Kent

True that, I can hear you and I think your right about some. I do think that we agree. (I would like to think its because we are both intelligent) But I do wanna mention a point I made before, the religous RIGHT and fundamentalist are the topic of your discussion concerning the civil rights legislation that is unfair. I dont think it is really fair to judge republicans by that standard, it would be the same a judging islam by the standard of wahabist. (thats not a good thing is it.) And its also important to recognize that many of the current far left civil rights activist are making mountains out of things that are not even mole hills. I mean in this that much of the civil rights activism present today isnt even based on current problems and is often based on possible future problems that are always looking for the worst in possible human nature. I do think that this republican democrate thread is getting a bit old at the moment. Rather than talking about differences and citing the differences, some of us, (sometimes myself included) are resorting to the good old back and forth baseless insults. I wouldnt mind seeing some specific issues to discuss. And I wanna mention civil rights isnt really a good one, because most of the stuff people claim about republicans doesnt have any backing besides stereotypes based on class warfare. Plus, the fact is that a good person, rep. or demo., always wants people to be happy and treated right. So acting like rep. dont like equality would be silly, you woulnt find a single rep. on the boards that wants in-equality, and if you try and cite people from the government, for each one on the right there is one on the left. Just to name some names and incidents. Al Gores father voted against integrating public schools under Eisenhower. Strum thurman/ thurman strum (I can never remember his name) ran on a third party platform in 1948, it was a segragationist thing. But Senator Byrd of west virginia also was a segragationist. I think they are both racist. But more important they are of an age gone by. Bottom line in my book is that I believe I have said All I can on this subject unless someone can come forth and brings something up that would spark a new conversation. Sidenote: James you are still my fav. to debate with on the boards.

No, actually I am not saying we have to adhere to christian values or anything like that. I was saying that our societies were founded on these priciples, so to expect them to be non-existant in our culture would be to be living in a dream land. No one is dictating what morals to hold. The government is dictating what is acceptable in terms of behavior. That does follow the basic premise of juda-christian law, but it does not specifically call for any sort of religious law. I do believe we agree on tons and tons of issues (in fact I very much like you and respect your opinions.) but I do believe that there is a dis-agreement between the two of us on this issue. The morals our governments place as the base of our laws are based on religious thought, but they do not force anyone to hold their own morals to that standard. They do however, require that if you are to take part in society you follow the rules, even if those rules were based in religion. Although they do not dictate any religious practices. The laws based on these priciples are not in practice because they are the religion of the government, they are in place because these "laws" or priciples are practical when trying to achieve a stable country. None of the laws have a strict religous nature to them, and all are applicable to society without the context of religion. Each law has to do with the betterment of society. Abortion is a loaded topic in this sense because religion is USUALLY what we base our morals on, so when we feel something is morally wrong, it is difficult to express that with out the element of religion being present. However, I must admit that there is also another reason abortion is a loaded topic. Abortion represents a greater ill in our society that is a result of a loss of morals. Un wanted and un expected pregnancy, those are problems that can create strains on a culture and especially on the individual, so how do people put themselves into the situation to have these pregnancies. There is only one way to become pregnant, and we know what that is. The question is, should a person be allowed to live life with no regard to the repercussions of their actions and then have the society foot the bill of their needed operations. (planned parenthood) Further more, how can we ever deal with the problem when we refuse to look at the problem head on. Abortions occur quite often and could simply be the result of certain groups being the only ones with the money to afford the operation. Adoption agencies are far too overloaded with children, unfortunatly these children are in completly dis-proportionate ratios in terms of race. So are we ever going to look at the fact that certain elements of society are more responsible than others for each of these problems... no, because of the very subject of another thread on the boards at the moment... political correctness. With middle class whites getting most of the abortions, no one in politics will ever put the blame where it belongs, since doing so would allienate a large portion of the voter base. Placing the blame would also show the morals of these allegedly moral people to be just the oppisite:immoral. The above did get off subject some, but it leads back to something I was trying to explain. There are "problem elements" in our society that are holding themselves to a lower moral standard than what would be expected in a prosperous society. (no society can thrive while under the strain of immoral behavior such as murder and over whelming numbers of illegimate children) It especially doesnt help that the leaders of certain minority groups suffering from these sorts of problems are infact contributing by having illegitimate children of there own. (talk about setting a moral standard) So to eleviate these problems, we must impliment laws that will enforce some sort of moral behavior while still, as you said, keeping to our secular rules. This means that we will have rules that seem religous in nature, but will in fact be practical in application when trying to achieve an optimal society. I also wanna mention that you speak specifically of the religous RIGHT, as in extremist and fundamentalist. Those people are not the majority. It is also important to recognize that no one is exscusing the trampling of civil rights. Civil rights do apply in this, in the sense that we are all entitled to our religions, but they do not directly apply when talking about actions which are illegal. I also wanna get back to this idea of politicians, specifically republican ones, that come forth and say "this is dictated by god", are you reffering to an actual person or are you bringing up theoretical person for the sake of argument?

