Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Possibilities:

South Korea: Probability 6-1

+'s= They are always 3 years ahead of everyone in terms of technology and science, will make current superpowers magnet onto them, making them become an economic superpower.

-'s= really small. never going to be much of a military superpower unless they go northern on us.

Canada: Probability 8-1

+'s= Do not have any natural enemies and will be around when the rest of the world falls. American immigrants will just bring pleasure into the country overall.

-'s= Strong Liberatarian Parlimentary government won't be able to join up a strong enough defense if attacked for some reason.

Japan: Probability 12-1

+'s= Technologically advanced, huge population on such a small area means never short on workers. And they always seem ready to defend themselves.

-'s= They need to find a new homeland because the entire island will be flooded by the next century.

Russia: Probability 5-1

+'s= Large area plus a lot of people can add up to a very strong power in this world.

-'s= Crime floods streets plus weak leadership.

Iran: Probability 20-1

+'s= ultra-aggressive leader with the mental incapacity and nukes to play hardball if anyone tries to mess.

-'s= a lot of hate from otehr countries could stop them before they get a chance.

New Zealand: Probability 2-1

+'s= forgot to mention they would probably beat out Canada in the end. Have literally nothing at the moment to worry about besides drowning. Even that has a plus side: big tall mountains.

-'s = Southern hemisphere... They could all die from severe sunburn.

Wait a second. I thought it was Israel that was doing all the bombing

At 7/26/06 11:26 PM, AndrewM wrote: LETS not move away from the subject at hand PLEASE.
lets forget our differences, like civalised NG users.
we all have opinions but lets not be too negative.....

Wow I haven't seen a plea for civil talk on ng since... well I signed up. Anyway claymation must count. I love this one

Take your mexican foolishness someplace else!

Ms. Kibbe doesn't look like a zombie!

But she does look like a balloon! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

is that seriously the only flaw you found in the movie

I thought United 93 was an extremely good movie as a whole, and it did not seem as driven by hollywood greed as I'm sure World Trade Center will be. The only part I don't like about these types of movies is that when they finally do come out, those god-forsaken I don't evn know how to describe em people that create those stupid conspiracy threads.

Perhaps an angry face isn't the best face to put up there. Cuz I'm not angry, but I'm worried. I'm worried that the average American today has lost faith in himself, and no longer has the desire nor the ability to help himself. We''ve seen it happen in the aftermath of hurricane katrina, in the wake of huge losses of jobs. No one has a plan. That's not even the worst of it. Not only does the average Amercian have a plan, but they also won't accept that the fact that their life has suddenly turned upside down is at least partially, their own fault. I understand everyone's complaints about how it's the government fault. And it is for the most part. It is their duty to serve us and protect us in order for us to live fulfilling lives. No matter your current economic status, lack of healthcare, or other securities, trust me when I say that the likelihood of you doing better in another country is very small. The average American has been spoon-fed all his life and for that he is not prepared to feed himself when the parent has died. The reason is, is that our government has become a parent, which it should not be. England was a parent when America was a colony. And although our government makes the decisions that are suppossed to lubricate everyday life, first and foremost the people are the source of the power. Nowadays, it seems that we've let our government gain too much authority over us, but it is not the government's doing, it's ours. We've standardized our country into conformity because all we're doing is following the goverment's instructions. It's like we are totally obediant dogs, but not in a good sense because we have become over dependent on the government to protect us.

I find it amazing that the only Americans today that are actually willing to help themselves for the good of the country's wealthfare is the military and the American citizens that sacrifice their lives everyday taking on jobs such as putting out wildfires in the dry wooded areas of the western part of the country, and police officers in the cities doing everything from narcotics raids to checking if your driving permit is valid to making sure you're not out past city curfew without a guardian.

If you've been reading the newspapers, radio, online, tv, whatever, you might have found out something interesting about the American citizens that live in other countries, particularly those in lebanon. A lot of the evacuting of American Citizens from lebanon is not even being done by our government, but by the citizens themselves. Yes, these Americans that don't even call America their home, go out in jeeps in order to find, not loved ones, not friends, but other Americans, stranger or not. It literally blew my mind because although a lot of heroics were displayed after hurricane katrina by everyday people, it was nothing of this magnitude, going out in the middle of live bombings, getting past Israeli checkpoints that might not even allow them safe passage, just to search for Americans they didn't even know. The last time I actually saw something like that nearly on that level was after 9/11.

