Allamorph

[quote name='Zen][color=royalblue][size=1]It is my life nectar[B] and possibly the reason I suffer bouts of lethargy when I am unable to consume it.[/B] Addiction![/color'][/size][/quote] [FONT=Arial]That's actually called "withdrawal". (^_^) More simply, your body has grown used to not having to sustain itself. I don't use energy drinks. I eat breakfast consistently, and so my body is used to dealing with food in the morning and usually threatens to barf if I [I]don't[/I] eat within thirty minutes of becoming vertical. My body also times out the other two meals based on when the first is eaten, and I snack intermittently throughout the day. My high metabolism and walking see to the rest.[/FONT]

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Because boys = blech.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Now you're just being mean. ó_ò [quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]The day my emotions take precedent over logical and rational thinking....[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] See, that's how people think I'm antisocial. You get the emotions subjugated and people think you're an inhuman freak. Or maybe that's just because I don't make any sound when I walk. Dunno.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Goin' back a bit (again) to [B]Dire Straits[/B], namely [I]Sultans of Swing[/I] and [I]Money for Nothing[/I]. I hate that I can't find this stuff anymore in the music sections without going up to someplace like Tower Records or what, a full ninety-minute inconvenience?not counting traffic. It grates me that my library continues to suffer without the good stuff in it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]What's amusing to me is that both sides of the argument are very similar idealistic views of love. One is the almost magical feeling that happens when [I]that person[/I] meets your eyes from across the room/square/field/whatever-it-is, and the other is a near-perfect situation achieved through patience and effort. So why not both? Half of our entire makeup as humans is emotional abstractions, or things that make sense without actually making any sense. So why it should be impossible for two people (or maybe only one :p) to feel an instant connection for no reason is beyond me; certainly it makes no [I]logical[/I] sense, but can one deny that it happens in the first place? But then, love is sustained through the effort of those involved; if you don't try, the feeling will not remain, whether or not the connection was built up gradually or made instantaneously. (I think it's easier to sustain when made over time, since those involved have at that point made their efforts almost natural.) The point is, you people are arguing over two completely different [I]aspects[/I] of love that are not mutually exclusive. Yes, love does require time and work, but that does not mean that it can't just happen?nor does the fact that "love at first sight" is able to happen mean that it happens to everyone.[/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master']And I find it rather aggravating that you would think that corgis are your stereotypical fru - fru dogs! They were bred in England and are bred for cold weather.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Actually, I know all about Corgis, and I didn't mean to include them in the list. (I was actually talking about [I]you[/I] belonging on the show. [I]*shot*[/I]) No, Corgis are cool, and they're just compact herders. I was referring to any dog that gets used as an accessory or a purse-stuffer, that jumps around your shins and yaps and people put sweaters and dresses and coats on in [I]the middle of summer[/I] for some reason. I can't even really get along with Jack Russels, bless their hyperactive hearts. I would like a ferret, though.[/FONT]

[quote name='Raiha][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]If I'm not bothered by Allamorph's twisted and cute way of standing up for me....[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Wait . . . I was? Oh dang. I [I]was[/I]. (I forgot about that part.)[/FONT]

Actually, I have one other thing I want to lay down before that happens, but I figure it should be fairly easy to throw in. If anyone else has something they see that they want to toss in, I'll be out of posting commission until about Monday or Tuesday, so you have time. Unless there're things other people want to hit also. Patrick had better not be investigating Victor. It'll offend the poor man, and you saw what happened last time. :p

