The Real ET

Sorry that this post is off-topic, but I just really gotta say... Wikipedia is the devil and never, EVER post it as a source for anything. If the article's sources are good post those, but a Wikipedia article is a pile of mush.

Actually, to be honest, i think it'd be cool to have it happen :oops:. I am actually collecting weapons and have a plan in case it happens. :oops: Me too. in fact, i have 18 plans. 15 involve throwing someone i hate to the zombies whilst i run away, 1 where i head up to Alaska (rotting flesh freezes very well), 1 where i hole up in my attic with guns and enough supplies for 2 weeks, and the last one involves me deliberatly infecting myself with the zombie virus in order to destroy those I hate. what happens after 2 weeks in plan 17? Like i'm telling you potential zombies.... Red vs blue ftw Hahahaha!! I miss them... R.I.P. Well... everyone in the series...

Not as much as if you had to wait four months between updates, merely to look at it for less than half an hour. Actually, if we were to go to your limit of 100, it'd be over five months. Can you honestly tell me you'd "stay in touch" with your method :P ? This method is definitely the best for keeping readers, well, reading :) . It may be short, but it's still something I can't wait to read in the morning (or whenever I first can during the day), and with one a day I have more time to think about the plot and details. Two a day would be nice, but I don't think he has the time to burn himself out like that (well, I believe so...). And guys, may be a delay on the outline (especially since no one's offering motif ideas :P )... started school today, got hit with a nice pile of over 4 hours of homework. And that's only the first day >_>. Ouch, we can wait. :thumbsup: Still no motif ideas though...

1. No, a real life friend is always about a game. 2. No, I'm real close with all my ingame friends and wouldn't betray their trust. 3. When would this ever happen? If I didn't know him, sure. 4. No, that's against the rules and I'm not a rule breaker. =P 5. Duh, their fault. =P 6. Yup, their fault again. =P 7. Maybe. Depends on how valuble and how I'm feeling. My heart has been hardened by losers keeping my stuff when I die, even when it's worth less than 100k. >.<

It's not about personal views. According to many religions homosexuality isn't natural. To many religion is seen as the truth and science is just the devil's word. What you see as nature can be seen as trickery to someone, and what they see as nature can be seen as foolishness to you. Most religions involve God creating all that is natural, therefore nature itself and governing those laws of nature. I don't see how anyone religious or not could see nature as evil. Many people see that the devil (or other evil spirit) has messed with nature resulting in many things to be taken as real, but aren't (like dinosaur bones).

I would read whatever that is, if it wasn't Wikipedia... :evil:

It's not about personal views. According to many religions homosexuality isn't natural. To many religion is seen as the truth and science is just the devil's word. What you see as nature can be seen as trickery to someone, and what they see as nature can be seen as foolishness to you.

Why would we always have to cool it in an order of ten though?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but intuitively, the light that we would see would have left earth 200 years ago by the time it got back to earth (100 x 2) would it not? I'm tired, I could be wrong on this. No, that's right. thanks for the article though. I knew mass didn't change, but with all I've been learning from this thread I thought it best to keep my doubts. :D

The post I'm making is incredibly off-topic, but exactly! Why can't the religious people just say, "Okay that's how it works, but God made it that way and he's the one behind it all." And why don't the scientists realize that their theories, laws, and conjectures don't disprove the existance of a high power? It would make things so much easier... >.< Sir, scientists recognise quite well thier theories do in fact not disprove any supernatural notion. If they do not, they aren't aware of the FIRST thing about science and thus are not to be called scientists. What is that FIRST thing, you ask? The FIRST this is that science is limited as a naturalistic methodology. It knows nothing and speaks nothing of the supernatural. :wink: There is a lot of different sciences that have been emerging in the last century or so that deals a lot with the super natural. Mostly ghosts and the like, but there are some smaller scientific sects out there trying to find solid proof of the existance or absense of a higher power. I'd give you some sources, but I think all that stuff is a crock and don't want to waste my time looking it up. =P

I didn't care too much about my 16th birthday. It was a damn good year though. : :wink:

Its not natural. Heres what I honestly think. Gay people feel friendship around guys(they think it is romantic love) and they feel love for women,(but they think it is just friendship) I honestly do not think anyone is naturally gay, I think it is just a misconception (to them) of thier feelings, and they "become" gay. Explain bisexuality then. Personally I think bisexuality is just confusion. All my bi friends turned out to be gay in the end, but just weren't ready to admit it to themselves. Bisexuality in every case I've seen is just a case of confusion or experimentation.

