one handed, samurai used two-handed swords. Why in the hell would you poision a noose? That sounds pointless if you ask me. And I will pay you 50 bucks to show me anyone who can jump 7 feet into the air. You are seriously spewing, man. If you don't know what you are talking about, stop talking. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B] Some ninja didn't use a sword. Some used daggers, and their hands, wich had spikes on them. Another death blow, that I think is a myth is the Ninja who used their hands, ripped through their apponets chest and rip his or her heart out. They were said to also snap necks, crush spines and other things. The one's who used daggers were known to cut off heads. [/B][/QUOTE] Most ninja used anything they could. If you assasinated someone, it could be as easy as jamming a knife into their chest, poisioning their food, using a blowgun to administer a lethal poision, martial combat, traps, explosives, hanging, ninja-to evisceration, you name it. It is physically impossible to rip through a sternum and grab a heart, if you've ever diseccted a cadaver, you'd know how immensly resistant the human body is. Don't you think that ripping out a heart is kind of pointless? I mean, I'd wrather gouge their eyes with a finger, then use the moment to stab them or something. Snapping people's necks sounds reasonable, if they didn't have a blade or noose. Crushing spines? Please. Why the hell would you cut off a head if you could just slit the throat? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B]Edit: I'll fix the "ninjas" [/B][/QUOTE] Please, just... don't bother...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B]Well the only thing I know is that REAL ninjas work for the government. They existed in China in the 1700's and early 1800's. The have a extremely short sword which they hold upside down( For instance, if you stick a sword in the ground, pick it up without twisting your wrist. ) Their death blow is to jump into the air, stap their apponent in the chest. Corksrew half flip over the opponent and stab him/her through the neck. The only way to block this ultimate blow is to grab the sword, which the blade is facing the ninja. I hope that helped. ~Xaru. [/B][/QUOTE] Heh, thats a funny reply! Really! I like the death-blow part. Did you make that up yourself? No, really you could just google "ninja". From what I understand, Ninja is short for the martial art, Ninjutsu. They began around the 6th century, but their golden era was actually around the 15th century, shogun times. What made the ninja deadly was the very seclusive art that they practiced. They worked as spies for samurai and shogun. The sword Xaru was talking about was probably the ninja-to, much like the samurai sword, but about half the length. The ninja relied on stealth to get their work done, either espionage, or assasination. The ninja also used a myriad of weapons, spiked boots (Ashiko), blowguns (fukiya), daggers (tanto), you name it. Oh, an Ninja are traditionally a japanese origionated group, not chinese. Edit: by government, do you mean the U.S gov't? If so, i think these "ninjas" are CIA: Non-commisioned operatives. Note, don't say CIA "agent", that's like calling a football player a waterboy. CIA "agents" are citizens of other countries found by CIA operatives, turned against their own nation and sent to spy on their own government, giving the information to our NOCs. Hope that helped as well :)

lea, I must admit that most of your posts I find fairly infantile and slightly annoying to read. I don't hold this against you, we are all growing in some way or another. But, let me say that this is by far the most profound and greatest peice of writing I've seen you do. I've decided to re-evaluate my opinion of you as of reading this peice of work. Honestly, keep things like this up, you have alot of talent that I've not seen before. Keep suprising me, -Drix

Which poem is it? I see multiple poems listed in the link

[COLOR=darkred] V'sh'thou sighed as Gene walked away, the brash young boy and his little whelp following after. "It's pathetic really," the shadowy figure spoke softly, "I've always been fond of recklessness, but this 'Gene' fellow is rife with absolute stupidity." He looked around at the remaining guardians, Sarah and Hikage, "You have displayed extraordinary wisdom, therefore I shall explain to you our wait," he said calmly, "We have more time than you may estimate, Trilby won't die. How do I know this? Well, for one, I figured that infantile Gene would run off, he'll distract them long enough for you two to actually do the work. Secondly, Trilby is a lure. This creature wants us to rush in there ripe after a nice badgering. And lastly, Rika won't kill Trilby, it is far too against her nature, impossible to a point. Whatever thish creature is, it knows this, and will only push Rika to that point. It's going to take someones death to totally bring her back. If you fail this test, chaos of your respective elements will ensue, ravaging this world." The grim words rang like drowning in icy water. He looks up, the others seem silently suprised by the doomed premonition, "Let