Brasil

[quote name='AzureWolf']I have to disagree with the idea that the knife is "indispensible," though. You can use it near the beginning, and it's used in a few QTEs, but as far as manually using it goes, it loses what little value it had after you leave the village. Hell, I sold my handgun (the variant I had at the time) in the middle of the second disc (and didn't buy another handgun). With the generous amount of ammo you get, you can sell the kinds you don't use and be efficient with what you have.[/quote] AW, when you've got a swarm of enemies coming after you--the flatbed truck sequence comes to mind as a perfect example of this--and you don't have time to reload your clip/shells/etc, the knife definitely comes in handy. I believe you can actually use it regardless of which weapon you have equipped. A few quick swipes is all it takes to knock a group of enemies down, which buys you enough time to jam in a new magazine. Also, don't forget the range of the knife arc; it's fairly wide and covers a substantial area in front of you. With many of the enemies being melee attackers, the knife is invaluable. I wouldn't go around using it exclusively, but it's an excellent close-quarters deterrent.

Just a few quick points. [QUOTE=Zeta]Siren tried to attack me and claim my memory, learning, and judgment, etc.has suffered from my long time use. I refuted his claims right off the bat. My grades have stayed constant. My health has not deteriorated. My memory is as strong as it was before I started smoking. Everything he tried to nail me with has not happened. And will not happen. He then tries to go "it is only high school, so it is not hard." If he wants to say that fine. If he thinks weed will only cause those things in college that is fine. But the fact of the matter is, is that weed won't choose if it wants you to have trouble learning, having problems with your memory, etc.just because you are in college and is harder. If it has affected my learning, memory, etc.it would be seen now, and clearly it isn't. Loss of memory and impaired learning are not bad on a grand scale at all as you are led to believe. As above I was able to tell you exactly what I did over a year ago, I was even high for most of that night. If anything it should be when I am high that I don't remember things, but I do remember. My grades are as strong as ever. As stated above, marijuana isn't going to choose to start causing problems with learning in college just because it is harder. You would start seeing it take place now, and it isn't happening. My dealer down here in Georgia has been smoking for longer than I have, his first two years of high school he was a 4.0 GPA, and now he is a 3.8/3.9. Oh my, marijuana has affected his learning skills to a great degree. The fact of the matter is Siren; you can rationalize your argument by saying high school is easy all you want. High school is not easy if you challenge yourself, which is what myself, my dealer, and many other pot smokers do. We don't take the Basic English, Math's, and all that. We take the AP Physics, AP Composition, AP US History. Naturally they aren't as hard as college, but they sure as hell aren't easy. Rationalize it all you want. The problems with memory and learning would be showing up now, as well as in college.[/quote]I'm rationalizing? Amusing, to say the least. Your friend?s GPA did drop within four years, by the way. During his first two years, he had a 4.0. Now you say he?s got a 3.8/3.9 (and the inclusion of the slash there leads me to believe it?s not all that close to a 3.9, anyway). He?s been smoking for longer than you have. I hardly think it?s just pure coincidence that his grades have declined (minimize it as much as you will?that is a clear, undeniable decline within the years he?s smoked pot) in the same years he?s been smoking marijuana. [quote] My learning has not suffered. I am still a high honor roll student, with at least a 3.7 GPA every quarter.[/quote]?At least?? That sounds like language used to hide GPA fluctuation occurring within the years of heavy marijuana consumption. By the way, call it rationalizing if you must, but it's not hard at all to nab a 3.7 GPA, even in AP courses. You read the material. You do the work. That's it. There are no tricks. It's all straightforward. You don't need to be gifted at all to do well in high school, regardless of the course. And do you honestly believe that you?re doing the best you can in high school? [QUOTE]He tried to twist around my posts by saying I said I was smoking pot for different reasons and two points in the thread. All one would have to do is just put two and two together, and would still get the same answer. I said earlier that I smoke to chill. I then said I smoked because it was pure. Now, would I smoke something that is not pure? That is laced with someone along the lines of PCP? No. Therefore I would not be smoking to chill either. But, I do smoke because weed is as pure as one can get. I can then smoke it to chill. What was so hard to understand about that? He is trying to find ways to make me look inconsistent, so everyone else will not even bother reading what I say.[/QUOTE]Did you ever consider that maybe people aren't too keen on reading what you have to say because you're not exactly acting responsibly by getting high whenever you can, or...what seems to be either going to school high, or getting high during the school day? That's grounds for Suspension at least, and probably looking at Expulsion in some cases (not to mention required Rehab). You want to talk lack of common sense? You?ve said you go to school high. You?ve said you take exams while high. Yes, I?m sure that people aren?t too eager to read your posts simply because of what I?m saying. :rolleyes: [quote]No one clicks on my websites as far as I am aware. If I can click on a website that is searching for the truths in what the government has to say about marijuana, I am entering just as biased as a site of one going to marijuana.com. If Siren truly did click and look around the site, he would realize that marijuana.com covers both sides of the argument. You have to visit the forums and read all the articles on the site. It isn't just a pro-marijuana site. They do have the other side as well. You just have to look around. If Siren did click the link, he didn't look around enough.[/quote]Zeta, I find it highly amusing that you still don?t believe I browsed those sites, simply because I?m not suddenly criticizing the government, praising marijuana, and spreading some propaganda rhetoric about marijuana being useful in opening up minds and getting creative juices flowing (And let?s face it. That?s exactly why you don?t want to believe me?because I haven?t ?converted.?). Let?s not forget some of the basic, common sense of ?don?t abuse drugs.? I hadn?t realized that DARE and anti-drug services weren?t getting that message across. Oh, yes, the so-called ?argument debunkers? on the one site there that labeled some anti-drug arguments as ?empty logic? are oh-so invaluable. But it?s such a crime that I visited the sites you love and I?m not coming out a pothead, eh? [quote]Morpheous said in the thread Falsely Accused that I posted saying that marijuana was harmless. Not true. I never said such a thing. I have repeated over and over, that I know it isn't harmless. But what I have said is that it is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. there is a difference between that and saying it is harmless. Siren also said this, whether he wants to believe it or not. It is right here Siren:[/quote]Zeta, you did say the following: [quote]Please do tell me how I do have those characteristis. You do not know me. You do not know anything about me. My learning has not suffered. I am still a high honor roll student, with at least a 3.7 GPA every quarter. I am still able to think clearly, as established with my good school grades. If I couldn't think, I would not be getting good grades. My memory is as strong as ever. I remember things from before I started smoking. I remember things from times that I was smoking. I remember what I did Christmas Break of '03. I know what I did in January through March of last year when it was a smoke fest for me. Every day I smoked, and I can recall everything that we did. With all my times driving stoned, I have not once gotten into an accident. I have not once been pulled over. The only time I have been in an accident is when I wasn't stoned, hell it was before I even started smoking. So please do tell me how I show these characteristics.[/quote]You?d like to tell me that I?ve been putting words in your mouth, when the above paragraph is quoted directly from a previous post of yours? You?re implying that marijuana has not damaged your functions at all. Your above paragraph says ?I function perfectly while high.? I?m putting words in your mouth?what rubbish. In fact?what do the following paragraphs say? What are they implying? [quote] James, Siren, and others have been advocating that it causes mental illness. Again, I know that it can cause a mental illness that is all ready present in someone to progress, or it runs in his or her family to have a higher chance of actually contracting it. Which I have said throughout. But what I have yet to see is clear and concise testing that says a mental disorder can come straight from marijuana. The tests that have been provided do not tell you if it runs in the person?s family or that the person all ready has it. When I see the full tests, saying specifically that those tested have no history of the illness and don't have it at the present time, I will gladly rescind my statements. Not as blunt as Morpheous. But you still said that I am saying there is nothing that is harmful about marijuana. Siren keeps on bring up the short-term effects, etc. As seen here: Judging by that and other posts of that nature, I don't think Siren actually knows what in the short term itself means. In the short term means when you are actually stoned, just as Syk3 said. The last part of that post does make sense. But again, it hasn't happened to me as he claimed it has. I have not displayed any of those characteristics. I can remember back as far as I have always been able to. I can remember exactly what I was doing Christmas Break 2003, and January through April of 