James

[font=franklin gothic medium]People seem to have different interpretations of "intelligent design" anyway. If you mean intelligent design as Creationism, then no, it should not be taught in a school (as a science-based subject). Creationism is a fallacy, at least in any literal interpretation. Anyway, I would agree with what most have said here. Keep Intelligent Design in religion/philosophy/social studies classes and keep evolution in science classes. That way these things are taught in a more accurate context and students can make educated decisions about both concepts.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This is why I am such an advocate for new ideas. There are a lot of people who ask why new ideas are needed, when people are happy to have their Halo 2 and their Metal Gear Solid 3. I mean, sequels are fine and usually they can do some cool new things (as I mentioned, I thought MGS3 was quite amazing). But it's great to still see off the wall games and games that try to introduce major new ideas into established genres. I think this is why RE4 felt so good - it made some new strides, but they all worked so incredibly well. It brought freshness to the survival horror genre. I also felt this way about Half-Life 2, in terms of the way it used physics as part of the gameplay (and not just a gimmick). I felt that gave it a freshness that is missing from a lot of games. So I think the main thing is just finding the right games, which are trying to add some kind of new appeal.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Considering all of the rehashes that have been announced, I'm not so sure that the next generation will change anything in a major way. But hopefully that isn't true. Anyway, I do know what you mean. I'm not as excited about gaming as I used to be, although I think my excitement has simply changed. Now that I'm older, my tastes have changed slightly. I do still enjoy the Marios and the Zeldas, but I'm also a fan of Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid and Grand Theft Auto. The funny thing is, with something like GTA...it isn't the violence or the "adult" nature of the game that appeals to me. It's simply the scope and the nature of the gameplay. For all its faults, there's really nothing out there like the modern GTA games. That experience of "freshness" is what made me interested in the games in the first place, I think. With so many franchises, it's getting harder to experience that freshness or newness. A younger player might enjoy The Wind Waker more than me, because it might be their first or second Zelda game. But I've been playing Zelda since the beginning and as a result, there are various aspects of it that do not seem very fresh or exciting anymore. Although in TWW's case, I think it largely comes down to certain areas of the game not being as polished as they could have been. But I digress. So I'm not sure if games themselves have necessarily changed, or if I am simply excited by different kinds of games these days. To some extent, games definitely have changed - certain franchises have lost the charm that they once had. As much as I liked Super Mario Sunshine, for example, it just didn't feel like a Mario game a lot of the time. This was probably largely due to the graphic design though, as opposed to the gameplay. I'm ultimately not really sure how to answer this question, I guess. In some ways gaming is always improving. For example, I felt that MGS3 was the very best game in the series so far - I was quite surprised at how much I enjoyed it. And Resident Evil 4 was highly addictive. Then there's Half-Life 2, which is the one game I've become the most engrossed in over the last six months or so - it just blew me away. I'm hoping that the next Zelda game will have a better feel than The Wind Waker, if only because it would be nice to be as impressed with Twilight Princess as I was by Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not aware of any anonymous posting option, unfortunately. At least, not anything that we carry with us right now (though there might be hacks available for it). This type of thing is very touchy, because OtakuBoards is designed to be an entertainment destination. We do have our serious discussions, but something like this possibly goes beyond people simply offering their opinion and experiences. What I'm really trying to say is that it's one thing to ask people their opinion and advice on a subject (be it drugs or something else). But it's another thing for us to attempt to provide serious/official advice to people who might be abusing drugs. If you were to create a thread about this subject, I'd rather it was more purely about opinions and experiences - but it might be useful to provide links to drug abuse assistance services or something like that. My feeling is that it's better to direct people to properly-trained sources of assistance.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think I'm getting addicted to tennis videogames. My brother rented Virtua Tennis 2 a few days ago and despite its age, it's incredibly addictive. It reminds me of Tennis on Game Boy, which had to be routinely peeled from my hands. My brother and I have been playing it so much that we've decided to start [i]actually[/i] playing tennis regularly. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Ah, good. I think tiredness is my problem at the moment. ^_^; As a footenote I should add that it might be worth visiting [url]www.founderweb.com[/url] for some more general information on HTML. A lot of that stuff is quite useful on myOtaku, since posts themselves are fully-modifiable using code.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]For your background image, just use the background image field in Edit Styles and simply remove the entry. It isn't necessary to put in any codes or anything - just leave it totally blank, or fill it in with #FFFFFF (white) or something. Unless you've done it in some other way, that should be fine. Also, please [b]do not[/b] double post. It's against the rules here. I strongly recommend taking a look at the rules page, located on the left navigation menu.