Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/28/12 11:12 PM, Adam-Beilgard wrote:

At 11/26/12 04:04 PM, Artist-Lost wrote: Here is my avatar

Crap, forgot we had to do avatars...thanks for the reminder.

I have no idea what this is about. I dont see anything about an avatar... Do I need to make something else?

not traced (at all). Ears are different, tusks are different, trunk is different, angle between back legs is different, front legs are different.

Its not that difficult to remake a picture in front of you.

At 11/25/12 05:58 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/25/12 05:49 PM, poxpower wrote:

Is it possible to be smart and religious? Yes. Is it stupid to be religious? Yes.

Unless you can prove for a fact that there is no such thing as god, angels, demons, fairies, ghosts, or any other supernatural phenomenon, you only make yourself look like an idiot.

From HIS perspective this would be impossible to do, since they are not existing.

good luck with that. and don't bother telling me to prove god exists because you made the claim he doesn't.

Ha made me laugh. "good luck with that." are you implying that he will not be able to? your kinda helping him out here even if you say DISPROVE the existence of angels.

As always burden of proof on such claims lies at the believers. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the NON-existence of something that does not exist, yet it is VERY possible to prove the existence of something that exists.. sounds logical right? Believers make claims, and back them up with non-scientific evidence.

This is oke, if you want to call "look how beautiful the sunset is" an argument, you are in your right, but with these "arguments" there no possible discussion on religion. Scientific argumentation is based on proof experiments confirmation ect ect it has been said so many times. Only with such a method can you discuss something to make conclusion, otherwise everything becomes way to subjective and well just bar-talk.

Till today there is no proof of the existence of a god, and a lot of prove against many principles in the religious texts. Its gut feelings against science, its subjective against objective.

pony-pak's

atm, my 2 big ass pony-pak's

At 11/25/12 05:47 PM, fireboy2244 wrote: You can use the drawings for portofolio reasons afterwards,

i know I know I shouldnt but,

how thoughtful of you that we are allowed to put this in our own portfolio. No money involved I assume?

anyway I am reacting cause I have no idea what a gym leader is nor Sugimori (guess I can google that). what exactly is it you want us to draw?

At 11/25/12 02:07 AM, Aigis wrote: This isn't specifically about you, but I'm curious.

What is it about the internet that causes people to feel entitled to ask strangers to just do things for them, for no compensation?

enough freebies are given in here. isnt it the beauty of internet!!!! if I ask for advice on a piece, and someone answers including sketches and stuff isnt that doing work for free? I understand there is discrepancy between the 2

personally i think its rather annoying that its very often about YT backgrounds. I dunno its a F background..

At 11/24/12 02:03 PM, RErrede wrote: Hi guys! So I'm fairly new to posting my art on the newground forums, but I wanted to give it a shot - maybe get some feedback! I'd love to hear what you guys think; I love me some constructive criticism, it stings sometimes but I'm out to improve so fire away. :)

Volcanic Creations:

ha, well this is pretty awesome stuff. very nice color choices.

Although its clear what you are trying to depict. imo the womans body, especially below her waist, isnt clear enough.
the upper part of the pic is very detailed, but the lower part far less.

At 11/24/12 10:44 AM, Luwano wrote:

@ReNaeNae: I thought the exact same. Would be nice to know if people should wait with their submissions until "their day" has passed or if we should submit before so TOAS can link to the art portal submissions.

I would say upload it but dont make it public. thats what I did

At 11/22/12 04:06 PM, Hyptosis wrote: Here I goze!

Awesome. I like the stickers but they are a tad distracting imho

At 11/21/12 10:51 PM, iWarpStudios wrote: Hello. Writing these things always were weird but i need a Background artist for a cartoon i am doing in 1920x1080 resilution size. All i really need are a few things like a kitchen, Street, and a side walk infront of building with an ally way in between two buildings. If you would like to help please post a reply. and Please have art of yours on your Newgrounds page or link me to your artwork so i can see what i can work with. Thanks

-iWarp

what style did you had in mind? also is there any form of compensation? by the looks of it you are able to draw so wondering why you want to outsource this.

