AzureWolf

[COLOR=blue]Correct, ChemAngel. The father of chemistry, Paracelsus, was a 15th century alchemist who was doing something with medicine. I don't remember exactly what he was trying to do, but it was definitely something with medicine, which is why medicine is given credit in some way.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]It's not that older stories are necessarily better, but that since they are old stories and have stood the test of time, they are definitely worth your time picking up. If you hear of a book that's 1000 years old, you can bet that it was worth mentioning. If an all-time book was written right now, it's value probably wouldn't be fully realized until it stays around for as long as the Odyssey or something. Also, when it comes to books and the like, people are very hesitant to accept anything current as the next big thing. I don't know entirely why, but that's just the way book...persons(?) are.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]It's more than likely absolutely incapable of walking, which would also explain why all the pictures are of it sitting down. And it's not an android like the Ghost in the Shell characters: it's just an extremely simplistic robot covered with silicone. Seriously, it's nothing special. Figure a few generic computer parts internally, and an overly flashy exterior with no real substance. Making something [B]look[/B] human is easy, but making it move like a human is the tough part. I think the mechanical dance partner that teaches you how to dance was more impressive than this, even if the exterior wasn't as convincing.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]It seems counter-intuitive to say that what you eat has nothing to do with it, and then prescribe oral medication... But I really don't know. IMO, what you eat probably does have some influence (however little), but maybe a bad diet is not the primary cause of most acne cases. Everyone - and every acne case - is different, so what works for one person might not work for another. Whatever the case, you'll probably go through several things before you find the right treatment for you. Personally, I just waited the acne out. After puberty, all zits pretty much left, thank God.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]I promised someone else that I'd make a banner for him/her, but things have gotten quite busy for me as of late. However, I'm willing to take up your banner as well if you are willing to be patient. ^^; I have to make one before I can start yours. I'm also very honored that you kept my banner for this long! ^^[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Just so everything's fair, shouldn't you not have pictures that put one character in better light than the other? Like here, you have a profile shot of Helba, while you have a collage of Nyu/Lucy. I doubt anyone is influenced, but if someone's not familiar with the other character and they have a terrible picture, it's not going to be fair. I'm not all that fond of Helba anyway, so don't think I'm saying this out of spite. Just a friendly suggestion, heh.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]pdf's are great for things like music and other documents because they can never be edited. Sure, you can have the non-pdf version of a file, edit that, and then convert to a pdf, but when you do that, the original creator can prove that that isn't the version or pdf he/she gave. Once it's a pdf, you are safe in knowing that the document you submitted will not be tampered with. So, if you give something to a website, no one is going to play around with it. Senny always sends all his pictures to me in pdf form, although I'm not sure why. O_o I'm not a criminal, Senny! Anyway, to answer your question, Chabichou, you normally need Adobe Acrobat to make pdf's (Acrobat makes pdf's and costs money, but Reader lets you view pdf's and is free), but people have made free pdf programs. [url=http://www.download.com/3120-20_4-0-1-0.html?qt=create+pdf&author=&titlename=&desc=&dlcount=&daysback=&swlink=&gfiletype=&os=&li=49&dlsize=&ca=]Check out this page and make your choice on which one you want to use[/url].[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Hey Kato! The discussion didn't really die so much as we ended up talkiing about multiples aspects of the show. When we did that, it became harder to retain focus and make a coherent post (at least for me). Doing the titles helped, but it doesn't feel like a complete post until you write on the topic of each title, heh. Anyway, if we did things one-by-one, I imagine the discussion would still have been active and more fleshed-out right now. ^^ 1. I don't really agree with your idea, if only because [SPOILER]the same thing happened to that one Haibane guy who tried to climb the wall. I think she just felt that way because she touched the wall, not because she was remembering how she felt when she died[/SPOILER]. (correct me if I'm wrong, since it's been far too long since I last watched it) I still wonder if [SPOILER]Rakka committed suicide or just died while not having the will to live[/SPOILER]. I'm leaning towards the latter because of the Sin-Bound ideas we've talked of before, heh. 2. Yeah, Lore's