Brasil

[QUOTE=AzureWolf] Oh, please. Subtle? Obvious as hell is a far more apt description. Your "shot composition" thing makes sure everyone watching knows what's about to happen, so the scare is far less. Sure, the first time you come across a "shot composition," it manages to "boo!" scare you, but after that, it's like a megaphone annoucement: "Ready your good weapon, please." The atmosphere does jack. In previous parts, a police department is supposed to be scary? And in this one, the tension when arriving at the lake? You just gave it away! You knew something was going to happen. There was no tension. Rather, you were waiting for that something to happen. Face it, when a game takes every "no one's here, it's too quiet" situation to have something come at you, it loses its scare factor. You weren't scared or tense, and no one else was either.[/quote] AW, if you didn't find RE4 unsettling at all, then that's not indicative of something wrong with the game. That's indicative of something wrong with you. To anyone who is remotely open to the idea of [i]pacing[/i] (as opposed to Silent Hill, which is purely constant and tangible dread), the tension-building and suspense merits of RE4 are very real. The franchise is about [i]pacing[/i]. The Boo moments are included in that, just like the moments of silence are included in that, but [i]without[/i] silence, you have nothing but explosions (nothing but DMC). Take a few courses in film studies, AW, and really pay attention to techniques of sound design. [quote]RE4 is definately the most action oriented, so I can't see how that makes it also have a more subtle type of horror. Game Lesson 101: if you don't feel helpless in a game, it's that much harder to scare you. In RE4, you had a lot of control over Leon and his abilities were vast. As such, there was little that could scare you. Sure, it takes away from what little scare there was, but it made the game so much better. That's why I say it's not a horror game, and a much less a horror game than the previous installments.[/quote] "I have a powerful character. Therefore, I can't be scared." Just like "I have a flamethrower; therefore, the alien can't frighten me." That's what you're saying here, AW, and that's utterly false logic. Just because you have a [i][b]Shotgun[/b][/i] (yes, I'm being obvious here) doesn't mean being out in the middle of the woods in the dead of night is going to be comfortable on any level at all. And if you're that one person who wouldn't be frightened at all, you're lying. [quote]RE4 is the best of the bunch because it doesn't try to scare you and does a phenomenal job at being an action game.[/quote] It doesn't need to try, because it does have very genuine disturbing sequences. How about the very first FMV when you enter the village? A police officer burned at the stake? You're telling me that wasn't the least bit unsettling? [quote]We can bring facts into your arguments: how many people on OB found RE (or any RE) to be scary? Asinine or not, I'm betting you'll lose again.[/quote] "Lose again"? lol Please, AW. If I was so incredibly lost in that other debate, why didn't you reply? At least replied to finish me off there? If I was so on-the-ropes, then surely it wouldn't have taken much. Like the previous thread, cheap shots are working their way into your replies. [quote]Last, DMC's monsters weren't supposed to be scary. XD If you thought DMC was horror, then I can fully understand why you think RE4 is as well.[/QUOTE] DMC was dumb action. That's why I mentioned it. RE isn't dumb action. It's [i]pacing[/i].

[quote name='Dragon Warrior']If they can make Harrison Ford look younger for the new Indiana Jones[/quote] Say whua?!? Digital face tucks, eh? lol I certainly would be interested in seeing what they could do with a Young Indiana Jones-esque approach to the EU material. I certainly would love seeing some of the Bounty Hunter works adapted, notably Tales of the Bounty Hunters. With any luck, I'm checking out Episode III May 28th. Annie is comin on down here, and Drix may very well join us for the weekend. ^_^

AW, I hardly think "BOO!" is an apt description for RE4 and the franchise as a whole. There are moments of that type of terror (RE1 and the dogs through the windows, for example), but there are long hallways throughout the game with very sparse music (sometimes a long and low string instrument, or a bass). Classifying the RE games as only a "jump out and scare you" franchise is asinine, because building tension and atmosphere through setting, shot composition, sound design, and overall art direction is one of the things the series is known for--and RE4 is no exception. RE4 is more action-oriented than previous titles, yes, but that doesn't diminish the slow build-up of tension at all. RE4 is certainly a more subtle type of horror, because it relies more on the build-up and pacing rather than having things jump out at you. Some of the most effective moments in the game (and in the franchise itself) are when nothing is remotely close to you. The hallways are examples of this, and the village in RE4 is another. Certainly, one cannot deny the tension one feels when finding oneself in an eerie calm on the lake during the sea creature fight. The use of sound [i]alone[/i] is what differentiates the RE games from the typical, dumbed-down, "oooh scary monsters just appeared" Devil May Cry type of formula.

