Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: My Spidey Sense Is Tingling!

« on: August 13, 2007, 04:35:46 pm »

Anyways, I don't think I've been bitten much by spiders (isn't it spiders that once they bite you their venom or whatever is in you forever and that attracts other spiders? or is that bees?), much less radioactive spiders, but I was wondering...anyone else feel like they've got some weird/stupid sense like this?

It's with bees, and not because the venom stays in you forever.
Since a bee dies if it stings you, it will mark you somehow (the poison in the sting? smell? I'm not sure how) and this will signal to other bees from the same hive that you are a danger and should be attacked. It's not permanent either.

2

General Discussion / Re: hey, can someone help?

« on: August 13, 2007, 04:24:49 pm »

Why are you so concerned about what someone does with their own forums?

3

General Discussion / Re: Best female character of all time?

« on: August 13, 2007, 04:21:29 pm »

I've always been a bit fond of Celes from FF6.
Hrm. Reasons. Well, she's a General. And when Locke first meets her, if you have him dressed as a soldier, the reference is grand. =P

4

Chrono Compendium Discussion / Re: Forums are slower than hell

« on: September 27, 2006, 04:00:10 am »

I wonder what my definitive quote would be...

Probably something that would be likely to come out of either Rock or Gai's mouth...

Although quote in my sig not really a definitive quote. A definitive quote from J would still take at the very least 5 pages and most likely include a snappy title. It wouldn't quite be wise to put that in a sig.

5

Chrono Compendium Discussion / Re: Forums are slower than hell

« on: September 25, 2006, 10:47:10 pm »

Nothing so interesting. I'm sure you'll alter your sig eventually; I know I avowed not being a tomato; I think you are old enough to have your own sense of humor; and I'm sure you know what those words mean. Rather, every time I see your sig I wonder why, of all the things I have said, my tomato quote is what you decided to use.

Hmm. It seemed decidedly odd and rare enough a phrase to make a memorandum of, preferably somewhere where all can see, and be confused by.

6

Chrono Compendium Discussion / Re: Forums are slower than hell

« on: September 25, 2006, 12:06:40 pm »

Every time I see your sig, I wonder...

....?
If I'm ever going to change the quote or possibly add that line to it now?
If you've ever actually said that quote, because possibly you can't remember?
How old I am exactly to have such an easily amused and immature sense of humor?
Do I even know what "modus operandi" and "amalgam" mean?

...Zuh?

7

Chrono Compendium Discussion / Re: Forums are slower than hell

« on: September 23, 2006, 06:36:24 am »

So innocent

It's just.... Ramsus-sama? Business trip?
....hehehe

8

General Discussion / Re: May I ask for your opinion on a work of mine?

« on: September 19, 2006, 04:17:49 pm »

Considering that there is only one major event in the prologue that is such a short/abrupt event with everything else being of zero importance and so you decide not to focus on it at all (sometimes, something doesn't have to be important for a focus to be on it for awhile), this prologue seems a bit extraneous.
Depending on the flow of the first chapter, you might want to scrap the prologue altogether and merge it with the first chapter, or perhaps even start abruptly with the main character coming to and thinking back on events in the prologue that led him to where he is as he tries to get his bearings.

I'm curious - are you finished writing at all? Some writers are usually a bit too emotionally invested in a work that they are currently building on to take constructive criticism well. If you are finished, or just recently finished, you might want to put the story away for a few months until you can distance yourself from it, or forget what you write well enough that you can go through and view it as a reader might. Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to - it is simply a suggestion.

9

Chrono Compendium Discussion / Re: Forums are slower than hell

« on: September 19, 2006, 03:57:56 pm »

Is Ramsus-sama in a business trip?

This sentence is going to keep me amused forever.

10

General Discussion / Re: Faith-Based Topic

« on: August 27, 2006, 03:58:37 am »

Rat, the opposite of faith is not atheism. The opposite of faith is "no faith." I'm not saying we should spread anything; I'm not even an atheist. Nonreligion is a condition that exists by default when no religion prevails. All I am saying is that faith is a bad thing, and we should do away with it--or at least discourage it.

Hmm. Then could you please define what it means to have no faith to me? Because I am having difficulty understanding it as you mean it from how you are writing of things. Because to me it seems to be one of a few possibilities:

Agnosticism, but an agnostic believes that the existence of God/gods cannot be proven or disproven, and so for the most part an agnostic would be tolerant of other religions and faiths because they do not know if something exists or not. They would not be the first to discourage faith, or to call it evil. You are suggesting that people should not be tolerant at all, and take the chance to discourage faith (in other words, to attempt correcting people in what they think/believe, which to me suggests that they are wrong and need someone to lead them into the truth) if they should ever have the chance, or at least that seems to be how I'm reading it, so I doubt it would agnosticism.

Atheism is the belief that there are no God/gods at all, so my mind relates it more to what you are saying, and you might have to forgive me for that. If faith is evil and should be done away with, then it goes to say that one might not believe in a God/gods in that case to so easily write off faith, and then would be atheist. Also, if faith is believing in something, then I would think that no faith is believing in nothing, in which case wouldn't that be atheism?

Another option would probably believe in a deity of some sort, but does not think that showing an absolute faith or following religious doctrine is right, probably for reasons more similar along the lines of deism, or that whatever there is might have set things in motion, but does not care for anything that actually happens (I forget the name of the theory) - in which case, exhibiting a strong faith and allowing it to rule every aspect of your life is just as futile as it is to atheists.

