Brasil

Short and sweet post here. Leofski, if it's at all possible, we'd prefer you to be on the American servers. It's fairly easy to switch if you haven't changed regions more than four times now. After you log-in, go to Account Options, then...Region, I think. It's somewhere on there. We're all on the American region. Boba, I sent out a guild invite yesterday. Maybe it was today, who knows. I sure as hell don't. lol When you get in-game, hollaback. =p Regarding builds, the game is pretty versatile in what works and what doesn't. Pretty much just mix-and-match and find what suits your fancy. You mentioned R/Mo, which sounds like a pretty solid choice for now. Through some of the game, you might not be using lots of Monk skills, because until you start leveling-up, if you play a "pure" primary class, you often perform better, but not all the time. Any questions, we're always around. So...yeah. Short and sweet post. lol Oh, good to see a few more people interested in PvP. =D Awesome weekend coming up, by the way. Free preview for Chapter 2 content. Check it out!

Incidentally, one thing I noticed about iQ's build in the match we watched last night was that I didn't see much Hex Removal. I was watching the Monks closely the entire time, and I never saw any Remove Hex, Convert, etc happening. I checked their Me/E from time to time, same thing. I wonder if they had [i]any[/i] Hex removal? They could handle conditions really well through the Mend Ailment/Draw Cond/Martyr, etc...but I can't recall one time where I saw Hexes being removed through whatever means possible. And with Monks and Mesmers...there are a lot of ways to remove Hexes. It just seems really odd to have three Monks and a Dom-based Mesmer (slightly Dom-based) with very little (if any) Hex removal. So I'm starting to think about how their build is set-up, and the more I think about it, the more it seems straightforward to the point of falling into the FotM category. It relies on one or two (maybe three...) premises and that's it: 1) The Wars get in there to Adre spike, with damage output augmented from a Mo/N using Order of Pain. 2) The opposing team focuses on spreading conditions. I find premise #2 to be the most intriguing. Let's be realistic here: the build we saw isn't all that powerful, or well-developed, I think. Sure, it's complex in that it requires a good team to work correctly, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it...the team's heals rely on their foes inflicting conditions. Mend Ailment, for example, is very effective when the target ally is burdened with Crippled, Blind, Bleed, Poison, etc. The heal multiplier of Mend Ailment increases dramatically with multiple conditions. You take out widespread condition infliction, you reduce the healing effectiveness dramatically. As strong as a tactic it is (using the enemy's weapons against them, essentially), it's a double-edged sword. Once the enemy picks up on it, your (highly conditional) healing is lost, or at least reduced. Premise three is something like... 3) The opposing team does not use hexes (non-degen). Since that build relies on a lot of quick casts of 5 energy Prot spells, things like Backfire would punch a major, major hole in it, I think. With no Hex removal...it's either cast and keep the team healthy and die, or no casting and the team suffers. At max Dom Backfire...that's something like 149 damage per cast. With no Hex removal, Soul Barbs would probably get a nice performance, because with each Reversal of Fortune, Guardian, etc., cast, Soul Barbs will be inflicting 20-something damage. Doesn't sound like a lot, but it can add up. Also, I suppose there's one last premise here: 4) The opposing team does not bring Enchant removal. A well-placed Well of the Profane and the build dies most heinously. Or Desecrate Enchat spikes, or Shatter Enchant, or Rend, etc. Adam figures iQ (the guild we watched) knew what type of team build they were going up against and prepared accordingly, which would explain why iQ's build is highly situational. The other team's build didn't use things like Backfire or Soul Barbs, or Enchant removal. They were a mass degen build primarily using poisons. So that explains the choice of iQ's build. Pretty interesting. Even in light of the situational effectiveness, I think there are some invaluable techniques that can be gleaned from iQ's build, what to use, what not to use, find weaknesses, strengths, etc.

Go Alan and Raina! Secondly, you really should have specified another type of OB relationship: the hetero lifemate. Jordan and I have been hetero lifemates now for almost a year, and dammnit, we demand recognition!

[center][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/italee19.jpg[/img] [left] And now for my thoughts. What I said in the above image pretty much sums up my reaction. Where's the plot? What's the point of the story? There are pages upon pages of...of what basically amounts to ideologic ramblings of the narrator but the story never feels like it goes anywhere. There's this girl, Laurice. Okay. How does the relationship with Laurice reveal anything about the narrator that hasn't been established in the first...I don't know...three pages? There is [i]zero[/i] emotional growth of the narrator over the course of the story. He never changes. We constantly hear the same exact abstracted conceptualizations from him and every single time, those abstracted conceptualizations rarely make sense. When you do have a good idea (humans as bugs)...you don't [i]do[/i] anything with it. At best, the narrator--I'm just going to say "you"--you ramble on for a little over a page on average about the metaphor, [i]telling[/i] us how it applies to people around the narrator but never actually [i]showing[/i] us. And when it all comes down to it, I think that's one of the fatal flaws of the story: Because it's so embedded in the narrator's head, it's almost completely impossible to [i]show[/i] anything the narrator is talking about. Humans as insects? We're never going to actually [i]see[/i] that, I surmise because the framing of the story prevents it. Every single time we hear "humans as insects," we hear it from the narrator, and the narrator never develops it further than what basically becomes "That's what they are." There's no progression of the idea; it just stays locked at that superficial narration. Even the so-called "love" between the narrator and Laurice doesn't mean jackshit, pardon the language. The story places such an emphasis on love...and yet the narrator just doesn't give a shit. His dialogue and discourse on love comes across as wooden and hollow; I'm not sold that he's actually into this relationship at all (even at the end of the story). And if that's the point of that part of the story, why bother have that part of the story in the first place? Think about it for a moment. In a story where the narrator is set-up in the beginning as some burnt-out shell, the introduction of a love interest usually will change the narrator's outlook on life. That's one of the big ideas behind a love interest: that there's some type of change on the horizon for the main character. But the main character never changes. Everyone else around him changes...but he never changes. That makes no sense whatsoever. I never see the narrator as some sort of prophet, revealing a great truth to those he interacts with. He's not God, he's not Christ. He's not anything. His ideologues in the story don't come across as enlightened at all. If anything, they just come across as self-indulgent and annoying. Why should anyone around him change after hearing it? And let's just consider for a moment that Laurice actually does have precedent to "buy into" what the narrator is saying. If the narrator has already established that Laurice going to God is a sign of weakness, inferiority, "insectile" behavior, etc...how is the narrator any better than religion? It kind of relates to the idea of telling people to think for themselves. If you [i]tell[/i] someone to think for his or herself...they're not really thinking for themselves. So if Laurice is convinced by the narrator's argument...what argument was there to begin with? I mean, it's not as if the narrator's point of view is that much healthier than organized religion. When the woman finds the two in the graveyard, for example. Neither the woman nor the narrator is all that interesting or compelling. And honestly, if I had to choose which side I'd take, I'd tell you that sleeping in a graveyard, naked, whether or not you had sex, is just in bad taste in general. That really should just be common sense I think, so I think that also compounds the problems that the narrator has: he tries too hard to "go against the grain," as it were, and because there's really no story to begin with if he doesn't "fight the system," he needs to fight the system (or at least criticize the system) wherever possible, regardless of how much sense an authority figure may be making. And I think the woman in the graveyard is making a lot of sense. Not so much the "OMG u r sinners an goin 2 Hell!11!!1" parts, but just the "What in the hell is wrong with you" reaction. I think that's another thing that really hurts the story, too. All of the antagonists are drawn to the extreme whenever possible. The woman in the graveyard is a perfect example. She preaches Hellfire and Damnation, and her "sermon," when translated into l337 speek...basically becomes "OMG u r sinners an goin 2 Hell!11!" It doesn't come across as realistic at all. It's too hyperbolic for the reader to actually take it seriously, which then impairs your ability to have the narrator's reactions taken seriously. That entire scene just degenerates into the two extremes fighting each other. And that really isn't very interesting. So I suppose that's another fatal flaw of the story: it's all just black and white, no matter how much the narrator tries to position himself in the gray area. So...yeah. That's what I have at 4:45 am. lol EDIT: Now I know precisely what about the narrator annoyed me so much, and why it didn't work: [b]You're trying to make the narrator out to be the hero, but the problem there is he simply cannot be anything better than some self-centered and self-indulgent dweeb.[/b] In order to appear as anything remotely close to a hero, he desperately needs to be juxtaposed against the opposite extreme, so his viewpoint seems justified. I guarantee that if you were to place a moderate viewpoint in the story and the narrator (with his extreme stance on things) "goes up against" that moderate viewpoint, if the end result is anything less than the narrator getting completely obliterated, shown-up, and his viewpoint entirely embarrassed, your readers are not going to like it, because it's completely unrealistic, both in real life and within the context of the story. While you seem to treat Laurice as the moderate viewpoint...you have the narrator steamroll right over her (he does steamroll right over her, too; she breaks down and cries)...and it's not convincing at all. It's artificial and forced and it definitely makes things seem like this isn't a story at all, rather yet another platform for your personal views on things. Sorry if that's insulting or whatever, but I don't see how the novella is anything other than that, given how forced everything sounds. This is all harsh, I know, and I really do apologize for it, but you touted this novella as something amazing, but what I read was nothing. My suggestions for improving this are the following: 1) [b]Cut out all of the irrelevant and extraneous exposition[/b]. The first chapter (and chapters like it later in the piece, including horrible metaphors like "women are boogers")...we don't need it. It has absolutely no bearing, relevance--absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the story. It doesn't reveal anything about the narrator that couldn't be revealed through his relationship with Laurice. All the talk about cancer genes and all...cut it. 2) [b]Re-consider just who the narrator is, and who you want him to be[/b]. He has got to be more moderate here for the reader to take him seriously, and to take his views seriously. If you want to keep him totally anti-world, basically...you need to polish the narration and dialogue, make him sound more mature and less of a pussy, basically. I get (and like) the idea of a cynical narrator. Or even a cynical main character. But this narrator is no Holden Caulfield or Benjamin Braddock. Holden and Ben Braddock never sounded whiny like the narrator does. Holden sounded a bit whiny now and again, but nothing like the tone in Somewhere Out There. 3) [b]The story on the whole needs to be much more even-tempered, balanced, and level-headed[/b]. It needs some structure to it, it needs an actual direction. The relationship with Laurice is the only anchor the story has, and as it stands now, it's very weak, because there is so much other crap added in, which just dilutes the story and doesn't add any depth. All together, I really think you only have about thirty pages of story material, possibly less. There's just not enough to sustain fifty-five pages, because it seems like you're too concerned with everything other than the actual meat of the relationship. The horrible metaphors, the rambly "introduction," the "cancer gene" type of talk...it just doesn't work in this story. [/left] [/center]

