Brasil

[quote]Protective Spirit - Enchantment Spell For 5-19 seconds, target ally cannot lose more than 10% health due to damage from a single attack or spell. Healing Seed - Enchantment Spell For 8 seconds, whenever target other ally takes damage, that ally and all adjacent allies gain 3-25 health. Healing Breeze - Enchantment Spell For 10 seconds, target ally gains health regeneration of 3-8. Blessed Signet - Signet For each "Enchantment" you are maintaining, you gain 3 Energy, maximum 3-20. Life Bond - Enchantment Spell While you maintain this enchantment, whenever target other ally takes damage from an attack, half the damage is redirected to you. The damage you receive this way is reduced 3-25 points. Blessed Aura - Enchantment Spell While you maintain this "Enchantment", Monk Enchantments you cast last 10-30% longer. Awaken the Blood - Enchantment Spell For 20-39 seconds, you gain +2 Blood Magic and +2 Curses, but whenever you sacrifice health, you sacrifice 50% more than the normal amount. Offering of Blood {Elite} - Spell Sacrifice 10% of maximum health. You gain 8-18 energy. Divine Favor: 10+2 Healing Magic: 10 or 11 (then +1) Protection Magic: 10 or 11 (then +1) Blood Magic: 10 or 11[/quote] My apologies for posting such a rough, haphazard build, but I'm at school and I can't use any good programs. Bleh. Thoughts?

[quote name='LovE HInA334']I have that G4 channel and saw that show uhhhhhhhhh..........G4tv.com.With that Laura gyrl.The controller ls like a uhhhhhh.....remote. :animeknow[/quote] And this post like a uhhhhh.........sux! What relevance does your post have? Have you even been reading this thread? The Revolution controller is not a remote. It's wireless and has the general shape but that's about it. It's an entirely different kind of technology...altogether.

All the talk about the physical implications of the controller reminds me of a game not many people are aware of: Rescue 911. It's an arcade game that uses a motion capture...box, I guess, sort of similar to the old Sega peripheral The Activator. The purpose of the game, Rescue 911, is similar to Time Crisis. Hide, pop out, shoot, etc. But what differentiates it from Time Crisis is that if you want to hide...you do it yourself. There's a desk there for cover? You need to crouch yourself to hide behind it. It's difficult to explain, but there are minutes at a time where I've been in a crouching position, rolling on my heels--doing held squats for all intents and purposes--just to avoid enemy fire and/or to return it. The relevance? The controller can certainly duplicate that experience (and it's an arcade experience like none other...if you can try it...do so. It's wonderful!) without a problem. And really...yes, the potential is there for some really weird physical snags with extended play, but it may have more of a benefit than detriment. If the games are as physical as we're led to believe, gamers may finally get some exercise while playing. Something as simple as Zelda, for example, or that footage of the FPS during the press conference...I think the feature is going to rock.

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']This is genius and I am seriously hoping for a Star Wars game that makes use of the controls, I mean imagine the intuitive lightsaber movements you could make with this thing.[/size][/quote] Oh yeah. Was thinking the same thing earlier today. ^_^ I'm reading concern/questions about lack of buttons, which admittedly there is a lack of buttons at first glance. But there isn't a lack of buttons. The controller itself is a button. The gyroscope is pretty much a C-stick, or C buttons...only with no actual, physical clicks. :eek: Flippin sweet.

Pilotwings...Pod Racing...I'm drooling to see how those two types of games would handle on Revolution's controller. Star Wars Pod Racing particularly. If the controller is capable of having two of those joystick attachments, one right-handed, the other left-handed...a pod racing game would be awesome. You could actually jam forward with the joysticks themselves, right?

The roar of the winds, cruel and spiteful howls, The vicious sigh of the sheets of stinging rain, The thunder, the lightning?the sounds of the storm, The sounds of earthly pain, Tear at our fragile minds When we cannot mend those broken dreams and tears, When the streets flood with wasted humanity, Of a society now dismantled, shredded at the seams, When blood and sweat flow down That boulevard of disease, Through that land of broken dreams. It carves a path where we once went, Revelry and joyful pleasure long since spent, For now that fetid, putrid stream has transformed our love into That land of broken dreams. And when the roar and sigh subside, When the rains grant some respite, Some will venture out despite?and bear witness to a series of shattered lives, The vast expanse of virulence and sickness and disease, As they will walk that boulevard of ruined, poisoned, and broken dreams. And as they brave the pungent filth, The smell of death, and anguished pain, They will hear the cries?however faint? Of people left behind. So it goes, their city, once bustling and alive, The jewel of sweetest decadence so unique, that thrived As so many came to see from far and wide, The glory of a city now washed away By that vile sea of pestilence and decay. What once held life?where life once grew? There now exists a murky bog, toxic, troubled, a sickly brew, That shapes the land of broken dreams. So it goes, a liquid grave, The blood that flows about the skeletal cement of lives destroyed, Of agony that lays testament to horrors long unseen. And so it goes, now everyone can see, What became of that precious city, Now transformed into that shattered land, That desolate, ruined, and poisoned City of the damned, A city shredded at the seams, Now nothing more than a boulevard of broken dreams.

