Grido

not sure where to put it, but moved to General now '''but occasionally there are frogs.''' only occaisionally? what about me?

the scarecrow axe man is cool i like all of them shading looks a little heavy of some of them though

i thought those with 4 items could buy? in which case it'd be 15 people...not 9 and do multiples of items count? like blue shards, or pieces of a map, Lightsage has 4 of those

i need to find my YouTube account details...i know i have one somewhere and i have a webcam now....so it will be terrible...but i can actually make one thinking about it

phew didnt get rick rolled *thanks you tube for copyright restictions*

*whispers* dst is soft as a muffin really also, we could close this thread so's only mods and admin can spam it

yes...my fault....all mine *looks over nervously at the wookie with it's hand gripping tightly on his shoulder* that's it right? you;ll let me go now? i've said what you wanted me to tell them...

i think the point is made that *cough* suprisingly, Mur has unread mail in his inbox, give him time please, he gets a lot of messages, any posts below this saying they havent recieved a reply from him (and that only) will get deleted to avoid spam

Last, if someone doesnt have defening forces, they also dont have any offensive forces the system only recognises if the player has no defending forces when your character tries to interact with theirs, if you removed the attack button for those with no forces then your information would have to go back and forth from the server a hell of a lot more, causing server strain and such, slowing down the system... in short Fenrir, wont happen

''only those made from players with 4 or less items. '' not that this is avoidable, but, people can transfer items to their alts so they have no items, buy the items at auction, then put the items back on themselves

i was going to...i wanted to...but everything i came up with i though of a counter argument for, or a way to disregard it, would love a proper answer to it though **Probably edit in something more useful in here when i've finshed reading the rest of the forum

test

test

test

test

i would think for clarity, it would make more sense for each topic to be seperate, this would also mean that topics would not jump areas or whatever plus,better way of seeing who holds the longest deabate

if it's something debateable, and they get timed differently, why not?

i would hope that anyone is ''allowed'' to hold a debate so yes, if you have a topic that you think is suitable for debate say so

*removes some needless spam, and increases a certain persons Warn level* my point that it was written after much of the rest of the bible was in relation to man writing it, inspired by God, or of their own perogative, there is also the case that it may have been written to fill in the gap of what happened before (talking mainly about beginning of Genisis)

in extension to Fenrir's post take the stomach, the acids within it which break down the food, also decay the cells inside the stomach lining, these cells are constantly reproduced, if you stopped cell reproduction, then you would die quickly

i looked on ebay, they're not on there, there are a lot of wookie backpacks though, typing in ''chewbacca'' brings up 12 pages EDIT: this is 1337 post count

you can access it on your phone, not sure about the quality of play though, havent done it myself

[quote]Liberty (ID:83289) we live, then at one moment we die, why do we have to die, whats purpose of death and what after we die? Mur: Living beeings are self containing mini universes, the principle ballances within us is perfect or tends to be. I believe we are manifestation of information fields that by nature seek to adapt to the principle ballance of the universe we live in. Life and death are the ballance between syntropy and entropy in our mini universe that we mirror. Based on this theory, cyclicity as well as other principles should be "satisfied" so it could be an explanation why life is cyclic. All the things we do , from filling our neurons with info to the gene that cause death (yup) is programmed by nature to fulfill and keep the principles stable. If one principle goes wrong the entire ballance is lost and the information fields causing all this can not manifest themselves anymore. This is just a theory, suited to fit with religious beliefs of many cultures as well with my own researches on the matter in cause. It could be tottaly wrong. Selected for public debate, but not for round 2 because of the popularity of the question.[/quote] i could give the scientist answer to this, being that each time our cells divide the chromosomes shorten, if they get too short the cell cant multiply anymore, this leads to cells such as brain cells reducing and the body slowly dying, if the cells were to artificially continue, then you would get all sorts of genetic abnormalities cropping up, and also the likelihood of cancer (mutation of the cells) would shoot through the roof. the purpose of death is so that there is a purpose to life if we did not die and we still reproduced then the planet would become rapidly overpopulated, as it is the death rate is slightly lower that the birth rate and something will need to be thought of...but that's digressing. and so if we did not reproduce, or did so slowly, then our population would become stagnant, the species would not develop geneticly, and there would be no way to naturally enhance the species, which is built into our genetics to do so after we die? that is contested between every religion, every branch of each religion, non-religious etc etc etc. they each have different views in the spiritual sense, in the physical sense, well decompose, nutrients from your body go back into the soil, helps other plants grow and such.

it's objective morality most people would look at Hitler and say Evil, he and those around him would say Good, this can be applied to anyone you look at, anyone inherantly Good, if looked at in a certain way could be seen as Evil, and Evil as Good. Good cannot exist without Evil and vise-versa, it's a comparitive scale, if there was nothing that we define as Evil in the world, no plague, death, famine etc. and there never was, then there would be no Good either, it works the other way round as well, without anything to compare something against, you have nothing to compare. Good and Evil are moralistic, if your beliefs and morals tell you that something is wrong, you will see it as Evil, if they tell you that something is right or correct, then you will see it as Good your last question, that is a something that is in our genetics, animals do not hunt for sport, like Mur said, we were animals once, apes (based on theory of evolution anyway), and in our genes was to ensure the survival of the species, we've kept that trait, but on a larger scale, we hear about someone getting hurt or killed it is against our species and thus hurts it, as we want the species to continue we dont like it happening so moralisticly people would find it wrong. BUT, there are variations on this rule, if what we're doing ensures the survival of a larger, or more important part of our species then we will see the situation as Good to do these things, important would be from the individual's perspective. this is what comes to mind currently anyway