James

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Logan [/i] [B][size=1][color=700000][b]I have one question: Why is Australlia under Queen Elizabeth? I have nothing against the English, but she hardly does anything in power. Was there some war or something? Leh[/b][/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Australia is one of only a handful of countries to have been established without a war. And Australia is also one of only a handful of countries to have been entirely democratic since its inception. So, those are a couple of little facts for yeh. ~_^ In terms of how Australia was founded...we were founded by Great Britain in the 1700s. This was actually during a time when Britain sent prisoners to the continent (or convicts, if you prefer). Over a period of decades, colonies formed in several parts of the country. And for many years, those colonies acted as seperate countries. Actually, the different colonies would sometimes talk to each other [i]via[/i] the British government...lol. They were somewhat competitive and suspicious of one another (the Sydney/Melbourne rivalry? Hehe). But to cut a long and boring story short, the colonies all came together at the end of the 1800s and agreed to merge to form a single nation. And in 1901, Australia was federated. It was that year when Australia actually became an independent nation...with a treaty, and not a war. The first Parliament sat in Melbourne...but later, it was decided that a new city should be built as a national capital. During the 1930's, Canberra was built. So it's a very modern city. In fact, Parliament House was only completed during the 1980's. If you want to see a picture/info about Parliament House, you can visit this site: [url]http://www.aph.gov.au/[/url] The picture on the main page is the front face of Parliament House. Of course, even though Australia became independent...it was still part of the Commonwealth of Nations. All nations in that group are part of the British Monarchy. It's kind of like belonging to the United Nations. The Commonwealth meets every few years (CHOGM - Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) and it has the power to impose sanctions on countries, to kick countries out of the Commonwealth, etc. There is even a "Commonwealth Games", held every few years. I'd say that only the Olympic Games would beat it in terms of size and scope. So yeah, these days I guess you could say that the Commonwealth is basically like the UN or the WTO. It's an organization with various member states. But these states don't just "buy in" as such. Obviously you're only in the group if you're actually a part of the British Monarchy system. Anyway, that's kinda longwinded...but I hope it answers your question. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, you have to remember that right now the PM chooses the Governor General. So a two-thirds majority of Parliament would actually be a bit more "democratic" in terms of choosing someone like that. As for the star under the Union Jack...that is the Commonwealth Star. It has seven "arms". Six representing each state and the seventh representing the territories. If you replaced it, it might be worth having a seven-pointed-something...you know, symbols that have some kind of meaning to the country. Anyway, I like your idea Shinji. It's nice to see that you actually designed an image instead of just describing it. ^_^ [/color] [quote][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve:[/i][b] Let me try to understand this better. So if there was a president, as this model suggested, he would be a "ceremonial position" meaning he would have little power, just a figure head? I don't see how thats much change from what you have now, beside severing ties with the English technically. I guess it's all a mental state. Nationalism? I dunno. [/b][/quote] [color=#707875]That's correct. However, it would mean changes to our constitution...to some of the most fundamental aspects of our political system. And there were apparently some people who were proposing a total rethink of our current system (so, just a President with more autocratic power than a Prime Minister...and no Prime Minister underneath). I don't know which model I prefer. I only know that at this point, I'd rather have an Australian citizen as our head of state, as opposed to the Queen. I mean, technically, the Queen of Australia is our "national leader". It's weird, because we have been behaving pretty much as a republic for more than 100 years as it is.[/color]

[color=#707875]Welcome, Blob. Before you continue, it's worth reminding you to check up on our rules page and make sure to post with as much quality as you can. Just a little reminder. Welcome to the boards. ^_^ As far as my favourite food goes...I don't really have one particular favourite food. The sushi store near my house has some nice chicken-related stuff, but generally I don't eat sushi. Seaweed isn't meant for Jeh's stomach. I guess that if I had to pick a food that I really like...it'd be pasta. Almost any kind. I love pasta and I especially like pasta when it's covered in a spicy/hot sauce. In terms of raw junk food...I don't know. If I could eat any kind of junk food, I'd probably eat Lindor.[/color]

