Drix D'Zanth

[quote name='Harry']Is there really apoint for keeping her alive though?[/quote] Well, if recovery is possible, yes. [quote name='Harry'] The way she's keeping it up she could live for another 50 years maybe. Her brain is pratically dead, and from what I've heard at best she might be able to eat on her own.[/quote] Her brain is severely damaged. I was supporting the idea of taking her off food initially. However, there are some doctors that apparently will be able to rehabilitate her; to what extent I do not know. [quote name='Harry']This will sound cold and callous, but it's really not cost effective to keep her alive or rehabilitate her.[/quote] No, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, Harry. I should remind you that the U.S. (at least) medical community isn't ever going to consider "costs" over the possibility of saving someones life. Think about it. Is saving a drug overdose cost effective? He most likely will end up ODing again (statistically) and killing himself. Is a triple bypass surgery on a 40 year old who's clogged his arteries from all the fatty foods cost effective? How about those patients with locked-in syndrome? Sure, a good amount never come out of their situation, however, that minority that is rehabilitated... I think it would be worth any price to a loving family. Besides, doesn't Mr. Shiavo have a couple million from the malpractice suit??

Take LeVar Burton's advice and try your local library! [IMG]http://pbskids.kids.us/images/sub-square-readingrainbow.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.pbs.org/parents/images/tvprograms/info-readingrainbow.gif[/IMG] But don't take my word for it ;) *dun dun duh!* I'm assuming you aren't in college... I reccomend you take it in college. If you really are dedicated enough, see if a community college is giving classes. You could also get "how to learn japanese" books at nearly any barnes and nobles (you could also order a book in, if it's not there). Good luck!

[quote name='kaisha']I think that her parents are just being selfish now, why don't they give up and let her die. I mean, she is a vegatable basically (not trying to be mean) so let her go, she would be so much better off.[/quote] Kaisha, you have provided us all with such an incredible insight that I think should bring this thread to a standstill. Your ability to review the opinions of others and the facts that have already been stated in this thread is quite commendable. Even though this post was succinct, it held the important points that really inspire me so rarely... I stand inspired right now. I think the point you presented here is really the definitive one. You've convinced me!

[b][SIZE=3]Banning Dihydrogen Monoxide: The Danger Chemical[/SIZE][/b] [color=darkred][b]Disclaimer: To those who have already learned the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide you may feel free to support this movement at the Otakuboards. I recommend that you instead allow those on the Otakuboards to find out for themselves and post their responses to this important health crisis before pouring your own ideas. [/b][/color] Dihydrogen Monoxide(DHMO). Aka, Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. This unstable molecule is revealed to be present in our daily lives to a more alarming degree each day scientists study it. Thousands every year are killed by substances in conjunction with DHMO. It is a concern that has somehow eluded the public eye. Too often do we take our lives for granted, the chemicals we interact with. DHMO is a chemical we should be more aware of, as it is either directly or inadvertently responsible for the deaths of [b]thousands[/b] of people every year. Why haven?t the FDA or CDC come to recognize the dangers and inform the common person about DHMO? Critics of the government cite the fact that most of our politicians consider the call to ban DHMO ?not politically beneficial?. This is alarming, both Democrats and Republicans are willing to let this dangerous chemical substance loose in our streets and cities for the sake of their own careers. I have a personal story about DHMO. In a biology lab early last semester, we injected a living blood culture with a small dose of pure DHMO. Immediately, perfectly healthy blood cells began to swell. A little more DHMO was added and the cells lysed violently (burst)! Imagine, this drug on the street. Kids who unwittingly introduce it into their blood system confusing it with heroin! The dangers are astronomical. What are the dangers of DHMO? ? Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. ? Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. ? Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. ? DHMO is a major component of acid rain. ? Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. ? Contributes to soil erosion. ? Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. ? Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits. ? Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes. ? Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. ? Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere. ? Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect. (source: National Coalition for the prevention of DHMO) DHMO is found nearly everywhere, from acid rain to nuclear power plants. It is used in as a chemical solvent and coolant in our industries. It is used as a performance enhancer in some athletes willing to get a little edge over the competition at the expense of taking a drug NOT FDA approved. It has been used in cult rituals and prison camps for various forms of torture. Used by the KKK in their marches. Slobodan Milosevic equipped his military with DHMO in their ethnic cleansing program. It is found in food products including baby foods and formulas. It?s in carbonated beverages and supposedly ?all natural? fruit juices. It is the subject of NASA research and military research. DHMO has been recorded in conjunction with almost every single instance of school-related violence. Almost all of the shooters had at least a history of using the substance before committing their murderous rampages. Why does the press ignore DHMO? Some have reported deaths due to DHMO but it is often covered up or misunderstood the molecule?s role in such circumstances. Recently the associated press rebuked most attempts to warn the public about DHMO as ?pranks?. Such a terrible agenda of hatred and medical disconcert is disheartening. ?Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.? Source [url]www.dhmo.org[/url] What are your thoughts? Should DHMO be publicly recognized and banned? edit: I recently discovered that DHMO is present in every form of alcoholic beverage. Some drug users also mix marijuana or heroin with DHMO.

