James

[font=franklin gothic medium]No, what's gross is the thought that one of us gave birth to this place. :shifty:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Also as a matter of journalistic standards, it would be inappropriate to essentially suggest that a murder has taken place when there is no evidence of it. I mean, even just as a matter of general reporting bias (or lack thereof), you have to realize that you're in a war zone and therefore civilians will often get caught in the crossfire. Even if you assume that there are more deliberate killings occurring than are reported on (which is entirely possible), it's still unwise and unreasonable to suggest that it's a systemic or general problem. So I think these things are reported as accurately as they can be most of the time. Whether or not all sides are presented equally at the news desk is another issue, I suppose. [/font]

[quote]The numbers of the other two groups are inconsequential if we are discussing coalition deaths exacted on civilians. Of course, this is a tricky business considering you can call a civilian who was shot an "enemy combatant". The lack of uniformed resistance allows this. However, I will also admit that the coin has two sides -- often we kill enemy combatants who are then listed as civilian deaths. The conflict does not lend itself well to 'traditional' body count. It should also be noted that the majority of Iraqi deaths will not be reported to officials for the record.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The other numbers are not inconsequential. You can't talk about how bad one group is without comparing it to other relevant groups. This is especially true if you're trying to look at the situation objectively. As I said earlier, a blanket figure is one thing, but it has to be viewed in context. Let's say you have 5,000 civilian deaths in one city in a month. How do you make a value judgement about it? You have to break that figure down and work out the causes and reasons. I would just reiterate the point that there's a key difference between [i]deliberately[/i] hunting down civilians and civilians being caught in the crossfire. Admittedly, in the end, the result is tragic - nobody would deny that. But at the same time, it's not really fair to suggest that the military deliberately targets civilians as a general rule. At the very least, seeing the other side of the coin has value. I appreciate that.[/font] [quote]Largely true, but you are simply wrong about American media reporting American atrocities. Certainly, there are many American failures and shortcomings published (overwhelmingly so, actually), with the press generally highlighting body counts (on both sides), but there is generally no blame explicitly placed on the head of the armed forces.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The latter part is really what I was referring to. Mostly the inference is that this is a military problem (rather than a political one). Although political leaders are pobably most visibly targeted. In any case, I do think both points are valid. If you focus on local stations (which I am not familiar with), I'm certainly more than happy to accept what you're saying. But if you look at those networks that have an international audience, you'll see a different story. And then, of course, you have to look at print media as well. A lot of publications don't necessarily blame the military outright, but they [i]do[/i] emphasize the negatives and deliberately sensationalise a very serious situation.[/font] [quote]American media focuses with a fine lens upon American deaths -- every single casualty or prisoner of war is generally accounted for, with the POWs receiving a great amount of media coverage (see: Jessica Lynch for case in point). However, outlets such as the New York Times or Washington Post do not generally carry stories on American soldiers killing civilians intentionally. You will hear things here and there (see: Blackwater shootings), but very rarely are there reports of Americans destroying the lives of civilians (intentionally or not). It's perceived to be un-American and despicable stateside, so it's not really done, save for the most flagrant violations of human rights (Abu Ghraib, but again, I don't believe this was the "one bad apple" either).[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think the reason you don't generally see stories about American soldiers killing innocent civilians [i]intentionally[/i] is because a) it's extremely rare and b) it's incredibly difficult to prove. This latter point is probably a concern in and of itself, but it's also the current reality. I think you are overestimating this idea of soldiers killing civilians [i]deliberately[/i]. Although I accept that civilian casualties are high as a result of the conflict. I just do take issue with the former statement, because it's very easy to say... and in many cases it casts a negative shadow where there need not be one.[/font] [quote]Perhaps my opinions are overstated, but I approach an agency that dehumanizes its opposition with great caution and skepticism. By lowering the value placed on life, combined with general frustration at one's situation in a conflict, you are bound to have numerous war crimes. You're right, it's not the majority of people in the armed forces, but there is systemic encouragement to dehumanize -- it simply makes it easier for them to do their job. I fear there are many tragedies that result from this questionable practice of making the opposition seem subhuman.