The Dandy

When you write something, you read over it again, to ensure the spelling and grammar is correct. You know, to make sure your first chapter or "CAPTER" is all fine and dandy.

Could you at least proof read it first, at least I really hope that isn't proof read.

Okay then, I appreciate it. I was originally going to put it there, however it seemed as if that area was more for moderator-members interaction, then just general interaction. I wish I was on the same forums as you, I'm sorry to say that at least 1/2 (probably more) of the topics I go on have had or continue to have one those heated arguments. Either way, it's not a dire situation, I just feel that those which do so are capable of stopping, which is why I raised the point. I apologise if I misspoke, I have no issue regarding people being nice to each other. But, only when it is necessary. For instance on a topic like say "Do you support homosexuality?" Feel free to write positive things about them and the community. But, as an example, I went onto a topic called "You are NOT special" (maybe you saw it), which had a video containing a really good speech. However, the majority of people didn't even watch the video and just said how great everyone was, and likened it to cutie marks (finding ones special talent). When people's determination to complement one other jeopardises the possibility to effectively and properly discuss topics, then I feel that, perhaps, we should give it a rest. Appreciate it. P.s How do you just mention the name (as evident I always quote the whole post)? I understand your point, but considering some other topics that have been made in the times of these forums, I would consider even a minor one, which aims at improving the community, to be a worthwhile one. I suggested that we look into that ourselves, at no point did I demand people change their ways. My very question was "Can We (we: as in, includes me and as a community) improve our (being the communities) standards (being the way we conduct ourselves)? And I believe when people's posts and feelings serve the purpose of getting attention rather than replying to the actual topic, then perhaps we should reconsider submitting those posts. I more heavily refer to people which either overreacted to their situation (e.g talking about how sad their life it because they have lots of school work to do), as apposed to those discussing an actual problem. As I said, there is a time to be serious, and that would be on topics which ask or allow for it, not just any old place because you feel down. Consider it more organisation than something totalitarian.

I am by no means someone who is worthy of being the spokes person for this community, or these forums, nor do I see myself as one, but there is an issue I feel should be addressed, and has not been. Simply put, the standard is slipping. People post on topics not even reading what it's about, people don't discuss the topic, but rather insult each other, people aren't friendly to each other, People try to gloom these forums by posting status of how sad they are, rather than trying to lift the sprits of those that come by. This was once an intermingled group of people which all talked to each other, but as it's expanded, it's lost it's way. You can tell yourself you'll be friends with anyone on here, but it's not true, the same can be said for myself. I'm not saying we need to be BFF's with everyone, but would it be so horrible to try and start friendships with others? People opt for posting their opinion and then leaving, rather than getting an idea of what's going on, and posting accordingly. Especially on debating topics, people are more likely to start insulting each other if they get into a one on one debate, rather than continue talking about the topic. I understand people may have personal problems, and talking about those is what makes these forums great. But, there is a time to be serious, and a time to not be. We should try our hardest to create a happy community here, not a solemn one, at least outside of person chats or PM's. I'm guilty of all these things, and as I said, far from a worthy spokes person. So I suppose the point of these is, can we improve our standards? On a more personal note, would we be able to stop patronising everyone in our posts, be friendly all you like, but in every single topic you don't need to say how great everyone is.

I honestly wish the majority of the people in the world understood that. Life isn't about patting yourself on the back or patronising yourself, it is about leaving a mark. We spoon feed almost everyone in our society, but you know what? Most of our society hasn't left it's mark. People may find comfort in telling themselves their special, and that they'll do great things, but that won't make those things happen, if anything it will stop that person from ever achieving those great things. So yes I agree, we are all unique, to some degree, but we are not all special.

Overall summary WWE Heavywieght title match: Pissed off some people because WWE let the favourite win The streak: Pissed off everyone because they made undertaker lose to someone who wasn't worthy of winning it (if anyone was worthy it was Shawn Michaels) Battle royal: pissed everyone off because big show didn't win Other matches: who cares. Overall: Yeah was pretty good.

Representing Melbourne (marebourne) also the host of ponyconau 2014.

