Discussion TabletopGame / GeniusTheTransgression

Not if the milk is normal milk. If it has any special effects, then it would probably count as "In Pill Form" and thus not suffer havoc unless a mere mortal tries to analyse it.

I don't know too much about Randall Munroe, but I think he'd be more of a Staunen, given his range of interests and the enormous degree of curiosity it would've taken to accrue the knowledge base he shows off in xkcd. To me, being a Hoffnung implies a grand vision for transforming the world, plus the willingness to get one's fingers in the pie to work toward it. As Moochava writes, being a genius lessens one's ability to articulate ideas to other people, so if there are any geniuses among notable public figures past or present, they'd have to be extraordinary.

Depending on how good of a job he does holding on to power, I might be able to make a case for Vladimir Putin being a Neid. And I'd put Neal Stephenson in the Staunen boat with Randall Munroe.

"A supporter once called out, 'Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!' And Adlai Stevenson answered, 'That's not enough.

Show at least one example where Gt T is mentioned bulleted under nWoD, without a mention that this is a fan-line. Then I'll believe you are more then a blind hypocritical hater.

Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

Woah, calm down, dude. Original Poster makes a good point, regardless of whatever personal motives you may or may not believe were behind it. Just remember that, if you find a mention where it isn't made clear it's fan-made, then the right thing to do is edit that.

Blind hypocritical hater? All I'm asking is that editors place Genius examples in its own subsection, not under general world of darkness, and that makes me a hater? Save your irrational hatred for Dave Brookshaw and Malcolm Sheppard; they're the Mage freelancers and they said that Genius isn't appropriate for the World of Darkness. If you want to insult anyone, insult them, not me.

Edited by Zenoseiya

I'd say that making cash with Inspiration is about as easy as making cash without it. I'd say that there's three level of problems.

The first level, which eliminates the craziest of the Inspired is insanity. They can't think past the obvious, it never occurs to them that "maybe with my knowledge of mad geology there are better ways to make money than tunnel into banks, perhaps I can locate oil for money."

Those who have the madness in check hit problem 2: Jabir. Yes you have the oil map, or your Automata computer can render the new Transformers film for 1/100th of the cost of the server farm they're using now, or you can get satellites into space. But can you walk into Nasa and sell that without looking like an absolute lunatic? Remember: turning up to the meeting in a flying car can convince anyone, but will probably create at least one Beholden or Genius.

Now that eliminates most of the Inspired, but still leaves a very large population who are sane enough to come up with a good idea, and have some system to defeat Jabir (Director's Grant, Automata replica, beholden representatives, really good social skills). They hit the final problem, how many satellite launchers does Nasa need? One guy with Skafoi 3 could probably match the whole of real world Nasa.

Most of the good jobs: Satellite guy, government seer, running "the cloud" on a single computer. There's a lot more applicants than places. Other jobs, like "alternative medicine" and aids cures. There's a stable living there, but charging 5 million because you're the only guy in the world who can cure Aids only works until guy #2 starts charging 5 thousand. There's probably a steady income to be made running an "alternative" pharmacy but it's not going to make you super rich.

So long story short. Nothing about Havoc or Inspiration stops Geniuses from making cash: There might only be room for one NASA satilight guy, but he's rolling in money. A Genius just needs to be a skilled entrepreneur as well as a skilled mad scientist.

Edited by TheKingsRaven

I say keep them until we find more official quotes that describe the Baramins' personalities.

I also admit I screwed up on interpreting the Eternal September trope and the Numericals.

Crazy awesome indeed. So I'll propose that you only need Apokolypsi 2 to do so, thus justifying why you'd want to use this instead of the easy way. I'd also say Academics instead of Computer for the human mind.

Mage the Awakening lets you do exactly what you said by astrally projecting into someone's Oneiros. So a Genius could do the same thing with a time machine.

People are idiots.

More seriously…

People are idiots. There's no actual reason to include the trope, for the same reason one doesn't need to include Doing In The Scientist/Wizard on any of the other gamelines's pages just because that's a thing that can theoretically be done within the framework of the game.

Caption needed.
Really, caption needed. I can't think of a sutable one.

