Zeta

Wow, just wow. That is one of the strangest things I have ever heard. She has other boyfriends and girlfriends. What is the point in staying with her? A relationship(on terms of dating I am talking about) is a one on one thing, not a one on four thing, lol. Personally, I wouldn't even have to ask the question of if I should stay with her or not. No point in staying with someone who has other guys/girls in a relationship. Pointless situation if you ask me. Dump her and get it over with, lol.

I think that they should get a second chance. I just recently watched a documentary on Angola prison. One man was sentenced to 75 years for murder. Twenty five years later(when the documentary takes place) you look at him and say "how in the world could he have murdered someone?" No parole is insane. What about those who are jailed because of as crime they didn't comitt? Why should they have to stay in without a possibility of parole? I read that someone said that how do we know that they wont kill again? How do we know that they won't go and join a church group, and never comitt one act of violence ever again? I hate it when people say that. It goes both ways, we cant prove they will kill again, nor can we provie they won't kill again. But its the fact that jail is punishment, but at the same time rehabilitation. They know that if they screw up they will be going back to jail, most people believe that and will try not to.

But yet, you are still making it seem a flat out definition when you cannot do that. They were made a certain way from the beginning. They intended for adults to be with the younger children, and that is why the theatres say that now.EDIT: You are telling me that more than half, hell probably 99% of the employees and managers don't know the definition of a word? Employees I can partly understand, being as how many teens work at the theatres. But all the managers of every theatre across the nation? Sorry man, not buying it. It has been passed on from what it started out as. It isn't a matter of vocabulary. A manager of a store is just as educated as you and I, hell quite possibly more. They know what the MPAA ratings truly mean. And what they truly mean, is you have to have an adult. It is a clear fact of what has been truly meant in the past. When there are exceptions to rules, they have them listed. I see those all the times in rules in a classroom, in sweepstakes. It is foolish to base it off just one vocabulary many defintions. Many, many words have more than one definition. But the definition is dependent on the context it is used in. In this way, it has been through the years that a parent should be accompaniing you to the movie, and watching it. The thing I do agree with you is this, least I think it was you that said it. Lots of people who work at theatres don't give a damn about the ratings and will sell you a rated R ticket, providing you are a reasonable age. And again, no 10 year old will walk into a movie like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they know what scary movies are and would know they wouldn't want to see a movie like that. But then there are many more people who still follow the rules, which has been passed down throughout the years as a parent having to be physically in the theatre with the young'n. Again I repeat, show me where it says written permission is techinically allowed, not feeding me the definition bull. The word was used in a certain context which has been followed for a long time, as meaning the parent has to be there. Unless it is clearly stated that it is allowed, that the MPAA physically says the permission is enough, then it isn't enough.Well I really have nothing more to add. It is commong knowledge what they truly mean, doesn't matter what the many definitions of the word states.

How on Earth do you know it is used as a flat out any defintiion of the term? Had that been their intent, they would allow the permission without a second thought, which they don't. Their intent with the way the word is used, is to have an adult with you. It has been engraved upon us, no matter what the definitions mean. In every sentence a word that has multiple definitions is used in a certain way. And it is clearly obvious that the way accompanied is supposed to be used in this sentence, is for them to be with you. Otherwise anyone could get into the movie with the permission, which is obviously NOT true. How is that so hard to see? Had they intended to encompass all the definitions, one could get in with the permission just as easily if a parent was along for the entire movie, yet it isn't true. Getting familiar with the definition will do a person no good in many cases. Seeing as how even though permission is presented, they are still not allowed to see the movie. As I have said before. Permission has been granted for me many time, and for others I am assuming just as much and they still haven't been allowed to see the movie. Getting familiar with the definition will do nothing.

