discouragement after seeing 3d animation

[riceface]

Id like to talk about how 3d animation has put a damper on my moral and will to draw.

its obvious 3d is gonna be here forever... after watching 3d animated movies... I think if they make a still shot of any scene at any moment, it'll be better then my drawing, more accurate, perfect lighting, perfect perspective.

dont u guys get kinda bummed about that or is it just me? plus an illustration vs a 3d movie, its hard to believe anyone gets that impress over a drawing anymore. hell even a 3d illustration looks insane at the highest levels

anyone get what im saying or have the same feelings? ive tried 3d and hated it cuz it didn't feel like drawing.

[Maxine Schacker]

Toon Boom's Harmony software is bringing classical animation back to life. This is what both Disney and Warner Bros are using. Keep drawing! Classical has its own special flavor that nothing can replace.

[Hyskoa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidepressant
Enjoy.

[Elwell]

or is it just me?

It's just you. It's always just you.

[Farvus]

I think it's just you.

Pursuing nothing else but photorealistic in drawing or painting leads a bit to blind alley. At the end you can come to these types of conclusion.
The thing is drawing has it's own advantages. For example exaggeration or simplification.

[HunterKiller_]

The people who are making these amazing 3D pictures are probably also decent - if not awesome at drawing.

3D animated movies cannot exist without traditional artists.

[riceface]

u guys comments hilarious, am i that doom and gloom on this forum? sheesh

im just trying to have a discussion here, i thought this part of the forum is to talk about art in general.. not everything is a "how do i use the lasso" "how do i open photoshop" "how do I draw a leg" stuff

this is why im here, the important topics

[Hyskoa]

Depression and self loathing is only an important topic in Heath magazine and deviantart forums.
In the rest of the world however...

[HunterKiller_]

this is why im here, the important topics

You seriously think this topic is important?

[rpace]

Riceface,

Do yourself a favour and look around for some 3D fanart sites. You'll see quite a bit of horribly done 3D "scenes"; poorly composed, poorly staged, poorly posed, poorly rendered, etc. . . and have all the personality of out-of-the box Barbie and Ken dolls. You might not be at the developmental level to see all the errors in most 3D stuff, but, trust me, despite all its programming wizardry most 3D programs have issues that require people who know how to draw and paint to correct.

The tools can only operate within the skills and experience of the user, which is why you have highly talented artists making all the visual decisions in good 3D projects.

~R

[Anid Maro]

its obvious 3d is gonna be here forever... after watching 3d animated movies... I think if they make a still shot of any scene at any moment, it'll be better then my drawing, more accurate, perfect lighting, perfect perspective.

I think you're confused about what the point of illustration is nowadays. Perhaps you should take up photography?

Like said, 3D has it's pros and cons. The primary reason for it's popularity is that 3D artists typically work for slave wages, if they even get paid at all (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=131132).

[shannanigan]

Poser is the Root of all Evil.... seriously. Everybody thinks they are a 3D "artist" now. Kinda like vector tracing over Anime screenshots makes you a Comic Artist... LOL!

One thing to remember is all those 3D movies start with Storyboards and Character Design, environments etc.... which all starts out as sketches and drawings. You have to know proportion, perspective, composition, color... all that good fundamental stuff you get from knowing how to draw 2D.

So keep on drawing! :D

[BubbaGump]

Id like to talk about how 3d animation has put a damper on my moral and will to draw.

its obvious 3d is gonna be here forever... after watching 3d animated movies... I think if they make a still shot of any scene at any moment, it'll be better then my drawing, more accurate, perfect lighting, perfect perspective.

dont u guys get kinda bummed about that or is it just me? plus an illustration vs a 3d movie, its hard to believe anyone gets that impress over a drawing anymore. hell even a 3d illustration looks insane at the highest levels

anyone get what im saying or have the same feelings? ive tried 3d and hated it cuz it didn't feel like drawing.

I hope you're not feeling this way after watching Delgo.

[Elwell]

I hope you're not feeling this way after watching Delgo.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody watched Delgo.

[Nightblue]

3d and 2d art use the same basic principles. In fact, most 3d animation films (if not all) use story boards, concept art, and all forms of 2d art to get started. No need to get depressed, or to get defensive just because people disagree with you :) that's the whole point of discussion.

