James

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I kind of think that breast feeding is the last of their potential problems. In other words, I'm sure they'll find a solution there. I just think the bigget issue now is ensuring that they are left to some sort of privacy. Hopefully, for their baby's sake, they will do their best to keep the media at arm's length.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]While I don't entirely agree with weedeater, I'm kind of glad that his view is generally fairly well-rounded (in that it doesn't contain the basic "OMG transgendered people are all horrible!) One thing I do agree with is that people who are interested in gender reassignment surgery should go through a very thorough mental evaluation (not to determine whether or not they are "sane", but to make sure that they are making a choice that is right for them). A lot of people have this type of operation and then regret it later and it can drive them over the edge. So they do need to make sure that it's what they want. In cases where people have been properly evaluated though, it does seem to work - at least, it does seem to essentially fix the confusion. I did hear recently about some of the newest brain studies here in Melbourne, where one of the scientists was being interviewed on a local radio station. And this very issue came up. He basically said that men's brains and women's brains are actually physically different in some fundamental ways. So the theory is that, quite literally, a man can develop with a "female brain" and that this fault can be caused during early development in the womb. I know that's kind of only slightly related to this topic, but I thought it was relevant. We know so little about the brain...it will be very interesting to see what developments lay ahead as doctors learn more over time.[/font]

[center][size=4]Creating & Running an Event in the Convention Center[/size][/center] The Convention Center is a forum where site-wide events are held. The forum has hosted competitions and awards in the past, for example. We encourage you to have a look at the older threads in this forum to get a feel for the type of events that are possible. Now all members can create their own site-wide events right here. You might want to create a specific game or competition where you list the winners at the end, or you may want to host your own personal awards show (on whatever subject you choose). I would recommend checking out the [url=?http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=58405?]Otaku Event Brainstorm[/url] thread for some great ideas on the sorts of events and games that can be created. Here?s a quick list of the things you?ll need to be aware of when creating events in this forum: 1) You can create any type of event (whether it be related to anime, gaming, art, RPGs, etc). Feel free to be as imaginative as you like! 2) For now, all new threads in this forum will be moderated. This means that when you submit your thread, it must first be approved by the forum?s Moderator before it appears on the page. We may remove this restriction soon, but for now we want to make sure that everything is making sense. 3) The only real restriction in terms of content is that you can?t make your event ?official?. If your event is especially interesting, cool or generally well put-together, we will put an ?OFFICIAL? tag at the beginning of the thread title. If that happens, you may find your event being promoted around the network. This will also help members to browse all of the official and non-official events in the forum. 4) If you still want to create a game/challenge thread in a certain forum (i.e. Graphic Worm in Art Studio), that is totally fine. It doesn?t [i]need[/i] to be classified as an event ? that is entirely your choice! Finally, if you have any questions, please ask them in this thread. I will post a FAQ underneath this notification if questions arise. Have fun!

