Allamorph

[quote name='indifference][COLOR="Indigo"']Same here.[/COLOR][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Apparently I have miles to go on my deadpan delivery. That's what I get for having a passive-aggressive ego. :p[/FONT]

[quote name='Aceburner][CENTER][IMG]http://images.minitokyo.net:8001/view/201326.jpg[/IMG'][/CENTER][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Ehh, sorry. No. [URL="http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c256/iarm/DevilMayCry/EbonyIvory.jpg"][COLOR="Blue"]These babies trump all.[/COLOR][/URL][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]After a year of residency here, I find that the OB is a constant reminder that there are intelligent people existing somewhere else in the world, and I can find them. I'd say about a third of them live here. (I'm an optimist. Otherwise the fraction would be larger. :p) This forum has not improved my writing, I don't think. I'm still just as horrible as I was when I came here.[/FONT]

[quote name='silpheedpilot][SIZE="1"][COLOR="SlateGray"]My favorite character is Captain Falcon. I think; 'I don't need weakjectiles to fight. I dodge better than anyone, and I'll grab you when you least expect it. My Falcon Punch is useless but beware of my Up + B attack. You've been warned.'[/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Roy laughs at you. :p (Marth, on the other hand, doesn't seem to give a rip.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I think people would take you seriously if you wouldn't step on yourself so much. [quote name='Premonition][COLOR="77656"]And if memory serves, [B]YOU SMOKE Cigarettes[/B], and if you don't anymore, [B]YOU DID. [/B']So take that into consideration before saying mairijuana destroys lives.[/COLOR][/quote] See, that also called [I]firsthand experience[/I], and gives him more license to make his statement. My experience is second-hand, his is first-; ergo, his word carries more weight than mine, though we both are able to speak to the subject. [QUOTE][COLOR=77656][I]That would be like me saying, "beating someone is bad" and going back and beating someone. Think before you say that.[/I][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Rather, think before you make analogies. That would actually be like beating yourself, telling people that "beating someone is bad", and then going back and beating yourself again. (^_^) Make certain what you're trying to communicate is actually what you say.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Right. I'm not really certain what to say about this. Not that I mean to imply that it is bad at all (or even that it's mediocre, for that matter), just that moving heaps of partially-living organs do not particularly appeal to me. Same reason I never really got into the grotesque horror flicks, like Saw, or anything with Jason. Just doesn't strike my fancy. That, and I also don't really care to go with the generic "interesting". Seems like every time I comment on stuff here in the Antho I say the same thing, and that bothers me, ya know? Unfortunately, "interesting" is about the only thing I can come up with right now, so you see my pickle. :animeswea So material-wise, I don't really know what to do. But there is one thing I know I can do, so here goes. (I'm such a jerk. :animesigh) [CENTER][SIZE="1"]----------------------------------[/SIZE][/CENTER] For now I'm just going to look at part One. Not only am I trying to get better about posting twelve-page criticisms for you guys to wade through, but it's also finals week, and I have some studying I want to do later today; so this is really better for both of us, I think. :p First, keep your tense in mind. You started off in present, but switched to past by the end of the third paragraph: [QUOTE][I][COLOR="Red"]The leftovers on the altar [B]burn[/B] to ash and a horrible chill [B]falls[/B] through the room. ... I [B]fell[/B] backwards with its initially gravely tone, and [B]came[/B] to rest on the rough stone of the cavern.[/COLOR][/I][/QUOTE] Then you go back to present at the end of the narrative. It could work with the way you did it?setting up the incident in the cavern as sort of a recounted memory, and then coming back to the present when the police pick up the narrator?but if you do that, then you need to start off in past tense to keep everything uniform. Uniformity is the key there. I notice that your structure is pretty basic. Again, this isn't saying you're bad at anything; I don't believe I found anything grammatically wrong with what you wrote as I read through it. There's just no a whole lot of variety present, and while I can easily tell you are years past the See Spot Run stage?and you [I]certainly[/I] don't write in such a juvenile style?an absence of variety still evokes the same general feeling. Take this paragraph, for example: [QUOTE][COLOR="Red"][I]I forced myself up from the altar and groped at a nearby torch. I cast it onto the heap and it burst aflame, but it did not burn away. The flaming mash-up of my brothers oozed towards me and all the heads turned to look at me. The mouths curled into a smile before they spoke once more.