Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    Human Resource Department    Shippers Keep on Shippin'! ThreadIV « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Shippers Keep on Shippin'! ThreadIV  (Read 42974 times)
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 Print
Ralph Snart

Agent Provocateur
Near Death Star Inhabitant
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #600 on: 05-22-2007 11:56 »

I think that coldy has the idea for a dating service:

Find the mate that you hate the least.

Yep.  That'll work...
RobotDevilRox

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #601 on: 05-22-2007 15:30 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:
You will find that human beings all inherently loathe one another, but because of the weak clan-based dynamic in our makeup we are unfortunately forced to associate due to necessity - for survival. Life partners are not people we 'love', just the ones we hate the least. Make no mistake though - there is no bliss involved, and two people can never spend ALL their time together - they'd kill each other after the unreleased contempt finally boils over.

Ah, yes. Humans, eh? I'll never understand this particular species. Not that there's any necessity to - just kill them all! I mean... Uh... Very interesting incites into Fry and Leela's possible relationship!



Why have a signature if nobody sees it? Show off your siggie today!

Go here and go here NOW.
HipNoJoe
Bending Unit
***
« Reply #602 on: 05-22-2007 22:30 »
« Last Edit on: 05-22-2007 22:30 »

I wish it were not so, but I have to admit that there's some truth to the whole "ones we hate the least" notion when it comes to lifemates. 

I don't think it has to be that way for Futurama necessarily, although Groening & Company sure seem to specialize in a cutting, biting, and sarcastic treatment of romantic love.  But just like I used to watch cartoons as a kid to see superheroes fly and wanted to believe it, part of the reason I love Futurama is to keep the dream of "happily ever after" alive even if it is a dream for two drawings inked by Koreans and voiced by paid actors.
______________
Oops, I can't end a post sounding that grim and pathetic, especially on this thread.  Here's my two favorite drawings doing what we'd all like to be doing.  Curious how a little doodle like this can make one feel, isn't it?


Ahhhh!  love
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #603 on: 05-23-2007 00:35 »

The size of the doodle is not as important as how you use it.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #604 on: 05-23-2007 07:28 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:

The size of the doodle is not as important as how you use it.

It's amazing how many men believe that.  no no



There we are.

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:

You will find that human beings all inherently loathe one another, but because of the weak clan-based dynamic in our makeup we are unfortunately forced to associate due to necessity - for survival. Life partners are not people we 'love', just the ones we hate the least. Make no mistake though - there is no bliss involved, and two people can never spend ALL their time together - they'd kill each other after the unreleased contempt finally boils over.

I know suffering is a universal, but why is everyone so inclined to take it as a truth, as an ineluctable eventuality? If our 'clan-based makeup' urges us to associate, even if it is due to genetic necessity, that means that we must enjoy spending time around each other. There is no inherent cause of pain, because pain is a negative. It is created by the absence of requisite concepts. Only negatives are an universal.

Humans do enjoy spending time around each other, and in companions (as I refuse to use the term 'Life Partner'), there can be bliss involved. There would have to be. Yes, in fact, according to your own arguments, there is bliss involved! After all... You found someone you 'hate' the least (Another negative, I point out)! If that's not a blissful event, I don't know what is!  roll eyes

'Love' does exist, and truthfully must exist between 'Lover-style' companions (e.g., most persons' conception of an ideal marriage). Do  also keep in mind that it is the most abused and misunderstood of all emotions. Statements like yours don't help, coldangel. The fact that everyone is going along with you shows just how willing people are to having their concepts of life manipulated in front of them. Come on, persons! Back in my day, we had some pride in what we believed! No one could take that away from us, because we were right!

The truth is, you will hear a lot of this sort of thing, although hopefully not as much as I had to endure today. Statistically, the majority of the posters on this thread will outlive me by many years. And it's up to them to learn how to carry on using common sense, a concept which brought this world to the fine place it is today, a time greater than any other past! Do not forsake these concepts!

Without love, there is nothing.[/i]

coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #605 on: 05-23-2007 07:57 »

Similarly, without chemical cohesion between the molecule chains in our brains and DNA there can be no love. So what is greater? Love or biochemistry?

