Walsingham

*Burst of laughter*

I hear you, Nep. But I'm a firm believer that drive without true purpose is mere sound and fury. Too many people I meet work like mules without the faintest apparent interest in WHY they are working like mules. These people get no satisfaction from life when they are living it. And if they work truly self-destructively then they earn enough money to send their offspring to the kind of places we've been talking about. Where they waste the proceeds on gamboling about, and vainly clutching at meaning by trying to bring better people down to their level. If this sounds a bit over thought out, I should add that this is the theme of the radio plays Life in London, now on BBC 4Extra.

I tend to look at fantasy Worlds from a 'realism' slant. They have to deliver some sort of cause and effect or the narrative and immersion break apart like an old spinster's dreams. My chief problem with magic is that a world in which individuals can wield it easily and without cost is a world which logically wouldn't move beyond feudalism. Or at most some sort of Chinese Song dynasty bureaucratic feudalism. I think human behaviour, endeavour, and relationships would be pretty degraded and monotonous in such a setting. The only meaningful pursuit would be individual pursuit of magical power. Sorry, bit scattered. Just caught this before bed.

Lord of Hangovers would be more accurate I don't think that would be 'Lord', though. More 'Puddle'.

The queen chooses the government, and is head of the Armed Forces. It's very hard to sumarise how this can be both completely untrue and completely true at the same time. If you can understand how cricket is a sport then you will be on the right track.

Nice sig, BTW. "Masterrace"?

Was worried that a friend of mine had been hurt in the train derailment in Spain. Tracked her down, and she's fine. Statistically obvious, but still good to know. Have been firing emails back and forth. You know when it's like you haven't been apart?

Logging off and leaving the forum means that bigotry has won. That's what it is FOR. To make you leave. Most of my feelings on this have already been said. But I would add that at least in the UK being a troll is actually illegal and carries fines and jail sentences. Being needlessly offensive isn't a right I recognise, any more than the 'right' to flash old ladies with your winkie. I'd repeat Raithe's reference to the (to me) surprisingly cool Will Wheaton. He stated that some people see themselves not winning, and feel bad in themselves, and just lash out. You don't have to feel sorry for them. But you certainly shouldn't let them make you feel sorry for yourself.

Ok. But I'm right, aren't I? Any outfit shady enough to blatantly steal IP shouldn't be trusted.

And perhaps I went too far in defending them. I don't think it's even a moot point to assert that industries are showing rather worrying tendencies to pursue high risk strategies. My own experience is seeing this in insurance and banking. The problem is that firms can make huge profits in the short term by doing single high risk punts. Not charging enough because the market refuses to pay the right price. The markets, whether consumers or investors, can collectively hammer an industry into a hole through this sort of idiocy. But to do them credit, they just move on. No more films? Sod it, games. No more games, sod it, live performances or wired entertaino-casts.

I think you also have to factor in the McD effect. That inexplicable urge which 'normal' people feel to flock towards anything togged out as big budget. What's the term? 'Aspirational'.

Never heard of anything like that in the UK. Sounds bloody good value for 25 quid. They'd soon get sick of me though. I'd start sending them things like chilli peppers, and pictures of Iga Wyrwal to test.

Actually if I'm honest, roughly 30% of my support for the Royal Family is based on them annoying the sh** out of people I was brought up to believe are jealous peasants. Or maybe they're just more like scones. Hard to justify objectively, but quite pleasant.

Some of these pictures reminded me of this Daily Mash classic.

I got mine several years ago. Essentially for talking like this:

I wouldn't say in an upper class manner. More in the manner of a swivel eyed oik. But yes.

We have had a player leave the country to go Scandi. He's threatening to be on hand by phone for our campaign set in the 1990s. Makes sense, I guess. Just a rambling thought: a pool of NPC character actors available on a hangout or something.

Could I call myself Lord of Pies, or would that be dragging a joke too far?

I don't believe it would collapse the film industry. It would collapse a player. But there's clearly a niche for that type of investment. So long as people want those investment profiles then someone else will give it to them. I seee the thing (as you've probably guessed) as an evolutionary/ecological thing. It doesn't matter how much I like the duck billed platypus, they just aren't as successful as hyenas.

True and it's always cooler being the "boss" rather than being the entourage.. Still, it looks so alluring. Many many years ago I got taken around by a millionaire's son (school connection). I felt like a pirate's parrot. Not cool.

You got a lab to rate your hand loads?

Apologies for double post: Royal Gift Incinerator at maximum capacity.

The thing is, the loss of returns is rather important; several recent films actually made money but didn't make ENOUGH money to cover the other losses. As it was put, the studioes don't want to invest 50 mil to make 100 mil, they want to invest 50 mil to make 300 mil. And that's just crazy; but if you think about it, they think like this because they have to balance to cost of all the 50 mil films that made 50 mil or less. As to what I've seen, I saw THE CONJURING a nice classic haunted house/demon monster story. James Wan has turned out to be a pretty good creepy horror film director. I think we're agreeing now. But just to be sure: Studios don't want to invest 10 million with a 60% probability of returning 50 million. Studios want to invest 50 million with a 5% probability of returning 500 million.

You make a good comparison but the reality is men are more lecherous and known to be more publicly crude than women. Also we know that men on women sexual abuse is much more rife than women on men abuse so I would still say the picture is relevant? I think I just heard a Guardian journalist orgasm. Weirdly it sounded like someone dropping a tray of cutlery.

Amentep has all the answers. All hail Amentep!