[alesoun]

What's Delgo?

[Elwell]

What's Delgo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delgo_(film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delgo_%28film))
Delgo is a 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_film) computer-animated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery) fantasy film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_film). The film was produced by Freestyle Releasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freestyle_Releasing) and distributed by Fathom Studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fathom_Studios&action=edit&redlink=1), a division of Macquarium Intelligent Communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macquarium_Intelligent_Communicati ons&action=edit&redlink=1),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delgo_%28film%29#cite_note-variety-2-2) which began the project in 1999. It currently holds the record for worst wide release opening ever with total earnings of $511,920 while playing at 2160 screens. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delgo_%28film%29#cite_note-3).Delgo received the title of "Worst Wide Release (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Release) Opening Ever" by only earning $511,920 on 2,160 screens. That is equal to about an average of only two viewers per showing site. [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delgo_%28film%29#cite_note-7).

[alesoun]

Elwell, curiosity is never a waste; but I just spent 15 mins and found out zilch on all those links.

Ah, well.....

[riceface]

look, im talkin about the end product. the end product of 3d is so versitle, it can be animated or a beautiful still shot.

id give my drawing arm if i could animate my paintings, not only that, they can repose the character infinite ways.

the pros far out weigh the cons.

for us photoshop people, we would have to draw over and over and over.. and their 3d renders will still look better! and 100% accurate

whoever said not all 3d images are good blah blah blah, so are 90% of wannabe digital artist so whats ur point? jesus christ

comparing the best of what 3d can do and what the best 2d can do.. i'd say 3d wins by a long show and u know it. its fact.


3d animated movies has limits? no it doesnt', and even if it does, 2d is ultra limited in what can happen.

[HunterKiller_]

So go do 3D then.

[Meloncov]

In the vast majority of cases, a 3d still takes many times longer to create than a painting of similar quality. Thus, concept artists paint.

[Elwell]

its obvious 3d is gonna be here forever... after watching 3d animated movies... I think if they make a still shot of any scene at any moment, it'll be better then my drawing, more accurate, perfect lighting, perfect perspective.
It's worse than you think...
They've invented this device where, all you have to do is point it at something, and it makes a picture that looks EXACTLY LIKE the thing you pointed it at! I mean, why bother trying to learn to draw and paint at all!

[bhanu]

i'd say 3d wins by a long show and u know it.

and youve lost the battle...wait was there any battle???????????

I dont think there was , and still you lost it.

its fact.
Stop calling your opinions as facts.

[OmenSpirits]

It's worse than you think...
They've invented this device where, all you have to do is point it at something, and it makes a picture that looks EXACTLY LIKE the thing you pointed it at! I mean, why bother trying to learn to draw and paint at all!
What is thing you debase mine ears with.

THINGS that TAKE pictures, looking like what I see before me.

Boulder-dash! Poppy-cock! Such things are in fairy stories, or coming out of the mouths of crazy people.

We stick refuse like you people in the looney-bin up yonder. Away from decent, god-fairing people.

You sir, are quite mad!

[BubbaGump]

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody watched Delgo.

Riceface is a masochist.

[BubbaGump]

My goodness, it always pisses me off to no end that people say 3-D will forever take the place of traditional animation/drawing.

Computers replaced typewriters because you don't need the typewriter to learn the computer.

To be a good computer animator, you MUST know how to draw. Unless you want to be a one trick pony who can only operate Poser...well...you'll be exactly what the program is called and you won't get a job anywhere.

Computer animation requires solid 2-D animation and traditional drawing skills. You can only get into Ringling's COMPUTER animation program with a DRAWING portfolio (they don't even like to see any 3D work) then they proceed to spend the first couple semesters teaching 2D animation. This is how Calarts does it, how Sheridan does it, how San Jose State does it, and how any legitamate animation school in North America operates.

An animation studio or animation school will always take a person with strong life drawing skills than a person who only copies cartoons. A person who can draw nudes from life or reference is a higher functioning artist than someone who only copies Naruto. Duh.

Then you proceed to the workplace. The biggest 3D animation studios all have 2-D foundations. Pixar prefers a 2D background in its animators (they will teach you the programs at the studio anyway) and all of its other artistic oriented jobs all require some sort of drawing portfolio. Same goes with Dreamworks.

