Brasil

[quote name='Chabichou']Sigh...The Mediterranean sea and the Atlanic both have salt water. It's not a difference between fresh and salty water. So are you stating that Muhammad performs some sort of experiment? He leans out of his boat and tastes salt water? And apparently just tasting the water confirms that there is a barrier between the two bodies of water? That sounds quite silly if you ask me.[/quote] Have you ever done it? Sounds silly? So does claiming that a 2000-year-old text holds scientific truth, Chabi. [quote]How was I playing victim in the beginning of this thread? When I try to explain what I mean when you misunderstand me? My intention is to clarify my ideas that's all.[/quote] How? I don't know, perhaps throwing a childish tantrum when you don't get your way? Perhaps the complaining about people insulting you, when they're not really insulting you, only responding with the same level of vitriol seen from your posts in this thread (and there has been some nasty vitriol coming from you, don't deny that)? Chabi, it's a fact that you bring all of that down upon yourself. [quote]Yes, it "shoves a knife in my heart" when you twist my words around and use it against me. You keep using my past statments to argue my present ones when they are irrelevant. When I talk about metaphors, using my past statements about science to argue doesn't prove anything. I told you countless times, I was addressing two different questions, two different subjects. I said, that the sun can be interpreted as a "shining lamp", that metaphor is logical, it's valid. Then you ask "well how does that prove the Quran is the word of God?" It doesn't, that's the thing, I never said that it did. I was addressing the issue of metaphors only, so stop putting words in my mouth. You even go so far as to claim you know you know what I'm thinking: "You don't understand because you don't want to". Great argument there Siren, and somehow you think this proves me wrong...right. :rolleyes: [/quote] Okay...so then why bring in an utterly pointless quotation if it doesn't relate to anything in the discussion? The Quran uses metaphors. We've been saying that the entire time. It's an established fact that one can understand just by reading the [insert ancient/religious text here] with a basic level of comprehension. Chabi, Xander's point is easy enough to understand that nobody else in the thread didn't get it. Because you didn't get it, I can only see two reasons for that: 1) You lack the capacity to understand what he's saying (and what he's saying is incredibly easy to understand, provided you don't [i]want[/i] to ignore it). 2) You simply don't want to, because it punches a hole in your argument. So, you're either incompetent or ignorant to the point of being utterly blinded. Take your pick. [quote]I've told you countless times that I posted chapter 78 as an example for Zeta. Xander said there wasn't much scienctific-ness to it, which is true. I told him "You're right, Xander, only the verse that talks about the mountains is scientific". You said "Any idiot would know mountains are embedded into the ground". You're right too Siren. But I told you, when I posted the chapter it wasn't my intention to use it's "scientific statement" to prove the Quran is the word of God. I wanted to show Zeta an example of what a Quranic chapter might talk about. Do I make myself clear? Why do you keep arguing with me about this issue Siren? It's so frustrating, I explain my intentions, and you just keep accusing me of contradicting myself, when I'm not.[/quote] A "scientific revelation" that a 5-year-old can see and understand independently of those around him or her? That's not a scientific revelation, Chabi. [quote]What's wrong with thinking I'm right? Doesn't everyone think that their opinions are correct? Don't you think that you're right about your opinions? I think that's the reason we have them. Isn't that why we're arguing in the first place? If I think I'm right, then I think you're wrong, and if you think you're right then you think I'm wrong. We argue for the sake of trying to get people to change their minds.[/quote] What's wrong with thinking you're right? I don't know, when you're trying to connect dots that aren't even there? When you're proposing and adamantly sticking to a faulty thesis, claiming you've obliterated any "opposing" argument (when you really haven't), downright ignoring points the first five times they're made and only finally getting around to flirting with the idea of maybe mentioning them in passing when they're being slapped into your face? I'd say after all that, and you still think you're so incredibly right, something's wrong. [quote]Apparently because I won't shut-up and agree with your opinion, that makes me "self-absorbed", and "narcissistic"...right. Well, this "narcissistic" person takes the time to thank her lord for giving her life, rather than turning away in arrogance.[/quote] Oh, please, haha. Yeah, I'm sure being an Atheist has really doomed me to living such an unfulfilled life. Think about what you're saying here, Chabi. Think about what you've been doing here. You have (and are) acting like a fascist religious propagandist. Myself and others here have only been providing counterarguments to your initial claim that Islam is the true religion, because there is no way to prove something like that, and yet you keep telling us we're wrong, and continuing to persist with the same kind of religious rhetoric that has doomed so many theocracies. I say you're self-absorbed and narcissistic because you live in your own little world and outright ignore what other people say. That's self-absorbed and narcissistic. [quote]Actually you don't.Siren, are you stating that it's a fact that every single scripture, that every single book has been changed? The possibility is there, but that doesn't confirm it. I never said the Quran is the only book that's remained unhanged. If you work hard enough to preseve something, chances are you will succeed, we have also succeeded in preserving shakespeare's plays and famous novels. What "immunity to linguistics" are you talking about? What do you mean by that? Holy scriptures are more vulnerable to change because people might disagree with them or misunderstand them. The Torah the Bible and the Quran, were all at risk. But if the Quran is indeed the word of God, then it indeed has remained unchanged because God is protecting it himself. How exactly is he protecting it? Well he allows those who know the message to pass it on properly, meaning the orignial message will always be known, even if there are only a few people who know it. In regards to the Torah, if the copies in the synagogues are indentical to those of 2000 years ago, then you're right, we have no proof that it's been changed. Therefore, we can assume that the Torah and the Quran are in the same leugue, but only concerning this matter. But there is proof that the Bible's been altered, we all know that. How much exactly we're not sure, and we all have different ideas how much it has.[/quote] Chabi, [u][b]take a Linguistics course[/b][/u]. Trust me. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're falling back on a faulty and naive supposition that is entirely contradicted by professional analyses of global literary dynamics. "We have also succeeded in preserving shakespeare's plays and famous novels." Bull****. You're talking out of your ***. Take a look at the Norton Anthology Shakespeare Edition prints, 1990 to present day. Take a look at new editions of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass and compare them to the editions printed in the early 1900s. Compare Oscar Wilde's works published circa 1895 to re-prints over the past 20 years. Chabi, don't try to talk about Literature here, because you're just coming off as an idiot stretching to try to make a point. "What 'immunity to linguistics' are you talking about? What do you mean by that?" Are you just playing dumb here or do you really not understand that (easily understood) concept? Again, are you intentionally ignorant or just purely incompetent? [quote]Oh, and I took a look at the embryology site you linked to Siren. You were wrong. You looked to see if the word "muscle" comes before "bone". We all know the heart is a muscle and it is one of the first organs to develop, but the muscles I was reffering to is our "flesh that clothes our bones". The site mentions formation of the skeleton before it mentions development to actual body muscles. Hence the Quran is still right about that. Ha![/QUOTE] "Flesh clothing our bones" means what? Muscles? I doubt that. Skin is more likely (there's a referencing to [i]clothing[/i], for crying out loud). I'm even considering the line in the context of how you're looking at it and seeing flaws, Chabi. "Flesh clothing our bones" does not refer to the musculature. It refers to the skin. You've made some horrid interpretive errors previously in this thread, Chabi, so I don't think it's impossible that you've made another grievous interpretive error here. [quote=Stage 7]The ectoderm grows rapidly over the next few days forming a thickened area. The three layers of the will eventually give rise to: Endoderm that will form the lining of lungs, tongue, tonsils, urethra and associated glands, bladder and digestive tract. Mesoderm that will form the muscles, bones, lymphatic tissue, spleen, blood cells, heart, lungs, and reproductive and excretory systems. Ectoderm that will form the skin, nails, hair, lens of eye, lining of the internal and external ear, nose, sinuses, mouth, anus, tooth enamel, pituitary gland, mammary glands, and all parts of the nervous system.[/quote] [quote name='Stage 13']The somites will be involved in building bones and muscles. The first thin surface layer of skin appears covering the embryo.[/quote] Chabi, you're Sisyphus and your argument is the boulder. With that said, could a Mod please close this thread? Chabi's boulder is never going to reach the top of the hill, yet she keeps trying to push it back up after it falls. EDIT: Xander, thank you for the linkage. [url="http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Science/alaqa.html"][u]Quran vs Human Embryo Development[/u][/url] "[b]Conclusion: on bone development Dr. Sadler and Dr. Moore agree. There is no time when calcified bones have been formed and then the muscles are placed around them.[/b] The muscles are there several weeks before there are calcified bones, rather than being added around previously formed bones as the Qur'an states. [b]The Qur'an is in complete error here.[/b]" Reproduced in the exact same typography.

