James

[color=#811C3A]Great stuff, DW-san. Somehow you absolutely nailed my style of movement, without even meeting me in person. o_O; There were so many funny moments in this animation, it was very cool. I think it's definitely your best. I also liked the fact that it was pretty long, but it never got slow or boring or anything. So, thumbs up. Great job. ^_^[/color]

[color=#811C3A]So you're saying that I'm ugly/look like a butt? And that's... [i]it[/i]? You could have just written "James is a butt ugly baby" and had the same impact. XD Ahem, but yeah, in all seriousness, that's a pretty cool start. It made little sense, but these animated thingies rarely seem to. It looks like you've got the animation basics down though, so you can make more detailed/longer animations in the future.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]I think the thing that has annoyed me most in RPGs (particularly Final Fantasy titles) is the absolutely forced love story. The example of Squall and Rinoa is a great one. Here's Rinoa, a fairly mature and sophisticated young woman. She had her head screwed on properly and she has a good attitude toward life in general, without being overly naive or unrealistic. And then there's Squall, an teenage angst-ridden pain in the butt. Throughout the entire story, he complains and bitches, or simply says "..." This guy is really an immature little weed and it makes me wonder why he'd be such a prominent character. Rinoa falls in love with him, but he really doesn't actually show any love or respect for her until the very end. So that whole love story felt insanely forced and pointless to me. It felt like it just had to be there, out of obligation. And that's rubbish. I think I tend to prefer situations where characters dislike each other on a personal level, but they are forced to get along for the sake of the mission. At least under those circumstances, you're dealing with a much more realistic prospect. But the whole token love story thing annoys me. I don't mind love stories at all, but love stories in video games are [i]mostly[/i] very cliche and they are mostly very forced and arbitrary. So, seeing RPGs that deal with this subject differently are usually refreshing to me. [/color]

[quote name='Alan][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Failing that I'd probably fall back on the popular 'writer' option. It makes perfect sense; dream job failure = life as a bludger. [/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=#811C3A]Hah! I wish writing were a bludge. Freelance writing in particular is a lot of hours (and a lot of research) for very little money. Writing is definitely not a career to go with unless you're very passionate about it. Whether you're writing short articles or entire novels, there's a massive amount of work involved in writing professionally at just about all levels. Anyway, I don't have a particular career aspiration. My professional goal is very broad; I want to create something that people get enjoyment from. Whether that involves publishing a book (fiction or non-fiction), creating a film, making a game, creating some kind of toy/fun product, I really don't know. Any of those would be wonderful. The overriding goal is just to give people some kind of fun experience. If, one day, people are coming home from work and reading/watching/interacting with something I've made to get their mind off the daily stresses of the job, I will be a very happy person.[/color]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Okay, okay. I apoligize for saying "it doesn't happen". I didn't really mean it. I was just so angry that people choose to associate it as part of our normal culture and religion. Sorry. Okay?[/COLOR][/quote] [color=#811C3A]But nobody (apart from Harry, maybe) is saying that honor killings are a normal part of religion and culture in the middle east. What is being said is that in some places, they are considered acceptable and that they [i]do[/i] happen. It's very important to understand the points that are being made here. I don't think that Boba or myself in particular are attempting to make vast generalizations.[/color]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Well, many and probably most Israeli soldiers target civilians, so they do deserve to die. How is this an extremist statement? They kill innocent people. Murderers get the death punishment in America. When an Israeli soldier targets and kills civilians, that is murder, so by all means he deserves to die. When Boba Fett kept on stating that it is a complete lie that they target civilians, no one told him "it is highly offensive to palestinian civilians that experience that suffering". :therock: And I said honour killings don't happen in Islam. And then people pulled out comments accusing my race: "Your people do honour killings". How is that not extremist? If I was raped, god forbid, my family would go at length to find the bastard and kill [I][B]him.