[font=franklin gothic medium]My only issue would be if the hormones negatively affected the child (assuming they were also being taken during pregnancy - I'm not really sure on that). But yeah, as long as the baby was healthy/happy, I personally don't really care. As long as they are good parents, good luck to 'em.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Funnily enough I'm not a huge fan of pork (and I rarely eat it), yet I love bacon (although I don't eat it nearly enough!) Funny how all these things are related but taste so different. Haha.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Amazingly, I only recently tried Canadian pancakes. There's something magical about bacon combined with maple syrup. *drool*[/font]

[quote]I agree with Indi on this one actually, it's not about making you smarter but more about not giving up when you don't do well.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This is a really good point, I think. It's one thing to do poorly at a test or a piece of classwork, but it's another thing when you actually keep trying and change your learning/work habits. I think that even if someone is not terribly good with academia, persistence and determination go a long way. I have often thought that scores and numbers have been considered more important than the actual idea of developing a work ethic. After all, no matter how intelligent you are, you generally won't be financially successful/stable in life unless you put in that hard work. And I do think that recovering from mistakes and developing strategies to overcome hurdles is probably even more important than simply "knowing the answers". Sometimes a person achieves success simply because they kept pushing and never gave up. I think it takes self-esteem to be able to do that, but it's also a very practical thing too.[/font]

[quote]That won?t fly with people who?s religious beliefs tell them that it?s wrong. So you can?t say that by any objective it?s archaic or backwards. It?s not seen that way and that?s part of what I?m trying to get at. Does it mean they are right? I don?t think so. I?m not saying that?s the way it is, I?m saying ?that makes it difficult to change?. That?s not a cop out, that?s seeing the truth for what it is. It?s a problem that isn?t so easily solved.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]It may not fly with people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds, but that isn't really the point I don't think. The law is there to provide equality to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexuality and so on. There's an objective and important reason for having the law drafted in this manner; it means that no single group can discriminate against another [i]regardless[/i] of their reasoning. So, while people may justify their intolerance on a religious basis, that is still largely irrelevant. Again, nobody is saying that this is about a sea change in personal belief; rather, it is about recognizing the rights of a minority.[/font] [quote]They still had a majority agreeing in order for it to happen. Naturally people weren?t happy, but my point is that we are not to that step yet. We don?t have a majority to put an end to it. No matter how much I may want it to end; I can?t force the people in my government to simply pass the laws. Even if I think we are ready for the change, we still have to get past the silly bickering over recognizing marriage among other things.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's all very true. But with that said, we should not be afraid to identify a blatantly unjust law or practice when we see one. To give you an extreme example, the majority of a country may want to totally persecute a particular race of people - that doesn't make it right, nor does it justify institutionalized racism. The reason that this is still relevant in America is because the US already has specific laws banning the discrimination of minorities in the work place (and in other areas). So there is an immediate conflict in that sense. The majority may not be comfortable with gay people (although I think there are national polls to dispute that), but that still misses the point: America already has anti-discrimination laws in place. And it has these for obvious reasons. To simply ignore them in one particular area of government is self-contradictory and, at worst, a deliberate practice of discrimination by government. If a government can have anti-discrimination laws on the books yet simultaneously discriminate against a group in the military...does that not cast doubt on the validity of the laws in the first place?[/font] [quote]I think I didn?t explain my point clearly enough. No one is holding back, I?m saying that a lot of people simply do not see it that way period. The numbers of people who do is climbing, but it?s not enough to make a real difference yet. Again no one his holding back, it?s a matter of not having the power to make that change. I?ve certain tried by voting against anything that is discriminatory towards gays and voting for anything that removes that discrimination. There?s only so much you can do you know.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think that political will is what's required. Politicians themselves have a duty to ensure that law is both fair and just as well as consistent. Also, even if the majority of people are happy to allow their government to actively discriminate against a group of its own citizens, [i]that still doesn't make it acceptable[/i]. I know you aren't saying that it is, but part of my luxury as a free citizen is to point out a totally unjust and contradictory law where one exists. Even people who dislike homosexual people for whatever reason should still be outraged by the idea that their government does not provide the equal protections that it advertises. It goes beyond being a "gay issue" and becomes a question of principle. In other words, you either have a society that supports equal rights for all or you don't.