Walsingham

Company of Heroes. kaBOOM! hehehehe. I am very confused by that response. I've been playing it a lot recently. It's usually pretty straightforward, but even playing the AI can be surprising.

You have some extremely unoriginal, yet shocking, notions of what an enemy is. It's like debating with a squire from the 1600s. You would have us abandon every tool in our kit, except the stick wi' nails in it. The pointy stick is powerful, but not all powerful.

Company of Heroes. kaBOOM! hehehehe.

You don't look at the Mona Lisa for the frame.

Interesting. Although, I fear that is slightly different. If you know you already have the diease, then a 20% improvement on your odds is good. It's only from the NHS' perspective that it looks less attractive. BTW, I'm just having my medicinal 1 unit of alcohol. Blast, it's finished. I guess I'll have to have another. It tastes delicious.

I conclude that she's a loon.

Think of it as double or quits. Go out with one... that's fine. Go out with both ....awesome. Go out with neither... find someone else.

I'm no submariner, but it occurs to me that a subsurface survey need not be making a military surveillance to have military connotations. Knowing the gulleys and whatnot might assist in countering Chinese subs. And as for Sand's concept of hiding China under an enormous duvet, I'm just pleased to see a return to his usual frog-eyed lunacy.

I'm saying go out with both or neither.

I reckon you should say something abrupt and crude to both of them, and go out with someone else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7937382.stm best risk article I've read in ages. I felt immensely cheered.

Available in high-street venues at less than five pounds?

I loved the bit at 2:10.

Kaft It is PRECISELY because of those rules that I regard your laws on booze taxation as iniquitous at best. Evil, more like it. It is ridiculous that government should tax generosity and relaxation out of existence on the spurious justification that it stops alcoholism. It doesn't, I take it? It is not obligatory to fund the whole date. In my experience, women who are interested in open relationships tend to be too liberated to put up with that sort of nonsense anyway. Equally, a 'solid return' on one's investment is not what it is all about. Besides which, with so many on the go it's not as if solid returns are a big issue at any given moment. Dates relax and become much more freeform, and less full of bull****. The biggest expense is time, really. I didn't quit because of that, but because I fell in love with one of them. So I don't know if I would still be behaving that way otherwise. Provided it is all done honestly I heartily recommend it.

It doesn't take a genius to point out the unlikelihood of a man who wears furry pants and a harness loving women. Adoring them, possibly...

I don't see why. I've dated four women at once. So long as you are up front about your intentions in advance then there's no foul. The only down side is the expense.

Azarkon, you can't warn anyone to leave international waters. The clue is in the name. The problem, as I see it, is that the international wtaer boundary was defined before the revolution in sensors. The distance now might as well be defined as "with your nose pressed to our bathroom window". However, a subsurface survey ship is not the same thing as a spying ship.

I'm still waiting for teh girls to start their own thread. Clearly their dark arcane views cannot be mentioned in public...

I agree that investment in China is clearly better than elsewhere because compared with Burma that investment is more secure. one can do business far more easily. I do not, however, agree that it is weird that we are seen as enemies. Our rights and freedoms are anathema to the Chinese government, as evidenced by their domestic policy and their habit of supporting dingbats like Sudan and Burma. That's not OK in my book, although I'm prepared to accept trade as a means of promoting peaceful change, given the obvious absence of a military option. I wouldn't say China was way out of line, but I would say that they are chancing their arm. They want to see just how far Obama is another Carter.

That's correct. I just tried a half tin of SPAM, but it actually made me feel more melancholy. Melancholy and full of bacony goodness.

So... to be glib, what you're all saying (and being interesting too, I might add) is that this is almost the Cold War. but this time we face economic armageddon? Because if so I'd say that still leaves room for plenty of Cold War brinksmanship. You push as hard as you can by making concessions appear small and then parlaying them up. This incident seems to me to revolve around testing Obama's resolve over Taiwan. He's wussing out with the Russians over Georgia and Eastern Europe. China - to me - seems to be risking their hand while the going is good.

Settle down, or I'll give you both virtual dysentery. Now then... ah yes. I would have eaten the infallible cure of a pound of bad sausages, but the supermarket had absolutely none. Very weird, if you ask me...

It stikes me that China has more to lose by playing teh fol than the US has. China desperately needs US investment at a time when there is none going. Obama doesn't need to send any gunboats, just turn off the cash. On the other hand it occurs to me that recent pronouncements within China calling for a retrograde repeal of freedoms may be them battening the hatches to weather an economic storm. Feed the army and let the civilians starve etc.

If that's what you consider harmless fun then I think I just worked out why they threw you out of the navy.

I liked it. Thanks for the tip. EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXuGOCptSjs