Aristes

Yeah, you have to go into it with the right mindset. This is true of games also. If you go in expecting complete garbage, you'll be pleased by anything short of trash. Seriously, that's the best thing the movie had going for it. I mean, the point with the three agents surrounding 47 and he asks to die with dignity... hahahaha Comedy. It wasn't meant that way.

I'd like to think that rather than rejoicing in her suffering, you're hoping that she leaves **** and takes up with you. haha Sounded like her marriage was pretty iffy in the first place. ...But, hey, sometimes we cannot help being happy when someone else gets the shaft. It's human nature. Nothing to be proud of, but what's the use of beating yourself up over it. heh heh heh. I'm actually hoping that you and she hook up sometime down the line. It would be funny. On the other hand, if she's unhappy with her husband and finds herself drawn to you, she should just figure out where the hell her head is and do something about it one way or the other. Are you prepared to take her if she splits with her hubby, though? *grinning wolfishly* Don't feel compelled. If she's having problems with her husband because of you, then she's having problems with her husband anyhow. Just comport yourself with honor, you dawg! hahaha

I watched Hitman the other night. Now, I have to admit I went into the movie with extremely low expectations. Right off the bat, I thought that the guy who played 47 (Elaphant or whatever the actor's name is) was just too dark. The skin was not pale, what hair we could see was brown, and the eyes are dark. In addition, it seemed like your typical shootemup without much else going for it other than the game setting. And the fact that it's a movie based on a computer game sets it up to stink to high heaven. I was surprised. I don't think it's going to win any awards, but Olyphant and his female counterpart turned in surprisingly good performances. The guy who plays Desmond on LOST is a character in the movie, which was a cool surprise. (I don't know if he's actually Scottish or not, but he certainly sounded like a Scott trying to pull of a Russian accent.) The Interpol cop had a pretty good performance also. Altogether, I can't believe that they managed a worthwhile movie out of it. I wish I'd seen it in the theater. It was an okay flick that I enjoyed even more for being such a fan of the game series. Previously, We'd seen the Duchess. I normally despise those highly sentimental BBC period pieces. However, Unlike the Other Bolyn Girl, I thought the Duchess was a decent flick. The acting was good and there was something in there with which even a middle aged American man can sympathize. I thought the Duke's line, shortly before the end of the film was particularly poignant. Listening to the children playing in the distance, he turns and gives his tight little smile to the Duchess and says, "If only we could be so free forever." I'm paraphrasing from memory, but it's essentially the point of the film. The duke is still a right bastard, but the fact is that we're not free. What freedom we have by the time we're adults, we usually give away freely before middle age. I'm not complaining, just saying that the greatest measure of our personal freedom is in our self-restraint. Let this be the sermon of the day. On the downside, not enough action and sex.

Congrats! I recently picked up the design for the Titanium Impact Band. I giggle a little every time I go to the AH and see them still selling for 2.2k on average. My wife bought the design last night and she's already got orders from guildies for purchase. We don't charge anyone in out guild, and we usually help each other a lot with the mats.

We just cleared Strat for some guildies the other day. Didn't drop the mount. I guess Gftd and I are more mercenary, cause I would rather get the Guardian thing. At least that's something that shows all the time. I will admit that I would like to replace my pants because they look kind of goofy, so that's a vanity thing. On the other hand, I haven't because they're the best pants I've found so far. Vanity 1, pragmatism 1.

Yes, my friend, but if you've done it once, you can do it again! I don't really care about the dragon mount, but I finally broke down and bought myself the mount I've really wanted ever since I first saw it: the Hippogryph! and since I'm already exalted with the the Cenarion Expedition, and I have my hippogryph mount, I've decided to earn exalted status with the Cenarion Circle and become a Guardian of Cenarius. I've already achieved the Explorer title, but the guardian one seems like a cool rpg thing.

My rogue and mage are probably my fastest people. I don't think pve combat in WAR is any faster. Just depends.

I think it eventually did. Burning Crusade had some good ideas, but it had a lot of bad ideas mixed into it. Sure, there are things that some folks find annoying with WotLK. There are things that I find annoying about WotLK. That does change the fact that it's an excellent expansion. I think it has been much better received than BC. As an aside, I finally broke down and bought a novelty mount. I bought the Cenarion War Hippogryph, which I've wanted for soooo long.

