Horendithas

[COLOR=DarkRed][QUOTE=White][COLOR=DimGray][FONT=Tahoma]If that dog makes its way to the top of the forum, I will disappear from the face of OtakuBoards for whatever amount of time it is there. [size=1]It should obviously be a cat.[/size][/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Party Pooper! :p I too think it would be freaking hilarious to have something unconventional for a banner. Like the ones Aaryanna made. Either one would be great James. [spoiler]hint, hint [/spoiler] Those dog banners are great Aaryanna, even the one with the creepy floating dog. ;)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']All the more reason to have some form of format for members to present an idea for an event. I suppose they already could via pm, but I wonder how many members even thought to do such a thing. I know it never occurred to me. At least not until this thread came up. ^_~[/COLOR][/quote]Me neither. And for that reason alone I think this is an excellent idea that with some tweaking, like others have already mentioned, would work. It never occurred to me to even think of presenting ideas for events because the thought in my mind was that it?s the event master?s job. And yet like Aaryanna_Mom pointed out in the first post. When she organized events for kids at school, by asking them what they wanted to do they got ideas that in some cases were even better than what she and the other mom?s had in mind. Whether or not it will actually get any responses from the members is another thing, but if we don?t give it a try we?ll never know. At least once the current event is over with that is. ;)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I only have one critique on this chapter, well other than the obvious slant where Celestia ends up being a halfling so to speak, though since it's been done so much in shows and other literature it's kind of hard to avoid that sort of obvious twist. Or rather the fact that you included it being obvious. And it's not like you haven't been dropping hints all along. Anyway, back to my point. And that is that the current chapter is a bit too long or rather focuses so much on two different aspects of the story, from Jared getting his assignment to the part where Celestia's heritage is revealed. That I'm thinking it would have been better to separate them into two different chapters. It could just be me, but since you were already so focused on what Jared was up to, the switch to Celestia just seems a little off at first. I'm just thinking that indicating it was a new chapter would have helped set the tone that you were going to go in a completely different direction with the story. Meh, I'm not even sure if I make sense here. Anyway, other than that, excellent work. ;)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Is there a way to apply a border to text like that in Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0? When I right click on the text layer like you indicate there isn't a selection for blending options. Or am I out of luck since I don't have Photoshop CS2?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][I]Is this really how it?s going to end?[/I] Janet it thought, the cold water numbing her as it reached her waist.[I] It can?t end like this! My children need me! [/I]She thought in despair. But her silent wish went unanswered. The water continued to rise until it was halfway up her chest. Then as it touched her breast pocket she felt something tugging on her shirt. With a shriek of panic she grasped in front of her in an attempt to figure out what had just touched her. She could feel something rough and ropelike; she grabbed it in an attempt to push it away, not understanding that it was coming from her own pocket. Within seconds she felt it wrap around her body, lifting her up, keeping her head out of the water. Then before she could wonder just what was truly happening, a sharp crack filled the air, followed quickly by the sound of water rushing somewhere. Brilliant light blinded her as she felt the water begin to recede and she was forced to close her eyes. Desperately Janet tried to open her eyes to figure out what was going on, tears streaming out of her eyes from the effort to see. Then as her vision began to clear, and the sound of the water leaving fell silent, she felt herself being lowered gently to the stone floor. The room she had been in was now open to the outside as a huge chunk of the stone wall was in pieces. It appeared to have been broken by strong vines. [I] What just happened?[/I] she thought as the vines that had been holding her finished releasing her, leaving her standing upright. She reached up to her pocket; there was still something there. She reached in and pulled out what appeared to be seeds. [I]How did those get there?[/I] She wondered. Then it hit her. It must have happened when Mary had been killed. The vines then had taken the girl from her. They must have left some seeds in her pocket. ?[B]Thank you.[/B]? She said. The vines reached back to her, gently caressing her before letting go once again. She put the remaining seeds back into her pocket, took a moment to wring out her clothing a bit and then walked out of the room. Janet found herself in a stone maze this time. [I]I have to get out of here my children need me.[/I] She thought. Janet continued traveling through the stone maze, strangely comforted by the seeds in her pocket in spite of still being chilled by her wet clothing. At that moment she felt as if she could face anything. Then after she had been walking for a while and her clothes had mostly dried out, she heard the sounds of someone shrieking and of something being hit over and over. Curious Janet followed the sounds and when they became lounder she then carefully peeked around the corner. She nearly gave herself away with a gasp of horror at what she saw. A woman covered in blood and gore was beating and dismembering another person. Janet tried to control her reaction and failed, she fell to her hands and knees retching, throwing up what little content she had in her stomach. The woman whirled at the sound of Janet retching, startled by the unexpected sound. Then she smiled. ?