V Guyver

cereal, toast, waffles. The usualy stuff. Though I have at times eaten left over pizza, and oves moles.

yeah, older marriages were like a handshake. Later it became a religious mark, and now a contract. As for the paying of higher taxes, I don't know why they do that, but once you married you tend to pay an extra thanks to the "marriage penalty" actually some married couples don't have a difference, and other even get tax breaks, but only if their income is not around the same range of income. If you are around the same range of income (which is pretty common) then you will get taxed more. Pretty silly... http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html Here is an example. __________________________________________Married Couple_____Individual --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGI (Adjusted Gross Income)__________________$100,000//////////////$50,000 Minus exemptions and standard deductions______-$12,500//////////////-$6,950 Taxable income_____________________________$87,500///////////////$43,050 Federal tax_________________________________$19,002///////////////$8,766 ($17,532 for two individuals)------------------------------------------------------------ Marriage penalty_____________________________$1,470///////////////$00 Sources Used: IRS Tax Code, USA Today

Zeo seems to of gone through a lot of effort to try and prove that the majority of the public and thus the government are against gay marriage. He's gone through lots of websites and written a ton of stuff that is almost hard for my tired feeble brain to digest. I'm not sure if he's just trying to support the governments actions and function through logic, or is simply against gay marriage as a "Marriage" instead of under another term. Ryuki's been trying to point out that very bluntly that the terms of marriage and even current family values aren't concrete as they often do indeed change over time. I tend to agree with him on that, though I can also certainly understand Zeo's attempt to preserve marriage as he knows it since I too find gay relationships a bit foreign to me. In my case, I really just see the current passing of a the law as a futile attempt at attempting to stop social changes. not that movements for social changes always happen in the here and now, but eventually they do as history has shown repeatably. Outlawing it just means it will go through the courts again (I believe there have already been 6 different challenges issued thus far that are yet to hit the courts) and it may be repealed, and public sentiment is indeed divided as show cased today. Already thousands have protested in the streets of California today alone on 11/9/08 (Making note of the date so not as to forget it in train of thought). Considering how small a minority Gay's are, it's a pretty impressive number, especially since many people who are protesting are not gay. Here is the article. Zeo stated that the country isn't divided over the issue, if that were the case then it wouldn't be an issue, none the less one that would be constantly on the news over states and federal bills attempting to either ban or legalize gay marriage. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/2...agemarches.html Zeo was correct though in pointing out that people don't have a right to get "married", it's instead a privilege. It's not in the constitution so his statement is technically true... but if that is indeed the logic behind it, then we may as well note that under that train of thought that we can thus deny people the privilege to have children, houses, pets, or even be able to divorce. Try to say it in as many different was as one wants, the result that we can only get marred as dictated by the country, but what Zeo has failed to prove is that this is what the country wants, a no same sex marriage ban. Otherwise it would of been implemented by if not for two things: 1. A fairly large number of people who want it. 2. Equal rites. Denying people the ability to do the same things as other people is disruptive of their civil liberties. I've already made what I think is a logical argument about the population. Now when it comes to civil liberties, some say it doesn't trample their rites, just deny's them the privilege that traditional couples have. Well people used to say the same about Jim Crow laws. For those of you outside the US, Jim Crow Laws were laws that allowed segregation and second rate quality of living for minority blacks. The idea was that the law would allow equal standards of living while still keeping people separated, it wasn't the case. The reality was that blacks were practically abused by the majority. Now you can see where I am heading with this... the ban on gay marriage is in many regards the same thing, you could be denying someone the same privileges that the common folk have simply because they are gay. Thus they aren't equal under the constitution, and according to the constitution you have to have equal privileges and rites. So eventually you are going to have to change the laws to allow them to either get married, or have an equivalent otherwise you are breaking federal law at the core and any law of a lower level like the state law, will have to be repealed. Now you can argue that it's also unnatural, that being homosexuality. Well it feels unnatural to me, and probably to most too. It doesn't fit with our biological makeup since we can't reproduce. But if you think about it, gay love isn't about reproduction... It's simply love, a common human emotion and concept virtually all human beings understand and feel what love is. Note that I said most, there are a few individuals who suffer from mental illness's that hamper the ability. But we really can't count them I guess. It serves a different biological function then reproduction, since love is indeed something that extends to family, friends, pets, and even objects. So logic applied to the illogical that is love would suggest that it's actually natural as a function both homosexuals and heterosexuals (and bisexuals for that matter too.) My view on marriage and how some of the states in the USA see it is that nothing more then contract stating you are in love and thus will devote yourselves to one another exclusively. Whether or not the term "Marriage" will be exclusively presented as a union of love between man and woman and exclude same sex is yet to be seen. I honestly see little reason to make it exclusive though since marriage has already been used for gays in history. So an argument saying that it's always been between a man and a woman is usually out of uninformed ignorance. One also can't argue that homosexuality threatens society or a culture. So far it's expanded into popular culture, it's helped lead an American TV series into many awards. Many gay's are role models who have done great things like Elton John. I recall Zeo arguing that polygamy just like homosexuality disrupts and damages society... his argument for polygamy was that it helped with over population... wouldn't having gay couple's counter that? Also, there is no evidence that a gay couple can't raise a child properly. There's evidence against single couples, but as it stands a gay couple is in better ground then a single parent thanks to the many points to the single parent having a less viable invoriment for the child. Examples include: The likely two income's, two rolemodels, a balance of authority, better time share's for bonding and raising the child, something a single parent would have to do less of, and of course, double the effection then a single parent. Besides, what's wrong with gay adopting a parentless child, far better then them being bounced around in the public system and state (provided they pass the screening like regular couples) Also people seem to forget the benifits of a gay marriage too: Married couples pay higher taxes. Poeple with stable relationships like marriage tend to be more stable and productive to society. Married couples tend to raise children better then single parents thus likely producing a more production member of society in the future. Their financial situation is likely to be better then in a singles situation, thus they contribute to the economy as well. I can keep going on and on... Like Zeo, I would actually prefer if marriage in terms remained as a man and woman union, but that's just my upbringing. Having looked over the subject, I really don't see for all purposes and intents in any attempts to make this an exclusive form of a relationship in which a gay couple can share in. Feel free to poke any holes in my logic. But please try to keep it simple though, and I'm sorry if my points weren't simple or short.