Yes, I do hate particular people to a degree that it damages my brain. It makes my head hurt to think of certain people. Especially the people who try to get attention on anime messageboards by posting absurd and outlandish stories about wielding katana blades and trying to deal with what is, for all intents and purposes, an unrealistic and impossible problem, a problem that is so hyperbolic that it simply cannot exist in reality, only in poorly-conceived, poorly-written fictional satire. It makes my head hurt just as much--if not more--when the poorly-conceived satire is desperately maintained by further adding pointless, trite and trivial convoluted twists and contrived plot points in an attempt to sustain what cannot be sustained. That's what really drives me batty. When someone doesn't know how to handle satire competently.

[quote name='Dark Serena']One, I hate the Light Suit...I don't like running around with headlights on my chest.[/quote] Just be glad you aren't me. I've got headlights on my chest and I'm a guy.

Shin and Bombu: you know, his name is Blathers for a reason. ~_^ I actually never found Tingle annoying. I actually found him pretty cool, in a disturbing Pee-wee Herman kind-of way. He's weird-looking, he's loud, he's just damn odd. But I don't consider that annoying. I find him more endearing than anything else. Navi, on the other hand...I wish Link had a fly swatter.

As long as it doesn't become dangerous or anything, like the...uh...voices in your head don't start telling you to do malicious stuff like hitting people, beating them up, killing, maiming, etc, have fun. ^_^ I used to play make believe when I was younger (Go sci-fi adventure with Nerf guns! Yeah!). Having a healthy imagination is good stuff.

Well, Tony, one of those "specific methods" is "Show don't tell," and I think it's an important idea to impress upon students, because otherwise, we're not seeing any real character development, or any real action. If a student writes "His inner monologue is screaming," I think the instructor definitely should mark that and suggest some revision, because there's no information being conveyed. It's simply just telling what's going on, without showing it on any level at all. And I think one of the main reasons that crit is necessary is writing is a tool. As much as people use it for an outlet of expression, it's still a tool for language, for communication, and when someone can't read a work because it's so jumbled, rambly, outlandish, or the language used is too obtuse, I don't think enforcing a specific standard is really such a detriment. Not to belabor this point, but in the past few years, I've seen how uncontrolled writing can go horribly, horribly wrong. This semester, in my Fiction Workshop, there's a guy, Steven, who's a really nice guy, and very smart, but he writes like he's from another dimension, and a very verbose one at that. His work is laden with run-on sentences, hyperbolic adjectives--the language of the entire piece is hyperbolic. My classmates were able to only get through the first two pages, and I only waded through the first four before I couldn't stand it any longer. A few years back, for another Fiction Workshop, I had submitted a portion of EPICITY, the modern day epic poem I've been writing for the past 7 years, and only one of my classmates was able to understand it, because she was sitting next to me in the comp lab when I was writing it, so I was explaining it to her. Everyone else put the story down after a few pages. In that same Fiction Workshop, one of my classmates wrote in a style similar to Romantic literature. At first, we thought it was a joke, like it was satire, but he was serious. It was written beautifully, of course, and it was easy to understand, but even when it was understandable and readable, it was still out of control, because, like Steven, the point, characters, and setting of the story were often lost in the language...lost in translation, if you will. I didn't mean to go on this much here, but I think there is a line between poetic license and BS, and I think that line needs to be clearly defined, and when that line is crossed, I think it's prudent and appropriate to pull that piece back to poetic license. I get the sense that a lot of the so-called, self-proclaimed "boundary pusher" or "avant garde" writers are simply trying to pass off BS in the name of poetic license. Yes, there is a place for unconventional writing and boundary pushing...but even then, I think that writing needs to be accessible to the reader. Yes, I enjoy writing EPICITY, but even I know that it's a work tailored specifically and exclusively for a very particular group of people, so I'm not going to get pissed in a workshop when the piece gets torn apart, or criticize the workshop/crit process. I don't view things as requiring a set standard, or even setting an unreasonable standard. I simply view the editing/crit/workshop process as something to improve the accessibility of language. You weren't implying anything quite like that, I know, but I just wanted to make a bit of an addendum here.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']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.[/quote] *is innocent* [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22542&stc=1[/img][/center] [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?[/quote] Jordan, please don't misconstrue "I am my own God" as some Nietzsche-esque Superman philosophy, heh. The principle behind "I am my own God" is taking control of one's life, developing it, taking responsibility for both the good and the bad. If one can live without the Force, one has developed a strength that others have not. And in some ways, it's actually better to live without belief, because if you believe and it turns out there isn't anything to believe in (and if there never has been), that's a pretty huge (and probably very emotionally and mentally harmful) revelation. If there is, then no worries. On the other hand, if you don't believe and it turns out there is something to believe in, you're going to be pleasantly surprised. If there isn't, then no worries.