us hope, it is this creature's life that shall be taken over one of yours." V'sh'thou descends to the 'floor' of the shadow realm, gliding gracefully towards the two, "I'm going to challenge the creature, you must use your power to save Gene, he's going to fall from sever injury with that recklessness. I have felt the change within you both, you are now one step closer to mastery. The truest tragedy today was that Kuadara now must catch up." With this, the shadowlord spun an index finger into a circular pattern, cutting through the visceral atmosphere. A light, seemingly blinding appeared before them, a crack in the realm to where Gene and Kuadara were. "Gene uses such primative means of transportation", he points to the ensuing scene with Gene. Gesturing politely, "Don't forget what you have achieved. After you." [/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#404040]Buying a CD and letting one friend borrow it is vastly different to what I'm talking about, though. If you don't own any of the music that you're downloading (and you download 1,000 tracks or whatever), you are [i]clearly[/i] like that. stealing music. You now own it...but did you pay for it? No. I'm not opposed to a friend lending you a CD or something. But in my view that argument is mere nitpicking. [i]Obviously[/i] very few people would be opposed to something relatively harmless But when you start to steal very large quantities of music...and when you don't pay for any of that, we're then talking about music artists not earning their rightful income from those songs. In terms of the RIAA...I can only repeat what I've already said, ad nauseum. I am [b]not[/b] trying to support the position of the RIAA as a victim in all of this. I believe that organizations like the RIAA (and their equivalents around the world) have largely dug their own grave here. In Australia, CD prices are higher than most other nations in the world -- these companies are simply asking for piracy to spread. And I do agree with Tony's idea that bands should take sales into their own hands...that would be a good idea if done on a larger scale. So, I'm completely on-side with most people here. I don't see the RIAA as a victim. But I also don't see the MP3 downloader as a victim. If you download a few thousand songs and you don't pay for them...I have [i]no[/i] sympathy for you if you get sued. You deserve it. But if you download a few songs to sample them...then you go and buy the CD, or you buy merchandise, or you visit concerts...I'm not going to complain. If you are prepared to reward an artist for his or her work, that's how it should be. As I said, I'm sick and tired of these mass-downloaders behaving as victims. They really need to grow up and start paying for the music that they love.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I'm going to pull a Bill Clinton on you, with all the "definition crap", you'll see. (you know, good ol' clinton with "Define the word Is") STEAL 10 entries found for steal. steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl) v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals v. tr. To take (the property of another) without right or permission. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics. OWN \Own\, a. [OE. owen, awen, auen, aughen, AS. [=a]gen, p. p. of [=a]gan to possess; akin to OS. [=e]gan, G. & D. eigen, Icel. eiginn, Sw. & Dan. egen. [root]110. See Owe.] Belonging to; belonging exclusively or especially to; peculiar; -- most frequently following a possessive pronoun, as my, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, in order to emphasize or intensify the idea of property, peculiar interest, or exclusive ownership; as, my own father; my own composition; my own idea; at my own price. ``No man was his own [i. e., no man was master of himself, or in possession of his senses].'' --Shak. To hold one's own, to keep or maintain one's possessions; to yield nothing; esp., to suffer no loss or disadvantage in a contest. --Shak. ------------------------ Alright, here's the problem I have with you talking about ownership. You have to realise that claiming ownership is fairly vauge. You could claim, "hey, the artist owns his songs." Sorry, as soon as I buy the CD, they are MY songs, when referring to the particular song. I don't care what RIAA says, they can't waltz into my house and take anything I own. That's fine. Don't worry I'm getting to a point. You see, I claim to own something as much as if I were to borrow it. That may sound confusing, but I'll give you an example. I've recently bought a new Frank Sinatra CD. I recently lent said CD to a buddy of mine a few days ago. Right now he, by the literal definition, "owns" the CD. But I own the CD right? Let's say I went onto Kazaa, and uploaded some Sinatra onto it, so I can share some of his music with other people. Do they now "own" the music as much as my friend did? "Well they don't have to give the music BACK! They are STEALING from you and the artists!", Whoa hold the phone. Let's say I lend my CD to a good buddy and decide he can KEEP IT. Am I now breaking some LAW? Sorry, I bought it, no I am not. Am I