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]I'm not getting what Christians may not like.[/color][/font'][/size][/quote] [FONT=Arial]It's an American thing, I think. We're soooo patriotic over here, after all, and since this nation "was founded by settlers seeking religious freedom" (notice how no one ever mentions the part where only the Puritan religion was accepted, and became almost a law unto itself), we somehow get it into our collective heads that allowing other people to do as they will will "ruin the sanctity of our institution called Marriage and therefore completely undermine the moral grounding of our great Nation", which to my eyes hasn't actually had more than a [I]hypocritical[/I] moral grounding since I've been alive. And we also seem to miss the point that we are capable of teaching our own young. I mean, really. The "Caananites" will only get to your children if you let your children mingle during the formative years. Not that I'm advising isolationism, because that unchecked can lead to bigotry; more like I'm advising people be taught [I]how to think[/I]. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][COLOR=#9933ff][FONT=Monotype Corsiva][SIZE=4]I'm Christian (Roman Catholic with some other beliefs thrown in for fun)[/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] I really like you right now. :animesmil You're silly. [quote name='amibasuki][FONT=Arial']if asking a question like that amidst the topic at hand was solely an attempt at sarcasm that she didn't want an answer to, it was very much displaced. [/FONT][/quote] And [I]here[/I] I'd like to introduce to you a couple of dear friends of mine: Rhetoric and Flippancy. They're an interesting pair, but they tend to behave themselves whenever I invite Discernment over as well. And then we all play Brawl together. [quote name='amibasuki][FONT="Arial"']the parts where she wasn?t hatin? from my hatin? consisted of arguing why she didn?t agree with my reasons for supporting gay marriage that I previously wrote. regardless of whether or not she was apathetic of the topic she wrote about or whatever the apathetic-ness involves, she participated in the discussion, which the points she brought up were perfectly legit to reply to, especially on a message board that?s made for discussions such as these where it?s not just her and me who?s going to be seeing the responses.[/FONT][/quote] I know all that, which might or might not surprise you. But everybody can see also that you're arguing with a wall, so where does that really get you? :p And hey, at least it wasn't [I]me[/I] being flip. Oh, wait. [quote name='Raiha][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkOrchid]HOW MANY BASES DO THEY NEED TO COVER?![/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote] Them're Justices, girlie. They cain't even get to [I]first[/I] base.[/FONT]

VampIrisThey always bloom outside my window in late Spring, always different than before. White, yellow, purple, blue; pink favors the driveway instead. Pity. I miss the amazing one, though. Such a gorgeous, unexpected combination for an iris: tan atop and scarlet below—and the only flower I've ever brought to life. So pretty. So deadly.

[quote name='Boo][size=1']And jigglyness, don't feel bad. I for one am just glad that you and some others keep the thing alive with great pieces.[/size][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Seconded. You have no idea how much fun it is to watch this thing. (^_^) [strike][B]Edit:[/B] You might want to post it at the (current) end as well, as kind of an update thing for posterity. 'Cause not everybody might read the rules, and just skip to the end. (Of course, after a while that wouldn't matter anyway, but I think by that time the general flow would have been established.)[/strike] Nevermind. :rolleyes:[/FONT]

[quote name='amibasuki][FONT=Arial']first off, what does ?that?s my choice? have to do with this? it?s your choice on how to write your posts? obviously. and it?s my ?choice? to interpret your intent based on how you wrote it. I don?t get where you?re going with that particular point.[/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]This is Raiha's point: ---------------> This is your head : [COLOR=#EDEDED]space[/COLOR]O And [I]this[/I] just ain't your day. :p Moving onwardly..... [quote name='amibasuki][FONT=Arial']as far as the married gay couples being compared to married same-sex couples, I?m going to have to suppose you were comparing straight couples to gay/bi couples, since the other way is redundant and it was probably a typo.[/FONT][/quote] I think you're right. :animesmil However, [I]again [/I]one flies over the cuckoo's nest, so lemme clear that up. You said:[QUOTE][FONT=Arial][I]I don?t know how that would even be a question. what, gay couples can?t be as happy as straight couples? what would keep them from being [I]less[/I] happy relationship-wise? whether or not marriage ends well isn?t the issue on gay marriage anyway.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE] This isn't a commentary on why homosexual couples shouldn't have marriage rights. It is instead this statement here: [CENTER][IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-unimpressed-cat.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] We cool? To be honest, the parts of her post that weren't laughing at you for blundering straight into her were the basic sentiments of that picture. You're tryin' to argue with a wall, my friend. She just don't care. And this isn't so much about homosexual couples wanting to be able to "marry" as it is about them being officially recognized as a family unit. Since (for some reason beyond my ken) the act of marriage requires the State's approval (again, o_O), crying or [I]de[/I]crying anything about religion seems rather pointless. So us Christians may not like it. So what? Our precepts do not tell us to forcibly subjugate the governing laws to our purposes, but tells us how to conduct our own business. If the laws where we live do not line up with our beliefs, either we deal with it or we leave, unless we're being unfairly oppressed, and I don't see that happening here. Final note: [quote name='amibusaki][FONT=Arial']and even if you were right about marriage?s original beginnings, you can?t discount how marriage has evolved to be what it is now. take it to be a bad thing or not, but you can marry someone for just about anything, whether it?s for someone?s money, or for love, or for having a steady ****-buddy[/FONT][/quote] Ehh, no, it's pretty much always been that way. No evolution about it; us humans are surprisingly sot in our ways. We don't change, we just find different ways of saying it. :p[/FONT]