A while back, I had written a poem entitled The Horde. It was a rough draft, but the focus and vision of the piece was an undead army, essentially, who eternally marches on. I re-read it about 20 minutes ago and suddenly was inspired to do a bit of artwork for it. The end result turned out a bit differently (no actual army, but a very schway-looking swarm in the air a la Pitch Black), but I think it still captures the ominous tone of the original poem. [img]http://img231.exs.cx/img231/5788/thehorde4dr.jpg[/img] If you'd like, you can find the original poem [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=42943][u]here[/u][/url].

[quote name='Baron Samedi']I guess this leaves Atheists or non-believers out in the cold then?[/quote] Not necessarily, and here's how: "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.

This is a really quick post because I've got stuff to do, but what actors have surprised you? What performances have you been really impressed by, but didn't expect much going in? One surprising actor for me is Matt Damon, actually. He was fantastic in Good Will Hunting, but I never noticed his comedic timing until I saw Dogma, Stuck On You, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. I never considered him to be a humorous actor up until that point, but I was very surprised and impressed by how well he handles the funnies.

mal, brilliant thread. ^_^ I could say a few things about plot holes and structure right now, but I'm actually going to talk about sentence construction, specifically word usage. The problem with word usage I've found, is that people use too many in a sentence, particularly when it comes to fiction. I'm not exactly sure why they do it, but I figure it's just a "rough draft" remnant. Most of the time, too, people really have to closely read a work to tell when a word isn't needed, or when it doesn't quite fit. This process is a lot like watching a film, actually. When I watch something like Shaun of the Dead, for example, I'm just watching it to get a feeling for the characters and setting for the first few viewings. Once I "get" the characters, story and plot, then I watch the film a few more times, more or less ignoring the characters and focusing on technical aspects of the film (cinematography, shot composition, for example). With these technical-minded repeated viewings, I'm able to get a better idea of what's good or bad in the film (though, with SotD, there's very little bad ^_^). I find this holds true with writing. I first go through as a reader, getting used to the characters, getting a feel for the setting and so forth. Then I go through as an editor, making note of where characterization isn't as strong, where language could be tightened to better serve the piece. When I (or any writer, I imagine) do this, the amount of improvable sections increases dramatically. It's quite interesting. I'm going to end this post with a margin note that Dr. Sill, my Intro to Lit Study teacher, wrote on my Freshman Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness/Dante's Inferno comparison paper: [center]"Avoid using 'a great deal' unless it's on Ebay."[/center]

[quote name='Annalisse']I have no problem with woman being tattooed. I, myself, have two tattoos. I have a black/shaded dragon on my left shoulderblade, and a tribal mermaid (with some color) on my belly/naval.[/quote] I'm looking forward to seeing those. ~_^ Similar to what a few people have said here, I do find it very attractive when a girl has a small tattoo on her hip or a small one on her lower back. If it's just one or two places with a non-obstrusive tattoo, then all the better. It makes the girl kind of exotic. ^_^ With that said, however, I'm not interested in dating the "biker types," whose bodies are entirely covered. I find my reaction also is based on what kind of tattoo (what the image is). A rose or a butterfly or something to that effect I really like, but when the back is turned into a canvas of skulls and demon-ish-looking things...I'm not too attracted. I'm actually mildly repulsed and/or morbidly curious.