[QUOTE=Chabichou]There's no harm in having discussions about religion, trying to make others understand your beliefs more. If you believe in Islam, honestly, why not try convey the message to people? What's wrong with trying to convince people that islam is the right path if that's what you believe? And like I said before, if you don't wanna hear what I have to say, you are quite welcome to leave the discussion. I'm not going to shut up. I still think I'm right, because in my opinion you haven't proven anything. If you don't wanna hear it, leave. That's right, leave me to talk to myself, if you don't want to hear me. Why do you even choose to reply in the first place?[/quote] Chabi, there's a difference between discussing religion and what you do. Keep that in mind. "I still think I'm right, because in my opinion you haven't proven anything." So it's gone from "I AM right" to "I still think I'm right." In your opinion? What opinion is that? The opinion of a self-absorbed, narcissistic, fascist religious propagandist? (no offense, but it's the truth) [QUOTE]You really don't need to load your arguments with petty insults and sarcasm. You only end up proving that you're a real jerk. It doesn't bring us any closer to understanding each other's ideas. If you want me to "stop playing the victim" then please stop insulting me. We simply have a misunderstanding. And one more thing Siren, you still haven't disproved the Quran. And the argument "I have disproved the Quran because I proved that Chabichou is stupid" doesn't make sense, just so you know.[/quote] 1) Oh, I'm not loading them with petty insults and sarcasm, because your point [i]is[/i] inane and clumsy. You were trying to justify the Quran simply on the basis that the previous Arabic version still exists, and I mentioned how the Hebrew version of the Torah can be found in virtually every Synagogue, which by your "logic" also justifies the Torah, so your support point to prove that the Quran is the word of God (and by extension, the Torah not being the word of God) is null and void. 2) You play the victim regardless, Chabi. You created this thread, it seems, to throw a childish tantrum and nothing more. In this thread and in the past, when nobody has remotely insulted you, you still act like people are shoving knives in your heart. You play the victim with very little provocation. 3) Firstly, I have nothing to prove here. You do. You're the one who created this thread with the intent to SHOW how the Quran is [b][i]the[/i][/b] word of God. The thread title itself makes that pretty clear. Further in the discussion, you attempted to disprove the Torah and the Bible. As of this post, you still have not done so, more or less just flailing in the water. Secondly, take a look at my #1 here. Now, it seems to me that if I can apply to the Torah and Bible whatever argument you're using to "prove" the Quran (or legitimize it), that defeats your argument that the Quran is the word of God, and therefore, disproving the idea that the Quran is the word of God, because with [i]your[/i] evaluation criteria, I've proven the Torah and Bible. [quote]What is the topic of this discussion? That's right, the Quran. Therefore it seems most appropriate to analyze the actual text in this discussion. I told you already, I linked to the text to give you an example of a chapter in the Quran, just to give you an idea of what it's like, to show that there is a limit to how much you can interpret the meanings of the verses. When will YOU get that idea into YOUR "thick skull"? [b]Linking to a chapter in the Quran didn't prove that it is the word of God, I never said that it did,[/b] I was simply addressing other questions that arose in this debate.[/quote] [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Most of you brush off the scientific examples as though they were nothing, as though they are just a bunch of jibberish loaded with symbolisim and metaphors. But they really mean what they say. Actually I thought this time I will post an entire chapter of the Quran. Then when you read a verse, it will make sense more because it follows the information given by the verse before it. Here is a link to chapter 78[/color][/quote] Hm. I guess you haven't been saying that proof of the Quran being the word of God is in the Quran? I don't know, when I see someone repeating "the Quran is the word of God because it coincides with modern science" ad nauseum in a thread, and then I see that person mention "scientific examples" in the first line of a paragraph where she links to a portion of the Quran, noting, "they really mean what they say," call me crazy, but I don't think there's any denying that the linkage was directly related to defending the "scientific-ness" of the Quran. Considering that your primary "point" here has been "SCIENCE in the QURAN," I'd say that linkage is still designed to "prove" your argument. And...the focus of this thread, the reason of this thread, is so you can prove the Quran is the word of God, so...if you [i]are[/i] in fact linking/quoting (fundamentally, linking and quoting are the same thing) portions of the Quran with no relevance to your point...why are you bringing them in to begin with? To help others understand something that you believe to be purely exclusive to the Quran (and apparently utterly absent everywhere else in the world)? It just becomes a waste of everyone's time. [color=#004a6f] [/color][QUOTE]And I think I addressed the "proving X with X" accusation. Kindly read my previous post.[/QUOTE] Yes, you said you weren't trying to prove X with X, but on the first page of the thread, you were saying the following: [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']However, the point of my thread is only to try to convince you that the Quran is the word of God[/color][/quote] But what you failed (and continue to fail) to do is reference anything other than the Quran. You quote/reference portions of the Quran that state exactly what you said in the above quote. That's proving X with X. [QUOTE]Okay, now to address the matter of metaphors. If I have contradicted myself before, I apologize. The Quran, like the other holy scriptures makes use of metaphors. But there are verses in the Quran that need to be taken literally, and there is a limit to how metaphorical the text can get.[/QUOTE] Not "if." You [i]have[/i] contradicted yourself. Let's make that clear. Now, "literally." Okay...so "light piercing the darkness," or mountains on the horizon. How does the literal nature of those statements legitimize your claim that the Quran is the word of God? [QUOTE] When I mentioned the sun being described as "a dazziling/shining lamp", I wasn't trying at that point to prove that the Quran is the word of God. I was addressing the issue of metaphors, Siren. You are really twisting my words around. You need to understand that questions arise that go off topic, and I was simply trying to answer them.[/QUOTE] [quote=Chabichou][color=#004a6f] However, the beauty of the Quran is only [b]one[/b] of the many pieces of evidence that proves it's the word of God. I also stated how Muhammad knew of historical facts that no one in his region would know simply because they have never heard it. [/color][color=#004a6f] In addition, what about all the references in the Quran to nature? There are many vivid and detailed discriptions of nature and the way things work, which all agree with modern science! [/color] [b]Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp? (Qur'an, 71:15-16)[/b] [b]It is the star that pierces through darkness! (Qur'an, 86:3)[/b] [color=#004a6f]*We know now that although we get light from the moon, it is actually reflecting the sun's light. God makes it clear that it is the sun, our star that "pierces through the darkness". The sun is producing the light.[/color][/quote] I must have just imagined you claiming Quran=word of God, then quoting a passage that refers to a shining lamp, claiming it helps prove Quran=word of God. [quote]I was addressing chapter 78 Siren. The black hole isn't mentioned in chapter 78. I stated that the only scientific revelation in chapter 78 was the discription of mountains. Why did I state that? Because when I linked to chapter 78, Xander said that he didn't see much of a scientific revelation in the chapter. So I was simply addressing his concern, not yours. Why did I post chapter 78? Because when Zeta (don't worry dude, I'm not trying to put you down, I'm glad you had a go at it) interpreted a verse too metaphorically, and I realized it was important to show that there was a limit to how much you can interpret the Quran. Then again, I did make a mistake of not posting the chapter as an example before asking for interpretations of a verse of the Quran. Sorry for that.