[QUOTE=Harry] This isn't a case of her being disabled, this is a case of her being gone forever. Every specialist they've brought in has said she's gone and never coming back. This really shouldn't be an issue of whether or not she should remain living.[/QUOTE] That's not entirely true, Harry. I'm disturbed that this has become such a political issue. Politics have no place in medicine, IMO. I really think it should be up to the doctors. I understand that many people considered in PVS and locked-in syndrome have recovered in similar situations (though not entirely recovered, obviously). I think Siren, James, and Baron are all well meaning in their responses to this incident, but I would disagree with their diagnosis of Terri. The extent of our knowledge on PVS is the degree to which the doctors understand her condition. Some doctors [i]do[/i] say she is recoverable. As far as I can tell, Michael Schiavo has prevented any form of rehabilitation in the last decade and a half. I think that Terri should undergo rehabilitation, and if no progress is visible; then they should let her pass. We must understand that when considering a life, it is important that if there is [i]any[/i] dissenting opinion that may qualify a claim that she is alive, it is the medical community's responsibility to acknowledge that claim. Here's the dilemma, the doctors hired independently (not by the parents or Michael) are concluding she's in PVS. If it is conclusive and irrefutable (which appears it is not, at least yet) then I would support the decision to take her off of feeding. Here's another dilemma. Considering the progress of medical technology, who's to say our treatments, therapy, and healthcare may not advance to the point of being able to assist someone such as Terri who may be in PVS?? It's hard to say, but in another 15 years perhaps we could be restoring brain tissues using stem cells, or new forms of therapy?? Maybe in 15 years, if she regains a feeding tube, we could be reading a book written by Terri Schaivo. Overall, I'm mostly frustrated that the courts are tying everyone's hands in this situation. When it comes to our judicial system and medicine... well, that's oil and water.

some nerves are good, the adrenaline will improve your vocal situation. The only real way to get "used" to nerves (I put used in quotes because no one ever really does accustom themselves to stagefright) is by performing more often in front of larger crowds. Have confidence in yourself and your song. If you mess up, don't choke. Keep singing and blow them away, they'll forget any mistake you made. In fact, when someone makes a mistake they notice it far more than anyone in the audience. Don't sweat it.

Science religion and philosophy owe a lot to each other. From philosophy was born nearly every natural and analytical science we know today. Science and theology were married through the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. I honestly don?t think so many ideas should be so far removed. It is these mythological god-fearing Greeks that gave us Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They gave us Pythagoras and Democritus. It would be erroneous to assume one?s intelligence or wisdom is overridingly based upon his belief system. In comparing these religions to one another, we stray from the objective evidences and logics that define the natural sciences. Concurrently, we then stray from the question at hand: can we believe the theory that Darwin proposed? Darwin obviously recognized microevolution, the variability within a species. This has been demonstrably evidenced and tested all the way down to it?s most basic formulas: genetic. Darwin, in an effort to further explain the natural state of things, claimed that these small progressive evolutions must somehow accumulate to the point of total differentiation between two new species (or one old, one new species). He claimed that if we could evidence any biological change that is not due to some sort of gradual evolution, his theory would be utterly disproven. Such an event has occurred. However, as the change in the scientific community in facing evolutionary theory was distraught with dissident opinion, so is the idea of some form of [i]intelligent design[/i]. A bold claim, Darwin is wrong? However, as science has a greater understanding of biochemistry on a Lilliputian scale. Here?s an example: Suppose a 4-foot ditch in your back yard? a couple miles long (for the sake of analogy) separates your backyard from your neighbor?s. If one day you met him in your yard and asked him how he got there, he claimed ?I jumped over the ditch.? You would have [i]no[/i] reason to doubt his claim. Let?s say the ditch was 8 feet wide and he gave the same answer, you would probably be impressed by his athletic ability. If the ditch were 15 feet wide, you might become suspicious and ask to see some sort of demonstration. If he declined, feigning some sort of injury, you would harbor your doubts. If the ditch were actually a canyon 100 feet wide you would not consider for a second the bald assertion. However, your neighbor qualifies his claim. He did not come across in a single jump. Rather, he says, in the canyon there are a number of smaller precipes (or buttes, small towers of rock no wider than a couple feet) no more than 10 feet apart from one end of the canyon to the other. You see no buttes, however your neighbor claims they arose in the canyon and he slowly progressed as they popped up. After he left a butte it usually eroded and crumbled quickly behind him. This analogy teaches us a few lessons. What is the difference between these ?jumps? and changes from one side to another? This allegory of jumps can be applied to evolution. As it can explain tiny micro-evolutionary changes, however the bigger jumps become more difficult to explain. The proposal of relatively tiny changes is a great advance to science, and has been the subject of a great amount of research. With biochemistry we can determine if the ?buttes? in macroevolution could even evolve through the means proposed by Darwin. Darwinian evolution theorizes that slow, progressive changes that are selectively beneficial to the organism will persist in genetic frequency until the majority (or a detaching population) inherently displays that trait. Take a look at the different types of dogs around us. Each is an example of varying traits in microevolution. They are all, by scientific definition, the same species. Biochemistry throws the Darwin theory to a standstill. Many of our biochemical functions, essential to our survival are startlingly complex. The simple changes we take for granted are all a perfect balance of the correct enzymes, protein, and ionic mechanisms undergoing precise changes. Not only that, most of our complex processes require [i]every[/i] component to function. These irreducibly complex biomechanical processes are Darwin?s refutation. If this thread continues, I?ll provide some more examples. Why are we so afraid of intelligent design? Well, biology has almost always undergone a mindset ?well if we ride on the assumption of ?God creating everything? why bother studying it??. Science and religion were not always so far removed from one another. Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Darwinian evolution are all an ends to which the means of science can support. The same science that evidences evolution, supports creationism. There?s no reason to ignore the progress that we have achieved so far, and no reason to delay the progress in understanding how the world around us [i]is[/i]. I propose that understanding the world from an evolutionary-driven standpoint or a creation-driven standpoint will still draw the same conclusions when it comes to natural life in its present state. However, I think that bogging down in evolution-driven explanations is just as detrimental to scientific progress as claiming ?it just is because God made it so.? We should instead focus our efforts on explaining how the world [i]is[/i] before drawing our conclusions as to its origin.

