EnderAndrew

Carpet sharks for the win!

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warrior...ungfumaster.htm

I was looking at this modern map. http://www.xcelco.on.ca/~ravgames/dipmaps/modern_ra.gif A few things jump out at me, which tell me what players think are the common problems in a standard game.

I have no complaints with that strategy.

My last post was lost and I didn't bother to retype it, but I actually had more.

Us red-heads have no sex drive. See, I'm on topic!

What are you talking about? I never had sex before marriage! That would be uncouth!

http://www.lostfocus.de/archives/2005/07/1...tmagic-missile/

That adult shop had the "Pleasure Wipes" for before, for after, for pleasure. Personally, I think if you are a dirty soap-dodger and you are replacing showers with wet naps, then I'm not sleeping with you.

Your next link goes on to hammer the Iraq/Al Quaeda thing again. Again, it doesn't quote Bush since Bush never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It says that since Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 that proves Bush misled the American public. When did Bush say Iraq was responsible for 9/11? The whole article covers points already addressed.

The next link is comical. It suggests the defense of going to war is based upon Bush being a Christian. Surely 30 million Iraqi people and over 75 UN resolutions have nothing to do with that. 30 other nations hopped on board simply because Bush was a Christian. This is great logic. It then insists that there is a secret memo out there that suggests Bush had an agenda all along. Okay, since we have no proof of this memo, let's see what facts we have. On 9/11 the world's sympathy towards us and anger at the middle east was at an all-time high. At that time, many nations offered their support and the media suggested we might invade Iraq because of 9/11 regardless of connection. Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld all publicly said Iraq wasn't involved and we were focusing on the Taliban. Meanwhile, 2 days after 9/11 the UN security council passes a unianimous measure slapping Iraq on the wrist. Here is where fact ends and my speculation begins, just so you know (since you can't apparently tell the difference). I suggest that if we went into Iraq immediately after 9/11, we would have been going in for the wrong reasons, but we likely would have had more support. Also, by catching Iraq off-guard we also would have found more. However, the fact of the matter (reverting back to facts) is that Bush and Powell urged diplomacy with Iraq for two more years despite repeatedly violating UN Security resolutions. This secret memo which can't be proven contradicts all facts in the case. How reliable does that make it?

Let's tackle your third link, because I don't want to ignore any potential "points" you may have. All you've thrown at me is partisan opinion and lies so far. Again, please find me one single quote where Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. He never did. Lies, lies and more lies. Is this all you got? I said start with factcheck.org and bring facts. Find me one single quote where Bush said it would be a cakewalk. I watched the CENCOM briefings every single morning after I got off work. Every single day I saw Rumsfeld, Gen Franks and everyone say the war would be difficult and long-fought. Bush said we would prevail, not that it would be easy. Putting words in his mouth doesn't make him a liar. The article here doesn't even attempt to quote Bush or Rumsfeld saying that it would be a cakewalk, but instead puts quotes around the word in the headline, implying that one of them said it at one time. If you're proving that someone lied, you should quote what they said. Can you produce one such quote? I didn't think so. This is great. The article doesn't say that we didn't have a moral justification, but rather this is a recent after-thought since other justifications proved false. Well, the other justifications didn't prove false. And Bush was talking moral justification since day 1. Again, this is lies and spin.

This is great. I'm reading your second link, which contradicts your first link. It says the planes did exist to distribute chemical weapons, but they can only fly 300 miles. How does this change the fact that while Saddam starved his people he was pursuing illegal WMD and in violation of UN resolutions? The second link also keeps harping that WMD were never found nor documentation suggesting they ever existed. What about the training manuals? What about the actual sarin gas we keep discovering? I guess that doesn't count. And what about the convoy of trucks that left Iraq into Syria that Colin Powell suggested was all the WMD leaving Iraq before we ever got there? This is beautiful. Your second link loves using unconfirmed rumors such as this: Can you even attempt to use crap like this in a factual debate? What did Bush say on 9/11? He said to practice tolerance and to not blame all Islamic people. He urged the nation to not jump to conclusions. How about we judge him by what he actually said instead of what someone unnamed source says was secretly happening behind the scenes. Sheesh.

Spain has the highest probability of being attacked and has the farthest to go to gain 30 supply centers. Great Britain has a 55% advantage over Spain in the Play Balance Ratio. I don't know how a standard game compares, but given those two advantages, does Great Britain really need 5 supply centers to start?

You can't defend an undefenable position. You know what a director does? Would you like me to quote you saying multiple times that your biggest problem was the story. The director didn't write the story! Apparently you still don't know what the director does. How can you say he has no talent, when the entire world recognizes his talent as a director?

Please provide factual links, and not reader commentary. Let's start with your first link. Sarin gas was found. And the UN also recognizes that Saddam used Sarin gas on his own people. Check BBC, CNN, Factcheck.org or any independent news site.

Your chart also shows that the $50,000 bracket is generating the second highest amount. Really it is the upper-middle class paying a good chunk of the country's taxes, while the uber-wealthy are likely paying less.

The precious.... http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Produc...5_13041,00.html

I think it was the Endar Spire. I take no credit in a ship that gets destroyed so easily.

Can you stare at different types of poop? Can community content allow for creating your own poop? This game may be better than Dungeon Siege 2 already.

Is that the prequel to Wil Wright's Pee game?

Can't both statements be true? The rich pay more taxes, but many rich people avoid paying taxes? Your own chart suggests those making 10 million or more only account for 15 million in taxes in the entire country. Bill Gates personally is worth over 80 billion, isn't he? Let's say he made 4 billion in a year via income and capital gains. He doesn't really pay taxes on his stocks or capital gains. But if he were taxed at 20% like me, he'd pay 80 million personally. The entire country only took in 15 million total for that entire tax bracket. Surely there are a few people in this country who made 10 million last year. I'm guessing some of them didn't really pax taxes.

Not bad, some some people start with 4 supply centers and some start with 3, and I'm not seeing why.

I'm downloading other things. I do love and abuse my copious amounts of bandwidth. I just don't think a click-fest game is worth a 2 gig download. I still haven't played the first one which I have.

I also think WWIV would take ages. Not only would it take countless turns to eliminate various players, but the late stages would take forever just because the distance it takes to travel across the ocean. We have seven players. Can someone submit a variant for seven players that is perhaps more balanced than the original map?