RicOlie_2

That makes perfect sense, thanks. :)

February 13:

A.D. 1258: Baghdad falls to the Mongols and the Abbasid caliphate is destroyed.

A.D. 1601: The first British East Indian Company voyage sets sail from London.

A.D. 1633: Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to stand trial before the Inquisition.

I wish...that's average summer temperatures where I live.

EDIT: But I guess that means your summers would be awful for someone from way up north.

No wonder it isn't working. And it doesn't even have ".jpg" at the end. The little period there is kind of important if you want it to be recognized as an image.

I love the Spaceballs reference. :D

I'm liking it so far. You have pretty good dialogue in there. I think it has the right feel to it. It's certainly better than a lot of what's in the PT, but I wouldn't say it's as classic as some of the dialogue in the OT. Of course this is pretty early on in the script and part of what made the OT dialogue classic is the popularity of the movies.

Keep it up, I'm looking forward to the next bit.

Check out the Essential Guide series: 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Essential_Guide

If you want primarily OT stuff, I suggest you only use the first generation series (so not the New Essential Guides). I believe they do contain some EU things, but most of it's from the good EU and doesn't include prequel and post-prequel EU information. My favourite from among them is The Essential Guide to Alien Species. It gives short stories about each species, usually from the perspective of a shape-shifting xenologist, as well as giving a factual description of the species, which makes it interesting to read cover to cover.

Hope that's what you were after.

Someone on Youtube posted the following comment and I thought it was so hilarious and sad at the same time, I had to share it...

Lucas is a genius. He's working on a level so much higher than most that he has to dumb it all down for the rest of us. His animated short changed everything about animated shorts & short films in general. Then his first movie THX-1138 (and the short it was based on) demonstrates this. His vision was far beyond what other people were even thinking, let alone creating. No one got it. He then realized he had to dumb everything down, and that's where he made the connection with the audience.

Sad, isn't it? I wonder if the guy is really serious...there isn't really any indication he wasn't.

If you're a practicing, and normal Catholic, that's cool! Besides you I only know of one other Catholic on this site and he seems to need psychiatric help...(see the last few pages of the abortion debate thread if you don't get who I'm talking about). No offense to him, of course, he just seems to have an abnormally pessimistic view on life.

The only places you might find a decent amount of snow during summer would be Antarctica and places way up in the arctic. That's about it...

Oh, maybe I know what he means. In the southern hemisphere it is winter during the northern hemisphere's summer. So he's asking if it is sometimes held during the southern hemisphere's summer instead of that of the northern hemisphere. Right?

generalfrevious said:

I must obey whatever the church says, and regard all outsiders who do not agree as always wrong.

Except that the Church doesn't teach that people who disagree with the Church are always wrong. In fact, atheists can get to heaven if they are genuinely seeking the truth. So can Muslims and Hindus and agnostics and Protestants, etc.

I want to believe that the Church's teachings on sex are wrong, but I can't.

You seem convinced that it is and of the reasons for it. You also seem to have an incorrect understanding of the Church's position on sex. Please explain why you want to believe the teachings are wrong when you see the reasons for the teachings. And PLEASE ask questions because you don't seem to get the Church's position on a lot of things. I don't know if you're pastor is in error or what, but saying things like "sex is evil" or "sex was the first sin committed against God" is going against Church teachings on the matter.

So I must conform to their logic, so that abortion can be stopped and I don't have to go to church angry every week because the priest always works in abortion to every homily,

I am beginning to suspect that you have an odd priest. Pope Francis himself said that we need to stop focusing so much on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage and start loving people.

how bad the "world" is, and how they feel persecuted by that world. And then I encounter countless websites saying that the Humane Vitae is vindicated and how bad the pill is, and how the hell anyone could be pro-choice. Just type in Humane Vitae in google or youtube to know what I mean.