I believe alot of this has to do with our new obsession with getting technology, and getting it way to fast for us to comphrehend what on earth we're doing. We get so locked into what is happening now that we never think about what's going to happen after . As our technology becomes more three demesional, our vision of the world has become more two-demensional, such that when the actual third demension actually rears its ugly head, it comes as a devastating blow to the people. After hurricane katrina, our government responded terribly, but it might not have been as terrible if we hadn't given them as much responsibility in the first place. While it is their duty to protect, if we really are the source of their power, then let's split the blame at least 50-50, not give them more. Remember, while all you have to worry about is you, your family, and your posterity, our government has to deal with you, your family, your posterity, the guy next to you, and the rest of this country... Oh yeah, also all the other countries of the world, which I failed to mention. I've hated Bush since the day he came into office, I've hated the decisions he's made, and pretty much everything else he's done. But I've hated the fact, that people who've also hated him feel compelled to relieve themselves of the blame, even more.

So ends my little rant.

At 7/24/06 02:45 PM, Proud_American wrote: Yes, because ALL 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 year olds have no political knowledge and are completely oblivious to the world around them.

13 year olds are a lot worse.

we really need t setup up a system of writing down *sarcasm* because it's too hard for me to handle when tallking about politics.

At 7/24/06 01:22 PM, stewie4evrr wrote: gays have a huge right to be married...example....1: a man and a womans marrige becomes dry and pointless after a while....a gay marrige is never dry or dead...they are in infinite love...2: if a man and a woman HATE each other they shoud have more of a right to be married than 2 gay people who love each other...bullshit

gay marry the same way as straights. They are subject to dry marriages and are rarely subject to 'infinite love'. There are many gay divorces performed or similar in manner.

I remember this argument from family guy. It's morally right, but not a religious enough argument to prove the main point.

At 5/9/06 04:55 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote:
I really dont see the difference between that and other mass murder, like abortion. But, it is kind of disgusting.

I kind of had a thing against killing those who have experienced at least most of there senses with the outside world. In this case I believe in "It's better to not love something if you never see it again." It's also better "To save someone who would lead a worse life in death" Therefore, someone whose already born. Touched the outside world, seen it, smelt it, heard it, tasted it, should not be teased out of life, but for those who do not expect life change because their still in the womb, let them stay at peace forever.

At 7/23/06 08:12 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: "The only source of knowledge is experience." - Albert Einstein

I'm pretty sure he's referenceing trials but I'm not sure. No matter, I've never thought of einstein as much of a philosopher. Heeven argued against his own quantum physics theory. lmao.

At 7/23/06 09:39 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:28 PM, EKublai wrote:

I don't see it as your right, or any one person's right, or any committee's right, to say what is a justifiable lifestyle for an American citizen. To do that stretches so far beyond what was intended by the Constitution. Given the rich history of America's hunting life, I would not hesitate to say that for many it is a lifestyle.

However, I do see it as the right of the country's democratic position. Now, if you're going to tell me that the majority of Americans will take your position, they want more liberal gun laws, then I'm going to have to accept that. But I do believe that democracy has the right to change a lifestyle, and I'm talking abut any case, abortion, gay marriage, or gun laws. But I also believe in the procedures conducted in congress and senate such as needing 2/3 of the vote to create/erase an amendment. I agree that the Constitution i sconstantly stretched, but that is only because it's been around so long. These days, people want specificity more than anything as do I. I think that we can't let the 10th amendment get in the way of updating amendments that haven't been changed since it was ratified.

Also the only Supreme Court case that I'm aware of that has to do with this, U.S vs. Miller, the court held that the right to own a gun is a collective and not an individuals right.

Yeah, tell FDR that. Some of the greatest expansions in government power have come from liberal presidents and programs.

Please don't say that americans are similar to americans then. Today, America is two-fold more leftist as a whole in all points of argument. Conservatism and Liberalism have taken on entirely new meanings. And FDR is not the meaning of today's liberalism.

Even though the majority of the American people support the right to own a gun, you're going to go against them because, in truth, the foundaiton for this argument isn't that liberal gun control advocates support the people, but only the people who agree with them.

Let me make it clear once again that I am am not supporting the banning of all guns. Sorry I'm not really following what you're saying here.

America's Constitution, Akhil Amar.

