Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About animus

  • Birthday 01/01/1

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. shameless bump for hidden perversions
  2. The very fact that it is foundation on which respectable fantasy novels are based is reason enough to consider it over-rated. Perhaps if it was a two book story it could have been saved, but instead it was a third filler. There were several points which not only distracted from the story but were boring as well.
  3. A fairly new series I liked that boarders on hard sci-fi was Revelation Space by Alastair Reynolds sp? I dont feel like reading dune, no matter how good it might be. there are other titles that are equally attractive and far less farted over.
  4. Why, was jordan a physicist or incorporate a great deal of science fiction into these novels? No. So why assume he based the laws of his book on the rules of terrestrial physics. And since when do physicists have good taste in the arts?
  5. most fantasy is bubble gum. thats why I read hard sci-fi.
  6. That is clearly not true Brainfirebob. They make an example of magic vs non-magic in the books, and never do they make any such statement as 'all energy is the same energy'. Perrin would be a good example of the difference. Although he is one with the wolves he very much relies upon physical force instead of magical force to cause physical destruction. energy is energy pshaw.
  7. I dont remember claiming I wasn't responsible. I merely claimed that I ranted in type form because I can type fast enough to keep up with a thought without contemplating the ins and outs of the implications. you all are a bunch of mediocre nerds with mediocre thoughts anyway and none of you should be published in the rare chance that maybe one of you is. so forgive a genius such as myself for tossing a few insults about to people way beneath me who hold jordans series in such high esteem. Go read The Unbearable Lightness of Being or something.
  8. The Hobbit was a far better book.
  9. I can type fast and don't really edit my thoughts since they essentially do go straight from my head to the screen without any more forethought than I give when speaking outright.
  10. You both read and responded to it, so I must have brought you some small amount of pleasure.
  11. After a complete mapping of my nut-sack hairs I have concluded that there is not much to be read from their alignments in this universe, nor in their positions relative to one another. Now, I am no code-breaking savant, perhaps they are laying in a pattern which if I could only understand it would reveal some deeper hidden truth. But I think it more likely that I can learn what my balls have to say with a far less exacting approach. If they are in my abdomen I am scared, if they are hanging very low I'm hot, and if they cluster in anticipation I am...well. yes.
  12. Why do I get the impression that girls are more interested in reading female authors than guys are with reading male authors? I don't really even consider the sexuality of the writer as I find both perspectives can be equally interesting. (unlike with comedians, where almost no women are funny). Also, it seems there are probably more male authors, at least in certain genres, so it's not as if men avoid the female writers, there just aren't as many of them to choose from.
  13. You're no fun Maj. I guess I wont get to satisfy you cullennz...yet. :)
  14. I take back calling you a gay nerd. I intended the post lightheartedly but that obviously doesn't sound lighthearted. I suppose your piece may be levitating above water instead. On the side, gay used to be a very merry word, so although the meaning has changed I still find it jolly in a queer way.
  15. The Tombs of Atuan may be a stretch, they didn't realize they were worshiping an evil power. But the lady in charge after the one died was bad, and it was an all female organization that protected ancient magic. "Secondly, theres no philosophical treaties relating to the soul and the sum of its parts." I can't remember the title of the book. I'll try and find it. But it was a hypothetical meeting between humans and an advanced robot race, where the author argued that souls might not exist because the robots didn't have them and yet were just as complex as any humans. The humans would counter with the whole is greater than the sum of its parts arguments at one point. But that book aside, there are plenty of other sources of the same nature. Even Aristotle toyed with the idea if I'm not mistaken. Google it. You find it immature for a person to say insulting things when he thinks them. I guess I can understand that, but I don't agree. I'm speaking my mind and if it is sometimes an offensive mind so be it. Why must everything always be productive or positive? I'm sure all you have made fun of other people in your lives anyway. You don't care for my opinion so why even bother being insulted when I tire of arguing a point and toss out a few rather boring insults. And I tire because you seem unwilling to consider my side unless I go to extreme lengths to prove otherwise. And while I feel I am right, and I did look at this subject with a rather open mind before I came to my conclusion, I don't feel like spending massive amounts of time citing numerous sources of information to satisfy the people here. Especially considering that is a backward approach to this argument. Usually a person would have to prove there IS plagiarism by citing an exceeding number of similarities that have not been used elsewhere, and since you do agree that the ideas aren't noteworthy in and of themselves, provide a decent argument as to why it would be impossible for any two others to use these mundane concepts together in the way the authors have without one having read the other. Neither of these have I seen done.
  • Create New...