Walsingham

A slice of bread and butter pudding.

I suppose I must be a prude in that regard. I thought it was too much IMO. But I have never been in such a situation before so I would not know. Who knows, I could be a sexual beast if I was in such a situation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn

In my experience the best disincentive for violence is to make it realistic. That is, it is potentially very dangerous for the players, the immediate effects are revolting, and the long term consequences are unpleasant in lots of fun ways. Of course, having them understand this before they kill the first person who looks at them funny may be tricky. Perhaps you could have them witness some violence right at the outset? Maybe as kids?

No, you weren't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That cracked me up. I'm afraid I found all IWD a bit flat because there were no fine party NPCs crafted by BlackIsle for their interest and humour. I have only played IWD through once, unlike every other Black Isle game, which I've done at least twice.

You just look at the birth rates in the UK post WW1 and WW2. Danger puts our mambo engines on full burn, if you follow me. Human population actually rises after a big war. So much so that they compeltely counter the deaths several times over. Of course all those warbabies don't really make up for al the lost knowledge and experience, but you get the idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they put in all the sex for marketing purposes, but the style works in context.

Djarum: [edit: this was Jack teh Ripper, but I remembered the brand name!] Steve: Can't agree less. I'm a hardened consumer. I ignore and even have alergic reactions to normal ad campaigns. I rely on personal contacts, and even fora to get my recommendations on good stuff. I've bought two games, watched three movies, and a TV show on the basis of what people have said here. I even had a sex-change. No, wait, that was someone else. But the point is valid. Random advertising you have a conversion rate of one in a thousand if it's bloody good. A convincing recommendation online can get you at least one in a hundred, IMO. Probably more like one in twenty.

I particularly like the fact that Starbuck is a believable female heroine. Not a kind of stick figure. I've dated two ex-soldier girls and she really has the quirky tense femininity/masculinity aspect down pat. Impressive. I was also surprised to find that all the sex seemed to work. I'd heard a lot of complaints and then I thought: hang on a minute. Most personal accounts of wartime I've ever read, and every frightening situation I've ever been in has been bursting with kanoodling. It happens.

I was really surprised by how good it was. As usual a friend had to sit me down and make me watch it, since I watch little TV. Obviously it had to be populist, but for all that there are some interesting ideas in there. And teh military side of things pulls far fewer punches than I was expecting. One to watch in my opinion.

No offence intended but if you do no exercise, take drugs, and eat crap, you get heart disease. O'course I'm hoping I'm the exception to that rule. :D

Now you know how I feel, having to stand on the GWB side of the line! Galloway really did nail the senators. I think it speaks volumes for the different styles of debate in the UK Parliament and in Congress. Watch C-Span when they have the two places on. The Commons is a hundred times more rowdy. Galloway was simply more ready to go in and go on the attack. I think the Senators were expecting him to be cowed by their authority! Points for style. But you also have to see him in conversation on other occasions to see how very focussed on himself he is. It is in many ways his greatest asset. He thinks he is amazing. And he is utterly committed to his own interests.

If Dutch ambassadors snuck their way into your house and received visitors as though they were on sovereign territory of the Netherlands, would your house be the Dutch embassy? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My answer woudl be 'no'. We don't have enough armchairs.

I'm not sure if religion/ethinicity ought even be used as an explanation. Is it not rather more a tool used by unscrupulous power seekers? Or am I being an apologist?

My expats said that the North would like to break off, but the oil is in the South.

Thanks for the feedback, gents. I shall pick up a copy of that book, Stewdawg. I suppose my principle interest stems from a couple of things 1) My experiences of Africa are in the South & East. Nigeria seems different somehow. Possibly the greater divisions of ethnicity. It intrigues me to detect this difference. 2) The Nigerian violence seems perpetrated on the surface with the intention of pressuring large oil companies to invest in the country/spread the wealth. My initial reaction is that the nature of the raids I have been reading about are as much geared towards monetary gain. Hostage taking for cash, disruption of the oil firms in general to prevent them taking action against oil theft. But then equally you have attacks on churches and mosques. 3) Why is it that the people are trying to pressurise the oil firms rather than tehir own government? Are the legislators so hopelessly corrupt? If they were not so corrupt would many problems be resolved peacefully? 4) Is the principle problem one of overpopulation? The creation of many more human beings than the region can support in work by subsistence farming or resource extraction. I suppose I am interested in whether there really is a single reason why the violence is occurring. Do the perpetrators themselves really know what the reason is? Understanding the Nigerian conflict is going to become more important the worse it gets. If the situation goes all hairy for any reason at the same time as Iran you may as well sell your cars.

