Sir Kyle

[SIZE=1]So I was browsing around this site I like to visit occasionally called SlamOmaha (it's a site dedicated to local music here in Omaha and Lincoln Nebraska and surrounding areas) and I came across this band named Pomeroy. If I may say so, I believe these guys are very good and I'm surprised they aren't more famous than they are right now. I guess they just need a little more publicity to jump that fence and become mainstream. Anyways, these guys have a style that is becoming more and more popular nowadays. They like to fuse rock, a little reggae, some punk, a little R&B and blues, and a heavier bass line to make a sound that is unimistakably their's yet similar to others that I've heard that I also enjoy. To better visualize their music, think bands like 311 (who also got their start here in Nebraska) and Sublime. They are very talented, very creative, and are very hard working individuals who tour their collective butts off so they can make their growing fanbase happy. Some cover art: [IMG]http://www.pomeroymusic.com/images/fro_cd_2.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.pomeroymusic.com/images/insidetheshine.jpg[/IMG] Anyways, these guys are really entusiastic musicians with a lot of talent and a fun and unique sound all their own. If you haven't heard them yet (or haven't heard of them at all), get the skinny at [URL=http://www.pomeroymusic.com]PomeroyMusic.com[/URL]. If any of you have heard of them or if you have just discovered them via me or what not, what do you think of them? Likes, dislikes?[/SIZE] [SIZE=1] [B][I]Edit: By the way, they like to play a lot in Nebraska but they aren't from around here. They are mainly a Kansas City performing band based out of Manhattan, Kansas. (home of the KSU Wildcats...BOOO!)[/I][/B][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1][QUOTE=Shinji]That's an interestign point there, SirKyle, In all fairness, the Monarchy has been there throuought the best and worst parts of the British history, guiding the people along the way, giving national pride, but is it now all obsolete? Could they be the role models that britian has looked up to for centuries, given the Royals are now embrioled in an embarrasing political scandal? The way I see things is, while this old regiment may stir pride, it's had it's day in the sun, and I just don't think it's fair for the briton taxpayer to foot the bill for their extravagant lifestyles, especially if they [b]don't[/b] hold much political power. After all, their [i]"chartiable acts"[/i] aren't coming form their own pocket. [/QUOTE] Indeed, this is always the thought in the back of my head. Over the centuries, the Royal Family has actually been the sole ruler of the country and has executed all the orders and such, much like a dictatorship nowadays. Now that Britain is with the times and have institued a Parliament, there seems to be no need for the Royal Family any longer. They don't hold sway anymore, pretty much all they do is live in Buckingham Palace and have nice little life all set in front of them. Personally, I really don't enjoy it when people are born into money (though it's inevitable, it happens a lot everywhere) but when you don't even have to run a business to get your riches, you are indeed lazy. Exactly what the Royal Family is. Maybe I'm just used to the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" ideal that has been set in America for the longest time that when the Royal family swims in their non-hard earned money while others struggle in poverty, it doesn't bother me as much. If they weren't such a source of pride (not as much anymore, but they still are. Just look at Elizabeth; tons of prestige there) I myself wouldn't mind having them ousted. Of course, what would you do if your nation all of sudden one day decided you didn't deserve the money you had, took it all away from you and made you more of a regular citizen? It probably wouldn't be fun, to say the least, and probably wouldn't be very democratic at all. Overall, though they have been through scandal (what higher up HASN'T?), I'd keep them where they are just because they're in too deep to get out of it. Life will go on. [quote name='Shinji]Now, Even if the Monarchy can shrug this off and contunue on with the respect of it's nation, I feel that they should relenquish colonies to their people for their own sovereignty, the idea of the Commonwealth may seem like a good one, but i for one am tired of livign in another country's [i]shadow[/i'], and that's what it feels like to me.[/quote] I agree, perhaps they should let go of their commonwealth countries and let them establish their own seperate nations. I don't really know what to think on the situation though, I mean, where I live (the US), our country has the same sort of system where we have territories and such on islands and other places that are just under our control. It's not a subject that I'm well versed in, but I always though places like Australia and New Zealand got along just fine under British eyes, though I could be INCREDIBLY wrong. I don't live there or anything.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]What DeathBug says is the truth. We are not a true democracy in the best sense of the word but rather, a republic. Like stated before, all these "democratic" countries like the United States and Great Britain and most European nations are republics with democratic elements thrown in. Democracy, in it's most literal sense, was used in ancient Greece, most notably in the city of Athens. The citizens of the town used direct demorcracy by letting all men (mind you, back in this day women were still viewed as inferior) participate in public office and in juries and voting. Everyone got a shot at being an official and everyone that was a higher up was elected directly by the people. It was a basically a democracy that was nearly completely controlled by the citizens of the town. Not a bad idea in theory, but that kind of democracy is only highly effective in small settings where there isn't a huge disparity in the population. With a republican type of government, you combine elements of both the old republican governments (a small ruling body made the decisions and such) with elements of democracy (voting and elections of officials) and is best used with large nations. The US and Britain are probably the two most affluent republican nations in the world, both using these methods to keep their countries and if I may say, both nations use democracy fairly well in keeping afloat in the world. As for the differences in these nation's systems of government, Britain uses a Unitary system of government where the people elect officials straight to the centralized government and then those officials do what they feel is best for their constituents in the government. The central government in the UK is much stronger and is given more power than it is in the United States. In the UK, the majority