You mean his re-written constitution. His stance for the constitution is for a grammatical interpretation of the 2nd amendment that because of the times back in, the purpose of people to have the right to bear arms was in order to overthrow a tyrannical government if one should arise. That's found here. His statements of protecting the 2nd amendment with the 14th are contridictory because even then he does no state a distinction within the amendment between individual arms, collective arms, and ordnances.

Mm, no one has ever complained that a .45 caliber Smith and Wesson handgun was too small to protect the home.

That's because they don't need to complain if their shooting at a person sneaking into their house. The fact is, is that a handgun's main use is or killing other people, or injuring them. This should not be the first response to people who you may have no idea what they're doing. The fact that the shells that come with the handguns can do so much damage with such little accuracy leads to disaster

The parents ought to be held strictly liable for it, same as a drunk kid getting into a car crash. No reason to ban guns for those of us who know how to keep, handle and use them.

and yet how are we supposed to know who those people are? If you really want things like that to stop happening, then stop putting arms dealers in highly populated urban areas where people don't care about learning how to use it properly. Instead of basing Remington in New York, how about somewhere more rural. How about instead of basing Smith and Wesson in Massachusetts they take it somewhere more rural. Why does it seem that the majority of the biggest arms manufactuers base themselves in the highly populated urban zones? I have a feeling that a lot of these companys are less concerned whether the right to bear arms protects people rather than their businesses.

You think it's justified to push legislation based on beliefs? That's not how it's supposed to work. You're welcome to try and pick up a .50 caliber rifle and try to hit the target with it, much less a moving target as small as a turkey or as angular as a deer.

I'm not justifying it because it is not the basis of my argument. It's to argue since I'm more against handguns and pistol revolvers than rifles. Those, I'm afraid are used everyday in crime and that's why handguns need to be stopped. Handguns are involved in the majority of criminal shootings

I have no problem with it. Some people don't want to waste money on something that nature gave them in the first place. It's traditional. Notice that they are only talking about male infants. I think that actually a stance more against infants than mothers. They seem to think that the only possible use for breast-feeding today is for sexual gratification and that's simply not true.

you cannot ban gay marriage for a lot of people if they are or are not christian. If they're not. Then the authority of the church would have no power over what they would be certified to become. If they are christians, then the church does not have the power since they will declare gay marriage a denouncement of your christianity. In other country's this might be possible. But we have the first amendment and therefore people have the right to practice ceremonies under their religion because in reality the church does not have power over itself.

At 7/23/06 08:46 PM, EKublai wrote:

sorry forgot to do the first part. PM me if you want to continue this.

And it is right to legislate morality in this case, but not in the case of abortion or gay marriage?

No. your right. my bad. But still I'm talking about something that more has to do with the human life. No doubt abortion and hunting can be simplified to read out as, "The taking of a life that is all but powerless." Hunting could be called playing god. But we can't do that because then a slaughterhouse would be playing god. That's why I think it's more important to legalize things that are relative to a person's life and their right to choose their own lifesytle and illegalize things that damage THEM unnessesarily. Now you could call me a hypocrite because some call hunting a lifestyle. But I don't think so. Whether you call it a sport, lifestyle, means of getting meat (the only justifyable use for hunting) it is first and foremost, ever since we declared ourselves rulers of the world and had enought eat to make our bellies full... It's a hobby. A hobby that to a point is as unnessessary as stamp collecting. The only reason we don't outlaw stamp collecting is because stamps are not as famous for killing other people and animals as guns are.

:That still doesn't explain why Amendment 2 is so strictly interpreted by liberal groups while they allow the broadest of interpretations of the other 9.

That's why liberals are called liberals. Because they have opinions that are strangely enough. Liberal and pro-more people power less government. We tend to limit things that stand for what we believe to be a greater (notice I'm not saying conservative don't either) But liberals also like change. Update what's been outdated as we believe the 2nd amendment is outdated for the times. Conservatives may also agree that some of the amendment likes the 4th are slightly outdated, but for liberals the greater is not usually US, but THEM. See it goes like this in the priority list. US is the American people, them is what was here before us, namely the environment, the old relics with valuable history and foresight for the future. Those guys are the ones that we try to help. Enemies are obvious.

1. US - THEM
2. Those Guys- Enemies

for conservatives it seems to be

1. US- Enemies
2. Those Guys
3. THEM

That's why we argue I guess.