[/font] [quote]Like I?ve been saying, right or wrong is a matter of opinion. Hell, I know people who still think women shouldn?t vote, they?re just in the minority now so it?s no longer an issue. I think the issue towards gays is wrong, but a good chunk of the US does not. It doesn?t stop me from trying to change their opinion, but I still can?t force them to change. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The thing is though, it's not just a matter of opinion. As I said earlier, it comes back to the way America's legal system and constitution has been established. America can never claim to be a country of civil rights if its government actively practices discrimination based on prejudice. If governments only ever legislated simply on polling or public opinion, I can't even imagine how that might turn the country into a complete basket case. This is why we elect public officials - to debate these issues and to take decisions that reflect fairness for all. A large part of that involves protections for minorities. If "majority rule" always applied, then every single bill would go to a referendum. There's a clear reason why this isn't the case. If "the majority" were able to dictate every bill or act, minorities would never have reasonable protection or equal rights under the law. Part of the greatness of democracy and the democratic tradition of countries like America is that the "least among you" are protected and their rights enshrined.[/font] [quote]You think there isn?t? It use to be pretty much an unspoken rule that one acted like there isn?t a problem. The fact that even if the action is something I don?t agree with is actually happening, tells me that the issue is no longer being shoved under the carpet. Yes the action is far from correct, but my point was that they are at least no longer turning a blind eye anymore. It?s not the kind of progress I want to see, but you have to start somewhere. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think it isn't reflected here, but I do think it's reflected in broader society to some degree. This situation also reminds me of the situation in the justice system, whereby everybody has the right to an attorney. You might look at someone who is a murderer or a rapist or whatever - the most horrible person in the world. And the majority of people might want to hang him or her on the spot. But part of the [i]beauty[/i] of a power balance and equal rights is that this person [i]still[/i] deserves a fair trial just like everybody else. This is what civilized society is all about. There's a reason why mob mentality is not the order of the day in a large, modern democracy. Countries who continue to pander to this mentality (despite its obvious contradictions) can only do themselves further harm, I think.[/font] [quote]I've noticed that victim-blaming is common in any situation where the perpetrator is a straight white male and the victim is not. Clearly, no matter what evidence points to the contrary, the victim was asking for it in some way, so the straight white male isn't actually at fault. It's a very common mentality that unfortunately rears its head even in the arena of court and law. It's strange for me to read this thread, especially SunfallE's replies. I grew up in a Christian school environment where the attititudes she's describing were not only common, but part of the curriculum. I had one teacher in particular whom I respected greatly in every aspect but this?and it was hard to hold onto the idea that, despite all "evidence" and instruction to the contrary, legalised discrimination was wrong. When I went away to college, the realisation that other people weren't all homophobic was fresh air to an almost suffocated belief. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think you have expressed this far better than I have. I am trying to explain this division between personal belief and equal protections for all - the fundamental rights for all citizens. There is definitely a difference. Legalized discrimination is a worrying thing in any country that professes to be truly free. That it is not a more concerning issue for many people is, in itself, a big worry.[/font] [quote]It blows my mind that equal rights for living, breathing, tax-paying members of society have to be legislated... and that said legislation frequently fails?or stubbornly trudges backward, progress be damned.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Me too. It is so strange because America in many ways is such an advanced country. And yet most Americans do not seem to understand the world they live in - by that I mean, the idea that the rest of the western world has progressed well beyond this point. To us, the situation in America is kind of a bizarre curiosity - at best, it's weird and amusing. At worst, it's downright scary. I am very much a supporter of America in general (and I often find myself defending America to her own citizens!) Yet, on this issue, America does not live up to its [i]own[/i] standard. That should be of concern to all Americans, whether or not they themselves have a prejudice one way or the other.[/font]