Just wait for the morning newscast. Alan's coffee won't be Folger's (or coffee at all). Sure, it may [i]look[/i] like coffee, and it may [i]taste[/i] like coffee...but Alan's bowels sure as hell won't like it. Of course, that may not happen...provided he stops drawing cock doodles on my copy.

I'm surprised nobody has replied here yet. Your newest post has been up for a few days, and considering the content and the new look...shame on them! Annie, you look gorgeous. I've said this to you a lot, lol, but it's a perfect look for you. My favorite picture there definitely is the third one. The eyeliner, the red dress, the stockings, the look on your face...it all clicks. The pictures kind of remind me of an edgier glamour photo. Very schway.

Because I enjoy mind games: [quote]The Edge - Guild Wars Utility [url]http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm[/url] Class: Mesmer / Warrior Attributes: (cost) '+' indicates Rune attributes Fast Casting: 3+1 (6) Illusion Magic: 12+4 (97) Axe Mastery: 12 (97) Total attribute points used: 200/200 Skills: [Attribute] (Energy, Cast Time, Recharge TIme) 1) Clumsiness [Illusion Magic] (10,1,10) Hex: For 8 seconds, if target foe attempts to attack, the attack is interrupted and target foe suffers 98 damage.[Copperhammer Mines (Gammel);] 2) Disrupting Chop [Axe Mastery] (0,0,6) Axe Attack: If it hits, this attack interrupts the target's current action. If that action was a skill, that skill is disabled for an additional 20 seconds.[Grendich Courthouse (Taltosh);] 3) Executioner's Strike [Axe Mastery] (0,0,8) Axe Attack: If this attack hits, you strike for +34 damage.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran);] 4) Eviscerate [Axe Mastery] (0,0,7) Axe Attack: If Eviscerate hits, you strike for +34 damage and inflict a deep wound, lowering your target's maximum health by 20% for 17 seconds. This is an elite skill.[Boss: Tortitudo Probo (Hell's Precipice)] 5) Distortion [Illusion Magic] (5,0,5) Stance: For 5 seconds, you have a 75% chance to evade attacks. Whenever you evade an attack this way, you lose 0 energy or Distortion ends.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric); Quest: Supplies for the Duke (Old Ascalon)] 6) For Great Justice!' [none] (10,0,45) Shout: For 15 seconds, your adrenal skills charge twice as fast.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric); Quest: Helping the People of Ascalon (Old Ascalon)] 7) Sympathetic Visage [Illusion Magic] (10,1,30) Enchantment: For 21 seconds, whenever target ally is hit by a melee attack, all nearby enemies lose all adrenaline and 3 energy.[Fisherman's Haven (Mazzim);] 8) Illusion of Weakness [Illusion Magic] (10,2,30) Enchantment: You lose 253 health. Illusion of Weakness ends if damage drops your health below 25% of your maximum. When Illusion of Weakness ends, you gain 253 health.[Quarrel Falls (Sorim), Henge of Denravi (Master Scout Kiera); Quest: The Hot Springs Murders (Nebo Terrace)][/quote]

As a brief addendum to what Corey has said, I find that if people are bothered by what is obviously meant to be light satire, and a nomination clearly made to have some fun, stupid, goofy humor...I don't know who's taking themselves too seriously. I would have hoped my nomination would have been seen as a jab at "The Cliche of Hating OB." Tony's comments may or may not have been directed at me, or in response to my nomination of the "Mediocrity of the Memberbase," but regardless, I just want to make it clear that I do have some issues with particular members (and I do think there are some pretty mediocre people here), but for the most part, I'm very easy-going when it comes to interaction and social situations.

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth] The social stigma that people make for marriage is not going to change by changing marriage to include new parties. As for the benefits of marriage, I wrote earlier that I have no problem letting anybody share certain rights (such as hospital visitation) and [i]do[/i] through power of attorney. But if we aren?t to discriminate between a heterosexual union and homosexual union, how can we justify making any discriminations in the future? One benefit of marriage is the transfer of assets. If a husband dies, he can give up to 1.5 million (depending on state laws, I?m speaking for my own) tax free to be inherited by his spouse. A gay couple, even with an attorney cannot do this- their assets are taxed from the first cent. Now, it seems like this isn?t fair. So let?s hypothetically remove this restriction from homosexual couples? I might not get married, but I?d like my best friend to have my money, so why don?t I get a civil union with him? But he does want to get married. Oh, who?s discriminating? He can go ahead and get married to his wife and we?ll keep the civil union! Maybe if my wife dies, I?ll have a civil union with my children so I can share the benefits of marriage with them? Why not my sister? Why not my college roomie? If you don?t want any discrimination, Dave, then all bets are off. There?s no valid reason to allow homosexuals these rights and not other (more controversial *gasp*) groups. Let?s take a gander at NAMBLA.org. Read some of the stories on the website. There are some men who can?t have sex unless it is with a ?boy?. Why shouldn?t they be granted civil unions with their loved one? Read the ?boy?s account?- does it sound like these are physically, emotionally abused children? Sounds to me like we have to mutually loving people who simply have a more unconventional relationship. Why shouldn?t they get married? There isn?t a prejudice here, there?s no civil policy to treat gay couples any worse than heterosexual couples. It is simply the preservation of what I, and the majority our democratic nation see as what constitutes to marriage. I agree, it is the alter where I?ll consider myself spiritually married. I can?t really control whether or not a man and woman get married for the right reasons. I can?t control that without restricting marriage for those who [i]are[/i] getting married for the right reasons. I [b]can[/b] prevent a further devolution of marriage. That?s because the members of NAMBLA [i]are[/i] pedophiles! You say pedophilia is very wrong. How do you justify that claim? (Obviously, I?m playing devil?s advocate here) I want you to look at this from a moral perspective for a moment, why do you think the pedophiles of NAMBLA are ?wrong?? Is it a gut feeling? Because it sounds like their man-boy relationships are mutual and consensual. Can you justify calling their private behavior wrong? If so please, give us a reason. Now, if you [i]can?t[/i] prove to me that it is ethically immoral, and you expect the institution of marriage to no longer discriminate between heterosexual unions and homosexual marriages- why can we expect the definition of marriage to discriminate against [i]any[/i] relationship- such as the pedophilic relationship of NAMBLA? Why shouldn?t [i]they[/i] be allowed to get married? I?m not making any assumptions. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles, lol. You drew that conclusion from an [i]analogy[/i] which deals with the ethical issue, not the technical details. Yeah? wasn?t saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? lol.[/QUOTE] Jordan, because I'm laughing so hard right now, I feel it is now time to reveal one of my favorite images of all-time (and one I made personally). It seems rather appropriate, given your rebuttal above. [center][URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5060/evilspock9nr.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/center]

[quote name='Swedish Chef']Then I don't know what possessed him OO.[/quote] Perhaps his penchant for the grotesque parts of life? And how characters react to the grotesque parts of life?

