Brasil

Still needs some work. Here's what I changed so far. I don't have time to do the entire thing, and the 4th stanza is just so heavily weakened by that whole tree change that I'm not even going to bother touching it in that state. [quote]autumn is here at last leaves have yellowed, falling fast the trees so naked--gloomy, vast an eerie peace, pleasant contrast fall--when i was born dead but yet alive, withered, growing worn hinting death, knowing winter's scorn during fall i shall die, but none shall mourn another october, here again halloween is near, the children grin and life, it appears, will begin but i am left standing, to ask again when fall will die and take me for i am a barren, empty tree who grows leaves, watches them flee end of days as i onward dream[/quote] The 4th stanza...it's sounding more motherly sorrow with your change to the tree, and for the purposes of the piece, I don't think motherly sorrow is what you were looking for, and I don't think you realize what the difference between a leaf and a tree is going to do to the overall meaning. If you want to keep the original intent of the piece ("the last man standing" as Annie said), the tree is the last thing you want in there. ~Alex

[quote name='Goddess']But there's no need to get all fiesty.[/quote] Rawr! Rawr I say! Rawr! [quote]Alan's reply is based on what he sees in the poem. You don't see what he sees, that's perfectly obvious. You see a leaf, Alan sees something more in depth. I'm very aware of the fact that Mitch wrote the poem as to where it looks like it's all about the leaf, and it may be just that. "for i am the last leaf left on a tree" I personally can see the phrase "last man standing" in that. Does that make the narrator a leaf, or a man? This, of course, is all in the eye of the reader. [/QUOTE] I consider the language itself, that's all. It's all pointing towards leafy things. And really, I don't think there's any literal re-interpretation that can say the "i" in the poem isn't a leaf. Narrator a leaf or a man is metaphorical. If a man is represented by the leaf, that's metaphorical. What I was talking about was straight-up, purely literal language, because LEAF IS A MAN (it relates to HUMANS ARE PLANTS) makes much more sense in the context of the piece than TREE IS A MAN. Oh, I capitalized those phrases because I'm going by a few Linguistic rules regarding metaphor analysis.

[quote name='René']I don't see it as refering to the leaf at all. I read it as every verse leading up to the verse with the leaf paints a picture of Autumn, setting the scene. In that sense, it makes perfect sense, and that's my interpretation of the poem.[/quote] Then you're ignoring the actual language of the piece, Alan. There's no other way the "i" throughout it could mean anything other than a leaf. Look at the repetition: "fall, when [color=Red]*i*[/color] was born/dead yet alive, withered, worn/hinting death, winter's scorn/during fall [color=Red]*i*[/color] shall die, none mourn" "and [color=Red]*my*[/color] life, it seems to begin/all over, and [color=Red]*i*[/color] ask when" "when will [color=Red]*my*[/color] season die, taking [color=Red]*me*[/color]/for [color=Red]*i*[/color] am [i]the last leaf left on a tree[/i]/somewhere waiting to see/the end of days as [color=Red]*i*[/color] onward dream" I've marked how often "my" and "i" is repeated, and what the "i" is defined as at the end of the piece. Up until the very last stanza, there's no indication at all the "i" refers to a tree...or anything else that isn't a leaf. Furthermore, there's a leaf emphasis, if you will, through the entire work. You have descriptions of dead, yellow leaves in the beginning, falling leaves, withered...Alan, the entire piece is about a leaf (and that's one reason why it needs revision, because some things don't make sense given that metaphor). It's pretty plain as day. And then Mitch even outright tells you the "narrator" is a leaf in the final stanza. There's nothing in the piece to suggest what you're saying or seeing, Alan. I don't see why you'd argue it, unless there's something compelling you to reply that I'm utterly missing. Care to explain if there is?

One of the coolest moments during Thunderhead Keep was when the king got rushed by two Jade Bows, and Annie and Neil were slapping a few White Mantle around at the West Gate, I think. I was, too. Then I saw two red cons steadily gliding up the Eastern walkway toward old Ironhammer. I thought, "[i]Aw, sh-t[/i]," activated Escape (awesome Elite ranger stance by the way) and dashed up there to pop an arrow at one of the Bows so I could at least draw one aggro away from the king. It worked, but Jade Bows (and their melee counterpart, Jade Armors) do nasty physical damage, so I needed some sort of physical damage mitigation. Hello, Throw Dirt. Close-quarters AoE Blind for up to 13 seconds. I hoped to nab the other Jade Bow with it, but he was just out of range. Then he aggroed on me. Then he got in range for Epidemic. Epidemic spreads all conditions to adjacent enemies. Moment he got to me, I hit Epidemic and suddenly I didn't have to worry about physical damage from either of those big, purple goons. Iffy thing about Throw Dirt is a 45-second recharge, so I was going to have downtime of 30 seconds or so where I didn't have any cover. But I also brought along Lightning Reflexes (and Escape had recharged by then, as well) so as I anticipated Throw Dirt's Blind effect wearing off, I activated L.R. The beauty about L.R. is it also increases my attack speed by 33%, and coupled with my Ignite Arrows skill, Dual Shot, and a short bow (fastest bow in the game), there were explosions everywhere. =D L.R. needs to be tweaked, though, because it lasts for 10 seconds, but has a recharge similar to Throw Dirt. When L.R. wore off, though, Escape was ready, the recharge only 30 seconds, and its duration 15 seconds, which is pretty good. As the Bows were trying to hit me, dearest Neil had run up and started smacking one of them around. I took the opportunity to slide out from in-between them, took to a vantage point where I could get a bit of a height multiplier, and started plinking away at their health. "Plinking" is an understatement, because Mila is a BEAST! I love Thunderhead Keep.

