itachi-san

It's a modern remake of a classic Lewis Carroll riddle if that helps

My 17, 5, 9, 11, and 15 is 3/4 of a standard My 3, 9, 7, 1, 4, and 8 can be rhythmically blue My 7, 1, 9, 3, 4, 5, 2, 11, 16, 8, 14, and 6 is a martini choice My 3, 10, 1, 15, 12, and 17 can be winter's heart My 3, 10, 8, 4, 16, 13, and 2 is to oppose My whole is wished for by the desperate What am I?

That's a bit long. You can only participate every 2 whole days? I'd prefer 24 hours to be the max for each Day/Night cycle, meaning you can log on and participate at least once a day. Edit: if a lot of people share your time schedule, I'd have no problem. But it wouldn't be fair to everyone if it was being delayed a full day for only your character IMO. Let's hear what others think.

As long as they need to be... check out the previous games to get an idea. I'd like for people to not feel rushed no matter where they live. Basically, every Night and every Day every player is expected to do something, so I'll just wait until they all do (unless it gets rediculous of course)

The night sky is clear. You gaze up at the full moon overhead and notice a slight flickering. It's a mysterious black butterfly and it descends onto your fingertip. As if through osmosis you learn of a future game. A battle to the death between cold-blooded warriors. You think to yourself that you have already gained the strength, power and endurance you will ever need, but the message tells you that this game will prove that notion wrong. That only in winning this contest will you achieve the greatness you desire. You clench your fist in anticipation, but the butterfly remains perched on your hand. It continues to convey the message of its sender: That in this 3rd Battle you will have new powers, must expect new foes and also familiar ones. And to prepare to be launched into another dimension. With that the Butterfly dissipates into the moonlit night and you ask yourself: Do I accept the challenge? ABR I ABR II Recruiter: ??? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) The Game will be very lenient with Night and Day times (especially Day). And if you're unable to act some Nights you will automatically Defend so that you will have a much higher chance of living than in previous games - I think only Grey Cells got the short end of that stick (sorry buddy). As for a start date, definitely after Pirate Mafia and when 15 people sign-up I suppose. Hope to see you there

That's what he wants you to believe because the reality of that confrontation would explode your mind.

slick and wally west git some spalinin to be heard. can they parlay?

yep

In typical LOST fashion, a character who had been stranded on the Island the whole time, yet nobody seemed to notice until now, finally began to speak up. Her name, she said, was Robin Day. She had a crush on Sawyer and in an attempt to woo him, she mimicked his personality and began giving everyone nicknames. She first began with Sawyer himself and called him Tom Cruise. He didn't get it, but he didn't mind the comparison and went back to reading his book. She didn't take kindly to Jack's attitude though and started calling him Warren Beatty. She always saw Charlie lazily laying around and began to call him Eric Clapton. She had heard through gossip that Jack's father died before the plane crash, but she was certain that she saw him on the Island. What did she call him?

Captain: Sinistral 1) Cherry Lane - voting for Slick 2) Wally West 3) FIF -DEAD [killed by Pirates] 4) Crazypainter voting for- Wally West 5) Joe's Student 6) Ben_Law 7) Itachi - voting for Slick 8) Unreality voting for Woon 9) GC - voting for Crazypainter 10) woon voting for Wally West 11) Mekal Voting for Ben_Law 12) Slick voting for Wally West I've been suspicious of Slick since I came on board. this post made me think he was uneasy that I joined since I nailed him in CSM before the game even started and I'm getting the distinct feeling that he's setting WW up. I agree with unreality's statement about voting order, but I'm also certain that not everyone plays that way. The votes for woon and Ben Law are indeed interesting, but I'm thinking they're just diversion votes.