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I honestly can't speak to the issue of dehumanization - and I really don't think anyone can, unless they are actually in the military. However, I don't tend to accept the slippery-slope argument. Dehumanizing one's enemy for the purpose of winning a tactical victory does not automatically equate to civilian killing sprees. There's a great deal of training and discipline involved and I would not like to over-simplify that process. Also, I do think that there are certain realities of war that are probably inescapable. This makes them no less palatable, however, as I mentioned a while ago, there's an important historical perspective missing from many of these public discussions. Perhaps that is because people our age are not familiar with living in times of war. I mean, if you compare this war and World War II... well, there's just no comparison. Our parents and their parents probably have a slightly different perspective, because they knew what it was like not only to face serious threats but to suffer as a nation for a particular cause. I think a lot of this plays into our generation's reaction to war, which, while understandable, can often be misguided or without perspective. Having said all of that, a discussion about a war is one thing... a discussion about the military itself is another. I do think we agree on many points, but I have also tried to qualify certain things and point out that often, situations are not quite as simple as they first appear. Having a healthy dose of skepticism without falling prey to a completely misinformed cynicism is probably healthy. And from some of the things you've said in your post, I actually think you walk that line pretty well. :catgirl: I also think you've shown that people can debate without getting personal. Thank you for that - it's a good lesson to some other members. ;)[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If OB is a family, it's a slightly dysfunctional one. :catgirl: Heheh, but seriously, there are people in this community that I'd definitely miss if I ever somehow got stranded without the Internet. There really isn't anyone on here that I know outside OB as such (in terms of having their phone number or whatever), so for me, it's hard to compare relationships on here to those in real life. Still, when I think about it, it's a pretty unique situation. I mean, I have known Adam for almost a decade now...and yet we have never met. We talk almost every day. I think having that kind of relationship with someone and not actually meeting them is very bizarre - it's something I stop and think about occasionally. If only we had the money to hold a big OB meetup. That'd be a lot of fun. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote] wouldn't say so. The first paragraph was essentially saying that there are a vast number of cases (recorded and unrecorded by Western media) wherein soldiers kill civilians intentionally. This stems from the military's processes of training, which I believe dehumanize the enemy to a large extent. The second paragraph said that despite the fact I believe many soldiers do commit these crimes, there are also a massive number of good soldiers out there. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. There is tension in this division, however I think it's a logical distinction to make. There are many terrible people in the military, but there are also many good ones as well. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]My point was that you initially suggested that the deliberate killing of civilians was a systemic problem. You then said that you didn't believe that the majority were involved in this sort of activity. I mean, to be technical I did say "kind of" - I can see what you're saying, but I also think that to some extent you're having a bet both ways. The only reason I say this is because I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that deliberate civilian killing is either systemic or encouraged. In fact, I'd say that's blatantly untrue. Also, killing civilians deliberately is [i]different[/i] from dehumanizing the enemy. It's one thing to make your enemy look like a batch of numbers (which I'm sure doesn't work out that way in the field anyway). It's another thing for a commander to say "go and attack this village full of innocent people". The qualifying statement should thus be "there is a small minority of horrible people in the military, but a vast majority who follow protocol and do the right thing". I would never say that these horrible people don't exist, because they clearly do. However, a very widely-reported minority should not be over-emphasized or exaggerated either.[/font] [quote]Accidental death is not what I'm talking about; I speak of intentional murder. This video played a significant role in making me question what I thought about the armed forces, and I highly recommend it for everyone. No, it's not graphic at all, just very sad.