[quote name='Swedish Chef']Sufice to say thats what is in this movie. Not that I was complaining at all I for one am going to amsterdam just staying far away from brotislava. (sp?)[/quote] You kind of missed my point. There's never really been an obsession with T&A in Tarantino's previous films, apart from a bit in Jackie Brown. His movies just don't focus on that element of the degenerate culture in which his films are set. That's why it doesn't seem likely that boobies and giggly bums are what attracted Tarantino to "present" this film.

[quote name='Swedish Chef']For the breasts and the butts?[/quote] Is there a lot of T&A in Tarantino's previous work? Didn't think so.

Okay, people, we really need to get a few things straight here. lol I saw some qualms about the amount of "jungle scenes" in the remake. As if there were too many of them or something. Has anyone here honestly watched the original King Kong a few times? I saw...Dagger mention having seen the original version, but other than that, nobody has said anything about it. And I don't think anyone would have any gripes about the jungle scenes if they really watched the original a few times through, not to mention read up on the creation and backstory of the original film. Around 75% of the original is jungle. The opening is in NYC, the ending is in NYC, and all together, those scenes total maybe in the ballpark of twenty minutes, tops, in a movie that is approximately two hours long. The NYC scenes in the original were there to open the story and to close the story, that's it. There was nothing more to them than that. The introduction was a quick "Here are the players" type of montage for all intents and purposes, and the Finale gave Carl Denham the chance to say those famous last words. Do any of you know why the original had that type of scene ratio? Because the meat of the story is jungle-based. Sure, Kong rampaging down Times Square is pretty intense and creates a nice juxtaposition of the ape and the city, but that really doesn't mean jack when you don't have the extremes in the jungle. And you'll find that Peter Jackson gave us the extremes in the jungle. Some of it was drawn-out or too long? I don't think so, really. The way I see it, we needed the long takes of the humans getting maimed, killed, eaten, slammed, crushed, etc. Kong expires (relatively) quickly in civilization. The humans expire much, much, much faster than that in the jungle. It's critical to see that, and it's critical to the motif of the story: Savagery destroys civilized men, and at the same time, love destroys savagery. And it could be said that civilization destroys love. Why do you think P.J. had a character on the boat reading [i]Heart of Darkness[/i]? What were those questions about Marlow? Those weren't accidental. Those questions all revolved around major themes in both HoD and King Kong: who is really in control? And it's made clear throughout both versions of King Kong (and in HoD, as well) that nature is always in control. Look at how badly Kong destroys NYC. And then compare that to the non-existent dents the humans leave on the jungle. Kong [i]only[/i] dies at the very end. And it's not the airplanes that did it, like Denham says. They tore him up, surely, but if his anger and savagery weren't broken by love...he would have kept going. If he didn't "love" Ann, the airplanes would have had to drop him. But there were too many jungle scenes? I think we had just the right amount. And those troubled by the spider pit sequence...definitely read up on some of the more (in)famous cut portions of the original. It's rumored that Merian C. Cooper [i]burned[/i] the footage. I hear he was known to do that. The fact that he expressed worry over it stopping "the movie cold," is proof that the footage was filmed, edited, and ultimately completed. And it's nowhere to be found. It's become a "Holy Grail" of sorts for King Kong enthusiasts, Peter Jackson included. The spider pit sequence is so desired that Jackson and his crew "re-created" the sequence from a few photographs taken during the original sequencing, the shooting script, and just a fan's imagination. Their take on the sequence is included as a Special Feature in the King Kong Collector's Edition. So I can understand having a problem with bugs in general, but the spider pit sequence itself is part of King Kong history, and Jackson was being true to the source material by realizing the sequence on film. I did see the movie last night, but I didn't really include my own review of it, so here goes. For the most part, the remake was a King Kong fanboy's wet dream. I say this because the film was made for fans of the original film. It seems to me that much is obvious. This movie was not made for the regular audience, even though they certainly enjoyed it (like others have said, the audience-wide gasping, laughing, cheering, etc, seem to be regular reactions in the theatre during this movie). You know, sure Kong riding on the T-rex will garner a laugh from the "normal" audience members, but it's a very precise nod to the original, and because of this, only those who have seen the original a few times will fully appreciate it. Shot-for-shot, in the storyboards, Jackson has recreated a lot of the original. Most of the action sequences (sans the bronto chase) are CG versions of action sequences from the 1933 version. We've got the T-rex fight, we've got Kong playing with the jaw, just like the original. We've got the punches, the skull bashing. We've got the escape at the end with the vine, executed nearly identically to 1933. Even a few shots are identical, like the low angle shots of Ann and the log. Another nice little nod to 1933 was the dialogue on the boat...the dialogue when Denham himself was directing Ann and Bruce. Word for word, that's what it was in the original, and I know I was one of the few (if not the only one) in that theatre who knew that and appreciated it on a "deeper" level rather than just laughing at corny dialogue. It sounded like that exchange didn't even resonate with the audience when I saw King Kong. I didn't hear anyone acknowledge or recognize what those lines were. And that really confirms for me that the movie was not made for a regular audience. Jackson made his own spider pit sequence, even. Like I said before, a sequence that has become the Holy Grail for 1933 Kong fans. Sure, the audience "enjoyed" the spider pit (I put that in quotes because most people in my audience were also freaking out), but which group of people are going to get the most out of that sequence? I'll use my group as an example. I went with my girlfriend, Melissa, and my friend Alec (Final Remix here on OB) and his girlfriend, Cat. It was a fun double-date. ^_^ As Kong was shaking the log, and sailors were falling down into this chasm...I knew what was coming. Anyone who's checked out anything about the original knew what was coming. I turned to Alec and Cat and exclaimed "Spider pit!" They were having fun, yeah, but they didn't "get" the significance. I don't think much of the audience "got" the significance of the spider pit. And I think that is largely due to the film not being made for a "mainstream" audience. There's just too much in the film that relies on experience with the original to say otherwise, I think. Let's not forget the "recreation" of the Skull Island scenes and so forth at the end of the film. The costumes, the drums, everything about it is entirely 1933, and only fans of the original are going to appreciate that. That's not to say mainstream audiences don't enjoy it, or their enjoyment is somehow "less." It's just that 85% of the audiences seeing King Kong are seeing it as Peter Jackson's King Kong, rather than testament to Jackson's dedication to and love for the original film. I'm pretty sure the remake was Melissa's first time seeing a "traditional" King Kong movie. She's seen the 70s remake, but that wasn't really King Kong. Since Melissa saw the remake first, her reaction to the original will be really interesting. She, like 85% of the audiences, having never seen the inspiration, is going to be surprised at just how faithful Jackson remained to his inspiration. It was an [i][b]amazing[/b][/i] remake, too. I enjoyed it immensely, and I may very well check it out again in theatres, probably also buy the DVD. However, it didn't surpass the original, because there were some major issues...like Jack Black. I don't have anything against him, necessarily. I think his performances in Orange County (funnily enough, Colin Hanks plays an assistant to Black in the remake), School of Rock, High Fidelity, etc., are hilarious. But Carl Denham isn't supposed to be hilarious. Ignoring the fact that Black doesn't even have the look for a 30s movie producer (that hair just did not work), he didn't have the background for a role like that. He does the goofy loser older brother. He does the goofy loser musician. The goofy loser best friend music snob. Carl Denham is not a goofy loser movie producer. Especially in the remake, because they tried to play him sinister or something, but that failed miserably. It failed because the character never was sinister in the original story, and because Black just can't play sinister. If he can, he hasn't yet. It felt like he just wanted to bust out with some inane shouting the entire time. Or go running around in his underwear talking about how kick-*** he is even though he didn't go to college. He wasn't Carl Denham. He never should have been in consideration for the role. I'm not saying that [i]elements[/i] of the remake's Carl Denham can't be found in the original, because you could see the Reality TV-esque nature even in 1933. But the difference was that in 1933, he wasn't a sleazy movie producer, or a sleazy Reality TV producer. He was an honest guy looking to make "a swell picture." While he certainly was exploiting Kong at the end, Robert Armstrong's "I'll share it with all of you!" was never as...deliberately suspect as Jack Black's in the remake. The entire characterization of Carl Denham in the remake was completely incorrect, and I think it's one reason why the remake's NYC scenes bored me so much. Getting to know Ann, fine, even though one of the biggest and most important points in the original was that she was [i]completely[/i] unknown. We're given no backstory (very little if any) on Ann in the original for a reason. She was one of the faceless in the masses. Some could make the case that in the remake, she still was, because she was in an off-off-off Broadway production, but the original Ann wasn't even a "working" actress, if she was an actress at all. She was a complete nobody who had the right look. I didn't care, basically, about anything we were hearing about in NYC. So much of it was just irrelevant exposition or things the original handled so, so much better. I attribute that to the writing. The original is surprisingly tight and effective. This plods at points. The entire screening scene...we didn't need. We know Denham is in a tight spot because he's running up against a deadline. We knew that in the original from three lines, and those lines did not include "I'm in a tight spot. That deadline is approaching," like we see in most crappy exposition. Think the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon series dialogue between Shredder and Krang (Shredder: "I don't trust you, Krang!"). But instead of a quick and witty exchange between Denham and Jack Driscoll, what do we get? Jack Black acting nervous in the back of a darkened screening room. I'm sorry, but that's just inexcusable. The dialogue in the original was written by a woman who never wrote a screenplay in her life, and rarely wrote comedy. She was asked to write the script because she was friends with the producers. She was virtually unknown. An unknown wrote a better script, better dialogue, than modern-day professionals. The sheer absurd truth of that hurts my brain. Denham and Ann talking in the coffee house, also pale in comparison to the original. "No funny business" coming from Jack Black was so mindlessly and unintentionally ironic. Black can do nothing but "funny business." ...yeah. That's probably the only part of the movie I didn't like: NYC. lol The only part where the CG looked foggy was the bronto chase. The medium-long shots of the humans running in-between the dino legs...the matting and everything was really off. It just didn't look right.

