Kanami

XD Hilarious This should be interesting to watch now.

@Nationalism/Patriotism/Pride vs Racism Your country of birth refers to your race. (Exclusions being a kid born in America but with a Chinese background etc) Obviously I listen to the media, it's such a big issue and it's televised all over the world. I mean it's occurring in America, why wouldn't it be picked up by every media station in the world? The outrage here is heating up. I mean something like this? In America? We can't believe it. /sarcasm. I think I've stated more then once I'm not from the US, and you've acknowldged it, so I don't even know why you're accusing me of basing my opinions on the media. This event is so minor that I'm surprised it even got past the local newspaper. I'm not sure how knowing what patriotism is, has anything to do with following the media. Are you confusing your own argument or is there supposed to be some link there? @Political Issue This is not solely a political issue, <_< and this is not a case in a court of law Mr Wright. There is more then a hint of morals and social attitudes involved. The thread is asking " So... What is your stance of the proposed community center near ground zero?" Your interpretation is "Should the community center be allowed, Yes or No" United States is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is a man and his religion, social attitudes towards this religion being in a specific area, whether allowing it is insensitive or not, and whether it should be allowed or not. (I'm sure there are others that can be raised) But I see the main question as being the moral issues involved with the construction of the site. Notice how Esau and ValaRevan were talking about "Insensitive?" while you're still harping about rights and the constitution? You only place value on the last question, which does concern pertain to politics and the legal technicalities (which don't prevent it from being built). @Extreme Your interpretation of this topic is very narrow, and more can be discussed then a simple yes or no. If you don't have the intelligence to see the other potential areas which can be discussed I suggest reading Esau's post. So I'm not missing the question, you just aren't seeing the entire picture. How nice it must be being a simpleton who can only agree or disagree with something. I've said I think it should be allowed from the very start. "But" I'm also going to go into it a bit further. It might be closed minded to say no.(which I'm not) But it's close minded of you to think that there isn't points for both sides of the argument. As for clarity and specificity? How about offering some of that yourself? Oh right, you can only nod or shake your head. @Arguing with those that agree Oh dear, three people disagree with me, obviously I have to be completely wrong if a whole three people disagree. Esau and myself are discussing the topic from my perspective, not arguing. The only part were arguing is whether I should feel saddened by the deaths of those I never knew. As for Revan and myself we had a small misunderstanding and while we don't agree we're still "discussing" in the serious discussion board. You.... well I'm just repeating the same damn thing to you since you raise no points other then it being a right, and the world revolving around the US. @Constitution Again, I'm not talking about law, I've cleared the law hurdle by stating several times that they "can" build the mosque. It's the other details I'm discussing and you're just being a hindrance now and overly reactive to an already agreed "section" of the topic. @Synonymous Read the words, not the style? @Nothing of the sort Your comment makes no sense in connection with that quote. How about explaining what "sort" is? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @Death Example: "I have the right to expressing myself and will say whatever the hell I want" I see what you mean..... going to restate that I'm Duty>Rights. As for having no idea. It seems I don't. And I'm glad I don't. Reading PW's comments makes me understand why the US is so willing to intervene in foreign wars. "We have the power to, so we'll join in and make it worse" Where I live, there's a joke that Americans take everything to court. (In a similar sense to Chinese having small eyes) I thought it was a joke but looking at the pool of people brandishing the constitution and rights around. And how brandishing ones "Rights" is as important as food and oxygen.... I'm not so sure now.

Really? America's that bad? You fail to exercise your right and it's gone forever? You don't declare having a "right" and people walk all over you? Racism aside that's a pretty shitty country. Glad I don't live in such a place.