well aware that possibly some 12 year old kid is downloading music that I purchased and listening to it? Yup, and if I wanted, I could prevent said 12-year old kid from downloading it. Granted, I don't have to give any of the music I downloaded back, neither does anyone who uses programs like Kazaa. Why aren't people trying to improve and find better ways to share music with eachother? Good question. But after hearing RIAA would stoop so low as to lawsuit a 12-year old, they lost all credibility in my opinion. If i have a CD and lend it out to a thousand people in my lifetime, that is no different than sharing it online with those thousands. Suddenly the RIAA thinks they can control what people do with their purchases as soon as technology increases the speed and application of sharing things like music. I suppose that's all I've got for tonight. Any thoughts?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PloKoonDS [/i] [B] P.S. - And Transtic, you can screw up your own idea. For example, if I made the wheel, and once that got really popular and everyone liked it, decided to turn it into an oval/egg shape, that would be screwing up my own idea. [/B][/QUOTE] No. It would still be YOUR idea for it to be an oval. Granted, it wouldn't work quite as well as the circle, your idea would still come to fruition. Others may not like it as much, but it would ultimately be your responsobility that the circle is now an egg-shape. A perfect analogy between the first and second trilogies. Alright folks, I've had a passion for star wars since I was five. My real last name is Fett. I've read every future-set book, watched every special I could, etc. Star Wars is great, an epic tale. Sure, it could have been better (It's far better in the books to those who have read them), but starwars claims a position no other movie could. Don't ask me what position it claims.... As for the prequels, well, the fight scenes were great, the ships were shiny an sleek, armies were sprawling over planets in massive war, and jedi were incredibly skilled. There was a problem, in this. To me, it seemed as if the technology shown in prequels 40-50 years PREVIOUS to AnH was somehow BETTER than the tech in the origional trilogy? Put luke and vader's lighsaber fights up against Obi Wan's fight with Darth Maul.... somehow some of vader's menace was lost, and luke's valiant effort dimmed. I wish Lucas didn't try to create a story based around the "make everything faster, slicker, cooler" mentality of almost every pre-pubescent boy in America. It's too bad he failed, in my opinon, in that respect. Ahh and one minor fluke for all the starwars gods like myself on otakuboards. Did you notice in Eps 2, it was pretty much declared that the Geonosians had created the plans for the Death Star?? Anyone who's read books like Darksaber, or the X-Wing trilogy know the death star was created by Bevel Lhemelisk, and to a lesser extent Qwi Xux! ARGH. To me, this made me absolutely angry at Lucas. Didn't he care about the people who read the books published after his first trilogy? He gave them a license to write certain things (i.e what happens at a certain planet, who can die, etc). Without post-starwars novels, Lucas wouldn't have material like Coruscant. I'm so very angry at his lack of regard for that portion of his fan community. That's about it. -drix

OOC: Alright, just post that we all go into the shadowlands for lack of better explination. Let's just say Gene noticed the shadowland portal and screwed trying to make his OK? ------------------- [COLOR=darkred] V'sh'thou looked grim, "You all should rest, she's being manipulated. ". He thought of an old proverb, "Experts are predictable and the world is full of amateurs. Consider Rika lost, for the only way to get her back will be somehow a total incapacitation of the beast that controls her. His power is great, rivaling mine, in fact. I don't know how effective i shall be. You must rest up and meditate. Regain your essence and train yourself to become one with it." He watched the room, "The purest forms of an element are the most powerful;crashing waves, a firestorm, thunderclouds. Strengthen your mind with the power of your element. Every element can defeat it's opposite." He glared at Gene, "You are still young, do not become precocious. If Rika was still fighting when she unleashed her icy powers, you probably would not have subdued her. Do not attempt to premonise her moves." With this he suspended himself from a column of darkness, focusing his strength. His silver irises now hidden beneath a wrinkled brow. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=darkred] Edit: Consider what I posted to never have happened. Despite my pride in it compared to T-man's post, *grumble*, he posted first. Considering the fact he is also a MAIN character, unlike V'sh'thou, he takes prescedent in my opinion. I would suggest Arika edits hers out too. I'll be posting a different reply later. Although I must admit I'm having certain stipulations about this RPG. I'll stick with it however. PM me if you want details so we don't carry this over the boards. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PloKoonDS [/i] [B]I never went off topic, and I wasn't whineing *sp*. I was simply pointing out what would be amazing to me. And that is what this thread is about, isn't it? o_O ~Plo [/B][/QUOTE] It's more specifically about the human, and it's amazingness :P. God, it's spelled "whining" just check my last post ! Well anyway, I don't mean to come down so hard on you, but you were being sarcastic, and seemingly demeriting any discussion i have had on this thread.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PloKoonDS [/i] [B]You want to know what is truly amazing? When a person can be quiet and not cram there opinion down my throat. ~Plo [/B][/QUOTE] It's hard to cram anything down your throat when you are [I] reading[/I] something. I hope your eyes are ok, after all that cervical trauma. Anyway, it's "their" not "there". In actual response to your reply, well I say stop whining. No one forced you to read this thread, or respond, so if you can't stay on topic then don't bother posting. We are expressing eachother's opinoins and debating fairly heatedly, as Adahn has mentioned. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!- Truman.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PloKoonDS [/i] [B]Here, let me put it simply for some of you. There is no such thing as a "race" when pertaining to humans. Im a "white" boy. If I go out and get a tan, does that turn me into a hispanic? pfft! at all of those who are racist. The truth of the matter, of there not being "Races" in the human species, is a "black" guy and a "white" girl can have a child. Or vice-versa, or any sort of combination. That is enough evidence for me and for any one else. For example, a "race" that cant mix. Dolphin and a cat. No babies there. ~Plo [/B][/QUOTE] ------------ Race ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs) n. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. A genealogical line; a lineage. Humans considered as a group. Biology. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine. ------------------- You seem to be confusing "race" with "species". We are all the same species, but our geographical heritage may be different. Cats and dolphins aren't the same race. It's actually fairly common place to enjoy your racial heritage. As for tanning, well while you may look a bit more hispanic, that is not your natural skin tone, nor your natural facial structure, body structure, heritage, language, etc. Whatever distinguishes you as being related to, or from that region.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]Actually it's been well documented that birds follow whom they precieve as their "mother"... the first thing a bird sees it considers it's mother. I've seen several cases where birds are born and someone takes care of them and they constantly follow them. It's like that one movie about that girl who raises the geese and they follow her when she flys that plane thing? Same concept. They just precieve you or your family as parents to them. People that will look out for them, feed them, etc. You're not a God, you're just a parent. [/B][/QUOTE] Fly Away Home. Good movie, Jeff Daniels actually being serious. It had a nice plot, just an overal enjoying experience. I think the same, except when we are dealing with epid3mic he HAS to be a god of some sort ;). "I don't like myself much..." JtHM

[COLOR=darkred] A long slendery arm seems to reach out of trilby's shadow, you hear the faint grunt of the ground as V'sh'thou raises from the ground. His darknened eyes looked towards Hikage, "Why exactly do you continue bothering me, I'm on vacation." He grins at the stunned audience. He cackles huskily, " I'm kidding. I noticed you were in a bit of a rut. I doubt you've felt the same power I've felt reverberating throught the shadowrealm. Something is going to be meeting you soon, something unlike anything you have ever faced." He let a tendril of smoke scratch his chin, he remains fairly expressionless, "I'm suprised you survived that long, I suppose that is the only reason I'd bother coming back for you." He looks the group over, "I want you all to concentrate on your elements, you must calm your spirits and meditate upon them. Draw upon their individual values and feel their change within you. You will not be able to survive the upcoming fight without the power of your elements." He looked fairly stern, letting his figure glide along the shadowy ground, "I am going to help you fight this creature, I think I've faced one before, he is well beyond your match. I think he may be able to resist more than one element at a time, however, if you can co-ordinate your attacks, you can win. " V'sh'thou leaned up against a tree, [/COLOR] [I]the test will be coming, let us be decided whether they pass.[/I]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#707875]Agreed. 