Rebdragon

Well, I hate to say it Jaziek, but I finally did catch up with Geass today. It's pretty good so far [not amazing, but okay] and I have to admit that I am getting into the plot and some of the relationships [Karen and Lelouch, for example, is sadly of interest]. It's finally naturalistic enough for me, so I think I'll keep watching. It's interesting that everyone compares it to Death Note, and I felt much the same I suppose, in my own mind kind of thinking of it as a forced, okay fusion between that anime and Gundam. A key difference I've found though is that the intellectual combat is a very different kind of intelligience from DN. Code Geass seems to be entirely based upon chess-like mind games. Lelouch wins his battles with a screen in front of him telling him all his teammate and enemy positions, and acts as if playing a chess game. His opponents, namely Cornelia and Scheizel (sp?) are much the same in the way they think when in battles of wits with Lelouche. Apart from the chess aspect they don't seem all that smart, and sometimes even stupid in the way they act. In DN, not once, ever do you see chess played, nor even a hint of chess-like thought process. It's all just advanced, essentially unemotional detective minds combatting each other, so intellectually speaking, it's better. Code Geass, thus, has the Gundam aspect, as well as the emotional relationships, as, from what I can tell, almost simply a compensation for the lesser intelligience of the show. Oh, and the fanservice. Christ almighty there's a bit much of that [is it just me or have they made that Karen's signature camera angle or something?]. SN: Who else really hates Nina's character? I'm having trouble thinking of a character in anything I've ever read or watched who is more annoying and pathetic than her :S.

Err, not really. I think reading your post mind-[bleep]ed me more than I already was :? . I mean... as politically correct as these people want to be, is there even a consensus on the definitions of these words? For that, I'd love to ask for anyone who at least half-way understands this to label those ten cases I've listed. That's the only way I can think of to straighten this [cabbage] out in my head...

Ugh. People like you are a dime a dozen in these parts. If you're mature as you say you are, drop the defense mode [as seen in your above post] and get your act together. You're debating here, act like it. Please do not strawman me. My point was not "drinking is bad for you", it was "adolescents and children can not, almost invariably, handle alcohol properly". Using the words you made up, your point is correct [:the paragon of a strawman]. But using mine, that is, the one's you're supposed to be responding to instead of putting words in my mouth, you are incorrect. Society seems to have discovered that as human beings get older they tend to become more mature and, consequently, more apt for handling such things as those of the topic at hand- alcohol and cuss words. Society dictates that adults are fit to handle such things, and inversely by the theory of age:maturity correlation, children and adolescents are not. True exceptions are rare nearly to the extent of nonexistence. That is why, as society has found, adults are granted the right to drink alcohol, but children are not. That is why adults are expected to teach their children about such things before they are truly allowed to use them. That is why, in society's eyes, this is wrong.

Just because you're a nerd doesn't mean you're mature. From what I've seen of you, I'd bet against it too. Yes, you can. An adult can be in the middle of drinking a beer and at the same time scold his son for doing so. Illegality as well as relative maturity:age correlations support the suppresion of rude language and drinking among minors. The rude language/cussing [the topic at hand] because society intends for kids to retain innocence at a young age, to teach them goodness as well as booklearnin' to help them grow proper and whatnot, the drinking to keep the immature from negatively affection society [drunk driving, etc.]. A teenager should not handle alcohol if they can not use it properly. In much the same way, a child* should not handle cussing if they can not use it properly. Understood? *or rather, anyone, but that's a debate for another thread that's probably been posted at least twelve times anyways.

I'm confused :| . Could someone please explain her condition in detail, and to boot, lend me a source explaining the exact definitions for words having to do with this problem, like transgender and transsexual? All I'm finding on the web is blanket statement definitions usages for those two words, often seeing them used to mean the same thing, when I thought they meant something more than just "gender confusion" [which is a vague enough definition to piss me off]. Ie, what would the labels be for all ten of these: (1)Someone born physically male with a male part, but thinks they have a female brain. Same as (1), but has surgery and changes everything to appear female but that part. Same as (1), but tries to make everything female, including that part. (2)Someone born physically female with a female part, but thinks they have a male brain. Same as (2), but has surgery and changes everything to appear male but that part. Same as (2), but tries to make everything male, including that part. (3) Is born physically male but with a female part. Same as (3), but has surgery to make their body appear female, while keeping the female part. (4) Is born physically female but with a male part. Same as (4), but has surgery to make their body appear male, while keeping the male part. Okay, if I can get some consistency on answers to this, that would be great. I keep finding contradictions and irregularities on the web, so I'd love to clear up some of the confusion :| .