It says it very clearly, "The right to bear arms," short for sidearms such as rifles and pistols.

I'm not trying to knock down (because I'm actually curious) do you have a source for that interpretation. Specifically from the supreme court?

No protection value to a handgun? What?

A handgun is, without, a doubt the worst weapon for protection. Inaccurate, liable for breaking, and most of all, are too small. Why? because although they are convenient to hold with thier lighter weight, consider that the first action to protect with a gun should not be to kill, but to threaten and scareaway, same as an alarm system. Handguns are infamously inaccurate and cause most of the fatal home shootings you hear about. Also, the bullets of the guns are too powerful. Recently, there was a case where a sister accidently shot her brother at home with their parents handgun. The bullet first went through the boys head at close range, through their window, through their neighbor's window and hitting the neighbor's wife. Also they are more prone than any other gun to break down or possibly even backfire when damaged or gotten wet.

Any source for this, or are you just spewing it out your ass?

You're just trying to get me to say something about the washington D.C snipers or Columbine and Michegan and all the other disasterous shootings. You can't wait so you can do your "cliche dance." whatever that's your opinion. I believe that it is not that hard to shoot a gun, if it was people wouldn't be dying from them, therefore it's not very time-consuming in learning to shoot many different kinds. But in answer to your question, no I have no direct source, but it's definitely not a spew.

At 7/23/06 08:12 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:00 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 7/14/06 12:28 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:

And it is right to legislate morality in this case, but not in the case of abortion or gay marriage? That still doesn't explain why Amendment 2 is so strictly interpreted by liberal groups while they allow the broadest of interpretations of the other 9.

but the 2nd Amendment is denied the same living status. It is always very strictly interpreted by those who seek to limit the sale and possession of guns by legal gun owners. It's a horrible hypocrisy that ought not be overlooked, and ought to be justified by anyone who claims the 2nd Amendment no longer applies.

The second amendment is probably the most difficult to interpret because of its lack of specificty. If you simply said, "Right to bear arms" you would include any type of ammunition, biological, nuclear weapons.

It says it very clearly, "The right to bear arms," short for sidearms such as rifles and pistols.

We need to be able to limit this somehow. So for that we add in the specificty ourselves. Especially when it comes to crime, outlawing weapons with no protection value like handguns is a must.

No protection value to a handgun? What?

Because, as much as some love to vilify the owners of guns, those who have taken the time to learn to use them, apply for permits, take training courses and spend hard-earned money on a fire arm are not very likely to immediately go off on a shooting spree.

Well, actually that's not that true. Most people who actually plan to kill someone take courses or learn to be good at shooting some other way. That's why people die from gunfire, criminals already know how to use them.

Any source for this, or are you just spewing it out your ass?

Why is it that critics of gun rights seem to think that Americans are too stupid to understand how to properly use a weapon?
Do we ban driving automobiles because some irresponsible person gets drunk behind the wheel and slams into an oncoming car?

Conveniently, age 18 is when you can legally own a rifle.

Don't see the relevance because that's also the age that you're not a minor anymore and are therefore subject to the death penalty, joining the army, legally smoking cigarrettes, driving, owning a rifle, people go off to college, yadayadayada, it's the age of responsibility being thrust upon you... Just knowledge from me and my friends personal experiences. It's like driving, drugs, and alcohol. Just cuz the law says doesn't mean it's followed. This goes especially for hunting where the probability of you getting caught by law enforcment, park rangers, or other is drastically reduced. Five of my friends have been going to Montana to hunt since they were 10 every summer. I don't know how old you have to be to get a permit, but that's definitely never been an issue for them since there is not enough law enforcement to watch their every move.

Smith and Wesson imports its guns? Remington imports its guns? Winchester imports its guns? And here I thought these were American industries.

Save the outsourcing arguments for a different thread.

Got a source for that?

point conceded since I don't care enough at the moment to go beyond personal experience

And that?

Point conceded here as well. sry, got lost in my rant. I changed my argument below which I will look for a source that I know exists right now.

If they legally own the gun and then commit a crime with it, they go to jail and don't get to own guns anymore.

That's frighteningly inaccurate Im afraid. Many cases in Chicago go cold because guns are traced back to owners, not the actual killers.

Restricting an entire nation because of the misguided actions of one is collective punishment of the worst form.

