Rilha

I say that that's the reason we need to use proper grammar and spelling; the vast majority of those who speak English as a second language won't know what you're babbling on about if you're speaking Idiot.

I think it may well be Italian. That's as much as I can help you.

It's clearly a language transliterated into Japanese, which is far harder than things that are merely translated. Doesn't help that I don't know which language it's a transliteration of... If it's French or English, I can handle it.

Well, in Genesis it does clearly state that God made light on the first day and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. But why would that God create light appearing to be from the stars already coming to earth, for the sole purpose of our deception? Who's to say that it was solely to deceive us? Why couldn't it simply have been to give us light? But why would we need starlight when we have both the Sun and the Moon? Also, why would the Deity create the sun as being more than halfway through its cycle; why wouldn't It give us a young star, instead of a middle-aged one?

Thankees! ^^^^^

Well, in Genesis it does clearly state that God made light on the first day and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. But why would that God create light appearing to be from the stars already coming to earth, for the sole purpose of our deception?

I believe that a God may well have created it, but it's definitely not the Biblical deity. I have ripped most Christian ideals to shreds; I'm quite an iconoclast. Faith in the Bible (or any other holy book) is, to me, impossible. Creationists say that Existence is only several thousand years old. But think about it; in the universe, there are stars which are billions of lightyears away. For the light to have reached the Earth, the stars would have had to have been shining for billions of years, or the 'Deity' that created the universe would have had to create light en route to the earthjust to decieve us. I would not worship a God which would lie to us so willingly.

-.- That French was translated literally. Congratulations, you made any and every French speaker in the forums go 'Huh?'.

Thank you for giving an example of that in another language than english! :) I swear French chatspeak is worse than the English stuff, and that's really saying something. In languages with non-Roman alphabets, it's generally far better; the alphabets are more phonetic and leave less room for...variation.. I think you just mentioned the major point for us non-native english speakers. Phonetic. How it sounds. Myself, I think in Swedish (my native language) no matter what language I try to type/read. This means abbreviations usually make sense, as they are based on correct spelling of a word/expression For example: gtg: Got to go ty, ttyl: thankyou, talk to you later mith: mithril Omg, oh my god, yeah have no problems with that one omfg: why do you have to swear to make a point :evil: The internet shorthand on the other hand usually makes no sense until I try and say it out (semi)loud U. The letter u, I think the letter u as it sounds in swedish. That is in no way close to how the word you sound in english. 4. Four of something. Four of what??? (4 is fyra in swedish). Not in any way close to the word for in english which is what it is suppored to mean. Phonetic.... Yep, that is a key word! :) Once again thank you Rilha, for making an exellent point of how a "foreigner" read internet shorthand. In French, instead of 'de' or 'du' ('of' or 'of the') they often use '2' (deux) It threw me off for weeks. There are a LOT of non-native speakers in Runescape, primarily French-Canadian and Dutch. Not speaking English coherently is doing a great disservice to them; something I prefer to avoid. On a different note, has anyone ever noticed that if a 'literate' person is speaking with someone who's using netspeak, their speech almost infallibly improves? If you chat with them enough, it stays that way. :o

It's katakana, one of the Japanese alphabets. Katakana is used for foreign words in the language. There are some strange aspects to this particular bit of text; the 'Gi' then a small 'I' would imply that an 'I' follows the 'G', but it already does without the extra 'I'. 'Gyi', maybe?

It's Japanese. I'll have the translation up in a couple of minutes.

17 accounts. I have 17 accounts. They're all used for different purposes, some more strange than others... For instance, Thouartdaft's whole purpose in existence is to run around insulting fellow players in Shakespearian English.

I've started spelling things like a Brit since I've been playing Runescape, too; however, nobody really minds.

Thank you for giving an example of that in another language than english! :) I swear French chatspeak is worse than the English stuff, and that's really saying something. In languages with non-Roman alphabets, it's generally far better; the alphabets are more phonetic and leave less room for...variation. I have yet to see chatspeak in Japanese, for example. They use more kana than is accepted in most coherent writing, but that's it. Naara, the same thing has happened with numerous of my friends; my oldest and best friend is, in fact, a coherent person. That's actually the reason we're friends; we both noticed that the other didn't speak Idiot.

Chapter Six is UP!