in the House of Commons (the most powerful branch of their legislature) gets to elect a leader and that leader is the Prime Minister of the country, basically holding comparable power to someone like the US's president. The house then deliberates issues and makes laws much like the United States only things seems to get done faster in Britain than they here due to the intensive party loyality, party voting, and multiple parties vying for power all the time. Also, the local governments in Britain don't hold nearly as much power as the central government or the people in the districts. They are there basically as a conduit for the people to get their voice to the central government, not much more. The United States, though, is a Federalist type of government that tries to reserve equal power between all levels of government, those once again being the electorate (the people), the local and state governments, and the central government. The people still have a fair amount of power seeing as they directly elect nearly every office holder in the nation (except for President and Vice president) and they have the final say in most issues that affect their area of the nation. The central government also has a lot of power since they are the ones getting to run the whole of the country. This is where the laws are made and carried out, where issues are passed through debate in the legislature and where important executive orders are made that effect the entire country. The basic difference between here and the UK that I seem to get out of this is that the state and local governments here are given more power than the ones in other "Unitary" type republics (which make up the majority of democratic countries). Here, the states are given the power to make certain laws, tax as much or as little as they wish, and basically just run their state however they choose so long as it isn't infringing on any of the basic laws set forth and enforced by the central government. This is effective because it gives the people a lot of choices on how to carry out the events of life but also brings up controversial and intense issues such as abortion and gay rights. You are going to be hard pressed to find a county that relies solely on democratic principles in decided how their nation is going to be run. Most nations that are using these principles are very large and would be much too unwieldy to leave all the power to the people. This is because A) Not all people care about politics and such and would either not participate in elections and voting to get their voice out. B) Not everyone is competent enough to make a concious and wise decision in terms of who's elected into office (this becomes more important in conjuction with the power of the office in question). C) Issues would never get resolved if people had to vote on every single issue to ever be passed in their nation. It's much easier if there is a panel of elected individuals that is competent and can represent their constituency well. They can accurately vote the way their district would want and would help get issues though the government in a much quicker and easier manner than if everything was directly voted for. This is also good for the people who don't want to travel to the polls everyday to vote on something new. Basically, republics of all different shapes and sizes (from the confederations to the unitarian to the federalists) can be run effectively and efficiently if they are setup in a manner that benefits everyone who lives in the nation. I understand that not everyone is going to be represented in the way all of us would like in a "utopian" style of living, but I believe these type of governments, in the right hands, can be very effective and are very positive ways of living. Getting away from explanations of types of government and such, I do agree with DeathBug once again on Britan's royal family and monarchical ruling class. In all reality, the royal family has nearly no political sway in the government and are basically there as a figurehead and someone to look up to in the nation. From what I gather, they are the richest landowners in the world as don't ever have to do anything productive with their lives besides charity events and goodwill type functions (what a life, huh?) If I could offer my opinion, though I don't live in the United Kingdom, I'd personally keep the royal family there just for the benefit of having a King or Queen there to figurehead the nation. The monarchy, as I understand it, has been a very influential part of the British history and is a source of national pride. While I don't agree with the mass amount of wealth they possess without doing so much as being born into it, I do agree with the source of pride they bring their country and so, even with the scandals that plauge them, I'd keep things the way they are. My feelings are almost split on the issue of the electoral college in the electing process with the most powerful offices in the nation. It was a system that was instituted near the beginning of US history and was put in for the sake of electing officals based on the competency of educated individuals rather than the hugely uneducated and surly masses (since that's the way it was back in the early 1800's here in America.) Nowadays, though, people are much better educated and have been known to make many logical and rational decisions having to do with elected officials and it would make sense if the entire college were just thrown out for a true popular election. Still, the electoral college has worked very well over history and has only been a huge issue as of late with the 2000 election. I personally can't think of a better method of electing our president since it makes things much simpler and allows candidates to campaign over broader issues rather than state specific issues. I've heard many theories ranging from throwing it away completely and allowing a direct race where the winner must recieve at least 40% of the vote (thus allowing running room for third and multiple parties rather than just two) to hybrid theories where the citizens work with the college more than they do now and by letting the electoral voters vote however they want rather than by going with the majority, all the way to keeping it the way it is. I'm not expert on politics so I couldn't say which would work best, but I believe keeping the system and letting the citizens get more involved with it would be the best plan of attack. (WHEW!! That was a mouthful. By the way, I get the information I stated largely from a textbook used in one of my Political Science classes here at the University. It's called "Promise and Performance of American Democracy" by Jon R. Bond, Richard A. Watson, and Kevin B. Smith. ©2001. Also, I injected my opinions and previous knowledge of politics into this little spiel of mine, so don't expect everything to be 100% accurate. It's mostly an opinion afterall.)[/SIZE]