Ｈｍｍｍ？　Ｐｅｏｐｌｅ　ａｒｅ　ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｎｇ　ｈｏｗ　ｔｏ　ｅｘｃｌｕｄｅ　ｙｏｕ　ｆｒｏｍ　ｔｈｅ　ＲＰ　ａｎｄ　ｔｈａｔ’ｓ　ａｌｌ　ｙｏｕ　ｈａｖｅ　ｔｏ　ｓａｙ？ Ｈｏｗ　ｂｏｒｉｎｇ．　Ｔｈｅ　ｌｅａｓｔ　ｙｏｕ　ｃｏｕｌｄ　ｄｏ　ｉｓ　ｋｉｃｋ　ｕｐ　ａ　ｆｕｓｓ． Ｈｅｒｅ，　ｌｅｔ　ｍｅ　ｇｉｖｅ　ｙｏｕ　ａ　ｈａｎｄ． Ｉｆ　ｙｏｕ　ｌｉｋｅ　ｎｕｍｂｅｒ　ｃｒｕｎｃｈｉｎｇ　ｔｈｅｎ　ｓｔｏｐ　ｃｈｅａｔｉｎｇ　ｙｏｕｒ　ｒｏｌｌｓ，　ｉｔ’ｓ　ｕｎｆａｉｒ，　ｒｕｄｅ　ａｎｄ　ｆｒａｎｋｌｙ　ｉｔ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｓｈｏｗｓ　ｅｖｅｒｙｏｎｅ　ｔｈａｔ　ｙｏｕ’ｒｅ　ａ　ｓｔｕｐｉｄ　ｌｉｔｔｌｅ　ｋｉｄ．　Ｗｈａｔ　ｄｏ　ｙｏｕ　ｇｅｔ　ｏｕｔ　ｃｈｅａｔｉｎｇ？　Ｌａｕｇｈｓ？　Ｇｏｄ　Ｉ　ｈｏｐｅ　ｙｏｕ’ｒｅ　ｎｏｔ　ｄｏｉｎｇ　ｉｔ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｔａｔｓ．　Ｎｏｔ　ｅｖｅｎ　ａｎ　ｉｄｉｏｔ　ｃａｎ　ｂｅ　ｔｈａｔ　ｄｅｓｐｅｒａｔｅ，　ｔｈｏｕｇｈ　Ｉ　ｓｕｐｐｏｓｅ　ｙｏｕ　ｗｏｒｓｅ　ｔｈｅｎ　ａｎｙ　ｔｙｐｉｃａｌ　ｉｄｉｏｔ　ｔｅｎ　ｆｏｌｄ．　

Others mostly haven't won at all XD And with awesome splices like that, they'll need to greatly improve or wait for waqwaq and Chalis to retire :P Spykor has an interesting idea. No reason why the other entries shouldn't be displayed as well, would be like one big collective gallery. If not... well a link to the "voting" thread being added might be nice.