[QUOTE=Sage][b]To Brazil:[/b] Honestly, I have nothing else to say about this issue because everything was answered, but is it so f-ing hard NOT TO HURT MY FEELINGS?! This is my freaking thread, and it would've been all decent and polite if only Rai, Shy and Lore had replied! Nothing in my initial post was offending or rude towards anybody, but Goddess made it sound like it was! That caused me to go on defensive mode, and of course a bunch of other asshats like yourself had to come and mock me some more! Why couldn't have you just shut up yourself?! I have a right to give feedback in this section BECAUSE THIS IS THE FREAKING FEEDBACK SECTION! I didn't ask for any ridiculing or bashing, I just wanted an answer to my concern! I got it, and I'm satisfied on that part (as I clearly stated in my previous post), but NO, you just have to come and twist the knife in my wound! Of course I'm acting as a victim here BECAUSE I AM ONE! And I seriously can't believe you can get away with posting one rude picture! You didn't even contribute to the topic at all! If that is not spam then I don't know what is! And IF I'm not making myself clear enough, that JUST might have something to do with the fact that ENGLISH ISN'T MY FRIGGIN NATIVE LANGUAGE!!!! Now I'll shut up before I say something I'll regret. *boils*[/QUOTE] No, Sage, that's where you're completely [i]wrong[/i]. The problem here isn't that English isn't your native language. The problem here is that regardless of what language anyone speaks, in any language, you're acting like a little *****. That was censored, of course, but it should be obvious what word was there. Victim? Victim my butt, dude. You aren't a victim here, [i]because nobody is picking on you[/i]. Come to grips with that and you'll feel better. Rude picture? Oh, please! You've got to be kidding me. God forbid someone posts the Pancake Bunny picture to say in one image what it would take a few sentences or gasp! Even a paragraph! In retrospect, I should have used the Your Post Sucks image, with the old guy giving the camera the finger. You're acting like freaking Taylor Hewitt, dude.

[url="http://files.filefront.com/NecroSuckzip/;4125869;;/fileinfo.html"]http://files.filefront.com/NecroSuckzip/;4125869;;/fileinfo.html[/url] This video is insane. I found a link to it on another messageboard, and...all Necros need to see it. For the love of God...all Necros need to see it. I'm also posting the link to what skill this All-Necro Spike Team uses...and it's equally absurd. [url="http://guildwars.gameamp.com/guildwars/skill/443.php"]http://guildwars.gameamp.com/guildwars/skill/443.php[/url] The video is pretty big (about 50 meg), so give yourself ample time to download it. The wait is worth it, though. I think I've figured out the finer details and attributes of the build itself, too, so if any have questions, I can answer to the best of my ability. ^_^ [center][u][b]***EDIT***[/b][/u] [/center] I'm figuring the one Necro's build went like this (and all of theirs, I would guess): [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: 6 (21) Blood Magic: 11+2 (77) Curses: 12+4 (97) Total attribute points used: 195/200 Skills: [Attribute] (Energy, Cast Time, Recharge TIme) 1) Vampiric Gaze [Blood Magic] (10,1,5) Spell: Steal 55 health from target foe.[Ascalon City (Sir Bertran) Quest: Necromancer Test] 2) Awaken the Blood [Blood Magic] (10,1,45) Enchantment: For 41 seconds, you gain +2 Blood Magic and +2 Curses, but whenever you sacrifice health, you sacrifice 50% more than the normal amount.[Fisherman's Haven (Mazzim)] 3) Dark Pact [Blood Magic] (5,1,2) Spell: Sacrifice up to 10% health and deal 42 shadow damage to target foe.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric) Quest: Death in the Ruins] 4) 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 struck foe who is suffering from a hex. This is an elite skill.[Boss: Maw the Mountain Heart (Dreadnaught's Drift)] 5) Shadow Strike [Blood Magic] (10,2,8) Spell: Target foe takes 43 shadow damage. If that foe's health is above 50%, you steal 43 health.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric) Quest: Casualty Report] 6) Parasitic Bond [Curses] (5,1,2) Hex: For 20 seconds, target foe suffers health degeneration of 1. You are healed for 126 health when Parasitic Bond ends.[Yak's Bend (Captain Osric) Quest: Oberan's Rage] 7) Desecrate Enchantments [Curses] (15,2,15) Spell: Target foe and all nearby foes take 63 shadow damage and 21 shadow damage for each enchantment on them.[Marhan's Grotto (Harnil)] 8) Arcane Echo [none] (15,2,30) Enchantment: If you cast a spell in the next 10 seconds, Arcane Echo is replaced with that spell for 20 seconds. Arcane Echo ends prematurely if you use a non-spell skill.[Beetletun (Ephaz)][/quote] The skill synergy here is absolutely brilliant. I'd call attention to Arcane Echo being used in conjunction with Feast of Corruption. It effectively counters the recharge time for the first FoC by copying it into Arcane Echo's slot. The video demonstrates this, and it's bloody effective. The Necro was firing FoC off in successions of about 15 or 17 seconds, so the recharge has certainly been worked around. Don't have too much time, because I'm rather hungry, and late night donuts are sounding real good right now, but I'll hit the major points of why this build is worthwhile. I've made my own modifications to the skill set, by the way, because I never carry Rez Sig for a variety of reasons, the main one being in PvE, if I ever would need to use it, I'd be the last one standing with enemies still aggroing, so I'd be dead anyway. In PvP, same idea. But I'll hit a few of the strengths that remained intact during my transposition. Parasitic Bond. Very spammable. Low cost. Fast recharge. Nice duration. Fire them off at a few targets, then follow-up with FoC. P. Bond is a good, solid set-up for the combo. [b]V. Gaze[/b] (added by me). During the video, when the target didn't have any Hexes on them and their health was in that Danger Sliver area, and the Necro's FoC was recharging, there was no real effective way to finish them off, apart from a ranged wand attack. Shadow Strike could be used, yes, but unless the target is above 50% health, it'll have roughly the same, if not lower, effectiveness of V.Gaze. So...yeah. V.Gaze is by no means to keep your health up. Only to finish off the target if the spike damage didn't (and that's rare). And speaking of keeping health up, FoC does that, in addition to the roughly 126 health you gain when P.Bond ends. P.Bond's end conditions are surprisingly diverse. Either the Hex's duration actually runs out, or the Hex is...forced off, like the target dying. And that does work, too. I've seen it happen in PvE. When you have multiple P.Bonds casted, with FoC firing, and also Desecrate Enchantments, that's easily 300 health coming your way, only from 2 enemies.. Not to mention the health steals FoC grants, too. Dark Pact (added by me) could also be replaced by something else. Will devise something later. *goes to get some donuts* [center][u][b]***EDIT***[/b][/u] [/center] Mmm...that hit the spot. Two skills to consider: Suffering and Shadow of Fear. AoE Hexes. Good durations, good recharges. Excellent for the FoC combo.

