Jess♥

I disagree, we have controls to revert edits and if somebody starts putting in rubbish, we can easily stop them from editing. on the other hand, a person could join up simply to edit pages and might have incredible knowledge and make some amazing stuff. why would we force them to make some posts first, they might not want to and they might just give up and then we lose out.

maybe People are reluctant to because they don't want to risk messing things up? or they might not be confident of their abilities? I'd like to se more content added. my strength is mainly in organisation so I would love to have more material to organise.

I'm not sure, but perhaps max factory did a deal with the Anime company to put their models there as a marketing ploy?

no, there was a different line of models back then. some of the new ones do look very similar, but that's probably because it's the same company. cannibal, I will ask the advocacy team about that for you.

I appreciate you wanting to help, but I know all this and more.

did you ask me about the watermark? sorry i must have missed it, yes we should have the watermark on all these.

we just noticed a couple that were a little extreme. I don't have a major problem most of the time, I think we just need to make sure that the forum doesn't become more signature than conversation. :wink:

here are some guidelines for signatures. it is guidelines so if your image is 2 pixels too big it's not the end of the world.. but try and be reasonable. signatures should not become bigger than this pretty picture i drew. this is 700 Pxls wide, 150 pxls high. Animations should be HALF as wide (or less), total file size no larger than 600Kb. if in doubt ask an admin. note: if you use text or tables in your signature, it can appear wide, but the browser will wrap or resize it if the screen is changed, so the width is not as important as the height in those cases.

I realised that the way i wrote this makes it seem as if I had a problem with hte way zeo posted his list. It was careless of me and i apologise for giving this impression. my last paragraph was in fact intended to be referring to other parts of the post.

Hi guys, We have been discussing about how debates are handled here and we have decided some guidelines are needed. please note these are not ultra strict guidelines, as you all know, we are usually pretty flexible with these kinds of things. this is what we have drawn up, any questions pease go ahead. these guidelines are liable to change during initial stages of implimentation. (we will let you know if we change it.)

just to clarify, guys, I did notice the tone of bacta5 post, and while it is a very aggressive stance, I don't want to make issue of it since it is the first instacne of such a thing. also we have not put those guidelines here just yet so bacta5 may not have been aware, when i knew for a fact that the People who have visited the Guyver science section would be aware of it. I will make sure these guidelines are in this debate forum now.

why don't you ask him? I don't have an issue with what he said, because as far as i am aware, what he said is general knowledge. or based on it. I know that scientists tinker with organisms in labs. and i know that dogs have been bred for a long time (i don't know about millennia) I think the point that he was trying to make was perhaps a reference to the breeding of dogs and the fact that a dog is still a dog.

I apologise for missing this part. I did read it and I can understand how you might feel I am being unfair in my judgement. It is my view that the statements made by bacta5 were purely a product of his own personal views and opinions. nowhere in his post was he trying to back up his views with any evidence and claim that it was widely accepted fact. in my judgement, the entire feeling i got from his psot was that he was simply stating his opinion. personal opinion is not authoritative. the actual grammar used may be blunt and straight forward and stated as though fact, but this is why the guidelines are just guidelines, they are there to help us make judgement calls. I hope this explains my thoughts adequately enough. note: if you do see any problems in other people's posts related to what i have described, and you feel i have overlooked them, please feel free to PM me and i will look into it carefully.

no zeo, read the part i quoted please. i have made no misconception. your intent may have been different but it does not change what you posted. I stated that your post seemed authoritative because you are stating 'facts' as if you are an expert in the field, which you are not. for example can be rephrased to something like "I think that termites and cockroaches were shown to be evolved from a common ancestor." or if you want to put weight behind it, provide a link. I guess the biggest issue i have spotted is that you have used all this in your post to debunk what bacta5 said. I asked you to be careful, but I guess that was an error on my part, I apologise i should have cut to the chase better. because herein lies the problem. you disprespect bacta5's point of view by not asking him for his reasoning and by basically debunking what he has said. when as far as I am aware you actually have no academic or professional authority to do so. if you want to challenge his views then fine, you can ask him questions and ask him to explain something in relation to what you have read, but your manner is basically aggressive in attempting to totally discredit his viewpoint. I apologise if you feel I should not write this here, but I feel it is important for other members to see my reasooning behind this. so that they can also judge how to better debate in future. I hope you can understand my good intentions. I shall just explain just to avoid any confusion. the reason why we are asking for People not to debunk without relevant authority is that it has not been verified that you or anyone else in your position has an appropriate understanding of the field and has access to the most up to date information. in the past we have operated on trust, but since some things have found to be in error or there have been misuinderstandings, we felt we needed to change that. perhaps i should write that in the guidelines thread that we made, if you wish to discuss it, feel freee to copy that as a quote and post in that thread.

Personally, I don't see how any of this is proof of evolution. it may be indicative of evolution in some ways, but it's not proof as far as I can tell. I'll take each point at a time. 1) All living things have a parent/source. Showing lineage... A basic principle of evolution... Thus proving Living creatures must come from other living creatures. so what? so we have parents, so how does this prove evolution? it doesn't. it just proves that we reproduce. yes we must have come from another living creature, but that other living creature was the same species. the definition of species is that it cannot reproduce with another species? is it not? (actually the definition of species disproves evoluition if i have that correct. because as soon as a new species exhists, it becomes extinct due to its inability to reproduce. ) 2) Every generation is not the exact clones of their parents... Showing mixing of DNA to constantly provide variation is the norm... this proves that individuals of a species are different. it doesn't prove that they evolve. it just proves that there is variation. so romans were born with different colour eyes or whatever... so are we.. it doesn't mean we evolved. there was variation then. there is variation now. it doesn't prove anything. 3) Vertebrates and Invertebrates are distinctly different but yet we share DNA in common with both types... all this proves is that we use the same patterns of dna for supposedly similar functions or simply coincidence. guess what. stars have hydrogen. earth has hydrogen. does that mean stars evolved from m class planets? it simply means some patterns work better than others. 4) Fossil records, etc all indicate the world has been in constant change and the animals of today did not always exist. Yet they share DNA with species of the past. fossil records indicate that modern creatures did not exhist but they do not prove that modern animals did not exhist. sharing of DNA does not prove anything as i pointed out in responce to point 3. it is likely that they did not exhist but this does not prove that they came from teh creatures back then by evolving. 5) New Species are constantly appearing over time as beneficial mutations take hold and also show DNA pattern that shows they came from a parent species. this is not necessarily true. new species are not 'appearing' all the time, they are being discovered. right? because if they are 'appearing' then that instantly disproves evolution ;P and anyway.. the fact of discovering a new species does not in any way prove that it did not exhist before. and it does not prove that it came from another species no matter what similarities there are. a similarity is not proof. it's all still conjecture. right? I'm not against evolution, I think it's a good theory but i just don't like the way that you provided this 'proof' that isn't actually proof IMO. I realise that the guidelines we made for the Guyver science lab are not displayed in this forum, but i think it's a good idea to strive to follow those guidelines here as well. some of your post is written in an authoritative fashion. I think you just need to be a little more careful how you write your posts , that's all.

how long are the strings supposed to be?

it's not exactly a rule, it is guidelines to help People keep the debates constructive. I find your question peculiar. I am curious to know why you would ask something like that. the admin of this site made these guidelines to suit the environment we want to be in and what we want for our members, so of course the rules tally with how we intend to behave ourselves.