Again, my fault I started talking to you with a negative impression and read your post with that sentiment. Due to reading this: "the only person on this forum I really hate is Esau. It's like arguing with a partially deaf woman who's permanently on PMS." Though at present I'm having second thoughts since I don't see the PMS kicking in XD As for insensitive, I don't see why it needs to defined as a "yes/no" situation. And think it being sensitive or not is irrelevant to whether something should be allowed. In this case, opinion is too split to discern for certain whether the landowners actions are insensitive or not. As I said earlier, I think it'd be easy to foresee that the topic would attract attention of the negative kind. If he was able to foresee that and went ahead without good reason, then I'd say he's insensitive (screw rights for the moment okay? Not directed at you Esau). If he did foresee the complication, weighed them with whatever his goals are, then no, he's not insensitive. If he didn't consider the problems at all, he lives in lala land. It's not really possible to state for certain whether the act in itself is insensitive or not since the motives and thoughts behind the actions aren't clear. As I said above, if he considered the problems, but decided that for the sake of the local community, a community center would benefit the region, then by no means is he insensitive. But in my mind, I can't find a adequate reason why he'd insist on building the mosque there. Surely there are other places which are in need of a community centre. By no means do I think arguing/making a stand is pointless, that can't be figured out the moment I replied to opposition in this board. If I didn't think making a stand was worth anything, I'd just tell you something like "Think what you want" and leave it at that. I'd rather convince others, be convinced otherwise, or find a completely new method of though. After all that's what the point of discussion is. I've interpreted your comment regarding why shouldn't he stand for his beliefs as a comment which enforces that he has the right to it and should stand for what he is entitled to, if that's not what you meant, misinterpretation. There is nothing specifically wrong with concerning yourself with freedom, it's when it's cited as a solution. "I have the right to" isn't an automatic license to be allowed to do whatever you want. I've got a drivers license, doesn't mean I can ignore the road rules. While the contrast is a bit different. "He has the right to" doesn't equal "He should stand for his rights." I however disagree that an individuals steadfastness is a thing to admired. If I believe all Christians should be crucified and I stand by my belief that most likely isn't something which people should look up to, despite the amount of opposition (adversity) I'd receive for such a statement. In this certain case, there's no reason to admire him either. I don't know the "odds" but standing up to something isn't worth appreciating at all. It's the idea, or object that the individual is making a stand for. And as stated prior, we don't know what's going on inside the landowners head. I don't see what makes a "person" so important. A bird is a thinking, feeling creature that is just as alive as any person. So are the flies I've sprayed to death, and that rat I trapped years ago with a mouse trap. I'm the cold blooded murderer of all these creatures but do I feel remorse? Not really. But I feel more for the rat then the unknown person on tv. Since I'm faced with the deceased.Why shouldn't I feel sadness? Why should I? They lost their ability to exist isn't all that important is it? They wouldn't have existed at all had it not been for two people getting together. I don't remember celebrating their existence, why would I mourn the loss? Hearing about someone loss or some sort of loss is secondary information. I could be told by my neighbor that they had the best Christmas last year, they could tell me all the "great details" and how "fun" it was for them. But do I get happy and excited hearing about it? Even moreso if it's just some random lady who sat next to me on the bus? My dad talks about how he had it rough as a kid, (walk to school uphill to and from school each day six days a week). Does that make it rough for me to live? Do I need to think, "God, I'm so lucky someone developed a bus route through this street" each day I go to school? There's no reason to share the grief, excitement or hardships just because someone, somewhere who has no relevance to oneself experienced something. It should be obvious that I'm not saint, and I can't be feeling and thinking things for everything that I hear about in life. If it's neccessary I'll do the usual courtship "Oh that horrible, are you okay" routine, but personally I don't feel sympathetic at all. Simply because there's no reason to feel a "loss" when it wasn't a "loss" to the individual (me). That changes when it's a friend. Since it's indirectly affecting me, I can feel sympathetic then. Why can I think of the relatives and not the deceased? Because the deceased doesn't exist anymore, if they turned to dirt good for them, they don't need help doing that. If they went to heaven or hell they're in a better place now. If they re-entered the cycle of reincarnation then yay for them. Ceasing to exist isn't something any of us can avoid, and mourning each individual loss and giving it any weight is likely to make anyone depressed. Unless of course, you're just doing the "Oh that's horrible" routine each time and don't really feel anything.

Are you being sarcastic with me? ..... Well I get the impression you are, but honestly I agree with your interpretation. And it's probably the closest thing to an answer regarding the insensitive argument. What I feel is a sensitive issue, might not be sensitive to you. This thread is an example of that, PW has indicated that he feels strongly for infringements made against the constitution, I on the other hand couldn't care less. Regarding the mosque (Note: I call it a mosque cause it's shorter and easier to write) I guess my mistake was trying to see things from a anti-mosquers perspective when I don't care if it gets built or not. I'm "heartless" enough to say, I wouldn't even mind if the terrorists were buried right next to the memorial thingy on the former WTC site. It's honestly not an issue for me which way thing go. Where have I faulted the landowner? And what the hell is it with your people and your bloody rights <_< I've read those fables, and think that a shady deal was made with the hero and king/advisor/noble after the princess was saved by a selfless act. Eg The status of Royalty maybe? A hot princess? Money? Either way fictional fables aren't a good example. I don't mind there being an underdog (David v Goliath) situation, but I'm not going to root for the underdog just because he's disadvantaged. As for existing, really? And on the flipside, do I have to be sad that someone died? Speaking of which there was an ambulance blaring along the freeway yesterday.... I wonder if I should feel sad that someone got injured/died? If I don't value their lives (weight?) why would I feel sad? I'm not going to pretend I care about someone I never knew. If you're asking me to think about the secondary victims (relatives, friends who lost a loved one). Then I might feel something. But someone dying isn't all that amazing or rare. As for feeling bad?..... You're joking right? Why would I feel bad about something I had no hand in causing, no way of preventing, and no interaction with besides from the other side of a tv/computer screen? Are you trying to make me feel guilty for still being alive when other died? :/