I would have to agree with James over the misuse of homonym (correct me if I'm wrong with this label, haven't done grammar in a while) type words such as the "theres" and the "theirs." It's either the fact that people are too lazy or that people really don't understand how to use the words, which is sad. Especially when I get to see it typed to me by a bunch of people my age or older. I'm 18 and when I see friends of mine who went to the same high school with me use these words like that, I wonder what English class they took. "Hey man, your soo kewl!1!!12 Lets go OvER 2 teh houze over their." The utter stupidity I see when I read something like that just damn near overwhelms me. ::Looks to post above him:: Another wonderful grammatical tool that we like to use is called the PERIOD. It looks like this ----->. It's very useful for seperating thoughts in a long string of words and helps people make sense of the English language. Many people (although not all people, obviously) like to use this device, and if I could be so bold, some might call it "essential."

[SIZE=1]As of late, I've been collecting different bits and pieces of music stylings to broaden my perspectives on the music scene as a whole. Ever since I got to college, I've increased my music library at least 10 fold and in the process of doing so, I've been exposed to many different music stylings and many different artists, all of whom I find entertaining and quite talented. But one in particular stands out to me and his name is Justin King. Mr. King is a classic/folk style guitar player who blends those elements with modern styles and a bit of blues and funk. He's traveled around the world and has implemented different styles of local music from all walks of society, especially in Europe. He has brought a new face to the acoustic guitar and in my eyes is pretty damn close to being a musical genius. He's self taught (started at 14) and has made music his life since then, releasing three albums full of orignal work that is simply stunning. Here's some cover art from his CD collection: [IMG]http://www.justinking.com/images/le_bleu-200.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.justinking.com/images/debut-200.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.justinking.com/images/enter-200.jpg[/IMG] Anyways, I was just wondering if anyone else had heard of this guy because I hadn't till just recently. I'm surprised I hadn't, either, since he's such a unique and creative artist that it's rare you miss talent like that. For those who know him (if any) what do you think of Justin King? And for those who don't know a single bit about him, check his website ([URL=http://www.justinking.com]Justin King.com[/URL] ) and make sure you watch the video; his skills are simply insane.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]I suppose both these shows aren't half bad. I could live without them easily, but both of them have shown me a fair bit of comedy and I have a really soft spot for comedy. With South Park, I find that the show was a lot more funny to me when I was 13 years old rather than today though I still find it humorous enough to watch if there's nothing else on. They seem to be running out of original ideas to make episodes out of and are relying very heavily on current events; much more so than in the past. Overall, a decent mature comedy that has plenty of redeeming factors and lots of good old episodes that will give you a chuckle. As for Family Guy, I'd say I enjoy it more than South Park because of it's more constant and steady form of comedy. I found it funny when I was 15-16 and I still find it funny now when I see episodes aired on Adult Swim. Its comedy seems to be more political that some shows and that fact along tickles me greatly in the humor section of my brain since I always enjoy a good laugh at a company or the government or human nature in general. Each character provides nice facets to the overall gem of the show but in my opinion, it's nothing TOO spectacular. Good show that provides a laugh every episode (a laugh is ALWAYS good for the soul, I say) but nothing that breaks tremendous ground in the hilarity department. (And not trying to be the judge and a nit picky kind of guy, but I always thought good punctuation and spelling were things that set messageboards apart from things like chat rooms. I figure that you got all the time in the world (well, not really, but plenty of time) to post your message and that you could spare some of said time at least trying to make your post presentable and readable to everyone. I don't want to sound like an "elitist" or anything like that, I'm just trying to help anyway I can.)