AzureWolf

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I think Dan Rugh and Solo hit the nail on the head. Ideally (i.e., it's impossible/impractical IRL), when a person runs, the only thing that should exert energy and resistance are the legs. If the person ran upright, his body would slowdown his speed and force him to apply more energy to the upper body (torso) AND create air drag. I think the arms are just a consequence of not using the muscles there. With how most ninja characters run, the most significant air drag would be from a collar (if they had one or didn't have a hat or something). However, the positioning of the upper body doesn't only provide aerodynamic support: it forces the body to become displaced (which forces the legs to keep stepping), creating a loop where the frequency of steps taken are increased. That's a bad thing, because every interaction with friction is a cost in both speed and energy. Also a bad thing, the amount of force exerted on your legs is significantly larger, since now the rest of the body isn't providing any type of equilibrating aid. I guess those cons weren't really considered - or at least that's what I think is the case. Otherwise, it's the ideal method to increase one's speed. A good example would be those equestrian races. Notice the position the jocks have on the horses: you'll notice the pros I mentioned are obtained in their stance, the one that looks eeriely similar to those in anime running ninjas.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]Here's the paragraph you chose to highlight, Azurewolf... First, let's get one thing straight. I'm not stupid. I read your post and know that you're not a Christian. All you told me to do was talk to a bishop, and that's what I'm referring to here, though that seems to have slipped by you. I'm sorry you misunderstood. As for me not addressing your comments, they consisted of you telling me to find a bishop and talk to him. My reply is that one must be like a child to get into heaven, which is in the bible (yes, I'll quote this for you) [I]Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.[/I] If you want to isolate any one of my ideas and ask where I found it in the bible, I can do that. I hope you understand better. If it helps, I will edit this post later with lots and lots of verses and my own interpretation, but it's 12:30 A.M. I believe I've cleared away half of your complaints though.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Wow, this post gives you even less validity than the last one. All I told you was to go to a bishop? Even if we did amuse that idea and agree that's the only thing I said :rolleyes:, what's wrong with that? Are you saying that your idea and concepts crumble apart when you converse with someone more knowledgeable than you on the topic at hand? Doesn't that essentially mean you don't have much of a point? And now, let's step back and actually look at what I wrote. To help you follow along with my post (which is pretty sad), I'll strike out what you addressed (even if your response was ridiculously weak).[QUOTE]Well, it sounds like you are some kind of Christian-Bhuddist hybrid. Hey, if you came up with all that Nirvana-esque philosophy all yourself, that's just awesome. However, I'm not seeing the point. Are you just questioning Christianity on certain points? Again, perfectly awesome to question a religion, but it sounds like you are just announcing your views on things and not really backing it up much. [strike]You could just go to your local bishop and ask them about their stance on reincarnation.[/strike] Christians don't believe it in, plain and simple (resurrection is different). Umm... yeah, there's really not much more to go on. If your logic on that stance is just, "Well, how can you know?" that's a moot point that can work either way. I can toss that argument right back at you: " How do you know we were born multiple times to different bodies?" [strike]Again, I think your local bishop has a better conceptual design supporting his view on it.[/strike] As for your ideas on the soul and the human body, I don't follow. A life is something a creature lives, not a soul. To say that someone's life began when their soul was supposedly created is really illogical. Now you have to explain how ethereal souls are bound to the same physical laws as corporeal bodies are, and yet, somehow, immune to a select few of those laws (i.e., death). And as for your idea that everything has a beginning and an ending, that's true for things bound to this dimension's physical laws, but can the same be said of other dimensions and of God? To say that God is Himself bound to what he created (in this case, time), is going to be hard to argue if you are using the Christian (and a few other) definitions of Him. To put it simply, God transcends time and space. [strike]As for the whole "Why did Jesus die?" thing, again, consult your local bishop about the relevance of his death to the Holy Trinity. My order of events for the Holy Trinity is hazy, since I'm not exactly a follower of the religion in question, but death is very important in the whole thing.[/strike][/QUOTE] Now, instead of generalizing things and making conclusions that are clearly false (at least I hope it's clear now), please address the issues I've addressed [B]that you brought up[/B].[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]Your arguments are based on how the Bible has been interpreted for a very long time, Azurewolf. More than once, we have been wrong about something, to the extent that people who questioned these things were thought of as insane... Reincarnation. If you, personally, want to take any of my ideas and talk about it specifically, I'd be happy to explain myself, but all you are doing is pointing me in the direction of someone who has surrounded his life with the Bible and the churches' unchanging view of it.