11

General Discussion / Faith-Based Topic

« on: August 27, 2006, 03:07:18 am »

I find it a bit amusing that you're saying that one must go out and spread atheism because it is the only true path and right way of thinking, and all other ways are wrong and flawed and should not be tolerated because they are evil. We must enlighten the people! We need atheist missionaries! Wait, is it right to call them missionaries anymore!? Informers! Yeah, that works! We need informants for the people, to spread truth!

12

General Discussion / Faith-Based Topic

« on: August 26, 2006, 09:43:23 pm »

Read some Socrates. Not only do you have the right to tell someone their beliefs are wrong if they are wrong, it is just for you to do so. All opinions are not equally valid. If it was my opinion that the sky was purple and that the moon was made of cheese, I'd be a fool, and you'd be doing a good deed to show me the error of my beliefs.

The problem being that you can prove to a person that the sky is not purple and the moon is not made of cheese, but it is difficult to prove with any absoluteness that there is or isn't a God, seeing as religion hinges on faith than any actual physical proof, first and foremost (although some people are convinced by what "physical proof" does exist, reaffirming their beliefs).
So then, would it be one's job, working to do what is just, to convince someone of faith that they are wrong and that God, or any other deity for that matter, does not exist?
For Socrates, I suppose it would be right to question them on such matters to get them to think more deeply on their faith instead of taking things as they are told, but I'm not entirely too sure he would advocate "correcting" a person's faith.

Personally, I do think the world would be more peaceful without "organized" religion. Sure, I do believe in God...

Why do you believe in "God," with a capital G no less, if you don't believe in any religion? What is your basis for believing in God, if you can rely upon neither scientific evidence nor doctrinal assertion? Do you believe in God simply because you want there to be such a creature, or because you've been raised in a society where it goes without saying that God exists, and you've never gotten around to really thinking about that?

I don't think she said specifically that she does not believe in a religion, simply that organized religion seems to be the source of many conflicts, and then went on to express her beliefs of what people do do in the name of God that she does not think God ever intended.

13

General Discussion / Faith-Based Topic

« on: August 26, 2006, 07:37:59 am »

actually, the earliest religions believed in the mother goddess that created the rest of the god. The most well know being mother gaia & chaos (darkness if you an idiot.)

but hell, I only took mythology in collage and had to study this. what would I know?

I'm pretty sure the entire thing about most early religions being based on observable phenomenon is pretty standard faire to at least be mentioned in a mythology class, even at least once. But then, you took one full class in, if I am to understand correctly, a series of pictures pasted together, so what could I possibly know in comparison? (I had to say that. It was there.... there, staring in my face, demanding to be said... I apolgize)

also, Those without faith have, in study, been shown to have a worse luck then those who do.

infact, a recent study (look what I can magically pull out of my absurbness!) shows that people wanting to get pregant had 50% higher sucess rate with prayer then those without.

Those who recieved pray while ill had a higher recovery rate, as well.

But hey, its only a medical journal, it's all gotta be boogus shit I'm making up, right?
http://home.att.net/~stpaulparkucc/id47.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cardiac.html
http://www.mercola.com/article/prayer/dossey.htm
http://www.sptimes.com/News/040101/TampaBay/Prayer_makes_medical_.shtml
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/ppv.php?id=cqresrre2005011400
http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/medstudy.html
http://www.ishpssb.org/ocs/viewpaper.php?id=53&print=1
Athiest also have higher death rates, by the way.

There also more likely to do drugs, develop alcoholism, and get arrested.

I mean... there's no way a prayer could actually cause somesort of healing. no way having a belief in a god, that having a prespection of idea of faith could possibly help anybody.

Sure. I've gotta be.

Of course, another way to look at it is in the sense of prayer possibly acting as a placebo in a sense. If a person prays, and they believe their prayers will be answered, they might be more likely to create an instance in which a prayer is answered. Also, we do know that people have a reaction to placebos that cause them to essentially "heal themselves" if they believe that something is great medicine that is going to work and cure them. So if a deeply religious or spiritual person believes that praying is going to help them, I imagine you can expect the same reaction.

But then, that idea's only been posted in medical journals, so I obviously pulled it out of my ass. 

But it's all very questionable. You can't absolutely prove these things completely, because there are always things that hinge on the basic question of whether there is or isn't a God, which is arguable and difficult to determine as absolute. It's why it's called a faith - you have to have faith it's true. Yet, if you have faith and then pray, you might see a set of instances and believe that God is improving your life - and if there is a God, he is, and if there isn't a God, then it can so easily be the placebo effect or the fallacy of positive instances or something along those lines. See? It comes back to that question. Is there or isn't there a God?

Even the last link that you post leads to an abstract on a paper a person did that apparently concludes that it is difficult, even impossible, to determine whether or not prayer does or does not work, at least as far as how the experiments are conducted on the subject.

14

General Discussion / Faith-Based Topic

« on: August 26, 2006, 04:47:27 am »

its basically instinctual to have a faith. people have to believe into something. its be that way since before recorded history when we had sun gods and stuff.

Actually, most early religions seem to come about from people trying to explain things that occured in nature - notice how sun gods always have the duty of taking the sun across the sky, making sure it rose, making sure it set. Maybe they felt afterwards that they should be thankful for that,  or even afraid of the sun disappearing or failing to rise or fall or shine (I imagine eclipses helped spread that idea a bit), which most likely led to the worship aspect, rather than any supposed "instinct."

...Just randomly posting my two cents.

15

General Discussion / Re: Disney Create Paradoxes

« on: August 25, 2006, 01:27:27 am »

I'll bet crabs don't conduct royal underwater orchestras, either. Looks like The Little Mermaid should have done some fact-checking.

They don't!? 

You've just ruined my entire view of marine life, J.