ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:38 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: RMG saw the Matrix!
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:50 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
The first one-- I'm avoiding the sequels like the plague after what I've heard about them from my friends.

I was kind of disappointed-- not because of any particular flaws in the movie itself, but because our culture is so Matrix-saturated that nothing was really surprising.

Trinity jumping up and spinning around in slow motion in mid-air in the first scene must have been thrilling in 1999, but not to me in 2003 when I've seen the same scene a million times before-- in Shrek, in flash movies about Chinese stick figures beating the shit out of one another, in some random sitcom on Fox that I saw like five seconds of, in animated gifs in peoples sigs and avatars in every forum I've ever posted at, and God knows where else.

Or when they introduced the crew of the ship. My first thought was, "Okay, I read in a magazine about action figures I read in 2000 that Cypher is the traitor, and Swtich and Kpack (or whatever) and all of these other losers are gonna get, like, totally offed since they weren't in the ads for the sequels."

Or when Neo goes to the Oracle and finds out he isn't the One. I was all, "Oh man, he so is-- this must be a clever ruse of some sort!"

Not to mention that I spent the whole movie wondering when Trinity would bring Neo back to life with a kiss.


So-- the Matrix was good, but I ruined it for myself by not seeing it when it came out.


Fuck!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: But remember, always look before you leap!
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:43 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Moral of the story:

    He who hesitates is lost!
    Or at least has his potential for enjoyment of a cool flick raped in the @$$ by popular culture.
Oh, the humanity. :cry: I'm sorry, Rince. ó_ò

But seriously, if the first one didn't do it for you because of all the spoilers, then you should definitely go and watch the second two. Because the thing is, no two people seem to be able to agree on what really happened in them or what any of it all means, so you'll still totally be surprised. ;-)

_________________
Only try to realize the truth...
There is no spoon. Then you will realize
that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.


"Only he who attempts the absurd
is capable of achieving the impossible."
 - Miguel de Unamuno


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:48 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
If it helps any, I despise the flick. Everyone told me, "Go see it! It's right up your alley!" but I came out thinking, "What a load of pretentious dreck." It may indeed be the most philosophical movie in a long time, but after having seen it, I have decided that a movie isn't necessarily the best way to convey a philosophical argument. For the record, it's warmed-over Descartes with a bit of Foucault thrown in.

French philosophers have gone way, way downhill in quality since Descartes. Cogito ergo sum, he said, and though in so saying he was presuming his conclusion, it was a very clever thing to say anyway. He was a mathematician, and he had a mathematician's philosophical tendency to dualism, and his cogito was probably the best dualist argument since Aristotle; but his ideological descendents from Rousseau to Sartre to Derrida to (ugh) Foucault recycled his ideas again and again without successfully addressing the problems with those ideas.

Post-modernism is bad, bad thought. As I see it, it is an attempt to brush aside the problems of a dualist view (the third man, the idea of filth, the presumption of an ego in cogito) by means self-conscious nihilism. If we have to reject Descartes' cogito, say the post-modernists, then nothing at all can be proven true. That's just nonsense.

And did I mention that Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss were in this movie? Couldn't the Wachowski brothers have found two actors more competent than (say) blocks of wood? That pair makes Canadian actors look very bad indeed.

ObMidlands: I suggest Keanu Reeves to take the part of Asher-Illinath in the Midlands movie. And make sure the Mage Guard's "blam" effects are loaded with real blam.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Frigid Simian, I summon thee!
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 2:27 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Um... wow.

You just pissed on a movie that I consider to be really cool, and that's okay (even though it made me CRY :cry: ), but you did it using terms and concepts which I am not entirely familiar with. As a result, I have no choice but to draw this thread to the attention of <strike>IcyMonkey</strike> <strike>Dionysus</strike> Zarathustra, in hopes that he will come in and either agree with you or engage you in a long-winded philosophical conversation. Either way, chances are I'll learn something.

Have fun! ;-)

_________________
Only try to realize the truth...
There is no spoon. Then you will realize
that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.


"Only he who attempts the absurd
is capable of achieving the impossible."
 - Miguel de Unamuno


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:21 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Tamayo wrote:
And did I mention that Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss were in this movie? Couldn't the Wachowski brothers have found two actors more competent than (say) blocks of wood? That pair makes Canadian actors look very bad indeed.