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Personally, I'm going to try to remain as "spoiler-free" as I possibly can for this Star Wars film. Before Episode 1 came out, back in 1999 when I was 14 years old, I was one of the BIGGEST Star Wars Fans/Geeks that existed in my sect of the country. At that time, I knew tons of stuff about Star Wars, had read a bunch of the earlier novels, and had a subscription to Star Wars Insider magazine to get the skinny on everything in the making. With all these resources and my desire to know things about Star Wars, it wasn't much problem for me to know the entire plot and storyline in EP1 before it came out. No surprises to be had there. Over time as I've matured and now that I'm in college, I have grown to be less of a Star Wars fan (yes, I know, blasphemy!) But I still desire to see the movies whenever they are on and everytime I watch them I enjoy them because of the nostalgic factor. And with Episode 3 coming out next year, I'm gonna do my best, which won't be hard, to stay spoiler free. As long as I don't go looking, I probably won't find anything out and will be pleasently surprised when the movie comes out. As for the Lucas Film team making 7-9, I would place my bets on them NOT doing them. For one, I think George Lucas is kind of tired of making these films and probably doesn't want to write 3 more scripts and work for 10+ more years just to make some Star Wars fans happy. Besides, I'm sure that if he made them, every hardcore fan would be angry just because he couldn't get all the original actors to play roles because they are a lot older now and I doubt he cares that much to make a script that's really worthwhile. If I were him, I'd lay the movie franchise down right here and let them go out on top. Let the independent authors sort things out for the future and let fans use their imaginations for what happenes later on. And led George work on a project beyond the realm of Star Wars for a while.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]I'm posting this message to if anyone has heard of the band Cursive or if you haven't, to get the word out about this band. Cursive is a "local" type band that is just recently gaining national acclaim even though they've made several albums and have been together as a band since 1995. They were formed in Omaha, Nebraska where I'm from so they hold a special little place in my heart. ;) Another band that had formed in Omaha is the more popular 311, just to give you an idea of our little big city here in the middle of the country. A lot of good new music is starting to form up here in Omaha, so keep your eyes peeled for new and upcoming bands to hit the scene straight from the midwest. Anyways, I really like the sound Cursive uses to get their point across because it is a rarely used combination in todays modern rock genre. They have their basic drums, guitar, and bass but they add a couple extra flavors in the use of a cello and organ. Yep, they've got a nice stringed instrument there as well as a keyed instrument that gets very little use outside of churches these days. Their sound is one that is kind of like a mix of harder rock with the smooth sounds of strings and is almost a sound that demands you to listen. It's very good to listen to and seems to fit it with more musical styles rather than the huge amounts of clones that are popping up nowadays that just copy a sound and add their own gimmick to make it unique. These guys have a lot of emotion going into their lyricism and in my opinion, these guys are the real deal. A very solid band in every aspect from vocals to instrumentation to songwriting to style, Cursive should at least be sampled by fans of all genres of music. Their latest album, The Ugly Organ, has recieved rave reviews and is worth the investment to buy and hear it. I like them a lot, just wondering if anyone else here has heard of them and if you have, what you think of them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Prom. A bit of a high school cliche, if you ask me. That being so, I still attended the Junior/Senior Prom when I was a Senior in high school and all I got out of it were mixed feelings and an event that could have been better and more memorable, but was less so than I would have wanted. ::Breathes in and prepares for dumb sob story:: So my girlfriend (my first one ever, and I was 17) and I had been dating for around 6 months and we had been planning for prom a long time, getting all the good stuff taken care of and really looking forward to it since it would be my first (and only) prom. Anyways, fast forward to about a week/week.5 before the prom and out of nowhere, while I'm working on an important Physics project, she calls up and breaks up with me for no apparent reason over the phone. Dumbstruck, I still finish the project but consequentially had a lot on my mind for the whole time. So instead of going with the girl I liked (loved even, and still do) I went with the girl who broke my heart and ruined a good thing that I only have the chance to do once in a lifetime. So yeah, I kind of have a thing against prom and I am also still quite bitter about things in the relationship/dating category even after nearly a year since the incident. But hey, at least some people out there are having fun and magical times at their proms. I wouldn't wish the immense amount of emotional pain I felt within the span of a week on anyone else. And if this post makes you laugh a bit at my misfortune and sounds all mushy and just a case of lost puppy love, so be it.[/SIZE]

