Morris

All fair enough. Admittedly, I did disregard the intent of the hostility behind the word "savage" in my perspective. It doesn't seem as though you did, but just in case you think I was attacking you, I put "yell at" in quotes simply because it is figurative speech. I prefer a "coach" over censorship. Not only does it further conversation as you said, but it pushes the poster to truly question and re-evaluate not only what they had said, but the angle and perspective from which they were saying it. That is something I'm personally fond of, especially when I'm the one having to do it. I really don't mean for some of my posts to come off as hostile, bitter, or over-critical (none of which I am in real life), but I can see why they do. I can only conclude that it's a matter of posting without putting much thought into who might read it or the real person behind a screenname, something I'll make a point to keep in mind from now on. For me, at least, that is one of the fun parts of history, theology, and storytelling. I like comparing traits and personas to other things in fact, myth, and intended fiction. On the contrary, I'm aware it all adds up to being mostly senseless rabble, but it's a rabble that I delight in.

Actually, that was in reply to which wouldn't be the first time he's brought up Native Americans and the evil European settlers in a thread. In this thread at least, it was pointless for him to bring up, especially before finding his story, which he did. I don't feel I was anti-racial in any way, seeing as I grew up next to an Indian reservation and have no qualms with them at all, and for that reason, the time of Western colonization happens to be one of my favorite areas of American history. I like correcting things I've come to learn as misguided or plain out wrong, especially when it's something I've studied extensively from the different sides. Perhaps "get over it" might have been over the edge in this context, and with no need to continue that thought in this thread. My fault and sorry if I offended you or anyone else. This isn't the first time you've "yelled" at me. I'm new here, and used to forums where challenging and heated debate are provoked. I realize this isn't the place for that, but old habits die hard. I'll work harder on leaving my old habits behind. I'm sure most of us understand that there is no real "first vampire", and that the stereotype is built upon the various "boogiemen" of world cultures. Saying that we're embarassing for evaluating literary characters, of any background, is ridiculous to me, but to each his own. The more frequent stereotype falls under a more Hebrew/Christian style of evil, and an article I read a while ago brought up the whole Cain thing and more lineage linked to Hebrew texts. That's simply all I was suggesting. I'm sure it's not something anyone here obsesses about, and appears to be held mostly on a side-thought level.

You're aware that Native American myths and magic have as much credibility as any other culture's religion and mythology? Strange, last time I checked, but all the history I've read made a point of portraying both the Indians and the settlers as cruel to each other. The Native Americans were savages, wether by reason or not, they were. Though not all tribes can be held accountable, a good amount of them invaded and slaughtered settler towns that they were supposedly peaceful with. They murdered trade caravans and travellers from town to town. They didn't like us on their land, and they made it known. They initiated a lot of the battles that were fought. They broke as many, if not more, treaties as we did. Because we won in the end, we're made to look like the heartless savages that stole their land. Which we did. We cheated, broke treaties, and launched sneak attacks for territorial reasons. It's f-ed up, but that's conquest and civilization. Get over it. edit: As far as I know, the common idea of what a vampire is originated from Hebrew texts, Cain being their diety (I know it's not the proper word to use, because in their eyes there is only one god, but I don't know what other word I would use), though he may not be portrayed as one himself in the Bible. As for the Cain part, it was years ago when I looked into all this though, and I'm sure most of my sources weren't all that valid. But it only makes sense that the demonic vampire came from Hebrew scripture, as Hebrews were (AFAIK) among the first to place blatant "evil" in such personal forms. This could be due to other religions that they had to face DID indeed involve blood sacrifices and the such, but none are proven to reach the exagerrated extent they're spoken of by Hebrew and Hebrew based faiths.

Ha, I had forgotten about that! Come to think of it, he was the most developed and personal human character in the movie.