[/I][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Aside from the last bit of the second sentence, all of these are basically identical. Your imagery may be good and vivid, but an unvarying structure makes the whole thing just seem bland. I'm sure you've walked into rooms before that have carried their own unique smell, one that never really seemed to change from day to day to week to month. Have you ever noticed that the longer you spend in these rooms, the less you notice the smell, and then when you leave and come back it hits you in the face again? Same kind of thing here. The brain has a natural repetition filter, and when parts of its environment stay the same for long periods of time, it allows itself to somewhat ignore what hasn't changed so that it can focus attention on what [I]has[/I] changed. So part of keeping your audience's interest, then, lies in making certain that they don't start to tune out what you're writing, and this can be partially accomplished by varying your form. That way, their minds don't get used to you telling your story the same way line after line, and they won't start skipping paragraphs in an attempt to find the next interesting spot. Does that make sense? Your dialogue is all right. It's not great, but it's okay. I'll hit that a little more when I get into part Two, since there is much more there for me to work with. For now, though, I only want to comment on Zazith's first big monologue. It sounds odd, to me. I don't mean that the style you wrote it in doesn't click, because that's how his character speaks. I can see that much. I'm talking more about what it sounds like when the narration is taken out, since in real life there is no voice-over describing the scene to us. [QUOTE][I][COLOR="Red"]"For thousands of years," The ashes rose and formed into the shape of a star, "I have watched a growing stain. A stain that has used fire, metal, and blood to pillage all it so desired. Pillaged the land and green earth, pillaged, pillaged, and PILLAGED whatever it so desired. You filthy ape borne monstrosities summon me, the father of your failed existence.?[/COLOR][/I][/QUOTE] If you read his speech like that, without any written breaks in between, I think you see how peculiar it sounds. Even with the delays added in, I don't think it feels quite right. (By delays, I mean where you interjected descriptions of the action, which also serves to pace the speaker, adding time between his phrases?which I am pretty sure was your intent.) You tossed in a small break in the middle of the first sentence, there. I think I know what you were trying to do, but since I'm still struggling to figure out the right way to do interruptions myself, I can't offer any advice. I [I]can[/I] say, though, that it might be better to go ahead and cite the voice in that phrase to make things feel a little better. E.g.: [INDENT]"For thousands of years," it [the voice] spoke, as the ashes rose and formed into the shape of a star, "I have watched a growing stain."[/INDENT] Anyway, that's all I want to hit in that department. Speaking of the star, though, what shape is it? Since the ritual to me seemed rather demonic in nature, I would assume it is five-pointed, but when I first read the story I saw six points, and it could very easily be four or seven. Make sure you include specifics like that in your descriptions. And this is just a personal note, but do you think you might have gone overboard with the pillaging, there? :p I mean, Zazith certainly seems to have a one-track mind about this concept. Other than that, I'd suggest giving your stuff a re-read, and if something doesn't feel exactly right try tweaking it a bit. A few of your descriptions felt out of place or strangely worded, but they weren't enough for me to say anything specific just yet. And don't settle for good. Go for amazing. :animesmil Later -A[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]This thread seems familiar..... Actually, I don't really go to any other forums. I found something that worked and I stuck with it. (That and I am an intorrwebz n00b. :p) Why do I stay? Well, the ratio of stupid people to real people is rather small[SIZE="1"]*[/SIZE], and I like that. I don't deal well with stupid people. Oh, wait! I remember now! This is like an intelligent version of [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=56316"][COLOR="Blue"][U]this[/U][/COLOR][/URL] thread. Hooray. :animesmil [SIZE="1"]* I.e., (stupid people)/(real people) [U]

[quote name='Darren']I know that if a lot of the "stars" of OB sign up, then more of the "fresher faces" will see that and say, "Hey, there's some big names in this RP, sounds cool."[/quote] [FONT=Arial]I wasn't meaning to indicate only the newer members by that. It'd be great to get new guys involved ? not that I consider myself too terribly seasoned, mind ? but I was including anyone who hasn't yet participated, which also extends to, as you put it, some of the "stars" of the Boards. Were I able to devote enough time to strategy, I know I would enjoy the chance to cross wits with, say, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Vicky[/COLOR], or someone like [COLOR="DarkRed"]Athena[/COLOR] or [COLOR="DarkRed"]James[/COLOR] whom I know virtually nothing about. And was it just me, or did the [COLOR="DarkRed"]Lady A.[/COLOR] start up with the Coming Attractions thread again?