[/QUOTE] [FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Wow, this paragraph says two things to me: 1. You avoided addressing my responses to your ideas, brushing them aside as "the usual response." However, you have still failed in providing support for your ideas, not to mention being absolutely unable to defend them. Again, it's fine to have your own opinions and ideas, but if you are going to post them, you have to have something to discuss. So, since my responses are so usual and expected, go ahead and rebute them - if you can. 2. You obviously didn't even finish reading my post. [B]I'm not Christian[/B], and I never was. I'm truly flattered that you think my knowledge rivals that of a person who was raised through Christian beliefs, but I doubt I would have came to the same conclusions, since I disagree with quite a few Christian ideas. Again, lack of logic and not enough support. You can't brush aside things if you start a discussion about them. I might need to emphasize this again since you seemed to have skimmed my post: it's fine to have your own opinions. However, you can't just announce them on a forum that demands discussion. Therefore, if you don't have support or reasoning to back up your claims, there's no reason to start talking.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Well, it sounds like you are some kind of Christian-Bhuddist hybrid. Hey, if you came up with all that Nirvana-esque philosophy all yourself, that's just awesome. However, I'm not seeing the point. Are you just questioning Christianity on certain points? Again, perfectly awesome to question a religion, but it sounds like you are just announcing your views on things and not really backing it up much. You could just go to your local bishop and ask them about their stance on reincarnation. Christians don't believe it in, plain and simple (resurrection is different). Umm... yeah, there's really not much more to go on. If your logic on that stance is just, "Well, how can you know?" that's a moot point that can work either way. I can toss that argument right back at you: " How do you know we were born multiple times to different bodies?" Again, I think your local bishop has a better conceptual design supporting his view on it. As for your ideas on the soul and the human body, I don't follow. A life is something a creature lives, not a soul. To say that someone's life began when their soul was supposedly created is really illogical. Now you have to explain how ethereal souls are bound to the same physical laws as corporeal bodies are, and yet, somehow, immune to a select few of those laws (i.e., death). And as for your idea that everything has a beginning and an ending, that's true for things bound to this dimension's physical laws, but can the same be said of other dimensions and of God? To say that God is Himself bound to what he created (in this case, time), is going to be hard to argue if you are using the Christian (and a few other) definitions of Him. To put it simply, God transcends time and space. As for the whole "Why did Jesus die?" thing, again, consult your local bishop about the relevance of his death to the Holy Trinity. My order of events for the Holy Trinity is hazy, since I'm not exactly a follower of the religion in question, but death is very important in the whole thing.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]On a message board, you can't see some one's "body smarts" or "music smarts" or "art smarts" or other things of that nature. If you catch some one's "emotion" or "self smarts" it's through their grasp of the language. For our purposes, some one who can't post coherently isn't intelligent if they are trying to convey a message in their native tongue.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Yeah, that's a very good point to point out, haha. This place is a message board: you are currently limited to expressing yourself with words. Therefore, either it's not your friends' place to post here or they have to adapt to the "unimportance" of language. I don't get how you say you welcome arguments, but then tell someone to stop talking either... It's things like this, and responses you have made that don't help your argument. You talk about the concept of language, but then you assume that something like my post is discrete and not continuous. You'll have to look at the entire post to make sense of it, instead of assuming each paragraph can stand on its own. Siren, he's referring to ambition or the drive to have intelligence (or [i]something[/i] *shrugs*). He never says there are other equally viable means to express one's intelligence (or be intelligent - or whatever he's trying to say). I'll say it again, you weren't coherent, since you now see three different people with three different ideas of what you said. It doesn't matter if we are misunderstanding or you are being incoherent: there's a failure to communicate and statistics point more of the fault on your side.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]You know, for someone who is trying to argue the lack of importance language has, you certainly are taking a great deal of time trifling with words. What I think you are trying to say is that intelligence, as everyone sees it, is not what true intelligence is, which is essentially a pointless argument for defining words. Zeta pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one. If not that, then you are trying to say that intelligence, at least what most people see it as, is not the most important thing a person can contribute/express. Now, here's something worth arguing about, heh. Whatever the case, I'll take a page from Cool Hand Luke, "What we've gots here, is a failure to moonicate."