Dan L

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Amphion [/i] [B]Man thats some great work. I really enjoyed them. You need to do some more. BTW* what program did you use to make them, I ant to try it out. [/B][/QUOTE] Hey people, I'm back... for a few hours.. then back to the 4 week break... um... I hope I'm not gonna get in trouble for bringing back such an old topic.. anyway... the program I used is Midisoft Studio 4 for windows. you can find it on most search engines, I think. It's extremely easy to use. Unlike most midi programs, where you really need a keyboard to do anything good, (or any other musical instrument with MIDI interface) in Studio 4 you can input the notes on a sheet music style script. Of course, you do have to know a bit about music for it to sound decent.... my first attempts were appaling, but I gradually learned. [quote][i]Originally posted by The Elite DBZ[/i]Nice work. Although I have to say, that is one heck of a compression on those files for them to be that long.[/quote] Not really. Midi files are tiny compared to WAV files, and even MP3's. The biggest midi file I've ever made is about 100K, and that was about double the length, there were a lot more tracks, and alot more notes on each track. The reason for the size is that WAVs and MP3s write the sound data as a waveform, a lot of peaks and troughs, like a sound wave. But midi files are just a lot of data about individual notes, just their position in the peice, their volume, and a few other 'controllers'. The computer itself, or the external midi device (ie a keyboard) knows what each note sounds like, so it plays each note that the midi files tells it to.. which is why they don't sound as good on old computers with not-so good midi drivers.

WOOHOO! I completed Ico last night.. play time nearly 8 hours... and it is brilliant! I love the ending... very sad... right up til the last second... one of the best endings for a game ever, I think... now to play it again... I hear in the european version you can control Yorda with the second controller on the second time round...

unfortunately, the justice system for most of the world is incredibly screwed up.. as are a lot of people's heads. Unfortunately there's not a lot we can do about it..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokronos [/i] [B]\ Oh yeah, so your saying that the mass just "magically" appears? *just had to throw that in* [/B][/QUOTE] Umm.. no.. the point I was trying to make is that you can't just reduce the [i]mass[/i] to nothing, unlike the weight, so that wouldn't work. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokronos [/i] [B]Backed your claims up? Ok, my turn. I cant back my claims up. And neither could the other famous scientists that existed. Humans think that they have a good idea of what happens in the universe, but truly they know NOTHING. I cant back up my claims until I experiment more. Your too obediant to the laws of physics. They can be broken. Way back people said we couldnt go faster than sound, but we did. Trust me, one day there will be time travel, and there will be new physics laws, new equations, and new concepts. Until we know everything that exists, we cant actualy argue on this topic. So act your age and end the topic, your only 1 year older than me, but you keep on pursuing this topic. While Im trying to end it. Im studying at a university too, so dont pull that " i know more than you" bullshit. Lets just be mature and forget about our fighting. Or if you want to be an infant you can continue. Your choice. [/B][/QUOTE] The other famous scientists couldn't back their claims up?? Einstein did.. even if just with equations, but eventually he was proven right. Newton did, with experimental evidence. Feynmann did. But you see, you can't just make a theory without evidence, because a lot of the time, scientists set out to prove one thing and end up finding another entirely.. You're right, maybe one day there will be time travel (maybe, and if you think that there definitely will be, then you're more arrogant than I thought) and one day, there [i]will[/i] be new laws of physics, but until then, we have to go by what the present ones state. So far they've explained a lot. Not everything, but a lot. Basically, you don't experiment to prove a theory, you experiment to see if it's right. And don't give me that 'Humans know nothing' speech. Do you really think that I believe that we know everything? We only see in 3 dimensions, 4 if you count time, but apparantly many scientists believe that the are more. I don't argue with that. But I disagree with your theory because it goes against what has already been proven. People used to think you couldn't go faster than sound, and people used to think that light didn't travel, it just instantaneously got to your eyes. People used to think the earth was flat. Did they ever prove this? Did they ever check to see if they could go faster than sound? no. They couldn't. But we've come a long way since then, and many things have been proven, and not much that was properly proven has actually been dismissed, merely added to. You can argue that Newton was wrong, but he wasn't. His equations were a good - make that, very good - approximation for low energy motion, on a macroscopic scale. Only when Einstein speculated about high energy motion was this added to for a more general equation. And quantum physics is pretty much the same story.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i] [B] If mass increases as you get closer to the speed of light, therefore slowing you down, couldn't there be someway to decrease the mass to the same mass that light has? If that is possible[ this is totally speculation and theory mind you] you could go the speed of light, and Time travel might be possible through that expierement. Yes or No? [/B][/QUOTE] umm... I don't think so... because light has no mass... the problem is that mass can't simply be reduced... weight is another matter, weight is dependant on gravity, but mass depends on the number of atomic nucleons, and other such particles... essentially... weight is dependant on gravity.. mass depends on how much matter is there.. so the only way to reduce the mass is to nothing is for there to be nothing there.. pretty much... and I don't think you'd want to be reduced to nothing, right ;) .. as for Apokronos.. I've proven my point. I know it is right. If he isn't even gonna back his claims up, I don't even care what he says..