Megan, ask and ye shall receive. I'm hotlinking the images. Green is good, Red is iffy. [center][url="http://img203.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img203&image=obarcadiafictionpage18if.jpg"][img]http://img203.exs.cx/img203/2281/obarcadiafictionpage18if.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center][url="http://img203.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img203&image=obarcadiafictionpage25mj.jpg"][img]http://img203.exs.cx/img203/557/obarcadiafictionpage25mj.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center][url="http://img203.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img203&image=obarcadiafictionpage32eh.jpg"][img]http://img203.exs.cx/img203/6228/obarcadiafictionpage32eh.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center][url="http://img203.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img203&image=obarcadiafictionpage49zl.jpg"][img]http://img203.exs.cx/img203/1364/obarcadiafictionpage49zl.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] [center][url="http://img203.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img203&image=obarcadiafictionpage57nq.jpg"][img]http://img203.exs.cx/img203/4475/obarcadiafictionpage57nq.th.jpg[/img][/url][/center] Overall, I really enjoyed the piece. I felt it was constructed well, had a nice flow, and its focus was more or less solid. There are some really nice bits on the last two "pages," especially. The dialogue is particularly good. However, I've marked a few spots where I feel there should be some revisions. The narrator of the piece is third-person limited, and there are a few points throughout the story where we seem to be drifting into other characters' heads. It's clear to me in the piece that we're in Maria's mind, looking at things through her POV (even based on smaller, more subtle details like seeing Mike's eyes in the rearview mirror), so when we have Maria looking in the fridge (like I explained in the chat room) and we're told that her mother just finished another envelope, we wonder how we would know that, because Maria's head is pretty much in the fridge, and she's not looking at her mother. That's one instance where we briefly jump out of the third-person limited and into a more third-person omniscient narrator, and there are a few other times, as well. I believe I marked them. There were points in the story that really would benefit from some tightening. Again, I've marked those in red. Some of it is just redundancy, other parts are just too verbose and the impact gets lost in extended (almost run-on) sentences. So, yeah. Any questions, feel free to ask. EDIT: To read the text on the links, click them again when you're at the Imageshack page.

[quote name='Adahn']I apologize, Alex, I misunderstood you. In saying that 'times have changed', I meant that what is socially unacceptable has changed. I believe that every person knows what is right and wrong, and this knowledge is what we know as the human conscience. Some people like doing what is wrong, and this is the case today. People get a sick pleasure out of killing, stealing, and raping people. They know it's wrong, and they revel in it. There are worse people who revel in spreading lies and corrupting morality. They aren't revolutionaries. There is no evolution. They are just bad people who enjoy doing bad things. Will I accept and adapt to this propoganda? No. I have a firm grip on my conscience, my knowledge of right and wrong, of truth, and nothing you or anyone else says is going to make me let go of something so precious.[/quote] [quote name='Siren]Exactly, Adahn. Times [i]have[/i'] changed. So why do we keep hearing the same anti-homosexuality faith-based rhetoric?[/quote] You [i]still[/i] haven't answered my question, Adahn. You went off on some tangent soapbox speech about rape, murder, and theft, and how murderers and rapists love what they do and revel in the fact that they're inflicting harm, and then talk about those who are corrupting "morality" (quotes for a reason), then call it propaganda? [i]Please[/i]. And how in the hell does that ("that" being murder, rape, etc) relate to homosexuality, anyway? It doesn't. I wasn't talking about rape, murder, stealing or anything of the sort. [quote]They are just bad people who enjoy doing bad things.[/quote] I should hope you're talking about murderers and rapists there. Nowhere in your reply have you [i]actually[/i] answered my question. I asked you that if times were changing (and your re-definition of "times have changed" doesn't change anything here), why do we keep hearing the same anti-homosexual faith-based rhetoric. Like I said, your re-definition doesn't change anything. In your previous posts, "times have changed" still meant social norms were changing. You said that you wished Christians could see how times are changing (i.e., social norms changing), and maybe it's just me, but I'd consider that an implication of something changing in [i]your[/i] worldview. But the following... [quote]Will I accept and adapt to this propoganda? No. I have a firm grip on my conscience, my knowledge of right and wrong, of truth, and nothing you or anyone else says is going to make me let go of something so precious.[/quote] ...says otherwise. And what "propaganda" are you talking about, anyway? Come on, deal in specifics here. And this firm grip on your conscience, a conscience that is clearly faith-based, based on a 2000 year-old text that functions more as a guide than a strict ruleset?