One thing that thousands of jokes did not prepare was Keanu Reeves's "Whoa." I knew it was coming, and I knew it would be painful, but I still winced.

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 11:57 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Yevaud333 wrote:
You just pissed on a movie that I consider to be really cool, and that's okay (even though it made me CRY :( ),

For that, I apologize. I am all for peace and harmony and happiness. If you liked the movie, fine; it had some pretty special effects, after all. And Hugo Weaving was lots of fun as Agent Smith.

No, I am not (entirely) being sarcastic.

Yevaud333 wrote:
but you did it using terms and concepts which I am not entirely familiar with.

Rene Descartes was a seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher and military officer. He invented analytic geometry; he had an affair with Christina Vasa, former queen of Sweden and daughter of Gustavus II Adolphus Vasa; he wrote the Meditations in which he propounded his famous cogito: "I think, therefore I am."

Dualism is the position that ideal forms exist in a fashion apart from the perceptible world. Mathematicians (I among them, alas) seem to think that statements like "any formal system sufficiently powerful to encompass the arithmetic of natural numbers is necessarily either incomplete or inconsistent" (Godel's famous Incompleteness Theorem) are either true or false, forever and invariably. Of course, they're right. ;-) It makes them susceptible to a deeper dualism, however, wherein one can make the error of speaking of the ideal forms of worldly things.

Are we coming close to the ideas of The Matrix yet ... ?

There are lots of arguments against strong dualism. The best one is the "third man" argument: if every perceptible thing is a shadow of the ideal form of that thing, then there must be an ideal form of ideal forms as well. In that fallible humans can conceive of the ideal form of ideal forms, then there is an ideal form of ideal forms of ideal forms, and so on. The very ideal form of dualism is thus mocked.

A (somewhat peculiar) argument is the "ideal of filth" problem: if every perceptible concept is a shadow of its ideal form, then there must be an ideal form of the corruption of ideal forms into perceptible things. That, of course, is a contradiction, because this particular form must be both an ideal and a perceptible concept.

Now Descartes himself tried very hard to avoid the aforegoing problems in his Meditations but with his cogito he came up against a new problem: "I think, therefore I am" presumes an "I" who is thinking, so the statement is vacuous. Furthermore, it seems impossible to restate this idea using different language.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote Emile. (Alternate title: The Noble Savage.) 'Nuff said.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote Nausea. I have actually read that book from cover to cover. I thought I was being tough, but in retrospect I was just being stubbornly foolish. Anyway, Nausea is the central work of Sartre's version of existentialism, wherein he propounds the idea that the universe is uncaring and cold and meaningless and that the only care, warmth and meaning available to people is that which we give to ourselves. Well duh!

Sartre's particular goofy hang-up was that each person is purely and inescapably responsible for everything he or she does. On the face of it, that's false: if I contract rabies by stepping on a hidden nail, and then I go crazy and kill people because the rabies has changed my brain physically, then I really am not responsible for the deaths of those people. It is an accident. It is a fallacy to presume that every event has a motive.

Francois Derrida was the founder of the Post-Modernist movement, and Michel Foucault was his primary disciple. Derrida rejected the empiricism of Hume and Locke and tried to argue from first principles, like Descartes; but what he ended up with was a kind of beatnik nihilism. The concept of "deconstruction" is a post-modernist one, wherein it is attempted to destroy the foundations of a concept from within. Derrida apparently wanted to show that he could do that to any other philosophy, and his followers did it to works of art too. It is hateful.

So, to repeat the tag line of the movie trailer, what is The Matrix?

More ObMidlands: Are there Black people on the Sannadoc?

Tamayo the lone voice of dissent (sorry)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:16 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 674
RMG wrote:
Tamayo wrote:
And did I mention that Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss were in this movie? Couldn't the Wachowski brothers have found two actors more competent than (say) blocks of wood? That pair makes Canadian actors look very bad indeed.


One thing that thousands of jokes did not prepare was Keanu Reeves's "Whoa." I knew it was coming, and I knew it would be painful, but I still winced.



And those bastards put that whoa in there just because they got Keanu for the part; the original script had the character saying damn or something.