2004. Those are times in which I shouldn't be able to remember things based on what Siren is saying, because I was stoned practically every day. I shouldn't be remembering that the first day of Christmas Break I spent 3 hours after school bowling and going out to dinner with my friends Dave and Eric. That I had take Eric to his house before we even got to the bowling alley so he could get some money. That after dinner we were going to go see Return of the King but didn't because Eric's dad called and said he had to come home. That he said at his house that he had a fun time and that we should do it again. That after dropping Dave off at his house, I can back and found Darryl, Dan, Justin, Ross, Brad, Raj, and Ben in the garage. And that Bob and Rod stopped by and we all smoked a 1-2 bowls. And afterwards how we all took turns playing Battlefield 1942, and watched Saving Private Ryan. I still remember that Darryl slept o n the floor of my room parallel to my dresser with his head under the bed, how Ben and myself slept on top of the bed, with Raj between us. How Brad, Dan, and Justin slept in Brad's room with Brad o n the floor in front of his bed and Justin and Dan in the bed. I shouldn't remember that but I do. I remember everything else we did as well. And a very important thing that comes into play here, is that I have been on both sides of the bandwagon. As I said above I used to be just like Siren, Morpheous, and anyone else that believes as they do. But now I am not. If the government was 100% right, I would still be on that side of the bandwagon. But I am not. I am not on that side because through my first-hand experience, which Siren and others do not have, I found out the truth about many things. I am not saying the government was 100% wrong, I am saying they aren't 100% right. Lapse in judgment are not on the scale that they say. When you are high, you have complete control of yourself. You can walk, drive if you desire, carry on conversations with people that are not high. Siren and others do not know this because they haven't tried it. So the cannot speak as if they know what they are talking about on this subject. They can regurgitate what they have read from works from the government or other agency that is out to prove they are right, but they don't know what it is actually like, and that it is far different than what the believe.[/quote]My interpretive skills apparently aren?t as sharp as our pot-head friends here, but the message I?m getting from those paragraphs is MJ?s negative effects are negligible at most, which effectively translates into ?pot has no ill effects at all.? Read between the lines in your own post, Zeta. [quote]Legalize marijuana? Hell, everyone here knows I am all for it. I wish it to be legalized because it is illegal for many of the wrong reasons, if not wrong reason, then reasons that are blown up and distorted. Marijuana is just as available, probably more so than alcohol because you will need someone with an ID to buy alcohol, and just as widely used while driving. But you don't hear about marijuana accidents, you hear about drunk driving accidents. Again, Siren tried to rationalize his comments by saying which is more interesting. The marijuana would be more interesting wouldn't you think? Drunk driving accidents happen all the time, there is no surprise. You don't hear about marijuana accidents. You would think you would hear about them just as much because it can strengthen the government?s position on it is a drug that is completely bad for you. But you don't hear about them. Even if they decide on the basis of what he has said, that drunken accidents are more interesting, you would still hear about them here and there. And I for one have not heard about any. Legalizing it will take out children away from the drug dealers. Keep in mind this is the only way it is a gateway drug. By going to these dealers they have a higher chance of being introduced to another drug, because the dealer probably doesn't just sell marijuana. That is how they go on to other drugs. The dealer is going to try and try to sell them cocaine, heroin, or anything else that they have. Without these dealers one can go to their neighbor and ask him/her if they are of age, to get them some. Sure it still isn't right, but it is hell of a lot better than going to a place where you can get other stuff bombarded upon you and can get hurt in. I much prefer the former. The government could tax marijuana, making money on it that can be used to combat cocaine dealers, heroin dealers, etc.. They can regulate it to the best of their ability. But what we can be sure of is that the marijuana won't be laced. Siren said that big corporations would lace it, add crap to it, etc.. Were that to occur, most people won't smoke it. Most smoke it now because they know that there isn't other **** in there. They know they aren't going to find additives. And once they find out a corporation is adding that crap, some will stop smoking and some won't. But everyone certainly isn't going to be smoking something that can now get you addicted, or cause much worse problems to your health[/QUOTE]Firstly, Zeta, just because you don?t hear about something, does that mean it doesn?t happen? And further, just because something doesn?t happen to you, does that mean it doesn?t happen all around? Stop being so naïve. Now, regarding this Legalization?if pot is Legalized, there are two results relating directly to the content of pot itself. One, it?s cleaned up and quite possibly watered down. That nasty Angeldust and so forth would be removed, because corporations would get emasculated if they were still including those types of toxins and carcinogens. If there is a clearly defined trend when big business gets hold of a product, that trend is watering a product down. We?ve seen this in the tobacco industry; we?ve seen it in the alcohol industry. We?ve even seen it in food services. It?s likely that in order to move more merchandise, companies would end up weakening the potency of the product, so people would end up purchasing more. This isn?t so unbelievable. It?s being done right now in other consumables. Two, big business is just that: big business. The focus of big business is to move the product, to make money, and it seems plausible that, like tobacco, there may be addictive substances mixed in to the ?commercialized? marijuana. When you want people to buy your product, when advertising isn?t quite going to cut it, you?re going to need to turn to something a bit more chemical, something a bit more closely related to manufacturing. That?s where addiction comes in. [quote] But everyone certainly isn't going to be smoking something that can now get you addicted, or cause much worse problems to your health[/quote]Quick aside: think of how many people are still addicted to cigarettes, Zeta. ?Everyone certainly isn?t? is a load of bull, because with something as simple as cigarettes, people find it very, very, very difficult to quit, even when they know it?s bad for them?they?re addicted. Back to the post. What?s to say that both of these results won?t be actualized? Then, if these results are actualized, and people turn away from commercialized pot, what?s going to happen? I think it?s trite and naïve to believe with Legalization and government control that the ?black market? will disappear entirely. If people want to get high, and they?re not pleased with the big business form(s), why aren?t they going to approach someone in North Camden? If they?re so set on getting high, I don?t see why they wouldn?t, because the black market will still be there. And here, you?re going to have that ever-present lacing going on, because just because it?s legalized doesn?t mean it?s going to be clean throughout the country. And it's not as if Legalization has cut down on black market goods in other consumables, anyway. Clearly, Legalization doesn?t seem like it?s going to solve anything. You?re still going to have black markets. You?re still going to have buyers going to ?underground? dealers and purchasing pot that isn?t safe at all, and this seems like it?s the main argument for Legalization. Now, I?d like to further hit on the Legalization points with a few of Syk?s earlier bits. [quote]Honestly, what is so dreadfully wrong with being allowed to pocess a small amount for intent of personal consumption within your own home? If people want to do it, they should have that choice instead of being told. I have some quotes in the bottom of my post which support my opinion.[/quote]And what is so dreadfully wrong about possessing a small amount for intent of personal consumption within your own home (which is what people do now anyway, with MJ illegal)? Why are MJ enthusiasts fighting so heavily for the legalization of MJ, when it's very clear they're able to smoke it in their own homes anyway right now? [quote]What's stopping them from doing it right now? Except that at the moment, the 15 year olds are in no need of a middle man that has ID. You seem like you would probably be a little surprised at how accessable it already is without being legal, since most of your points are already bypassed.[/quote]Then why the need to legalize it? [quote]I don't see what's so bad about personal use with reprocussions for its abuse. But.. maybe that's just me. lol[/quote]That's the situation right now, so, again, why legalize it? Why not keep it illegal? There is no reason at all to Legalize pot. People smoke it in their homes right now anyway, so that?s a non-issue. People are buying contaminated pot right now anyway (another non-issue), and because they?re smoking it with little to no regard for their own lives, it seems, and are not taking any discernible pro-active action to preserve their own health?why should the government try to help them? They?re not even trying to help themselves, only further making this a non-issue. It?s easily accessible now anyway, so again, another non-issue. These are all non-issues because nothing will change from the Legalization. The only real reason I see in people?s Pro-Legalization arguments are exclusively related to being able to smoke pot in public without fear of repercussions. But this is a load of horse****, too, because who in their right minds would want someone stumbling in public, blazed out of their skulls?

