Sophius

That opinion show just how ignorant you are about them. I am afflicted with extremely severe OCD and Anxiety, and if it weren't for my Psychaiatrist/Psychologist, I would still be a miserable wreck that screams and has a panic attack every time someone looks at me in a certain way. And I would still have to wash my hands fourty-five times whenever it was time to take a shower.(that is not an exageration) As for the issue at hand, I had the same problem. Every time my parents would get upset with me, or if I was having a particularly bad episode in school, I would beat myself in the head, choke myself, and scratch myself until I began to profusely bleed. It is probably a good idea to see a psychologist(note: not a psychaiatrist, a psychologist) and explain to him what is going on. Assuming he knows what he is talking about, he''l probably give some symptom checks. On the note finding a decent psychologist, if you don't like the look of the one you go to, don't stick with them. Find someone else. Alternatively, you could look up different illnesses online, though you have to be careful of grad school syndrome if you do. Were I to take a guess, I'd say that you have either anxiety or depression. In both cases you should seek treatment immediantly, lest depression leads to suicide or anxiety leads to psychosis. Another thing to note is that medication should be used as a last resort. Some medications(like seryquill) really screw you up, and many leave unable to access certain resources(as an example, the risperdol that I was on caused me to have a serious writers block). I truly hope that it turns out merely to be stress, and hope for success in any treatment you might pursue.

I partly agree. The reason I enjoy Stephen King so much is that he uses the "every man" for the characters in his books, and deeply develops them before quickening the pace of the plot. The "chosen one" theme for books has never really appealed to me.

I just started Majora's Mask and I am finding that the time limit is rather unnerving. How can they expect you to do much in that ammount of time, not to mention you lose everything if you play the song of time. What is the point of collecting items then? An how can they fit anything substantial or meaningful into the meager time frame that is given? The dungeons can hardly be that big, and exploration of fields would be hectic as opposed to exciting.

This is the way I talk. I'm not trying to "wierdly inflate my intelligence" in any way. Damn it I'm tired of being persecuted for the manner in which I speek.

Essau, if you don't mind, would you please leave me alone. Both of your attacks happen to be quite false, and it would be much appreciated if you comment on my intended message than you just posting to insult me. I have to deal with this crap too much in life for me to have to stand on forums too.

Currently, I've read: Stephen King Shirly Jackson Bram Stoker H.P.Lovecraft Can anyone suggest a horror author who is half way decent? (Just so everyone knows, I don't really like the look of Dean Koontz)

I enjoy chess, but my honest preferance is go. I'm fairly good I suppose, though by no means am I a veteran.

I honestly belive that Twilight is just a silly and stupid( ahem, poorly written) piece of writing tragetted toward a silly and oftentimes stupid fanbase. That being, horomone crazed teenagers. It, as I mentioned before, is poorly written, somewhat slutty, redundant, it depicts both humans and vampires in a sickening way, and finally, models an obsessive relationship to an already unstable audience. In other words, the books are mockery to writing. It is truly sad to have seen the concept of the vampire so twisted and utterly transmorgified throughout the recent years, and I fear the Twilight is merely yet another step in this dreaded process of corruption. Woe upon those who have defiled this great literary concept.

The subconcious mind records and stores any information that it runs across, so if we are to look at the human as a whole, nothing is forgotten. However, what your concious mind can access is an entirely different story. Not to mention that we're teenagers, meaning that the procees of growth further inhibits ones concious memory.

Like(As in I use them in part due to their personalities, some more than others): FE4:Dew, Julia FE5:Sara, Marita FE10:Edward, Pelleas Dislike: FE1:Jake FE4:Patty FE5:Pahn FE6:Roy FE10:Zihark

Another good horror book is Salem's lot, especially if you like vampires. It posseses aneExcellent plot, and was one of the few, "horror" books that actually disturbed me. My personal favorite would be It though, that is another really good one. I can't believe I forgot historical! I'll add that right away.

Hopefully I am not missing any, however I have a feeling that I might. Please inform me if this is so. I have voted for horror. Likely one of least popular ones on the forum(though hopefully more popular than romance). EDIT. thank you Narga.

No one is paying any attention to this, so I see no more point in keeping this posted.

Could you provide examples? I acknowledge that what I refer to are exceptions.However, these exceptions are too many and too deadly to be reliably identified by taste. I'm not talking about voodoo(which native americans don't even practice) but an actual survival skill that humans and other animals have the potential to access. If you need a reference, look at the book Tom Brown's Field Guid to Edible and Medicinal Wild Plants. If you would look, I'm not saying that you imbecile! What I'm trying to say is that humans are the only beings to truly command uninstictual pleasure from taste. Excuse me? If my manner of speech preturbs you, I honestly don't give a shit. The fact that the possibility that one might possess such a vocabulary is disincluded from you conception makes apparent the level at which your intelligence stands! I'm talking about their cultural teachings, not the charicatures mdern society has twisted them into. WhenI say touching, I mean coming into contact with or expieriencing. Stop being such an insufferable nitpick. Both of you in fact.

