In nub Silence battles at my rank, I can usually manage to get at least 5 people to leave using this method xD

Mean person.

I can't emphasise enough how excellent these vlogs really are. Great presenting, Arch - the way you use humour works really well, and you're clear and consistent in tone (disregarding some of those username pronunciations :P ). Kudos to you and all the players involved with this - awesome stuff, and (as usual) I'm looking forward to the next one!

Great clue! I might even decide to use it after a couple hundred or so more of my own :P Correct, clue updated.

Flea, pls don't misuse memes ok. And Hunter > Hornet IMO, just because Hornet's too mainstream. Though it is an awesome hull. Personally, I find heavy hulls kind of restrictive - they're just generally less dynamic, and slow down gameplay. As you said, they'd need more shots to kill, and they could just be used to sit on/beside flags. And because they can slow gameplay down in this manner (I'll rephrase what I said originally), I generally find players with heavy hulls are less skilled/strategic players than their lighter-hulled counterparts. So yes, there can be skilled players who use heavy hulls (such as yourself), but if one goes through his Tanki career using just heavy hulls, the generally slower gameplay can lead to adverse effects on how skilled a player one develops into, I think. There's just so much more potential to develop and show off skills with light/medium hulls; that's why, for example, heavy hulls are generally not used in duels or tandems.

Glad to see no-one's voted for heavy hulls thus far. Light + medium hulls = more skilled, more strategic, and faster-paced gameplay. That's why the clan formats are what they are. Heavy hulls really do not play much of a role in clan war maps.

Correct, clue updated.

Already got GoldNub there, sorry :P That's not a nickname, that's a name :ph34r: [insert Skype ID here] Lol, JK :lol: Here it is:

Got that one... Pretty cringeworthy, you know :P

Sure thing bro. 1.Your Nickname: Gold/Goldy/Goldie/GR/Rock/Rocky/Rocker/Rock of Gold/G-Man/GoldPro/GoldNub/UnholyRock/GoldCloak/Goldilocks, but you can call me Bob* for short. 2.Your Rank: Super duper awesome amazing cool modest ruler of the universe, if that counts. 3.Your Skype ID: [insert Skype ID here] 4.In The Discipline(s) what you want to participate: SHOUTING :wub: Please accept my application! *Bob's a nice name, even though it's not mine, but yeah.

Probably wasn't the best way to announce you're unbanned... :P

Correct - clue updated ^_^

Interesting stuff. I agree that the number of believers in an idea does not determine that idea's validity, just as religion isn't necessarily correct just because so many people follow it. However, it would seem you have given a rather outdated comparison of the two theories in your post - here is what Wikipedia (which operates under strict non-bias guidelines) has to say: All of the assertions made in the above text are sourced, and I can link to those sources if desired. Which brings me to another point - where are your sources for saying the world was created less than 10,000 years ago? Where is your objectifiable evidence? Even if the rapid-decay theory better suited observations made than the dynamo theory - which according to most scientific experts, it doesn't (and numbers does play a part here since these are all experts - the majority of creationists will not have tried to understand scientific theories such as evolution from an unbiased perspective, or even read the Bible itself from cover-to-cover) - that doesn't make the rapid-decay theory correct. For example, some cavemen come across an orange lying on the ground. They come up with two ideas - one being that it grew from the ground itself (due to natural processes), and another being that it fell from the sky (due to some sort of God creating it). Though the second idea is more accurate in description, it's definitely not correct in the causes it provides - yes, the orange will have fallen from the sky, but not quite all the way from heaven! So just because one theory seems to 'fit' events better (e.g. one of the caveman may have saw the orange landing on the ground), it does not make it correct. Science does not exist to mould a theory around circumstantial evidence and use it to say "Oh look, it must be God!" (which is what the rapid-decay theory is an example of), but it rather exists to find objectifiable evidence for a theory in an unbiased manner, not with any religious or political purposes in mind. And in fact, rapid-decay is not a better scientific theory than the dynamo theory in the first place in the eyes of many scientists, due to the large amounts of evidence pointing to a historic fluctuation in the Earth's magnetic field. Don't forget about the dozens of other scientific theories that seem to work and which point to the Earth's age being measurable in billions of years, too. I will be able to present these theories to you if desired. So, it'd be great if you could answer the two questions I posed earlier in this post. Thanks for your response, and I hope this discussion will continue to be both engaging and constructive!

I want to take part in shouting pls! I'm GREAT at it!

Reporter ok.

Correct, clue updated.

Well, this doesn't seem directly evolution-related. If such a scientific observation is correct (and I have no idea if it is, I'd have to do some research), what would that mean for this particular topic? Evolution has nothing to say about that, because that subject does not fall under the subject of evolution. It's like asking what creationism has to say about black holes.

I'm one of those people who passes out when in pain, which isn't really something I can control. Would that make me weak? :P

Ask a question about evolution. I will link you to the post with an answer which will invariably be in the last 24 pages. I've stopped posting here because I feel that this has all been covered already.

Neither, though you are pretty foolish.

If there's one subject for which some people will never be able to consider another side to the argument, then it has to be religion. I bet that even if some super technologically-advanced aliens visited Earth and told us their own more detailed and solid theories on the origins of the universe, you'd almost certainly have some guys running around with their fingers jammed stubbornly into their ears, shouting "These aliens are an ILLUSION sent by the DEVIL! We were made in GOD'S LIKENESS! Do not be distracted from the TRUE PATH of GOD!"

Nope, not exactly, but good guess :P

Whenever the Earth's atmosphere becomes uninhabitable for such creatures to survive, probably in billions of years. Don't forget that animal cloning will continue to develop in the near future.

Correct, clue updated. Capitals are not an issue - as long as you can get the correct username from using the [member=''] code, then the answer is acceptable. So [member='titan_freeze'] still shows as @Titan_Freeze. Also, the answer to the last clue was dogm45 because: dogm45 = dogmas cr33d5 = creeds The two words are synonymous with one another.

*cough* = @Barghest = experienced ex-staff Generalissimo from 2010*cough* Bad idea ^_^