[QUOTE=Zeta]My sites are just as biased as yours Siren. A site made by the government, or any other figure that is advocating what the government is saying, is just as biased as my pot smoking sites where it is pot smokers doing the talking. You flock to anti-marijuana sites. *shrug* Your sites are just as biased as mine. Your's are agreeing with the government's stance on the subject, mine isn't. Both are biased no matter how you look at it.[/quote]Got news for you, Zeta. I just scoured Harvard's page and there's one mention made of federal funding in some 13 pages of Finance background, and in about 20 pages of various other Harvard bios. Their funding primarily comes from private fundraising, most notably spearheaded during the late 90s, I believe. They're not getting funded by your oppressive Big Brother-ish government, Zeta. They're not biased. Also, I haven't linked to any sites, so why are you attributing linkage to me? Are you replying to a post other than mine yet again? Is it Morpheus again? [QUOTE]Do the test subjects all ready have the disorder? Does a history of it run in their family? Show me where it says this. Throwing out a comment that says it can cause mental disorder is worthless without. As said, you have a higher chance of contracting the mental disorder if it runs in your family, or if you all ready have it. For all I know all the subjects have a history of it in their family. Show me where it says this, and I will rescind my comments.[/QUOTE]Mental illness doesn't run in my family. When my cousin, Stacey, was first getting into trouble, stealing and the like, Anthony was already into pot...and falling apart mentally. I love my cousins to death, but it was very clear that Stacey was the one responsible for what happened, and Anthony was freaking out. He never displayed that kind of behavior previously, before getting into drugs. You may try to accuse me of lying, or spinning this, or something to that effect...but everyone knows that I tell it straight-up, no lies. I'm a straight-shooter. I doubt you'll get the same attitude from say...that MJ web-ring. [quote]I am not going to avoid it. My son will know that I will have smoked pot. I am not going to tell him what he can and can't put into his own body. So it still stands. He will be on his own if he gets into trouble with the law, just like me.[/quote]Of course, this is providing your wife isn't turned off by the fact that you either were a heavy, heavy pot-head in the past, or continue to smoke pot because you felt you were doing fine in college, even with the pot smoking. [quote]There is NO NEED to add ANYTHING to marijuana, lol. Companies will have no need to add anything. They aren't going to start adding crap to it. Why? Because then people won't smoke it. People smoke it now, because they at least know there aren't additives in most cases.[/quote]No need? Tell that to the big corporations that are going to be getting hold of a newly-legalized drug and are going to have all sorts of creative avenues to concoct some really nasty, addictive substances. Zeta, you don't realize it, but legalizing MJ might very well be a worse avenue than keeping it illegal, because what do the big corporations do? They...that's right! They dilute products; they alter products. Plus, you've said it yourself. You don't smoke MJ because it's "pure." You smoke it to get high, to chill out. You're now [i]really[/i] starting to jump all over the place in your replies, Zeta. [QUOTE]How was I stumbling over myself? lol. It was my personal opinion. I was digging through my sources and just posting what I got from each and every source. I said how I felt on the matter. I brought points to validate my position, as did you. There is no right or wrong answer in that topic, no relavance to this topic. Not needed. I believe strongly in my views on the rating system. I don't believe they should be what they are, and if they stay this way, they should be enforced the way they are written. Again, no relavance to this topic, and a matter of personal opinon.[/QUOTE]They do have bearing, because those previous discussions do prove that you don't exactly have a very coherent method of presentation. And considering, too, that you had probably the easiest topic in the world in Star Wars 411, there's simply no excuse, other than negative side effects of drug consumption, for you to stumble so greatly and repeat yourself so often. You didn't even seem to be able to understand the idea of an unreliable narrator, and I spelled it out for you. And even then, it looked like it was going right over your head. Your comments regarding the use of the Death Star and its relevance to the conflict in the Middle East situation weren't supporting your argument at all, because you were arguing that using nuclear weapons in the Middle East was justified, provided those using the nuclear weapons are engaged in what is clearly a kill-or-be-killed scenario. Let's not forget your final post in that little discussion...you were trying to counter my argument with "Well, if that makes the Rebellion evil, then the Empire is evil, as well." Like I explained to you back then, what you thought was a counter was really a concession, because you were then admitting that the line previously believed to be a clear line between Good and Evil in Star Wars is actually blurred beyond recognition. That's just three little things out of two or three previous threads. I'd say that's certainly stumbling over yourself, Zeta. [QUOTE]For some yes it is easy. I brought up my grades because you said it affected my learning. If it affects my learning, it won't just do it in college. It will do it in high school as well. It obviously hasn't affected my learning enough to drop my grades, my grades have stayed constant, despite the fact that I am a "pot-head." I brought up my memory because you claimed it has affected my memory. It clearly hasn't. If I am able to remember things while being stoned from years back, I can remember things from when I am not stoned. So it clearly hasn't affected me memory enought for me to not remember things.[/QUOTE]Okay, so you're able to do things that are incredibly easy to begin with...and sometimes, are just quite mindlessly easy...that doesn't really support your claim that MJ doesn't affect skill and competency, because you're basing your assessment on things that are inherently easy. You're not setting the bar very high--hell, with minimal to moderate effort one can swing high Bs to As in high school. You have to try harder than that to support your argument here, because as it stands now, you still don't have any real and substantial evidence, apart from extremely questionable marijuana web-ring propaganda and evaluation criteria that isn't an adequate gauge for anything. [quote]I am not the only driver Siren. If accidents are so wide-spread becasue of driving under the influence of marijuana, why don't we hear about them? Marijuana is widely available, and you can bet that just as many people drive stoned as drunk. But why it is always drunk drivers that get the attention? You would think accidnets caused by marijuana would be just as wide-spread and talked about, if not more, so as to stregthen the government's position on marijuana, no?[/quote]What's a more attractive news story? Drunk driving or driving while high? That will answer your question, Zeta. [quote]I have said my reasons for the problems with it being illegal. Our jails are full of first time offenders with drugs, and probably half of them are for marijuana. Those spaces could be taken up with coke dealers, heroin dealers, etc.. We have money wasted on a war that is mostly against marijuana when it could be going towards the harder drugs. See the other topic for more if need be.[/quote]"Saving" money from the war on drugs that's most likely just going to go into the regulations if legalization occurs...yes...brilliant idea. And "probably half"? Are you just guessing here or are you going to again praise/quote your MJ web-ring linkage? And quite frankly, what reason do I have to believe that you've linked to some type of independent study (i.e., non-MJ-obsessed) in the other topic? [quote]My compltely harmless comments aren't directed at you, my apologies. Morpheous said that, and then it caught on with other people. I just emphasized the fact that I did not say that when I listed things about smoking.[/quote]Apology accepted, but it was pretty careless of you, wasn't it? You're not paying attention to the post you're replying to, apparently. [quote]Please do tell me how I dislike the government? I don't agree with their stance on marijuana, plain and simple. I don't dislike them because of it. I don't ridicule them for it. I just don't agree with their stance on it. I guess that makes me dislike the government. *shrug* I guess this also means I distrust the government. *shrug* How do I dislike authority? I just don't agree with authority's view on the matter. But hey, just like above, I guess that makes me dislike it.[/QUOTE]You're claiming that you don't distrust the government? How about the extended tirades that you've had in this very thread about how the government isn't telling us the whole truth, and how marijuana enthusiasts can open our eyes to the lies being spun by the government? You're dancing around my point, Zeta. You do distrust the government, and I'd think it's very reasonable to say that you do resent (synonymous with "dislike") authority...your posts here are testament to that. You don't like the government/authority punishing people for smoking pot.