[/quote] I agree there's a limit to how much you can interpret the Quran. I think when you link vague, metaphorical language to modern science, that's violating that limit. Now, I notice you still haven't refuted (or even attempted to refute) my comments regarding the black hole, so I can only conclude that you have no rebuttal for it. Also, noticing that mountains connect with the ground is hardly scientific revelation. If a 5-year-old can glance at a few hillsides and see them decline into flat ground, you're not proving anything by referencing something so simple. [QUOTE]Yes, I agree with you there too. The Quran could indeed have been changed. Now tell me, do you have proof that it's been changed? No you don't, hence, you cannot use that argument to disprove the legitimacy of the Quran. The possibiity that it's been changed is there, but so far what have we seen? There are copies of the Quran that are almost as old as the time of it's revelation, and they are identical to today's copies. I think that's pretty darn good evidence that the Quran hasn't changed, wouldn't you agree? The Quran states that it will be preserved, and we see clear evidence that it has remained unchanged. Doesn't that somehow support the Quran being a devine revelation? I was trying to say that when people trancribed the Quran from Muhammad, even these vowel endings were important and they made sure they got it right. And when making more copies of the Quran, we keep these exactly the same, and when people memorise the Quran they make sure they get it right. Miniscule aspects of the Quranic grammar are being preserved. Which is important in helping to keep the Quran preserved. Now this doesn't prove that the Quran wasn't changed in the past, I was simply stating how well we keep the Quran preserved, today that is. It is a fact that we are this careful when transcribing the Quran or teaching it to youngsters. When youngsters have it memorised to every detail, they grow up, and pass this message on to others, making sure they know it perfectly as well. Have you ever played the game when someone whispers something into your ear and you pass it on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, etc? The oiginal message could easily be altered, and usually comes out totally different. Now imagine playing this game and being so careful, the message is exactly the same on the other end. If people are this careful, this definitely helps to preserve the Quran.[/QUOTE] I get it! Out of the [b]entire[/b] world, out of the [b]entire global literary canon[/b], in the face of the [b]reality[/b] of a very real and concrete establishment of guaranteed [b]global translation error[/b] and a guaranteed very strong emphasis by [b]any[/b] Linguistics professor around, in the light of knowledge gained from even taking just one Linguistics course, the Quran is the ONLY text in the entire world that is magically immune to every single rule of Linguistics in the history of the world. Don't be a fool, Chabi. You have enough common sense to know that no matter what the Quran [i]says[/i], it's not unchanged over the some 2000 years it's been around. [u][b]Take a Linguistics course[/b][/u]. [quote]Listen to me. The Mediterranean sea comes in contact with, "converges" with the Atalantic Ocean. Their waters do no mix because they have different salt contents, giving them different densities. Hence, surface tension froms a barrier between them. It's like water and oil on mixing. You can see a clean line between water and oil , as though their is some barrier between them. Does this make sense? We know the concept of surface tension was not known back then. People haven't discovered it yet. Muhammad wouldn't know that the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean didin't mix. People back then would think that they do in fact mix. If you still don't think that the barrier between neighboring seas is surface tension, fine. Whatever.[/quote] How is this supposed to be a rebuttal? I don't see anywhere in your reply here that shows you understood what I was saying at all, Chabi. In fact, I think my point went sailing right over your head, so I'll repeat it in simpler, more direct ways: You can tell where saltwater ends and freshwater begins by taste and you don't need any quasi-scientific/religious revelation to know where that line is. To elaborate, have you ever tasted saltwater, and then tasted what freshwater tastes like? Just from the taste, you can tell there's a difference, and like I said before, if the barrier between different bodies of water is so precise, anybody could tell where one body begins and another ends, simply by tasting the water at various points, [b][i]or[/i][/b] by taking a fish from one body of water and dropping it into the adjacent body of water. This is why you don't need any quasi-scientific/religious revelation to know that neighboring seas don't mix...because you can tell just through experience, and this is why bringing in that passage of the Quran, claiming that because it vaguely refers to an invisible border between bodies of water, and just happens to coincide with a scientific finding later on, that it proves the Quran is the word of God, which you did say earlier in the thread: [quote=Chabi][color=#004a6f]However, the beauty of the Quran is only [b]one[/b] of the many pieces of evidence that proves it's the word of God. I also stated how Muhammad knew of historical facts that no one in his region would know simply because they have never heard it. [/color][color=#004a6f]"[i]This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.60 It is interesting that, during a period when there was little knowledge of physics, and of surface tension, or oceanography, this truth was revealed in the Qur'an.[/i]"[/color][/quote] I don't know why you're still persisting on this point, because when a 5-year-old can make a distinction between a bay and the ocean...I don't think pointing it out in a religious text is really proving anything. [quote]Anyway, I would like to point out that the Quran isn't a science book either. For instance, God explains how an embryo froms in its mother not for science's sake. He is explaining our lowly animalistic origins despite how great our minds are. It's just miraculous that the Quran would accurately descibe the stages of an embryo's development. How could a human in that time have known all the details? They simply did not have the technology to know. God states how we were nothing more that a lump flesh, which latches on to the to the side of the womb. It also states how the bones form before the muscle. An embyologist would tell you this is true.[/quote] I'd recommend you check out the following site: [url="http://www.visembryo.com/baby/hp.html"][u]Embryo development[/u][/url] According to that site (a site that seems pretty solid, reputable and comprehensive), organs develop first, then muscles, and then the skeletal structure begins taking shape. Now, I'm not a smart man, but I'd say that's pretty different than what the Quran says. [quote]There's so many statements made, and they all agree with modern science, and people simply wouldn't know those things back then! You might not have found the ones I presented convincing, but there are so many many more. How is it possible?[/quote] "So many statements" like what? The (obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes) mountain statement? The (obvious to anyone with a minimal sense of taste) freshwater vs saltwater statement? The incorrect embryo formation? Oh, yeah, it's possible...but only if you're a complete fool, lol. EDIT: [quote=Xander Harris]Chabichou. I owe you an apology. The "thick skull" quote was originally mine. I said it because I felt I was restating something that had already been said multiple times, but I should have said something like, well, "It has already been stated several times" rather than using the harsh expression that I did. I apologize for that, and for any insult or lack of respect that I conveyed through my choice of words. Good night, James Bierly[/quote] Very nice apology, James, and I do agree that the apology was warranted, but I think the fact that Chabi attributed that to me is testament to just how scattered and unfocused her replies have become.