Well, think about it. Sure, most of the stuff isn't gonna change your life and most of the stuff they are trying to sell isn't anything you absolutely need. But to show these infomercials, the company that is selling their wares needs to pay the network to show their infomercial on TV. They don't get to show it for free and it's not like the network is showing them just to piss people off. They get revenue off of this which is essential for the network to stay on air and to keep showing the shows you like to watch. Also, it's not like they're showing them at inapproriate times or anything. I'd say the majority of infomercials are shown at really late or really early hours where most of the networks regular viewers aren't tuned in anymore so it would be fruitless to show something of their's when no one's watching anyway. Basically, in my opinion, infomercials are not as bad as you are making them seem. They are needed by some networks to drive the revenue to allow them to actually stay on the air and are also needed for the companies showing the infomercials to sell their product. Believe it or not, there ARE people who buy the things on TV and the overgeneralization that "no one buys that stuff" is false. If no one bought it, there wouldn't be any informercials because they'd all be bankrupt. As long as there is a market, there will be companies that sell stuff, and there will be infomercials that pay networks to air their stuff. It all comes together in the end and it's not as stupid and useless as some think they are (though some products really stretch that limit.)

I would have to agree with you Mitch, except for a little bit more of a negative outlook on the whole Linkin Park music situation. First, I can honestly say that I liked them back when I heard their first released singles because they seemed fresh and new on the scene and that's always a good place to start if you're going to become famous. Their stuff from Hybrid Theory was fun to listen to and when I first got a car and the radio played a little LP, I would crank it. Keep in mind, though, that I was 15 years old when I first heard of them and I was not a huge music fan at the time. I was in band and all, but I was hardly in tune with what popular culture had to offer so hearing Linkin Park and having most of my friends drool over how cool it was made it a fairly attractive endeavor for me. Over time, though, I have really lost almost all of my fandom for Linkin Park. Ever since they released that remix album and then Meteora, I discovered that their "new and fresh" style of music wasn't really new or fresh anymore. Whenever I hear the intro to a LP song, I can always tell it's them even if I've never heard the song before and that's the problem. In my opinion, using the same music style for 95% of your songs can get repetitive very easily and can also become annoying, which it has for me. Basically, I used to like Linkin Park when they first arrived on the scene and when I was 15. As I matured and started to listen to all kinds of music and start to make my own judgements, I found that they weren't really (in my opinion) anything TOO spectacular. What I like is a band who can make each of their songs quite unique and can do that every album they produce. My expectations may be too high, but I feel that there are many other bands that get closer to accomplishing that goal than Linkin Park does. So yes, I agree with Mitch. They aren't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but there are better things out there.

Ehh, I'm not really worried if people are gonna disagree with me or not. I already know that someone is going to, especially over music. Music is such an aquired taste with everyone that it's impossible to please EVERYONE with any band. And yeah, this is a discussion board and it's not supposed to be a pick-each-other-apart board, but you might be surprised what can happen. :)

I think we had a very small mini-discussion about the ska-ish rock band Maroon 5 within the Jason Mraz thread, but since I've heard their songs a little more lately, I've decided that we need a whole thread focused on these guys. My thoughts on Maroon 5. Personally, I like these guys as an easy listening group more than anything else. They certainly are not hard rock (though they can skid that boundary if they need to) but rather play their music with more finesse and in my view, a slight bit more musicianship. The rhythms they employ in their songs are very catchy and not too incredibly complicated so if you pick up an instrument, you can play some of their stuff right away. :D Also, they employ elements of many different musical instrument and that particularly tips my fancy. I enjoy hearing the occasional piano and wind instruments here and there with a breath of fresh acoustic guitar mixed in from time to time. They definitely have a decent range of musical talent and the lead singer can both sing well and seems to have a decent grasp on lyricism. Overall, I find that these guys in Maroon 5 to be very good musicians and are, in my opinion, a breath of fresh air in an industry that is dominated by massive amounts of band clones every single day. I'm sure they don't appeal as strongly to the hard rock, metal, death metal and black metal fans that seem to populate this particular board, but hopefully a few people out there agree with me on this little subject. :)

