Volourn

Don Cherry is a bigoted moron. Agree with him at your own risk of looking silly. Ovechkin may not get 'better' in terms of goal scoring; but he's gonna get better most likely when it comes to dominating the league.

"though I do agree with the Conservative stance on youth justice. Just because a violent criminal also happens to be under 18 doesn't mean they should be sent on vacation rather than to jail." If you are gonna have laws that limit youth rights on what adults have they also shouldn't have the same obligations or face the same punishments as adults do. It seems silly to say you arne't mature enough to have the rights of an adult; but darn it, we're gonna punish you like you are an adult. Society should make up your mind. If teens aren't mature enough to be allowed to smoke, they most certainly shouldn't be mature enough to br tried like an adult.

That's good advice, Mkreku. Take it.

Doesn't Hasbro have some kind of ownership/partial ownership of Atari anyways? They do, IIRC. So, in the end, Hasbro has some sort of say in what Atari does in general.

http://sports.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/abc/New...=canucks-luongo NHL is pathetic.

Don't be a bigot. All governments arne't worthy of being trusted THAT much.

"they aren't, you have pushed the armed criminal in question to a dangerous situation which is more likely to end up with you being hurt than if you were unarmed." Yeha, because criminals have never killed unarmed victims. Besdies, why are you blaming the victim? they didn't push the criminal into anything. That is 100% on the criminal. Period. The moment the criminal shows up to commit a crime - gun or not - they are the ones who 'pushed' themselves 9and you the victim) into a dangerous situation. By your logic, the police shouldn't have guns either because that forces criminals to have guns too. And, why should police bother to wear bullet proof fests when that 'pushes' criminals to use 'cop killing' bullets. "If they're professional criminals, they will always be better armed than you are." Simply not true, and when it is true.. so what? They could be better armed all they want. You don't need a bazooka to kill someone, or defend yourself. A hand gun works just as well... unless it's an army. L0L I don't see how not having guns somehow protects you from gun toting criminals more thna having agun does. This myth that criminals will only shoot you if you have a gun is just propaganda from extreme anti gun groups. It's not logical. They're gun toting criminals for a reason - it's because they believe guns give them an advantage over their non gun toting victims.. and, they're right. P.S. I'm not a gun loving maniac either. I've handled one gun and that was target practice at summer camp. I own no guns, and I don't plan too either; but this belief that banning gun s= Happy Happy Land is an absolute myth. Violent crime/murder/etc. have beena round much longer than guns existed to be sure.

"prior to this he was" Nope. read the history. The guy was 'in the red' so to speak before this incident. "I'm neutral on gun lesislation but the volo logic reads like this. Upstanding citizens should have access to guns. Criminals shouldn't, but will get them via criminal means. Spree killers arn't upstanding citizens, but arn't criminals either, so where are their guns coming from. Answer is, the same place as the guns of upstanding citzens, either bought themselves or from friends/relatives. Which means, logically, that if upstanding citizens didn't have access to guns, then neither would spree killers unless they resorted to criminal means. There are lots of arguments against gun legislation, but this is not one of them." My point is simple. Outlawing guns doens't stop criminals from havinga ccess to them as criminals by DEFINTION, don't care if soemthing is illegal. Duh. So, by essence, by outlawing guns, you are only taking guns away from those who would obey the law hence people who likely arne't a danger to going on mass murder sprees, anyways. So, what did you succeed in doing? Making it easier on the criminal to threaten/murder/rob innocent civilians. Besdies, I will never be on the side on extreme gun illegalization as long as the government, and police feel the need to have guns UNLESS it can be GUARANTEED that all government officials (FBI, Mounties, police, army) are 100% 'good guys' and would never use their guns (which you and other seem to wnat them to be the ONLY people with gun access) to bully, threaten, rob, murder, and blackmail innocent civilians. P.S. I'm not paranoid. I bleive most police officer sare cool dudes; but sadly it's the minority that ruins things. Just like the criminal element - espicial;ly the violent ones - are a minority yet ruin for everyone too. *shrug*

"but to be honest I almost never check corporate mail, which I actually divert to a separate account that I use for online registration and the associated spam mail. I only check the account for retrieving passwords if I need to do so. I bet lots of people do the same." That's your problem not WQal-Mart's. Anyways, Walmart is awesome. They mostd efinitely not eveil. Nope, that's customers. Customers are TRUE EVIL. Walmart sells lots of awesome stuff for awesomely reasonable prices. And, from what i've seen and heard from people I know who have actually worked there, they treated their employees no worse than other companies - if not better. "walmarts drive lots of mom and pop shops out of business" That's a good thing. 'Mom and pop' stores are usually more expensive, and since they tend to have monopolies in the area theya r ein, not much you can do about it. "2. walmarts ultimately steer local politics (unavoidable for such a large business)" Not a positive or negative inofitself. "3. walmarts offer lower-end products (anecdotal, and not always a "con," except to those that prefer top of the line stuff)" 'low end' or not, their stuff is awesome, and I tend to have o problems with the stuff I buy there. 4. hmmm...