It is simply unrefutible fact that people who can draw will always be better animators than people who can't.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/931/33115308uy6.jpg

The poem above from Richard Williams' Animation Survival Kit is timeless. "drawing comic rabbits" can be replaced with "using Poser," "using Maya," "using autodesk" or any other program.

But life drawing is ALWAYS the antidote. However, with the attitude concerning 3D replacing all, the bottom line can read "2D is the antidote to this"

look, im talkin about the end product. the end product of 3d is so versitle, it can be animated or a beautiful still shot.

id give my drawing arm if i could animate my paintings, not only that, they can repose the character infinite ways.

Then LEARN how to animate and actually understand the animation process. The scene in the Incredibles where Frozone and Bob Parr are talking in the black car took about 6 people to animate. That doesn't include modellers, shaders, the board artists who planned it, and the computer technicians.

It is beautiful, but it is not something you can do yourself. People usually specialize in only one portion of the process and will only get assigned one duty in a shot. It's simple economics.

the pros far out weigh the cons.

for us photoshop people, we would have to draw over and over and over.. and their 3d renders will still look better! and 100% accurate

whoever said not all 3d images are good blah blah blah, so are 90% of wannabe digital artist so whats ur point? jesus christ

comparing the best of what 3d can do and what the best 2d can do.. i'd say 3d wins by a long show and u know it. its fact.

3d animated movies has limits? no it doesnt', and even if it does, 2d is ultra limited in what can happen.

But without 2D, 3D cannot exist. Almost all of previsualization is done traditionally. Concept art, storyboards, character designs--all done on paper. An animated movie that takes 4 years: 3 are spent on previs, boards, design, and planning, and often the final year is for the real animation.

The final product is 3D, but the dominant foundation is all pencil and paper.

[Clint Kisor]

If you look at the "Art of Kungfu Panda" book its not mostly if not all 2D drawings and paintings. 3D is just a medium like anything else. Photography didn't replace painting and 3D isn't replacing 2D.

[Max Challie]

At the Marama workshop recently, it was all digital apart from life drawing. There were 2D and 3D digital artists at the tables. There were 2D and 3D instructors. I didn't like any of the 3D stuff, professional or otherwise. Because, 3D doesn't interest me.

The post I made in your thread about environments is one reason.

[Max Challie]

By the way riceface, your attitude needs to change. And so does mine.

The biggest enemy you will ever face is yourself. Yes, it is that much doom and gloom.

[riceface]

i hate myself

[•Lindsay•]

Riceface your drawings aren't tragic failures. Nothing you create is going to look perfect to you, no matter how good you are and what medium you use. The people who created the art you consider perfect see a lot of flaws in their own work. That's how it is.

[waranghira]

THIS THREAD IS SO WIN

If you can't see the significance of 2D illustration, that its here to stay forevaaaaah however technology advances, then I'm very sorry for you.

[Gerulaitis]

3D takes more time. Like 5 times more. I used to be doing 3d, because, hell, some of those pictures looked cool, but then I got bored and didn't really feel like putting two weeks into illustrating some random idea of mine just to see if it works or not - decided to learn to draw instead. And never regreted it. Drawing is way faster and alot more fun. You can try tons more stuff, visually think things through faster, show more things to people.

Oh and... Did i mention that at some point photorealism becomes just soooo horribly boring? Then you ask yourself - "so i can perfectly render that eraser on my desk now... but what's the point of doing so?" - and you don't see any, you just hear something at the back of your head sobbing and mumbling "but but... i don't wanna be a human camera, i want to be me, i want to express myself and to show people how i see things" and then you set off to find wonderful expressive qualities of such simple elements as lines, strokes, flat colors, an abundance of stylistic choises, a very colorful art history, etc. And that's where 3d kind of admits its defeat - it's a toolset developed specifically for precise photorealistic reproduction of volumetric objects, and it can do that well. Doing anything else, althought possible, takes alot more effort, and is usually not worth it, because throught the prolonged creative process the work looses its spontaneity and life. 3D is not and can not be as flexible as drawing and painting.