[quote name='CowTipper']2) I agree with you Siren, about how the Quran could have very well been changed. The Bible, however, has been changed A LOT. When Constantine was emperor of the Roman empire, there was a big clash between paganism and Christianity. Constantine, who was a pagan himself, had made a very bold decision. He realized that in order to maintain power, he had to support Christianity and promote it. He also realized that in order to keep pagans on his side he had to make some changes. What he did was he took every single Bible and burned them (a few original texts survived) and replaced them with a new version. He made the Bible more divine and extraordinary, by adding the water to wine and walking on water things. He basically mixed paganism with Christianity.[/quote] Thank you, Cow Tipper. That's my point exactly, that no text in the entire world is immune to change and/or translation error.

[quote name='Chabichou']The Quran has been translated, but the Original arabic version remains. You can always go back to that as a reference. That's why it's importanat to try to learn arabic, to get the true meaning.[/quote] GASP! And you can also find the original Hebrew version of the Torah in nearly every single Synagogue! Your point is as clumsy, useless and irrelevant as it is stupid. [quote]The only scientific revelation in this chapter was[/quote] Hadn't you posted some inane gibberish about how "star piercing the darkness" was actually scientific revelation about black holes? [quote]"have we not built mountains as pegs", meaning, mountains have roots going into the ground. I posted the entire chapter so that you will see there is a limit to how you can interpret it, mountains means mountains, in this case it is not a metaphor, because the verses before and after it describe nature as well. Get my drift?[/quote] Wow. I never realized that I needed some sort of spiritual revelation to be able to see how mountains connect to the ground. And actually, "as pegs" is a metaphor (a simile, actually, but simile and metaphor are very closely related). Now, pegs can be removed. That's why they're pegs. Because they're placed in a hole but can be taken out. That's what a peg is. Mountains aren't pegs. They're not push-pins pressed into corkboard to hold papers in place. They're not on a wall in a coat room in a kindergarten. They're "natural elevation[s] of the earth's surface having considerable mass, generally steep sides, and a height greater than that of a hill." The use of "pegs" in the mountain line of the Quran is [b]sloppy writing[/b]. [quote]Zeta interpreted the verse about the "seas converging with a barrier between them" as hell and heaven with earth between them. Sorry Zeta, but that interpertation can't be used because the verses before and after it are describing nature as well.[/quote] Yes, and I also included my own interpretation, [i]one that you still have not even mentioned or attempted to refute[/i]. Chabi, your argument is falling apart. You have to resort to ignoring entire posts to even reply here anymore. You're not helping yourself. Plus, regarding that "two seas" thing...anyone can tell where freshwater ends and saltwater begins, just from the taste (just from common sense, not from some quasi-scientific/religious revelation). Not to mention you could drop a freshwater fish into saltwater and see what happens. If the separation between the bodies of water is so precise, then the difference would be like night and day. [quote]In the chapter I posted, it says: See how these verses describe nature? You can't simply take one them and change it metaphorically because it just won't fit.[/quote] So...our saying that when you're quoting "Star piercing the darkness" and when you're claiming it refers to black holes, when we're explaining that it's a metaphor for the light defeating the darkness, for knowledge overcoming ignorance...who really is applying an interpretation that "just won't fit"? Get over yourself, Chabi and come to terms with reality: that you have no idea what you're talking about. lol And it's not as if you were connecting things with [i]nature[/i], Chabi. You were trying to connect the various lines with [i]precise scientific data[/i]. You have never been talking about nature, so don't try to make it seem like that. If you try, I'll call you on it. [quote]I know there are symbols and metaphors, and they do add to the beauty of the Quran, but not to the extent when something said means something totally different. We know that when God says he made a "shining lamp" for us, it means sun, [u][b]sure it's metaphorical[/b][/u] but it makes complete sense. Th sun gives us light, which definitely means we can describe it as a "lamp".[/quote] I've highlighted a phrase you need to pay attention to. All along, we've been saying they're all metaphorical statements. All along, you've been denying that, claiming there's no metaphor whatsoever. Now, however, you're saying "sure it's metaphorical"? You're saying what we've been saying the entire time. I don't even see what your point is with your "point." So, just because a lamp gives off light, just like the sun, means that the Quran is the word of God? Or somehow legitimizes the Quran and discounts all other religious texts? I can point to every single ancient and/or religious text in the entire world and find numerous examples of the "shining lamp" cliche. [QUOTE] I wasn't dancing around a point. I wanted to post and entire chapter, and found a site that had the translations of the Quran. I have memorised this chapter in Arabic and I understand it too. Sure I could go get a book that has the translation, but I don't fell like typing it all out. I read the online translation and confirmed that it means the same thing as the arabic one. I didn't post it before reading it. I could long. Honestly, since when was linking to other sites a crime? "Oh, Chabicou is wrong 'cause she links to other sites". Right.[/QUOTE] You were quoting a text because you couldn't sufficiently make the point yourself. Why try to deny that? You're getting backed into a corner here and trying to get some breathing room by linking to other material. I echo what Xander said to you. Your quotations mean absolutely nothing because you're trying to prove X by X. It doesn't work, it's never worked, and it's not working. [QUOTE] Muhammad was given the words to him by the angel, but not just told, they were put right into his mind, that's how he had them memorized instantly. Someone needs to actually write them down, so he would speak the words clearly and they wrote it down, without additions or deletions even in the vowel sounds that end words.[/QUOTE] *nods* So humans wrote it. [quote name='Previously posted by Chabichou']And I also thought that some of the books cristians follow are actually written by Jesus' disples, making them not the word of God.[/quote] Jesus' disciples=humans. Muhammad's scribes=humans. If you want to say that the Bible isn't the word of God because Jesus' disciples (humans) wrote some of it--transcribed what Jesus said, did, etc--then the Quran also isn't the word of God, based on that criteria, because Muhammad's followers, his scribes (humans) also transcribed what he said, did, etc. Your argument that the Quran is the word of God just got derailed, Chabi, because the very same evaluation criteria you're trying to use to discount the Bible just got applied to the Quran. Now, had you said the second answer, that God himself had written the text, I would have referred you to the story of the Ten Commandments. Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai, holding two stone tablets in his hand, explaining how God has just given him these commandments (that means the text came directly from God). Considering that both Judaism and Christianity strongly emphasize the Ten Commandments, that would make both of them the word of God, because God "wrote" those texts. [QUOTE]For instance the word for lion is "asad" but we could say "asada" or "asadu" or "asadi". It still means lion, but it could change the meaning of a sentence. Is the lion eating the deer or the lion being eaten himself? Even if the word order says "the lion is eating the deer", the change in the vowel sound could make the lion the direct object rather than the subject. But this advanced grammar arabs barely worry about anymore.[/QUOTE] Okay, and the Quran is unchanged how? What you just said is a perfect example of how it's not immune to the rules of Linguistics and proves what I've been saying all along. [QUOTE]They were high and mighty, but I told you they were changed. Humans put their own words in as well, and took out words that God said himslef. Jews drink alcohol because the scratched that rule out of their book. Christians eat pork because they scratched that rule out of their book, and they have the so-called new testament, which to their advantage has less rules.[/QUOTE] *refers you to what you just said above* Above, you just said how one letter can change the entire meaning of a sentence, and how "arabs barely worry about [this advanced grammar] anymore." That would indicate massive changes in the Quran over time, Chabi. Or were you just talking out of your *** in some vain attempt to sustain a collapsing argument? [quote]Don't tell me they were just "minor changes", I've heard many chrisitans say that the old testament, which was the Torah, was changed beyond recognition by the Jews.[/QUOTE] I can see the Christians now: "Oh, teeheeteehee, teh j00s s0 totali chnged teh buk of Exodis!1!! Tehy only wahndred 4 5 dayz!1!1! lolrz!1!1" Please. Your "point" here basically amounts to "Oh yeah?! Well, they're bad, so you should criticize them!" You're trying to deflect the issue/focus here (and dragging it off-topic, I might add by focusing on Christianity and Judaism). Stop it. [quote=Manic]Okay, I'm just gonna get right to the heart of this. I don't care how hard you try, you cannot [i]coerse[/i] someone into accepting your religion with "proof" that your texts are true. The reason for that is that you simply cannot prove they're true. There's a reason it's called faith, Chabi, and that's because you believe without proof. You're letting your faith affect your judgement, and it's making you see easily questionable "proof." I'm sorry, but you simply can't prove that the Quran is the word of God. The fact that practically every non-Muslim in this thread has argued with you should show you that much. Faith means never having to explain your religion to the uninterested and unbelieving. Sure, you might want to explain how it works and what it entails, but no one ever said you had to explain why it was right. You don't have to. You have faith that the Quran, and others don't. To come onto a public forum and to claim that you have proof that it's right; it requires a degree of naivete to think you won't be opposed, and perhaps a degree of gall to try to force your beliefs onto others.[/quote] Read that, Chabi. Read it very carefully and very closely and comprehend it. EDIT: [quote name='Chabi][color=#004a6f']The Quran has a different message than the Torah and the Bible because they were changed, because the Quran states so, because the Quran is the Word of God. *Gasps for breath*[/color][/quote] The Quran has been changed in the same ways as the Torah and the Bible, Chabi, in the same ways as all ancient and/or religious texts. It's not immune to the rules of Linguistics.