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Didn't want to pop in again so soon, but [COLOR="DarkRed"]John[/COLOR] reminded me of something rather relevant. The legal precedent for the Freedom of the Press was established in 1925 by the Supreme Court in [I]Gitlow v. New York[/I]. The Plaintiff, Benjamin Gitlow, was appealing a conviction for attempting to inspire anarchy through distribution of anarchist pamphlets. His conviction was upheld, but there was also set a definition for exactly what the Freedom of the Press protected and what it did not. I present excepts from the opinion of Justice Sanford: [QUOTE][SIZE="1"]For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press—which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgement by Congress—are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.... It is a fundamental principal, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press ... does not confer the absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, [B]or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language[/B] and prevents the punishment of [B]those who abuse this freedom[/B]....[B]*[/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE] (Bolding is mine.) Earlier, Sanford noted the reason Gitlow's pamphlet's did not fall under the protected umbrella: [QUOTE][SIZE="1"][The pamphlet] advocates and urges in fervent language mass action which shall progressively foment industrial disturbances and through political mass strikes and revolutionary mass action overthrow and destroy organized parliamentary government....*[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Basically, because Gitlow's material was an open attempt to incite mass uprising, instead of "...abstract doctrine ... [or] mere prediction that industrial disturbances and revolutionary mass strikes will result spontaneously...." (taken from the same court opinion), the State was allowed to censor and prohibit it without infringing on either the Freedom of Speech or that of the Press. So until NAMBLA starts actively urging people to become pedophiles, they cannot be censored. They can print material on pedophile "theory" as much as they want. Doesn't mean I like it, just that the Law protects them as they now stand—as I understand the current situation, naturally. [SIZE="1"]------------- * Shafritz, Jay M., and Lee S. Weinberg. [U]Classics in American Government.[/U] 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson, 2006.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Well, when so much fuss is made about being able to say what one wants when one wants to, it [I]is[/I] rather hypocritical to try and keep others – like NAMBLA and Westboro Baptist – from jumping on the bandwagon. What? I'm just being cynical.[/FONT]

[quote name='Hellrell666']HINT: Remember you can't block or catch items and avoid me at the same time.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Ehh, I'm pretty certain that that is not the case. :animesmil So, started working with Zelda with a voluntary ban on Sheik, and let it be known that I suck. :p Got a frikkin' hard crew to play against, though ? one decent Samus, one aggravating Ganondorf, and one really good all-around ? so I doubt I'm all that bad, but it's a lot more difficult for me to stay in the fray now, and I have a built-in distaste for long-range spamming. Her pathetic dashing kills me more times than I'd like to admit (although I did outrun Ganondorf once, which was a little amusing), and I'm still getting the timing down on a few aerials, but I am starting to get a half-way decent feel for the Magic Boot-O-Death, and I can usually hang in the matches 'til we've all hit the two-stock mark. All this because of one new outfit. I am such a nerd. In other news, I recently found my Rape button and managed to keep it activated for a good minute before I mind-gamed myself back to Suck-land. Not only did I not take damage for the entire time, but I also kept the other two guys away from each other while beating the snot out of them. (Marth's good like that.) Three KOs inside of sixty seconds made me feel a little better; I think I've improved to about a six on the Spinal Tap ten-scale. :p[/FONT]

[quote name='Shy][size=6']What will make your Death Card RPG different than The Ragnarok?[/size][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Easy there, man. Don't be gettin' so worked up already. I know it's important, but the phrase I remember is speak [I]softly[/I] and carry a big modrod. :p Oi, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Darren[/COLOR] my man. Let's let things chill for a while, eh? Give the people a chance to breathe and all. I know you're itchin' to try your hand at this thing, but I know some of the players are on Death Card Overload right now, and some are a little frustrated. I mean, sports and school all have built in vacation schedules for the same reason: to give their people a chance to breathe and say "Oh, thank God I'm done for a while." I'd also think about trying to pull in some fresher faces. I notice several players recurring throughout the history of this game, and I think after a while it gets kind of boring playing against the same old opponents over and over again. Nothing against the veterans, just that it's nice to have a new mind to figure out, a new creative muse to adapt to. I am interested in playing. Just not yet. :D[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I think the better players will be able to tell if a CPU steps in. I mean, a level nine really isn't that much of a challenge, considering. And honestly, I would rather not know if someone wimped out. Knowing would just make me irritable.