Errantry

They are, without a doubt, simply written and fairly predictable. Of course, I still read them; why not? My favorite book still stands as "The Power of One", followed by the "Sandman" series. Also by Neil Gaiman (and Terry Pratchett) is "Good Omens", a mockery of the Apocalypse. Great fun to read, and written intelligently. I didn't like "The Da Vinci Code" or "Angels and Demons", though my grandmother did. The characters were predicable and cardboard-thin, as was the plot itself, and I did not appreciate the writing style.

Why do the girls want to buy a five-thousand dollar dress, when they'll only wear it once?

I only speak American-English and Deutsch - the only language where everything you say sounds as if you're cursing. It's beautiful. Now if only I could Force-Persuade my teacher to give me a hundred/hundred on my next German test . . .

Ha. Don't worry about asking a little too much from one movie . . .

''Practically''? Did he also get mysteriously good hands?

Well, if we're saying the Force actually exists in a universe where the Empire and Covenant coexist . . . then methinks the Empire would be winning.

Awww . . . aren't you guys just -adorable-, now? Looks like you had fun. And good job on the B.

Agreeing on the reload function. Much easier to avoid making stupid comments that way --> much easier to get a girlfriend/boyfriend. My advice on the romance bit probably isn't too great - wait for a girl to ask you out. That's what mine did (she's older than me, too), and we've been together for quite a while now.

I've been doing that. Gals my age are so unappreciative. I even COOK for crissakes...what does that make me though? A pansy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obviously someone's telling you to get a jock girlfriend. That way, if anybody calls you a pansy, she can beat them up for you. It's great.

. . . Last minute, but add Garden State and Hero to my list. My girlfriend just -had- to force me to watch them, and they were surprisingly enjoyable. Of course, since she began reading this forum, I have to start censoring my comments . . . ha! . . . and be prepared to watch Chasing Amy sometime.

Personally, I'd go with the Radeon. But then again, I'm biased. Radeon's worked well for me so far, and my brother chose it for me to begin with. I'm not sure it's worth dishing out the extra money, though I would.

"aren't they trying to expand the definition of WMD? so that the things they have found will fall under the catagory of such weapons .. and then they can justify it? something like saying "well we think of bricks as a wmd .. and sand too! which is what we was referring to all along'" Now -that- would be something to see. The Bush administration: "Uh, yeah. We thought that...uh, well, you can smother stuff in sand. And they might smother an entire city. And then throw bricks at innocent passersby."

Congratulations - on both accounts! There aren't nearly enough female gamers. Or gamer couples.

I apologize if I gave the impression that the United States 'personally plopped him into the presidency.' (I really love that phrasing, though.) I was actually trying to say that the United States indirectly helped put him into power/keep him in power through indifference. I understand, though, that my post was hard to read. Again, I apologize. ~Marty

Care to offer proof of this allegation? Because unless you consider the USA, the UK, and several other western nations supporting the Baathist party over the pro-communist party supported by the Soviet union during the cold war 1950's through 1970's, Saddam put himself in power, moving from vice president to take power from the feeble president all on his own. Saddam's biography might relieve you of your misconceptions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "At last in U.S. military captivity, ousted former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein will soon mark an important 20th anniversary, the kind of anniversary that brings with it an appreciation of the ironies of life, and politics. If so, he will remember that he was in Baghdad, as a special envoy from then-president Ronald Reagan, assuring his host that, to quote the secret National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) that served as his talking points: the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." Within a year, Washington would fully normalize ties with Saddam and even suggest that the dictator had become a full-fledged "Arab moderate," ready to make peace with Israel." It depends what source you look at for your research. On a quick search, I found this at NewsTarget.com, specifically http://www.newstarget.com/000771.html. However, you were correct in that I may have misconceptions; my parents told me about the entire bit, having lived through it. Of course, you could always take the approach that Saddam Hussein put himself into power, but the United States could have prevented his ascension, or at least questioned it more than they did. I have said the United States has indirectly aided his rise to power, but I never said the US knew what he had done, or guessed what he proceeded to do.

"Is he an idiot who only passed through Yale with a "C+" or a savvy, shrewd, and evil mastermind who managed to win two elections and increase his parties hold on the legislature in both the mid-term elections and his own re-election?" Eldar - Good job of getting back on topic! You make Mr. Bush sound like a Sith lord.

Karzak - I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United States put Saddam Hussein into power to begin with. And the thing about America is this: -everyone- has the freedom of speech, whether they have lived through an experience or not. Moral ground is needless. Most politicians have absolutely no idea what being in war is like, and yet they dictate the United States' every move.

uh? you think the average teenage girl doesn't watch stuff like ella enchanted or mean girls? yeah, i guess they're all watching obscure bulgarian political dramas and egyptian movies with subtitles instead? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you think -every- teenage girl does watch those movies? I know my sister and girlfriend haven't watched them - then again, I wouldn't consider them extraordinarily -normal- . . .

