thepixiesrock

Some people may or may not have lost their accounts when we were testing account settings a while ago. I guess anyone who can't login should just like, make anew account, or I can try to reactivate your accounts assuming they still exist.

Good thing it's already on my Christmas list.

tADS was basically made for Wals.

So after a long haitus (sp?) I'm trying to bring the gang back together, and stir up some interest with the new crowd. Basically, we're a group of internet super-heroes/villains, depending on who you talk to. We've got our own forum, that's been re-vamped as of ten minutes ago, and here it is. http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdanger It's new and fresh for all of you originals out there. Basically, it's a place for us to be unruly with no consequences, and to keep the kids off the streets. So if you want to join, you deffinetely should. /pimping forum

Yeah, that we're not! Eat that burnsauce.

tADS still gots one in the pocket!

So with any luck and a bit of skill I'll be set up for live for about three weeks starting Thursday of Friday. Of course, I wouldn't have any games to play though.

No we're not.

You're playing into her hand, Tale.

I think the worst thing we could do is to just over simplify things by saying "Just how things go." and accepting it as an inevitability.

What did he call Hiro, a cog? Or cod? Or something.

I don't know, I mean, I'm sure that they will keep him alive for the future or soemthing, but really, I don't know if you can heal from suffocation.

But his ability to use his secondary powers is based off of how he feels. He could (at least originally) only use his secondary powers when he recalled how he felt when he met the people who used them, so they weren't just like, passively active. It's his brain that really holds the power, not his blood. Like in The Mask, when part of his suit was like, shot off, it turned back into part of his pajamas. The pajama's didn't retain their ability to be a yellow suit when they left the body that had the mask on it.

He does have a ballroomdancingly awkward look on his face. I like to pretend that there is something off camera that has consumed his concentration. Like cue cards telling him how to dance.

I don't think Peter's blood will do that. Peter's power is absorbing powers, that's his primary power, all other powers he uses are secondary, and a result of his primary power. The only power that is in his DNA would be his primary absorbing power. It takes his brain to actually make other powers happen through that absorbing power. And yeah, I deffinetely think Noah was the assasin. It deffinetely looked like him walking away, and he made the deal with the company and all.

34

Get Pokemon Diamond or Pearl.

Weezer - Say It Ain't So.

Hahahahaha zing

But we don't, as a rule, criticize games for being "anti-holocaust denier," nor would you expect the ESRB to link to a website that reviewed games based on those people's erroneous beliefs - it does not matter what the people believe to be true... "We don't as a rule" What? Who are you speaking for? Society as a whole? I'm not sure I even follow the rest of the sentance. I'm having trouble understand what you mean by a game denying anti-holocaust. And I would expect the ESRB to link to a religious review site, because religious people buy games. And please, can you try and keep your anti-religious-ism under control, to at least show a little tact and not outright express your bias? I mean, we get it, you hate religion. It's sweet, I know, it's really cool to shout your anti-beliefs from the rooftops, we love it and all, but come on.

Look at TSL, it had Blood as one of the reasons it was labeled "Teen," yet there is only one, baldy rendered, pool of blood in the entire game. If the game was bloody, sure, that descriptor should be attached, but it is not - and some people might not buy the game due to the erroneous label. It was labeled "Teen" for blood and violence. It had blood, and it had violence.

The genocidal treatment of Native Americans in a indisputable fact, unlike some made up laws that are found in a two-thousand year old book of dubious origin. Thus, I would want any review, regardless of its demographic, to mention that fact, but the reviewer should not compare the game's values to, say, the Native Americans' religious beliefs. But to religious people, it is fact. Do you understand? The reviewer is writing a review on a religious site, to be read by like minded religious people. I specifiacally used the Native American example for the reason you stated. It was something we could all get behind to prove the point. The point is, it's a religious site, and will obviously represent a religious veiwpoint.

Would you feel the same way if it wasn't religion though? What about Gun? You kill a lot of Native American's in that game, and that can be seen as extremely offensive, especially to native american people. If someone was reviewing the game for a Native American demographic, it'd be silly not to mention it, and take into account that fact if you were reveiwing the game. Surely you wouldn't attack them for their "Native American Bias." This website's demographic is a religious one, and as such they are free to review based on that, and rightfully so. It's dreadfully apparent to me, and surely, other people, that you're just reaching for something religious to angst out at. I never said the ESRB did, nor did I say the ESRB was a Christian organization. I merely stated that I thought it pandered to much to the conservative, religious wing in America. But wouldn't you think the ESRB would have to be more conservative by nature, considering what it is that they are doing? I mean, the system is set up to give an idea of what to expect from the game as far as content, with the intention of trying to help a parent understand what it is that their child is playing. If a parent feels that the child can handle it, then it's fine, the parent can buy it. I mean, what would a more liberal system do? It would cause contreversy for conservative people, where their kids could potentially get their hands on soemthing that they don't want them to have. The way it's set up now, parents who care that much can keep the games out of the childs hands, and other parent's who feel it's fine can get the game for the kid. Is this really a big issue for you? Kids not getting their hands on violent games easily? I mean, if that isn't even it, and you're just complaining about how you don't like it because you think it's too "conservative," then you're still being pretty ridiculous.

Yeah, you just need the first badge to trade with other people, but to battle you don't need anything.

Yeah deffinetely get it.