Pete_the_Viscous

I quite like running-, in-jokes; the sort you only get with old friends. Travelling in a car overnight, and the day dawning. Sleeping. I don't know if anyone's made the "Women" joke, so I shan't, to be on the safe side.

Careful; caesurae are in the middle of verses, whereas these pauses are at the beginning.

It was a copied and pasted definition from dictionary. com It means: Die (meaning two) "click here to get and audio pronunciation of 'die'" "click here for the pronunciation key" Noun, plural=dies or dice The ( P ) is an emoticon type thing--a picture of a speaker. The (d) thing is how to pronounce die, but some of the symbols didn't copy. Check other words to see their plurals in the same place as "dies or dice"; check other dictionaries too, if you don't believe me.

I don't know.. I like college. As people have said, it's about the other things you do there. Still, the homework I get isn't that bad; I don't find it annoying like I used to find school homeworks.

Yes, but I when I started, no-one had posted. I didn't check back to see if anyone had before clicking submit. Oh, and: die2 Audio pronunciation of "die" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d) n. pl. dies or dice (ds)

This whole poem reeks of enjambment, though I'm not sure why it was employed--usually that's to either speed up the flow of the poem, or to crete a feeling of Time; I don't see that here. There's a load of alliteration, which, in each case is to emphasise the more important words... for example, the cat..cautious..covert bit. The "scythe-curve" image is probably there to remind you of the stooping posture of the thief as he sneaks around. I don't know. It's spaced out like that (I would assume) because it draws special attention to the lines that are indented. In the second stanza, where it says "and what they leave behind", the indentation is probably there to imply a pause in the speech; the speaker thinks that bit is particularly important. Also, this spacing stops the poem from developting too much of a rhythm, which is probably deliberate; meant to keep the reader on their toes, like the person wary of the thief. As I say, I don't know.

Actually, dice is the plural of die. The probability is (1/6)^6, as there are 6 possible outcomes (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), and 6 throws. When you are counting on two independent probabilities, you multiply the chance of one occuring by the chance of the other occuring to find the chance of them both (all) occuring. The chance is: 2.143*10^-5 or 0.00002143 which means that 99.99997857 out of 100, he'd not manage it. However, following So...uh.. Murphy's law, we all know that, if you don't want it to happen, it is 100% likely to. Do your friend a favor and become insanely jealous: that way he's sure to win. Anyway, someone correct me if I'm hideously wrong.

Just what I thought, Pryo. It does look good, and there are some nice touches--such as the little robots that run around: they have the wires moving and stuff. That doesn't add up to a good game, though... which is a shame. I'm not a huge fan of "shocking" games, as I can "shock" myself by thinking about mass murder when I least expect it! No, but seriously: I don't find it fun, just like I don't find Quentin Tarantino films like "from dusk till dawn" or "reservoir dogs" fun--though I do recognise the quality of the latter. For one thing, I didn't find the weapons on Doom3 all that satisfying. They felt good until you actually used them on a monster, at which point they felt unrealistic--insofar as plasma guns can "feel unrealistic". The monsters, however, are starting to grow on me. At first, I didn't like the new interpretations of the monsters, as I thought the imps looked like bog standard "generic monster number 16"s and the cacodemons like flying fish. What's more, they got rid of the hell knight's "image" which I thought a shame. I did rather feel that they'd replaced a lot of individualist monsters (again, insofar as an identical sprite can be an individual) with some "charred, melted flesh" and called it a monster. Now, though, having played bits of it again, it looks a lot better than it did. I don't know why... It does, though.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to say that what you said isn't true, or anything. Anyway, about asians doing well in education: it could be siad that most asians families in america moved over there of their own accord, to make money; whereas, a large amount of the black families are there because of the slave trade. Now, I'm about to be horrendously politically incorrect by saying this, and don't take my word for it anyone--I'm just trying to make a point, and it's probably not true--but the fact that the asians moved over there to do well, and the blacks moved over there because they were taken there could sugegst that the asians that moved there were generally more intelligent people. Not to suggest that black people who were brought as slaves aren't intelligent, but most of the asians there would be, as they'd only have come if they were going to do well. Besides which, racism against blacks is far common that against asians; at least, it is here. Anyway, I hope you didn't take what I said as my calling you racist, or anything like that; I didn't mean to. As I said, I'm not trying to suggest that what I've been saying is true, either. Nor was I trying to say that what you wrote didn't make sense; it does. I'm just saying that they're not "the facts", they're just "the figures". I'm stopping with this now, as I'm probably just agrivating people needlessly.