[B]You?re too late to save the Boy Scout, little hussy![/B]? She hissed at Janet. [I] Boy Scout? What is she talking about?[/I] Janet thought in confusion as she got back up. ?[B]Just as you?re too late to save yourself.[/B]? Ayame continued as she began to walk towards Janet. ?[B]I?m going to make sure you stupid hussies never get in my way again![/B]? And with another shriek she was after Janet. With a start Janet realized that she was insane! [I]Now what do I do? [/I]She thought. Instinctively she grabbed the seeds in her pocket and threw them at Ayame who hesitated when one of them flew into her open mouth. ?[B]Damn you![/B]? Ayame shrieked as she paused to shake the seeds out of her hair and clothing. She had only removed a few when she gave a gasp of pain and bent over. ?[B]What did you do to me![/B]? Ayame shrieked her voice becoming even shriller. She fell to the ground and began to thrash madly. Janet backed away, uncertain as to what was happening. She had thrown the seeds even though she was uncertain if they could even help her like thay had before. Then just as she was going to flee while the woman was distracted, Ayame?s body convulsed, as vines exploded from within her body, tearing her to shreds. Once again Janet gagged and retched, though this time there was nothing left in her stomach. She fell to her knees and sobbed. [/COLOR] [CENTER][IMG]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/SamSandy/Labyrinth/labyrinth-deathcard.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/SamSandy/Labyrinth/labyrinth-ayame.png[/IMG][/CENTER]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkRed][B][SIZE=2]Doubts[/SIZE][/B] ?The money has been deposited into your account.? ?Good. When do you want it done?? He looked at him through narrowed eyes, questioning. ?How do I know you won?t back out?? A quick thrust. [INDENT]A startled gasp. [INDENT] Dark red blood began to flow.[/INDENT][/INDENT] He fell into darkness. [INDENT]Two words etched into his mind.[/INDENT] ?You don?t.?[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Split Keyblader]So do you think that our culture has a lot of sex related themes. Discussion time!![/QUOTE]Definitely and James really put it quite well in that human beings are inherently sexual. I suppose part of what makes it seem as if our society is being flooded by it, is the restriction or rather taboo associated with it is becoming a thing of the past. So movies, articles and advertising are reflecting that change. [QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']Do I actually see it in the grocery stores? Only if I take the time to pull the magazine out as here in Utah they put black boards in front of the actual magazines. They even fasten them in place so you can't move them. It is kind of fun to pull one out and make fun of what they are hiding when I?m at the store waiting to check out. Though the others waiting in line don?t find my antics amusing.[/COLOR][/quote]I?ve always found the black boards rather hilarious too. Especially the one covering some tabloid magazine with an article about ?who?s gay? that I saw at the store the other day. And the only thing on the front was a very small picture of two guys kissing. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#99323ff][font=lucida calligraphy]I know that definately doesn't happen just because you either popped out a baby or adopted one. But you'd think that either way you try to think clearer.[/color'][/font][/quote]One would think, but it?s a sad reality that there are a lot of people out there who for what ever reason, they are not emotional or mentally prepared to be a parent. And as a result the children are often the one to suffer. And this woman could be one of them, it?s highly likely that she was, and it?s a pity that she didn?t know about how many states allow a mother to abandon their baby at a hospital, no questions asked within the first seven days or something like that. But I would imagine that she?s probably mentally ill if she is the one who did it. And depression affects women almost twice as often as men and while depression may strike at any time, studies show that women are particularly vulnerable during their childbearing years. The most common issues of pregnancy-related depression, include: [list]Becoming pregnant while being treated for depression and depression during pregnancy [/list][list]Pregnancy loss[/list][list]Infertility-related depression and the effects of fertility treatments[/list][list]Understanding the effects of maternal depression on spouses and family[/list][list]Postpartum depression and anxiety[/list] She may have not even realized that she had a problem since many religions [at least here in Utah they do] tend to tell their members to pray and find religious means to solve their problems. And many of these members of the clergy, though they mean well, don't have the training to realize that someone suffering from depression especially in if it involves a newly born child, needs professional help. Because there are many problems that require medicine to make a difference. I see it all the time in my job. People not getting help until things got out of hand. To seeing parents lose their children because they ended up abusing them. Husbands who beat not only their wives nearly to death, but their kids as well. There was a high profile case fairly recently where the parents were prosecuted for forcing their daughter to drink water when she misbehaved. They did it to such excess that the kid actually died. And in the end, even in court they were convinced that they did nothing wrong. If anything this case just reminds me of what a sad world we live in where so many kids never get to grow up, and if this woman was not severly depressed or mentally ill. And she did indeed kill her child. At that point she deserves what ever she gets.