Baron Samedi

[QUOTE=Dagger]To make an incredibly silly analogy, I think that it's perfectly within my right to be disgusted if someone else eats a cockroach, even if he/she does it of his/her free will. Speaking personally, I don't care about pornography one way or the other. But I don't quite understand why you say that people who feel differently have no right to be repelled by or on the behalf of those involved in it. ~Dagger~[/QUOTE][size=1] It is within your right to be disgusted by it, but to imply anything about their character because of it - to in some way judge them - isn't. I see what you were trying to get at [particularly considering the wording of the first sentence or so of my post], but it isn't so much the disgust, as how they are presenting that disgust - as though these women should be ashamed of what they do, as if it is something bad. Sure, it may disgust you, but you have no right to assume that it is immoral or bad or whatever. It's accepting that the cockroach-eater has their own reasons for doing what they do, and whilst it might not be my 'thing', I can accept that they do it, and will not condemn them for their actions.[/size]

[size=1]Shinji, shinji, shinji. 1.8/10 because you're a Kiwi. I kid :p The 'W' symbol could be sharper, but overall image quality is good [for both banner and avatar]. Because the background is black, a sharp and well-defined border is more difficult to pick out, but you really should have one, even if you can only see it across the chest of that guy in your picture - which is how I knew you didn't have one. Additionally, centering a signature [or at least the banner] is normally a lot better in my opinion, unless it is a really small banner which is meant to be positioned left/right. Your banner is the full 500 limit, so really, it should be centered. 7/10[/size]

[size=1]Unfortunately, next week I might be away for the whole week. I don't know if I will have any 'Net access at all [I'm going up North]. I'm like, 90% sure that I have to go, but we'll have to see what happens with that.[/size]

[size=1]I actually doubt that there are any people with knowledge sufficient enough to do anything more than spout internet articles verbatim here at OB, so a discussion of people's opinions on the period where awareness for a foetus kicks in is kind of moot. However, I view self-awareness as a key point of being human. Until that point when they can separate themselves as a conscious entity, they are no different to an animal, mentally. Which means that I see no problem with aborting toddlers :p I think the actual limit that they have in place [three months?] is a fair limit though. Something to do with cogniscent functions, or outside awareness or something. Besides, if you don't 'get around to it' in three months, you deserve to be 'stuck' with the child.[/size]

[size=1]So, some people here feel disgusted by/for the women who pose for those kind of photos? Why the hell should you. You have no right to judge them for what they are doing. As many others have said, they could have a multitude of reasons for doing it, but in the end it is their choice. Their body, their choice, their life. It isn't [i]you[/i] posing for the camera, so why feel so disgusted about it? The only time that there is a problem with it is if it is unconsentual - i.e the woman is unaware of being filmed/photographed. That is unnacceptable.[/size]

[size=1]Unless your icecream has chickens in it, in which case it is [i]not[/i] equal to the aforementioned, but rather the squared product of the universal symbol over a portion of the infinite variable Q. Aside from that, your equations are reasonably accurate. I commend you Petie :p[/size]

[size=1]OMG I'M EATING COW MEAT!!! Nice work. I'm loving these XD[/size]

[size=1]Psshh, I was just teasing Des :p[/size]