 Not all websites are trustworthy just because they're Catholic. There are sites that are incredibly medieval minded and think that women wearing pants is wrong, as well as dancing (ballroom dancing dancing). Obviously, they are still in the 1500s or something, because the Church has no such stance against women wearing pants. The only reason it was wrong back then is because men were used to seeing women in dresses and the more they saw of women's bodies the more sexually aroused they were. So when they could actually see the outline of women's legs their imaginations started filling in the blanks. Now our culture has become quite desensitized to that kind of thing and it isn't as arousing as it once was to see a woman wearing shorts and a T-shirt. A century ago that would have been scandalous. In some native tribes the only article of clothing that both men and women wear is a loin cloth. Men in those tribes don't go bananas because they see women's breasts because they don't associate it with sex like we do. It's a cultural thing. OK, I spent too long making my point, but you can see that the sites may be in error or not entirely in agreement with Church teachings. Also, what was applicable then may not be entirely applicable now. Morals and values are constant, but you can see the way in which the way they are manifested might change depending on how culturally acceptable something is (in the way I described above. Don't think I'm in agreement with something like abortion or gay marriage just because it's culturally acceptable).

EDIT: Sorry for my largely off-topic rant. I was just trying to make a point about the way the Church views virtues and morals over time might change, and in what way. I was also trying to say that Catholic site doesn't equal infallible site.

generalfrevious said:

RicOlie_2 said:

generalfrevious said:

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

No matter, oral contraception still kills embryos; the pill is worse than meth, therefore anyone who takes it might as well be committing an abortion anyways. Anyone who disagrees with this is a sociopath that has been brainwashed by the anti-christian, pro-abortion, second(or third)-wave feminist agenda.

 Please seek psychiatric help.  Seriously, you need it, no insult intended.

 That's not me. That's the Roman Catholic church speaking; I cannot disagree with them on any issue, or I will be damned.

If that is honestly your view, then you might need to do some research. You will not go to hell just for disagreeing on something. Not everything the Church teaches is infallible, so feel free to disagree on things that don't have to do with morals and suchlike.

This isn't the debate on wether the earth or the sun is in the center of the solar system or not; this is on issues of sex, the first sin man committed against God.

Hold on...can you point me to the bit in the Bible/other text where it says that sex was the first sin? Also, can you find something with a Nihil Obstat on it that says sex is wrong?

They are brainwashing our women in taking a horrendous drug that inevitably lead to the trauma of murdering your own child. There is no grey area, reproductive rights are inherently misogynistic.

As far as I am aware, the pill prevents a pregnancy as do other contraceptives. They're still wrong, but they aren't as bad as abortion. There are indeed grey areas, and even the Church teaches this. For instance, if a pregnant mother's life is in danger, she can abort her pregnancy.

It's shocking that all Catholics who use contraception or disagree with the Humanae Vitae are so contemptuous of God's natural law and the call to purity and chastity, and turn a blind eye to one of the greatest genocides in recorded history. You have no idea how horrible the social impact of the contraceptive oral pill really is to society: families were more stable and loving, women had more dignity than they have now, divorce rates were almost nonexistent, sexually transmitted infections were low, less children were born out of wedlock, and people were less perverted than they are today. The governments of Western Nations are cracking down on the Roman Catholic church by forcing them to murder innocent human beings via contraception and abortions.

On one hand you seem to wholeheartedly agree with the Church's teachings; on the other, you seem to feel trapped by it and want to do away with many of them. I don't get it.

That's the devil talking. But we must always bear our cross, no matter how angry it makes us feel on the inside.

That's the Church's teaching, but if you think Catholicism is the worst religion in the world, then you must think there is something seriously wrong with it and therefore you must not believe it is true. If you're saying it's the devil that's making you type that stuff, then are you implying you're possessed? (Not the OT.com member. ;))

You are giving contradictory thoughts and it is kind of confusing. You sound confused yourself, no offense.

Catholics must always listen to the church elders and obey every law the church lays down; they are Christians first and citizens second. We may sound booted to you, but we will be comforted when we see the Popes in heaven and the Planned Parenthood thugs burning in hell for all eternity. 

 Not all Popes will go to heaven and not all Planned Parenthood supporters will burn in hell. Also, I can't imagine being comforted at the thought of someone going to hell.

 The wicked will be punished: that is a universal statement professed by all religions, and I'm sorry you cannot understand that. 