It seems that the concept of marriage really has changed over the last few thousands years and from my research within Socio-cultural anthropology. They've had at least one African culture which had a form polygamy where multiple men would marry one woman. Perhaps we can't call it marriage in our culture, but over there it's normal. Same goes for Roman and Greek culture in which gay relationships were promoted and cherished by many. In our case right now with gay marriage is that our culture has traditionally been against it, also the current view in it is that marriage is sacred, and that Gay's marrying is unnatural in both biological aspects and religious. But that is where things get biased... All I'm saying is that marriage isn't a clearly defined concept, and that it comes in many different forms. The fact society is divided over the concept means that times are changing, thus our culture and religions have become more open/tolerant of the concept. 50 years ago you could easily of seen a mob go lynch a gay man in public in the middle of the night while singing show tunes. Rather people like it or not, gay marriage is going to happen down the road in one form or another down the road. The question I'm really being asked by my view in society is "Are we ready for this?" Sort of how like 20-30 years ago people were asking the same thing about gays coming out of the closet. So if we were to allow gay marriage to happen, we'd have to have have it recognised in courts. Much like how desegregation was only finally implemented through the courts. Otherwise a new term should be created.

the dozen or so colonies actualy dropped on earth in Gundam X don't count?

yeah I used the stone texture effect for most of the background. I had turned the image grey then colored it a dark red. Used a circle tool to make the yellow colored circle for a sun. I then did the grainy slashed across the image using the "soft wet oil blend" art tool to manually places the slashes for the windy effect. So there, now you got something for a new banner in the future. I didn't think that toying around in 3-4 minutes of testing out if the entire program was working completely would turn into this. Lol. So thanks again for the compliments. I hope now that it's working again that I'll Finally get the scanlations done and work on some more pics. I hardly draw or photoshop these days, and it worries me that what little skill I have may of degenerated beyond repair.

What you just described is my little brother in a nutshell. And common sense as Voltaire once said "Common sense is not so common"

The thing with marriage is that gay couples want it. They would prefer being called "married" not a civil union because it doesn't have meaning. To them the word marriage makes a big difference, and the same may hold true in a court system. So I suggest "Sanctity Union" which would have a stronger meaning. Now there are some issues and questions in what Durendal just pointed out about starting a family and adopting a kid, and the consequences of doing so. But you know what, that doesn't matter if that becomes the norm. I'll make a point about it... decades ago, people use to say that there would be psychological ramifications and damage done to a white child being raised by adoptive black parents... My point being that the social look many hold against gays is not all that different from the look we used to have against Negro's. They are human beings who want to care for another human being and want to get married. If you take off a harmless label like gay. then suddenly you'd approve. The idea of a gay person(s) raising an adopted child is at times treated like they are a pedophile or some former criminal with a shady past. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh about the subject but it certainly feels odd that we are more then willing to accept their money, taxes, work, and organs for a things like a liver transplant. But we can't accept giving them the same rights other couples have and put them over more scrutiny then normal when they want to fulfill a normal human desire to raise children.

Finnaly got Photoshop to work again, that means I can get back to working on my scanlations for the oard (really sorry for the delay guys, especialy with the work you did in translating them) This was just some random image I found on the net. Original just a guyver action figure/model to a yellow background. So I spruced it up within 4 minutes of work in toying aroudn with my now working photoshop. Having that thing working for me again got me and urge to toy aroudn with it, and this was the end result So here it is, try it out as a stretched background. I tried it out on my desktop and it seemed pretty cool. I hope some of you enjoy the image.