1,000 downloaded songs [i]is[/i] getting a bit excessive. I'm getting very tired of people who keep trying to passionately defend their "right" to [b]steal[/b]. Sometimes it really surprises me. Yes, it's convenient. Yes, you can do it easily. But that doesn't make it legal or right. Forget the RIAA and think about the artist, whom you are stealing from. In any case, I have been painted as some RIAA supporter in the past for telling people that stealing music is wrong. But I'm just like Semjaza Azazel on this issue. I have little sympathy for the RIAA, but if people are stupid enough to steal that much music and not pay for it...well, they get what's coming to them. And I hope it teaches them a lesson.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I can't agree with this. If I buy a CD and let my friend borrow it and listen to it, there is no chance in hell that I should go down for a lawsuit. Yes people are taking advantage of the system. But the fact is, they aren't COPYING anything, they are sharing their music with other people. No exchange of money, and frankly I have little sympathy over RIAA. We aren't stealing anything, I think it's just sharing :D. The only issue is that people have taken granted of what they have. That sounds familiar, people taking advantage of some industry... wait... that sounds like the industry itself when it claimed as CD's FIRST came out "The CD will be easier to use, easier to play, and much cheaper." Which SHOULD be true. Nope, CD's came out initially costing well over the price of casettes. Record companies haven't even bothered thinking of the consumer, merely the fattening wallets and the wallets of their stars. No sympathy here. I know some of you will argue: But it is stealing, you get a cd and put in on Kazaa , people just take the music from you, they don't share it like anyone else, and you OWN that music! Wait wait, there IS a feature on kazaa where you can stop uploads. Oh, superl337chix0r let me borrow her song "The Prodigy"? Thanks! :) way to share, benefits society. Uh oh, Mr.debax0tr wants to borrow my newly shared song, well I don't think superl337chix0r would want me to share the song she so generously shared with me, so sorry debax0r, no downloading for you :(

My god people. Enough with this thread, you are just taking it back to the beggining you two. Read through the whole thread, and you'll realize how redudnant you sound. Listen, the fact is Racism is around and it will be always around, just like any other form of prejudice. The only difference is that Anti-Racist activists or merely children being fed the regurgitated rhetoric of their 8th grade history teachers, feel that we need to bring up the topic whenever necessary. Anti-racists have exploited their "righteous cause" far too much to be righteous any more, look at Affirmative action! We seriously need to stop calling people's opinions ignorant. I live about 10 minutes away from an almost entirely black community. Crime and drugs are horrible there. If you are white, and you drive down the street, there is a good chance you will get the **** kicked out of you. How do I know this? I've seen it happen. I don't like the neighborhood because of black people, nor am I exploiting a sterotype that they aren't RESPONSIBLE for. I have black friends, too. The fact is, factors like this influence people's opinions. I think the minorities should actually pull their groups together to help encourage the ADVANCEMENT of neighborhoods like these, encourage HELPING these people. Too often, however, orginizations have fallen into pointing fingers at the white populations, and the orginization leaders are capitalizing on the sucess of such fervor. No, capitilizing isnt the right word, they are taking ADVANTAGE of their own PEOPLE. Al Sharpton anyone? I think minorities and anti-racists are just as bad with the topic of racism because of the constant attention they bring upon it. Legislatively people are equal, and too often do people fall upon "racism" as a saftey-net excuse in order to gain a means. Refer to some earlier comments on the thread for elaboration. As for Gay people, well, I don't agree with their choice of lifestlye. Yes, their choice. I don't think it should be legal, but that is for my own moral, ethical, and intellectual reasoning. What is the difference between being racist, and prejudice against Gays? Well, being gay is a choice. People aren't born gay, and it is something they can change if they want. What will I do about it? Well , I'll vote. That's all I want to do, and that's ok. I don't expect to change their opinions any more than a racists. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, so I'll save more for later. And well the world, let's not look at it in respects of what it's "coming to", as much as what it has "become". We live in a world created through sinners, everyone sins, some people relish in it. Why do we sin? Free will. Whether you believe in God or not, you must belive in free will. We've seen the desensetisation of an entire generation, society in the US and several other countries is either hyper liberal, or extremely self-indulgent. People are out for themselves, and not the fellow man. Values like integrity , honesty, and sincerity are extremely difficult to find. I, personally, belive the world will come to a final apocolyptic end as said in Revelations. I belive God will finally end the world, our time is almost up. Soon.