If anyone is merging two separate ideas, it's taks. Impeachment/removal of public officials is not the same as criminal trials. Otherwise, we would not need the process of impeachment in the first place. The law would simply stipulate that a public official would be removed upon conviction of a crime. Impeachment has a lower threshold and takes into account misconduct in office. It is also a political rather than legal process. Don't let the idea of trails and hearings, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language, or taks assertions muddy the water. Impeachment has no truly defined criteria. The basis for impeachment is the subject of ongoing and virulent debate. It is used sparingly, but I don't see how the current impeachment in question was wrong. It seems perfectly legitimate to me.

then why did you bring it up when i never said anything about ex-post facto laws nor does it have anything to do with this situation? either you don't understand the terms as well as you think, or you don't understand what i said. and no, it's not "part of a larger" anything. ex-post facto is an entirely different argument, completely unrelated to blago's complaint. taks You're wearing me down, taks, but I'll try to put it in different terms. I honestly don't understand your beef. There is a larger argument regarding this decision, and the former governor lost that argument, whether viewed by a single narrow term or as a larger set of terms. Perhaps he will win on appeal. I doubt it, but you never know. So, you want to view it along one line. He is being denied due process. However, I say that the legislature was well within its rights. He is not suffering unduly by the impeachment in any way, including due process. A man cut down a tree some distance in front of your house. You say that he trespassed to cut down your tree. I point out that the tree did not exist on your property. Not only did he not trespass, but the tree existed before you purchased the house, so you cannot claim that to have planted the tree and therefore have ownership. Furthermore the tree was dead and presented a fire hazard to the neighborhood. For all of these reasons, not only was the man free to cut down the tree, but he was obliged to do so. Just because you have one narrow view of the issue does not mean that I'm forced to have the same narrow view. You may take my comments as affirming that not only is your initial avenue of attack incorrect, but all of these other avenues of attack are likewise wrongminded. ...And why are you so fixated on how I view the terms at any rate? Because, frankly, it seems that you have spent more time arguing over my understanding of the terms than making a better argument. I will concede that you appear to be getting back to the main point with your response to Calax. Whether I understand the terms of not is irrelevant. I suppose you might want to say "sure the tree wasn't mine and it was dead, but he was still trespassing." That's fair enough. I tell you what, you can accuse me of? What? Ignorance? Fine. Fair enough. If it gets us back to the point of the whole thread, sure. Take another whack at me and then we'll get back to the larger discussion, although I warn you I will probably not confine myself to a narrow approach just because you have. The impeachment was appropriate.

I can't watch a game and not cheer a side. I just can't. I thought maybe I could this time, but, no. I still found that I really wanted to see the Steelers win. But I was actually happy to see Arizona play as well as they did.

I didn't get the points. Steelers win it, which makes me just as happy. I was neutral, but I got soooo sick of the cinderella stories in the media. And it's not like the Steelers have a bad rep like the Eagles. They don't try to spear people all the time and crap. They both played super well and the Steelers won.

I understand the definitions. You're mistaking a larger argument that includes more than one narrow term for confusing the term. Certainly, you must understand that these elements of law don't exist in vacuum. How about looking up the term conflating. It's a great term. Roots are Latin. It's not that tough, even if you aren't a Latinist, to find out what it means. I knew it before you decided to use it every single post. The fact is, no matter whether you look at it from a due process standpoint, an ex post facto (for you Latinists. I usually just use after the fact, which is the same thing in English), or simply as a proceedural question, it amounts to the same thing. The guy lost his job. The evidence was sufficiently incriminating (No no I'm not conflating a legislative hearing with a criminal process) to remove him from office. You made a big deal about his removal and I'm saying that, no matter which big bad term we use, the former governor won't be unduly prosecuted under the legal system. So, just because due process is your big bad bane of eeeeeeevil doesn't mean that I can't broaden the subject by bringing up additional points as to why Blagojevich was not unfairly punished.