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Dan Rugh']No wonder I don't like you anymore. You are the one that sounds like the 1337 anime viewer by trying to scold me. :([/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]]\/[3? 1337? ]\|0\/\/ j00'|23 j|_|$7 ]33i]\|9 4]3$|_||2]). Hahahaha, sorry, I couldn't resist. While I am flattered that you think so highly of me, I was simply thinking more along the lines of going to the PC/Mac forum on OB and asking for help to configure your router. And I doubt that's the reason you dislike me. You can be unoriginal, steal my insults and use them right back at me, but I draw the line at the rolleyes smiley. That was just wrong, man... Dagger, with respect to your idea about commonly-used action elements, you're probably right. However, I don't know why I don't associate the themes and executions in Bleach to Yu Yu Hakusho as much as I do towards Naruto. That may be because I saw most of Yu Yu Hakusho in a nonlinear fashion (i.e., Yusuke was asleep, awake, asleep, dying), but there's a slim chance that it isn't. Bah, whatever. I can't put my finger on it, but I'll be able to express it sooner or later. When I do figure it out, it'll probably be what you said anyway, haha. Now what I disagree with... Rukia is original? O_o Didn't you just describe her as Boton's unspirited twin?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Dan Rugh][ANBU/AKeep] Bleach 02 is now out. I'm currently downloading it, but it probably won't be done for about 2 hours so I'll have to catch it tomorrow before class. *kicks router for not giving me high BT speeds*[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Mr. Non-AS 1337 Anime Viewer, the router isn't going to significantly slow down your connection, unless you actually configured the thing wrong (or never configured it at all). :rolleyes: And are we allowed to just post about what we are doing and not say anything about the topic at hand? Dude, you don't have to try and act all amazing that you are grabbing this or d/ling that: it's really nothing special and doesn't need mentioning, IMO. Anyway, the art team on this anime is simply incredible: colorfully vibrant, lively motion, and chibi comic relief. When I think of anime, it's this style of artwork that comes to mind. The first episode left me with mixed feelings, though. There was too much derived from the Naruto series (and more specifically, Naruto himself), and it is really hard to not notice it. As a fan of Naruto, this seriously skewed my opinion of Bleach right at the beginning. Whenever an obvious rip occurred, I would twitch and be pulled out of the show. I'm not even referring to Ichigo's looks! The themes of the series did not seem to be originally conveyed at all! The second episode was much more deviated from Naruto, and a welcome relief. I'm a bit more optimistic and interested after seeing this one, but essentially, I'm ambivalent about the show at this point. I can see why people who hate Naruto for the wrong reasons would like or love this show, but I haven't seen enough deviation to have a unbiased opinion. The show certainly may have started as a Naruto rip, but if the second episode was any indication, it'll evolve enough to stand on its own two feet.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]Well, I wish he'd let me in. I wanted a golden task bar for one of my old wallpapers... *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*[/SIZE][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]It's not a secret, haha. In fact, there are a myriad of programs that can manipulate WinXP to give you more than just the three default skins. The one I use, however, is [url=http://www.tgtsoft.com/]StyleXP[/url]. Again, there are other programs out there that can give you the same capabilities in manipulating WinXP's shell, from the simplistic ones like WindowBlinds and StyleXP, to the more advanced types like ResHack. Also, StyleXP (and those other programs) don't just give you more visual styles: you can change the logon screen, boot screen, icons, transparencies, and a ton of other stuff. I usually pick a wallpaper, and then choose peripherals that match it, hence the blue-purple theme.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Midnight Rush, isn't that just a wallpaper and not a shot of your desktop? I mean, I think it's cool when people show how they've configured their desktop. My favorite of the ones posted so far is Serraph-Angel's, because he positioned his desktop icons so that they flow with his wallpaper, which is a cool setup. I mean, I think some of you tried that as well, but it didn't come off as well as his. Anyway, here's mine, resized to 800x600 for convenience. It's a Tsukihime theme, and just ignore the typo in the wallpaper.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Bah, let's not get bogged down with who is right and wrong - that's just making the thread deviate even more from the subject matter. I say, "Listen to the mod and move on." Yeah, I have to say, the entire thread reeks of useless arguing. So, with that thought, I pose the following question: [i]do you think SSB:M can be considered a competitive fighter [B]on par[/B] with games such as Soul Caliber 2 and Virtua Fighter 4, which are games that were developed for competitive play and not primarily for party play?[/i][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

