Allamorph

[quote name='Retribution][FONT="Arial"']Additionally, Islam is just as "inherently violent" as Christianity or Judaism. Read Leviticus, look at Christian justification for conquest and destruction, and you'll see that perhaps your critique of the violence of Islam is a bit hypocritical.[/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Thank you, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Nathan[/COLOR]. You made my point before I could. And thank [I]you[/I], [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retri[/COLOR], for helping me prove my point about religious justification. However, I'll also suggest you go back and reread my posts, for I am well aware of the violent past of both Christianity and Judaism. As I was telling someone last night, the Hebrews were ordered by God not only to invade and conquer Caanan, but to eliminate entirely every inhabitant thereof. (They disobeyed, of course. Mercy is a very hard quality to toss aside.) Around the time of Kings Saul and David, there was a massive conflict with the Philistines (a war I haven't looked into as of yet, so I can't say who started it or what it was even over). Then of course there were the ever-popular discussion-fodder, The Crusades?which most people either forget or do not know were a direct response to an Islamic [I]jihad[/I], and that both were efforts to seize and then re-seize locations sacred to both religions. And of course there were the Inquisitions (the most infamous being the Spanish?which incidentally was secular-initiated, being condemned several times by that era's pope), and we're all aware of the atrocities that occurred during that time. (Ironically, the Inquisitions contributed quite a bit to modern BDSM practices. Hooray, Catholicism. :p ) I am even more disturbed by the rampant Jesus-ophobism, to be honest. I believe [I]your[/I] reaction, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retribution[/COLOR], is mostly because you know I am a Christian already, and therefore assume I am deliberately painting a vulgar picture of Islam to promote my own religion. My goal is nothing of the sort; in fact, I rarely spread my faith around because I see no sense in running my mouth to people who don't want to hear my made-up stories. My goal is solely to bring an understanding of Islam to the playing field, and remind people that [I]American diverse[/I] thinking will be ineffective in dealing with such a culturally [I]unified[/I] thinking as this. That unity is their strength, and a very admirable trait, which the Christian community has not been able to maintain since the Protestant separation. [quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Full confidence? o_O You and I are not going to agree on this. I can't and won't label people as potential killers if given the chance.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] Full confidence. And that's fine if you disagree. If the concept works you into a tizzy, mayhap we should move on to another topic. [quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]This I can agree with, however, a look at those of this faith who live in the US only proves that when given a chance to live in an area where there is no reason to fight... there is no fighting or killing.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] Oh, I'm aware of that. We've got a relatively peaceful place over here, just as there is no fighting or killing in Britain or Europe. But again, I was not speaking to the [I]overt action[/I], but the thought process. First, you never start a fight you cannot win, yes? Second, given America's racist past (the Yellow scare, anyone?), showing overt antagonism to a country your home happens to be at war with is not typically a good idea. It's common sense. :p [quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]I would argue/point out that this proves that being in constant wars/conflicts brings out that extreme attitude/side of Islam you just claimed didn't exist. [/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] And I would argue back that you have reversed the situations, and it is the [I]attitude[/I] that causes the wars. People who value peace don't fight amongst themselves constantly. And remember, I'm not saying "there's no extremism in Islam" to mean "violent people do not exist in Islam"?though, again, even the student who stabbed the table demanding his fellow's death remarked a few minutes later that there is no violence in Islam, and refused to abandon his position even when my friend confronted him about the behavior he had just exhibited. (Paradox, much?) My point is that there are no "extremist factions" of Islam, apart from what the media manufactures to make headlines. Passive and aggressive alike, they are [I]all Islam[/I]. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']You're still attempting to profile every single one of the members of that religion (even if you're only referring to certain countries). Careful or not, that's a lot of people to label in that fashion. The Middle East and throughout Europe is pretty damn broad for applying such a harsh judgment.[/quote] I know. [QUOTE][I]I said no such thing or assumed they weren't a 'good Muslim' to begin with. The point I was making is that if such extreme thinking or belief in killing others existed on the level you are saying it does... that right there implies that someone who actually thinks that way would [U]never switch to begin with[/U].[/I][/QUOTE] No, it doesn't. First, though, you [I]did[/I] assume that said person was a 'good Muslim'. If a person has the kind of devout thinking we both assumed to prove our points, then that makes them a 'good Muslim'. But you're right; this is belaboring the issue. What I was attempting to tell you was that deep, devout convictions [I]do not[/I] guarantee that a switch will never occur. Study some human behavior, and you'll find instances of such switches all over the place . . . and not just in the religious sector. Unfortunately, all the examples that I might have pulled for you have just fled my mind. You want me to give you some, I'll do some looking around for them on Tuesday when I get back to campus. Gonna be busy these next few days. [quote name='Nathan][FONT=Arial']But if you are, then the 'random' sample effect for forming an opinion, based on actual interaction with people of that faith is, according to my friends, incorrect.[/FONT][/quote] I assure you that I am well aware of the limits of statistical analysis. What speaks to me more, though, is that if the 'extremist' thinking were truly extremist, and not echoed by every member of that religion (inwardly or otherwise), then given both the massive area covered by my contacts (multiple travel instances for my aged friend) [I]and[/I] the large number of people with which they came in casual contact with on a daily basis, my knowledge of statistics tells me that there should at least on [I]one[/I] of the trips been at least [I]one[/I] exception. Just one person, and all my previous posts are nullified. But there was none. And then you have to apply human behavior in the context of geographical and social environments and various other quirks I'm sure [COLOR="Indigo"]Indi[/COLOR] would be better suited to point out for you. After that, I personally have a difficult time both imagining how someone could hold the line of reasoning I have set forth already, and an even greater difficulty accepting that a person would [I]want[/I] to maintain such a mindset. It makes no sense to me, and I would gladly have it otherwise. But, bearing all the aforementioned in mind, what I have understood [I]compels[/I] me to, as [COLOR=DarkRed]Rach[/COLOR] put it, pass judgment. (Incidentally, I am getting a strong conciliatory vibe from your devil's advocate approach. There is nothing tangible to support the feeling, but it puts me off slightly. [I]*shrug*[/I] What can ya do.)