Transtic Nerve

or you can get over it like everyone else who's dumped. Welcome to the real world.

The bottom line between my feelings in this thread are simply the fact I'm tired of having other people tell me what is right or wrong. First it's gay marriage, now I can't even listen to the damn radio. And quite frankly people who tell me either or both of those things are wrong piss me off and I will not stand by idlely and let that crap get heard without my opinion about these things and the people who say them be heard as well. If they can slap me in the face with their views on what they think is "right" then I can slap them back with how I think about them. To you (the outside viewer) it may not nearly seem on the same level, but to me, it most certainly is. On a further note I'd like to say that I maybe should have not said some things, but I do not take them back. If I can take what you say to me, I expect you to take what you can dish out, no matter the subject. I also like to say that I'm glad someone, whom I've had my differences in the past, could understand what I was saying despite what I wrote before it. I am also a civilized person... but I'm also a controversial person. You gonna get the FCC to fine me too? The FCC is a joke... I said it before. There should be nothing stopping me from watching or listening to what I want to. Nothing. If I want to watch it or listen to it, I should be able to. My choice, not yours, not anyone elses.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] All that stuff you said.....[/color][/QUOTE] The biggest joke here is that people like you think other people like you should run my life, tell me what I can and cannot listen to. I wasn't and never have been offended by anything on Stern, or Janet Jackson, I personally didn't listen to Bubba because he was on the same time slot as Howard. I'm so tired of idiots like you telling me what is and isn't decent. Kiss my ***.... how about that decency. How dare you try and tell me how I should live my life. What I should and should not be able to listen to. How dare you. I'm absolutely ashamed to even be remotely associated with you. If you're too imcompatible to change the radio station when you hear something "you don't like" then maybe you should be in a special home with other special people. [quote=Manic] The thing you have to realize about mediums like radio and broadcast TV, is that they're free to the public. Any kid can turn on a radio at any time and it'll cost them absolutely nothing (not counting the purchase of the radio itself).[/quote] And any responsible parent can TURN OFF the radio at any time. Maybe if we dealt with more serious problems like irresponsible parents, we wouldn't have an organization like the FCC to try and tell me what I can listen to and not listen to. But with being the incredibly STUPID country we are, no one thinks about that. Stern was not fined because of his language, he was fined because of the way he's done radio for the LAST 20 YEARS. I don't want uncencored radio, I want the SAME radio I've had the last 20 years of my life. And now the FCC decides to jump in. Give me a break. The whole deal with Howard Stern is that he was controversial... he pushed the limits and often times went over them... how does the FCC decide right NOW to throw a hefty fine at him? Oh and if anyone was offended by Janet Jackson's boob, you need to grow up babies.

He's an egomaniac who only gets off by looking at the 20 people who vote for him. He's also an idiot, but everyone already knows that.

As of a few weeks ago, Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son), the chairman of the FCC decided he was going to sparatically kick the FCC and it's so called policies into gear. As of now, several talk show hosts, including Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge have been fined thousands and millions of dollars for what they've done on the air the last 20 years. Bubba the Love Sponge (who was a local radio personality here) was fined 3/4 of a million dollars and was essentially fired because of it. And just today, Howard Stern was taken of all the Clear Channel COmmunication channels he was played on because of the heafty fine (over a million) he was recieved. The FCC is the biggest joke in the world. This is the only government institution that is used to dictate what is and isn't decent for us. Where do they get off by telling me, a grown man, what I can and cannot hear or watch? While I agree that there should be some things we shouldn't do, but this incredibly long list of crap the FCC comes up with is nothing but junk. I honestly can't stand the FCC or its motives. If a kid can choose to have sex and have a kid and either raise that kid or have it adopted, how come I can't simply choose what I want or not want to listen to without some jerkoffs standing in the way. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I just don't think the FCC serves any purpose but to please the family oriented and the religious oriented peoples.

