John

Looks a lot better now, I'll be sure to vote on it when you put it up. ^_^

You know, I didn't like this one a whole lot, but I grew more understanding of it when I saw the title. XP The circuits look ok up close, but not so on a t-shirt. You may want to spread them out a little to balance it more, and maybe you should make the change between roots and circuits flow a little better. But that's just a small thing, when it comes down to it, heh. The colors on the first are [b]perfect[/b]. The second... eh. I think the loss of all the branches and leaves really makes its tree-y-ness (

You got a winner there. ^_^ If you do use the second version, which I don't think is a good idea, then yeah, you need to lighten up the leaves and darken the trunk and such. I think it'd just be a better idea to use the first one, heh. I'd offer a name, but I couldn't think of one after sitting here for ten minutes in deep thought lol.

[URL=http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=puffin7lq.png][IMG]http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/743/puffin7lq.th.png[/IMG][/URL] An animal project I finally finished. As with the butterfly, the background is more there just to kind of fill up the space than to actually be a major part of the picture. This one was my first encounter with realistic shading, so it was interesting lol.

[b]Retribution:[/b] I got no damn clue what you're trying to convey with those Roman numerals, but I like them anyway. :P The red you used works, as does your choice and arrangement of pictures (I especially like the one in the middle, myself). [b]Baron:[/b] You got a great photo for your piece, and the washed-out cursive...ness behind your text reminds me of something I'd see somewhere on Broadway back in the '30s. The text is decent, but the placement kind of irks me, especially "The Magic...", which seems kind of forced into the corner. I didn't see much at fault with either piece, so I'll just have to go with the one that immediately appeals to me, and that's [b]Baron[/b]'s. While Retribution's picture reveals itsself to you all the more as you look at it, Baron's just kind of pops out at you, and I think that reflects the idea of Broadway a bit more. Great work, both of you. This was a hard one.

When I read the theme "Hollywood", I was expecting more bright colors and lights, so I was taken a bit off guard when both pieces had darker and more washed-out colors, lol. I think this sort of works in Doc's piece, with his piece being purposefully contradictory to stereotypical Hollywood, but I didn't see any reason for it in Kitty's, which seems to be more generally about the city. On the other hand, Doc's jagged circles (not a biggie, though), the fact that the measurements of the images he used are way out of proportion to what they'd actually be in a film reel, and the contextually unnecessary use of borders all detracted from the idea that his piece takes place on a film reel. Also, I didn't even realize that the pictures were supposed to look like negatives until someone mentioned it, lol. As I mentioned before, Kitty's use of color really takes away from her piece. I also don't like how the images just look kind of thrown on there, or the Academy Award at least. On the upside, I really liked Doc's image selection and Kitty's use of the Hollywood letters. All things weighed, though, I think [b]Doc[/b] conveyed his interpretation of the theme better than Kitty. Good job, kiddos.

Heh, I likes. ^_^ I recognized the green stuff as money when I saw it, but I don't quite understand why it's even there. Also, it took a sec for me to realize where his right arm was. Since the sleeve on the right (his right, rather) is in the same shape and position as the left one, I expected to see a hand coming out in the same place, when it instead came out in front of the stomach. So you might make his right elbow protrude through the sleeve more, or make the sleeve hang differently, since the arm beneath it is positioned differently. That scar by his eye looked a little funny at first, but I think it grew on me. ^_^

Haha, I like that one a lot. ^_^ Here's a trombonist (tromboner? Trombonateer?) I made a few days ago. I tried to get some more detail on him, but to no avail. =(

Desbreko, you might make your burglar holding a bag of money or something, or maybe make his mask only cover his eyes. I also thought it looked like an executioner, heh.

An idea that I got somehow at [b][url="http://sweethypocrisies.com/groupsounds/index.php"]Group Sounds[/url][/b]. It's supposed to be a semicolon, but the top dot just looks too much like a head, so it distracts from what it's supposed to be. Any solutions? EDIT: Made the end a little pointier on a reccomendation.

