Brasil

I'm a few rooms away from getting whatever the Luminoth weapon is, and I just thought I'd mention how hilarious some of the Log entries are. There were some pretty funny bits in Prime 1 (the Pirates' Morph Ball Experiment Logs, for example), but I'm laughing my -ss off right now from a few of the Log entries I just scanned in Echoes. One of them read, "Unit 686 released a Metroid for target practice today; the Metroid then assaulted 686. He should be regaining brain functions in a cycle." This is terrific black comedy. You wouldn't expect such a dark sense of humor in Metroid games, but Prime and Echoes are rife with it. Like Tony, my enjoyment of this game keeps rising. The entire game so far is fantastic. In the broader, bigger picture sense, it's incredible, but when you get down to minute things like the various Logs and such, the attention to detail is mind-boggling. Retro Studios is awesome.

I think my favorite is This World. It's super-trippy with the reflection in your eye and all. Just awesome and trippy. ^_^ Your photography rocks, Juu, it just roxxors my soxxors.

[url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38891][u]Yes, there is a Halo 2 thread.[/u][/url]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]So, many of you think this approach is rubbish? #1- Working out consistently might not be necessary, but keeping yourself in reasonable physical condition is good. Not only does it look better, it is better for you. Your body is a temple. Give it the best. #2- I don't see how you can argue against this. You don't have to wear expensive clothes, but you need to be aare of both what you wear, and how you wear it. #3- Once again, how can you argue against someone who keeps themselves clean? As I said before, your body is a temple. You need to treat it well. #4- Just yesterday, I was at a sleepover. We ate so much lollies and soft-drink. But, it is rare for me. I don't like having pimples all over my face, and clean skin is much better looking. Most of you people seem to be disagreeing with what he is saying. Let me select a few quotes from the first post in this thread.[/QUOTE] Baron, I'm the antithesis of this formula, and just from how I project and carry myself, I get attention. There is no concrete, rigid, structured list of dating steps or guidelines. There just isn't, lol. If there were, only certain people would be dating certain people, all the time, and the "inferior" people would be dating "inferior" people, all the time. That's not the case, clearly, so clearly, the formula given in this thread is bunk, because it's trying to apply objective qualities to a situation that is clearly subjective. Furthermore, the objective qualities stated here, in the formula, are ultimately based on subjectivity, so their objectiveness comes into question, don't you agree?

[quote name='James']And I must say, the Inn has had a lot of creative and new concepts within recent months. But some of those RPGs haven't taken off -- perhaps they were a bit too unique for the mainstream RPers. I don't know. But whatever the reason, it's still somewhat disappointing.[/quote] As a small footnote to what you said here, I think we should define what "haven't taken off" means, because with the variety of RPGs, and the expectations of their creators and participants, the rate and speed of progression will vary. Even though an RPG may be getting buried on the third page of AS now, it may be because those participating would rather have quality over quantity. I'll use Rebel Scum as an example, heh. Shy is very dedicated to the RPG (he probably is more excited about it than I am, lol) and doesn't want to post something that isn't up-to-snuff. He's been apologizing to me here and there for the delay, but I'd much rather have an excellent post later than have a weaker post earlier. Quality over quantity is definitely important to consider, I think. I find that the faster and haphazardly an RPG becomes, with posts every hour or day, the quality will be less than an RPG where there's a post each week, but each post is fine-tuned and honed to near-perfection. ~_^

[QUOTE=Lore][size=1]Carrot cake? Are you serious? Wow, that sounds really...lame. Vegetables just aren't something I normally associate with a rockin' time, heh. It's cute, though, heh. ^_^[/size][/QUOTE] Oh, Sara, carrot cake is orgasmically delicious. ~_^ When did I turn 18...2001? My Frosh year of college, Sept 4, 2001, yep. Yes, I started college on my 18th birthday, lol. I only had Intro to Theatre Arts on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but even with one class, I still wasn't looking forward to it, heh. The class was from 10 to 11:20 am, I believe. So, I get to class, sit down, start reading my book. It gets to be 10:10, and we're all wondering where our instructor is. A few minutes later, some teaching assistant or aide walks in and tells us that our instructor cancelled class, just read the first three chapters. So, yeah. It was kind of a waste of a day. I get home, chill for a bit, then my then-girlfriend calls me up and asks me what I want to do for my birthday. Eh-he ~_^