Ah! Theme was the other word I was trying to think of. Thanks for those, it'll make my posts less monotonous :P . Really? I read a number of online comics (though none like this) and they all update around midnight EST. I'm pretty sure there's some kind of programming for that though. =P

I had to bring this back to life and while clueing I got a perfect oppurtunity. :D

I wish that even began to make sense. =P :XD:

Use the best bones you can on a gilded altar for fast results. I like the ectofungus (spelling?) better though. :wink:

Which ever is highest level hits higher. Then you have to choose between which effect you like more. All info can be found here.

I have no idea if those a real answers, but they made me laugh oh so very much. If they are real answers then the series is worse than I thought. =P

This article should tell you all you'll ever need to know about this horrid series. Well, at least I think it's horrid. Some people obviosuly think differently.

Good luck, I've given all my suggestions already. :thumbsup: Couldn't think/find a synonym for motif either...

I'm pretty such that counts as announced with the bird graphic update they did last month.

It irks me when people think that the world is going to be destroyed in a modern 3rd world war. Speaking hypothetically, lets suppose Russia and China [despite them hating each other] team up against the US and the EU, and fight a world war, and lets say all the countries involved get their major cities and government offices taken down. Even in the countries involved in the war, there will still be millions of people left in the US, as well as all the other countries. No one would bomb North Dakota, no one gives a [cabbage] about North Dakota, as well as many other states. Even if they bombed all the major cities in California, there would still be thousands of people there. Same goes for Russia, there are people that live all over the place in Russia. Same goes for China, and Europe. And this is just counting the countries involved. Granted, there's still Canada, all of South America, all of Africa, all of Australia, some of Europe and America, and all of Antarctica, in case subzero temperatures are your thing. I believe those people are talking about the effects of atom bombs. Sure the bomb itself wouldn't hit a desolite region of the world, but the radiation could have an effect on their water, food, etc. (depending on where the bomb went off and several other variables) Also, a high amount of radiation would destory our environment in general. There's always a chance that people would be left, but not without consequences (ranging between genetic make up and standard of living).

The embryo does not regard itself as an individual. That is the key difference between destroying it and MPC's idea of "stabbing your neighbor." An unconscious person does not regard themself as an individual. So is killing (I mean, murdering) an unconscious person okay? An embryo has not yet released the potential to regard itself as a an individual. An unconscious person has reached the potential, but because of their state they can't think of their individuality at that specific moment. The same can be said for the mentally ill (in case you were thinking of using the same point with them). They have the potential, but because of their state they can't think of their individuality.

Wow! because I totally implied he was wrong! I know hes right :roll:. I was wondering if he saves certain arguments because he has to pull them out so many times, it becomes convenient. Or if I was just having some deja vu Possibly? :-k He may just have learned the definition of theory as such and just memorized it? I do that a lot, most times without even meaning to. Enough of this off-topic chatter though. :D

Thats true, but, what I think is better, is to give it up for adoption. That way, you don't have to kill a fetus. Plus, I believe it may be cheaper not sure. I'm against abortion. I believe, that after conception a soul is born. It be un conscious, or at least not have any vision, os any of the 5 sense, but its still alive isn't it? So, I think all forms of abortion are murder. Don't worry, I'm not some fanatic who blows up offices, or kills people. Murder doesn't justify murder. I'm not sure if it's cheaper to give birth than to have an aboration, but if it is cheaper for you it isn't for everyone. What about the people who have to pay to raise that child and the multitud of other expenses that are included with that (including tax paying dollars going to its public education if that's how education works in that country). I love how I play both sides of this debate. =P