Hong Kong is a very large and albeit very active city. I'm sure there are things there to do that you could find to do in any major city around the world, with a little Chinese flavor thrown in for good measure. Hong Kong, just like Tokyo and other cities in the east, is a wonderful blend of East and West culture mixed together to make a brilliant city with tons of stuff to do. I sugest discoverhongkong.com/eng if you want to know about the city at it's finest. As for Japan, if you guys do choose to visit it, make sure you get the most out of it as you can. There are lots of things to do in Japan, but a lot of really fun stuff happens in Tokyo, one of the biggest cities in the entire world. Tokyo, like Hong Kong, is a blaze of lights and pop culture with a mix of eastern civilization thrown in to make quite a wonderful city indeed. Make sure you visit downtown Tokyo with all the masses of people there, it'll blow you're mind! Also, make sure to take note of Japanese culture and the norms of what they do over there, because though it's kind of like our society it's also VERY different. Note the different styles of houses, rooms, streets, hotels, phones. Learn how the people interact and find out just how different our neighbors across the Pacific really are from us. I guarantee you, it'll be something you'll remember for a long time. Also, if you can, check out the Japanese countryside while you are around. There are many large temples and houses in those areas that show off the magnificent Japanese architectural style that is quite unique to the area. And of course, Mt. Fuji (Fuji san for all you Japanese students and speakers!) is the crowing jewel of the islands and is quite a site to see indeed. I somewhat envy you and your opportunity to go see such a beautiful country, but I wish you and your mother the best of vacations. And yeah, Hong Kong became a Chinese possesion not too long ago when the British contract on the city ran out and they had promised to return it to China. Fun Fact!

Well, if you look to other cultures (such as "less advanced" ones that live away from where you might live) you'll see that Cannibalism is not a taboo subject matter in those areas. In fact, you'll see that in some areas of the world we all live in that some cultures find nothing wrong and "senseless" about eating another Human being. I believe that many of us here are subject to a thing called "cultural relativism" where you look at things in life, let's say cannibalism, and compare them to the views, values, and morals of the society and culture you live in rather than looking with a less biased opinion at things. Personally, I do believe that cannibalism is wrong and I indeed find it quite disturbing that a man would so choose to be killed and then eaten because of a personal fantasy of his. But to say that something is "senseless" and "completely wrong and should never occur because what I know is absolute right" seems a bit obsurd to me. Yes, like I said, I believe it's wrong to do this, but that doesn't mean everyone believes the same way as I do and we should at least give a little bit of respect to people's choices in their lives rather than bashing them completely and downing their belief system just because we think we are right. What PETA thinks is what PETA thinks and believes in, and what the men who engage in cannibalism think is what they believe in. Though most of us will find is completely disturbing and a bit strange, I think we must still respect the opinions and decisions and beliefs of others around us. To quote Aretha Franklin: "All I'm asking, is for a little Respect." ;)

Tripping the Rift is the new show based on a very humorous short film that premiered on Sci-Fi during a Top Ten sort of show for that kind of thing. I believe it was number one, if my memory serves me correctly. The series dedicated to it will be premiering on March 4th at 10:30e/9:30c on the Sci-Fi Channel. The basic plot of the show is nothing too spectacular but I do admit, when I shaw the short film I found it to be a good laugh. It's about a bunch of different aliens travelling the galaxy on a spaceship for no apparent reason while hilarity ensues on the way. There is the captain, who is bumbling but quick and snide, the whore type robot lady who is probably one of the reasons the show is going to be watched so much, along with a misfit crew that ensures a laugh or two when you see an episode. Yes, the show is going to be a bit racy (so kids under 14, I think it's bed time) ::scoots all the kids off to bed and tuck them in:: Anyway, it ought to be a decent show, something the Sci-Fi channel really needs right about now. I don't know what to tell you about getting a hold of the original short film. Maybe try atomfilms.com or go to a search engine and go from there. EDIT: Also, scifi.com has all the info I just stated, in case you want further details or you forget about the thread. And fizz, no problem man. I'm here to help, or at least try my best.

Hmm, that's a tough call. I've been through so many of them through the years on different games that it's all starting to meld together, but allow me to try to sift through the waste and pick my favorite. I'd say my favorte so far has been the one used in Final Fantasy VII. It's quite simple, you throw the materia in the sockets, get attacks and such, and when you've been beaten to your "limit", you get to unleash your fury on your opponent in a multitude of ways. Simple, cut and dry, to the point and a very good compliment to a very good game. I also enjoyed the Final Fantasy X system since it let you sit back and relax. It let you enjoy the game and not have to worry about glueing your eyes to the screen just so your characters didn't bite it hard. Which also brings up the point of X-2, pretty much dumping that CTB stuff and going for what seems to be the fasted the battle system out there right now. It's fast paced and tough to keep up with at first, but with practice, it's fun as hell to play. So many good systems, I hope the developers of these games keep thinking of new ways to fight battles in each game they make. I never want to go play and game and say to myself, "Nice game, but I've seen this battle system before. Kinda lame and bland now, I suppose." I want to be dazzled everytime I put a new game it. Variety is the spice of life. And I like my life spicy, if not with a hint of lemon. ;)