[size=1][QUOTE=Dale_Valley]ok, i wrote a fairly rough report on the right-to-carry for a school project. now it may be missing a couple of things, but i garauntee, that i didnt make any of this up, i did my research. and i stress the need to visit the site that i have a link to. PS i hope it isnt to long. The Right Imagine this: your home alone late one night, trying to sleep. The house is dark and still. You hear not but silence, until; ?rattle, rattle, rattle? What was that? Silence. There it is again! It?s coming from the back door. Somebody is trying to get into the house. Questions race through your mind faster than your mind can register them. ?Who is it? What do they want? What should I do? What can I do?? Suddenly you hear the door burst open, followed by the sound of the perpetrator coming inside and rifling through the kitchen. You?re frozen in your bed, unable to move. Then realizing, you must act; defend your home, your valuables, and most importantly, yourself. Immediately you get out of bed search desperately for something to defend yourself with; but come up with only a small blunt object. Then, yet another noise reaches your ears. Footsteps on the other side of your closed bedroom door. You freeze in place, petrified in fear. Again another sound comes from beyond your door, the worst sound you could possibly hear. So faint, yet still very noticeable. Almost unrecognizable, yet you would know that sound anywhere; you?ve heard it so many times in countless movies. The sound of a gun being cocked. You?re at a loss for what to do, uncertain if you can protect yourself with your unknown club. Once more, a sound comes to you; the door handle is being turned, the person is coming in. Every year, thousands of people are left defenseless in the face of crimes, such as robbery, breaking and entering, assault, murder, and rape, and become ?victims. At the same time, though, there are others who refuse to become victims, and are the cause of crimes being stopped by the use of firearms. Thorough studies and investigations have proven it over and over again. In states, and countries, where there are right-to-carry laws and lesser gun control, crime rates are extremely lower than those with no right-to-carry laws and greater gun control. For example: In 1987, Florida was one of the first states to issue a true right-to-carry law, allowing citizens to carry concealed hand guns. People everywhere expected crime rates to skyrocket, however, the crime rate dropped quite drastically. The homicide rate fell 36%, firearm homicide rate-37%, and handgun homicide rate fell 41%. In Washington D.C., a virtual ban on handguns was enacted in 1976.Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (Just the facts) And since then, D.C. has earned the title of the murder capitol, 19 years running; having more homicides in its boundaries than any other city in the US. (AFF). Similar laws have resulted in such statistics all around the US and the world. There are many people who say that by giving citizens the right to carry concealed weapons; they will misuse the right. However, less than .02% of people with concealed carry permits have been convicted of violent crimes. And even further studies show that citizens with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit any crime than the average citizen. (Just the facts) When people in certain are given the right to own firearms and conceal carry, it provokes two thoughts. One, it jolts the average citizens to realize the responsibility, if they decide to carry, and become more law abiding. Two, (happening the most) it jolts the mind of criminals. Telling them that their jobs just got a bit more dangerous, and many times, it is enough to pull the criminal straight all together. Most criminals with any intelligence at all think twice about robbing the Kwik-E-Mart, when there is a chance that Farmer John on isle 3 with the pickles just might be carrying a concealed gun in his dirty overalls. So, lets all put a little logic to this. With both statistics and common sense in mind, does it really and truly make sense to install large scale gun control, and with it the massive potential for disaster. Just the facts. [URL=http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ]http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm [/URL] Gun control[/QUOTE] Why yes, yes it does make sense to install large scale gun control, therebye lessening the