(57 replies, posted in Fans)

What's the point of clones?  That's a god question.  The reasons behind the Idea of cloning are several, the 1st being "because we can."  Yeah, it's simply the fact that we "could" create exact duplicates of people that has scientist tripping over themselves in an effort to be the first to scream "In the name of science!" and "Live, live, I command you to LIIIIIIVVEE!!!"  Another reason is the potential for orgain harvesting and to give children to the childless. See "The Island" for further information.  Another idea is that potentialy we could clone just a liver, if that was all a person needed, or for testing how a particular drug would affect a liver.  Complications with this process have yet to be worked out, leaving time for people to argue the moral impact that cloning would have, one of the major ones being, "would cloning people lead us to veiw clones as less than human?"  See any number of Sci-fi films for further referance.


(57 replies, posted in Fans)

Whoa, get your laptop confenscated for a week and look at what you miss.
On the subject of animal testing, I think that while animal testing is sad, I think that until we come up with a viable alternitive, it's the only thing we can do, other than offer money to people to act as human guinea pigs.  There is talk of using clones, or cloned organs for testing, but that opens up another can of worms...clones, the final frontier.  And when it comes down to it, humans are more improtant then animals.  Animals, while not being expendible, are of lesser value than human beings.  And man will never "break the food chain."  1. We are too smart and love living to much to ever do anything that would perminatly kill us.  2. If evolution is true, then some animal will fill in the gap left by another.  "Life will find a way", to quote Jurassic Park.  And if evolution is bunk, well, then it's not in our control, is it?  3. "Man shall not live on bread alone" dosn't mean we can't be veggitarians.  Yeah, we don't need animals, just give me some more tofu.  Now, I hope that I never have to give up my burger eating ways, but I, and the rest of mankind, can live with out In-and Out.  At least I hope we can. 

Now just to clarify, mankind, as it is in charge of animals, should look out for them, in such ways as ending whaling, animal abuse, and many other things.  It's just that man comes first.

There, I think that covers everything.  Well, how about it? Clones and testing?  What is your opinion?


(155 replies, posted in Creative)

Man, I wish I could draw that good.

draco fett wrote:

Could you please detail Bossk's win?

Mace may have been a better swordsman, but Palpatine is still more powerful.

Spoiler Alert! Spoiler Alert! Spoiler Alert!

Bossk meets Boba Fett in the cantina.  They talk for a bit and Bossk tells Boba Fett that he has the merchandise that Fett needs.  He tells Fett that he can get a better price from Kaut drive yards but would rather sell it to him, knowing that for fett to have to pay him would be worse that if he (Bossk) killed him (Fett).  Fett says that this is true, and points a blaster at Bossk's head.  Bossk and Fett have a quick disscution about this, with Bossk just about to cave in and give the location of the merchandice to Fett, when, to Fett's surprise, he says no and tells Fett to go ahead and shoot him.  The proprieter of the cantina walks up and attempts to break up the situation, which ends up with him on the buissness end of Fett's blaster.  Fett tells him to transfer all of his funds to Bossk's account, minus a five precent fee for himself (the cantia owner, not fett).  Bossk, stunned, ask why when fett tels him that he won, and asks for the location of the Data.  Bossk tells him, still in a semi-dazed state.  When fett leaves, the entier cantina breaks out into applause for Bossk, with him being congradulated with a "We don't like you anymore than we used too, we've just never seen anyone do that before, not with Fett at least." 

And yes, I admit that palpatine is more powerful.  I just said that Mace beat him in the duel, which is also true.

Thylacine wrote:

Can someone point me to the parts where Bossk won in the Bounty Hunter Trilogy? Because I seemed to have missed them...

See the part in "Hard Merchandise" where Bossk and Boba Fett meet in the cantina.  Bossk wins. It is a diffrent sort of win, but it is still a win. It was their last meeting, at least as far as Wookipedia was concerned.