I consider anything that can be easily put down and does not fall apart OK, as long as it's one handed. After all, if you can pick it up, bite, and put it down, then it's no more risky than changing gear, or doing a handbrake turn.

I don't call myself a racist, but a realist. A racist is someone who puts a noose in the locker of a visiting black student. A realist is someone who just goes by the facts. It's not necessarily true, but those figures could all stem from racism: racist juries would likely vote against their target race; racist teachers might give children of other races a hard time, stopping them from getting as good an education; black people might find it difficult to get a job in a racist area, regardless of their qualifications. As I say, I'm not saying that's the case, but statistics aren't really useful in this sort of debate, as they can be interpreted it too many different ways.

One has to ask, then: if there is no work for them here, why do they immigrate? (I know that's not the only reason people immigrate).

Chimps do have opposable thumbs; all primates do.

By popular opinion they are bad, by the previews they look bad, people I know say they are bad, critics say they are bad. Stuff like Gigli, you got served, and from justin to kelly I would never watch those movies. So basicly you think what other people tell you to think? Not seing a movie because of the trailer I can understand but avoiding what could be the best movie you ever seen because a friend didnt like it is stupid. I try not to quote like this normally, but hey. I don't see many bad films: I recognise them as bad, then stop watching. I am therefore not qualified to talk about the rest of the film; they might not be all bad.

I think that apes certainly are. Having seen them in conversation on TV (that was cool--assuming it wasn't some weird hoax) I'm sure that apes are both self aware and intelligent. Other mamals, too, I think are: cats and dogs get embarrased, which one wouldn't expect of anyone who didn't have a sense of self. I don't know enough about other types of animals' behaviour, so I can't use that argumet for them. I don't think that things like flies and worms are aware of themselves; I think they have a mind, make desicions, et cetera, but I don't think that they think about things as complex as "being" or "death". Perhaps self awareness is linked with how much time an animal spends thinking: many mamals live a lot longer than most insects, and I think that, on the whole, mamals are the group of animals in which the most species are likely to be self aware. One might think that because things like insect larvae can live pretty much indefinately--they can sort of "hibernate", I think--they would cause problems with this ^^ idea. However, I don't think that they can think during that sort of thing. I think that some animals interact with others in a way which suggests that they understand that the other has feelings--if you follow. This seems, to me, to in turn suggest that the animals are aware of themselves and others of their kind "being"... but not necessarily that they are "self-aware" in the way that chimps are. (I say "in the way that chimps are", because one hears about them being shown themselves in a mirror and working out that it's actually them). Fish that swim in shoals don't necessarily interact with each other: they interact with "the shoal", but I'm not certain that they understand that the shoal is made up of fish; or if they do, then I'm not sure they understand that those fish are, like they, a thing receiving stimuli--in other words, I don't think that they consider the feelings of the other fish. Maybe they do, of course. This all depends on how far you want to take it, no? I mean, we're (specifically "you're") "self-aware"; we don't know if anything else even exists (but let's not go into that). Bacteria are almost certainly not self-aware or intelligent (for almost read: "I'm 99.999999999.......9999% sure). I suppose that there are also different levels of self awareness: for instance, I'm sure that dogs recognise that they themselves exist. I don't think that they would understand that the thing in the mirror is themself, but they might notice that their moving causes the thing in the mirror to move. We, on the other hand, are fully aware that we are people, and that other people are people (see "not going into this", above); and chimps are certainly seem aware that other chimps are "people". I don't think it's as simple a question as "do you think animals are consciously aware they are living?", because different animals are.. different. I'm pretty sure that most animals that can be said to have "intelligence" are aware that they make desicions: perhaps they do it subconsciously, but if they can make (relatively) complex desicions, I suspect that they have a mind, and if they have a mind, I suspect that they are on some level aware that they are alive.

