Gavin

[SIZE=1]If you wish to continue this debate I would be more than happy to, however I would ask that people refrain from simply flaming religions as a whole because of acts committed in the past.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=BasouKazuma][b]WHAT I SAY![/b] Oh sorry for not explaining myself more indept, i meant to say that part of their beliefs are probably wrong. Most religious people believe that everything in their religion is correct without question which is the wrong way to look at things. There are plenty of religions and there are plenty of people in those religions that believe that their religion is the 'right' religion. So how can one person possibly think that their religion is 100% right? I'm agnostic so I'm not against god, it's just that religious groups are too confined in their beliefs that they will not except anything else. You blame your stubbornness on faith, which is precisely the problem. It doesnt matter what the reason is, the fact is that religion makes you stubborn. Stubborness is what causes many conflicts, be it a small quarrel or a war. There needs to be more unification but religious beliefs are one of the biggest factors that divide us as humans. That is why I would like to see a world without religious groups, that's the only way we can truely come together especially since the barriors between races are really starting to crumble.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Basou again you have used the words "[I]probably wrong[/I]", the fact that you do not agree with the beliefs of my religion [or your own for that matter] does not entitle you to say that they are wrong. I believe my religion is the correct one because of faith, something you seem to lack or you would realise that I'm not being simply stubborn. Other people believe that their religion, whether Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or other religions are right because of that same faith, are they wrong to believe that their religion is right simply because it does not precisely mirror another ? Of course they're not, their faith entitles them to believe that they are right. As I said before, religions are not divisive, if that were true then all religious people would be out fighting against those who do not share their beliefs. The Pontiff in Rome would make speeches damning those who are not Catholic and demanding their deaths or conversion. I don't know about you but I certainly haven't heard Pope Benedict XVI make such remarks, nor his predecessor Pope John Paul II. It is a simple truth that such acts of religious violence are carried out by extremists, people who warp the teachings of their religion to suit their political agenda. Humans are not divided because of religions, the preaching of love, respect and tolerance are central to all major religions regardless of whether or not they believe in the same God.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=BasouKazuma]My parents are Pakistani so i know a lot about those countries which is why I brought up those paticular countries, if anyone was wondering. It's not like I'm your average dumb american who sees things like 9/11 and blame that part of the world for it all. I've been against extreme religious places long before 9/11 and for totally different reasons. You really must not know much about middle eastern countries. Religion gets in the way. Being an agnostic "muslim" I know this better than most. Islamic people just can't understand why I am agnostic. They think it is wrong for me to be agnostic and not pray to allah every minute of the day. If i were white, they couldnt care less if i were agnostic but since that isn't the case, it is unthinkable for a person of 100% Islamic decent to become anything other than a muslim. This is because religion controls every aspect of their life back in Pakistan, India, etc. The kids back in the middle east arent given a chance to actually formulate their own opinions on god since they are all 'brainwashed' into believing in Islam and Islam only. This is not the proper way to raise a person. They aren't raised to understand and acknoledge others beliefs. There is only their religion and all other religions don't matter to them. The middle east is the most extreme example, but similar things are present here in america, they are just not enforced as strictly. Most people follow the religion that their parents taught them. I have no respect for people who follow their parents religion without even considering other religions. Basically people like that have no clue what they are talking about. I thank god that my parents gave birth to me here in America. If i were born and raised in Pakistan, I would almost definitely become a muslim. In fact, if any of you were born and raised in Pakistan, you would've become muslims.That is how pointless religions are. They are mostly comprised of people who were forced into religion at an early age, when they weren't ready to make a good decision on religion. It's all a contest to see who can sign up the most people for their group. There's missionary work to "help" those less fortunate while brainwashing them with their one sided views. As if brainwashing them isn't the main point of these missionaries in the first place. The intentions of the missionaries themselves are good but the church system that sends them, is only truely interested in one thing. Religion isn't the only source of violence. It is, however, one of the major contriburting factors to violence though, since most religious people are not willing to admit to themselves or to anyone else that their religion might be the wrong religion to follow.