I'm not conflating anything. The point is that he is safe from any criminal charges based on the impeachment. Not only is he not denied due process, but they cannot create laws and he could not be prosecuted as a result of them if they could. You're conflating a trial resulting from impeachment with a criminal trial. I'm actually separating rather than conflating these issues by saying that they exist independently, and that the impeachment didn't result in any sort of injustice. The legislature acted out its obligated duty by impeaching him. They had sufficient evidence to impeach him and that evidence did not need to rise up to the same level as the evidence that would be necessary to convict him of criminal actions. It was for this very reason that the Republicans in the house impeached Bill Clinton. So, there was no need of due process of law because of the nature of the hearing, and even if the hearing resulted in a law that would have made his prior acts criminal, he could not be charged at any rate after the fact. I'm not confusing those issues. I understand them about as well as any layman. The only identified lawyer in this thread is Enoch, and he's already stated his view, which doesn't make it settled, but certainly carries weight as a professional in the field. If it comes out that he did nothing wrong in the least, which is unlikely, then I don't think he should get his job back, although I'm certain the ridiculous lifetime ban will go. Instead of giving him his job back, he can run again as someone who was wronged by the system. What should happen is the public, especially in his state, should hold law enforcement and public officials accountable. While it is a grave injustice to him personally, the important thing is policy.

Wow. It was carried out by the legislature under the existing laws. That we respect the law first and foremost, and change it if it is wrong, is most important to me. Furthermore, most folks I've heard say that O.J. Simpson got away with murder. There was insufficient evidence for folks to convict him, and so he was a free man. That is the law and we respect that. However, the civil trial decided against him. My point is, just because there is not sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction does not mean there is insufficient evidence for the impeachment/conviction. They are two different things.

You've got it wrong. That the legislator selected evidence that will be used in a criminal proceding is not the same as saying that this is a criminal trial in which the prosecutors will pick and choose from evidence that will not be available for the defense. Whether it's right or wrong, the fact that hearings in the legislature are essentially political shows is the norm and has been. ...And, right or wrong, these hearings serve a political purpose. There simply must be some sort of hearing, even if it's the highly orchestrated hearings we have on display. At least some information comes to light. Due process of law rises above state law and, if there is any problem, it is protected by the constitution. It really doesn't matter what IL says about it. I'm not conflating any issues at all. I'm saying the limited scope of these hearings serves to protect citizens from what would be a true miscarriage of justice: denying citizens due process. I think the legislature would argue that it did conduct an investigation. Sure, it must have been a pretty hasty one, and they're undoubtedly counting the criminal investigation, but they'd probably argue that they did. My point is, even if he's found innocent, I think the removal should still stand. We should not have the same standard applied for removing someone from office as we do for a criminal conviction. I doubt he'll get his job back, even though he might get the court to overturn the subsequent decision to bar him from political office for life.

That's the sort of thing that happens all of the time in legislative hearings. That's the norm. Because they're not criminal trials, and because you can't arrest someone after the fact, legislators always pick and choose. The due process is protected precisely because the hearings aren't criminal and even a law coming out of the hearing cannot be retroactively applied. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems as if Blagojevich was removed by what we must consider as the appropriate process. Could this set a bad precedent in that other governors are removed by capricious legislatures in the future? Sure, but that's a different story, a different argument, and undoubtedly won't make much difference for Blagojevich at any rate.

Yeah, this is what I do. I never watch any tv shows when they air, so I just avoid reading this thread until I've seen the latest episode.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm a bit burnt on Fallout until the xpac with the raised level cap and some other odds and ends thrown into it. ...And I've explored enough, I don't just want a raised level cap. I want them to fix the ending. I don't care that it wasn't hard. I hate the fact that EVERY game pretends that it has to have some over the top finale in terms of combat. What I hated was the general let down of the ending. It was just lame. It didn't really give anything to anyone. It wasn't challenging enough for the combat oriented. It wasn't written well enough to satisfy the story people. It wasn't pretty enough for the graphic mongers. It wasn't anything enough. So, they need to fix the ending and then give us a bit more to do. Then again, I'd rather spend 30 bucks on a decent expansion than 10 bucks on a glorified patch and I refuse to spend 1 buck to put armor on my horse.