I do quite alright without any love in my life at all... but that's just me.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #606 on: 05-23-2007 08:08 »
« Last Edit on: 05-23-2007 08:08 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Similarly, without chemical cohesion between the molecule chains in our brains and DNA there can be no love. So what is greater? Love or biochemistry?

Biochemistry is motivation for reproduction. Love is motivation for the well-being of the other partner. These do overlap (∩), but they are not the same.

However, they are very close in importance, and their relationship must not be misinterpreted.

coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #607 on: 05-23-2007 10:47 »
« Last Edit on: 05-23-2007 10:47 by coldangel_1 »

Concern for the partner's well-being is also derived from a reproductive mechanism. Can't reproduce with a dead or disinterested partner.

Of course, it all becomes rather convoluted when you throw abstract thought into the mix, and we begin applying needlessly complex and lofty webs of promulgated meaning and motivation to the simplest traits bestowed upon us by our ape-like forebears. I think we do this partly out of a deep rooted terror at the idea that we may not be as special and divine as we like to think we are... that we're just animals after all.

Personally I fail to see the problem with that.
Grrrr!

We stopped using our hands to walk on and began using them as manipulator appengages, and in so doing our brain function swelled to accommodate all the new and amazing things we could potentially do besides eat and shit. But the effect of that would also mean (in biological terms) a completely superflous increase in brain function across the board... Art, literature, sicence, love; all products of runaway brain function as a result of an evolutionary quirk that is at the same time our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

With our minds so boosted, we've the capability to become the Gods of our youthful myths - to stand with our technology against nature itself and attain immortality. But ingenuity is not the only thing that's been blown out of proportion - our base impulses have also been exaggerated to a ridiculous extent... territorialism became prejudice, hate, and manifests as wholesale slaughter. Survival instinct bred vast unnatural cities and industry to support them, which threatens to destroy the world. Desire to mate became an insanely pointless intricate social tangle manifesting as this imaginary 'love' concept.

It's the good with the bad with the pointless. Our brains are really too big - all of human experience is an exaggeration of fact... like the components of a simple mechanism placed under an electron microscope so they appear more complex than they really are, and far FAR too large for anyone to tell what they really are.
SonicPanther

Professor
*
« Reply #608 on: 05-23-2007 11:23 »

Oh my god, super intelligent disscusson? Screw this, I have a new shippy pic.

FuturamaPac

Professor
*
« Reply #609 on: 05-23-2007 12:48 »

Hey hey, nice SP
Sine Wave

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #610 on: 05-23-2007 16:22 »

Just looking at love vs. biological necessity from my personal point of view, I'd be damned to give up the concept of love. Just because you don't need to have the experience of love to propogate a species doesn't mean it can't exist. So what if our brains are bigger than biologically necessary? It's a nice perk. Yes we can be self centered, but we're also smart enough to be aware of it. Do you think a dog thinks about life outside of what it sees? Emotions bring highs and lows, but you can't have bliss without sorrow, and I'd take that any day over a life of menial apathy.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #611 on: 05-23-2007 22:09 »

Just as long as you know it's just a contrived pretense and nothing more, then you can enjoy it to your heart's content.


Nice pic SP!
Decapodian

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #612 on: 05-24-2007 02:26 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:
I do quite alright without any love in my life at all... but that's just me.


No, that's because your an evil robot from the future.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #613 on: 05-24-2007 07:14 »
« Last Edit on: 05-25-2007 00:00 »

 
Quote
Originally said by coldangel_1:

[Lots]

...Of course, it all becomes rather convoluted when you throw abstract thought into the mix, and we begin applying needlessly complex and lofty webs of promulgated meaning and motivation to the simplest traits bestowed upon us by our ape-like forebears. I think we do this partly out of a deep rooted terror at the idea that we may not be as special and divine as we like to think we are... that we're just animals after all.