And really, the one good thing I could say about Reloaded is that at least the directors realized that Reeves and Moss can't act to save their lives and when ever possible, had Laurence Fishburne deliver most of the dialogue while Reeves and Moss just stood in the background trying their best to look all frowny and tough in their silly black leather outfits.

Too bad they couldn't do that in Revolutions...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:59 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Tamayo wrote:

More ObMidlands: Are there Black people on the Sannadoc?


Why of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 8:48 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Er ...

chalk it up to colour-blindness?

(sorry, duh)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:11 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 3:35 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Marlboro, VT
Jeff was black too.

..

_________________
Marlboro College - Class of '09
Image

Sketch blog: http://simondraws.livejournal.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:28 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 77
Location: Somewhere deep inside your computer
Tamayo wrote:
Rene Descartes was a seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher and military officer.

Really? I thought he was just a drunken fart ;)
(sorry, couldn't help it!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Two Python Points for Spyder!
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Tamayo wrote:
Yevaud333 wrote:
You just pissed on a movie that I consider to be really cool, and that's okay (even though it made me CRY :( ),

For that, I apologize. I am all for peace and harmony and happiness. If you liked the movie, fine; it had some pretty special effects, after all. And Hugo Weaving was lots of fun as Agent Smith.

::snip-snip-snippity-snip!::

Tamayo the lone voice of dissent (sorry)

Hehe, don't worry about it. I may have exagerrated my response by just a little bit. ;-)

And thanks for taking the time to explain all of that. I love hearing, reading, and discussing various philosophical ideas and concepts. I've even taken a few courses on them, but the names all fall right out of my head the minute I stop paying attention. (Or at least, they get dissociated from the ideas that are supposed to be connected to them, meaning that whenever anyone mentions Hegelian principles or Platonic ideals I'm left going, "Ah, yes, of course," with a vaguely confused expression on my face. :-þ )

_________________
Only try to realize the truth...
There is no spoon. Then you will realize
that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.


"Only he who attempts the absurd
is capable of achieving the impossible."
 - Miguel de Unamuno


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
I'm sorry, was just browsing the Midlands forum and found this. I couldn't resist replying, necro-bumping or no.

Tamayo wrote:
Dualism is the position that ideal forms exist in a fashion apart from the perceptible world.


No. The philosophical view you're describing is known as Platonism, not dualism. Descartes was a dualist, but dualism simply means that you think that the universe is made up of fundamentally opposed forces that are totally seperate, opposed, and of different essences. For Descartes this was matter and spirit. Platonism is not dualistic; it's actually monistic (i.e., according to Platonism the universe is ultimately made up of on thing, called the "Form of the Good" in the Republic and Love in the Symposium). You're probably confusing the two because both Dualism and Platonism are philosophical ideas which contemporary philosophy is trying to overcome.

You comments about Platonism (NOT DUALISM) are largely correct. By the way, it was Aristotle who first formulated the Third Man Argument. Also, your attack on Descartes Cogito argument is on the mark. Then again, no contemporary philosopher worth his weight in salt takes Descartes seriously anymore.

Quote:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote Emile. (Alternate title: The Noble Savage.) 'Nuff said.


Hey, I like Rousseau! He's interesting to read, whether his ideas are correct or not.

Sartre I haven't read nearly enough of to comment on. However, I will say that, in general, Existentialism rocks the casbah.

Quote:
Francois Derrida was the founder of the Post-Modernist movement, and Michel Foucault was his primary disciple. Derrida rejected the empiricism of Hume and Locke and tried to argue from first principles, like Descartes; but what he ended up with was a kind of beatnik nihilism. The concept of "deconstruction" is a post-modernist one, wherein it is attempted to destroy the foundations of a concept from within. Derrida apparently wanted to show that he could do that to any other philosophy, and his followers did it to works of art too. It is hateful.


Dear LORD. Your post, up until now, has been rather accurate (except for the whole Platonism/dualism mixup), but now you're just being totally wrong. Jacques Derrida is NOT the "founder" of the "Post-Modernist movement". Saying this is roughly equivalent to saying that the Beatles are the founders of the the British invasion, or that Kurt Cobain is the founder of Grunge. Derrida is simply one of the more prominent/famous of the philosophers who are classified (by others) as "postmodern". Saying that Michel Foucault is a "disciple" of Derrida is, to carry my musical analogy further, like saying The Rolling Stones were disciples of the Beatles, or that Pearl Jam were disciples of Nirvana. Foucault and Derrida are more-or-less contemporaries, and they work in entirely different fields within the humanities. They just happen to write in the same general philosophical milieu.