[/FONT]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Seems like the key word here Allamorph, from Aaryanna's post is "all".[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Seems like the key words in mine were "no matter the station" and "the Middle East and throughout Europe". I know all too well the dangers of overgeneralising and profiling people, and I assure you that I am very careful when I do. (Also remember there is a difference in [I]what[/I] you believe and how you display it. If our previous discussions have not been enough to prove that point to you....) [QUOTE][I]Considering the admission of one converting to Christianity, in your own post no less, if that were true, no one would convert to Christianity in the first place.[/I][/QUOTE] You seem to be under the impression, then, that a Muslim who converts to Christianity (or Buddhism, for that matter) must not have been a very good Muslim to begin with, in the sense that their beliefs must not have been as strong as others of their faith. That is a false impression; consider the testimony of Paul (formerly Saul) who was originally a devout Christian-hunter (in effect) and one of the best, who hated Christians and sought to kill them wherever he encountered them?and changed his life in the span of less than one minute, contributing to a large portion of the New Testament with his letters to fledgling churches. Saul was an extremist. He 'converted' to Christianity. Thus, the phrase "no one" is defunct. (Unless you want to toss the "it would help if I believed..." card again. :animesmil ) Incidentally, Islamic law forbids renouncing the Muslim faith. Wait, no, that's not true; Islamic law says that renouncing is not possible. It also says that any who [I]do[/I] recant are to be killed. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Aaryanna[/COLOR]: The only reason I make this stance is because I can say with full confidence that there is no such thing as "extreme" Islam. "Extreme" is a word tossed on by the media to make headlines draw people to read; it does not in actuality exist, just as "pacifist" Islam does not exist. Granted, not everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But that does not mean that those who are not would not kill if given the chance. (Incidentally, the aforementioned student who stabbed the table also stated that he would have executed the convert himself if he were able. And this group of students was in northern Turkey, if I recall my friend's words correctly.) I think the difficulty in recognizing that type of pervasive animosity comes from living in a nation where there is simply no reason to fight each other. That region of the world has been in constant conflict since the Hebrews first conquered Caanan . . . by marching around a city for a week and blowing trumpets. [quote name='TimeChaser']Humans rights transcend what their religion and laws tell them is OK to do to other people.[/quote] Human Rights do, but the [I]granting and admission[/I] of said rights depends on those in power. In the case of Islam, there are no concessions made because the religion [I]is[/I] the government, and there is no separation. When one is justified by one's beliefs, and one holds the power, one is not likely to listen to reason if said reason will not benefit the one.[/FONT]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Where does your understanding come from though, if I might ask? I don't question you, but I question what your source of information is.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]I honestly can't remember anymore. I literally just forgot. >_< Soon as I can find it without any googling..... Also, I'd like to make sure you realize that I'm not sure what about Evolution or science there is to 'fear'. Science is legitimate; it is the [I]process[/I] of finding answers, not the answers themselves. Science works, and has worked ever since its initial conception. Evolution, on the other hand, should not be feared because it is not an actual threat. It is a theory, comprised of inference and deduction based on observed and/or tested data. What [I]concerns[/I] me about Evolution is the large degree of extrapolation I see. By observing factual changes within a species, it is then put forward that, over a large, almost unfathomable degree of time it is then put forward that it is possible for one to start with no genetic data and end up with our current level of sophistication? Speaking to your example with the eye, there are assumptions in both courts. On the one hand, you have the Creationist assuming that God made the eye complete and intact and just as it is now, and different in every species. On the other hand, you have the Evolutionist assuming that the eye was produced due to natural causes, and that its progression can be traced through the various species. Either court can support their assumption with evidence that they find, but in both cases one must have started with an assumption. [QUOTE][I]I use the fossil record, because at times it has produced amazing results that do show evolution in action. The most recent example that is clearest in my mind is of Tiktaalik ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktalik"]LINK[/URL]). It was discovered in 2004 and is an important link between fish and the development of amphibians.[/I][/QUOTE] You say "is" and I read "can", because unfortunately the assertion can neither be proven nor disproven. Not saying you're wrong, just that I question the method at which scientists arrived at their conclusion, and why they are so confident claiming their conclusion to be fact and not supposition. [QUOTE][I]Sadly, I'm no genetic expert, so I can only go by what I have seen on science programs and read in books. It isn't merely genetic mutations that lead one species to change into another, it has a lot to do with the environment. [/I][/QUOTE] This I understand readily; the best example being the peppered moth. However, it is this next bit that concerns me on the genetic portion: [QUOTE][I]Here's where the environment comes in: remember that the Earth is never static. When continents drift, landmasses pull apart, two groups of the same species can become isolated from each other. Each group could then go on to develop their own adaptations to their new environments, and over time they have become so dissimilar that they are no longer biologically compatible. [/I][/QUOTE] And so we have black bears, brown bears, polar bears, Asiatic bears, and pandas, but what I see here is that these are all [I]bears[/I]. I am not clear on the method in which the bear becomes the walrus (both are pinnipeds and closely related) or in which the walrus becomes the bear....or how either originated from a common ancestor. I am confused in [I]how [/I]the information is altered. Not the 'if'. In less words, I do not have a problem with genetic alteration [I]or[/I] mutation. What I have a problem with is [I]addition[/I]. If I am to assume that a genetic mutation can be the addition of a complete new piece of information that dictates fur be grown instead of skin or legs instead of flippers [I]and[/I] is beneficial, then I must also assume that Down Syndrome is possibly the next step in human evolution. (At present, it seems that that possibility is doubtful, since the presence of the extra material in the 21st chromosome is currently understood to be detrimental to normal function; but I'm not basing any refute on that doubt. I merely bring it up as the only current example of genetic addition-mutation with which I am familiar.)[/FONT]