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]PS3 has the same problems that PS2 had - namely, complicated hardware that is difficult to develop for. So far it seems as though Sony is providing better support to developers in this generation, but it needs to be very thorough in order to make much of a difference. I mean, a lot of prominent developers are saying that they don't even know how to design for multi-threaded processors yet. This technology is still in its infacy on PCs. Allocating resources to a system like that is very difficult - not to mention that on Xbox 360, each core contains two threads (so there are six threads spread among three cores). Even more "conventional" looking games are going to be significantly more expensive to develop, because a lot of time is going to be spent finding the best way to allocate system resources. PS3 makes this harder because it only has one general purpose processor and nine synergistic units (which are apparently poor for general process work and better for things like streaming media). So from the ground up, PS3 is designed to be more of an "all-in-one" computer. Sony themselves are calling it that. But I don't know how successful that'll be, if they really emphasize the computer aspect. People use computers as computers and they use game consoles as game consoles. Unless Sony has some revolutionary software in development, I can't imagine people using their PS3s for AIM and stock trading and downloadable movies (the latter is perhaps possible, but the bandwidth doesn't exist for it - especially if the movies are in high definition format). So, let's assume that graphics will always improve. If that's the constant (and it is), what is Sony doing to improve gaming itself? How are they providing new game experiences or extensions of existing ideas? I don't think they are - unless they are planning something unique with their controller, or unless they are planning other peripherals, or a more sophisticated online model. But if they approach PS3 with anything less than an Xbox Live type service, I think all of these other computer functions come into question - if a developer is spending a fortune making an offline game for PS3, few of them are going to bother to include online modes as well, which would only add to the cost. Xbox 360 doesn't do a whole lot for gameplay, but at least Xbox Live 2.0 is a significant step up in a few areas. And Xbox 360 will probably be slightly cheaper to develop for, which is good. But again, that's all so dependent on what the hardware makers provide. From the consumer angle, it's too early to know. But a few developers have been talking about the development side of these systems and the reactions are very mixed so far.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Not to mention that if you want backwards compatibility, you need a hard drive. So you either have to buy that seperately or purchase the $399 package. So far Xbox 360 is looking like it'll be superior to its predecessor in pretty much every sense - it's getting a lot more development support from the get-go. But again, it's way too early to know which system will be worth buying. Even at the end of this year it'll be tough to know, because things can change very quickly, including release dates and software lineup. We won't [i]really[/i] know until all three systems are out on the market. I think Sony has the most to lose in this next generation - and they're already making several mistakes, as they have with PSP. Perhaps they are developing an overconfidence related to their past success, but I do think that they need to be very careful. I'm sure PlayStation 3 will be a good system, but I am not willing to assume anything about future market share. As for Revolution...Nintendo have talked about it a little recently and there's more to come soon. Before the end of the year, it's likely that you'll know a lot more about it. Despite all of the somewhat false hype out there, I think it's a system that'll genuinely surprise people (and in a good way, hopefully). Nintendo's philosophy has so far been reinforced by the success of Nintendo DS, so if Revolution can replicate that success in the home market...then yeah, we could definitely be looking at a pretty different market breakdown within the next five years.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I am always arguing that people should be themselves and shouldn't be forced to be any other way. As has been said, that is surely a cornerstone to happiness; being able to remain true to your inner self as much as possible. As far as acting around other goes, I tend to believe that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle - and that relates to behavior too. No, you shouldn't compromise yourself too much for others to the point where you are unhappy. But yes, you should respect others - and sometimes that means saying nothing if you have nothing positive to say. So it really has to be a combination of both, I think. If someone disagrees with me on something, I'd obviously rather that they are polite and respectful, rather than just being blunt and rude. That's just courtesy; it doesn't mean that they are in any way compromising their actual opinion or beliefs. It just means that they are respecting me enough to disagree in a polite manner. That's the only area in which I can imagine it's worth having some restraint. But again, that doesn't mean one has to be something other than themselves or compromise themselves at the core.[/font]