[quote]James, lets face it. Not everyone agrees with that. I'm not saying I don't, I'm just saying that to a lot of people, it's not backwards or archaic.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]People don't have to agree with it, but I think that by any objective it's clearly archaic and/or backwards. In all seriousness, it's a policy of deliberate discrimination. It's open, it's transparently discriminatory and it contradicts a number of other laws (i.e. I doubt it would be okay for a company or any other government organization to harbor such a policy). In these situations it's all too easy to say "well that's the way it is" or "there are people who agree with it". But I think in this case, it's a cop out. And I think it was probably a cop out in other situations where the government actively discriminated against a group of people.[/font] [quote]It's not so simple. Like women getting the right to vote, you can't just wave your hand and say, too bad. It takes time for people to accept and get use to that kind of change or at the very least accept it. After all women were once considered too stupid to understand politics well enough to vote.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's true, but that misses my point. One day, women got the vote. Do you think on that day everyone in America agreed? Of course not. It is possible than even a large amount of people did not agree. But that did not stop the law from being enacted. Fairness and equality did prevail, even if not everyone was ready for it.[/font] [quote]That wasn't always true though. Women, at least in America, had to fight for the right to serve in the same capacity as men do. It's accepted now, but it didn't use to be.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right, it didn't used to be. But it is now. That's my point. At some stage, things need to change for the better. Holding back change based on the weak assertion that "some people just won't be able to stop hazing/harassing because it's part of military culture" is surely unacceptable. Also, we are talking about here and now, where we exist in a society that does have a variety of protections and rights. If you say, for instance, that an employer can't discriminate against a person based on their sexuality, how can you selectively apply that? This reminds me of a quote from Animal Farm:[quote] [i]"All animals are created equal. But some are more equal than others."[/i][/quote][/font] [quote]I agree with the first part but not the second. Only that modern or not, rights for gays over here is something that is slowly being fought for. It use to be a lot stricter so even though it's got it's issues, it is slowly moving towards acceptance, even if that move is painfully slow. Personally I have no issues with them serving since I think that's a dumb reason to exempt someone from the military.[[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]It's good that we agree on the core point, I guess. But there's a bigger issue that we don't agree on (at least, it seems to me). I do understand that change can take time. However, if a law exists that is blatantly unjust and retrograde, it should be identified as such. Softening our approach because "change takes time" ultimately doesn't help (in my view). I've compared this kind of discrimination to other forms and I think that this helps to put the situation into stark view. I might say that it took a long time for women to get the vote, but that shouldn't soften the idea that barring women from voting was blatantly wrong.[/font] [quote]Like I said, that's not how a lot of people see it though and it's not that easy to get someone to see it differently.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]And that's a definite problem. How is it being tackled though? Is it being tackled at all? Do military commanders [i]care[/i] that they are regularly punishing the victim and not the criminal? I don't believe for a second that one day everything will change and people will stop discriminating against other people. However, that is a separate issue from what is legal and constitutional. The law should be there to protect everyone, including minorities. It should not take into account systemic cultures of testosterone-fueled harassment. We should also not wait until everyone's views have changed before we amend the law. Otherwise, the law would never be just. I mean, there are still plenty of people out there who are highly racist. If we waited for everyone to become tolerant, we would never protect everyone among us. Sometimes the interests of fairness and justice must come first, even if there are people who stubbornly wish to uphold some some outmoded view that it's perfectly okay to foster a culture of silence and harassment.[/font] [quote]Well even if it's stupid, until they have the power to go after those who would harm them, they are doing them a favor by kicking them out. Not much of one, but until the stance against gays change what else can they do? I'd rather they do that than stand by and let them get beaten up.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's their choice? Either end their career because they are the victim of prejudice, or stand by and let them get beaten up? There's a third option there: investigate the matter, find the attacker and punish them appropriately. I know that the third option may not currently exist, but my argument is that it [i]should[/i] and that it's unacceptable for it [i]not[/i] to exist. That there is not a stronger outcry about this disappoints me greatly.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]We can't program people's brains, that's true. By the same token, we can't enforce restrictions on the victims of biggotry and harassment for this reason. I mean, to make a more extreme example, it's sort of like saying "You'll never remove the glass ceiling, so women should just never apply for management roles". You know what I mean? Taking action and setting a standard is definitely the tougher route. But it's the [i]right[/i] route. I mean, I understand that a big bunch of guys have stupid jokes and all the rest. Sure, there's a "military mentality". But there is often an argument that people's feelings or mentality circumvent their training, especially on the battlefield. I don't really accept that though. I think that if you are a trained professional, then no amount of personal feelings should affect your ability to conduct your job. And if they do, you