I'd rather have a Buddhist president, and see what happens. Bush, I believe, confuses the boundaries of 'religion' and 'government'. His job is not to persuade everyone to get along. It's to force them to. Another thing about Bush - he made it though Yale with a C+ average, didn't he? And became a born-again Christian at age 40, whilst killing over sixty 'felons' proven innocent by DNA testing. Unfortunately, DNA does not exist according to -some- beliefs.

. . . The most interesting thing I thought about the war in Iraq was that we are trying to impose a democracy upon them, when the US is not -technically- a full democracy itself. It is a republic. Also, the United States constantly complains about its military losses in Iraq, when tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in crossfire. By the way, I agree with ~Di, Langsky; your post was extraordinarily insightful. And thanks for not judging a people based on its rulers. We have enough of that as it is.

~ The reason people are violent only online: no chance of getting injured. I really have no idea how I act online. Probably quite dumb. And crazy.

Who added that? Eisenhower? The only problem with it is that it refers to religions that have exactly one god. Therefore, it cannot refer to Buddhism (no god, remember), Shinto, could barely be passed off for Taoism (one all-encompassing entity), and definitely could not include Hindu, which has three main gods (Shiva/Siva, Brahman/Brahma, and Vishnu - destruction, creation, and preservation, respectively), and a multitude of minor gods.

Dakoth - "f a person is strict catholic they would never give out any birth control because it is against catholic doctrine, just like no doctor is abliged to perform an abortion." "There is really no need to adress the only reason I put it there is to underscore the fact that our lawmakers are governed by morals and that weather the reason they have them is religious or not does not make that wrong." "It seems to many of us in America want things "our" way. We should follow Canada's example and things would end up making both sides happy." I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning - my comments were mostly in reference to the first two quotes. However, in my defense, the statement, "[T]hey would never give out any birth control because it is against catholic doctrine," implies that a person cannot be a strict Catholic unless they are against birth control. And as for the second quote, I have to bring up Texas, and Mr. Bush. During his reign over Texas, Mr. Bush executed over 150 people - most of which were denied the use of DNA as evidence, because Mr. Bush does not believe in DNA. The same happens currently. A man was recently released after almost thirty years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He was not allowed the use of DNA; the girl was not tested, and she spoke against the man. However, the girl was told to protect her cousin (who was really the one who raped her), and thus sent an innocent man to the slammer. Now a good chunk of the man's life is gone, and the girl only recently decided to 'fess up. I do not feel this sort of thing should be allowed, and I apologize if you feel differently. The third, while I did not make many comments on it before, I now bring up. It is difficult to reach a compromise between extremes, and that is what you are suggesting. Several sects of Christians, as you know, do not approve of gay marriage. Should it be allowed, or not, then? I, personally, am perfectly fine with same-sex unions of any sort, because I feel it takes away civil rights and freedoms to ban marriage to some types of people. However, that is off topic. To return to my point, some groups of people will disagree simply because they will not give up their ideal government and community. And I agree that it seems petty, with wars going on right and left, that people argue over sign posts in their communities. Sometimes you wonder if they really have nothing better to do - something, mayhap, productive?

It's rather funny, but I don't work. I just get paid for doing things I love - writing essays, illustrating, computer programming, comp. animation. Of course, I have to win whatever competition I enter in order to -get- money, but it makes it all worth it. I have my first two years of college paid for - including books and dorm - with prize money. Man, do I love those guys.

Dakoth - You tend to generalize seperate peoples far too much. Not all Catholics' beliefs are exactly the same. For example, a very kind doctor of mine, who happens to be Catholic, performs abortions. His reasoning? He feels that it is unfair to torture two souls. If the mother does not want the child, she would most likely not care for he/she adequately. The mother would still have to go through the stress of pregnancy, and the child would possibly have to suffer an indifferent or blatantly cruel parent. Also, the mother may have some sort of drug addiction, thus increasing the chances of having a deformed child or having complications during the pregnancy, possibly killing both the mother and child. There is no reason to force that on anyone. In an ideal world, the mother would simply give the child up for adoption, and a good family would adopt the poor kid. This is not an ideal world. And as for displaying religious symbols in public, I feel it is unnecessary and can be used as a ploy to aggravate members of other religions. It a person truly believes in a religion, then they need no tangible evidence of their belief. It is terribly offensive to assume every person believes the same as you. As a Buddhist, from my opinion any overt display of religious belief is unneeded. Displaying the Ten Commandments to a non-believer has no point. Saying 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance has no purpose, and I generally skip that part. As a final thought: Government is meant to rule 'the people' as a whole. By combining it with religion, it is unable to serve its purpose. A Buddhist cannot be ruled by Jewish beliefs, and a Christian cannot be governed with Muslim ones. To keep government and religion completely seperate is by far the best strategy to keep a country united, especially a republic, - as the United States is - due to the incredible amount of cultural diversity.