[color=#707875]I agree that the public should decide on changing the flag. There was a design that was shown a while ago, which I kind of liked. It was identical to the current flag with one exception; the Union Jack was replaced with an insert of the Aboriginal flag. I liked that idea, because it kept what we have...but replaced a British link with an Aboriginal one. I think that's a very powerful statement. Having said that, I do feel an attachment to the national flag. It's not something I think about in my daily life (I'm sure most Australians don't), but I do have a sense of patriotism about my country's flag. Changing it in [i]any[/i] way would definitely be very jarring. But it really does depend on the change...if an alternative was found that better represented the nation, I might go for it. [/color]

[color=#707875]Since Taylor's thread seems to talk mostly about "real life" names and Meteora's thread talks mostly about OB names strictly...perhaps we could actually put this thread on its proper track by asking two questions. 1) What does your [i]real name[/i] mean? 2) How did you choose your OB name? There you go. Let's keep to that.[/color]

[color=#707875]No worries, Meteora. I've merged 'em.[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, I guess the origins of my username are pretty obvious. I named myself after wrist cutter. Of course, my second choice was "SuperCoolDude69_Rockz00rz", but "James" seemed a bit more dignified.[/color]

[color=#707875]Hehe, well, I guess that the main point is that things wouldn't be functionally different. The Prime Minister would still be the "national leader", so to speak. The President would simply replace the Governor General...so, our President would be like Japan's Emperor, in the sense that he/she would be a figurehead with no fundamental powers. I guess it's mostly a symbolic thing.[/color]

[color=#707875]I guess this is primarily a topic for Australian OBers, but some of you might have some interesting things to say too. Basically, I want to ask Australian OBers if they support a Republic or a Monarchy. At the moment, the Commonwealth of Australia is (obviously) a part of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth of Nations are all monarchies, under Queen Elizabeth II. Of course, Australia was originally established by the United Kingdom (like several other countries). And since then, Australia has been under the crown's justistiction, so to speak. For those of you who don't know much about Australia, I'll explain the political system very roughly/briefly. Australia is a capitalist democracy. Our system of government is based on the English Westminster system, but it borrows elements of the United States Congressional system. So for example, we have a Prime Minister and a Shadow Ministry like the UK. And like the US system, we have two houses of Parliament (a House of Representatives and a Senate). Each state (of which there are six, and two territories) have a variation on that system. Obviously, the Queen can't reside here. So, she has a representative here called the Governor General. The Governor General is basically a ceremonial position...he/she has no political power and doesn't maintain any responsibility in the Federal Government. However, the Governor General does have some constitutional powers (he/she can dissolve the Parliament under special circumstances, for example). In any case, there's been a debate going on here for some years as to whether or not Australia should remain a monarchy under the Queen...or whether it should become a Republic. A few years ago, a Constitutional Convention was held. It was basially a public debate, where different groups submitted arguments and ideas about how a Republic might work. There were a few "models" that were created. One model included a popularly-elected President (like in the United States) and other included a President that could be elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament. There were others, but I forget 'em. lol At the end, a referendum was held. There was only one model put forward. The model put forward was the "elected by two thirds majority of Parliament" one. And it failed. However, most people suggest that it failed because of the model...not because people don't want to become a Republic. I agree with that idea. Most polls over here suggest that Australians want to be a Republic, but they want to directly elect the President. It may seem strange to have a President elected by a two thirds majority of Parliament, instead of the people. But I think that needs to be explained. The "President" (under all of these systems) would only replace the Governor General as a ceremonial Head of State. He/she would [i]not[/i] run the country on a daily basis and he/she would not be the head of the government. Under both models, we would retain a Prime Minister. We'd just add a President above the PM. So the point is basically to keep things functionally the same...but to cut ties with the Monarch by replacing a Governor General with a President. Also, the Governor General is not elected. He/she is selected by the Prime Minister, who then submits that suggestion to the Queen. The Queen can approve or deny the selection. Also, there were suggestions that the national flag should be changed (ie: Union Jack removed). Some ideas were very basic, as they were the same flag...just without the Union Jack. Others were complete redesigns. So I guess I want to ask two questions to Aussie OBers. First, do you support a Republic? And second...do you think we should change the flag if we become a Republic? If so, how would you change it? ------ Heh, that's a kinda long first post. o_O But I haven't seen this issue discussed anywhere...so I thought I'd raise it. I'm interested to know what fellow Aussie OBers think. And I guess it might be nice to have a substantive thread up here once in a while. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Techno is a pretty general term, it was created by an American DJ in the 1980's. I forget his name now, though. These days, the term has come to reflect a wider variety of music. But I wouldn't classify "dance" as techno, for sure. For those interested in less "rave" type stuff, I have some more recommendations. Free*Land - Big Wednesday Junkie XL - Beauty Never Fades (Animatrix Edit) Yes, these are both from The Animatrix soundtrack, which I just bought recently. They're wonderful though. ~_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, we kinda already established that. o_O;; I actually think that some people will find the American version scarier. Especially younger kids. The Japanese one is more unnerving though...Sadako is much more scary than Samara. The bit where she [spoiler]comes out of the TV[/spoiler] is scary when you first watch it. Much, much moreso than the American version.[/color]

