Walsingham

Indeed. I dreamed last night that I was in Redhill, Surrey.

I'm not sure it's nonsensical. Probably a tautology though. Please do ask your theological friend. Should be interesting.

Yes, the S-300s you chaps are selling to the regime you claim can be dealt with best by sanctions...

Nothing wrong with hippies. Today I learned that under no circumstances should you - without thinking - put the search term 'dirty filthy hippies' into a search engine.

Really?! That's your most coherent response?

Obyknven, we object to your President precisely BECAUSE Russia is beautiful, rich, and powerful. He demeans Russia in the eyes of the World, he impoverishes Russia to his own gain, and Russia deserves better.

I agree that there seems an excessive and frankly semi-retarded emphasis on graphics, but if you think about it, something like Baldur's Gate had HUGE amounts of actual content. Dialogue, maps etc. Creating something which Obs would consider good in content terms might just as well be a full premier league project, with all teh graphics added on. Not sure if that made any sense. I need some sleep.

I agree with Hurlshot. It's like the difference between shooting people in the A-Team, and in Man Bites Dog.

I still like the game a lot, but if Ubisoft think I'm making the sacrifice of 30 pounds then putting up with being treated like I'm a paedo on parole via DRM then they can quite simply and elegantly **** off.

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showt...t&p=1022464 I suck. You rule. ~~~ I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I waas in teh pub, and this scrawny **** started trying to start a fight with some inoffensive randoms and the thought which went through my head was 'Man, I hate violent people. If only I had my gun, I could shoot him.'

I think it's pretty cool that they seem chilled out about it.

I had to copy this out by hand, rather than copy paste, so have a read: Quoted in 'Hero or Coward' by Elmar Dinter.

My local pub brought round sausages cooked in red wine, onions, and herbs. We asked what was up, and they said 'Sometimes bad s*** happens for no reason. Today good stuff happens for no reason." I love my pub.

LOL. So so true.

I thought you were skiing already?

rehashed yesterday's curry with peas, carrot and more spices. Then went shopping and thrwe out my back. Now drinking beer, the tea of champions.

Neil A-Z of Awesomeness. It really is brilliant.

I hate to say this, man. But i think you should see counselling. You're becoming a hippy.

The real question is whether the house would pay out if a bug prevented someone from winning. Basically the onus is on the vendor to maintain and ensure their machines work. If it is in service, and accepting money then it's statements are those of the house, and payments are valid. Otherwise what is the point?

This is a debate intended to work internally to the subject, rather than question the external validity of the subject to the world at large. SO NO F***ING RELIGION BASHING! My interest concerns Satan, and the Fall. It's an interesting point for a variety of reasons, but I have a specific interest today. For many years I took the view that Satan's fall is evidence of God's perversity. Satan, being an angel, has no free will. Combining his lack of free will with God's total awareness must logically mean that God knew with perfect certainty that when he made Satan he would fall. But despite serving as intended, God punishes Satan. Which I've always felt is like somebody locking a dog in a room for three days then beating it for urinating in the corner. Or more directly, dropping a rock, then kicking it for hitting the ground. HOWEVER, we were discussing this last night and a thought occurred. God need not be regarded as possessing perfect knowledge of his creation. Because - in theory - he gave Man free will. This could let God off the hook, but at the same time it raises an interesting point. In order for God to be acquitted of the charge of perverse sadism WE have to take responsibility for committing some act he did not foresee which would have known would lead to Satan's fall. Now, I accept that we may not have known that standing on one leg, saying 'carrot' or turning slightly to the left could provoke the rebellion of a chunk of angels, but did it we might have done. Further to letting god off the charge of being a total s***, there are two points arising. 1. It's no wonder Satan wants to punish us. 2. Using this defence means God's legal team formally recognise our right to freedom of choice, AND still more interestingly that God cannot and does not know our every action. I say this because having perfect knowledge of Satan means he would know the consequences of any change to Satan's environment. Monkey see, monkey do, if you like. So in oredr to not foresee and - one would hope - peacefully pre-empt the Fall God would have to be very ignorant of what WE were up to. Otherwise he'd be able to come in, and show Satan a kitten or whatever would calm him back down.

Exercise is the only sensible way to lose weight, IMO. Unless you want to be perpetually angry.

Kemal Ataturk, on the war memorial at Gallipoli, and further evidence were it needed that he was an extraordinary statesman. The Turkish don't venerate him for nothing. That is certainly an extraordinary and admirable sentiment. I went with a group of British officers to Monte Cassino a few years ago and we made a deliberate trip to lay a wreath at the German cemetery, after our own.

It certainly is. For the record Obykneven I used to know a couple of ex KGB border guards. So keeping in mind your youth I would gently suggest you look into your history a little harder.

I'm a fan of bourbon, but IMO an old fashioned is best with rye or scotch. Although in part that's beause bourbon is so bitter. Which is not to say that a well mixed OF couldn't be superb with bourbon. I think it would come down to sugar.

He just did office work. Even field agents usually do not kill people. For this purpose, there are many thousands of special forces. Oh well that's fine then. You almost make the counter case yourself! Please tell us you don't see this as an oddly detached view. Don't get me wrong. There isn't a national politician in history without blood on his hands. I'm just saying that a person who belonged to an organisation dedicated to destroying freedom might not be the optimal choice for an office which is supposed to underpin it.