[/B][/I][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=#811C3A]Many and probably most? See, you're willing to make these assumptions without any real data to support it. I guarantee you, most Israeli soldiers do not target civilians. The minority who do [i]should[/i] be punished. But I'm not going to make a ridiculous generalization that "all the bastards should die". That's not constructive and doesn't help anyone. You said that honor killings do not happen, that they are a "lie" perpetuated by media propaganda. And that is simply incorrect. Not only do they happen, but they are endorsed in certain parts of the Middle East. I should repeat, nobody is saying that these killings are "legal in Islam" or whatever. What we're saying is that they happen in some corners of Islamic society and they are considered appropriate by certain groups. Honor killings are pretty unique to the Middle East, so, saying that is not racist or anything. It's just the truth. But again, let's make a distinction rather than applying these broad brush strokes. People aren't saying that all Muslims engage in honor killings, or that mainstream Islam supports them. Again, you have to make a distinction between "mainstream" and "extreme" Islam. It's like Christianity and the KKK. Do most Christians support the KKK? No. But the KKK is nonetheless an extreme arm of Christianity, in the same way that Islamic fundamentalists are an extreme arm of Islam.[/color] [quote=Harry]It happens in Islam because Islam directly influences the culture in the middle east. Now you living in Canada,you would not expect to see that many honor killings because Islam does not affect Canadian culture. [/quote] [color=#811C3A]But again, let's be clear in saying that it happens in the far more conservative Islamic areas within the Middle East. Honor killings certainly don't happen across the entire region, they only occur in some specific places (which have far more conservative, traditionalist populations, who practice a more conservative/repressive form of Islam).[/color]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] It is wrong to look at a person's religion when he/she does something bad, and use that as an excuse to fear and discriminate against other people of that religion. This clearly happens to Muslims far more than other religions, and that's a clear fact these days. You can't just say: "Oh well, they ruin it for the rest of the Muslims so it's their fault". Well, you can also blame yourselves for giving in to propaganda spread by the media in the first place. Let me get this staright: So because Osama bin Laden decided to bomb the World Trade Center, it's his fault that Muslims get persecuted? My mother was insulted and spat on by a man after it happened. I think that jerk was at fault too, wouldn't you agree? Some people attacked and killed muslims too, so they aren't at fault for their actions?[/color][/quote] [color=#811C3A]Nobody here is advocating discrimination against Muslims as far as I can tell. I think you're missing the point, though. What people are saying is that the extremists have made it more difficult for every Muslim -- regardless of how moderate they are or regardless what country they live in. Nobody here, based on what I've read, is saying "Oh it's okay to persecute Muslims because they've brought it on themselves". Such a statement would be ridiculous. I think the main thing is, people need to be fair. You are sitting there and telling us that all of the things we hear about some Muslim communities (from honor killings to other things), are simply media propaganda -- despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The problem is, you are being far too one-sided about the issue. [i]You[/i] are the one peson here who is succumbing to media propaganda, moreso than anyone else in the thread. Other people here are simply trying to even things out and provide some perspective. The whole "everyone hates Muslims and Muslims are totally misunderstood" is really a silly statement -- again, nobody is saying that the majority of Muslims are extreme people. We know for a fact that they aren't. However, it's also true that Muslim extremism is a serious problem in the world today. And it's also true that several Muslim states are highly oppressive of their people. Again, it's very important to be able to provide a distinction here.[/color] [quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Same thing applies to suicide bombers. So it's their fault only that other palestinians get killed by the israeli soldiers? I think soldiers who fire into crowds of unarmed palestinians while they are merely protesting are at fault too? They are responsible for their own actions, the bombers didn't make them shoot at the crowds. Many of you simply shift all the blame to the bombers when it clearly isn't completely their fault. What they are completely at fault for are the bombings, not the killings of palestinians.