I am sorry I folow my Zodiac sine very well. I will never give up a fight.....never even if I wanted to...that is why people hate me so much at my school since I will almost NEVER say I am wrong. Enlese I have a LOT of proof. Tho anyways, we can have our opinons please do not respond or I will and I will eventualy win since you will get tired of arguing with me :D
Sorry, Wasted, but I have enough siblings, enemies, and a fiance. Not to mention I'm a part of the Huggins family. I don't tire of arguing that easily. It's sad though, that even when you know you are wrong you are incapable of admitting it. That's not a good trait for any leader, especially one who people are supposed to learn from. Although, as with all the ignorant people, others may learn from your mistakes instead of what you consider accomplishments.
i read abit of what you guys said and i still dont know what you are argueing about cause you guys seem to have the same stand
well anyways.
you're arguements are like Yin and Yang.
Wasted and Rag
Yin and Yang
without Wasted reply / arguements there would be NO arguement.
without Rag's reply / arguements there would be NO arguement.
and it applies to Yin and Yang
no Yin , means no Yang.
no Yang, means no Yin.
both needs to be balanced to be Yin&Yang
both needs to be together to have an 'arguement'
just an example i thought
lmao, Zaet I like you. You are right again. I think we both have the same problem though, me and Wasted, we see a post directed at us and have to respond. If I don't then it bothers me and it looks like it probably bothers him too, since he said he didn't want to argue and yet he still is.
I should add, though, that I am kind of enjoying this argument. I don't think Wasted is, but I am. It seems somewhat redundant, but at the same time it's entertaining.
Ragnorok is closest but still wrong. With out light the universe will still exist. The darkness we see at night is not actually absence of light. This is hard to explain but I try.
In our eyes we have rods and cones which react to light, one recieves colour information and one receives black and white information, so when we look(focus) at an object our eyes use the colour information and peripheral vision is black and white(which is more sensitive to colour changes). So when you focus your eyes on a dim star it appears to dissapear, because we don't have enough colour to percieve it. but when we glance at it our peripheral vision will have enough black and white information for us to percieve it. The light emitted from the star does not change.
To understand an absence of light try this. Look straight forward. (the light bounces round in our eyes in all directions but not all of our sides of our eyes have rods or cones)We only see what is infront, but our eyes are round so logic dictates that we should see in all directions. We don't(because some parts of our eyes don't have rods or cones). In the area where there are no rods or cones what colour do you see. If black(darkness) was the absence of light you would see black. There is no colour or perception of colour because of the absence of rods and cones. If you are infact seeing a black area visit an optometrist post haste.
I tried to make that clear but these things are difficult to understand. If you couldn't understand the above. Try this. Theres an apple on the South pole, don't look at it or imagine it. What colour is it?
As for Shadow Queen I doubt your anymore crazy than alot of the people on this site, but on the off chance that you are legit, think very carefully before starting a war. I would advise against any hostile actions!
Nito, I didn't mention the rods or cones of the eyes, but that is basically what I was saying. I think. Perhaps I should have worded what I said better. Oh well, I think the argument is over anyways. :)