At 11/21/12 02:47 PM, 24901miles wrote: It's probably Methane. If it were life, they would say "change the world" or "shock the world".

Finding methane means they found conclusive evidence of either geologic activity or some kind of life. As far as we know, methane only comes from those two processes, and breaks down quickly in the absence of either.

yeah Ive read that possibility. though the statements are "shocking news" and "this will go into the history books". I guess it depends on one's perspective if methane is shocking or history book material. Like you said it doesnt necessarily mean life, and geological activity is not really surprising. Almost all planets in our solar system contain methane.

So Curiosity supposedly found something that will hit the history books, yet what it is is not yet been put public. People obviously speculate that they have found life, or fossils of life. That would be awesome, but for me not really a life changing experience. I already believe that there is life outside earth in whatever form, but the discovery would be a nice addition to this believe.

however I am very curious as to how this would affect religious people. Old fashion religion was very much centered around the earth it being the most precious creation of god. There is some mentioning though that can be related to aliens (forgive me for not looking it up, something with giants from the sky), but in all there seems to be a consensus that life was only created on earth.

If Mars contains or contained life (bacteria fossils eukaryotes) obviously the numbers that are used to predict the amount planets of life in the universe are going to result in: a lot.

personally I dont think religious people will feel any form of pressure, and they will definitely not abandon their faith en masse, but I do wonder how they will give the information a place. I think the bible, koran leave room for these discoveries, BUT I am not to sure if they leave room for alien intelligence. So an alien bacteria, no big deal probably, but what if we discover (not likely anytime soon) an alien civilization? one that also has some form of religion totally different from ours? How will this fit in their paradigm?

The upcoming discovery is only a small step towards this. I as an atheist am intrigued by the though processes of religious folks. I understand their need to fill up voids, but I dont understand the material they fill it with. This speculative discovery doesnt fit their idea of the world and the universe, so I wonder how they will give this a place.

At 11/20/12 06:56 PM, Nae wrote:

At 11/20/12 06:47 PM, Tomsan wrote: never realized TOAS had an alt... is that even allowed? Or am I wrong?

ppfft! ...everyone knows alt's are lame!!

I'm hoping to get my piece done over the 4-day weekend! ...and if anyone missed it, Luis is doing the Holiday Card Exchange again in the General Forum. I plan on printing out my piece for this collab as a card, so... YOU SHOULD TOO!!!!

dafuq? renae

dafuq u guys get your time from

POAS even got garbage whistle, dafuq is going on?

At 11/20/12 06:47 PM, ReNaeNae wrote: It's the Chinapamese symbol of happy fun time!

big laugh @ the subtext

At 11/20/12 06:33 PM, PigeonOnAStick wrote:

At 11/20/12 06:20 PM, creepyboy wrote: Can I join too? I'll make a re imagining of Rudolph the red nosed reindeer

Sure, go for it.

never realized TOAS had an alt... is that even allowed? Or am I wrong?

At 11/20/12 01:01 PM, lapis wrote: There's more that I could say about this, but just a few quick remarks (Warforger also already dealt with a lot of them):

Dat is een poos geleden. Alles goed? Ik ben inmiddels nog steeds niet afgestudeerd. laatste 9 punten van thesis zijn een drama.

At 11/19/12 06:51 PM, Tomsan wrote: -Palestine was a no-mans lands for the large part. (subjective)

It's not just subjective, it's an enormous exaggeration. At the time, because of big advances in medicine introduced to the region in the late 19th century, population tended to double every 25-30 years. With 1.2 million Palestinians in 1945, 300,000 in 1895 seems fair. Here's a Wikipedia article about it; putting the figure higher, at 432,000. Hardly a "no man's land"; in 1850 the whole of Norway only had 1.5 million inhabitants, not even four times as much. Was that also fair game for foreign colonisation?