George Galloway. Honourable Member of Parliament. Oh yes. Personally I find it bizarre that impersonating a cat wins you more disapproval than the offence of treason. I must be very out of step with modern culture.

Some of you may know that George Galloway, our very own Member of Her Majesty's Parliament is in the Big Brother House, generally hamming it up and not in Parliament. Parliament clearly being non-mandatory desite his democratic responsibilty, and his pay. I can't really say enough bad things about Gorgeous George, but even I was surprised by the following 'quiz' taken from the left-wing Guardian newspaper. An oldie, but a goodie: 1 Who said recently, "The Iraqi resistance isn't just defending Iraq. It is defending Syria, Lebanon and Iran and all Arab states." Was it: a) The leader of Syria b) The leader of Lebanon c) The leader of Iran d) George Galloway 2 Who wrote of Saddam Hussein: "He is likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a truly Iraqi national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health, social and education standards of his own people." Was it: a) Saddam Hussein, in his autobiography b) Uday Hussein, in his autobiography c) Qusay Hussein, in his autobiography d) George Galloway, in his autobiography. 3 Who used these words to Saddam Hussein, when meeting with him in the 1990s: "I want you to know that we are with you hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds. [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]." Was it: a) An obsequious Jordanian b) A terrified Kurd c) A sensible Iraqi d) A tanned Scot 4 Odd one out. According to his lawyer, Saddam Hussein recently requested that his personal regards be sent to three people. Which of these was NOT one of the three? Was it: a) US lawyer, Ramsey Clark b) Former PM of Malaysia Mahathir Mohammed c) British MP, George Galloway d) Socialite Tara Palmer-Tomkinson. 5 And finally, who once averred that: "In fact I am not a homosexual, never have been and actually have never met an Arab homosexual." Was this man: a) Lawrence Durrell b) Lawrence of Arabia c) Sir Richard Burton d) George Galloway Fairly simple, really. The answer - of course - is d in all cases.

I am requesting the opinions/information of board members on a topic of interest. I have my own views, but am more interested in hearing those of others (for once). Is that odd?

I've been trying to get better informed about the Nigerian unrest. I've been hunting down expat Nigerians but on the whole the ones I located were unhelpful, defensive and tub-thumpingly patriotic. Can anyone here enlighten the assembly on the state of their union, and what all these killings are about? So far the journalistic key-phrases appear to be: Oil (w00t) Ethnicity (w00t) Local corruption/warlordism (w00t) Religion (w00t) Lots of unemployed young men* *I'm starting to wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of mandatory scheme for the human 'rogue male'. Everywhere you look they seem to form the core of all lackwit violence. Or am I being unfair?

My experience of business tells me they chase the dollar. The best way for this legislator cretin to enforce his view that boards need to be more diverse to be more effective would be to put his ideas into play in a firm, and demonstrate it. This is how the market usually works. I also feel that simply outlawing something does not change the people's views. It has to be an expression of those views. Viz prohibition in the United States.

Damn straight. I never bought that fascist genetics explanation in I, II, and III. I believe Alec Guinness.

I think you ought to go as a cossack.

What I think is interesting is that even if one were to accept the notion that companies should be representative of the population norm, I fail to grasp why an individual company should be the norm. I mean, simple stats would say that some variation would be natural. Say, firms have to be between 40-50% female. But 46%? That's just insane. I feel that to a certain extent affirmative action can be useful in helping break up redundant behaviour. Diversity is a positive thing in a company. But trying to set precisely how large that number should be is ridiculous! Once a modicum of diversity is ensured, and there are laws against negative discrimination, hiring and advancement should be purely on hard work and potential.

Does WoT actually mean 'War on Terror'? My opinion: This is a perfectly sensible attempt by Mr B to make US/UK govts look bad. He needs to portray himself as offerring a peaceful way out while they hammer on relentlessly. This is helpful in demotivating our supporters, and also helpful in motivating his (not all of whom share his fanaticism). Bin Laden/Zawahiri are not interested in peace. They were attacking the US long before Iraq/Afghanistan, and their stated aim is the establishment by war of a global Ummah. The only cessation the bigwigs will accept is unconditional surrender. Mainly because they believe they can win no matter what we do. On a purely practical basis I can't think of a single example where a ceasefire with terrorists has not been to the terrorists advantage. It allows them to rest, regroup, consolidate skills and retrain. But then, you all know I'm a kook, so who cares?

On the contrary, that sounds precisely like the actions of a 21st Century bureaucratic manager. Friendly fire is OK, but sexual harassment can mean a big law suit. And, for the record, although I've played the game a gazillion times, I'd never even thought about going into the ladies!

I honestly don't know what to say.