Well actually you never mentioned civil rights legeslation. And its also important to recognize I stayed on subject. The thread before mine was about abortion, moral/religious dictation by state and republican stances on those issues. My essay was on those 2 subjects alone. Most important, it is not my opinion that the laws of modern western civ. are based on judao-christian ideology, it is fact. Im sure you've been to college or are in it, go back to your mod. west. civ. or socioligy class teachers and find out first hand. Theres no opinion on that one, its fact. I dont have time for this right now because my final exam is in 2 hours and Ive gotta get to the bank first, but I will be back tonight. I like you james, but I wont let you slide this stuff by me. I was on topic and Im staying there.

Personally I dont think its a good idea, but I wouldnt stop you unless you did it infront of me in my home. I believe that the body is your temple, no churchs, nothing like that. I believe that your body is the only thing that you really need to take care of besides your loved ones. With that all in mind, I believe that self-mutalation is a desecration of the temple. I wouldnt stop you or make rules to stop you, but I certainly wouldnt enjoy seeing you do it or taking part in such a nasty act.

Well I would like to begin with a description of partial birth abortion. The child is passed out of the birth canal only to the point of the head being exposed. Then a doctor proceeds to inject the child with a drug that slows the heart rate dramatically, then within one minute the child dies from what is basically a lack of oxegen due to a non-existant heart rate. Nancy Pelosi (D-calif.) voted specifically to allow this practice, not just abortion, but specifically partial birth abortion. Most important in this issue is the fact that right now and over the past ten years, an epidemic of women using abortion as a last ditch birth control has arose. Incest, rape, birth defects, endangerment of the mothers life, all of these are cases in which most republicans support the practice of abortion, But not for women who use it as birth control. It is also important to recognize the difference between the state force feeding you religion and implimenting ethical and moral rules to maitain a functional society. Religion is the practice of worshiping a deity(s). Not the application of functional laws to run a country. Plus it is important to realize (which I know you all do) that the laws of almost all western countries are based on religious principles that were created and practiced long before any of these western countries existed. With that in mind, it is hard to try and say that any government is going to apply absolutly no laws with "judao-christian" morals behind them. These morals of the "judao-christian" origin are what brought about the idea of eqaulity in society. Not the laws of other religions which believe in cast systems or gender inequality. The stuff everyone (including james) wrote was untrue and stereotypical. It promotes false impressions of reasonable people. I also wanna mention that its wrong to group republicans all together like we are all some sort of bible freaks that wanna rule your lives. I want nothing to do with your lives unless you want me there. I like to party, I like to do "illegal" stuff. But I dont like allowing unions to have state legeslatures in their pockets. I dont like people placing no value on innocent human life, and then protecting the lives of criminals. I just cant stand the stereotypes that are promoted here, all the while, no one is putting forth anything like a solid example, such as Nancy Pelosi's voting record or the protection of NAMBLA by the ACLU. How can these people live with themselves. Do people still value human life? Do people still wish to live in an ethical society? These questions I often wonder about when partial birth abortion is accecpted. (I mean come on, you couldnt get that abortion before the baby was coming out, maybe atleast in the second trimester) I wonder about these questions when the civil liberties union tries to protect pedophiles while ignoring the pleas of numerous people that do not fall into a minority group in terms of race, creed or color. (what, do people think there is no such thing as a poor white person) I just cant stand the stereotypes that are based on nothing besides slander, class warfare rehtoric and out right lies. We are all descent people, why act like just one group of us do things like allegedly shuve a religion down another persons throat. If you wanna talk about religous figures in politics look at the democratic party that has tried to put up rev. Al Sharpton as a presidential candidate or the former Democratic presidential canidate Rev. Jesse Jackson. You wanna talk about religion being in politics... Republican stereotypes with no backing...