Derrida is NOT A FUCKING NIHILIST, and I'm tired of people saying that he is. Please, read his work thoroughly before you make rash judgments based on stereotypes you might have heard. Derrida has spent his entire life defending himself against people with no knowledge of literature or philosophy who just think of himself as "that crazy deconstructionist" and know only the most rough cartoonish caricature of his philosophy.

As for "post-modernists" (and by the way, no one uses that term nowadays) being opposed to the Empirical tradition, that's just not true. Gilles Deleuze, for example, is probably the foremost proponent of empiricism today (albeit a very strange type), and he is a Continental philosopher in the same tradition as Derrida and Foucault.

I'm sorry if this post sounded overly harsh or offensive. I mean no offense or harm. I simply hate it when people talk about modern and contemporary philosophy without a firm grounding in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:07 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Zarathustra wrote:
The philosophical view you're describing is known as Platonism, not dualism. Descartes was a dualist, but dualism simply means that you think that the universe is made up of fundamentally opposed forces that are totally seperate, opposed, and of different essences.


From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

du.al.ism (pronunciation clues elided -- don't have a Unicode dictionary handy so I can use the characters) n -s (F dualisme fr. L. dualis + F isme -ism) 1: a theory that divides the world or a given realm of phenomena or concepts into two mutually irreducible elements or classes of elements: as a: an ontological theory that divides reality into (1) subsistent forms and spatio-temporal objects or into (2) mind and matter <Cartesian dualism> -- compare MONISM, PLURALISM b: an epistemological theory that objective reality is known by means of subjective ideas, representations, images or sense data -- contrasted with monism 2:the quality or state of being dual ... 3: a: the doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil ....

I used the word "dualism" in the sense 1 a 1 above, not 3 a as you seem to think I had done. Let us contrast "monism":

mon.ism (pronunciation clues elided again) n -s (G monismus, fr. mon- + -ismus ism) 1 a: (1): the metaphysical view that there is only one kind of substance or ultimate reality -- compare DUALISM, PLURALISM (2): the metaphysical view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts -- contrasted wih pluralism b: an epistemological theory that proclaims the identity of the object and datum of knowledge -- contrasted by dualism 2: MONOGENESIS 3: a viewpoint, theory or methodology that reduces either all phenomena or those within its particular domain to one fundamental principle <tendency toward ~ ... toward the reduction of norms to facts --K.R. Popper> ...

The Platonic Form of the Good is a "subsistent form" as distinguished from "spatio-temporal objects". In that Plato believed that the phenomenal universe contained only the corrupted shadows of the ideal forms of noumena, he was a dualist.

Zarathustra wrote:
However, I will say that, in general, Existentialism rocks the casbah.


I repeat: it is a fallacy (yes, in the logical sense -- I really do mean "a paralogism") to presume that every event has a motive. Remind me never to move to the Casbah; the earthquakes there tend to kill tens of thousands of people.

Zarathustra wrote:
Derrida is NOT A FUCKING NIHILIST, and I'm tired of people saying that he is.


Does that mean he's a nihilist who doesn't fuck, then?

Zarathustra wrote:
Derrida has spent his entire life defending himself against people with no knowledge of literature or philosophy who just think of himself as "that crazy deconstructionist" and know only the most rough cartoonish caricature of his philosophy.


And people who do know something about literature and philosophy, too.

Zarathustra wrote:
I'm sorry if this post sounded overly harsh or offensive. I mean no offense or harm. I simply hate it when people talk about modern and contemporary philosophy without a firm grounding in it.


Get down off your high horse, pal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Tamayo wrote:
[insert dictionary definitions here]


You're using a very specific interpretation of a very particular sub-meaning of the word "dualism" to make your case. Not a good idea. I'm only iterating what the generally-accepted philosophical conceptions of these terms are. In general, Descartes is considered a daulist whereas Plato is considered a monist.

Quote:
Zarathustra wrote:
However, I will say that, in general, Existentialism rocks the casbah.