[url="http://imageshack.us"][img]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/895/obniftyfifty06ten6qy.jpg[/img][/url] [u]1)[/u] [b]Guild Wars/Quantum Kabuki Troupe[/b]. GW was something of a swift kick to the groin for many of the gamers here at OB. While some of us had already had experience playing other "MMORPG"s, some hadn't. In fact, for some members, like dearest Annie, Guild Wars was one of their very first gaming experiences. James and Warlock had first introduced me to the game back during its Beta phase, in mid July/August, I think. It was during a World Preview Event, which was a weekend-long free play. Later today, I'll post the very first screenshots I took, as well as when James, Warlock and I met-up in-game for the [i]very first time[/i]. Back then, none of us knew how to hide the HUD for the screenshots, so our chat logs are visible. And our reactions are priceless, especially other people's reactions in local chat. Quantum Kabuki Troupe is the OB-centric guild. I feel like it's brought a lot of members closer together, as well. I know Neil and I wouldn't know each other (and be such good friends) as well as we do/are if it weren't for QKT. A lot of fantastic people are in the guild, and I'm very proud to call them my friends (yes, even you, Adam, when you aren't forgetting things! ~_^). I could go on and on, but it's almost 7 am here. Adam (persocomblues) and I were doing some GWing earlier, and I'm still wired, heh. For more info on the OBers of GW, [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=47552"]Guild Wars thread[/url] The official site is [url="http://www.guildwars.com"]www.guildwars.com[/url]. [u]2)[/u] [b]The Mediocrity of the Memberbase[/b]. I have to be honest here, both with everyone and with myself. I can't stand most of you. I sat at my computer for what seemed like hours, trying to figure out some elements of OB that made 2005 Nifty...but I just couldn't. Then I figured out why: most of you didn't impress me worth a damn in 2005. You just...didn't. Most of you were just treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry. So, my second nomination for the Nifty Fifty pertains to just how unimpressed I was. One of the things that made 2005 "Nifty" was the Mediocrity of the Memberbase. Congratulations, memberbase! You're mediocre! [u]3)[/u] [b]Manic Webb[/b] (or is it P. Manic Webb? I can never remember). Manic is one of those members who is far from mediocre. In fact, he's quite awesome. I really enjoy his sense of humor, because there's a bit of "black anger" mixed in with an almost Monty Python-esque cornball nature, topped off with his own special brand of satire. His posts are always fun to read, and anyone who skewers Puff Dadd--P. Diddy...Diddy...whatever, is nifty as hell in my book. Go Manic. [u]4)[/u] [b]Meestah Alan[/b] (DeadSeraphim). One of the coolest guys I know, who's presently IMing me, with Raina looking over his shoulder. I've got to watch my tongue! Alan is the creator of n00b Hunter on OB, but not only that, he's the most bad-*** cross-dresser you'll ever meet. He could kick my butt, even when he's wearing a pair of stockings and the butt-kicking wouldn't seem any less horribly masculine. Alan is nifty to the extreme. Congrats Raina on nabbing such a nifty guy!

[QUOTE=Retribution]I was thinking about this thread a bit more, when I realized it was also talking about the right to carry concealed weapons. Why would you need to carry a concealed weapon? Seriously, people. If you want it for protection, would it not be more useful if you carried it on your hip, for all to see. It'd be a statement saying "Look! Look! Don't mess with me!" Rather, when you conceal it, people have no idea you have it, and as a result, act as if you don't have one. Meaning, you're just as likely to get robbed with a concealed weapon as you are without one. Really, where's the logic in this right-to-carry concealed weapons?[/QUOTE] Ding ding ding! Retribution wins the thread. His post reminds me of a line from the trailer for The Weather Man: [color=black][url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000115/"][/url][/color][quote]People don't throw things at me any more. Maybe because I carry a bow around.[/quote]

I was musing over this build a bit more last night. Even though I can cause nice damage with it with the right combinations and exploitation of opponent's weaknesses (Chess and that pin move, for example), I think some changes could be made if someone is so inclined. For example, if you wanted some more direct damage rather than conditional, you could run some of the following skills in place of Price of Failure and Spiteful Spirit: Desecrate Enchantments, Feast of Corruption, Suffering, Energy Burn/Surge, or Shatter Delusions. At 16 Curses/12 Dom, the stats break down like this: [quote]Desecrate Enchantments [Curses] (10,2,15) Spell: Target foe and all nearby foes take 63 shadow damage and 21 shadow damage for each enchantment on them.[Marhan's Grotto (Harnil);] Feast of Corruption [Curses] (10,2,20) Spell: Target foe and all adjacent foes are struck for 84 shadow damage. You steal 43 health from each foe struck who is suffering from a hex. This is an elite skill.[Boss: Maw the Mountain Heart (Dreadnaught's Drift)] Suffering [Curses] (15,2,20) Hex: For 31 seconds, target foe and all nearby foes suffer health degeneration of 2.[Lion's Arch (Firstwatch Sergio); Quest: Helping the Dwarves (Yak's Bend)] Energy Surge [Domination Magic] (10,2,20) Spell: Target foe loses 9 energy. For each point of energy lost, that foe and all foes in the area take 8 damage. This is an elite skill.[Boss: Melek The Virtuous (Ring of Fire), Balasi the Arcane (Iron Mines of Moladune), Mercia the Sing (Abaddon's Mouth)] Energy Burn [Domination Magic] (10,2,20) Spell: Target foe loses 9 energy and takes 8 damage for each point of energy lost.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric); Quest: A Cure for Relena] Shatter Delusions [Domination Magic] (5,0,10) Spell: Remove one Mesmer hex from target foe. If a hex was removed, that foe takes 63 damage.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran);][/quote] Most of these spells are AoE, but at the same time, very effective at max Curses. I'm partial to Feast of Corruption there, for a few reasons. 1) The build throws around Hexes, and P.Bond's spammable nature really enables the Necro to Hex foes on a wider scale, which means FoC can do some damage, both to the target and those around them. 2) The damage for FoC is 127 right off the bat. The extra health steal is almost guaranteed with this build. You can always have some sort of Hex on your target, provided it isn't Smited off, Convered, removed, etc. What's interesting about FoC in this combination is that with Backfire, you can inflict some 246 damage if you time it correctly. 3) We've all seen what the Necros Suck FoC spike can do. 4) And I've used FoC a lot, as well, so I know how to set it up. A good complementary skill to FoC is Suffering. AoE degen Hex. By itself, not so great. It's like -2 degen for 30 seconds. But used in conjunction with FoC, you're looking at some potent skill synergy. Provided you either target the Soul Barb-ed foe, or make sure they're included in the Suffering effect when you cast it, Suffering is another spell in the line-up that can trigger the 31 damage. Follow that up with a Wastrel's Worry, then start casting FoC, and you should be able to catch them in... They cast: 31 (Suffering/Soul Barbs) + 31 (WW/Soul Barbs) + 31 (Backfire/Soul Barbs) + 127 (FoC) + 119 (Backfire). Total damage: 339 They don't cast: 31 (Suffering/Soul Barbs) + 31 (WW/Soul Barbs) + 31 (Backfire/Soul Barbs) + 127 (FoC) + 53 (WW). Total damage: 273 Pretty respectable, I suppose, although for damage-dealing, I wouldn't use Suffering, because if need be, Shadow of Fear could be used for the AoE Hex complement to FoC. So that may free up the other slot. Desecrate Enchantments may prove useful. They cast: 31 (Backfire/Soul Barbs) + 31 (WW/Soul Barbs) + 31 (P.Bond/Soul Barbs) + 127 (FoC) + 119 (Backfire) + 84 (Desecrate Enchants). Total damage: 423 They don't cast: 31 (Backfire/Soul Barbs) + 31 (WW/Soul Barbs) + 31 (P.Bond/Soul Barbs) + 127 (FoC) + 84 (Desecrate Enchants) + 53 (WW). Total damage: 357 Now that's what I like. It should be noted that the Desecrate Enchant damage only factors in one enchantment cast on the target. At 21 damage per enchantment, if the target has even two or three, the damage in this combo increases to...a smidge under 470 if the target casts, and a little over 400 if they don't cast. And taking 400 damage for not casting is not too shabby. Also noteworthy there is that if the target dies from the spike, the P.Bond ends, so you get that health back, in addition to stealing 43 health (Feast of Corruption) from each foe suffering from a Hex. At the very least, that's 165 health coming back. More if you caught a few in an AoE FoC. I haven't talked much about the Domination skills there, and I suppose there's a reason for that: this is a Curse-heavy build, and at 16 Curses, we can be doing much more damage with the above-mentioned Curses skills rather than something like the single-target Energy Burn, unspectacular Energy Surge (Elite skill, as well, which means no FoC), and we don't want to be removing Hexes from our opponent, even if we can cause a respectable amount of damage in doing so. I could see Shatter Delusions working if it either affected Necro hexes as well (P.Bond would be interesting there), or...if we were using something like Phantom Pain (Shatter it, Deep Wound occurs). So, all in all, I could see replacing Spiteful Spirit with Feast of Corruption and Price of Failure with Desecrate Enchantments if you wanted to increase the damage output, even though I personally haven't had any trouble dealing damage.

I just had an interesting experience in the Comp Arenas (9 or 10 consecutive wins before we lost). I entered and got teamed with two Wammos, and another N/Me. One Wammo was using Mending on himself. Both were using Healing Breeze (and another Healing Breeze-ish Elite enchant) from time to time. The N/Me was doing a Virulence Death Magic build. Jade's build was almost a random variation of the build I posted previously. When in-game, I just mix and matched skills, and came up with the following: [quote]The Edge - Guild Wars Utility [url="http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm"]http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm[/url] Class: Necromancer / Mesmer Attributes: (cost) '+' indicates Rune attributes Soul Reaping: 3 (6) Curses: 12+4 (97) Domination Magic: 12 (97) Total attribute points used: 200/200 Skills: [Attribute] (Energy, Cast Time, Recharge TIme) 1) Wastrel's Worry [Domination Magic] (5,0,1) Hex: After 3 seconds, target foe takes 53 damage. Wastrel's Worry ends prematurely if that foe uses a skill.[Quarrel Falls (Sorim); Quest: The Ascalon Settlement (North Kryta Province)] 2) Parasitic Bond [Curses] (5,1,2) Hex: For 20 seconds, target foe suffers health degeneration of 1. The caster is healed for 126 health when Parasitic Bond ends.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric); Quest: Oberan's Rage] 3) Soul Barbs [Curses] (10,2,20) Hex: For 30 seconds, target foe takes 31 damage when an enchantment or hex is cast on that target.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran);] 4) Spiteful Spirit [Curses] (15,2,10) Hex: For 21 seconds, whenever target foe attacks or uses a skill, Spiteful Spirit deals 37 shadow damage to that foe and all adjacent foes. This is an elite skill[Boss: Night Spinechill (Talus Chute), Ceru Gloomrunner (Iron Mines of Moladune), Shadowlord Vogris (Fissure of Woe)] 5) Shadow of Fear [Curses] (10,2,10) Hex: Target foe and all adjacent foes attack 50% slower for the next 45 seconds.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric); Quest: Caravan In Trouble (Eastern Frontier)] 6) Enfeebling Blood [Curses] (10,2,10) Spell: Sacrifice 17% max health. Target foe and all adjacent foes suffer from weakness for 21 seconds.[Grendich Courthouse (Taltosh);] 7) Price of Failure [Curses] (10,3,10) Hex: For 30 seconds, target foe has a 25% chance to miss with attacks and takes 31 damage whenever that foe fails to hit in combat.[Droknar's Forge (Bartoch); Quest: The Lost Princess (Fisherman's Haven)] 8) Backfire [Domination Magic] (15,3,20) Hex: For 10 seconds, whenever target foe casts a spell, that foe takes 119 damage.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran);][/quote] For the most part, I think this build has its roots in the previous one, with some key differences. Most notably, you don't see Diversion, Insidious Parasite, Signet of Midnight, Ignorance, and Empathy. That's...five skills? But oddly enough, while normally that would constitute an entirely new build...the philosophy behind both of these builds remains the same: utilizing quick hexes to overload Soul Barbs, while simultaneously forcing casters to make a tough decision: to cast and take 119 damage or not cast and take 53 damage. Like Adam, I was leery of how effective Soul Barbs would be at first, but I was pleasantly surprised. Granted, there's a lack of both Hex/Cond removal in CA, not to mention lack of Enchant removal (Mending stayed on the entire time lol), but even in light of that, the build is pretty darn potent. (Note my original build was a Mes/Nec. The new version is designed for Nec/Mes, and I feel it's even more effective) While Empathy seemed like a solid choice for a build of this nature, I began to realize a few things: 1) Spiteful Spirit. Souped-up version of Empathy. Its duration is identical at my attribute levels (Curses 16, Dom 12, rest into Soul Reaping). Its damage trumps Empathy by 6. The recharge and cast times are identical. S.S. costs 5 more, but it's pretty worth it. Plus, it's AoE. Advantage: Spiteful Spirit 2) Price of Failure. At 16 Domination, Empathy was 21/31 (duration/damage). At 16 Curses, Price of Failure is 30/31, in addition to a 25% chance to miss. Identical cost and recharge, while PoF has a 3-second cast time. Empathy's cast time is 2 seconds. Advantage here: Price of Failure. (In a bit, I'll explain why the cast time isn't/wasn't an issue) It started to become obvious that having Empathy in that skill bar was a complete waste of a slot. I could do more damage (and AoE no less!) with S.S. I could have a longer duration with PoF (with a 25% miss rate). Plus, Signet of Midnight, while sounding nice, was really wasting my Elite slot. With Shadow of Fear (SoF being another Hex for the Soul Barbs combo) and Enfeebling Blood, not to mention PoF and Spiteful Spirit, needing to blind anybody was the least of my concerns. I had anti-War and/or Ranger already. So Empathy and Sig of Midnight went bye-bye. Next up was Diversion. I started wondering about it, and as much as I would have loved to shutdown a skill for close to a minute (yes, an entire minute O_O), I wondered what other skills I could use. Granted, Diversion is an amazing Hex, and with a 6 second duration, 10 energy cost, 3 cast time, and 10 second recharge, it would fit very nicely with the Soul Barbs quick Hexes idea. But I looked at the build and wasn't feeling Insidious Parasite, especially given that I had enough anti-physical combat Hexes going on. Plus, at 21/21, it wasn't all that much of a health return. I needed something to keep my health up, and something that I could spam. Diversion made way for Parasitic Bond. Good choice, definitely. Every 20 seconds, I could have around 120 health coming back. Not too shabby. I decided that Ignorance was pretty useless, given how strong Shadow of Fear and Enfeebling Blood were together, so Ignorance got replaced. Since I moved some skills around in there, I'm having trouble remembering what replaced what, heh. I believe Backfire was added for Caster-Hate. I don't see it in the original build. In CA, my order went like this: (vs Casters) Soul Barbs, Backfire, Spiteful Spirit, Parasitic Bond, then Wastrel's Worry. With Soul Barbs doing 30 damage with each hex cast, within a span of a few seconds, I could already do something around 90 or 120 damage. P.Bond sets up a life degen, and Wastrel's Worry forces their decision. They can either cast and get hit with Backfire (119 damage) and Spiteful Spirit (37 damage) for a total of 156 damage, which surpasses a Primary Mes at 16 Dom, I think, or at least comes close to matching it. But 156 damage. For casting one spell. If they don't cast anything, Wastrel's Worry gets them for 53 damage. Either way, they get hurt. Obviously, I'd much more enjoy them suffering from Backfire+S.S. But even then, Wastrel's doesn't only do 53 damage, because as I cast Wastrel's, I damaged them for 31 from Soul Barbs. So it really breaks down like this: Working under the Soul Barbs combo, the damage is either: Backfire+S.S. for a total of 156, then added is 31 from the Soul Barbs (Wastrel's), for a total of 187. I could even get that up to over 200 if I were so inclined, using P.Bond as well. Total damage: 218 OR, The 31+31 for 62 damage from Soul Barbs (P.Bond and Wastrel's), then a health degen from P.Bond, and they don't cast, which does 53 damage. Total damage: approximately 115 It's pretty effective. I can drop most targets really quickly. And let's not forget that S.S. triggers on anything. Even the caster wanding someone will incur damage. Now next, (vs physical) Soul Barbs, P.Bond, Wastrel's Worry (P.Bond and WW for as they're running in), then Shadow of Fear, Price of Failure, Spiteful Spirit, Enfeebling Blood. It doesn't quite have the punch that the Caster-Hate portion does, but it's very easy to make Warriors and Rangers think twice about getting in my face. The other night, I held off a Warrior for a few minutes using more or less the same combination. -40s popping up became -7s. Nice to see. Shadow of Fear guaranteed close to no Adre gain, as well. And since the Adre skills weren't being used as much, W.W. had some fun. That was stacking up for around 80 damage per use (WW and the Soul Barbs trigger). Finally, the cast times. 3 seconds seems like an awfully long time with no Fast Casting, but my weaponry for Jade more than made up for it. I was using Villnar's Claw and a collector's idol. The mods were 20% Chance to improve Casting Speed using Curses skills on Villnar's Claw, and a 20/20 for the focus item. I've had so many instant-casts it's not even funny. 3 second cast times don't even matter anymore. There are times when I get the full 3 second cast times, but more often than not, I'm seeing 1.5-2.0 seconds on all the skills except Backfire. ~~~ That's about all I have to say right now, I think. I laid out a few of my own observations and assessments of the build, and it's been tested, too, so I know it works. ~~~ Finally, obviously, going up against a team of Hex/Cond removal and this build will lose its luster. I suppose it's best for CA, where most players don't think to bring Shatter Hex, Convert, etc. But perhaps in a good GvG team, this build can find some use, possibly targeting unexpected and unsuspecting fools.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Alex, it?s good to see you?ve joined the discussion![/quote] Oh, no worries. I shant be staying long, because Guild Wars calls me. Probably this reply and that's it from me. [quote]There are parables, and stories. There are examples of unyielding faith (Abraham, Job) and recommitting to God?s path (Nehemiah, Moses). There are passages in the bible that refer to money, love, sacrifice, discipline. Some are indeed meant in the preservation of a somewhat isolated culture, and some are deeply rooted moral laws (the golden rule, the ten commandments). I would enjoy seeing the number crunch by the people who are providing you with the idea that the Bible is an unreliable transcription. Obviously you can quantify much of life. But faith, and faith that the Bible is what it says it is, isn?t something that you can really measure. We have a truly unfortunate predicament in that you and I differ on our belief of the Bible. I would take it as it is, and you choose to believe a conflicting second-hand source. Really, until you start reading the Bible? I really mean [i]reading[/i] it rather than taking it out of context? it is really fruitless to debate it.[/quote] The number crunch came from me, actually. Jordan, dearest, do you really think I'd be having this discussion (and proposing this thesis) if I hadn't familiarized myself with the Bible, read it extensively, etc? Go through the Bible and find the actual truth, and make sure it merely isn't ideological discourse. For example, stories about unyielding faith are entirely subjective; they do not utilize unchanging truths. Recommitting to God's path, also subjective. I'll tell you what [i]is[/i] an objective, unchanging truth in the Bible: that there once may have been two cities in the ancient Middle East that were engulfed in what some archaeologists believe could have been a massive subterranean gas reservoir ignition spurned on by an earthquake. When there's mention of environmental disasters (fires, floods, etc), that's usually a key that something actually happened. All else is basically ideological conjecture. The rules, subjective and conjecture. The discourse on love, money, etc., primarily subjective ideologies. When you really look at the stories in there...not much is actual truth. When you really examine the stories within the framework of the Bible (Bible is considered what? Survey says? Guidelines for moral principles), you tend to see that significant portions (I'd think around 85-90%) are quite subjective, with "unchanging" truths that are far, far, far from unchanging. [quote]The idea of God as a merciless and unkind being in the Old Testament is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text. The God of the Old Testament isn?t any more ?wrathful? than Jesus. Sure, Jesus didn?t destroy a wicked city (a city that God, according to the Bible, could find not a single good person in)- but if you read his story, he did draw a solid moral line between a right and a wrong (the bankers in the temple, the temple leaders). He was sent to correct a message of forgiveness that had been perverted by the people before him, however.[/quote] I chopped a bit out here and there, because I wanted to isolate the crux of the issue. In the above excerpt, you essentially said that the vengeful, wrathful God of the OT is actually entirely incorrect, and any interpretation that leads to that conclusion is utterly wrong and truly an uneducated assumption about the text." But I say to you, look toward Exodus 20:5-6: [quote name='Bible.com']5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.[/quote] Sure, there's line 6 that shows love to a thousand generations of those who love God and keep His commandments, but what about line 5? Does that not seem just the least bit...mean-spirited? [i]God himself[/i] is saying he's jealous. For all intents and purposes, with the prominent characterization of Israel as God's wife...God is the suspicious, jealous, violent, sociopathic husband. The kind of husband who sets fire to villages he deems inappropriate for his wife to even talk with. OT God wasn't vengeful and wrathful? [quote]I don?t devote my life only because of Jesus? sacrifice. I don?t even devote it because I?m guilty of acting immorally sometimes. I devote my life to God because I believe that we were all created to share a truly personal relationship with God, both in this life and eternally with him in the next. Ask yourself why you feel guilty, Alex? Why are you asking the movie?s message to justify your guilt? Do you feel as if though you are on uncertain terms spritually? You took away the wrong message from that movie. Here?s the kicker: -We may all be guilty of a million things, but we are all forgiven if we [i]just[/i] ask for it.[/quote] In asking me those questions, you missed my point. lol. I didn't feel guilty at all. I felt pretty much nothing, apart from the sadness and melancholy from any tear-jerker. My point was that in the mainstream religiosity we see today...everybody is emphasizing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I don't need to feel guilted during The Passion to know it's designed to be a guilt trip. [quote]Sociology is our friend in this matter. It?s true that many cultures have established moral guidelines besides the ones influenced by Christianity. But why are rules made? Because someone has broken them. And why did God send Moses the ten commandments? Because his people had and were going to break those rules. Because sometimes it takes more than a moral conscience to realize that adultery is wrong. Some people simply need to be told ?adultery is wrong?. And when I am asked why I am not a liar, I can reply, ?Because it wouldn?t be the right thing to do. I know this because it is written in his Word.? God help me, because the temptations of sex are great enough despite not being married. Sometimes God can act as the last moral witness, the last consideration before deciding not to do something- like lie, or steal. At least I have a guide.[/quote] But why need the Bible? I don't really think you've answered the question. If anything, I think you're more supporting my conclusion, that most of the Biblical scriptural rule-sets are outdated. Those ancient rules were necessitated because those ancient peoples lacked basic common sense and possessed a less than adequate cognition. Today, however, barring the monkeys on typewriters of local newspapers and nearly every single political/religious leader...I think our overall public cognition has improved tremendously. Regarding adultery...who needs the Bible to know it's a bad idea? If you cheat on your significant other, that person will be hurt, because he or she will feel there's something wrong with what he or she is doing, or that you don't respect him or her enough to remain loyal. Maintaining a healthy relationship does not require one to be religious. It requires one to be respectful and mature and generally, maintain a reasonable level of decency. [quote]Last time I checked, no one is worshipping Pokemon. It?s fine to like something, but not okay to worship it. And why would I stone a pokemon loving fanboy or try to snuff out the paraphernalia? I wouldn?t do that with a Wiccan, or a Muslim. Once again, you are really taking something you know very little about out of context.[/quote] The Idolatry clause: [quote name='Bible.com']4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.[/quote] Jordan, my point was that the Idolatry clause there is so vague that it can be applied to anything. And think back to 1999-2000. Remember that Pokemon craze? Where children were reported to be beating each other up over them? Stealing? Manipulating? Cheating? Seems to me that was their focus of attention, rather than behaving and honoring their parents, good values, etc. They were ignoring everything else in their lives and questing for that rare Mew Limited Edition Silver Lined Gold Pack card...a false idol. Think about that. There are a lot of rules in the OT we just don't go by anymore, including the punishments. Why do people still pick and choose then? Or why do people still say certain rules are still applicable when it's clear to me and most people that religion on the whole is largely outdated?