[/quote][/color] [color=#811C3A]The problem is, you're unwilling to look at the broader political issues. When a suicide bomber kills innocent civilians in Israel, what is the result of that? Apart from the actual grief, these bombers are creating further tension and distrust. They are also [i]perpetuating[/i] intolerance, negative stereotypes and racial hatred. So, when an Israeli soldier fires on an innocent Palestinean, what is the cause of that? It's not just because the Israeli soldier is evil or something like that -- his reaction is a result of the conditions of the war. That is to say, he's frustrated and he's feeling very intolerant of Palestineans as a result of suicide bombers and such. In other words, he is the direct result of the tension that is built up during the conflict. This is not to say that he is [i]right[/i] in indiscriminantly killing people. But nobody is saying that. What people are saying is that the suicide bombers are hurting Palestinean people, by providing a motivation for Israeli oppression and violence. And that's the point. By the same token, the Israeli actions against Palestineans are largely what drive Palestineans to become suicide bombers. If you feel totally hopeless and you are being violently oppressed by the Israelis, chances are, suicide bombing may seem like a reasonable way out. This is the thinking of a person who is living in a desperate situation. So what I'm saying is that the violence on both sides is the result of a circle of actions, so to speak. Suicide bombings bring the Israeli military down harder and harder on average Palestineans. Israeli oppression generates more anger, hostility and suicide bombings. The big problem is that you've presented your arguments in very one-sided, propaganda-laced terms. In reality, it's critical to be as objective as possible and to understand that the situation is more complicated than you are suggesting.[/color] [quote=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] And how about you all stop putting words in mouth that I didn't say, and twisting my sentences around to presnet them as though I was some extremist? [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=#811C3A]Hang on a minute. Weren't you the one saying that you wouldn't care if an Israeli soldier was killed? That all of them are bad? And weren't you the one who said that honor killings simply don't happen, when they clearly do? You are responsible for your own comments, Chabichou. And you've made some pretty extreme ones in this thread. The resulting responses from others are to be expected when such statements are made.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]Erm, I'm not sure about the rumor thing. As far as I know, it's still being reported that this exclusivity contract involves the NFL for the next five years. Midway has already changed the name of one of its upcoming NFL-based titles in response, apparently (to avoid conflicting with the agreement). In semi-related news, it was announced just recently that EA has purchased a 20% share of Ubisoft, which gives it the largest share in the company (though not a controlling share). I find it interesting that EA has become increasingly Microsoft-esque in recent months. They've acquired numerous developers. My main concern (apart from a lack of competition), is the question of employment conditions. EA is now infamous for having among the industry's harshest and most terrible working conditions (if you've ever read the EA Spouse article, you'll know what I mean). I am hoping that EA doesn't extend its crazy cost-cutting measures to its new subsidiaries. That'd hurt the entire industry as well as the consumers.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]Cool. I think that with things like this, people's thought processes just work in such different ways, that it can be difficult to understand what the other side is saying. I suppose this is why religion itself can take on different roles for different people -- each person has their own priorities and their own motivations. This is also probably why I wouldn't necessarily label myself as an agnostic. My understanding is that agnostics don't feel that it's possible to prove God, but at the same time, they don't deny God's existence (as an athiest would). So, I'm not sure that I fit into either of those camps (athiest or agnostic). Therefore, I'm really not sure what term I'd use to accurately describe my own thought process.[/color]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]But those are obviously unislamic acts. Those men probably even commit adultery all the time and think they can get away with it. They don't even follow islam properly. Honour killings occured even before Islam was presented. Think about this statement: "Muslims do honour killings when their women are raped." People who do honour killings are not muslim. That goes against what Islam teaches. Therefore, the statement that "muslims do honour killings" is false.[/color][/QUOTE] [color=#811C3A]But now you're changing your story. Earlier you said that honor killings do not happen. That is incorrect. They [i]do [/i]happen. Not only do they happen, but they are considered acceptable in many communities; communities that follow a more hardcore interpretation of Islam. Nobody is saying that these people "follow Islam properly". That entirely misses the point. The point is that these killings [i]do [/i]occur in some Islamic states and that they are often considered acceptable by the powers that be (whether that is the Government or many within the religious establishment).