Draco: Alo is my brother, and we live in the same house.  It was a joke.  And Mace is the better Dulist, as far as sabers are concerned.  Both times we see palpitine fight, he wins by use of the force, not saber.  He had lost his saber before Anikin arrived.  He also used his lightning after Anikin arrived, and don't tell me he didn't try to kill mace with it.  The faking that he was too weak to continue was good acting on his part.  In his battle with yoda he attempts to flee rather than fight and once the battle begins, he quickly resorts to using the force to hurl the Senate at the diminuitive master.  Palpatine attempts the same trick he used on Anikin with Luke, and failing at that, again resorts to using the force.  That is always been where his strength was, in manipulation and use of the force, not in saber skills.

Alo Fett wrote:

Force Master R you loser.

watch it, I know where you sleep.

draco fett: Have you never read the bounty hunter wars?  I did because my bro left it in the bathroom and it was somthing I hadn't read for the 18th time.  And Mace was winning because of his own skill, it was just planing on Palpatines part for Anikin to show up.  I can hear Windu's spirt form talking to Yoda now: "And I would have won too, if it wasn't for that meddling kid!"   and I joined to participate in the debate on the whales and got hooked.  Curse these intresting forms.

My top ten countdown:
10.Bossk, simply because he "beats" Boba Fett
9.Mace Windu, simply because he killed Jango and beat Palpitine.
8.RC-1262 "Scorch", my only non-movie pick
7.Darth Maul
4.Darth Vader
3.Aayla secura
1.Plo Koon
Yeah, I'm not a fett fan. smile


(155 replies, posted in Creative)

I like your style of drawing.  Very nice.


(57 replies, posted in Fans)

Fetterthanyou wrote:

Thye need to install the punch-o-matic. If you computer / game console picks up any spam, trolling, or completely annoying online behavior it throws a punching glove and socks you in the face. Oh if only...

I personaly favor a "blue screen of death" with the message "You are a moron. Your harddrive has been erased as punishment. Have a nice day."

And as for peta, I think that any organization that tries to promote there cause by using a combonation of petty insults, illogical comparisons, and terrorist tactics is not to be taken seriously, exept for charges of criminal stupidity.


(57 replies, posted in Fans)

green helmeted fett wrote:

blah, blah

The Yautja wrote:

Now look here.  You are really starting to **** me off.  Everyone here has been extremely patient with you and your spamming, and has tried to help you.  If you're not going to learn, you'd better leave the site now, because it's only going to go downhill from here.

There's a good debate idea, "What should be done with spammers, trolls, and those noobs who cuss unceasingly in online video games?"


(57 replies, posted in Fans)

The Yautja wrote:

I also do not like to see animals suffer from someones malice or carelessness.  I have quite a few pets myself, and I like most animals.  (Except dogs)  I enjoy hunting because it's a challenge, just like many of the other things I do.   When you hunt, you are always taught to kill the animal as quickly as possibly in order to cause it as little discomfort as possible.

Force Master R,  you do have some very good arguments, but what exactly do you mean when you say tweak?  You keep saying it, and I have to admit, it is slightly annoying.

By "tweak" I mean I like to annoy people by posting or saying comments that use ones own comments against them in a debate.  For example, I had a friend brag that their brother was perfectly behaved vs my little brother who was a terror.  I responded by saying that children who are too perfect as children grow up to be Sociopaths.  She said that she was perfect as a child. I responded with "I rest my case."  It also works in the same way I posted in response to Fetterthanyou, who was a good sport about it.

Devil Girl: Bravo! I enjoy talking (or in this case, posting) with people who can keep a level head in a debate and who can cook a good steak as well.

and by the way, has the subject changed from "hunting and peta" to "could I knock out a rabbit with a red rider at 5 yards"?


(57 replies, posted in Fans)

BFFC Admin wrote:

This topic may not belong here at The Boba Fett Fan Club. To reiterate item 6 in the posted rules:

Abbreviated: Rules - Item 6: USAGE OF THIS BOARD wrote:

* You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this board to post any material which is:
abusive, hateful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violates any law.
* You agree to be respectful of other users.

Hmmm... I geuss the question is will my "tweaking" of people be disrespectful of others.  I will not post any coments that are intentionaly hatefull or malicious.  My brother tells me that he has seen people use profanity on other forums, espetial in reference to Jango.  I try to refrain from profanity, exept  in the use of comman phrases or in reference to others profanity.  Sexualy oreinted posts, privicy invation, and law breaking are not things I would even think of doing. They hinder logical disscution. What would happen is if people posted a comment that gave me a chance to "tweak" them, I probably would.  It wouldn't be hurtful, just annoing.  If you still think that this thread is a bad idea, then please post and I will cease and desist.

And now for responses:
Draco: What did you mean by the threads you posted at the top?  Were they topic Ideas or were they just there to show my some other threads to post on?

cujo: While it is true that the treads could get tangeled, I hope to keep that from happening by responding to whatever topic is currently the one everyone is posting about, currently Hunting and PETA.  And I agree with you that passionite people often become blinded by their goals, but peta intential goes to the extreme intentionaly, trying to tick people off.  And it oftan blows up in their face, such as when they ran aground on a reef they were trying to protect.

Devil girl: I'm not sure about fox hunting.  I need to know more about it before I can make a ruling on it.  Please send me a source or two (and its best that they not be connected to peta in any way.) 
As for hunting, what you say is true with causing as little pain as possible.  I really have no opion on sport hunting, pity, seeing as this is currently the topic of choise.  And yes, I personaly think that you can be an animal rights activist and eat only veggies, just don't get in my face when I start grilling my steaks, which I need to do now and so I'll end my post here.


(57 replies, posted in Fans)

Well, here it is.  Anything you want to debate, post it here.  Global warming, evolution, immigration, Suns vs Spurs, whatever.  This is where the titans can clash and where only the brave dare to post.  As I've said before I enjoy "tweaking" people and so must warn that while my arguments are logical, they are not kind.  If you are a sensitive person, be advised not to make trivial posts.  To see an example of the way I post, see "The whales are going to lose" thread.  With that said, let the debate begin!


(29 replies, posted in Fans)

1st, you deservied that duh. Sorry if it offended you.
2nd, yes, I'm going to have to start a form to answer questions and debate on evolution, natural selection, global warming, and anything else that lets me "tweak" people.  Let the logical fallices and flaming begin!


(29 replies, posted in Fans)

Devil Girl wrote:
Force Master R wrote:

1.You can belive that we've screwed up, I'm perfectly happy with the way the world is.  Except for there being no more unicorns.  I heard they were tasty.

2. Well, it sure has putus on top of the food chain and in the lead of the evolutionary chain, if you belive in that kind of stuff.

1, I also believe that we have screwed up on many occasions and will continue to screw up on many occasions. We are not living in harmony with the environment and are taking much more than we are putting back. If we carry on like what we are now we will destroy all that we enjoy. It might be nice at the moment but it will not be long before it gets very ugly.

2, I do understand what you are saying but I think that the only reason that we are as successful as we are is because of the things that we use (though from my point of view we have gone too far and it has led toward a slightly arrogant attitude towards other animals…which lets not forget it we are) there are plenty of top predators that would easily kill us if we are with out the things that we rely on to protect us and increase our attack abilities. We might have made ourselves the top of the chain but I do not believe that we actually belong there.

1. Well, yeah we make mistakes, we are only human.  But, as humans we are sart enough to correct our mistakes.  It all comes down to determining what is a mistake and what is simply a disagreement.  The Chenobel Nucular incedent? Mistake.  Greenpeace running agound on ta reef? Mistake. Us eating hambugars? Disagreement. Global Warming? That is yet to be seen which it is.  And this is again a whole new subject, and best settled on a different form.