@Vala First cause the other one has a brain tumor. Supporting views is the same for religion though. Christianity for example by claiming "God" is the one true god is declaring all other gods to be fake, or at least over-valued. Does that mean a Christian can not accept other views? Surely not. They might not say it outright, but if this is the view they hold, then every other religion is just worshiping stick and stones. I actually don't like using religion since I'm also an anti-religious person, but supporting the Nazi's doesn't mean you're a member (and forced to support policy). The same way being a muslim doesn't mean you all have one view. Nazi's weren't all bad, human testing or whatever sped up medicine, if I was to fall ill and the cure had been developed by the Nazi's half a century ago I'd feel grateful regardless of who they killed and what they did. As for the word twisting, this is why I hate forums, it takes one whole post before your opponent can clarify what they meant <_< And I'm well aware I don't argue my points very clearly. That said I did state that "rights" weren't too important to me, so the whole concept of rights isn't something I'm willing to argue on. As I said in my last post I was saying that the "building" part was insensitive, and contrary to what you said before, if they're doing it intentionally to cause a fuss it's insensitive, since it's clearly a sensitive issue which shouldn't be thrown in the spotlight like this. Like the original article writer, I think you and others are doing the "media twisting" of "should" and "can." Individuals are saying they don't like the idea. That's not to say take the land off them and send them off in a boat. And people like PW are taking this too seriously by cementing dissent to the idea. As an outcry of rage against basic rights. @PW... *Sigh* I feel like I'm dealing with a slightly smarter Psych <_< @Nationalism/Patriotism/Pride vs Racism "It's different" means nothing. Explain how it's different. In one case you're claiming superiority over all races, the other is contrasting with another and saying the former is better. I admit I think Patriotism is rather a silly concept. For one it's creating the barrier of "us" and "them" which is the central issue of discrimination. If they are you equals if all humans value this, why is there a need to highlight a certain trait as "American?" ' @Wrong and lying No, I think society see's it as wrong. I thought I already accepted I was racist? I'm not going to change my opinion for others, since I don't care about others. Why should I care about the hardships of a black man? I've got enough hardships of my own to deal with without sticking my nose into other peoples racial complication. I associate Americans with extremities, you're a good example. But I know alot of other Americans who are able to discern that there are more then two options. -Regarding the mosque you seem to indicate there's a "yes" or "no" answer. I've already said I'm not against it, yet you keep whining about preventing being an obstruction of rights. -Racism is always wrong because it can't be right. Frankly Patriotism is a type of racism, but apparently it's an "Okay" form of racism. People like you need to see the grey area inbetween. @Constitution Of course, you keep thinking that. The constitution in my eyes is a scrap peice of paper with crap written on it. Wave it around all you like, it doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't matter that I don't care? But neither does the paper? It doesn't even look like it could be used as toilet paper. Toilet Paper > Constitution? Furthermore that's your constitution, Americas. It is not the core of every society in the world. Yes, isn't that shocking? The world doesn't revolve around the US. And there are other nations out there. @Take Away/Unconstitutional Citation please? I have never said the "Should not be able" to build there. I have stated I believe that they should not build there, considering social prejudices and a lack in profit/gain. If you're going to yap about things think first, it usually help;) Though again, we're back to the extremities of a yes/no answer @My eyes, Acknowledge exist I'll acknowledged someone died. If someone tells me their friend in Africa died, I'm not going to tell them they're lying. However I've never seen them, and therefore their death doesn't effect me at all. Why should it? I didn't even know they existed until I found out they were dead. An easier example would be my Great, great grandfather. I acknowledge he existed. But so what? I didn't know the man, I don't have to, and I'm definitely not mourning his death despite being a relative. This is essentially separating knowledge (acknowledge he existed) from my current circumstances and way of viewing things. (my eyes)

The one problem I have with gender equality is now that the woman has the right(?) to work and is expected to, there's no incentive for me to get married of find a man XD The kids = Look after you when your older concept has always confused me in poor nations. I mean most of their elderly die alot younger then a "rich nation" country. Say the retirement age is 50 (usually higher). A man in a poor nation probably wouldn't live much longer past that age anyway. And since they usually don't have a retirement age in place, he could continue working much after. While I won't deny that a certain standard leads to less births. Prices tend to rise as well when the lower classes start catching up. So the standard likewise fluctuates based on the market. Either way, this is another argument entirely, and I'll cut the derailing until something regarding recycling comes up again. Since this is now shifting from sustainability to something completely different to recycling.

