>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^spoco2:
Well they're depressive individuals.
Really, what was the point of that? I got bored with it I'm afraid as it was harping on its same point 'people in power are bad' over and over... quite tedious.
And yup, when you browse their gallery of shots from the movie with their wanky descriptions of them, it only further enforces what a load of largely pointless dribble this is.
Quite pretty, nicely animated, to be sure, but what is the POINT?

i think the point a lot of art is to open the door to your interpretation.


Hmm, not really here. They're pretty fricken blatent with their symbolism. Problem is, they just keep on with the symbolism for 7 minutes after they've made the point. And there's no story to interest over the top of it, it's just a bunch of symbolism, and that's it... doesn't make for interesting viewing. Show the 'evil' government and 'evil' society and 'evil' religion and then show how to rise against it, or rise above it, or protect yourself from it... OR SOMETHING.

But all this does is go
"Hey, the government is crap"
"So's religion"
"Society as a whole sucks arse and is over sexualised"

...
...

"Nope, that's it, I've got nothing else, just thought I'd say that"

That's such shallow rubbish. You could either show some way to combat the crap, OR, maybe show the deeper root cause of these things, show the simple core problem that feeds those things, and so maybe offer a way to combat them that way.

All this does is say 'We're really depressed about shit'

Art that leaves it up to your interpretation can actually be taken a number of ways... this not so much.

>> ^spoco2:

Well they're depressive individuals.
Really, what was the point of that? I got bored with it I'm afraid as it was harping on its same point 'people in power are bad' over and over... quite tedious.
And yup, when you browse their gallery of shots from the movie with their wanky descriptions of them, it only further enforces what a load of largely pointless dribble this is.
Quite pretty, nicely animated, to be sure, but what is the POINT?


i think the point a lot of art is to open the door to your interpretation.

>> ^spoco2:

Well they're depressive individuals.
Really, what was the point of that? I got bored with it I'm afraid as it was harping on its same point 'people in power are bad' over and over... quite tedious.
And yup, when you browse their gallery of shots from the movie with their wanky descriptions of them, it only further enforces what a load of largely pointless dribble this is.
Quite pretty, nicely animated, to be sure, but what is the POINT?


I totally agree but I found the animation to be more than pretty. Great expression, motion and mood. I watched it over and over for the presentation, but not so much for the meaning - which as you say is a bit overdone. The quality of the animation is top notch - in the realm of excellence.

Well they're depressive individuals.

Really, what was the point of that? I got bored with it I'm afraid as it was harping on its same point 'people in power are bad' over and over... quite tedious.

And yup, when you browse their gallery of shots from the movie with their wanky descriptions of them, it only further enforces what a load of largely pointless dribble this is.

Quite pretty, nicely animated, to be sure, but what is the POINT?

Makes sense. Urine dribbles down side of box, leaving main area clean for scratching around in.

Practical Kitteh is practical.

My psychedelic testicles doth soaketh up the mislead words of a life half liveth in and a mind convened in knowledge of a time irrelevant, hypocritical and uninformed then spooge it out as mutli-colored love bubbles ; and the dribbling basketballs just laugh out an infinite chord calling into existence pure forms of energy you will never understand, at least until you die of old age and as you fade away you will be saying inside your little head "I was wrong the whole time... dammmmnnnn ugghhhhhh.... oooo look at the pretties!!!"

When I was in 5th grate, the teacher was telling us that the speed of light was the same as the speed of sound. Even the 10-year-old me knew this was false so I raised my had to say so, pointing out the obvious delay one sees when watching another person dribble a basketball some distance away. He still didn't believe me, but he was up for a wager and allowed me to run off to the library for an encyclopedia. I returned with the facts and won the bet, all of which he took very gracefully, unlike the teacher in the video here. In fact, what I won was less detention because the bet was for plus or minus one "demerit", which was his way of tracking small classroom infractions (e.g. missing homework, coming late, acting up) that could add up to a punishment assignment if you got three of them in a week.

>> ^Sepacore:

@ ... (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)


I thank you.

>> ^A10anis:
@ Shinyblurry's post starting with "Your welcome" (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)

Your hypothetical story used to make a point about how you make yourself feel better was quite disturbing. Under the same logic you employed there.. if someone told you "kill 1000 babies" and all suffering would end for eternity, your story would only encourage an idiot to be a horrific murderer because of some deranged persons words.

Actually, the point of the hypothetical was to show the sloppy reasoning inherent in digging for treasure in a spot marked other than X.

>> ^A10anis:
You state "The only thing which is stopping you is pride.". No, it's the use of intelligence.
* It's not believing things because they make me feel better, or allowing me to think less because i can say magic did it.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's the love of actually thinking about situations from a 'likely/unlikely true based on scientific reasoning' position, which is what drives human advancements forward.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's not naively thinking or pretending there are great things to learn from a disgusting book of prejudice, torture, fear and horror (i.e. kill your loved ones because you hear voices or let towns rape your daughters because they're of less value than a male stranger).