I'm actually most impressed with A.Pie 2 for a few different reasons. This will be a short post, because I'm exceedingly tired, lol. Firstly, the themes and subject matter feel more developed. It's no longer about a group of high school boys trying to win in the war of love. Now, it's about college students dealing with growing up. Obviously, there's still risque material in there, but now, we're seeing things from the college perspective. Secondly, the actual plot of A.Pie 2 is very logical, given the resolution of A.Pie 1. It's actually quite impressive, when you think about it. The narrative is being expanded in a way that makes sense. Thirdly, the characters are becoming more and more distinct (with the exception of Oz and his girlfriend), and the individual story arcs are picking up steam. There's a scene in A.Pie 2 that sets the entire tone of the film, I think. Jim, Finch, Oz, and Kevin are playing poker at a party, and it's clear they're all worried that they don't fit in there. Jim asks, "Ok. Now, do these high school kids think that we're cool, because they're at a college party. Or are we those weird older guys that try to hang out with high school kids but we don't know it?" This one line has a dual function. One, it is the catalyst for the entire film. From this one question, the entire film is set into motion, because the four realize that this isn't how they remember things to be, and they do feel weird about everything. Kevin's awkward reunion with Vicky screams it. Because of this weirdness, the guys decide they need to do something with their summers. That "something" is the shorehouse. The second function of that line is even more important than the catalyst function. Jim's line is nearly perfect satire. It shows a true reflection on the characters' parts about their current situations, and their reactions to that reflection illustrate precisely what we, the audience, are thinking. Keep in mind, too, that we the audience are comprised of a few college students here and there, and how many of us have felt slightly weirded out when we attend a party with current students of our old high school? Jim's question there is subtle yet to the point, it's natural yet unusually perceptive. It's satire at its finest. His line is the core of A.Pie 2, and it propels the entire plot forward. This is why the plot to A.Pie 2 is such a logical progression, because it's character-driven. There are no useless explosions a la RE:Apocalypse. Things happen because the characters make them happen, as opposed to big explosion-laden blockbusters, where special effects are haphazardly thrown in there. Simply, in A.Pie, the movie doesn't dictate what the characters do; the characters dictate what the movie does. Character-wise, I find A.Pie 2 to be better, because the characters clash more and more. Some have mentioned the Finch/Stifler conflict as not making sense, as it were, but how many college students here have grown apart from their high school acquaintances, perhaps even differ even greater in their respective life Philosophies/Ideologies? If you had a problem with someone like Stifler in high school, chances are, that problem would not get better. There are exceptions, of course, but A.Pie is mocking the stereotypical progression, not the exception.

Uh...I don't follow any of the steps in your "formula," apart from [i]maybe[/i] dressing a [i]bit[/i] stylishly, and I have more female friends on campus than I do male friends. Actually, not to burn you or anything, but I don't think your "formula" is actually all that accurate, anyway... 1) The last time I worked out was about three years ago. Up until 9 months ago, I ate fast food daily. The most exercise I've ever gotten in the past three years was walking from/to the student parking lot on campus. I've got a bit of a belly on me. Where some have six-packs, I've got a veritable mini-cooler. A few of my guy friends on campus are built like college bodybuilders, but when I'm chatting with them, I'm still having girls say hi to me. 2) I've had one pair of plain, black sneakers for a few years now. I'll be getting a new pair of the same kind later this Winter. I've got a fairly varied wardrobe, too. I've got retro shirts from the 70s; I've got more modern-looking sweaters from Strawbridge's; I wear weird-looking sweat/pajama pants some days, khakis other days. I wear black or white socks pretty much randomly, except when I'm wearing darker colors. More or less, I'm just generally odd-looking, but I still am able to get a girl's attention. 3 & 4) I haven't gotten a haircut in months. I could double for Frodo in LOTR. I shaved a few days ago for the first time in a few weeks. Before that, my facial hair was scruffy. My skin is generally pretty clear, but occasionally, I get pimples. I don't keep my face sparkling or anything. In fact, I don't pay much attention to it at all. I don't keep my unibrow in constant perfection; in fact, I only pluck when I really need it. This hasn't stopped me from developing very good rapport with the women on campus. If your formula were true, wouldn't that mean I'd be a social outcast? Clearly, that isn't the case. I can't walk 50 feet, it seems, without saying hello to a girl I'm friendly with.

Anchorman: Legend of Ron Burgundy is getting released in late December--the 28th, I believe, which makes no sense considering if they released it a week earlier, it'd be in time for Christmas, and you know that movie would seriously fly off the shelves, but that's irrelevant--and I'm wondering what people thought of it. I find that it's one of those movies you can't help but enjoy in some way or another. Whether it's the performances (Helloooo Brick!), random cameos (Tim Robbins...wtf?), the suits (yay!), or...the music. It was side-splittingly hilarious enough when they sang it in the movie, but apparently, they also filmed a 4-minute music video for it. For those of you who haven't had "the pleasure," I've included the link. Hopefully it'll work; I have occasional trouble linking to Search pages. [url=http://www.pseudo.com/search.php?q=Anchorman][u]Afternoon Delight Video[/u][/url] I think Anchorman is a movie that shows how wonderful method acting can be. If you look at the film, and look at the extra material released later, these actors are incredibly "into" their characters. From music videos, to rumored being able to improvise an entire second film ("Wake Up, Ron Burgundy"), Anchorman becomes a very excellent example of what total character immersion can do. But what does everyone else think about Anchorman? Afternoon Delight? The character immersion?