Oh ****, when i saw that Poison Tounge had posted, I knew I was in for a real debate here. Not because I hold anything against him, but he is one of the VERY FEW people on otakuboards that substantiates his response into some form of challenge, considering the fact I'm slightly caught off guard, I'll work with what I have. *braces* [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Drix, you really should read with more attention to wording. Note he said "some god" (and also did NOT capitalize the word "god"), which does not necessarily mean he means "your god." Later, Knight says, "And if so, *the god* is a moron." He is not talking about any god in particular, if my interpretation serves me correctly. By using "the god," Knight is again not referring to any god in particular, simply referring to "the god" that created existence, provided there is one and provided that humans are the only specie in existence capable of comprehending emotion. Frankly, Drix, he did not assume his justifications to be factual. Read what he posted. Read it again. He said,[/B][/QUOTE] I was also referring to any god, although when you call any god a "moron" hypothetical or otherwise, I still think anyone who belives in some sort of god may empathize with me when i say that it thouroghly offends me. I know it was in hypothetics, that's why i didn't really come down hard on his character, I think :blush: . I can only assume what I intepreted from his writing, and perhaps i was a bit too rough on him, as he was presenting his ideas in hypothetics. Sorry there KotR. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Do you see what word I've bolded? Yeah, that's the word "if." Very important here. You've based your entire rebuttal on the notion that Knight here assumes his view to be the true one. When in fact, as he used "if," he is not implying nor assuming his justifications are factual. "If," as you SHOULD be aware of, being that uber-genius you are (sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell :D ), connotates a questioning mode, not definitive mode.[/B][/QUOTE] What sarcasm? You cannot possibly call me an uber-geinous and be sarcastic about it, it would be the end of the universe! It's a paradox. It's like saying "snow" is "cold" and being sarcastic about it. Drix and Uber-geinous are synonomous :D. (i like sarcasm almost as much as I like irony). Once again, I was too hard on him, just taking Rose a bit literally I suppose. But then again, I'm responding to his hypothetical ideas with ideas of my own. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Sorry to break it to you, dude. Your reply...was totally useless and has no leg to stand on, because you didn't pay attention to use of language and syntax. I've read Knight's post for a few times now, and there is NOTHING in there to insult your religion. He does not finger your god, he does not call your god stupid. You're bringing petty childish crap into this. Grow up and read for once, before attempting to teach someone a lesson or rip them apart.[/B][/QUOTE] Ahh once again you bear reason to your name. Alas, I didn't pay attention to the context that he wrote his reply in. It was purely postulate, I encourage you to take my rebuttle in a more objective fashion. Alas, your tounge did poison me. 'Grow up'? *sigh* I don't think my opionion is childish, I'm just a bit more fueled by it ;). Give a radical fundamentalist a chance ! [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Are you proposing YOU have the answer? "Surely you couldn't be claiming some sort of rebuttle [sic] agaisnt [sic] his point when you yourself cannot claim any point of veiw [sic] with some sort of fundamental evidence?"[/B][/QUOTE] Ahh, I do belive I am closer to the answer than he/she (it's the "rose" that throws me off here :( ). Once again, I belive this refers back to a discussion on truth. My beliefs are cited upon God, and his Creation of the world. I don't wish to devolve this conversation into a discussion on truth. So I'll leave my opinion as it stands. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Gee, correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't you attempting to display an understanding of God? You tell Knight to..."[not] even bother trying to comprehend something you cannot vouchsafe faith towards." So, by this logic, someone who can vouchsafe faith ([url]http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/vouchsafe[/url] I don't even think you're using the word correctly. Vouchsafe means to accept or yield in a CONDESCENDING manner. Condescending means looking down upon or talking down to.)?hell, I?ll just start the sentence over. So, by this logic, someone who can provide faith to your god then can begin trying to comprehend Him. Well, gee golly. A bit elitist are we there? I know pompous *** when I see it (hell, I was one for the longest time), but you aren?t even a pompous ***.[/B][/QUOTE] Thanks, for almost calling me a pompous ***. In retrospect, my choice of wording was perhaps unwise. Blame my AP English teacher a few years ago, he played off vouchsafe as a state of perpetual 'giving'. I maintained it that way within my vocabulary, I didn't bother looking it up until you pointed out, therefore I digress. However, I belive that unless someone experiences God's influence and Spirit on their life, and understand's his word, they cannot empathize in the slightest. People who choose against having faith in God cannot conceivably understand him, no. I don't think that it's an elitist statement, it's more of a "you can't understand until you experience" statment. A different veiwpoint. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]You?re just somebody who [b]thinks[/b] they know something. But in all reality, you spew rhetoric and definitions, but I?ve never seen you use applied logic. Meaning, in case you refuse to understand what I?m saying, you ?can spew definition, but lack the deep thought to back it up appropriately.? Surely you know the phrase, ?knowing the path and walking the path.? Well, you really don?t know or walk. You just spew, which isn?t noble at all, by the way.[/B][/QUOTE] Religious dogma isn't rhetoric. Once again, you confine yourself to your individual opinion as any others. What you call "rhetoric and defonitions" I call referring to something beyond myself, an immaculate God that I can confide in. Through believing in his plan for our existence i find it inconceivable that there is any other intelligent being in the universe. I intepret my own personal relationship with God through a personal path. Because you most likely haven't experienced God yourself (I'm riding on assumptions from your response) I doubt you could sympathize. Therefore, you are as guilty as "spewing" as I am. It's a difference in opinion here. I also don't consider your sarcasm "noble", by any means. You probably should have taken your own idea of "nobility" into review before your response. We are talking about a fairly hypothetical vision of a paradigm shift, and it's nearly impossible to "apply logic" when assuming whether or not something may exist in the seemingly endless universe. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]?unbeliver? what is that? Is it an organ of the body? Maybe an alternate liver? Or is it a nonliver? I believe the correct term you were looking for is ?nonbeliever.? Doesn?t that fit a whole lot better? ;)[/B][/QUOTE] Actually, I used the term quite purposefully. I was pulling a Cormack McCarthy on Rose, with my phrasing directly relating to the improbablility that he will ever fully sympathize. Un, not non, because I doubt he will ever belive. I hate to have such lack of faith in the fellow man, perhaps this is an imperfection that God wishes to change within me. Until then, i stand by it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B] Practice what you PREACH, dude. Just thought I?d throw that in there, Drix. ;) [/B][/QUOTE] Welcome to the church of Drix! Actually it is impossible to "practice" my veiwpoint. Unless you are referring to my critisism of his hypothetical intepretation. I'm just expressing my opinion as much as anyone else on the board. However, next time, instead of picking apart my response, form your own. (I made my opinion clear as well, please note.) As for your choice in careers, best of luck to you. You seem qualified enough to be a teacher considering your response. You even took my grammar into question, so I guess that's as much practice as you requre ;). In any case, despite our disagreements I respect both of your opinions. There is a difference :D. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Xaru Silverfire [/i] [B] What? I believe that the Universe is so expansive that it is impossible for there to be no life other than on earth. On topic.... I get amazed easily. Like "Hey, I can move my finger, thats amazing." Or... "It's amazing how we developed language." Well, anyway...... Evolution isn't random, it's adapting to one's environment. Planets blocking meteors. Rofl... It ALWAYS happens. [/QUOTE][/B] Evolution is definately random. A creature's body doesn't have a mechanism that says "man I could really run faster to escape that predator, maybe I'll run faster." That is adaption. This idea is a common misconception. According to evolution, one of the animals has a mutation within it's genetic makeup. The mutation provides the creature with some advantage to survive, and it supposedly passes down the mutation to its offspring, giving them the "advantage". This is inherently flawed because: -Genetics can only change so much without a species dying off (I'll cite more on this if you want). -There is really no reason why this mutation occurs. -Considering current mutations, only very very few mutations actually occur, and those that do are unlikely to cause any discernable change. -It is also about a 50/50 chance that the mutation IS spread to the offspring, as it requires a fairly random choice in chromosome during traditional reproduction. So belive what you may, but do not be fooled into thinking the animal has any control over this process, or nature itself. If anything the animal is adapting to the mutation, not its environment. I belive in microevolution, but I do not belive enough adaptations occur to facilitate full species change. I wash my hands of this discussion on evolution, as I do not wish for it to TURN into one. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maladjusted [/i] [B] Ferrets are also able to circulate blood 24/7, you big jerk. :P Sorry. It was very tempting. I'm more amazed at how absolutely everything created on earth [in my belief] has been created from science. It's hard to believe that human beings developed from one-celled bacteria, but when you have several billion years on your hand, what do you expect? lol. I also think that earth is not the only one harboring life. I think it's very possible for some random planet trillions of lightyears away from us to have just begun the evolution of life. [QUOTE][/B] I happen to like ferrets. Please note that I didn't conclude that humans are the ONLY creatures on the earth that circulate blood. I just didn't realize we were talking about ferrets as well? Actually with several billlion years and the extremely random chances that anything resembling a singled cell bacteria forming, SURVIVING, and mutating despite any lack of competition or purpose ; I expect nothing to happen, short of some divine miracle or plan. Faith is the key, there is no logic in assuming either idea. Anyway, keep up the discussion! This is really getting FUN! :D