The bible, apart from the revelation of God, is a historical account of the actions of fallen men. Men who were sinners and sometimes did things which were morally wrong. That there was no effort to cover up those sins is a point in favor, not against.


>> ^A10anis:
* It's not believing claims that a book is an accurate account of history and the universe, when it gets the most basic things a God would know wrong, coincidentally these claims are just the way things would appear to a human's untrained eye (sun revolving around the planet).

If you want to address the accuracy of the bible, you must first accurately portray the bible. My guess is that you have only studied the bible through the lens of skeptics. Do you know the actual history of how this idea came about? The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth, but it was interpreted that way by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Claudius proposed a theory of geocentricity, which at the time, was far more accurate than the existing theory of heliocentricity, and he interpreted certain passages of scripture to support his assertion. These passages, specifically Joshua 10:12-14, and Psalm 93:1, do not teach geocentricity at all, but were taken out of context by Claudius and others to promote the theory.

>> ^A10anis:
* It's because the bible (unbelievable in it's own right), once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific. You must *believe* them, and real science is based on knowledge, not belief.

>> ^A10anis:
Quote "Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.". Seems like not much has changed, except your preferences.

Your preaching is nothing more than the same unjustified crap that those who don't have facts to support them continue to make. IMO you've either given up on your critical analytical abilities, or you're a troll copy/pasting.. given how similar your sentences are to other preachers.

What changed is that I fairly investigated the claims of Jesus Christ, instead of dismissing them based on a superficial knowledge of Christianity. When I did that, I received supernatural evidence that they were true.

>> ^A10anis:
Christianity is a sacrificial cult, full of unsubstantiated claims.

Your gross mischaracterization not withstanding, how have you investigated the claims of Jesus Christ?

>> ^A10anis:
Jesus's so called miracles appear in many other religions, usually descriptively to the letter.

Have any actual evidence to support this claim? Be sure to include the original sources and not just the claims of skeptics.

>> ^A10anis:
Your beliefs come from a time where women were valued as little more than a discard-able possessions.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Scripture teaches that woman have the same value in the eyes of God as men do. God has assigned us different roles, but he shows no partiality between men and women.

>> ^A10anis:
And If your God did exist, then said God can go fuck themselves, as i have no desire to follow the direction and teachings of a psychopathic asshole.

I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him.

>> ^A10anis:
PS: although I'm not censoring myself too much, it's not my primary intention to offend you (but don't care too much either), just can't stand how people spouting this type of content can think they 'should' be taken seriously.

Atheists rarely censor themselves when they speak to Christians. Nothing you've said here is unexpected. I do not take offense at what you said; on the contrary, I care about you as a human being made in the image of God, and I see you as being worthy of love and respect. My hope is that you come to know the love of Jesus Christ. You simply have no experience of God at the moment, but God is willing to show you He is there at any time. He loves you more deeply than you understand. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

@ Shinyblurry's post starting with "Your welcome" (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)

Your hypothetical story used to make a point about how you make yourself feel better was quite disturbing. Under the same logic you employed there.. if someone told you "kill 1000 babies" and all suffering would end for eternity, your story would only encourage an idiot to be a horrific murderer because of some deranged persons words.

You state "The only thing which is stopping you is pride.". No, it's the use of intelligence.
* It's not believing things because they make me feel better, or allowing me to think less because i can say magic did it.
* It's the love of actually thinking about situations from a 'likely/unlikely true based on scientific reasoning' position, which is what drives human advancements forward.
* It's not naively thinking or pretending there are great things to learn from a disgusting book of prejudice, torture, fear and horror (i.e. kill your loved ones because you hear voices or let towns rape your daughters because they're of less value than a male stranger).
* It's not believing claims that a book is an accurate account of history and the universe, when it gets the most basic things a God would know wrong, coincidentally these claims are just the way things would appear to a human's untrained eye (sun revolving around the planet).
* It's because the bible (unbelievable in it's own right), once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions.

Quote "Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.". Seems like not much has changed, except your preferences.

Your preaching is nothing more than the same unjustified crap that those who don't have facts to support them continue to make. IMO you've either given up on your critical analytical abilities, or you're a troll copy/pasting.. given how similar your sentences are to other preachers.

Christianity is a sacrificial cult, full of unsubstantiated claims.
Jesus's so called miracles appear in many other religions, usually descriptively to the letter.
Your beliefs come from a time where women were valued as little more than a discard-able possessions.
And If your God did exist, then said God can go fuck themselves, as i have no desire to follow the direction and teachings of a psychopathic asshole.

PS: although I'm not censoring myself too much, it's not my primary intention to offend you (but don't care too much either), just can't stand how people spouting this type of content can think they 'should' be taken seriously.

Seems a bit disingenuous. Pointing out a few random occurrences while using the terms 'trends' and 'a lot' while not putting forward the statistical results of their study to provide structure to the claims made and undefined/vague values used is a poor way to get your point across.

She states that they get comments like mine above or even outright disputes to the claims "whenever they point out tropes about women specifically". Well, rather than presenting a one-sided case by throwing out a few examples as if they alone will justify the points made, maybe try offering some actual statistics next time to help prevent such responses.