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I can't watch that where I am right now, but I promise I will when I get home. There's something you have to remember here, though. I am not doubting that these horrible, horrific things happen. They do. And when a soldier breaks the law, he needs to be punished to the full extent of it. [i]However[/i], as horrible and gut-wrenching as isolated incidents are, they should be seen as just that - not a representation of the norm.[/font] [quote]Certainly -- soldiers with PTSD should not be ignored or laughed at. It's a very serious thing. Conversely, however, this does not give them free license to grenade a family or shoot a child. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Of course. And [i]nobody[/i] would suggest otherwise I'm sure. Soldiers who commit horrible crimes - no matter what the cause - need to be dealt with appropriately. My point, again, is to make that distinction. A soldier committing a crime (no matter why) is a horrible thing and should never be tolerated. This does not mean that most soldiers fall into the same group, however.[/font] [quote]I'm not sure about that. Unfortunately, there is no way to know exactly how many war crimes have been committed, but I would say that the number is higher than you'd think. There have been 601,027 violent deaths during the Iraq War, according to the Johns Hopkins Lancet (31% by Coalition, 24% by others, 46% unknown). That's disgustingly high. I understand war kills, but I can't help but feel that when in doubt, our soldiers were told to shoot first, ask questions later. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't doubt that there is a relatively high number of individual war crimes going on. However, you can't look at those figures in isolation; you must always view them in the context of overall military activity. In terms of your figures, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that those figures relate to the percentage breakdown of [i]all[/i] deaths in Iraq during the war? If so, I'm not sure how you view 31% as "disgustingly high". Based on what? It's a totally arbitrary figure. What it doesn't explain is what those deaths represent - for example, what were the circumstances of that 31%? Presumably, if you took that figure and broke it down further, you'd find that the vast majority related to combat deaths (i.e. the deaths of those who were fighting against armed forces). It is impossible to make a valid judgement on the basis of a fairly arbitary set of numbers. The 24% by "others" and the rest by "unknown" are also equally ambiguous figures. I notice that the only group named is the coalition. I don't for a second deny the overwhelming negatives of the war. But, you know... I am very skeptical when it comes to arguments presented in the context of vague percentages.[/font] [quote]Certainly, Americans hear all about our soldier's casualties and how progress is not being made, but there is almost no media coverage of American atrocities committed, so I'm not sure you can say "the media preys on negativity" in this regard.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Actually there is disproportionately high coverage of American atrocities. There's been disproportionately [i]low[/i] coverage of American/coalition successes. This is especially true with the international media (being that I'm not American, I can't speak for the local-only stations of course). But even for the local stations, there's absolutely no question that the mainstream media loves negative stories. And I mean that in general - not just war-related. When you learn about journalism in University (or any media studies really), you regularly see examples of sensational coverage by news outlets. We're always hearing about the shooting, the robbery, the swearing grandmother, etc etc... Often these stories are pushed forward in place of potentially more important news. So it's quite a well-documented aspect of news coverage, especially given that much news coverage globally is now leaning towards a more entertainment-centric angle.[/font] [quote]If this is to insinuate that my comments aren't well-reasoned, I'm offended James. Simply because I feel war crimes have been committed does not mean I'm on logically weak ground.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Don't be offended - I don't think all your comments are not well-reasoned. But some clearly aren't. And I've outlined that in my post. Don't make the mistake of confusing your emotional position with my insistence on drawing rational conclusions from appropriate information. At the end of the day we are in agreement, in the sense that we both abhor any kind of war crimes. I am just as opposed to them as you are. And like you, I believe that we need to be far more aggressive in rooting them out.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This sounds interesting. I know a lot of people who have been to Thailand (it's very popular for Australian tourists), but I have never heard of Songkran Day. Sounds like a good time to go. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote] The incidents that make it to the news with a soldier killing a family are not isolated or "bad apples" -- a lot of the time, they are indicative of a systemic devaluation of human life that might be intrinsic to the armed forces. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This kind of contradicts your latter statement to some extent, I think. It is important to make a distinction between the deliberate killing of civilians and situations where civilians become casualties of a conflict in general - of course the end result is the same and is horrific, but it's unreasonable to suggest that deliberate attacks on civilians are systemic when they are clearly not. So it really depends whether you are talking about deliberate killing (i.e. murder) or accidental death. The latter is certainly no better for those involved, but it does make a significant difference when discussing the military's role in conflict. I think it's true that soldiers go through unimaginable horrors during war - horrors that most of us could never fathom in our wildest nightmares. As such, we [i]know[/i] that some soldiers have highly adverse reactions (and can commit serious crimes). I believe that this aspect is often ignored and shouldn't be. So although I'm a defender of the military (at least in terms of the inaccuracies that are often levelled at it as an organisation), I'm still very much a believer in the appropriate justice and punitive actions where required. Unfortunately I think that the media plays a large role in distorting things - not so much in terms of not telling the truth, but in terms of misrepresenting a vast organisation. If you think about the sheer number of soldiers involved in any given conflict and then compare that to the amount of [i]actual[/i] deliberate crimes or legal violations, you'll find that the ratio is pretty small. Unlike some, I don't believe that this is a "left wing conspiracy", though. Instead, I think it's par for the course with the news media in general - I mean, even with domestic news, so much that gets reported is negative or scandalous. We never hear good stories about politicians for example - the same is true with celebrities. It's often about sensationalism and negative news. As some of Sandy's comments have evidenced, it's probably not a good idea to make sweeping generalisations - especially if they aren't terribly well-reasoned.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Welcome, guys. Hope you enjoy the place. As always, if you have any questions, feel free to send a PM my way. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The problem with all of those images of smoking in cartoons is that the cartoons were released decades ago. At that time, obviously, public knowledge about the dangers of smoking wasn't nearly as clear or nuanced as it is now. My feeling is that limiting smoking to R-rated films [i]is[/i] censorship, although I would not mind a warning on the label as a compromise. I suppose the question then becomes, how many things do you warn about in a film? If you follow the logic to its conclusion, you realize that you'll have a DVD cover with warnings all over it and nothing else. So, you know, I'm very much in favour of seeing parents be good parents rather than seeing the regular interventions of a Nanny State.[/font]

[quote]So yeah, it ain't the stance I'm nit-picking at. It's the intent. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right. And the intent is to share opinions. So there's no nit-picking required, I think (unless, of course, one wishes to debate particular points of view related to this topic).[/font] [quote] it could be an interesting topic... maybe.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I have actually been pretty interested to see people's views on the military in general. I suppose that someone can't talk about the military without eventually referencing the military's role in terms of conflict (obviously). Still, that said, I do think it's interesting to note the very different views of people from different countries/backgrounds. One thing I've really wanted to point out was that being pro-military (in any capacity) is not necessarily the same as being pro-war. I don't think most people have argued that, but still, it might be worth pointing out to any pacifist observers. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote]So what's wrong with getting practice or even finding people who agree with you? Why should they only discuss things where their views are different? You're still hung up on the idea that it has to be different or opposing for it to be a discussion and that's just not true.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think that's what Sandy is saying. He's saying that for a discussion or debate to progress, there usually needs to be differing points of view. I think that's totally reasonable. He's right in saying that there isn't much point having a discussion where everyone agrees all of the time - if that were the case, The Lounge would die off in a second. At this point I think it is reasonable to discuss differences of opinion when it comes to the military, given the subject of this thread. Arguing the semantics of what constitutes a discussion probably isn't going to further said discussion. :catgirl: [/font]

