truefusion

This tutorial assumes that you know the basics and way around the GIMP. This tutorial is also based on the following sig: Note: This tutorial was written and made under Linux for convenience purposes (gotta love KSnapshot ), so shortcut keys may differ under Windows. Create a new document: File > New (Ctrl+N): 400px (w) by 150px (h). Load up your render: File > Open As Layer (Ctrl+Alt+O). Scale the image (render) down a bit if it covers too much room. Make sure this first layer stays on top, and duplicate the render layer enough times to cover the background. Get creative, not just with random placement, so that it looks okay. Make a new layer below the first (main) render layer and name it grad1. Here you can either stick with the color white or choose another bright or light color. Take out your gradient tool, and in Gradient in the options, choose FG to Transparent. In that new layer that we created, create a gradient that looks similar to this (which can be achieve in around 3-4 tries, +/-): Select the first (main) render layer and then apply a Script-Fu script: Shadow > Xach-Effect (use the default settings). Select > None (Shift+Ctrl+A), afterwards. Reduce the newly-created Shadow layer's transparency to 30. Then position the shadow to where it looks like it is more behind the render rather than to the side. Select the newly-created Highlight layer and nudge (move) it once to the left. Select the grad1 layer and select the gradient tool. Under Shape choose Radial, and make sure Reverse is checked. Try to estimate where the center would be on the render, click there and drag outward to a good distance so that the edges of the sig are a bit filled with white. Create a new layer above the grad1 layer and name it grad2. Now under "Shape" pick Bi-linear, uncheck Reverse, and under Gradient choose FG to BG (RGB). If you have chosen a different bright or light color other than white, click on the black or your background color and change it to its dark version. Then, in the center (vertical) of the sig, click and drag outward so that you get a manga/comic-book feel to the background. In the layers palette, under Mode pick Lighten Only for that layer (grad2). Create a new layer and name it grad3. Switch the colors around so that the background color is now the foreground color. In Shape choose Linear. And in Gradient choose FG to Transparent. Just right below the light-color streak, click and drag downward. Grab the rectangular marquee tool and select the upper half of the sig. Then clear it: Edit > Clear (Ctrl+K); Select > None (Shift+Ctrl+A), afterwards. Reduce grad3's opacity to 10. Duplicate the layer and flip it vertically: Layer > Transform > Flip Vertically. Duplicate that layer and flip it vertically as well: Layer > Transform > Flip Vertically. Move the duplicated layers (should be grad3 copy and grad3 copy#1) up and down till you have a nice looking streak effect going on. You may duplicate and flip again if wanting/necessary. Make a new layer below the first (main) render layer and name it brush1. Switch the colors around so the light color is the foreground color. Select the brush tool and choose a brush that is fitting with the render: abstract, grunge, grungstract, stars/sparkles and similar work well here. Start brushing over the lower half of the sig—but don't cover up too much—and brush just a little bit around the render. After a few brushes have been applied, make a new layer and cal it brush2. Switch the colors again, and pick another brush style and start brushing around the render. Make a new layer on top of all the layers and name it grad4. Switch the colors around so that the bright or light color is the foreground color. Pick the gradient tool (settings should be: Linear and FG to Transparent) and drag from above the sig to around 60% inward. In the same layer, from a good distance below the sig, click and drag about 10% inward. Then make a new layer (border, if you will) and add a border, and some text, and you're done! You may try out this unique way of making a sig in the GIMP and, if possibe, in Photoshop if you want. Outcome [hr=noshade] Text Analyze the sig as a whole and try to picture a matching font (and effect to go with the text). Grab the text tool and click in the area where you want the text to show up in the sig. A dialog box will appear: type in your user name (forum name) (or whatever you want), then close the box. (You may have to position the text afterwards.) Search out the font that is similar to what you have imagined and pick the size. Note: For this tutorial i have chosen to use the font "Arial;" font size: 10px. Duplicate the text layer twice. Position the first duplicate slightly below the original text layer, and nudge it to the right a bit. Position the second duplicate slightly below the first duplicate (matching the x-coordinate), and nudge it to the right exactly the same amount of times you nudged the first duplicate. For the first duplicate change its opacity to 40. For the second duplicate change its opacity to 20. Tip: Never have your text touching the border or edge of the sig.[/hr]

Some nice looking sigs in this one. Here's my entry. Good luck, everyone.

