Shadow Knight

This is another great peice of work! Hmm....did you use a tut? If ya did i request that you PM it to me. This is really great though! Good job and continue to keep making them.

Hey sweat designs man! You should be on my graphic team for my forum but they all look great! Hmm...what could improve is you backgrounds...they seem a little bare. I few brushes in the back to make a random design would really make it better! Rember though...thats my opinion and and not everyone elses.

I had a cat...before i used this stupid ear mite medicine. Its called hartz and i warn and tell you all that this crap kills animes and the USA's crappy goverment is allowing this to happen even though they know what it does to animals.

This is for one screwed up in so many ways, and because of the congress who allowed this product out onto the market knowing what it does and gladdy signed the contract allowing it to remain on the market is the reasom my 7 year old cat is dead....she was really part of the family and i loved her a lot....now shes in a box in my front yard because of hartz crap. I followed the instructions word from word, i didnt add to much or use less. I did it all on time and i know it was hartz because she was fine until i started using it to get rid of the ear mites she had.

After a few days of using this stuff my cat went into shock and was shaking half to death, her furr had fallen out and she was bleeding when i woke up and found here in my kitchen on the floor.

All must not use this hartz crap because this has happen to over 3000 cats and dogs and it will kill them and if you love your pet dearly then dont ever use hartz, ill show ya some more familys this stuff has managed to ruin.

Hi Stephanie,

Your account was rejected because you did not have the correct entry key. You put in dynaempty, that is not it. You will have to read the guidelines in order to obtain it.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Im not the only one who has went through this and i wish i would of knew what it did before it killed my cat......

Well....this all is very true, i for one dont have truble with getting members so this doesnt appy to me. Ontop of that i dont see many forums that require money so this doesnt seem so importent, but thats just me. Ether or i give a thumbs up to the site this was ripped from.

I wish he would get back into movies, he was a good actor and a great fighter! Hmm....but they are all hitting older ages now so they might not be as entertaining as they use to be.

We are one of over 5 million different solar systems, there are many many solar systems that we havnt been able to veiw or understand. The universe is endless and we havent even came close to making it to another solar system.

Not really... He knows Karate and can fight. And he's also famous for his round house kicks that he does in his movies. But be careful.

As i said, hes a movie star....that so called round house kicks are all stunts, on top of that karate wouldnt be any problem for me for that fact that i already know it and many more fighting styles. Also, im not sure if anyone has seen him latly but his age is catching up and soon hes gonna be getting old. Why do you all think he has retired?

Ehh....well im not a green person nor do i like light templates but the template has a few problemsIf you look closly at the title bar, its squshed including the text. Fix those little problems and make a good back ground image for it and its good to go!

Nice skin and templates, i really like the templates! thankks for the PM aswell, ill be honered to make GFXs there and hopfully help make the forum better for everyone! i still cant get over the templates....when i did join though i didnt see any skins submitted. Im sure that will all change in the future when you have more members and some good skinners! Over all great job on the set up, resources and the graphics that are supplyed there!

Not another one....ive seen chuck norris topics all over the web and its the same thing over and over again. What makes him so special? What makes him so famous? Nothing, he did nothing but a few movies that rarly anyone has ever seen. Let chuck norris fight someone like me, i would make him eat his own feet. He is no god and no fighter, just a movie star. Thats it and thats all, nothing more.

I would most deffinatly choose firing squad, for the fact that a shot in the head is quick and painless....as for the others you must site and suffer except for the hanging one...you just get to hang around, anyways back to what i was saying i would prefer a bullet in the head then rather suffering and feel a lot of pain....very very good topic to talk and think about this kind of stuff.

If you read my beginning post it would explain that the oils from plants and such could cause such a conduction....but as you say you dont beleave they could breathe fire i do indeed agree with you.You clealy said the ways it couldnt, which in this case was veyr descriptive. Have you ever thought of the way dragons could of breathed fire though? You can be nagative on the possiblity that they could and be possitive that they couldnt. Eather your mind is made up and nothing willl change this thought nor will mine...but i still think about the possibilty that they may have been able to breathe fire. There is still one problem about this though....no one has solid proof that they could.

Hehe, you must here it from a woman to understand them completly instead of going around making theorys and thoughts about them.....i see these as a guessing game and really if a girl liked you she would 1, ask you out or 2, women are a little more open to tell a guy they like them....this would be more of a little kids topic. You know with all the embarressment and such. Just saying with my own opinions and take no offence.

This seems like it would be a bad idea, if this was the case everyone would be learning what they want to learn not what they need to learn. Which in americas case needs to learn all they can, the fact that the US's smartest scientists are outsmarted by many other scientists from other countrys. The USA needs to pick up the pace when it comes to education cause where really lacking it and i for one do live in the USA and i feel dumb knowing that anyone from any other country knows a lot more then i could ever learn which is why im forced to teach myself.

On top of that because everyone shares the same intrests then

I personally know that little theorys to find out if someone likes you is all bull, they only like if they want to like you. A lot of these theorys depend on the specific person using them...meaning those are 13 ways he knows if someone likes him....dosnt mean it will be the same for the next person Get what im saying?

This tutorial seems very very difficult, i didnt know that you could do this but now i do and im thankful! This tut should really improve my graphics skills! Great tut, hope to see more from you!

Ive been looking for a tut like this and i thought i would of never found it! Man ive been needing this for a long time! Great tut, ill be sure to use it and thanks. I hope you make some more tuts like these in the future! Such a great tut!

Ehh....im not to crazy about them. The blue ray disks are the reason why the PS3 is about 600 dollars. Ya they hold a lot more and you can have better graphics on them but their very exspencive which is why the PS3 should of stuck with the same disks they were using. As for holding music and videos i would say it does a great job but for games....no way. I did have a case of blue rays and i used them for music and i was able to hold over 70 songs on it, as for movies it may be a little hard to beleave but i was able to hold 2 movies on one disk. Overall there are really nice for music and movies, as for games they wont be making a lot of money cause their to exspensive.

The only thing i dont like about the dragon theory is that there is no valid proof, pictures, bones, or any sign that they were once here. It makes me think and think....i am a very beig fan on dragons but even i half to question myself about them really existing. Hmm...looks like im not the first to think about this..Oh and when i said the big bang i meant when the so called metor crashed and hit the earth thus killing all dinos......

You have nice work but umm.....this topic is for my work and not to sound smart or anything but you should make your own topic and post them there not here.

One of the most common, and certainly the most debatable question in circulation over dragons is, "do they exist?". Despite being repeatedly asked, a satisfactory conclusion has never really been offered. The reason is primarily because everyone has a different viewpoint on dragon existence, and due to the controversial nature of the topic, we have so far only really been faced with contradiction. To date, theories regarding dragon existence have ranged from a physical, literal presence; the idea that dragons used to roam the earth but were wiped out by chivalrous knights or human advances. Others believe that dragons are little more than a mixture of the untamed forces of nature and human imagination, or that dragons exist on the astral plane, or that they have found their home in our imaginations.Our focus in this essay is not to try and directly prove or disprove the existence of dragons, but instead to discuss the main possibilities from which we will draw our own conclusion. However, in the end it will be up to you to decide how you believe in dragons. I for one think they were dinos that manged to survive the big bang.....whats are your threorys and thoughts?

Well for the most part i have A's and B's.....and 2 C's. I plan on raising those C's though next time around. This will after all be my last year of schooling then comes college. O.O

Hmm...ive never thought of life to be like a game before. This does remind of times where things happen that i have no control over, it kinda makes me feel weak in a way knowing that someone or somthing has total control over you and you cant do anything about it.....very annoying if you think about it enough.

The funny thing is...we will never know. No one is going to die and come back telling you that you will coninue to live on after you die. It hasnt been done or proven but that doesnt mean its not true. I said maby for the fact that there is a chance that we continue to live on and then the chance that we dont....but we will never know.

How is an afterlife possible given that so many of our mental abilities (e.g., memory, emotions, alertness, etc) are found to be sourced in the neuron activity of the human brain? It would seem that after the brain stops functioning that whatever memories, emotions, collectiver personality, consciousness, etc would also perish with the brain of the deceased.
Philosophically, there is another problem for an afterlife in terms of identity. What does it mean to be 'you' or 'me' when throughout our lives we are many people. There is a 'baby' us, a young 'child' us, an 'adolescent' us, etc. Also, we have many moods and temperments, some of which are chemically induced and neurotransmitter induced at each point of our lives. What constitutes 'us' at those moments? For example, if you are a runner, your brain might release more endomorphines in your brain that affects your moods, temperments, and hence your personality. Has the effects of running become 'you'? What about 'you' before you became a runner, or 'you' after you stopped running? What about our physique? Does it not also affect who we are and how others perceive us? Our physique changes drastically throughout our lives. If we are extremely overweight, is that 'us'? If we lose that weight, what happens to 'us' are we a 'new person'?

Yet another issue is the nature of the afterlife itself. Is it just picking up where we left off here in this life? Do we live another 100 years, 500 years, 10,000 years, 1 million years, or does it just go on and on without any end? What prevents us from getting bored with life after say 100 billion years? Do we change throughout our existence? What happens if we meet new people, do we expand our number of friends and family? In short, it seems to be problematical if there is not something drastically different about an afterlife than this life. Otherwise it might not be such a pleasant thought after all, in fact it might be a little too much like the movie 'Highlander' (where the main character could not die since the Middle Ages).

So, any 'theory of souls' or 'theory of an afterlife' would need to account not only for the biological issues of how such information lives on past our biological existence, it would also have to account for any identity issues that are more complex than what we might imagine. The sense of 'us' is based on a temporal timeline, and our attitude of ourselves change throughout that timeline. And, finally, any theory would need to frame an afterlife in a new setting that we would find pleasurable, but not one in which we would find a need to start a business or wrote a novel so that we could explore our human need of self-actualization. Any needs for self-actualization would only cheapen the whole effect of an afterlife, and giving it that 'Highlander' after effect.

Finally, there's the whole question of why humans have believed in an afterlife in the first place. As we know, this belief is widespread even today, even in Western secular countries, and it has been so in human culture since recorded history. Which raises the serious question about Neanderthals and what is apparently their interest in an afterlife by placing objects of value in a grave. Maybe the evidence is not conclusive here, but from what we can tell Neanderthals believed in an afterlife, and that all makes the issue more confusing since it raises the legitimate question: which species gets an afterlife and which species don't? Do crocodiles get an afterlife? How about the mosquito that I swatted last night? Does belief in an afterlife play any role? Do atheists not get an afterlife because they didn't believe in one? What constitutes the threshhold for those who get one and those who don't? Is ones religious beliefs a factor? Does God care if you are Catholic or Protestant? Irish or British? Muslim or Hindu? Or, is reincarnation the correct 'theory' and that what constitutes getting an afterlife is simply being alive and being a 'good' mosquito or 'bad' mosquito determining if you move 'up' the ladder to become a bird or 'down' the ladder to become a creepy crawly insect?

Ultimately, what becomes evident in looking at human belief about an afterlife is that human beliefs are there to fill a certain need and at least some attempts have been made to answer questions such as these. The attempts of offering an answer sometimes lead to different interpretations (i.e., multiple interpretations) in even one religion (e.g., Christianity). There just is no single consistent view that everyone in a particular concept of an afterlife holds. For example, some Christians hold to a purgatory, some don't, some see Dante's elaborate afterlife scheme, others see something much more simplistic.

Therefore, we cannot look to any one religion to necessarily guide us into finding a 'correct' afterlife concept, but rather we must select from hundreds of religious possibilities, and then we have to decide if these are even philosophically sound or scientifically sensible. Reincarnation, for example, has problems for humans since there are more humans today than in the past. Does this mean new human souls are created each generation, or do chimpanzee souls get a crack at being human? For reasons such as these, it would seem the best means to approach an afterlife is to do so metaphysically (i.e., in a philosophical sense), and ignore religion for a few minutes. Also, even addressing this subject must be done so on the assumption that the main reason that humans believe in an afterlife is because it provides significant meaning to life and that it makes the passing of a loved one much more of an acceptable event if we have such a conviction. Thus, any 'theory' of an afterlife must be true to those convictions and the meaning it provides. For example, any afterlife such as what Frank Tipler introduced in "Immortality of Physics" is not true to the meaning that an afterlife provides. A future computer randomly simulating lives and possible lives and just hitting on the simulation that somehow 'identifies' our lives, is a little silly to suggest that somehow this is comforting to us. Who cares what simulations are run, it isn't us. We won't be there to enjoy the effects of the simulation. I think this response speaks for itself.

In science fiction, I ran across one interesting afterlife scenario. It was in the movie "A.I.". The movie showed an artificially intelligent species in the future who had succeeded an extinct human race discovered the ability to 'resurrect' humans if they could find any trace of the human. The problem was, in this movie, if they resurrected the human, the resurrection was only feasible for one earthly day and then there existence would vanish. The premise behind the resurrection is that spacetime is an addressable medium that technology was able to access and somehow instantiate the lifeform located at that spacetime address.

This concept actually has some merit. One interpretation of General Relativity Theory (GRT) is that spacetime 'exists' and that just like you can travel to a specific point in space if you travel a sufficient distance, you can in principle travel to a point in time as well (hence the name 'spacetime'). If this view of time is correct, then objects continue to exist after the present and before the present, and any lifeform that is out there can conceivably be resurrected by accessing those 'data points' and doing something that we know not what. The only problem with this scenario is that if one 'pulled' us out of the spacetime location that we were in to some afterlife realm, it would be no different if someone grabbed an object after moving a certain distance, and taking it with them. All those around them would see the event and know that the individual just disappeared into thin air. Therefore, any resurrection wouldn't be a 'move' but a 'copy'. Copying someone's spacetime software code, for example, could do the trick. None of us would know that a person's spacetime address was accessed and the 'person' resurrected somewhere else.

Another approach, also scientific, is to think in terms of quantum cosmology. In this theory, quantum rules apply not just to quantum mechanical systems (very, very small), but to large size objects. Every object in the universe including the universe all have quantum wavefunctions that identify the object and each of those objects evolves as the wavefunction that describes that object evolves. Extending quantum cosmology to a metaphysical level, we could conceive of a 'person' as dying in say 1524 of the Black Death, but their wavefunction also points to them existing in another place and time far away from our present period. This is more understandable from a quantum perspective since quantum objects can undergo quantum tunneling where their location can 'jump' from location to another. Taken as a quantum cosmological basis, macro objects not only 'jump' from one location to another, but from time to another. In fact, this is the basis of the science fiction series "Quantum Leap".

More philosophically tinted afterlife theories don't so much look to a theory of science, but look to the concept of reality and what it means to exist. One concept that I favor is that approximate realities 'exist'. For example, a chair is an approximation of millions and millions of quarks arranged in a certain structure at a particular place in space, and this conglomerate of particles form our concept of a chair. The chair is an approximation of something else (in this case, quarks), but the approximation actually 'exists' in a certain context, therefore a chair 'exists' just like anything else 'exists'. Quarks themselves are just approximations of something more primitive (e.g., strings), which are approximations of something even more primitive and so on. Eventually, the thing that 'exists' is no longer an approximation of anything physical, but is an approximation of something logical (or is a truth). Those truths approximate more fundamental truths until you get to one holistic truth (God), and this is the source of all reality.

In this view, then, 'we' are not just one slice of ourselves here and now, but we are rather an approximation of 'something' that exists 'out there' (sorry for all the quotes but the quotes help to understand that each concept is not to be taken too literally). The most basic approximation of 'us' is some holistic definition of who we are (i.e., our real identity), and acts as a definition of who we are. One location of 'us' is right here, right now reading this. Another location of 'us' is what we did before this, and what we will do after this. Another location is where we will be beyond this life, whereever 'where' is.

Although the scientific explanations are always more tangible, I think when we talk about an afterlife we have to say that if such a concept is real, then we cannot limit ourselves to the purely scientific. We should look for fundamental descriptions of reality, and my view is that the last theory provides that kind of description.

I was inspired by this from talkign to my freind abotu what happens when ya die, do you continue to live again? Well this is up to you to decide.