Do you mean like the CCG cards? If you do, I have large collection of them that I don't intend to use anymore since my days of DBZ love are all but gone for me. If you're interested in buying some 5000 odd cards, I'm your man most definitely.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by thethespian [/i] [B]My sister is going to audition next year. I think she'll do very well in that competition, shes a very good singer. And i think that when i'm 16, i'll be able to make it very far too, everyone tells me i'm a good singer (especially my chorus teacher) and i think i'm very good and i'm just going off on some rant about how wonderful i find myself! Sorry.[/B][/QUOTE] Well, I wouldn't get my hopes up too well if I were you. Not saying you're a bad singer or anything (I have no room to talk, I've never heard you sing nor have I heard your sister), it just seems daunting to make it out of thousands upon thousands of people auditioning. You watch the show right? There are all sorts of people who say they are great and then Simon destroys them in a beautiful blaze of utter simplance. I know you're not being cocky, just take some advice from me and realize that the chance of making it in this sort of things is very small. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, because if in the end you drop it, you won't have any left. Glad to see that you have initiative, though.

Indeed, it's that pesky human nature that gets us everytime, isn't it. For one to go out and start themselves a near marxist society and expect it to function perfectly and without flaw is a tough concept to swallow. The way I see it (and believe me, you may find no merit here), people are human. As dumb as that sounds, everyone is suceptible to human nature and human nature nowadays is to succeed at what you do as well as being primally emotional about things. Everyone has bouts of greed, bouts of love, bouts of hate, bouts of everything that a Marxist society takes as mortal enemies. Don't get me wrong, Marx's ideas are quite ideal and in theory would be a great way to live. It's a nice view, but with that little human nature factor thrown into the pot, it's impossible to every achieve what he had in mind. No one is immune to this kind of emotion, therefore there would always be someone dissenting against the idea of the community or society. I believe that your society would have so many people moving in and out of it so quickly that you could never ever have a base to start a new type of government. Humans are too sporadic for that, I believe. It's a tough shell to crack, but in all reality, no society is going to be perfect. I guess what works, works. In my very humble opinion, I believe Marx's ideas were great and were ahead of his time, but his view of society could never EVER be achieved due to the X-Factor that is human nature and emotion. Secondly, though I'm not 100% into capitalism myself, I believe it's a very successful form of government. When you give liberty to all, ultimately, you must give people the right to succeed in life and to pursue happiness in any way they feel they may achieve it. That means that there will be classes and there will be a very uneven distribution of wealth, but this nation is still held together quite firmly though you may not be a fan of survival of the fittest. I think American society is a great example of what happens when you let people do what they want for them and not for the good of the commune. And hey, we're still a nation so we must be doing something right. You could also argue that China is still a nation as well, it just seems that we go under less mass turmoil that some other places around the world. Fact of matter: Nobody is right. Everyone has an opinion and that's human nature at its finest. If you have an opinion, then you express individualism that couldn't be let out fulling in a society like Marx was suggesting. Not saying that you couldn't have an opinion in a Marxist society, it's just that that's the kind of thing that gets people thinking and wanting more things. It's basically a huge stalemate and it's clear that no one here is gonna win the arguement since everyone's so solidified in their point of views. Great topic and discussion, by the way, it's been an interesting read to say the least. And of course, all in my quite humble opinion.

Actually, if you look at the way its animated now as opposed to the pilot episode and teh precursor short movies that evolving into South Park, you'll not that the way it is now is much superior. Sure, it's still not that great and the guys are able to put together an episode in a very short amount of time, the way they used to do it was both crappier and much more tedious. The used to use construction paper and would would use stop-motion animation to make an episode. I think I heard that it took them around 10 months to make one episode; talk about time consuming! Basically, it looks a lot better now than it did earlier, so I guess they've done something right. As for the show, I'd say it's a mixed bag. Each episode has its ups and downs but basically it's a bunch of school aged kids spouting curse words every 10 seconds. Personally, I don't watch South Park religiously but I do enjoy an episode here and there when I happen to change to Comedy Central and it's on. Trey and Matt have done a wonderful job of creating a American cult classic ofa TV show, I'll credit them with that much, Overall, though, it's not really a show that makes you think or has great amounts of intelligence in it. That can be good for those that all they want to do is sit down and veg out and not have to think about what they watch. Typically, though, I myself like a show with a little of both. That's why anime is usually more appealing since you may have to think a little harder to understand concepts and such as opposed to not every using your mind. I'd give the South Parks that air now about a 6.5-7/10 and the earlier ones about and 7.5-8/10 since they seemed funnier to me (maybe because I was 13 then and simpler stuff is funnier then, I don't know.) South Park is an entertaining show to watch when you don't want to think to hard (as are most things on Comedy Central) but not a GREAT GREAT show by any means. In my very humble opinion.