This somewhat relates to the newness vs familiarity thing being discussed. I got into Dark Aether about an hour ago, and I must say, the Luminoth Light crystals are gameplay gold. You have the permanent crystals, but then you also have these dots that you have to shoot to activate the [i]temporary[/i] light barrier safe zones. It really adds a whole new level to the game, because there's this pressing and imperative strategy to get through the levels. You have to plan out your route pretty much according to where you can find these light crystals/dots, and it's this sense of urgency that takes the game to a whole new level. I really can't wait till I get deeper into Dark Aether, just to see what Retro has done with this approach. If I'm impressed this much so early in the game, I can only imagine what's in store for me later, heh. I think Echoes took on a new level of "Too cool" when I had to get back to Light Aether after going through the portal for the first time and opening the gate there, but the platforms had disappeared in Dark Aether. I must have spent 15 minutes trying to look for ledges along the walls, backtracking, etc, when I realized, "Wait a minute. Triple bomb jump." It's like, the old with the new. ^_^ Absolutely brilliant.

Any timeframe on when regular users can get the administrative privileges to blow spammy comments away? I'm still unable to, because "I lack the administrative privileges needed" or something to that effect.

Star Wars slang. Who uses it, and what words do you use? This is wholly unrelated to Amidala's birthing the twins, but this just popped in my head and I'm seriously wondering. I find myself adopting variations of actual specie names from Star Wars, and using them as curses. For example, when I used to play SWG, and hunt on Dathomir, I would routinely get my little Mon Cal fin handed to me by baznitches, both the regular and mutant variety. As I kept getting Deathblowed, incurring massive woundage and getting sent back to the Science Outpost, I would exclaim, "You f-ck-ng baznitches!" Eventually, "baznitches" replaced my use of the word, "b-tches." Later, "baznitches" and "b-tches" merged, forming my new curse word, "biznitches," which incidentally had its debut in my recent MyO update, lol. I've been known to toss around the phrase, "Rebel Scum," a bit, too. For me, actually, "Rebellion" is synonymous with "whiny little biznitch." Anybody else suffering from this? lol

[center][img]http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5926/OBXmasListImage2004.jpg[/img][/center] [left] [/left] [left]Okay, so...what are you all asking for this year? Any particular games that suit your fancy? My list is tentative at this point, because I simply don't have much time to play gmes anymore, and a few 2-year-old games have yet to be beaten.[/left] [left] [/left] [left]But, I'm listing Pokemon FireRed, Star Wars Trilogy: Apprentice of the Force for GBA. So far, I've got Metroid Prime 2: Echoes and Pikmin 2 for Cube. I'm seriously unsure about what I'm looking for on Xbox, though, because I've already got Halo 2, and...I really am not terribly excited about any of the other new releases. I may go with GE: Rogue Agent, but I'm not sure.[/left] [left] [/left] [left]Either way, though, this is a fantastic Winter for gaming...mega-quality titles released, and surely everybody is going to have something to play, because even a PSX shouldn't be alone on Christmas. :p[/left] [left] [/left] [left]What's everyone hoping for under the tree this year? How many of you are going to spend Christmas morning with Samus? Is Master Chief going to keep you warm by the fire? What are you all excited about this year?[/left]

