Here is mine:

Just like every other woman with whom I chatted before. Sounds perfectly human to me.

And then he threw a chair.

So, it IS an accident?

I have this book. When I was trying to learn to draw, I used to read it every day. The author describes a kind of a "zen state of mind", where you lose your ability to think rationally and even talk. I spent a lot of time trying to achieve this state of mind. Never could. There are parts of this book that makes sense: the way you described, for example, that what we know about the world affects how we interpret what we see. But that magical state where you turn into a fantastic drawer, like the pictures shown in the book, I don't think make a lot of sense. In fact, today we know that you cannot dissociate left and right sides of the brain when interpreting or imagining images.

The book, however, helped me with the section that was called, I think, "letting the left side help", where the author describes how to measure and stablish proportions. Turns out, however, that this is not related to left or right side of the brain: any book on drawing I read later had the exact same techniques. I learned how to draw using them, and turns out that what you need is actually a lot of practice and knowledge. She presents a nice technique for copying pictures and nothing else. In the time I got more knowledge about sciences, all that book said sounded incredibly pseudo-scientific to me.

The reasoning is flawed anyways: no matter how much people repeat something that is wrong, it doesn't become right. It just doesn't follow -- if the studies were all biased and badly conducted, no matter how many of them exist, their conclusions are wrong.

Following their reasoning: respectable (to astrologers) astrology journals have published much much more studies on the relevance of astrology than respectable psychologists published on video game violence. Thus, according to their arguments, astrology must be right. Same for every pseudoscience out there. And, here is one thing to think about: there is a lot of criticism on how research is conducted on psychology -- many people consider it borderline pseudoscientific.

... the answer was 42.

Don't worry. Rats are already the most intelligent species on Earth. Followed by dolphins, and then humans.

No, no. This one is already done. Nimoy is rumoured to play Smaug, anyway. Wouldn't it be nice if Smaug sang this when he is having his talkings with Bilbo?

This sucks. Don't get me wrong, I loved how they portrayed their respective characters in the LOTR movie (except, maybe, Elijah Wood couldn't convince me as Frodo, but, then again, he could never convince me as any character in any movie). What I wanted to see was some diversity -- different people with different acting, different characterization. When I was younger, I would like the unified choice, but these days, I think that difference in portrayals could only enhance the appreciation of both the movies and the books. Having the same actors and the same director is basically the same as having only one artist making illustrations of the book.

There should have been only one.

While I agree, wouldn't it look even worse to, say, Sweden?

Like this?

I can see your points, and I agree with some of them. Cecil's character really looks weird, but it gets a lot better when he turns into a paladin. The voice acting is horrible, I'd rather they remained silent. I agree that, if you can't get past the first three hours, you probably won't have fun playing the game. But, then again, these were not enough for me to put the game aside. I really liked to see characters in 3D, the remade cutscenes and scenarios. That's why I think I would like to see a remake of FFVI. Thanks for the nice chat, hope you have fun playing games (Square/Enix released recently an new old-school FF for the DS, 4 Warriors of Light. I couldn't play it yet, but I expect it to be good).

I agree that it is a matter of opinion. I just finished playing both versions of FFIV (Advance for the GameBoy and the remake for the DS) and the games are nearly identical. The DS version has a few additions that can be ignored if you don't want to deal with them, and while damages and powers have changed, I found both versions to be equally balanced. I had fun with both. While I couldn't play FFIII in paralel with the old version (I played it sometime ago, though), I thought that the DS version was fun, and a little stronger on the history side. Granted, the newer versions don't have the same impact that the older had -- they were new games at the time. So, this is an honest question, not flaming or trolling: why do you think they're bad games?