JohnnySmum

Same here. Even without subs, it's worth watching just for the amazing visuals.

Sorry to take it a bit off topic, but does anyone know what the beat playing during the ending credits is called? That was a great tune 8)

Iraq should still be under coalition martial law. There's no sense in pretending everything's fine for democracy to begin there when stuff like this is still happening.

Chopin does some beautifully peaceful pianissimos - check out Nocturne in E minor. The Kingdom of Heaven soundtrack by Harry Gregson-Williams is also great. Get it cheap on Amazon :) Nobuo Uematsu (the guy that does the Final Fantasy music) also rocks hard. He's got so much brilliant stuff... One Winged Angel; To Zanarkand; Succession etc. Get the soundtracks to Final Fantasy 7,8,9 and 10: you won't be disappointed. Tchaikovsky's works are all excellent; I particularly like the Sleeping Beauty Waltz. Handel's Coronation Anthems are pretty good too.

1. Epic Score: Movies like Gladiator were so successful partly because of their great, uplifting music. 2. No corny dialogue: Compare something like Topgun or any Star Wars film ("NOOOOOO!") with the likes of Shindler's List/Sin City/Shawshank 3. Not directed by QT :P

I think the success of this Revolutionary (this is the revolutionary part of the console) controller will depend on how well game developers exploit the new capabilities it provides. Looking forward to using it in RPG/Adventure games as a virtual hand to interact with objects :)

Chris'll be in my prayers :)

7, 8 and 9 were all good; depends on my mood as to which of those is my favourite FF.

It's better than the previous Batmans, but nothing amazing imo. Liam Neeson sucked as a corny villain! Worth the ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã6.80 to get in though

Totally agree. I can remember how arrogant I was at age 13, and it's the same with most of the teenagers I know. Perhaps the media to overstate it to some extent, but there's no denying the fact that alot of teenagers are horrible.

If I werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t such an idiot, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d think up a poem myself, But it looks like I was never taught And IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m a smelly elf. I'm sure she'll be able to relate to it.

Okay i just came up with this: There was a time when I could smile, Before you stole my heart And led me astray with sweetest guile Your love never to impart. Hopefully I'll be able to think up some others later.

lol, this reminds me of the maddox page where he's talking about bad poetry on blogs and the like. Use words like nihilism (cause that comes up all the time in normal conversation). I've got some poetry competitions coming up in the near future, so I'll see what I can think up :wink:

Urghhh I HATE puzzle boxes!!!!!! They reset if you put them back in your bank!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: Thanks for the guide, but it's having the patience to do the whole puzzle in one go that's my biggest problem.

wow mad - those pics of yours are really old!

The corners look fine to me. I'd put a rune hatchet on the windowledge instead. The arm still looks weird to me. I'd bring the elbow closer to his head and make the forearm shorter. One other note is the rope. The way it is now, it could be confused for something that helped pull the tree down or something, rather than as one of the materials for the catapult. I'd put the ropes next to the tree, rather than actually on top of it, just to cut down on the ambiguity. Other than that, great sig (especially the tree - I love the way you blended the different shades together :))!

:shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right. We're more important than animals because God created us with a soul, to be the one creature that can have a relationship with Him. I'll make it clear that I'm against cruelty to animals and the like, but there is no moral implication in killing an animal for food (as long as it's done humanely). Even if you leave Christianity out of it, it's not practical to not kill animals. We get valuable food and clothing from them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill animals? And at Daan, why does it matter at what stage the pregnancy is at? Even if the embryo is aborted before 3 months has elapsed, it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live.

Indeed, but carelessness is no grounds for abortion. Babies aren't parasits. Mothers get the advantage of absorbing stem cells from the foetus, which increases life expectancy and reduces the chance of cancer. Many scientists would disagree with you there. The host cell is alive; but the virus itself isn't. Hehe I'm not really sure why we're talking about viruses anyway:). I'm not sure how this is relevant to abortion? There is no moral implication in killing animals. Humans are a different matter. We kill millions of animals every day for food. Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important.

The operative word being stupid ;). In this case, many of the girls would be using abortion as a means of birth control, which in itself is pretty crazy, as it can render the girl infertile. Why should the baby die just because it isn't wanted?