Edited by Tambov333 Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

Directors are undeniably Leader Guys and the general slant of Artificers seems to bias them towards a foiling role.

Your preferences that the setting be less bleak aside, the book makes it pretty clear that Jabir makes regular healthy knowledge-based interaction with the normals difficult — we're talking one point of Mania per turn to shut off the Jabir and geniuses are not, on balance, healthy people.

One point per roll actually and look at the Resources rules: "To keep the money flowing, the Storyteller may call for a check once a month...". If you're going to say those rules are a little too generous I won't disagree, but I never said it's "easy", only the Geniuses who try are a natural fit for Directors.

BTW, on an unrelated note, which story does "The sourcebook details one character who killed the man responsible for her Breakthrough almost immediately after going mad." refer too? Is it the first one? I always though he died of natural causes right about the point he dropped the gun.

Directors don't have to want power in itself; especially Principalities/Cassandras would only value "power" (Status, resources etc.) as a mean to an end (pushing your thesis etc.)

Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

True, but they have to be interested in power as a concept. Sure you can just ignore that bit but I'd have liked more support for Directors who just plain aren’t interested in power. They're teachers, lecturers, authors or managers (who see management as a job to do, not position of authority).

The point I'm trying to make is that staving off Jabir with the Directors' Grant costs Mania and regular interaction in which Jabir interferes means losing a lot of Mania. (What's your point in bringing up Resources?)

I am curious as to how Keiko Takamori fits either of these claims.

Also, Directors aren't the only ones who can take leadership positions.

The advice given for university position under Resources says "make one roll per month" and the Directors grant says one mania per roll. I did say I thought taking those two literally for one mania per month is too lax, but since it's once per roll (Wo D Core puts a performance with Expression as a single roll) not once per turn a careful Director could do it. Anyway that's entirely beside the point: I was saying that a genius who tries is probably a Director, whether they succeed or not is irrelevant.

Um, how did Keiko Takamori come up?

No they're not, but while I approve of non stereotypical characters management positions is part of the Director's hat.

Edited by TheKingsRaven

Except there are other situations where Jabir can come up and tries what? Management? The Directors's shtick is that debate is the most vital part of mad science, just like the Scholastics' is research and the Artificers' is creation; defining them by the presence of businessmen among their ranks makes about as much sense as defining them by their inclusion of wannabe Bond villains or saying that you can't have a mechanical Progenitor.

She is a Director. She is not a manager, nor does she seem overly interested in power.

Well the rules as raw just ignore those other situations for the day job, I'm not sure they should but then I didn't write it. It's not the presence of businessmen I'm talking about, but the first paragraph under Members: it seems so final about everyone caring about power. Incidentally it does in fact explicitly say you can have a mechanical Progenitor.

Keiko is the sort of Director I want (Grace is an even better example). All I said is that is that I wish there was more about that kind of Director in the Foundation chapter.

("The rules as [rules as written]", you say.) No, it skims over them in the name of narrative expediency. Were a character placed in a scene involving their Jabir-risky job, they would not suddenly have Jabir cease to be a problem at all. (And yes, that would be my point.)

Why would you have a problem with Directors being generally interested in power? The point of the "power" focus seems to be simply to emphasize that these are people who know how to get things done. It's very broad; should I be worried about the Scholastic writeup because it suggests all Scholastics love riddles?

Edited by WonSab

Um, that's what I've been saying. By skimming over all that in the name of narrative expediency players have a much easier time avoiding Jabir than a genius logically would. A typical game won't have many scenes where the charachter stands and lectures his students.

"generally interested in power" isn't the issue. It's words like "every" that I have an issue with. (Including Scholastics, but "Riddles" is much broader than "Power", pretty much any big question counts.) And sometimes I want to work with a Director who isn't a "get things done" sort of person. Like the teacher example, low politics, subterfuge and persuasion but great expression.

Edited by TheKingsRaven

…

Well, Todd Logan is a Grimm Director; his character concept should interest you.
BTW, Raven: It's Staunen, not "Stunnan". You managed to rape the German language as well.

Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

Frankly I think the Ascension IN SPACE stuff is getting to be a little stretched, considering that what little of Genius (terminology aside) does match up with Ascension's concepts matches up in the exact opposite way — The Consensus determines what's not real rather than determining reality itself.