2. Duh.  That's how you get ahead.  Think about it. A single ant isn't much of a threat, but the strength of a colony is enough to make even an elephant run.  A cobra doesn't use's poison to make it a much greater threat than it would be with out it.  We, while not having strength, poison, armour, wings, gills or claws, make it to the top by using our wits to give us the edge.  Man hasn't always had guns, but even then we were still the top dog.  By an evolutionary perspective, we deserve our spot because of our inteligence.  If the other animals want to get ahead, they need to work smarter, not harder.


(29 replies, posted in Fans)

Fetterthanyou wrote:

Well I'm very glad that this post was much more informative and less threatening.
1. I don't self Loathe, "Damn Us" was just a way of saying we've screwed up, which in undeniably true.

2. While I see what you're saying, it is not exactly "Adapting." Adapting would be for us to change for our surroundings. What you are describing is human desire NOT to adapt. We decided to be stubborn and refuse adaptation (Which I am not saying is a bad thing, just completely different)

3. I really don't think theres much more to say

4. I just can't believe that the Earth could be less than a few million years old. 10,000 would mean that humans were on Earth for like 50% of its existence... so where do the Dinosaurs and the beings before them fit in? After all that I've read and from past science classes, my guess is a little less than a billion.

1.You can belive that we've screwed up, I'm perfectly happy with the way the world is.  Except for there being no more unicorns.  I heard they were tasty.

2. Well, it sure has putus on top of the food chain and in the lead of the evolutionary chain, if you belive in that kind of stuff.

3. Yeah, there really isn't.

4.  This is a completely diffrent topic.  If you want to talk about this topic, it is best to probably do it on another form.


(29 replies, posted in Fans)

Fetterthanyou wrote:

First I would like to say that anyone who says "So in conclution, go damn yourself" obviously doesn't have a sense for debate. Just because your idea clashes with mine doesn't mean I'm wrong.

The "So in conclution, go damn yourself" was in reference to your "Damn us" comment.  I was saying to keep your self loathing to yourself.

Fetterthanyou wrote:

As for the other things you said:
"If we are smart, and evolution is correct, we will alter the enviroment so as to best suit our needs for survival"

No... Actually that is not evolution. Evolution is Adapt to your surrounding to survive. Not change your surroundings to survive. Darwin used birds with different beaks to prove evolution. In each area birds had different beaks as they needed to get to whatever food was there. Long beaks for reaching through holes or strong beaks for breaking nuts.

Adaptation takes many forms.  Some birds migrate to climates that fill their needs.  I'm positive that would be considerd as adaptation by evolutionary standerds.  So, altering the enviroment to suit your needs is simply the ultimate form of adaptation.  Side effects of migraton: Sore wings (or feet, or fins, depening on species), possibility of getting lost or dieing on the trip, customs, unshakable "migrant" label, boader wars, and large travel expenses.  Side effects of enviroment alteration: Extinction of native species, unfavorable atmospheric conditions, waste accumilation, possible global destruction, and greenpeace.  I'm not here to debunk evolution, the scientests themselves have done that for me and I have no wish to open the can of worms that is the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate.  I'm just stating how natural selection or "survival of the fittest" works.  If you can't adapte fast enough, you die, along with the rest of your species.  Or, as i like to say, "If you can't stand the mutations, then get out of the gene pool"

Fetterthanyou wrote:

"**** happens, so save the whales".
I really don't see how my post can be summed up that way... I realize that DevilGirl already posted on the subject so I shortened it not to repeat her. I was trying to state that these people are not going to just say "Well Whaling is gone i'll go die now." People have the instinct to survive. I agree that things should be put in place to help them, but not everyone can be helped.

If you were simply shortening her post, then sorry, but you left out the part of helping those who make their living by whaling.  Yes, there will be those who refuse help, and those that will resist change untill it is forced upon them, but you can change how the change hapens.  It can make the difference between how the Brits ended slavery and how we ended slavery.  Civil War over whaling? Possibly.