Anything stupid I believed as a 5 year old I still do e.g Toys are alive There's a monster under my bed, and in my closet When you turn the T.V off, it goes off for everyone Animals are capable of thought far beyond our own intellect, they can only tell other of the same animals though The Easter bunny is real

Don't know about sonic. But I sure like Sanic Teh Hedgehodge

A true friend is someone who: You can hate, but still loves you, Who hates you, but you always return to. Who disregards your feelings for your well being; Who helps you through the valley of darkness, But, who stays with you during the calmest of seas. Someone you return to, And who returns to you. Know's all about you, But still loved you. Someone who doesn't hold your hand through difficult tasks, But helps you help yourself. Who tells you how it is, But gives you a shoulder to cry on.

I understand your concern and I value your opinion, should you wish to debate on a different topic, please do feel free to PM me.

Well if you are an individual who chooses faith over thinking about the facts, posibilites and proof, then I'm afraid I can't really see you as fit to lecture me on sence and logic. What "I find" to be sensible and logic, are what the definitions of "sensible" and "logical". This is quite ironic, as you have made a snap assumption that I've made a snap assumption. I go to a Christain school, where people use it as proof god exists, I went to church, were people used as proof that god exists, then the rest one could not consider a valid source as it is on the Internet, but the religious people I met there used as evidence. You are the only person I've ever met which says it is not to be used as proof. As I said, if you chose to believe something simply because of faith and being told to, then you have already shown the type of logic you exhibit, thus I do not need to know you. Well I would believe that "the world collaborating my belief in him" would be because the bible said stuff like "god is all powerful" and "created the world". I am confident that anything in the world you think is proof that god is real, is in fact proofable by science. Thus, it must be an influence of relegion that makes you see it as god, not as science, causing it, such religious influence that comes from the bible. And just as a general rule for structured debates, don't bring your personal life into a topic, and don't ask for others personal life. Yes, so did the bible, they were miss lead by their belief in various religions. Because those (including scientist) at the time had religion watching over them, they followed it, thus they believed what they were told, but if they didnt belief that and did a DNA test, they may have found it to be the same. Once again, because the bible said so, up until at least the 1900's one was ostracised for not beliving in a religion, at least a little bit, so if you wish to look at what held back science and scientists for 1000's of years, look at the bible. They wanted it to be true because "god" along with the church did.

I'm sorry to reply to something so long, so shortly. But you are correct it would just be proof for people that believed he existed, but if you wrote it in the hope that people would read and think he was real (as the bible is done) then it would be more than that. I would like to remind you that we are talking about religion, what is sensible and logical is irrelevant. All the matters in this case is how the majority of people which follow the bible use it, and they use it as evidence that god exists, that's why they treat the words of the bible so importantly, to the point where you need to swear by it (in court houses and parliament). Yes, you're completely right, that is my logic, because that is the logic of Christians, one has faith (faith meaning with no proof) that god exists, therefore one believes in god because "trust me, he said so". Well if that logic doesn't work, than please remind me as to how the bible has been believed for about 2000 years (as you have just said there is no scientific proof, therefore meaning it's faith, therefore meaning it's "cause he said so"). And for future reference, people said: "slavery is fine, cause the bible said so", "Homosexuality is wrong cause, the bible said so", "there are three planets, cause the bible said so" (prior to science disproving that), so "god exists, cause the bible says so" is not only practised, but far from a stretch.

Correction, if you wrote it as if it was true, and you believed that it was true, it would in fact, act as evidence that (well it doesn't exists, it's more evidence people think it exists, but for arguments sake lets say it does) exist. Not to be confused as to you writing that book, "knowing" it's untrue, but writing it so that the characters think it's true, or even suggests that the author think it is. I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, it is meant to provide morals true, however, it teaches these by saying it's from god's own mouth. Look at the 10 commandments (as an example), it says that he was literally spoken to by god and told that is what we are meant to do, the rules we must abide by. Although you may choose to see it as "only for people that already believe in him", the bible is taken as from the mouth of god (even though people wrote it), thus the bible is meant to be taken as proof that god exists. "Faith with proof, isn't faith at all", I would assume sums that up.

(Hope I did this write and I've quoted him). Yes, but a piece of history about "his" people and "his" works, implies that god is real, therefore it acts as proof that god exists. A book or movie or whatever can not say or imply something is real, without acting as evidence that the very thing is real. Furthermore, it's not a very accurate piece of history, so even then it would be a tainted source. But, since you would be inclined to disagree with me, what is the proof that god exists then?

I don't know either, I mean music hasn't been popular or made since like 2009

Jedi (the 16th largest relegion in Australia). You may think I'm joking, but if the bible is proof god exists, then the many fanfictions and movies proof Jedi exists. Plus we're not prejudice, so long a you're not sith, we don't like them too much.