The picture seems okay, but it's a bit big compared to the other WoD page-pictures.

Edited by WonSab

The picture is too awesome for size to matter ;)

I'd agree that it's the exact opposite to Ascension's concepts but for different reasons: The Consensus dosn't have any affect on what's real or not: Mane's are described as "not actually being real" and even then, reality itself dosn't change, it's just that one part of reality is psychoreactive. you probably* couldn't change the nature of Mania by manipulating the consensus.

IMO that's the biggest complaint I have against the "just use Mage" theory of mad/superscience in the Wo D. Both Mage cosmologies are incompatible with scientific rationalism, Genius can at least coexist since the Consensus is right about most things that aren’t Mania.

• I say probably, I have no idea what happens if the Consensus was to disprove a theory that "mad scientists have supernatural abilities to invent physics breaking wonders". Either they'd just create a lot of Inspired manes or as they say: hilarity will ensue.

Edited by TheKingsRaven

Manes and Bardos were what I was referring to. (There are other psychoreactive places, to pick a nit.)

Edited by WonSab

IMHO Awakening's Mages use their Arcananoi(sp?) like a lasso to drag down Supernal Realms' Natural Laws into the Fallen World. Sleepers don't aggravate Paradox per se; they cancel the opposing mitigating effect of Mages and Sleepwalkers (and other Supernaturals)

Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

(Arcana is the plural form; Arcanum is the singular.)

Word from the books is that the sympathy Sleepers possess with the Abyss is what causes them to aggravate Paradox.

The Illuminated plainly aren't Empty Shells. (Neither are Clockstoppers, for that matter.) Read the trope.

At its most basic, Light Is Not Good involves a character who actually has an association with light. Charismatic, religious, stuff like that. The Illuminated are simply Geniuses who have been overcome by the light of Inspiration — part of the paranoia they engender as a story element is due to the fact that they can pass for their old selves with ease. There is nothing inherently "Light" about them. Feel free to draw that connection (along with the pre-FREUDIAC angel-type designations) to Inspiration and Genius as a concept, but the Illuminated deserve no such particular mention.

Edited by WonSab

Ok what I understood is:

1. Illuminated are The Soulless.
2. Whatever you (and likely most Tropers) come from does not use the Light=Knowledge trope extencively(sp?), unlike, for example, Soviet Russia Ukraine And So On.

P.S. What do you think about the picture proposal? I though I´d make the picture and put it here when it is agreed on.
P.P.S. What SabreJustice most likely meant is that we should quote other Templates (VtR, WtF, CtL, PtC, GtS, maybe HtV) Just for Fun (a.k.a. For the Lulz).

Edited by Tambov333 Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

Pay attention, please: the Illuminated deserve no such particular mention. There's nothing the Illuminated have that any other morally questionable Genius doesn't have. Literary light-knowledge equivalency does not make a cogent argument for claiming that the Illuminated are an example of Light Is Not Good.

I think five pictures is a bit much. Possibly look for a tableau of some sort.

Given that the conversation in question ended months ago and it was rather obvious, I don't think your pointless accusation of flaming was called for or even remotely wise. And given the presence of the section on other supernaturals in the book, I think we can safely infer the reactions of the Big Three. (Also, Mein Gott, the fact that Werewolf: The Forsaken happens to make an acronym stopped being funny years ago.)

To clarify:

I mentioned the Illuminated in particular because 1) they are particulary Flanderized Unfettered Mad Scientists and therefor take any science related symbolism Up To Eleven and 2) having grown up among egregious amount of Enlightment symbolism, I naturally assumed Light symbols apply to scientists even more than to priests.

I was thinking about a tablaeu of some sort (2 panels high * 3 wide, the question and 5 answers).

Fuck you, Jabir.

Yes, I missed the date, my fault. It was looking like a Flame War starting. Flaming tends to hulk me out. Evil Me Scares Me. I paniced.

(The Accidental Innuendo (as well as egregious above) was meant completely seriously. It only started being funny once you pointed that out. I lol'd.