[quote=Charles]First and foremost, on a certain level, I respect their decision to push the game back. A lot of companies will release a rushed product just to capitalize on the holiday sales boom. Even games with a lengthy development cycle, like Halo 2 could have easily used four or five months more of development time. The fact that they're willing to push back their big holiday seller shows that they care about making it the best game possible. However, the consequences of not meeting the November release date are going to be extremely bad. They're essentially handing the holidays to Microsoft and Sony on a silver platter. Just as you indicated in your post--the decision of whether or not to buy a 360 won't be quite as difficult for a lot of people. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't entirely agree with that. I think it's a misnomer to say that Twilight Princess is in any way going to stunt Xbox 360 sales. Twilight Princess may indeed encourage some people to buy a GameCube, but it's more likely to appeal to existing GameCube owners. I don't think the problem relates to the competition - it just relates to Nintendo's own potential. Twilight Princess is more likely to experience strong sales in November and December than in April 2006 - that's just the way the market works. But Twilight Princess is not Nintendo's only opportunity for the holiday period. Don't forget that they are bringing Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection to the market in a big way during that period (with Animal Crossing DS and Mario Kart DS leading the charge). And that doesn't even include Game Boy Micro. So, I don't think that the impact will be extremely bad for Nintendo. It's also important to remember that Twilight Princess' global release is now much closer to the projected launch of PlayStation 3. Nintendo have said that they regard Sony as a closer competitor than Microsoft, so if anything, a side benefit may be that Twilight Princess will blunt the launch of that system. But in reality, I don't think that's how it really works. Nintendo are delaying the game to improve it and get it to the quality they desire - and ultimately, that will probably lead to stronger sales. I don't think that any very very slight competitive edge they'd get with timing is going to make an atom of difference in the big picture. Xbox 360 won't even experience the majority of its sales this holiday season - Nintendo's best opportunity to stunt Xbox 360 growth is probably next Christmas, with Revolution.[/font] [quote=Charles]When Twilight Princess does release, we'll probably be sitting in March or April of next year. So--at that point next generation Xbox 360 games will have been on the shelves for about five months and I doubt that many GameCubes will be sold over the holidays. You've still got those fifteen million GameCube owners out there but I'll bet that the majority of them don't exclusively own a GameCube and that a good portion of them are interested in the 360 (especially with no real killer app available for the Cube later this year). And then there are a lot of gamers who never bothered with the GameCube to begin with. The questions are then--how much of an impact will Zelda have launching four months after Christmas? How much incentive will customers have to buy a next generation Revolution so that they can play Zelda through backwards compatibility when the desire to experience the benefits of new next generation software is out there? Or who would buy a GameCube when Zelda launches just for it with the 360 on the market and the PS3 on the horizon? Only faithful fans will bother at all. We'll see how this develops, but I'll be surprised if it sells a million copies. Has Resident Evil 4 even topped the million mark yet? [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Only faithful fans will bother period. It doesn't matter when Twilight Princess launches in that sense - it's not going to shift a massive number of GameCube consoles. The only way Nintendo are going to shift more hardware is to have Twilight Princess [i]and[/i] possibly a hardware price cut (or have TP as a pack-in game). Other than that, I don't think there's a huge opportunity to shift more systems in any meaningful way - at least, I don't think it'll wrestle next-gen customers away from those systems in droves. The people who buy those systems in the first year are early adopters anyway; TP isn't going to make a huge difference to them (many of them probably own a GameCube anyway). Even GameCube owners who own multiple systems aren't something to worry about - they will buy this game, just as they buy Nintendo's other big releases. Don't forget that such owners (myself included) tend to buy third party offerings on PS2 or Xbox, but they tend to own a GameCube for Nintendo's own stuff. So that won't change at all. There's nothing particularly strategic about launching in 2006, other than that Twilight Princess may indeed be an added incentive to purchase Revolution (for non-GameCube owners). If you want Twilight Princess [i]and[/i] next generation software, you're probably more likely to go for a Revolution than another system. I mean, for price alone, you're getting the best of both worlds. That's not to say that a late launch will have no detrimental impact at all - but it will be short term at best and will be highly limited. Whether they launch Twilight Princess now or next year will ultimately make little difference to the Xbox 360 launch. The only difference is that, from Nintendo's point of view, they'll be hoping for higher software sales as a result of the game itself being better. Nintendo shouldn't have to worry too much this holiday season anyway. Have you seen the announcement about Xbox 360 pricing? $399USD for the console/hard drive and wireless controllers. $299 for the console, one wired controller and no hard drive (and regular AV cables as opposed to HD cables). The early adopters will be buying the thing, everyone else will be buying current gen stuff.[/font] [quote name='Charles']I think that the Playstation 2 is a different case for several reasons. For one thing, there's not only a much larger user base to consider but also a lot of great third party software to support it through 2006/2007. The GameCube doesn't have that benefit. They're basically releasing one huge game with very little to follow up on after it, which makes little sense to me. A lot of the bigger PlayStation franchises (Devil May Cry, Tekken, presumably Grand Theft Auto) have already moved over to Playstation 3 development, anyway).