[quote name='Adahn']So, you have a certain faith in the fact that mankind will do what's necessary to survive?[/quote] Considering that animals in the middle of the Congo do it, how is mankind any different? Why should we think of mankind as any different? Mankind will do what's necessary to survive. We've been doing that for the past 4,000 years. [QUOTE]Yes, those are the only things we can't replace. However, there are things that we can replace, but not as fast as we use them. Trees can be replaced, but we'll always cut them down faster than we regrow them. Freshwater sources are replenished naturally, but we are slowly draining and contaminating these sources. I however, am fine, because I'm surrounded by the great lakes. I agree. Modern society did not create the problems, but it is necessary that we fix them.[/QUOTE] And I see the environmental preservation efforts increasing in the next few decades. The trend is there. We've got a fair amount of backlog, as it were, but you can see over the past few decades that we've been doubling our efforts more and more, as more hazards are being realized. [QUOTE]I fear that people won't care. If man becomes to comfortable, he will wallow in his own waste. I think of mankind as a big greasy fat guy sitting on a couch watching t.v., surrounded by candy wrappers and whatnot. It is good for him to pick up a few wrappers, but he's still not willing to clean up the whole mess.[/QUOTE] I hardly think that's a valid description of mankind. It's bordering on...melodramatic, really. We all like to entertain the idea that man is just some fat, slovenly uncle who sits around the house, but that's pure entertainment, with no real substantial value to it. I compare it to the Doomsday Machine complex, where people say, "The Earth is so screwed because Bush is in office," when in reality, that's not reality. It's just melodramatic entertainment. [QUOTE]Yes, that would not be good at all. The situation is not drastic yet, so such drastic measures need not even be considered.[/QUOTE] So, I wonder why you ever proposed such an obviously flawed measure in the first place, because: A) the situation has not reached critical mass, as it were; and B) an extreme solution is asinine in and of itself. [QUOTE]I believe the society is too large. Isn't it around 25% of people in the U.S. who actually vote? I'd be willing to bet that an even smaller percentage take part/pay close attention to matters of the state, and an even smaller number to those of the community.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if population is the entire problem, and I certainly don't think voter turn-out is any appropriate indicator of environmental concern. While those who vote could be environmentally concerned, and those who are environmentally concerned could be registered and active voters, I really do not believe that those numbers are so closely related. [quote]Now, this is just an idea. If we could make our government more dependent on smaller areas, our government and awareness would improve. 1. In each community (a certain number of people or an area), representatives would be chosen, depending on the size of the community. Those representatives would be elected by the community, and would oversee local matters. 2. Next, a certain number of community leaders would be involved in regional politics. These would, obviously, oversee matters of the region. It would be in the best interests of the citizens to send someone to the region who would best represent the community. 3. This regional council would discuss matters of the region, of course. They would, among themselves, send representatives to the state council. Again, it would be in their best interests to find someone who would best represent the region. With each higher level, we're getting the best representative. 4. The state council would be rather large, and would discuss matters of the state. The regional members would try the best to represent their region, and think of what's best for the state. The state council would then elect those best suited to argue matters of their state to go to a national council. 5. The national council would consist of the most talented, intelligent, and respected members of each state. Each of them would have come from a small community, so the sampling of thoughts and ideas would be very diverse. This council would control everything that dealt with affairs of the country as a whole. 6. Each proposal passed by the national council would then go the the state council. If it passes there, it goes to the region. If it passes there, it goes to the community. If a certin percentage of communities pass it, it becomes national law. This way, everyone is involved in the most important decisions, and it is essential for everyone to vote. I can't just create a perfect government from scratch, though, so I'm sure there are holes. If you see any basic flaws in my idea, you could point them out. It's just an idea.[/QUOTE] The biggest flaw here? Too many steps. Direct (which is what Rousseau advocated, by the way) governments would be too boggled down in discussion/discourse to be effective, or to pass any legislation. Their time would be continually eaten up by debate, with no real productive end result. It basically boils down to arguing for hours and not getting anything good out of it. I could instantly chop out about 3 or 4 steps there and you would have the current US Gov't, House of Representatives, etc., which, let's face it, do not need any more intermediaries. In fact, we need less steps than what we have now, or at least, a more streamlined system. Adding more steps, further complicating the system would not make anything easier; it would make things harder. I really shouldn't have to point that out, but I guess I do.