"S - K - U - L - L Island". I couldn't help but laugh at that. And while on the most worthless character of the movie (the sailor boy), the whole reference to "Heart Of Darkness" was completely senseless, and a waste of about 15 minutes right there. Also, I love it when characters are built up for no reason. He didn't die, he didn't do anything special. He just used up screen time. We never find out where he goes after the Skull Island incident. I'm glad Jackson accomplished NOTHING with a character he made sure to be careful about giving a background. That's ace script writing right there. I'd like to see him do that. Most of them were at nonsensical times, which leads me to believe Peter Jackson is trying to score "artsy" points, and failing at it. And I'd like to know why he thought Jack Black fit to be anywhere in the movie. He's a terrible actor, especially for a role like that. It does really bother me, Jackson's casting has always been PERFECT in all of his movies. And yes, seeing Jack Black trying to pull off that role is probably the main reason I disliked the other acts. I didn't hate the movie, I was just very disappointed and expected a lot more. This was supposed to be a mammoth remake of a legendary film. That's how it was hyped, advertised, and raved. Peter Jackson always delivers what is promised, except (in my opinion) for Kong. And after the Skull Island part, the trademark NYC part was just like "whatever".

Well, I do LOVE b-movies, especially when they involve ludicrous action scenes. edit: Especially when those b-movies are giant animals pwning the hell out of each other. And yet another edit because my thinking is slow at the moment: The original King Kong did have the natives and a T-Rex, and I guess Peter Jackson must've thought Skull Island was the chance to shine the movie. My main complaint is that, at least to someone who likes movies that are overdone for the humour of being overdone, the middle shouldn't be the best part of a 3 hour movie, which it was for me. I also forgot, if Undead was 2005, then that's another movie on my list.

This may be the most pointless post in this thread (then again, maybe not), but I find myself LMAO in almost every game I play on ST. Or, in SP, there's countless LOLs abound in any noob wad. edit: And as far as Doom and dancing goes, http://doomdance.ytmnd.com

Doing pretty well actually. Lost 20 pounds, quit smoking, all the money I used to use on alcohol and drugs is being saved up so I can go to college, stopped being half-assed at work, got my liscense reactivated, starting to pay off all my fines, learning how to program in C++, strength training regularly, taking guitar a lot more "seriously", finally got a recording studio set up in my room (albeit cheap), becoming much more social and now have a few ladies who I'm keeping an eye on for a possible serious relationship. Now all I have to do is move out, start taking kung fu, stop masturbating 3 times a day, become a porn star, become a model photographer, and actually start writing as much as I pretend to. And shit, I had a lot of resolutions, which I am actually doing a good job at fulfilling. What's happening to me?

Sin City, Land of the Dead, Grizzly Man, and I'm sure there's another that I'm forgetting. I agree with whoever said Doom was more enjoyable than Sith. Doom's plot at least made sense and didn't contradict itself, even if it wasn't what we all wanted from it. Narnia was so-so. It was amazing to look at, but I didn't find it all that entertaining except for the final battle sequence, in which they used the classic generic fantasy cop-out routine more than once. But I guess that's how the book is written. edit: As fantasy is, more or less, the only fiction I can stand to read regularly, any magic item that has failless properties that aids the protogonist without consequence, especially when NOTHING is done to obtain it, completely ruins any story for me. I'm impartial about King Kong. I'll admit the Skull Island part is some of the best film I've ever seen, but the other 2 hours make it almost not worth seeing. And Jack Black is possibly the worst choice for that role. WTF Peter Jackson? Could have just as easily been 2 hours, and much better for it.

With rare exceptions, the only kind of movies I can stand to watch are b-action and b-horror films. Despite the big budget, the Doom movie was a mix of both. Therefore, I enjoyed the movie. However, the BIG problem with me was the usage of the Doom liscense. As Mordeth said, it really isn't too hard a plot to follow. I think it's pretty much decided, even among people who aren't Doom players, that hellspawn parody owns biogenetic mutations. And why are biogenetic mutations so damn popular, anyway? So much wasted potential. But still, I thought the movie was fun at worst, and not worth seeing on anything less than a big screen. Nothing too memorable, but I don't regret seeing it or spending 7.50 to do so. Of course I'm not going to buy it.