[/color]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] Israeli's do not go out of their way to kill civilians, but Palestinians do...or the extremist Muslims do. The majority of people on both sides want peace, but it is religion causing this problem. But just a thought...if Palestinians didn't blow themselves up, Israelis wouldn't have any excuse to retaliate. But, if Israeli's stopped returning fire, do you think the bombers would stop? No, because they want Israel to move. So, really, the Palestinians are going to be the ones inciting the attack and retaliations. [/size][/QUOTE] [color=#811C3A]I just want to point out that in responding to Chibachou's somewhat extreme comments, it's important to be clear. There are plenty of Israelis who deliberately target Palestinean civilians, as has been covered in the Israel/Palestine thread. There's an enormous, enormous amount of abuse of completely innocent Palestineans by Israelis, particularly IDF members. The point is, though, both sides are at fault. Any attempt to say that either the Palestineans or the Israelis are responsible for all of the violence and aggrivation is simply false. In regard to honor killings, I'll say one thing. I saw an interview with an Iranian woman who's face was burnt with acid (by her father) because she was raped. She -- not the rapist -- was blamed. To say that honor killings are [i]lies[/i] is [i][b]highly[/b][/i] offensive to those Muslim women who experience such horror. That is one statement that is extremely out of left field, Chibachou. And I don't know what the hell people are talking about when saying that Turkey is some highly oppressive nation. I have a friend from Turkey (who moved here a few years ago), who has told me many things about it. I'm not saying Turkey is ideal, but Turkey is basically no different to Germany or France. And it could be argued that France is more oppressive than Turkey, in terms of religious freedoms. lol Anyway, there's a basic problem here. You've got people who are putting more weight on one side or another, which really isn't right. These matters are far more complex than is being presented here. [/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Quick question for you, James. What do you think about the possibility that the Bible, being handed down for ages, was desecrated by man (just like the Shroud of Torren)? You know, people got lazy and less faithful, so they "adjusted" the Bible to suit their more lazy ways. I remember someone suggested this idea to me, and when I asked around, and was quite surprised at how many Christians actually consider this a possiblity.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote] [color=#811C3A]Well, I know that various scriptures within the "original Bible" had references to things like cannibalism and so on. My understanding is that many of these elements were taken out and cleaned up as time went by. In addition, various scriptures were left out (things like the Nostic texts; I hope I'm spelling that correctly). I find these sorts of things interesting, because they don't just reflect what the Bible itself is (and how the modern version came about), but because these events also track religious progress and human history on a wider scale. My feeling is that the changes made to the Bible were not a matter of laziness, so much as being a matter of making it far more palatable while also removing elements that created contradiction (for example, the one Nostic gospel that talked about the concept of Hell in [i]very[/i] different terms to the "mainstream" gospels). I saw a documentary about the history of the Bible, which actually involved interviews and in-depth discussions with various Christian figures from around the world (including figures from various Churches). It was very interesting. Some of the things I've mentioned here were discussed heavily in that documentary.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]I heard some report about road rage, which suggested that people feel very shielded within their cars, so they are far more likely to be abusive to random strangers. Or something like that. I have to admit, I find the whole thing kind pretty odd. Seriously, you're driving a car at high speed...getting angry and upset isn't going to help you. In fact, it'll probably make an accident more likely. When I'm behind the wheel I try to stay calm and remember one thing -- it's better to get somewhere [i]alive[/i] than to get unduly frustrated with the people around me. Others make mistakes, so I try to be courteous when I'm on the road (and it's always appreciated when others are courteous too). Besides, it's not as if the extra half a second you save by cutting someone off in traffic is really going to help you get to your destination that much faster. I really don't know what people's logic is with that.[/color]