Cant load the link, but I thrust youre right.

-Jews BOUGHT most of the land in Israel before and after WW1.

This one is clearly false, at the least the "most" part. I think that around 1948 it amounted to 6% of total Palestine and 10% of what is now (internationally recognised to be) Israel. Then there was 40% Arab ownership and 50% state (at the time British) ownership - these numbers are from the top of my head. Going by what I can find on Wikipedia at the moment (I know there used to be a better article but I can't find it at the moment) it was 5.78% of total Palestine in 1943. These are the official figures from the UN at the time; there are later figures from Avneri (these were also in the old article that I remember) and Stein, who put the this percentage at 7.06% and 7.6% respectively.

Hmm I am not sure, I have read different things about this. The numbers/percentages of ownership were way higher and before WW2 started the jews bought large portions of what is now israel. (in case you didnt read my earlier post I am not able to look up references right now)

-Jews worked the land and attracted muslims from all over.

Never proven by anybody. I've heard it often; I think only to support the false "Palestine was hardly inhabited around 1900" claim.

Yup I have to agree that this sounds like an empty claim. Its sounds plausible, but that shouldnt be an argument. I will try to look if there are documentations on this though, since it seems likely that the jewish wealth attracted others.

-In this time Israel was already mainly inhabited by jews not palestines. (not completely sure about this)

False, see Wikipedia articles (which, from my experience, are usually better than other sources because you know people from both sides will argue over the numbers; with other sites you never know the bias).

No need to apologize for wiki references. In these cases theyre probably the most unbiased information you can find.

-WW2 happened jews fled en mass to israel

Actually, the British had restricted immigration of Jews to Palestine in this time period (1939 (?) White Paper).

As far as I remember the reverse exodus (influx?) happened shortly before WW2 while there were tensions and after. In any case a lot of jews came to israel during that decade. The fact that The british restricted immigration doesnt really matter in that case. Or are you doubting the statement itself?

-Israel declares Independence next day or so

Three years later.

Its a pain I cant look this up, but I am pretty sure the declaration of independence was right about the same day as the day the mandate expired, not 3 years

-Few days later surprise attack by surrounding countries

There was hardly any "surprise", and you're forgetting that at this point the Jews of the Yishuv were already fighting an insurgency against the British for several years (also the Haganah, but especially the Irgun and the Lehi). lalalala.

I did wrote down these points in a very simplistic manner. i think no one can really surprise attack the jews... anymore...its about the intentions. I have no idea what the last part of the sentence means.

-1967 6-day war again surprise attack by surrounding countries

Other way around.

This is what warfroger said, but its not really true. I do know that it was israel who carried out preemptive strikes and started the initial attacks, but an invasion by the surrounding countries was planned. Thats more or less what I meant. If they would have attacked or not is irrelevant, you dont mass armies of multiple countries around a border of one and not expect him to expect an attack. wrong intelligence is no excuse.

thanks for the feedback

-Egypt and iran help hamas with weapons money and political power

No, remember Egypt actually has good relations with Israel, they helped Israel in blockading Gaza and try to fight against Hamas too, it's just the people don't like Israel and they are supportive of Hamas. No one's sure if Morsi will actually put action to word though, since that would cut American aid to Egypt.

at the risk of sounding a bit like a conspiracy freak, I think its a bit naive to believe that egypt did not and is not helping hamas on all sorts of levels. public political relations may be different.