halo thing blew my mind. I never put much thought into them either until she brought it up, haha. 3. You know what's sad? I can't even remember what I thought about the whole Sin-Bound thing anymore. I have to argue, though, that [SPOILER]Rakka and Reki are different in that respect, as Reki comes into Gaihe (Glie?) sin-bound and Sara becomes sin-bound[/SPOILER]. There has to be a distinction in the matter, and [SPOILER]Rakka remembers her dream[/SPOILER], so I don't think [SPOILER]Rakka committed suicide. Rather, she just refuses to accept the forgiveness that's already bestowed on her, and becomes sin-bound[/SPOILER]. Bleh, it's elaborated better in one of these posts - sorry. ^^; But the [SPOILER]full angel and real halo[/SPOILER] are new ideas. Quite interesting, especially if you consider how we can analyze why [SPOILER]they have wings that - if they do become full-fledged angels - grow while the real halo could be more ancient "shining light" version. That is, originally, the halo was merely a light that was visible [i]all around[/i] a person's head, and only in later art does it become the more tangible circle of light [i]surrounding[/i] a person's head. To put it simply, maybe the brilliant light one sees on the Day of Flight is that real halo[/SPOILER]? Interesting. ^^[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]There's only one way to settle it, and that's finding the exact quote and where it's stated. Why? Because I just watched all of FMA and I'm 99% sure there was no such discussion between Ed and Al like that. Not once did either of them try to explain why Al can still use Alchemy. I think it was not so much because it was a plothole as just something that didn't need to be explained. And again, I think that "you need a soul to perform alchemy" is just the general conclusion people come to because of the homunculi. However, it's never explicitly stated. As Wrath even says in your quote, [SPOILER]Ed's arm and leg have no soul[/SPOILER]. So, if we go with the belief that [SPOILER]Wrath can do alchemy[/SPOILER] is a plothole, then yes, the idea that one needs a soul to perform alchemy is indeed plausible. However, if we were to go with another notion, that [SPOILER]Wrath being able to do alchemy[/SPOILER] is NOT a plothole, then the soul idea is not plausible in the least. So if it's never stated why the homunculi can't do alchemy and humans can, what do I think matters? Simply put, [SPOILER]you need something from this side of the gate. Al's soul is from the side of the gate that performs alchemy. Ed's arms and legs are from the same side of the gate. The homunculi are from the other side of the gate, and so can't perform alchemy. Get what I mean? The best way they can confirm this is by showing in the movie a person coming into the alchemical world from the other side. I hope the movie does that, heh.[/SPOILER] :p[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Having watched the entire show, I don't recall at any point them mentioning that [SPOILER]a person needed a soul to perform alchemy[/SPOILER]. However, [SPOILER]Hohenheim does say that all alchemy performed derives it's spiritual energy from the other side of the gate by taking a life[/SPOILER].[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]How feasible is a "Allow Only People on my Friend's List to access myO" option? I've been getting some stupid and off-topic comments on my blog, so I'm grateful to have the delete feature, but those one-word comments are starting to bug me nonetheless.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]I feel the same way Solo does about this anime. It was great, and it kept you interested, but you can only do the same thing so many times before it gets tedious. While you always knew Yugi and friends would come out on top, it was [i]the way[/i] they would come out on top that kept you watching. So, whenever Yugi or Joey got in a jam, you didn't think, "OMG! They are going to lose!" but "I wonder how they are going to pull this one off." Alas, you can only get so creative before repeating the same thing. Sure, they made people lose here and there to shock you, but after so much repetition and extremely fleshed-out matches, you didn't care. Too little, too late. But there's one thing that interests me about Yugioh that doesn't exist in any other anime or show. They actually emphasize fate over free will, which is quite a surprise in this day and age. Our generation is all the same when it comes down to ethics and morals, so it was a refreshing thing to see a change of pace. Of course, because the themes are not at the forefront, Yugioh doesn't really create a lot of stir. *shrugs* Anyway, it was interesting at first, but it started to repeat, and never ended.