If the punishment is the saved life of another human being than I accept it. I'm not entirely against guns, they're are exhilerating to watch in movies because we know they're real life threats. I'm not sure about the inner working of achieving hunting licenses, but for the love of god I hope it's a difficult procedure that has lots of security protocol behind it. My main point is, is I don't think ANYONE besides military, law enforcement, and other governmental bodies should have the right to own guns if they first don't have a well-deserved hunting license. It would make me belive a person's intent more.

LOL I WANT 2 SELL MY GUNZ NOW

it's actually very lucrative because the law states that the illegal gun dealer is not responsible for any gun violence carried out by the new owner. There is a heavy fine believe it. And jail time for criminal dealing. But in reality it's a very good way of making a good profit without showing "1st degree murder" on their background check.

I actually live on one of the most populated areas in the country, about 20 minutes south of Washington D.C., despite your attempts to label gun owners as backwoods hicks.

I wasn't using the word "you" in actually describing you since of course I have no idea who you are. I live in downtown Chicago. The third most populated city in the country. And I'm not labeling gun owners as backwoods hick. I'm labeling the majority of hunters as backwoods hicks because most of them already live in the place where they hunt.

HighlyIllogical wrote:

2. "For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every
self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related
shootings." Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the
home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was searching for in my above argument... nice one. thx

it's been done for chicago except in out of town places like at the local steak and shake. They still have seperate sections.

At 7/14/06 12:28 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:
But I wonder about this on a Constitutional level, thanks to an astute observation by Proteas. I wonder why the Constitution is viewed as a living document by those who seek to use it to defend the detainees at Guantanamo, or a woman's right to choose,

a woman's right to choose is different. It's biologically and religiously based while guns are morally based.

or the rights of gays to marry,

the question of guns is different from gay marriage because there is no safety hazard involving gay marriage, only biblical values.

but the 2nd Amendment is denied the same living status. It is always very strictly interpreted by those who seek to limit the sale and possession of guns by legal gun owners. It's a horrible hypocrisy that ought not be overlooked, and ought to be justified by anyone who claims the 2nd Amendment no longer applies.

The second amendment is probably the most difficult to interpret because of its lack of specificty. If you simply said, "Right to bear arms" you would include any type of ammunition, biological, nuclear weapons. We need to be able to limit this somehow. So for that we add in the specificty ourselves. Especially when it comes to crime, outlawing weapons with no protection value like handguns is a must.

The thing is, a lot of people own guns. It's a growth industry. Montana has about a million people, give or take 150,000. It also has over six million guns registered to loving owners. What is the rate of gun crime in the state of Montana? Minimal. Why?

I understand your thinking, but you kind of miss your own point because the reason gun crime is so slow is because there are only about a million people in Montana. Therefore, it's a struggle for someone to find a person to kill or rob since neighbors there literally live miles apart from one another. Also, notice how many guns are registered. That high amount is because gun laws are more lax in Montana because of the popularity of hunting. I don't really think everyh one of those 6 million guns are used for hunting or protection.

Because, as much as some love to vilify the owners of guns, those who have taken the time to learn to use them, apply for permits, take training courses and spend hard-earned money on a fire arm are not very likely to immediately go off on a shooting spree.

Well, actually that's not that true. Most people who actually plan to kill someone take courses or learn to be good at shooting some other way. That's why people die from gunfire, criminals already know how to use them.

Why is it that critics of gun rights seem to think that Americans are too stupid to understand how to properly use a weapon?
Do we ban driving automobiles because some irresponsible person gets drunk behind the wheel and slams into an oncoming car?

But most states are now raising the requirements for driver's licenses to age 18 because automobile accidents are the #1 killer of 16-25 year olds. Also, that's an unfair comparison. Cars are methods of transportation and the fuel they use, the cars themselves, are some of the most important parts of efficient tranportation around the country. We have highways that run from coast to coast that have cost us multi-billions. Guns, on the other hand are not an important economic factor in comparsion to automobiles.

No. Does the entire staff of a company get fired when one mid-level employee fouls up?

the company does get sued however, which is why they fire the employee in the first place.

No. So why is it that gun rights critics are so ready to jump on the legal gun owners for the crimes of those who most likely obtained their weapons illegally?

Because the U.S imports these guns, allow illegal supplies to be transported (much like drugs across the borders*) and don't have enough security to make sure criminals themselves don't get their hands on weapons.