[QUOTE=Sage][i]All I needed [/i] was an answer to my frigging questions, and I'm extremely happy that I got them from people who know what they are talking about! I did not ask for insults, I did not ask for bashing, and nothing I said in my starting point made me deserve them! I've reported Brasil's offending and spammy post, [i]because I have a right to say my opinions [/i] despite being such a whiny bastard as you seem to think I am! I'm glad that Rai, Shy and Lore are such good people that they gave me decent, polite answers instead of diminishing and ridiculing like the rest of you! Gawd I hate your condescending attitudes! This goes to Goddess, Imi, Brazil and Boo, btw. I have no idea what I did to deserve this, because I tried to write as politely as I can about this issue. :( At this moment I feel extremely hurt and offended, just to let you know, although I reckon none of you really cares...[/QUOTE] Again, [center][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/Padraig21/Stuff/bunnywithpancake.jpg[/img] [/center] Sage, sound off like you got a pair! Otherwise, shut your mouth! I mean, christ, dude! Give it a rest and stop playing the freaking victim all the time! Nobody here was condescending. Nobody here was mean to you. My post was not offensive or rude because honestly? I have no freaking idea what you're trying to say anymore! And I have a feeling that a lot of people share my sentiments.

[QUOTE=Sage]For gripes sakes!! I wasn't calling Goddess kissass, I was calling MYSELF a kissass, because apparently everybody has to be one in order to have their opinions voiced out in here!!! And I'm SO SORRY for using excessive exclamation marks and capitalizing some WORDS, oh [i]I do hope[/i] I will not get banned due to my misbehaviour and unwanted opinions! [/sarcasm] Honestly, some of the ordinary members here are worse nitpickers than all the moderators combined! [i]Again[/i], this isn't an attack towards James, I'm not demanding that he changes the rules at this very moment, I just wanted to know why the rules were lacking and why there was old information in them! [b]Raiyuu[/b], you answered my question, I thank you for that. I actually did a search for a similar thread before posting this, and found nothing (although I too remember that something like this was discussed in the past too), so of course I thought it wouldn't hurt to create this. Apparently it did, for I seem to have been labeled as the leader of the Official Resistance Against OB movement now! Geez, why do you people have to be so hard to discuss with?! EDIT: [b]Ozy[/b], if the Arena Ratings aren't in the rules because they are section-specific, then why are the rules for posting Anime Lounge and Play it -sections included in the core rules then? I honestly think that ALL rules of the boards should read in one place, or at least the core rules should have a link to the sticky threads. Oh, and I'm calming myself down now... *huff puff* I just get anxious when people twist my words and use them against me...[/QUOTE] [center][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/Padraig21/Stuff/bunnywithpancake.jpg[/img] [/center]

Okay, people, we're going to make sure all of you (or at least as many as possible) have at least one character Ascended, nearly maxed, and able to warp to Camp Rankor. Grenth's Footprint and Sorrow's Furnace were just released a few days ago, with all-new bosses, new areas, new quests, new skills (I hear one new skill per prof), new missions, and new items. Here's the list so far: [url="http://www.guild-hall.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27316"]http://www.guild-hall.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27316[/url] We need to do a guild trip into Grenth's Footprint and Sorrow's Furnace. EDIT: Screw Camp Rankor. Granite Citadel is a much easier walk. (not so subtle hint!! wink wink) EDIT 2: Uhm......yeah. The Pick-up group I hooked up with was really good, but...doing a guild trip into Sorrow's Furnace first thing will not turn out well. I just made my first trip into there, and to do well, you need to know what to expect and where. I plan on hitting it a solid couple of more times before we take the guild down there, and I think Desbreko may, too. It's intense. Level 24 enemies are the norm, with massive Hexes, Resurrects, etc.