[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]What you've actually said is [i]better[/i] for GameCube support. Among the 18.7 million GameCube owners globally, Nintendo has few software competitors. Those GameCube owners are not only buying existing software, but they will continue to buy new software over the next year. Don't forget that the majority of software sales come toward the end of a console's life span. This is because [i]most[/i] gamers are not early adopters - they buy consoles after several price cuts and when there is a wealth of existing software available. Those same gamers are the ones who are going to be interested in something like Twilight Princess (as well as those who have owned their GameCube since the beginning). The fact that Nintendo has little competition on GameCube is a good thing for Nintendo itself, if only because it means that most GameCube owners are buying Nintendo's own games. I guarantee you, those same owners are going to continue to purchase GameCube software well into 2007. GameCube, PlayStation 2 and even Xbox will probably experience some of their biggest software sales on record this holiday season and throughout next year. The arrival of next generation consoles won't really affect that until they are more firmly established - there is still a pretty big number of people who will buy current gen systems this holiday season, because they are [i]not[/i] early adopters and do not see the value in purchasing new consoles at high cost and with limited libraries.[/font] [quote name='Charles']Consider also, that at this point I highly doubt that a new Zelda will be ready in time for the Revolution launch, or anywhere close to it with how much effort Aonuma has been putting into TP. The fact that a new Revolution Zelda is in development would be great though because we would be looking at two Zelda titles within two years on the system. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, even if that's the case, it makes little difference in regard to TP. If Nintendo were to upscale TP to Revolution, it would still conceivably end up on shelves well after the console's launch - not only because it isn't yet finished, but because Nintendo would have to go through and redesign most of the graphics for the more powerful Revolution system. Either way, Revolution will probably launch on the holiday season next year. And Nintendo says it will launch with a new SSB game and a new Mario title. There's also the possibility of a Metroid and Zelda soon after launch. I have no idea if that'll pan out, but I do know that Nintendo has been working on the next SSB game for a reasonable amount of time already. So at the very least, their launch should be bigger than the GameCube launch (which suffered from few titles and nothing "AAA").[/font] [quote name='Charles']But anyway, let's say that the Revolution Zelda doesn't make launch. I doubt that a big Mario title will even be ready either. Miyamoto has said himself that he hasn't even come up with a concrete idea for the next Mario title. The lack of these francihes at launch wouldn't be doing Nintendo any favors. So, why celebrate the death of a console with this really amazing game when you can make it even more amazing and strengthen the launch of a new machine? The presence of a legitimate Zelda title in addition Metroid Prime 3, a new Super Smash Bros, and possibly a new Mario title would round out one of the strongest launches ever. I think it's necessary for them to come out swinging. I mean, it is the Revolution after all. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't know what will end up happening, but I suspect that Nintendo will have a more significant launch lineup for Revolution than they had for GameCube. Also, apart from a few other key titles, Nintendo do not really have anything else significant in development for GameCube. Keeping Twilight Princess on GameCube makes a lot of sense for several reasons. First, it will help to attract the "late adopters" next year. Second, it will be an incentive for both GameCube owners [i]and[/i] potential Revolution owners - if you own a GameCube already, you'll want to buy it. If you don't own a GameCube but you want a next generation system, you can still play it on Revolution. This way, the game has the maximum possible exposure. And again, this also depends on whether or not a Revolution port would even be ready by the system's launch. It's certainly possible, but there are a huge number of unknowns (if the game is only just completed by March of next year, there simply may not be enough time to do a proper port - this also depends on whether or not Nintendo would need to make any significant alterations to support the Revolution hardware).[/font] [quote name='Charles']I say all this knowing that it's going to be for GameCube, however, because they've specifically emphasized that fact. I don't mind as much as I seem to by what I'm saying here. I just like entertaining a "what if" scenario. It just seems like it would be a really good idea to repackage it like Silicon Knights did for Eternal Darkness.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I mean, if they announced tomorrow that they were upscaling the whole thing for Revolution, I personally wouldn't mind. It's far enough away anyway, so I don't particularly care in that sense. However, for Nintendo I think it makes more sense to keep it on GameCube. Between now and next holiday season, Nintendo could easily shift another 2-5 million units of hardware before the system "dies". Even then, during the holiday season next year, you'll find that there will be a lot of GameCube owners who still do not have a large number of the games that have been released. It comes back to the idea that most software sales occur in a system's so-called "dying years". Although you and I probably tend to buy game systems sooner, a large bulk of consumers wait several years before they make the leap. The same will happen in the next generation too.