Well actually I wasnt reffering to Iraq, Iraq is another subject in my book. I was reffering to the other stuff going on. sorry for the confusion. But just in case, I should mention that long before anything about Iraq came up, there was a report out of the cheq republic about an Iraqi intelligence officer meeting with mahammed atta in progue. That would support Iraqi involvement in 9/11, also its not like the idea of your enemies enemy being your friend is a new one. Although I must admit that if I was saddam or usama, I would be able to put aside my personal hate for the other so I could hit the enemy in strength. I must admit, I dont think they are related (saddam and usama) But Im just putting up theories. I gotta say though, I was talking about the terrorist groups, not saddam, although anyone that tries to act like saddam isnt straight up evil is someone who hasnt seen the actual video footage of iraqi kurd mothers holding their babies, both curled up and dead from nerve gas attacks. (god I wish I could show the ignorant)

Well actually, mods have the option of closing, and we dont because it would be silly to give the average person the right to close. It would end up with lots of closing due to oppossing views. Instead, I wanna have a delete after closing option, but on certain threads or only for the creator. Specifially only for the creator and mods, that way there are no chances. like in the dbz forum, we couldnt chance loosing the af topic that has been there forever and closed the whole time. So I want to ask for a delete after closing thread option only for the creator and mods. that would lessen the amount of spam on the boards and help to clean them up some. (although they dont need cleaning, they are very well kept.)

I was wondering if we could get some deleting options going for the closed threads. Maybe an option before closing, maybe an option only for the original creator of the thread and a mod after the thread has been closed. Either way, I hate seeing the boards getting cluttered with closed threads. I always want to delete any thread of mine that is closed. (although that is about once a blue moon) But what do you think. could we give an option of deleting before closing threads or maybe a deleting option for mods and the creator. Do you think something like this is possible? thanks.

I think the future of the boards is bright! But I gotta know, how can the boards stay afloat. I mean, nothing is for free. So how?

I find this interesting because if you ask me, this is not what the u.s.a does. case and point: jane fonda on v.c. AA. that would be the other parties propaganda. Create an enemy you say: do you really need to create one when an enemy flies into you. Show the other group as inhuman: ? did you know that the japannesse were told that U.S. marines ate babies? I wanna clear it up though, the U.S. has done stuff like this. But its not nearly as bad as you would like me to think. Fact is, both sides are always human (i hope) and both sides are always gonna fight the wars to the best of their abilities. Its also important to remember that containment on something like communism didnt work, look at the cuban missile crisis and tell me that taking a non-agressive stance against those commi bastards would have been a better idea. Actually it may have been, if that had happend we would still be fighting the soviets, and the middle eastern countries would be hating them instead of us. How can you not hate an invading force such as the one we bailed the afghans out of. bottom line: I feel like the above comments are just as propaganda-ish as anything the u.s.a. could come up with. But still a far cry from the v.c. possing with jane fonda. (*goes and burns a pic of jane fonda as he dances dressed only in an American flag painted in red white and blue body paint*)

Sounds reasonable to me. Most of the time, men who would concentrate on the awesome action scenes in a show like inu yasha wouldnt be able to write a love story like inu yasha has. I think the women deserves a hand. Except I would imagine a women with creative control over the series making those skirts just a bit longer.

Well said, endymion. You put a very good context around the ideas that had been mentioned before. I gotta say, whats with this idea of not calling afro-amer. black. Hey I dont mind it, if someone doesnt want to be called black, I woulnt do that. In fact, I dont even say that now, because Im never sure what is gonna be offensive. (some people take offense to anything) My thing is just like a point made earlier, when are we gonna try and come up with some anti-racial slurs in the direction of anti-white stuff. (not that I really care, call me what you want, doesnt matter to me) Personally the whole race issue bothers the hell outta me because my family came here from Ireland in the early 20th century. That being the case, none of the past racism in america is related to me or my family. So when people get on me talking about slaves, I cant help but feel for my ancestors who were slaves to the english. I also just wanna say that I really do feel the only way to fight these problems are on an individual basis, I mean, make all the anti-racism groups you want, but those woulnt change any minds. Its the actions of the individual we need to concentrate on, not the actions of the group. (which are often mis-represented by a small percent of the group) I also wanna say thanks to vegeta rocker for catching that hate crime thing I mentioned. Thanks veg. rock.