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]Jesus shows up at your door tomorrow. You're a little astounded because He's not exactly a regular visitor. He tells you who He is, performs a few miracles to prove it, and by the end of His visit you're fully convinced He is who He says He is. Now unfortunately you didn't capture this encounter on video and no one else was around to see it. If Jesus left without a trace, your encounter with him is entirely unproveable. So I guess this means it isn't true?[/quote] [color=#811C3A]Honestly, in that situation, I think I'd tend to consider the person in question to be mentally unstable. lol Fundamentally, I understand what you're saying. The problem, though, is that from your position, you're already making several assumptions about God. I'm unwilling to do that. I guess it comes down to one simple element. If you base your belief in God on the Bible, then I will always fundamentally disagree, because I am accutely aware of many of the Bible's inaccuracies. So, if I view the Bible as being a highly unreliable piece of literature, then I'm unable to adhere to that particular view of God. But having said that, as I mentioned earlier, I certainly don't discount the actual possibility of God. But I have very strong doubts about the whole "doesn't want to be seen" and so on -- these are all ways of explaining the issue away, as far as I'm concerned. I don't mean to say that this is a cynical attempt by you to do so, I just mean that it's kind of like an in-built failsafe of the religion itself. So, this is why I wouldn't consider myself "religious". I'm just too aware of the history of various religions and the massive changes they've gone through at the hands of people with particular social interests. So religion itself has absolutely no appeal to me. But God is another story. My feeling is that if God exists, he/she/it is not bound by any of these religions and is probably something entirely different from what we know and/or expect. So having said that, if I one day somehow discover that God exists (or does not exist), I really don't know how I will feel. Either way, I think there are tremendous possibilities. In regard to what Chibachou said...I've heard that argument so many times. The thing is, I am not prepared to say "I don't know how these atoms got here, so I'm automatically going to assume that a supreme being put them here". You know? I understand how people reach that conclusion, but just because I don't know something, I don't feel the need to make an assumption and feel okay with that. The fact is, I don't know. If I assume that the answer is always the generic "God", then I will not seek to understand anything else. By making that assumption, I am doing something that gives me instant gratification and that removes any need to further explore, in an attempt to ask a question and find an answer...rather than insert an answer into a question. Does that make any sense? If you want to assume that God put those atoms there (however you choose to define "God"), then that's cool -- more power to you. Honestly, if that makes you happy or satisfied, then that's totally fine. I'm just saying that it doesn't satisfy me, because I don't know why those atoms are there. One day I might know, or I may never know. But I'm okay with never knowing, rather than assuming something that may not be correct.[/color]

[quote name='wrist cutter']I can't speak for all religions, of course, but as far as Christianity goes, it's never going to be possible to "prove" God. That would take away free choice. After all, if it could be proven He exists, then you would believe in Him no matter what, just as we believe 2+2=4. It would then no longer be free choice, just as believing 2+2=4 isn't really a choice. The thing is, you can't have it both ways. You have told me in the past that God exists as a matter of fact. If that is the truth, then it would be great if it were proveable, so that there is no more need for debate. By saying that God needs no proof at all, you are essentially having your cake and eating it too. You can continue to say that he exists as a matter of fact, but still feel that you don't need to prove it in any way. So, while I do not deny that God may exist, I don't know as a matter of fact. As a result, I'm not willing to say that he does or doesn't exist. I simply don't know. And I'm okay with not knowing. If I find out one day, great. If not, great. Either revelation would be a massive discovery in my life. But the onus is definitely on those should prove God, rather than those who should disprove him. If you say that one has to believe in God for it to become truth or however you would choose to phrase that, then you are essentially saying that God is either a creation of the human mind...or that objective truth is only what each of us chooses to accept or ignore. So yeah. I can't speak for everyone, obviously. I mean, vast vast numbers of people believe in God with no proof whatsoever and there are many religious people who "casually" practice their religion. For others, proof of God matters less than the lifestyle and the core principles of the religion itself. Any of those avenues is totally fine and I have nothing against people who want to practice faith in whatever way they like and based on whatever principles that speak to them. I'm just saying that in my personal case, I simply don't know if God exists. My only feeling is that "religion" (the organization of religion as opposed to "God"), is a man-made establishment. On that basis I don't disregard it, but I don't take it to be the "truth". Not by a long shot. But God is another story. If God does exist (and I definitely leave that possibility open), I doubt that he/she/it is based on quaint human concepts that were developed long ago. But that's just me. I understand that most others probably don't view religion in that way, and that's cool. To each his own.