Honestly, I found it more humorous that he compared something in "real life" to something in a script written by George Lucas. edit: and one of Shakespear's more melodramatic works.

For the last line, if you had said "...Combining this philosophy with the word 'Satanism'...", you would have been right on the dot. I think it's funny that people still think that the Christian version of Satanism really exists. In latin, "Satan" translates directly to "the adversary". Thus, why they are named as such. The notion that Satanists are homicidal, murderous, immoral, or evil is ridiculous. Some Satanic artists play off this stereotype as a self-parody, but the truth is that the Satanic philosophy embraces truth, honor, chivalry, and perfectionism. Anyhow, back on topic. I don't think I'd ever get a tattoo from a video game. Then again, the "you'll regret it" line is generally BS, unless you really do get something stupid. A tattoo represents something to you, and even if your ideals or lifestyle changes 10 years down the road, it still represents something that was once a part of you. I have several, and they all represent something deep to me. I usually get them when I make a great accomplishment or major change in my life. One of them (an over-detailed evil looking dragon)isn't really my style anymore, but I still love the tattoo because it represents my triumph over some really bad things that were going on in my life. It stands as a badge and a reminder to myself about what I've done, as do all my other ones. I just can't see a videogame tattoo having that kind of power, and thus, to me is pointless. However, GoatLord, since you do seem to have some meaning to yours, go for it. But as it is a strong and general image by today's standards, just make sure it isn't something you might change your mind about 20 years from now.

For some reason, I was never really able to catch on to Cannibal Corpse. Then again, all I've heard from them I heard from friends, I never really listened to them on my own. Asphyx, older Amorphis, and Luciferion are pretty much my favorite death bands. Anyone here listen to Dragonforce? I really thought their other albums were a little overrated, but I have to admit that their album "Inhuman Rampage", which came out yesterday, is pretty awesome. I would not hesitate to recommend it first to someone getting into power metal. Also got another album earlier today by a band called Orion Riders, makes me think of a heavier Angra. Pretty good stuff for a virtually unheard of band.

Metal has a pretty large spectrum, and I'm sure most people involved could sit here and list underground/unsigned metal bands that kick ass, but noone else has ever heard of. You can go wrong with any suggestor, and someone else's suggestion might unexpectedly suprise you. Different people have different tastes, and a wider variety of suggestions is rarely unwelcome.

Perhaps there was no reason for me to go into details, but still, I don't renounce it. I don't feel a strong contempt towards the genre, but they have a big scene here, and since I'm heavily involved with local music, I deal with them a lot. I'm friends with some of them, but most of them do get on my nerves for various reasons, everytime I see them. So that should explain my contempt. That aside, I'm sick of being the only one to defend Manowar, and that there's even a need to still defending them, but someone's got to do it. They aren't even close to my favorite band, FFS, and when I added that at the end of my post I was playing off the self-parody. Throughout their 25 or so years of existance, they've only changed labels to get away from becoming heavily commercialized, not to chase it. They're optimistic and have pride in themselves, and even though they admittedly over do it from time to time, I don't see what's wrong with it. Saying they "took it" from KISS is unfair, because other bands before and after KISS have made a point of say "Hey, our music IS pretty fucking good." And, their music is just a solid and strong as it was on their debut. They're recognized by Guiness (sp?) for being the loudest band ever, and are recognized by almost every metal band (from all genres) as an influence, and also for "keeping it true" for two and half decades. They still aren't dicks like every other successful metal artist, and it's obvious it's all in fun, and they still manage to pull off the universal "metal message" while having it. That's a good deal, even if it wasn't self-parody, to be proud about, and I don't see anything wrong with announcing your pride to the world. And as for the Motley Crue thing, "OMG THEY WON A FIGHT SO THEY'RE BETTER AND NOT LOSERS#@1!!!!!" Seriously, I love Crue as well, but look at them. A bunch of alcoholic losers who can't keep a wife or stay out of jail. Wow, cool. And as you said, it's hearsay. I prefer an image of deserved pride over "Look at us, we're cool." But it's all speculative, and it's the music that matters. In which case, Manowar wins. ;)