[quote name='Monkeyfeet63']Now this is not for the sake of the arguemnt or anything. But we see the sages walking around at the end of the game. But it seemed very simliar to the end of return of the jedi when you see yoda, anakin, and obi-wan standing around in the ewok village. Your not going to tell me they were alive and well too?[/quote] [center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24542&stc=1[/img] [/center] Were the sages all blue and glowy? Were Bill and Ted, and Robocop, and some old, crusty Indian, and a dwarf from LotR walking with them? No? Then I guess referring to Force Spirits at the end of RotJ really is completely useless, because the two endings are completely unrelated.

[QUOTE=René] That makes plenty of sense...lol. Think of it in context. In Autumn everything looks like it's dying, yet it is alive. Little kids are often confused by the fact that so many [u][b]trees and things[/b][/u] look so withered and old in Autumn, so dead... yet they are still alive and will burst into life come spring. It's contradictory, but it doesn't confuse the piece because that's what Autumn is. A contradiction. Anyway, I really like this Mitch. I like the rhyme scheme a lot, and the imagery. Good work. :)[/QUOTE] Alan, the "dead yet alive" portion is referring to a leaf. The final stanza of the piece explicitly defines the "i" as a leaf. And the leaves aren't alive. The tree still is. That's why come spring, it will bloom again. But the leaf itself is dead...entirely. If the leaf itself weren't entirely dead--if it weren't dead at all, merely flirting with death--the tree would be an evergreen. But it's not. There's a distinction there in the piece you're missing. Barren trees during the winter are still alive. The leaves that are crackling, yellow and falling? They're completely dead. "Trees and things." We're not talking about trees and things, and neither is the piece here when referring to "fall when i was born/dead yet alive." Just think about that for a moment.

Ya'll are gonna love Thunderhead Keep. Annie and Neil had the distinct pleasure of going through it with me earlier tonight. Or is it the other way around? I had the distinct pleasure...either way, distinct pleasure was had by all, because it's an incredible mission. It's basically one huge assault game, with you defending a dwarven capital from an army of Mursaat, Jade Armors/Bows, Stone Summit, etc. I text messaged Annie earlier about how fun it was. She was very satisfied. ~_^ I'd wish the assault waves were a bit more frequent, though. As it stands, it's a challenge, but it feels more like nasty trick or treaters than beasts straight out of hell--especially when I was defending one entrance solo every so often as Mila, my Ranger. It was like this: Longbow, on a bit of a walkway over the door, with the height-based damage multiplier for Rangers and Ignite Arrow for splash damage. I'd love to see a variation of Thunderhead Keep for guild battles in the future. It'd be like buttah.

Hackneyed? Cliched? Eh. A few things. One, consider the alternative: using an obscure word with an obscure definition that has no benefit. Either your reader scratches his or her head in confusion, then decides to put down the work because it's just too dry, or they decide to look in a dictionary, find the definition, go back to the piece, and then scratch their head because the word still doesn't make sense. I mean...out-of-context, the phrase "soughs a blast" makes no sense, and in-context, it makes no sense. Regarding the hackneyed thing, what are you basing that assessment on? The fact that dead leaves crackle when they get crushed? Because it's a common quality of Fall, something many writers include? Because you've seen it before? I'm trying to provide a rationalization--an explanation--for that assessment of yours, and so far, that's the only one I could think of...and if commonplace occurrences make phrases cliche, the entire piece is basically one huge cliche: yellow leaves; wither and worn; Fall and death (major cliche...metaphor found throughout history); children laughing and smiling because Halloween is coming; last leaf on a tree. Get what I'm saying here? With regards to the rest...the meter needs a lot of work, because a lot of the lines are terribly awkward, mainly due to the lack of consistency between lines and stanzas. You go from 6 to 5, to 6, to 7. You're basically all over the place. And it's severely detrimental to the piece, because it never has a comfortable rhythm to it and just ends up feeling really clunky. Try reading the first stanza out loud, for example, and really listen to where you need an extra syllable or two. I read all of my stuff out loud (not loud enough so people can hear me, obviously, but loud enough so I can hear it), and it's immensely helpful to "hear" what the flow should be. And often, after reading it out loud, it's so obvious that you can't believe you didn't see it to begin with. Try iambic tetrameter or something in that ballpark. I have a feeling it'll work pretty well--or at least a lot better than the current mismatched syllabic jumble. The ideas still jumble together in a less than cogent manner, as well. Assuming the "i" is a leaf, as established by the [i]last[/i] stanza (Big no-no, by the way. Establish ideas and correlations earlier), "fall, when i was born" would indicate when the leaf began to grow. But leaves don't begin to grow in the Fall. They bud in the Spring. "dead yet alive, withered, worn" doesn't make anything any clearer. If anything, it just further confuses the material, because like previously, it's just inserting a contradictory idea that adds to the clumsy and awkward nature of the piece--something you don't want.