Whiskey in the jar isn't a prime example, as that's a folk song. Comfortably Numb, however... pah. Tool did a good cover, but it was nothing like the original; it had the same tune and probably the same words (I couldn't hear it), but was completely changed--not "for the better", but it was worth doing, I think. The Scissor Sisters, on the other hand... I think it would be worse if rappers took each other's beats, as that's not as big a change as a change of genre. That Britney Spears one was bad, primarily because it was a song about people who subscribe to "rock and roll" style music, which Britney Spears (which I'm using as a collective term for her music) is not. It's like "Teenage Dirtbag": it doesn't seem right for that sort of music to be singing about iron maiden. Edit: ahem. I misspelled comfortably numb, because I first wrote it in lowercase, then remembered it should have capital letters, it being a song name. Hopefully no-one read too much into that. :oops:

The word berserk is from bher serkr, or bear shirt (bear skin, I suppose). That sounds very much like the beserk ability that barbarians have in D&D, after which they experience a period of winded-ness which reduces as they go up levels, as I recall.

Have you seen the video of someone playing an electric guitar to the mario tune? It's really good. I don't know where it is, however.

Very good, but didn't they do Tetris, too? That's Russian.

I find this tricky... I don't have a problem with people immigrating, but I do have a problem with the minority who cause the trouble and give the rest a bad name. The way I see it is this: if we can gather a load of healthy, successful people in the country who will make it stronger, then it's good. Unfortunately this is increasingly not what people immigrate for, is it? [disclaimer] anyone who's payed attention to my thoughts on racism before will try and ignore the fact that I'm trying to put both (legit.) sides of the argument down, and please not hold anything I say against me. I don't necessarily mean it all to be as harsh as it may sound; I just needed to structure it such. It's all very well for people to go to America to make their fortunes (or not, as the case may be, I suppose), but there's quite a lot of room there. England isn't so big, and, while people coming to help is good, people coming to sap resources is not. I do think that the present government is being too lax in letting so many people in, but I don't know all that goes on, so I'm not really qualified to comment. I'm going to anyway, however. I don't know how they screen people--if they even do, these days--when letting people into the country. Obviously, they can screen out diseased people; that's quite simple... odd that it isn't working, but that's not the point. What's unfortunate, is that they can't screen people for "being a nasty person" or "being a drain on society". I quite like that we take in assylum seakers. I don't like, however, that we take in people who don't really nead assylum as assylum seakers. For instance, I was not bothered when we got a load (sorry, I don't know the correct collective noun here) of kosovans located in our town. Actually, most of them (if not all--I don't know) got jobs in the local area, so good: they're helping the community. What's more, they brought in a teensy bit of culture to the backwaters. So, in this case, I'm all for giving people assylum. However, I gather that there are many, many people who are granted assylum who don't really need it; this isn't right. anyone of any race moving to England--including ex-pats moving back--would be a bad thing without good reason. Trying to squeeze more and more people in, and provide for them (i.e. provide all the things that one can expect when living in England, including the general standard of living) won't work unless those people do something to generate resources/provide valuable services. Obviously it's wrong that we live at a higher standard than a lot of these people... it's wrong, I suppose, that anyone be "poor"--though some might well dissagree, and I'd not argue with them at all. However, that doesn't mean that those who are less fortunate in another country should automatically have the right to come and be more fortunate here. Erasing debts, yes; providing clean water, yes; helping out when big disasters strike, yes: charity I approve of (as long as it's actually helpful, and doesn't just draw out an inevitable problem, or make a problem that could be overcome impossible to overcome). What I do not approve of, is the crowding of so many people into one area. Unless there's some legitimate reason for someone not to live in their country--perhaps there's some pogrom going on, and their race is being exterminated--then they should stay there; aid should be provided there not here. After all, people don't want other countries to invade their own, because it's their ancestral home, no? Why, then, should they be so eagre to move to another country when the going gets tough. <<-- that's aimed only at those people who haven't a legitimate (by my definition) reason to immigrate, not the people who do contribute. This really has nothing to do with race, apart from the fact that lots of people from other countries are of different races; it's not discrimination against other races, as the race of the people in question does not come into this argument. There are, of course, racists who disagree with immigration to this country due to their own xenophobia--this tends to cloud a lot of minds when people try and address this issue, and a lot of ineffectual moaners complain that one whole side of the argument is racist, which is just not true. It's probably the same set of people who complain about all the other issues. I've gone on for rather longer than I expected, sorry. Anyway, to sum up: government=gone soft, immigration=good but only if..., complainers=annoying and not helpful. I tell you, if the people who can't think straight would just shut up every once in a while, then the world would be a better place. This is one of the few flaws in democracy: there are lots of stupid people in the world. EDIT Yeah, I'll shut up now to set the ball rolling, before anyone tells me to.