[quote]James, do you really expect everybody who has an ideal to be totally indulged by it? I think it's saying a bit too much that one cannot be a pacifist if he or she doesn't know the history of the idealism. To me, pacifism means I don't do violence, but I will work my way out of situations by other means. I have done violence in my childhood, and I'm from a family with a violent past, but these have only strengthened my views. Do I really have to worship Gandhi or something to be allowed to call myself that? [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think you understood what I meant. I wasn't referring to a history of pacifism. What I was referring to is a knowledge of [i]history[/i]. In other words, a deeper understanding of the political realities of the world - especially related to why wars even happen in the first place and what the outcomes are. Those on the left (as pacifists generally are) tend to frequently point out that the world is "not black and white" - that there are many perspectives and shades of grey. Many of these same people do not apply that logic to war or conflict. The simple statement "violence is bad" is almost not worth mentioning, because I don't think you'll find many reasonable people who will argue that point. Those who either talk in favour of a particular war - or who understand the nature of conflict and why it isn't always avoidable - are not necessarily "pro violence". Unfortunately, people who try to apply reason or middle-ground to these issues are often simply called "warmongers" and that's that. This characterisation obviously skates over the surface and doesn't address the issue in a truly critical way.[/font] [quote]Like I said earlier, I really don't know what I'd do in a true, dire, back-against-the-wall situation, but that goes to everybody else as well. In those type of situations, I can't imagine I'd be thinking "Oh wait, I have this philosophy! Damn, I can't defend myself...". It's the same with those of you who are believing Christians: one of your commandments tells you not to kill, but in certain situations the large majority of you probably would. Does that make you any less of a Christian? No.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Bingo. I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's one thing to have a non-violent philosophy and to object to war. That's fine and I don't think anyone would say that war is good or even desirable. However, even the most passionate believers of non-violent conflict resolution need to apply realistic logic to specific situations at some stage. While you and I might have a certain ideal, others in the world do not - in many cases, conflict resolution simply can't function as a neat textbook example. That may seem obvious, but I do think it's an important point to make.[/font] [quote]Politically-wise, I wouldn't actually terminate the army, but I'd prefer to see one with hired personel motivated by the right reasons instead of a ragtag group of immature youngsters thinking that no man is a true man if he hasn't crawled in a forest with a big gun. I would want to see that the young men of Finland were given a true choice of how to serve their country.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, yeah... I would like to see this too. I mean, I don't like the thought that someone joins the military for some idiotic reason like "I need to hold a big gun and be a tough man". I am sure, however, that [i]most[/i] military recruits do not join for that reason. After all, if you're joining an organisation where you may one day need to give your life... I think it is safe to assume that your motivations are a little deeper than simple machoism. I suppose that when I look at the military, I don't make the assumption that they are a ragtag group of macho youngsters. At least, in Australia, I know that 99.9% of military personnel are highly professional individuals who join for all kinds of reasons. I would hate to pigeon-hole them - that would be unfair of me. I can't speak for Finland's military though, obviously. If I lived in Finland I may have a different point of view.[/font] [quote]If you thought that in a war situation I'd just sit tight and do nothing, you're mistaken. I'm a professional social care worker, so I'd be of much more use in taking care of children, old people, the disabled etc. than rotting in prison for not going to the battlefront. But unfortunately those in power don't see that, because they were all raised to be "true men".[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]And that's totally cool. I would hope nobody would argue against that. After all, wars require more than soldiers - just look at the critical role of nurses during wartime. There are many famous nurses in Australia who surved during the world wars. They may not have held a gun, but they treated people at the battlefronts and took great personal risk. They are heroes too. As I said, I could not presume to speak for Finland - if your military is all about jingoistic macho ideals...then yes, that's an issue. But I can safely say that I don't have the same concern about my country, thankfully. Edit: And I, for one, do view this as a legitimate discussion.