[CENTER][FONT="Arial"]Married To The Sea for the win.[/FONT] [IMG]http://www.marriedtothesea.com/051308/cincinnati-war.gif[/IMG][/CENTER]

[quote name='Morpheus']Since when is affirmative action necessary?[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Wizard's First Rule, bucko: people are stupid. (And [I]please[/I] don't try to derail this thread into pointless semantic blather. Blathering's my department, and I only do it when appropriate.)[/FONT]

[quote name='Boo][size=1]You [i]are[/i'] involved, silly.[/SIZE][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Ehh? I mean, I don't count logistics, really. That's just talkin', and I prefer what I say to impact [I]me[/I] as well as other people. [QUOTE][SIZE=1][I]Anyway, I was thinking of turning it into [b]claim +1[/b], like what would be the case now. That you can claim as soon as someone starts working on the piece instead of as soon as it's done.[/I][/size][/QUOTE] I like that. +1 or +2, so long as the number is relatively low (say, one or two :p) so things don't get jumbled. Makes the length of the List a non-issue, and still lets more than one person work at a time. -ish. Can't really work unless you have the next trailing edge, of course. And then that would eliminate the apparent lack of updates?or rather, it would if participants were encouraged to just post their submissions after claiming if possible, instead of editing their post, which doesn't bump. Bumping is good. :animesmil[/FONT]

