quote:

---

Originally posted by Zephyr Tempest, The Windwarrior:
A Jayaris's skin is MUCH tougher than a wall.
You misunderstood what this gentleman was trying to tell you. If a railgun can't penetrate it, it has no business moving.

Who says YOU are in the rp? And are slugs razor-sharp? NO!!!!!
Oh, and the fact that they're moving at a sizeable fraction of the speed of light doesn't mean anything either.

The vahnatai created Jayari out of Outcast's brain waves from remembering a nightmare about Jayari.
Uh... huh. Somehow I doubt anyone save one of TM's characters would have the power to bother with this.

Nuclear radiation is similiar to antimatter, ad Jayari are immune to that.
Yeah, like matter is similar to energy. Wait, no, it's a more distant relationship. But still!!!

It eould take a lot of antimatter to stop a Jayari, since it's on their claws.
Then they apparently explode catastrophically at birth. Contact between antimatter and matter causes both to be negated and huge amounts of energy to be released. It requires magnetic containment fields on an order of magnitude humanity is still incapable of producing now to prevent it from reacting in such a way to AIR, much less the kind of thick-packed and clustered matter that most solids consist of.

They PRODUCE antimatter, wouldn't they be immune to it, then?
I find this comment pretty amusing in and of itself.

Wise Man said they aren't in the storyline, anyway.
Which is why you need to shut up about them now.

BTW- Who's had nightmares about Jayari since you guys know about them now?
Oh yeah. Fictional creatures with no coherent physical description which gain new and impossibly powerful abilities whenever someone claims to their 11-year-old inventor that any man of woman born could possibly do any harm to one of them in any way. Gives me chills.

And replace all the IC stuff that have Jayari with Nephilites instead. Jayari are god-characters.
There is a reason most RPs forbid god-characters. You should put some effort into learning what that reason is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nye:
And all this time I pictured Alec with a handlebar moustache and fedora...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Princess Ruth:
fairly easy on the eye.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ef:
I cannot imagine anyone of you enjoying a prolonged stay on such an island.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iDavid:
I still don't think it's all that accurate... does anyone know of any others that might be better?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Chaz:
Books ECT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Motrax of Exile:
Yes, it's that time again. Here are my greivances, for those who weren't around for the first time to see them.
-------------------------------------------
I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
An idiocy scale would be more appropriate for this. Supporting a country has absolutely no relation to political leaning.

---

quote:

---

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It depends on the situation. The Soviet Union was never on good terms with America, but when the situation called for it, the two nations had to become allies. We do what we must. Had we not allied with the Soviets, I'd probably have never been born, because my grandparents would have been killed. I just don't understand what this has to do with the Compass.

---

quote:

---

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
I don't think companies have any social responsibility. However, generally the companies that provide some service to society are the more successful ones. And the best way to gain profit is to provide something that a society wants, thus making both society and the shareholders happy. Thus, I don't know what to say. If I agree, then it means I beleive companies have the responsibility of delivering profits to shareholders, which would be false. If I disagree, it means I would think companies have broader responsibilities, which would also be false. I'm marking "agree," but only because I think other questions are skewed in the other direction.

---

quote:

---

[b]
All authority must be questioned.
This, again, has nothing to do with the PC. There are liberals who would follow Clinton into hell, and there are those who would follow Bush into hell. Idiots will be idiots, no matter what party they affiliate themselves with. I marked "strongly agree," but I don't beleive that makes me more or less liberal or conservative.

---

quote:

---

Education should involve enabling children to develop their own personality.
This is the one I complained about most last time, I beleive. Everybody has their own personality from birth. Education does not specifically allow or disallow the growth of this personality. If I agree, it means I think schools should teach students how to act, which is silly because everybody acts differently, in ways that cannot be taught. If I desagree, it implies that children cannot develop a personality without the aid of a school, which is simply absurd. What did people do before schools? Did they all lack a personality? I marked "disagree," for the same reason I marked "agree" in that other question.

---

quote:

---

It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
It's natural for anybody to keep secrets from anybody. We all have our skeletons in the closet. I just don't understand what this has to do with the PC (I'm saying that a lot, it seems).

---

quote:

---

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
NtDWtPC ("Nothing to do with the political compass," I think I'll be using the abbreviation frequently)

---

quote:

---

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
It's very true. Things happen much faster with a single party. It's an undisputed fact, and has NtDWtPC. The question says nothing of whether or not one party is a better way of going about things. I don't even know which bubble to fill in order to make myself more or less conservative. Flipping a coin says that I agree.

---

quote:

---

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Insinuating that conservatives are all ignorant Phillistines? I think this is the last question I'll complain about - the test (as I see it, at any rate) is flawed significantly.

---

quote:

---

[b]
And, since you've all been waiting to see what numbers describe Motrax perfectly:

Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.38
I'm not like any political figure they give, which suits me just fine. But then again, it's a silly test that doesn't cover nearly enough issues, and in the end, the numbers don't mean a thing. It's your ideas on case-by-case basis that matter.

---

quote:

---

Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.00
I must disagree with some of the site's reading recommendations for my political type, however. Although I'm a staunch individualist, I really have no patience with Ayn Rand's "self-interest above all else" philosophy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nye:
ME 2 TGM
its dark in there. i'm scared
o i think i can see a lite!!!!1111
know wait thats just desperance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ef:

Alec, I don't agree with Churchill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WebWarrior:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nascimento:
There's nothing wrong with it. If the real you is an overdramatic idiot, certainly do dress that way.

---

I can see you are quite diplomatic...
I am obviously quite different from you. Yes, I can easily wear such clothes. I may be an idiot seeing how I am not overly active in politics, but I would not call myself overdramatic. Nor would I use "idiot" the way you obviously intended - I do not consider myself of inferior (or superior for that matter) intelect.

I'd recommend you read the forum rules though. I think you just broke some.

---