shouldn't be in that job in the first place. So, I don't think the issue is about "changing minds" or forcing people to think differently. Generally people won't change their biases or intolerances simply because someone tells them to. Rather, the point is to say that no matter what you believe or think, you [i]must[/i] behave like a professional rather than a high schooler delivering a hazing. This is true of nearly all professions - the military should be no different, especially when it is already considered to be such a disciplined service. The military often boasts about its expert skills and discipline, yet it is happenly to openly shun discipline and professionalism when suitable. That double standard inherently weakens the military's symbolic position in society, surely. And, again, America is unique with this policy. If other developed nations can progress past this point, so can America. I'm sure there are homophobes in the Australian and British militaries as well. It's not as though they have none. It's just that they don't punish the victims of wrongdoing.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Finally posted. Sorry for the delay guys. Just for a bit of explanation, my post is basically two journal entries. The first was written at night, after Link returned to his cottage. And the second was written the following morning. I am sure that I will write posts in the third person as well as the first person, but I wanted to introduce "Dark Link". Hopefully he is suitably dark. I imagine that Link will continue to struggle with his dual personality, but hopefully the right side will win out in the end. If there are any issues with the post, please let me know! Edit: Second post is up. It's a little long, so apologies about that.[/font]

[center][img]http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/Runaway511/zelda/newlinkavatar.jpg[/img] [size=3][b]March 3rd[/b][/size] [i]Journal Entry[/i][/center] Before I saw her, I could smell her. Young. Ripe. Frightened. She was lost. Why had such a young woman ventured so far alone? So foolish, so innocent. I ran in her direction without a care. I could taste her smell on the breeze. That she was lost and confused made it better. Her reaction to a stranger in the dark may have been one of fear at first. A tall silhouette approaching her slowly, panting in the cool air. She did not bother to run; where could she possibly go? Every direction is a dead end. Don't bother to run and waste that wonderful energy! Doing so would upset me greatly. My efforts would be useless. She did not run and much to my surprise and delight, saved her energy for me. She resisted! How delightful! Pressing her down and positioning myself at the same time was a welcome challenge. It made the moment of truth so much more enjoyable. As I knew, even from far away, she had never given herself to a man before. And now, as I made my mark, her cries seemed to betray her true feelings. At first, resistance - the most wonderful kind of game for a hunter such as myself - but then, something else. Her hands pressed against my shoulders, pushing me away. And then they gripped my arms, almost tearing at my tunic. Part fear, part horror, part confusion and the slightest undercurrent of pleasure. 'Do I keep resisting or do I submit? Horror or pleasure?' She seemed to be asking herself these questions. As I invaded her body, I could see the conflict on her face. And then, when I was finished and had no further need for her, it stopped. I looked down over her where she lay. Her energy was gone and she did not attempt to move. Her skirt fluttered up around her stomach and her white porcelain legs sprawled out on the moonlit grass. I smirked. A slither of fabric lay in her palm, where she had torn it from my shoulder. She didn't throw it away in disgust, but instead seemed to grip at it gently. It was a memoir of her first sexual experience. Somehow I knew she would keep it. Maybe she would never tell anybody, but she would always know. My mark would stay with her. [center][size=3][b]March 4th[/b][/size] [i]Journal Entry[/i][/center] I have been dreaming of such horrible things in recent days. What is happening to me? I'm all alone. My tunic is torn. I don't have the fabric to fix it. I have sewn the gap together. It has been stitched in so many places now. It is like my own skin, scarred and worn. I feel so tired. Why? As I sit at my writing desk and put quill to paper, I can hear the distant crack of thunder. It seems to rain constantly in these woods. I hate the sound of thunder. Whenever I hear it, I am reminded of the hooves of the Gryphon. Sometimes I think about the Hyrulian Guard when these storms roll overhead. When will they find me and bring me to justice? Perhaps they have simply forgotten me. I am not worthy of their consideration. What terrifies me now, more than anything, is the knowledge that I am not alone in this little cottage in the woods. Someone else is here with me. He is always standing behind me, just over my shoulder. Yet he is always just out of sight. If I pass a mirror, or if I turn quickly I sometimes catch a slight glimpse of him out of the corner of my eye. But he is too fast! I can not describe how he looks, except to say that he is a lot like me. He is older, perhaps, and he has very dark eyes. His face is obscured by shadow. He is always angry. He laughs at the most horrible things. He makes me sick. I suspect that it does not matter whether or not I am ever caught or arrested. This cottage is my prison and the Dark Man is its warden. Sometimes I call out loud and ask what he wants. I scream at the top of my lungs until I am so frustrated that I drop to my knees and plead. He's always there, very close, but he never responds. He is driving me crazy and he knows it. I don't think he wants to kill me. I think... ...I think he wants to destroy my soul.