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='True Angel][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Cyan] I can't believe she did that. That's really messed up! It's so wrong and I think that she had no reason to do that. I mean killing her own child is like murdering your family. That is so not right. I'm glad that she's getting what she deserves.[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]You just gotta love the guilty until proven innocent slant going on here. A few people have already pointed this out, but she has yet to actually be convicted of the crime, and the lack of experience in understanding evidence indicating the kid was cooked with a microwave should be a red flag here. It?s not something that is very provable since we don?t exactly have any research on this. It?s not like they have very many past cases to go on. If she?s guilty then she deserves whatever punishment they decide to give her. But if she?s not all we are doing is making a mothers horrible loss even worse by accusing her of being the murderer. You might be thinking to yourself how in the world could something like this happen and yet people are missing the fact that there are three other children as well. I really dislike the opening article as it fails to give all the relevant information. And if you are wondering why the fact that there are other children is actually relevant. I speak from experience in that kids do things without understanding what they truly are doing. When I was three my brothers spilled water on me and their attempt to hide it from my mom was to try to shove me in the dryer and start it to dry my clothes. Fortunately my mother heard the commotion and came and checked it out, but you really can?t just sit down and say it was her when the very article you are reading gives you absolutely no hard facts or evidence as to what happened that night. At least the type that would indicate just what happened. There?s a whole lot of missing information here and I for one refuse to tell her she?s getting what she deserves when she could very well be completely innocent. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Sara][color=#b0000b][size=1]I think that the best way to go about this hangs largely on whether or not you intend to keep smoking or if you want to quit.[/size'][/color][/quote]That really sums it up. If you intend to stop I'd do what Aaryanna_Mom suggested and tell them along with an apology for not telling them. If they use to smoke then they will most likely want to help you stop smoking. If your intent is to simply not need to hide it then I would wait until you are eighteen. Though if you are still living at home, it probably won't make any difference as you are still going to be viewed by them as a kid to some extent. I think parents just can't help but think of their own kids like that. I know my parents were shocked when they realized just what was in some of the adult video games I have. And the fact that I was over twenty one didn?t seem to translate into I?m an adult for them. Though they?ve since gotten over the shock, they just don?t ask me how I?m enjoying my games anymore when I get a new one. ;)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Aaryanna_Mom]I?m not sure I want to find out either! Though I kid, as I?ve come far enough that I really do want to know, even if it?s not very nice. ;)[/QUOTE]You may change your mind once you read it. [spoiler]Cackles Evilly![/spoiler] And so I?m not totally off topic here, I rather like this part that you added in: [QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue'] Besides, unlike his mother, Daniel was a commander, something Nathan had to have used to his advantage. Taking the time to probe his memories would be extremely useful in tracking down other connections to the resistance forces. [/COLOR][/quote]I?m fairly certain it wasn?t there before and I rather like it as it fits Jared?s character. He may be one mean little shit, but you?ve also been painting a picture of someone who is dedicated to his duties. So it makes sense that even though he is having fun, he would still be focusing on his job as a Sub-Commander. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR=DarkOrchid]Also, I'm dying to know, but is the guy suppose to be Jared? I can't imagine it being any of the other characters. If it is... Damn you for making the [spoiler]villian[/spoiler'] so damn hot! :p[/COLOR][/quote]It?s Jared alright. I asked SunfallE the very same thing in a pm just take a look at her answer. ;) [QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue]I?m glad you like the banner and yes, that?s supposed to be Jared. ;) ~Beth[/COLOR][/QUOTE]And since it is Jared, you just know I had to do this Beth, right? :p [IMG]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3821/silveronebanner001fj1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1021/silveronebanner002jp9.jpg[/IMG] It took me [I]forever[/I] to do the extraction on the two different pictures, [because unlike KW I suck at making banners] but in the end I think it turned out nicely. I even hunted up a new font just for the banners. ;) [quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue'] I?d love to see one done by you as your work has such lovely vivid colors and striking textures. :catgirl: [/COLOR][/quote]I agree with SunfallE KW you do excellent work, and that banner you made looks awesome. In fact all of you made great banners. I?m sure you could work all of them into the RPG at one point SunfallE. Or else I just might have to poke you with a spork! [/empty threat][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Perhaps it could come under a category of graphic contributions to OB? Or something along those lines? Another thread that would fit along with what SunfallE already posted would be the [B]Avatar Submission Thread[/B]. (Also started by James ;) ) Though I?m not sure how you would write that up since unlike the Christmas Banner Contest thread, the avatar submissions are a little more permanent. Even if Des is a bit sporadic when it comes to updates. :p[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Ayame had spent what seemed like hours hunting for those who had killed her. Not that it mattered who she found first. They all needed to die. Each and every one of them. She would find them all. [I]I?ll make them pay for what they did to me![/I] She thought. She continued walking through the maze, not really noticing when it changed from hedges, to fields, to caves or back to a stone maze. She was too busy plotting her revenge. She didn?t even notice the times when she barely missed falling into a pit of spikes or the poisonous snakes hiding in the grass. ?