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]There are some excellent examples here. Another would be the Royal Australian Navy, which is obviously not at war most of the time. Those naval vessels that remain at home bear a similar role to the US Coast Guard - along with customs-specific craft, our Naval vessels are regularly involved with customs and border security-related matters. Naval vessels are also sometimes engaged in searches for missing persons (although I'd say this usually falls back to the SES or some other related service). Then there are anti-proflieration efforts as well as security support for much smaller pacific nations that don't have their own naval forces. There are probably too many aspects to list here, but I think the point still comes across. Still, I suppose the point is that military organisations often play other important roles in society outside simply "warmongering".[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think you are right, Allamorph. I think it's important to be able to respect and express a range of views - including those that acknowledge the legitimate role of the military at the present time (whether engaged in war or not). I personally believe that military service offers more to an individual and a society than "just more soldiers". In many countries, the military is far more a part of the community than that - which is why, to some extent, generalizations don't work terribly well. And then of course there are countries like Switzerland, which have a sophisticated military force, despite their neutral status in international affairs. So yeah. One experience is one experience...it is a big mistake to over-simplify these issues. I think my biggest gripe when it comes to these discussions is the lack of historical perspective. When I was at University I came across many "pacifists", yet none of them were [i]true[/i] pacifists. None of them knew a single thing about history or about the context through which the military has been engaged historically. I feel that reasonable debates can't occur without reasoned points of view on all sides.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't know how popular the Jukebox was on theOtaku, but it was never terribly popular at OB. In fact, I don't think it was responsible for anyone visiting or staying here. Right now we link to theOtaku's podcast (other than on the Caramelldansen skin, of course). It makes a bit more sense this way, although I suppose having the Jukebox [i]and[/i] the podcast would be good. We don't want things to get too confusing, though.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]You can still end the day if you want. Don't forget that they are flying at night... and Jack is asleep in my post. There's no reason why they can't return to High Czenoble in the morning. In fact they would probably have to get some basic repairs in Muldova and [i]then[/i] fly off (which can be mentioned briefly). So feel free to start the next morning if you like. I will include a post that fits in with whatever you write.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, I've posted. In fact I guess I will have one more post with Audrey if my current post is okay. I really didn't know where to go with it, so I decided on a couple of things that made sense to me. I still have to proof read it and check off a few things, but I hope the gist of the post is okay.[/font]

[center][img] http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8797/audreyavatarxe5.jpg[/img] [img] http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/Runaway511/almagest/jackavatar.jpg[/img] [/center] The small airship struggled as it broke through thick cloud. Its small engines whirred and sputtered. Jack was sitting in the pilot's seat, gently guiding the craft through the unusually silent night sky. A blanket of ivory sprawled below them. Thick columns of black smoke penetrated the silvery blanket in places. Half of the crew was gone. The remaining crew were nowhere to be seen; they had disappeared inside the vessel's modest cargo bay and were being attended to by Clarke. Audrey was the only crew member who remained uninjured; she sat in the tattered and worn co-pilot's chair, next to Jack. At first he did not talk to her. She could not imagine what he must have been thinking at that moment. But, to her surprise, he reached over and put his hand on hers. Audrey did not know what to say. Jack had witnessed Meredyne's death and Audrey knew that there had been a relationship of sorts between them. 'I'm sorry about Meredyne,' said Audrey awkwardly. 'I didn't know her, but if she found herself in your company, she must have been a special woman.' Jack almost smirked. He flicked a switch on the instrument panel in front of him and the airship's hull shuddered. 'Her engines are damaged from gunfire,' he said. 'She's having some trouble at this altitude.' Audrey looked away. Jack had avoided her question. She felt bad for reminding him of what had just happened. 'Don't worry about Meredyne,' said Jack softly. 'I know that she died a proud Czenovian, at least.' 'There's something I just can't understand,' said Audrey after a brief pause. 'The Underdogs surrendered - that part made sense. There's no way their fleet would ever be able to defeat Czenovia's military. And yet...' 'What is it?' asked Jack. 'Well, when the Underdogs surrendered, the First Fleet destroyed them. I just expected more, especially now that Gaul is no more. I almost thought they would agree to a truce or a ceasefire. The only thing they achieved is to make the New Czenobles even more angry.' Jack nodded slowly. 