...With our minds so boosted, we've the capability to become the Gods of our youthful myths - to stand with our technology against nature itself and attain immortality. But ingenuity is not the only thing that's been blown out of proportion - our base impulses have also been exaggerated to a ridiculous extent... territorialism became prejudice, hate, and manifests as wholesale slaughter. Survival instinct bred vast unnatural cities and industry to support them, which threatens to destroy the world. Desire to mate became an insanely pointless intricate social tangle manifesting as this imaginary 'love' concept.

...It's the good with the bad with the pointless. Our brains are really too big - all of human experience is an exaggeration of fact... like the components of a simple mechanism placed under an electron microscope so they appear more complex than they really are, and far FAR too large for anyone to tell what they really are.

You're being rather arrogant in assuming that we are in a position which threatens to destroy the world. However, back to 'love'. 'Love' is not imaginary, nor is it an 'insanely pointless intricate social tangle' derived from the desire to mate. I think you'll find that lesbian couple you know agreeing with me on this point.

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Just as long as you know it's just a contrived pretense and nothing more, then you can enjoy it to your heart's content.

Has the concept of pride gone completely out the window? Your arguments, I'm afraid, are also an 'exaggeration of fact'.

As a human, and having at least some pride in being human, I claim to have emotions, which are more important than my body's genetic influences. On what do I make this claim?

There are several major biological instincts that are biochemically motivated, such as a desire for food, a desire for comfort, a desire for companionship (as you've stated previously), and a desire to mate. All of these have been honed down to reliable standards by millions of years' evolutionary screening.

Emotions are not these desires. Hunger of the stomach is one of these desires. Love is not. 'Love' is merely a concept that couples a chunk of the companionship instinct and a slice of the mating instinct into one layered cake and then tries to sell itself off as a one-of-a-kind naturally-formed low-calorie intelligence substitute. Love is a random mixture of two instincts on the part of two separate entities.

Perhaps this is why love is always so misunderstood. People seem to think it's a natural drive, when it is not. It's a concept. Not a 'contrived pretense'. A concept. A concept that must and only can be learned, and one that people also must realize is perceived differently by every single individual. Virgil says 'Love conquers all' (aka, 'Omni vincit amor'). Victor Herbert says it's the 'sweet mystery of life'. Dorthy Parker denies it exists at all. Dean Martin says it's 'whena the moon hitsa you eye like a big pizza pie'. The variations are endless.

Ernest Rutherford once remarked that all of science was either physics or stamp collecting. By stamp collecting, he essentially meant taxonomy and the defining of labels for concepts. Undoubtedly boring, that is, surely. But important, so long as the process isn't exaggerated like you've what made me do here. I have attempted to define love, to show that it unquestionably is related but is not the directly the result of biochemistry, or instinct, or any other inherent animal drives. The concepts of 'love' embody some of the deepest urges in the human species; all the word does is bind them together and label them. And that gives us something to work with.

As humans, we are superior to other life forms in the animal kingdom, and I am proud of that. However, we do still have 'urges' and 'instincts' stemming from our biochemical makeup. But we've quantified them all, much as I have just demonstrated with love, and labeled them as various 'emotions'. These, we are not able to control, as there is no such thing as kolinahr. But in our 'quantification', we have given ourselves understanding, and in that understanding, we can control, if not our instincts, then at least our actions. That is why humans are more 'special and divine' (in your own words) than most animals. That is why we take care of those weaker than us, even though that violates our strict survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary policy. That is what makes us strong as a species.

Without love, the biochemical compilation of urges which result in the natural happiness of an individual to be directly related to the happiness of another, there is nothing.

coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #614 on: 05-24-2007 11:03 »

Right... as sentimentality is the ultimate flight from logic (creationism is a close second) it cannot be argued against so I shall not be banging my head against that particular wall.

As for pride at being human... well; the only thing about humanity I can say I'm proud of is the organism's tenacity and versitility within the physical Universe. The creature's capacity for technical advancement and sheer ingenuity is truly astounding.
Just a shame they're all using that quality to slaughter one another. Oh well.
There is nothing else about the human organism that is in the least bit appealing or admirable... besides some of the more outlandish hairstyles of the 1980s.
JustNibblin

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #615 on: 05-24-2007 14:14 »
« Last Edit on: 05-24-2007 14:14 by JustNibblin´ »

The debate over whether love is more than biochemistry has been ongoing for more than a century, so I have my doubts it will be settled here!