Face it: the vast majority of gun owners do not go on to commit crimes.

Well, at least not gun crimes.
Face it: the vast majority of legal gun owners don't live in hunting regions. They live in cities such as Manhatten and Chicago. They go to places to Montana in order to obtain the weapon. They don't intend to use it for bad. They intend to protect their families. However, there is no place safe to keep guns in the projects of these big cities because their houses get raided all the time. That's how a lot of criminals get their hands on a gun.

It pains me to think some people still don't get it.

I get it enough to know that the conservatives who want guns to stay legal are indeed the legal gun owners of rural countryside parts like Montana. And the libertarians. But as we no from any good political book, the happy ending comes with the libertarians leaving to Canada. But they have to understand that their passions for hunting and protecting their families with firearms also puts guns in many other people's hands. Think about it.

The importation of guns leads to people in rural and urban neigborhoods receiving guns for various purposes. The urban streets is where they get their guns. From their legal owners or legal gun owners turned gun dealer (more likely scenario) This puts many lives at risk. So while your protecting you family and you remain safe in rural Montana where you hunt rabbits with a rifle and protect your families, remember you are also part of the reason criminals get guns, to fight off those who protect themselves. Protecting your own family is a moral and just thing that any person with common sense would do. However, when you place the lives of others in harms way while you protect your family....

It's a pretty damn selfish thing for you not to find some other way to live.

At 1/23/03 08:28 PM, Bush_is_a_moron wrote: i would like to know if there is one douche bag out there who wants to defend this schools action.

I will.

It should be illegal for women to have dreadlocks. she could use them as weapons be lashing them out at people. Safety hazard.

People with mohawks look stupid and could be hiding weapons in their hair

At 7/13/06 08:49 AM, Turandot wrote: So far 40 civilians are dead in lebanon, including two families (10 people and 7 people) both whose homes were destroyed in an act of muder by Israel.

Israel deserves what it gets now.

How about we do what we should've done a long time ago and build a mile high wall around the Middle East, then in about 30, 40 years open the door and see who comes out. It's simple, we won't have to worry about our troops and we won't receive the 'startling images' that will tear the souls out of our children

I agree with both of your points. 1. Yes I am indeed a high school prodigy. 2. I do tend to hold my views firm and argue them passionately.

I disagree with 1. not conceding victory to another argument.

My stance in this matter is that it is much more fun arguing with people from the 18-25 range because it's the time when their trhying to get all their life's education out of their head. This means they forget to do the stuff that 15-17 year olds do without a second thought. ie read a newspaper, look up phenonmena they see in everday life, and... oh yeah, we actually use the 'random article' button on wikipedia... for fun. You know what the best part is? The same people that argue as though their hardcore politicians are the same ones that still watch nickelodeon shows for kicks, crash their cars into yours, and drink and smoke daily... well in the summer at least. We kind of have the unwritten rule of no smoking and drinking on school nights, nights before sports, and nights where we're not in the mood.

I've only gotten two unique ngers to email me. One about designing backgrounds and the other about my impressive stance on weed.

At 7/23/06 06:20 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: Post counts should not be shown. All it does is segregate the BBS in terms, not of who is decent, nor who contributes, but who talks too much.

They are of no worth, the little stat tells you nothing. Each time you reach a thousand or so posts, it is meant to be some big deal.

If post counts were not visible, then posters will be appreciated purley on merit.

I disagree. I think it shows dedication in some way shape or form to the bbs, whether it's making great articulate and well thought out posts or making short stupid remarks thousands of times. Either way it shows loyalty and dedication. The truth is is that we need someone to look up to and show us what a true ng fan is.

Turn it into the cute anime style

whoa here's an idea. homemade sounds.

seriously though what do you want. I'm good at simulating sounds if you need any

At 7/22/06 11:03 PM, Maus wrote: Pick which forum you want your rant in, because I'm deleting one of them.

delete the one in the flash forum

At 7/22/06 11:13 PM, -orb- wrote: wow, why did I read that whole thing. What is wrong with me? What a waste of my life.

You're just trying to sound cool. I know you liked my rant.

At 7/22/06 10:56 PM, GamesCool wrote: This is JUST what we needed. The same exact topic you posted in the flash forum!

It was pretty pointless when you posted it in the Flash forum, so why post it here also?

Because this message needs to be heard from me, to the masses, for the masses, and by me.