"wind soughs a blast" "Soughs" and "blast" are opposites. The line doesn't work. How could a tree be blasting softly? Poetic license or no, it still makes absolutely no sense and it just lodges a speedbump into the work, because if your reader already knows what "soughs" means, they'll grimace, just like I did. And if they don't know what the word means, they'll look it up, and then grimace. Also, Fall by its nature is not windy, or gusty, so characterizing it with the blasty winds has no real correlation to Fall anyway. Just think about it. If Fall were the only gusty season, we would never have breezy Spring days. What effect are you trying to go for here? Since breezy and gusty days aren't exclusive to Fall, the idea makes no sense. Why talk about the wind when there are much better subjects more closely associated with fall, like leaves crunching and crackling on the ground as people walk over them? Something like that would at least provide a much more concrete connection to the next line, "eerie peace, pleasant contrast," because a contrast, by definition, is more pleasant when it's a stronger contrast, because who enjoys a weak contrast in anything? And what's a more distinct contrast between silence and noise? Leaves rustling in the trees or the loud crackle of leaves getting crushed? Plus, if it's an eerie peace, an uncomfortable silence in a sense, you'd want the loudest possible juxtaposition of sound, which would be leaves being crushed, not leaves in the trees being caught in a "soughed blast." Why the personification of a leaf, anyway? What's the connection between the narrator and leaves in autumn? Withered? Tired? Worn out? I could see that if the narrator were indeed the [i]last[/i] leaf of autumn, and the next stanza would make sense if it were possible the narrator was the last leaf of autumn, but the very first line of the piece effectively nullifies that possibility: "autumn is here at last." It clearly establishes that autumn has just begun. So most trees would still have rather full branches--and those that have lost leaves already would certainly not be down to the last one, less than a month into autumn. The language of the piece itself, and what the language itself means, is contradicting just about everything in the piece so far. And when the language doesn't click together, readers start to wonder why that language was even chosen in the first place, because it begins to seem terribly arbitrary. So...I find myself asking what's the point of the piece, because the ideas are contradictory within the piece itself, as there's no real cogent, consistent use of the metaphor LIFE IS A YEAR.

Now, if I comment with anything less than "OMG Mitch, that was so beautiful and I cant believe you need to go to sckool!!!"...what would happen? I just fail to see the point of the piece. So you rise from each failure. Okay. So what? I bounce back harder and with more intensity than most ever will, and I've got an appetite for destruction that few will ever match. What greater point to this piece is there, other than some repetitive dis-establishmentarian annoyance? What happened to your superhero piece? That was actually good, because you were trying something different, so it was fresh and entertaining. This piece...what? It's a topic for you that's been beaten to death by you, and I find the entire ideology to be horridly boring--as does Charles, too, by the looks of his image reply.

[QUOTE=Dagger]Well, I have almost zero interest in hashing over politics and governmental issues, but I figured I'd be the first one to pipe up and say--hey, I love living here. I feel lucky and privileged to be an American. I admire my fellow citizens. I don't share the opinion that our government is close to being a "facist theocracy" (hyperbole much?) or that "as a whole, the American people are retarded, irrational, and unable to accept even the slightest bit of change." As far as I'm concerned, it's a sign of the country's greatness that people can get away with spewing elitist crap like that. See the problem in excusing yourself with, "Oh, I was just exaggerating, no need to get your panties in a twist"? :) ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] For the most part, I agree with you, Dagger, sans one small caveat: There are particular policies of the current administration that are so ***-backwards it hurts my brain immensely. Currently, present day, at 1:15 pm, we're pretty damn good. But honestly? If things keep going the way they're going, with the...[i]tendencies[/i] I see in certain unnamed Republican party members, I'm more fearful that we'll begin to lose what it is that makes us American (and better than most of the world, sociopolitically): Freedoms. There have been some really questionable pieces of legislation passed in the last couple of years, some of which had absolutely no hope of benefiting anyone (No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, etc.), and I don't believe the current administration has any real ideas how to handle social and domestic politics and policies.