The question of whether non-human species are capable of emotion, including love, gets similarly heated.

A really good book on this topic is The Third Chimpanzee, by Jared Diamond, who is more famous for his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel".  In the book Diamond examines how a 2% difference in genetics between humans and chimps has led to such profound differences, including our capacity for art and our inclination towards genocide.

Among the interesting take home messages I found is that the human female is responsible for much of our species' uniqueness, and thus civilization.  I've found that most women agree with that statement, for some reason.    wink
RobotDevilRox

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #616 on: 05-24-2007 15:16 »

I do believe that this used to be a Futurama shippyness thread, am I correct? Then how did we come to discuss human imaginations, emotions, and opointless arguments? It's like the chicken and the egg argument, except with an explanation that is harder to find. I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up now.



Why have a signature if nobody sees it? Show off your siggie today!

Go here and go here NOW.
Sine Wave

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #617 on: 05-24-2007 19:19 »
« Last Edit on: 05-24-2007 19:19 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Right... as sentimentality is the ultimate flight from logic (creationism is a close second) it cannot be argued against so I shall not be banging my head against that particular wall.

In a cold, rigid world ruled totally by logic, life would  bite pretty unpleasant, making complete logic illogical. Conundrum!

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:
As for pride at being human... well; the only thing about humanity I can say I'm proud of is the organism's tenacity and versitility within the physical Universe. The creature's capacity for technical advancement and sheer ingenuity is truly astounding.
Just a shame they're all using that quality to slaughter one another. Oh well.
There is nothing else about the human organism that is in the least bit appealing or admirable... besides some of the more outlandish hairstyles of the 1980s.

Yes humanity has done awful things, often more awful than good, but would you rather be a mindless drone ruled by instinct? I'm proud to be human and to be able to use the advantages I have in the best way possible.
Decapodian

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #618 on: 05-24-2007 20:34 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by RobotDevilRox:
I do believe that this used to be a Futurama shippyness thread, am I correct? Then how did we come to discuss human imaginations, emotions, and opointless arguments? It's like the chicken and the egg argument, except with an explanation that is harder to find. I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up now.


The shippy thread only strays onto topic about once a page.

SonicPanther

Professor
*
« Reply #619 on: 05-24-2007 21:18 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by RobotDevilRox:
I do believe that this used to be a Futurama shippyness thread, am I correct? Then how did we come to discuss human imaginations, emotions, and opointless arguments? It's like the chicken and the egg argument, except with an explanation that is harder to find. I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up now.


I tried...  tongue
Professor Zoidy

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #620 on: 05-24-2007 21:54 »

@ Xanfor : No, no I don't remember that... *runs away*

Loving the pics. All those times Leela had her hand or arm near Fry and I failed to notice.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #621 on: 05-25-2007 07:02 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Right... as sentimentality is the ultimate flight from logic (creationism is a close second) it cannot be argued against so I shall not be banging my head against that particular wall.

Sentimentality is indeed a flight from logic. A necessary one, in fact, since humans are not fully logical beings, and cannot force themselves to be fully logical beings. I'd've thought that was obvious. What's your point?

 
Quote
There is nothing else about the human organism that is in the least bit appealing or admirable... besides some of the more outlandish hairstyles of the 1980s.

And once again, I must point out your errors. Let us assume for minute that you are not a human, but another species, say, a Kaled. And that I'm a human. Now, I believe I am superior to you. You believe you are superior to me. We both have the right to think in this way. And you know what? As long as we both survive, we would both be true, and equal. However, if you manufacture an army of your metal-encased mutants to wipe out my species, and succeed, you will have by definition proven yourself the superior race. And you know what else? You have the right to do that! All species have the right to do that!

But humans haven't been destroyed. And I highly doubt that any other species arising from this planet will be able to destroy us. I could be wrong, of course. But I personally doubt it. Thusly, we are the superior race on this rock. And if your Daleks want to exterminate my species like I do my fire ants, by all means, let them come. We'll see who's superior.