[/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]It is truly disheartening to see how dead set against religion you are, and yet you hold this strange belief that you can be both agnostic and Muslim, when they are mutually exclusive. I was born a Roman Catholic, baptised when only a few weeks old and raised as a Roman Catholic, I have had my first Holy Communion, my Confirmation and go to Mass every Sunday. I was not brainwashed into becoming a Catholic, my parents shared their religion with me as a baby with my Baptism and I continue to believe in the Catholic faith. The fact that you would accuse anyone who is part of the religion that they are part of, simply because their parents also practice that religion is sickening and I mean that. You demean the whole idea of faith with that statement, why then to people who have been Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus all their lives stay Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus after they are old enough to chose another religion ? [B]Faith[/B], faith in what they were raised in, what they believe in is right. Areas where a particular religion is strong, such as Catholicism in Ireland, or Islam in the Middle East is the result of people cherishing their beliefs and keeping them strong, not something to be regarded as evil or wrong. And those Catholic Missionaries who are out in Africa helping the poor, giving them food, money, education and a life, are just doing it to rally more numbers to the Catholic faith ? It wouldn't have anything to do with alleviating the suffering of those who they encounter, and teaching them the faith that they believe in ? Again you insult those who share their beliefs with others, with your cynical and snide remarks simply because you disagree with their beliefs. [/SIZE] [QUOTE]Originally Posted by [B]Gavin[/B] [SIZE=1][I][B]Takuya[/B] As I said, the Catholic Church has committed acts of violence in the past, but the Crusades were not instigated by the Church. Rather the Crusades were a geo-political war, rather than a religious one, the Holy Land was important not just for religious reasons but also military and defence reasons. The fact remains that wars between Powers in the Middle East and Europe were common place, the fact that these for both trade reasons and those of religion does not mean that religion itself was responsible. As I stated before, those acts are not at the core beliefs of any major religions, whether Catholic, Protestant or other Christian based, Islam, Judaism or other religions.[/I][/SIZE][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]I didn't explain that as well as I probably should have, I said the Crusades were geo-political wars and I meant it, but they were covered over as religious wars in order to stir up support for them. The fact that the major powers at that time were of opposing religions does not make the wars religious in nature. The first Crusade for example was in response to Seljuk Turks invasion of the Byzantine Empire, however Emperor Alexus I appealed to the Pope in Rome, who apart from having great military power, also held influence over the Kings of Europe. Unfortunately this war against an aggressor from outside Europe became a religious inspired war given time. And acts such as the massacring of Jews and Muslims because they were not Catholics is something most Catholic people would feel deeply saddened over. The subsequent three Crusades were both political and religious in nature, the recapturing and holding of the Holy Land being the most important, again the political and economical sides to these wars are forgotten because it?s easier to simply label them as being purely religious. There was a religious segment to these wars, a large segment yes, but the only reason for the wars, no. The Age of Discovery as it has been labelled, with the discovery of the Americas, the first voyage around the Cape of Good Hope, the voyages to circumnavigate the Earth were in response largely to European merchants being unable to get good safely through the Middle East from India and China. So the reason we don?t all believe the world is flat any more, or at least why people stopped believing the world was flat could be put down to religion. The Renaissance flourished because many of it?s patrons were wealthy members of the Catholic Church, if not Pontiffs themselves, while these men, particularly some of the Pope were not righteous men, their legacy in terms of art, science, architecture and other advances made in The Renaissance can be seen today. The last two paragraphs are merely to show that religions in the Middle Ages were not entirely iniquitous things. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. The correlation between violent video games and acts of violence in real life are at best supposition, there have been no clear studies done so far that link absolutely and beyond all doubt violence in videogames and violence in the real world. Some individuals are more prone to violent acts than others, it's a simple accepted fact, did Jack the Ripper have a nice game of Hitman before he went off and committed his horrific murders ? I think not. The fact is for years violent videogames have been used as scapegoats for society's ills as a whole, rather than simply addressing the problem most politicians seem to be content to sit back and say "It's all Rockstar's fault for creating these games". That said however when games become violent to the point where it is not only horrific but gratuitous i.e. Manhunt, then there does need to be a bit of thought on the side of the developers. Violence by itself does not influence a person, if it did then anyone who played Grand Theft Auto would be out there beating some poor sod's head in for a few euro, or robbing a car or God forbid in a country where gun access is common killing someone. Half of these so called "GTA" influenced crimes are nothing but a defence solicitor telling his/her client that by pleading they were influenced by a violent videogame then it may generate publicity for the case and mercy of the individual because of they were being influenced by a force outside their control. Long story short, there will always be violent people in our society, it is something brought from when human's were primitive savages and as such is in each an everyone of us. However as human being who are civilised for the most part we have common sense and a sense of what is right and wrong, watching violent movies may show acts of violence but normal people should be able to distinguish between that which is real and that which is not.