The talk about the book-to-film adaptations amuses me, I think, because I get the gist that some people here dislike book-to-movie adaptations, because they feel it's detractory for Hollywood? Pity that nobody apparently read Molly's post. CHW quoted one paragraph of it, but that wasn't even the strongest point. Molly mentioned how Hollywood has been running dry of fresh ideas for a long time now...and that's pretty much entirely true. Throughout the history of cinema, there have always been book-to-film adaptations, quasi-remakes, sequels, genre pieces, etc. I can go back to the 1920s and point to a wide variety of adaptations of popular novels, some of which were unauthorized adaptations, like Murnau's Nosferatu. The Bram Stoker estate [i]hated[/i] Murnau for adapting Dracula without their consent, and they did pursue legal action, or at least threaten legal action if Murnau didn't bend over for them. In the end, guess who made out better. You know it. Murnau did. All he did was change the names of the characters, change the location of the story from Transylvania to Bremmen, Germany, and gave Count Dracula a new name: Count Orlok. Interestingly enough, what Murnau did is the same thing we see happening in Hollywood today--to an extent. Murnau altered his film so he could avoid the Stoker estate financially castrating him, basically, so he wouldn't be sued for plagiarism. And ultimately...Nosferatu is better for it. It gives it its own flavor and feel, because it's so radically different from anything else in the so-called "vampire genre." And it's been immensely more influential, both in that particular genre and in general. Its genre influence can be noted when films like Blade II give their villain vampires a very Count Orlok-ish look, with bald heads, leathery and pale skin, pointy ears, rat teeth, long spidery fingers. You get the idea. There's no doubt in my mind the creators of Blade II had Max Schrek's Count Orlok in the back of their head when producing that movie. And as much as I hate the Blade series, because it's just utterly uninspired garbage, I smile when I see the villains, because it's a little nod to a landmark horror film, and a nod that I'm positive 99% of the audience will never, ever notice. Nosferatu's influence on filmmaking in general somewhat echoes what the German Expressionist movement did, as Murnau certainly used many of the German Expressionist techniques with camerawork, placement, lighting, etc. I mean, these guys (Murnau, Fritz Lang, Robert Wiene--Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) could have brought Hollywood to its knees because they were doing things with the camera, set, lighting, etc., that was entirely new to Hollywood at the time. It's rumored that Hollywood execs and filmmakers feared for their jobs after seeing Fritz Lang's Metropolis...and with good reason. Even just watching one of the non-remastered prints on a larger screen will drop your jaw, because there are something like 6 or 7 layers of action in a few of the wide-angle establishing shots of the high-rise buildings and skyscrapers of Metropolis. There are biplanes, there are elevated trains, cars on the freeway, and actual live actors walking on the sidewalk in the foreground. And this was during a time when computers were a fantasy seen only in movies. Metropolis (and really, most of the German Expressionist movement) was the best thing to happen to the filmmaking industry, because it started showing people what could be done within the limited confines of the present day technologies. Hell, for all intents and purposes...Lang and others destroyed those limited confines, because within those limited confines, they figured out how to really use those limitations and create immense worlds. They were, in the purest sense of the phrase, masters of illusion, and their influence is seen today, though mostly in science fiction. One takes a look at Ridley Scott's Blade Runner to see a shinier and grungier version of Lang's Metropolis. It's quite remarkable. Even Star Wars owes portions of itself to Lang, Murnau, etc., I think. And I think that's the key difference between Murnau, Lang, etc., and the lame adaptations and remakes today. Murnau and Lang were filmmakers on both an aesthetic and technical level. They knew how to reach the audience in new, fresh, and innovative ways, and knew how to use filmmaking techniques to achieve that response, just like Star Wars uses the camera in the flight sequences to give the illusion of "Holy crap I'm flying." There was a documentary about James Bond Gadgets the other night on the History channel (maybe Discovery channel, not sure) and one of the "Bond Team" was absolutely giddy when he was describing this optical illusion they stumbled across when filming on the acrobatic stunt sequences with this trick jet for...Octopussy, I think it was. Basically, because this little jet was so fast, so versatile, and so maneuverable, there was one point where the camera followed it over (and down) a very steep cliff, and there was this sense of "Oh, **** I feel like I'm really falling." They cut that one shot because of it. When the director isn't talented, or the material is absolute trash, we get things like Guess Who, which is just stupid pet tricks, rather than hitting on any of the major themes of the original. You watch Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and you're moved by it, because it focuses on character development, on Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn learning that social progressivism still has a ways to go. The film would never focus on Ashton Kutcher dressed in a skimpy lingerie, wanting it doggystyle. And I suppose that's the biggest problem today. Not enough good dialogue, too many stupid pet tricks. I'd go as far as to say most films today are just stupid pet tricks. Perhaps audiences [i]are[/i] just getting dumber, because seeing the schlock that does well, the stupid comedies like Guess Who that have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and then seeing films from Christopher Guest like A Mighty Wind, Waiting For Guffman, and then This Is Spinal Tap almost get tossed to the wayside? Yeah, something isn't right there. I loved Anchorman, I loved 40-Year-Old-Virgin. I cried when I saw Dodgeball (Annie can attest to that!) as Rip Torn was throwing wrenches around. But at least with those, there was something to laugh at. Ashton Kutcher in lingerie is not something to laugh at. So...yeah. That's my (abridged) take on things. EDIT: A few more notables. When discussing film adaptations, Alfred Hitchcock really deserves some props. He loved doing adaptations of novels. The one adaptation that I remember best is Sabotage, which was an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent (which, incidentally, is pretty damn good. The book's around here somewhere, I think.). Sabotage has a very pulpy feel to it, because that's the subject matter. But even with the lame story, Hitchcock made it work. He's a master because of his skill with film. He was one director who plotted out the entire film in his head and on storyboards long before they even began rehearsing. It's really unbelievable sometimes, especially watching the crop duster sequence in North By Northwest in storyboards, then watching the actual footage. Every single shot, every single frame...it's all mapped out in excruciating detail on the storyboards. And you can see that attention to detail (some have called it obsessive-compulsive) in his earliest work, including Sabotage. The lighting is done just right to accentuate (or sometimes, straight-up focus on) someone's eyes. He cuts films perfectly to establish tension, even though the tension is really hokey, like Sabotage's final sequence with the boy, Stevie, petting a cute puppy on a city bus, while we cut back and forth between him and the puppy and the bomb hidden in Stevie's bag, ticking down in single digits. Hitchcock knows what he's doing there, and you can tell, because he milks Stevie and the puppy for all they're worth before blowing up the bus. Even his first few films--the silent ones--like The Lodger have an incredible attention to camera placement and the effect a certain placement has. His film canon is solid gold. Rope, Rear Window, Psycho, Vertigo, Notorious (my personal fave)...the list goes on. Psycho is interesting, actually, because the remake failed miserably. I think it failed for a few different reasons. One, Hitchcock is the master. He made Psycho what it was, even though the performances were fantastic (Anthony Perkins [i]was[/i] Norman Bates). That movie was totally Hitchcock's, and you can tell. His strange fascination with staircases pops up in Psycho. We all know what scene that is. The POV shots, the claustrophobic close-ups...everything about that film was Hitchcock, and no other director could have done it. Shot-for-shot remakes of Hitchcock films are doomed, because if he [i]made[/i] a shot, no other director will be able to duplicate that. Two, I think that's one fundamental not enough modern filmmakers are realizing. Remakes...they don't work. We saw what happened with Dukes Of Hazzard. Starsky and Hutch did well because of the Frat Pack. Things like Bad News Bears and The Longest Yard are wholly unnecessary. I couldn't even imagine that those remakes are making enough to justify them, given that they would be on the charts for only a few weeks and than vanish. So on one hand, I do think audiences are getting dumber, But I also think too many filmmakers are just getting lazy. The Island? Yeah.