"3D is like animating with a microwave oven" - random animator some time in 1992-2008

[waranghira]

And that's where 3d kind of admits its defeat - it's a toolset developed specifically for precise photorealistic reproduction of volumetric objects, and it can do that well.

uh...not?
then why am I seeing all these stylistic depictions of subjects (including fictitious ones) all around?

[Black Spot]

the end product of 3d is so versitle, it can be animated or a beautiful still shot.

Not as well if it was drawn. Really look at the 3D stuff around, sure there are brilliant bits to be found, but that’s just it – they’re just bits. It would cost too much to make full length film that way.

I animate and there’s no way I’m doing a dead person and my husband in any other way than 2d. 1) It’d be too creepy and 2) hand’s off girls – he’s mine.

You should be asking where’s the fun? And most of the still shots are not that artistic. Seriously, look at them in great depth. I watch tons I don’t ever feel the need to go, “Wow! That was a great shot.” Most of the time they are telling a story, which is the most important thing. The way it’s rendered should not matter.

[HunterKiller_]

uh...not?
then why am I seeing all these stylistic depictions of subjects (including fictitious ones) all around?

I think insect's point is that 3D, in terms of stylistic interpretations is much more limited than 2D.

2D is limitless in terms of styles. 3D has to somewhat adhere to realism to look 'right'.

[Flake]

The OP seems to see 3D as some kind of easy art nirvana promised land, but that's because he hasn't tried it.

3d is just as hard, it just has a different set of headaches.

[Gerulaitis]

uh...not?
then why am I seeing all these stylistic depictions of subjects (including fictitious ones) all around?

As i said - "it's a toolset developed specifically for precise photorealistic reproduction of volumetric objects". Propotions don't matter, you can mangle an object's proportions anyway you see fit (just as you can make cartoon characters out of clay), but in terms of rendering, it's most often limited to photorealistic lighting and surfaces, because that's what it was developed to do.
Besides that, it CAN do lots of things (like flat colors and lines), but it requires more effort, more time, more thought and good art direction, so flexible 3d artists have to know how to draw just as well and think out of the box.

It's just another tool.
You CAN open a can with a screwdriver, though using a can opener would be faster and easier.
Or rather - you CAN open a can with a state-of-the-art uber expensive, 0.0001mm accuracy 100'000rmp milling machine, but that doesn't mean it's superior to a random can opener. It was developed for a different purpose than opening cans.

[waranghira]

As i said - "it's a toolset developed specifically for precise photorealistic reproduction of volumetric objects". but in terms of rendering, it's most often limited to photorealistic lighting and surfaces, because that's what it was developed to do.

And I see these games where the characters you're playing defy most (if not all) the science of lighting.
Not to mention that their surfaces are just pasted with rendered textures that the shadows and highlights isn't affected by the position of light... because they're just rendered textures, anyway.

Propotions don't matter, you can mangle an object's proportions anyway you see fit (just as you can make cartoon characters out of clay)
why not? "precise photorealistic reproduction of volumetric objects," huh.

It's just another tool.
You CAN open a can with a screwdriver, though using a can opener would be faster and easier.
Or rather - you CAN open a can with a state-of-the-art uber expensive, 0.0001mm accuracy 100'000rmp milling machine, but that doesn't mean it's superior to a random can opener. It was developed for a different purpose than opening cans.
but I don't hear anyone using a screwdriver or a milling machine for opening a can AS OFTEN as I see plastic-skinned, cement-haired, big-headed, joint-less humanoids made in 3D.

[Chris Bennett]

It's worse than you think...
They've invented this device where, all you have to do is point it at something, and it makes a picture that looks EXACTLY LIKE the thing you pointed it at! I mean, why bother trying to learn to draw and paint at all!

The've come up with an idea even better than that machine - all you do is look at stuff. It has smell too!

[Gerulaitis]

*head-desk* You just stubbornly refuse to understand what i ment, don't you?

And I see these games where the characters you're playing defy most (if not all) the science of lighting.
Not to mention that their surfaces are just pasted with rendered textures that the shadows and highlights isn't affected by the position of light... because they're just rendered textures, anyway.

why not? "precise photorealistic reproduction of volumetric objects," huh.

Print a texture on a baloon; put a lightbulb inside the baloon; turn on the lightbulb - you get a surface having seemingly no shading, only texture. Does it defy physical laws of lighting? No.