Did you ignore all of my above reply? I did specifically say in the cases of rape and incest an exception must be made. Go look, jeez! Third paragraph, and take a look at when that was last edited, it will support that I didnt go back and add something in to make myself look reasonable. I mean come on, who would make a women carry a child resulting from rape. Or not allow an abortion that would save a mothers life. Or make a women carry a baby from incest! For real, give me a little credit, I mean, that thought has been in almost every one of the, what, atleast 5 post Ive made in this thread. Oh yea, I forgot to mention that what you said doesnt even begin to touch on nancy pelosi, I mean come on, voting to allow partial birth abortion. I know we all know what that is, so tell me, is that being a good person.(allowing partial birth abortion) ------------------------------------------------- Fact: half of America's population pays 96.5 percent of all the taxes collected. Fact: its the top half. Question: how do you give a tax break to people who dont pay taxes?

Well although I do not recall say anything was "uneducated" I am actually quite happy with your reply. You managed to quill my coral with you all the while not continuing a pointless argument. My hat is tipped off to you. I gotta say though, you do have a point, there really isnt much in form of legeslation we can do to fight these sorts of problems. I think the only thing we can do is the sort of things we can only do as individuals. Only individual actions showing we are not ignorant racist will make things better, but due to human nature, for every bit of effort that one of us puts in, there is some jerk who can reverse it in the remarks of one or two words. I guess the only answer to this is to acknowledge that there is almost nothing we can do as a group and all we can do is our own small parts as individuals.

Mitch, whats your problem with my comments. I made a valid point that no one had made, and even if it was known by everyone, then why is this discussion even up here. Do the things I say bother you, And most of all, the point to the post I had put up that you qouted was not to show what will or may happpen with the subject, it was to avoid what you were saying. Why do something just to say "well atleast we tried." Why not try to come up with a valid solution and not do any futile efforts in the mean time. That way, when our solution is finally at hand, we can use it and say "well, we took care of that." I would rather put a valid solution into use, or spend my time coming up with one, than sit around and try to enact solutions that will only end up not working. I mean you said it yourself, everyone knows this stuff. So if everyone knows what I said, why bother doing it. Why waste your time trying something you know woulnt work, while you could be coming up with legitimate ways to deal with the problem. Ways that people arent sure whether or not they will work. I dont mean to get on your case, (lord knows,you are a mod, and I dont like pissing off mods.) but why pick on me for saying something that was related to the topic and something that had a decent meaning behind it. I mean, this topic was about taking P.C. too far, not curing the prejudices of the world. Sorry to lash out so to speak, but I just dont stand back while people try to act like I'm a fool. If Im a fool for what Ive said on the boards, its not for what you qouted. (and I know you never called me a fool)

Ah, first off, during that first trimester, there is a heart beat, and to me that indincates a person, pre-mature yes, but a person. Second, I dont think that is the only case of abortion, fact is that right now the head of the democrates in the house voted to allow women to do partial birth abortions, Nancy pelosi is her name. That is killing a baby no matter how you look at it. Plus, republicans dont preach god, moral people preach god. Republicans preach moral government (in context to abortion). Such as only allowing abortion in cases of insest and rape. Its also important to remember that there are more differences between the 2 parties than the simplified stereotipical crap you mentioned. I personally think that the statment you made is another perfect example of the democratic party using stereotypes to make people think republicans are bad. Of course, you can support abortion, its your right to, but if a women can do that because its her body, why arent you sticking up for my right to smoke pot using my body, or do cocaine with my body. And how could you be so disgustingly rude (the party, not you the individual) to kill innocent babies (partial birth abortion) while not being willing to execute a man who has killed, raped and murder any number of people. I dont like to stereotype, but Im giving up on that because there is no point for me to give the benifit of the doubt to someone who wouldnt do the same for me. Of course I know this is all in vain because " you can tell a democrat, you just cant tell them much." Oh yea, whats with the "lead the poor around by a rope" crap. I mean come on, if anyone does that its the democrates. For the last 40 years democrates have been the SELF-proclaimed party of the poor and minorities of America, but nothing has been done, nor has anything changed with the little effort put forth. Plus if you want the sad truth, it seems by the number of people who make a career out of welfare that some people like the idea of being lead by a rope. Although that still doesnt happen because the democrates holding that rope havent led anyone anywhere. Show me examples of what democrates have done for the poor of the country, tell me, what did LBJ's great society do for the country's poor. Ya know, if I was you, I would look into the history of the democrates before you act like republicans are the reason for the poor in america. Shoot, do you have any idea why social security is so messed up, its cause the original welfare system took money straight from social security. Just look up the action Johnson took. Its all true. Or look up how al gore's father voted when Eisenhower tried to integrate the public schools. (it wasnt in support of the integration, He was a democrate just like his son.) Hey to make it easy on you, show me examples of what republicans have done to hold the poor back, and make it a real example not just some bogus statement with no backing, and then I will condem their actions. Republican or democrate, anyone holding down the poor is doing something that is bad. But to act like republicans are responsible for the poor of this country is making my slanderous statements about democrates seem all the more real and truthful.

