Jess♥

personally, I don't like the idea that the guyver is incorporeal in hte boost dimension. I don't like the idea that all things lose their structural integrity. but i like your idea that when energy comes in from hte boost dimension, it is manipulated into it's various forms in this dimension. I imagine that perhaps it is like a piano. the different frequencies that the energy needs to be at in order to form different energy particles or electrons or proteons etc.. are provided like a musical instruiment.that this universe is a symphony played in different frequencies of energy. but anyway, enough of that. perhaps when guyver goes into hte boost dimension, it takes the blast field with it. not exactly, but in a poetic way. somehow when it goes into hte boost dimension, it creates a field for itself to maintain it's integrity. so let's look at it this way... when bringing energy over and changing it to it's various forms, the guyver is playig a grannd symphony on it's virtual organ. when guyver goes into hte boost dimension, it's like a freaking orchestra. perhaps if an object went into the boost dimension that wasn't guyver, it would rapidly dissolve?

why ironic and why scary? I'm curious. because the reason i said that is because mizu means water.

ah yes durendal, I wholeheartedly agree with this. that is why i try and force myself to eat breakfast. because it is the surest way to keep your weight healthy. eat good food when you most need it and don't eat any carbs towards your bedtime. if you get hungry before you go to bed, a bit of fruit is good to have, but no carbs. also, if you go to the gym, a bit of lean protein before you go to bed can be ok. I try to concentrate on getting moist carbs early in hte day and protein and veggies at night. so lunch might be some rice or couscous or something like that, tea would be some meat and veg. when i say veg, potato doesn't count. potato counts as a carb.

well toku, I am getting up around 2pm these days and i still try to eat breakfast. that grits is sure new to me. I never heard of anything like it. if it's like ground corn.. I guess it must be similar to soggy cornflakes oatmeal sounds cool. I sometimes been known to eat muesli in hte past, I guess it could be considered similar in some ways to that.. but now i can't stomach muesli. not enough variety in a bowl of stuff. especioally if it's quite filling stuff. I mean.. soup is good because it's mostly liquid. it makes you feel clean and fluid-y. I like to feel fluid-y. XD yah durendal, I realy have tried to learn to cook in the past. it sucks that in this generation parents have just given up passing on cooking knowledge.. I have to resort to cookbooks for the simplest things and then.. because it is so simple, it's so hard to find a book that will contain that simple recipe. i mean, I only recently discovered that butter goes well with vegetables. it's kinda embarrassing to be honest. I like cooking.. but if i gotta keep myself interested i'd have to learn a new recipe every day, and that would be very expensive on hte ingredients. so i just can't do it, I would only cook one thing a week and now I just don't bother. so what's creamowheat? is it just like oatmeal only with wheat and no oats?

yeap, that's what i meant when i was saying they have the symbol for (insert element here) it would be cool if the blue ranger is a girl and they call her mizuki.

you eat grit??? but grit is like ground rock... cream of wheat? dunno.. also.. in hte matrix, that guy mentions tasty wheat, which i also don't know. all these things...

sandwiches, i like. but it would seem odd to eat for breakfast. I guess if I am to travel, I need to get rid of my silly preconceptions though. When i eventually live in japan, I don't want to be the westerner that stinks of dairy products. I intend to adapt completely to their diet. make my own miso? i guess that would take a lot of effort. I can't be bothered to cook my own tea so i doubt i'd cook for breakfast. i do wonder though.. if perhaps i simply bought a bad type of miso. chocolate oatmeal? I do not know what oatmeal is.. it may be that we call it something else here. vguyver, what is oves moles?

hey guys, I'm interested in learning what you eat. I'm mainly interested in breakfasts at the moment.. I want to elarn what people around he world eat for breakfast. generally in hte UK, we will eat breakfast cereal. cornflakes or rice crispies with milk. or some other similar boxed grain based food. just recently I have gone off it. the idea of a bowl of grain stuff covered in milk just isn't appealing anymore. I sometimes force myself to eat it just so I have eaten something.. but i want an alternative. I know that in japan they often have miso soup for breakfast. I think I might like that, but the only miso soup i could get was some powdered stuff off the internet and i don't think it was very good. well I am looking forward to learning about your meal habits guys

eether, based on what you said about conscioussness, you might like this post i made in another topic. http://www.japan-legend.com/forum/index.ph...post&p=8502

not quite. I am for the rights of the individual to lay claim to their own views. I view zeo's strict defining of marriage as an attack on peoples liberties. since there is no strict definition for marriage, it is a cultural phenomenon that spans many cultures and first needs to be accurately labelled and linked to hte appropriate authority if it can be defined properly. like for example 'western style registry office wedding' , or 'married in vegas' wedding. or 'japanese western style wedding'