[color=#811C3A]Okay, here we go. I'm going to list those who did and didn't get in. For those that didn't, I'll just briefly explain why. Also, I thought I'd add an "in question" bit, for people who may still get in if they change something in their sign-up that I'm a bit concerned about. So if you're in that category, it's your choice whether you make a change or choose not to. ^_^ [b]Accepted:[/b] Legacy [[b]Ronin[/b]] Ohkami [[b]Sakura[/b]] Alan [[b]Jester[/b]] Zidargh [[b]Ranger[/b]] Wondershot [[b]Caduceo[/b]] Kane [[b]Mirage[/b]] [b]In Question:[/b] Neuvoxetere [[b]Zero[/b]]: The concern I had here was regarding the AVC transformation. Transformations like this really don't exist in the current Maverick Hunters world. So that would have to be eliminated and replaced with something else. Also, it might be a good idea to ensure that the Ghost ability isn't too invincible (in terms of destroying almost anything). If these things can be altered and corrected, then I'll probably accept your sign-up. Asim [[b]Dreamer[/b]]: I generally like your sign-up, but I have a couple of qualms. First and foremost, human beings are physically inferior to Reploids, regardless of training. They can definitely posess better tactical knowledge or something, but by design (by nature of their human bodies), they are physically inferior. It is unlikely that a human being would have fought against Mavericks or the Protogen, given that the world's human military force itself was pretty impotent in terms of facing that force. Thus the whole reason for the Maverick Hunters to exist. So, I like having the idea of humans in X-Hunters, but...in all honesty, there are some serious factual issues that your post kinda exaggerates (the primary one being human strength, but also the whole question why this guy would join a force that involves Reploids, if his entire family has not liked them from day one). So yeah. If those bits can be replaced by something a bit more in-line with my thoughts here, that'd be cool. Up to you though. [b]Not-So-Accepted:[/b] Sheikahmon [[b]Snowflake[/b]]: I kinda liked your sign-up, and maybe it would work really well with another RPG. But it's a bit too outlandish for Maverick Hunters I think. It sounds like your character belongs in an asylum rather than a para-military organization (I don't mean that as an insult, I think your character would be ideal for another type of RPG -- just not this one. ~_^) Thanks again to everyone for signing-up, I really really appreciate your effort. I welcome people to make changes to their sign-ups if they are in the in question list. Sheikahmon, you can submit an entirely new sign-up if you want, but that's up to you. I'll only keep this open for a couple more days though, so be on your toes. ~_^[/color]

[color=#811C3A]I think I know what you're getting at, Kiba. I would say that maybe it's a self-imposed segregation. As in, creating divisions between different types of people for whatever reason (usually fear/misunderstanding). But by the same token, people do have different backgrounds and different interests. Some of these seperations aren't necessarily problematic -- I mean, there are probably people I just wouldn't want to hang around with because we are quite different people.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]If I had to sum up my religious beliefs, I'd say that I'm closer to being agnostic. In terms of whether God can be proven or disproven, I really don't know. However, I think that the pressure is on people to prove him rather than disprove him. You know? I'm really not religious, despite going to Sunday school with my grandparents and often visiting church with them as a child. My parents themselves are not religious, but they have always allowed me to choose what belief system I'd follow. My feeling is that religion is a human creation -- if God exists, I doubt that he/she/it is much like what humans have written. I mean, I view the Bible and other man-made texts in the same way that I view Egyptian heiroglyphics and ancient Aboriginal cave paintings. I think that these are all ways that people were trying to explain their world at the time and obviously, in retrospect, we can see that many of these things were factually wrong (simply because we understand more about our world now -- for example, we know that the world isn't flat and held up by four pillars and we know that the sky isn't water held in place by a glass firmament). So, I would say that I'm not an athiest -- that really isn't a correct way of describing me. I am definitely not closed to the concept of a being that created the world or the universe, but I really doubt that this being (if it exists) is anything like what humans have written about. I think humans have just historically needed to explain things and religion has been a good way of doing that. Religion has also historically been used as an early form of law (ie: Pharoahs would often introduce new religions when they came to power, and religion was modified and used by Christians to rule over large populations for many hundreds of years). So I suppose that I'm simply "not religious", but I'm not actually in the camp that totally denies the existence of God. I just feel that if God exists, it is probably a great deal more complex than our simplistic texts would suggest.