[url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=36229][u]Thread Starters[/u][/url] Wow, talk about irony, lol. Very same thing I was talking about last year, but I was on the other side of the issue. The thread there explains why there isn't that feature (rather, why the feature is no longer active).

[quote name='Chabichou'][Yes, I know, but if you haven't noticed already, someone brought something up which made us go off topic.[/quote] It seems to me that when people doubted the Quran being the word of God, and you posted excerpts and tried to link them in with modern science, and then began talking about how Islam is some type of "truer" religion than Christianity or Judaism, I can't see how that couldn't drag your thread off-topic, particularly when you point out how inconsistent Christianity/Judaism are. Just think about this, Chabi. Just think about it and then get back to us. [QUOTE] I really thought people would consider this the least convincing argument, though for me it is the most convincing. I didn't use the word "pretty" either.[/QUOTE] Well, you thought wrong, now didn't you? Seems to me that when you're trying to "prove" that "Star pierces the darkness" refers to black holes and isn't in fact based in very concrete symbolism of the ancient world, I can't see how you're going to be so surprised when people don't buy into that. I mean, honestly. Star=light=hope=knowledge=goodness piercing the Darkness=black=death=fear=suffering etc. It's a common theme in all ancient literature--and even in literature today. Trust me on this. I know literature. I've only been majoring in its study for oh, about 5 years now. "Check." Your King is under attack. [QUOTE]"Powerful", or "wise" is more like it. Which accompanied by it's style makes it quite "beautiful".[/QUOTE] Okay, so if captivating language means truth, and the Bible and Torah have some pretty awesome speeches, bits of dialogue, and narration...why aren't you regarding those as highly? "Check." [quote]Most of you brush off the scientific examples as though they were nothing, as though they are just a bunch of jibberish loaded with symbolisim and metaphors. But they really mean what they say. Actually I thought this time I will post an entire chapter of the Quran. Then when you read a verse, it will make sense more because it follows the information given by the verse before it. Here is a link to chapter 78: [url="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/078.qmt.html"]http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/078.qmt.html[/url] This is one of my favorite chapters, though it is frightening when it talks about hell.[/quote] Because they are symbolisms and metaphors, Chabi. Plus, I don't recall anyone here accusing them of being "jibberish." Are you trying to play some type of victim here? I know I didn't say anything like what you're responding to. All I said was that you were treating the text too literally, because it's a familiar quality of all ancient texts to be heavily rooted in symbolism and metaphor. You're trying to dance around this point by posting a link to an online text...but the online text doesn't even help your argument, lol. To me, it just shows that you're grasping at straws here because you have to bring in supplementary sources to act as your point. This would be similar to a Freshman quoting a passage from Shakespeare for their Comp 101 course, because they don't know how to argue their point. "Check." Your King is under attack. [quote]Please take the time to read it. Each verse is translated three times by three different scholars.[/quote] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22842&stc=1[/img] If something as simple as one line of dialogue in a video game could be translated so horribly wrong, if it's a known fact that every single text in the world can get utterly lost in translation--hell, if dialogue had to be changed in Shaun of the Dead so American audiences wouldn't get the wrong impression... ...how is the Quran magically exempt from the rules of Linguistics? "Check." Defend your King. [QUOTE] Anyway, back to what you were saying, Xander:Okay I'm having a difficult time understanding you but I will try:[/QUOTE] I understood it perfectly well. Others understand it perfectly well, too. [quote]First of all, I've stated several times that the Torah and the Bible have been altered, firstly because they've been translated time and time again, translation being made from previous translation, which eventually chages the meanings of the text. In addtion, humans have made their own alterations.[/quote] There's a reason we can find the Quran in English (and French, and German, and Russian, and Italian, I'm sure), you know. Because it's been translated (time and time again), and I find it incredibly hard to believe that it's escaped any type of "All your base are belong to us." If "OMFG teh Quran s0 h4s nevr been ch4nged!1!" is the strongest support point you have for the Quran being the word of God, then I'm sorry, but you have no argument, because if you were to think rationally about this, it's impossible. Take a Linguistics course; ask a Linguistics professor. No text is immune to translation error. "Check." Your King is running out of space. [QUOTE] And I also thought that some of the books cristians follow are actually written by Jesus' disples, making them not the word of God.[/QUOTE] ...was the Quran written by Muhammad? Was it transcribed by his followers? Or was it transcribed by God himself? I ask because you only have two possible answers here, and each of them is going to derail your argument. "Check." [quote]I stated how the Quran remained unchanged. Would you not think then, that the idea that humans are born sinful is something that was incorporated into the Torah and Bible due to their alterations? It's quite possible, is it not?[/quote] And this supports your "Quran is the word of God" argument how? Seems to me that your paragraph there is more focused on Christianity/Judaism. Chabi, come to terms with what the reality of global Linguistics is: that everything will be lost in translation. [quote]Therefore, you can't compare the Quran to the older scriptures[/quote] But we all have been. [quote]disprove it's legitimacy[/quote] Oh, I think we did that, too. [quote]because as I stated before, they were changed, or if you don't believe that, the Quran at least states that they were.[/quote] The Quran states that other texts were altered? I couldn't imagine why a religious text would attempt to discount other religious texts that it's competing against... [quote]Why is it that christians eat pork and jews don't? Don't you consider that and inconsitancy in God's message as well?[/QUOTE] Dietary restrictions relate to inconsistency in God's message? You want to label Christianity and Judaism as being inconsistent with each other (and apparently, inconsistent with God) based on diets? Okay, so Muslims have no dietary restrictions at all? They don't have any meat restrictions? They don't have any fastings? Are Muslims free to eat/drink/consume whatever they want? Again, you only have two possible answers here, and each is going to derail your argument. You're grasping at straws here, Chabi. Your argument is falling apart. "Checkmate." Your King is dead.