[QUOTE=Zeta]I keep saying that because he hasn't clicked them, and I want him to click them to get the other side of the story. Your side is the biased views set forth by the government. The other side would be the biased views of a pot smoker, no? You and him have your biased sites to draw your information on. I have mine. They are the opposite sides of the stories. Both will be biased. But you get both sides of the argument by reading both sides. You have one side of the story, and aren't willing to look at the other side. I have seen both sides Siren. You have not. You points are one sided, biased points taught to you at DARE in order for the government to "prove it is right" [/quote] I've clicked them, and they're nothing more than marijuana enthusiast propaganda, Zeta. Stop dancing around that, because it's not just an interpretation. That's just not a bias that I may or may not have. This isn't any political activist in me talking. This is the [i]English Major[/i] in me talking. Your "support" is propaganda. That's not my imagination. That's a [b]FACT[/b]. What do you think you'd find on a site that is part of a marijuana web-ring? What makes you think I've been brainwashed by the government? We're not playing Invasion of the Body Snatchers here. Wasn't Paranoia listed in the side effects somewhere, in some form or another? [quote]I used to be just like you. I would frown upon marijuana to the highest degree. I ended friendships over it. And after trying it and researching it myself, I have concluded that what we are taught is not the whole truth. And I changed my views. I changed them because I realized this.[/quote] I hadn't realized that a professional study from Harvard University could be so inaccurate, and that the reactions of those who enjoy the high they get could be so much more accurate. [quote]If my son wants to smoke marijuana, I am not going to tell him no. I would be a hypocrit then. But what I will tell him is if he gets into trouble with the law because of it, he is on his own. Just as I was.[/quote] Yes, but why not pro-actively avoid all of that, avoid the legal trouble, spare your son that legal trouble, and set a few ground rules, and make the reasoning behind those rules clear, concise, firm, but at the same time, amiable? [quote]Legalizing it will take away the chances of the weed being laced. Which is why I said that. I myself don't want my weed laced with anything, and I am sure others don't either. We have no control on that at this moment in time, because it isn't regulated. A whole load of benefits will come from legalizing it. The government will be able to regulate it. They will be able to tax it and make money, money which can be then used on the more powerful drugs. The jails of the country will be freed up from the thousands of first time drug offenders, over which half are probably because of marijuana. Like it or not, going to an 18 year old neighbor will be much safer than going through the black market to get your drugs. I know. I have been to both places. I prefer the neighbor. Naturally people will still use it. Just like alcohol and cigarettes. There are negative effects of alcohol and cigarettes and they are legal, effects that are worse than marijuana's.[/quote] And then it becomes a business like Big Tobacco, and quite possibly "suffering" from the same problems (i.e., big business getting hold of it and actually making the stuff addictive, much moreso than it is currently). If that happens, you're not looking at a stable society. You're going to have even more toxins added to MJ, more additives, etc. If it does get altered to be addictive...you're going to have mass addiction and mass highs. That's not a good idea. [quote]Please do tell me how I do have those characteristis. You do not know me. You do not know anything about me. My learning has not suffered. I am still a high honor roll student, with at least a 3.7 GPA every quarter. I am still able to think clearly, as established with my good school grades. If I couldn't think, I would not be getting good grades. My memory is as strong as ever. I remember things from before I started smoking. I remember things from times that I was smoking. I remember what I did Christmas Break of '03. I know what I did in January through March of last year when it was a smoke fest for me. Every day I smoked, and I can recall everything that we did. With all my times driving stoned, I have not once gotten into an accident. I have not once been pulled over. The only time I have been in an accident is when I wasn't stoned, hell it was before I even started smoking. So please do tell me how I show these characteristics.[/quote] You were arguing that the Ratings/Restrictions system was bunk and should be drastically altered, because you feel that people should be able to see pretty much whatever they want. You had the easy argument in Star Wars 411 (you know, the Rebellion is Good argument) and you were stumbling all over yourself in an attempt to make valid points. Not once have I seen a well-developed and coherent argument from you anywhere. They're always rambly; they're always all over the place. By the way, good grades are easy to come by. Read the material. Do the work. That's it. Kudos on your high GPA, but frankly, a high GPA is just that. A high GPA, and good grades aren't so impossible to get, Zeta. Your support point there isn't helping your argument. You're 17, eh? Still in high school, then? Getting good grades in high school is like kicking a midget in the chest: easy as hell. Memory-wise...I can remember HHA-75X, spot 52 back from my Senior year of high school...and I only glanced at the license plate in passing on my way back into the Gym. I can recall precisely what I was doing for my 5th birthday party. I can recall precisely what my last day of Freshman year was like. Do you want a cookie for being able to do what everyone is able to do easily? It's not hard to remember things to begin with. Driving? You got lucky, simple as that. That's all. That's it. There was no "OMG I am so ooober skilled when I am high!!" It was just dumb luck, Zeta. It wasn't you. You would like me to show you the loss of common sense? You're advocating an argument that boils down to a Bob Dylan song, "Everyone must get stoned." You're advocating essentially a stripping of authority. I ask you, what is the huge problem with MJ staying illegal and people using it for documented medicinal purposes? I find that you haven't really answered that question, and I'd like to hear your response. What is the huge problem with MJ staying illegal and people using it for documented medicinal purposes? [quote]Of course I am viewing it lightly. Because I know from first hand experience that it isn't what you are taught. It isn't a gateway drug. It isn't going to cause cancer. It isn't going to cause mental illness by itself. It isn't going to shorten your life dramatically. But no where have I said that it is completely harmless.[/quote] Why do you keep referring to that "completely harmless" line? I haven't been accusing you of saying it's completely harmless, if you hadn't noticed. Technically, it is a gateway drug, because like you've said, "in dealing with the black market, the buyer will be exposed to harder drugs." Also, where have I said MJ would cause cancer? Likewise, where have I stated that it's going to cause mental illness (oh, the Harvard study mentioned something about that...the study that you are seemingly entirely ignoring). Similarly, where have I said it's going to shorten lifespans? I don't know whose posts you're responding to here, Zeta, but they're not mine. One of the side effects of MJ usage was a lousy attention span, wasn't it? [quote]People are surprised that I smoke, because I do not look like a pot smoker. I am a 17 year old who happens to look very young (right now that is not good >_>, but when I am 50 and look like I am 40, I will have no problems :-)). I do not fit the "image" of a pot smoker at all. I fit the image of a nerd who doesn't even know what marijuana looks like, let alone what it is.[/QUOTE] You're 17, you're fighting the system, you're heavily into smoking pot. You distrust the government. You flock to pro-marijuana websites. You dislike authority. Well, gee golly hollerin n hootin! Howdy, cliche! Sara, I'm paying close attention to playing nice, don't you worry. ^_^