It is difficult to correctly ascertain the exact ?value? of our earth?s temperature. It is also uncertain whether or not the method for which we measure the earth?s temperature has changed in the thirty-some years that global warming has been hypothesized. This would explain a certain variance in data. However, there is pretty convincing evidence that the earth [i]is[/i] getting warmer. Why is the earth getting warmer? Well, we?ve attempted to draw a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions appear to be increasing exponentially, while the warming curve is more linear, at best. I don?t think we should be so haughty in our supposed dominion over earth. I believe the warming, or relative cooling is merely the earth?s natural meteorological change independent of our influence. The problem with our correlation-based theory is that we superimpose two different sets of data that may be entirely unrelated. We are searching for an answer in the evidence instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. For example, I recently listened to a professor speak about statistical correlation by taking the semester grades (per year, for about 30 years) and superimposing a graph of the semester grades on a graph of the bi-annual global carbon dioxide emissions. The results are quite stunning; the two graphs line up almost perfectly, more so than carbon dioxide and the global temperature. Is it fair to assume that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for this increase in GPA? As for the hole in the ozone layer; the current theory is that CFCs, bromides, or any halogen-based byproduct interacting with sunlight facilitates and unbalances the natural decomposition of ozone into molecular oxygen. Here?s the big question, is the hole going to appear over you or I? The answer is a striking: [b]no[/i]. In order for the chemical reactions to take place to the magnitude that has been witnessed over the artic poles you must have: ? The polar winter leads to the formation of the polar vortex which isolates the air within it. ? Cold temperatures form inside the vortex; cold enough for the formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs). As the vortex air is isolated, the cold temperatures and the PSCs persist. ? Once the PSCs form, heterogeneous reactions take place and convert the inactive chlorine and bromine reservoirs to more active forms of chlorine and bromine. ? No ozone loss occurs until sunlight returns to the air inside the polar vortex and allows the production of active chlorine and initiates the catalytic ozone destruction cycles. Ozone loss is rapid. The ozone hole currently covers a geographic region a little bigger than Antarctica and extends nearly 10km in altitude in the lower stratosphere. (source: Centre for Atmospheric Science, Cambridge University) I honestly doubt the ozone hole is as much a threat to our natural environment as previously assumed. It?s uncertain the exact mechanisms and history of these ozone holes as our fraction of time in studying them is sometimes fractured. We?ve only been studying this phenomenon for a relatively short period of time, so it?s unlikely that we?ll understand the effects of ozone depletion for years to come. One current theory is that the magnetic alignment of the poles has some catalytic effect on the Chapman reactions (the natural decomposition of Ozone into molecular oxygen). (source : Krug, Edward C. Ph.D.) In either case, the vitamin D from all that sunlight is going to be good for us ;)

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]I really don't think that assuming a creator exists means that humans invented God. For example, the greek philiosopher Democritus assumed that matter can be broken down untill you finally reach a point where you cannot break it down any longer. At this point, you would reach the building blocks of matter, which are atoms. Does this mean that Democritus invented atoms? There is no proof that atoms exist, not one has ever seen an atom, but all scientific evidence completely supports the theory, which of course all of us agree with No one has ever seen God, not even the prophets, but there is evidence in the universe that he exists. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] I'm impressed Chabichou, you do bring up an interesting point in faith as a foundation to our understanding of the faith-based doctrines. This reminds me of a simple experiment I recently conducted in my chemistry class. It was an easy experiment, setting up a few buffers by determining equivalence points. This meant titration. We were to conduct the titration using two different methods. The first was a visual indicator, when the solution turned a faint pink, we reach equivalence. The second method was using a pH sensor that recorded the pH every time the base was added. When the reports were handed in the next week, the professor noted that most of the students commented that they trusted the pH indicator (the computerized, more elaborate set up) to be more accurate. My professor merely smiled and said that using a computer or complex probe was no more elaborate than an indicator-titration as the same error existed in both systems: human. You see, whether it was adding a bit too much base to the indicator solution, or the elaborate sensor; the change would still result in the same error. This made me realize that it doesn't matter exactly how complicated or elaborate we study things, or how much we attempt to reason through probabilities; the end result is that all of our actions and reasoning are inevitably fallible. This concept is directly related to biology which, quite conveniently, steers us back to the topic of evolution. This debate, it seems, has been reverted to a state of "evolution is wrong because..." and "creationism is wrong because...? The fact of the matter is that they are both religious in that they require a great deal of faith to believe in them. Creationists must believe that there is a divine being, and that despite his omnipotence, he can still be questioned by the logic of his "children". Evolutionists must believe that there is really no purpose to life. They must believe the staggeringly complex systems and functions (biochemical pathways and chemical interactions) somehow came together so perfectly, that life and its advancement to current standing are conceivably possible. Well, the matter that we [i]are[/i] here is settled (depending on what philosopher you speak with). Before analyzing the flaws of each other?s rhetoric... let's consider the possibility that either or both might be true. Let's imagine that amongst the inconceivably large amount of matter in our universe, the stage was set on this particular world for a chain of events to occur. Perhaps it was through the guidance of some higher power, perhaps it was the right bicarbonate molecule at the right time. Somehow, life flourished. Life changed, died, grew, died, and continued to flourish. We may have a purpose or we may be purposeless but by the purpose to which we ordain unto ourselves. I ask you, in light of all of the possibilities, is really considering either going to change your outlook on life? Is the evolutionist going to be so defensive that he finds it necessary to attack the specifics of a religious doctrine that is purely motivated and supported only by the intangible faith of its followers? Are theologists? beliefs so threatened that they must exile any understanding or possibility of a science not so removed from God? That perhaps scripture is [i]not[/i] perfect, yet if one truly considers the message, the outcome is similar? I am a deeply faithful person. My biology professor claiming to know of our origins isn't going to suddenly germinate doubt as to my relationship with God. Questioning each other?s beliefs is perfectly acceptable. However, when you are unwilling to listen to the answer it is a useless endeavor.