1. my point was - 3d was developed to simulate: A. a 3d environment, via computation of perspective, B. light of various properties hitting surfaces of various properties; so that you could simulate the look of things, that don't exist, convincingly. Most of 3d's toolset is geared towards more or less realistic rendering. The workflow involves making a 3d virtual object, then assigning properties to surface, lighting and whatnot - it may get time consuming. It may take alot of time to do something in 3d that you'd successfully communicate via a well-aimed stroke in 2d, adn vice versa. That's exactly why there are separate categories for 2d and 3d in contests.
By precise, i didn't mean proportion or the features of the object itself (that's what photography is for), i ment physical laws that govern light, optics, perspective, etc. A cartoony sculpture is no less "precise" than a realistic one in terms of its volume and surface. Unless you somehow invent sculpting with vapour, i don't see a difference in precision, only difference in object portraid. And choice of object wasn't what i was talking about.

2. I'm not saying 3d has totally no flexibility, i'm saying it's not as flexible as 2d, it's not as intuitive as 2d, and most of the time it's not as fast for still pictures.

but I don't hear anyone using a screwdriver or a milling machine for opening a can AS OFTEN as I see plastic-skinned, cement-haired, big-headed, joint-less humanoids made in 3D.

I see pretty bad 2d drawings here and there, too.
I don't get your point.

To explain my metaphor: let's say you need to draw a circle and show it to a person, so that the person, upon seeing it, would understand that it's a circle (opening a can and taking out a cucumber for a starving person); there are two ways you can do that: 1. taking a piece of paper, a pencil, and roughtly drawing a circle, then showing it to the person (using a can opener to open the can with minor manual labor); 2. using 3d - finding a computer, starting your 3d software of choice, making a sphere, setting up ink'n'outline rendering (usually a multitude of steps), so it looks like a circle instead of a sphere, then hitting render, waiting for it to render and then showing it to the person (setting up a milling machine so it'd cut a circle exactly where the can lid is, etc. etc.). In case 2 you get a more perfect result - the circle is more perfect (can is cut perfectly circular, no jagged edges), but if you only care about communicating a circle to the other person (giving the starving person a cucumber), why waste time and effort? When you do storyboards - do you render every wrinkle of a character's face when you only need to communicate the story?

You don't hear of anyone doing storyboards using only 3d very often, i bet. How many concept artists have you seen that work exclusively in 3d? have you seen atleast a single one? Would such way of working be flexible and fast enought? What i ment was - tools are ment to do something, not everything. If one needs to decide what's superior - 3d or 2d - one needs to first look at the exact context, because each has its pros and cons. You can't objectively compare them directly, without a speciffic situation, you just can't.

Simply put - saying that 3d is better than 2d at everything (and vice versa) is just utter bullshit, and you know it.

On a lighter note: http://www.jackals-forge.com/abom.html
If after looking through those you still think 3d is the holy grail of art - seek help.

[Zirngibism]

For illustration, i see no reason why one can only choose 3D or 2D.

Many respected 2D artists use 3D software for blocking in architecture, and it really saves time from setting up perspective.

Look at matte paintings. Whatever is faster in 3D is done in 3D, and the same applies to 2D. 3D buildings are painted over, for example, because it's faster than trying to model little background details.

And I do see where the OP Is coming from, though I will agree his view seems limited. But I myself have found frustration in rendering and seeing uneven lines when my final goal image was supposed to be pristine. I wouldn't go as far as him, but I sympathize with the frustration.

I think in the future, especially now that they're coming up with input devices that capture motion in 3D, those packages might serve to make more "expressive" art more quickly and easily. But I doubt it will approach the quickness and ease of expression of 2D.

[Rabid]

http://www.jackals-forge.com/abom.html[/url]
If after looking through those you still think 3d is the holy grail of art - seek help.


Hey wait those look familiar, oh thats right...portfolios of freshmen artists soon to transfer...:D I remember those peeps.

[OmenSpirits]

An illustration.

Paper, pencil, you & expression.

3D.

Monitor, CPU, mega hertz, microchips, plastic, wires, outlets, batteries, hard drives, CD/DVD drives, colling fans, programs, etc.

Now, 3D can be pretty, but if you are stuck on a desert island, which would actually be better to have?

Cave men didn't have CPU's.