I saw the debate and felt Obama made a better presentation (though I don't agree with his stances) on the economy, but fell short of McCain on Foreign issues by a long shot. McCain made a bunch of mistakes in the beginning by not refuting a bunch of what Obama said. IE, Obama always wants to throw money at our educational system, this has proven time and again to not be the answer. Money does not fix bad teachers, bad curriculum, or poor societal trends that lean heavily toward school violence and nonattendance. Part of the answer is to reward good teachers based on National standardized tests for each grade and fire bad teachers. Obama even went so far to say that funding the very young takes precedence over this current economic disaster (it would be a plan that he wouldn't give up due to current problems in budget). Not only will throwing money at schools be ineffective, he won't give it up and keep spending taxpayer money in addition to all this other spending. McCain also didn't refute how taxing the top 5% of people, and cutting taxes for the other 95% makes no sense on a number of levels. For one, there are a ton of people in that 95% who don't pay taxes to begin with, so where do they factor in? Two, taxing the top 5% will not add up to the hundreds of billions of dollars Obama wants the govt. to have for the programs he is proposing, so where is the difference going to come from? Three, Obama will raise capital gains taxes and business taxes and if people think that these taxes won't effect every citizen, they are wrong. The costs of goods will skyrocket and consumers will eventually pay the price tag on all these taxes. The wealthy will remain wealthy and everyone will struggle along with the economy because product prices will no doubt skyrocket and people won't be inclined to buy stocks. High CEO and business taxes equals less jobs and less pay for the people Obama is supposedly fighting for. On the foreign front, I thought McCain made Obama look like a real newbie. This is when I finally thought McCain started doing a good job. At first I said to the people around me "Wow, Obama is slaughtering McCain in this debate", but when the debate hit foreign affairs I thought it really turned around and Obama just said all the things he had been prepping to say for the last few weeks, which I had already known anyway. When McCain talked about Russia and specifically the Ukraine, Obama clearly had no idea what he was talking about and immediately changed the subject. I thought that was funny. One other thing is that Obama doesn't show respect. Say what you will about McCain or Bush, when a politician doesn't show those positions respect it is a bad thing for us all. About half the time Obama called McCain, John, and at least twice actaully got his name wrong and called him Tim and Jim lolz. Also he said George Bush, not President Bush. Even when a President leaves office they should be addressed as President, especially by our own politicians. It demeans our nation to not do so and these debates are seen world-wide. Since Obama says we have such a poor image to the rest of the world (which I think is gradually getting better, but of course he won't say that), why is he going out of his way to make it look even worse? I guarantee McCain never called him Barrack in that debate. Presidents need to behave with maturity and respect and I don't see that coming from Obama. Overall I'd say the debate came across as 50/50. I was disappointed in both of them at times, but of course, for different reasons.

how about threadhijacker?

lol at that one! pardon the rant, but we can just agree to disagree. let's not start a civil war over it. just act naturally all alone or be a big baby about it. now i'm drawing a blank... maybe a dry beer will help me expect the unexpected. or some dry ice for that matter. this is my final draft of oxymorons so keep the friendly fire to a minimum. i guess this is just going nowhere; it is my least favorite subject after all. though i do like science fiction. i was thinking out loud on some educational television about this true story on tough love, but then i was distracted when i heard wall street and business ethics have been climbing down in current history. as obi wan would say: only a Sith deals in absolutes - wow I hate the SW prequels <_<

I be certain a Captain of yer finery noticed me stowed away in thar empty barrel o rum. Or perhaps it was ye who drank the whole barrel?

The Pink Power Ranger? or maybe akaslicksterscrush

A friend of mine works with stem cells. He's basically a genius doctor/mad scientist. He has to go on Native American Reservations to do certain research because it's unlawful in the States... so it's basically unlawful to save lives without hurting lives here. It's madness.

yeah, that was bad. She should have just said that she has none. Just tell the truth. I think she is anti-stem cell like most Republicans which is bad and she would probably say that she is for legal immigration and against sanctuary cities, but I'm not certain.