If you aren't playing the game...you [i]suck[/i]. (well, you don't suck if natural disasters are inhibiting you) [center][b]Sexy Raoul Zavala (we consider him to be a Shinmaruzed Godzilla):[/b] [url="http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw0500hi.jpg"][img]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/852/gw0500hi.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Sexy Dominatrix Annie (with Alex's Psychedelic Computer Graphical Hiccup!):[/b] [url="http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw3500qu.jpg"][img]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8272/gw3500qu.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw3500qu.jpg"][/url][url="http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw3661jp.jpg"][img]http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/249/gw3661jp.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw3706cw.jpg"][img]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5769/gw3706cw.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Glint Before Us:[/b] [url="http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw3321qx.jpg"][img]http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/3995/gw3321qx.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw3335yc.jpg"][img]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4032/gw3335yc.th.jpg[/img][/url] [b]Glint After Us:[/b] [url="http://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw1400bi.jpg"][img]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3878/gw1400bi.th.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gw3384rc.jpg"][img]http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/2343/gw3384rc.th.jpg[/img][/url] [/center]

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Find me a quote where I tried to force people to convert to Islam and then we'll talk.[/color][/quote] Oh, yes, trying to force all of us to acknowledge that the Quran holds actual scientific truths isn't wanting your religion's perspective of science to be imposed on others? Blow it out your rear end, Chabi, right after you remove your head from it. At least give me a challenge. You requesting that I provide an example of you trying to shove your religion or your religion's scientific POV on others is like me trying to convince Bruce Campbell to talk about Bubba Hotep. It's too easy, and doesn't make you look any better. [quote][color=#004a6f]Look back at my previous post, and you will see that I am comparing two squirrells from [b]different ancestries[/b]. The australian flying squirrel is a marsipual (it has the pouch like kangaroos and koalas). It has the same common ancestor as the other marsipuals, while the north american flying squirrel has a different ancestor. That's where I question evolution. By chance, you get 2 very similar flying squirrels, that aren't even related to eachother?[/color][/quote] Similar squirrels. Big frigging deal. Clearly that shows there's some creator and not that two types of squirrels happened to evolve in similar manners. Do you seriously believe that pointing to similarities like that is sufficient enough to claim Intelligent Design, when a much more likely (and realistic, let's be honest) explanation is that they merely evolved in a similar way because their respective environments required them to? Because their respective environments possessed similar instances? Just think about it. Is it environment or creator? By the way, they're possums, not flying squirrels. [quote][color=#004a6f]I didn't say that evolution is completely wrong. I just don't think that all creatures evolved from one ancestor. Second of all, why not try making up a decent argument rather than ranting and raving about how others form theirs? I'm not going to let you decide for me how to argue. [u][b]I think teleological evolution supports intelligent design[/b][/u], also, the faults I see in the evolution theory suggest that something intelligent is required to make evolution a reality, so therefore I decided to use these as arguments.[/color][/quote] I've bolded why your reasoning sucks, and why it's clear to me you really do not understand the distinction here. Intelligent Design supposes--nay, [i]depends on[/i]--the existence of a conscious, aware creator with a conscious goal in mind in creating life. Teleological evolution is not that. It's nowhere remotely close to it, and it doesn't support ID in the least. Goal-oriented evolution is goal-oriented evolution. It relates to the idea that evolution occurs because there is a physical state that needs to be achieved, and thus over a period of time, that physical state will either be actualized, or it will not, and that animal will die. This is where you're missing the point, so pay attention. Teleological evolution is not ID, nor is it related to ID, because Teleological evolution is not dependent on outside supernatural forces for evolution to occur--or any outside supernatural forces for anything to occur. [quote][color=#004a6f]Rather than trying to provide an explanation for my questions about the eye evolution (because you don't have an answer), you simply dismiss it because it's "not relevant" (in your opinion that is) to intelligent deisgn.[/color][/QUOTE] You mean the following? [quote name='Chabi][color=#004a6f] Also, if all creatures originated from one species, how does this explain the evolution of certain organs? According to the evolution theory, at one point in time, no creatures on earth had eyes for example, and eventually some evolved to have eyes. The eye is a complex organ, and it requires all parts to function. It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts. [/color][color=#004a6f']But at the same time, what role would natural selection play if eyes had to evolve over time, considering that they would not function without all the neccesary parts? Having an eye that doesn't work is no better than having no eye at all, so it would not be "naturally selected" would it?[/color][/quote] You don't think it took some time for different species to develop under different conditions? Plus, given that so many species rely on eyesight to survive...why is the abundance of eyes across species a warning flag that you're making it seem? All eyes don't function in the same ways, after all. Bats' eyes don't work, but I guarantee you they can navigate pitch-black caves far better than you will ever be able to. And why do you think their senses are developed for those environments, while we would stumble about like morons? Dogs see a much different light spectrum than humans do, as do cats. And even in humans, all eyes don't operate on the same level of functionality. Considering how wide the range of your point is, and how everything doesn't work perfectly--and how everything doesn't work the same--I don't see how it supports your point that all of that indicates a creator. "[color=#004a6f]It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts[/color]" isn't some huge revelation, because if you just use common sense, Evolution isn't a super smooth, instantaneous process to begin with, anyway. Overall, it works, but..."POOF! There are eyes? Impossible!" isn't really a valid argument for ID, or against Evolution, because if "POOF!" were the case, that instaneous "Everyone has eyes that fully function!", that would be evidence of a creator. And as it stands? Something tells me there wasn't an "eye poof!" Do you get what I'm saying here? You're making an argument that is more the complete antithesis of an argument supporting the idea of ID.