That was...short. -.O

That was hilarious. I couldn't agree more. While playing Runescape, I am often asked questions about the way I type. "Y do u punctuat" they say. "Y do u spel rite?" This concept appalls me. Why don't they punctuate or spell 'rite'? I've decided that if I cannot comprehend what a person is saying, they are not worth my time. Another point that ought to be brought up is the non-native speakers. For them, it is nigh impossible to understand chatspeak! I would know; I have issues understanding French chatspeak. It took me a long time to understand that "keske vu fet" meant "Qu'est-ce que vous faites?"-- such things are utterly foreign to me. So, my fellow Runescapers, for your sanity and mine, please refrain from typing like a monkey with a keyboard.

You betcha. I have it finished now; It's a bit shorter than the other ones, but it should be sufficient for now. I guess all I needed was a kick in the posterior to make me write it.

Yep, there will be more chapters. I've been lazy; need to update! I've actually written half of the first chapter, but I wrote it in French; I must translate it.

ever heard of a black hole? technically it is something, but it is of infinite mass and has 1/infinite size... so yeah It's not infinitely small, it's the size of an atom. Neither is it of infinite mass; its mass is very great indeed, but to say that it's infinitely massive is false. Actually, the "black hole" part of a black hole has no mass. The entire black hole does, but the place where everything goes, the place that makes a black hole a black hole, has no mass. The centre of a black hole is a singularity, which can hold an infinite amount of matter. This is because it has infinite density, though it has no mass. (this is much more complicated than Newtonian physics, it is Steven-Hawkingian physics.) p.s. Wow this topic has really gone of on a tangent lol :D Ah, okay. Thanks for the information. ^^ Anywho, black holes are not what I'm talking about when I say nonexistence. My idea of utter nonexistence, I suppose, is far too abstract to be relayed in so few words. Yes, this topic has gone off on a tangent; frankly, I am rather surprised at the intelligence level in these forums. So many people in Runescape are utter idiots that one would expect forums about the game to be filled with morons as well; however, this is clearly not so.

ever heard of a black hole? technically it is something, but it is of infinite mass and has 1/infinite size... so yeah It's not infinitely small, it's the size of an atom. Neither is it of infinite mass; its mass is very great indeed, but to say that it's infinitely massive is false.

All to true in physics... if i punch a brick wall with sufficient force, it will exert an equal and opposite force on my hand, quite possible breaking the bones. This is NOT the same equal and opposite reaction that will occur if I punch my brother in the face. That is a reaction, but it has absolutely nothing to do with newonian physics.... and as for this non-existence existing... if you take a virtual container, with no substance or mass, and put into it all other empty containers, does the first container contain itself? The idea of non-existence exists, but the fact that I don't have a sister implies that I do have a sister is absolute garbage. The notion of my not having a sister exists because I don't have one, otherwise that notion would be false. Similarly, if something doesn't exist, then perhaps, and I emphasize that word, the notion of it not existing exists. However, if that were true for all objects in non-existence, then the definition of the word invention would be completely false as all things that did not exist and were invented were actually always there. So I guess the main bullet point here is that I disagree with your statement. BTW weird story, but not a bad one My original point was that everything has the possibility of existence; Inventions have the possiblity of existence. It's not that they've always been there. I never actually went into the 'equal and opposite reaction' thing when I came up with the original phrase. Everything has the potential for existence, including nonexistence itself. But nonexistence can't exist; and thus, it goes on. It's quite difficult to explain what I mean; it tends to utterly confound most people.

I request a Russian book!

Non-existance is: something that does not exist(Defintion) there for it does not exist thus making it exist as there is no explaination for something that does not exist because it can not exist. And there for if Non-Existance negates its self then the opposite, which must exist because Non-Existance does exist even though it does not, Would be the opposite to nothing which is everything which is infinity there for proving that Infinity does exist and there for a 'Something' Exists that is Infinite with an Infinite amount of possiblilites, because there is something with absoultely Zero possiblites. This is because everything has an Equal and Opposite reaction so there for nothing is the inverse of Everything so they must exist if the other exists, but if one exists and the other does not then neither actually exist there for proving that they do. Also it is impossible to disprove a negitive. Can you prove you are not a robot? But how would you know you could be a robot running an experiment that is investigating the art of disproving a negitive and therefore will not be aware of being a robot and therefore not be able to tell if you are a robot or not. Sorry for this off-topic post but it needed to be explained(Although I am aware this has most likely just confused you futher) Yay, you think like me! 'Tis rare indeed to find one who can not only follow my string of logic but expand on it.

Dahahahahah! That was amusing. Something that tastes really, REALLY bad is drinking milk after you eat a grapefruit. I'd imagine that fossilised Easy Mac pales in comparison to THAT.