I belive it is impossible to feel connected to animals more than nature, although I couldn't totally sympathize because I've never actually [I]tried[/I] feeling that way. I think this philosophy is inherently wrong. Believe what you want to, but people are looking at this from a backwards perspective. We have given [B]human[/B] qualities to animals when describing their personalities, as it is impossible to describe them in any other way than this figurative form. I belive when we assign human qualities, or put them into a sense to help identify the creature it is inevitable that one relate to those qualities. I.E.) a lazy turtle. Turtles are not lazy, their slow movement and metabolism has helped us to describe them with an inherently human character. Lazy. So can a lazy person identify with a turtle? In this respect I belive not. You see? Therefore I think we can postulate on "spiritual energy" , we need to adress this issue. For example, the bear is actually quite docile, at least most species. Bears fight the same as any other creature; competition, dominance, defending young, defending a kill, mating. I think the idea that a bear is an aggressive and powerful creature of fury (beserker, no less!) helps us formulate a certain sterotyped image in our heads. It shouldn't be veiwed as definitive, it's just to encourage and help our initial understandings of creatures. So, in this respect, I find this philosophy untrue to its nature (pun intended :P)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maladjusted [/i] [B][size=1] But other than that, the unknown. That's right, kiddies. I'm afraid of not knowing whether or not some madman is going to jump out and kill me. [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] ALRIGHT who told him? I want names? Now my whole damn plan down the drain, 2 YEARS of planning down the ol' porthead. Jeeze guys. THANKS. I fear my multiple personalities, sometimes.... Nevermind, I said nothing... return to the plan. I also fear Kanojo. I think he may be god or something. Perhaps a devil. But whatever he is, it's not human. I'm also afraid because I haven't seen him on recently, and that frightens me more than anything. *Dangles a spider in front of wrist cutter* :devil: Don't worry WC ol' buddy, it's fake... or IS it.. 0_o

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i] [B]There are a few older bands/musicians I like: I'm also a huge fan of B.B. King. Great, great guitarist. Could listen to his work all day long... [/B][/QUOTE] Hail to the king man. Ever seen him in concert? He's so dramatic it's amazing. He creates such a presence on stage. Not like a Buddy Guy presence, but more of a laid back groove-feeling. He's such a funny guy too, plenty of humor in his music. I love the depth of his guitar playing, he just creates such a rich feeling, every note is significant with the King.

I suggest just walking up to him and giving him a kiss. Pin him against a wall all seductivly, make sure its out of the vision of other people. This works as a good icebreaker.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Angelus_Necare [/i] [B]thanks for everything everyone, I've had the weekend to cool off about it and things are running a lot smoother now. John and I still aren't talking but I said my peace to him and whatever he decides to do is in his hands. [/B][/QUOTE] Good idea :) I hope your concience is clear, I am glad to have helped.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KnightOfTheRose [/i] [B]I have [i]an[/i] answer. If we are the only beings in this vast universe, wether we arrived through evolution or being placed here by some god, that can comprehend emotion or the such, then it is one hell of a waste of space. And if so, the god is a moron and evolution is nothing more than randomness. [/B][/QUOTE] What's funny is that evolution is nothing more than radomness. It is change through random mutations, that may or may not be supported through the survival of species who have adopted that change. Also, I particularily enjoy it when people try to concieve the mind of God. Don't even bother trying to comprehend something you cannot vouchsafe faith towards. The God that I belive in, his wisdom is unimagionable and his methods unexplainable. I don't try to second guess god, because that is inherently wrong. I may ask him if he created other life, but I don't belive he did. The only problem that you are going to have with my above response is that you can never concevibly relate to it. Why? Because you called God a moron, thanks for insulting my religion becuase you assume your justifications factual. Stop looking at the issue from a single dimension. As for the "waste of space". I actually appreciate the universe for it's beauty and mechanisms, but I belive the greatest beauty to be found within the human soul, and our relationship with God. See , I can sympathize both ways. I've been an unbeliver at some times, garnering my opinions as a personal truth. And I now experience a relationship with God. I've experienced both sides.

I love Perry Como's "Papa Loves Mambo", damn funny song. I also am a stickler for the older jazz and blues. Usually the legends themselves. I love muddy waters, etta james, ella fitzgerald.. lesse.. so many , I can't remember them all, Loui Armstrong, so many .. gahhh I also love the older stuff by Motown bands, the 40 records, the temptations, etc. AND OF COURSE we have to have Marvin Gaye in the mix, with "ain't no mountain high enough". Never been topped except by his most beautiful hit (ripped directly by Barry White unfortunately) "Let's get it on". That song is so fun! Alright, I'll think of more.. need more time.. I also need to go shoot up a bit more black tar heroin for inspiration. For those of you who don't know who I am: I'm joking, nice to meet you.