An abandoned ringworld with a deadly organism? A religious race bent on the destruction of the human race,using technology of the abandoned ringworlds creaters? Why does GS recognize MC having never met him before? Nor the human race? Ringworld with a Earth type atmosphere and geography? That is just the stuff in the game itself. If you explore the game, and listen and watch, you will see that it is said out in the open. ;)Now how is that generic? I see no similarites to any of those in any games I have played, nor heard of? Please clarify. I find that to be quite original in my mind. Only thing coming close(where Halo had much inspriration from) was in two sets of books, the Vang series, and the book Ringworld(I believe there is more than one book about this? not too sure) Naturally, I shouldn't be talking about this, seeing as how it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. ^_^;; I'm done now.

I'm not saying that everyone doesn't understand what the word means. But what you have to see is you claim the permission is enough, wether or not they know what it means. When in many, many cases it isn't. Again, why didn't they let me see RE when my mom bought me my ticket? How much more blatant can it be that I have proof? Naturally as you know by now, I wasn't able to see it if it hadn't have been for my friends cousin who was 18. This happeend again to me when I went to see Once Upon a Time in Mexico, as well as Underworld. You cannot say that we don't know the meaning. THe meaning that has been engraved upon us for however long these ratings/restrictions have been around, if you aren't 17 and are not accompanied by an adult, you cannot see it. I mean, just look at the sentence. Many, many people see when the word accompany as the parent has to be with them. My high school English teacher believed this as well(back in WI) It doesn't matter what the term actually means, it is the way in which it is used here. Which is that a parent has to be with you to see the movie if it is R and you are under 17. Show me otherwise that it doesn't say that. When I flew back down to Georgia after my trip back to WI, my grandma told my friends to accompany me to the plane. They couldn't get by security. Did they accompany me to the plane? No they did not. They accompanied me to the security checkpoint. But yet, why can't they? According to the definitions they are supposed to be able to accompany me to the plane. Each time the word is used, it is used in a [i]certain[/i] way.Show me where it says you can get the permission, and then I will believe you. In the way it is used here, it is a common understanding, just as aight is for alright, or alright is for the true form of all right, that the parent must be wtih you or no movie. Granted there are cases where the persmission is perfectly fine enough, but again, it does not outweigh the number of cases where permission has been granted, yet they child isn't able to see the movie. If it doesn't say that the permission is accepted, it is safe to assume that you have to be accompanied by an adult. It doesn't matter the meaning of the word, for all we know, they had the definition in mind where they were with you the whole way for all we know. [img]http://www.mpaa.org/images/movieratings/R(small)-01.gif[/img] Requires, requiers an accompanying parent or adult guardian. Throughout the years it has been engraved on us that you need an adult guardian with you to see the movie. Not because of the vast amount of definitions, but because they chose which one the wanted. The one pretaining to they have to be with you the whole time. Had they payed attention to the others, it would say permission is allowed, yet it doesn't. So techinically, by what is plain out stated, it is not. But if you wish to take into the different definitions of it, they by all means you are right. But that isn't how they were meant to be read.

Uhhh....the Halo story is anything but a generic story, lol. [url]http://halo.bungie.org/[/url] Click on the Halo Story link and you will see it is anything but a generic story, lol. Just as you said for Metroid, you have to explore for the story, it is the same with Halo, lol. Now that I read back through this post, I realize that Sciros is saying what I have been trying to say, I just failed miserably. I completey agree wtih this idea on the "RE-ness" of the film. How does it not have that feel? Raccoon City, Nemesis, Umbrella...It is all there, just not in the same straight forwardness of the game. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the exact game into the movie. Whenever a game has been produced into a movie, not once have I went in hoping it was the same as the game. It gets repetive i n my mind

But they are the problem if they are vague in saying what and what isn't allowed. Obviously they are the problem, if people are mis-interpreting them all over. How can they not be the problem then? When something is vague, they should clear it up. But again, in many many places written/verbal permission is not enough. You cannot say that it is enough, when in many places it is not. It is foolish to base that on the fact that you have been able to get into them. Go all around the country, and you will see that it is not enough. Yet you claim it is, when you in fact, do not know for a fact. I am one who has had my mother with me at the ticket counter to buy a rated R ticket, yet they wouldn't selll me it since she wasn't going to see it. Right there is one theatre that doesn't follow your "written/verbal permission is enough" statement. [b]And that's what I've been saying: written/verbal permission is enough to get you in.[/b] You make it sound like it starts and ends there, like it is final. Come man...when someone looks at those pictures and sees a guy in a leather jacket, they aren't going to think he is 6 years old.