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yup, I've been unlucky enough to see this show. My feeling is that if the contestants and their families are happy enough to appear there, then that's really up to them. I don't think they can complain about horrifying revelations if they've already agreed to some form of public embarassment beforehand. I mean, they would know what the whole point of the show is...so they can't really be surprised when they hear things they don't want to hear. I figure that if a family wants to go on that show, then either they know so much about either other that they're incredibly close (maybe a little too close)...or they're just so horribly ignorant about the nature of the world that they kind of deserve the shock, lol. I mean, I don't think anyone could be "accidentally" roped into going on a show of this nature. If that were the case, then again, maybe that person deserves to experience the consequences of their ignorance. *shrug*[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]So, wait...you're just friends with J but you aren't in a relationship? I thought you said you were dating? Anyway, if you [i]are[/i] in a relationship with J...then I don't really know why C comes into it. You might like C, but is that necessarily a reason to end the current relationship? I think you probably need to take a step back and work out what you want to do. If you are in a relationship with J, then you need to decide whether or not it's worth ending that - especially on the remote possibility that C might be better for you. If you weigh it up and it's not worth it, then I would tend to keep it in the pants and just enjoy a friendship with C. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Is it possible to just be friends with this person? I agree with others that you probably need a good break from relationships for a while - it gives you time to clear your head and get over any lingering issues. Friendship may be the best answer, if one can be maintained. But if this girl is attracted to you and wants more than friendship...then I would personally avoid her. After all, she may only make things worse for you in the short term. Sometimes you have to put your own sanity and wellbeing above what others want, otherwise you won't be any good to those people anyway.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]America would have to be one of the very few developed nations to still have an archaic and backward policy like this. And, let's face it, that's precisely what it is. A man (homosexual or otherwise) shouldn't pretend to be anything else, he should just be who he is. And if he's gay, so be it. If other soldiers are somehow offended or uncomfortable about this, then that's just too bad - if something like that makes them uncomfortable, then I'd hate to see how poorly they perform on the field itself (because I'm sure being shot at makes you pretty uncomfortable too). Women and men serve in the military without issue and there has never really been a concern about relationships developing or anything else. The same rule should apply to gay men, obviously. If you are a soldier who is professional, well-trained and an expert in your field, you won't let your feelings get in the way of doing your job - this is true of all professionals, regardless of their sexual orientation. So, this policy really can't be construed or presented in any other way - it's no different from being blatantly racist. It's an archaic, socially backward, draconian policy that feels so unfitting for such a modern nation. In most other developed nations (like Australia, Israel and any number of others), this isn't even a question nor an issue. Sexuality doesn't even come into discussion - why should it? It's like determining someone's worth for the military based on eye colour or ethnic background; it's totally irrelevant. What matters is whether or not an individual can do the job they were recruited for. If they can't - for any reason - they should not be in the military. It's as simple as that.[/font] [quote]They also say that DADT is a way to protect the gay man because there have been reports of hazing and abuse to soldiers. (under suspicion of their homosexuality) In that case, who do you think the military will discharge? It will be the gay man because no matter how man straight soldiers you discharge, there will always be another prejudice hate monger who wants to beat the crap out of a man just because of his sexual orientation.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]What a terrible message the defense forces are sending here. "We can't help that there are bigots among you, so we have to discharge the victims." Those who harass, attack or bully another officer for any reason should be punished. Even if that means punishing dozens of people. Why? Because it's [i]right[/i], not because it's convenient or inconvenient. The idea, then, should be that no matter what another person's views, they would be discouraged from acting on them because they know it's wrong and they know they will face punishment. This concept would surely be applied in any other circumstance, whether it's racial or religious vilification. That there's still a double-standard is truly haunting, from an outsider's point of view.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Some people are just so obsessed with image, especially when it comes to music. In my view, simply listen to what you enjoy and don't be too concerned about what others think. I think Darren said it best there.[/font]