Yeah, Band of Brothers is by far the most accurate portrayal of World War 2 I've ever seen in media. Far exceeds Saving Private Ryan. I'm extremely impressed with the way they categorically followed the events based on [i]real[/i] post-action reports, accounts, and records of each occurance. The interviews of people beginning each episode (I'm not sure if that was part of BoB on HBO, it is with the DVD set) are especially touching as each person is actually a member of Easy Company (you find out who was who in the final interviews). While the action is certainly striking (easily matches SPR), the true meat of the tale lies in the story elements and character development. The interaction between characters in times of war, and the reactions to the brutality of war is striking. I think this media is perfectly acceptable as a learning tool to understand that brutal and dark period of our history (from the dark emerge heros..). The gritty feel of the movie is perfectly appropriate and accurate. They used real firearms (blanks) and shot on location for the most part (sparing the cities, which they most likely had to intermix European on-site filming with destructable set-peices). This series is perfect for anyone remotely interested in World War Two.. a must buy. You at least owe yourself a viewing.

I think I should point this out quickly before I take a good amount of time reviewing this; the title caught my eye. Specifically, in that it doesn't make sense. Macabre is a french adjective, not a noun. It would be as if you titled the paper "Snow cone of the red" or "Snow cone of the warm". It doesn't make syntactical sense. Perhaps "The Macabre Snow Cone" would work better? More to come...

I gotta be honest here. I only watched Cowboy Bebop for the Jazz. Now, GTO had me captured for the first few episodes. Interesting predicaments. Around the 15th episode it became startlingly apparent that the same basic encounter was repeating itself... *sigh*

[QUOTE=elfpirate] [b][i]A fair wind is blowin' across the bay--[/i][/b] [b][i]Hoist the sails an' heave away![/i][/b] [b][i]Farewell to land and its sandy shore--[/i][/b] [b][i]The sea beckons us to sail her once more.[/i][/b] [COLOR=Red]This last line feels a bit off tempo, to me. Try "We, the sea beckons to sail her once more." I think it takes the syllabic stress and makes it sound more like a song.[/COLOR] [b][i]We tow the line an' haul in the slack--[/i][/b] [b][i]We labour an' toil--the sun [COLOR=Red]roasts(?)[/COLOR] our backs...[/i][/b] [COLOR=Red]'Burns' feels a bit too vanilla... mix it up ^_^[/COLOR] [b][i]The life o' a pirate's as rough as can be--[/i][/b] [b][i]But we're happy to work and to be back at sea[/i][/b] [b][i]So run up your white flag- hoist it high in the breeze[/i][/b] [COLOR=Red]I think the terminology for "white flag" could also be condensed into "whites", it may make that flow a bit better.[/COLOR] [b][i]An' prepare to be boarded as quick as can be...[/i][/b] [b][i]You can die fighting or die on your knees--[/i][/b] [COLOR=Red]Change "fighting" to something... maybe "with a cutlass" or "bearin' iron"[/COLOR] [b][i] [COLOR=Red]Though,[/COLOR]it matters not to a pirate like me![/i][/b] [b][i]For under the black flag we proudly sail--[/i][/b] [b][i]From the depths of hell we [COLOR=Red]all[/COLOR] surely hail--[/i][/b] [b][i]Make no mistake for death's hand we be--[/i][/b] [b][i]The fiercest o' pirates upon the high seas![/i][/b] [/QUOTE] Jenea, you really have outdone yourself! This shall become one of the songs the sea dogs of [i]Swift Mary[/i] shall sing! I must say, I tried to find something I could pick out. You'll notice the majority (of the few) of my corrections deal with syllable flow. The poem's greatest strength is that it is simple. Dr. Seuss was simple. This is PERFECT when talking about pirates, who for the most part, required fairly simple songs! This poem/song is ideal for the time period and is quite the work. Great job me hearty! Here's the poem with my revisions, take whatever ones you want. [b][i]A fair wind is blowin' across the bay--[/i][/b] [b][i]Hoist the sails an' heave away![/i][/b] [b][i]Farewell to land and its sandy shore--[/i][/b] [b][i]We, the sea beckons to sail her once more.[/i][/b] [b][i]We tow the line an' haul in the slack--[/i][/b] [b][i]We labour an' toil--the sun cooks our backs...[/i][/b] [b][i]The life o' a pirate's as rough as can be--[/i][/b] [b][i]But we're happy to work and to be back at sea[/i][/b] [b][i]So run up your whites - hoist it high in the breeze[/i][/b] [b][i]An' prepare to be boarded as quick as can be...[/i][/b] [b][i]You can die with a cutlass or die on your knees--[/i][/b] [b][i]Though, it matters not to a pirate like me![/i][/b] [b][i]For under the black flag we proudly sail--[/i][/b] [b][i]From the depths of hell we all surely hail--[/i][/b] [b][i]Make no mistake for death's hand we be--[/i][/b] [b][i]The fiercest o' pirates upon the high seas![/i][/b] (Original poem: Jenea McClary )

[QUOTE=ShadO MagE]Ok, if KoRn splits thats ganna suck, and I'm not here to bash christian rock bands, [/QUOTE] Yes you are... If you weren't, you would have stopped after this sentence. [QUOTE=ShadO MagE] But almost every christian rock band sounds the same, the same cookie cutter lyrics. even if they are different the message is the same, "God is good, God is great" though maybe thats just my general bias to christianinty, .[/QUOTE] I never knew you had such an incredible insight into Christian music! Your categorical stereotyping of the entire genre is wonderfully done. You did happen to capture a major theme in Christian music: Christ (god). Go figure. I guess that would be me saying "all rap is the same, you know? 'money, pimps, hos'". How about punk? 'Let's fight the system! Anarchy in the UK!" Why not Jazz? Let's reduce jazz to some base, primary elements! Jazz is basically a non-melody... it's playing the harmony to a subjective melody that can easily be heard by whoever listens to jazz. But that's not all jazz is, right? I'm sure Ella Fitzgerald would agree there?s a bit more to it. [QUOTE=ShadO MagE] because I really don't like being told I'm going to go to hell for not beleaving in your God. I know not all cristians are like that, but you tend to remember the bad experiances and not the good ones.[/QUOTE] Sounds like the only person racking his brain over "hell" is you. Being a Christian, I'm pretty focused on how I live my life here on earth. Because... well if God put me here, I bet there's a reason why. If you actually took the time to listen to some Christian music, maybe you'd understand this as well. As for KoRn, I'm not much of a fan of their music. I did respect a somewhat unique sound. I respect the lead's decision to pursue religious-inspired music. I admire that. He's going to go through many trials and take a lot of hell from former fans, just to make the right choice. A social martyr. I respect that.