[quote name='Zeta']Siren, I have also seen the effects of marijuana, don't think you have a one up o n me there. I KNOW the effects of marijuana first hand.. I have seen people that actually have mental disorders and smoke. Are they screwed up? No. I have seen people who smoke marijuana every day for years without a mental disorder. Are they screwed up? No. So I have my own experiences as well as seeing what it does in others as well, you aren't the only one.[/quote] Yes, you've had first-hand experience with pot. Yes, you've smoked it extensively throughout your life. If there are negative side-effects (which according to [i]Harvard University[/i]...there are negative side-effects), then surely you would be showing evidence of those side-effects, true? Side-effects like "In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning." For a long term user such as yourself, you would most certainly strongly display those characteristics, and...you [i]do[/i]. [quote]I never said it was harmless, lol. Must I keep repeating what I say? It is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. [b]Everyone makes it out to be this drug that will kill you and ruin your life[/b]. It won't. That is all I am saying. You can choose to believe I am saying it is compltely harmless if you want. But this has to be the fifth time I have said this, c'mon.[/quote] I?ve bolded the sentence, and I?ve never been saying that. What I have been saying, however, is that it?s a drug that shouldn?t be viewed as lightly as you and others here are...and you [i]are[/i] viewing it very lightly. [quote]Sure the abuse won't stop. Everything is abused as you said. But I would much rather have someone abuse a drug that isn't laced with angeldust.*shrug* Again, that is just me.[/quote] Oh, don?t try to pull the ?I?m doing this for the safety of others? ********, lol. We all know you?re not arguing Pro-Marijuana because of that. [quote]Been a pothead for a good while now. When I talk about weed to people they are shocked that I smoke.[/quote] When you talk about weed here, I?m not surprised [i]at all[/i], based on your post history (not only in threads about MJ, but anywhere). [quote]I would much rather my son going to my neighbor Tommy to get marijuana rather than in some alley in the middle of the night if he chooses to smoke marijuana.[/quote] How about your son not getting marijuana at all? [quote]I am here to try and help one see the other side of the issue, and do their own research and decide for themself if they want to believe what they do no, or not. Go and read my links Morpheous. I don't see why you won't. IN my links, you will find out why I continue to believe the way I do. You will see it isn't as bad as you may seem to think. C'mon man, just do it. Again, read my links Morpheous. Each and every one of your posts only strengthens your image of a minformed youth advocating marijuana as a bad drug. I little tip from me to you. If you are scared of mommy and daddy seeing marijuana.com in your url bar, go to tools, internet options, and click the clear history button. ;) Come back and talk to me when you actually know what you are talking about. Click on the links and read up. Then we can have a conversation.[/QUOTE] Oh, yes. The ?research? that you linked to in a previous thread? With one site that belonged to a [i]marijuana enthusiast web-ring[/i], and another site with articles written by a [i]marijuana enthusiast[/i]? Those sites that are designed and tailored For Potheads, By Potheads? Yes, really impartial and unbiased there. Drop the act, open your eyes, and resist the weed. You're not even replying with any real points anymore, just "Click my links and the truth will be revealed!" You've seemingly entirely ignored the Harvard University studies, claiming that a bunch of pot-smokers online know more about what's really going on than organizations like DARE and professional studies from top-tier Ivy League schools. You've got nothing to go on anymore, because your points have been refuted, and now you're simply refusing to discuss anything else, only falling back to the "You don't know what you're talking about so therefore I can't have a discussion with you anymore" fallacy of debate. Don't pull a Sciros, lol, and try to rationalize this.

1) Shy, fantastic stuff, just a few small edits here. The focus of the story is definitely on Betty, and I do agree that the opening's length somewhat detracts from that. I've gone through and trimmed down the set-up a bit; I think it works a bit better here: [quote]Tim Rutherford was the last of his platoon. He knew that with even the slightest bit of miscalculation he would doom mankind?s last hope for salvation. His palms began to sweat as he waited inside the abandoned concrete bunker. Tim leaned against a pile of empty crates, taking a moment to rest and collect his thoughts. One way in, one way out. He was trapped. Patience would be the key to survival, he thought, refocusing his attention on the approaching forces, If I fail this mission, the last 72 hours will have been in vain. Footsteps thundered through the building, rumbling down the young man?s spine. The Harvesters had been nothing more than an annoyance compared to what was coming. The tremors drew closer, one after another in ominous succession. In Tim?s last few moments, he checked his equipment one final time: two ion grenades and a thermal shield; utterly useless against an organic being. A pair of familiar tentacles presented themselves from behind the wall, drawing Tim?s fire. It had begun. ?Tim, I have important something to tell you.?[/quote] 2) A few other minor, minor edits are mainly dialogue tweaks. Tim's "yeah, yeah, whatever..." line seems more sinister than just inattentive, and even though the intent of the story is to portray Tim as a twit, I think it would work better with more innocent, like... [quote]"Sure thing. Whatever you want, B."[/quote] Because how many times have gamers said something like that? Hehe. 3) [quote]A pair of familiar tentacles presented themselves from behind the wall, drawing Tim?s fire. It had begun. ?Tim, I have important something to tell you.?[/quote] The transition works incredibly well, because it sets the mood of the piece, without being cliche--in fact, since Betty is the "monster" (really, the monster of the piece in general), the crosscut/juxtaposition of Betty's conversation with Tim against Tim's fight with the Half-Life creature (Half-Life, people...not Halo, lol ;)) is brilliant.