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']There is no religion that says that women should not be sexually pleased as well.[/color][/quote] Sex only for procreation. Not for pleasure (for either sex). It's there. Find the religion and get back to me. [quote][color=#004a6f]And there is also no religion that says that only women should not have premarital sex.[/color][/quote] So you don't think there's any correlation between that religious dogma of "No sex before marriage" and what's happening currently? [quote][color=#004a6f]And there is definitely no religion that encourages or condones the practice of female circumcision. Hence, you cannot blame relgion. Women have been mistreated by men and seen as sexual objects before any of the major religions came into play. Even in atheist societies virginity before marriage was important. Certain cultures take that one idea from religion: Virginity before marriage, and use it to oppress women, even though the religion teaches not to oppress.[/color][/quote] And it's strictly cultural how? You've just said that cultures take the virginity before marriage and skew it into all hell. The virginity before marriage is a [i]religious doctrine[/i], and thus any social rituals and customs based upon that religious doctrine are religious as well as cultural, because religion influences culture and vice versa. Female circumcision is not strictly cultural, Chabi. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. Religion teaches not to oppress? Re-read that sentence. lol. Religion teaches not to oppress...just take a look at the Old Testament and really pay attention. Why do you think Christians more often quote the OT than the NT when making arguments for social restrictions? Because the NT largely contradicts the entire fundamental philosophy of the OT. [quote][color=#004a6f]Anyway, back to ID. As I have said before, there is a line to draw between religion and ID. There is a completely logical and non-faith based way of looking at Intelligent design, leaving any specific religion out. Most of the ID non-supporters say that there is no "proof" and no solid evidence for ID, and that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class. But there are many ideas taught in science that do not have solid evidence. The ideas are simply taught because they are logical and possible. Take for instance, the big bang theory. It is a [b]fact[/b] that the universe is indeed expanding. Hence, that is solid evidence and [b]actual proof[/b] that the universe was indeed smaller before. But how small? Why do science books claim that it was zero volume and infinite (well, almost infinite) mass? Because logically, it's possible. But there is no evidence to actually support this. It's perfectly possible that the universe started out with a finite volume and mass, and began expanding from there, is it not? This idea is also perfectly logical and possible too. Hence, both these ideas should be presented as possible in the science class. No one has adequately explained how the universe came to be. It is impossible for it to appear out of nothingness. The science books do claim that you cannot create matter or energy. It must have come from something, but what that something is we don't know. We have observed that there is a logic behind the way everthing works, there is indeed something intelligent about it. Hence, it is logical to assume that an intelligent being created the universe. It is possible, and therefore, it should be presented in the science class.[/color][/QUOTE] And again, you've stumbled upon yet another flimsy philosophical argument that I'm surprised nobody has realized just how flimsy it is. The basis for your argument here is the idea of the caused universe (the proper term for the philosophical argument escapes me at the moment). What the argument supposes is that the universe and creation are series of causal events that do not regress into infinity, instead at the very beginning, arriving at one ultimate cause, which is labeled God or what-have-you. The problem is, that when asked what that God was, or if everything is a cause-and-effect, essentially, how could God be there? What caused him? Their answer? He's the "uncaused cause." I hope I don't need to point out how absurd that entire idea is, because it's nothing more than a religious cop-out after they realized their entire argument is moot based on their very own premises throughout. And frankly? The "uncaused cause" theory is utterly destroyed by Ockam's Razor, so already it's a flimsy philosophy because there are better, more streamlined, less clumsy explanations out there. Like Tralfamadorianism. Look up Tralfamadore. You'll enjoy how they see time.

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Correction, that has to do with culture (well, it does).[/color][/quote] "Believed that it will deter sexual desires, and thus a woman will be 'pure' (i.e., a virgin for marriage)" should tip you off that culture isn't the only thing driving it. Culture and religion go hand-in-hand. Religion influences culture. Culture influences religion. Considering that deterring sexual desires is not exactly something purely cultural, and how it's an ideology found in just about every religious doctrine on the face of the planet... ...you may want to reconsider saying female circumcision is purely cultural, because in that cultural aspect, there's a religious aspect and vice versa, and so on. Think about it.