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]I don't believe that all of them hold the view of "you die, and I continue my reign." Seems pretty ignorant to assume they all think like that.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] [FONT=Arial]I have several acquaintances who have had extensive contact with the Muslim community, both in the Middle East and throughout Europe. They have held commune with laypersons and religious leaders alike, and what they have seen is that no matter the station, the same beliefs are held. One of my colleagues was careful to mention the media's representation of the violent factions as "Muslim extremists", and noted that this is not the case, citing a conversation with high-school aged students about a Muslim in Britain who had converted to Christianity; the response echoed by each student was "he must die", without exception. One young man even went so far as to stab the table with his knife to show the strength of his feeling.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed]Crimson Spider[/COLOR]: It surprises me?no, it astounds me that your arguments are as vapid as they have been so far. From what I've read of you, you do nothing to actually prove any of your own arguments, and yet you seem to feel secure in refuting the points of others with variations on the statement "no, you're wrong" and then stopping there, providing no examples and no proofs beyond long-winded exercises in wordplay. What do you think this tactic can accomplish? [quote name='TimeChaser']And the proof is in the fossil record. We can see the differences in eye structure as you go up through the fossils.[/quote] Given your heretofore sound arguments, I'm rather surprised you decided to bring up the fossil record. It is my understanding that most scientists who support Evolution no longer look to the fossil record for evidence because of the sheer number of discrepancies and inconsistencies within it. But I'd like to set that aside, because you kind of ignored my earlier comment regarding genetics. What I'd like you to explain for me is how macroevolution functions, and how it is testable. Microevolution is quite obviously undeniable; I mean, how else could species survive sweeping changes in their environment? What I am unclear on is how the jump occurs genetically that causes one species to become another. The concept to me implies a data gain, and I was under the impression that reproduction involved a data [I]loss[/I].[/FONT]