If it doesn't mean to accompany them the whole time, then why don't they allow it plainly? If as you say it isn't said at all, they have no right to restrict you to see a movie, even if they are afraid of lawsuits. If it doesn't say it as specifically as you say, you are free to do whatever you want, even wtihout any adjustments. But the thing is, you are not. When looking at rating/restrictions things at theatres, sometimes there are pictures. Now in the rated R, do you see a little kid? No. You see a 17 year old, and two adults, can't remember if there are any else? But you don't see someone younger than 17 in the pictures. So naturally the saying "under 17 has tobe accompanied by an adult/guardian" combined with the picture of no young'ns in the picture, people assume that they either have to be with you the whole way, or not at all. I don't think I have been too clear with my points in this topic I apologize. What I am advocating is that written/verbal permission should be enough to let you into a Rate R movie. I never said that we should get rid of them, as I think Eclipse thought i meant? What I meant is that they are just guidelines, and if you have the obvious written proof of a parent, or a parent comes with you to buy the ticket for you, that should be enough to let you into the movie. In many places I have been around the country, they haven't allowed me to do so, even when my mother was standing in front of them buying me the ticket. I am saying they should be adjusted so that written/verbal permission is enough to let one into a movie. Many, many people look at the restrictions and see that you have to have an adult with you if you are under 17 as the final point, basically, that period. That if you are not 17 and your mom/dad won't be seeing the movie with you, you can't see it. Lots of people see it as that, without even thinking that written/verbal permission should be enough. In some places that is enough, in same it isn't. But how much more proof do you want if you have a note signed by a parent, or the parent is with you buying you your ticket? Written proof is enough to rent rated R movie from places such as Hollywood Video. What is the difference between being allowed to rent when you are under the age of 17, but aren't allowed to see the movie on the big screen when you parent is there to buy the ticket? Hell, you probably see more things on the rented version with deleted scenes and such, so in essence - in my mind at least - more emphasis ( all right, I have no clue how to spell that word, lol) on the renting of Rated R movies. Many times, they continue things times ten of what they would have seen in theatres.

I am quite fond of the second one. ^_^;; I really like them all. Nice and crisp images. The second to last one is my second favorite. Really cool machinery type look if you get what I mean. Again, really crisp image. The text in all is really good looking, very cool in my mind. Customized fonts or something? I know for sure I don't have things that cool looking, last time I checked anyways. Overall I really like 'em all.

Exactly!!!! It is just a suggestion! But then why won't they let you go without one in many theatres? That is what people have been saying all along, that they are basically just guidelines, and are something that shouldn't have to be enforced in the ways they are. But they are an issue. If they are just guidelines, no theatre should have to completely restrict someone from seeing a rated R movie. If theatres around the nation don't follow the so called restrictions, why bother enforcing them at all really? It gets people confused or upset. A 10 year old won't walk into some freaky, bloody movie, they have more sense than that. But a teen will. They know what they will be seeing, and if they so choose it, they will see it.

Many don't disagree with it because they were expecting a movie based solely on the games. Which I again repeat I find perposterous. Big whoop Mortal Kombat following the story of the game, it is one movie. Out of all the games that have been made into movies, apparently Mortal Kombat is the one that follows much of the storyline. One! Why should we expect the Resident Evil's to follow it as much as MK did? Resident Evil has a much larger and interesting plot than a fight this guy, win and proceed storyline.