Jordan, think about it, though. Religion by its nature is oppressive. It has its good points and tendencies, sure, but in general? You've heard about female circumcision, I trust? Yeah...that's a case of religion dictating how a society works, from a quasi-governmental state. We've had theocracies across the globe that function like Fascism (and sometimes, [i]are[/i] Fascist societies). We've seen the Inquisition because of a religious doctrine taken a step (a few steps, lol) too far by a leaderbase that was, for all intents and purposes, psychotic. You mentioned England, and you're not even doing that kind of turmoil justice with one brief mention. Governmental rules and laws would change with each passing of the crown between the Protestants and Catholics. Government resources were used to suppress and in some cases, hunt down religious "heretics." Saying "not always get along" is an understatement in the worst way. lol And it is a separation of church and state, because the ammendment establishes that the government will not attempt to restrict religious practice and freedoms, in that it will not act with regards to religion. Public schools are government insitutions, and therefore, by extension, they also will not endorse or suppress religion or religious freedoms. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there is certainly a very clear separation of church and state as it applies in this situation. And if that's not a valid reason why to argue for religion or religious doctrine not being taught in public school? Religion isn't science. Religion is religion. A belief structure based on ancient human reactions to and rationalizations of a world that they fully did not understand. That in itself is reason enough why religious doctrine and ideology has no place in modern coursework. Religion itself is outdated. So why should a concept like Intelligent Design, which is no different than the people of Mesopotamia blaming the gods for floods, a concept that [i]relies[/i] on a belief in a higher power that is unproven, be taught in a modern classroom? I.D. is no different from ancient superstitions. For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. We don't teach that thunder and lightning occur because Zeus is angry. Why should we teach that the world was created because God felt like it? We study Zeus in mythology courses because Zeus is mythology. We study God, religion, etc., because they're religious ideas and occasionally, philosophical ones. To point to I.D. and say that it should be taught in a science course because particulars of evolution can't be observed? If unobservable particulars of evolution deem that evolution shouldn't be taught exclusively in a science, and if I.D. is just as unobservable, seems like it makes that pro-I.D. argument moot.

[quote name='Mitch']Here we go once again. This thread is either going to get closed, or you are going to realize you're blowing this out of proportion once again - arguing just to argue - using your poisonous tongue to enunciate words that never were there.[/quote] Cry me a river. [quote]Every writer "steals." To be a writer is to be a thief of moments. A thief of phrases. Even the words we use to communicate themselves aren't ours, but have root from an amalgam of many languages which is in essence what English is. However, this stealing is often metamorphosized by a writer's imagination and made his own - which is definitely in part what you did with this poem.I was simply pointing out that, as a reader, that is what I thought of (the Green Day song); and to me that lessened this poem's impact dully.[/quote] Oh, yes, I'm sure that's exactly the case here, right? Mitch, what you're talking about in the above paragraph is something completely different than what you implied in the initial reply. You should be able to recognize the difference between the theft you insinuated in the initial reply and what you're talking about now--and you do, hence the quotation marks. Even still, you've not absolved yourself of anything, because the explanation you're giving doesn't do anything to rectify the lousy and indignant tone of your initial reply. Here's why. The theft you implied in your initial reply was one of an [i]active[/i] theft, in which the writer had to [i]actively[/i] steal a phrase. There is no collective subconscious at work here. The action is totally deliberate. What you've described in the above paragraph is the collective subconscious, wherein common elements of a culture and its art are ingrained in an artist's creative processes with the artist rarely, if at all, ever realizing the influences. Still sounds like you're trying to save your ass through trying to disguise your original meaning...and you have a tendency to do that, don't you? What was the idea...denying the original meaning so you can avoid...conflict, was it? A debate? Something to that effect, I think. [quote][b]My entire post also was not about this so-called "I am an individual" angst you're talking about[/b]. I talked of other things; that was only a part of the post. And the ideaology is misguided to you - and you can have that, for that is your opinion on the matter. But it was not a jab whatsoever. [b] I did not imply that I am the only one who appreciates originality, either[/b]. I was simply stating that ths poem's repetition of the phrase "boulevard of broken dreams" made me think of the Green Day song of the same name, and that in this sense it wasn't original. It is not to say the poem doesn't have a single grain of originality in it as you seem to think. [b] I was not pretentious nor was I presumptuous in my post whatsoever[/b]. I was simply giving my ideas about the poem since you posted asking for comments.[/quote] [quote name='Mitch']Which is fine, I guess, but me personally, I like to be original; and that kind of kills some of the originality of it for me, I guess.[/quote] Mitch...come on, man. You were making a distinction between us, with you liking to be original, and by extension, I must not be original. This is basic semantics here. The meaning of your initial reply is totally obvious. Why try to change it after the fact? Why not just admit to it and move on? [quote]I feel as if I'm going in circles. I've said this all before and you'll now post another countering to what I've just said. It is so pointless and fruitless.[/QUOTE] Put the "Kick Me" sign on your back, you're going to get kicked in the back. This always goes in circles because you keep putting the "Kick Me" sign on your back. It doesn't take some type of superhuman intelligence to see that. [quote]I talked of other things; that was only a part of the post[/quote] And the "other things" were just more posturing. For example: [quote](but then again, this is just me - I think strong language uses strong nouns that describe what modifiers and a noun would do all at once; I'm just trying to give some input).[/quote] You want the vicious cycle to end? Stop starting the vicious cycle and start posting relevant and meaningful reviews, rather than the tripe you did post.