A while ago, I used to play with my music software on a regular basis, creating little peices of music, some of which were pretty good, some of which were awful.. after looking through the files, I found these two, which I think are both pretty good, though they are very mellow and simple.. if you listen you'll see what I mean, but first I'll warn you: These are Midi Files, not MP3s, so how good they sound all depends on the midi driver in your sound card. also.. one of them, I forget which, has two different versions, because the original varied too much in volume, there are quiet bits and loud bits. In the second version of that one, the volume of the notes is kept all the same so you can hear them easier... but anyway, as I say, they may sound terrible if your midi driver isn't that good, or if it has really strange sounds for the instruments.... Anyway.. what do you think? (I don't think there's any problem putting this here, after all, it's certainly not illegal music files, cos I made them ;) )

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokronos [/i] [B]Look, Im too pacisfist right now to argue with you. If you want to think you are more experienced in physics then I, then go ahead. I just feel sorry for your university because they have such moron. [/B][/QUOTE] Right... this is the guy that said 'The reason scientists said you couldnt travel to the speed of light or faster is because as you approach the speed of light, the mass of the object gains weight, thus requiring even more energy to push it. But with my method it works out.'.. well here's a little tip: Scientists know more than you. Don't question what they say just because of some theory that has no real explanation.. according to your theory.. when something reaches the speed of light, it turns to energy. I have no idea where you get that from, maybe it's the fact that matter glows as it's being pulled in towards a black hole. But note: that's not the matter turning into energy.. that's the matter [i]emitting[/i] energy.. there is a difference... I've already said enough to actually show that matter can not go at the speed of light, if you actually read through it carefully, however your 'theories' are just wild speculation.. I'm afraid that you don't really [i]know[/i] any of this, whereas those scientists that you refuse to listen to know alot more than you ever will. Give me some actual evidence that your theories may be correct and I will believe it, but at the moment all you seem to be doing is saying that all of what I know is correct, and that I am a moron. A moron, you say? I'll have you know that not only did I take that relativity module, but I passed it, and a good pass, too. You are the one who refuses to accept the proven theories here, that mass increases with speed.. yes.. it [i]has[/i] been proven. Do you think particle accelerators are just there for fun? Here's a thought.. how about if you actually take the time to read [i]why[/i] scientists say that we can't go faster than light. And while your at it, read up on why scientists think that time travel could be possible through a ''worm hole'' rather than your theory. Personally, I find quite a few problems in your theory too. Namely the facts that 1) no one has ever turned to energy before, so how do you know you'll survive the process? 2) Nothing states that things turn to energy at the speed of light 3) I know I'm repeating myself, but you can't go at the speed of light 4) The gravitational strength difference will tear you apart 5) how do you intend to escape from the black hole? Now: Instead of just critisizing without proof, and calling me a moron, do you think you could actually prove that my ideas have a problem? As in: what exactly are these loopholes of which you speak? Personally, I think you have a big attitude problem. I've seen a few of your other posts and I find you just generally disrespectful. And I'm not talking about the ones in this thread.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Herman Nation [/i] [B][color=crimson][size=1]:( Man America sucks!!! I haven't heard any announcement for Deus Ex 2 in America, does anybody know if it's going to come out in America? Cause I hear Deus talking about it all of the time and i would like to play it. :( [/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Well, I very much doubt that it [i]won't[/i] be coming out in America, but the reason why you haven't heard an announcement is probably that they're so secretive at the moment, they're not even letting on as to which of Deus Ex's 3 endings it continues from... no one knows much about the game itself yet.. all you can find are several screenshots, an interview here and there... that's about it... they're just being very secretive... but Deus Ex should be out on PS2 over there.. I think.. oh and by the way... the original is just called Deus Ex, not Deus Ex Machina, cos I remember you sayin you were gonna have to play Deus Ex Machina at some point ;)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Apokronos [/i] [B] I do "actually know it all" ***. And you dont need infinate energy. Yes, I do know einsteins theory, mass is not energy. And the transformation is not "magical" but its physics and thats the way it happens. In summary: Dont act like YOU know it all, unless you actually know something. I already understand scientists theories on why you cany go faster than light. But there are a million loopholes in it. Trust me when I say I know