[quote]Adoption...how can you guys be so insensitive as to say that to a guy who has never really met his real parents...that's just mean, besides her mother already suggested that and she nearly got her head chewed off. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, you asked for advice and you got it. Clearly nobody is intending to be insensitive; they are just suggesting one of the many options available to you. As I said earlier, you seem to have covered all the core necessary bases to be able to provide for your child (i.e. a stable job with reasonable pay and a solid relationship with your girlfriend). As far as seeking advice on OB in general, I agree with DeathKnight. [i]Some[/i] of us (quite a few of us, actually) are not "angsty teenagers". And there are a lot of people who are capable of giving reasonable, heartfelt advice. Isn't sweeping everyone into the same group (thereby dismissing all advice here) exactly the same as offering angsty teenage advice anyway? I kind of think it's just as pointless, haha.[/font] [quote]I think I'll go to a proffesional on this one but again thank you everyone.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Good idea. And you're welcome - good luck with everything! :catgirl:[/font]

[quote name='Lady Aura'][FONT="Palatino Linotype"][CENTER]You're right. Getting used to it should be normal, too. That makes me... not normal, although I'm trying.[/CENTER][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Being uncomfortable with change is not unusual, especially when it comes to friends and family. This is [i]especially[/i] true if someone changes for the worst (depending, of course, on how she changed). I think that it can be difficult when you have very fond memories, as well. I mean, especially if the person you once knew to be "innocent" ends up being the opposite (but I mean in a very serious sense, like drug use or crime or something). If it's just a cosmetic change or a slight personality change, then I don't think there's too much to worry about. Anyway, these feelings are definitely normal. But as everyone else has said, you just have to come to terms with the "new friend" and focus on the positives rather than the negatives. No matter how she's changed, she is still fundamentally the same person you knew before. Looking for positives is far more important than worrying about the negatives.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think that everyone else here has pretty much covered this, but I did have a couple of thoughts about it as I was reading responses. First of all, you guys have obviously chosen to keep this child so you've also therefore made the decision to support and parent it. I can understand that it's easy to be freaked out by the prospect of suddenly becoming a parent, but I think that your primary bases seem to be covered at the moment (i.e. you have a well-paying job and a solid relationship with your girlfriend). These two elements are, I think, very important. They're probably fundamentally important. It goes without saying that your girlfriend is going to need all the support she can get, both financially and emotionally. She needs to feel secure and loved and she needs to know that you will be there no matter what. So, whether or not you marry (which I see as a separate issue), you [i]do[/i] need to be there in support of your child. In terms of whether or not your girlfriend works, I think that really depends on what she wants to do and what your financial position is. If you need the money, then yes, I think she should work - it's more than possible to work right up until she's close to being due (depending, of course, on the type of work she's doing). Exercise is beneficial during pregnancy, for sure. Certainly though, once she has given birth, she's probably going to be better to stay at home (given what you've said about not wanting to involve outsiders in that time of your child's life). There are two things I'd say about that though. First, that time is going to be the [i]most[/i] important time for you to support her. She's going to need your help at home and she's going to need you to be around as much as you can be. It will be very stressful for her and the extra support will be invaluable. Also, don't be afraid to seek the support of extended family (whether yours or hers). [i]Any[/i] outside family support is a major help, especially to give her a night off here and there. At least, if you do have the option, I think you should take it where possible. Anyway, I don't really know what else to say here. I think a lot of these things will unfold naturally and you will work your way through the issues as they arise. As long as you're covering the fundamental bases that I mentioned earlier, though, you'll be fine. Just remember to put your child before everything else. In that vein, I would not be too concerned with the question of whether or not you marry her. If you choose to marry, that's fine, but right now your child's birth is the most critical factor - worry about this before worrying too much about marriage.