Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Oh my G! The number of books for such a mediocre book series is just ridiculous. Couldn’t he just make a new series? Or much better, a stand alone book.
Well, I would intervene if the series somewhat degraded. But if not, well, I would ask you to continue.
Huh? That is not what I was saying.
I had never asked questions I don’t want to be answered. My questions often deals with descripancies like those appliances in the Abyss, and the Nuclear Reaction/Quarks issue. The answer to them aren’t spoilers since I was asking for clarifications for what I see errors.
And the reason for why I want to leave is because The Author Guy essentially just says that the discussion here can’t be trusted in anyway. That anything here is deceptive. That what you, Tizzy, spouted is just lies. The whole thing is one big prank. What are we going to do when what we are discussing earnestly turns out to be just crap? Hmmm?
As for truthful information, then, if The Author guy is correct, that is something that we shouldn’t expect from you. Why discuss something with you when it will not be of any truth anyway?
And no science and religion don’t work that way. Science is about studying the world. It is not about choosing what to and what not to believe. The truth is out there, you just have to observe and study it. Religion is belief and worship of superpowers (god, deties). It is also not about choosing what to and what not to believe. It already has sets of beliefs that you had to accept if you follow that religion. And stories, that is just a different beast entirely.
A discussion however is different. It has to be based solidly for it to go sensibly. If we are discussing like: that earth is really flat instead of being round, or cats are dogs in disguise, you are just wasting your time.
And… Uhhh… what to believe now.
[quote]Science is defined by the Scientific Method[/quote]
Huh? This is a strong misconception. Though the scientific method is a sort of holly grail for scientist it does not define science. They are not one and the same.
Soft science, Hard science… so you can already see that scientific method isn’t a catch all in science. You do actually understand the nature of science and scientific method. You already have the knowledge. I can’t see why you don’t get my point about scientific method if you already know this.
Scientific fact and empirical evidence… and we are not discussing this. Why would you put such a red herring? Oh! Of course you’re a demon! So frustrating.
[quote]How exactly do you define science, if not through the use of the scientific method?.[/quote]
Just a little google would came up with a lot of difinitions of science and non of them pin it to scientific method. In fact the body of science has existed before scientific method is developed (around 17th century). Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, and other wellknown people of science exist long before that.
Of course you can’t disqualify such things as the three states of mater (solid, liquid, gas), organic and inorganic, properties of metal, and other scientific stuff which have been known and understood since prehistory which enable them to create such things as the pyramids, clocks, firecrackers, medicine, clothing and other stuff.
Scientific method have been a break through, a revolutionary development in science but never for once think scientific method need to exist for science to be born.
[quote]The scientific method is a method for studying observable phenomenon, measuring, quantifying, developing theories, testing theories with predictions and comparing results of future measurements to predicted measurements and then revising the theory[/quote]
You define scientific method but again we are discusing science not scientific method. Please stop pulling this straw man at me.
And my point about scientific facts is… this is not what we are arguing. What your point about it can be debated but since I had made no stance about it, I can just choose to agree with you and be done with it. I really have no interest in following this red herring.
Well, difference in perspective, I guess. Still, I kinda wish that the text in the front cover was placed a lot better.
I might have not be too off when I say that the text looks tacked.
I think, you should have incorporated the text in the design from the very beginning. After all, the text is an important part of the cover design.
You could also have at least provide space to where the text should go. As it where important elements of the picture doesn’t realy enable any good place to place the titles. It would just look awkward or cover important elements of the image.
Some of your ideas seems good. You might also do it like this:
Move the image lower to provide more space at the top for the tittle text. An element in the bottom (a box here) would hide the fact that the feet are going off the frame.
[img=http://i.imgbox.com/XOzHddyA.jpg]cover 1[/img]
You might also like to just provide more space at the bottom for the tittle text by moving the image higher. The gradient I used on the bottom could be raised higher though that would hide a large part of the characters. Maybe add a box there instead?
[img=http://i.imgbox.com/wIIrICJO.jpg]cover 2[/img]
What do you think?
@The Author Guy:
The Stinky Cheese is a picture book! Don’t expect too much!
I have stopped reading Peirs. Have developed distaste for them.
Not that. The spoiler is the explanation, the mechanics of how things works. With the advance knowledge that we have, the sense of discovery and exploration is reduced. This sense of wonder and discovery is a typical fare in Fantasy. This is the very charm in Alice in Wonderland. We meet all those wacky characters and Wonderland’s curious logic for a great read.
I was kinda waiting for book two to explore the nature of demon bodies, their anantomy so to speak.
Uh… does that mean we are just wasting our time having discusion here? Should we stop?
That kinda kill my interest to continue being here. If I can get essentially nothing here better do nothing yes?
Huh! What a bummer.
The art was also meh but I don’t really judge the book because of that. I don’t really mind it that much.
The thing I don’t like most in the cover was the text. It was a bit hard to read, kinda ugly and doesn’t fit with the whole composition. It seems to be an afterthought and tacked in.
Well, shouldn’t that have been… well… obvious? There aren’t really that many demon magic users and it seems keeping tab on powerful demons seems to be what all demons tend to do. A stunt like this should have spread like wild fire in the demon circles. Though the possibility that they just didn’t do that kind of thing is likely.
If it is gods’ secret then it is just time before it leaks or figured out by the others. That tends to happen with secrets.
Well, that seems a grim prediction.
Well, how would they know? Are they really that omnipotent?
As for those travails… huh! It is because they are stupid. If people could just pause and think for a moment instead of swallowing those overrated pratling of some person they could have seen the incredulity of it all.
I have read many of those mythologies and they are almost filled with junk! I couldn’t in my mind understand how people could love them, they aren’t really that good. And I wonder if the people really read the original writings about them and not those censored and rated G versions. Well, they are just a read for historical reasons but for anything else? Better read Into the Abyss by J.L. Langland.
It would have been simpler if this mechanic is not available. As it is, it is likely to lead to Fridge Logic and great many plot holes.
Yes back in time, but hey, old doesn’t mean bad. Read great many old books. Have you read History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibon? How about The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin? Early medical books are realy interesting. I also read a lot of those “Classic” titles like the Anne series and Pride and Prejudice. Though some of those books have a really old fashioned writing that is kinda hard to read.