Viruses don't respire or excrete; and are incapable of movement of themselves. I'd argue that they are not "alive" in the same way that prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are. Consisting solely of DNA in a protein coat (as I'm sure you know) they're more akin to biological toxins than traditional cells. A foetus on the hand consists of cells that are very much alive; its stem cells will one day form specific ones specialised to the task they will perform. I'd challenge that. There are stories of fathers raising a child that they thought was theirs, unaware that their wife had been unfaithful. They raised the child no differently to if it was biologically theirs. In this case it's the though that counts. In consensual sex, whose fault is it if the girl becomes pregnant? The couple are taking that risk; they should be willing to face the consequences of (often their own incompetence in using birth control) their actions. Ah, but again, those cells wouldn't create a human if left to themselves. It requires human intervention to clone something. The zygote that is formed from the sperm and egg will create a human if left to itself; and so preventing this from happening is to prevent a future person from living.

That claim is simply not statistically verifiable. Infact, mounting evidence shows the opposite to be true. I'm not sure about the validity about there not being enough homes for adopted children, but I'm sure that many Christians do adopt children. Is blood relation what's really important? Surely foster parents can love a child as much as any biological parents can. It's the same situation with surrogate mothers. What does it matter that someone gave birth to you? Indeed, and it is this vast well of knowledge which should dictate the outlaw of abortion; even without Christian views coming into it. It's not so much the bodies of the women, but the bodies of the unborn babies that are being protected. Those children have the right to life; Bush's policies on abortion protect this. It sounds more fanatical to me to allow mothers to kill their children than to prevent it. I don't see the significance in the fact that the baby wouldn't live without the mother. The mother wouldn't have lived either if she'd been callously aborted while still a foetus. You've relied heavily on science during your argument. By all scientific defitions, that embryo/foetus is alive: it moves, respires, senses, grows, can reproduce, excretes and requires nutrition. That's every feauture of life accounted for. There is no scientific or ethical base for the justification of the systematic murder of unborn children - abortion.

Because that embryo, given enough time, would become a human. I'll illustrate my point another way; people are still put in jail for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, because even if they didn't actually succeed in commiting the murder, they would have if given the chance. Seen the film Minority Report? It's enough that something will happen. Granted, the embryo doesn't have the same sensory ability as a baby, but if allowed to live, it will do. I'd argue that mothers don't have the right to abort their unborn children because those foetuses will become humans in the future. Any of us would be outraged if our parents had the authority to kill us, and why is it any different for an unborn child?

Is there? The DNA is exactly the same in an embryo/foetus as in a new born baby, and you could argue that a newborn baby has very little, if any, self-awareness either. Yet I'm sure that you'd be against killing babies. What's the fundametal difference? Tests show that the foetus is capable of feeling pain and reacts to various stimuli, just as a baby does. This can be answered with your own words: (Judeo-Christian) society as a whole is responsible for governing what is ethically acceptiable. By your reasoning, society doesn't have the right to imprison others; after all, what gives them the right? The answer is that it's for the good of the people as a whole, and I'd argue that abortion is detrimental to both the individual (the victim being aborted) and society as a whole (less value for human life etc.). it isn't. I know that alot of people will disagree with me on this point, but my stance is that as soon as the sperm has fused with the egg, discontinuing the pregnancy counts as murder. You've got all the genetic material there to create a human, and by all scientific accounts, that embryo is alive. A condom isn't murder because it prevents the sperm from meeting the egg. A sperm of itself doesn't contain all the genetic material required to make a person. Think about masturbation - by the above logic, men would be guilty of 300 million murders everytime they ejaculated. I've got alot of respect for you Pyro, but I don't agree on this issue.

I think it's wrong. Does the fact that the baby hasn't been born yet make it acceptible to kill it? Nothing short of murder in my opinion. As soon as the sperm meets the egg, you've got all the genetic material to make a person, and from then on, it's wrong to abort. The only exception is if the mother's life would be placed in jeopardy if she continued the pregnancy. Even if a rape results in pregnancy, the woman could always put the baby up for adoption. You wouldn't like it if your parents had murdered you.

:lol: Swishy nuuuuuuub