chance of incidents like [u][url=http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4299082&nav=0qq6]this[/url][/u] or [u][url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10642024/]this[/url][/u] or even [u][url=http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15843270&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6]this[/url][/u]. Oh, and the NRA sucks. [quote=gunguys.com] In Florida, a man chased another man down and stabbed him in the back, killing him. Before he was charged, authorities considered letting him go completely free. In Colorado, Gary Lee Hill fired on from behind and killed John Knott as Knott drove away from Hill?s house, and a jury acquitted him on all charges. Sound like a strange, dystopian picture of a lawless future? Welcome to America at the end of 2005. The culprit in all of this is the NRA?s ?shoot first? law. Passed earlier this year in Florida (and in other states around the country before and after that), the law removes the responsibility of those threatened to avoid violence at all costs. In short, it makes murder legal. A victim no longer has the responsibility to back down, well, ever. In the Florida case, the victim walked two blocks away and then stabbed his original attacker in the back. In Colorado, Knott was very clearly leaving the area, and Gary Lee Hill chased him down and shot him in the back and got off scot free (even the sponsor of the bill there called the law he helped create ?a miscarriage of justice?). This law is a ?license to murder,? and, thanks to the NRA?s tireless efforts to make this country as dangerous as possible, it?s coming to a state near you. Like, for example, Wyoming. Wyoming could both ease legal restrictions on the use of deadly force and allow more citizens to carry concealed weapons under measures some lawmakers are pushing in the coming legislative session. Reps. Stephen Watt, R-Rock Springs, and Mick Powers, R-Lyman, are sponsoring a measure that would put Wyoming in the ranks of ?no-retreat? states. In addition to specifying that Wyoming citizens have no duty to try to escape before using deadly force against assailants, their bill would specify that a person has a right to assume that anyone breaking into his home poses a deadly threat in most instances. ?It expands when you can use deadly force,? Watt said of his bill. He said he?s sponsoring the measure because he believes people have a fundamental right to protect themselves. ?Right now, it?s very subjective to a county attorney?s whims,? Watt said of state law on self defense. Eric Johnson, assistant professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, also serves as faculty director of the university?s prosecution assistance program ? a clinic where law students provide assistance to prosecutors ? and he sees problems with the ?no retreat? proposal. ?It?s not that I want people to have to walk away with their tails between their legs,? Johnson said. ?It?s a concern that this could be misused by people who are clearly culpable, to create reasonable doubt in a case in which they?re clearly at fault.? Mike Krampner, a Casper criminal defense lawyer, said it?s established fact that most break-ins are committed by people intent only on stealing property. ?There is a respectable school of thought that the human life, no matter how depraved, is worth more than any amount of property, and that we ought not to encourage summary execution for attempted theft,? Krampner said. And yet that?s exactly what this law is. Someone steal your pudding pop in first grade? Go shoot them, because they attacked you, and you have a right to fight back. Someone accidentally open the door to your apartment? Chase them down and end their life. Someone use your driveway to turn around? That?s trespassing? they must die! Sound scary? It is, and yet the NRA is behind it full throttle. They?ve promised to bring this law to all fifty states, including yours. This isn?t a theory, or a dire warning about something that might happen under the right circumstances. This is happening, has already happened. Gary Lee Hill is a killer walking free, because this law has already passed in Colorado. ?Shoot first? is insane, and if common sense and standard human decency has anything to say about it, the NRA?s pleas to pass it will fall on deaf ears. ?Shoot first? is a license to murder, and nothing like that belongs in any state, much less all fifty. [/quote][/size]