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']And I wouldn't want my religion's prespective of science to be imposed on others.[/color][/quote] *cough*bull****!*cough* Sorry, Chabi, but unless you got a lobotomy within the past two months...I find that incredibly, incredibly, [i]incredibly[/i] hard to believe. [quote][color=#004a6f]But I do think the concept of intelligent design (not from any specific religion) has validity in the science world.[/color][/quote] But that's the thing, because it doesn't. Your following argument is based on Teological foundations that have existed for thousands of years, but yet still haven't developed a cogent argument that proves the existence of a creator. [quote][color=#004a6f]If our universe was truly created, then intelligent design would be a fact, not just some "faith based doctrine". Therefore, since it is a possibilty at least, it should not be considered "crap". I personally see alot of evidence that suggests that intelligent design is true. Everything has a purpose. The sun gives us light to see and for plants to photosynthesise, and heat to keep us warm. We need air to breathe, and it controls the temperature. If there was no atmosphere on earth, it would be schorching hot in the daytime, and freezing at night. Even our actions have purposes. A baby smiles so that its parents want to give it attention, which it needs to live a healthy life. I find it difficult to believe that all of these things [b]with purposes[/b] came to be by mere chance. Other things I see as evidence of intelligent deisign is how two creatures, lets say the australian flying squirrel and the north american (or is it europen?) flying squirrel, are very similar, yet apperently come from different ancestors. So these creatures, and a whole bunch of other examples, evolved this way by mere chance? Also, if all creatures originated from one species, how does this explain the evolution of certain organs? According to the evolution theory, at one point in time, no creatures on earth had eyes for example, and eventually some evolved to have eyes. The eye is a complex organ, and it requires all parts to function. It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts. But at the same time, what role would natural selection play if eyes had to evolve over time, considering that they would not function without all the neccesary parts? Having an eye that doesn't work is no better than having no eye at all, so it would not be "naturally selected" would it? Evolution as a theory is correct, it has been proven, but I think there is a limit to how much it occurs.[/color][/QUOTE] Pointing to changes between species, pointing to purposes of bodily functions and claim they don't support Evolution, rather supporting the idea there's some omnipotent creator? Do you know the biggest problem with your argument? Just because something is Teleological (i.e., goal-oriented, purpose-oriented) does not mean there has to be a creator, nor does it make the idea of Intelligent Design any more valid. There's a reason that different squirrels across the globe are different: they've inhabited a different area, with different climates, different physical requirements, etc. The purpose of their evolution--of those differences--is survival. And the purpose of their evolution, their need to survive, is indicative of one thing and one thing only: that they evolved because they had to, because in a previous form, their bodies were not capable of dealing with their environments. Evolution works because it's a good system, and it's a good system because it works...not because there's some omnipotent power pulling its strings. And frankly, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand. Evolution is both chance and purpose. Some animals will evolve; others won't. Which ones will evolve and which ones won't is a matter of chance, but when they do, they evolve for a specific purpose: survival, whether they consciously do it or not, and whether they are consciously aware of it or not. It's survival of the fittest. Your evidence doesn't support anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, because it more points to something far more relevant and earthly: Teleological evolution.

I blame myself for creating a legion of supermutants out of my classmates, too. Those pesky comic book plot contrivance mishaps! *shakes fist*

[QUOTE=PyroGirl]Yes, I am a Christian and if you don't like it deal with it. I did not want to be taught the theory of evolution, but it's not my decision. So maybe all of you atheist should just learn to deal with being taught ID if all of us Christians have to deal with learning evolution. P.S. Where IS the missing link?[/QUOTE] When fossil records and carbon dating and a solid century or so of Paleontology uncover a big-*** holy chicken bone in the middle of Mesopotamia, then we can start talking ID. Until then, ID has absolutely no scientific or factual basis and thus teaching it in a science course is asinine, trite, and annoyingly simplistic. Evolution, while a theory, has actual evidence to justify teaching it in a science course. ID does not. P.S. It's there. It's called "Missing" because we haven't found it yet, but we're getting close. With each passing year, the gap between pre-historic man and "modern" skeletons is shrinking and shrinking. You want schools to teach ID like it's some actual scientific reality? Produce some evidence that ID could ever conceivably be an actual scientific reality. Evolution has evidence that it's an actual scientific reality. Why doesn't ID? Oh...that's right. Because it doesn't have any relation to actual scientific reality, because it's a rationalization created and propelled by Ideologic religious doctrine.