[quote name='Mitch']Who's "Corporate"? Is it the corporation? This sentence, and the other one where you used "Corporate," confused me as a reader. Either clarify it in the piece or just say "the corporation" if that's what you mean.[/quote] We called it Corporate. We didn't say "the corporation." We said "Corporate." It's not so confusing when you think about it. Working at a place like Boston Market, where you only mean something in that store and that's it, you're not going to waste words talking about the executives and higher-ups that have no idea what's really effective on the front line and what's just a waste of everyone's time. "The corporation" doesn't convey that blank, obscured, malicious power like "Corporate" does. Saying "the corporation" is giving the higher-ups more specificity than they really deserve. Trust me on this.

[QUOTE=Adahn]You're generalizing, Alex. All I've given is a factual statement, which is to say that in the Bible, God specifically condemns men who have sex with other men. It is not so broad as to be 'anti-homosexual', but rather the condemnation of an act. Your question was...why did I say this? I answered her question as clearly and specifically as I could. God doesn't say homosexuality is wrong. However, He does say that male-male sex is wrong. Both of these statements are indisputable and relevant.[/QUOTE]My question that you didn't answer was the following: [quote name='Siren]Exactly, Adahn. Times [i]have[/i'] changed. So why do we keep hearing the same anti-homosexuality faith-based rhetoric?[/quote]You said that times have changed, implying that the Bible's take on homosexuality is outdated. Then I agreed times have changed, and then my follow-up question was why we keep hearing the same kind of anti-homosexuality faith-based rhetoric, which you still have not answered. You said it yourself that times have changed since God spoke with Moses. Why isn't the Bible (and people's application of the Bible) changing with the times? Why isn't the message changing and adapting with a new sociological progression? Remember "Adapt or Die." My question doesn't [i]directly[/i] relate to what Annie said, but it [i]does directly relate[/i] to what you said in your post, so do answer the question (I've repeated it numerous times here). [quote name='Xander Harris']Then you DO agree with the idea of origonal sin. You agree that hedonism is something humans are born with. Unless you somehow think this is a good thing, than you believe there is something wrong with humanity. That's the doctrine of original sin. I think you are objecting simply to the fact that you saw a religious phrase, not to the concept behind the phrase.[/quote] And like I've said in my same post there, I don't view any type of human selfishness or hedonism as anything that relates to religion at all, because it's basic human psychology. I don't base it on Garden of Eden, with Adam and Eve plucking the fruit and eating it. I base it on simple observation of people. There is no religious basis at all for human tendencies like that, because time and time again, you can see that behavior no matter what, with or without any consideration of religion. I was never arguing that humans don't display selfishness. I was arguing that the religious concept of Original Sin (humans are inherently evil and corrupt and need to be saved) is what needs re-examination. Like I said before, children playing on a playground is not indicative of some type of "truth" about Original Sin. I don't view hedonistic tendencies, selfishness, etc, as something wrong, either. They can be a problem, certainly, but I don't think of mean streaks in human beings as damnation (like Original Sin does). It's just human nature. It's just basic psychology...Freud's Pleasure Principle, I believe it's called. Something needs to be pretty damn horrific for me to treat it like it's going to destroy society, or to treat it like it's the bane of existence. So we have vice in the world. Big deal. So children are going to fight over a toy. Big deal. Human nature exists independently of Original Sin. If you're saying I take issue with this concept because of a religious indoctrination or religiousness in the name, then, I somewhat do, because people don't need Garden of Eden to see what is just pure, plain and simple human nature. If people need to depend on GoE for that, I'm fine with it, but I really don't think that dependence is necessary. I don't think we need Original Sin so we can understand the duality of human nature. Know what I mean? [quote]But as I already pointed out in my original post, sin is something people are aware of even without a holy text. To the next paragraph, I partially agree with you. Religious texts arise because of two reasons. a. The search for the numinous. People seem to have this belief that there is something outside of themselves and this world, some kind of deeper spiritual meaning. Religious texts arise to provide an explanation for this and a guide to living in such a way as to achieve contact with this higher spiritual reality. b. The existance of a deep, ingrained moral code in each human that every human knows they have violated on some level. Whether a religion overtly preaches the doctrine of sin or not, they all have the underlying idea that there is something wrong with the way humans are now, and by following religions X one may break free from the wrongness of present human life.[/quote]Which is why I'm saying that people should be able to view the texts in a more light-hearted, easy manner, because they place a bit too much emphasis on something that serves as a guide and nothing more, not a Fascist doctrine. [quote]I hate to burst your bubble, but as someone who studies philosophy at a Christian college (and yes, we read a lot of secular and classical philosophers, not just Christian ones) I have to say that this statement is ignorent both of religious philosophy and philosophical history. The GoP (and by this, I assume you mean the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-etc. being. If not, then you are likely talking about Plato's perfect form of goodness. Either way, it is not a terribly personal being, but all the qualities he/it has are qualities that the GoR has as well. When Christians do philosophy, we tend to use the GoP, in light of the GoC.[/quote]James, remember that the God of Faith is a multiple entity, in that each faith has its own God, but all of those Gods have similar qualities. The God of Philosophers incorporates those similarities into one umbrella Supreme Being. The Christian God isn't exactly the same as Allah, nor is Allah exactly the same as Yahweh, but at the same time, in the respective religious texts, you do find common elements throughout. I actually don't see how you're "bursting my bubble" here or disagreeing with me at all, because you said "all the qualities he/it has are qualities that the GoR [and by "GoR" I'm assuming you mean God of Religion] has as well." I said the exact same thing: [quote]The GoP is a combination, in a sense, of all the common traits of the God of Faith.[/quote][quote]Actually, I tend to agree with elements of what you said. What you are saying is not radical or unique, and fits in many ways with established religious thought.[/quote]It's the same thing I was saying above, lol. The various religions across the globe are side-stories (still possessing similarities to each other) and Expanded Universe material to the real canon: the concept of God-ness, the idea of the Supreme Being, which is exactly what the God of Philosophers is: God-ness...the overarching theme/idea of the Supreme Being, an idea that combines the common qualities of the various Gods of Religion.