[QUOTE=dd protector][COLOR=Indigo] [COLOR=Indigo]Even if you don't agree with it, its no longer just between man and woman. :P [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Heh, I must've missed the memo to scribble out that little bit in the Bible. Let's keep this away from a homosexual marriage debate. The thread willl get really ugly, really quickly.

I think the fact that most of your critics picked out trivial details reveals the quality of your writing for how superb it truly is. You managed to show an entire twisted history in a fairly brief work of fiction. I especially appreciate the scrupulous detail that you poured over the character?s thoughts. I suppose most of this is redundant after any initial reading. I was surprised that no one noticed the Casablanca reference: [quote] Out of all the shops in all the towns in all the world, he had to come strolling into my store.[/quote] And the Fight Club reference (which I admittedly missed first reading): [quote] I want to destroy something beautiful.[/quote]

Marriage is the spiritual union of a man and a woman becoming ?one? in the eyes of God. [quote name='Afire][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=1][COLOR=RED]Does having a sexual relationship with someone automatically created a spiritual marriage relationship? I think so. [/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote] Nope. I do not agree with this at all. I think a love and dedication, or marriage, to that union must be established before sex. Sex is the consummation of that relationship. Basically, it?s the icing if Cake?s the marriage. [QUOTE=Afire][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=1][COLOR=RED] I think that people not ready to deal with the responsibilities of a sexual relationship and what may come of it, shouldn't have a sexual relationship in the first place. Young or old. I don't think people should have a sexual relationship with someone they don't want to be spiritually bonded with in the first place. Young or old. People shouldn't legally marry someone that they they don't want to be spiritually bonded with. I think that once they have a sexual relationship...they are spiritually married. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] Well I agree with the issue of responsibility. Marriage is far more than sex. Actually equating marriage with sex trivializes it, as far as I?m concerned. [QUOTE=Afire][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=1][COLOR=RED] I believe that two people become one in a sexual relationship. If you sleep with prostitutes...you become a prostitute. If you sleep with your *now divorced wife* after that...you make her "your" prostitute. She is innocent. You are the guilty one. If she gets a disease from you... you're to blame. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] STD and sex tends to be an overwhelmingly mutual choice. I have the same pity for teen pregnancy or the contraction STD?s (I say SEXUALLY transmitted diseases) as I would on a smoker. If there were some honestly realistic self-control, STDs could easily be controlled. I agree with Alex on the difference between public and spiritual contracts. I think a marriage is important to share with the family so that the union can be recognized and celebrated!

A question which invariably shall remained unproven as far as I can foresee. I have the strange feeling that our current social and ethical dilemmas are furthering away from the religious answer, to a more tangible science. This worries me. Consider the fact that science (especially) doesn?t ?prove? anything. Most research rides on the premise that only the majority can be assumed to adhere to the conclusions drawn by scientists. In fact, statistical reasoning accompanying research relies on the assumption that any conclusion is can have a probability less than 100%. That is, science has resigned to assumptions based upon observations as theories. That?s not a problem when one?s talking about protein pumps. However, it provides a sincere ethical dilemma. I plan to disclose a bit more in the ?religion? thread. Adam and Eve? I?m assuming they weren?t the last people God created. As it has been revealed before, scientific evidence rarely discourages my faith. Usually patterns associated with creation (there are a few ideas revolving around what the ?day? might have consisted of in God?s vision) from a scientific standpoint only solidify my faith in God?s creation. Look at the complexity of life. I recently explored homeostasis of the immunological system. It?s incredible the way various cells function, how dependent they are to the overall system. Way too complex for random mutation, I?d say. I don?t think it makes anyone ?less? religious to believe in evolution, either. I suppose the most important thing is for both sides to learn the arguments of the other.

[quote name='kabapu']when i went to get a grink from the outside refregerator, this kid went in, and saw what was in there. he took particular interest in my katana, and was reaching for it when i walked back into the room. i yelled at him, drew my katana, and chased him from the room, wildly swinging my katana over my head. i caught up with him, slammed him against the wall, and put the tip of my katana to his throat, and said "if you ever come near to thinking about coming anywhere near my house again, you'll taste the steel of my katana"[/quote] This is the most irresponsible post I've seen in a long time. You threatened a kid with a katana? You pinned him down and held it to his [i]neck[/i]? You sure are a [i]big[/i] man taking down those kids that are smaller than you. Really cool job there, let's threaten to cut someone with a blade for merely reaching/touching your posessions. Grow up. Seriously, grow the hell up. You aren't an Anime character, you aren't a samurai... i know katanas are "cool" and you probably gave attention to the fantasy of yourself fighting off whatever "bad guy" with it. But threatening little kids? That's a bully. With the exception of Annie and Anatema, it sounds like this thread is a bunch of kids trying to deal with younger kids. Your suggestions (beating the kid up, yelling at him) are all signs of your own personal immaturity and inability to cope with life's problems. Want to know the solution? Patience. Try a little patience. Why don't you call the kid's parents and explain the situation to them? Tell them that you are uncomfortable having Zach over while you have to watch your brother? Why don't you tell your parents?