[QUOTE=M.Ali]Erm..okay, didn't you say this: Trust me when I say, that weed isn't the reason that you cousin is the way he is, you pointed out yourself that your cousin did more than one type of drug, and had to go to rahabilitation.[/QUOTE] I saw him numerous times before he started getting into the heavy stuff, and the glaze already was there, the sort of distant, lazy stare of a mind perpetually in a state of drifting off. He wasn't even doing the heavy, heavy stuff back in high school, and I'm fairly sure he only just got his GED last year. We would have both graduated in 2001.

[QUOTE=Zeta]Have you smoked it my good ole' chap? Again, look at it from this point of view. You go through the black market to get it, you are introduced to the harder drugs. Why? Because a marijuana dealer doesn't just sell pot. Trust me. I know. That is how it is a gateway drug. You don't lose getting the high from pot. You won't get the same high from doing another drug. You get a totally different high. So you definately aren't looking for a drug to give you the same effects as pot. It doesn't have as bad as mental effects as everyone says it is. Show me a thorough study that says the people who got the disorders didn't have it all ready, or it doesn't run in the family. Back up your claims. Without the proof, it doesn't prove your claims. And who said a High School would be buying it? lol. As I said in the other thread there would of course be an age limit. With that, he/she definately will not be walking into a drugstore and stocking up on it, lol. You would rather have them going to the gangs? The drug cartels? I know I wouldn't. But hey, that is just me. And you seem to have missed a lot of what I have once said about marijuana. With it legalized, the government will have much more control over it. They will be able to tax it, make money off of it. They will make sure it isn't somehow laced with heroin, cocaine, rat poison. There will be no need to go to the gangs, drug cartels, or any of the other places that illegaly deal drugs. As I said. I would much rather my kid stay away from those areas. But that is just me. Some people may want their kid to go to the cartels, gangs, and what not. I bring up, have you smoked it? Have you driven and smoked? Have you went to school high? Have you smoked at all? 1) You have a higher chance of controlling yourself when high. You can think. You obviously don't know this since you haven't smoked. Or you have smoked and just failed to realize that you could actually think, as opposed to alcohol. You can die of alcohol poisining, you can't overdose on marijuana. You have SERIOUS lapse of judgment with alcohol, with marijuana you do not. You do not have whole sections of your life missing because you have been piss drunk and blacked out if you are high . 2) Driving is stupid while high yes. But it is much easier to do than driving drunk. You concentrate more. You pay attention more. Again, you don't know this because you haven't done it. How many accident do you hear of that are because of being high? Marijuana is as availabe as alcohol, so don't say that alcohol is more available. Why don't you hear about the marijuana accidents as much as the alcohol? You would think they would pay just as much, if not more mind to marijuana accidents, to strengthen your views that is a horrible drug. 3) I have been a smoker for years. I am a high honor roll student. I was accepted into the third best college in the Mid West. I have driven stoned. I have no gotten into an accident once while being stoned. I have gone to school stoned and have passed my tests with A's. I have been in public when I was stoned and no one knew. Why? Because you can control yourself. You can be normal. It doesn't make you stumble, it doesn't make you angry like alcohol. Again, I never said marijuana was harmless. That was Morpheous assuming I said that and it somehow caught on. I know there are consequences, as I have said each time I post. But the consequences are not as bad as everyone seems to think they are. I have smoked for years. I know people who have smoked two times as long as me. And they are perfectly fine. I know people who have smoked with depression and they haven't had their problems progress any further. You don't know it isn't as bad as it is, becasue you haven't tried it. You just buy all the bogus that is fed to you. They aren't going to tell you anything good about it, they will only tell you the bad so they make it seem like they are 100% right. But hey, I could care less if you believe what I say or not, just as you could care less if I believe what you say or not I bet. I am not going to take anyone's comments seriously if they haven't been on both sides of the bandwagon. I have been on both sides. I just see people here absorbing their anti-drug classes to the maximum, and don't even bother to actually see it from the other side. It is basically just judging a book on its' cover. I have seen it from both sides. But hey, say what you will. Bash my comments. They won't do you any good. Just as my comments bashing yours will not do any good. What I am trying to do is to make you see the other side of the issue. Not just the one side. But if you don't even want to glimpse it from the other side, *shrug* Take it with a grain of salt. It's your choice.[/QUOTE] Zeta, as much as you want to deny it, your marijuana consumption [i]is[/i] having an extremely detrimental effect on your thought processes and cognitive functions. You're sitting here and telling me that smoking pot has no ill effects at all (that is what your posts are saying...whether or not you realize that is a rather important issue here). You want to really see what people think? Run for public office on the Weed Platform. You say I'm just getting too drawn in to the "anti-drug" classes? Bull****. I've [i]seen[/i] the effects of marijuana, Zeta. My cousins are testament to what it does. It is damaging--far, far moreso than you want to admit. You have gotten lucky in your life, Zeta. Don't try to spin your experiences as the norm, because I have seen what pot does to a person. My cousin, Anthony, still has that glazed look in his eyes and he's been clean for years now. I'm not saying pot is the bane of society. I'm not saying it's the Antichrist. I am saying, however, that whatever inane arguments the Pro-Legalization people are making are just that: inane. [quote]And who said a High School would be buying it? lol. As I said in the other thread there would of course be an age limit. With that, he/she definately will not be walking into a drugstore and stocking up on it, lol.[/quote] You set an age limit of 18. 88% of high school Seniors are 18. What do you think is going to happen there? Just think about it for a second.