Desert island.

A stick, some sand, you.

A rock, a rock face, and you.

Tech is nice, but in the end, a pad and a pen, is all that's need to begin creating.

Everything else, is refinement.

[waranghira]

*head-desk* You just stubbornly refuse to understand what i ment, don't you?



Print a texture on a baloon; put a lightbulb inside the baloon; turn on the lightbulb - you get a surface having seemingly no shading, only texture. Does it defy physical laws of lighting? No.

1. my point was - 3d was developed to simulate: A. a 3d environment, via computation of perspective, B. light of various properties hitting surfaces of various properties; so that you could simulate the look of things, that don't exist, convincingly. Most of 3d's toolset is geared towards more or less realistic rendering. The workflow involves making a 3d virtual object, then assigning properties to surface, lighting and whatnot - it may get time consuming. It may take alot of time to do something in 3d that you'd successfully communicate via a well-aimed stroke in 2d, adn vice versa. That's exactly why there are separate categories for 2d and 3d in contests.
By precise, i didn't mean proportion or the features of the object itself (that's what photography is for), i ment physical laws that govern light, optics, perspective, etc. A cartoony sculpture is no less "precise" than a realistic one in terms of its volume and surface. Unless you somehow invent sculpting with vapour, i don't see a difference in precision, only difference in object portraid. And choice of object wasn't what i was talking about.

2. I'm not saying 3d has totally no flexibility, i'm saying it's not as flexible as 2d, it's not as intuitive as 2d, and most of the time it's not as fast for still pictures.



I see pretty bad 2d drawings here and there, too.
I don't get your point.

To explain my metaphor: let's say you need to draw a circle and show it to a person, so that the person, upon seeing it, would understand that it's a circle (opening a can and taking out a cucumber for a starving person); there are two ways you can do that: 1. taking a piece of paper, a pencil, and roughtly drawing a circle, then showing it to the person (using a can opener to open the can with minor manual labor); 2. using 3d - finding a computer, starting your 3d software of choice, making a sphere, setting up ink'n'outline rendering (usually a multitude of steps), so it looks like a circle instead of a sphere, then hitting render, waiting for it to render and then showing it to the person (setting up a milling machine so it'd cut a circle exactly where the can lid is, etc. etc.). In case 2 you get a more perfect result - the circle is more perfect (can is cut perfectly circular, no jagged edges), but if you only care about communicating a circle to the other person (giving the starving person a cucumber), why waste time and effort? When you do storyboards - do you render every wrinkle of a character's face when you only need to communicate the story?

You don't hear of anyone doing storyboards using only 3d very often, i bet. How many concept artists have you seen that work exclusively in 3d? have you seen atleast a single one? Would such way of working be flexible and fast enought? What i ment was - tools are ment to do something, not everything. If one needs to decide what's superior - 3d or 2d - one needs to first look at the exact context, because each has its pros and cons. You can't objectively compare them directly, without a speciffic situation, you just can't.

Simply put - saying that 3d is better than 2d at everything (and vice versa) is just utter bullshit, and you know it.

On a lighter note: http://www.jackals-forge.com/abom.html
If after looking through those you still think 3d is the holy grail of art - seek help.

and you obviously can't see my point, as well.
TL;DR

Characters in many platform/action/adventure games don't adhere to the lighting elements of the environments they're in. The textures are just one small example.

You say photorealistic interpretations, but I see more Jimmy Newtron and the kind all over. Im not saying bad 3d creations.

And I already see the significance of 2d, No thanks to you.
I just wanted to debunk your previous comment.

[riceface]

im tired of my own thread someone lock this

[Rabid]

im tired of my own thread someone lock this

:rolleyes: :asspat: Goodboy, now go sit down and draw....;)

[Zirngibism]

I think this issue (and some of the others I've seen the OP bring up) does cross a lot of people's minds (most of whom don't admit it), and he's just the only one who's willing to post it.

Despite somewhat disagreeing with him, I'm glad he made this thread.

[riceface]

I think this issue (and some of the others I've seen the OP bring up) does cross a lot of people's minds (most of whom don't admit it), and he's just the only one who's willing to post it.

Despite somewhat disagreeing with him, I'm glad he made this thread.

i'd like to believe i serve a higher purpose