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Ailes de Velour][font=arial][size=1][color=darkorchid]I read an article in Reader's Digest about a boy who was caught with a stolen car. The police cuffed him and took him to the station, and when he was freed he grabbed one of the officer's gun and shot him down, then encountered two more officer's and killed both of them, too. He was replicating a scene from Grand Theft Auto. In that same article, it said a man was suing multiple companies for $600 each: Take Two Entertainment and Rockstar Games for manufacturing GTA, and Walmart and Gamestop for distributing it. I don't think he's being completely unreasonable: violent, controversial video games have been proven to, in few cases, lead to violent reactions and attempted (and achieved) murder. It listed a few massacres, including the Colombine shooting, and said that the kids who started it were very much into violent games.[/font][/color][/size][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]As I said before this "replication of GTA" is for the most part utter crap, the fact that the child may have had a predilection for violence seems painfully obvious at this point. This person in the first place would have had to be clearly aware that what he was doing was [b]not[/b] the same as Grand Theft Auto, as any person with half a brain cell would be able to comprehend. Where were the boy's parents ? did he watch violent movies ? was he known to have a violent demeanour ? how was he proficient enough to discharge a police officer's weapon when there's a safety on all firearms ? A litany of questions which are not answered because it's easier to say he was influenced by a semi realistic videogame. In the context of the man suing, was he directly affected by Rockstar and it's product as well as it's distributors ? or was he just looking for quick money by hoping on a band wagon. It's sheer stupidity, it's like suing McDonald's because their food is fattening, you have the choice not to buy it. As I said before, certain people are violent by nature, a proven psychological fact. Any act or action can provoke these people into acts of violence and as such blaming the catalyst rather than the person seems rather a rather imaginative choice.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Takuya]IWell, how about the single greatest contributor to violence in the history of mankind? For those of you who are wondering, I'm talking about religion. Before you all start b%tching at me, read my reasoning. First, take a look at the history of Christianity. We've got the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and about ten bazillion onther, less well-known incidents. The irony here is that Jesus preached for peace and compassion, yet more people have died 'in his name' than for any other reason. As for other religions, well, I confess to not knowing much, but I'm sure that there have been incidents of violence ustified by religion for all major and most minor belief systems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that religion should be banned or anything. I just find it odd that the big focus is on violent video games when things that have a prooven conection with violence, like alchahol and religion, go unchallenged. I just don't get it.[/QUOTE] [quote name='BasouKazuma']Religion will be around for a long *** time. It's too deeply embeded in the world's cultures, especially places like India, Pakistan and the middle east in general. No one would ever dream of taking on a religion. There is almost no way to ever convince a religious person that they're beliefs are probably wrong. There is this illogical and stubborn nature of religious people when their religion is put into question .... but i digress .....[/quote] [quote name='Morpheus']I agree with takuya. Religion only leads to hate.[/quote] [SIZE=1]As a Roman Catholic I read those three responses with both amazement an utter disbelief. I'm going to address each of these people in turn to prove to them that religion is in fact [b]not[/b] the source of violent behaviour. I will be the first to admit that the Catholic Church was not the pillar of virtue it should have been for many centuries, abuses rampant in the Church stripped away it's core values because those in charge were not virtuous men. The Catholic Church is based on the teaching of Christ, love, compassion, generosity, decency, things most people regard as morally right because religion taught them that they were morally right. Where as greed, violence, hate and anger as seen as wrong because ? yes you guessed it, religion informed the people that such ideas, acts and emotions were wrong. [B]Takuya[/b] As I said, the Catholic Church has committed acts of violence in the past, but the Crusades were not instigated by the Church. Rather the Crusades were a geo-political war, rather than a religious was, the Holy Land was important not just for religious reasons but also military and defence reasons. The fact remains that wars between Powers in the Middle East and Europe were common place, the fact that these for both trade reasons and those of religion does not mean that religion itself was responsible. As I stated before, those acts are not at the core beliefs of any major religions, whether Catholic, Protestant or other Christian based, Islam, Judaism or other religions. The Spanish Inquisition took place during what was basically a civil war, a religious civil war but a civil war none the less, Catholicism had been the only Christian religion and with the advent of Protestantism it was causing a schism is the Church. Violent acts took place on both sides because it was for better or worse a civil war between Catholics, however it was because of that civil war that the Church was able to finally get rid of it's crippling abuses. I'm not trying to justify that violence, it was wrong and any Catholic today would accept that, but are you seriously saying that violence that occurred during the American Civil War was not wrong because it wasn't religiously based. That those who owned slaves in the South and treated them as sub-human were not wrong because it wasn't religious based. The fact is that those who commit acts of violence in the name of God are not acting in his name because they do not act as he has instructed them to. These are people called