I could be wrong in my arguments, I admit. Only the omniscient Lord can tell that. But I will protect my species, argue for my species, fight for my species, and if required, die for my species before letting go of my pride; in that I was a part of something that was great, even if only temporarily.

That I belonged to a race that not only could take care of itself, but other endangered species as well. One that had morals that encouraged it to do so. A species that, although easily confused and panicked, had individuals which could see their full place in the universe, currently a small pinprick on the head of a safety pin sealing a box of nothing within an elaborately decorated cupboard of insignificance, but despite this realized that one did not have to let it rest at that. That there was always room for improvement. A race in which sensible persons went on long elucidating rants upon cynics who saw themselves as nothings of aught potential.

 
Quote
Originally posted by JustNibblin':

In the book Diamond examines how a 2% difference in genetics between humans and chimps has led to such profound differences

I'd've thought that was obvious as well. Let me put it this way...

 
Quote
Object A:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to reflect their safety and happiness.

 
Quote
Object B:

We hold these truths not to be self-evident, That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to reflect their safety and happiness.

The difference in meaning between object A and object B is 100%. The difference in words (aka, genetics) is less than 1%.

 
Quote
Originally posted by RobotDevilRox:

I do believe that this used to be a Futurama shippyness thread, am I correct? Then how did we come to discuss human imaginations, emotions, and opointless arguments? It's like the chicken and the egg argument, except with an explanation that is harder to find. I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up now.

Do some historical research. Discussion involving human imaginations and emotions is what the thread was originally created for. And there are never any pointless arguments in it.

Eventually all of you will finally realize that I am a cynic. But I don't let cold, fleeting facts determine my worldview. I favor a cushy armchair by a fire any day. Preferably snuggling with a lady (Winks at fryandlemon). I put common sense into facts, and see how it is they relate to actual visible occurrences. I'm a romantic as well, to be sure. The romantic in me believes that every person ought to be bright and intelligent, spending their nights in a cushy armchair by a fire, snuggling with their spouse/significant other/consort/FWB while the snow of reality flutters peacefully throughout the alley outside. The cynic in me knows how to operate a snowplough. Together, they make me an individual who can build snowmen during the day and enjoy a shared cup of hot cocoa at night.

So get back to your shoveling, coldangel. I'll give you ten quid to do my driveway.

Decapodian

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #622 on: 05-25-2007 23:23 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Sine Wave:
 In a cold, rigid world ruled totally by logic, life would bite pretty unpleasant, making complete logic illogical. Conundrum!

Hello? We do live in a world ruled by logic.
HipNoJoe
Bending Unit
***
« Reply #623 on: 05-26-2007 00:09 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Professor Zoidy:
Loving the pics. All those times Leela had her hand or arm near Fry and I failed to notice.

Me too. It seems the series is littered with images of one embracing the other or just giving a quick, gentle touch.  Maybe it's just my desire to see them together clouding my judgement but their body language seems be speaking volumes.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #624 on: 05-26-2007 06:49 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Decapodian:

Hello? We do live in a world ruled by logic.

Technically, we live in the world which it is we percieve. Sine Wave is entirely correct.

 
Quote
Originally posted by RobotDevilRox:

It's like the chicken and the egg argument, except with an explanation that is harder to find. I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up now.

I apologize for being so harsh earlier, RDR. Incidently, the answer is the chicken.


coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #625 on: 05-26-2007 21:03 »

Darwinian evolution would seem to suggest the egg came first, seeing as an ancestoral bird, not quite a chicken yet, would have - through a random genetic quirk - laid the first egg which hatched a modern chicken analogue.
Cyberphobia

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #626 on: 05-27-2007 03:47 »
« Last Edit on: 05-27-2007 03:47 »

Woah! I haven't been here in ages!

Yo.

And yes, I agree with CA_1, the egg came first.

And I haven't been here in a few months and you're still on the same Shipper thread as we were on when I left. Disappointing!
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #627 on: 05-27-2007 07:02 »
« Last Edit on: 05-27-2007 07:02 »

   
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Darwinian evolution would seem to suggest the egg came first, seeing as an ancestoral bird, not quite a chicken yet, would have - through a random genetic quirk - laid the first egg which hatched a modern chicken analogue.