[quote name='Adahn']Alex, I was merely answering a question (and a religious one, at that). I'm just answering a question with the correct answer. I won't stand by and allow uneducated people to spread falsehoods.[/quote] And I was merely asking a question, one that you didn't answer. [quote]Since you told me yourself you only studied the new testament, I'm afraid you must in this case defer to those who know what they're talking about with respect to the old testament.[/QUOTE] Yes, and at that time, we were speaking about the NT. Just because I didn't mention studying the OT doesn't mean I didn't study it. You don't exactly have a leg-up on me here, Adahn, because I have studied the entire Bible, both NT and OT. The only reason I didn't mention the OT before was because we were talking about the NT.

[quote name='Adahn]This [homosexuality'] used to be as equally disgusting as everything that surrounded it. But, times have changed. I would hope that Christians, at least, would understand this.[/quote] Exactly, Adahn. Times [i]have[/i] changed. So why do we keep hearing the same anti-homosexuality faith-based rhetoric?

I'd like to step in here and just say a few things before this thread gets shot down. One, I don't think the concept of Original Sin exactly applies anywhere. I don't view children arguing over a toy as pertaining at all to the trials and tribulations in the Garden of Eden. I just see them being children, and children can be selfish as hell sometimes. It's just a fact derived from pure observation and using some good old fashioned common sense. Religion has nothing to do with bullies pushing you down on the playground because they want to play on the swings. If the bully starts preaching hellfire and damnation, then, yeah, there's religion in there. But in 98% of all playground/schoolyard "fights" like that, I seriously, seriously doubt that religion plays any part at all, so I think it's silly to "support" the concept of Original Sin (or to prove its existence) by pointing to something that isn't religiously based at all. Humans can be selfish, yes. I'm not debating that. But humans aren't selfish because of Adam, the Garden of Eden, or because of the Bible. Humans are selfish because we're hedonists sometimes. We're concerned with pleasing ourselves. I don't view that as having any religious foundation at all. It's just how we work. We see something we want, we take it. Simple as that. It's pretty much just basic human psychology. I view Original Sin as more or less an entertainment, really. It's so hyperbolic and so exaggerated, and its application is often so skewed that I know I can't really treat it as having any real, substantial and serious meaning. This is because of both sides of the "issue," as well...both the "Original Sin is true because humanity is unclean" and the "Original Sin is atrocious because little babies are going to burn." Neither "argument" is all that valid when you examine them. Two, sin in general. From what I've seen (both in this thread, in other threads, and in general), many people are totally missing the point of why there are sacred texts. It's not to issue laws. It's not to enforce massive amounts of rules on a people. It's not to limit freedoms or anything like that. The purpose of sacred texts is merely to act as a guide, a blueprint, a map of directions. I think people are putting too much emphasis on sacred texts these days, quite honestly. They're not Gospel--ironic, isn't it? Three, the whole God-thing. I'm not going to go into my Atheism, so you can all breathe. But I would like to mention one thing: the God of Philosophers. The GoP, as opposed to the God of Faith, is a singular entity that encompasses the entire universe. The GoP is a combination, in a sense, of all the common traits of the God of Faith. And really, if I were to believe in God, the GoP would be my choice, because the way I see it...every religious denomination (Christianity, Judaism, Islam being the primary offenders here) aren't "official" at