Funny story...well, not really, but I have a friend named Matt Rogers. One of the other members here, Kevin, can also atest to this truth. And it's funny because he's big just like the American Idol guy. ::chuckles a bit to himself:: Ah yes, good times. Scooter Girl can't win now because she's been eliminated and I don't think Matt will win because the judges don't like the way he carries himself. I really don't know who's gonna win, but I'll put my money on a woman winning it this year. Though I really want that half of the twin group, that Jesus guy to win so I can say that Jesus is the next American Idol. And if you were curious, I've never ever watched American Idol until this year and the only reason I've done so is because there is nothing else on at 7:30 in the PM. I guess when you got nothing to do on a weekday night in the dormroom, go watch FOX. Whooo boy, that FOX is a quality network let me tell you.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by animefan_441 [/i] [B]I HATE SCHOOL. I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT. School is the pits. to many rules to much home work too many teachers... [/B][/QUOTE] After this incredibly long discussion with all sorts of great points made coupled with wonderful debates over what may be right, that's all you can say? Did you even read any of the other messages in this thread? This sort of message is the reason people are posting huge page filling topics, because people come in talking about how much they hate school without giving any real legitimate reasons for such. Sure, school can be a drag sometimes. Find me someone who's actually enjoyed school every single second of the day and enjoyed all the out of school work as well and I'll give you $1000 because it's impossible. There is no one like that around. But how can you complain about the rules, the homework, or the teachers? I'm pretty sure that the rules are there for a reason (most of them are, at least) and are there for your benefit though you may not think so. Homework is essential. I mean, how are you gonna learn anything if you never apply it? You won't, bottom line. And teachers? They definitely aren't all bad people by any stretch of the mind. You can't tell me that every single teacher you've ever met in your entire life up to this point has been a horrible person who's hated you and can't teach to save his/her life. That's just stupid. Yes, some are bad and this can't be avoided, but I've also met some very good ones that have actually changed my life for the better. Overall, I believe that everyone, no matter how much they think they hate or really hate school should still take advantage of a great thing. I mean if it's public school, it's a free frickin' education! FREE! All you have to pay for is your lunch and for some fees here and there while you boost such things as peer relationships and your ability to both follow rules (you're gonna need that later in life, trust me) and your ability to THINK. They are educating you afterall, teaching you essentials that you'll need later in life as well as teaching you how to be a critical thinker. And for FREE! You can't find a better deal than that anywhere else. Just be thankful that you are getting such an education. Some countries don't allow this type of learning for some, if not all of their citizenry. You are fortunate that you get the oppurtunity to succeed in life for a very moderate price so I'd just say enjoy it while you can. You never know who you'll meet or know in high school (usually some of the best friends you'll meet) as well as learning essentials that you can use later and becoming an overall better person. And of course for Free. Why waste an oppurtunity like that?

Just to clear a few things up, I don't mean any disrespect to any one here. It seems that my little grudge against those with wealth has upset a couple people and could potentially upset some more if I don't clear things up a bit. Basically, I grew up in quite the unwealthy family and have had to work for my cash ever since I became of legal age to work. Other kids that were my age were getting new clothes every week, new cars on a whim, new gadgets, and basically an invitation to be lazy and unmotivated to do anything. Why do anything at all if you don't have to? I'm not trying to offend anyone here. Quite the contrary, I don't want to make any enemies or make anyone angry or mad at me. Basically, I was just spouting off about how some kids don't have to do jack **** and get along better than me who had to work long hours for many years. I guess it was more of a post of rage and anger, not really thinking to hard. I was over-generalizing (a definite no-no) and assumed that most people raised like that acted like that. I didn't assume the same of people here, though it seems that people have taken it differently than I intended. I apologize. WHEW! Anyways, to sum it all up: I=not very wealthy and fortunate. I grow up to see kids my age be lazy, stuck up, and prissy because of their parent's wealth and good fortune. Stupid me assumes that most people are like that. People get offended when I spout off my feelings, and I feel like an ***. Bottom line, I'm sorry to all I've made feel bad. Really, I am.

As it seems to be a popular trend, I too got my name mostly from my actual first name which is Kyle. In fact, I've been a pretty unoriginal guy throughout most of my name creating career here on the internet. Ever since I was about 16 years old, every one of my screen names or handles has had something to do with the name Kyle. I just figured, hey, it's not too nerdish (it might be for all I know) but it's not too regular either so I'm safe on all bases. And as for the Sir part of it, I figured that since I like people in England and since it adds a little pizzazz to the name Kyle that it would be a worthy add on.