Empowering women is one of the critical necessities I feel is important for stabilizing the idea of wider spread of human rights, but this shit is just dribble lacking substance.

For those who want a bit more info,

The list of atrocities to women in comic books (111 in total)
http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/women.html

DC and Marvel stats of 'Women In Comics Statistics' (the involvement of women in creating comics. The increasing trend should help to balance-out any other 'trends', relative to stats and target audiences)
http://thanley.wordpress.com/category/women-in-comics-statistics/

Not a great deal of stats out there that I found, no wander she didn't give any study results, no one does any on this subject lol.
As for actual gender and age audiences, this was the best i found.
http://comicsworthreading.com/2007/05/10/superhero-comic-reader-stats/

Upvoting because her slightly lazy left (on your right) eye-lid was tripping me out. Is it me or is there a fractional difference? 1 E.g. @ 5.38 to 5:51

The king's skull looks like the origin for the modern day dribble cup! =oD

>> ^flechette:

All I can say is, I want to like football (or soccer, whatever it is) more than I do, but I just can't fathom watching something for half an hour before someone scores. To be fair, I think baseball is more boring to watch, but for a different reason.


Ah, this is the beauty in football. Every match is different, you'll see different approaches, different styles, different attitudes, individual skill, teamwork. It's not just about scoring goals.

But it's not easy. It's a game of skill and if you're good or the opposition is very bad then you'll score lots. Or you'll enjoy one of those humdingers where either side might score at any time.

But often we're forced to endure turgid rubbish, it just happens sometimes, but the ultimate redemption is when finally, finally someone scores a goal. It's a satisfying release of energy and there is honestly nothing much like it even if your team has been playing like utter twits.

It is really, as much about the journey as the destination.

Hopefully it's a nice ride (I'd pay good money to see a mazey Messi dribble where he failed to score, rather than someone bundle one in) but sometimes it can be perversely enjoyable to see a bad team scrape a result.

On the other hand, going back to a U.S sport like basketball I see no particular thrill from seeing two sides trade baskets ad-infintum. It's just a relentless predictable, progression to the end at which point someone wins and players can crow about their "stats". I always loved playing basketball but it doesn't work for me as a spectator sport.

Meanwhile I love Football (American Football as we Brits tend to call it). That has more in common with soccer than any other U.S sport IMO. Players are still far too in thrall to coaches but it remains a magnificent spectacle.

Baseball I don't really get - but I respect it's traditions and iconic status in sport.

I have to say he's wrong on a number of points.

For one, sports rules are arbitrary. In any competitive game, the only purpose of the rules is to provide an agreed upon environment in which people can compete, in order to make scores easy to tally. For example, imagine basketball with no rules, a player takes a ball from one end of a court to another without dribbling and shoots and makes it. How many points should that be worth? How about using a ladder to make the basket, or any one of the limitless number of other ways a person might come up with on the fly while playing? By having all the competitors agree to a set of rules, regardless of what those rules are, it's possible to referee the game and determine a winner. You can take any game, make arbitrary changes to the rules, and all you've done is create a different game. From chess, to poker, golf, football, curling, or anything else, the only difference is the rule set. Take volleyball, make a few a tweaks, and you have sepak takraw. People might find one rule set more aesthetically pleasing to watch or fun to compete in than another, but that is completely subjective. There are an infinite number of possible rule sets, and if there were infinite people you could find somebody to enjoy each one of them.

Also, it's more than the essential nature of a thing that matters. Nonessential parts can have effects on the essential ones. The golf cart thing is the perfect example. Walking may not be an essential part of the game, but the fatigue it produces has an effect on swinging the club which is an essential part. It's easy to imagine a person unable to walk, but still able to swing a club with force an accuracy. So being disabled does not disadvantage this person on the essential parts of the game. This person spends most of his time on a golf cart, exerting little energy, and shaded from the sun. The other players do a lot of walking, getting tired, sunburned, sweat in their eyes, etc. That could definitely have an effect on the essence of the game.

So the question is then, which is more important: letting golf be defined as having the particular set of rules that it currently has, or being fair by letting the disabled play?
If it makes sense that the court can redefine the rules of golf so that a disabled person can use a cart and it still be called "golf", then surely it makes sense to still call it golf after you change the rules so that everybody can use a cart. And if the court has the power to do the former, it has the power to do the latter. And the court clearly chose the virtue of fairness over the "sanctity" of the rule set. And, since letting only one person use a cart would still be unfair, just to different people, the only sensible course of action is let everybody use one.

The Mighty Morphin' Power Wiki says

In clarifications:

It is impossible to travel while dribbling. The height of the dribble or number of steps taken per dribble is irrelevant.

A player who attempts a field goal may not be the first to touch the ball if it fails to touch the backboard, basket ring or another player.

He was dribbling to the end, technically tried to score a field goal, it hit the backboard, he dunked.

Travelling mostly has to do with while you're holding the ball, not dribbling.