a)The thing is, they decided to build a "Community Center" in a place they weren't too welcome in. Muslims and WTC is a touchie issue, regardless of the fact that "Muslims" as a whole weren't responsible. It's like flying the Nazi flag in a jewish community. It's their right to flag whatever they want, and them being supporters doesn't mean they're actually responsible for the action of the Nazi party.b)Seems to have gotten cut off at the end? Either way, I'm using the term insensitive broadly, if you prefer to call them rude, pricks, assholes that's fine too. This flows on to the next quote but, I define insensitive as being not "sensitive" of what others may think or feel. Building a muslim "Community Center" near the site is something even I can predict will lead to problems. For the land owners mainly, but if they're willing to bypass that and go ahead anyway, they've got some reason for doing it. And I really hope it's not the childish mentality explained in the last post. And no, I don't see being insensitive as a bad thing. I'm proud of my insensitivity :/ Now you're twisting words :/ I never said standing up for rights was insensitive. I'm saying them building the site is insensitive, and you're saying it's a right. And on my side I'm agreeing with both. Though to be honest, I more of a "Duty>Right" supporter myself. I am stating that this particular case is insensitive, not that rights are insensitive as a whole. Big mistake in the argument there, word association is not a very good tactic to adopt.

It can be synthesized/farmed, easily or not is another issue. And while I won't say "organic or nothing else." can't agree to synthesizing being a solution by itself. Otherwise, I demand a decrease in prices, *Waves her grocery bill for last week in peoples faces* As for Malthus, not really what I was referring to. But that comes below. Losing population? That would be nice globably. I can't understand why people would want kids more then two kids. Replace the father and mother with new life. That should be more then adequate. Instead you have a lady on news boasting her thirteenth kid <_< While I'm no economist, there will probably always be a higher standard and a lower standard. And prices tend to follow. Meaning that if the government issued a million dollar to everyone, prices of G&S would increase with it. I agree with the higher quality of life leading to less children concept. But I'm not convinced on the discrepancy being "Having trouble living" poor. Or "Poorer then the social average" poor. *Would like to propose the one child policy in a nation which doesn't prioritize males this time* XD

@Power Who said anything about power? While it's an important resource it's not the only one. Other key resources being food and land amongst others. You can say that we can just build up (flats) but sociology shows that crowding isn't a good idea. @Space Well if we can create farming stations in space, and space colonies (Haha Gundam world) then things might be easier, but at present I'm not seeing that happen anytime soon. Unless there's a way to stabilize human population growth, (stop increasing) even going out to space is only prolonging things. @Other news I've derailed this from recycling to sustainability haven't I? XD