Nor was he an innocent civilian. *shrug*

Irrelevant. People who go on rampages - gun or otherwise - are not innocent civilians.

"And people who go on gun rampages because they're pissed off and have easy access to guns." Those aren't innocent civilians, are they? "So you're saying you'd be fine with removing guns from law-abiding people provided those people had no police or army to protect them?" Police do a good job protecting people from murder now, right? Police are mostly useful in hunting the Bad Guys tm down AFTER the crime has been commited. The army doesn't protect people. They protect countries. HUGE difference. Also, if there were no guns, police and armies wouldn't need guns to do their jobs. But,t his is point. Guns exist. We don't live in Happy Happy Land. Innocent civilians should have guns. So should law enforcement. So should the army. Only scumbag criminals should be banned from owning weapons. Making it illegal for innocent civilians to have guns doesn't protect innocent civilians from gun toting scumbag criminals, or police or soldiers who abuse their badge/uniform. I'll make another deal with you. If you can 100% guarantee that the army and police forces will only have nice, upstanding goodie two shoes who will *never8 abuse their power than I'd be all for the army/police having guns even if guns were banned for everybody else. But, oh yeah, you can't do that. Afterall, the saying Power Currupts exists for a reason.

The dialogue was awesome. And, couldn't be more 'compact' depending what you actually mean by that.

This goes back a few pages; but I'll go back to my comment(s) on governments and guns. I'll make a deal. The day the law makes it illegal for the government to have access to guns (this includes both the police, and the army) is the day I will back making gun ownage illegal for innocent, upstanding civilians too. But, governments don't do that because they fair losing power. It's a LOT HARDER to intimidate, and bully innocent civilians if they ahve access to guns. That's why governments and pro government punks love gun bans for innocent people. It has nothing to do with battlingc rime as innocent civilians don't commit violent crimes. Only violent criminals who don't obey such laws or any laws anyways. By outright banning guns, you aren't hurting the criminal just the innocent civilian.

So.. the CRPG market's success is solely based on whteher or not I buy MOW? I got one thing to say... bye, byte, CRPG PC market. I will buy SOZ. Not MOW. I don't thhink MOW will be good enough to warrant an online purchase. And, no, 'threats' that of if I don't buy MOW that the PC CRPG market will end is enoguh to get me to buy it. btw, MOW is NOT that important. The PC CRPG market will be around for awhile yet. Some extra peonic internet downloaded mod will have any effect on that amrket is ludicrous. Not when you have games like DA, FO3, D3 (yeah, yeah, not a 'real' RPG) coming out. It will be those games that will determine what games get made. All MOW and SOZ will determine is if more NWN2 stuff will be made. NEWSFLASh: My game purchasing habits are NOT based on charity; but based on my selfish wants, and desires for fun games under my chosen conditions. MOW fails to meet those. SOZ does not. One doens't get purchased, the other does. LONG LIVE CONSUMER AND DEVELOPER AND PUBLISHER CHOICE!!!

"Don't LOL me, its true." D0uble L0L

"They wouldn't have the sales of a BG3 2nd ed or 3.x ed game would." L0L

Actually, the message that gets sent is that the company failed to deliver what the customers wanted.

Tough.

That have alreayd been games set in, and around Waterdeep. There was HOTU, and there's the EOTB series both mostly set in UM/UD; but *shrug* there's your precious Waterdeep.

There's an enderwiggin on the Atari forums. not sure he's the same guy, though, could be....

Bye bye, Jack.

And, you seem happy about that. Why, DR, WHY?!?

Jaromir Jagr should be captain. Stupid Rangers. I almost want them to have a bad year. That said, they have Lundqvist in net, so that's pretty much impossible.

I found the atcing alright. Action wa sokay. The new KITT abilities are lame, over the top, and nothing more than a way to do 'deux es machina'... ie. missle strikes the care, and the car laughs it off? GMAB!