If "perfect" is an inept word to describe our ecosystem, then so is "sustainable." Sustainable implies that a sentient care taker is responsible for upholding the ecosytem. The only race we know capable of doing such a thing is currently raping the earth, not sustaining it. What I mean is that it is amazing that the conditions which would allow earth to sustain life and that the conditions that would create such a complex system should also be fulfilled. Yes , but the qualities which define the edibility of food are not exculsive to taste. Taste is both a minor and inconsistent means of identification. In other words, it is not nessesary and provides no significant benefits other than pleasure. Also, there are plenty of sweet berries on can eat that would nescesetate a stomach pumping. Meaning, there are enough flaws to make taste identification frequently unyielding. Again, there is no quality in food that is identified soley by taste. This instinct is not "magical" as you so woefully misconcieve. All animals instinctively know what is good for them merely by touching them. In other words, the various subconcious avenues of perception infor the animal as to the objects edibility. Teaching humans to get in touch with this instinct is important in native american teachings. And we all know that the native americans are experts at wilderness survvival. You know what I mean.

When I say perfect, I mean to have an ecosystem as complex and intricate as the one on earth and have it still be able to sustain itself even under harsh conditions. Not nesscesarily. If we were to identify what we should eat by taste, that would mean we would have shove poison into our mouths to know it is poison. Sight, smell, and touch are safer and better ways to identify food than taste.In addition all animal have a built in natural instinct that tells them if something is edible or not(this is how animals know what to eat.) The factor of taste generally provides only enjoyment and not as means of identification. Or did you not know that Amanita Phalloides is said to taste qite good. Taste serves as enjoyment for all animals. But humans have most tastebuds allowing them to enjoy it more fully.

To be quite honest, I don't feel that inteligent life is improbable. Organisms are naturally inclined toward evolution, meaning, that the creation of sentient beings was bound to happen given sufficient time. What I believe is truly improbable, is that the circumstances occured within the universe that allowed the fabrication of such a perfect and well designed eco-system(at least, before mankind rose.)I personally do not believe that the creation mankind was the whim of mere chance, but rather it was the encouragement of an already functioning natural process. In my opinion, the existence of the sense of taste could signify this. Speaking in terms of survival, taste is used as a means to discern the edibility of food a human may consume, and as means to encourage a human to eat. However the torture that is starvation ii plenty motivation to consume food, and the human taste would not need to be as complex or sensitive as they are to ensure that they function as a survival tool. Therefore it could be concluded human tastebuds exist for human enjoyment. But why would nature, who concerns itself with survival, bother creating function that serves no other purpose than to producee pleasure?

I just recently decided to revisit the pokemon games, having not played them since I was five years old. I decided to try and train Abra in Gold(that is what I played first) and found him, along with most of the other psychic types, to be over powered. The case is the same in yellow. Are psychics over powered in evry game or is that just in these two?

My personal favorites are Stephen King, Frank Herbert, and Edgar Allen Poe. How about everyone else?

Another thing, jazz is missing from the poll. The swing era of which happens to be my favorite genre after classical. Alot of people like rock on this forum. The only artists I particularly enjoy are Blue Oyster Cult and Frank Zappa.

I just graduated from the 8th grade last semester and I have completed the courses up through geometry.

It would be nice if my teachers in school were to provide these points. The only thing they ever gave me was avoidance. Thank you.

This is somthing I believe is ironic. That mathematics, a field that requires precise calculations with no room for error, should be flawed. What atre these flaws? I will give the two main ones. First of all, we come to most heatedly debated point, the question of how can 1 contain infinity. Currently mathematics teach that hathere is an infinite amount of number between 0 and 1. This conversely means that the samme can be said or 1 and 2, however because 2 is 1+1, that means 2 is double infinity, which is not possible. Some mathematicians state that 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, and so on is actually equivalent to one. However if we consider that those numbers can be easily represented in a reality based incrimential value not equivalent to one, that theory can be easily diregarded. Currently, the only way to have an explanation to this is to look at is from a philosophical standpoint, which is said not to overlap with mathematics(though ancient greek and roman philosophers would tend to disagree.) The reason why thta is however, is a completely different conversation altogether. My second point, which is not a commonly debated one, is the fact that given probabilities are correct only in theory. Here is an example: If we were to posses a six sided die that is flawless in its design, we would say that it has 1/6 probability to come up with a certain answer. However to possess such an exact probability in real life is all but impossible. Let us say that there is a party going on in a penthouse apartment. Naturally, two elements in this party would be drinking and gambling. If a gambler were to roll a six sided die, we would say that their is 1/6 chance for each number. However, this theoretical probability does not include the possibility that a wandering drunk could bump into the table amd thus knock the die, which has not yet come with a result,out the open window. The die could then fall to the ground, land on its point, and shatter. A mathematician would say that such an occurence has such a low probability of happening(this is also debatable) that it can be discredited. However, if one were to factor in all possible occurences, the culimation would be signifigant. And, to expound on that, there is also theoretically an infinite number of possible outcome at any given time, thus turning the question of probability into a paradox. What is everyones opinion on this?

I am admonished of the fact that you did not include the genre of classical music in your poll, which is every bit and more prevalent to each of the named genres. It also happens to be my preferance when listening to music. Here are my favorite compositions. Symphony #9 in D-minor -Beethoven Mass in B-minor -Bach Requiem Aternam -Mozart Symphony 7 - Allegretto -Beethoven Tocatta and Fugue -Bach Symphony 1 in C-major -Beethoven Romance for the Violin and Orchestra -Beethoven Serenade&quot Eine klein Nachtmusik&quot -Mozart Symphony 5 in C-minor -Beethoven Symphony 40 in G-minor -Mozart EDIT: it is g-minor. Thank you for correcting me Icey.

Personally, I am a pagan. It honestly makes more sense (to me) that there would be multiple deities with higher power, and that they would be imperfect as their creations are. However, I won't go in depth unless someone wishes to debate.