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]What about a pokémon as a playable character? I imagine, what since their testimony is not admissible in court, that pokémon are able to give testimonies, which to me indicates a fair amount of sentience. So logically that would mean that detectives or lawyers would have to have interviewed pokémon and obtained testimony from them for the system to even have established a legal precedent for nonadmission. Still, I would think that investigators might wish to use pokémon as in-between sources; as in, informational leads, or routes to another viable source or witness. Either way, that would require the aid of a translator in some cases, and so a pokémon who could communicate with both humans and other pokémon might be useful. (Also, though some owners might claim to be able to communicate – empathically or otherwise – with their pokémon, one could make a case for an alteration of the truth during such a "translation", especially in situations where the pokémon was an eyewitness, and not the owner. In that case, a neutral translator would be extremely beneficial.) I think that would be the most feasible option at the moment; a freelance/consultant interpreter. Certainly a regularly-employed pokémon might be interesting, what with all the opposition it'd have to fight through to achieve the job, but I think that might be stretching things. (Although, having a case argued by a Mewtwo might be somewhat unsettling for the opposition....)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]True, and I agree. But there's still the issue of bumping the thread, which can't be done if there's only the single post. So to solve that, have all the OPers hornswaggle one of their buddies into posting once in the thread. Now the creator can post again, and if they get no more thread comments they can still delete and repost as needed! Hooray![/FONT]

[quote name='Konata']All of the replies are honest, silly =P[/quote] [FONT=Arial]...honestly? :p[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I wonder how many of these replies are honest?[/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']Bush I endorses it, enough reason to not listen. ;)[/font][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Aww, you're such a [I]bore.[/I] :rolleyes:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I officially need a recording of Mozart's [I]Requiem[/I]. And how. I'm going to shift away from Classical for a moment (which is so terribly generically used, anyway) and talk about band music. Right now what pops into my head is Alfred Reed, Charles Ives, and Gustav Holst; of Reed's compositions, [I]Russian Christmas Music[/I] is my favorite and one I tend to react passionately to, particularly the woodwind chorale at the beginning and the full-band fanfare at the close; Ives is just frikkin' random, referencing other works constantly, sometimes even in the middle of other references, and it just makes me laugh; and Holst's two Suites are some of the best-written works I've ever heard, besides being the first definitive compositions expressly written for the concert band. I just found out recently that Mozart did several band compositions as well ? or rather, works for large ensembles excluding strings, meaning the orchestration was particular to the period...excepting that Mozart apparently disliked the flute, and so did not write for it as much, which I find rather funny. [I]*pant pant*[/I] I would rather enjoy the opportunity to perform his works, even though it was my impression that there are very little of his works that include the trombone. Also, Pavel Tschesnokov's [I]Salvation is Created[/I] is gorgeous. Criminy, I'm random.[/FONT]

[quote name='The13thMan][FONT="Century Gothic"][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Certainly she has the right to say it, i just don't like it.[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Aye, but by continuously and tactlessly displaying your attitude, you make a better case against yourself than against her. The fact that you chose to argue with not one, not two, but [I]three[/I] moderators doesn't exactly showcase your best side, either. :animeswea That's why you're gettin' whacked so much; if it had been, say, me you had gotten into a spat with, things would have gone a lot differently. And there were a few better ways to say that you felt slighted than the one(s) you chose to employ. Just sayin'. [QUOTE][FONT="Century Gothic"][COLOR="DarkOrange"][I]How much control a person should have and a government should have when it comes to safety is a fairly tricky game to play. It's quite complex and to claim you're either for or against the government having control is a false dichotomy. [/I][/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] I think you mostly understand what you're talking about here, but I feel the need to interject a bit about the government angle. First off, when you say "government", you're being really generic. Here in the States we have three levels, as I'm sure you are aware: Federal, State, and Local. Each of these levels was created in order to protect, govern, and make certain decisions for a certain size group of people. The Local government is by far the most direct form of government you as a person will encounter. Some