For the sake of simplicity, fanboys will be used in place of fanboys/fangirls. [FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Well, I have to disagree with the overall tone that this thread is giving fanboys. I don't see anything flat-out wrong with fanboys: they are just expressing their interest in anime more openly than others. Haha, that doesn't make any sense, does it? I guess, before I could say that, I have to explain what I think fanboy means. A fanboy, in my opinion, is a person strongly devoted to the recreational activity of anime. Their freetime is consumed by either watching it, or expressing their interest in some fashion. That includes purchasing anime peripherals, manipulating said peripherals, discussing anime with others, shouting popular Japanese phrases, and so forth. Speaking of peripherals...Sciros, taking the tone of this thread and your other points into consideration, it sounds like you think spending all of one's money on anime is a bad thing. So, a person likes one thing above all other things. Yeah, that's weird, but not necessarily wrong (as long as they don't spend more than they can spend, like crack addicts...). As for all of the points that match my description of the anime fanboy, I don't think those points are bad things: just weird. As for the ones that [i]don't[/i] match my definition, I have to say it sounds like you are confusing "fanboy" and "poser." See, posers are the worst. They are very haughty, trying to act all knowledgeable about anime, seeing anime as the entertainment god, and basically setting everything else on the backburner in the hopes that people will acknowledge their "1337ness." Posers are people who try to act as anime gurus (i.e., what you thought fanboys do), when in actuality they looked up a few things on a forum or two and regurgitated the same information anywhere they can - especially IRL! Oh, and googling a few easy-to-find spots to d/l anime and then acting like it's a rare thing that many others are not capable of doing. A poser may not know what the hell he is saying, but he'll be d@mned if anyone else knows anymore than him. A lot of posers don't even know they are being polled, haha. Quite a few times, a "new, popular and must-see" anime is discussed among pollers, and the poser will gain interest and feign knowledge of the fabricated anime. It's pretty nifty: you can find quite a few results of this test online. The results may surprise you. An easier indicator for poser-like behavior is simply discussing an anime they've seen. If they can only spew facts (i.e., air dates, about the author, budgeting and studio junk) and can't derive [i]actual content[/i] from the show itself, that's a definitive poser: it confirms that their knowledge is superficial. In short, I think you are referring to posers and not fanboys, but feel free to correct me.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Bah, I don't follow the manga, so sorry for not responding to those comments, heh. [QUOTE]Oh my, this doesn't appear to be the movie. There's some crazed fat guy in an ugly shirt talking at me. Pooey.[/QUOTE]Ah-ha, you also got fooled by that "Naruto Preview" thing, huh? Well, it was labelled properly, so it's our own fault for not taking heed. Don't expect the movie to be released before a DVD version comes out in Japan. I didn't hear of any group that was able to grab it from the movies. Yeah, there was that one Italian release, supposedly english subbed, but I wouldn't trust d/ling that for obvious reasons. [QUOTE]Man, the next episode sucked though. : ( I hate filler.[/QUOTE] Oh God... These fillers are really terrible. It's painfully obvious that Kishimoto is not behind this trash. Speaking of which, Is it true that the creator or director of Cowboy Bebop is scripting the filler episodes? If that's the case, the guy has lost his touch! Also, what's up with all the plotholes?! The fillers are making so many of them. That guy who could [spoiler]outrun Sasuke after Sasuke got Lee's speed[/spoiler]?! Give me a break... Not only are these spoilers weak, but they are hurting the continuity of the series. If they had to make any fillers, they should have went back and did a recap of what happened to each team before the Chuunin exam. I definately would like to see what Gaara's A-rank mission was, or what Hinata's toughest mission consisted of. Did anyone else go through something like the Mist Saga? Those questions would have been perfect fodder for fillers. Instead of going ahead and creating so much stupidity and disjunctions, they should go back and fill in the openings Kishimoto left for people to muse over.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Umm... Is this thread the right one? Anyway, I know I said I would make you a banner if no one else did, but I've been swamped with school. As soon as some free time during the weekend rolls my way, your banner will be the first thing on my to-do list. Just reply to this post and tell me if there's anything specific you want in the banner before I actually make it (i.e., a certain character or a quote).[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Actually, I'm just looking for a response from jblessing, James, or Adam. I'm not here to debate the posts in their entirety. Rather, there are certain phrases and use of profanity that were out of line and/or off-topic, regardless of my actions. Again, regardless of the content or context of my post, the user seems to rely on rude and unneccessary appendages to his comments. And no, I have not cursed at any member, or said anything that was as outright rude. Whatever the case, you need not worry about my dilemma, since I'm sure one of the three higher-ups will assist me soon enough.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Well, since this is the "Official [B]myOtaku Problems[/B] Thread," I figure I'll post my member problem here. I'm having trouble with a myOtaku member. His/her comments are very rude. I've backed them up on the off-chance he/she deletes them upon seeing this post, alongside asking a few members to make note of the comments. Frankly, I don't care if the person has a myOtaku account or not (i.e., I don't neccessarily want the person banned), but is there any way to stop the member from being able to post at my myOtaku? I don't think the series of comments is a one-time thing, as indicated by his latest comment, so I'm hoping for some kind of solution. Thank you.