Jump to content

Slaskia

Members
  • Content Count

    2,889
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Slaskia

  1. Go fig...the one Saturday I didn't keep an eye on the boards and there's a release...oh well. Managed to get 3 volcanos and 1 mountain one so far....
  2. Last two hatched green here. Bummer. Wish I had thought about fogging until tonight before hand.
  3. 5 of my 7 hatched so far. 3 from forest, 2 from alpine. All green so far.
  4. So it looks like biome doesn't determine color. Crud...I influenced based on that theory. Now to see if the yellow version is either breed only, or a rare drop: right now I'd prefer the former so my influences don't result in mismatched gendering .
  5. Hmm...I'm going to guess the green one is from Forest and the gold is from Mountain... *will probably be wrong*
  6. Those hatchlings do look familiar. So far no difference between them...may have to wait until they gender. Edit: and of course another one hatches that is different, lol.
  7. Now that I'm over the initial shock (and now fully locked with these)...this is going to be make it a bit tricky to know how to influence. If the difference is due to biome, I'll have to make notes so I don't influence wrong. We'll see when TJ's eggs hatch. That said, I don't like the idea of going back to random releases. I got lucky when it was like that before as I was a more frequent forum goer then...but not now. I don't want to have to stalk the forums every weekend or so....
  8. ACK! I thought the release was at 11(my time) for some reason! *sighs and waits*
  9. Somehow I caught this guy in the AP...despite not noticing it for a second or two....
  10. What? nooo....DX Thing is the location I got at least one of them is wrong. I caught it in the Forest.....
  11. I think it was the wrong egg sprite as well. As I remember not getting any blue ones when I went to each 'caught' page: the 'blue' ones looked like a red/orange version of the neo-tropical eggs at first.
  12. I think there was an egg snafu at the start as well...as my three blue ones are saying they were caught in the 'cave'.
  13. Got some of each! BTW, in the cave, the blue one only had the description 'bluetip'. I think it's fixed now though, looking at them on my scroll.
  14. Ha! I got similar just now, only a Destruction instead of Creation. Though now I have a problem: I was originally going to freeze this third GoN at 2nd stage but since my female one refused my two Dec 21, 2012 caught males, I'm debating influencing and having it grow up female so I can try those males again.
  15. OK, summon is showing up now for those that already have two (I didn't succeed in getting a third, darn) Odd...I could have sworn the cool down was longer...then again, it has been a long time since I got my second GoN.
  16. Bah, GoN x Ember gave me a refusal and GoN x Silver gave no eggs. Guess I'll be working on this for a while.... Summon hasn't reappeared yet on the trio's action pages either.
  17. Actually, I think it's been already proven that we are all racist at least somewhat on a genetic level. There were experiments with babies where they had people of different skin colors look at them: the babies preferred to look at people that had the same skin color as them. Can this be 'grown out of' with proper exposure/education as they grow? Sure. But that this 'preference' exists in even the very young is telling. I'd dig up a source, but my google fu is not very good, and besides, I first heard of this via a TV program. Edit: OK, did a search anyway, and...well, found a lot of sources. I chose this one: http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/04/16/stu...ow-racial-bias/ They call it 'racial bias' in most articles that came up, but a 'bias' could easily be turned into actual racism in the right (or wrong, depending on your PoV) environment.
  18. racĀ·ism [rey-siz-uhm] noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t #2 what you are talking about, right Shiny? However, the other two definitions are more general, which should not be forgotten, which you seem to be trying to do (especially #3). And I still don't like the idea of 'only whites can be racist' (at least in the US), simply because they are a majority (they are actually a minority in some places now: do they lose their 'racist' title in those areas?). But, it seems I am not going to convince you that what you are trying to do I believe would be bad over all. Either everyone can be a racist, or no one can. On a similar note. The word(s) itself (racist/racism), is starting to lose it's impact/meaning overall, because the 'race card' has been pulled way too often and over stupid things. For instance, if you so much as disagree with Obama...you are highly likely to be labeled a racist even though for many people, the color of his skin is not factor in not liking him or his policies.
  19. *checks hers* Hehe, I have a Glaucus Drake that was caught in the Jungle (they originally were spawning in the jungle, not the coast where they belonged). proof
  20. I still think you are trying to make things more 'complicated' than they should be by changing the definition. Not to mention it reeks of making it so only whites can be 'racist' and everyone else get, essentially, a free pass to be racist against them and not get labeled as racist. That's the problem with changing it and that's wrong. 'Cracker' is still used as a derogatory term against whites, Shiny. That's the point I was making. Why should one derogatory term be 'acceptable' while another is not (and let's not forget that many blacks use the N word on each other, which always makes me scratch my head)? Now, I'm not saying I don't recognize the oppression minorities go through, but let's be realistic here. Blacks want to be seen as equals to whites right? Then why should acts of racism toward them get 'preferable treatment' (aka actually called racism)? Why is a white on black crime called a hate crime, but a black on white is not? They are both hate crimes! (it's similar to in the case of domestic assault where if a woman hits a man in front of the cops, the cops do nothing, but the moment the man hits back in self defense, he goes to jail: another one of those double standards, but this is for a different thread). Just as whites are being told it's not OK to discriminate against blacks, blacks should be told it's not OK to discriminate against whites. They should be treated the same!
  21. The problem, Shiny, with trying to 'redefine' racism (as Syaoransbear said: major dictionaries disagree with you), is that it reeks of attempting to marginalize the racism against whites that does happen. As I already mentioned, actual hate crimes against whites are already not being labeled as such a lot of the times (even when the criminal STATES they did it because the victim was white). Racism, no matter who it is against, should be treated the same. Whites are not allowed to call blacks the N word without being labeled a racist, while Blacks can call whites 'crackers' without consequence, for example. That's a double standard. Double standards are bad. That's why I refuse to accept your 'redefinition' of racism, as it reeks of trying to make another double standard.
  22. I honestly don't see the difference. A white being prejudice against a black and a black being prejudice against a white is the same thing, doesn't matter who is in 'power' or not: it's still racism. As for just being 'racist because they are oppressed', that's just going to continue the cycle of racism. Blacks attacking whites because they are white (a hate crime, though more often than not, it's not labeled as such, which is something else that pisses me off: I hate double standards), gives the whites a reason to continue being racist. Then the cycle starts again....
  23. I consider racism to be discriminating against someone because they are a different race than you are. That there are folks that try to limit racism to only mean white on <insert race> galls me. If you (general) discriminate against someone just because they are a different race, that's racism, no matter if your black/white/whatever. Seriously, what will it take for people to realize that? When whites are slaves with the blacks the slave masters? Shouldn't we nip it in the bud before it gets to that point? The sooner we realize that anyone can be racist, the sooner we can all work on trying to stamp it out.
  24. Hmm...nothing was dropping in alpine...so I fille dup on volcano eggs before I saw the news. Oh dear. Looks like i'll be trading a couple eggs again .
  25. While I am glad to see clarification on such matters posted, it's sad that it has to be done in the first place. That said, this must have happened either in section I don't frequent often or while I wasn't looking, though I haven't been very active as of late. I can't help but wonder what happened, though it's not my business to know. You know what they say about curiosity and the cat....