Call of Duty 2 is better?? And i was planning on getting COD3, too. I have COD 1 and 2—both were good, and COD2 was better than COD1. COD1 had more stages, but were short. COD2 has long stages, but not as much as COD1. Please tell me at least COD3 has a lot of long stages!

Ran into a few video clips while searching something about Linux. I found them a bit funny—but mostly the last one. Thought i'd share. Enjoy. PC, Mac... meet Linux

Like Smack mentioned, it's not Xisto's fault for having a minimum on the search. But i've heard to get "around" this problem, you can try adding an underscore (_) to make it reach the 4 character minimum. Not sure if this is actually useful, but it's worth a try.

[1]She did not disagree with my post, therefore it is an if-then topic. Furthermore, the topic title has three dots at the end, which further proves my claim.[2]It can because 1) things happen for a reason, and 2) you can't create something out of nothing. [3]It doesn't have to mention anything about God or religion for it to imply that God exists. [4]Quote from Albert Einstein himself: [5]If space is infinite, then how can there be room for another universe? It would have to be in a different dimension.

[1]No, i did my own research—i've read plenty of Gnostic texts; the Gospel of Judas being one of them, of course—it claims more than one god: contradiction to a monotheistic religion. There are other Gnostic texts that take Names that are known to be attributed to God (Jehovah, YahWeh, etc) and claim that each name is a different god—all created gods, however, because in these stories they (all those gods) just "came to be," basically, through some background force. I do realise many Gnostics can be good people and have good morals; but the texts still exist. [2:1]I know exactly what you're talking about; you're basically repeating everything i heard and seen in videos and read. [2:2]You mean "shepard"? "One who gathers 'sheep' or 'lambs'"? I know what you're talking, but that doesn't change anything. I don't recall, however, this "shepard" being the first of all creation of whom all things were made through and being the ultimate atonement for sin. [2:3]It's not "basically the same thing," the other one is a bit illogical. They both also happened for different reasons. The event is still possible; however, only one can be accurate in the telling of the event. [2:4]Define: "religious." All the events could have happened, it's just the one that holds the most facts and the one that is logical and coincides with the facts that is the accurate one in the telling of the event. [3]I know. [4]What part doesn't make sense? I see no circles in my statement that could cause confusion. Please be more specific and i will try to explain it better, if possible. [5]Define: "original form." [5:2]Didn't we find "something that was written"? Would we be able to claim that they are the Gospels if we didn't? [6]I only agree with him somewhat. Some religions preach personal peace through self-indulgence, whether or not it is at the expense of others—this is not the proper way to promote personal "peace." Another thing, however, is if the religion makes statements claiming them to be true but don't coincide with reality and certain known facts (i.e. facts that don't have a possibility of a logical contradiction that coincide with other facts), you'll lose believers or have "followers" that are not devout, therefore any personal peace may not be attained (properly {and may make things worse for the human population}).

We know. But the topic title along with the topic-post suggests that it is about the Who and maybe the why, not insomuch the how. The topic title apparently is the start of the topic-post; that is, the introduction, and the topic-post continues it: if, then: "If there is no God, then how could the Big Bang happen?" It implies that if the Big Bang is true, then God must exist. It may also imply: Since the universe has been created, God must therefore exist.

1. Who's gonna clean it up afterwards?3. Hope it doesn't spoil the food... You know, the thing people buy to eat.4. Perfect! When they trip and fall and get hurt 'cause of you, they could probably press charges. :unsure:7. I don't think much riding can be done in a place filled with people; though that's not the problem that would cause for you doing so. And remember: You break it, you pay for it.8. Relate to 3 and 4.10. See last sentence in 7.14. I hope you have purchased it before doing so.16. Hope it doesn't hit someone hit someone or bounce into someone's cart. And be prepared to get rebuked—don't run away, and listen to every word they say—if it does.18. Even if you purchased the glue and the items, you're causing others unecessary work.19. Hope someone does literally die from a heart attack.

