Kiriyama

Cutting really isn't the best thing to do. I understand that when you're going through stuff, it feels like a good way to release, but in the end, it isn't. Soon, one cut isn't enough, so you cut deeper, and more than once. I'm not going to go along the route of "It's a terrible thing to do to your body, blah, blah, blah..." It's the last thing you want to hear. Instead, I suggest you find someone you can really talk to whenever you feel the desire to cut, it usually (and eventually) gets rid of the desire, even though it can come up again, it's best to have someone there.

Well, I think they thought he wouldn't actually shoot, and weren't they still high when they came up with the idea? So of course it'd be pretty stupid, but seemed funny.

Or they'd control some power plants to generate power for themselves. Then turn humans into a power source, and create a computer simulation to keep us content, whilst they grow us in fields. Or maybe that's all already happening, and when a baby is born, a new person is being added to the simulation. Yes, I did watch "The Matrix" last night.

They're still going to have some form of defence.. Anyway, if there were killer robots, then I assume they'd be sentient, and intent on causing as much damage as possible. Therefore, why not blow up a nuclear power plant?

Better yet, what does he do when he misses that often on one person and uses up all his ammo? The guns are used for intimidation and killing people who don't exit the powerplant. Do you even know how to run a power plant?

Better yet, what does he do when he misses that often on one person and uses up all his ammo?

You do know that things such as painkillers are drugs too right? Yeah..Let's ban them..Great idea. Personally, I'd like marijuana to be legal, however, I don't believe it strongly enough to bother that much if it is legal or illegal.

The second idea would still suck then. Hex has put little thought into these. Hell, I've got two game ideas, and two people have only seen one of them (my girlfriend, and the guy who was giving me ideas at the time), and only one person has seen the second game (again, this would be my girlfriend.), the reason I don't show anyone else? They are far from an acceptable standard to be shown to anyone else, they aren't even half complete. The first, I want to add in a lot more detail to the world and such. The second, I need to improve on the world, characters (haven't got names) and I need to get a storyline finished. Hell, I even want Poser and Photoshop so I can work on some models, but I need to improve on my skills first.

Yeah..But you'd have to be in a room with him.. No pain no glory. :sad: How about..The more pain you cause Hex..The more glory you get?

Yeah..But you'd have to be in a room with him.. Can't we just gag him, chain him up, then snipe him?

Dude..Your sister has standards. Worst case scenario: I actually see Hex. How I get out of it: Fire.

You can kill him with it, then use it to escape. Brilliant.

It was Twilight, Wongtong.. Don't think anyone will condemn you for that. I go pretty rarely, and now it's mostly by myself, or with my sister. Worst experiences have always been with kids.. Some kid was trying to name all the Transformers during Revenge of the Fallen, I'd have punched him if he wasn't about 10-12, and getting them wrong. Wantsed to punch the parents too. Another time was during the Simpson's Movie, when we had some kids about 3-5 infront of us and they were laughing loudly, and practically said what happened half the time. I wanted to punch the parents.

You've only given us the choice of 4 of the games in the series.. Not exactly fair, is it?

Then you'll get some guys here saying you'll get friend-zoned and such.. Though really, even coming out with just a lasting friendship is good enough. Just don't get close to her in order to try get a relationship out of it, chances are she'll hate it, because that's all you had in mind, and she might have thought otherwise. Just remember, just because you are friends, doesn't leave out dating oppertunities.

Heh, doesn't matter anyway now, My parent's told me we're going out for a meal on Sunday, so i wont be able to go, so i told her that, and all is well (I hope). That was lucky. If it comes up again, and you have nothing else to do, just go to spend time with her.

Just go to it. You aren't required to pay attention or anything.. Or tell her you can't make it.

Which would cost more than the ticket..

The protagonist in GTA is usually morally grey. Neither good, nor evil. You never really kill an innocent with the protagonist's choice. The choice is to the player. Much like inFAMOUS, there you are in control, so it is you who is good, evil or neutral. You are in complete control (well, usually).

You swing a sledgehammer once, and then you need to prepare again. Sledgehammers are much like chainsaws, fun to use, but useless. Saw the film today. Was pretty funny, thankfully the trailers didn't give away too much, I have to agree with one of the college tutors though, I hate seeing trailers for films, as they give away the good parts. Disliked the Haunted House part..I just hate enclosed, dark areas that leave you wondering what the hell is going on. As a comedy, it works. Though for me, it's just an average recent zombie film, the suspense wasn't really that played up at times, like in 28 Days Later. Or maybe I just have issues with the fact they put survival first, but then activate the whole place..That's just telling the zombies where you are. Also, I thought at first it may just be a US "Shaun of the Dead", but it's completely different.

Really don't care about post counts either. Honestly, I think most of the high count posters, Ray excluded, don't really care about it. Post count is just something that comes with time, it's really no big deal.

Fixed it for you Ray. Don't make that mistake again.