To be or go with as a companion.-Defination of accompany To be with, or go with. When many think of the word accompany, they think of the person going with them the full time. If your permission was a byline or footnote, it would say something along the lines as "written/verbal permission accepted", but it doesn't. When it says MUST be accompanied with an adult, it doesn't mean they take you and buy tickets. It means they will sit in the theatre with you, and watch the movie. There is no footnote to it. They are supposed to be with you the full time, to go with as a companion. If the persmission thing is included in that, which I am very curious as to how you got that out of the restrictions, it would say so. Why would it say so? Because many people are oblivious to that so called footnote or yours. So yes, you did adjust it. It says you must be accompanied by parent or guardian, which you obviously were not. They gave their persmission, which is not what the guidelines say. Since that is the case, not only you adjusted it, but the ticket seller did as well. It is a known fact that when they say accompanied by a parent or guardian, that they mean in the theatre with you, not just take you there. If that wasn't the case, someones parent could drop them off and they would technically have accompanied them.

Yes, I don't believe that you would have thrown a hiss fit or anything. But again, the fact remains that you adjusted them to fit your needs. You may not have seen it that way back then, but in light of this topic, you did adjust them because you were unhappy with them. You don't have to throw a hissy fit to mean you are unhappy with something. And you did exactly what some are saying in this thread. That they are guidelines and shouldn't be enforced as heavily as they are. If you had no problems with the rating/restriction system, you wouldn't have seen it in the first place. But the fact that you did, and didn't follow the "rules" set forth, shows that you do in fact have a problem with it, you just won't get all pissed off about it. It's and adjustment to a system that you claims is perfectly fine. If something is perfectly fine, there is no need to adjust it.

But if there isn't a problem with it, then why get the verbal/written permission? If you are so for it as you are saying, and that nothing is wrong with it, you wouldn't use a verbal/written permission. You would go with your parents and that is it for a rated R movie. By saying that you get around the restrictions that are in place, show that it doesn't work for you. You want to see the movie, yet you can't unless a parent is with you. That is what is supposed to happen. But yet, you gave a way for others to basically undermind the rating system, a way which you have also followed. I am curious as to how that is saying they work? For the R movies at least. You made an adjustment, pure and simple. Implying that that specific restriction doesn't work for you. How is that [i]not[/i] an adjustment? When you change a little thing here and there, it is an adjustment. In your case it was getting the verbal/written permission, when it is supposed to be that you have to have a parent/guardian accompany you to the movie. Again I repeat, if you see no problem with it, then why did you not follow it? If there was no problem with it, you would have went with your mom/dad. But again, no one wants to see a movie with their parents, some movies at least. You may have stayed true to your argument the whole thread, which as I understand is nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system and that nothing should be changed. But your example doesn't stay true to your nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system. Obviously something is wrong if you yourself don't follow it.

I am curious as to how Siren thinks the rating/restriction system [i]does[/i] work? I am just curious because of some of the points we bring. Siren is for adjustments. ;-) I say this because of one major thing. The rated R restriction says you have to have an adult guardian with you to view the movie. Siren, you say that as long as you have written/verbal permission, it is all right to see? But isn't that an [i]adjustment[/i] to what is said? You have to have a parent or guardian, you have to. But now the permission is an adjustment of what is actually put forth. So right there, you have said you want to adjust the restriction/rating system. You may say that it is a trivial matter, but in reality it isn't. And what you said is that you favor an adjustment of the system, contrary to what you have been saying about the rating/restriction system being fine. Which obviously it isn't, if you are making your own adjustments. Which is exactly what Sciro's is saying. ;)