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Here are some of my old banners, which I'm currently hosting on my own space. They will eventually be deleted forever, so if you plan to use them, please save them and upload them somewhere yourself. That way you can be sure you won't lose the banner if I delete it from my host. Please wait a moment for them to load - many are animated. These pretty much all contain my logo (and evolutions of it), so as long as you don't edit that out, I don't mind them being used at all. [indent][size=1]Boo: The links expired. ):[/size][/indent] [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's easy to make the mistake of saying that a console is dead when its successor is on the horizon, though. Even if GameCube stops selling tomorrow, there are still approximately 15 million GameCube owners who want to buy new software. This is why I think you'll see a lot of developers releasing PS2 games throughout 2006 and into 2007 - it makes no sense to throw everything to next generation consoles even in their first year. My understanding is that Nintendo are simultaneously working on a new Zelda for Revolution, which has been in development for a few months now. Porting Twilight Princess over to Revolution is good in theory, but they will potentially lose a lot of software sales if they do that. At least if they put it out on GameCube, there's a good chance that they'll pick up a few million sales relatively quickly. Those profits would presumably be put back into Revolution software development. Not to mention that Revolution is backward compatible, so this game will be playable on that console. If you don't own a GameCube and you want TP, you may prefer to buy a Revolution, so that you get the best of both worlds (ie: you get to play TP, but you also get next-gen software).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I am not too unhappy about the delay to be honest. I couldn't decide whether to get Zelda or an Xbox 360 at the end of the year (I doubt I'll have the spare change for both). So having Zelda pushed back makes the choice easy. Having said that, I think that they seem to have learned their lesson from The Wind Waker. Nintendo had said "no delays" and they hadn't delayed it, but the end result was a product that was rushed to meet a deadline. And as a result, it turned out to have a few issues that other Zelda games really didn't have. So Twilight Princess should be good in terms of being a very "full" game. Besides, those new screenshots look great. I'm loving the look of the town; seems like EAD is really starting to push the hardware with this game, which is great.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The main thing is, the team system was designed for projects outside moderation (like rotating events and stuff). But because that hit at a time when a lot of staff didn't have enough time and stuff, it just couldn't happen. So it'll be simpler this way. When the list actually goes up as I'm intending, it will be much more accessible I hope.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]My god, this is just crazy. lol I'm closing this before it gives me a bigger headache. You simply can't create a thread about an insane conspiracy theory and expect people to respond without significant skepticism. How can this thread ever do anything but go around in circles, though? If I created a thread saying that the Earth is flat, I could stand there and argue with people about it for a long time and never have anything resolved. So what's the point? This isn't even about people's opinions anymore - this is about you telling everyone else in the world that they're wrong and that you are actually prepared to deny so much history. lol I am usually quite happy to let these kinds of discussions go along, but this is just [i]too[/i] crazy, even for Otaku Lounge. lol[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Is it a surprise that the same person who is telling us dinosaurs do not exist is also someone who is telling us, with great certainty, that God exists? It really shouldn't be a surprise. lol Anyway, this topic reminds me of the moon landing topic (something like "Do you believe the moon landing ever happened?) Well, okay, we'll all just deny the mountains of evidence that exists and exercise a little "reality control". Hack Helba, plenty of people have proved that the Bible contains inaccurate information. That is, if you take it literally. If you take Genesis literally, then I can tell you that it's been consistently disproven throughout history. lol In any case, I don't even really want to argue that dinosaurs did exist. If we can't even get to [i]that[/i] basic level of understanding, then there's really no point even worrying about it. I've recommended a book here a few times, though I don't know if anyone has read it. It's called "Telling Lies for God" and is written by a geologist called Ian Plimer. It basically goes through the fallacy of creationism and "creation science". But more importantly, it goes into great detail in terms of disproving the Great Flood and various other mythical events. Don't forget, Otaku America, that a great many years of research have gone into dinosaurs/fossils and Earth geology. It is ridiculous to think that this is all one great big conspiracy - largely because conspiracy theories of that size, by default, can't really occur. Science is based on empirical, testable evidence. Scientists are always trying to clarify one another's theories and improve their knowledge. So that competitiveness had led not only to discoveries, but to clarifications on what we already know. So yeah, if you think that all of the fossils and carbon dating and so on are all fake...then I can tell you, a great many things we know about the world wouldn't be possible right now. It's all inter-linked. And if you really believe that none of those things are true - despite the overwhelming evidence - then perhaps it's better that you have your head in the sand. At least it's comfortable.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I wouldn't even worry about these consoles yet. Unless you plan to buy them as soon as they come out, it just isn't worth it. Stick with PS2/GameCube/Xbox right now - they're cheaper and will provide you more variety. Even though Xbox 360 comes out at the end of the year, it's still far too early to make a decision about which next gen console is best for you. There haven't even been playable PS3 demos yet and Revolution is still a way off being fully revealed. So in the absence of that information - the most critical information - you simply can't make an informed choice. I recommend enjoying current generation systems (PS2 will probably experience a price drop toward the end of the year), at least until the next gen competitors have all launched. So I think, for gamers (unless you are an early adopter), to just enjoy the new current gen stuff that comes out over the next year.[/font]