I repeat: it is a fallacy (yes, in the logical sense -- I really do mean "a paralogism") to presume that every event has a motive. Remind me never to move to the Casbah; the earthquakes there tend to kill tens of thousands of people.


If by "every event has a motive" you mean "humans are ultimately responsible for all of their actions", then can you please define responsibility, and define action? Understanding what actions we're responsible for really cuts to the very heart of understanding what makes us "us" (rather than "them" or "it" - i.e. the outside).

Quote:
Zarathustra wrote:
Derrida is NOT A FUCKING NIHILIST, and I'm tired of people saying that he is.


Does that mean he's a nihilist who doesn't fuck, then?


Jacques Derrida, in an interview wrote:
Q: What's the most widely held misconception about you and your work?

A: That I'm a skeptical nihilist who doesn't believe in anything, who thinks nothing has meaning, and text has no meaning. That's stupid and utterly wrong, and only people who haven't read me say this. It's a misreading of my work that began 35 years ago, and it's difficult to destroy. I never said everything is linguistic and we're enclosed in language. In fact, I say the opposite, and the deconstruction of logocentrism was conceived to dismantle precisely this philosophy for which everything is language. Anyone who reads my work with attention understands that I insist on affirmation and faith, and that I'm full of respect for the texts I read.


Quote:
Zarathustra wrote:
Derrida has spent his entire life defending himself against people with no knowledge of literature or philosophy who just think of himself as "that crazy deconstructionist" and know only the most rough cartoonish caricature of his philosophy.


And people who do know something about literature and philosophy, too.


Okay, perhaps what I had originally said came out wrong. I didn't necessarily mean people who know nothing about literature and philosophy in general. I meant people who know little about literature and philosophy related to the very specific social and philosophical context in which Derrida is writing, the particular discourses Derrida is participating in, etc.

There are people who have an extensive knowledge of Derrida's philosophy who disagree with him, but those people tend to have objections somewhat more complex than that "he's a disrespectful nihilist who doesn't believe in anything, thinks that we can interpret a text any which way we please (however ludicrous), and seeks to destroy our most cherished literary and cultural institutions". This is because he is not a disrespectful nihilist who doesn't believe in anything, etc. His philosophy is very subtle, and unless one has read extensive expositions of it, or better yet, gone to the primary source and read Derrida himself, it's like objecting to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem "because it says that we can't know anything".

Zarathustra wrote:
Get down off your high horse, pal.

Look, you are a mathematician, it seems; I respect this. I am not going to challenge you in matters of mathematics. I haven't taken any math beyond Calculus I, and so I don't presume to know what I'm talking about if the subject of, say, hyperdimensional geometry comes up. I can explain the rudiments of it, but I'm certainly not going to form a judgment on whether one particular theorem is right or wrong with the limited knowledge I have.

I'm not denying that you may be well-read in philosophy - you know the names of Descartes, Sartre, Foucault, etc. so you obviously have a much better understanding of the history of philosophy than the average joe. However, philosophy is basically my specialty. Admittedly, I don't have a degree or anything to show for this (yet). All I can say is I have a burning interest in it, have taken many college courses on it already, and have read extensively on the subject. And the account you gave of the development of and ideas associated with Continental philosophy is inaccurate in many respects. Please give me the courtesy that I would give you in a mathematical discussion.

I may be wrong, of course; you may be as well-versed in this as I. However, considering that you display an understanding of Continental philosophy that is at the level one would expect from someone who is intelligent, well-read, but not a specialist in Continental theory nor studying to be a specialist (as I am), I assume this is the case.

Again, I really don't want to sound to patronizing, arrogant, or offensive. The last thing we need is a flame war over something as stupid as this. I respect anyone who displays the level of knowledge you do on these subjects. I'm just saying that your understanding of this subject is incomplete and flawed, while my understanding of it is... slightly less so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:58 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Horay for Love

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:03 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 674
*throws salt at thread*

Return! Return to the earth, restless undead creature!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:12 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Poooossssttt coooouuunnnttssss.....

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:33 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I think this is the right thread. If I'm wrong, Tamayo, lemme know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:57 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
Why, in all my studies of late Bronze Age Mediterranean cultures, did I never bother to read what to do when the necromantic ritual works?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group