Yeah, I would never really depend on Soul Barbs all that much, either most times. Damage infliction with every Hex and Enchant cast on the target sounds pretty nice, but it'd require a cover hex or two (plus, the damage from Soul Barbs is iffy). Then again...Soul Barbs could definitely be useful, though, because I get the sense that not many players use Soul Barbs...or are even aware of it, mainly due to the same reason I disliked it initially: the damage is minimal, and 31 damage at 16 Curses just isn't worth it (though other skills at 16 Curses are unbelievably powerful) I couldn't see a Warrior caring about it, really (good thing for those using the build). Now that I think about it, your target selection for the Degen/Hexes Illusion magic build was spot-on. (obviously, since the build ultimately worked, your target selection was correct in the first place) When it comes to hex removal priority, it seems like Soul Barbs is/will be pretty low on the list. I could see Warrior's glancing at the stats of a 11 or 12 Curses Soul Barbs, see the 26 or 27 damage and not really care about it. My brain is really scattered right now, and I feel totally incoherent, but I had an idea for a build similar to yours, Adam, except using Domination in place of Illusion magic: [quote]The Edge - Guild Wars Utility [url="http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm"]http://www.sovereignlegion.com/downloads/theedge.htm[/url] Class: Mesmer / Necromancer Attributes: (cost) '+' indicates Rune attributes Fast Casting: 6+2 (21) Domination Magic: 12+4 (97) Curses: 11 (77) Total attribute points used: 195/200 Skills: [Attribute] (Energy, Cast Time, Recharge TIme) 1) Wastrel's Worry [Domination Magic] (5,0,1) Hex: After 3 seconds, target foe takes 68 damage. Wastrel's Worry ends prematurely if that foe uses a skill.[Quarrel Falls (Sorim); Quest: The Ascalon Settlement (North Kryta Province)] 2) Diversion [Domination Magic] (10,3,10) Hex: For 6 seconds, the next time target foe uses a skill, that skill takes an additional 59 seconds to recharge.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric); Quest: Unnatural Creatures] 3) Price of Failure [Curses] (10,3,10) Hex: For 30 seconds, target foe has a 25% chance to miss with attacks and takes 23 damage whenever that foe fails to hit in combat.[Droknar's Forge (Bartoch); Quest: The Lost Princess (Fisherman's Haven)] 4) Soul Barbs [Curses] (10,2,20) Hex: For 30 seconds, target foe takes 26 damage when an enchantment or hex is cast on that target.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran);] 5) Insidious Parasite [Curses] (15,1,20) Hex: For 17 seconds, whenever target foe hits with an attack, you steal 16 health from that foe.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric); Quest: The Stolen Artifact] 6) Signet of Midnight [none] (0,1,15) Signet: You and target touched foe become blinded for 15 seconds. This is an elite skill.[Boss: Facet of Chaos (Dragon's Lair), Malus Phasmatus (Perdition Rock)] 7) Ignorance [Domination Magic] (15,2,10) Hex: For 21 seconds, target foe cannot use signet rings.[Port Sledge (Thengen);] 8) Empathy [Domination Magic] (10,2,10) Hex: For 21 seconds, whenever target foe attacks, that foe takes 31 damage.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran); Quest: Mesmer Test][/quote] I haven't aligned the skills for the skillbar, obviously. I use a 4x2 bar rather than the 1x8, so I group my skills. Other than that, pretty much exactly what it seems.