This is a queer topic that I am gay to speak about. "this is an odd topic that I am happy to speak about." That should anwser the whole question of whether or not this is rediculous. Fact is, I dont like any political correctness. It ruins too many things. Gay, queer, they both have legitimate meanings and for that reason you could never ban them from being used. (plus come on, thought police, does that ring a bell) I do want to stress how bad p.c. is in America, I dont live in the u.k. so I cant say for sure, but here it is out of control. For example, did anyone hear about the teacher in southern calif. at a public highschool who was suspended and then taken off suspension because he said inflamitory comments that were backed by statistics. He said them, everyone got mad, he was suspended, everyone found out what he said was true and backed by fact, they brought him back to keep the issue from getting any attention. Go ahead and ask me what he said, its no big deal if you ask me, but in light of not getting the same kind of crap as this teacher, Im not gonna say it until I am asked. Any way, I also feel that P.C. has ruined several other things all over the country. It plays into the hands of special interest and does nothing to further the cause of the special interest besides give them one less thing to complain about. (wait maybe thats why this is being done, to shut some people up) Either way, there is almost no arguement that is valid that can prove one way or the other that P.C. has beneficial or negative effects. My personal opinion is that P.C. is wrong, its just a good way to quiet down someone or a hot issue while not dealing with the issue in a direct way. The above example about the word "gay" for example. Why would you want to ban it, because people are making offensive comments? Well dont you think the second you ban "gay" another even more offensive one will be brought up and used offensivly. Ban that one too you say, another after that will come up. The whole time the real issue will be some sort of prejudice against "gays." So instead of dealing with that issue, lets just make special allowances for "gays," that way they keep quiet and the rest of us can just try and ignore them. ( I have no desire to ignore homosexuals, nor any prejudice for them) So what is the answer Im getting at, DOWN with P.C. it does no good and only creates things like the term "hate crime." Im sorry maybe Im slow, but isnt any murder a crime of hate? Oh well, I guess I should stop at that and see if anyone wants to know about that teacher. Sorry, but I just hate catering to special interest.

Im willing to bet that you could find out from a reliable source called tech tv, extended play. They usually tell it like it is, and might even have pictures on their web site. Im sure with a little looking around you could find something. The odd thing about the quality of the graphics is that the game play graphics are better than the cut scenes. No Joke!

Almost anything on Mtv or the pop radio stations.

they were over, period.

Ok, I just wrote an amazing essay and lost it because I was kicked off-line. Im gonna keep this one short. Basically I love this topic, its the most stimulating thread in a long time. I wanted to talk about the intelligence, learning from your mistakes and knowledge aspects spoken of above. I believe if have a way of distinguishing the three seperatly while not defining each. Learning from your mistakes is always of a personal matter. Life in the family, romance, taking on responsabilities. Knowledge is in the books, history, recent history and even current events that have been finished. Language abilities, foriegn or native(although speech itself can be included in the intelligence discussed below). Even cooking. Anything that calls off of previously learned facts, such as how to preform the hymlic. (even though you have probably never had to do it, you have learned it.) Intelligence is the big one. It involves all sorts of stuff, more specifically, mathmatics problem solving, decision making under pressure, and even quick witted remarks or antics.This even includes things like a persons ability to understand theories, or geometic shapes with out needing extensive lecturing. Intelligence in mathmatics is interesting because it is applying previously learned standardized process to any number of unknown variables. Problem solving is also like this, but it can be even more difficult because of a lack of a previously established procedure to approach the problem. Of course "witts" and antics, these are almost the most obvious in there indication of possible intelligence, but are often not the sure fire way to judge. A funny person is not necessarily smart, they might just be appealing to other aspects of human nature. (immaturity, spitfulness or even just crude expression.) Most importantly, intelligence can easily include the ability to retain any information including knowledge and learning from your mistakes as mention above, as well as any problem sovling or decesion making abilities inherant to a person.