[B]Just where in the hell are they![/B]? She hissed impatiently. As much as she would love to kill Kalas [I]immediately[/I] for what he had done to her, there was a certain irony and justice to be had in killing the one he had protected first. All those damn brats were always taking the men away from her. If they weren?t around, she would get the attention she so richly deserved. ?[B]Stupid whores![/B]? She muttered under her breath as she continued to search. How many times had her lover been stolen from her by one of them? She had lost count over the years. Just as she no longer remembered how many of them she had punished for their crimes. At first she had been uncertain when she woke up in the open grave. But then it had become apparent that even here it was no different. [I]Stupid damn hussies always stealing all the men.[/I] She thought. Even that girl, she wasn?t even old enough to be a woman and she could have cared less that Ayame had disappeared! Well she had shown her! It hadn?t taken her long to figure out that something was different. And the look on everyone?s faces when she had taken Constance?s head off had been delicious. At least until the other hussy had hit her and interfered. [I]They all just need to die![/I] She screamed in her mind. Still furious over what had happened. The sound of voices echoing through the stone walls brought her out of her musings. Instinctively she shrunk herself to the size of a gnat and then continued. Cautious she peered around the corner. It was the kid with the sword and another one of the men. It wasn?t the one?s who had killed her, but they would do. Ayame smiled maliciously. [I]Now[/I], she thought to her self, [I]which one should I kill first[/I]? [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Sandy]I agree that OB [I]as a whole[/I] will become more open to newer members this way, with the site history and nostalgic blasts from the past all documented to one thread, but I fail to see how that [I]encourages[/I] them to contribute to the Otakupedia in any way. [I]I[/I'] for one would feel very intimidated to post anything in this thread if I had only been a member here for less than two years. At this current state, Otakupedia is pretty much run by the old foggies rambling about stuff that happened years ago.[/quote]I've rather enjoyed reading the entries as its made a number of odd references actually make sense. I've only been here for a year and four months so it's actually been driving me a little nuts not knowing what the references are. I attempted to try and do some staff interviews a while ago (it totally flopped) So I've been thrilled to see this as my interest in the interviews was mainly to get some history on the site. And in all honesty, this idea is a thousand times better than what I was trying to do. Especially because anyone can contribute. ;) As for feeling intimidated, that is not the case, rather I've been waiting and watching to get a feel for the format and types of articles as writing is not my strong point. And I assume that anything I write can later be edited by other members to include things I forgot. Because if no one beats me to it I intend to write up one on notable threads as The DailyOtaku absolutely has to be part of this. No other thread has made my laugh as much as it did. And after that Des needs an entry on how he inspired a fan club just for him, though that could be part of the one on Aaryanna as it was her idea and she pretty much got it going. ;)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Tekkaman][font=Century Gothic][size=2][color=gray]I'll make the neccessary changes. :animesmil[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]Thank you very much. ;) [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]There?s a problem with what you wrote here Tekkaman. [quote name='Tekkaman][font=Century Gothic][size=2][color=gray]Joachim had abandoned Callisto just as soon as they had met. [/color][/size'][/font][/quote]Did you even read what I wrote earlier? Joachim can?t have abandoned Callisto just as soon as they met. I left them in the middle of navigating across a series of stone pillars with seemly bottomless pits. And this after Callisto took the time to bandage up his sprained ankle no less. lol Your post is certainly melodramatic enough, but it contradicts what I and others have already written. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]It was obvious to Callisto that Joachim was having trouble with his left ankle. [I]He must have sprained it when he tripped. [/I]He thought as he watched him limping. ?[B]Stop for a minute Joachim.[/B]? Callisto said, ?[B]We need to do something about that ankle of yours before it gets worse[/B].? ?[B]What can we do?[/B]? Joachim asked. Callisto smiled reassuringly, ?[B]I?m pretty good at making makeshift bandages, if you don?t mind that it comes from the sleeves of my shirt I can at least wrap that ankle of yours to give you some support.[/B]? Joachim hesitated for a minute and then nodded. ?[B]Okay[/B].? He sat down and patiently waited while Callisto carefully took his shoe and sock off and then proceeded to rip the sleeves of his shirt into strips. Then just as carefully he wrapped the strips around his ankle and finished by tying a strip together around the finished deal. Callisto then loosened the ties on his shoe, put the sock back on over the bandage and carefully put his shoe back on before tying it. ?