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think this is a pretty solid idea, especially the concept of basically running the in-character aspects of the RPG across two threads. Nobody really does that, but there's really no restriction on how many threads an RPG can use. Also the idea of playing as villains is pretty interesting, if only because it's really not something that most RPGs tend to do here (although admittedly there are RPGs with characters who probably border on villainous). So, it definitely sounds worthwhile. I personally am not a huge fan of the typical superhero comic universes (with some minor exceptions), but I do support the idea of superhero RPGs being done in unique ways. I have some ideas for my own superhero RPG, but who knows when that will launch. In any case, it all sounds good so far. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Font Wars does indeed sound great. Somehow it would suit OB very well, methinks. After doing a lot of reading, I now want to make an RPG based on Watchmen. I actually have a few concrete ideas about it too. I suppose it would be what Kill Adam is to Kill Bill. I have to try not to get ahead of myself though, because at the moment I'm participating in way too many RPGs as it is. Haha[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I didn't get the Scarecrow thing either. That seemed very random and odd, but perhaps I'm missing something. As for Joker...I think personal preference is totally fine. I personally think that what makes Joker effective is the fact that he's truly scary. And the fact that he doesn't have a typical motivation makes him even more creepy.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I will have a post up shortly (hopefully tonight, but if not, during the week). I will try to make the differentiation between Light and Dark Link not too ambiguous, heh.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I saw this last night...my god it was long. A little too long. Still, it was very enjoyable and significantly better than Batman Begins, I think. While I would hesitate to say that Ledger was the best villain [i]ever[/i] (who can really make such a proclamation?), I do think that he was undeniably amazing. And he will definitely be remembered as [i]the[/i] definitive "Joker". Topping Jack Nicholson is certainly not easy, but Ledger did it with apparent ease. What I really liked about this Batman was the story. It was far deeper than any Batman film before it and it was full of gritty tragedy. The latter part is important because it didn't feel like a typical glossy men-in-capes type of thing. It wasn't campy, really. It felt like "this is how the world would really be if Batman existed". And of course, in the real world, tragedy is very real and the story doesn't always end happily. I liked that The Dark Knight had the guts to be this way. It wasn't just dark for the sake of being dark; it revealed the complex (and very realistic) nature of crime and criminals, as well as the nature of public faith. Some very interesting and relevant lessons in there. The acting was utterly superb throughout. Bale was wonderful as Batman, Freeman was heartwarming and funny, Eckhart was fantastic as Dent and of course, Ledger was the best Joker we've seen. I guess my only two gripes are that the film was just a little too long and, although I loved Harvey Dent...Two Face wasn't all that great. I mean he was a very "real" villain and his component in the story was critical, but I suppose he just wasn't interesting at all. Then again, The Joker was [i]so[/i] interesting that it's pretty hard to compete. Overall, I'd say it's probably the best superhero film I've seen. It's not just about the combat and the special effects, it is very much a character-driven piece. The dialogue in particular is notable for being eloquent and very appropriate for each character. Still, without The Joker, I think I might have gotten quite a bit more bored by the end. He was very much the center of the film, entertainment-wise and he definitely carried it. He had a ton of great moments, including [spoiler]the whole hospital sequence[/spoiler]. He was scary, funny, sad and everything in between. So yeah, I imagine this will be a big hit for Batman fans. [b]Edit:[/b] Oh and to address Aceburner's comments about The Joker: [spoiler]That was the whole point. There are several times during the movie where you don't know whether you should laugh or be disgusted. The fact that The Joker turned a horribly violent act into a joke (at least he thought it was funny), was absolutely fitting for his character. I didn't see The Joker as a contradiction at all. He actually explained his motivations and point of view several times during the film. I think it's just that he was almost the polar opposite of the establishment. He was like anarchy personified.[/spoiler] As for people taking their four year olds, I personally don't think this movie would be suitable for very young children. However, that isn't because of the way Ledger died (P.J. was right with what he said). I think it has more to do with the fact that this was a violent and dark film. It's probably fine for teens, but probably not so good for very young children.[/font]