In my mind, if the restrictions were removed, the restrictions would come from the families instead. I still believe that they are just guidelines. Who is to say that some kid cannot see a certain movie besides their own parent? Even your idea of written/verbal persmission is not enough in many places, as I have shown you above. Now if the restrictions were to come from the family instead, a child would be much more inclined to follow that restriction, in fear of a punishment if they are caught. An example being that when I was young I watched I Know What you Did last Summer with my brother, and he basically got the crap scared out of him, lol. After that, I was barred from watching horror films. Now when my dad told me that, I was, pardon my language here, pissing in my pants in fear I would get in trouble. Now before that, even with the restrictions set forth by the rating system, I didn't mind at all, I watched horror movies non stop. But when a restriction comes from a family, and punishment will follow if you break it, you won't do it. What can the theatre do to you if you see a rated R movie when you aren't supposed to? Either tell you to go to the right theatre you are supposed to be in(if you sneak in that is) or they just kick you out if it is a continuing offense. Like when I snuck into Once Upon a Time in Mexico, all they did was tell me I was in the wrong theatre. Those two results aren't as bad as lets say getting grounded by your parents, so kids do it. When a parent tells a kid no, they listen, most of the time. And look at it this way, the restrictions [i]don't[/i] work in many places. They have people buying tickets and then just walking into a different theatre. If they were needed, they would make sure you can't get in, but they don't. They aren't needed as much as you are making them out to be. Why keep something that doesn't work a good deal of the time? It is one own personal opinions on if they want to see the movie. There are 20 year olds who are no better off seeing a rated R movie than a 16 year old. With PG 13 movies, it is reccomended(sp) that a parent be there if they are under 13. Reccomended(sp), not required. Yet do they sell 13 year olds or under a ticket? No. That is a guideline. If it were to say "Under 13 a parent is requier" I can see it that way, but if it doesn't anyone should be able to see it without problem. I'm not saying the restrictions should be taken away, because it is pointless because they won't. I myself follow them as guidelines. As stated above, what gives those people the right to run the lives of other children? Seeing a rated R movie when you are 16, isn't a felony, it won't harm anything. Someone said something about a younger child going into a movie, lets say a 10 year old. How often would a 10 year old go in anyways? They are still scared of things, and certainly wouldn't want to be scared of lets say the movie Scream. They are smart enough to think for themselves, and won't purposefully get themselves scared, least from the places I have been they aren't that stupid. I can walk up to a Blockbuster and rent a rated R movie(back when I was 16). Why aren't those enforced? But wait, the account says that I can rent rated R movies. Why is that written proof enough for a rental place, but not a movie theatre? It is the same movie. IF I can get the same movie at a rental place with written/verbal permission, it should be the same for ALL movie theatres. What is the difference? THere is no difference.

Well Boba, I just finished SQ. I am glad that Zahn has returned. :-) [spoiler]I really loved the mystery aspect of the book. When Jinzler is caught snooping around after the lights went out aboard the Chiss ship. And then when you see Fel talking to one of his Stormtroopers, asking him questions about what just went on. I thought it was the Stormtroopers and Fel up until the time that the Geroons umasked themselves. I really like the Redoubt. As the Chiss' last safe haven and stuff. I just really love final havens, and places to put up a final fight and so on.[/spoiler] There are only a few things that I did not like about the book. [spoiler] I wish he would have told us exactly why the people of Outbound Flight hate the Jedi. I really want to know. When Feesa first told Luke and Mara that the visitors taught them to speak Basis, I was assuming that the Jedi were these Visitors. But when she said the Visitors came before Outbound Flight, that shot that theory down. It never says why the people hate them so much, unless of course I missed it. Another is who the Visitors are! I know it is a mystery that is meant to be there, I just really want to know. Just like Thrawns threat that the galaxy wasn't prepared for on the edges of the galaxy. I wish they would have showed us the battle between the Chiss and Vagaari. I really wanted to see a nice space battle.[/spoiler] But other than those small details, I love the book. Now I wait for me new one to come. :-)