extremists and they exist in every major area of life, whether religious, political or ideological. [b]BasouKazuma[/b] That fact that you say that a religious person's beliefs are "[i]probably wrong[/i]" is half the problem. That fact that I believe what I believe in is right doesn't make me stubborn, it's simply the basis of faith. And to say that because religion is strong in many countries is some how a bad thing is something I feel deeply troubled. Your statement is (no offence) filled with such arrogance that it is rather amusing, you say probably wrong as though you have some inconclusive proof that it is wrong, but add in probably just in case you are wrong. I'm not trying to be offensive, but an atheist has no right to say that my beliefs are wrong or evil because they don't agree with them. [b]Morpheus[/b] No Morpheus, [I]fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering[/I]. All jokes aside as I have state before religious beliefs are not responsible for hate, unless of course the core beliefs stipulates as such but no major religion of this world comes anywhere near such a belief system. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Neuvoxraiha][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkOrchid]Today though, I had to call Sparky's. I was wondering who Sparky was when I got the answering machine and I heard clown music and an overly happy voice say: "Hi kids! This is Sparky the clown! I'm not in right now but if you leave a message I can get back to you within 24 hours. HAHAHA!"[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]I wouldn't really think of Sparky as an unfortunate name, the guy who runs the local fast food shop near me is called Sparky, or at least that what everyone calls him. He's Italian but has lived in Ireland for years, even developing the same accent and mannerisms of people in the area, grand fellow but as Sparky probably isn't his real name it mightn't count. A few years ago we were talking about our full names in Fourth Year in high school and where they came from, one of the guys was rather reluctant to give his first name because it wasn't a very common set of names. After a bit of coxing he revealed his full name was [B]Michael Mary Gabriel Hickey[/B], many of which can be shortened down to slightly funnier names. Although today Mary is a very uncommon boy's middle name, it was quite common back when my grandmother was growing up, one of her brother's middle name was Mary. The reasoning behind this eludes me as it would have seemed far more sensible to call boys Joseph and girls Mary. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. An entertaining parody, Mr Dennett's complete disregard for his crew's safety is rather funny, as is his lust for revenge against the giant squid that killer them. Having never seen [b]The Life Aquatic[/b] I can't really compare it, Bill Murray is someone who I have rarely found funny at his best moments, but I greatly looking forward to seeing how the story progresses. [[I]Wonders if he might get a role/cameo in the story[/i]] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Seeing names like these really does make you appreciate having a normal, though uncommon first name and a normal and very common last name. Still I believe I have the name to top the previous ones given, the assistant manager in my local branch of Allied Irish Banks, [B]Mr Richard Head[/B]. Richard, known to his superiors as simply Dick and known to "his minions" (his words not mine) as Mr Head or Boss, a gentlemen to his fingertips it is unfortunate that he has such a combination of Christian and last names.[/SIZE] [quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']Well, my middle name is Kilpatrick, which is Irish, and you know how Irish names are always literal... Does that mean my ancestor killed patrick? That loveable pink idiot with the round arms and legs and head? I am sad :([/COLOR][/quote] [SIZE=1]A misconception, the name Kilpatrick is actually mixture of two words in Irish, the first part "Kil" is actually taken from the Irish word [I]Coill[/I] meaning Wood (in the context of a Forest). The second being simply Patrick in both languages means Patrick as you'll no doubt have guessed, though the name comes from the Irish Patron Saint rather than the cartoon character. Translated properly your name in fact mean's [I]Patrick's Wood[/I] or [I]The Wood of Patrick[/I]. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. It may be my bad memory playing up again but didn't we actually have an introduction forum at one stage ? many years ago. If not then I'll just go back to my corner and ramble on in senility, if so then I seem to recall that it was nothing more than a spam hole for people who wanted to build up a few posts quickly. Introduction forums just tend to breed spam at an alarmingly large rate, as there is often little good grammar or spelling involved, as well as the dreaded use of substituting numbers in the place of proper letters. And besides since we get relatively few of these "[I]New Member saying Hello[/I]" threads there's no real justification for having a forum for them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. At eighteen and a half I'm still a virgin and don't feel in the least bit self-conscious about that fact, I personally see it as a bit silly to view losing one's virginity at an early age to be some sort of achievement. That said I don't abdicate imposed celibacy for people, though by the same token using sex as some kind of recreational activity wouldn't be a great idea in my own mind either. Long story short, you lose your virginity when you're ready, if you're lucky then you share that moment with someone special, if you're not then it could just be meaningless first-time sex with some unknown hooker because you're desperate. Given the opportunity I'll take the first as opposed to the second.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.