more about physics then you do. I didnt want to be an ***, but your acting like one. You read a fukin science book, and come back to me when you have the correct answers. [/B][/QUOTE] Right... OK.. let me tell you what I'm doing at university.. Physics, and Biochemistry.. right.. biochem has nothing to do with this at all, but physics does, and last semester, one of the modules i studied was 'mechanics, gravity and relativity'.. so not only do I know about this, but I have studied it. The only loophole in the theory is that people want to believe that they can go at the speed of light, and yes, you DO need an infinite energy to reach it. Einstein not only proved that nothing but light can go at that speed, he also proved that nothing can go faster than the speed of light in any inertial frame.. Meaning that if two light particles move towards each other at the speed of light, then they each would see the other coming at the speed of light, rather than double that (Yes, I know that light particles can't see).. the only way to get around this is for the thing to actually be going faster than the speed of light from the start... Oh and.. matter and energy ARE interconvertible.. what the hell do you think E=MC squared means? you see.. matter can be turned to energy.. as in the case of colliding matter with antimatter.. and energy can be turned to matter.. as in the case of creating matter and antimatter with high energy photons... but matter doesn't just turn to energy. The same as energy doesn't just turn to matter either. That's not what the old E=MC squared means, it means that mass has a certain energy, and energy has a certain mass.. which slows the matter down. You ever heard of conservation of momentum? One of the things it means is that if you take a moving object, and increase it's mass, it will slow down... and if energy has mass, and high speed objects have high energy, then that means you're adding mass to the object, so guess what? it slows down. Do you have any idea the amount of energy that is needed to make even a slight increase in speed when you're close to the speed of light. No.. well, you need a lot. I know, I've studied it. I've done the calculations. Have you? obviously not... come back and argue when you've studied something on the subject. Preferably at university level. Oh, and you want me to go read a science book, eh? I already have... let me make a few recommendations: 1: University Physics- by H.Benson 2: Relativity- by Albert Einstein That's about all that are relavant to this topic, but you could also include 3- [i]QED- by Richard P. Feynmann, 4- Six Easy Peices- by Richard P. Feynmann[/i] and various others, not to mention the fact that I regularly buy [i]New Scientist[/i] and [i]Scientific American[/i]. Oh and... if you think I'm acting like an arse.. look at it from my view... here is someone talking to me, a physics student, about physics, and this guy obviously knows nothing of what he speaks, and still thinks he knows more than me...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by goddess21 [/i] [B] [color=deeppink]Hey! I got a 35 on yours! Not much better than you.... ;) It's all good!! :)[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] heh.... I find it funny, the amount of people that think I've got in a fight before, and I'm a member of Deus-ex.org... heh... I guess I just don't give myself away too much... :D ... you got correct answers on most of my questions though... well.. half correct I suppose, you got 5 of the 5 mark answers and 1 of the 10 mark ones.. OK! who's the smart guy who said I was a member of the Stoke on Trent lunatics asylum? eh?... I can't be bothered to look through all them names :p

OK.... now I am EXTREMELY stuck on Ico... to the point that I have actually checked a walkthrough... I'm at the point at the waterfall, where you have to go into that huge room and go along the pipes at the top... now.. the problem is that according to the walk throughs, you have to follow the pipes all the way to the rooms exit... but the pipes don't seem to go that far... maybe it's a change in the PAL version, but on the other side of the room from where you start, the pipes end half way across, so you can't get to the exit.. All I can get to is a switch which turns a piston on below. At first I thought you had to stand on the piston to make it shoot you up to the exist, but it doesn't push you up that far... hmm....can anyone help?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Red XIII [/i] [B][color=teal]Will somebody please help me with this i have bought the Giants Knife for 200 rupees and when i hit something it breaks is there anyway to stop this[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Yep. Don't buy the giant's knife. You have to finish the trading sequence in OOT to get another blade... can't remember it's name, but the big goron at the top of the mountain fixes a broken sword for you, and you get the better sword, which never breaks.