Well get with the times. The price's are not Jagex's prices they are Player prices. Merchanting has never been easier, I make 2-20M a day for 5 minutes worth of playing. No on has the right to say merchanting exists anymore. You do not have the skill of true merchanting, the kind that is now dead. You have the ability to click "choose high price" when selling an item, "choose low price" when buying one. Congratulations. Here's a cookie.

Congratulations. You have now succeeded in attacking multiple posters without making a point in the process, an extemely weak and exaggerated one at best. There's a name for that, isn't there?

Militarily? Err... unless you're talking about nukes, not yet mate. Possibly not ever, but that's for the future to decide. The right of marriage? I settle my case. Rest. REST. <<<<

Being able to bend light around an object in such a way that all possible observers [every angle from every distance] is ludicrous with today's technology. If I had to bet on this, it only takes in the possibility of one observer, of infinite. Basically, they [probably] can only make an object "invisible" from only one point of view, most likely when both are stationary and the object is small [and, in my opinion, they probably havn't even got near perfecting that, based on personal speculation and a non-offering of viable sources]. Discounting this statement has become so old it's [almost?] not even worth it any more. Oi: If you're going to pull a loophole, I'm going to anticipate that, save us two posts, and respond with "flatearth society", i.e., saying that twenty seconds from now "people" will still believe that the earth is flat. If you intend to respond that that makes you right anyways, then I can respond that that makes your entire post moot by degrading the definition of the word "people" to a loose definition of "at least two humans on this planet", rather than the definition that most would assume: "the majority". It all simply comes down to you needing to erase that line from your post to keep your point valid. Being anal about technicalities if fun as hell.

What a monumental waste of time. I suppose that's the genre nerds are used to I suppose, so whatev I guess.

I remember hearing this before and also remember it being BS.

Pah, the first page is bad, but nothing like the last one. Anyone remember the last thread? Three pages straight of talking about how manly everyone thinks they are :lol: . For me, the last episode of FMA. Swear to god.

Unhealthy habits and lifestyles die hard. If it's bad, people should stop. Just because you seem to care little for other's well being does not mean that they shouldn't. Mentally, physically, socially healthy, to desire another to be as such is to be properly human. Ignoring their problem is to wish them ill. "No-lyfing", of either variety of which you speak, is unhealthy for a person and hurtful to the people around them. Relaxation is a necessary part of functioning in society, but to take it to such levels is to be a burden on society and a burden dropped upon oneself, to whatever levels it is taken. It is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, and post-poning such rehabilitation, acting as if when they do it all their life as a teenager they're suddenly stop at some magic age, that is both irresponsible, illogical, and ill-befitting a proper human. It is, as one would say, a cancer upon society, something that limits growth on both the invidual and macrocosmic level. Why then, do you choose to ignore it?

As a naturalist, ya, I'd say the only thing left of us after we die is going to be six feet under.

[bleep]ing doomsayers. Every-[bleep]ing-where.

If Nadril will pardon me for using a comic he posted, my response to the lot of ya:

You troll better than the French surrender. Had to fix that a bit. No, no, the italian one was better suited. That, and it isn't cliche, for what that's worth.

The f'ing title of this thread is "no-lifing" buddeh. The difference is, for all intents and purposes here, invisible. You're actually evading so much that I can't even tell what point you're making anymore. You seem to agree that no-lifing is terrible, but you continue to act as if, in spite of that belief, you think that it's not a problem or something that needs to be fixed. You're talking in circles and making no points whatsoever, simply agreeing with us on the surface as an attempt to escape appearing in the wrong. Stop it, 'cause you're starting to degrade the already tenuous post count:intelligience correlation that I once held dear.

Rephrasing: "It's a terrible lifestyle. My only argument against you, thus, is that if I want to kill myself spiritually, I very damn well will, and there's nothing you can do to stop me from destroying my soul from the inside out by boxing myself in my parents' basement for my entire life. Ha, I win."

God one can only hope you're joking.

Right, like some junkie is better than a dragon slayer >.>

Being stupid is as much of a trait as being smart. They're simply different ends of the spectrem. The analogy goes with being social and being asocial, extroverted and introverted; logically, it is a trait. Please rephrase that so you're making sense. Are you saying the fact that you or someone else here is socially weak doesn't affect me, so I shouldn't care, or are you saying that my social traits don't affect my social traits? Allow me to rephrase: huh?

<<

The insulting response here is so unbearably easy that I'm actually not going to say it. I'm just going to note how massively obvious the bait was, as if he was asking for it.

Nothing. That is a terrible joke mate.