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]Yes, girls who likes an older men can be called Lolitas... ...a precociously seductive girl... ...NOUN: A seductive adolescent girl... [/QUOTE] [FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Well, I could be wrong about the whole lolita thing, or it could just be a subjective thing. Whatever the case, the definitions you gave seem to support my idea. I mean, dictionary.com defines seductive as "Tending to seduce; alluring," which means that the girl appears attractive to the man. Whether or not she feels the same isn't developed or explained in the definitions you have provided. Well, let's not go off on a tangent. I'm willing to say I'm wrong about the meaning of lolita, since it doesn't matter all too much. [QUOTE]The feelings of the girls towards their handler can either be pointed to the conditioning, since its much easier to give your life for a loved one than someone who just gives orders. Or it could be because their the only contact they have with other people, essentially its stockholm syndrome[/QUOTE] If you want to discuss the anime, then you should consider the fact that only Triela [spoiler]is capable of having those kinds of feelings since the rest of the girls don't have... "feminine needs."[/spoiler] So, whilst we prescribe all these wild ideas, I think that's something you should look into. There's a common heed given by a lot of humanities teachers (at least around here): "Don't confuse the author with the narrator, and don't confuse the narrator with a character." In this case, we are only looking at the second half of that statement. Since we don't have a narrator, there's no single person who speaks 100% truth. In other words, whatever the characters say doesn't necessarily become a fact. If Elsa says others don't know what it's like to be in love, not only could you argue that she could be wrong, but you don't know if she is considering herself ignorant of love as well (think about it). Aside from that, I think the rest of your examples show how the relationship is not pedophilia-inclined, unless you'd like to argue otherwise. Last, let's get down to pedophilia itself. Whoever loves who, I'm pretty sure that pedophilia does not involve killing everyone - including the one you love - for the sake of... what? You could say that the love the girls feel is so great that it becomes dangerous, but now you're stuck with proving if that's what real love is or not (which, last I checked, was considered a mental disease and not defined as love, thereby making it not pedophilia). EDIT: Oh, right! Good call, Godel! [B]Lost in Translation[/B] is a perfect example of how implicit an obvious love (yeah, that kind of love) can be without any explicitness. I think that's a great show for this discussion, since it demonstrates or tests a person's ability to discern between levels of love.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Well, kids aren't stupider (hey, they could be smarter than all of us even): they just aren't being taught as much stuff as they used to be taught. I imagine there's a multitude of reasons why, but two factors stand out in my eye. The first reason is all the religious conflict that's been going on. I know there was blatant and obvious advertisement of Christianity when I was younger, so I learned a lot about a religion I was never a part of. Some of those Christian ideas were implied, since reasoning and logic was derived from them (for example, God was with America during the American Revolution). Mention of God was a pretty standard fare. The point of these examples is to show that religion and other random things were expressed rather freely in my time, so I became somewhat familiar with them. Nowadays, I think teachers are more restricted and forced to teach only what they are required to. This means students don't even learn etiquette, general things about life that they should know, and, of course, about other religions (well, they do learn about them, but they [i]experience[/i] other religions). All of these consequences stem from the religious politics. The second reason is the outdated material schools use. This thought may just concern science, but it's still an important one. There are many new things and facts that are being discovered, and older material does become either invalid or different. Schools tend to use books for long periods of time, and only update every so often. Lots of material is changing much faster, so kids learn things that aren't true or aren't necessary. The only example I have to go on is my younger brother. He never learned some basic things that I thought would be commonplace for people his age. His friends didn't either. In addition, I thought I'd browse his molecular biology text and see what he was learning. To my surprise, not only was a lot of information left out, but there was also stuff that was now debunked![/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]If no one makes you one by this weekend, I'll do it. Now quit asking and be patient.