[quote name='Avenged666fold']Well I personally am a christian and the post before this one were looking at life through an athiestic view but if you want my real oppinion this life is all about meeting god becoming sinless by asking his son who died for fogiveness then work as hard as you can for him. This does not mean youll never sin again but if you try your best and follow god your life will be worth it and you will go to heaven. but if you do'nt follow god your just as much a world killer as the people who ripped open the ozone layer your goal while necissarily known to you is to deastory this planet and all its life and all its souls. So basically life is about meeting and folling god in my oppinion.[/quote][size=1] Jesus loves punctuation. God loves good-spellers! Bad luck mate. As far as close-minded goes, that post gets 9/10. Believing in a God has very little to do with the moral quality of the life that you lead. Some of the worst people in the history of the world [and a large [i]and[/i] small scale] have been highly religious. Yet they were wrong. And I'd love it if you could pick a side and stay on. First, you seem to be moping about the fact that there is nothing beyond what is, and no point in living, and now you're a Christian who wants us all to say our prayers and go to Sunday School, so we can live forever. Either way you're wrong, but please make up your damn mind. Nice pic Brasil.[/size]

[size=1]No reason to live life to the fullest now, if there is no later reward? Your reward [i]is that you made the most of what may well be all that there is[/i]. If you want to ***** and moan your way through life, that is your choice. But if this is truly all there is, why the hell should you waste all that you are, just because it has an end? If you're that bloody miserable and self-engrossed, do everyone around you a favour and sacrifice any hope of eternity. You know what I mean. There doesn't need to be any eternity. Could there be? Who knows. But in lieu of further information about what happens when you die, the best possible way to live your life is [i]to live it well[/i]. Does it matter if all that happens when you die is that maggots eat you? No. We, as of this moment, are [probably] individual cogniscent beings who, for lack of any greater purpose, exist only to further our own interests, and have a good time doing it.[/size]

[size=1]Hold your horses, you only started it a few days ago, lol. This 'Stepping' thing sounds fairly obscure and strange anyway. I've never heard of it, myself. What is it exactly?[/size]

[size=1]Nonetheless, without intervention of some sort, most people are here on this planet for what is a reasonably lengthy amount of time. We want to make it as enjoyable and comfy as possible, don't we? Does whatever happens afterwards really have any bearing on how we should act in the here and now? Whatever will happen is unavoidable - all that we should really bother concerning ourselves with is the here and now. Why this urge for immortality, real or imagined? Accept life for what it is, why does there need to be meaning beyond that?[/size]

[size=1]Damn Gavin, excellent work here. I'm not a big reader of the Anthology, but the thread title intrigued me, and boy am I glad that I read it. Your humour is fine-tuned; some of it is a bit over the top, but generally it rides the perfect balance between real life and ridiculousity [:p], which is where all good parodies should reside. All of the characters are recognisable, and some of the lines are just so perfectly placed, it's really impressive. Nice writing ^_^[/size]

[size=1]To put it quite simply, some of the turn-out was pretty pathetic, and disappointing. Nonetheless, good work [b]Lotuses[/b]. *cough* Even if Des did screw up in his post. No large communities of Clefairy, lol. Can only be one.[/size]

[size=1]"Oh, the criminals will get guns anyway, you're safer if you own a gun" True, true. But lets have a look at shootings a bit, shall we? You either shoot someone in cold-blood, or warm-blood, right? Those who shoot in cold-blood are generally the criminals who want something. These people will probably already have a gun, and basically, will get you no matter what. You won't be expecting it. They have the advantage of surprise, and they are willing to kill you over it. It is premeditated, and they have already made the commitment to shoot you if they need to. On the other hand you have people who kill in a fit of anger. Generally [b]not[/b] criminals, generally just a regular person. Who is really angry. And hey, guess what, in the US this person has a gun! Which, because of it's immediate accessibility, reduces any chance of calming down over a period of time! Which leads to more rage-spurred shootings! Excellent, hey? The thing is, whilst you all think that owning the guns makes you safer, it doesn't. Australia has gun control laws, and so the circulation of guns is relatively low. People don't walk around, scared of being shot. Because, whilst it does happen, it isn't a regular occurrence by [b]any[/b] means. I urge all of you to visit [u][url=http://www.gunguys.com/]this site[/url][/u]. See what you think of shootings then. The 'necessity' for guns is ********. [/size]