So, which is it? Does the American Pie series glorify the skinny blonde slut, as it were, or does it actually satirize the entire genre, and make Not Another Teen Movie wholly and utterly redundant? I'm saying it satirizes the entire genre, most notably, the 80s movies, for a few reasons. One, the title itself, "American Pie," and the main tagline, "As American as apple pie." This is sarcasm. They're essentially saying that this movie is precisely what American values are. We're sex-crazed lunatics who make love to pastries, and this is exactly what America is about. Our movies are as American as apple pie. Already, even in the title, the movies become a sarcastic gesture. Two, the characters, specifically, the four primaries. We have Jim, who is the...Everyman of the series; Oz, the soft-hearted [i]lacrosse[/i] player (more on that in a moment); Kevin, the ringleader of the group; and Finch, the charming, mature one. Jim is an interesting character because he's easily identifiable. We were all at that point sometime in our lives. We all were awkward, and we were all unsure of ourselves sexually. We were stuck in-between turning points in our lives, stages that were so radically different from each other, that we often did...foolish things, heh. I mentioned Jim's Everyman quality above, so I suppose I'll explain that. The Everyman is the main character, the one the audience focuses on the most, in old Morality Plays from the Middle Ages, I believe (I'll have to check on the actual dates). Everyman was often stuck in the middle of chaos, and had to find himself in the midst of it. He was tested nearly all the time. If we view A.Pie as a satire of the 80s films, and the teen genre in general, this Morality Play angle takes on a greater significance. Throughout the 80s, both in cinema and in TV after-school specials, there were a slew of movies created that were thinly-veiled morality plays. These movies tried to show the dangers of teen sex, peer pressure, etc, and we see a stunning similarity between A.Pie and these 80s featurettes. There is the Everyman character (Jim in A.Pie), identical contexts, identical messages. It's really quite remarkable how similar they are. The key difference, however, is the treatment of the material. In the morality plays of the 80s, the material was treated very, very seriously. In A.Pie, however, they mock the conventions every single chance they get, through the reactions of the new Everyman, Jim. They're also able to mock these subject matters through the reactions of the other three characters in the foursome, even able to actually mock the stereotypes of the 80s by skewing them radically. Oz, for example, is the sensitive sports star who falls for the meek, timid, dorky girl. The parallels to Pretty In Pink, Better Off Dead, etc, are fairly clear here, I think, except a key difference is the sport itself. While 80s jocks were football (Revenge of the Nerds), Oz is [i]lacrosse[/i], a sport primarily viewed as feminine when A.Pie was released. The social expectations of sports are coming under fire with the Oz character, as the filmmakers are almost directly indicting social perception of the jock. Oz plays lacrosse, for crying out loud. He plays with a netted stick, having to whip the ball into the goal. He's not skiing, he's not playing Ogre (Nerds). He's playing a sport of finesse. This is satirizing the entire idea that jock cliches need to be uber-manly. If there is a precise moment where the satirical tone in A.Pie is glaring, it is during Kevin's "We will get laid!" speech. Here, the four make a pact that they will all lose their virginity before Prom. Kevin's speech is actually a scathing look at how youth view sex, because for all intents and purposes, he is General Patton in this scene. He's letting out the warcry; he's pumping his boys up. He's rallying the troops. This is "Love is a Battlefield," people. These four are the infantry in the great war of love, and this warcry mocks the entire "Gotta get laid" idea by connecting it with warfare. In this scene, there is no difference between the troops fighting for their freedom in WWII and the boys fighting for their sexual freedom in high school. Finch is what every high school male should be: calm and composed. The juxtaposition of Finch's actions against the other males in the series is an important juxtaposition, because while every other male is concerned with "Wham-bam, thank you mam," Finch is setting the groundwork first, planning ahead, as it were. He isn't "in her face." And ultimately, he trumps everyone, by nailing Stifler's Mom. The other guys get small rewards; Finch gets a MILF. Again, yet another 80s movie convention being satirized here: the older woman who seduces the younger man, or is it the other way around? I think there is enough to say that there is no one-sided seduction regarding Stifler's Mom and Finch. They both seduce each other. This is quite a skewing of the previous 80s movie cliches, where the older woman was the sole aggressor. What does everyone think? There's more I could add if I had the time, but I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that A.Pie is not a glorification of teen sex, but instead a satire of it.

[QUOTE=Adahn]We do have good intentions, I just hope it's enough. What will we do if it's not? We can't fix things faster than we break them, it just doesn't make sense. I expect we will reach a turning point where the consequences of our actions will begin to affect us. Then, we will find something to alleviate the consequences, while the problem worsens. If it doesn't happen, then that's a good thing, but I really can't see anything undoing what we've already done.[/quote] If it isn't enough, or if it doesn't seem to be helping enough, we'll figure something else out, and we'll double our efforts, devise new ways to help remedy this. Mankind is hardly doomed, because it's still very possible to fix a lot of what's wrong. When you think about the only finite resources (coals, fossil fuels, etc), they're finite because they dry up, and they would have dried up eventually. And really, it's not [i]modern[/i] society's fault; the immense coal mining back in the 50s and earlier is really what drained those resources, when you think about it. There are coal mining towns in the Virginia/Kentucky/Pennsylvania areas that have been around for decades that are drying up. Any effort on modern society's part is a very noble thing, I think, and I seriously do not think we can be faulted for that. We're going to be doing more, as well. When more and more people become aware of the problem, more and more will be done. It's a type of social awareness leading to social progression. [quote]With all that mostly cleared up, what do you think the ideal society for man would be like? What would be the best way for man to coexist with his environment? It doesn't have to be a utopia, of course.[/QUOTE] Well, firstly, the ideal society for man would not be a society ripped out of Thoreau's Walden, because that wouldn't help anyone or anything. Conversely, tearing down all of nature is clearly not beneficial, and would not be the ideal society, either. Regarding current society, I feel it's closer to to what an ideal society is than some are suggesting in this thread. I mean, let's be frank here. Our society today isn't perfect, but it's not doomed. We're actually doing pretty good on most things, and environmental concern is one of them.

[QUOTE=Adahn]That's actually not what metaphysical means at all. met·a·phys·i·cal [url="https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmetaphysical"][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg[/img][/url] ( P ) [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html"]Pronunciation Key[/url] (m[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gif[/img]t[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]-f[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif[/img]z[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif[/img]-k[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]l) adj. [list=1] [*]Of or relating to metaphysics. [*]Based on speculative or abstract reasoning. [*]Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.[list=1] [*]Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immaterial"]immaterial[/url]. [*][b][u]Supernatural.[/u][/b] [/list] [*]often Metaphysical Of or relating to the poetry of a group of 17th-century English poets whose verse is characterized by an intellectually challenging style and extended metaphors comparing very dissimilar things. [/list]Unless you're using some other definition of the word, my proposal that things metaphysical in nature must be in some sort of balance with other metaphysical things is a topic that cannot, by definition, be tossed away.[/QUOTE] I suppose you missed Item 3.2? Soul = supernatural, Adahn.

[quote name='Adahn']Very well, I will not treat nature as an entity.[/quote] Good. Thank you. [QUOTE]I very much doubt that even nuclear warfare could eliminate all forms of life on the earth.[/QUOTE] Apart from cockroaches, you'd be awfully surprised what global thermonuclear war could do. [QUOTE]Very well, annihilation of our enemies can be done without the use of nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] I shouldn't have had to prove that point. It should be common knowledge at this point, given the past 50 years of victories in non-nuclear warfare. [QUOTE]It was not my will to discuss warfare. I know very little, if anything about it. I will not challenge you.[/QUOTE] Good. Thank you. [QUOTE]Very well, retaliation has nothing to do with the choice whether or not to use nuclear weapons in any situation.[/QUOTE] It plays a minor part in it, but not in the way you were saying. And ultimately, retaliation is only a part; environmental concerns are the larger issue, especially in your absurd and Idealistic hypothetical situation where everyone in the world supported our use of them. [QUOTE]Allow me to clarify myself. I propose a balance between what is necessary for survival of humanity and what is comfortable. Not knowing where that balance lies, I proposed something drastic. I'd rather ensure survival completely than doom myself. If you can find the balance, I'd appreciate hearing where it lies. Until we hit that midpoint, our chances of survival are slowly dropping. I don't expect our efforts to come close to the midpoint, where the environment is no longer being harmed. If I am wrong, then that's good.[/QUOTE] Let's examine what you proposed, versus what is being done, because I think that will actually be an excellent illustration of how to achieve balance. On one hand, we have what is being done already: conservation, regeneration, replantation, preservation, revitalization, and clean-up. On the other hand, we have your idea: a total, radical upheaval of modern society, stripping all of humanity of every single advancement developed since the advent of civilization, including all types of medical treatment, emergency transportation, virtually any and everything that can be seen as harming the environment in any small way. I think the better course of action (and the course of action with the highest probability of achieving a balance) is quite obvious. [quote]I am not, never have been, and never will be a hippie. I will, however, argue for a balance between survival and comfortability, where nature is what must equilibrate.[/QUOTE] Okay, then stop arguing that nature is getting raped, and stop accusing mankind of being nature-haters.

I really don't see the point of this thread. So, Math, Chem, Physics all follow a law of Balance, and if Souls exist, they too follow the laws of Balance, because we're treating them as having the same properties of a chemical equation? [quote]Having asserted that, I will apply it to something that is not physical, assuming that since balance applies to all things we do understand, it applies to things we don't completely understand.[/quote] I don't see how this is able to be done. The "Balance" associated with chemical equations is a specific type of Balance that is exclusive to chemical equations, just like how the "Balance" of Newton's Laws are exclusive to the subject and foci of Newton's Laws. Yes, they're all called "Balance," but they're different types of balances, I think. I mean, there's a fundamental difference between say, mixing acids and bases and throwing a ball up into the air. I just don't see the point of all of this, because if this entire thread is based on an assumption that something metaphysical follows the same "rules" as something physical, then right there, it's a faulty discussion, because the very meaning of the word, "[i]metaphysical[/i]" means something beyond physical, meaning, it doesn't adhere to the same rules as our physical world. I really don't see the point of this thread, because by the very nature and definition, metaphysics and physics do not follow the same principles and rules.

Banner and and an Avi, just in case, heh. EDITED: I thought the first Avi looked a bit big. Second one is proper size. [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21492&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21493&stc=1[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21500&stc=1[/img]

[quote name='Kane]Well you also have to remember that the only reason "The Empire" came to be was because of Palpatine and his dark Jedi followers, though more correctly they were Sith. Well except maybe for Vader since he was trained as a Jedi, and Dooku, does anyone actually know [b']what the exact difference between a Sith and a Dark Jedi is?[/b][/quote] Good question, Kane, and it's a question I'm surprised nobody has answered, lol. Long before the Old Republic, long before KOTOR ever took place, there was a specie of creatures known as the Sith, who dabbled in various types of black magic...magic that eventually would become Dark Side powers, I think. During the Jedi exile, a few Jedi came across Korriban, the Sith homeworld, and began learning the ways of the Sith, gaining this immense power. Those Jedi, now Dark Jedi, returned and began challenging the Old Republic, also recruiting for the Sith Army. I guess the answer depends on what you mean by "Sith." If you're talking about say...the Sith Diplomats in KOTOR, Dooku, etc, then there's really no difference between the Sith and a Dark Jedi, except that the Dark Jedi (like Dooku) are trained in the Force, while the Sith (like the Diplomat) are not--they're just regular officers. If you're talking about Sith as a species, then that's completely different from anything we see in the films. The original, true Sith on Korriban were their own specie. Over time, however, the two species (Sith and human) became one peoples. I hope that answered your question, heh.

To answer Dagger's question about super-long threads...it really depends on what the thread is, I think. I mean, Star Wars 411 is insanely long, but because the subject matter is actually interesting and engaging, I think that's why people enjoy that thread. Conversely, when particular mind-numbingly trite and dull threads in OL span into the 14-page length, and lack no real substance to them apart from repetition, I think people tire of those fairly quickly. I've not been in Anime Lounge lately...or ever, come to think of it, so I can't really comment there. But I think it's worth mentioning that a super-long thread is only good when the discussion is good, like SW411. A few pages ago, there was a fantastic debate over the Good/Evil aspects in the films, and there's a nice discussion going on right now about the various books and Special Edition DVDs recently released.

Obviously, I'd try to avoid any physical conflict when at all possible. I find that a nonconfrontational verbal/psychological approach is often a better solution when successful. My initial response in a situation like that really depends on the situation itself. If I get sucker-punched, as it were, I'm physically retaliating and dropping the attacker to the floor (here's where pressure points and ah...particular body parts are useful), putting them in a restraint, and then begin the talk when they can't breathe. You'd be surprised just how effective that is, and just how responsive someone becomes when they aren't getting any air. If they refuse to back down, however, then they're not going to enjoy the end results. I'm a pacifist more or less when it comes to conflict, much preferring a non-violent solution whenever possible, but that's not possible sometimes, so I accept the necessity of violence.

I think using South Park as a support point for liking Eminem's music isn't quite valid, actually, because there's a difference in fundamental approach between the two. Eminem is a pop singer, essentially. He relies on catchy tunes and essentially vapid lyrics to get attention. He's really a publicity stunt with legs, now that I think about it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, necessarily, but I think it's noteworthy. And really, that's most of the problem right there. His image is both a major selling point and a major lightningrod for criticisms. But at the same time, even if he were to become something like Peter, Paul, and Mary, I don't think his lyrics would be appropriate even then. He's essentially rapped himself into a corner. He has nowhere left to go, really, and I think his recent 80s music video is an example of that. Yes, he released a Bush mockery in the weeks following, but even then, Bush-bashing is becoming a tired trend. We just need to look at Michael Moore, who is quickly wearing out his welcome, even among the Democrats here on OB. So, I think that's the major issue; Eminem is going to have an incredibly difficult time continually re-inventing himself, because he's so dependent on the same type of popular culture approach of other pop singers. South Park, on the other hand, it knows exactly what it is (a vulgar, satirical cartoon), and achieves that. It doesn't try to become something it isn't. The show makes a political statement nearly every episode, and often that political statement is very astute, but the boundaries are being pushed in a way that doesn't lock Parker and Stone into any precise social expectation. Yes, you watch South Park and expect to see Cartman hating on Kyle, various examples of racial injustice and so on, but like Quentin Tarantino, I think South Park is one of those shows that mock the whole convention of absurdity, and have stayed versatile and flexible enough to incorporate various social and political issues without it seeming hackneyed. At this point in time, I don't think Eminem has been able to do that, and based on what I've seen and read, it appears his career, or at least, the reactions to his career, are beginning to echo those sentiments, that Eminem [i]isn't[/i] a Madonna.