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i] [B] So baisiclly, you have to reduce the mass to almost nothing, for a object to travel at the speed of light, and not just put more speed into, or onto it. Am i correct? [/B][/QUOTE] nope. Almost nothing won't do. It has to be at exactly nothing to travel at the speed of light. The main problem is, that you don't exactly put speed onto something, you put energy onto it, and the more energy an object has, the more it needs to go a bit faster. Either you have to have something with no mass [i]at all[/i] (in the case of a light particle for instance) or an infinite energy. Now, onto this one.. [quote][i]Originally posted by Apokronos[/i] [b]Hey, thats NOT true. It has been proven that things can go faster than light, go read a goddamn popular science magazine, they had an article with proof on it. Second, even if the mass increases in my theory it wouldnt matter. And if anti-gravity is actually created mass wont matter. Third, light is energy, which came from mass. And fourth, Its e=mc2, which means energy equals matter squared by the velocity of light. Which was einsteins theory that if mass reachs or exceeds the speed of light, it becomes energy.[/b][/quote] OK, first, what I said IS true. Yes, [i]things[/i] can go faster than the speed of light, but do you even know what those things are? thought not. Not your everyday thing. But the point is, nothing with mass can go AT the speed of light. Light manages it because it has no mass at all, but anything with mass needs an infinite energy to get to this speed. Faster than light, however is a different story. people have known for a while that it is possible in theory to go faster than light. It works like this: It is possible for something to go faster than light, or slower than light, but it is not possible for ANYTHING, except for particles with zero mass, to go AT the speed of light. So next time, read what I write. I never mentioned anything about going faster than light, I just said that if you're gonna try to go faster than light by accelerating past the speed of light, it's not gonna work. In summary: Read a goddamn science [i]book[/i], or study the subject. Then you can argue properly about it. Now, your second point. About antigravity: [i]MASS is not the same as WEIGHT. GRAVITY does not increase mass.[/i] This may be difficult for you to grasp, but gravity is just a force. A force accelerates things in accordance to their mass. Mass is exactly the same in zero-gravity, or antigravity, as it is in a gravitational field. So once again, you know nothing of what you talk about. Also: what is this 'theory' in which a mass increase won't matter? Read my last post again, [i]properly[/i] and you'll probably find a flaw in your 'theory'. OK, I've read your theory. It would make great science fiction, but it wouldn't work in practice. why? because even a black hole can't give you the infinite energy to go faster than light, secondly, as you will see in a few paragraphs, mass is the same as energy anyway, so you won't magically turn to energy and avoid death. Instead, the extreme difference in gravitational potential energy will rip you apart. what I mean here is-- the bottom of the capsule will be pulled a lot stronger than the top, which will rip your little capsule to peices. Your third point 'light is energy, which came from mass'.. Yeah, light is something that has no mass, but has energy, hence it travels at the speed of light. Sometimes it does come from mass, but do you understand how? your fourth point: [quote]'And fourth, Its e=mc2, which means energy equals matter squared by the velocity of light. Which was einsteins theory that if mass reachs or exceeds the speed of light, it becomes energy'[/quote] ... yes, it's E = M C squared... I write squared because it's a little hard to do the 2 above the C, and I wtote it E = M x C squared because 'x' means 'times' or 'multiplied by'... so it's exactly the same. Do you even know Einsteins theory? NO! you don't! that is the most incorrect interpretation ever... firstly, his theory is 'Mass cannot reach the speed of light', and secondly it is 'MASS [i]IS[/i] ENERGY, the two are interchangable', this is not just at the speed of light. In summary: Don't act like you know it all, unless you actually know something.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NirFan72 [/i] [B] You need to travel faster than the speed of light.Last time I checked,this was around 300,000 km/sec,or 186,000 mi/sec.Prettty Fast,but possible.[/B][/QUOTE] OK... I'll give a decent explanation as to why you can't easily go faster than the speed of light but first you're gonna have to just accept a few things.. Firstly.. Speed is due to [i]ENERGY[/i], kinetic energy in fact, meaning the greater energy you give an object, the faster it will go, but the speed is not just related to energy, the energy(kinetic) of an object is given by [i]ENERGY = MASS(kg) x SPEED squared[/i].. this formula was devised long ago, and is not technically accurate due to relativistic effects Secondly... E = M x C squared, meaning [i]ENERGY = MASS x SPEED OF LIGHT squared[/i] what this means is that as you give large amounts of energy to an object, it appears to increase in mass. When I say 'appears', I mean that it acts completely as if it has this extra mass, even in the first formula. Thirdly, by combining the two, you can see that as an object's kinetic energy becomes very great, it gains a lot of mass, meaning that ENERGY = MASS x SPEED squared, still applies, but the 'MASS' has gone up significantly, while the ENERGY stays the same, meaning that the SPEED must drop to make the equation stay correct... Now, if we make the object's speed C, the speed of light, then the object's mass increases, as it's rest mass (at speed = 0) is E = MC squared, and if you add the energy for an object to move at C (in classical, or pre-relativity physics), then it's energy is 2E = MC squared, hence if you use the larger value of M in the original equation it can be seen that the object is not moving at the speed of light at that given energy Lastly, Working out the objects actual speed at higher and higher energies will reveal that an INFINITE amount of energy is required to reach the speed of light, or a mass of zero (light particles have no mass, which is how light travels at the speed of light)... hence you can see that in this universe, it is impossible to travel at the speed of light by accelerating an object, even if that object is a black hole.