so you're saying it's not government. you're saying it's government and society. and since society is rather big and opinion changes often, then so do the definitions of what the institution of marriage is. so you are spreading falsehoods around. you're describing it as if it is set in stone, when it isn't. and yes there is a simple in youer face answer to hte question i asked. i don't care how many different issues are at stake. i asked for an authority. that is a simple thing. as i already showed. I know this is controversial. I am not the person stating marriage definition as an undisputed fact. I asked you the question to try and highlight that your undisputed definition of marriage was wrong and that this is a subjective issue. america is not the world. you have been trying to pidgeonhole marriage. marriage is a universal thing across culture and throughout history. the roman empire DOES NOT need jurisdiction in hte USA to bring definition to a WORLDWIDE instituition that belongs to ALL OF HUMANITY. since you say that the roman empire is not allowed to contribute to the definition of marriage, then are you suggesting I also do not qualify to contribute to hte definitiion? since marriage is defineed by society, it seems you are suggesting anybody oustside your country is not part of society? are you claiming that we are not civilised? you need to be very careful the things you say. I take great offence at this. give me a piece of irrefutable evidence for this and it can be accepted as gospel. othewise it's hearsay and not admissable. the point was to show that i could claim authority over a statement. besides, there are many polls on that link, not just one. many of them support gay marriage, and many don't. it's not so clear cut.

you need to refine your methods of communication. still you did not give a straight answer. why will you not give a straight answer? is it some genetic condition or something? what you seem to be implying is that the authority you are using to define the institution of marriage is the government? why can't you just say "the authority i am using is the government" ? is this because you simply want to be awkward and cause confusion and misunderstanding? but hold on, you continue to say in a further sentence. "...ignores the original intent and purpose of the institution?" now... sigh, here we go again.. on what authority are you claiming that this ignores the original intent and purpose? what authority are you using for your definition of the original intent and purpose of marriage??? because we have shown quite clearly that in hte roman empire, the purpose of marriage was clearly to join 2 people INCLUDING 2 males, that was until it was outlawed. but note, very carefully, it HAD TO BE OUTLAWED, which means before that, it was considered lawful and most likely very normal. I almost regret asking this because i have this terrible feeling you're gonna post another slew of information that skirts around teh issues i have paid meticluous attention to. please prove me wrong. anyway what the hell is this suposed to mean? why would you ever put the question back to me? I'm not the one that has been stating left right and centre that "marriage i this", "marriage is that". if you realy want me to answer it? I will. you see, I CAN answer questions that are put to me. with minimum fuss and quite clearly. first authority i use is teh original records of gay marriage in the roman empire. second authority i use is the legislation of the US states where gay marriage is accepted. thrid authority i use is the polls on that link i gave you that show a majority of support for gay marriage. fourth authority i use is uk law. I could go on, but i believe i have answered the question quite sufficiently. and i didn't need to type out 8 paragraphs to do so. and you know, I am sick of this, so I will actually answer the question for you that i asked in hte first place. teh answer is "proposition 8". yes the title of this thread. I figured that out a small while ago. that you could use that as justification for your views . but then. that only applies to california so actually it is still a grey area, so you just can't go around saying that it defies teh institution unless teh institution is defined in the government. i assume it is since that was your answer, correct? or if it isn't..... I think you should be ashamed.

this does not answer my question. I will ask again. under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage may not include 2 men and 2 women relationships. under what authority I will include the definition of authority you keep saying things like "Same-sex Unions do not serve the societal purpose of marriage" but you have yet to justify your source for determining the "societal purpose of marriage" you keep saying that same sex unions doesn't fit in with hte institution of marriage, but you have yet to provide anything CONCRETE to back this up. (and I won't accept links as concrete justiication, that's ignorant) you keep saying "it's not that simple" yet you are stating things like this as thought they are written down plain as day. as if there is some rulebook sitting somewhere. writing paragraphs of examples from past court proceedings, past events, different situations, philosophy will not so. if you want to say something in such a definite way, you need some government clause, or some institutional rulebook or similar. until such a thing is produced, the matter is still one for debate and we can draw no definite conclusions. you must then cite these things as your own opinion. and make it absolutely clear that it is your own opinion instead of saying it like it is a fact. I do not have time to read all of that. I debate with my own views and teh personal views of others. I don't debate with a wad of research. I relate to humans, not internet sources.

I appreciate you reducing the amount of material in your post and keeping to the point. I am afraid i am failing you on your answer. you flunk this time, but I will give you another chance. please read my question more carefully and answer accordingly. and i asked to keep it to two sentences not 2 paragraphs. I'll put it down here again for convenience. under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage may not include 2 men and 2 women relationships. ( please limit your answer to maximum 2 sentences.) I should note that while some of your posts, if read through fully and if one had the mental capacity, would actually get the answer, but I am taking this as a matter of mutual respect in responding to a question that has been asked. also, many people who are reading this thread may not have arrived at the conclusion that i have just managed to glean from this.