[/SIZE] [quote name='Retribution][SIZE=1]How many of us are there on Earth again? [B]Nine billion[/B'], last I checked. [/SIZE][/quote] [SIZE=1]I'm surprised I'm the first to correct this, the current population of Earth is nowhere near nine billion . The actual population if memory serves is somewhere just above the six billion mark, which even still is far too high given the size of Earth, and the limited resources available for consumption. Though it may sound heartless (and I'm just stating a simple fact) we are rather fortunate that there are not so many first world countries as there could be, as there just simple isn't enough to go round. Aside from the Iraq War driving up the cost of crude oil, other countries like China are becoming more economically prosperous as people are buying cars, which means that there is less oil to go round that there used to be, which in turn puts up the price of it. Again simple fact, I'm not being cruel or saying that we should make more countries third-world just to satisfy economic demand. The replacing of fossil fuels with other non-limited fuels is simply a reality that has to be faced, so far most of these alternative energy systems require certain conditions that may not be available everywhere. The mass area required for wind farms to be actually worth the investment is rather large, as well as the fact that they are in the opinion of most people eye-sores. Others such as hydro-electric energy also require certain circumstances and are not viable everywhere. That said of course I am a huge supporter of developing alternative cheap energy sources which would potentially cure all of Earth's power consumption problems. Technologies like Nuclear Fusion while still not viable, though perhaps not viable is not the correct word. Antimatter annihilation (the collision of matter and antimatter) to produce energy is another sci-fi to sci-fact technology which is gaining interest as a possible energy source, however the inefficiently involved in such at technology at the moment make it unusable. Here?s Wiki?s article on Antimatter, or it?s use as a fuel.[/size] [QUOTE][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=2][CENTER][B]Antimatter as fuel[/B][/CENTER] In antimatter-matter collisions, the entire rest mass of the particles is converted to energy. The energy per unit mass is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy, and about 2 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear energy that can be liberated today using chemical reactions or nuclear fission/fusion respectively. The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J of energy (by the equation E=mc²). In contrast, burning a kilogram of gasoline produces 4.2×107 J, and nuclear fusion of a kilogram of hydrogen would produce 2.6×1015 J. Not all of that energy can be utilized by any realistic technology, because as much as 50% of energy produced in reactions between nucleons and antinucleons is carried away by neutrinos, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be considered lost. [2] The scarcity of antimatter means that it is not readily available to be used as fuel, although it could be used in antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion. Generating a single antiproton is immensely difficult and requires particle accelerators and vast amounts of energy?millions of times more than is released after it is annihilated with ordinary matter, due to inefficiencies in the process. Known methods of producing antimatter from energy also produce an equal amount of normal matter, so the theoretical limit is that half of the input energy is converted to antimatter. Counterbalancing this, when antimatter annihilates with ordinary matter energy equal to twice the mass of the antimatter is liberated?so energy storage in the form of antimatter could (in theory) be 100% efficient. Antimatter production is currently very limited, but has been growing at a nearly geometric rate since the discovery of the first antiproton in 1955[3]. The current antimatter production rate is between 1 and 10 nanograms per year, and this is expected to increase dramatically with new facilities at CERN and Fermilab. With current technology, it is considered possible to attain antimatter for $25 million per gram by optimising the collision and collection parameters (given current electricity generation costs). Antimatter production costs, in mass production, are almost linearly tied in with electricity costs, so economical pure-antimatter thrust applications are unlikely to come online without the advent of such technologies as deuterium-deuterium fusion power. Several NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts-funded studies [4] are exploring whether the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belts of Earth, and ultimately, the gas giants like Jupiter, might be able to be collected with magnetic scoops, at hopefully lower cost per gram. Since the energy density is vastly higher than these other forms, the thrust to weight equation used in antimatter rocketry and spacecraft would be very different. In fact, the energy in a few grams of antimatter is enough to transport an unmanned spacecraft to Mars in about a month?the Mars Global Surveyor took eleven months to reach Mars. It is hoped that antimatter could be used as fuel for interplanetary travel or possibly interstellar travel, but it is also feared that if humanity ever gets the capabilities to do so, there could be the construction of antimatter weapons.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Again it seems that as well as using the more efficient alternative fuel sources the use of well run Nuclear Fission reactors will just have to be something that people get used to. Yes there are horrific accidents like Chernobyl which bring Nuclear Fission technology into a very bad light, but at the moment it?s all we?ve really got. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. I rather like the idea behind the RPG, as to my knowledge it's the first of it's kind to me done here on OB, although I might be mistaken. Neil pretty much spelled out most of the reservations I had about the structure to the RPG, however I think the story is tight at the moment but needs to be made more detailed with current events in the Empire as a whole as well as Rome itself. The fact that the Army will not come into play until the second installation worries me, as typically it was the Army or more so the Generals that held major power. Again as Neil said wanting to do a sequel and actually getting to do a sequel are two different things. Still the idea is solid and with a bit of fleshing out would make a fine RPG. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Slightly difficult to follow, as the story is only in it's beginnings, when the next chapter comes along the story will become more clear as will Annie's actions. The dialogue and action is quite well written, although again as we're not sure of Annie's motivations it's hard to draw conclusions. On with the next chapter.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. I first read about this on Wikipedia about a few days ago, and the prospect of a sequel to Snake Eater so soon is something that has me giddy with excitement. I loved every second of playing Snake Eater, the characters, the story, the action, everything about the game was just beyond superb. Having gotten really attached to Big Boss in Snake Eater, I was quite disappointed with what happens to him, thought again it's like commenting on Vader's actions in [B]A New Hope[/B], having just seen [B]Revenge of the Sith[/B].[/SIZE] [quote name='satan665]2. We are probably going to find out a lot more about Big Boss after MGS3, his remains or possibly his living withered body are in the concept art as well. In MGS1 the govt. refused to give up the remains to liquid snake, so that situation might come up again with Ocelot [spoiler']with Liquid taking over his brain through the hand or whatever crazy thing was going on there.[/spoiler][/quote] [SIZE=1][spoiler]Liquid's ability to possess Ocelot has to do with Ocelot's parents, though more specifically to do with his father. Hinted as several times in the game, Ocelot is the child of The Joy and The Sorrow, whom The Boss told you was taken from her by the Patriot's roughly twenty years before Snake Eater. The Sorrow, Ocelot's father was able to contact the dead in order to get information about battlefield situations, as such it is possible that Ocelot possesses this ability, or at least something like it. This allows Liquid even though dead to possess Ocelot because of his arm. Here's the direct quote from Wikipedia. At this point it becomes apparent that Liquid is able to take over Ocelot's mind and body via the arm. The reason why Liquid can take over Ocelot may be because of possible abilities as a medium inherited from his father The Sorrow, combined with the nanomachine-surgery Ocelot received in France. Ocelot is seen using injections of some sort to suppress the manifestations.[/spoiler][/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Having played, and loved every single minute of Snake Eater, I have to admit that these new features do seem rather intriguing. The fact that we'll get the opportunity to play the original two Metal Gear games and see even more of Big Boss is an nice prospect, but rather like seeing Episode III and then going back and watching the Original Trilogy for Darth Vader, since Episode III was made after and the Vader there has different motivations and is a fuller character. In response to Charles' post, I can't believe that MGS3 didn't break any records for sales, the sheer quality of the game should have meant it should have.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. I've had this happen to me on more than one occasion in the past, and honestly there's very little you can do about it. If the other person is willing to augment their post to accommodate yours then tit's all well and good and your post hasn't gone to waste. If they're not then you'll just have to accept it and go back to the drawing board, a trite answer but all that can be given. Baron is right to say pre-write it, that saves an awful lot of trouble as you never know when you go to reply , there's a problem and you end up losing your post and having to rewrite it all over again.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.[/SIZE] [quote][SIZE=1][FONT=Trebuchet MS][CENTER][B]February[/B][/CENTER] Abstract thoughts. Loves reality and abstract. Intelligent and clever. Changing personality. Attractive. Sexy. Temperamental. Quiet, shy and humble. Honest and loyal. Determined to reach goals. Loves freedom. Rebellious when restricted. Loves aggressiveness. Too sensitive and easily hurt. Gets angry really easily but does not show it. Dislike unnecessary things. Loves making friends but rarely shows it. Daring and stubborn. Ambitious. Realizing dreams and hopes. Sharp. Loves entertainment and leisure. Romantic on the inside not outside. Superstitious and ludicrous. Spendthrift. Tries to learn to show emotions.[/FONT][/SIZE][/quote] [SIZE=1]Quite a lot of what's there is accurate, to a certain degree. The first two lines are more accurate than they are inaccurate, but that said, there's a lot of stuff there that seems to be designed to stroke ego rather than anything else. I guess could be regarded as temperamental on occasion, though more so now as before, ambition has always been part of my personality, liked to simply wanting to do well in later life. "[b]Loves freedom[/b]" and "[b]Rebellious when restricted[/b]"are fairly accurate, but would be better stated that I work better when left to my own devices. Superstitious and ludicrous however are two things I am most certainly not, superstition, or more correctly those who place any kind of belief in it is a practice is regard with mild amusement. Again fairly accurate, I'm rather surprised. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Like many of the other Oldies, my joining Otaku[B]boards[/B] began with an Internet quest to seek out more knowledge of an anime, in my case it was Dragonball Z. I stumbled across The[B]Otaku[/B] having done a Yahoo/MSN search sometime in either late 2000 or early 2001, at first I only every browsed TheOtaku, ignoring OB because I didn't know what forums were and had little interest in learning. Then in September 2001 when TheOtaku went down for one of it's maintenance periods I decided for the heck of it that I'd browse Otakubaords and see what it was about. I started out with the "[I]brilliantly[/I]" chosen username Majin Gogeta, and for a time posted in most of the forums with little regard for spelling, grammar and substance. Given time I discovered the wonders of the Arena, or whatever it was called back in Version 3, curse my bad memory, and began what has become my major pursuit here on OB: [B]role-playing[/B]. My advent in role-playing was marked in particular by two people, MajinVegeta (Andrew) and SS Trunks/Yoda (Craig), these two individuals helped me build up the skills to make me a much better role-player. Nearly four years on I've had the opportunity to meet some really great people, make some really good friends and have more than a few username changes, but I still remain the RPG-loving Irishman I was when I started out. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]How about the old stand byes? [b]I'm a lesbian.[/b]- Don't use that, the guy will want to watch. [/color][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Indeed, far too many young men are under the mistaken belief that lesbians are only around to indulge them in some kind of personal fantasy. That said I have a friend who once made the boast that any woman who he'd been with would have to turn gay, as no other man would possibly be able to satisfy her. [/SIZE]

[quote name='Morpheus']Using the law to get tax revenue is a misuse, but the plant could have employed every single unemployed person in the town, not to mention drawing work from the rest of the county. We only have 90,000 people, and a very large plant could have solved area unemployment for many, many years.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Yes, I suppose it could have and it's unfortunate that Chrysler didn't seek an alternative location near the town when it became apparent that that person was not going to sell their land. However it still wouldn't be right or fair to ask that person to give up their home for the sake of the community, regardless of how many unemployed people would have found jobs. Yes it would have been good for the community, but if you got a job on another person losing their home when they didn't want to lose it is something a lot of people would find unsettling.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Off the top of my head the only thing I can think of is when my brother and myself have mock lightsaber fights with bits of timber, it's great fun, but at 18 and 16 I suppose it's something we should be passed now. Singing in the shower in another habit of mine I suppose I'd be embarrassed if other people knew I did it, it's just something about the acoustics of a shower that makes you seem good. And that's all you're getting out of me, my private embarrassing habits are just that, [I]private[/i].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. I've always been a huge fan of Futurama, though I have to admit I would be eager to spend money on DVDs of the TV series when it'll be repeated on Sky One time and time again. That said the potential that it would return to the small screen is something that I would welcome whole-heartedly, as it might finally give is a break from endless repeats and uninspired new episodes of The Simpsons, which is now in it's [b]18th[/b] season. Futurama was always a well done show, with each character have their own either subtle or obvious foibles, idiosyncrasies and personality quirks. Aside from the main characters, Zapp Branigan was always my firm favourite, his utterly hilarious Kirk caricature was something that always had me in stitches. Although there were times when his idiocy was taken too far, although that's only my opinion. A few of Zapp's best lines are as follows. "[I]Brannigan's law is like Brannigan's love: hard and fast.[/I]" "[I]When I'm in command, every mission's a suicide mission![/I]" "[I]Kiff, I have made it with a woman! Inform the men.[/I]" "[I]If there's an alien out there I can't kill, I haven't met him and killed him yet.[/I]" "[I]Rock crushes scissors. But paper covers rock! And scissors cuts paper! Kiff, we have a conundrum. Search them for paper! And, bring me a rock![/I]" "[I]Now, like all great plans, my strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it.[/I]" Those and other great lines can be found [url=http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zapp_Brannigan][b]here[/b][/url] on Wikiquotes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Given the ever persistent "sexah" gene present in each and every Gavin, well those uber-sexy beasts here on Otakuboards anyway, the use of pick-up or chat-up lines is not something I've had to rely on. Just kidding, most of the time I've found the simple "[i]Can I buy you a drink ?[/i]" works wonders when used at the right time. When not in a pub, club or other establishment, saying just simple and genuine, emphasis on [B]genuine[/B] things about her appearance tend to also work very well. That said, lines like this do not work, and should never be said in anything other than jest. "[B]Those pants look great, are they built for two ?[/B]" "[b]I think I just dropped my number back there, can I have yours ?[/b]" "[b]So how many other angels don't have wings ?[/b]" "[b]Call me a doctor, I think my heart's just stopped.[/b]" Very, very, very bad lines that should never be used in anything other than an attempt to look foolish.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Not many songs "get on me nerves" per say, there's are certain songs though that drive me nuts if I hear them over and over, as was the case with the song [b]Blue/I'm Blue[/b]. When the song first came out a few years ago it would play every morning, and I mean every morning on the radio, this went on for about two months and drove me near cracked. A lot of what could be described as "girly" songs get on my nerves, I know that sounds very misogynistic but it's just something about those kind of songs, that kind of pop music that just does my head in. Other completely talentless bands like The Cheeky Girls and the like are also more than capable of irritating the hell out of me, given persistent exposure.