The FCC has been kickin stuff into gear lately (you can tell if you listen to radio, specifically tlak radio)... I wouldn't be surprised if Spike just decided to edit the movie in fear of the FCC slapping a huge fine on them. If you want to watch the movie in all it's true glory, head on down to blockbuster, spend the 3 bucks and rent the DVD.

Don't forget, some girls like to drink lots of beer and smoke lots of pot, then have sex with any random guy and never remember it. Those are keepers.

OMG Becky, those boys should just totally take me to dinner and spend all that money their parents gave them on ME, cause I'm so special. ME ME ME ME. Guys aren't gonna know where to take a girl on a date. It'll be like every date... dinner and a movie... or hangin out at the mall with all her annoying friends. (which by the way is the worst thing ever) A first date should be like a movie... a guy should pay his ticket, and a girl should pay hers. As far as the movie goes... comedys are a good choice because usually they aren't too full of action for the guys, yet they contain romance for the ladies... and they're funny, and laughing makes everyone happy. No kissing on the first date either, unless you're a whore or just looking to hook up... that can wait till you know each other a little better beyond how immature the guy is and how incredibly annoying the girl's voice is.

"Post counts are a different story, however. As the upgrade process goes forward, we'll be going through every single forum and making adjustments -- some forums will be removed (I've already mentioned them in a previous announcement) and various threads will be reorganized. As a result, people's post counts will be affected." Says right there what happened to your posts, right in the announcements... Anyway, the posts you probably lost were in crappy topics or like RPGs or something that shouldn't matter anyway cause it's all crap. Anyway, I probably lost more posts than you, although I have no idea since I didn't care to begin with. I could never understand why people cares so much about post counts.

I have seen the original one several times. I never much liked it, I'm more of a more modern movie person. I can't stand to watch cheap effects and bad camera quality. But the movie was good and I think this version will be good as well. Plus my boyfriend is gonna drag me to see it, so lol I have no say in the matter anyway.

The text is horrible. The whole of your banner is 3-D and then you throw in this partially opac 2-D small text in the corner, bad idea. I didn't even see the D the first time I looked because my eye was drawn away by the text. 2-D doesn't mix with 3-D very often, esspecially when you only have a small 2-D thing... make your text 3-D or do something special then just white text.... boring. Other than that, not bad... I do agree the D in the circle is rather out of place and big... But it's not nearly as bad as the small amount of text you used.

She's been signed to Def Jam records for... probably well over a year now. She was suppsoed to make her American debut a while ago but apparently it never flew. I remember reading an article about when she met President Bush and he had no idea who she was... it was rather funny. She's way to popular to just quit... that'd be like Ayumi going "ah, I just don't feel like making millions of dollars anymore"... just isn't going to happen.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green] So, is there some difference between Japanese cell-phones and ?normal? US cell phones? If not, I can only imagine how people put up with the small screen and inconvenient keypad. [/color][/QUOTE] Yes, think about 5 years ahead of our time here. Concept cars there are 5 years ahead of our time, computers, video games, cell phones, cameras, whatever.... alot of the technology they use we won't see for years. Like I said, they've had those camera phones for a while now and the US just now got into that craze... The technology they use there for their cells, if brought here, would probably cost TONS of money... ranging in the thousands of dollars. My phone was top of the line in the US as far as 2 months ago, and it cost $350, imagine something 10 times better, it's bound to cost that much more. I imagine one day cell phones will take the place of home phones here. In japan it has and in Switzerland, almost everyone has a cell phone cause land lines are so expensive. As more and more people go to cell phones, the less expensive it will become and ultimately take the place of land lines... several of my friends and their families have already done this.

Well the Japanese have been doing the cell phone thing for years and years now. We just got the cool new picture feature in our cell phones, they've had it for so much longer and EVERYONE had a picture phone. You must take into the account of the culture of Japan. Very modern, very driven by technology, yet still deriving in the past. It's actually really really odd. And their people reflect this. To them this isn't anything new or shocking, they've been doing things like this for years now... They did say that cell phones would eventually replace computers here. Small, handheld, multiple functions, online capabilities... and Japan is the first to score with modern technology and as a result it is planted into their society.