Technically, the chicken is the egg, but I'll not apply human standards to the bird right now.

To really get anywhere from this argument, we would fist have to define what it is we mean by egg. Certainly, long before there were chickens, there were fish eggs. I was defining egg as any fertile egg that a chicken lays. Thus, if an animal-which-is-not-a-chicken lays an egg, that egg is not a egg. It could hatch into a chicken, of course. The chicken would then be first.

You probably define egg as a fertile egg which has the genetic material of a chicken, in which case, you are right.


† By which I mean fertilized chiken egg.


 
Quote
Originally posted by Cyberphobia:

And I haven't been here in a few months and you're still on the same Shipper thread as we were on when I left. Disappointing!

Can't you see I'm working on it?   wink

coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #628 on: 05-27-2007 07:14 »

BUT;
What came first - Fry's feelings for Leela or Leela's feelings for Fry?

The former would seem the obvious answer, but one cannot discount Leela's abrupt softening toward Fry down in the ruins of Old New York in SP3000.
Xanfor

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #629 on: 05-27-2007 07:26 »

Define 'feelings'.

Goshdarnit, I'll make an emotional analyst out of you yet!

coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #630 on: 05-27-2007 08:09 »

Feelings... I dunno... romantic... stuff.

Ach! I'm no good at this...
WAVer

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #631 on: 05-27-2007 08:52 »
« Last Edit on: 05-27-2007 08:52 »

Keep in mind this isnt my work, since I cannot draw squat   frown but I feel this is still worthy of being on this thread. So, here ya go...

by satoita
Sine Wave

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #632 on: 05-27-2007 09:22 »

  eek Woah nelly!

Hehe, Fry's fingers look like penguin feet.

As for who loved who first, it's hard to say, because so much of their relationship is portrayed from Fry's side, and Leela's perspective doesn't come in as prominantly until later. She is awfully protective and jealous about things right from the start though.
jle1993

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #633 on: 05-27-2007 09:57 »

I know that, you know that. Try getting Leela to admit it.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #634 on: 05-27-2007 10:45 »

That's an awesome picture. Will we see a coloured version?
WAVer

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #635 on: 05-27-2007 11:02 »

Unfortunately, I dont have a colored version, but that shouldn't stop some kind PEELer from making this into a colored version.  wink
jle1993

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #636 on: 05-27-2007 11:04 »

I think thats a hint for you to do it Coldy
fryandlemon

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #637 on: 05-27-2007 14:24 »

Smexy picture there WAVer wink  I know I've seen the coloured version of that pic before, but I couldn't find it now on Deviantart....  frown

So here's a different coloured one instead:

 love

As for the chicken vs. egg argument, i'd say the egg makes the most sense with the Darwin evolution theory.

Am um..
 
Quote
Preferably snuggling with a lady (Winks at fryandlemon).
I don't really know what to say to that.... tongue
Officer 1BDI

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #638 on: 05-27-2007 14:39 »
« Last Edit on: 05-27-2007 14:39 »

   
Quote
Originally posted by coldangel_1:
That's an awesome picture. Will we see a coloured version?

Indeed, there is a colored version.     smile  It's on dA somewhere, but I can't find it right now.  It doesn't help that the colorer isn't the same person who actually drew the picture.

ETA: ...How did I not see fryandlemon's post.   no no 

I've run across this picture a couple of times on dA (both the scrap and colored versions).  It always grabs my attention whenever I see it.
WAVer

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #639 on: 05-27-2007 15:12 »
« Last Edit on: 05-27-2007 15:12 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by jle1993:
I think thats a hint for you to do it Coldy
That's a hint for anyone to do it, actually. Also, its nice to know there is a colored version out there. Now I just need to find it....   hmpf Yeah, Deviantart.com is where I found it. Anything I find that's top notch I usually save to my PC so when I'm feeling down, I look at pics and/or fanfics like that and feel much better lol.

btw, I looked hard, and I cannot seem to find a colored version of it >_<
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.191 seconds with 17 queries.