I think doing similar to what is mentioned here in this quote is the best way of going at it. Best friends are usually the ones that get "hooked up" together. But if you want the relationship to last, you're gonna have to keep in touch outside of school as well.

What kind of a guy is it? How close are you to or with him? You sure he's the right type for you? Help us to help you. We wouldn't want you getting into a relationship that you'd regret getting in afterwards.

Very nice! Though, looking at the colored ones makes the ones without "color"... I dont know... It reduces its "oomph!"—if you will. Besides that, nice blending, use of colors and good choice in renders. Just the text for the green one, in my opinion, would be better off on the right side in the dark area.

As i see it, time is the one moving and you're "standing still," for we are always in the present from our point of view, unless we mentally change how we see the world. You can only claim such a thing as "the future" if you consider the present as "the past". And you can only claim such a thing as "the past" if you view the present as "the future." If present-past, then future. If present-future, then past. Literally, you're always in the present, but mentally is where things change. [hr=noshade] [/hr] Or it could just appear to look that way. I mean, if you're going faster than everyone, then of course it's everything is gonna go slower than normally perceived. But this is my way of looking at it; me and my feeble mind. [hr=noshade] [/hr] Unless you go back in time to stop yourself from killing a person. But who knows what the "consequences" for meeting yourself is. But then again, you might not even have killed anyone in the first place! Because your future self stopped you from doing it! Yourself was ahead of yourself!—in a sense.

Ah, for a second there, i thought this topic was directed toward us believers. But the way i've seen some unbelievers "tackle" this question is by saying, "Well, the beginning of time/universe happened so long ago to even care about. So, let's move on to some other material." And even if the Big Bang did in fact happen, there would still be the problem of, "Where did all the heat come from?" I don't know if you'll get any responses from unbelievers that addresses your questions (properly); or at least i never did.

[1]Well, if you can actually buy something by money earned by doing chores at your house given to you by your parents, then you don't need a job to buy something, you just need a job to buy expensive stuff. [2]I'm sure there's a method of generating the number that uses some calculation known only by the government or whoever. But good luck finding that out.

Not bad for Fireworks. I think the Ironman and the Bart Simpson one has potential—but definately the Ironman one. Most are a bit empty. Using the render as part of the background is good, but i don't know if Fireworks is capable of using filters like those in Photoshop or the GIMP. I'd suggest switching to the GIMP for sig making. Fireworks is more Web Design material.

Although in different senes you will find similarities with your theory about SSN's and those verses, they have nothing to do with each other. Plus, does one need a SSN to buy or sell things? Either way, 666 is a three-digit number, and a SSN is a nine-digit number. Also, the number 666 is given to everyone that it is given to. If i'm not mistaken, a SSN is unique for everyone. There could be about three reasons why 616 has not been declared as the beast's number. The dating of the scripture(s) with the number 616 may be a bit "fuzzy;" that is, unreliable. So it is uncertain which one came first. Which, in such case, you'd have to relate to: Majority of found and known scriptures contain the number 666, therefore claimed as a more reliable number. If it has been declared the true number to be published, then those Bibles may still be in production. It's not easy translating a whole book in such a short time. Number 2 seems to be the reason why it is still 666.

The blue seems to be a bit at odds with the rest of the sig. But, meh, i don't feel like judging this sig much since it's centered around the school where murder was committed... It's a nice sig, and i hope the families of those students find a way to cope.