[quote name='Adahn']Mother Nature is a personification of Nature. I know I'm personifying Nature. If what I've described is the conventional idea of Mother Nature, I apologize for being unaware. I always thought it went along the lines of karma, as in; you'd better recycle or you'll get struck by lightning, watch out for Mother Nature! I'm only describing the results of ruining our environment in what I think is the logical turn of events. It doesn't have a will to do bad unto some and good unto others. It doesn't have to do anything to get rid of us or punish us, the direct result of our actions will cause this.[/quote]Karma has nothing to do with the personification of Nature. Each and every time you say, "The Earth will do this," "It has what it needs," etc, you're personifying Nature. So now if you'll stop treating Nature like some higher power, perhaps there can be some rational discussion coming from you for a change. [QUOTE]You're postulating, here. We'd have to nuke the earth so much over such a large area so as to kill everything on land, and everything under the sea. If there were a war, I would think that the strikes would be very concentrated, and some parts (possibly even large parts) of the earth would still be able to support life.[/QUOTE]I hardly doubt I'm postulating anything. If you were to read what the effects were of a singular strike, imagine that all over the globe. Some areas may avoid direct strikes, but radiation and such have this nasty habit of getting carried over longer distances, what with wind currents and such. Considering what superpowers have (or may have) nuclear weapons, too, and you're talking about a huge nuclear holocaust. [QUOTE]I used annihilate because in my opinion, only nuclear weapons have the destructive force to cause an annihilation of anything.[/QUOTE]I think suicide bombers, and the populations of the Gaza Strip might disagree with that. There's just about nothing left of a suicide bomber after he (or she) detonates those explosives they have strapped to their chests, and this is just talking about simple, conventional explosives on a personal level. The Smart Bombs used by the US during Gulf War I left houses in rubble. Arafat had been confined to his palace for the past three years because Israeli tank cannons can rip through human flesh pretty easily, and turned parts of his palace into cement swiss-cheese. I think you underestimate the destructive power of conventional weaponry. [QUOTE]We can win, even decisively, but we cannot completely eradicate terrorists, especially now that they've all spread from the concentrated area they onced existed in. I disagree. If we had political immunity (from ourselves and other countries), and it were very convenient to use nuclear weapons, I think we would use them. Because of the political ramifications, it's not even an option. Retaliation is still a very important deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons. Environmental factors are important, but not as important as politics. I guess, unless either of us can provide definitive proof for our argument, we will merely stand in disagreement against each other. Nuclear weapons would have been easier in eliminating our enemies, but we'd be portrayed as very, very evil people. They are essentially not a viable solution to any conflict, for whatever reason. Should we really pat ourselves on the back for not using them, when the consequences do not allow it, anyway?[/QUOTE]They were always spread around the globe, but the Middle East was the breeding ground...the nerve center...the mind, if you will. Knock out the mind, and you knock out the body. It's really psychological warfare. Fallujah is a perfect example of this. Terrorists were using the US pull-out from Fallujah back in April to show how the US were a bunch of Imperialistic cowards, who had been beaten back by the "Freedom fighters." We take Fallujah, and we have a major psychological advantage. I think you're not even considering psychological warfare, actually. We don't need to use nuclear weapons to win this war. There are no political pressures that deter us from using them; there is no retaliation that deters us from using them. Frankly, I find your comments regarding political pressure very asinine. "If we had political immunity, we'd use nuclear weapons." [i]Please[/i]. There's a reason we've avoided nuclear warfare for the past 50+ years, and it's not political. The only two times to my knowledge that the US has used nukes are Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities whose later generations still show the after-effects of nuclear radiation, even some 50 years later. Even if every nation in the world gave us the OKAY to use nukes, do you honestly believe we would? Of course not, because using nuclear weapons is a last resort, because of the inherent environmental dangers associated with nuclear materials. War is psychological. You break the soldiers, you disillusion them, and you have victory, and just by pushing on through this campaign, through the victories in various cities using conventional weaponry, we're doing just that: breaking the enemy's morale. [QUOTE]I guess I can't beat around the bush, can I? In order to halt the destruction of the environment and let it balance itself once again (if it's even possible at this point), we would need to make ourselves alot more uncomfortable. I'm talking going almost completely native. We'd have to give up electricity, because the only power that doesn't harm the environment is wind power, and we all know how much THAT generates. It would end our civilization as we know it. We'd have to give up cars, t.v., planes, etc. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not going to give up those things (last of all my computer) to 'save the world'. This is what I meant by comfortability. No... Our conservation efforts amount to individuals using less natural resources, and is balanced by an increase of individuals (pop. growth) requiring natural resources of their own, resulting in no actual change. We are concerned with keeping ourselves comfortable (re-defined above). We will protect the environment as much as we can so long as we keep all the nice things we've invented to amuse ourselves. We just care less about the environment than we do of perpetuating our high quality of life.[/QUOTE]You do realize that Thoreau, Rousseau, and a few other Naturalist Philosophers didn't exactly have their heads on straight? I notice how you claim to want "Balance," and yet your solutions are often so far skewed on the other end of the spectrum that you can't possibly be supporting balance at all. Destroying the planet is on one end of the spectrum; your idea is on the extreme other end. [QUOTE]Is it so obviously false?[/QUOTE]Yes. Yes it is. You just refuse to admit it. [QUOTE]I don't expect a technological advancement that will let us keep our standard of living and stop destroying the environment. Not now, not ever.[/QUOTE]Okay...then if you don't expect any type of technology to help...why do you say research isn't enough? By that I mean, you don't expect anything good from it, I gather, and yet you're saying fuel research isn't good enough, which implies you want something productive to come out of it? Let's see you reconcile this one. [quote]I thought you were being sarcastic...[/QUOTE]Um, no. I wasn't. Tree-hugging hippies aren't doing anything more than chaining themselves to trees and causing political strife. They're not helping. They're like the environmentalist equivalents of Michael Moore.