[quote name='Chabichou']I don't get it.[/quote] Because you don't want to "get it." [quote]Islam specifically states that Jesus was no the son of God, that he was a prophet and was also human, and that all the miracles performed by him were throught the will of God. Islam rejects that Jesus was the only way to salvation. Doesn't that make the two religions somewhat different?[/QUOTE] I think the better question here is "Doesn't that make the two religions contradictory, and thus invalidate both Truth-Claims?" It goes like this. Person A says, "I'm telling the truth. Person B is lying." Person B says, "I'm telling the truth. Person A is lying." Unless someone is so wrapped up in what Person A (or B) says, most people would see the issue here, the issue being there's no way at all to accurately distinguish which Person is actually telling the truth, and which is lying, and thus makes any Truth-Claim ("Person A is whom you should follow" or "Person B is whom you should follow") wholly invalid. And this directly relates to Morpheus' question, Chabichou, a question you (conveniently) omitted in your reply. [quote name='Morpheus'] I'm curious: How are they only possible because of him?[/quote] Also, I notice you (conveniently) omitted my previous rebuttals to your (stretchy) interpretations (black holes and the two seas), so I'd like for you to touch upon those (i.e., prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt) as well, if you can. So, rather than selectively (and creatively) replying to particular posts and post excerpts, why not make your replies a bit more comprehensive? I don't see you doing that right now, and it makes me wonder how well you can actually argue your thesis.

[QUOTE=Chabichou]It says two seas. You're being way too metaphorical, which is ironic, because people use even the slightest use of metaphors to accuse the Quran of being wrong. Besides, earth isn't the barrier between heaven and hell, they are outside the universe. Nice try.[/QUOTE] Let's keep in mind that every single religious text in the history of the world is heavily rooted in symbolistic metaphors, Chabi, and that there's fundamentally no difference between the Quran, Bible, Torah, Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. Because of this, it's foolish to read into any ancient mythological/religious text as literally as you're doing here. Now, about this "two seas" challenge of yours...let's not forget how segregation is so prominent (and recommended) in ancient religious texts. I hardly think the phrase is literal. I think it's more symbolic, metaphorical, and figurative than you're making it out to be. Just consider the language being used. Two seas that exist next to each other, but don't merge/combine/blend together? Segregation is the same exact thing. Go ahead and deny it. I don't give a ****, lol, but I think it's pretty clear you're trying to connect dots that simply aren't there to begin with. And Manic raises a very good point about how if it's meant to be taken literally, there are far too many possibilities--meaning, the language used is too vague--to be considered as a sound and applicable statement.

I'm on Sabbatical from OB right now, and I might get to your "challenge" if I'm so inclined. Though, black holes can only be detected by x-ray or something far greater than human range on the (electromagnetic?) spectrum, so...human knowing of black holes? No. I don't have the time to go into those various little interpretations of yours, but your black hole idea is a very long stretch. Black holes don't penetrate (or pierce) the darkness. They are darkness, lol. The reason they're "black" is because light can't escape them, because their gravity is just so insanely powerful. "Star pierces the darkness" refers to actual stars, like the sun. And the sun was spoken of in the excerpt immediately preceding that, too. You're really stretching to connect those two dots. I don't have any background in the Quran, but I know enough about Interpretive theory to know a stretched, sketchy interpretation when I see one. [quote name='Chabichou']But proving that the Quran is the word of God, would in turn prove that God exists. Once some one realizes that the Quran was not written by humans, thy would have to assume that it is the word of a higher being, which would be God.[/quote] Your train of thought here doesn't really make sense, because you're essentially saying your conclusion supports your point, not the other way around. That'd be like me saying John Milius based Apocalypse Now off of Dante's Inferno, so therefore Kurtz is based off of the She-wolf. That's exactly what you're saying. Anyone can claim that anything is the word of God, but that doesn't prove God's existence (if anything, it just casts more doubt on the whole Truth-Claim). Your goal here is to prove the Quran to be the word of God...that's your conclusion. To get there, you have to first prove God's existence, [i]then[/i] prove the Quran is the "official" Godspeak, not the Torah or the Bible (and that's pretty much impossible, let's be realistic here). Just like for my conclusion that John Milus' real inspiration for Apocalypse Now was Dante's Inferno, I first have to prove there's a foundation for it (i.e., proving Kurtz=She-wolf). Otherwise, you're just stating an empty and invalid Truth-Claim: "God exists because the Quran is the word of God." "Kurtz is the She-wolf because John Milus ripped off Dante's Inferno." Do you see what I mean? The logic doesn't work. [quote name='HC']However, what you are doing is no more relevant than a Christian sighting historical references that fit ?Revelations? or people believing Nostrodamos to be psychic.[/quote] I think HC summed it up pretty well there. You can go into virtually any religion, any religious text where suppositions/predictions/hypotheses/statements are made and do exactly what you're doing here, Chabi...but that doesn't concrete anything at all, nor does it prove anything concrete, either.

"Now observe closely, class...Boot to the Head."

I just refresh the page and usually the ad switches to something different. It's not too huge of a deal in that sense, because it's pretty easy to deal with, but I do agree that the ads have gotten really intrusive lately. Whether it's the paparazzi one, the fly one, or those annoying Monster.com ones that have the scrolling thing if you happen to roll your mouse over by accident, they're annoying. Then there are the flashing ones and crap...bleh.

[quote name='Dagger']In regards to what Drix and others said, it seems like repetitiveness is a pretty common complaint. I definitely can't argue with that, heh. Sometimes repetitive comedy (i.e. running jokes) can be done well, but often it just falls flat. And obviously it's nice to have a plot with some variety and freshness to it.[/quote] Yes, one of the biggest no-no's for me is having a dumb joke played out way too long, or just repetitiveness in general. One thing I can't stand is the constant regurgitation of the anime reactions...whether it's the crying, the screaming, the sweat...anything. It's all so gimmicky, like they couldn't figure out anything more subtle--rather, anything at all, lol. [QUOTE]I try my best. :animesmil [/QUOTE] :smooch: [QUOTE]There's a fairly well-known anime movie called "Metropolis," incidentally. I think it was inspired by images from the Lang film. The character designs have this wonderful soft, retro look to them--that's all I really remember, though, as it's been years since I last watched it. On a related note, I have often seen fans compare Texhnolyze to the works of Philip K. Dick--not that I can really confirm or deny the validity of that comparison, seeing how as my public library system doesn't carry "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Maybe it's time to start putting those Borders gift cards to good use. :animesigh[/QUOTE] Oh, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was inspired by Fritz Lang. When Lang's Metropolis was released back in the 20s, the big-wigs in Hollywood were [i]freaking out[/i], because they were terrified at how revolutionary the film was, particularly in terms of set design and scope--it was an enormous film...literally. There are shots in the film that are some 8 physical layers deep (8 layers of matting going on) with moving vehicles and biplanes. In terms of the character design of the anime version, I'd doubt they looked to Metropolis for that; Lang's characters are incredibly angled and cut, in keeping with the German expressionist flavor of the era. But it's funny you mention the anime version (and then subsequently, Phillip K. Dick), because it brings up a very important point. That most anime is not original in the least, even the "first" animes. You can find those techniques and cinematography in films at the turn of the 20th century, themes and characters in the works of Phillip K. Dick, Harland Ellison--virtually the same talent list I included in a Halo 2 thread a while back, and symbolisms in pretty much every decade of cinema throughout the 20th century. [quote]EDIT: EVA, I didn't say that FLCL was awful from an objective standpoint (although I might be willing to argue that, under different circumstances). I just don't like it. I don't mind having to look past the surface to find the story--I've always loved Boogiepop Phantom, for example--but FLCL didn't give me much more than eye candy. The humor failed to resonate with me, and I couldn't stand any of the characters. The "set piece" scenes made me yawn. I haven't seen it in a while, but from what I remember, there isn't that much plot underneath all the visual flash & bang. It kind of annoyed me that they went to so much trouble to obscure such a straight-forward (if nonsensical) storyline. Utena & Melody of Oblivion (the latter to a lesser extent) are two anime that do a wonderful job of presenting a highly surreal and multi-layered story; both of them make sense on a surface level, but one can also choose to dig much, much deeper. To me FLCL seemed a lot more random, and many of the visual devices felt like red herrings in the end. ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] To add onto what Dagger just said about FLCL, [quote name='EVA']Cowboy Bebop was that it was almost as if Shakespeare was pitching his next Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet to a confused Monkey Punch who was treating it as another season of Lupin 3rd. FLCL has that brilliant quality to it, only the comedy covering up the story is overdone to the extent you can barely tell the story exists even though it does.[/quote] Anime does not equal Shakespeare, and to validate FLCL's mind-numbingly idiotic presentation by referencing Shakespearean comedies like The Tempest or Twelfth Night is iffy at best. Shakespeare didn't have characters jumping around like morons simply for the sake of hiding the plot. Every character in his work was there for a legitimate reason.