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Morpheus']That's like asking if I would want to get the death penalty, just because I can see why it is important. Of course it would suck to get chosen for either of these things, but, in the end, you have to get over it. Even if the house is sentimental, you shouldn't hold back a community. That Chrysler plant could have produced thousands of jobs. They weren't even trying to buy the house. Just the land.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Yes I don't doubt the Chrysler plant could have produced a good deal of employment for the area, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that a piece of legislation that should be used only for the acquisition of land for public purposes, and then only when necessary could be perverted for use by major companies. If you think about it, it potentially gives any corporation with enough political clout the ability to get [B]any[/B] plot or area of land they require for a nominal price (the compensation paid would certainly be cheaper than trying to acquire it as a private company) and there's no possibility that the offer will be rejected, because it [b]can't[/b] be rejected. Yes I suppose that individual held back progress in the town, but that's coming from ever person who [B]didn't[/B] have to sell their land, had no attachments to that plot of land and were going to see the benefits of Chrysler moving there. For that person it would have meant having to pack up everything, move potentially out of the area (thus negating the benefits to him, aside from his "compensation") and losing the land which his family had lived on for 60 years. Not to be offensive but those from the area who hadn't lived on that land (and gotten to know it as home as that person did) hadn't any damn right to complain. It was his home and he shouldn't have to sell if he didn't want to. Again this issue is about the misuse of the law, rather than whether or not people have the right to refuse to sell the home to help the community. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Coincidence, pure coincidence. My name's Gavin, DW's name is Gavin and two other guys I went to high school with were called Gavin, yes there were some similarities in our personalities, basic similarities mind you but to say that having the name Gavin will dictate your personality is at best a dubious supposition. Not to shoot holes in your theory Bloodseeker, but I have a cousin called Edward who is nothing like you've described, if he was on fire he wouldn't get worked up about it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. We have something similar to [b]Eminent Domain[/b] in Ireland called a [b]C.P.O. or Compulsory Purchase Order[/b], which like the E.D. allows the Government to effectively buy any piece of land in the country. A person who is served with a Compulsory Purchase Order has the right to appeal the decision with the Planning Board, but often don't get anywhere with it as C.P.O.s are generally used for the building of roads, schools, hospitals and other publicly-used buildings and amenities. C.P.O.s tend to be used most of the time in rural areas, as much of Ireland is still rural, although rural here probably has a different meaning that in other larger countries. Most of the time they're served to large farmers who own acres and acres of land for the use of buying land to build new and better roads, and often farmers object because they want to keep their land and sod the money. Living in the country I suppose I can see both sides of the argument, here land has been owned by families for hundreds of years and they aren't keen to part with it because it's not just a simple piece of land and not subject to value. However then you have cases of farmers who hold on their land simply to try and get the most out of it, because a C.P.O. means they have to sell. This often involves farmers who own land around areas of new development, and honestly as it's their land they deserve to make a decent profit if they're going to lose it. The idea however of a government being able to acquire land for the use of Private companies is troubling, as an E.D. or C.P.O. effectively means that a government can get a much better price for a plot of land (or house, farm, etc.) than the private company would if they had to buy it themselves. As well of course the person can't say no to an C.P.O. and they have to sell whether or not they want to. In response to Godel's and Morpheus' posts, many people in the countryside, rich farmers or not just may not want to part with their land. When your family has lived somewhere for decades (the house I live in has been owned by my family for over 70 years) moving is a huge and painful task, and to do so because some sod wants to put in a mini-mall or something is a right kick in a teeth. The main question you can ask yourself is would you like to be served with one ? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Hmm well seeing as how I've had more than a few opportunities to end relationships I have a few of them, however I've also had a few good ones tossed at me. "[I]This two week relationship we've had has been so memorable I'd just like to say this: It's over and that number I gave you is a fake.[/I]" [B]Used by:[/B] Myself on holiday in Turkey about 2 years ago. "[i]When I'm not with you it feels like a part of me has gone missing, that part most likely being my wallet[/i]" [b]Used by:[/b] Myself after dating a shopaholic about 5 years ago, I swear material girls are a right pain in the backside... and the wallet obviously. "[i]Time with you has made me appreciate the value of being single."[/i] [b]Used by:[/b] Myself on a particularly leachy girlfriend who just had to be around me all the time. "[i]It's funny, before you I thought that all men were morons who were interested in only one thing, since I've been with you I realise that I was completely right[/i]" [b]Used by:[/b] An ex-girlfriend, the fact that she cheated on me twice and I still took her back does make me a moron. "[i]Love, like wine takes a few years to ferment, staying with you makes a can of beer all the more enjoyable.[/i]" [b]Used by:[/b] Myself, one made up on the spur of the moment a few months ago, but seeming a little better now I've had time to enjoy it's wisdom. Well those are the one's that hit me at the moment, but have a certain Gavin magic to them.[/SIZE]