What do mean 10,000 man battle, is that an actual stat. (drops jaw hoping it is) I am super crazy now waiting for the two towers. It looks amazing and it doesnt help that I managed to get my hands on the tt game. (which is amazing) I'm gonna see tt the first chance I get. Although I have got to drag my brother along and he is such a little punk about these lord of the rings movies. (hes got a problem with how there was no real end in the first one, it just kinda stopped) But what ever the case, the two towers looks like its gonna be the ****.

Well, thats an interesting question. I would have to say that the average person is being reflected wrongly in a large percent of the studies we all here about. But I also do think that people have lost a sense of "importance" in the things they think about during daily life. (importance in terms of news and current events, as well as certain levels of "cultural interest") The mis-representation I was referring to is most likely related to groups doing studies in urban areas that are already suffering from bad statistics in terms of reading, history, science and math scores. But its also important to note that a large percent of the people interviewed and aired on news specials are people doing things like walking around on a college campus. Thats a horrible sign for the future, mostly because the urban stats can be fixed with work and care, the college grads that dont know where yemen is, are a much larger almost unfixable problem. I do believe that you have a valid point, and I would personally support you. It seems that a large percent of people under 35 have no interest in anything besides the most recent episode of friends. Even worse is the fact that, the lack of knowledge doesnt keep these fools from sticking their face into politics, activism and the recording of history. Oh well, we all have that right. Plus, the biggest thing of importance to me with this growing problem is the fact that it is going almost completly un-noticed, simply because a large percent of the generation before the problem were semi/ if not more than that, responsible for the problems existance. I believe the only way to answer these sorts of problems is to do away with over powerful teacher's unions which manage to dodge the blame when it is their fault (they also always seem to be able to blame the probs. on under funding). We also need to place more importance on teaching the urban areas with no lowered standards. Money cant fix these problems. We need to face them head on with work, concentration and close attention to the general population as well as the "problem elements." (those elements being the learning disabled and the less fortunate that dont have a home life to support and match the effort that the public servants are putting into each child.) But the real catch with all of what I said is that it starts with the adults in the situation. (f' the college students, I'm in that group and I've got no problems with current events, so there are no excuses for their dumb butts.) Point is, adults need to wanna help. We need to lose the teachers who are teaching even though they hate it. We need people who are willing to put just as much and more effort into the work they ask of the children. Yes this is a problem, but the young ones can be taken care of. The people my age are just S.O.L. Lets worry about the future, because the people my age are just not interesting in the more complex issues facing modern american (and global) culture. (oh yea, I just love to rant on edu. so I can help fight those nasty anti-republican stereotypes.)

Well, actually, the game really is a bit short on the side of completion. But, I cant stress enough the replay value of the game. Not for unlockables, but simply for the fun. As for who you can be, I will try with names but I will also give descriptions. Arogon- son of the former king. The man protecting froto, who gets it on with liv tyler. legolas- the elf with the awesome bow skills gimli- the dwarf with the mean beard and strong axe. Then there is a secret charactor, youll have to rent it and beat it to find that one out. But I do wanna stress, rent the game first. Although I have nothing but praise, it is short enough that you can unlock almost everything in two frantic days of playing while locked away in your room. (not that I did that... uh, ok, I did.) But still the game is great, the graphics are really, really the best Ive seen on a ps2 with out going into cell shading. And the show that gave the game 5 out of 5 was extended play. That should speak for itself.

Well if I was defending the story I would say that they didnt bring gokou back to earth upon the wish because the "authorities that be" knew he was training with king kai to prepare for the up coming battle. Also when they brought krillin back they first wished him to the _____ station in the spirit world and then back to earth. I would say its a plot hole, but to me a plot hole has to be obvious as hell to make the series go wrong. I know you dont think this "plot hole" ruins the series, but I dont even think this one is really worth the effort of the name simply because under my thought process it could be explained away, and there are several others that cant be explained away; those are plot holes. This is just a bump.