yeah you're making a lot of sense there dude. things like this are defined by society. definitions are changing all the time and what is acceptible is defined all the time. like for example the institution of government. in hte usa, 100 years or so ago, to be a president you had to be white. teh idea of a black person beiong president was totally outlandish. it simply wasn't included in hte definition of that institution. it would be like saying a horse could be president. but obviously that changed. it changed because of society and culture. people changed and so definitions of what is considered correct are changed. maybe in 100 years, somebody will be able to lawfully marry their dog? or even their playstation. actually i think somebody called their child playstation... The issue of this thread.. authority refusing to acknowledge same sex individuals joining in marriage... the way i see it, these kinds of things are put up to vote.. I think... so if they had put it up for vote it simply means the politicians who voted had not considered public opioniojn, or they had polled the public and the majority vote suggested people wanted it to be blocked.. OR the politician were prejudiced and onlyt asked a part of the public that they knew were dead set against it. I don't know how it works in california... I know if it was this country, the politicians wouldn't bother asking the public, they would just think about how it best benefits their own pocket. alternatively.. I watched the film called "i now pronounce you chuck and larry" and it seems that there can be a lot of beurocracy involved... that they were sending government agents to check if teh people really were in a gay relationship!! which imo is ridiculous.. but if they do that, maybe they have decided it's too much bother and they are sick of doing it?

zeo, what the hell? will you please answer my questions. do you want me to give guidelines ? I'll lay it out like an exam paper shall I? under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage may not include 2 men and 2 women relationships. ( please limit your answer to maximum 2 sentences.) I'm not trying to be rude, but your posts are becoming a mess of random information as far as I can see. this is how it seems to me, I'm not attacking you, I'm explaining how this is effecting me. it's quite dsitressing because i feel like you're not listening to anyone, you are just attacking every single sentence they put down. every time i ask you to answer my questions you post another slurry of information. do you remember the thread with wyrm, and you were explaining how people can't process teh information he was throwing about? take a look at your own posts man. you really need to cut the crap and get to the point. and answer my goddam question please.

zeo can you please answer my questions in a clear concise manner. that is called communicating. you are currently stating a lot of things as facts when they are quote subjective to different groups of people. saying that marriage is culturally accepted as between man and woman, for example.. is not really something you can state as a fact. you don't have a immediate window into everybodies mind in order to state that so clearly. I should point out that the wiki definition IS a definition and actually a far more viable source than the two dictionaries since it has been put under far more peer review and is most certainly more accepted by society. since we do not have records of the origin of marriage, this statement is a fallacy. institution as "a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture" does not exaplin anything, we are all aware that marriage is a significant relationship in society and/or culture. stating the definition of an institution does not support anything. right now, you are totally derailing this thread by stating things that bear no relevance or are not clearly making any points. you are just citing many different things. get to the point man. I asked you some questions, you didn't answer. not as far as i could understand. under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage does not include 2 men and 2 women relationships. you own definition describes an institution as being within culture/society. people define society. people define culture. to be able to define what is and is not acceptible within that insitution you would have to survey all of society. here is a site with some opinion polls. if you want to start making sweeping statements then you need to research this. back your claims up dude. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

zeo, your post is rather confusing. I would like to understand how you are labelling marriage as an institution and as such limiting it to not include the definitions i provided. marriage as far as i am aware didn't come from on single place. it wasn't invented on the spot by one person or organisation and therefore given a set of rules that can never be violated. marriage exhists in almost all cultures and almost all religions. there are many different forms and many different rules and observances. I would like you to state on what authority you are sayin that this "istitution" you are referring to as the one and only "marriage" prohibits same sex union. for example, if it's in the US constitution then say so. and also, when stating what you are basing this on, please describe exactly why it nullifies all other examples of marriage including said examples rules and observances. EDIT: I should note that after a little bit of research, I discovered that same sex marriages actually occured during the roman empire. (second hand reference from wikipedia - Suetonius Life of Nero 28-29; Martial Epigrams 1.24, 12.42; etc.) so I am really curious as to where exactly you are coming from dude.

marriage is a union. marriage is a lasting commitment. there are a lot of different definitions here. zeo, I think you chould stop sticking to one definition and be a bit more flexible. I thik the most important thing here in my view is teh acknowledgement of the union by the state. considering that america is the land of the free, the refusal of the state of california to acknowledge teh union of two men or two women, seems very ignorant... no, it seems bigoted.

wow, that is really interesting. it sounds incredibly elegant if I am imagining your descriptions correctly. If I am correct, it's kinda like pouring jelly into a mould? with different moulds being designed to look like different partciles or energy types.

rule 34 wins out again.

ok, I understand that concept, but how on earth can they account for scattering? I mean, you would have to have a perfectly flat surface for the light to bounce off in the right direction, right? and actually.. if you project a stereoscopic image like that, you would simply get a double image on the screen wouldn't you? i mean, how can this technology choose which eye sees which image? it's not like your eyes are set up according to the machines specification, you can't tell your eyes to filter out one set of images. i understand how they would set a lcd screen to do this, that makes sense, but not with a projector? unless you have a very special screen to project onto....

ooh nice work! you got some pretty good taste. I don't normally like teh use of filters in photoshop, but this is quite elegantly done.

how can they possibly have 3d without special glasses? I've heard of no such technology apart from holograms.

yah, since it is missing the 'I', I was unsure.