I really do hope this is Zapak's advertising. I don't believe Jagex would sink this low just to get a few more players who will then leave because of the lack of breasts. It was worse with Evony, seeing those advertisments whenever I wanted to stream anime, sure I only saw it for a few seconds, but it was pathetic, I suppose it was even worse that the game does not contain anything like the adverts, knowing someone who has played it. As soon as I saw how they were marketing it, I labelled it as a pathetic game, and not worth my time. You make a good point, Omali.

This is getting stupid... Zierro.. First, can you please not call that biased heap of trash a "good source"? I'm going to pick apart parts of it to help you see otherwise.. "The vast majority of the people have always opposed seat belt laws and further opposition has been growing across the U.S. as the police increase harassment of motorists" Sorry, but I'd like to see his source. He'd need a nationwide survey first of all. Then he'd need to compile and check the data, and finally.. The only ones who feel harassed are those who continually do not wear seatbelts. Buckle up and they won't "harass" you. "Such laws infringe on a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment." Fourth Amendment: "The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures." Sorry.. But if you can just quickly look in a car as it passes, it's not unreasonable. It's not like they're randomly stopping you to search your car. Hell..You just go by and notice that they have no seatbelt on. Fifth Amendment: "The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure." Notice this part? in a legal procedure. So suddenly driving your car is a legal procedure? Ninth Amendment: Don't understand this much myself, though the guy probably has a twisted view on it. Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment: Again, this is not that easily understood by me. I should require more time to know it. Would be best to assume the guy has took the parts he liked and applied them. "Seat belt laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine a person’s own safety and health standards for his own body, the ultimate private property. Not using a seat belt is a victimless, state-created crime that does not hurt or threaten anyone. " What the hell? Seatbelts are proven to save more lives, and he feels that it's an unwarranted intrusion? Sorry, but maybe some people are not capable of determining their own safety for their body, some government intervention is needed at times. Remember those times you got vaccinations at school? Yeah, government was probably behind that. But surely it should have been the parent's decision of what is best for their child.. There is a victim in not wearing a seatbelt, the poor bastard who didn't wear it is a victim to his own stupidity. It threatens his own life in the chance of a crash. Since most of his 3rd point has been addressed here, I won't repeat them. However.. "thus in compiling traffic accident data, that exaggerates the so-called benefit of seat belt laws, which misleads the public into thinking seat belt use automatically means safety; non-use automatically means death in all kinds of accidents, which is false." Sorry, but seatbelts are not advertised as 100% safe and 100% chance of saving you. They are just advertised as making a crash less likely to be fatal, which is correct. Source within your source, let's go in.. "Analysis of data collected by the NHTSA leads to the conclusion that drivers who wear a seat belt are less likely to be a fatality. Further analysis appears to show that they are more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than drivers who do not wear a seat belt." Okay.. I only need 1 statement to discredit that. More people wear seatbelts than those who do not, therefore it is more likely they'll be in a fatal crash, if you go by numbers, and not percentages. "In spite of the fact the government is forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, the government refuses to be held financially responsible for such injuries or deaths. " The Goverment is not responsible in any way for injuries or deaths caused by a crash, regardless of whether a person was using the correct safety measures or not. The Government was not behind the wheel of either car. The responsibility lies with the drivers. "There is also ample proof that some people have survived a traffic accident only because a seat belt was not used – injured, perhaps, but not dead. Such persons, by law, are subject to a citation and a fine for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians." Sorry, but what proof? Did you make the person do the crash again, exactly how it happened, just with a seatbelt on? Because if they survived without the seatbelt, they would have with it, since it'd be a minor crash. So yeah, they are liable to a fine for breaking the law, and dangerous driving. "If a person is killed while using a seat belt, law supporters claim the accident was so severe not even a seat belt could save the person. That might be true in some cases, but the severity of an accident is never mentioned in compiling a list of persons killed while not using a seat belt" Yeah..Severity is taken into account when the person actually dies. Kind of indicates it was a severe accident. If they died whilst using a seatbelt, hell, they would die without. "Evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or causing a person’s death is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985." So let's see..A mistake in the design, or a mistake in the manufactoring process? Yep..Company fault, not the fault of seatbelts as a whole. Arguement of the product being faulty is not viable here. "Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs" Defects can occur in anything. In theory it can work, hell, it may even work at first. Faults may not appear until later in the process, after they are convinced it is working. Again, defects are the fault of the company, we are not forced to become test subjects. The defects may not appear at first. You take the risk when you use anything, nothing is guarenteed to be 100% free from defects. "By law, a sane person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug, treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. Seat belt laws violate that right, that is, to freely choose to use or not to use a "health care" seat belt. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while demanding strict compliance from the private sector. " Medical care and seatbelts are a world of difference. Religion can stop you accepting surgery, life-saving abortions and such. What religion bans seatbelts? Quick! Be a rebel and make one that does so, but remember, you need about 10,000 members before it is considered an official religion. A seatbelt is basic health and safety, did you know they're pretty much required to maintain good hygene in the food service industry? Same thing as wearing a seatbelt, bud. "In 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the right to determine one’s individual personal health care standard in the Johnson Controls case. Also, a federal appeals court upheld a $100,000 award in 1993 to a 320 pound woman who sued the state of Rhode Island for refusing to hire her back to work unless she lost weight. The federal Equal Opportunity Commission had earlier ruled obesity a protected right under the Act, and the court agreed even though obesity is not mentioned in the Act and is a self-inflicted serious health hazard causing more medical expenses and premature deaths each year than highway fatalities. Further, on June 10, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Echazabal v. Chevron case that Chevron could not refuse to hire Echazabal who had a liver ailment for a position in its refinery where the job environment would, according to medical experts, exacerbate his liver ailment. The court’s ruling in such cases clearly proves that each person has a right to make his/her own individual personal health care decisions even if such is hazardous to one’s health and even if such will increase medical expenses. " Sorry, but he's comparing a world of differences. Wearing a seatbelt is completely different to being refused employment because of certain circumstances. Apples and Oranges basically. "research and studies published in trade journals by independent professionals, that is, those not on the federal payroll, which challenges the so-called benefit of such laws, is never printed in the national news media, thus the public is denied the right to know there is a legitimate and well documented contrary side to the seat belt law controversy. " Maybe this is because they are all like this article and filled with assumptions and misconceptions. "At one time, it was the same with air bags until one investigative reporter decided to start printing the truth about air bag dangers in certain kinds of traffic accidents. The bureaucrats in the U.S. Dept. of Transportation were so adamant against telling the public about such dangers, which the public had a right to know, the reporter had to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the government to release its own records of air bag injuries and deaths. " Yes, there is a risk with anything, however, air bags do save more people than they kill, correct? And it has to be a significant amount, otherwise we wouldn't have them still. "Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing – force occupants to exit – visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt. " Maybe they have adaquate reason to believe you have broken a law? Information is being witheld here. "Primary enforcement encourages the use of random roadblocks. In a 1994 statewide campaign, North Carolina conducted 2,038 roadblocks in just two weeks under the pretext of checking for seat belt use. In spite of further use of random roadblocks that year, which the governor boasted increased seat belt use to 80%, total highway fatalities actually increased in the state for 1994 over the record of each of the preceding 3 years." Numbers for accidents and such change yearly. There is nothing to prove that the higher seatbelt use caused more fatal accidents. It's hard to tell what caused an accident, or what was involved. He's using numbers in his own way. More seatbelt use = more fatal accidents? Bull[cabbage]. "If not using a seat belt, you could be stopped for a minor traffic violation that otherwise would be ignored if using a seat belt. You may also be targeted because of a bumper sticker, your license plate, your age, race, or gender. Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment, stalking, intimidation and profiling. Young people, women, and minorities are vulnerable, especially when traveling alone and at night, or in certain neighborhoods." Again.. Bull[cabbage] Targeted because of your age? Chances are you were underage. If you have belief that a police officer has commited an infraction himself, take it above him, your license plate could show you have commited previous felonies, and other things aswell..With custom numberplates, even the font can be illegal, because cameras and such cannot read it. "You are subject to an officer’s misinterpretation of your answers, your attitude, or what the officer sees in your vehicle. You could become the victim of a corrupt act, such as planting drugs in your vehicle by an officer. You could be accused of using drugs because the cash in your possession has the odor of drugs. Officers can confiscate your cash and vehicle if there is some drug residue without proving you knew about or caused the residue to be there. " Here, we have the public order act, I believe swearing and in general, an abusive manner can come under section 15. I'm sure you Americans have something similar. If an officer sees empty beer bottles/cans in your car and can then test to see if you have been drinking, with reasonable suspicion to do so. And if your cash has the odor of drugs, then chances are, it's been around drugs recently, and if there is a lot of drug residue, is that not reasonable to test you for drugs? "Some states issue a seat belt violation fine against the driver even if the driver is using a seat belt but a passenger is not, and even if the driver did not know about it. Drivers, therefore, could easily become distracted while driving by a constant watch of passengers, both adults and children in the rear seat." The driver should check before he sets off then? The safety of the people in his car are both the driver's, and the individual's responsibility. "Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants (bribes)" Or maybe the fine encourages people to actually buckle up? I mean..A fine is an incentive to follow the law, you ought to be punished for breaking it anyway, a fine is better than some time in jail or community service, correct? "Some insurance companies target seat belt law violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident or moving violation record." Yeah? I'd be targeted for being a new driver, even though I've clearly had no accidents or violations. Insurance companies have to pay out, so it's only reasonable to charge those who are more likely to be in a damaging accident because they don't wear a seatblet. "Some states level points against a driver’s license for not using a seat belt in addition to a fine" Again, more reason to actually follow the law, if it was simply a fine, some people could go "A fine doesn't bother me." the prospect of losing your license is a somewhat terrifying one if you rely on your license for employment/commuting. "If you are medically exempted from seat belt use, your vehicle could still be stopped since an officer cannot know until you are stopped." Didn't realise officers knew everything about everyone. It's right, they don't know until they are stopped, however, I'm sure those who are stopped do not mind the minor inconvenience. Okay..Getting tired now and bored of arguing against these points, since looking at the rest, I've probably addressed something similar, or other people have refuted it in their post already.

His parachute was cut.