[quote name='Morpheus']If all states legalized gay marriage, there would be no reason for life partnership clauses.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]By contrast, racial discrimination is [B]il[/B]legal, and yet Affirmative Action is still necessary. [CENTER]-----------------[/CENTER] My reaction: okay. I may not agree with it, but if they want to do that, then I see no reason to stop 'em. If down the road it turns out that some deity or other reaches out of the clouds and pwns them for some Deic (is that even an adjective? :p) reason, then I suppose they had it comin'; if not, then I suppose no harm done. (^_^)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Again, I feel a little awkward about posting in here since I still am skill-less in the art department, but since I still lurk around here regardless, I figured "what the hey". [quote name='8bit;812731][QUOTE=Hybrid Ninja']I'll grab the one after boothten. ;][/QUOTE] [FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="DimGray"]v_v I thought the whole point of the claim system was to avoid this. I was going to claim the spot after boothten but I waited because his piece wasn't up yet. That was what we all agreed on was it not? :animesigh[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] This is a primary reason I dislike the current system for the GW; there is simply no reliable way to guarantee your turn unless you're constantly jumping on to see if the previous claimer has updated. It also seems to restrict participants who might be otherwise frequent submitters and relegates them to long periods of waiting for the right moment. I checked, and [COLOR="DarkRed"]White[/COLOR] (sorry, man; I just don't think I can say 8bit with a straight face) hasn't had a go in somewhere around twenty-five submissions, a string that has been dominated by [COLOR="DarkRed"]Sayrin[/COLOR], [COLOR="DarkRed"]jigglyness[/COLOR], [COLOR="DarkRed"]HN[/COLOR], and [COLOR="DarkRed"]Kimmeh[/COLOR]. (Not that I think that's a bad thing, just that no one else can get in....and certainly there have been dry spells when no one has tried or no one has had time, so really I'm just remarking on data.) Although I know this system is designed to accommodate those who have time [I]now[/I], it also works against them should they get free just after someone else has claimed, and then they're stuck playing the waiting game again, during which time something [I]else[/I] might come up, in accordance with Murphy's Law. :p That, and my slight neurosis, are probably why I prefer some kind of list. [I]*shot*[/I] ...were I involved, naturally.[/FONT]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']So, shall we continue the conversation?[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Ehh, still no. And here I'd like you to indulge me in a serious explanation as to the Why, since you're [I]quite[/I] missing the point. (As are you, [COLOR=DarkRed]Rach[/COLOR], though I appreciate your attempts at mediation.) As I said earlier, I was planning on discussing. I wanted to discuss. I am all [I]for[/I] discussion, because I want to hear you, and hear the workings of your mind. But I find the discussion useless if you (and others) will not hear me back. If you truly wish for a discussion, regardless of what the issue or what the stance, you must be willing to draw your opponent to you and make them feel as if they will be heard. You must also be very careful with your speech, and although your one flaw has been pointed out to you, you are also rather oblivious to the chain of missteps that keeps me away. So let's watch for a second, and forgive me for picking solely on you; you are not the only one I see this attitude from. [quote name='Fasteriskhead'][COLOR=#EDEDED]Not quoted because of sheer length[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Yes, there's nothing there. I know. :p I just want people to be able to backtrack easily. Your entire third answer-bullet was [I]riddled[/I] with bias. (Although personally I think your conclusions about ID are correct, and I'm a Creationist.) Mind, I know bias is inherent; otherwise you could not truly say you believe one way or the other. However, at no one time did you say "I think _____ is bad" or "I think ____ is brutish". You said "_____ is bad" and "_____ is brutish". This automatically alienated you from that side for the simple reason that you stated a claim [I]as if it were fact[/I] instead of as if it were opinion. I also recognize that the intent was to objectify the idea and not the person. However, in calling an idea Foolish and Brutish, you call any who hold to it Fools and Brutes, whether you intend to or no. You attempted to address this: [quote name='Fasteriskhead']We are not children; we shouldn't need to have our hands held and reassuring words passed around every time something potentially hurtful is said.[/QUOTE] Absolutely true. However, you shifted responsibility. If you really want an opposing viewpoint, you never begin by ridiculing the opposition. It's simply bad diplomacy, and it will have three effects. [LIST=1][*]From those who are immature and cannot handle such ridicule, you will receive either angry silence or stoic silence. This person is afraid of having their belief torn apart and destroyed, and so will simply wait for the perceived threat to pass before venturing out into their comfort zone again to discuss their beliefs with others who feel the same. Thus you will be partially responsible for planting a callous stereotype in that person's mind, and engendering in the process a person who believes with no real reason for believing—the very thing that stereotypes the Creationist side, and one which both of us find rather depressing. [*]From those who are somewhat more mature, who can take such ridicule without injury but with moderate indignation, you will receive a hasty, heated defense with little thought given to proofs. These arguments are a total waste of your time, as they are easily torn apart and destroyed, and yet reasserted immediately because the arguer has no other recourse. This also may hurt your image, as in the process of you having to fend off idiocy you may become agitated and lash out yourself, which this person will then perceive as a small victory. In the alternate case that the person of this maturity can take a hit and not resort to indignation, you are likely to be faced with the same level of thought going into their arguments, and so is still a waste of your time. [*]From those who understand the intent of the argument and have the maturity to see completely beyond the slight, you will again receive silence, for this person knows that you do not discuss to hear, but that you discuss to prove yourself true; and so they see any attempts at fair discussion ultimately futile. They also feel no qualms at taking further subtle hits once they have declared their non-interference, and their silence then becomes mildly humored. Thus you have alienated the very people you wish to talk to, the people who might actually give you challenge and your ideas pause.[/LIST] In summary: [quote name='Fasteriskhead']You are, as far as I read, basically saying that you won't take me seriously because I've said such nasty things (the idea being that hateful people have no good arguments to make).[/quote] No, actually. Quite the opposite; I am basically saying that I already know you will not take [I]me[/I] seriously, and so there is no reason to speak at all. Inasfar as I have watched, your arguments are mostly good, and mostly thought out, with a few exceptions. So it boils down to a lack of tact. You have already demonstrated—and again, you are not alone in this—that you have decided where you stand and are only interested if I can prove you wrong. I would rather start over from the complete beginning, take one assumption, and follow both paths to their logical conclusion. It is far easier and less prone to fallaciousness than attempting to divine outward from the center in all directions at once. So although I think a discussion between us would be rather interesting, I see it with your current attitude as ultimately useless. Make me believe you want to hear me, and I will speak. [CENTER]------------------------------------------[/CENTER] Final note (and completely unrelated): [quote name='Fasteriskhead']Well, the Jews have been doing highly interpretive, "esoteric" readings of such biblical events for several thousand years now. I see no reason why this option should be denied to everyone else.[/quote] Ehh. Has it also occurred to you that perhaps they're doing it wrong? In my experience (in literature in general), interpretation is the only recourse of those who miss the statement right before them. Attempting to divine hidden meanings is to me highly presumptuous, and it assumes that the author intended their literature to be interpreted in the first place—an assumption no one has the right to make. To make such an assumption at all is in [I]my[/I] opinion highly egotistical, denoting that [I]you[/I] somehow know the author's intentions where others cannot.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Well, my plans at grabbing another Butcher and Carey were foiled yesterday, and it appears that I'm going to have to watch [I]Blade Runner[/I] before I read the novels, so I salvaged what I could and snagged for the moment O.S. Card's [I][U]Shadow of the Hegemon[/U][/I], Goodkind's [I][U]Blood of the Fold[/U][/I], and Brooks' [U][I]Antrax[/I][/U] (second in the [I]Voyage of the Jerle Shanarra[/I] trilogy). This has prompted me to make two decisions. One: having finished [I][U]Antrax[/U][/I] yesterday afternoon, I have decided to grab the final book, [I][U]Morgawr[/U][/I], and then abandon the Shanarra series completely. The first three books were good, as was [I][U]First King of Shanarra[/U][/I], but I am discovering that Brooks is taking too darn long to tell his stories, getting caught up instead in a mass of soap opera-esque internal drama and wildly vacillating character emotions, often with little reason. Also—and this is a personal call—I think he started relying too much on cliffhangers in the previous four-book set, and he's getting predictable. I may try out his [I]Landover[/I] series, but unless anyone tells me otherwise, I'm not planning on high expectations. It's a shame, really, because I rather enjoyed the [I]Knight of the Word[/I] trilogy, and I kind of wanted to see how he was going to tie everything before and after the Great War together. I just don't think I can take much more of knowing where he's going half a book before he gets there. Two: I need to know where to start in Mercedes Lackey's works. I also need more authors to look for. And if anyone can provide me the exact order of Anne McCaffrey's [I]Dragonriders of Pern[/I] series, I would greatly appreciate it, because I cannot seem to find a list anywhere. [I]Wheel of Time[/I] I'll be looking into. The order there I expect to be pretty straightforward, so no worries. [B]Edit:[/B] Also, a recommendation for anyone who's interested in something a tad off-kilter: [I][U]The Sight[/U][/I] by David Clement-Davies, featuring wolves as the main pro- and antagonists. (I haven't yet read his [I][U]Fire Bringer[/U][/I], but I might; [I][U]The Sight[/U][/I] was at least interesting—and more to the point, it was Different.)[/FONT]