Cosplay or suicide. They're your only options.

It all depends on what course it's being taught in. I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught--in the sense that I'm perfectly fine with giving students access to different ideas. But even then...Intelligent Design really belongs in a Philosophy and Religion course, rather than a science course, because science courses like Geology and Paleontology are based on hard sciences...natural sciences. You can find evidence of sedentary rock formations in bayous, for example. With Evolution, while still classified as a "theory," the evidence for it is there. The hard scientific evidence for it is there...and if not the hard scientific evidence for it, then absolutely the groundwork to support the idea. And largely, you just don't find that kind of hard data for Intelligent Design, because the very idea behind ID is supernatural in nature. So...unless it's a completely unbiased instructional method, "here are a few different ways of looking at it," keep the ID in Philosophy/Religion courses, because that's really where it belongs. Plus, even though I don't really intend to get into this point entirely, you could argue that ID is actually incompatible with the Creation stories in the Bible. The text itself in GoE is at times the complete antithesis of anything remotely related to Evolution, or even ID ("God creates, then Evolution takes over").

Ooooohh....okay, I get you now. Here I was thinking G.M. was an Enchant. Silly me. Still, if we get a few Wars grouped together in a PvP situation, GM on the middle one may prove useful. It would only work for adjacent foes, of course, but if they're Wars anyway...in all likelihood, they'll be nearly shoulder-to-shoulder.

[quote name='Final Remix][font=Comic Sans MS]Sorry to burst yer bubble, dude. Glimmering Mark only affects the one first guy. I hit someone with it, then start spamming lightning damage on [i]that[/i'] target. G.M. will blind him and anyone around automatically. And after their new "blanacing" tweaks, i've noticed that the G.M. AoE is a lot smaller.....so it'd really only be good in PvE now.:animedepr [/font][/quote] If the AoE effect is smaller now, all the more reason to fire off the Tab/Shift-Tabs and pop a few wand hits. G.M. isn't the type of Blind spell that we could cast and forget. It'd need to be constantly "re-applied." And because of that, I'd think the Tab selection and Space bar would be perfect to continually re-apply a 3-second Blind AoE duration on Melee combatants. You enchant yourself with G.M. Bust out a Lightning Wand, then Tab through and pop each fool with one hit at a time. If we can get the timing down properly, it may very well turn out to be a constant Blind status. And depending on the grouping in PvP, it may still work there.

Well, I think there does need to be some type of regulation. I'm not talking censorship, necessarily, but safeguards are always a good idea. Whether those safeguards are parental controls (which they should be to begin with), or whether it's something a bit more Orwellian in nature, some type of safeguard is necessary. Yes, parents should be doing their jobs. That goes without saying. Yes, they need to get educated about URL filtering and so forth. It's really mind-boggling how computer illiterate a lot of adults are these days. I mean...my grandfather is 82, has had a stroke or two in his life, can barely walk without a cane, has all sorts of lung problems...and he's teaching himself how to use particular functions on the computer we got him last year. And to hear about middle-aged adults who don't know how to use a Search engine just...makes me die a little bit more on the inside. lol I find my sentiments echo Rene's. I think it's a worthy cause, cracking down on 'net porn, because I don't really view 'net porn as protected under "Internet Freedom." When I hear "Internet Freedom," I more associate that with being able to write in a political blog, type posts on message boards, host a journal, etc. I don't view "Internet Freedom" as a means to acquire (or host) Russian Mail Order Bride Donkey Lesbian Hardcore Fetish Sex Farm material. And really...I can't see how anyone could say that's protected under freedom of speech, or expression, or anything. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it has more civil liberties than public exhibitionism. That's also kind of why I view the anti-crackdown argument centered on "It's a huge public domain" as kind of silly, really. I mean...the only difference between live, public nudity and internet nudity is the medium, and I don't think the difference in medium in this case warrants any difference in approach. If the internet was a private connection between two colleges (like it was when it was first developed back in the 50s or the 60s...maybe 70s), I'd be more inclined to not worry about it. But the 'net today is most definitely public, and you can log-in anywhere in the world, whether it's a net cafe, your home, a friend's house, girlfriend or boyfriend's house, etc, and go find virtually anything and everything online. I guess what I'm getting at is there are no (or currently, very little) barriers online, and because there are no barriers, the need for some type of policing is there.