Edited by Tambov333 Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

Thing is, there's two basic types of Illuminated — there's your cackling, unrestrained mad scientists along the lines of that guy from the start of Batman And Robin, which tend not to last long without bringing some Wonders to bear; and the subtler ones, who are more or less indistinguishable from any other unmada until you find the vivisection rig in their basement. And, occasional delusions of godhood aside, you won't usually find any more of them playing up the light symbology than you would any other genius.

Not quite what I meant.

(Funny thing: Jabir's not simple miscommunication. It's an inadvertent assault on the mortal mind.)

I am a dour man.

So, there are Illuminated who just play the Mad Science tropes Up To Eleven, like Poison Ivy´s ex-boss - and then there are the Devil in Plain Sight one, like Patridge Crown in the Examples or Lucrezia Mongfish. Got it.
What I meant was that for me, light symbolism is intinsic to science. I always had to think "Oh, angels" when when confronted with light symbolic for religion, rather than the opposite.

"Living desk". Ok. My examples most likely won´t fit, then. Maybe Those Fools at the Institute fighting Megiddo´s Electric Assasins. Dr. Vienna as The Hero with his Ray Pistol and Screaming Sam as The Big Guy with his Instrument of Murder (Back-to-Back Badasses), Ms Calabash expading her shielding field,Kianni Stole is...difficult, there also was someone else... I think I settle for Vienna, Paluzzi and Calabash. Maybe Banderling too.

I meant the part where you start seeing patterns that aren´t really here.

I am The Stoic, too...mostly. Or was? By the way, if you look at this discussion right, it starts looking like a very complicated Sokka joke.

Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

And most of us draw the far broader initial conclusion when confronted with Light symbolism. But I'm digressing here; to repeat: there's nothing about the Illuminated that shows that Light Is Not Good more than Inspiration in general.

Moochava's Soup for the game could be handy for idea-mining. To give an example or three...

That's more a result of Inspiration turning your brain into a supercollider.

How so?

The book does mention a bit about the interactions between Geniuses and the other big three supernaturals, but since it's fan made stuff, you'd have to ask Moochava for more info, let alone quotes.

"Wow. Sarcasm. That's original." -Dr. Horrible

The quotes in question only really exist from their own splat's perspective, Sabre — notice that the Genius book has nothing on what Prometheans have to say about Geniuses. And since Genius is a fan-made line, those quotes don't exist. Further, those quotes tend to be limited to views on the big three even in the limited lines.

Well I can for sure that the Frankenstein Promethians quote would be: "They're just like him!" They say that about mages so for actual mad scientists it's a given.

Raven, I'm pointing out a principle that can be summed up as "the splatbooks don't have quotes from other splats on that splat." You could replace Genius and Promethean with any other splats in that example and it would still be true.

Where as I was ignoring such technicalities and answering the OP's question of what another splat would say about the Inspired.

Big "NO!" not again please stop flaming right now.

Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

OK back to topic.

Someone said here that old Mages would mistake a Genius for a Technocrat.
My 2 cents on the matter:

• It´d get worse with the Garou.
  • Expect for Children of Gaia and Glass Walkers, that is.
    • Gaians would try to "cleanse the Wyrm´s taint".
    • Glass Walker Beholden = WIN.
      • Glass Walker Lupus Kinfolk Beholden = Awesome, but Impractical.
• Vampires: largely indifferent, expect for Tzimisce and Nosferatu (and Beckett) showing interest and trying to embrace them.

Sadly, can´t say anything about the new WOD without reading the tempate books first.

Edited by Tambov333 Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.

Good to see you think I'm contesting things for no reason.

The trope isn't averted in any manner worthy of note. It just doesn't show up. That's a vanilla aversion, which, as a general rule, we don't bother sticking in the examples. Further, the note you stuck to it, "Equal to a human," says nothing to do with that trope; in the context of the trope it's like saying that a mindless zombie or a brick wall is equal to a human (as lacking a specifying statement leads to the assumption that the entirety of the trope's purview is taken into account), which is not how things work in Genius.

If you must put it in, at least bother with a complete sentence, e.g. "As far as your Obligation is concerned, possessing intelligence is all something needs to be considered equal to a human," "It's equal to a human if it's intelligent," or something clearer than "equal to a human."