Hmm, I don't mind the whole gay marriage thing, a bit of a shame that gay's can't be joined in a ritualistic union like normal couples. The problem is not so much giving them the right, but the name of the union. Marriage, which most people feel should only be between a man and a woman. Maybe they can pass another bill for something that gives them marriage-like rights, but under a different title ...maybe a Sanctity union.

I think it's bad because it leaves no room for any human sympathy on the killers part, also it provides and excuse for them not taking blame by saying: "I didn't kill them, I was just ordered to drop them, I didn't know people would get killed" Or "Just following orders, I would never of shot them, but the machines were the ones killing, not me." Total inhalation of the opposition isn't new. Heck even the Israelites practiced that, they committed a war of Genocide during their attempts to resettle into the holy lands after escaping Egypt. Men, women, and children from entire towns, villages, and cities ...slaughtered in the name of god. It was the norm back then. Today, it shouldn't be happening since we have such a better understanding of the people near us. Still in real life, and in anime (with horrible foreshadowing) continue to remind us of the actual reality.

You don't need a big government to do that. And why bring bush into this? =P The difference with traditional mass murder is that you at least have someone pulling the trigger. But nope, the A-Laws are content on letting machinery do all the work, not all that different from Nazi's preferences for efficient gassing chambers. And wow... a single Gundam wiped out an entire capital and he certainly relished every moment of it it seems.

Horribly horribly turn of events. What's next, crucifying entire towns onto telephone polls just out of sheer murderous joy? Even some of the Arrow/A-Law members are disgusted.

I have to agree, it would be nice for the seires to expiriment a bit more, but there are some things that shouldn't be changed. None the less, they've reinvinted a lot of game play mechanics ever since SotN and some of them have been incredibly cool, like Aria of Sorrow's Soul System. By the way, some of the artwork and designs from Partiot of Ruin are pretty cool, and I wouldn't mind some of them being part of a new art direction. Yeah, I dislike the anime style in that game a bit, but they had other art work related to it that didn't stink. Such as Wind (revealed to be Eric Lecarde, who may actualy be a decendent from Alucard), Brauner, and Darcula.

that beauty and elegance gives the series such a distinct style and look. It's hard to imagine anything that can replace it or be any cooler. In all honesty, I like some of the older work. I like the current Alucards look from SotN, but I wish they retained some of the gruff look he had in Castlevania 3. He was a dhampire in turmoil, unshaven, and gritty. That look fit a character struggling with a horrible fate and evil lineage that he was born from and betrayed. The only art style I can imagine that could work in Castlevania and still retain outright coolness is this type of art.

I agree, I would of prefered the cooler older designs by Ayami Kojima. Yeah, the guys are girly, but they still looked cool. At least it wasn't anime designed like dawn of sorrow.

you should see maria, she look so freakin much like Misa.

yeah, I guess it was rude of me. But going through the trouble of saving them on my computer then reuploading them here or onto another image site isn't as practical as just posting them here with the coding.

that's because the Richter sprites in the PS1 SotN game were from the old Dracula X with a couple of new animations. They totally revamped his sprites for the Sega Saturn version, and also made Maria a playable character. Unfortunately with all the added content, the Saturn was inferior in music and graphics (odd since the Saturn was a more dedicated 2D machine.) here are all of his sprites. By the way, the new fighting games namei s "Castlevania Judgement" The art wrok was done by the same man who created Death Note. It's got a very different look then the beloved artist who did much of the art work for the series starting with SotN. Many of the characters resemble deathnote characters. In all honesty, I dislike some of the new redesigns, like Maria and Alucard look so odd and different from their SotN incarnations. Simon though looks pretty bad ass. site http://www.konami-data.com/castlevania/youtube gameplay from E3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJgyqEmtr8...feature=related

and Blazblue Size comparison to GGX sprites Now imagine Castlevania, any game, not just SotN in HD with sprites comparable to at least Capcom VS SNK sprites. The Results would be nice. Just compare all of the above to the original SotN sprites. oh and new console CV game coming out. it's a 3d fighting game.

I agree, the art direction and potriats shouldn't be changed at all. But updated more detailed sprites and backgrounds would be lovely, I was thinking along the lines of Street Fighter II HD as well, though in reality, the sprites would probably only be about as big as Capcom VS SNK sprites ,or Guilty Gear X's. So far 2D animated sprites have only been king in Street Fighter II HD and Blazblue. Here are the examples: SFII Turbo HD Size comparisons to original SFII sprites, GGX, and new HD size.

well yeah, they had the game planned for release as a down loadable content. They already ported it over to the PSP via a Dracula X remake. I've been hearing a lot of rumers floating around, including a HD remake. No castlevania game has yet to match how great this game was.

One of the best Godzilla movie review ever. I love the humor. http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article81.htm

great articles. I love the Muppet driver. Reminds me of the X-Wing novels when one of the characters strapped an Ewok doll to his own body to make imperialists think that his fighter craft was piloted by an Ewok. lol