I've been enjoying my relative freedom to not pay any attention to the news, so I'm not as informed as I could be. I think I'll just mostly sit around and sulk until the '08 elections (my first to vote in), because [b]nothing[/b] good is going to happen until then. May as well leap at the opportunity to be angry and rebellious and listen to lots of Rage Against the Machine. >=O But I don't see how interesting any reactions around here could be, lol. Not like you're going to get something seriously differing from "Our country is run by crooks, and lead by Mr. Magoo." I don't know exactly how much else there is to say, anyway.

Yeah, I was basing it off a picture, and my teacher kicks ***. =D It also probably helped that I was doing it for a grade instead of for my own ejoyment.

Sinistra's idea could be pretty good, if you could get the right photos. That thing works well in gaming magazines (I've seen it in PSM), but that's probably largely due to the fact that they use game screenshots, which are already detached from reality and thus well-rendered to comedy. Being able to accomplish the same with photos (or even random paintings or what-have-you) would be a chore, but well worth it if it could be done right. I've always envisioned that if I started a magazine, it'd be me and maybe a couple people who would write about literally whatever the hell we could think of, lol. I've got no hardcore interest in any field of life, so I think it'd be pretty unique to really take that fact as absurdly far as I can, and whenever I (or my co-writers) actually tried to review something like a movie or game, we might include facts that are intentionally grossly inaccurate. Maybe also do fake interviews, though making it very obvious that they're fake, heh. I don't know if that would help you any, but it may create a spark or something for you. ^_^

The reason my vote centered around the stock image is because in this round, pretty much all the pieces have had two elements in them: the photo and the text. If I don't dig one of those elements--which means 50% of the piece--I think that's reason enough to vote against it, lol. Furthermore, if I'm looking at the piece as a whole, and seeing something I've seen many times before, it likely won't incite a ton of interest in me, heh. I'm not saying the piece is a bad piece (Katana, I know you probably didn't mean as much, but I never said anything about hating anything. :P), I'm saying that my opinion of it has been carved from the circumstances of me having seen the photo a lot before. If I can cast my vote based on something [i]other[/i] than my personal opinion, drop me a line on that, lol.

As circumstances have deemed, I apparently do have Illustrator on my computer, lol. So I may get that file and spiff it up at home sometime if I feel like it. EDIT: I fixed the dots and got a better picture of it. The colors are still washy, though.=/ [url="http://img495.imageshack.us/my.php?image=butterfly0he.jpg"][img]http://img495.imageshack.us/img495/6011/butterfly0he.th.jpg[/img][/url] And yeah, I'm too lazy to spruce up the background. I think I've pretty much had my fill of this piece, so I'll go with Tony's guess that I left it simple to bring attention to the butterfly, heh.

As it would turn out, I seem to have had ImageReady (among pretty much everything else Adobe) already on my laptop (school-issued), and have since school started. O_O It was [i]right there[/i], man, and I had [i]no idea![/i] But yeah, when I get a chance I'll probably run through a built-in tutorial or two and get started on something. >=D

I've been wanting to make smileys, along with various other GIFlious animations. I swear I've searched the internet backwards and forwards, but I haven't found a proper program for free (and for Mac). What're you using?

[QUOTE=Shinji][size=1][color=Navy]Yeah, the butterfly looks real awesome, maybe if you have a bit more time someday you might like to go back and render the background as well since the butterfly, good as it is, sticks out against the plain leafs in the background. It does look real from the thumbnail too. I'm not sure if it is intended, but you got two of the butterfly's white dot's jutting over the black outline, I think it would look much nicer if they were cut off at the beggining of the wing outlines. All in all, good job, good job.[/color][/size][/QUOTE] I doubt I'll do any more work on it, since the only time I have access to Illustrator is during that class, and I'm always busy there (partially because of the butterfly, in fact lol. I took a long time on it, so I'm a little behind). I'm working on getting Illustrator on my laptop, but I think I screwed something up when the techs at my school put it on there. :X [QUOTE=r2vq]Wow, I can't believe that's your -first- project on illustrator, even if you include the adjective "real". xP Out of curiosity, what did you use to make the edges of the background blur? The butterfly is nice, but I like the leaves too, even if it's simple.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I say "real" because everything we've done before that was just practice exercises for whatever tool or technique we learned that day. :P I feathered the leaves in the immediate background and used a gaussian blur on the leaf/flower blobs in the background. Thanks for the compliments!