My meaning behind this thread is simple... I'm writing a paper and one of the quesions I posed in my paper is 'how can a simple title and medium of an artwork discourage the actual beauty of an artwork?' My paper also includes reactions from two philosophers, in this case Platonis and Emanuel Cont, and we're suppose to argue that our chosen work of art should or should not be considered beautiful. To these two philosophers, beauty is beyond ethics and morals, we must look at the work with our sense of sight, not with our mind and thoughts.... to find true beauty we must see it, not think it. Which is why I asked if you thought the work was beautiful just from looking at it, then told you what it actually was. I think it's interesting to read reactions to something like this and then the meaning behind your reactions. I also find it interesting in alot of bias against a medium of artwork. If he had painted this piece (exactly how it is shown: lets say he did his urine thing and then paintied what he saw instead of leaving it as what he actually did), I think the reactions to this work would have been totally different. Like I said in my first post, it's not deterring religion, Andres Serrano is a Catholic himself... the meaning behind the work was to show how commercialized religion is. He was actually concerned about his faith by doing this piece. Anyway... To me this is one of the most beautiful works I've ever seen. I'm not religious and I'm not Christian but if I came across a photo of this work or a good print of it, I'd like to have it in my room. And I wouldn't have it because I'm not Christian, I'd have it because I think it's beautiful to look at, and it is. On a side note I'd like to say that alot of you brought up 'meaning' as one of your key words... that art has to have meaning. I'd have to disagree. Art doesn't have to have a set meaning, which is why this piece was so controversial, but the meaning is instilled by the viewer, reader, or listener of art. Art is all about how someone reacts to your piece, at least to me it is, others would disagree. Thanks to those of you who replied, it'll probably help a bit in writing my paper. I'm still interestd in seeing how others reply as well.

In my aesthetics class, which to you who don't know what that is is basically a philosophy class on what we see as beautiful in whatever sense of the word you see it.... anyway... we talked about this piece below. And before I explain anything, I want you to look at the picture and tell me: Do you find this work of art to be beautiful to you? Would you want this picture to hang on your wall? If your religious or not, this isn't a religious question. Based on your sense of beauty, do you find this to be beautiful? Write it down or remember, I will ask you to write it down in your reply to this. [img]http://www.thecityreview.com/s00conc2.jpg[/img] . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now before I begin, this work is entitled [i]Piss Christ[/i] by Andres Serrano. Piss Christ you ask? Yes, it's actually a cheap wooden or plastic statue or a crucified Christ which Serrano then preceeded to put in a jar (apparently a rather big jar) of his own urine. Hence the appropiate title. Now, I want you to write down what you originally though about this work, and now that you know the title of the work and what it actually is, I want you to tell me if because of the nature of the work, does it still retain your original reaction to the piece... if you thought it was beautiful before, do you still think the same now that you know Christ is indeed in a jar of piss? This is not a religious thread, although I do realize that your faith in whatever religion I'm sure will play a toll in answering the questions I have asked. Andres Serrano himself is Catholic I do believe and this was done to criticize the commercialism of religion, or so he said... he's a weird fellow. Anyway, the picture stirred up wuite the controversy in the art world and in the US dealing with funds towards artists who "do stuff like this." Few more questions: Do you think this is art, regardless if it's beautiful or not and regardless what you know about the piece. Would you consider this art? Is it worth being in a museum? And should art take into the consideration of ethics? Or does it reach beyond ethics and morals? Taking what is unethical to many and making it into beauty. Also, some Aussies may remember this seeing as how it created a big stir in Melbourne in 1997 if anyone remembers that far back.