[QUOTE=Mitch]It isn't nonsense. It's what I believe in. You posted this asking for a response; I gave you an honest one (and I also mentioned that what I was saying was just what I thought, and you well know that, too). I am not a twerp and I never have been. And I'm supposed to know this is a series of paintings by some guy? An average reader who picks this poem up and reads it won't know that. Must you always employ this ridiculous PT facade? Must you incessantly fight a battle of useless words over and over again until you get your way? I'm not wasting your time. You posted this asking for response, and that's what I gave. If you're going to reply like so, then I have no reason to post; no one else does, either. If you want to hear what you want to hear and only what you want to hear, then don't post this asking for comments.[/QUOTE] [i]Please[/i]. Your previous post absolutely reeks of some petty, incessant "I guess I'm the only original one around here" attitude. It's what you feel? Oh, c'mon. lol. Mitch, regardless of whether or not you want me (or really, anyone who read your previous post) to believe you weren't being just the least bit pretentious and presumptuous by implying that you are the only one who appreciates originality--and the implication was there, Mitch, let's get that straight right now, because I was not the only one who noticed--you really need to reconsider just what you're saying here. Frankly, when you use words like "stole," and phrases like "but me personally, I like to be original; and that kind of kills some of the originality of it for me, I guess," I find it hard to believe your post was as...innocent as you're now telling us it was. Why not just admit to it? I mean...anyone who reads those words knows exactly what you were trying to get at. And also, I asked for what people thought about the poem. What I [i]did not[/i] ask for was the type of petty "I am individual" angst of yours. Let's get that straight, too. A review is not what you posted, Mitch. What you posted was a thinly-veiled jab spurned on by a misguided ideology. So, again, if you're going to post with that bull like you pulled in your previous reply...don't waste my time. I want serious replies. I don't want your "original individual" spammy rubbish.

Not sure who gets the Sci-Fi channel, but if you do (and if you enjoy mean-spirited, crude, rude, obscene, and obnoxious aliens), I highly recommend Tripping the Rift. It's difficult to describe the show, because it kind of defies what you'd expect. I suppose "South Park in space" is the best tagline for it. The characters are nasty; the dialogue is raunchy, and the female characters rival DOA for...animation of the chest. Tripping the Rift is one of those shows you hate to love and love to hate, and I have a feeling it'll be on the Christian Hit-List real fast. But it's spectacular. There's evil social commentary (they just busted on Arnold Schwarzenegger a few minutes ago). So, has anyone discovered this show? Does anyone know about it? Does anyone like it?

[quote name='Mitch']I think the main thing that bothered me is how I couldn't stop thinking of Green Day's "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" when I first read this. It's as if you stole that phrase right from them and then converted it into this poem. Which is fine, I guess, but me personally, I like to be original; and that kind of kills some of the originality of it for me, I guess.[/quote] Mitch, don't be a twerp, and run a search for a series of paintings by an artist named [url=http://www.art.com/asp/display_artist-asp/_/crid--25339/Gottfried_Helnwein.htm][u]Gottfried Helnwein[/u][/url]. So go ahead. Keep talking about originality (by the way, it was incredibly lame of you to come here spouting nonsense like that). And then check out those paintings by Helnwein entitled Boulevard of Broken Dreams. There's actually a series of them. Don't waste my time.

This is why Jefferson and the Founding Fathers set up that whole "Separation of Church and State" thing. Because even [i]back then[/i], during the [u][b][i]birth of our nation[/i][/b][/u], that religious doctrine makes for absolutely horrible governmental and state procedures--including education. Let's face it. Religion [u][b][i]sucks[/i][/b][/u] when it comes to education. It greatly upsets me that so many people [i][u][b]still[/b][/u][/i] don't "get" what Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were doing some 230 years ago. [quote] 'Orwellian' efforts Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court. "It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."[/quote] And Dr. West is a ******* quack, and he will be one of the first to go (read: assassination) when I become President. I won't tolerate that kind of bull****.

[quote name='FlamesFirebrand']Meee!!! I shall also pinch his *** and gain powers of a gaming god! o.o![/quote] Lame VG Cats spam! Go lame VG Cats spam go!

I tend to echo Rene (sorry, but you don't get the special character this time =p). [font=franklin gothic medium][b]A) Which aspect of OtakuBoards do you find to be the most negative/confusing?[/b][/font] Honestly? Nothing technical, really. It's a nice, streamlined system and UI. I've never had a problem navigating anything. But I do find something incredibly annoying and negative: whiners and martyrs. Sometimes I wish the mods would come down harder on the "victims," because it's a circus act that gets really old, really fast. [font=franklin gothic medium][b] B) What is your favorite aspect of OtakuBoards?[/b][/font] My favorite aspect...oddly enough (particularly in light of my least favorite aspect) is the membership here. The comraderie on OB is really nice, and even when you piss some people off really badly, they're still there for you. It's quite lovely. Similarly, the post decency is spectacular--the mods' post decency, at least. I frequent a few other messageboards, namely a Guild Wars one, and I'm constantly amazed at how rampantly cruel and ignorant those other boards are...[i]especially[/i] their mod staff. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say those mods are entirely corrupt. I hear it's even worse at other GW forums. But never have I ever seen that type of corruption here, and it's wonderful. Partly due to a small, close-knit group, and partly due to just a damn fine staff selection, the mod staff here is second to none.