I'm enjoying this. well peace is not permanent. human being are aggressive by nature. it is in our nature to be territorial. is there anybody here that has not gotten jealous when some guy talks to their girlfriend? so what is peace? we have a definition of war here so maybe define peace. is a cold war peace? People live in fear of being melted in a nuclear blast. is that true peace? or is it still war? so let's look at how fighting has changed. since teh nuclear bomb was created.. war seemed to stop... at least between the big powers.. the People who didn't have the nuclear weapons simply felt incredibly intimidated. suddenly the People with hte nuclear bombs could invade any of teh smaller countries and not worry too much about retaliation. the most powerful country soon spreads it's influence and continues imperialism in a different fashion. it changes the other countries into what it wants them to be wether they like it or not. soldiers ar present in other countries. just because teh governments seem to be cordial, does that mean it's not an occupation? well consider that the governments of these countries are being manipulated and in some cases set up by this powerful country? what happens to hte people's previous government. the original power of this country? the power that represented the mindseet of the people? of course we are told to assume that these People would welcome democracy. but how do we know for sure? well we do have plenty of evidence of People NOT welcoming democracy. those People reject democracy and they reject the occupying force. and they fight back. but teh thing now.. is that because teh government is no longer responsible, the super power no longer has a target for it's nuclear weapon threats. this is a different kind of warfare. terrorism is viewed as separate and by small factions of people, but it can only be the tip of the iceberg. an army usually only represents a small fraction of a larger body. if these People believe so strongly in something that they would die for it.. it is most likely that many many People believe very strongly, but not strongly enough to risk their lives... it still means that a whole mass of People are uinhappy about the situation and actually support the warriors. so we are actually talking about full scale war with another country, but teh country simply doesn't have a recognised governing body. the best way to attain true peace lies with real love for others.. meaning respect for peopl's territory, their beliefs, their governing systems, respect for these people's way of living. i believe this is possible, but not at this current time. humanity is still in it's infancy and still behaves like a school yard with all it's squabbling kids. teh super power is now the big kid that intimidates all the other kids into behaving how it wants them to. it takes all their lunch money, has them do it's bidding. it seems now though... that the other kids are sneaking around and attempting to cripple the big kid. when will peace come around in the playground? when hte kids all learn to respect each other. how long does it take People to respect each other? I know 60 year old People who behave aggressively and bully others. people can live in peace. People can cooperate.. but it's only a matter of time until one person makes a mistake and territory is violated. People are fiercely protective of their territory, as they relate their territory to their productivity and their happiness. fighting continues.. always. because People have different values. even hte peaceful People fight. People who want to protect animals.. there have been instaces of these activists sending letter bombs to pharmacy companies. even the 'peaceful', 'loving' People can be extremely aggressive given hte right circumstances. they believe they can justify it so they don't feel it is a wrong thing.

yah, I hear what you're saying and that's why i said 'friction' and not friction. as in ... uhm , I didn't mean friction exactly, but basically i was trying to describe any force that would act in the way that friction does on an object on the ground. does that make sense?

I was watching the program showing how to make stonehenge... when i noticed that this was ways in which to move a huge mass without much effort. so if more energy is required to make something go speed of light.. then why not find ways of making it easier to move such a mass. reduce teh 'friction' as it were.