[color=#707875]I'm not sure if there are any dubbed versions or anything...but you can buy the DVDs with English subtitles.[/color]

[spoiler]Oh, okay. I remember that scene. It reminds me of the scene in "The Ring", where Rachel falls into the well and picks up Samara's dead body. Upon doing so, she is shown how Samara died (in The Ring, Samara is murdered by Anna, her mother). In terms of the ex-husband, I know what you mean. Ring 2 explains this in a little more detail, particularly in terms of Yoichi. You'll remember that in The Ring, the little boy is psychic (although they never really delve into this area for any real purpose in the movie). This is based on Yoichi from Ring 2. In the first Ring, we don't get much impression of the son being psychic. But in Ring 2, Yoichi almost takes on Sadako's own persona. The point is that, like Shizuko and Sadako, Yoichi has inherited his father's psychic abilities. I tend to agree with you that the father's psychic ability seems rather sudden. However, it's also worth noting that anyone who comes into contact with the tape is automatically "infected" by Sadako/Samara. Sadako uses the tape not only as a device with which to kill -- but she also uses it as a way of "showing" victims certain things before they die. In this case, she shows the ex-husband her death. And she shows the scene where the reporters accused her mother of being a fraud. The same thing happens in The Ring. Rachel is not psychic, but she does exprience visions as a result of the tape. Everyone who was around Samara also experienced visions; even the psychiatrist on Moesko Island. In Ring 2, the ex-husband's assistant visits the psychiatric hospital where Tomoko's friend is located (Tomoko is the girl who died at the start of Ring). When Tomoko walks past the TV with the partition between them, she steps away from it and approaches the TV. As she does so, the TV begins to scramble...and the tape starts to play at the final scene, with the field and the well. Sadako begins to emerge from the well and as she does so, all of the patients go crazy. Sadako never exists the TV, however. The TV goes static again and the normal broadcast returns. Tomoko's friend is then found in the corner of the room, trembling. She reaches out to the ex-husband's assistant and asks for help...when the assistant touches her hand, she sees a vision of what Tomoko's friend saw when she walked in on Sadako murdering the friend. In the same way, the ex-husband saw visions when he touched the caretaker's arm. [/spoiler]

[color=#707875]You mean The Ring 2 has the same director? Gore Verbinski? If that's the case, I think it's a good thing. I would want the sequel to maintain consistency with the first movie. In terms of Ring 2, there were definitely complaints that it was trying to do too much. In some ways, that's true. But I think that Ring 2 actually has an even more tragic ending than the first movie. I do recommend watching Ring 2, if you get the chance. It's worthwhile. In regard to your spoiler... [spoiler]Could you be a bit more specific? I don't remember. They meet the caretaker of Sadako's father's old estate. That's where the family lived when they "escaped" from the media in the city. Although I can't quite remember what happened to Shizuko (Sadako's mother). It's been a while since I've seen the movie. I think Shizuko just ended up going crazy...and then her lover (the father) murdered Sadako as a result. But I digress. When you spoke about the father's psychic ability, can you describe a scene where we see that? I think I know what you might be talking about, but I think there is another explanation.[/spoiler][/color]