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i] [B][color=indigo] Well I figured I'd create one even though I haven't scored higher then a 57 on anybodys test...[URL]http://HavensCloud.friendtest.com.[/URL] [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Dammit! That second to last question scared me! 'Do you do drugs, Danny?'.. I mean... MY NAME IS DANNY!! so it surprised me a little.... [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Duo Maxwell [/i] [b]deus i am not 4'9''!!![/b][/quote] You're not? oh, ok :D [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by goddess 21[/i] [b]I know I just posted.... and I know not many people know me... but I just made a Friend Test! You should all go and take it ... I don't care if you have never talked to me before![/b][/quote] I just did, and I just failed... I failed bad.. 30 points... then again... I don't really know you so it's better than nothing ;)

Well, I have the game and the demo, and without the actual instructions, and the intro sequence, the demo is a bit confusing, as you're put straight into the game with no idea why you're there... basically, Ico (the little boy) was shunned by his village, because he has horns on his head, which, to them means that he is cursed, so they 'sacrifice' him, putting him into the large pot you break out of at the start (which you break out of thanks to what I assume to be an earthquake), and then, when Ico walks up a set of stairs, he sees a black figure in a cage, and a black liquid appears to drip from the cage. A shadow brings Ico through the wall, and takes you back to the room with all the pots in. This is where the full game (and the demo) starts. Unlike in the demo, you don't start out with a stick, yyou get it when you set the princess free. Also, many of the puzzles in the demo are just simpler versions of those in the full game, where you end up ultimately doing the same thing, but the puzzle in the demo is simpler. So anyway, that's the first bit of the full game. Makes more sense than the demo. I personally think that Ico is one of the best games I have for the PS2, but you can't really compare it to others, because it's just so unique. It's also very short. Apparently, it's only 7 hours long, but I usually take a lot longer than average on my first play, cos I just take my time. Also: Deus Ex's release has slipped. It was going to be released this Friday, now it's released at the end of April :flaming: makes me so mad...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by asar [/i] [B] Possible??? Not in this century. Keep in mind the incredible amounts of pressure that travelling at high speeds put on objects, and then times that by several million! An atom has something like 100,000 pounds of pressure per square millimetre on it, though that figure isn't exactly right. [/B][/QUOTE] yeah, but atoms are very small, and are generally spaced out. An atomic nucleus's density is very large... something in the region of.... I forget... very big though, but the nucleus is incredaibly small, the radius of the nucleus (the bit with the actual weight in it) is 1/10000th of the radius of the whole atom, and apart from the nucleus, it's just emptiness apart from electrons, which no one really has a good explanation as to [i]what[/i] they are just yet... plus- pressure is not due to speed, pressure is due to force. If something moves at high speed in a vacuum, no pressure will be on it, pressure only exists if you accelerate the object, by putting a force on it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Spikey [/i] [B] Learn how to not be afraid of hights. [/B][/QUOTE] umm.... am I missing something here... :therock: I don't get why that bit helps...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sephiroth [/i] [B] how the heck did you do it? I didn't even think that any of the marines had dog tags, but in the middle? hmm, maybe with the stealth cloak.... [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah, most sites don't mention them because theyre only there in the PAL version... I haven't held the guy up yet, i just know which one it is, but I was [i]so close[/i] the other day... One of the best tactics is to keep your eye on that guy and knock everyone down by kicking one guard and starting a chain reaction.. once enough of them are knocked out you can drag him away (with stealth on) without being noticed... The problem is when the marines are all moving, it slows the game down alot... another option is to put them all to sleep and try to sneak up to him, but it's too hard not to bump into them, and you can't make people shake unless they can see you, otherwise they don't know where the gun's aimed at... The other option of course, is to progressively hold all the gaurds behind him up and put them to sleep (this makes them fall over) so there's no risk of bumping into them, but this slow the game down, like when you knock them over..