Locals govern only their city; some govern an entire county, or slightly more. Because the Local government has so relatively few constituents, it is much easier for it to make policies based on the interests of those constituents. Certainly there will be differences of opinion, but by and large there will be an overwhelming majority who feel the same way about the directions policy should go. Also, all of the elected officials come from this small constituency, so most everyone represented by them either knows them personally or knows someone else who does; easier access to the person means a higher likelihood of involvement on the part of the citizen. The State is obviously a bit broader by comparison. It is placed over a much larger group of people who are more likely to differ in opinion on matters of policy, and the differences may be much wider. Consider South Carolina: how does the general attitude of the citizens of Charleston, a rather large city, differ from the citizens of Latta, a fairly homely town, on the issues of public transportation, or even road maintenance? The Local governments in each location have the ability to satisfy the desires of their constituents better than does the S.C. State government, simply because the Local level has much less people to consider. And again, even two large cities that are separated by distance, such as Savannah and Myrtle Beach, are likely to differ in interest, so that factor is added into the State's decision-making process as well. And because there is a larger population base, the disassociation between an elected official and his or her constituents is larger, so there may be someone representing you about whom you know very little ? or maybe you know no one. Now extend these principles to the Federal level. Population is much larger, interest and opinion difference is much larger, and the disassociation factor is enormously larger. Think about the differences between California and Massachusetts. The Federal government is responsible for all these people, and for finding the best line of mediation between them. The odds that your particular interests will be represented and dealt with to your satisfaction is relatively low. Also remember that the officials in office at any level of government are elected there for the primary purpose of [I]protecting your interests[/I]. If you (generic) are not involved with the government at any level in any way, shape, or form, then you have no place to complain about the policies they make, since you made no effort to influence their decision. In fact, the more involved a person is in their government(s), the more right they have to complain about its processes ? save in those instances where common involvement is not allowed, such as dictatorships. Bottom line is that the government was not put in place to control you. It was put in place [I]for you[/I], and if you (generic) are apathetic about it, then you are allowing yourself to be controlled. If you want something done a particular way, say so or nobody will know. If you are afraid that your voice will not be enough, then find more people; perhaps if you move first others will follow. The government here does what we tell it to, but if we only complain and tell it nothing, it does at it sees best. This is the flaw inherent in our system: that no one bothers to say anything because they grow lazy, and then get fed up that their silent voice is not being heard.[/FONT]

[quote name='Lethargy][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkGreen]I know I've only mentioned statements made by those [B]against[/B] marijuana legalization. Rest assured, I will be posting again with comments about those who are for it. I am just really tired (it's 4:42 AM) and need to sleep before class. But believe me, I'm going to need to be [B]fully[/B] rested before I tackle what [B]The13thMan[/B], [B]Retribution[/B], and [B]Allamorph[/B] had to say.[/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Oh terrors. :p (You [I]are[/I] aware that [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retribution[/COLOR] and I are on slightly different sides, right?)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]For the thread itself, I immediately agree that it is a poor sample from which to form any legitimate statistical analysis, but I have seen worse ones published as irrefutable proof; the global warming statistics come to mind ... though it is not my intention to stir any debate on that as of now. Perhaps we should lobby for such a study. I at least am curious as to the results. And no, it isn't unfair. :) Presumptuous, perhaps, but not unfair. [quote name='li'l ole Me][FONT=Arial']{I}f those who would be able to buy said theoretically legal substance would in fact not buy it, what was the point of making said substance legal?[/FONT][/quote] See, I deliberately said "if". I could have said "since" and attempted to use it as proof, but I was only presenting a scenario based on another's logic. Take it the other way: if those who would be able to legally buy marijuana would do so, then sure. Make it legal. I personally doubt that will happen, though. :animeswea (I had to use funny brackets there because the coding thought I was starting an italics tag. :rolleyes:) [quote name='Retribution][FONT="Arial"']As for the question of economics, I doubt marijuana would ever become a heavily commercialized good (like cigarettes are now) because of how easy it is to grow locally.