A quickie before bed. ~_^ [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I see the truth in the word of God as unchanging.[/quote] That's the problem, though, now isn't it? I generally tend to stay away from playing the "moral relativity" angle because at times, I think it's more a cop-out than an actual rebuttal, used when someone really has no other response. But I think it's relevant here, in that there was never much "truth" in the Bible, even in the so-called "word of God." If you closely examine the text, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, most of that book is completely subjective. An unchanging truth would generally imply that the said truth is objective and relevant all the time. And that's just not the case. I mean, when you really consider it...how much "truth" is there in the Bible? When broken down into percentages, most of it is either conjecture, second-hand testimony, posthumous narrative assembled from bits and pieces of scattered documentation that by today's standards of modern law and forensics would be classified as completely unreliable in the determination of facts and dates, artificial socio-cultural rule-sets transcribed by the cultural (read: tribal) leaders of the time (some of whom could barely read or write from what I've read), and so on. As I delve into Biblical studies more and more, I'm finding that the Bible only really held a few particular truths, and those truths were completely non-ideological. Archaeologists believe they've found Lot's Cave, for example, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. They found minor evidence of a very violent culture that dates back a few thousand years. But nothing more than that. I know you weren't exactly speaking from a historical perspective when you said "truth in God's word," but I feel what I just said is pretty important when it comes to figuring out what exactly in the Bible is accurate and what is merely the result of some-odd 350 years of re-transcription. And let's talk about "truth" from the ideological perspective. It seems to me that the word of God (of the OT and NT) can only be "true" if it is universally confirmed. If everyone across the universe (and across time) adheres to his particular "ground rules," then I'd agree that the truth in the word of God definitely was unchanged. But what do we find when we examine history? Or even the NT and the OT? What could have possibly changed between the Finale of the OT and when JC comes onto the ancient Israeli scene? Why do modern Fundamentalist Christians seemingly never quote Jesus when supporting any one of their numerous "anti-[insert social progressive issue]" arguments? There's a reason for that, and it's a reason that I feel too few people (if any) have even realized: That the messages between the OT and the NT are almost completely different. Nowhere in the NT do you see stories about God smiting some foolish bastard, just like how Jesus doesn't exactly get medieval on anyone's *** when he's preaching to the lepers or healing the possessed. Granted, some of what JC was saying was pretty irrelevant by today's standards, bordering more on Communism/Socialism than an actual, workable life philosophy, but I think even in light of that, it's incredibly worthwhile to see the process throughout the Bible. I don't think anyone can argue that the deaths, the smitings, the boils, the disease, the plagues, etc., in the OT weren't direct results of some group not obeying one of the "truths" in God's word. And what "truths" do we regularly hear about when someone like Jerry Falwell opens his mouth? That God forbids homosexuality; that God forbids polygamous relationships; the list really goes on and on. In the OT, you see that. You see those rules at work, you see them result in the complete obliteration of entire cities. You see just how dickish God can be. In the NT, all of that changes. Even ignoring the "Peace, love, and forgiveness" that Christ preached, let's talk about the brief story of him exorcising a possessed girl. Had that story been based sometime in the OT, say...let's say the girl and her mother were Egyptians. The mother went to Moses for help. What would have happened? Since she wasn't Jewish...I highly doubt Moses (and God) would have lifted a finger to help her daughter. Now, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to make. The OT God is the same God who plagued Egypt about a dozen times within a week. So what truth in God's message in the OT remained unchanged there? Is there an "Outsiders are unworthy" vibe anyone gets from anything Jesus was saying? To quote Fred Willard from A Mighty Wind, "Iiii don't thiiink sooo!" Unchanging truth? Not at all. Jesus represents a dramatic ideological reversal of 99% of what we heard in the OT. Now, sure, some could play a technicality and say "Well, it's the word of God in the OT, and Jesus was more a demi-God, so his word isn't really the word of God," but I think they're really missing the point, because the point is is that Jesus was the main man back then. He was there, he was happenin...he was pretty much the original founder of the God Squad for Christianity--and he wasn't even Christian. I don't see his re-definition of religion as a bad thing at all. If anything, it's positive. When it comes to what Jesus was doing and saying...he was a social progressive like nothing else. And with that social progressivism, people really need to start wondering What Would Jesus Say, because I get the feeling he would be far more inclined to start bitchslapping Fundamentalist Christians who like quoting an angry and vindictive book of scripture rather than bitchslapping those today fighting for true equality. And honestly, I think the fact that we never, ever hear Pat Robertson, Falwell, etc., quoting Jesus is really testament to that. They don't quote him to help them suppress gay rights because...survey says? Jesus was all about equality. So I ask you, Jordan (and any others here quoting the Bible), where is the truth? Old Testament? Smiteful Yahweh? Angry father? Vindictive? New Testament? Pleasant God? Groovy Jesus? Equality for all? I think virtually anything one can point to in the OT in terms of social restrictions and guidelines can be outright refuted when it comes to closer readings of Christ's teachings. [quote]Two thousand years hasn?t wearied Jesus? original sacrifice.[/quote] I disagree. I do not see any prominent religious leaders talking about Christ anymore in terms of his sacrifice. All I've seen is a bunch of vitriolic rhetoric that borders on "God destroyed New Orleans because it was sinful." I think two thousand years has certainly wearied Jesus' original sacrifice, because virtually nobody I see in the public arena seemingly gives two sh*ts about that anymore. Plus, one shouldn't devote themselves to a religion because of a sacrifice one man made to absolve others of sin. That is basically what The Passion of the Christ was: one huge guilt trip. [quote]and thousands more have not eroded those ten commandments of Moses.[/quote] Again, how many people actually quote the Ten Commandments these days, or refer to them explicitly, or even subtly draw from them? Not many. And how many of those Ten Commandments are all that relevant today, anyway? Thou Shalt Not Kill, sure, but do you really need a stone tablet to know it's not a good idea to hack up your neighbor with a machete? Pardon the morbid sense of humor, but is it a lack of religious values that enable a man to think to himself, "Gee whiz, you know what? I sure like Bob's riding mower. I think I'm going to take that axe, kill Bob, then take his riding mower. Maybe I'll also have sex with his wife, too." Or is that kind of thought process more indicative of just pure, straight-up lack of common sense? Or what about the "No Idolatry" clause? By the definition in there...we should kill Shigeru Miyamoto. We should eliminate all fanboys and fangirls. We need to have public exterminations of all things Pokemon, and stone to death every child who was obsessed over the Pokemon card craze from a while back. You see where I'm going with this. There are loads of other things in your post that I feel are entirely incompetent and clumsy, Jordan, but it's 2:30 am, I need to take a piss, and then I need to get some sleep.