@Racism Hmm think I should discuss racism first. By your definition PW the writer of the original article is a racist. By saying "not American" he is indicating that Americans don't act the way he's criticizing. So if not Americans, who? If it's UnAmerican to voice your opinion against a race, then what race does voice their opinion on another? In effect it's elevating American to a superior plane by saying Americans are accepting, caring and sympathetic. True for some, false for others. Either way it is comparing one race to another, and raising oneself as the superior race. Therefore I can't agree with your definition. In connection I do believe I am superior to someone who drinks their afternoons away and throws beer bottles as school children, yes. As for relevance, it ties in with the "prejudice" and racism you're claiming not allowing them to do so would cause. And accepting the brand of racist before people start throwing it around. I associate "Native" people of my country with drinking and beer bottles, likewise those that are insulted probably associate muslim with danger. Both are wrong, but it's not something I can change without tricking and lying to myself. @Constitution Next is the Constitution. I honestly don't care. Your constitution, not mine. However I don't agree with silencing the uneducated prejudice people and declaring they shouldn't have a say to be fair or even decent. The constitutuion is irrelevant to me, so amendment this, amendment that means nothing to me, I know it covers something about being able to hold fire arms, and another about freedom of speech. And that's it. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not interested in American technical policy/laws. @Unconstitutional/Taking away etc I think I clearly stated that there is a difference between "should not" and "can not." Even without your constitution and what not they still "SHOULD" be allowed to build where ever they want (assuming they have the land rights to) @Not caring/Not existing They never existed in my eyes. I can't feel sorry for something I don't know. And while I've experienced death of acquaintances before, being told that someone died today over the internet/news. Means little to me. I acknowledge they existed. But to me personally, it's unimportant, irrelevant, and I'd probably have commited suicide by now if I had to feel down everytime someone in the world died. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (ValaRevan) @Black Wait, what? Black as in ethnicity? :/ @Insensitive People have voiced their opinion that they disapprove, and continuing for the sake of "I have the right" is senseless. If you find homosexuals offensive and you've made your stance clear. Then a man walks up to you with his boyfriend and starts making out with him infront of you. Yes, I'd say that's insensitive. "Can they?" probably, "should they" well you tell me what you think. Again, it depends on the objective. If the landowners are doing it simply because they "Can" and because they take pride in this "rights" nonsense, then I'd say they're being insensitive. Since I don't really think a mosque in that location is going to be beneficial for the owners, could be wrong. I don't live in NY, but looking at the responses from some. Certainly doesn't look like it would be beneficial. @Motives As I said, if they're doing it because someone said "they can't" and they just want to prove them wrong. That's pretty childish. Same concept as telling a kid not to go into the Dad's office. And the kid doing it just because he was told not to. Your argument here seems to be about proving someone wrong. And I honestly think there's more important things out there then proving people wrong.

Go seek apprenticeship under Nickt XD Though personally, I'm not a fan of spiky hair I like the clothing/headband though, were they custom and if so did you reference FE mugs? Or are you just that much better at shading And yes.... I'm only here because you sounded so lonely posting in Lumi's thread. Like a small kitty out in the rain.

@Cynthia's solution Well, if you're willing to go the extra mile to make things fair, that's a solution I suppose, however I think default exp would be easier since it just cuts out that much work. Having someone role for him, removes him (The Rp'er) from stat battles in effect. So I don't see the point in letting his character fight if the controller can't enjoy (Don't ask me what's enjoyable about number crunching, I never found it appealing) the stat battles.

@Esau Gladly, it's insensitive, since people find it offensive. While the original document referred to blames politics and the media. The fact that people still don't like it is an indication that it is, offensive. Okay, I agree that these people are probably racist, will walk the long way home if they see a burka, and that their probably poorly educated. But not everyone can think like that, I for one admit I'm racist against a certain ethnicity. (Indigenous people) After they constantly snuck on to school grounds to drink alcohol on the school oval, and after having beer bottles thrown at me. I frankly can't look at them the same way I would any other people. (It's actually not that uncommon apparently). Will I hate anyone from that ethnicity? No, of course not. However I will feel more uptight and alert regardless of how "wrong" it is to judge someone on race. To be completely honest, I don't care where it gets built, I don't even live in the US. But a post that got me to think so was a one made early on about Donald Trump offering to take the land. Being a man who can throw his financial weight around, I doubt the offer was less then the original purchase price, and to refuse that seemed a bit silly to me. Quite clearly a good portion of people don't want the mosque there (Don't care if it's a center, hospital or military concentration camp), the buyer wouldn't be left out of pocket. And I don't see the benefit on insisting the mosque be built on the designated site. People (disregard numbers) don't want the building there, there's no reason to insist on building there, yet they do. Makes me think it's either holy land designated by Allah, or that more then a tinge of pride came into the picture. The tossing around of the word "rights" is usually a good sign of that. My attitude to muslims? I don't really care about them either, all the WTC incident did to me was bog down my evening news reports with information I didn't care about for a few weeks. (As I said, I'm insensitive, so why would I care about people I'd never met dying? They never existed in my eyes).