'I suppose that's how Imperial military machines work,' he mumbled. 'They are given the perfect chance to right some serious wrongs and they blow it.' Audrey shifted uncomfortably in her seat. 'I mean, they had that chance to singlehandedly wipe-out the rebellion [i]and[/i] satisfy all sides. Yet they chose to be petty.' Jack turned to Audrey and smiled for the first time. 'Look, I wouldn't worry about it too much. You can't expect the best from everyone, especially people in positions of great power. The Dynasty has ruled this nation for so many generations - do you think they will give that up easily? Revolution is the only solution for those who have no voice.' 'I suppose so,' replied Audrey. As she looked out the windows again, Audrey did not see any more black smoke. All she saw was a pearly white expanse that stretched deep into the horizon ahead. 'Where are we going?' 'We have to stop in Muldova for some light repairs,' said Jack. 'This bucket of bolts isn't going to make it all the way back to New Czenoble. Lucky you're a better pilot than you thought; any more hits and she'd have crash-landed for sure.' Jack rubbed his eyes with one hand. He must have been exhausted, thought Audrey. He'd been awake for hours on end and he'd put himself at great risk. 'Listen,' whispered Audrey, 'why don't I take the controls? You should go the pilot's quarters and lay down...you will need your energy and if anything else happens, we'll need your help.' 'All right,' said Jack hesitantly. 'I suppose you are right. You can get us to Muldova can't you?' Audrey nodded. 'I can. You just need to rest now.' Jack and Audrey swapped places. As she took the controls, she felt Jack's hand on her cheek. As she turned to face him, she felt his lips touch hers. It was a surprisingly gentle kiss from someone who was otherwise so rough around the edges. As he pulled away from her, Jack smiled again. 'Thank you, lass.' Jack had gone to sleep thirty minutes ago. They were getting closer to their destination. Audrey found it difficult to keep the ship on a straight path; the gyroscopes that controlled pitch and yaw were faulty. In fact, Audrey thought it was much like being at sea, as the vessel rolled delicately over an ocean of clouds. Just as she was preparing to descend, Audrey heard an odd electronic crackle nearby. At first she thought it was just another piece of malfunctioning hardware. But as the crackling became louder, she soon realized that the ship's communication system was lighting up. A small red light flashed on the instrument panel. Above it, Audrey saw what looked like a small telephone. She balanced the controls carefully and took the phone in her free hand. The voice on the other end was vaguely familiar, but she could not place it. 'Hello? Is this AV 104? Come in, AV 104.' Audrey glanced around the bridge. Sure enough, she saw the moniker "AV 104" embossed on a small brass panel near the window. 'This is AV 104. Who are you?' For a moment Audrey felt a slight sense of panic. What if the military was closing in on them? They wouldn't stand a chance in their current state. 'This is Agron Deacon, adviser to the Dynast King.' Audrey froze in her seat. Her heart pounded in her chest. Now was the moment of truth. 'What do you want? The battle is over.' After a moment of static, the voice spoke again. 'You are the only Underdog crew we can identify,' said Agron. 'The remaining Underdogs were either killed or arrested on sight. I believe Jack is with you...' Audrey suddenly realized what was happening; Agron was Jack's father. Surely, then, his intention was not to apprehend them. 'Jack is here,' said Audrey slowly. 'I am piloting the vessel now.' 'I see,' said Agron. 'What is your name?' 'Audrey. Audrey Bertrand. Listen, I don't want to play games - state your intention.' She heard a sigh on the other end. 'Do not be afraid, Audrey. Nobody is following you. We do not seek your arrest.' 'What, then?' 'The King has indicated that he wishes to talk. He wishes the war to end once and for all.' Audrey did not know what to think. Was this simply a hoax, given the military's performance after the Underdogs' surrender? 'I don't understand,' replied Audrey angrily. 'You destroy the Underdog fleet - [i]after[/i] it surrenders - and then you have the nerve to suggest some sort of compromise? Your military made its position very clear only a couple of short hours ago.' Her hands were shaking as she tried to steady the controls. 'I'm sorry,' said Agron as he sighed deeply. 'I have no way to convince you. You will have to rely on my word. My son is on that ship, Audrey...there is no way I would do anything to harm him. Please, I urge you and your crew to talk with the King.' 'We are not Underdogs,' said Audrey finally. 'We are sympathetic to their cause, but we were never members.' For a moment, Audrey heard nothing but static. And then, finally, Agron spoke again. 'I understand,' he said. 'Unfortunately, we believe that the entire Underdogs leadership has been killed...there is nobody left. I urge you to at least speak to my son. Tell him that his father contacted you. I will await your response.' And with that, the phone went silent.