 The wicked may be punished, but how wicked do they have to be? We don't really know. Also, Catholics believe in Purgatory in which everyone who didn't become a saint on earth but wasn't bad enough to go to hell goes through a period of suffering in order to become saints. Only saints get into heaven, but Purgatory is there so that people can become saints. Also, I can't understand being comforted by the thought of someone being in hell. I just can't imagine how anyone could be happy about someone's suffering.

N*5

Beatleboy99 said:

From the moment if conception, a person is a living, breathing thing.

 Minus the breathing part. :D

generalfrevious said:

TV's Frink said:

generalfrevious said:

No matter, oral contraception still kills embryos; the pill is worse than meth, therefore anyone who takes it might as well be committing an abortion anyways. Anyone who disagrees with this is a sociopath that has been brainwashed by the anti-christian, pro-abortion, second(or third)-wave feminist agenda.

 Please seek psychiatric help.  Seriously, you need it, no insult intended.

 That's not me. That's the Roman Catholic church speaking; I cannot disagree with them on any issue, or I will be damned.

If that is honestly your view, then you might need to do some research. You will not go to hell just for disagreeing on something. Not everything the Church teaches is infallible, so feel free to disagree on things that don't have to do with morals and suchlike.

It's shocking that all Catholics who use contraception or disagree with the Humanae Vitae are so contemptuous of God's natural law and the call to purity and chastity, and turn a blind eye to one of the greatest genocides in recorded history. You have no idea how horrible the social impact of the contraceptive oral pill really is to society: families were more stable and loving, women had more dignity than they have now, divorce rates were almost nonexistent, sexually transmitted infections were low, less children were born out of wedlock, and people were less perverted than they are today. The governments of Western Nations are cracking down on the Roman Catholic church by forcing them to murder innocent human beings via contraception and abortions.

On one hand you seem to wholeheartedly agree with the Church's teachings; on the other, you seem to feel trapped by it and want to do away with many of them. I don't get it.

Catholics must always listen to the church elders and obey every law the church lays down; they are Christians first and citizens second. We may sound booted to you, but we will be comforted when we see the Popes in heaven and the Planned Parenthood thugs burning in hell for all eternity. 

 Not all Popes will go to heaven and not all Planned Parenthood supporters will burn in hell. Also, I can't imagine being comforted at the thought of someone going to hell.

Just noting that it happened again with darth_ender's Mormon Q&A thread. So far it has happened only with Warbler and darth_ender's threads and as far as I have noticed, only with threads in Off Topic (but I spend 90% of my time at OT.com in the Off Topic section, so that doesn't mean much).

EDIT: It also just happened twice for the following thread:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Random-demolished-movie-theatre-thread/topic/16410/

Technically that has no bearing on whether or not he was actually the first Pope or not. Catholics believe he was the first leader of the Church, but he lead it before the title "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" existed. Just to make myself clear, I am not Mormon, but Catholic. I gather that you are as well?

I recommend editing your posts rather than posting three different posts in a row.

Where is your image hosted? It would be nice to be able to see it.

Worse than meth...? Is it addictive? Does it destroy your body? How is it worse than meth? It isn't good, but worse, or even close to as bad as meth seems a bit overboard.

TIMELINE-5

++ 

            =

PODD

An infinite amount of time ago.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS

God appears to a community of the last 666 humans on earth  in the year 7777 to announce that he (or they) was/were just a trinitarian Loki having a jolly good time messing around with history. One person of the Trinity founded Judaism, another founded Christianity, and the other founded Islam, just to enjoy the conflict between them all. The first one was jealous that Judaism wasn't as successful as the other two religions and sneakily founded both the Baha'i and Mormon religions to conflict with the two main ones. Throughout history they had planted an abundance of evidence against each other, confusing humankind which resulted in the spawning of a multitude of other religions as well as leading many humans to reject religion outright and became atheists or agnostics.

The three persons of God decide that everyone gets to choose which afterlife they want, and everyone is mostly sorta happy.

FINAL NOTES

Possibly the most confusing and one of the most disturbing timelines, as it means that every human on the planet was wrong (except for the agnostics who were neither right or wrong).