I don't like the first one... it's too hard to read the text and I think the background and foreground images blend to well in color to add any depth to the work (I also don't like the pose Nightcrawler is in and how you cropped it). Contrast is your friend.... The second banner shows that contrast, which is why I like it. I like the pose you picked out and the text, however the coloring of the text could use some work. I dunno if you just cropped that specific picture out of comic or if you layered it any, either way sometimes you don't need layers (ie: my banner) cause it looks good anyway. Very nice on the second one. On a side note my boyfriend has a Kurt fetish. So he'd probbaly like them just because Nightcrawler is in them.

All of your banners, with the exception of the last one (the blue one), are unique and bring about your own way of art into them. The addition of the abstract eometrical shapes is really good. However, the text and borders could use some work. The 4th one almost looks like a border and the colours match well. The second one dos well in the addition of the top and bottom rectangles. The text is plain and cheap. That could deffinantly use alot of work, but text certainly isn't everything. It's like your banner is a song and the text is the lyrics, they certainly can be very good without the text, but if you add text you have to make it good or it could ruin the whole thing. Also one more thing I wanted to point out about your banners is the simplicity. There are certain ones where the simplicity works, but others where you simply need more. Like 1,2, and 5. I think you need to add something more to them. Maybe not so much in 2 as you do the others. PS: You should really crop your sig banner down to 100 pixels high instead of 120... as stated in the rules.

Second one is better, however the colors need work. It's not always a good idea to incorporate every feesible color possible into a work, esspecially when they are all.... eastery in look. Those baby colors (baby blue, etc) don't exactly go well when tied all together, it's often much better to either stick to one or two colors present in the central figure you're working with... In this case, a dark red would have worked really well with your text or possibly colorizing the second opac figure int he background. Which, speaking of background, brings me to a second point, your banner lacks a compelling background... grid with one figure off to the side... It's boring and dull. However, the use of the border actually diminshes the dull and boring effect. I really like the border and I like the grid, but the text needs work, as does the background figure... maybe if you enlarged it? Yeah I think then it would be much better. Remember, there's no such thing as bad art... but there also no such thing as perfect art either.... all works of art could use improving. Thats why we have critics.

Um what?... it would be illegal for you provide linking to a song on this board.

Use only one "http://" tag... using two gets you no where as evident by the big X in your signature. Also, the picture you have is too big (559x400). Read the rules... it clearly states that no signature banner shall exceed the 500x100 pixel limit, yours does this, by a great margin. Make sure you know what you're doing before you do it next time.... saves everyone alot of time.

A pilot does not need to do that. Whatever it was that he did. All a pilot needs to do is fly a plane, thats his job, anything else is not what he should be doing, therefor I would have wanted this man fired for his actions if I were on the plane. If he wanted to spread the word, he should become a priest or whatever, not a pilot. That is no place to talk about religion. If I were on that plane I would have been offended to the highest degree.

Thats SO much better. Really, it is alot better :) Good job :)

The avatar is deffinantly better than the banner. It encompasses the full attributes of the character and puts a nice background in that doesn't look plain and doesn't leave the viewer bored. The colours blend well and it's all warm, which goes well together as opposed to having a cool contrast. It's good. Now the banner.... you cut him in half, turned it sideways and looks to me that you made it bigger and therefor it become pixelized. Looks boring, bad quality, and doesn't do much aesthetically. It's just lacking... in almost every aspect from balance to space... the only thing it has going for you is the color and it doesn't look like you did much to change what was originally there. Oh and the border thing... please people, unless you are using a backround the same colour as the background of the boards, use a border. It just looks so much better.

Besides the fact is Zelda related.... it's not bad... i actually like the blue and purple they use however... the green is too dark and the red (in the banner) is too dull.... Red never goes well on top of green, unless it's Christmas oriented... and blue and red almost never go together, but you did a good job by seperating the two in the avatar and even somewhat in the banner. It's good. I must say, one of the hardest things dealing with art is to try to incorporate alot of different colors into one work... meaning reds, greens, yellows, blues, whatever... you did that quite well. I'm the Blue Link.