all, nor are their respective sacred texts "official." Just bear with me here. What is the cause of religious conflict? Why is there Jihad in the world? Why were there some seven Crusades (and a children's Crusade)? It's because every religion in the world today is an Expanded Universe religion. Think Star Wars. You have the Original Trilogy, the TRUE Star Wars, then you have various side-stories (novels, games, boardgames, etc). The side-stories are the Expanded Universe. They're the material that branched off of the real Star Wars. When you consider that each God of Faith is pretty similar to the other Gods of Faith, you start to ask yourself which religion is the "true" religion? Is it Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? No. They're all Expanded Universe. None of them is the true God. The true God, it seems, is the God of Philosophers, the common entity of all religions...the God-ness of religion...the concept of God, not Allah, not Yahweh, not the Christian God/Jesus. If this is true, then it does make sense why Islam/Christianity/Judaism conflict with each other on various points, yet "coincide" on others. It's because they're the side-stories to the real story at hand: God-ness. Don't take this post the wrong way; I'm not preaching here. I'm just raising a question that maybe every religion people have been raised on is blatantly incorrect.

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 name='Shinmaru']I don't know. The vibe I get from all that is that the person struggled mightily to find the right words to express the apology. I know that if I wanted to apologize to someone I cared about, I'd want to get it just right. I'd struggle with what I wanted to say. That's the feeling I got from this. Not really a romantic feeling, but a true feeling, nonetheless.[/quote] Well, yes, it looks like there was a struggle, but it looks more like a struggle with a machete, lol. I've seen images of Daniel Dafoe and Walt Whitman's in-process writings, with edits and lines and all, and there's a pleasant look/feel to it. I guess what I'm saying is, I never saw an apology letter with dark inky slashes all over it, and words written upside down, backwords, diagonally, etc. Yes, an apology note can seem desperate at times, but I think this piece is a level of desperate that goes a bit farther than "Please talk to me. I'm sorry for what happened."

Mal, if there would need to be any shortening, it's not as if it would be drastic resizing. I adore the background image; I think keeping it close to, if not that size, is a very good idea. Since it's gray-er than the foreground bar, it doesn't intrude terribly, and like I said, if there needs to be any resizing, it would be minimal. If Altron would like to take out the diagonal music bar there, I'd love to see how the piece looks with just that. I think it'd look clean and bouncy. ^_^

Pardon the cheesy thread title. I felt it suited the subject matter. This is a peculiar question, but has anyone had a very distinct idea for the future hit them? By this I mean, has something regarding your future, whatever your future may be, ever just really slapped you in the face? Just a very real knowledge of what your future will hold for you? Now, I'm not necessarily talking about predicting or anything. I'm more just focusing on...call it an epiphany, I suppose. I had one yesterday, as I was on the train to class. In my Fiction Workshop, we were having a class critique, and I was reading through one girl's piece. It was only three pages long, but I found myself marking it up with copious amounts of ink. It was as if I was striking something, writing a note in the margin, or simply "Show don't tell" nearly every other line. I know I'm going to be the type of instructor that students either love or hate, but I have a feeling my Comp courses are going to actually prepare students for college and higher-level Lit courses. I'm going to be such a beast when it comes to writing. My students are going to so hate me, lol.