"Trust-a me! It's-a better than the Heimlich!"

I was reading Panda's myO, and she mentioned Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. That movie is meaningful to me in a very weird way. It was the very first movie I ever saw in theatres. My Aunt Carol and my Dad took me to see it. They wanted to make sure they took me to a movie I'd enjoy...and boy, they wished they were wrong, lol. Let's just say that a 5-year-old standing on the seat, chanting "MAX MAX MAX MAX!!!" isn't going to be appreciated by the other audience members there, lol. So, I'm asking a few questions here. What was the first movie you went to see in theatres? How old were you? And what can you remember about the experience?

A subjective research paper? ...ew. lol [quote]I have the content, but I'm not telling how Cummings' particular uses of language and typography matter.[/quote] You mean in the final paper, you're not telling how Cummings' uses of language and typography matter? Or in this rough draft? Because usage of language and typography are definitely related to technical technique...and you focus very heavily on technical technique as opposed to content technique.

Dagger, consider yourself mad skilled; you're the only one who's gotten me to post more than three times in an anime-focused thread. [quote name='Dagger']Yay! Someone else who dislikes FLCL![/quote] ^_^ [quote]Are you referring to the Ghost in the Shell movie(s) or Stand Alone Complex (the one that airs on Adult Swim)? I remember being pretty puzzled the first time I saw the original movie--it had great visuals, but in other regards it was very different from what I had expected, and I couldn't help feeling disappointed. Preconceived notions aside, though, it does a decent job of being the film it sets out to be. As for SAC--I personally enjoy most of the episodes (although some are worthwhile solely for their visuals, and anything Tachikoma-centric drives me crazy), but there are plenty of people who think it's uninspired & bland. I'm sure AzureWolf would be happy to elaborate, haha.[/quote] Both, really. The film is shown on digital cable every now and again, and the show on...Adult Swim, I think it is. [quote]Case Closed, DBZ & Inuyasha are not worth your time, as I'm sure you've gathered (no offense to fans of those shows; I'm speaking to Alex's preferences). In fact, of the shows you mentioned, the only one I'd recommend (aside from SAC, with some reservations) is Wolf's Rain... but it has a ton of detractors, and I like it for subjective reasons, not because it's objectively excellent.[/quote] Oh, I don't think the fans should be all that offended, quite honestly. It's not our fault their favorite shows are so atrocious. The animation in Wolf's Rain is pretty interesting (interesting in a good way), but I find most of the characters to be...incompetently "special." [QUOTE] I'm sort of glad you didn't bring up Evangelion or Cowboy Bebop; everyone and his little sister tries to convert people with those two shows, which is a flawed strategy. They always get set up as the be-all and end-all of anime (and that couldn't be more of an exaggeration), so newcomers often watch them after wading through an incredible sea of hype, and end up wondering, "What's the big deal?"[/QUOTE] That's my reaction to most anime, heh. "What's the big deal?" [QUOTE]I had fun watching some of the Animatrix shorts (now that you mention it, Beyond was my favorite), but not enough to run out and buy it. If you lean toward serious stuff that relies on visuals more so than on dialogue, Texhnolyze might be up your alley. It's extremely dark and dystopian (a bit too dystopian for me, actually, although I was able to appreciate it on an intellectual level). The visuals are nicely crafted, and it has just enough dialogue to stitch the disparate elements together. Very atmospheric.[/QUOTE] It's not that I lean more toward visuals, necessarily, because by nature, I'm very dialogue-oriented. It's just that when the dialogue is really bad, I feel the need to committ mass homicide. But Texhnolyze sounds interesting. I'll have to check it out. It sounds very Metropolian (Fritz Lang's Metropolis). [QUOTE]Bubbles is the best, by the way. :catgirl: [/QUOTE] People ask me why I use her as my buddy icon. They just don't realize that she's a demon in disguise. Arguably the most powerful of the three. She's all cutesy on the outside, but when she gets pissed, holy **** things are gonna die. And actually, Powerpuff Girls reminds me of another point (because Powerpuff Girls excels in this): Characterization. If a show has lousy characterization, I'm not going to be able to watch for very long.

[quote name='Dagger']I don't really know your tastes (beyond the fact that you talk about Alien & Star Wars & Terminator a lot, haha).[/quote] ~_^ [quote]Out of curiosity, what anime titles have you seen?[/quote] Apart from the (made obvious by that part of my post there) DBZ viewing, a bit of Wolf's Rain, a bit of Ghost in the Shell...Case Closed, FLCL (God, that thing sucked majorly), some other stuff, too, whose names escape me at the present time. Some pretty forgettable stuff, I guess. I think I may have caught one or two episodes of Inuyasha or...something. They really all just blend together, lol. :p I don't know how good of a smattering that line-up is, but I keep hearing how great Ghost in the Shell is, and then I watch it and I'm like, "wtf?!" So much of it sounds so forced--and by "sounds" I mean how it's written, not the lousy dubbing. So far, there's only been one anime I enjoyed: Animatrix. I figure that's because it let the visuals tell the story instead of the writing/narration. I think "Beyond" is a stunning example of how a show doesn't need to be bogged down with dialogue/narration. Of course, I'm crazy about the Powerpuff Girls, but apparently that doesn't count because it's not made in Japan, haha.

Wow, me posting in Anime Lounge. I'd agree with most of what's been said already regarding comedy, violence, sex, etc, but the main reason I can only watch any anime-type program for 5 seconds, tops, is the [b]writing[/b]. It's just so incredibly bad. So much of what I've seen is so overwritten, and I've yet to hear of any animes that don't suffer from the overwhelmingly pompous and formalistic yet childish dialogue. [i]It hurts my brain[/i]. EDIT: Ah, musn't forget the DBZ Complex, which is really just Deus ex Machina, when you think about it. The main character could be pinned up against a wall, gored through by a poisoned spear, have had a 9-iron shoved into his skull, and suffering from an advanced stage marrow cancer, and still find the strength/ability/power within himself to defeat his foe. Yeah, and monkeys may fly out of my butt! Psshaw!