-Hamas = sjoenites; iran = sjiites those normally "kill" each other onÃf¯Ã'»Ã'¿ sight but now theyre working together, in other words, Iran is being a faggot

Whoa weird spelling of Sunni and Shia. Iran has become a Fundamentalist state, thus they're more supportive of fellow Fundamentalists like Hamas and hostile to Israel.

point is israel is not only directly but also indirectly threatened by iran. Iran probably not make a move itself, but this has the same feel as the communist wars fought by the US

-Palestines cant really go anywhere
-Surrounding muslim countries either lock border or put refugees in concentration camps (some brotherhood)
-Israel also locks borders

The surrounding countries don't want the Palestinians there because they often just start attacking Israel and staging terrorist attacks from there. That used to be a problem but Jordan forced the Palestinians out or to assimilate and Israel kicked the PLO out of Lebanon (this is where their policy fucks up, because they handled the attack on the PLO so indiscriminately that Hezbollah became hostile to them and the US, before they were even anti-Palestine and pro-Israel, but Israel's handling of that war made Hezbollah go into the vacuum left by the PLO).

Its definitely a good reason to refuse refugees, however there are ways around it. I also did not really know about the turning point concerning hezbollah. Yet, again it seems that israel cannot be held responsible fully imho

Thanks again for your input. I am curious as to which side you would be on (gun on your head). From the extra information I may conclude that this case is more complicated then my simple list. I assure you I am aware of this.

thx warforger for your informed reaction. I have no real discussion points but I will react on some and then try to make some conclusion. Also forgive me if I dont post references where I should. I am in my bed right now and I have a slow wifi.

At 11/19/12 07:48 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/19/12 06:51 PM, Tomsan wrote:

-Palestine was a no-mans lands for the large part. (subjective)

No "Palestine" was just the name of the administrative region the Ottomans had there, before WWI the Ottomans had control of Palestine. Before the Ottomans there Muslim conquests by the Arabs had absorbed the non-Jewish natives of Palestine (the kind of inhabitants mentioned in the Bible like the Phillistinines, Amams etc.) and they became Arabs. Thus they were mostly Arabs.

granted, I actually meant the concentration of people living there, but Lapis has elaborated on it below

-Jews BOUGHT most of the land in Israel before and after WW1.

There was a fund by the Zionists to buy land yes, and they often kicked the Palestinians off the land.

That seems to be a bit contradictory, but I assume you mean both happened?

-Jews worked the land and attracted muslims from all over.

They were successful farmers but they often took the locals in as tenant farmers, which pretty much has a reputation for being a really shitty occupation.

Oke, in my opinion though that doesnt conclude to anything.

-Israel/palestine was mandate of UK under rule of league of nations, because they were in war with occupying ottomans

Basically the British had promised the Arabs a state of their own after WWI and the Jews a state of their own as long as they rebelled against the Ottomans, which both did, the only problem was that their claims overlapped.

yes I have read this to, but actually the palestinians never wanted the division to begin with

-Turkey blocked the suez canal which Britain heavily relied on for their relations with asia, so league of nations kicked them away.

Um the Suez Canal is in Egypt and I don't think it had much relevance at the time since it was owned by Britain and France.

no reference atm, I know the location of the suez canal, I thought it was an instigator expanding to the whole region.

-League of nation promised Israel to Jews BEFORE ww2

Not necesarily. I think what should be mention is that before WWI there was no "Iraq", "Palestine", "Jordan", "Lebanon" or "Syria", their borders were all carved out by the British and French for their own purposes, they were all supposed to be one country. Both the British and French wanted Arabic colonies so they took over Jordan and Syria for that, Lebanon was supposed to be a state for Arabic Christians which the French had always had close relations with, but it had to extend the territory to include some Muslims so that the country was a viable one (they didn't account for population growth, but that's another story) and Israel for the Jews that revolted. Iraq was going to be the independent Arabic state that the Hashemites fought for in WWI. If there's one thing you notice, none of these countries were formed with the consent of the natives, this is of course why many of these countries struggle with internal conflicts, since the borders were not drawn according to nationalities but rather to arbitrary imperial administration.

insightful and true

-In this time Israel was already mainly inhabited by jews not palestines. (not completely sure about this)

It wasn't, it was mainly inhabited by Palestinians, it wouldn't be mainly inhabited by Jews until 1948 when they're forced into refugee camps due to war. This was also another problem, the people who determined whether or not the Jews could migrate were the British, the Palestinians had no say in the migration of these Jews into their own country so of course they resented these Jews. This is also why groups like Hamas want all of Israel, because to them the migration of Jews was illegitimate. If the British and the French had not fucked everything up in the post-WWI era the Middle East would be a much happier place, it's just astounding how many of the modern conflicts can be traced back to them.

oke, I will look into this further (in the level of truthness), cause its an important point, but in the end not the responsibility of the jews it seems.