I plan to base my alternate timelines around historical events and rewrite history rather than joking around with them (humour will still be an acceptable part of my timelines though :) ).

Don't worry, I value consistency and organization, so I stuck with the format you had. My distinguishing characteristics were certainly not as short as yours though. :P

Thanks, but I've read it already. :) Maybe I'm asking a non-question, or maybe I just wasn't clear enough, but what I'm asking is if Joseph Smith used the more regularly used English words for things like "Jew" and "Christ" which wouldn't have been the literal translations of the text, why use the literal translation of the text to describe New World animals (e.g. bison) instead of using the normal English word? If he was translating under divine inspiration, it shouldn't have mattered whether or not the word literally meant "ox" or "bison" as one would think God, or the angel Moroni, or whoever was helping him out would prompt him to translate it as "bison" if it was used to refer to a bison, or "ox" if it was used to refer to an ox. Does that make sense? Why be non-literal with some words or phrases, but use confusing literal translations for others?

SC-19

I'm jealous.

TIMELINE-3

PODD

May 1529

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS

Sultan Süleyman and his army do not experience heavy rains on their march to Vienna, and consequently are not forced to leave most of their siege weapons behind due to the difficulty of dragging them through mud. They reach Vienna in mid September and besiege the city. The Ottomans triumph, conquering Vienna. After a few months of amassing forces and warding off attacks from the Germans, the Ottomans begin conquering Europe, taking over most of the Holy Roman Empire by 1552, as well as capturing territory in Arabia (including Mecca) upon an onslaught of Safavids in 1535.

Süleyman I is killed in 1554, and the Ottoman Empire begins to break up as Süleyman's son, Selim, battles with his older and illegitimate brother. The French, along with some rebellious Germans, recapture a large portion of the Holy Roman Empire. One of Süleyman's nephews, Mehmet, kills both brothers and takes control of the Ottoman Empire in 1558, but one of Süleyman's generals, Hamza, breaks away from the Ottoman Empire, taking a large portion of the Ottoman army with him as well as all Ottoman territory besides captured land in the former Holy Roman Empire; Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia; and Venice. Hamza captures Baghdad and makes further incursions into Safavid Persia. Mehmet sweeps southwards into Italy, capturing Rome (and with it, the Papal States) in 1562. He then moves on into France, taking Paris in 1563 and sweeping down to conquer the rest of France by 1570. Meanwhile, Hamza amasses a new army in Morocco and his forces recapture Granada in 1561, moving inland to conquer much of Castile and Portugal. In 1564, Hamza's original army and fleet make attacks on Sicilian territory, capturing it between 1564 and 1566. His forces based in Castile conquer Madrid and the remainder of Portugal in 1565. By 1572, Spain is entirely under Muslim rule.

Hamza dies in 1571 and is succeeded by Salëman. Mehmet and Salëman's territories meet in 1572 and they begin fighting each other. Mehmet, being a far more experienced general, pushes into Spain, taking what was formerly Navarre and Aragon, as well as taking all of mainland Italy, leaving Sicily to Salëman.

Only the Scandinavian countries remain Christian and unconqured, and the Reformation continues in those countries while it grinds to a halt in countries under threat from the Ottomans. The Renaissance is also ended before it can really begin and mosques are erected throughout Europe; churches being converted into mosques or being torn down.

Over time, the two Ottoman Empires break up into five smaller empires. The Americas are first settled by Europeans in 1736 and the Islamic Renaissance begins in the mid 1800s. By 1980, the whole of North and South America have been settled by European, African, Asian, and Middle Eastern peoples with the Japanese occupying what is now British Columbia and Washington. The rest becomes predominantly Muslim, though a new religion, Selism, arises in South America, focusing around the worship of Nock, a benevolent deity believed to be in constant conflict with the Islamic God.

(Sorry, I have way too many details) ;)

FINAL NOTES

In this timeline, the world is completely different because it didn't rain a lot in 1529 and the Siege of Vienna succeeded. Had it rained, none of this would have happened, so blame the lack of rain for the whole thing.

EDIT: Alternately called Ottimeline.