[center][URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/6111/soupwithafork7zu.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/center] Sorry, but I couldn't resist. No offense, of course.

[QUOTE=Starwind]If you had read my post ore carefully you could have taken not that I did mention pickpockets and the fact that they might not just take it from you. If the guy needs the money, why does he need it. I know you want to think it's some sweet ambitious goal like getting medicine for his sick mother of sister or something like that. The truth of the matter is more likely he's a drug addict. The odds of there being some extreme sircumstance behind it are actually really remote. Guys in this country who need money that bad usually resort to panhandleing, I see them all the time. They stand out with a sign that says thing like "Homeless war vet Needs food" or something along those lines. If he steals from you, then he's probably a really desperate guy. A pickpocket is more likely to stab you, while they're taking what they want out of your pocket. Why? Because if your bleeding and crippled you can't follow them. If they needed money bad enough to take it from you, then this is a man capible of almost anything. I only mentioned serial killers as a token to the idea that, if they could just go "Oh he stole from me, lets kill him." Odd are they would turn to that level of violence regardless of the situation at some point or another.[/QUOTE] Starwind, here's why your entire..."argument" about the pickpocket absolutely sucks: If the pickpocket stabs you, cripples you, whatever, [i]then he is no longer a pickpocket[/i]. You see, if someone on a crowded train is going to slip his or her hand into your pocket and yoink your wallet without you knowing...that's being a pickpocket. Sliding out your personal possessions right under your nose is a pickpocket. Pickpockets are all about sly hand movements, distractions...what basically amounts to an almost covert op of the street. The minute someone stabs another person to rob them...they were never intent on being a pickpocket (or for that matter, a successful one). If someone stabs someone else to rob them...they were going to stab them to begin with. Sure, sometimes criminals act out of desperation or whatever, and initially don't plan on using a knife, or weapon, or whatever...but just think about it. Pickpocketing requires a fairly well-"trained" individual acting rationally and planning gestures and movements. Stabbing someone...doesn't for the most part. Just think about what you're saying, please. I don't give a crap about the rest of your argument, because I'm not entirely sure what it is you're actually arguing for. I suppose the right to carry concealed weapons, but I don't really care, because I think your reasoning needs work. You're trying to say that pickpocketing can lead to armed robbery, because the same thought process found in the act of pickpocketing is the same thought process found in the process of armed robbery. But it isn't. The thought process for pickpocketing (I'm going to steal from this person without them knowing) is entirely different than the thought process for armed robbery (I'm going to steal from this person through the threat of force). That's why pickpocketing is pickpocketing and armed robbery is armed robbery. And I'll use a personal example: A family friend, Tom, and his girlfriend, Linda, took a trip to France a while back. They're both in their late 50s, and Tom knows a thing or two about being smart when walking in a dangerous area. They get on a train, in an empty car (clearly, a mistake). Linda is sitting closer to the front of the car, while Tom gets up to check the map, for no reason other than he enjoys that kind of thing. Two men approach him. They ask him for his money. He russles some change in his pocket, but they inform him they "want the bills." Tom is pretty skeptical usually, so he asks them what they think they're doing. You know, appeal to rationality. One of them then produces a handgun. He tried to call a bluff, but they weren't bluffing. Now, if they wanted to just pick his pocket...I think it was very much within their power to do just that. These guys were no chumps. They knew what they were doing, and they appeared fully prepared to unload that clip. They depended on the threat of force. Had they wanted to just pick Tom's pocket...there would never have been any gun. Pickpocketing and armed robbery are two different types of illusions. With pickpocketing, you're looking to slip [i]under[/i] the radar (to appear harmless, in a sense). With armed robbery, you're looking to [i]destroy[/i] the radar in a really loud, flashy way (to appear harmful). So how in the hell can you even begin to attempt to establish some parallel between the two? Pickpocket will be prepared to kill you? No. Injuring you would not be effective in their ultimate goal of picking your pocket without your awareness. And forget serial killers. They're irrelevant when it comes to examining common street trash. I don't care what studies you've read, I don't care what "psycology" you've studied. What you're saying here is entirely illogical, so please don't try to pass it off as a reasonable argument. Because I just blew it wide open. lol

I think it's worth nothing that most (if not all) scripture found in the Bible has a cultural foundation in the time period. For example...why do you think there was all of this discourse condemning homosexuality in an ancient time when the predominant rule when it came to survival was...oh, I don't know..."safety in numbers"? Was it really a sin as said by God, or rather a sin because they (various tribes writing the scriptures) needed all the tribe members they could get? Think about it. Was homosexuality actually an affront against God, or was it simply counter-productive to a society's survival, because it limited their numbers? I'm not saying this is the case for all of the Blibical limitations, but for homosexuality specifically...I think one could make a fairly strong case for that theory. The history for that time period is particularly interesting in the socio-cultural foundations for certain pieces of scripture. And just to add a bit of humor...who says God doesn't like the gays? I mean, do you honestly believe God ([i][b]a straight male[/b][/i]) has any fashion sense whatsoever? I sincerely doubt his "look" is of his own style. He's got to rely on a few queermo angels to look good...a [i]Queer Eye for the Straight God[/i], as it were.

Sorry it's taking so long. Things have been crazy lately. Grade stress, relationship stress, etc. Quick question: I hear we're set approximately 850 years before the Old Trilogy, and by "before the Old Trilogy," is it safe to assume the BBY dating is safe to use? It's not critical to my character, exactly, but I just want to make sure I'm following chronological guidelines. Here's my idea so far: a Force-Sensitive Wookiee (they do exist, and there needs to be more of them) exiled from Kashyyyk after he uses his claws to kill a group of human slavers and corrupt Wookiees. The Jedi step in and save his life, creating a life-debt to the Jedi (Council?). As part of the life-debt, they decide to Padawan him to Boba Fett's character, believing they both could learn something from each other. That's the bare-bones synopsis. I foresee a snag regarding the timeline of slavers on Kashyyyk. Then again, I can't find any information on Kashyyyk circa 850-1000 BBY, so does that mean slavers there is Kosher?

Holy Jebus, that's unreal. I mean seriously. We've seen backwards compatibility before, but this...doesn't this technically count as [b][i]forwards[/i][/b] compatibility? A previous game designed to function with an upcoming system, rather than an upcoming system designed to function with a previous game? I'm still giggling like a little schoolgirl.