[B]There, see how that feels,[/B]? Callisto said as he stood up. He offered his hand to Joachim and helped him stand back up. Cautiously Joachim took a few steps and then a few more. It still hurt, but it was defiantly much better. ?[B]Thank you[/B],? he said with a smile. ?[B]That helps a lot.[/B]? ?[B]Good, are you ready to continue then?[/B]? He asked the kid. ?[B]Well I suppose so, but how do we know if we are going in the right direction or not?[/B]? Joachim asked. ?[B]We don?t. But we can?t stay put, especially after what happened back there.[/B]? Callisto said with a shrug of his head indicating the direction from which they had come. Joachim swallowed hard before replying. The last thing he wanted was to go back to where he had woken up. ?[B]Okay.[/B]? He finally said. Now that Callisto had wrapped up his ankle it was much easier to walk and he picked up his pace, eager to be out of the crazy maze of hedges. Within a short time the hedges gave way to what appeared to be an open stone field. There were wooden walkways and it wasn?t until they got closer that they realized that the wooden walkways were connecting stone pillars. What had appeared to be an open stone field was in fact the top of a series of stone pillers connected by the wooden walkways. Joachim looked back at the hedge wondering if perhaps they should have gone another direction. Before his eyes the hedges moved, closing off the route they had come from. He turned back. ?[B]Looks like we have no choice but to go forward.[/B]? He said. [B]?Looks like it[/B].? Callisto agreed. [I]This has got to be a set up.[/I] Callisto thought. He walked over to the first edge and looked down. He couldn?t see the bottom, only darkness. [I]Lovely[/I], he thought. With no railings of any kind, all it would take was one slip and it would all be over. He looked around to see if there was another way out but there was not. There was another opening into what appeared to be another maze made of stone, but the only way to get there was over the wooden walkways. ?[B]I?ll go first and then you follow me okay?[/B]? He asked. Joachim nodded. Callisto cautiously stepped onto the walkway. It seemed fairly firm and within moments he was on the stone pillar. Joachim quickly followed. Within a short time they were halfway across the stone pillars. [I]So far so good.[/I] Callisto thought. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Now that you have revived a character Sandy, does that mean the next wave starts? Or is that something that happens tomorrow? Also are you planning on posting to indicate who is out of the game and who is still in? I'd like to know since I plan on posting today, but I assumed I cannot kill anyone until tomorrow. Which is fine as I was more interested in developing the characters a little more.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Don't feed the troll, guys. :animesigh ~indifference [B]Thread closed.[/B][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Mary dropped the arrow in shock, not even noticing that it vanished before it hit the ground. ?[B]It was supposed to heal him! Not break the glass![/B]? she wailed. ?[B]I killed him![/B]? She burst into tears and before Janet could stop her she turned and ran back the way they had come. ?[B]Mary! Come back![/B]? she cried as she gave chase. ?[B]You didn?t kill him![/B]? But Mary was too quick for her and was soon lost to sight as she turned to the right and ran down another corridor. Janet stumbled and fell, landing hard on the ground, nearly knocking herself senseless. A horrible high-pitched scream rent the air. Hurriedly she scrambled back to her feet and ran in the direction of the scream. [I]Oh my God![/I] She thought over and over. Hoping that she was not too late. She ran down the corridor that Mary had just fled down and came to an open field. It was full of monsters straight from legend. Huge giant cats that were easily the size of a small truck turned to look at her when she ran into the field. Several of them lay dead, pierced through the head by golden arrows just like the one Mary had accidentally shattered the glass with. Janet gave a little gasp of horror and stepped back. There in the middle, one of them held the poor lifeless body of Mary in its mouth. An arrow still in her little hand. Something inside of Janet snapped. How could anyone create such a horrible place? How could anyone subject children to such horrors. With a scream of rage she charged the cat holding Mary?s body, somehow she was going to kill it, even if she died in the process. Her rage caused the plants surround the field to writhe as if in pain and the ground began to shake and heave as if something was coming up from below the grass. Cracks began to appear and before the cats had even moved a step towards Janet, huge vines flew out from underneath them, quickly wrapping around the cats, holding them in place. Janet was oblivious to what was happening to the cats, her attention was solely on the one holding Mary?s body. It dropped Mary's body and lunged at her, only to be caught by vines that shot up from the ground. Then before Janet could register what was truly happening, the vines grew razor sharp thorns that cut the lions apart. She looked around the field at the dead cats, not really caring how it had happened. Janet turned back to the one in front of her and walked around it to where Mary lay. With a sob she picked up the body of the little girl. Tears ran down her face. [I]I couldn?t protect them![/I] She cried within her mind. Once again the plants seemed to respond to Janet as new vines sprouted up and gently took Mary?s body from her. Stunned Janet watched as they wrapped themselves gently around her body and then when she was completely covered, tiny little pink flowers formed, spelling her name and then spread out to cover the rest of the vines on her. ?[B]Thank you.[/B]? Janet whispered to the plants. She turned and looked back at the way she had come. ?