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Guess what I did this Memorial Day Weekend. ^^ Going back to the plotholes, the only big one that I remember being brought up was [SPOILER]Wrath being able to perform alchemy[/SPOILER]. Usually it's Ed who comes up with the scheme or mechanism, but this time around, it was Alphonse, so that might explain why people consider it an unexplained plothole. Afterall, who listens to Al? =P Anyway, [SPOILER]Wrath obtained Ed's arm and leg. Wrath also is all-too familiar with the Gate. You can tell that he remembers the gate probably more clearly than any human, as he goes crazy when Dante summons it and he sees it. His exposure to the gate, along with him having genuine human parts instead of artificial limbs, are more than enough to explain how Wrath is able to use alchemy. Al points out that Wrath creates a circle in a similar fashion to Ed using those limbs. I imagine he doesn't need to strike his hands together because of his greater familiarity with the Gate. In addition, Ed later mentions how he can manipulate a homunculus' body with alchemy because they are not the same as humans. So, while all the homunculi have seen the gate, but none have the human component necessary to perform alchemy. Also, Hohenheim mentions how all the homunculi know everything about alchemy, but can't perform it[/SPOILER]. As far as his "nonsense alchemy" goes, [SPOILER]there are a variety of alchemical styles, like the Flame Alchemist's style (he can manipulate flames without his gloves - he just can't create the fire without them), and so an untrained person who knows everything about alchemy probably wouldn't use it in a graceful fashion[/SPOILER]. I really have to say, there's a lot FMA has that you miss out on in the first sitting. It was quite the treat to watch the show again with foresight and see how much material I was skipping or ignoring. Not a bit of dialogue, subtle gesture, or carefully-planned panorama is a waste, even though that's the impression you get the first time around. Even when you find out later, you just don't remember or link the two for whatever reason. While I enjoyed FMA more watching it the first time, I appreciated its grace more watching it the second time.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]I found where the screenshot was taken from: Episode 38, about 5 minutes into the episode. I'll take a screenshot sometime this week and see if I can improve on it any better than it is there - unless of course you've already done the printing. And if I can do better with my screenshot, I'll post the screenshot here for anyone else to try.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Cap'n][spoiler']why didn't Jiraiya just lay the smack down on those body guards??[/spoiler][/quote] [COLOR=blue]Jiraiya mentions why he didn't. [SPOILER]The mission is top secret, so he can't tell anyone about it, and not only that, if any ninja jutsu's are used, then it gives away that there are ninjas not from Hidden Sound around the Rice Country.[/SPOILER] Not that I'm saying that's the best excuse, but yeah, that's why.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Here's my try at the thing. It would be helpful if you could tell us which episode the screenshot is from so we can try capture a better raw image to work with. ^^ [url=http://home.earthlink.net/~azurwolf/images/Version-1.jpg]Version 1[/url] Version 2 is attached[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]*Enjoys Sara's use of "site" instead of "sight"* I'll follow suit. :p I just want to add that while I do think there is such a thing as love at first site, I have to add that there are other things people can see at first site. So, you could say people tend to confuse lust, obsession, and "just an interesting person" with what love at first site is. Of course, I'm not saying anyone else is perceptive enough to tell the difference either.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Dyslexia! I tend to do that sometimes to. Anyway, your wallpaper is 1[U][B]20[/B][/U]4 x 768. The size requirement is 1[U][B]02[/B][/U]4 x 768. Hope that fixes things. :p[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]*reads boxybrown's comment* Pokemon... XD That's priceless. I have to go with the animated porn insult. That's the worst one in my book. The moment people know you like anime, they think you are into animated porn. It's not even like, if you watch movies, they think you are into porno movies. I doubt the demographic is that bad that most anime fans are hentai fans. I'm not arguing about the validity of porn or hentai, but I don't think there's a strong correlation with anime and hentai to warrant an immediate connection, such that if a person watches anime, he most certainly enjoys hentai.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Why is it necessary to press START or SELECT at all during the boss? If you don't do that, there won't be any problem, right? Also, I bet later versions of the game fixed the bug, so if you can somehow trade your copy in for a new one, the glitch most likely won't be there. I'm pretty sure they update console games just like they update computer games, just that only people who buy the games later on enjoy these updates.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']I have a question in regards to diet. If you want to lose weight, is a diet consisting mainly of vegetables a good idea? Everyone talks about low carb diets, but I know vegetables definitly have carbs. So what is the best diet? Low fat or low carb?