[center][url="http://imageshack.us"][img]http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/2161/obimagechallengeilikepudding8j.jpg[/img][/url] [/center] ph34r teh Cos! Next parameters: Text: Albino Alienation Colors: Green, Red, White, Gray

[center] [center][URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8789/obimagechallengefreedomofchoic.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/center] [/center] Next parameters: Text: Monolithic Odyssey Colors: Silver, Gold, Blue

[QUOTE=DeathBug]No, actually, I don't remember much of NCLB, because that was at least a year ago; you're the one who keeps bringing it up, because you want to constantly bring up a time you were right and I was wrong. Grow up. You can be offensive, but you'd rather chose condescension. Just like you are to me, and just like you were to Trastic. Do you listen to yourself? You sound like a repriminding parent. I already know I sound pissed. And if you honestly think I'm such a punk, why are you even talking to me? Unless, of course, it's a shallow attempt to make yourself look better at my supposed expense. The fact that you're using a public forum to attack my "perosnality flaws" suggests ths.[/quote] Oh. My. God. Are you serious? You?re telling me to ?grow up? because I happen to have a very good memory and know exactly why I was talking down to you before? I?m not the one who initially mentioned previous experiences here, DeathBug. Does ?I?m about to be talked down to by Siren again? look familiar? Let?s not forget ?Every single time I disagree with you, you post from some supposed intellectual superiority and talk down to me and anyone else who disagrees with you.? You tried to use my previous posts as some type of bartering currency here, to portray me as some dickish monster, right? Yes, I?m the cold and unfeeling one, the high and mighty ?holier than thou? intellectual god on high, right? Try again. I find it amusing, to say the least, that as soon as I respond with a more in-depth exploration of past threads, you suddenly don?t want to hear about it. DeathBug, you know just as well as I do that I?ve gotten on your and other people?s cases in the past when you and other people post with complete and utter bull. And those are the only times when I really lean into someone. Frankly, if you aren't (and weren?t) prepared or willing to acknowledge the exact reasons why something happened the way it did, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. And you know?I find it amazing that you can say what you just said and believe every word of it, because it looks to me like you?re just trying to avoid a point that I was getting at earlier: That I may be harsh, but I?m fair. I think it?s blatantly clear that your bluff was called here, because quite frankly? You?re trying to pass off the negativity as if it?s my fault, even going to the length of referencing Transtic Nerve? Please. Yes, I?m sure that two teenagers such as yourself, one perpetually angsty and the other just mildly, could never be held accountable for anything they say and surely, others? reactions to them could never be a result of the mindless, trite, and annoying drivel they churn out. Dude, be realistic here. lol You tried to make your post have some teeth there?but when you?re down to the gums?it?s just going to come off as an act of desperation?and it looks pretty damn desperate to me. So let?s get at least one thing straight here: if you?re going to attempt character assassination, make sure you?ve got some ammunition. [quote]I didn't actually use that to critisize Sheehan; I was responding to a point already brought up. I have an entire lifetime's worth of experience living on military bases and with members of the armed forces my assertion. It's truth in advertising.[/quote] Fair enough. But is your own personal experience enough to make blanket statements that the entire military is good, honest, noble, and fully capable? I think you really should take a few philosophy courses?or at least a logic course, because the argument you?re using there is akin to the open blue duck argument. It goes a little something like this: Duck A is blue. Duck B is blue. Duck C is blue. Therefore, all ducks are blue. That?s your precise argument, and if you were to use that in any logic course, it would not be received well. By the way, have you read any of how her son was killed? Here?s an excerpt from CNN.com. "On April 4, Palm Sunday, we got the word that Casey had been killed in an ambush," Cindy Sheehan wrote in her essay. "The first chance he got, my brave, wonderful, faithful, sweet, gentle and kind boy volunteered for a rescue mission ... Casey and 20 of his buddies were sent into a raging insurgent uprising to rescue wounded soldiers. Only 13 of them returned." 21 were sent in to rescue wounded soldiers. 13 returned. They went into an uprising to rescue soldiers. With only 13 of an initial 21 coming back, do you really think that was a responsible strategy? I?m a college Lit dork with Tourette?s Syndrome, ADHD, OCD, and asthma, who has never been trained in any type of military positioning, combat strategies, justifiable loss, etc?and even I know that type of maneuver is a bad idea regardless of the situation. It?s just lousy planning, but trying to talk to those officers over there couldn?t help, because they just don?t have the authority to change things on a national scale. But who does? President Bush. And whom did Sheehan want to meet with? President Bush. [quote][b]If she was right-wing, what would she be doing?