I have tried my very best to avoid this thread at all costs. Usually a religious thread pops up on OB, giving newer members and old a chance to throw their rhetoric around. Members will attack other?s lifestyles and dogma, and members will issue challenge to their beliefs, not the fundamentals, always the specifics. You can take a fish apart, study every little piece and understand how a fish swims, but when you sew him back together he?s just not going to swim right. If there?s a problem I sense here it?s a sincere lack of empathy. I never need to justify my faith to any man. I don?t even need to justify it to myself or God. My relationship with God may be personal, but it is also public. I am a Christian, that is, I am to emulate Jesus as best as possible? to walk in his shoes as best I can. He is my truth? my absolution. It?s simple to debate the desire or idea of God from human perspective, but to actually experience a relationship with your creator? Well, that?s coming home after being lost for a long time. I want to answer a few questions that I don?t think have been discussed properly. I noticed the mention of the ?heaven card? and simple ?salvation?. There are two beings in this universe that know my heart: myself and God. Salvation isn?t a privilege, salvation is a real choice. Simply praying for forgiveness or simply ?believing in God? isn?t going to send anyone to heaven. Your heart, if truly repentant, [i]will[/i] be forgiven if asked for. Merely asking it for the sake of a better afterlife won?t work. The truth of your heart will be the truth of your afterlife. This deviates from the main point. Too often is discussion diverted towards what happens after death. If our whole purpose in life was to end up in Heaven, he wouldn?t have created us in the first place. We have purpose in our existence, one that can only be understood or attained through a relationship with God. I can purposefully deviate from God?s plan? I can disobey God. I am not ?steered? by God unless I choose to. However, in choosing the plan God has for my life, I will live the best life that I can. I?m not living for Jesus so I can get to Heaven?. Jesus is in my heart right now, I [i]am[/i] in heaven. [QUOTE=Siren] "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Meaning, I view myself not as part of something larger than myself; I view myself as myself. Therefore, I consider myself in an element that is all my own. Therefore, I am master of my domain, in control of my life, living in the here and the now, independently of any "higher power." Therefore, I am my own God. So, in a sense, Altron's statement still holds true, even for Atheists and non-believers, because they believe themselves to be alone, as it were, living their lives without belief in the higher power, therefore acting independently in their lives, and thus, acting as their own God. And the cultural difference angle still remains concrete, because it's a cultural difference between believers and non-believers. But the belief in a controlling/guiding power is still readily apparent.[/QUOTE] I believe that God has given everyone ?control?. I believe your belief is as dangerous as any dogma. You are only accountable for yourself? Does that mean whatever you hold true, is? I wonder, if you decided to do something considered ?wrong? by the public, would it be ?right? to you, Alex? Think about this for a second. Dwell on the possibility of total relativity. Why would there be need for law, virtue, or order if you don?t believe in anything but yourself? Society is built upon all of our sacrifices to benefit the whole. If you are your own God, what do you owe your fellow man? You two should probably end the flame war right now. It?s causing some pretty drastic misinterpretations. [QUOTE=elfpirate][b][color=darkred] [b][color=#8b0000]I wasn't implying that religious people have chosen a religious path solely in order to cope. Nor did I imply weakness or gullibility of any sort. I was stating that religion actually helps people to cope with the world around them. It's a basic observation. [/color][/b] [/QUOTE] I?ll answer this without knowing Wrist Cutter?s religious situation, from a Christian perspective. I never chose my religion to ?cope? with anything. I don?t need to be explained how the world came into being, and the purpose that God has for me never could have triggered my awareness before I came to him. The human condition is understood and coped by us all, religion isn?t a method of dealing with it, it?s not a trip to a psychologist. I understand that some people (notably Greek and Roman mythology) are inspiring their deities based on world phenomena. My God is the answering the phenomena that is my very existence, purpose, and happiness. [QUOTE=elfpirate][b][color=darkred [b][color=#8b0000]Have I ever heard of the Ten Commandments? What are those? [/color][/b] [b][color=#8b0000]Fool- does this not imply that these sins and virtues (of the Ten Commandments) are the influence of either a good deity or of an evil deity? I'm pretty damned certain that it states in the bible that satan is at the root of all evil, not man's free will... and that the will of man can be turned by evil and the man made to do evil deeds. [/color][/b] [b][color=#8b0000][/color][/b] [b][color=#8b0000]Without satan and God, there would be no good entity to steer man's will in the right direction, and no evil entity to steer him in the wrong direction- all that is left is the heart and the will of man. That is what I meant by "responsible for their own actions".[/color][/b] [b][color=#8b0000][/color][/b] [/QUOTE] I must first address the idea that there would be no entity. To say there can be good and evil without God and Satan to a believer is comparable to saying there may be existence in nothing. Basically, you?re riding on a theory that is purely inconceivable for Christians (I cannot honestly speak for anyone else). That said, our will does remain as you have described it. We are God?s most amazing creation in that we have been granted the ability to ?choose?. God may have plans for my life, but I can choose to follow whatever path I desire. Now, that doesn?t mean I am making the correct choice in deviating. Satan and God may influence our lives, but it is up to us to bite the apple, not Satan. [QUOTE=elfpirate][b][color=darkred] [b][color=#8b0000]And exactly when did I tell any religious person how they should feel? Feel whatever the hell you want- I don't give a ****... And how in the world did homosexuality get brought up? Where the hell were you going with that one? [/QUOTE] [/color][/b] In using the example of homosexuality, he was making an analogy about empathy. It is evident that both of you are severely misunderstanding one another?s arguments in your own heavy vitriolic. [b][color=#8b0000][/color][/b] [QUOTE=elfpirate][b][color=darkred] [b][color=#8b0000]I think that you were in such a hurry to be pissed off at someone that you read my post and saw only what you were hoping to see on this thread- not what I actually had written...simply so you could defend something that wasn't even being attacked to begin with. [/color][/b] [b][color=#8b0000][/color][/b] [b][color=#8b0000]And I said quite clearly that I did not think that religion was unintelligent... but maybe you missed that part...[/color][/b] [/color][/b][/QUOTE] Perhaps both of you should try for more rational debate instead of making the matter so personal. I should conclude with a little illustration of my faith in comparison to others. I believe my faith is true. I believe that if you believe and accept Jesus as your savior, you are washed of your sins because of his love for all humankind (crucifixion). I think of my knowledge and understanding of God as the same way I believe a stove (turned on, for the purposes of the analogy) is hot. I have faith that a stove will burn me if I touch it. I don?t know if it will burn me, I only have faith in the fact that the red metal and ripples of heated air would delight in singing my skin. Now take anyone else, they can believe in this stove will not burn them. They can pray and worship the stove all they want. They can openly claim that the stove will protect them, and never burn them. When it comes down to brass tax; if you touch a stove, you?re going to get burned.