[color=#707875]There are things in life I wish I'd done that I didn't...but I wouldn't say that I regret that. Almost everything I've done in my life has led me to where I am now. My experiences have played a role in shaping who I am today. And I'm happy with my position in life and the person I am. So, I don't really have regrets about things that I didn't do, or things I did and wish I hadn't done.[/color]

OOC: How on earth did we arrive at Bankai so soon? Look at the map. It's literally more than half-a-planet away. I thought we'd have stopped at a few places first, to let some of the personal stuff unfold between characters. It seems a bit quick to jump straight into battle, I mean, the Chocobos would need to run pretty fast to carry an entire convoy that far so quickly. Maybe we can be a bit more cautious later? In any case, I don't want to mess with your plans, Zidargh. So, I'll try to make my post believable and open-ended. ^_^ By the way, sorry for my absence lately. I've been extremely busy with school. X_X ---------------------------------------------------------------- [color=#707875]The base of the hill opened out onto what appeared to be a large grassy plain. The fog had cleared somewhat and the platoon were able to see the village of Bankai just beyond the plain. It was only a small village and was surrounded by simple wooden fencing. Clavat privately wondered why the Empire would take interest in such a small and seemingly insignificant place. But he then remembered where he'd bought most of his travel potions; Bankai. Bankai's history of potion making was quite significant and Clavat remembered that his father frequently ordered large shipments of potions from the village. It was ironic that Bankai did most of its business with the Kelost Empire, when this was the very force now bearing down on its little cottages. Of course, this was the way it worked. The Empire was the world's superpower and most small villages had little choice but to export their wares to its enormous, bustling markets. The Empire's size and power was also why many villagers had left their homes, from all corners of the globe. These people had travelled to the Empire for a better life. Those who were lucky (especially if they knew someone who already lived among the upper echelons of society), were able to get themselves a cushy office-job. Or, perhaps they were able to work as an assistant or a maid. But many who departed for the Empire usually ended up living and working in the lower, dirtier sectors of the inner city. Either that, or they ended up living in the expansive ghettos that surrounded the Imperial City itself. Most of the upper-class who lived in the Empire had lived there for many years. And most of those people didn't have ties with anyone outside the continent's fortified walls. It was simply a case of two worlds existing side-by-side, each one having little to do with the other on a personal level. The Empire's only interest in the outside world was money and land resources. Some small villages were propped up by the Empire, but only because they happened to be situated on oil fields. Other villages only existed because they provided valuable goods for the Empire -- goods that often couldn't be made by machinery. Potions and hand-weapons were only ever worthwhile if they'd been hand made, by an expert craftsman. Emperor Kelost reluctantly traded with villages like Bankai. And those villages that objected to their land being used for mining? They were usually wiped out by the Imperial Army. And so, most villages had no choice but to live under the tyranny of Emperor Kelost. Clavat was sitting against the cloth that covered one of the caravans. Several other members of the platoon were inside, sharpening their blades, checking their equipment and packing their potions. Clavat stood up and walked toward the front of the caravan. At the front, a driver was holding the reigns of six Chocobos, who were obediently pulling the caravan forward. And, just behind the driver, sat Leo. He was sharpening his two short swords. Clavat sat down next to him and smiled. "Do you feel nervous?" he asked with a grin. Leo smiled, but didn't look away from the job at hand. He continued to examine the blades closely. "Oh, you know. I feel alright," he said. "How about you?" Clavat nodded. "I feel good. But I am wondering something," he said as he unsheathed his own sword. Leo looked at Clavat briefly. "Oh?" "Yeah. I mean, why is the Empire attacking Bankai? Don't they have some sort of trade agreement with them?" Leo smiled. His smile indicated that he'd been asked this question several times before. "Well, they [i]did[/i] have an agreement. It's gone sour." "Why?" asked Clavat. "Bankai requested more money for their potions. The Empire was paying them 50% less than they pay shopkeepers who sell potions within the Empire. Those shopkeepers sell a lower quality potion, yet get paid more simply because they are within the continent." "Oh...so Bankai was simply asking to be treated fairly?" Leo nodded. "Yeah. Big mistake, huh?" "Yeah, I'll say," Clavat sighed. "So...the Emperor wants to go to war just because he's not willing to pay a fair price for potion?" Leo nodded again. "Yes." Clavat's eyes widened. "I can't believe it. It sounds like my father..." "Your what?" "Nothing," said Clavat. He smiled awkwardly and stood up. "I should go and get ready. My stuff is at the other end of the caravan. We'll be nearer the village soon..." "Oh. Okay then," said Leo as he saluted Clavat and then went back to sharpening. [/color]