[quote name='Charles]That's a [i]terrible[/i], short-sighted view I wouldn't have expected you to take. I'm taken aback. You're ignoring the primary criticism of over-commercializing the holiday. The point is that it's silly to promote the idea that people should lavish their loved ones with gifts on a designated day. Aisles of sweets and balloons aren't the focus of intelligent criticism's attributed to Valentine's Day. They don't detract from the holiday. On the contrary,[i] the holiday itself [/i]is transparent and silly. [b]If you love someone and cherish their companionship, you should show them on a daily basis.[/b'] Placing importance on one day out of the year where people must put a price tag on their love is more of a hindrance in my opinion. It's obvious that Valentine's Day is a very superficial holiday, make no mistake about it.[/quote]I've bolded the statement, Charles, and I [b]do[/b]. But people in this very thread are condemning V-Day based on Consumerism/Capitalism/Dollar-Sign Eyes. I can quote the posts if you'd like. They're condemning V-Day because they see rows and rows of pink and white, of boxes of chocolates. I'm not defending the Capitalist price-gouging. Why would I? It's consumer extortion. Am I going to ***** and moan about the price-gouging, though? No, I'm not. Why would I? Okay, so we live in a Capitalist society. Big fricking deal. I don't worry about it. The system isn't a huge concern for me; and even though I do make a point to pay attention to it and plan my life accordingly...I don't let it bother me. So it's one day out of 365 where people tell you to treat your loved one extra-special. What's the big deal with that? If you're inconsiderate 364 days per year, then I can see how that's a problem, because you feel you're being coerced into doing something you never do anyway (i.e., act in a loving manner). But quite frankly, if one needs V-Day to get them to get all nicey-nicey, then they're not worth the space they take up. But if you are lovey-dovey most of the time to begin with, why would V-Day bother you? It becomes a non-issue. How is complaining about it going to help, anyway? Complaining doesn't do anything. Doing does something. I haven't sold-out to the system, as it were, but I do understand the value of working [i]around[/i] the system. Look at (most of) the people who hate V-Day. They only hate it because they fight it; they only fight it because they're miserable; and they're miserable because they hate the fact that they're alone...and the trick there is to just not worry about it. You're single, okay, so you're single. Who cares? I'd compare it to my Philosophy of Religion course. Okay, so you're having a tough time "getting" how the prof teaches. Who cares? Don't whine; don't complain. Take it and run with it. Have fun, and I think that really can be applied here, as well. Just have fun with the idea of V-Day. Just have fun with it. If you're involved with someone, great, enjoy it. If you're single, goof off. Have a party, whatever. The issue isn't V-Day. The issue isn't the vapid, superficial excuse of a day that is Feb 14th. The issue isn't CVS' aisles of teddy bears. The issue here is people just don't want to take control of their lives and do something pro-active instead of whining about it. [quote]Valentine's Day can be positive in that it can help people establish new relationships. I'm not completely against it; I just don't think it should be used to celebrate existing ones since, like Christmas, it becomes more about the gifts themselves than loved ones spending time together. If anything, it detracts from happiness between a couple because people are being forced to buy gifts, there's no surprise or consideration involved. It just seems hollow to me.[/QUOTE][quote name='Siren']As long as you're not just buying crap randomly, stuff that you know people wouldn't appreciate, and wouldn't enjoy on any real level, what's the problem there? I mean, honestly. I can understand getting annoyed with those who do just grab whatever and giftwrap it, but to condemn the holiday because of that? That's just asinine, quite frankly.[/quote]I already had hit that point about the shallowness of gifts. Gifts are only shallow when you let them be shallow, Charles. For V-Day, Melissa and I are going rock/wall climbing on Sunday. We're both really excited about it, because it's something fun and goofy, and "fun and goofy" means a lot to the both of us, because we're both fun and goofy people. Next Friday I'm taking her to dinner at Red, Hot, and Blue, a terrific BBQ place in Cherry Hill that we both really dig. Just illustrates my point that gifts are only shallow when you let them be shallow. If you really think about what you're getting someone, and know that they'll either enjoy it or appreciate it...then there is no issue at all. The only issue about V-Day is in your head, in your approach.

Oh, common sense, where hast thou gone? Seriously. Why would people even begin to believe that legalizing marijuana is a good thing? I mean...I can see it for medicinal purposes, yes, but so the recreational pothead can get high? [i]C'mon[/i] lol. There are serious lapses in judgment when you use marijuana. It [i]does[/i] have adverse reactions on thought processes. Hell, you can see that from a few of the Pro-Legalization posts in these two Marijuana threads. I, for one, like any [i]sensibly minded person[/i], do not want 18-year-olds buying Mary-Jane and giving it to their 15-year-old friends. Hello, people, that's not a good thing, no matter how stoned you want to be. What are some of the other argument points for the legalization... Ah, it's not a gateway drug? I'm assuming "gateway" means onto bigger and harder things? Gee...*thinks back to when some of his cousins started pot, then launched into cocaine, a bit of heroin, finally hitting rock-bottom and coming to a mission for drug abuse out in the NorthWest* Hm. I guess all of that was my cousins' fault, then? All of that trouble was based purely on their troubled psyches? Yeah, I'm sure that's what it was. It's better for everyone, because it's more accessible, and can be bought virtually everywhere? Oh, yeah. I'd just [i]love[/i] to be able to walk into my local Rite-Aid and see some High School Senior loading up on the stuff. [i]Real[/i] great argument there. Oh, what's that you say? We should legalize it so children are safer, so they don't have to go through vicious druglords, instead just hitting up said high school Senior? Why didn't I ever see the logic in that?! Oh, that's right...[i]because there is no logic in that[/i]! Two things here: One, I seriously think people are taking the "Pro-Legalization" angle way, way too far, because much of what is being suggested is incredibly, [i]incredibly[/i] unwise. Two, I seriously think that marijuana has a much greater adverse effect on mental functions (*cough*Zeta*cough*) than people may realize (*cough*Zeta*cough*). Universally legalizing marijuana with no considerations at all to the consequences...I don't believe I've ever heard of anything so absurd. Is it just me? Am I the only one left who possesses any shred of common sense? Good idea: Helping your grandfather up the stairs. Bad idea: Helping your high school friends get high.

[center][font=Palatino Linotype][color=red]?Always Look Both Ways Before Crossing?[/color][/font][/center] [font=Palatino Linotype][/font] [font=Palatino Linotype][quote]It was an ambush. We had run headfirst into it. Rounds whizzed by our heads. I dropped back behind the wall. My team didn?t. Bodies flew past the door. Silence, then footsteps in my direction. I held my breath. The last terrorist ran by. The headshot was easy; after all, he didn?t look both ways.[/quote][/font]

I'd like to build somewhat on what Drix and Tony have said here, particularly regarding Batman's motivation for serving as Gotham's so-called "Guardian Angel." Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by common street trash, most likely. From what I gather, that seems to be the case. We're not exactly sure of the reasoning behind the murder, but it's plausible it was robbery. Regardless, however, his parents are murdered, then he decides to "fight crime," but it's not fighting crime at all. It's revenge. And the revenge isn't even actual revenge, it's just nondiscriminatory violence (in Kill Bill, the Bride didn't kill whomever, only specific targets). Batman is taking the pain and anguish of that one night, in that one alley, and projecting that onto an entire city. He saves lives, yes, but Superman saves lives out of civic duty--a sense of selfless duty. I don't see that in Batman. I see more of a selfish duty in Batman. He's not exactly doing this to help others; he's really doing this just to help himself.

Visor effects taken a few steps too far.

Charles, I think it was more than just McNabb and the running game, though. In fact, I really don't think the loss was due to sloppy playing at all. Yes, the Eagles were getting out-played (Skill-wise, certainly. They didn't play well at all compared to previous games.), but I more think they lost because they were getting out-strategerized. The Patriots were always a few steps (or plays, heh) ahead of the Eagles throughout much of the game, and especially in the 2nd half. Brady and the offensive line read nearly every single blitz and adjusted accordingly. The tactics of Trotter really put a damper on the Eagles D line, I'd say. In previous games, Trotter would move up like that before the snap then barrel through the line to really threaten the QB. That wasn't happening not because Trotter wasn't playing well, because he was (I'm not saying you were saying anything like that, just making an observation.). That wasn't happening because Brady saw it coming, staggered the count to throw the D off-balance, then changed the play to counter the blitz. Some of the various slant plays later in the game are also testament to this, I think. The Patriots seemed like they were running a pass play down the left side of the field, so the Eagles naturally covered for that type of situation, and then the Patriots run a reverse, essentially, and have a wide-open lane for a substantial yard gain on the other side of the field. The Eagles were definitely playing sloppily (except Owens...that was unbelievable), but I really think the loss is more attributable to the Patriots simply employing better strategy.

"Oh, thank you! It's the cutest doll ever!" "...I'm going to kill you in your sleep." "What?!" "I love you and want to be best friends!"