[quote name='Lady Asphyxia][font=Verdana][size=1]Also, I think perhaps you should be less in awe of Cummings whilst writing this[...]But if I was marking this, I'd say the problem as I see it is that it comes across as more [i]subjective[/i] than [i]objective[/i'].[/quote][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]I couldn't agree more, Lady A. Mitch, this essay doesn't sound like an objective analysis at all, and doesn't even sound like a research paper. There are quick glimpses of an objective insight, but these glimpses are few and far between, so overall, the paper just sounds like you're gushing over E.E. Cummings' non-traditional poetry. The paper feels more like a personal justification than literary analysis, lol.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]Now, about those quick glimpses of objective insight, I think the only time in the paper where I truly saw any evidence at all of a true lit analysis was the leaf poem portion. But then again, when you read through it a few times, you're just flirting with the idea of a lit analysis.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1][quote]There are many layers of meaning to this poem, but our concern is with spacing. The very look of this poem because of the spacing is like a leaf falling in a spiral pattern, then lying on the ground. Also, the letter "l" looks like the numerical "1" on a keyboard. That is one of the main points of this poem: when a leaf falls to death, it falls alone. Also there is "l(a," the french pronoun for "the," which shows even more oneness. Then there is "one," which immediately catches the eye. If Cummings would have just written the poem regularily, it would just read "a leaf falls/ loneliness," but instead he brings the spatial and aesthetic qualities of the painters and crafts something wholly beautiful, short, and full of meaning (Semansky).[/quote][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]It doesn't seem like you're saying much of anything here, especially "Then there is 'one,' which immediately catches the eye." What's the point of this sentence? lol I mean, okay, it catches the eye...but that doesn't relate to your thesis.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]The mention of a keyboard doesn't help, either, because while Cummings was alive in the 50s and 60s, he wrote the majority of his poetry from the 1920s to the 1940s, with some written in the 50s. It's very, very likely that he wasn't using a keyboard (or any computerized system), so any similarity to a "1" is purely coincidental, so mentioning a similarity isn't very proper. If you want to make the point of a singularity symbolized by the l's, referencing a keyboard isn't going to work, lol. Try just analyzing the look of the letter without trying to link it to anything.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]Also, note that he doesn't separate the l's onto different lines. Wouldn't this make that whole "the leaves fall alone" interpretation pretty inaccurate? When I read "leaves fall alone," I picture one leaf falling, but you're explaining "ll" as a leaf falling alone. It doesn't work, because there are two l's on one line...not one 'l' on one line. Do you see what I mean?[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1][quote]a transcendentalist like Walt Whitman or Ralph Waldo Emerson[/quote][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]You need to be specific in terms of how you're using the term "transcendentalist." You aren't capitalizing it, so I'm assuming you're meaning to use it as someone who goes beyond the norm (pertaining to writing)--but Whitman was hardly that. Yes, he wrote very sexual poetry that was a shock to the public, but he and Cummings are radically different in terms of the focus of your analysis.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]You're analyzing Cummings' form and claiming him to be transcendentalist because of that. Whitman's form was far more traditional--his [i]content[/i], on the other hand, was transcendentalist.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]I don't think you've got the correlation there to begin with. If you were talking about Cummings' content and how it defied convention, then you could draw a parallel between him and Whitman. But, throughout the paper, you're focusing on Cummings' form and technical technique.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]And Emerson [i]was[/i] a Transcendentalist (capitalized because it was a Philosophy). But if you look at just a handful of his poems, you'll find a very traditional form and technique...so again, it's a non-existent correlation you're trying to make. Emerson was a Transcendentalist because he believed and practiced the Philosophy. But when it comes to writing, he was very traditional.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]I agree with what Lady A said about using Keats' name. It's almost as if you're throwing names in without really understanding what the authors were doing.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1][quote]He began with a traditional poetic style, as of that of Keats and others.[/quote][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1][i]Read Keats[/i]. Then read Cummings' early work. It's like [i]night and day[/i].[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]Overall, I don't know about this paper. It feels very unfinished. I don't see any real concrete ideas being presented, and any closer analysis of Cummings is lost in the subjective tone of the work and in the jumbled and clumsy incorporation of other authors. EDIT: Oh, when quoting poetry, just include a slash when it's three lines or less. If it's more than three, indent, with each line on one line. The numbers look messy.[/size][/font]

Looks catch my eye. Personality hooks me.

I'm one of those people who get a kick out of walking into a crime scene and seeing four chalk outlines on the slate-colored tile floor, having to negotiate around police tape and being sure not to step in any dried blood splotches. I enjoy getting a case like four people stabbed to death in a convenience store. It's a fun case, it keeps my interest. It bounces. It's cases like this that keep my job interesting, because there are so many delightful----- A quick idea spurt. I need sleep now, but reactions?

[center][url="http://img186.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img186&image=ninjagaiden79bc.jpg"][img]http://img186.exs.cx/img186/5814/ninjagaiden79bc.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center] [/center] [center][url="http://img186.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img186&image=ninjagaiden12xp.jpg"][img]http://img186.exs.cx/img186/4554/ninjagaiden12xp.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center] [/center] [center][url="http://img186.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img186&image=56153220040924screen0034uz.jpg"][img]http://img186.exs.cx/img186/9564/56153220040924screen0034uz.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center] [/center] [center][url="http://img186.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img186&image=ninjascreen0109td.jpg"][img]http://img186.exs.cx/img186/3933/ninjascreen0109td.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center] [center]vs[/center] [center] [/center] [center][url="http://img186.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img186&image=thelastsamuraibig27qd.jpg"][img]http://img186.exs.cx/img186/4708/thelastsamuraibig27qd.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center] [/center] [center][url="http://img186.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img186&image=233808gv.jpg"][img]http://img186.exs.cx/img186/7981/233808gv.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [left] [/left] [left] [/left] [left]I'd say this is an example of clear Ninja superiority/dominance in this comparison.[/left] [left]If you still doubt the Ninja superiority, I simply refer you to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie trilogy. The first and second ones were far, far superior to the third, because the first two were still about ninjas, while the third was based in Feudal (samurai) Japan.[/left]

[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22684&stc=1[/img] [url]http://www.thegamespage.com/staff/remix/Dust%20in%20the%20Wind%20Dude.mp3[/url] We're just dust in the wind, so why not make the best of it.

I think the only good Disney sequel released lately was Lion King 1.5. It was such a fun and quirky MST3K-type of take on the original film that I enjoyed every minute of it. It was one of those "other side of" stories. It reminded me of an old children's book I had when I was younger about the Big Bad Wolf telling his side of the 3 Little Pigs story. Those different POV stories ([plug]like Rebel Scum![/plug]) are always pretty good.

I say more personal essay than creative fiction because the superficial creative "superhero" metaphor is just that: a superficial covering. You can cut out any mention of a superhero at all and the piece would focus on someone practicing writing...it would be a first-person account of someone's writing process. And as it stands now, it's exactly that; the superhero angle is superfluous. And what further screams personal essay is how there's nothing at stake, no real conflict. The narrator is pissed at the rules of writing and develops some obtuse style of creative writing. That isn't a conflict--it's not even a plot. It's a process, yes, but there's no clear, discernible goal--no resolution. The piece is a monologue...it's inner thoughts...it's basically a self-revealing window into the narrator's life. That's personal essay.