[quote name='Desbreko'][color=#4B0082] [color=#4B0082]I remember that. I downloaded the little package you posted but lacked the knowledge and inspiration to actually make anything at the time. On that note, it seems like it would be really hard to design a good skin without having access to the style manager and being able to see it in practice during development. While working on the Caramelldansen skin I had to tweak it a lot as it progressed, to keep colors consistent, fix spacing, and stuff like that, because I would notice things looking a bit off when put together on the page. Also: I split this off into a new thread to keep it from taking over the April Fools one.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]This is precisely why I've been so hesitant to launch any public event for it. It's just too difficult to design a skin properly without having access to the relevant CP stuff. So I'm not sure what the alternative is - perhaps to still allow people to put together a graphics pack that we can adapt. *shrug*[/font]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"] Though in all seriousness, Justin if you happen to read this, it would be cool to create a skin making event for OB.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]We tried this with staff at first, but there wasn't a single bite - despite some people really pushing me to make all the relevant info for skins available. So that was disappointing. Maybe it's time to give it another shot in the wider community. At least the banner-making competitions are generally fairly popular.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yes, those edit/reply buttons are truly mesmerizing! :catgirl: Now we know that this little incident will live on in infamy. Meanwhile, new members will be scared to death (or oddly entertained) when first choosing a skin at OB, lol.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]While I haven't played many games lately in general (my brother's Xbox destroyed my copy of Bioshock...), I [i]have[/i] had a go at Bully on PS2. Yes, I'm a little late to the party on that, but I saw that my brother owned it and I asked to try it. For those who haven't played it, it's quite a bit like GTA - but set in a high school. Surprisingly the formula works pretty well actually. Even taking the classes is kind of fun. When I read about that I thought it'd be a chore, but it really isn't. I think it's also interesting that despite your schedule as a student, you can still pretty much do whatever you want; it's just that, obviously, if you don't attend class or you trepass at night...things get more difficult. The only issue, as far as I can tell at this point, is that the game will become repetitive very quickly. My sister also borrowed Bully - she loved it, but told me that unfortunately it gets stale pretty fast. Other than that, I have to re-aquire FFXII. Someone lent it out to a friend (no doubt one of my siblings) and it seems to have disappeared forever. My only option is to re-purchase it. Unfortunately it's still full price here. Ouch.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]sbsp, please don't think that we are entirely unsympathetic. As I mentioned earlier, many of us have used myOtaku for years. And we got used to its features, especially its degree of freedom/customisation. However, I think we are trying to make the most of Worlds. Objectively speaking, Worlds offers several key features that myOtaku doesn't. The ability to have multiple Worlds, guest posters and other elements is actually a pretty big deal - some members have really taken advantage of this and produced great sites. I believe it is important to remember that Worlds is not a static site, just as myOtaku wasn't. As Adam mentioned, it's been launched with far better quality than myOtaku was back in 2003. As time goes by, I am sure you will see further additions and changes to Worlds. Adam and co. have never been satisfied to just sit back and leave things the same - Worlds will be no different in that sense. Like you, I have a number of suggestions on how to improve Worlds and make it a truly desirable option compared to myOtaku. But, you know...that will come in time. For now, my advice is to continue to enjoy myOtaku and to take some time to explore Worlds and see what you can do with it. You may surprise yourself. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote]Here's the major point put up against people still hanging out on MyOtaku: those who stick with MyOtaku are anti-social and are mean to the new members for not wanting to talk to them.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I have never seen this sentiment, although I don't doubt that it may exist. Unfortunately these sorts of divisions happen when a site moves to a new system - Worlds is definitely the future of the network, but it's certainly nowhere near perfect in its current form. I do know that new themes are being developed, but I also hope that there will be added options and flexibility. I can't speak for Adam's reasoning in terms of why Worlds is so limited compared to myOtaku (although I think a lot of it has to do with ease of use for people who don't have the time or in-depth knowledge to do all of the HTML). However, I'm sure that we can add more features and options to Worlds [i]without[/i] over-complicating the system. So in that sense I'm very much in the same boat as you. I don't know how Worlds will evolve in the coming months, but [i]my[/i] hope is that more sophisticated options will be added for the "power" users, who [i]want[/i] to move from myOtaku but can't because Worlds doesn't offer what they need. I am sure Adam is aware of this need and I'm sure that Worlds will continue to grow - we shouldn't assume that its current form is the way it will be forever. I think the foundations are strong, but I also think that more options are needed. I don't believe that the addition of Worlds was a screw up at all though. There are multiple reasons why it was necessary to develop a new blogging system - the foundation for Worlds is far more powerful than myOtaku and there's an added flexibility for the developers as well. I think the key point here is that myOtaku is being kept largely to satisfy members who want to keep their myOtaku pages. But my understanding is that there will be no new developments on myOtaku. Worlds is essentially the "new" myOtaku and so it will receive the development upgrades and so on in future. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Sorry guys, I have been away since Thursday. Things have moved on significantly since I last caught up, so I will reserve my next posts until the following day. I'll probably do one more post with Audrey and probably just one more with Gustave, depending on how much I have to include.[/font]