[QUOTE=Aiyisha][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]That said, I'm sure if I showed a real genre nut my list of artists they'd happily extend that to something in excess of 40 genres long, but I don't care. I find it almost disgusting how much people get into subgenres and macrogenres these days. I honestly don't know why I have to describe something as 'alternative post rock with elements of screamo' when I could just say 'Well, they're pretty rock' and people would have a general idea of what I'm talking about. But that's just me, I guess. heh. So yeah. Opinions?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think there's anything disgusting about sub-genres in and of themselves. It's important to understand that it depends on how far someone wants to go in terms of knowing about music. It's like video games: like the whole "first person adventure" versus "first person shooter" argument with Metroid Prime. I think many people who want to be really specific would call Metroid Prime a FPA. But most casual gamers will just see it as a first person game, which is therefore a FPS like any other first person game. So, sub-genres and more specific classifications are relevant. As Tony said, they can be useful when it comes to looking at the evolution of something (be it music or something else). For a person who is really into music or games or whatever, perhaps it's worth getting into that detail. But obviously most gamers or music fans don't care at all. The only problem, I think, is when people get into the "you absolutely can't call it this genre" situation. If people who really care about genres want to argue about that, I don't see why it should matter to anyone - let them go at it 'till they're blue in the face. The main issue is when you get people getting so into the politics (with people who really don't care), that it becomes a pointless argument and nothing really productive comes out of it. But I don't really see that happening terribly often. [/font]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]I would like to say that my comment was not directed at Molleta, it was just a general statement. Molleta asked for our thoughts on adoption. She welcomes us to post from any from any point of view. I wasn't bashing her for what she did.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Perhaps you're not quite understanding [i]why[/i] it was a silly thing to say. If you go to the funeral of someone who died from lung cancer, you don't stand at there in front of everyone and say "Well, it's ridiculous to smoke and the best way to avoid lung cancer is not to smoke at all." Okay, fair enough, that's your viewpoint. But in the context of this thread, it's a very silly thing to say. Molletta is looking for our opinions, yes. But she's just been through this experience herself. If you are not going to at least be mildly tactful about your opinion, don't say anything at all.[/font] [quote] I just think it's sad that people continue to place themselves in such a position. I know I mentioned absitence, but that's if you are unable to care for a child at the time. Sex can make a girl pregnant. One needs to acknowledge that before they decide to have sex. If you're not ready, why take the risk? Why not wait until you are able to deal with pregnancy in case it occurs?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Why take the risk? Have you ever been in a serious, adult relationship? I'll ask you that question again when you are.[/font] [quote] I do think it would have been better to keep the child. She wouldn't have been alone. We live in privledge countries that are willing to support people and their children. Why not make use of these resources?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]So you advocate what? That she have welfare support for her child? Again, it's so easy to say these things if you aren't faced with the issue yourself. I just think it's not very tactful to make such giant assumptions and generalizations. It's not helpful and whether you realize it or not, it's probably not making Molletta feel any better, at a time when she needs support.[/font] [quote] And have we gotten so used to the comfortable lifestyle we have here, that we come to expect it? Since when did money equal happiness? As long as you have enough to keep you fed, clothed and sheltered, you can be happy, and you can live a normal happy life. You will not be denying your children a good life. What a child really needs is his/her parents.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I can [i]not[/i] believe you just said that, lol. First of all, you don't know what Molletta's financial situation is. Nor do you know the specific circumstances of every adoption that goes on in the world. Do you think that people are just wanting to maintain a "comfortable lifestyle"? Do you think that women who give children up for adoption posess this lifestyle to any large degree? Your statement indicates that you do, which only demonstrates that you are living in a [i]highly[/i] rarified atmosphere. Wherever you are, it isn't the real world. In addition, you are again telling people what a happy life is. [i]You[/i] are telling [i]them[/i] what constitutes happiness. How about letting them decide for themselves? Do you realize that there is more to raising a child properly than just shelter and food? There is [i]so[/i] much more to it. Parenting is a complex task that [i]does[/i] require reasonable finances. I just think that you should be far more mindful of how your comments can be totally unhelpful in a thread like this. This isn't a general thread asking opinions - it's a thread made by someone who went through this and who is seeking some support (or at the very least, [i]not[/i] seeking a backhanded slap). Sometimes it's better to hold your tongue to spare someone's feelings. Or at least, to word your opinions in a less directly abrasive way.[/font]