[url="http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=butterfly9yn.jpg"][img]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/4149/butterfly9yn.th.jpg[/img][/url] My first real project in Illustrator. The color's diluted a bit in this one as a result of moving it between programs. I also ended up having to screencap it, which explains the marching ant border lol. As you can see, I didn't really take too much time on the background because I was already getting behind from all the time I took on the butterfly. Somehow, getting that shadow to fall only on the topmost leaf ended up being a total b****. If I ever see a butterfly like that in real life, I'm stepping on it. [url="http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=typeface6rx.jpg"][img]http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3903/typeface6rx.th.jpg[/img][/url] This was a small, fun project. We had to make a face (and a corresponding environment) using only text characters. I kinda gave up on those motorcycles, lol.

Truth be told, I wasn't too keen on any of the submissions this time (is that an Alka Seltzer in Retribution's piece? XP). I'm not a big fan of water anyway, though, so that's probably a large factor. But anyway, I'd have to say the one I prefer the least is Kitty's, simply because of the stock photo she used. I don't know what that's originally from, but I've seen it [i]everywhere[/i] before (those inspirational posters, maybe?), so the piece didn't really grab me as much as the ones with photos that I hadn't seen before.

My vote goes to Doc, though not by as much of a long shot as everyone else has said. I liked Sakura's higher use of black a lot more than the more light-gray oriented submission from Doc. I didn't, however, like the mundane font, the fact that the faces just kind of pop out more than they should (try putting some kind of filter over them or something), and the fact that the guy on the right is grinning like a complete ***, lol. Doc's picture rocks, his font is well-suited (if generic), but the text sucks. Phil, you're an emo pansy. And as I said before, I think having a lot darker values would make it that much more nightmarish.

[quote name='Ilium][color=DarkRed']It's not commonly twisted because it's popular; it's commonly twisted because with religion when somone questions your actions you can just say 'Silence heretict, or I shall excommunicate thee!' whereas with other things, like Politics etc, they have substance to question. Questioning religion is like punching a ghost. When you question somthing of-this-world there is at least some way to fight, even if it might have ended up with your head on a pike.[/quote] [color=black]The people who would react like you described (there is no measure to how tired I am of explaining this) [b]are the same people who are not good Christians.[/b] [/color][/color] [color=DarkRed] [color=black][quote name='Ilium][/color']No, but it in a way (Stay with me here) does on a certain level. If God was all-knowing, than he should know that giving human beings religion would just give us a reason to butt our heads. Why would God give Humans religion if he knew this? The argument could be made that being a God without worshippers is like being a Narcissist in a world without mirrored surfaces, but in that case God is not the perfect being he is made out to be. Than the argument can be made that, if the God is flawed, than the religion is flawed. Hey, just a thought, but who knows.[color=black][/quote] Now you're just making no sense, lol. God didn't "invent" religion. When He created Man, religion, being the worship or adoration of a deity, was obviously set in place. And He told Man to worship him not because He's narcissistic, but because He created man, and everything else in the Universe. In fact, it isn't within the realm of possibility for him to be narcissistic, lol. He [i]is[/i] a trillion times better than anything that ever is or could be. He only has a very well-adjusted view of things, a view which doesn't occur to most humans, because in their realm, [i]they're[/i] the greatest things in existence. And humans will butt our heads on anything, anyway. That's the free will that we have, and if we didn't have it we wouldn't be human. [/color][/color]