Tangent: For the record, a frustrated Lampshade Hanging of our continual disagreements by referring to you as "my eternal nemesis" is not even remotely the same thing as declaring myself your nemesis and that you appear to have taken it that way is both irritating and frustrating. (And a little annoying, too.) We have differing opinions on things and I am a little high-strung. Your inability to use commas or spell words like "paradigm" correctly, explained or otherwise, rubs me the wrong way. We are capable of agreement, as has been demonstrated in the past.

Just getting that off my chest.

Edited by WonSab

It is averted in a manner worthy of note. Under Obligation and the laws of the peerage the source book explicitly goes out of its way to say that non-humans count equally to humans. I have no objection to a longer sentence though.

Current draft (short and sweet) What Measure Is a Non-Human?: If you're Intelligent it's exactly the same as a human.

Tangent: So turning up on my project just to spread vitriol isn't some sort of nemesis point scoring? And for the record I was not the only one who thought that was a pointless flame.

Edited by TheKingsRaven

Suggesting changing the "you're" to "it's" or vice-versa and de-capitalizing "Intelligent." Alternately, the quote from the book may work, i.e.:

What Measure Is a Non-Human?: "Killing people -- geniuses, mortals, thinking manes, other intelligent beings -- is wrong. So is beating them up, stealing their stuff, and otherwise engaging in criminal violations of their persons or property."

Tangent: No, just you and the guy who somehow thought that making a fan game is the same thing as using other games' work without being up front about it. My problem, incidentally, was not with copyright. It was with the lack of anything within the thread to the effect of, "By the way guys, I used the regeneration costs from Genius and the transformed-noticeability rules from Leviathan as bases for these Debt-payment methods" that I was asking about. The lack of any acknowledgement that those were not your own work smacks of plagiarism, which, to the best of my knowledge, "stealing" is a moderately acceptable alternative term for. Further, I do not think you know what "vitriol" means. The comments were meant in an "oh, by the way" manner. I realize it's difficult to consistently discern tone on the internet and my general pissyness of late probably didn't help matters, but that was not intended as vitriol.

Edited by WonSab

I went with the first option. It was shorter and sweeter.

Tangent: Considering how just a couple of points ago you were bitterly complaining that you’d been misinterpreted maybe you shouldn’t try turning State of Kung-fusion’s post into a strawman. Or maybe consider that if no one agreed with you there’s a reason for that.

“Great artists steal” has been the accepted practice since well before Picasso said those exact words. Moochava stole the Martin Empire from H.G. Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs, (uncredited). White Wolf did not invent the idea of dicepool mechanics. Everyone steals Dwarves from Tolken. I can count at least four separate people whose ideas I put into “The Plutocracy” (I doubt they’d recognise the result though). The list goes on and all those are far more important things to steal than a few numbers. There’s a reason copyright law explicitly say’s what I did is ok; only the actual expression of an idea is protected.

And as for an “oh by the way” manner. You really need to learn to express yourself better, your post read like a passive aggressive laden flame (I am not the only one who thought so) and to anyone who knows “great artists steal” it’s such a pointless thing to bring up that combined with the perceived vitriol its hard to find any motive besides spite.

P.S. The page you gave for vitriol links to invective and vituperation, both fit the tone of your post.

P.S.2. Stealing is considered an acceptable word for copyright by the media companies; to a lot of other people its use is a deliberate attempt to make breach of copyright sound criminal.

(Ah, this feels like old times :) )

Edited by TheKingsRaven

[Entirely Tangent post]

a. His line was, literally, "Have you forgotten that, technically, we're all 'stealing' from White Wolf by using their base system?" which, as I just pointed out, is making a supplement for an existing game and so credit is implied in the whole "fan-game for the World of Darkness" bit. In what way is it a strawman to say that he completely missed my point? b. I think it's been well-established that clear communication is a strong suit neither of us possesses.

Here you seem to have zeroed in on the copyright argument I wasn't making. I'm not saying it's illegal, I'm saying it's lazy.

Yes, you can just feel the acrid, burning, sulfuric-acid-like scorn radiating from this post in which I use no italics, bold, underlines, egregious capital letters, or other methods of emphasis that usually mark my actual vitriolic lines. Come on, man. You've known me for nearly a year, it's not that hard to miss.