[QUOTE=Shy][size=1]On a related note: Has anyone heard from Charles lately? It's one thing for people to spend less time online, but I haven't heard from the guy in probably 6 months. I hate it when people disappear like that, I get concerned. -Shy[/size][/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]That's what I'm talking about, yeah. Where [I]is[/I] he?[/FONT]

[quote name='Nerdsy][color=deeppink']That was all Charles.[/color][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Bosh. On another note, do we even [I]have[/I] a Curator anymore? (I'd offer to step up if necessary, but my time is limited as it is right now, so offering would be stupid of me.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]You realize that however hard you try and however far you trace, and no matter who actually kills him, you won't be able to ever prove I issued the order, right? Now that you bring it up, though, I just remembered I left my spaghetti simmering.[/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master]I [I]LOVE[/I'] dogs! I have a Pembroke Welsh Corgi puppy! His name is Tucker and he's so cute and fuzzy and lovable and cuddly and he's a blessing to the whole entire world!!![/quote] [FONT=Arial].....Lord have mercy. [spoiler]Methinks someone belongs on Tokyo Yip Yip.[/spoiler] Aside from my obvious preference, I enjoy large, unpuntable dogs like Border Collies and Labradors and Rottweilers and other [B]real[/B] dogs. Not like any of those blasted accessory yip-dogs who just beg to be kicked. I have an [I]exceptional[/I] weakness for Siberian Huskies; something about the way their eyes seem to pierce through things. E.g.: [CENTER][IMG]http://www.breederretriever.com/photopost/data/635/medium/siberian.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] Gorgeous animals.[/FONT]

[quote name='Indi, in Aceburner's][COLOR="Indigo"][SIZE="1"][INDENT]I fixed that for you. The level of spoiler in the previous post, pity it's too late. ~Indi[/INDENT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Too bad Gavin didn't get the memo either. I think the count is up to five for me.[/FONT]

[quote name='Aceburner']Keep forgetting you don't read Harry Potter.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]Wow. Just ...... wow.[/FONT]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=comic sans serif]but I will say if Nader gets in the election again I'm gonna seriously consider moving to Canada[/color'][/font][/quote] [FONT=Arial]But Nader's an American tradition!! I mean, didn't he run Independent against Lincoln? :p[/FONT]