[B]I don?t know who you are,[/B]? she said to the air. ?[B]But I?m going to make sure you never bring another innocent child to this horrible place.[/B]? She walked over to the lion and picked up the arrow that Mary had been holding. She placed it next to her grave and then walked back the way she came. She calmly walked among the tall hedges, intending to go back to where she had first awakened. Surely there would be clues there that would help her figure out what had happened. And once she did, she would destroy this horrible place, along with whoever created it. The plants seemed to agree with her as any time she walked close to a hedge, the leaves would reach out and brush her as she walked by. [/COLOR] [CENTER][IMG]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/SamSandy/Labyrinth/labyrinth-deathcard.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/SamSandy/Labyrinth/labyrinth-mary.png[/IMG][/CENTER]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1] added numbers to your post so I could address each point (this is kind of crude, I'm sorry). To your first, I disagree based on the evidence. The phrase does not say "in the Union we trust," it doesn't even say "in liberty we trust." It uses the G-word [I]specifically[/I]. This does not promote any particular sect - obviously the word "God" is used in different ways - nor even one particular religion. But there are other religious positions that will endorse many gods or no god, and at [I]that[/I] point it becomes an establishment problem. This is not yet enough to say that the clause [I]is[/I] or [I]ought to be[/I'] interpreted widely enough to nix the motto, but we're clearly in a place where it's fair to start asking legal questions. Anything more in-depth than that I leave to the people who've actually gone through law school...[/SIZE][/quote]I wouldn?t say the numbers are crude. In fact they just make it easier to see what aspects of my post you are addressing. ;) Anyway? I?m going to feel a little like I?m getting into semantics here, but my whole point is exactly what you are stating, it does not specifically endorse one religious group. And as you said the phrase was used in both the civil war and then later in the 1950?s. So even though the phrase was only adopted into the actual pledge fairly recently, and also put on US paper money, it?s still a reflection that can be seen as one that reflects America?s history instead of a phrase that supports say the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church or any other church in America. The phrase is grounded in efforts by the government, or who ever thought of it, to increase patriotism, not increase church membership or one?s believe in God. [quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1']I'm not sure if I understand your second point. I don't actually know the name of the law, but what I've read indicates that passing the motto and sticking it on currency was legislation like any other. If you just meant it in the sense that it's a law that doesn't end up being a problem under the EC, then I disagree for the reasons stated above.[/SIZE][/quote]I?ll try to be clearer on this one. I?m not referring to the actual process of deciding to put the phrase on money, in the pledge, etc. I?m referring to the fact that the actual phrase itself is not a law. The problem with saying it took a law to put it there, is it?s not the same as actually passing a law that requires people to believe in religion or God. I hope that makes more sense. It?s a fairly standard process for the government, or city to pass laws that allow things that reflect some form of religion, like zoning an area to allow a church to be built, but yet do not really pass a law that respects a religion in the sense that others are required to respect them. They may build the church, but no one is required to actually attend. If my explanation doesn?t make sense I?m sorry, but to me it?s clear. The phrase In God we trust, even though it can be argued does respect religion on some level, still does not require or force anyone to respect religion. Now I can agree with the argument to be more careful about allowing any new laws that allow the use of such phrases, but to try and remove one that has some historical significance, is in my opinion outright asinine on his part. [quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1] I grant point three. Indeed, "no one is required to believe." But the question is whether the EC is narrow to the point where it only discourages [i]full-on government coercion[/i] in favor of a particular religion, or whether it also discourages mere [I]endorsement[/I]. "Reflections to appeal to those who are Christians" are definitely, I think, well in the neighborhood of that kind of endorsement. Again, it's a question of how widely the EC is to be read.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]I think I just answered this one as the phrase has historical significance so in my mind it?s just fine. It may have been done to appeal to Christians in general, but it?s still grounded in the history of America. However, to insist that there be more care before trying to add more phrases is something that I can agree with, as one side shouldn?t be getting more of what they would like to see. So in that respect Atheists have every right to insist that we don?t go overboard with including phrases, even if they do have a historical significance. [QUOTE=Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1]And back to the first point. I'm not going to argue too much here about the Christianity (or lack of Christianity) of the founding fathers, except to say that evidence suggests that Jefferson was an extreme deist, Madison was one of the strongest speakers against endorsement, and no one seems to know what the hell Washington was. Your stronger point (and I hope I'm understanding you correctly) is that in trying to do away with "in God we trust" he is effectively using his own freedom to violate the first amendment freedoms of others. This would be correct if, say, there was a private organization who used this motto and Mr. Atheist tried to shut them down. But this isn't what's happening: the phrase "in God we trust" is here being endorsed [i]by the government[/i']. The government, as an entity, has no first amendment rights. What it can decree is checked by a number of things, the most important being the constitution. And, as I've been droning on about for several paragraphs now, it's at least up for question whether this motto can be allowed by that document.