Well, I'm surprised. My prediction turned out to be pretty accurate, sans the field position (Eagles' end zone versus Patriots) and receiver. Other than that, down by 3, with about 30 seconds left, and McNabb throws an interception. Melissa and my family hate me so much right now, lol.

Eagles down by 3 in the last 30 seconds of the game. They've got the ball on the Patriots 10 yard line. The ball is hiked, McNabb drops back. Trotter is open in the End zone. McNabb throws, but Trotter doesn't get it. It's intercepted by the Patriots. That's my prediction, lol.

[center][b]?The Twist isn?t in the Cone?[/b][/center] [quote]We were hankering for Haagen-Dazs ice cream. As we walked up to the counter, something felt different. ?Chunky Monkey?Cherry Garcia?they got new flavors? I don?t remember the shop being this?goofy?oh well.? We ordered our treats and sat down. As we finished, Melissa glanced up at the shop. ?It?s Ben n Jerry?s.?[/quote]

Kitty, the board is yours. The Superman reference rocked my world.

Drix, your reply is toolish. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I don?t want to be too harsh, but this is terrible stuff. I was expecting a lot more from a person who I used to consider somewhat of a writer. Honestly Annie, I hadn?t stumbled upon this thing until the last chapter you posted, but I am thoroughly offended.[/quote] Harsh? Bah. You're sugarcoating things, Drix, but there's nothing to sugarcoat here, because Annie's story is fantabulousness. I don't believe that Annie's faltered as a writer here, not at all. If anything, her writing is top-notch. [quote]What am I to you? Some sort of one-sided character that you can manipulate? What is with your portrayal of me as a doctor? Is that some sort of joke? So I?m not a doctor yet, that doesn?t mean you need to rub it in my face. Oh, by the way, I resent being portrayed as a homosexual. My dog Jake cares for me very much, thank you.[/quote] I found this paragraph pretty darn humorous, because, truth is, Jordan, you are a one-sided character that we can manipulate. Remember when you were a Mod? I had you wrapped around my pinky finger so tightly that you may have just as well been part of a glove. Also, I'd hardly think that Annie's Doctorization of you was an insult. If anything, she was complimenting you, because we all know you're just going for a PhD so you can "administer" some "treatment" to beautiful and buxom babes on an exotic beach. I mean, honestly. The part fits you to a fricking T, man! And you weren't being portrayed as homosexual, necessarily; you were just written to be a pussy. Er, I guess that's not entirely accurate. Your character foundation was clearly based on Sean William Scott's character in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, in that you both are playing the caring, sensitive male so you can get some tail. There's nothing wrong with that. It makes for an insanely ironic and side-splitting good time. Your "criticisms" have no basis whatsoever!!! ~_^ [quote]By the way? third grade called, they forgot to teach you spelling and grammar. What is this? Did you vomit on your keyboard and forget where all the keys were located? Oh, and incorporating myO and AIM conversations is a real novel idea *rolls eyes*. I can?t believe how ridiculously well-received this story is? I think you should be booed off the boards for this mindless puss. How is James tolerating this? Has Otakuboards lost all semblance of justice?[/quote] [Jewish mother]Oh, and perfect spelling and grammer you have in spades? Do I read what I think I am reading? This is a time like the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one. Drix, your grammar and spelling are not as so perfect for you to go and bash my little Chavaleh Annie like you are doing this moment now. For one whose writing looks and sounds like Instant Message conversations and MyOtaku rants, you don't look to be able to rant and rave like this on this, the story thread of my little Chavaleh's. Shame on you, Jordan! Stab a knife into my heart you are! If I were your mother, I'd be cleaning the Schmutzpah out of that foul mouth of yours, young man. Shame, Jordan, shame! And for you to share the name of one of the greatest men to have ever lived, pains me dearly.[/Jewish Mother] [quote]Thanks a lot, I can?t believe you would sink so low.^_~[/QUOTE] Same to you, Hetero Lifemate...same to you. ~_^

Okay, here's the deal. Is Batman able to be classified as a positive role model or a negative role model? Basically, is Batman a Hero or is he a Sociopath? My take is Sociopath, and here's why. His first experience with crime is [spoiler]his parents getting gunned down by the Joker[/spoiler], but instead of overcoming it, growing from it, and generally, dealing with it in a mature way, he runs away from the problem, developing Batman, so he can somehow avenge his parents' [spoiler]murder[/spoiler]. But all that happens is he uses that childhood trauma to validate his hunting down common criminals and basic, run-of-the-mill thugs and hooligans. Batman isn't a Hero; he's an escape mechanism.

You know, it irks me to no end when people minimize various holidays because they've gotten so commercialized. Give me a break. So you can't go anywhere in any story without seeing a V-Day balloon or a heart or a box of chocolates. Big fricking deal. That doesn't make the day any less special, because like Sara has said, it's about what you make it. Oh, oh my god...CVS has entire walls lined with red, white and pink teddy bears! Damn you commercialism, DAMN YOU! Damn this day to hell and all those who participate in the madness, supporting the soul-less money-grubbing capitalist pig-dogs! I have the same problem with Christmas. As long as you're not just buying crap randomly, stuff that you know people wouldn't appreciate, and wouldn't enjoy on any real level, what's the problem there? I mean, honestly. I can understand getting annoyed with those who do just grab whatever and giftwrap it, but to condemn the holiday because of that? That's just asinine, quite frankly. I look at Valentine's Day not as a Capitalist Holiday. I look at it as a day where everyone is enjoying the company of the one they love. I look at Christmas not as a Capitalist Holiday, but as a day where I get to spend it with family, and the gifts are just another way of doing that. My brother and I love spending Christmas morning playing with our toys and such, and we've been doing it for our entire lives. Condemning a holiday because of Commercialism...grow a fricking spine. And quite frankly, for those of you condemning love...how many of you have actually been in love before?

[center][b]?Excitement keeps the Lunch Ladies Employed?[/b][/center] [quote]The lunches were bland. Sandwiches were mushed together and tasteless; hamburgers flat and gray; the milk tasted more like cardboard cartons. Trays clattered down onto the cheap, pastel tables, barely heard over the harsh, grating roar of 150 screaming children. It was cafeteria chaos, but it was our chaos, and so we ate those lunches.[/quote]

[i]Sweet![/i] Here's mine, courtesy of Half-Life 2, Drix, and Imageshack. [center][URL=http://img157.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img157&image=obcaptioncontesthl2ravenholm6a.jpg][IMG]http://img157.exs.cx/img157/5599/obcaptioncontesthl2ravenholm6a.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/center]

[QUOTE=Manic Webb]I want to add onto this thread, if I may. Imagine a filthy rich uncle of yours died recently. In their will, they gave you 2 options: 1) You get $30,000,000 2) A challenge. Spend $1,000,000 per day, every day for 30 days. You can't own anything you spend the money on, and you're not allowed to donate to charity or splurge it on gifts for your friends. If you've spent all of the money by the end of the 30 days, you'll get $300,000,000 (that's a whole 'nother 0, folks). However, you're not allowed to tell anyone why you're spending all of this money. Which would you pick? (Man, I love that movie)[/QUOTE] Hire Richard Pryor, of course. ~_^