[QUOTE]Sciros, it's always in the hands of the parents, regardless of a Rating system or not. The Rating system is not stripping parents of all their parental power, and it's ridiculous of you to say that, because it's simply not true.[/QUOTE] I have on many occasions, in many different theaters around the nation(vacations and so one) when my mother walked up to the counter with me. She bought 2 tickets for a rated R film for my brother and I. And when asked if she was seeing it she said no, and the people refused to let us see the movie. That is clear permission for us to see the movie, yet they didn't let us, even when it was her who bought the tickets. I had a friend who went to see Matrix Revoultions. He went with his brother who was 18. Since there was a huge crowd, they had people waiting at the entrance to the movie to check tickets. When they got to him, they asked where his parent was. He said he had his brother with him who was 18. They didn't allow him in. His dad had to then come and tell them it was ok for him to see the movie. Now if you look at it, his borhter is 18, and if their song is with their older brother, there is a high probability that his parents all ready knew where he was going. EDIT: Now what really gets me is this. My friend wasn't able to get into a rated R movie with his own brother, who is 18. My mother took a group of friends and I to go see Resident Evil when it came out in theatres. My mom was there and bought three tickets, and when she was asked if she would be seeing the movie,she replied no. They refused to sell us a ticket, if she wasn't going to be there. But then a group of my friends happens to come along and is seeing the same movie. My friend Lee has his cousin with him, who is 18. We say we are then with them, and they allow us to see it. What the heck? What if my mom hadn't taken us there and we got there ourselves? They would have still let us in I am guessing. So no, just because a parent takes you there, does not mean you will get into the movie.

Like I said before, I believe them to be just guidelines.\ I'm not buying Bobas argument for the driving though. Who is to say that the kid is actually mature? He could just be pretending, for the reason to get the car. Which would back up Taks argument in a way. The parents don't know if their kid is truly mature. I act differently around my mom than I do in public. Im sure many, many people act more mature, just so that they can get something out of their parents. Or when people go for their road test. They drive completely different than they do if they pass, most of them do anyways. Who wants to see movies with their parents? Not anyone I know. Many times kids don't want to be seen at places like the mall, or movie theatres with parents. Exactly, though what I am talking about with the T.V. Kids see things just as bad as movies on television. More than half the time the parents just order it to shut the incessant begging up. And many families just have HBO/Starz/ etc. and the kids can just watch it without their parents having to order it for them. I still believe that they should just be guidelines. It is only a matter of time before the kids see the movies really. What should be done, is that employess should ask the kid what they know about the movied, and if they feel they are ready/able to handle what will happen in the movie, allow them to go see it. If they are there, it is highly likely their parents know what movie they are seeing, and have allready given them persmission to go out period. Swearing and fighting are some reasons movies are rated R. YOu see things like this all the time at school. Swearing is commoin, fighting is common. I don't see why it should be restricted when it is just acting/entertain ment, when they see things just as bad in real life. *shrug*

I personally don't think that all the movie restrictions should be in place, specifically the 17 age limit on rated R movies. Usually, keep in mind this is usually, if I kid is at a movie theatre, their parents obviously know what movie they will be seeing. Just that fact alone, in my mind at least, gives them persmission to see the rated R movie. And if the people didn't believe them, they could easily call the kids parents. With my being 17, I don't have to worry about this though. But I do have a 16 year old brother who would like to see movies that are R, and are unable to unless my mom buys the tickets, or I go back at different times during the day and buy them. ^_^;; Back when Mortal Kombat came out(I think it was MK at least) my mother dropped my brother, a friend, and I off in front of the theatre, in clear view of the employees. She knew what movie it was we were going to see, otherwise she wouldn't have let us go to the theatre at all. It being Pg 13, and I being 13 at the time, she just left us there to buy the tickets. They wouldn't even let me buy my own ticket, and I was 13. So then I asked if I could go inside and use the pay phone to call my mom. They wouldn't let me even do that because rated R movies were in progress. Now that is plain bull crap. The phones are near the entrance and they would be able to see that I wouldn't sneak into any movie. I believe that the ratings should be a loose set of guideline, not something that should be followed to the letter. Many kids see rated R movies on television itself, it isn't something that is new to them. Kids see things just as bad on the news itself. Images of war and the like. Hell, kids probably even seen pornography nowadays if they have Digital Cable. And with channels like HBO showing rated R movies, kids watch them anyways. EDIT: My apologies, my TAB key seems to not be working. -_-