-1967 6-day war again surprise attack by surrounding countries

No, actually this was the other way around. Israel saw that the Arabs were mobilizing their military on their borders with Israel and struck first utterly raping the Egyptians and Syrians. What had happened was that Egypt got a report from the Soviets showing that Israel was supposedly preparing for an invasion in Syria which turned out to be false, so Egypt, led by Nasser at the time, decided to mobilize its reserves in parades on the Israeli border and Syria likewise so that they may intimidate the Israeli's to back off, they didn't actually want to go to war and they didn't even expect a war to occur hence why they got raped so hard (like an Israeli bomber annihilating the Egyptian airforce which had stores its planes in the open with their wings touching). Nevermind the fact that Egypt had already sent its best troops down to the conflict in North Yemen, it ended up being a huge mistake and humiliation for Egypt and Syria. Nasser had gambled hoping that Israel would back off and his position as leader of the Arabs would hold.

My point was short, I knew that the israeli attacked first, but only after intelligence told them about the surprise attack. I confirm the misinterpretation of russia and syria, as well as provocotive attacks by israel prior. The latter is bad, the prior however not an excuse.

Hi,

I browsed the thread but not extensively. I wanted to put my list of "facts" on here in the hope people can poke holes in it.
I believe I have a reasonably informed opinion on this issue, but in my near circles no one is up to date to the level I wish them to be.

I am pro israel. Without really going into the whole dilemma of the war itself I will try to give a list of happenings that lead me to this. in some cases I will use subjective words, which is obviously a discussion killer, but they are chosen based on objective information.

Again I am asking for critique on my list, since I too am only basing it on the things I read, see, hear. I dont believe I hold the right answer, and in no case will I engage in a debate over something when one is able to present good documentation.

lets start:

-Palestine was a no-mans lands for the large part. (subjective)
-Jews BOUGHT most of the land in Israel before and after WW1.
-Jews worked the land and attracted muslims from all over.
-Israel/palestine was mandate of UK under rule of league of nations, because they were in war with occupying ottomans
-Turkey blocked the suez canal which Britain heavily relied on for their relations with asia, so league of nations kicked them away.
-League of nation promised Israel to Jews BEFORE ww2
-In this time Israel was already mainly inhabited by jews not palestines. (not completely sure about this)
-WW2 happened jews fled en mass to israel
-WW2 ended few years later mandate expired
-Israel declares Independence next day or so
-Few days later surprise attack by surrounding countries
-Jews win hard
-Israel grows and wealth is rubbing off.
-Palestine community grows also
-1967 6-day war again surprise attack by surrounding countries
-Jews heavily outnumbered slaughter enemy
-Jews take control of new land but give MOST back
-Jews use part of the taken land as buffer zone (demilitarized zone)
-Palestine community has still grown, hate grows on both sides
-Start terrorizing israel more regular.
-Fire rockets at israel
-People of gaza ELECT terrorist cell
-Egypt and iran help hamas with weapons money and political power
-Hamas = sjoenites; iran = sjiites those normally "kill" each other on sight but now theyre working together, in other words, Iran is being a faggot
-Jews cant really do anything about the rocket attacks
-Except do what they do know, counter hard.
-Palestines cant really go anywhere
-Surrounding muslim countries either lock border or put refugees in concentration camps (some brotherhood)
-Israel also locks borders

//

As far as I know the above is true and based on that it makes me side with the Jews. However I do believe that they should stop expanding their settlements and that the israeli community should try to do more against the strong right winged forces in israel. Although the zionist have a lot of power they do not yet make up the shots.