Xbox: Which would be wonderful except for that whole "none of the usual formatting indicators of abusive language" thing.

Xbox 360: Again, not copyright I'm worried about.

Edited by WonSab

[entirely tangent thread]

He was responding to the point you made not the point you wanted to make. You can't use the fact he was talking about theft not plagiarism against him.

And its partly lazy, its mostly a matter of practicality and convention. Its not practical to list everyone I'm copying from because firstly there's hundreds and secondly most of which I don't realise I'm using. All authors do this which leads to a convention where you don't bother compiling a huge list of sources for everything. What I did is perfectly accepted practice among authors, I'd be fine with anyone taking my entire list of prices for Deals.

You have also known me for a year, you know I don't pay much attention to formatting. (And its a public forum, most people wont have known you at all), so yes it's missible for me and very missible for everyone else. Even if you didn't intend it that post was pure vitriol.

P.S. Replace the word “copyright” with “plagiarism” and the point still holds. Replacing a lesser action with the word “stealing” sends a message that you are trying to play up how bad it was, not a good move if you're trying for a friendly “by the way”.

P.S.2. Actually you're the only person who's complained about my communication skills. That includes end users whom I provide technical support too i.e. the marker for hard stuff to explain.

This is rather like saying I'm not allowed to complain when someone mishears something I say as something downright awful. If someone mishears "I don't like those shoes" as an anti-Semitic comment, for instance, the fact that he has blatantly misunderstood me is quite relevant.

Rae, it would have taken you literally two lines in the thread (not even in the PDF, just in the thread) to say that you were using specific game mechanics from other people's work. That you didn't is dishonest and lazy and that you keep insisting it's no big deal is part of the reason I'm continuing to harp on about it.

You've yet to explain how two uses of the word "stealing" (both the same use and both semantically accurate) constitutes vitriol.

GameCube: Just offhand, here's the second sub-definition of "steal" provided by the Dictionary widget on my computer:

"dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own : accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying."

Now, the definition of "plagiarize" from the same dictionary:

"take (the work or idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own."

Both of these words mean the same thing. Both of them are things you did. At no point was I attempting to be friendly in pointing this out; "matter-of-fact" was the intended tone.

Wii: ...Which I had absolutely no way of knowing about and which you had never mentioned before this juncture. Meanwhile, I have roughly a year of miscommunications and argument-from-the-same-side in my experience with you demonstrating that neither of us is terribly good at making our stances clear to the other.

(In case it wasn't clear, I'm poking at the fact that you apparently don't know how to write multiple postscripts — it's "P.P.S." for "post-post-script," not "P.S.2." for "post-script 2." I'd have hoped you'd have caught on after the first instance, but it seems I have to be explicit about it.)

(I'd have gotten back to this earlier, but I've been busy dealing with a greater display of irrationality. Feel free to chip in.)

Edited by WonSab

It dosn't have to be 100% perfect. But you have to avoid flat untruths like saying "its impossible" when it is in fact possible. I can think of legitimate ways to use mania for legal profit, the sourcebook even has a canonical one as a Earth-Mars trader.

…That's not cutting a check, Rae. Read the trope; it's "you'd be a lot better off applying that energy in a more constructive direction," not "lol y dont u use em 2 maek monies?" Geniuses have certain problems that are mentioned as just the justifications for that trope.

We could just mention that Geniuses pretty much hit both the justifications for that trope and then mention Havoc incidentally.

Aside from the fact money is a common "constructive use" under the trope it's an irrelivent point whether I say money or jump starting space travel* its still very hard but possible. We could just use the following:

Cut Lex Luthor a Check / Reed Richards Is Useless: Very hard to avert due to the inherently magical nature of Inspired technology and the mental disorders common to the Inspired.

• By lifting things into orbit with the energy of three hours thinking rather than $450 million. The book even says vary large ships even have special areas to keep mortals from causing Havoc.

Edited by TheKingsRaven

Noteworthy? Last time I checked There Is No Such Thing As Notability.

Edited by Coolzar "Wow. Sarcasm. That's original." -Dr. Horrible