Yeah so far, it is the best book I have read as well. The [spoiler] Vagaari(I think that's it)[/spoiler] interest me greatly. I can't wait to find out more about them. I also can't wait to find out more about the Outbound Flight. I've been interested in that since the Thrawn Trilogy.

I know this has nothing to do with the DVD's and such, but it does have to do with Star Wars nontheless. Well, I recently just finished reading [i]Shatterpoint[/i] by Matthew Stover, and have decided to find anyone elses opinions on the book? [spoiler] As a book itself, I found it to be great. The action was just amazing. Though, I still find Stover's action scenes in [i]Traitor[/i] better, they were awesome. The final battle at the end was just amazing. I absolutely did not think that Mace and the Korunnai would win the battle. Then when Kar(one of the main characters, VERY cool by the way) convinces the Clone Troopers that Mace was killed, and starts to fight the Balwalai(the offworlders not native to the planet Haruun Kal) I was like "crap! Shouldn't have ever trusted him." The battle between him and Kar was just amazing. Oh man. I am not even going to explain what it was like, you should read it yourself if you haven't all ready.One thing I didn't like though, was the way Mace was portrayed. I just never really pictured him like that from watching the movies. To me...he just seemed [i]mean[/i] Heh. He would like just go all out at times, like when he arrives on planet. He threatens, he fights a lot..things I never thought he would ever do, what with being on the Jedi Council and stuff. To me, it didn't seem like he even tried to "de-escalate" the situation. Another thing I didn't like was his former padawan Depa. I just did [i]not[/i] like her, period. There was something about her from when you first meet her that I didn't like. And then whens he fights Mace....and then breaks down into tears beggin for forgivenesss....bah. Didn't like it at all. But overall, it was a very good read. But I have read better.[/spoiler] And now, I have started to read Timothy Zahn's [i]Survivo'rs Quest[/i]. Just the fact that it is about the Outbound Flight project being found is enough for me to read it. I think it only right that he should write about it, seeing as how it was he who created the thing in the first place. I am like four chapters into the book, and I am hooked. Zahn is my favorite author. I loved all his other books, and will no doubt love this one as well. I'll get back to everyone on how I think it is. Has anyone read this one?

I honestly am dissapointed. :-( My DVDs keep freezing!!!! *cries* In A New Hope and Empire Strikes back they froze for a few seconds but quickly caught up. I was able to rewind and watch the part again. But not so with Return of the Jedi. :-( It freezes, skips like five minutes ahead and when I rewind, it freezes during the rewind. I'll have to return them. :-( But from what I was able to see, wow. I love them. I was waiting so long for these. I just wish they could have come out sooner so I wouldn't have had to wait as long. I too have a question. In Empire, when Vader is talking to the Emperor. Have you always been able to see his face like that? And has he always said all that he says? I seem to remember that his face was kind of hidden behind the shadow of his hood in the other ones.

I just moved to Georgia over the summer, a little north of Atlanta. Frances and Ivan caused really, really bad rains, heh. That was about it. Caused lots of flooding. Driving to school in rain like that was not fun, heh. But personally...having never been in a hurricane I found it kind of fun. Though it wasn't a hurricane at the time anymore. I like rain and storms. ^_^;; I just kept saying to my brother and friends "poor Florida", and before this is over, Florida is going to be destroyed, heh. I know it isn't true, but it just seems like it could be. My business law teacher has a joke about Florida, lol. Florida is there to weaken the hurricanes before they reach us. I love Florida though. :-)