[QUOTE=TimeChaser]This attitude frankly scares me. We need to go forward in our foreign policy without the expectation that "The Rapture" or some other equivalent will happen. Believing these things is not healthy for this country, because if you expect the world to end and God to come again, why even bother trying to secure our future? I hope you are being facetious again. Even if you are, that attitude still scares me, because some people honestly believe it.[/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]I am beginning to feel unmistakably pigeonholed by you. Also, I wonder at your lack of sense of humor. First, the joke was about reconciling the Hebrews and the Muslims (aka the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael respectively). According to both faiths (and my own), such reconciliation [I]will never happen[/I], and so the joke is funny. [I]Obviously[/I] a human event cannot influence "The Rapture", as you so demeaned it (thank you, by the way; I would have taken less exception had you merely said 'the idea of a rapture') so no, there would be no planning. Futhermore, it is stated explicitly that "no man may know the time or the hour", so planning on the Rapture is inherently foolish. As a Christian, I hope for it, but I do not expect it, and I plan my life under the assumption that it will not happen for me. Take it easy on the "WTF irrational Christians again" deal, 'aight? Might not be how you're meaning it, but it's how you're coming across. Especially to those of us who try to understand the what and why of our faith, and not just blindly regurgitate it back to you. I mean, that'd just be offensive to [I]you[/I]. :p[/FONT]

[CENTER] [IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/21/128665110891677332.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] [FONT=Arial]I have but one caveat. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']Well it would help if I actually believed in the "Biblically" speaking history in the first place. But since I don't... =P[/quote] What [I]you[/I] believe is irrelevant. Point of fact, the Hebrews' faith descends from Isaac, and the Muslim from Ishmael, and both openly acknowledge that. Furthermore, Muslims believe that Israel is theirs, and that it is commanded that they convert the whole world through any means necessary. That is the basis for the [I]jihad[/I] that sparked the Crusades. What [I]you[/I] believe is irrelevant. [I]They[/I] believe in a history eerily similar to Biblical accounts, with a few names and places switched around. That is what you are dealing with, so that is the ground on which you must fight. Incidentally, peace right now is providing the perfect solution for them. Why conquer from without when you can do the same from within? Look to Britain.[/FONT]

[CENTER] [IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/16/128660810964199781.jpg[/IMG] [/CENTER] [FONT=Arial]That out of the way, I don't mind that they have fans. I mean, that's fine. So did Richard Simmons. I just don't see that they're doing anything in anyway either unique or masterful, so call me when we get another Kansas for our era.[/FONT]

[QUOTE=Anime_girl5]God created the world. Theres proof all around you. How could nothing be created into somthing? If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? wouldnt they be humans like us? I have alot of people mad at me about this. but oh well, idc. lol Theres no big bang. Charels Darwin ( the creator of evolution) said on his death bed that he was wrong, and he wanted to back all that he said. rly idk how he came up with that crap. lol But the Bible is right. God created the whole world, and everything. I wont get deep into it like I ushally do... cause i'm new, and I dont ya'll thinking that I'm rude or somthing. so for now I'm leaving it at that. :):catgirl:[/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]This is a prime example of why, as a Creationist, I can hope to get very little respect. Arguments against a theory cannot be trite and shallow or they will be dismissed within seconds. Broad, sweeping statements with no reasonings or proofs will be ignored. One cannot ever hope to topple the theory of a man who based his entire understanding in the scientific pursuit of evidence, rooted in the desire to find out, by merely reciting what one has been told. At the moment I have a few bits of physics to take care of, and then sleep, otherwise I'd drill [COLOR=DarkRed]TimeChaser[/COLOR] over genetics (I have sincere reservations and not enough knowledge to accurately back myself up). Mostly I'm curious how data gets [I]added[/I], since from what little I understand reproduction causes an inevitable data [I]loss[/I].[/FONT]