Fetterthanyou wrote:

Ps. It has not been PROVED that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. It has not yet been accepted as the theory for which science bases itself.

Yes, this is true, but it can also be proved that the world isn't "Billions and Billions" of years old.  The two camps have been at it for years.  I personaly think that the earth is over ten thousand years old.  Why? Because while the biblical timeline points out to ten thousand years, that the time from when man was created.  The earth was around before their was light, so it's possible that the earth is older and younger than both camps think.


(29 replies, posted in Fans)

I'm not saying that evolution says we should kill the whales.  I'm just saying that it says that if we do kill the whales than they simply wern't evolved enough to survive.  And if evolution is correct, why should we give other species a chance to catch up with us?  If we wish to survive, we should only encourage the survival of species that are benificial to us.  Now this is NOT my point of view.  I think that man should watch out for the animals, which includes the whales.  I'm just explaining how evolutionary thinking works when taken to task.


(29 replies, posted in Fans)

Hey First time here.
My brother "Alo Fett" asked me to come and aid him in explaning his point of veiw.  Now I'm not as nice as my brother and I enjoy "tweaking" people, so this might get ugly.  That and I'm grilling burgers right now and can't take the time to be civil or to do properly correct spelling and quote formats.

"It's not that we should save these whales because they are too helpless, it is our responsibility to save them because it's our fault. These whales are in trouble because of us, not because of their own mistakes or misgivings"
True.  My brother thinks that whaling is horrible and should be stopped.  He also thinks that it is our responsibility to save them.  He just thinks that we should make sure that the whalers have other jobs and traning first.  Save the whales, just don't screw the people while your at it.

"And Whaling is the solution to no running water? And there are MANY other things you can use other than whale blubber"
My brother is not saying that whaling is the answer to the worlds problems or that we need whaling to survive.  What he saying is that people need money to survive, and that to just outright ban whaling is basicly sentencing them to death.

"Yes we should consider the people who are whaling, but as has been stated, this stuff has happened before. The situation you described has happened many times to people during technological revolutions. Its harsh, but it happens, and these people are not going to be completely useless. Most whalers have a skill in fishing or shrimping as well as whaling. (Also, maybe try some grammar checks on you work...)"
If you're going to wail on someone for lousy grammer, pick on bats.  I can't even tell what he's trying to say...
The difference between your post and Devil Girl's (great post by the way) is that she said that "There must be help available so that they can do that." and thinks about the people as well as the whales vs you who basically be summed up as saying "**** happens, so save the whales".  And have you never heard the song "The Downeaster "Alexa"" by Billy Joel?  It's hard to get a job fishing, especially in a place like Japan, where they are currently overfishing.  Oh whoops. Sorry.  I geuss your post says "**** happens, so save the whales and screw the fish".

"Evolution does not say "Those who are on top can do whatever they want", It is "Survival of the fittest". If we are as smart and fit as we think we are, we will be intelligent enough to save the enviroment that we destroyed in the first place. I am NOT a tree hugger or a big environmental activist, but I have the commen sense to realize that we have destroyed this planet that spawned us. Damn us"
What do you think "Survival of the fittest" means?  It means that if you're evolved you get to do as you please at the expense of those who faild to evolve.  That's what evolutionary theroy is.  If we are smart, and evolution is correct, we will alter the enviroment so as to best suit our needs for survival.  If it means killing whales so as to rub out compition, so be it.  We killed off the Dodos and nobody got hurt.  Heck, we've destoyed more critters than the last four Ice Ages.  If the whales were ment to survive, they'd evolve a way to survive, such as evolving toxic blubber, or by being so damn pathetic that people will kill themselves rather than watch them suffer.  If we destoyed our planet, people will go the way of the dinosaur and some other way animal will become the dominate species, albit one that can live in toxic sludge.  So in conclution, go damn yourself.