[color=#707875] In truth, I could look at these movies ([i]especially[/i] The Ring) and point out all of the plotholes. The Ring in particular had many of them. It borrowed elements from Ring and Ring 2 and then sort of put a slightly different spin on them. For example, the bit where the girl walks past the TV in the hospital, with the partition there...that was actually taken directly from Ring 2. Only, Ring 2 did it a lot better. Ring 2 explored things in a little more depth. Basically, I enjoyed The Ring for two reasons. Firstly, I liked to see the unique take that Gore Verbinski took. I liked the story behind the ranch and the horses and so on. I think that added something worthwhile. But more importantly, I liked the visuals. It was a stunning piece of graphic design. There were many visual subtleties everywhere...and the general visual style was very cool. That's really the main reason I enjoyed it. It was fun to watch. As for the Japanese movies...I wouldn't necessarily call them better, I'd call them "different". Ring 2 especially goes a lot further when it comes to the explanation of certain things. It explains why Katie's friend is all freaked out by seeing her die (the Japanese equivalents of Katie and her friend, that is). And it actually [i]shows[/i] Katie's friend walking into her bedroom just after Sadako kills her. It's a very weird scene (all done in black and white)...and it's very effective. It shows how Sadako really transmitted the terror to that girl, without the girl even needing to watch the tape. Tony, in terms of what you said about ESP...I'm not sure what you are referring to. Are you talking about Yoichi's mother? She didn't have ESP. The movie wasn't implying that. Although, I do feel that the Japanese version solved things too neatly at the end. The American version was a [i]little[/i] more realistic in that regard. However, I will say one thing. Ring 2 makes up for it. It makes up for that ending because it expands beyond it in several important ways. And you soon realize that the whole "copying it" thing goes a lot deeper. Also, I just saw Ring 0 a little while ago. It's good, but unless you're really into these movies...you'll find it boring. It does show how Sadako became evil. In fact, there's an interesting twist to that. Don't read the spoiler unless you want further info. [spoiler]There is more than one Sadako. The evil Sadako is locked in a cell in her family home...but she escapes. The father kills the "good" Sadako and the evil one returns to the house and goes on a killing spree of sorts...if that's what you'd call it. It sounds cliche, but you've got to actually watch the movie to see what I mean. They put an interesting twist on the whole idea.[/spoiler] But yeah, they're a good series of movies. Different from the books on which they're based...but nonetheless, very interesting. And very effective. I haven't come across another "horror idea" as chilling as the whole Sadako story. It's very tragic and frightening at the same time. The movies definitely shouldn't be dismissed based on some plotholes. I could dismiss almost any movie on that basis. And let's face it...horror movies often do contain some inconsistencies or something of that nature. These movies are made more for enjoyment of visuals and atmosphere, as opposed to serious plot (although it does exist, if you want to explore the other Ring movies). On a final and less rambly note...they'll be making a "The Ring 2". A sequel to the American movie. I wonder what they'll do with that one.[/color]