[quote name='Katakidoushi]For me these subjects aren't even comparable. One is a story in a book, the other is scientific fact. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Religion can not be [B][U]proved[/U][/B'].[/quote] [FONT=Arial]I suggest you read some Thomas Aquinas and some Aristotle before you make that assertion. Aquinas relied heavily on Aristotle to prove that science and theology were perfectly able to exist in tandem. Also, proven. Then again, neither can be proven without extrapolation. (And by 'neither' I mean Evolution and Creation. I agree with [COLOR=DarkRed]The13thMan[/COLOR] that ID was constructed in an attempt to make the two theories coexist, but I find such an act more than a little cowardly. More succinctly, Intelligent Design is a Christian cop-out.)[/FONT]

[QUOTE=TimeChaser]Let me clarify my point. What Crimson Spider seems to be saying is that gay people can be free to express love, so long as they stop there and don't go further into having sex.[/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]Right, right. I got'cha. Clarity issues. Glad I could be of service, then. :p And the paragraph after makes perfect sense. Still.... [quote name='TimeChaser']To say something to the effect of: "Anyone can love whomever they choose, but only straight people are allowed to take that next step and express intimate love sexually," is to invoke 'Heterosexual Privilege'.[/quote] Well . . . not to be insensitive, or anything, but the only privilege us heteros have is that . . . well, that the parts fit. And really, that's what sexual [I]inter[/I]course is. Not me bein' discriminatory there; biology's doin' that for me. Now, they can make do with [I]outer[/I]course....[/FONT]

[CENTER] [IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/oregon-trail.jpg[/IMG] [/CENTER]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Sex can come about as an expression of love. To deny it is to deny human nature.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]......what?! First, I think it's safe to say we're all (ALL) in agreement that sex can be an expression of love. However, as today's society proves tenfold, sex is not [I]exclusively[/I] an expression of love. To some it is merely a pastime, to others a means of earning a living. So then to deny [I]love[/I] is to deny human nature. In a parallel example (not exactly the same, but close), I know of a great many people who hug as a way of greeting. The action for them shows that they are happy to see the other person and enjoy being around them. It's an expression of friendship. By contrast, I don't hug really at all, even with the one-armed version. I might say it a lot online, but that again is to express the same pleasure as above, which I can't use my face or body language to do. In reality, the action means a lot more to me than just simple happiness, and I only use it with family members, and when parting with very close friends. The person I hug most is my youngest sister, just because she's my sister. I don't hug friends when I see them. Most of the time I don't even touch them. The same can be said for sex. I don't engage in it because I am reserving it to express an extremely powerful emotion at some point in the future. Just like hugging shows a person not that I care, but [I]how much[/I] I care, so sex does not show that I love, but [I]how much[/I] I love. There is no denial of sex. There is only reservation. And to 'reserve' sex is not to deny love, but simply to find another means of expressing love.[/FONT]

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"']I say let him in. It will amuse me to no end. *is shot repeatedly*[/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Oh, letting him in is the easy part. Just, if you start talking to him, most of us won't have a clue what you're doing, since he'll be on [I]our[/I] block list. I'm pretty sure that blocking someone affects only what the individual receives, and not what the blocked person sends. (^_^)[/FONT]

[CENTER] [IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/3/128675542581320029.jpg[/IMG] [/CENTER]