[size=1]Crash got back to his feet and looked around the now empty chamber. Sighing heavily, he put his arms above his head snd stretched as far as he could. He was so sore, and so tired from the day's exertions. He was going to be in a lot of pain whenever he woke up after the challenge. Ariados was still standing at the entrance to the chamber, but it stepped aside as Crash walked past. Following him down the tunnel to the central cavern, it suddenly chittered, and extended one long foreleg to tap Crash on the shoulder. "What is it? Another pokemon?" Crash asked, as Ariados waved it's legs at a side tunnel. Crash hefted two pokeballs, and uncertainly walked forward into the dark tunnel. Torches ensconced at irregular intervals in the other tunnel and main chambers were good enough to see by, yet this tunnel had nothing, nothing at all. Crash's eyes gradually adjusted, but only to the degree that he could see walls just before he bumped into them. Crash fumbled in his jacket pocket, and pulled out his pokedex. Once again, he used the screen's glow to see in the dark. Something glinted low to the ground, before disappearing from sight. Crash looked closer and saw a small snake kind of creature, bruwwoing frantically backwards, whilst spitting and hissing at him like a thousand kettles on the boil. Crash quickly threw a pokeball at it, but misjudged his aim and it bounced off the wall, just as the creature disappeared into a hole in the rock. "Damnit" cursed Crash, punching the wall in anger. He had been so close! He pulled out Feraligator's ball, and released it. "Open up that small burrow in the wall there I need to capture the little.... bastard that got away!" Feraligator hefted it's massive tail and spun, thumping the wall loudly. Cracks appeared in several places. Another crash and pieces began to fall off. Then, sticking it's massive claws into the burrow entrance, Feraligator exerted it's massive strength, prising the hole apart, as larger pieces of rock crumbled off the wall. Eventually, a large chunk of rock fell off the wall, and the pokemon's makeshift burrow was exposed. Crash quickly threw both pokeballs into the burrow, and with a flash of red light one of them was suddenly fully. "Congratulations. You Have Just Captured A Dunsparce. Th..." Crash pressed the Skip button. God, it was beautiful.[/size]

[size=1]Of course, how could I forget about the names of my dual weapons? Logically, I chose the ultimate combination: Salt & Pepper.[/size]

[size=1]I am 16 years old, enjoy plays and cooking, and long walks on the beach... No but honestly... OK. I hate cooking, whatever. Anyway, I've been here since the 23rd of May 2003. Not yet an oldie, but well on my way [I think?]. I am like, way mature and cool, which is why I married myself. If you're smart and cool, you'll marry me too. No need to tell me about it though, if I bother to read your posts I'll probably see it in your signature [where it should be]. I'm not into anime, and not into Japan. What the hell am I doing here? Well, just about all I visit is the Lounge, Suggestions & Feedback, and the RP sections, and those only because I'm currently involved in some. I generally don't bother RPing. OB has been a pretty major part of who I am for these last few years; I like to think that I have grown because of it. Or maybe I was just always this awesome, who knows. P34CE LOVE HOMIEZ!![/size]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]I think we will continue to have some kind of user agreement, but my intention is to scrap the vB agreement and write my own. It'll be a lot shorter, a lot simpler and will be tougher to avoid. I have some ideas about how we can redesign registration in our own way, by having a three-step process or something...it sounds like a lot, but it would hopefully be faster than what we have now. The idea would just be to help filter out the people who really aren't going to post with the kind of quality we're hoping for here. Unfortunately we (and most forums) still contain a lot of the regular vB stuff. And that's fine, because it's all relevant to us...but I really want to scrap all of the default vB bits and write everything specifically for OB. I think that will make things a lot more logical.[/font][/QUOTE] [size=1]Nonetheless, OB is the most 'hacked' and unique forum I have come across. Of all the forums I have seen it is the furthest removed from the default layout and setup. Which deserves props to both designer and coder [loveya Justin!] Can't wait to see the new OB, whenever it happens.[/size]

[size=1]There never has been, nor will there ever be, any name better for a sword than the two I am about to mention. 1) Skullsplitter 2) Spine Eater Everything else pales in comparison to those names. Seriously. And honestly, who fights with a staff anyway? Worthless weapon. But if you insist, I'd call it something like "Nancy-Boy" or whatever :p[/size]

[size=1]But come on, I hardly ever read the User Agreements. Unless it is something I am concerned about, I just click right on through. I've seen the same idea at another site, but I'm not really sure how effective it is. In the same amazing way that people can feel that p05t1NG lIEK tHis is acceptable despite all of the sensible and intelligible posts around them, people can look at every word and not read an ounce of it. It would be a funny idea to have a whole section of links embedded in the rules that you needed to click through for account activiation though. And then a test on said rules :p[/size]