A land is not of any one, but in reality it doesnt work like that. The whole of the middle east has been in the hands of so many cultures. IF someone "deserves" it, atm its the jews imo. And with gaza, I believe its simpler; they are just being under attack and should act accordingly. I dont really see the jews as occupiers, but thats an opinion i guess.

I realize that the jews won the two wars with help of the west, but i still feel that in this case some spoils of war may be granted.

i'm officially done. had to bring the cuteness level down a bit.

High res

• 
  Christmas snowglobe by Tomsan

  entry for NG Christmas calender collab

  Score

  0.000000000 / 5.00

  Type

  Illustration

  Popularity

  1 View

  Rated

  Everyone

At 11/18/12 07:40 PM, lucasv wrote: still doing my gay mistletoe thing, think the poopscale is alreday almost good. what do youo think? i was gona start ze colors
but im animating a flash so I'm not gonna be exploding my ass to make the mistletoe perfect

its really funny, those tongues love it.

Do you draw AND shade in grey tones and then lay over a color with low opacity? cause that would seem a very nice way to color/shade stuff, but I never though about it.

At 11/16/12 09:01 AM, Template88 wrote: i think i read that this thread has close to 5000 views, who the hell looks at this stuff, STOP LOOKING AT ME

how dafuq do you know that?

awesome pose are u gonna color it? it deserves some color.

feet are a little manly/big I think though

At 11/14/12 06:10 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Thought I'd post an update of where we are with people involved, and how many positions are available:

why arent you in actually TOAS?

At 11/14/12 07:40 AM, test-object wrote:

At 11/14/12 06:10 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Hope to see some other artistic styles crammed into this collaborative project test-object.

(

fine, I'll draw a christmas miracle.

lol, sounds like you really got the Christmas spirit. and no halfsies!

At 11/13/12 06:13 PM, MasterSwank wrote: What do you do?

(I forgot to put this in the last post)

turn around and quickly gargle some of your soda to burn that internet-slang away

you approach what seems to be a beautiful girl and ask her name

needs some romance

had a few hours to spare so I finished it. I couldnt be bothered with the picture frames anymore so I filled them with photo's of mine.. (may draw them anyway later on). perspective wise I will change things if its not oke. pretty happy on how it turned out.

fly into a blackhole

At 11/12/12 01:12 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 11/12/12 11:54 AM, Tomsan wrote: I need help!

Two things:

Its about done, but I am not very good at making backgrounds. This time I wanted to make one so I tried.

Like Flowers said, the perspective on all four of those objects is wacky, and needs to be fixed.

I think the perspective issues are less now. I can change the view on the car by giving it a deeper view, on the other hand it kinda looks oke (?). The candle might also be wrong, however I did the same as you did in your picture and set up a few items.

- We should be looking atop the globe, so the curve where the base meets the table needs to be deeper. A shallow curve like yours would suggest the camera angle is near table level.

I didnt want to change the globe, so I tried to rearrange everything as to meet the perspective criteria of the globe. Personally I think I am close, but I am not sure.

- Same for the car - we should be looking above it. The broken perspective makes your car look like a cardboard cutout!

although I did not change the car, I am doubting if the image should be changed considering the new setting. its an easy fix if needed though.

Fuck the photo frames! You've got all your work in the snow globe, so give it the lime light.
Put it in the center, and give it the most area in the pic. You can dot your other objects behind it and cropped off in the sides, but make sure your viewer basks in the glory of your snow globe.

definitely what the pic needed! crop that shizzle.

thanks a lot TOAS!!

the photo's are just for show now

hmm mila..

At 11/12/12 04:24 PM, Zanroth wrote: If you're alright with it, I'd like to offer my help in this project as a backup or partner-up artist.

If you want you can make a filling for the picture frames. Not much, but would be nice.