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]The question may seem silly at first, but hear me out. I'm curious how people's perception of gaming has changed over time and experience. It's obvious that a person plays games first and foremost for fun, but then that fun extends to competition and tournaments, along with getting the highest online score, or releasing every character and secret in a game. Sure, those are all fun things to do, but any gamer has to admit to doing quite a few things that felt like chores in order to achieve fun. Take Soul Caliber II and other similar fighting games, where you have to play as every character and beat the game over and over, not to mention playing the other extras. Sure, they are supposedly designed to increase the replay value, but I've always seen those extras as a tedious chore that I needed to get out of the way before I could have fun. Am I playing the game right, or is the game no longer fun? This idea also goes into tournaments and competitions. Do you go out to play other people and see how good you are, or do you go out to "get back at Bob who humiliated you in front of a group of people"? High scores are no different: you get so close to beating it, and you know in your heart of hearts that you can beat it, so you keep trying, keep getting frustrated, but still not stopping, even though the game has lost its fun factor. Now, I'm not saying that people who experience these things don't play for fun. I'm just saying that there are things in games nowadays that are just not fun, and I'm wondering if people have experienced such a thing and, if so, do they think that's alright.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]The problem could be a myriad of things. I think the best way to figure out what is going on is for you to take a screenshot of your PM box. If I had to venture a guess, though, I think you might have accidentally minimized the window using the blue square with the white arrows at the top right of every window.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR=blue][SIZE=2]Wow, very interesting. My short answer is that the greatest philosophers are the ones who don't bother wasting time philosophizing. I know philosophy is the study of knowledge, questioning everything mankind knows - including logic, but in the end, it's always appeared to me as useless fun. Don't get me wrong: philosophy is important. Everyone has to have a strong fundamental set of philosophy to live by. However, those that waste time simply musing over knowledge and doing nothing are a waste of everyone's time. I'm a bit biased, since I both love science and the early history of the United States, but I would say that Rousseau, Locke, and Hippocrates are among the greatest. Rousseau looked at the interaction of man with man, and from there, concluded that man is a social creature and becomes corrupt not because of himself, but because of others. Locke knew the value of application over theory, and spoke of how it's more important to experience than to learn. Locke probably appeals to me because I agree and understand his view. I mean, I have trouble understanding theory in, say math, but when I see examples (i.e., experience/application), everything becomes clear. Hippocrates knew the importance of the medical man and his role in social environments. To have a code of honor among those with medical knowledge, to spread that knowledge, and to help mankind thrive were all concepts he saw as important enough to philosophize about. If centuries of endurement aren't enough to say he was right, what is?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR=blue][SIZE=2]I really have to agree with Dagger. There's so many different types of love, all of which are hardly discrete. With Gunslinger Girl, the regions of love become more broad, since you have to consider that the girls could be viewed as simple machines, making the love in question nothing more than someone's love for a handy tool. Even with that leeway, I never expected someone to consider the love in Gunslinger Girl to be anything more than a paternal one. Secondly, a little girl liking an older man is not lolita. If it was the other way around, then... haha... Last, don't try to overanalyze simple human emotions. English uses love so liberally, so while I realize how easy it is to jump between the different types, love (friendship even) between two persons of the opposite sex don't always equate to trying to score.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[quote name='Dagger IX1']I figured there would be little point in creating a new thread just for this... so, conversely, which anime end exceptionally well?[/quote] Actually, there's a large point in creating a new thread. For one thing, the topics are polar opposites, so there's no way they should reside in the same thread. Sometimes I like to rant about how bad things are, and other times I like to lavish things with praise. Secondly, this thread is already long. People hate long threads because they have to read a ton of stuff before they can even post. Sure, they could just blindly enter in and post, but then that brings two problems: 1. what they want to say could already have been said and they would sound like they are repeating themselves, and 2. the direction of the topic could be wholly different from the beginning, so no one is even going to bother discussing stuff that's old bacon - at least not in a large thread that has come a long way. And last, more people will post in a fresh thread rather than an old one because of the fact that there's just more leeway there. Plus, people with ideas and different angles will be less hesitant to post, so the topic won't just repeat itself, but instead will have new angles and ideas from newer people with fresher thoughts.

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Nah, it has changed for whatever reason. Personally, I hope that's not a replacement for a truly new scheme/theme (you know, something other than this suffocating Liquid and the too-weird-for-me Geisha styles). The banner does look better now, but I think the change came too late because I'm still sick of it.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]