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]What's with the spam? Heezay and Xander, I'm looking at you. I think that Bob has basically given you his answer. Either he's worried about commitment, or he's simply too young for a relationship. Unfortunately there isn't a lot you can do -- it's best just to attempt to move on, I think. The more you dwell on these things, the worse you'll feel.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]Yeah, I tend to agree with what people are saying here. I know I have female friends who cuddle me and stuff when they see me, but neither of us interpret that as flirting or a sexual advance. So that's something to consider. Maybe it makes you feel awkward because you're actually interested in her? If that's the case, it may still be a good idea to kindly ask her to tone it down.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]Just tell the truth. Tell Jill that her advances are not welcome and that they put you in an awkward position. I guarantee you, so many of these situations could be avoided if people were just honest. It can be done without creating a scene -- you can just quietly tell her that you don't appreciate it and that it's creating an uncomfortable situation.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]I think that the worst anime I've seen in recent times would be [b]Grenadier[/b]. I only saw the first episode, but that really turned me off. lol I'm not even sure if I should sit here and go into an in-depth critique of it. I'll say one thing that probably sums up my total dislike of the show: [spoiler]Reloading by heaving your breasts and having ammo come out from your cleavage? Everyone say it with me, "What the [i]hell?![/i]"[/spoiler][/color]

[color=#811C3A]Although it's obvious that much of LotR was CG (because it wouldn't be possible with any other type of animation or special effects technique), I don't think that it was jarring at all. LotR is the movie which has really managed to combine CG with live action in the most seamless way yet -- [i]particularly[/i] in regard to creature design. You can't tell me that Gollum's scuffle with Frodo is less realistic or believeable than someone running around with a dangling puppet on their back (which looks like a dead baby in certain scenes, lol). Also, if you look at the original King Kong...obviously by standards of that time it looked great. But puppetry is a difficult balance. I mean, with Aliens, it works well because you are often just getting quick shots of the aliens themselves. You are also in a dark and moody atmosphere, which partially obscures the creatures. Also, by design, I think that the aliens themselves are probably easier to pull off with puppetry -- in the sense that it's probably easier to make the alien look real than it is to replicate a gorilla (something we've actually seen, versus something we've never seen). Does that make sense? I understand that CGI isn't always "weighty", but honestly, I prefer the CG Yoda to the puppet Yoda any day. I'd only go for the puppet Yoda for nostalgic reasons. But in terms of what looks the most real -- what is the most believeable -- I'd go with the CG Yoda. I would say that the CG, as a tool or a means to an end, is going to more accurately represent the creator's vision. I'm not attempting to say that CGI should be the solution to every visual effects problem...but honestly, if it's done right, it can be perfectly appropriate. I don't believe that a movie should deliberately avoid liberal use of CGI as long as the CGI is [i]good quality[/i]. And with each movie, it improves. So...I'm really not worried, particularly given the stellar CG work in LotR.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]Nope, it's not just your computer. Bombu, you'll want to use the alternative link; the reason you can see it is probably because of your computer's cache or something. But I assure you, the image doesn't exist at the original location. So nobody else but you can see it. Just thought I'd mention that, so that you aren't going around with a red X all the time. Great banner by the way, Turdle.[/color]

[color=#811C3A]I'm not really interested in King Kong at all, but this may be something I will check out at some point. I loved The Frighteners -- a lot more than Lord of the Rings. Damn awesome movie. As for the CG thing...I'm tired of the anti-CG bias. lol CG is just as artistic and complicated as any other method of animation. Stop-motion is great, but it isn't somehow better than CG -- the director will obviously use whatever technique he feels is best. Also, CG is advancing rapidly. The CG in LotR (particularly the third film) was extremely well done, and the interaction between CG and non-CG characters was smoother and more seamless than anything I've seen so far. The transition would also be a lot less jarring than a stop-motion > live action sequence. So yeah. The whole anti-CG thing is a relic of the past, I think. Directors like Stephen Spielberg, George Lucas and the Wachowskis recognize that CG can play an enormous role in film in the future, afterall.[/color]