[/b] Who said two-faced? Part of my point was that she's saying exactly what she was always saying, only now she's using an elevated platform. She's an activist, same as she's always been, and my problems with her are the same as my problems with any misguided activist. Well, this is totally off-topic, but [b]the Schiavo debacle made all involved look bad[/b]. [b]Micheal Schiavo was persnally reprehensible[/b] for not letting her parents have the body for funeral purposes, [b]the judge who decided she should be starved to death was a cretin[/b], and [b]all politicians involved in summoning an emergency session of Congress for a single private individual were grossly overstepping their bounds[/b]. Not that any of this matters at all to the Sheenhan debate, unless you're trying to make this a debate on [b]my personal credibility[/b]. I dislike her for what she's doing. And [b]the argument is politically charged because it's a politically charged discussion[/b]. I never once said that she didn't care about her son. Of course she does; it's not a part of this discussion at all. And while we're at it, I never said I was sorry that she lost her son; I figured that would be a given. But since apparently I'm not assumed to have basic human feelings, I'll say it now: I'm sorry she lost her son. Because I'm discussing the appropriateness of her actions, not their impact. I'm critisizing the way she's presenting herself: as a non-activist. She's not sitting alone in Crawford holding a silent vigil; she's at the center of a political rally she's organizing. She doesn't want to call a spade a spade, because it won't arouse public sympathy the same way. Of course I would. But I wouldn't misrepresent my circumstances, which is what she's doing. At least you've stopped denying she's an activist.[/quote] I?ve stripped your bolding and added my own. Ironically, portions of your post are echoing my argument nearly exactly. DeathBug, if Sheenan was right-wing, she?d be supporting right-wing ideals, and spreading a right-wing message. Your argument is politically charged because politics are the issue here. You don?t dislike Sheenan because she?s an activist. You dislike her because you disagree with her politics, because she?s a Democrat and you?re a Republican. Activism has nothing to do with it. Her actions have nothing to do with it. Her message is the problem you have with her. Her political viewpoint is why you dislike her. And take note that there?s no criticism of Terry Schiavo?s parents in your reply. You have a problem with misguided activism? Then you need to have a problem with her parents?and it doesn?t look like you do (or ever did). Attacking your personal credibility? DeathBug, as far as I?m concerned?and as far as this discussion is concerned?you have no credibility. [quote]And I suppose the British and Russian intelligence backing up those assertions weren't really about WMD's, either? Saddam spent a great deal of time and money to create a credible farce of having WMD's, and he succeeded. And, again, everyone in the UN believed that Saddam had WMD's.[/quote] If everything was about WMDs, then Iraq?s noncompliance was an incidental topic, which is what I said previously. Bush?s speeches weren?t focused on Iraq?s noncompliance. Cheney?s speeches weren?t focused on Iraq?s noncompliance. Rumsfield?s speeches weren?t, either. The buzzphrase of years of speeches was ?weapons of mass destruction.? [quote]Then what does their reporting of this issue have to do with anything?[/quote] I just wanted to make it clear why news stations report the news, because your explanation was ridiculously absurd. [quote]As I recall, you started 'trading barbs' first. You attacked me personally. Don't talk to me about 'barbs'.[/quote] And where did I do that? ?You?ve gotta be kidding me, coming in here spouting this garbage?? Or ?Republican teenager being pissed off?? Comments not without merit, DB. Remember that. [quote]I don't like how things work when they screw over the military.[/quote] Yes, a few comments here and there are really screwing over the military! [quote]I'm not going to apologise for being passionate about an issue; I pasionatly dislike it when the military gets screwed. Apathy isn't a virtue.[/quote] And yet you expect Sheehan to pretty much apologize for some problem you see in her actions? She?s passionate about the issue. Do you want her to apologize? [quote]They shouldn't, but they do. And I'm not coming from a philosophical point of view; I'm coiming from a historical one. I'm not going to just let the protests get to the Vietnam level. The people running these campaigns are the same as from 30 years ago, and are already trying to use the same tactics. ("Maimed for a Lie" outside of vetern's hospitals, the ever-popular "We support your right to shoot your commanding officers", comparisons to Nazi's by liberal congressmen).[/quote] Point me to the current protestors spitting on veterans and calling them ?Baby Killers,? and then you can have your point. Otherwise, if you?re unable to, I?d strongly advise against trying to draw some bizarre parallel between extremist Flower Power children and those today who use slogans like ?Maimed for a Lie? and ?We support your right to shoot your commanding officers,? because ?Maimed for a Lie? and ?We support? are critical of the leaders. ?Baby Killer? is critical of the soldiers. It?s an incredibly important distinction that you?re missing. [quote] If the protesters really cared about the troops, they would be discreet enough so that their protests aren't seen by the enemy. But one of the things we learn from history is that most people don't learn from history.[/quote] With 24/7 news coverage across the globe?I think your criticism here is largely invalid. To say that protestors should be discreet enough so that their protests aren?t seen by the enemy is missing a huge component of the world structure today: instant broadcast. ?Oh, they shouldn?t be on the news? is an idiotic thing to say, because the only way for them to not be on the news is if they don?t say a damn thing. But maybe that?s exactly what you want, isn?t it? Those who present a different political viewpoint to just silence themselves indefinitely? [quote]Edit: And, I just realized our ocnversation has moved beyond Cindy Sheehan's actions, into my line of thought in coming to my opinion on Cindy Sheehan. Since this way lies flames, I'm going to withdraw. If anyone has anything to say regarding me personally, they may do it through a PM. As for Mrs. Sheehan, I've already stated my disapproval of her actions multiple times.[/QUOTE] You disapprove of her political viewpoint, not her actions.

Runeage! The screenshot here is from my PvP-only character, Jezebel Dullea. Since PvP chars only need inventory space for whatever items drop after HoH, I've been using her as my mule. She's carrying a load of stuff, including some 28 assorted runes. Take your pick! The Mes runes are slightly off-limits because I've got a primary Mes in Pre-Sear right now, but other than that, total fair game. [center][URL=http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gwruneage1kk.jpg][IMG]http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/2660/gwruneage1kk.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/center]