[FONT=Arial]Couple of things I want to hit for clarity. [quote name='Miss Anonymous]Of course we shouldn't take [i]everything[/i'] the Bible states as pure fact; some of the things written in there were very cultural and specific to the time.[/quote] Pure fact? Yes. Whole darn thing. (As long as we can make certain there weren't additions made to the text, Beowulf style. Yeesh.) [I]Applicable?[/I] Ehh. Laws against eating pigs and other unclean animals were overtly struck in one of Peter's visions. (Acts, I believe.) Laws governing not shaving beards or sideburns are also rather silly. So yes, discrimination based on time and purpose is necessary. [QUOTE=TimeChaser][B]"Love is love, sex is sex, love =/= sex."[/B] I see a flaw in this. When two people are in love and emotionally intimate with each other, that intimacy can be expressed through physical means, i.e. sex. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE] Love is love. A flower is a flower. Love is not a flower. The statements are equivalent. However, both sex [I]and[/I] flowers can be used as [U]tools[/U] to express love. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Katakidoushi[/COLOR], how 'bout we leave the pointless slamming out of this, neh?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]But I don't know who you arrreee!! ó_ò (Also, bad [COLOR="DarkRed"]Korey[/COLOR]. [I]*nodnod*[/I])[/FONT]

[quote name='Ace][FONT="Comic Sans MS"']That'd be great except I don't want Shahllen busting in and stupiding up the place while we're trying to talk. :p[/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]That's why there's a block feature. :D[/FONT]

[CENTER][FONT="Arial"][B]xxxHolic[/B][/FONT] [IMG]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Misc/lolz/out%20of%20context/nostamina.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I don't mind laundary as much, like Allamorph said when you're doing laundary for one or two people you can just sort've "set it and forget it". I feel bad for someone who does laundary for 5 people like Knuckle's girl though, that's a lot of folding and a lot of loads.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Well, honestly, I usually end up doing laundry when I can fill three loads, four if I'm doing bedclothes. But you can fold one load while you're waiting for the others to dry, so it kinda balances out, and you stay productive.[/FONT]

[CENTER] [IMG]http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/fail-owned-dingleberry-name-fail.jpg[/IMG] [/CENTER]

[quote name='Lunox][font=trebuchet ms]Also I wanted to inject some [url="http://xs432.xs.to/xs432/08400/palindebatechart849.jpg"][u]fun[/u][/url'] into this thread.[/font][/quote] [CENTER][IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/funny-pictures-unpolitical-cat-is-on-a-fence.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] [FONT=Arial]That aside, I am continually amused at the high level of hatred each candidate pair seems to inspire in the others followers. Granted, I was still rather young (speaking from how much I observed politically) when Bush Jr. first took office, and the focus for his reelection was largely stolen by the massive Florida recount hilarity, but it still surprises me to see less signs saying "Vote For Obama/McCain" than I do "Stop Obama/Palin", whichever you prefer. So can I look forward to this behavior in future elections as standard, or does election time tend to me more . . . oh, I dunno, . . . . cool-headed?[/FONT]