A few fun snippets of an IM James and I had earlier. The potential for Revolution pretty much blows away anything I can think of on the other two "consoles." Just the ideas from regular gamers would provide entirely unique and dynamic gameplay experiences that you could only find on a Nintendo system. Didn't Reggie Fils-Amie say something to that effect in talking about DS? [QUOTE]aestenAIM (1:58:13 AM): [url]http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html[/url] aestenAIM (1:58:37 AM): I don't really agree with the use of "hardcore" terminology and so forth, but the article itself is pretty interesting. JamesOtaku01 (1:59:49 AM): Basically, Nintendo is right.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]aestenAIM (2:11:00 AM): And plus...OH SNAP! Imagine a game like Okami on DS or Revolution. JamesOtaku01 (2:11:07 AM): Yep JamesOtaku01 (2:11:11 AM): Okami is ideal for those systems[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]aestenAIM (2:13:46 AM): "However if you look at reviews of the Metriod tech demo with the new controller, you will see that the evolution of the FPS can only take place on the Revolution." aestenAIM (2:14:49 AM): The more and more I read about Revolution, aestenAIM (2:14:58 AM): the more and more I'm convinced Nintendo has Sony and MS by the balls. JamesOtaku01 (2:15:03 AM): Hell yeah JamesOtaku01 (2:15:06 AM): If you think about it... JamesOtaku01 (2:15:13 AM): Even IGN, who were annoyingly skeptical JamesOtaku01 (2:15:22 AM): They said that it felt as good as an optical mouse JamesOtaku01 (2:15:28 AM): And that's on a demo that took a couple of months to throw together JamesOtaku01 (2:15:41 AM): Can you imagine a next generation Metroid on this thing? JamesOtaku01 (2:15:45 AM): Especially with online multiplayer JamesOtaku01 (2:15:49 AM): There's just so much potential. aestenAIM (2:17:48 AM): Swordfights, too. aestenAIM (2:18:18 AM): Virtually every single type of game we can think of can be done on Revolution and done better than on any other input medium. aestenAIM (2:18:35 AM): Starfox... aestenAIM (2:18:50 AM): They're definitely going to have a Revolution Starfox title. JamesOtaku01 (2:19:31 AM): Oh hell yes JamesOtaku01 (2:19:35 AM): Starfox would be gorgeous[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]JamesOtaku01 (2:19:45 AM): I think Mario could be so cool... JamesOtaku01 (2:19:49 AM): Imagine throwing fireballs JamesOtaku01 (2:19:53 AM): Or swinging bowser by the tail aestenAIM (2:19:56 AM): The jumping portion, too! JamesOtaku01 (2:19:56 AM): etc etc :-) aestenAIM (2:20:06 AM): Oh... aestenAIM (2:20:12 AM): and similar to that, aestenAIM (2:20:21 AM): since the gyroscope functions independently of the mouse pointer, aestenAIM (2:20:37 AM): you could have medieval type games with maces (the chain variety). aestenAIM (2:20:50 AM): Provided you have a good grip on the controller, aestenAIM (2:20:54 AM): swinging it above your head..... aestenAIM (2:20:58 AM): oh yum. aestenAIM (2:21:14 AM): An Indiana Jones game. aestenAIM (2:21:18 AM): The whip. JamesOtaku01 (2:21:25 AM): *nods*[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]JamesOtaku01 (2:21:30 AM): And if they do incorporate haptic technology JamesOtaku01 (2:21:35 AM): (which they may indeed do) JamesOtaku01 (2:21:39 AM): That would totally sell it JamesOtaku01 (2:21:41 AM): In a huge, huge way[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]aestenAIM (2:28:35 AM): You know what game was great on home consoles? aestenAIM (2:28:37 AM): Time Crisis. aestenAIM (2:28:45 AM): But the biggest problem was the Guncon peripherals. aestenAIM (2:29:01 AM): There was no comfortable way to fire, hide, aim in a manner of seconds. JamesOtaku01 (2:29:12 AM): *nods* aestenAIM (2:29:13 AM): Revolution... aestenAIM (2:29:26 AM): B button was the fire trigger, JamesOtaku01 (2:29:31 AM): The best part is that Revolution knows where the controller is physically located in relation to the TV. JamesOtaku01 (2:29:35 AM): so you could flip it upwards to "hide" aestenAIM (2:29:37 AM): as* JamesOtaku01 (2:29:40 AM): and then when you aim they can see you JamesOtaku01 (2:29:50 AM): So therefore, your physical movement is known by the game, which is so critically different JamesOtaku01 (2:29:52 AM): GunCon can't do that. aestenAIM (2:29:56 AM): Yeah. aestenAIM (2:34:31 AM): I would kill the President of Venezuela for Time Crisis Revolution.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]aestenAIM (2:39:42 AM): "For some reason I can only think of violent examples (what would Jack Thompson Say?!) but wouldn't it be nice when exploring someplace without any weapons and just gently shove someone off a balcony with the remote? Mario Tennis would rock with a remote racket. I know I'm rambling now but it's just so exciting. If Nintendo pulls this off they'll have Sony and Microsoft and a huge amount of developers clamboring over themselves trying to get liscencing on the remote or trying to invent their own. The thought of Solid Snake sneaking up behind someone, grabbing their chin and snapping their neck with a twist and jerk of the remote sends a tingle down my spine." aestenAIM (2:39:51 AM): There are a lot of fun ideas from those replies and comments. aestenAIM (2:40:05 AM): I'd love to see that gently shoving someone off a balcony.[/QUOTE] I'm going to pre-order a Revolution as soon as I can. So many of the ideas and concepts possible on Revolution can so easily be actualized into game-form that I'd be a fool not to jump on it now. ^_^

I think this is like, the mid-year for emotional crap like that to happen. I've been feeling like **** for a solid...5, 6 months now, I think. Nothing feels good anymore, nothing excites you. You feel...trapped, stagnant. It's a bleh kind of state. The reasons for the depression differ, but the best cure for feeling dead inside is either writing for me, to take my mind off things, or to get a jolly good rodgering. Either one works for me. ^_^ You and I haven't seen eye-to-eye occasionally in the past (though, strangely enough, we're agreeing more and more, lol), but if you ever need to talk, drop me a line. I think my AIM sn is on here somewhere.

My advice in coping with fear and anxiety? Balls to the wall. *sagely nods*