[/FONT][/quote] Well, yeah. Considering we have sites like [URL="http://www.mellowgold.com/grow/begin/"][U]this one[/U][/URL], why bother? :p [B]Edit:[/B] I do not endorse the linked site. For the record.[/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']While he is correct in his observation (thus it is a fact), it is totally inconsequential to the rest of the debate.[/font][/quote] [FONT=Arial]I don't believe so. Consider: alcohol, as it is used for recreation, is legal, but only after one becomes a legal adult; i.e., once the Powers That Be have deemed that one is capable of making one's own decisions and otherwise look after oneself. The PTB have arbitrarily set a standard for "adulthood" as it pertains to alcohol, and this standard is one's twenty-first year of age, depending on location. Once one has finished one's twenty-first year (remember that one's first year of life occurs [I]before[/I] one reaches the age of one), the PTB acknowledges one as an adult and sanctions one to purchase alcohol. For those who have not yet surpassed their twenty-first year, alcohol is still illegal. The PTB – in this case, the State – will not acknowledge these persons as adults, and therefore refuses them the sanctioned privilege of purchasing alcohol, regardless of whether or not these persons are actually capable of making an adult decision. (The same principle extends the other direction, incidentally; one may be classified as a legal adult without actually having reached the associated level of maturity.) Likewise, the legal purchase of tobacco is regulated to those who have surpassed their eighteenth year, and those who have not are not sanctioned to do so. Logically, it would seem that, should marijuana be legalized, it would only be sanctioned for purchase for those who have passed a certain age barrier, as has been done with these other two. Also logically, the legal barrier age would in all likelihood be similar to those of these other two semi-legal substances. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Gavin[/COLOR] took that concept apart from the intermediate logical processes and made an additional observation: the majority of those who would be classified as "legal adults" do not agree with the recreational use of marijuana and doubtless would not purchase it. Taken another step further: if those who would [I]be able to[/I] buy said theoretically legal substance would in fact [I]not[/I] buy it, what was the point of making said substance legal? Since, then, there does not seem to be a single, undeniable, [I]good[/I], reason for marijuana to be made legal, it will not. Yes, it will be used regardless. But it is nowhere near as big a market as either alcohol or tobacco, and if marijuana remains illegal I doubt that this country will sink into such a state of mob-ridden squalor as it did during Prohibition. ...which, for the record, was a [I]big[/I] mistake, but one I am glad the government made. Gotta stick your finger in the fire before you figure out that you were stupid. :p [QUOTE][font=arial]His assertion, while not identical, is extremely close to both [I]argumentum ad populum[/I] (appeal to majority ... most people say A, thus A is right) and the appeal to authority (those in authority say A, thus A is right).[/font][/QUOTE] This is true, but I see a different intent in his words than those that would have been inspired by either method of appeal, and so I see no fallacy of logic. Ah, well. No harm done.[/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial][QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]If you go back and reread the thread, note how nearly everyone who actually is a legal adult has disagreed with the legalisation of marijuana. It seems the ?adults? who you?re trying to do this for disagree with you.[/SIZE][/QUOTE']This is a logical fallacy.[/font][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Eh, no. This is an observation, denoted by the key word [I]"seems"[/I]. I'm not going to argue you on aught else, since (as I said before) neither of the sides has a decent argument. I just ask that the "logical fallacy" card not be thrown wantonly and carelessly around. I think you rely on it by itself far too much, and I worry that might come back to bite you at some point. [quote name='Premonition']Gavin, anybody can put somehting into wikipedia, so that soarce isn't legitimite.[/quote] [I]*sigh*[/I] [quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson]I know, that [url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm]United States Department of Justice[/url'] source that says the exact same thing as the Wikipedia article could have come from anywhere, Gavin.[/color][/quote] Yeah, I know. Shame you can't trust consistency.[/FONT]

[quote name='AzureWolf']Frankly, making suicide illegal is kinda dumb.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Unfortunately, this is true. I mean, not to be callous, but you can't punish dead person. I think it's [I]attempting[/I] suicide that's illegal, but still: what do you do to someone who's just tried to kill themselves? Punishment's liable to make them try to succeed on the next go-round, which is why we have counseling centers instead. (Don't knock 'em; they work sometimes, and that's good enough for me.)[/FONT]