[/COLOR][/quote] [COLOR=blue]I haven't the slightest clue, but here's what I know. Vegatables tend to take twice as much energy to digest than they give. The cellulose shell makes it harder for your body to extract the nutrients, so in an effort to grab those nutrients from the undigestable cell wall, more enzymes and hormones are secreted and produced. Vegetables don't have [i]that[/i] many carbohydrates, especially when you compare them to things like fruits, which are almost exclusively carbs. Also, what types of fats you eat are important. You don't want to eat trans or saturated fats. Those are the most stable types of fats and therefore the hardest to breakdown (and therefore the longest lasting). Trans and saturated do mean what they mean in chemistry, so it should come as no surprise. However, if you plan on dieting for an extended period of time (months), I would not recommend going off fats. A small portion of fat everyday is a good thing. It really all comes down to the calories, so even if you ingest a bit of fat in place of a large amount of carbs, the carlorie amount is the same and you will have the same dietary result. Anyway, if you go off fats for an extended period, your liver will experience atrophy (inactivity), since it does not need to produce things like bile. This can (and does) lead to problems later on. Also, if you are strict with your dietary regimen at the beginning, you will see a markedly loss at the beginning. Something like losing two pounds in two or three days, and it will be very noticeable. People take this as a good sign and celebrate or reward themselves with more food since they can afford it. [B]Do not do this![/B] There is an immediate glycogen reserve, which is a more accessible form of storage than fats and is the first thing used when energy levels are low. The size of this glycogen reserve is about 1 kg (2.2 lbs?), and lasts less than 24 hours when someone experiences starvation. Anyway, you will see a quick loss in weight, but if you reward yourself at the beginning, that lost weight will return (glycogen reserve is quick to recover after a meal). This tends to make people depressed, and quit. Working out is easier to stick to than changing your meal plan. However, if you can manage both, you'll lose weight faster. Dieting alone is tough, since your body will increasingly refuse to lose weight the farther you progress (a survival mechanism). Hope that helps.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Bloodseeker']Interesting note considering diets... scientific studies have been done that reveal that people on diets tend to have a habbit of gorging of themselves if they get off their diet even a little bit.[/quote] [COLOR=blue]The thing about dieting is that you have to not only reduce your caloric intake, but you also have to change foods almost completely. When a person eats something that is (for lack of a better word) nostalgic to him/her, his/her body does not become satisfied until the usual amount is ingested. So, if you plan on dieting, you don't have to abandon everything you've ever eaten, but you'll have to eat those things less frequently because you'll have a hard time satisfying yourself with a smaller amount.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]You are reading more than what I wrote, James. In fact, you [B]STILL[/B] missed the entire point of my murder analogy. Please, PLEASE, [B]PLEASE[/B] do not read beyond what I have said. Worse, you are now deviating even more from the point by not only further delving into enforcement, but punishment as well. You don't even reach two sentences before misinterpretation: [quote name='James]By using the example of murder, you're trying to draw a comparison here.[/QUOTE] No, you are absolutely ignoring/misunderstanding my point. I clarified this before: [QUOTE]I was using the murder analogy because people can immediately agree that it's something that should be illegal. That was the [STRESS][B]only[/B][/STRESS'] reason I was using it. Extreme or not, I think it worked well to illustrate the logical fallacy on your side of the argument.[/quote] I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Murder is something where everyone agrees that it should be illegal. If there is a comparison, it is seeing how your "it can't be enforced" argument stands when applied to anything else. Your argument works equally well with both murder and incest - that is, not in the least. The only difference is that the silliness is clearly shown when you apply it to something as extreme as murder, but is well-masked when you talk about incest. There is no similarity between the two (I never said there was!), except that one is illegal and another is a candidate for becoming illegal. If there is a linking thread between the two, it is merely how poorly your argument about "it can't be enforced" works. I'm surprised at how complicated my murder analogy seems, lol. Maybe being abstract would be better so no pointless tangents can be made? How's this: an event exists that all people find horrid and unacceptable in society, and everyone agrees it should be illegal. However, it's (seemingly) impossible to enforce. This is a more simplistic hypothetical example, and we'll call the event "Event X." That?s it, no other properties of Event X are known or defined, so there?s no ?harm to another? :rolleyes:. Afterall, there are things that are illegal but do not cause harm to another person, so I think Event X is a fine way to explain things (hopefully). Is Event X something as harmless as j-walking, or as extreme as murder? That's undefined! Only the properties that it should be illegal and is impossible to enforce are defined. Now, use Event X in all the places I've mentioned murder before, and I think my point will be clearer.