[quote name='Ilium][color=DarkRed']Nay, they are horrible examples of Humanity. They are perfect examples of what a sickness Religion can become in the wrong hands;[/quote][color=black] Anything can become a sickness in the wrong hands. Anything can be warped and twisted for selfish reasons. Religion just happens to be very popular, so it's very commonly been the victim of such things.[/color] [color=Black][quote name='Ilium][/color']The Inquisitioners vain bigots in the name of Christianity.[/quote] [color=Black]Really, you're still not understanding that what I'm saying is that [b]they were wrong to do those things in the name of Christianity[/b][/color][b]. [color=Black]They were very, very bad examples of Christians.[/color][/b] [quote name='Ilium']As for the Crusaders, trust me[/quote] [color=Black]No.[/color] [quote name='Ilium']the Peasents Crusade and the Knights Crusade were both faught to take back the holy land and convert or kill all of Muslimdom. The Muslims were just lucky that The Peasent Crusade, The Knights Crusade, and the Kings Crusade were all terribly planned, formed of mostly untrained rabbel of zealous idiots, and that the Bubonic Plauge was thinning their numbers. It was a war faught in the name of Conversion of the Muslimdon.[/quote] [color=Black]See my above comments.[/color][/color] [color=DarkRed] [quote name='Ilium']Comon, neither one of us expects to convert the other. It's just fun to try, and I prefer to try with my opponents own logic. If I didn't, it would just be "But God did X" "No, God Doesn't Exist" "Yes he does" "No he doesn't" and so on and so forth.[/quote] [color=Black]Of course. I was just saying that you're not winning. XD[/color][/color] [color=DarkRed] [quote name='Ilium']I do, however, have the right to say that a Christian is a Christian.[/quote] [color=Black]You think that because you're viewing Christianity as simply a system of theological beliefs, when it's really more than that, as Juke Box Hero tried to convey.[/color][/color]

[QUOTE=Ilium][color=DarkRed] I was just saying that because somthing is or is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it doesn't exist. It isn't, in fact, covered in 'Beasts of the Land' because, as I recall, the Bible says the world was created than and there, 6,000 years ago. Fossils are without a doubt Millions of years old.[/QUOTE] [color=black]Once more, you need to know what you're talking about before you say it. The 6,000 years thing is nowhere in the Bible. That was some study done by a priest who took the "seven days of creation" literally. It's really a pretty safe bet to say that it isn't, so yeah, that guy was off by probably several hundred million years.[/color] [/color][color=DarkRed][QUOTE=Ilium]The Inqusition was, by all means, a way of spreading Christianity. They were torturing people and forcing them to become Christian or they would basically burn them to death (Or some other form of torture) so yes it was a way for them to spread Christianity. The Crusades may have been faught over the Holy Land, but they were also faught to spread Christianity to the Muslim World. They had no intention of stopping after they took Jerusalem, they were going to convert or kill anyone who was not Christian. Don't froget, one of the Crusades was nothing but a Peasent Rabel of brainwashed fools spread the word of their God to the rest of the world. The other, more orginised, Crusades filed suite. Trust me, the peasents in the first Crusade, they sure as hell didn't have any sinister plot; they were dumb as ****. The Knights Crusade? Again, despite the name, made up mostly of peasents. The only Crusade that might have had sinister motives you speak of was the Kings Crusade, lead by Richard the Lionheart and a few other kings.[/QUOTE] [color=black]I said nothing about a sinister plot, only that they were waging war because they were vain bigots. And my entire point with both of those instances was that they're horrible examples of Christianity.[/color][/color] [color=DarkRed][quote name='Ilium']Explain to me what justification, other than religion, could the Archbishop of had to exile the Jews? I, frankly, don't see one. They were second-class citizens as it was, they posed no threat to him or anyone else, I don't see any other explanation for their suffering.[/COLOR[/quote] [color=black]First of all, he didn't even have to have justification other than religion. My point, as with the Inquisition and Crusades, was that he's a horrible example of a Christian. Whatever his justification was, he was wrong to do that. That's all I was trying to say. And anyway, racism would easily take for a different justification. [/color] [quote name='Ilium']I think it's working just fine. The debate is going well, I'm finding it fun, it's, by internet standards, a victory for me.[/quote] [color=black]o_0 Well, if that's your grounds for victory then I'm all for it.[/color][/color] [color=DarkRed] [quote name='Ilium']That statment is irrelevent. It was said in response to somone saying that somone was not a Christian based on what they did, because they ordered the death of 60,000 Million Jews or whathaveyou. The response is different because the person was saying that even though the person believed in God and that Jesus was his son, because he killed all those people he was not a real Christian. It's irrellevent to the current situation.[/color][/quote] Actually, that's exactly what I was talking about when I posted that, lol. So yes, it has everything to do with the current situation.