[quote name='Generic NPC #3]On the flip side, I feel like a lot of people have a far easier time being something they are [i]not[/i'] on the internet as well. Largely due to the same reasons such as the relative anonymity.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's very true. I think it's probably usually akin to someone who isn't really vocal about their interests in the real world...but who feels safe enough to do it online. I mean, they can be as expressive or vocal about whatever issues they want, because they are somewhat protected. Although I'm also sure that many of the people who are very "loud" on the 'net are also very quiet in person. That anonymity can definitely be a curse as well as a blessing.[/font]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue] Out of curiosity, will you ever know the outcome of your baby like, 10 or 20 years down the line? Or is it like those things where it is anonymous?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think this is an important point and it's one reason why I felt that Chabichou's comments were particularly heartless. It is generally wrong for someone to think that a mother [i]wants[/i] to fulfill any number of awful options (adoption, abortion, etc). Nobody goes to do those things with a big fat smile on their face. They are always painful, difficult decisions. As you have rightly said, a mother's bond to her child is incredibly strong. One of the things that must be difficult for mothers who send a child out for adoption would have to be the whole concept of knowing that the baby is out there somewhere living a life that is seperate. This is obviously why a lot of adopted children look for their parents later in life. So, this further underlines why I believe that it is important to be gentle when discussing this with someone who has actually been through it. Since the event has happened, it's no good second-guessing it. The issue at hand now is how Molletta and her child are going to fare and I think that whether or not Molletta ever maintains a relationship of any kind with her child, she can at least feel satisfied that she's made the effort to put that child in a positive environment. Certainly, we probably couldn't say that about many other parents out there.[/font]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']I personally disagree with giving up children for adoption. As I see it, if you are not willing to care for children (or unable to), then don't risk having them. Abstinence is the key.[/COLOR][/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Thanks for providing the most useless post that this thread is likely to get. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but what you just said is ridiculous and callous. You are talking to someone who has become pregnant with a longterm partner - by accident - and who has decided to give up her baby for adoption, because she feels she cannot care for it. For a mother to give up her child, because she feels someone else can give it a better life, would probably have to be one of the most difficult things a human being could [i]ever[/i] do. I hope that I am never ever in such a position. Molletta could have done a million other things. She could have cared for the baby and been ill-equipped to do so. But instead, she chose to override her feelings and do what she felt was right. That's a noble thing and an incredibly difficult thing. For you to flatly say that people simply shouldn't have sex, as if it's that simple (when, again, we're talking about a longterm partner) is ridiculous and unrealistic. Moreover, the event has already happened - it's one thing to tell someone that before they have a baby, but afterwards? That's just cruel, rude and completely unproductive. I never cease to be amazed at how people can say things like that without having any idea how it can make the other person feel. Anyway, my opinion on adoption? I suppose it depends what aspect of adoption you mean. Molletta, I think that you are very brave for what you did. And I [i]don't[/i] fault you for having sex. You are in a longterm relationship and sex is an intimacy between two partners - I wouldn't even begin to presume to deny you that, or to tell you that it's wrong. Many couples - including those who are married - face the issue of pregnancy at some stage. Quite a few couples do plan to have kids, but only after a few years. So there has to be some planning about that, but even then, nobody can be 100% sure. Sometimes accidents do happen and that's all there is to it - we're all human and I don't think anybody has the right to tell you off about that. My feeling is that there are still problems with the adoption system itself (ie: same sex couples are not allowed to adopt and there are various legal restrictions that penalize fathers unfairly - at least, it's true in Australia). But other than that, I think adoption can be a very good thing under the right circumstances. There are plenty of cases where children really benefit from adoption. Just look at those who adopt children from third world countries or from broken homes, with an aim to provide them with something better. I think that is a good thing - especially if people forego having their own children and adopt instead. I mean, to do that, I presume you must be very serious about wanting to really provide a better environment for a child. I have tremendous respect for couples who adopt under those circumstances. Basically, I think you did what you felt you had to do and that's completely fine. You made a choice based on the fact that you wanted your child to have a better life than you are able to provide at the moment. There's nothing bad about that - what you did was ultimately in the child's interest. You were not selfish and you put that child's interest before your own. That is something to be respected for, [i]not[/i] something to be chastised for.[/font]