[quote name='James]My argument is that you have no right to tell two consenting adults that they can't have sex. That is none of your business, nor should it be the business of the state.[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume you mean consentual sex in this case, as (again, whether you like it or not) rape is indeed a form of (forced) sex. [QUOTE=James]... The distinctions are important. The entire legal system is based on these distinctions.[/QUOTE] Yes, the distinctions are important, but in this case, you are only using one leverage point to make something illegal or legal: consent. Everything you've stated hinges on consent (and "harm to another"), with no support as to why that should be the determining factor. Well, you use the current state of sex-related legislation as support instead of meaningful reasoning. Legal and right are not synonymous, though, so I actually look forward to bringing up STDs when you supply some foundation. [QUOTE']The point about going in by proxy seems silly to me. So...what, the government is going to go in under different circumstances and hope that they find something related to incest? Or...people are going to spy on their neighbours and call the cops if they think incestual sex is going on? C'mon now.[/quote]This is what the problem is. You keep bringing up enforcement, and even talked about degrees of punishment. I'm glad you believe they are instrinsically linked, but again, all these arguments bear their pointlessness (in this discussion) when you look at something like Event X. You are [B]saying[/B], just because it seems like people's private lives are going to be invaded by enforcement (which it doesn't have to be), that it shouldn't be illegal. On the other hand, if (as you have said) that is not what you [B]mean[/B], then drop this very moot (and poor) point already. And people's private lives don't have to be invaded for something to become illegal! Things like Event X (which can't be enforced) should still be illegal, even if there is no way to enforce it. You have yet to provide any reason why incest should remain legal aside from your enforcement complaint (which just doesn't work and should be as good as dead now). The only other reason you supply is that the government should not interfere in people's private consentual sex lives: [quote name='James']My argument isn't that we shouldn't make something illegal because it's difficult to enforce (read: virtually impossible to enforce, thus making the law itself somewhat redundant). My argument is that you have no right to tell two consenting adults that they can't have sex. That is none of your business, nor should it be the business of the state.[/quote] This reason is a bit more sound. If this is your claim, though, back it up with support. Why should the government have no [B]input[/B] (!!! NOT ENFORCEMENT - INPUT aka LEGISLATION !!!) on the affairs of people's sex lives? I'll reiterate it: we are not talking about enforcement, but merely acts that already should not be practiced. In my eyes, making incest illegal would just be common sense being written up. To others, I guess it's not so obvious and paranoia sets in, lol. To emphasize, I'll say it once more: enforcement should not be a concern to make things illegal, but instead can be considered later on. In fact, people do refrain from illegal activities even if they are not enforced. If you are going to argue that 100% of the crimes won't be detected, which crime - enforced or not - has that? lol [quote name='James]I know that I'll never convince you that it shouldn't be illegal, in the same way that I'll never convince Mnemolth that homosexuality and beastiality are totally different. We are coming from two very different angles, which I understand.[/QUOTE] Not with that attitude and the arguments you supplied. Also, there are similarities between homosexuality and beastiality (and heterosexuality and rape and...), but that's going off-topic. [QUOTE=James']But if two cousins at a farm are having sex in the barn yard? Why is that any of my business? It isn't; it has nothing to do with me. I'm not interested in their sexual practices, lol.[/quote] You've said "I don't care about other people and future generations" in other threads before. How many times are you going to post "oh what a silly thing for anyone to care about? lol"? I find it both rude and hypocritical, so I would appreciate it if you didn't do it anymore. If you really don't care, you don't have to post for the sake of belittling a topic. Afterall, how many ground-breaking, revolutionary, or influential threads are there at OB? Absolutely zero, as this is a place for discussion and leisure, not for useful material and world-changing widgets.