*Tried to post before, but it got destroyed by evil vBulletin* [quote name='Ilium][color=darkred']So? Dinos aren't exactly mentioned in Creation, do you deny their existence as well?[/quote][color=black] I wasn't denying any animal's existence, lol. And even so, dinosaurs are covered in the "beasts of the land" part of the creation. [/color][/color][color=black]And to settle the whole evolution argument, between me and you at least, I went back and re-read the beginning of Genesis. Here's what I found:[/color] [quote name='Genesis 1:20-26][size=2]20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [color=black]21[/color] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [color=black]22[/color] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [color=black]23[/color] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [color=black]24[/color] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [color=black]25[/color] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [color=black]26[/color'] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.[/quote] Now, this obviously came as a surprise to me, because I thought I had read it differently last time. However, it appears that the order of creation was Sea creatures > Land creatures > Birds > Man, which just so happens to be roughly the order of evoluion (of course, Evolutionary theory says that man came from monkeys, but I just assume that that happened after birds had come about). In addition, all of life was described as being brought forth from the seas, in accordance with Evolution. So it appears that I had misread something at one point or another, and apparently it [i]is[/i] possible (and most likely probable) that God formed Man by way of Evolution. Case closed, huzzah. ^_^[/size] [size=2][quote name='Ilium][color=#8b0000']No, they read the Bible and the interpreted it as do this or do that or whatever. I don't remember who said it, but it was said that most Christians try to spread the word of God in order to save people correct? The Inquisitioners were doing the same thing; on a completely different level, but it was the same thing. The Crusaders aswell were trying to save the Muslims from Hell. Besides, if the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a proper Christian... Who is?[/quote] [color=black]I'm not lying or exaggerating when I say that this is definitely the worst argument you've made yet, and perhaps one of the worst in this thread. Yes, Christians try to spread God's word because we happen to give a damn where you spend eternity, as mind-boggling as that may seem to you. The Inquisitioners and the Crusaders, however, [b]were not doing that[/b], and I believe you realize this in full. You're just running out of arguments, so you're making **** up.[/color][/color][/size] [size=2][color=#8b0000][color=black]The Crusaders, as you said, interpreted the Bible to say that they should go start a vanity war (they didn't even claim to try to save the Muslims, by the way. Their self-proclaimed reason was to take back the Holy Land). The Inquisitioners interpreted it to start a genocide. The part you missed, though (or didn't feel like mentioning), is that these people were only using religion as a front. Religion had absolutely zero things to do with these acts. ZERO. They bent the Bible to fit their needs, and they are by no means anywhere near a proper example of a Christian. This [/color][/color][/size][size=2][color=#8b0000][color=black]should be obvious to you.[/color][/color][/size] [size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000][/color][/color][/size] [size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000]And are you really being serious when you say, "if the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a Christian, who is?" Because I'm almost inclined to think you're not, just for the sheer ignorance of it.[/color][/color][/size] [size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000][/color][/color][/size] [size=2][color=#8b0000][color=#000000]Someone's position in an overly corrupt and overzealous system such as fifteenth-century Roman Catholicism doesn't justify them as being a great Christian. In fact, in those times it almost justifies the opposite. Again, I can't help but believe that this is something you realize already.[/color] [quote name='Ilium']And I may not believe in God, but I find the best way to poke holes in Religion is from behind enemy lines, so to speak. I use your logic that there IS a God and than question him that way. Much more effective, or at least more fun.[/quote] [/color][color=black]Frankly, it isn't working for you. Almost nothing you've said this entire time has been, lol. I don't mean to be harsh, but you really, really, [i]really[/i] don't know anywhere [i]near[/i] what you'd like to think you do about Christianity.[/color] EDIT: Oh yeah, and one more thing about what you said about the Archbishop and his Christianity: [quote name='Ilium][color=#8b0000']And I think your blind, immature, and ludicrous for thinking that you have the right to judge who's a Christian and who isn't.[/quote][/color][/size]