Right, my mistake, didn't go into enough detail. What I meant is that resources are going to get drained in the end anyway. Since even if we do get all "nature-effective" we're pulling on and using more resources then nature can replenish. It's not really about maintaining a balance anymore, since we've exceeded a "balance" and are doomed anyway. It's only a matter of how much longer we can make the resources last. Personally.... I don't care what happens to this world after I've departed from it :P

Going to sideline Phoenix for a bit and respond to the overwhelming comments from others. @Kiryn, yes it's more about arguing views and attitudes towards LoAF, opposed to arguing about the LoAF itself. Arguing Selizara was crap isn't going to go anywhere since it's near unanimous. Phoenix has insisted I am talking to "him" and not the others so why not? I'll address others as they arrive. As for involved in the argument, it's because you're a participant in LoAF. @Sage SQ'ers have indicated already that with the amount of "stupidity" in LoAF it's a lost caused unless everyone changes their attitudes drastically, their solution was to work towards a conclusion and start anew. @Cynthia The RP moving slower is a good thing right? Or are you wanting the "100posts a day" days back? They were engaging... but god were they rushed. As for plot hooks, it's not all that important. I mean the plot ideas we did have. Head to Capitol, meet Mana, go swamp. Apparently we had a lot of "plotters" in the RP, so even without Snowy I'm sure something would have come out of it. Jerdon for one is a nation built without Snowy plot right? And from what I've heard people are doing a China colonization with the plot anyway and taking over bits of it as is. @LoAF First stating my stance, that I too was appalled that the Demon Lord wasn't evil. A big bad being non-evil is not a trope Snowy, it's your "cliche." And while I personally don't mind cliche's or tropes, as always your plans lack plausibility. Snike's already highlighted how massacring the world is generally the work of evil. And from SQ chat. "Evil for the sake of evil"(Helenos) is as cliche as it gets. Just a thought that came to me now, but LoAF..... he wanted to make the humans "stronger" right? So.... going over to unseal the LoAF would probably just get you a "Do it yourself" comment. If he does cooperate, it's likely he'd recommence his world cleansing shortly after. Another problem is demons. Whatever happened to your "demons aren't evil" rubbish? You know, the thing about how they have no "free-will" and are closer to programmed machines then actual characters? Shanice has made me frown from the beginning, but I've yet to see a demon not working with free will. As for Morigan and Kelas being uninteresting. Have you looked at Mana and Katie? Even Esphyr? Hell Esphyr can be completely summarized as the "Wailing Emo Damsel whore" Original? Hardly. I don't place much value on originality, but there isn't much in LoAF which can outright be called an original concept. In regards to evil/not evil and there not being middle ground, how old are you? 8? No evem an eight year old would know that the world isn't split into good and evil these days. I think the term "big bad" in itself is unneccessary, why can't there be a collective of "evils?" why does there have to be one enemy which needs to take responsibility for everything that's gone wrong? @Muscling in on the plot: You're joking right? You're not honestly saying that after Helenos Swamp, and Heading to Ilyphina. Better someone muscle in into the plot and directs in then the crap you had planned. If you're going to argue the LoAF not being evil, let me rejoin and I'll kill a few PC's. In a sense I'm similar to the LoAF in the sense I tried to get plausibility in violently, and got hated on for it. (LoAF make people stronger and killed them?) Both are apparently evil. If you think otherwise, let me adopt Phoenix idea and blow up a powder keg situated next to Mana. I assure you, my intentions are to make mankind stronger the RP better <_< I'm glad someone still values sense and plausibility. Since quite frankly "I'm going to spout wings since I don't want to die after free-falling from a skyscraper" seems to be the main way people feel. If people don't like the outcome, the option here seems to be to godmode their way out before hand.

Still have an issue with the right (our) shoulderpad in terms of blending the armor in with shading. *Note, Very crappy shading, done in 2 seconds because I want to go to sleep now :P

RP'er Feedback is still RP feedback. Unless an Rp'er isn't part of the RP? Alternatively, if it's an issue for you, I can make a LoAF RP'er Feedback thread? :/

Only way to cure an idiot is to kill him. "Him" because we all know it's the males that cheat, abuse and cause problems And sometimes even that doesn't work. Too many cases, would be easier to just default exp him. And kick him out of stat battles altogether. (Give an equal amount to the lowest exp receiving character. In this specific case, the problem seems to be with dice cheating, and as you've said exp docking encourages the behaviour at a later date. Kicking him out completely just on stat cheating seems a bit extreme. Apparently he's a pain plot wise, but that's another issue/

What's his defense? Or is he past the point of offering one? Usually these types come up with hilariously ridiculous reasons as to why they made several roles. :/