Thrashy

I'll never understand the exact reasoning behind these "cat and mouse" games women play. Maybe my "manly" desire for straightforwardness in any relationship I carry has given me an overly idealized outlook on how I believe women should act in this day and age, but I don't understand why 90% of them can't just have the balls to say "You know what? I like you. Wanna do something later?" Honestly, how hard is that? Is it really asking too much for that particular ball to land in the other court from time to time? I know it has something to do with some kind of need for validation, as in, "He's got to prove how much he wants to be with me." But you know what? I've struggled with self-worth issues for many years, and damned if I'm gonna let someone lead me around by my nose in some bizarre quest to prove my worth to her. It took me long enough to prove my worth to myself, thanks - I shouldn't have to prove it to anyone else. Sorry if this comes off as bitchy, preachy, condescending or bitter, but...well, I truly do not understand why it has to be this way in a world that has changed so much. Is asking women to be more bold really asking too much in a time where asking a man to be a stay-at-home dad is perfectly normal?

Some probably wouldn't consider this overrated, since it's got quite a cult following even to this day, but it seemed to me that Invader Zim was always underappreciated by the mainstream. It truly deserved a longer run than it got, and I can't believe Nickelodeon - the network that let Rocko's Modern Life and Ren and Stimpy get away with so much - pussed out and forbade creator Jhonen Vasquez from going in the direction he wanted to. Sad, sad times. Other than that, I really liked Rocket Power despite its horrendously stereotyped portrayal of West Coasters. Guilty pleasure, I guess...

After getting home from work, I usually kick off my shoes and socks and just lounge around in my day clothes (usually a T-shirt and cargo pants). At bed time, the pants come off and I'll sleep in my shirt and boxers; assuming I don't work the next day, I'll typically stay in this "bed attire" until some circumstance should arise that prompts me to put on pants.

I laugh at all the people who say season 3 sucked, period. It wasn't as strong as 1 or 2, sure, but it certainly didn't suck - and certainly not enough to prompt any rationally minded person to outright leave the fandom. And for the one or two people out there who actually are bitching about the new episodes...well, their butthurt is music to my ears.

Bingo. As long as you shave around the areas you wish to grow out, they'll eventually start to take form.

At least grow a goatee. You won't regret it.

For the record, certainty does not equate to proof. Hard as it might be to believe, not every mod is a raging dick who vindictively hands out warnings or suspensions to those he/she doesn't care for. I've been handed well-deserved warnings by mods whom I'm friends with - does that mean they have something against me, too?

... *slaps Angel Bunny upside his head*

The only generic criticism I have of moderation protocol is the warning system, which I believe is completely broken (on ANY forum, not just this one). Note that the post to follow is not a mass personal attack on any of the staff members here - it's simply my personal philosophy on what I perceive to be a terribly flawed system. Contrary to popular belief, handing out a purely arbitrary number of warning points (or strikes, depending on the system) often does not instill a feeling of remorse in the offender, but rather breeds resentfulness and a rebel attitude to match. Have you taken notice of how so many folks leave these forums on such a sour note, especially recently? Case rested. And before you go saying that it's because they're simply bad people...grow up. The actual case, more often than not, is that they feel bullied by the staff. I've spoken with an ex-member (whom I shall not name) who recently joined another MLP forum I'm a part of (which I also shall not name), and he/she made it known that his/her reasons for finding a replacement for MLP Forums was due to his/her perceived hostility from the staff. Now, to give the benefit of the doubt, I don't think any genuine hostility passed from this staff to the ex-member in question - I do, after all, hold this staff to a higher ethical standard insofar as I expect NO mod/admin to ever be a vindictive A-hole towards members who've pissed them off - so why, then, do some members (ex- or otherwise) feel bullied by the powers that be, even though there's oftentimes no outright bullying occurring? Basically, the system itself is the problem. Arbitrary warning systems are highly impersonal, and therefore, highly alienating. They act as nothing more than glorified band-aid solutions to problems that are better resolved through direct, personal interaction with the offending member(s). Interesting to note is that, in the rules regarding warning disputes, it is stressed that one always remembers that "the moderators are people, too." But given the highly mechanical nature of the warning system, it oftentimes seems like the place is run by bots, not people. It generates a very unwelcoming atmosphere that comes off, as some ex-members would readily describe it, as "oppressive". It's especially alienating in cases involving two or more quarreling members. Instead of mediating between such members as to get to the root of the problem, and possibly getting them to reach a compromise, the issuing of warnings comes off as nothing more than the nature of a parent who can't be bothered to do some actual parenting. Ever heard that classic phrase, "I don't care who started it, I'll finish it!"? I know that phrase all too well, and I always resented the everloving fuck out of it as a kid, so you can readily see why I disapprove of such dismissive, borderline coercive measures to force members to "get along" without actually resolving any of the underlying tensions between them. And in addition to maintaining barriers between feuding members, it also erects new barriers between members and staff. Not a win-win situation, any way you look at it. The thought occurs to me that some will object to the idea of a more hands-on approach to moderation on the grounds that the staff is already stretched pretty thin keeping track of so many members, and while I can see their point, I don't agree. Maybe it's just my nature, as someone who's eternally living in the town of Shouldsville, but I believe the staff should either find the time to make an interpersonal moderation approach happen, or simply expand the staff altogether. Note that this is not an official call for change on my part - the very nature of this thread prompts me to make an honest assessment of the moderation here, and that's exactly what this is. Disagree with any of my points if you will, but until I see what results from staff policy taking a step in another direction, my views on this issue are fairly ironclad.

I think the term you're looking for is "sapient" - sentience is basically just sensory awareness, something that all animals possess. Sapience would entail higher cognitive functions such as language, philosophy, etc. At any rate, it'd be hard to tell whether elephants would behave simply as normal animals in the MLP setting, or whether they'd be sapient along with the ponies, donkeys, cows and griffons...at least, until the show tells us one way or another. They're fairly intelligent for animals, so I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be sapient in MLP. If so, I'd picture them to be all high society and speak with fancy accents.