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]You are reading more than what I wrote, James. In fact, you missed the entire point of my murder analogy. In a similar misunderstanding, you are assuming that I said you agree with rape and murder. Please, do not read beyond what I have said. I was using the murder analogy because people can immediately agree that it's something that should be illegal. That was the [B]only[/B] reason I was using it. Extreme or not, I think it worked well to illustrate the logical fallacy on your side of the argument. I was showing that if one followed that flow of logic, then one can say anything that cannot be enforced should not be illegal (and HYPOTHETICALLY used murder as an example). Hence, HYPOTHETICAL murder clearly shows why "you can't enforce it" is poor support for not making incest illegal. If you truly are not confusing law with law enforcement, then why bring up the latter at all? How something gets enforced should be a concern [i]after[/i] something becomes illegal. Enforcement, ideally, should not be a determining factor in whether something becomes illegal. See my murder analogy for further elaboration - inability to enforce should not stop something from being illegal. And again, illegal is illegal. You fail to explain the relevance of making a distinction between types of crimes. And this whole notion about keeping the government out of the bedroom is still trite unless you can explain how your double standard can be implemented (i.e., if it's rape, then you are allowed to know about someone's sex life, but if it's not, then you are not). [QUOTE]But if two adult cousins are having sex in their own house, am I going to go in there and prosecute them? I think that's ridiculous. You are taking two adults and you are telling them that they don't have the right to make a choice about their sex lives - you are effectively legislating sexual acts.[/QUOTE] You also fail to explain what is so wrong about legislating sexual acts. You keep talking about how it's some sacred, above-the-law situation, but at the same time, you wave a banner against rape. Whether you like it or not, rape is a sexual act, which has been forbidden by law. Sexual acts have been legislated. You can put rape in other categories as well, but again, one of the categories it falls into is a sexual act, regardless of it's "harm to another" element. [QUOTE]Nobody is saying that if a murder occurs in a bedroom that it shouldn't be prosecuted or investigated. That's just asenine. And it totally misunderstands everything I've been saying here thusfar. When I talk about "in the bedroom", I'm talking about sexual acts between two consenting adults. I am not talking about murder or rape or any other crime where one person is preying on another.[/QUOTE] This is what I'm talking about. If the government is to not interfere in sexual behaviors of people, how are things like rape going to be discovered? Do they check and then forget about things if they aren't rape? When you answer that question, it goes back to something I said earlier about murder: [QUOTE]If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means.[/QUOTE] While it's certainly great incest doesn't do harm to another person (but to society as a whole), I still see no reason to NOT make it illegal.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=blue]Don't confuse "law" with "law enforcement." It's [B]law[/B] that a person on a subway purchase a ticket, but it is [B]enforced[/B] by random inspections. I really think you are overdramatizing the whole privacy issue. There are a ton of cases where, without ever being in a place, a crime was discovered and the culprit was apprehended and punished. Also, suspcious activity - even if it takes place in the bedroom - is a good enough reason to enforce a law, or at least to look into matters. Just as much as sex can take place in any private setting, so can things like murder. This creates a problem if the government is just going to turn a blind eye. The current logic you are employing is that if a murder happens inside a bedroom, there should be nothing done about it (or there can't be anything done about it). Afterall, it's their bedroom and the privacy of their bedroom is certainly impossible to circumvent. If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means. Regardless of this logical flaw, enforcement is not the issue at hand. It's absolutely irrelevant to what becomes a law. Hypothetically, if there was no way to enforce life protection (i.e., stopping people from killing one another), then by way of your logic, it might as well not be illegal. Hell, P2P was unstoppable at one time, and look at it now. Only after specific laws were created for it did (more) effective methods of enforcement come into play. Just because there appears no way to maintain privacy and law enforcement doesn't mean that's the case. Also, there's the case of greater good at stake - but again, to talk about enforcement is to get off-topic. And a significant number of people will follow a law, even if it's not enforced. Some people even believe that following certain laws are necessary, even if you are 100% sure of not getting caught. If it's wrong, it should be illegal. Plain and simple. Maybe for people who do not reside in a society, we have no right to intervene, but even then...[/COLOR]