[quote]"Hero of the Soviet Union" Blackened dust and [b]withered[/b] ash Through cold and hurt, life and death Does thy sergeant come for thee Cunning, fearless and skilled Leading thy troops to battle Under sky and stars, sun and moon who never rests with shut eyes wrathful to thy foe, loyal to thy master Hero of the Soviet Union, Jakob Pavlov[/quote] Heh, it's interesting to see a poem covering that era of world history. Quite a welcome change, I may add. The poem itself seems bare, in my opinion, I think you could have afforded more content when describing the merits of Jakob (what's so spectacular about him?). The descriptions are a bit trite, and there seems to be no rhyme pattern... or syllable pattern. That's alright if you were doing something extract, however, I was thrown off by your use of older english expressions "thee, thy" which usually accompany some sort of iamb. A few problems(besides the "withered" ash): "Does thy sergeant come for thee" This line really disrupted the flow of the poem. I kept jumping back to it and trying to figure out what you were saying here. Is it a question or a statement? i.e. "Does thy sergeant (not Pavlov) come for thee?" or "(he) Does thy sergeant (Pavlov) come for thee." I couldn't figure the poem out. The first option seems more reasonable as the poem appears to be a combination of 2nd person (talking to Pavlov directly, it appears) and descriptive elements. "wrathful to thy foe, loyal to thy master" should be: "wrathful to thy foe, loyal to [b]thine[/b] master" While nothing is concrete in language (old english is no exception) it appears as this is the most commonly accepted grammatical use when "your" appears twice in a sentence. Keep writing :D

[QUOTE=kabapu]one cure i've found for sore throat is: eat the spiciest curry you can find. about ten minutes after, have someone hit you in the throat (not hard enough to kill mind.) then drink 2 glasses of iced water, followed immediately by a bottle of tabasco sauce. wait fifteen minutes, and have a fizzy drink. this cure has allways worked for me.[/QUOTE] If you're planning on singing, please disregard this post entirely, Juu. [Quote=Siren]I notice that no-one has mentioned any type of antiseptic spray. You can get them at any Rite-Aid-type store. They come in a variety of flavors, and application is very simple. Just shake, aim the nozzle to your open mouth, and spray. Whenever I've had sore throats for whatever reason, that seems to help. Plus, it may assist in killing whatever bacteria is causing the strepp. It's a bit of an anesthetic, too, so singing would probably feel much better. Your throat might feel a bit weird, but you sing from the diaphragm, anyway. ^_^[/quote] Yeah, what you're talking about basically serves the same purpose as a cough drop. I suppose it's effectiveness varies from person to person. It might be more comfortable. The important thing Alex mentioned here was the antibiotic qualities of the spray. While a topical antiseptic spray such as this might reduce inflammation it probably won't be able to kill your strep as quickly as an oral antibiotic like minocyclin or keflex ( to name a few). I'd suggest visiting your doctor the next time you have strep (or if you still have the symptoms now) and get a throat culture. If it's bacterial, you could wipe the thing out pretty quickly. If it is a viral infection... antibiotic spray isn't going to help that much.

[QUOTE=Rhian][size=1]You're welcome, Juuness. Orange juice sounds like a good plan; it has the Vitamin C and the acid that will help to clear your throat. :) Yeah, my mom doesn't rely on medicine, either, because letting your body fight it off makes your immune system stronger. [/size][/QUOTE] Citric acid doesn't clear phlegm at all. For one thing, the congestion is built in your sinus and upper respiratory tract, so unless you are literally aspirating the juice, the acid's doing jack. For a sore throat, you'll want to control coughing. The main problem with itchy or sore throats (for singers) is the insane desire to cough out the phlegm. DO NOT DO THIS. Coughing aggravates the vocal chords and can cause further damage and irritation. 1)If you want to sooth your throat the most important thing you can drink is WATER. Try "cool" water, not "cold" water. 2)If you have a sore throat (don't do this before your performance) you should use cough drops with BENZOCAINE and to a lesser extent, Menthol. 3)Drink Chamomile tea... old theatre trick, day of the performance. As for medicine, well... some illnesses require medicine, do not underestimate the power of disease... **edit** [QUOTE=Rhian][size=1] XD Acid reflux is where acid from your stomach gets into your lungs. It has nothing to do with your throat.[/size][/QUOTE] You're talking about inhaling your stomach acid? Incorrect. Acid reflux is just a buildup of acid to the point that it begins to irritate (and possibly damage) the cardiac sphincter. This causes a gaseous buildup and the excess acid will usually accompany any sort of burp that would release the gas. This means the acid is causing damage to your esophagus. Usually severe acid reflux results in vomiting to remove the excess acid which will, incidentally, cause damage to your throat. The most common detrimental symptom would be esophageal erosion, however. As for inhaling stomach acid? Usually that would result in your lungs immediately coughing it back out.