The graphics on world of warcraft aren't that cartoony; they are a little, but this lets them get away with far more than the EQ people can in terms of realism. Sounds silly, but look at it this way: with realistic graphics for the main thing, people are going to expect realistic graphics for everything, which includes making places look realistic, and designing buildings to be realistic, etc. On WOW, the cartoony-ness not only adds a nice "imaginary" element to it (like the game, Alice), but also lets them create unrealistic settings, in that the cartoony style tricks people into suspending their disbelief somewhat.

Several things. I agree with Mercifull, in that I don't believe that being gay is immoral; people are born being gay. Your God allows sin, as far as I can gather, because it's the fault of the person sinning--if a man kills someone in a rage, it's his fault. However, how can it be the person's fault if they are born that way? It's like telling a left handed person to become righthanded, because well all know that there's something sinnister about lefties. Addiction to porn is just that: an addiction; whereas being gay (I would assume) is like being christian. Are you addicted to being Christian? No, it's something you are now. Who here knows any formerly gay people? Asking someone to become straight is probably like asking someone to change their political stance; it's brainwashing, and isn't their choice. Point two: I would agree with Astralinre about it being wrong to encourage it... if that were at all the issue. It's wrong to encourage any sexual preference.

Mind you, one can even attend a 6thform after a gap year--someone in one of my lessons did so... he was unemployed for quite a while in that year, and is quite determined to get through college and not let it happen again. I think that it's a worthwhile thing to do, even if you don't think you'll do well; even if you won't do well. Going to college and getting even low grades will show a lot about your determination to better yourself, and you'll certainly be more experienced when you leave, thus better equipped for whatever job it is you were going to apply for straight away. Anyway, EMAs don't require that you do well in college; just that you attend. In other words, you can get the money for going, even if it's not important to you. While there, you might pick up something useful anyway--in which case hooray. Another thing to take into account is that now you've (assuming I'm what I'm saying applies to you--you know who you are) left school, you have a whole lifetime to chop and change, whereas going to college is (usually) best done early, so as to get a good start in life. It's very much one of those you won't know until you try situations, and you can drop out if you don't like it; far better you do this than not try it, I'd say. Here endeth the lesson..... no wait... here.

I sort of see what you mean, but rap artistes are usually more creative than that; I gathered that they actually wrote their own material. I suppose it might just be the lyrics, though.

I know... but, as I say, there's really no (apparent) problems with it here, and I wouldn't want to disrupt things unnecessarily--might be a good excuse to get out of doing some manner of work at some point.... hmm. :)