[QUOTE=userdan]Oh, i don't mean THEY'RE retarded, i mean that RULE is retarded. Also, my post quality is low, because i am using internet for quite a while, and have already figured out that your post quality doesn't matter, and whoever doesn't like the way you type..well...too bad.:P [/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Post quality [i]does[/i] matter here, my friend. Anyway, just to clarify (in case it hasn't already been done), we have image limits for two reasons. One, we want to ensure that banners on the site don't damage our site's dimensions (ie: a banner that's too large will push the site out of its borders). The side benefit of that is that everything looks neat, which is good. Secondly - and most importantly - we don't want the site to become cluttered or to become incredibly slow for users. There are still a good many users on slower connections. I don't want to have to force them to turn off signatures (which means that they couldn't even view their own). By having the system we do, we can ensure that people still have great signatures, but everyone can see them without much trouble. I absolutely dislike forums where people have signature banners that sit 500 pixels wide and 600 pixels high. It looks terrible, it looks messy and it takes a long time to load (especially if you have pages with a lot of replies). And then what if they had two or three of those images? And a few animations? That's just crazy. We don't want to allow that here. So that's about it really. 500x100 is plenty of space and it should give you plenty of room to create an image that you like. The overriding point is that signatures are just a peripheral thing for decoration - the most important thing at any forum is the discussion. If signature restrictions bug you too much here, you may simply find that this site isn't for you. [b]Edit:[/b] Good job, whoever banned this guy. Nice and swift. ~_^ Anyway, I think that what I've said here should be a reasonable explanation for anyone else who is curious about our signature rules.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the key difference there is that you're talking about an educated guess or theory, versus a more general "leap of faith". Obviously having a general "belief" in science isn't hard to maintain, considering that without such knowledge, so many things that humans do would be impossible. So the evidence kind of continually slaps people in the face. That's quite different, I think. Still, I don't think science and God are mutually exclusive at all. Science and [i]religion[/i] are, but I don't regard religion as being the same thing as God. Personally, I don't follow any religion at all. Obviously, I agree with certain philosophies from various religions - but these are principles and yardsticks that I feel apply to my own life and to life in general. They are, of course, a personal reflection and I wouldn't say that any of them are absolutes. But I definitely don't subscribe to any religious doctrine, for a multitude of reasons. However, this does not mean to say that I'm an athiest or an agnostic - I'm neither, really. I am open to the idea of some kind of intelligent being having created the world that we see around us, but I don't believe in the human representations of God thusfar. And I don't believe in pre-determination or anything like that. I mean, if you could see the future, you could alter it...and therefore, there's an inherent contradiction. So I don't think that really pans out. lol But all of that is really theoretical. I mean, most of that doesn't really matter to me at all. I suppose I'd say that I'm not into extremes one way or the other - while I personally feel that organized religion is anti-knowledge (and often plainly anti-human), I also do not feel that I can personally write off every concept of intelligent design or something. For instance, I think that one can accept the realities of evolution and still think that God created evolution. That seems logical enough to me - that doesn't change the fact that evolution clearly exists. The debate is more whether or not it's a self-correcting system that occurs by default, or whether it is somehow the result of an intelligent creator. Since I don't [i]know[/i] the answer to that, I'm unwilling to presume either way. To just presume without really knowing is something I couldn't do. I'm open to either possibility, should I ever discover it. But yeah, I could go on forever about my views on religion and how all of that applies to my own life. It's something that I've considered for many years and my views are really formed from so many sources. The important thing to me, though, is that my views are my own; they weren't forced into me at a young age and I wasn't simply "told" something and accepted it without question. My beliefs have evolved (no pun intended) over the years, as a result of many things. So, I've thought about it and made decisions about it. I think that's the way it should be, really (whichever way you go ultimately).[/font] [quote]I'm pressed for time, so I won't go much further except to say this. There is no credible proof in favor of either theory, Creation or Evolution. I doubt there ever will be.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]No credible proof in favor of Creation or Evolution? That only demonstrates that you know little about either, lol. Whether or not someone agrees with all of the evidence that supports evolution theory, nobody can credibly support Creationism. Nobody can stand there and say that the world was created in six days, that it is flat and stands on four pillars and that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. I mean, even the Catholic church official denies Creationism. lol Basically, this is the type of stuff that makes me think that religion is a drug for the masses. But again, note that I'm saying "religion" and not "God". I [i]do[/i] seperate the two, as I'm sure many do. As soon as you start claiming that Creationism is actually legitimate in any sense, you pretty much invalidate anything else you say on the subject. Belief in God does not mean that one has to believe in the fallacy of Creationism.[/font]