Long overdue, I know... I hope you enjoy it, Alex. Taming the Wild Planet: the story of Kashyyyk Datapad courtesy Imperial Communications and Propaganda agent Miaan Horrel The universe?s expanse of matter and vacuum will forever remain only fractionally explored. Even our own galaxy, though mapped out and inhabited by a myriad of known systems, remains wild in its fringes. The culture and compassion of a civilized existence can be refused in favor of rampant disorder and chaos due to isolation. Quite often, the beneficial and welcoming hands of the Emperor?s attempt at creating a semblance of order on such worlds are violently opposed by the inhabitants. This refusal towards Galactic Unity has is ever striking in the more recent organizations of such rebellion, claiming the banner of the Old Republic, malevolently clinging to that destructive era of retrogression. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v688/Drix_Dzanth/imperialcenter1.jpg [/img] [Imperial Center glitters under the sleepless watch and protection of the Emperor] A newer hope remained with the ascension of a new, benevolent leader in Palpatine. His sweeping reforms have simultaneously brought species together under a single, unified government. He has also spread vast improvements in the overall quality and production of every world, so that each may serve in turn to progress the galaxy as a whole. Imperial reconstruction has been spearheaded into worlds long wrapped in the toil of civil strife or isolation from trade and communication. One such world to fall under the philanthropic process is that of Kashyyyk The history of Kashyyyk is as brutal as the organisms that inhabit it. The surface?s only sentient species, the Wookiee, lived in a constant state of tribal conflict. Leading xenosociologists link the reliance to a predatory diet and primitive language system to create an unusual chasm between members of the same species. Family groups tended to be established in the blood of a fallen clan within the towering canopies of the famed Wroshyr tree. The violence was only exacerbated by the dangerous ?underforest?. As one travels deeper into the lower forest ecological levels the more dangerous organisms are encountered. Juvenile Wookiees often sacrificed themselves in a bizarre ritual that usually involved the attempted destruction or capture of a mature Katarn; a deadly creature that has been recorded to lengths of 3 meters, able to traverse the undergrowth of Wroshyr with liquid grace. Kashyyyk is not a world untouched, however. The planet shares the same sun as nearby Trandosha (Hsskor) inhabited by the intelligent and enterprising Trandoshan species. The Old Republic continuously underestimated the enduring efforts of the Trandoshan race to spread economic stability and order to the system. Often, their attempts at colonizing surrounding worlds were vehemently opposed by senators choosing to stagnate in positions of stoic power. Commonly, peaceful trandoshan settlers would have to protect themselves in unfortunate hostilities against the fiercely territorial indigenous species. Vssk D?oth, respected chair of Gallvor Labor Solutions comments on the violent history between Wookiee and Trandoshan, ?Our settlers would enter the world and attempt to establish contact with the Wookiees. Often our diplomats would return horribly disfigured or not at all. It was unmitigated rage, as if these seemingly sentient creatures could dwell in fascinatingly complex dwellings, yet were incapable of contentment or peace.? The Imperial reconstructive effort was expanding widely during this period, claiming the peaceful establishment of imperialized government and galactic trade far into the outer rim. The Emperor?s attention was drawn to Kashyyyk and the struggle for symbiotic existence between the worlds of the system. As initial Imperial science and exploratory teams descended to the planetary surface the staggeringly dangerous reality became evident. Major Bol Halesk comments and datapads are still available for civilian access in any holonet library. ?It was apparent that the Wookiees maintained the same impression of our exploration of their world with the same disdain reserved for the previous Trandoshan settlers. They sent war parties towards our scientific crews with seeming remorselessness. If it weren?t for the stormtrooper escorts, decent men serving the Empire would not be here to share their gift with the rest of us.? He also recorded the Wookiees dramatic change as they fell unto their own ?employment?. ?Wookiees commonly use serrated blades, as long as a Bothan?s arm. They also used a primitive, but effective energy weapon we dubbed the ?bowcaster? as its shape resembled early slug-throwers used back in the era of Xin the Despot. Soon after our landing, it appeared that the Wookiee armament continued to expand. Suddenly research squads were disappearing with noticeable blaster fire around the battle sites. A dead Wookie was found with the possession of a Blastech DH-17?. The weapon, most commonly arming militias or various paramilitary groups, was found to have an identity code verifying it?s production facilities (Karam IV) as one owned by the now-infamous Rebellion. The alarming news was top priority, as the implication of rebel activity on the resource-rich world grew. The Imperial Navy responded by blockading the system shortly after in an attempt to halt any weapon trading. This stimulated an immediate exodus of many foolhardy Wookiees attempting to escape the imminent Imperial justice. The effort was in vain, only revealing more substantial evidence to the collaboration with the Rebel agents. A new government was established in wake of Imperial occupation. The Trandoshan industries, finally recognized for their continual commitment to progress were given control of the subsidiary government and industrial responsibility with the world resources. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v688/Drix_Dzanth/kashyyk_garrison.jpg[/img] [Stormtrooper garrisons now maintain peace and order on Kashyyyk] The Emperor extended unprecedented mercy to the continually defiant Wookies. In an act of magnanimously immense proportion, the indigenous species were spared the long stay within imperial detention centers. Instead, Imperial labor advisors working with stormtrooper garrisons selected individual Wookiees unwilling to accept the generous prospect of civilization. From Kashyyk, the Wookies would be transported to educational facilities and industrial shipyards, where they could further the Imperial effort and return prosperity to their families back home. This reformation process is slow and difficult, but the Emperor has confidence that the Wookiees will soon come to understand and appreciate order through moderate labor.?Our production has improved twenty-fold with the addition of Wookiees to the labor force. They work hard when they want to, and their strength is exceptional. I?ve personally been able to speak with several of their species with the assistance of translator droids and they are overwhelmingly appreciative of the opportunities the Emperor has granted them,? Kuat Drive Yards envoy Jodin Sarte explained, ?Kashyyyk is a true testament to the Emperor?s continual expansion and improvement of our current Galactic state.? Yes, even today the towering Wroshyr trees are no longer associated with the twisting chaos of an untamed world, but as pillars of order and stability. The emerald planet, free from insurgencies and civil strife may now contribute to the galaxy; falling within the fold of amelioration under the careful guidance of Emperor Palpatine.

So... with some WELCOME HELP from DW, I finally started dabbling in Photoshop. I decided to start out with a fun little project using real pictures of Alex and Annie and just messing around with them. Comments? [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22502&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22503&stc=1[/img]