[size=1]I think we're pretty well much sorted now persocomblues :) My final point I wish to make is that to my mind, OB's current system is fluid, and works fine as it is. We don't really place restrictions on entry, rather we place restrictions on continued access. And because of this, we give [i]everyone[/i] a chance to prove themselves. If this was a different and private forum, I think your method could work. But OB is an anime site, and as I mentioned earlier and as James said in his post, it is primarily composed of teenagers. And I have a suggestion. Perhaps there should be a written test for joining OB, same as for joining some RPGs :P[/size]

[size=1]The problem with restricting people based upon what we'll call 'outside' criteria is that it is only a general statement. Hence, rather than looking at those you are restricting, take a look at those who you are letting in. They fit the necessary 'outside' criteria mentioned, but there is no guarantee that they will be any better than those who weren't granted access. The likelihood is that older people will have more grounded and intelligent ideas to cntribute to a discussion. The reality is that many 'children' may also have much to contribute, and that some adults won't have anything worthwhile to contribute. And if a barrier somehow lets in some unworthy people, and blocks some worthy people, it isn't an effective barrier. Due to the nature of internet relations [and again, difficulty in age verification], a fluid barrier is what is needed, to weed out the 'bad' members as effectively as possible, with no other discrimination. Because really, that is what you're suggesting. Discrimination and prejudice based on criteria, which whilst they [i]may[/i] have an effect on the person's behaviour, are not guaranteed to produce a certain outcome. I'm not saying discrimination and prejudice in the usual buzzword-dropping fever some people do either. Obviously, even by filtering out those with bad posts, we are supporting a form of discrimination. However, you're considering doing this on a level which is ineffective and unwarranted. As a forum, we want intelligent posts and stuff like that, but the criteria you think are worthy of being used as parsers [whilst I agree, often affecting their behaviour] do not always do so. There used to be a regular here who was [i]ten[/i]. I was blown away when I found out. He always seemed like a really intelligent and thoughtful person. By your take on accessibility, he wouldn't have been allowed here. Of course, you get a lot of younger people who spam and flame and whatever. But you know what? If they don't get banned [which not all that many people do] then they generally shape up quite well. As an internet forum, it is a fact that we allow for some degree of growth in maturity. The problem with taking the 'strict' controls you consider is that not only can you not apply them to an internet forum, but that they aren't all that effective. They would weed out a lot of problems, but not all, and they would block a lot of good people. And with that other clarification thing, you said basically that freedom = uncontrolled, yet that control = freedom. But controlled /=/ uncontrolled, lol. Thats where the problem lies. We define freedom and openness differently [I don't think it has to be, or should be, Anarchy] yet you then agreed with my definition of freedom, heh. Indicators are all well and good, but they aren't definite, just a guide. And at that, a guide that has the potential to let in bad things, and keep out good ones, which kind of knocks out it's foundations. Your arguments aren't offbase or illogical, aside from the fact that they aren't definite. The only definite way to [B]make sure[/B] that spammers don't get a foothold is to let everybody in, and weed out the spammers individually. It's not like there are massive influxes of them or anything, heh. Sure, those 'outisde' factors do generally [that word again!] affect people's behaviour, but it isn't definite. You want to discriminate entry based on criteria which quite possibly have nothing to do with our goals. I see where you're coming from, but I think this just boils down [as you said] to our approach. As I see it mine is most effective. A small amount more work for any moderating system, but it is more accurate than yours. Yours has less volume of work for any moderating system, but the point is that you're blocking those who might match your goals [these being intelligence, maturity etc.].[/size]

[size=1]I'm not sure if Cafepress does daily calendar type things, but I think there are several sites out there of the same vein. Basically, you get the design and organise stuff like that, and when people want to buy one, they order it through the site, who then make the product. The customer pays for the producing costs through their purchase, and the site takes a bit off the top [I guess] for fees and such. And you get the rest, without having to buy your own printing facilities :) And I think these comics are good enough for a daily calendar. Everyone needs a laugh. They are good stuff Gavin.[/size]