Well, in McCain's defense he has been asking for more debates up until this economic crisis. I think he did use it as a political ploy which I thought was silly, but he is certainly not scared to debate. He'll be on tonight so check it out Palin though... I can't believe she hasn't studied up on McCain's Senate experience. I agree with you on this one. Even though it was a semi-gotcha question by Couric, Palin should definitely have known what other reforms McCain has pushed in the Senate. Her lack of knowledge about her running mate is unacceptable to me. Speaking of VPs: is Biden insane? I mean seriously, this is nuts... I'll grant these candidates that they're tired and make a few slipups when speaking, but in my most exhausted state I would never think that FDR was president in 1929, let alone that TV even existed then... seriously, can I just vote "no confidence".

too bad for her that aliens can't vote - all kinds of puns intended

I'll offer up a story of my childhood that might shine some light on why an "exclusive club for those with high IQ" could be a good thing. I'll just explain what happened and let others draw their own conclusions. When I was in 3rd grade I was pulled out of class and asked to take a very long IQ test, as were a handful of other students in my class. The basis for this was to find kids with IQs above 140 and put them in separate classes for about 1/3 of the school day because frankly the regular classes were too easy for us. It turned out that in my grade only one other boy, one girl and myself made the cut and we joined about ten other kids in the whole elementary school to attend these extra classes. They were very fun and interesting for us: we made robots, learned computer programming, made rockets and did a lot of other physics and chemistry experiments. In lieu of this, we would have been going over basic math or composition and probably sleeping at our desks. So what happened was that a lot of parents got enraged that their kids were "excluded" from these classes so the academic board agreed to lower the IQ standard and the next year there were about 50% more kids involved which was still fine, but noticeably slower paced. And then the parents of the kids who were still left out complained and got the bar lowered again for the next year. This happened continually until the class got so big they had to make it two separate classrooms. With the large group and lessened requirement came a lot of reduced activities and slowed progress so that everyone could catch up. To me, the classes became boring again and I felt like I was just doing double the normal schoolwork. This led to me making the decision to just stop showing up at the classes and the original group of kids followed suit. I came away from the experience as being seriously let down by my school and I didn't really take much interest in school again until college. I realize this wasn't Mensa, but I think the exclusive group is an appropriate analogy.

people... he is totally cereal.

Here here on the anagrams. Kudos to anyone who got the "banalities" one... I agree somewhat with what you're saying, however I do see the point in measuring intelligence. It doesn't have to be an IQ test, but that seems to be the most widely excepted method. I'd compare it to running a mile, which of course tests athleticism and endurance. I believe in making one's self better in every way, then testing yourself to see where you stand and then building on that foundation. I see smarter people than me everyday and I'm always happy to be around them. And it seems Mensa can be a place where it is easy to meet people of the like. I don't see why surrounding oneself with people who think on a certain level can be bad as long as it doesn't lead to an extreme elitism. I have never been berated by someone saying how great they are because they belong to Mensa, so maybe that would change my mind As far as I'm concerned, it's as elitist as any club. One can be a member of Mensa and still play soccer, fish, dance, or whatever. Intellectual discussion is a hobby just like any other. It's one of mine, which is why I love this site. Speaking of the internet though, I agree that it has made connections easier, but there is still a totally different (and arguably more complete) experience to gain when speaking and interacting with someone in person.

According to the dictionary "hero" can be interpreted as either: 1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. 2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal I haven't read any of her books, but that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for the discussion so I'll add my 2 cents. I wouldn't make the distinction frankly. I think that a hero can be anybody who acts selfishly or altruistically, but on such a grandiose scale that others admire that person. Typically, the word hero has (at least recently) been associated with altruism, but personally I can see it fitting both sides. I think for her to go against the grain and argue that it is only in selfishness that one becomes a hero is unnecessary though. It sounds to me like she was trying to make a point that really didn't need to be made. There's also the whole debate over whether or not everything we do is selfish, even if one were to jump on a grenade and save others' lives. Even though that is indeed 'self-sacrifice', the person who jumped on the grenade 'wanted' to do so and the ones who survived (at least slightly less so) 'wanted' to give up their life, assuming they had the same amount of time to think about the action. So who is the hero if any? The one who sacrificed everything so quickly or the ones who chose to preserve their life?

Homerun!

hehe, I'd say you're on center field now