I already know about this; seen and read plenty of stuff on it—and, if memory serves me right, it was all from those who (seem to) wish that there was no such thing as religion; although some did only strike Christianity the most out of all religions, if not only Christianity. However, such statements do not change much. Let me inform you of a pagan religion known as "Gnosticism." The way they worked was they went around involving themselves in other religions, taking the basics of that religion (sometimes even further detail) and applied it to their own religion. They would make up their own stories based on the information retrieved from these religions, forming contradictions to these other religions all for the sake of gaining "wisdom." Gnosticism, if i'm not mistaken, has been around before Judaism. There's another thing i would like to point out: If one sees two things which they can place together to form a logical statement, people will believe it. For example: We have two stories and two religions. One religion is older than the other. The two stories are about the same, just certain differences. One can claim, since one religion is older, that the older religion was the one that made/wrote the story first, however without knowing who actually did write it first, and since the statement is logical enough to believe, people will believe it. However, the older religion could have lasted long enough to come across this story in the other religion and could have modified it after this newer religion has written it. To put it short: What is logical does not mean it is true.

I like the second one better even though it is monotone. The smoke on the first one reminds me of spray paint. I have a feeling of 5.0/10 for the first one. Second one i get a feeling of 5.5/10. Love the text in the second, btw.

(I hope you understand my implication.) [hr=noshade] What then when a prayer is fulfilled? But let's go in further: Would it have happened if you didn't pray for it? [1]Are you implying that none of us believers are informed and or educated as well?[2]Not everyone knows the same things. Some people go to church just to go or say that they went. And of course you know church isn't all about learning Scripture, it is also there for gaining hope and praising and singing in unity, etc. Everything i've heard being preached in church i already knew. Perhaps you would like to debate your opposite "truths" here? It is, after all, a fitting topic. So we could ask any, even one who is known to be an unbeliever? Could the "facts" then be biased?[/hr]

You can also install GAIM and use Jabber there. Google has a page on how to configure GAIM for Google Talk.

And how do we know that? Simple, because we have found more reliable copies—the ones without human interference—which provide the true message, and which the current and up-to-date Bible translations are based on. Which one word is that?

This is my guess: Since he is capable of knowing basically anything you do on the computer and internet, i am quite sure he knows about that other topic you made asking for help on how to get around his "parental" settings (and saying that you've tried some suggestions). If so, there's a good chance he knows about this topic, too. If so, i think he's going all out. And you've "become religious"—define that. Merely saying you've become religious is one thing, proving it is another. Anywho, they say patience has its reward.

[1]No, i saw the point before, i just wanted to lean a bit to be able to point something else out. You could say, i think ahead a bit.[2]Mhmm. I'll let my implicatoin in my other post that is in relation to this address anything further. [1]Then why did your "thought" (which people can think out loud) say "looking" rather than "pointing"?[2]Yes, they could have very well have glanced at you just to see if they were aiming correctly and then quickly turn to each other and say something about you—which can be anything. [3]I am. [4]The most mere pointing can do to someone is annoy someone, and that's if the person even notices that they are being pointed at. [1]That's the thing though, that person's complaint isn't justified since the person (emphasis on singularity) that the joke is directed to is laughing and has publicly approved the joke. The problem, however, may raise when the person that the joke was directed to no longer finds certain jokes against them funny. [1]No, i just wanted to lean a bit again to point something out. [2]Only if certain conditions are met. For example, if a big company no longer approves certain employees (that could really use the job) to work there any longer and tosses them out—that is unjust and wrong. If these employees did nothing wrong, then management has no right to toss them out. [1]Mhmm.[2]I need some further clearing in this. If racism in any form is wrong, then how can racism in jokes be right or okay if racism in any form is wrong? [1]It's not my style, i adopted it from someone else as well. (a)However, there's a "paradox" i run into when it comes to offending people: You don't know that they can get offended until after the joke (or whatever it is) is said. [2]Nope, we can't. (b)If you mention what kind of race the person in your joke is—that isn't insomuch offensive, it is what comes afterwards that can make it offensive. For, like i said, the Chinese person (from your analogy) could very well be making two random people in the bar look bad; it could be a funny and moral story, if you will. ©[1]In my opinion, it is almost as much racial as it is anti-Lee Yang Fei, for the Chinese population in general had to be included in order to insult Lee Yang Fei. It is clearly both an insult and a fallacy.