thank you zeo, yes that all makes sense to me now. that was certainly a lot of writing and perfectly explained. I can see why you say you miss a lot out of your posts. maybe in order to shrink posts,... maybe it would be best not to address every point of other people's posts? if a point that is brought up does not seem likely, maybe it can be ignored? and then only addressed if it is repeated. how do you feel about that? I feel that the bio-boosting properties of the bio-booster creature is a core system within the cells. this system could be imagined as a small piece of gravity control orb, or a gravity control element - GCE. so if every cell has GCE in it, then this enables a small 'bio-boost' that gives the bio-booster creature it's abilities. so what is the gravity control orb? concentrated GCE? is this plausible? so the efficiency i mentioned.. I was not referring to a system that regualtes efficiency, rather a power source put in place so as to PROVIDE efficiency. so like.. let's say we have a horse drawn carriage... you add an engine to it, it is more efficient because it takes up a smaller space and provides more output. another way of looking at it is that the gravity orb could simply be for when the Guyver needs a large supply of energy for example using the gravity cannon. if this is the case, then the gravity control orb is not active at any time apart from when the Guyver needs more energy than the bio-booster cells alone can provide. this I feel is further supported by the presence of extra gravity orbs at the chestplates of the gigantic guyver. whoever made teh Guyver unit may have recognised the ability of the bio-booster cells to breach the dimensional threshold and cause teh organism to concentrate this ability in a certain organ, but perhaps when putting the creature under restraint, they did not understand the actual mechanism. on the other hand they may have. if it were the Creators that created the Guyver units, then it is likely they may have understood the concept. this could be why alkanphel is capable of breaching the boost dimension and travelling through it. the properties of teh gravity control orb are present in the zoacrystal. the question is though.. if this mechanism were present in zoanoids and zoacrystals, why are they so inefficient? it doesn't make sense. teh Creators surely would have wanted their creations to be ultimately powerful. of course teh mind control was there, so no matter how powerful the creation may be, if it is controllable then fine. so why are zoanoids not ultra powerful? I feel that is because they do not have the same mechanism as teh bio-booster creature. maybe teh Creators were trying tio mimic that effect but did not manage to get it perfected. maybe they managed to have a very crude method of opening the dimensional threshold but only proprtional to hte amount of matter exhisting here in relationship to mass/gravity. if gravitons are used to open it then maybe the zoanoid system uses a certain number of gravitons and exchanges them ior something. the point I am trying to make here though is that the zoanoids system is very limited. and limited specifically by how much chemical energy they have taken in (eating for a regular zoanoid and amniotic for libertus and enzyme 3) the guyvers system is not limited by anything, only time. a Guyver regenerated from just a few cells. completely. and was powerful enough to fire the megasmasher. teh bio-booster clone monster regenerated an entire body from just an arm. teh closest zoanoid to that is aptom and he showed that he could only regenerate a small piece.. after that he needed to consume elegen to actually do anything. interesting thought about that is that the arm that was left was a zoanoid arm and that arm transformed into part of his human form.. since zoanoids appear to be more dense, this makes sense that one arm would equal a larger portion of a human form. conservation of energy wins out in this scenario. also... I just had a thought... what about when the Relic TRANSMITTED bio energy to murakami? how does that work? also the ark sending energy to imakarum. what happens there? psionic energy? does that relate to chi? a possible storage medium for extra energy to make up mass? just a thought. edit: I was just considering the reasoning for the bio-boost creature to be parasitic, and i concluded that if the creature can replicate cells so easily, then it may replicate so much that it feels it requires an influx of fresh dna to prevent genetic decay. it may take foreign dna and splice it with it's own dna ensuring to maintain it's dimensional breaching qualities.

suspended for 10 days.

in that case, I apologise, I should have read it more, carefully, I was a bit hasty. I still need you to explain your logic though. because that bit didn't seem to make sense to me at all. I can't see how one things leads to another in that paragraph. there doesn't seem to be any link.

no actually jukai, you are not taking this to PMs you are not taking this anywhere, you do not dictate terms on this forum. you have been absolutely disrespectful of me. I am responsible for upholding the rules for all members and ensuring that the place remains civil for all people. If I had spoken to my boss that way, I would have been fired on the spot. If I made a mistake in my judgement then by all means you can question it or ask another admin, but you do not tell me to 'cut it out'. I have tried to be patient and calm and tried to be as forgiving as i can with you, but the fact is I am in a position that requires respect. I don't necessarily like it all the time, but that is the way it is and you have broken that. IT is therefore my duty to give you an official warning for disrespect. I do not want to hear another word on it in this forum because that will constitute a further infringement. any consequent infringements will result in further warnings and if need be, suspension. now continue the debate.

jukai if you have any problem with the way a forum admin or moderator behaves, you need to talk to another admin about it and let them handle it. it is not your place to judge how People behave on this forum. as far as I am concerned I have behaved appropriately. you are out of line right now.