[color=#707875]If you want to discuss Trigun, feel free to use Ataku Lounge.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i] [B]Yes, unfair treatment like not naming hurricanes after the minority. Hey, you know, if they're voicing concern over this, obviously it's a pretty big deal. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]When people start to complain about hurricaines not being given politically correct names, I start to wish that my personal problems were as frivolous as theirs. My life would be a lot easier.[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, I do agree that men and women have physical differences generally. That's why in Australia, women are not allowed to serve on the front line forces in the military. There are many women, however, who want that right. My feeling is basically that it shouldn't be denied. Let the individual decide what they want to do. If they feel they're up to it...that's their choice. And I respect them for making such a choice. When it comes to the brain and so on...there are some differences between men and women. But I wouldn't say that any one sex is smarter than the other. You could sit there forever and make a billion inane points about that. But it's really pointless, either way. I think that when someone is in a dominant group (ie: straight white male), it's easy to say "damn those feminists! What do they want now?!" But when you're in any kind of group that is given unfair treatment...it's reasonable to demand your rights and to expect equal treatment. Women are no different from anyone else in this regard. Women shouldn't be discouraged from becoming corporate CEOs or political leaders, for example. It should be encouraged, if anything. I know there's a lot more to say on the subject...but I guess that's my summary.[/color] [quote][i]Originally posted by Harry:[/i][b] As for you beating up a girl, good job you're a man now.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]If that was meant to be sarcastic, I have to laugh. I wonder if beating up a woman is like beating up a 15 year old. Manly, in other words.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maladjusted [/i] [B][size=1] ::sighs:: :P Looks like James has told off yet another person on the boards. It seems my idea was wrong in many areas, so I'll just drop the subject. >_

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maladjusted [/i] [B][size=1]All humans have violent tendancies to begin with. I think I heard that somewhere in this thread, anyway. Well...I [i]still[/i] beleive that video games can cause people to be more prone to these 'violent tendancies', I actually don't care if there isn't a report on it. I can say for myself that ever since I played video games, I've been more interested in violent movies/anime and other things. And jeez, the only game I play regularly at home is the Zelda games for the N64. I see little kids playing Teen/Mature rated video games, and their eyes are pratically [i]glued[/i] to the screen when someone gets impaled.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]That's a complete misnoma. Not only is there no evidence of that, but there are actually reports that discuss the contrary. A game is not going to make you a violent human being. You have to remember; kids copy [i]everything[/i] that they see. They mimmick the behavior of their parents, siblings, super heroes on TV and so on. Games are no different in this regard and they shouldn't be singled out as being the cause of violent behavior. Secondly, and as I mentioned, I've been playing violent games for my entire life. Yet I am nonetheless appalled by real-life violence. Violent games have not -- and do not -- change my in-built behaviors and tendences. People are confusing a kid copying something they saw on TV with something far deeper. It's like saying that watching two guys kiss on a TV show is going to make you homosexual. It's rubbish. Unless you have in-built behavioral tendences, you're [i]not[/i] going to be "pushed" into a behavior pattern by an outside medium. There are plenty of studies to support that point of view, on several fronts (including research into violent movies). The reason that violent games are targetted is because they're an easy target. When some kid shoots another kid, it's easy to say "oh yeah, that kid grew up with Doom. No wonder he's violent". No. That's scapegoating and laziness. It's a question of parents (and society at large) taking some [i]real[/i] responsibility for child raising. It's also a question of people misunderstanding what video games are -- the people who make many of these claims are often the people who know the least about video games. It's no surprise that such claims are made, in that regard.[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, if you want to talk about comics...you'd use the Literature forum. If you want to talk about a Capcom game, you use the forum that corresponds to the game console it was on. So if you talk about Mega Man on NES, you'd use Nintendo. See? We have already provided spaces for this type of discussion.[/color]

[color=#707875]I agree with Semji. If we started to name hurricanes after minorities, it would be considered racist against those groups. Even if it's true that hurricaines are mostly named after "white people", I'd have to ask why that even matters. I certainly haven't lost any sleep over hurricaine naming. Normally they seem to choose the most boring name they can find and then slap it on a hurricaine. I doubt that much thought goes into the naming process. *puts on a gas mask as sarcasm fills the room, making the air too thick to breathe*[/color]

[color=#707875]In terms of adding forums...we don't plan to add any anime forums in the near future. In terms of theOtaku.com...well, things are in a state of flux right now. We've had start up problems (as the message on our homepage says) and we won't be able to add anymore anime sites until after Adam returns. You see, we still have another batch of features to add to myOtaku -- features that we wanted to include much earlier. Once that is done (and once myOtaku is operating to a high standard), we'll be adding anime sites once again. I'm not aware of any plans to develop an Escaflowne site, but I do know that we're keen to add sites for a whole variety of animes. So, don't worry. You may just be lucky. ^_^[/color]