[/SIZE][/quote]I?m not sure if that?s my stronger point, it?s more of a I?m surprised point as he?s insisting that his rights have been violated when in reality, they have not. Whether or not the founders were Christians is irrelevant in the long end. The fact that the statements do have historical roots, regardless of whether or not they are Christian in nature is relevant. I could understand as I already said, if he were trying to make sure this sort of thing wasn?t happening all the time, the use of phrases that appeal to Christians, then I would actually agree with him. It?s the how dare you even use it at all attitude he has that I find grating and downright annoying, even though I too do not believe in God. On some level the government has to endorse the phrase since they are the ones in charge of and responsible for money being produced. And even then they aren?t endorsing a religion they are endorsing the phrase being used on coins, paper money, in the pledge of allegiance. And even though it does on some level respect religion, well you can?t deny that aspects of our history do include that. Which is part of what I was driving at, he had the freedom to believe or not believe and the phrase in the pledge and on money doesn?t take away that right. It?s an accurate reflection of aspects of our country?s history. Not some attempt to deliberately offend him. And on some level we can?t change history or how people feel just to accommodate one person or group. If the phrase had no historical roots then I too would be arguing that such a phrase shouldn?t be allowed. [quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1]I've addressed most of this already. Anyways, I agree with you on the last sentence. If the motto had been legislated five years ago, I think there would be a much better chance of it going down to the SCOTUS as compared to the thing being on the books for 50 years. Remember that at his confirmation the term John Roberts kept using was "stare decisis," which is basically Latin for "if it's working fine then don't touch it." While I doubt Los Angeles would suddenly have to be renamed, a ruling against the motto would definitely open up a can of worms. Prevailing wisdom in jurisprudence now seems to be that unless there's a smoking gun - which may not quite be there in this case - one should steer close to past decisions. If one can't be sure about being right, one should at least be consistent. However, I think that's a different question from the one regarding whether the motto is at least up for [I]question[/I'] on these grounds, which is what I've been pushing in this post.[/SIZE][/quote]I don?t have a problem with the motto being questioned. In fact I think that unless there is a historical significance to it, the phrases used for such things should be carefully considered. So in the end I really think he?s barking up the wrong tree so to speak. The issue as I see it, isn?t about removing the current phrase, but instead making sure it doesn?t become a trend. So that other phrases that respect a religious view on life are not used unless they have a strong historical presence. Because then it?s not offensive, but merely a representation of aspects of America and it?s history. They really are going to have to be careful with this one. Because if they do rule in his favor, it?s going to open up bickering on all sorts of levels, and that?s going to be a problem because people will start jumping on the bandwagon to find things that they think are offensive and should be removed. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Fasteriskhead]Two things. First, this is an establishment clause question. There are a couple of good places to read up on this, but [URL=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx][u]here[/u][/URL'] is as good a spot as any. Basically I would just note that unless the constitution is amended otherwise, the opinion of the majority pretty much amounts to jack and squat here. The phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is pretty darn airtight; whether it's okay or not to have the name of a certain deity on US currency depends wholly on the interpretation of constitutional law, and given the history of SCOTUS rulings since Everson in 1947 I think Mr. Atheist here could definitely make a case of it. As for the slippery slope (oh no! no more Sacramento!), I stress that WorldNetDaily isn't the most unbiased source in the world and that city names in Spanish probably aren't as up for question as having the G-word on your currency.[/quote]The problem with his desire to remove the phrase In God we trust, is that the hard reality is that you are pledging your allegiance to the country, the government, not a particular religion that believes in God. The establishment clause is airtight, but the phrase In God we trust is not a true law in that sense. It is more of a reflection to appeal to those who are Christians not a statement that requires you to [I]actually become a Christian[/I]. So trying to argue that the use of those words is somehow a law that respects an establishment of religion is on some level irrelevant. It?s pure semantics and he knows it. Saying the words In God we trust or reading them in no way changes his views or requires him to be a Christian or belong to any form of faith. In fact no one is required to believe. You could also argue that based on that we don?t need the words, but to be frank, he?s doing it because he wants life to reflect his