[color=darkblue][b]My most wanted game?? Do you really have to ask?? OK then... [size=5]DEUS EX!!!!![/size] one more week to go ^^ and I suppose some others are: FF10, FF11, and who can forget: [size=5]DEUS EX 2!!!![/size] ^^.... only.... whatever amount of time left, to go ^^;;.. which could be a while due to the lack of info going around[/b][/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dragonballzman [/i] [B]Dude! I got 75 on the Solid Snake one!!! Wait a mo, I think I know which one I got wrong! I'll do it again! YES! GOT EM ALL RIGHT!!! THOSE WERE [B]TOO[/B] EASY!!! [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah it wasn't exactly meant to be hard :p just a bit of a laugh...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B] [color=royalblue]I'd have to disagree with that. In-game graphics aren't going to increase by leaps and bounds from now on...I mean, sure, they will become more realistic and more fluid, but I don't have a single problem with MGS2's visuals. That said, I think that a lot can be done in a design sense. The environments in MGS2 where somewhat repetitive at times and I feel that using the same graphics engine, Konami could really turn out some impressive level designs (even though current designs were still quite good).[/quote] [color=darkblue][b]I have to say, I agree...graphics have come a long way for game systems, and I personally don't think they will improve a great deal.. Some things may be improved, such as managing to have lots of moving people on the screen withough any slowdown, as in this case- go to the first hold in the tanker level (with stealth equiped) and punch-punch-kick one of the front marines, he will fly backwards, and knock another down, and a domino-like chain reaction ensues.. that is hilarious, but it slows the game down like hell.. They can probably improve on this, but I doubt that the graphics will get any better, except maybe for a higher polygon count.[/color] [quote]If Konami make another MGS on PS2, I really hope that they improve the storyline, in terms of keeping the crappy love sequences out of it. And perhaps adding more of a background to the various enemy characters.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=darkblue]And maybe they could make it so the last half hour actually makes sense... especially that bit about the *SPOILER* entity in the walls of the whitehouse, or something like that... I just had to laugh when he said that... me being a biochem student and all... PS: after searching, I have found the location of the rogue marine with the dog tag in the holds... and he's slightly... hard to get to, being in the middle of a crowd and all that....[/color][/b]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Duo Maxwell [/i] [B]heh i'd post my quiz but no one will know what i'm going on about in the test because its to do with a lot of stuff me and some friends talk about... wait i will post it [URL]http://friendtest.com/viewquiz.php?account=Mo-Chan[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE] heh.. I got 61... then again I knew some of the things you talk about anyway... and what colour you died your hair.. ;) heh... this may seem a bit sad, but funny-- another one I did... you'll see ;) [url]http://uknowsolidsnake.friendtest.com[/url] heh heh.... MGS2 fans should find it amusing ;)

man... you all got me sussed here... well.. not completely, but you all seem to know what I hate most... but one question... why do you all think I've been in a fight before? ;) One other question... before you said I'm a member of deus-ex.org... did you ever think of going there to see if it was actually a member's society?? It's not!! :laugh:... oh and Duo... that test was a bit mean... most of the answers aren't as obvious as they look.... 47 is pretty good... hey... you [i]did[/i] click the last answer!! You said my IQ was 2!!! :flaming: ... heh ;)

I only bought the mag for.. well.. the sheer hell of it I suppose... and I have no idea what GoDai is about... even I didn't get that bit... it's kind of a fighting RPG kind of thing, that just turned out bad.... you really do have to play it to understand just how bad it is... but I wouldn't recommend buying the game to do so... heh... surprise surprise, Ico is made by Sony, and it got 9/10.. I still think it looks great though..