[FONT="Arial"][CENTER][B][U]Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For[/U][/B][/CENTER][/FONT] [SIZE="1"][align=justify]A massive yawn overtook the blue shinigami sitting on a park bench. His mouth gaped; his neck stretched backwards, and he shook his head from side to side in an effort to keep himself conscious. [B]?Oooh-wah!?[/B] he finished, closing his jaw with a snap. Nathan blinked quite hard several times, then rubbed his eyes. Not that he was tired. ?Bored as hell? would be more the truth, he might say. Three or four wonderfully-placed assignments had interfered with his weekly magic session with Phaidra, and his young disciple was getting to the point where solo training was threatening to become a drudge. At the very least he now had a new trick to add to his techniques, maybe two, but they were easily mastered, and now all he had to do with his time was experiment with variations on them and take souls. Holding his right hand in front of him, Nathan murmured a quick string of words under his breath, and blue light etched an eight-inch circle on the air in front of it. The center of the symbol was a tiny circle containing a single glyph, with a larger circle bounding it. Inscribed in the larger circle was a triangle, and less visibly a trisected hexagon, giving the illusion of a cube. Three small circular bulges were inlayed on the circle?s perimeter, exactly opposite the triangle?s sides. Outside that was another ring containing a continuous loop of text in the shinigami language; various symbols were echoed outside of that ring, building a further three rings to complete the image. Nathan touched the tips of his first two fingers to the center glyph. At the contact, each ring spun in a separate direction, and the circle disappeared. Nathan glanced at his fingers, opened his hand, and repeated the process several more times. Since the raid on the Colorado cell that had produced a startling amount of information, progress on finding and tracing the various connections had been slow, and barely anything had been learned about who was controlling the setup. The purpose for the bizarre experiments was less muddy?something to do with the spiritual side of humans, though Nathan was loathe to reveal what he and Chris suspected?but since there were so many individual research stations, getting any hard information to tie together was almost impossible. In seven years, the group had only managed to turn up anything significant about three or four times a year, if that. Between Gavrie?s snooping and Chris?s remaining contacts, the group had been supplied with a constant source of abandoned hideouts and moderately active cells to explore and raid, but because the entity backing the research was so well-organized, the most that the shinigami had accomplished was a thinning of the vampires? numbers. While his right hand was occupied, Nathan drew out his cell phone with his left and flipped it open, cycling through his messages to reread Lucia?s latest transmission. Seemed the last few forays had given her a better idea of how the individual cells were connected, and she was close to something definite. Nathan sighed. It was about time, in his opinion. He was still far from having to try to kill any vampires who crossed his path; getting closer to the source might mean a decent challenge soon. A presence landed a few meters away from Nathan. He felt it and recognized Adrian, but didn?t look up, continuing his exercises with the circle and pocketing his phone. He waited until Adrian had approached to speak. [B]?So, the master not want to have this one intercepted??[/B] [B]?I guess not,?[/B] said Adrian. [B] ?You want it now??[/B] [B]?Sure, yeah.?[/B] The paper was exchanged, and Adrian waited while Nathan flipped it open. A quick pass of his hand brought forth the message; the blue shinigami scanned the paper, blinked, and read it again. [B]?Something interesting??[/B] Adrian asked. [B]?...hunh,?[/B] said Nathan. He banished the message with another wave and motioned for Adrian to sit. [B]?Possibly,?[/B] he answered while the other complied. [B]?Something to look forward to, at least.?[/B] [B]?It?s a raid, isn?t it??[/B] [B]?Probably.?[/B] Nathan turned to his comrade. [B]?So, how?s the training been?oh hi, Astera.?[/B] The blue-haired faeirie crossed her arms. [B]?Don?t tell me you didn?t notice me,?[/B] she said crossly. Nathan assumed the expression of a deer in headlights. He darted his eyes to Adrian, then back to the faerie. [B]?All right,?[/B] he said. [B] ?I won?t.?[/B] Adrian rolled his eyes. [B]?You?d have to ask Gavrie for a decent answer,?[/B] he told Nathan. [B] ?I know I?m better, and I feel stronger, but I don?t know what he was looking for or if I ever got there. He did teach me a few new tricks, though.?[/B] [B]?Oh, that?s good,? [/B]said Nathan. [B] ?So you feel like if you faced that Count guy now, instead of before, you?d have done better??[/B] [B]?Maybe. That spell he cast on us probably would have knocked out a few of my new abilities, too, but I can fight a lot better than before, so up close, who knows??[/B] Nathan nodded. [B] ?Good, good. Seems like you got the necessary parts taken care of.?[/B] He stretched lazily. [B] ?So,? [/B]he went on, [B]?bet you?re looking forward to some down time.?[/B] [B]?A little.? [/B] Adrian let out a small chuckle with the statement. [B] ?Seven years and no days off takes its toll on you.?[/B] [B]?I can imagine. But,?[/B] Nathan grinned, [B]?we?ve gotta make sure you stay in form.?[/B] He folded his hands behind his head. [B]?So you?re getting a new sparring partner.?[/B] [B]?Oh really??[/B] [B]?Yeah,?[/B] said Nathan. [B]?But Alex is running late....?[/B] Adrian started. [B]?What?!?[/B] [B]?It's not like him,?[/B] murmured Nathan.[/align][/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial]Laundry is actually the one chore I refuse to let my mother do for me when I'm at home. And I don't mind it at all; it's just loading the washer, doing something else for a half hour, loading the dryer, doing something else for an hour, and switching out until everything's been run through. Then the folding doesn't take too long, and you feel kinda good after everything's put away. Plus, whenever my clothes are done by someone else, they're always done [I]with[/I] someone else's stuff, and that's when I lose articles. Ironing is a pain, though. Takes bloody forever to do anything. And I have to iron today. >_

[FONT=Arial]A link to the site is smack dab under the [B]OB Network[/B] heading on the left, there, and the chat is accessible from a drop-down menu on the main site page. Two clicks ain't a lot o' work, bro'.[/FONT]