atheist views, he wants a neutral saying because the idea that someone like God might exist is offensive to him. I don?t believe in God either, and yet I am puzzled as to why he would try to change something that hasn?t affected my life at all. The offense is all in his mind. No one is forcing him to believe, no one is making him belong to a religion. And if reading those words or saying them when you recite the pledge of allegiance somehow does, or offends him, then he?s not much of an Atheist to be so moved by simple semantics. [quote name='Fasteriskhead]Second, by no means did "In God We Trust" fall out of the sky the moment the Declaration of Independence was written. According to research the phrase didn't gain a foothold until the Civil War, as a way of drumming up patriotism. It was on coins for awhile, but didn't appear on US paper money until 1957 - shortly after it was adopted as the motto of the country in 1956, itself two years after "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. I shouldn't need to remind anyone of [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War][u]what was going on[/u][/URL] during that time period. The phrase certainly has a history, and the SCOTUS [I]likes[/I'] things that have been around for a few generations, but it's by no means an inviolate institution of the US.[/quote]That?s my bad, I was getting my history confused, but then it?s not my favorite subject so that?s no surprise. Still my original argument of it being part of American history still stands, and the very fact that he has the freedom to be an Atheist is proof of that fact. So it?s kind of pathetic that he?s trying to do away with a symbol that is part of the very freedom he himself enjoys. A vast majority of the American population finds comfort in that simple phrase and just as he finds it offensive, his desire to erase it from the public is equally offensive to those who are religious. There has to be a point where you accept that everything can?t be done to reflect your personal beliefs. And this goes both ways. He wants no reference to God and the Christians do. And since the phrase In God we trust, is not a true law and does not require him to actually believe in God, and is not infringing on his rights, well regardless of what he may think, I think it shouldn't be changed. And I would be greatly surprised if it was.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]One thing I would like to see is tips and techniques to help you get the most out of using layers. It may seem pretty basic to regular artists, but I keep running into nifty things you can do and I?d love to see more. For example I recently learned that you can create a duplicate layer. Apply a median noise of about 5 and then change the blending to overlay and play with the opacity of the second layer to help brighten up a dull picture. So I definitely would love a tutorial on how to get the most out of layers as I'm sure there's probably all sorts of tips on how to get different effects from using layers. :)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]I read the article and i just got pissed off reading it. The guy is claiming that "In God We Trust" offends him cause hes an Atheist. What kinda country has America become that every one gets offended about something other people say or religious beliefs? [/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]The kind of country that allows everyone to believe differently, even his very belief that he?s been offended is acceptable because it?s just that, his belief. [QUOTE=only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia] Now what the article says might be a bit extreme like saying if the guy wins then will have to change the names of certain cities like Los Angeles which means The Angels. I'll be damned if they change the name of my city. Again im not religious or anything but why do people cry on anything that has to do with Christianity. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]In that I would agree with you. In all honesty, the chances of him actually winning are slim to none. For the simple reason part of what he?s trying to do is erase historical references as to what our ancestors did. In the names, the way the coins were designed, etc. I don?t think it?s so much a matter of Christianity, but rather of one of stupidity in insisting the whole nation or world shouldn?t have beliefs or display them in any way because it just might offend someone one. It?s a case of the pot calling the kettle black as his claim that religions words offend him, is just as valid as the Christian who could also say that by having no religious reference he is in turn offending and oppressing their right to express their beliefs. [QUOTE=only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia] I myself dont care about the words "In God We Trust" because God can be used for anything religion. Although yes this country was founded by Christians who ran away from Europe. They still welcomed anyone of any religion in their country.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]In this respect the guy has missed the point of the words altogether. It?s isn?t oppression but rather an expression of what those who founded the country felt. They got together and designed things to have those words and by continuing to use them it?s really more of an expression on our part to honor what they did. Not to claim that our country is based on religion. But to honor all the hard work and dedication our ancestors went through to turn America into a place where people could worship or not worship in peace. [quote name='only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia] I'm not a smart person and im pretty sure im probably gonna get picked on by people who are smarter.(dead im looking at you) but i just want to see what you guys think about this.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]Oh and by the way, don?t let dead fool you because?[spoiler]He?s actually a pretty nice guy.[/spoiler] :p[/COLOR]