Thanks for the link. That weas fun.

If this were like baseball, with tons of games played out in series, the stats would rule by the end if for no other reason than luck evens out over time. That assumes luck exists in the first place. Randomness and chance? Sure. Luck and fate? The jury is still out on that one. Anyhow, sometimes the underdog wins in baseball. Basketball has a lot of games and there are upsets there as well. ...But football is an entirely different beast. With so few games, any team can get 'lucky' over a few games. There really aren't enough games to even out the chance events. Of course, football isn't God aweful dreadfully boring and I'll actually watch a game if I get the chance as opposed to baseball. I don't know. I see Enoch's point about the playoffs. It makes sense to want things to have some sort of rhyme or reason. It's good to have upsets just to show that these are games of chance, but for stats to have any meaning at all, teams with better stats should beat teams with worse stats. If teams that just barely squeak into the playoffs frequently beat teams that went in with a solid record, it undermines the underlying logic of football strategy. Now, the stats come from games, so they're certainly fluid, but there's a huge difference between saying that any given team can beat any other given team on any given day... there's a difference between saying that and saying that teams beat each other so randomly we don't even bother looking at stats. I don't think it's that bad at this point, but I can understand how someone who views the game on an intellectual level would appreciate better (not perfect) predictability than this post season has yielded.

I don't play my tank with other people because I need the help. I play him with my brother because he wanted help getting to 80 and, at some point, I team with his mage and it just stuck. Other than that, tanks are so beastly these days, I'm constantly going around and doing group quests with other players. If I have to kill Kreug one more time, I think I should get an achievement. What I like best about high level tanks is that you can herd a whole bunch of baddies into an area and then kill them all. Especially melee mobs. You can stand in a group of them all day and wear them down.

I always go for the AFC. It makes it easier to know whom I want to win. However, in some special cases I'm actually a bit more neutral. After all, Steelers have plenty of SBs under their belt. That wouldn't be enough, but the Cards have been such an underdog all year, it's just weird to think that they'll take the day. There were a lot of Cinder Ellas invited to the ball, but only the Cards might go home with the prince. I think the Steelers are a better team, but if you look at it from just the playoffs, the Cards look pretty damned good. Whatever they did in regular season, they've faced tough teams and overcome them handily post season. On the other hand, Pittsburgs' OL is holding better and, if they can protect Roethlisberger keep the ground game running, then the Steelers will probably be unstoppable. Warner is the one on fire, but Roethlisberger is no slouch and with a little protection an the opportunity to mix things up, I think they've got it. The real question is, will the Cards Offense be able to brush aside the Steelers Defense like they have the other post season contenders? They've scored at least 30 points in the last three games, and it's not like folks were kicking sand in the face of the Eagles' defense all year. The Steelers have a strong defense, but they need to be strong enough. I guess the real question is, can the Cards ride the Underdog wagon all the way to victory? How many times can they be the odds on favorites to lose before the odds makers get it right? I'm predicting that the Steelers will win by seven in a tight game. Maybe 21-14. I know, these teams have been putting points on the board, but I've got a gut feeling. You can make fun of me later if I'm wrong. Sadly, I won't be able to watch the superbowl, although I will be checking the score from time to time. You just can't really get to know the teams very well by reading about the games afterwards and checking the stats. If stats ruled, then we wouldn't even have this matchup in the first place. There is something visceral about football. At one level it's a thinking man's game, but on another level it's about the experience. It's not a thought, it's an event.

Sounds uninspired. I'll wait to hear more, but I'm not set on purchasing the DLC yet.

I did the first couple of maps of No Mercy with Calax in the wee hours of the morning. It was only on advanced and we made some mistakes. When I say we, I mean as a group. I think Calax was basically perfect. I did pretty well myself except for one extremely stupid mistake which was to run into a room and close the door when the tank was chasing me. I knew it was stupid the second I did it. For some reason I was thinking he was on fire, but then it occured to me that there wasn't enough time. So I figured I'd see how long it would take for the tank to beat down the door. hahahaha One of the other players died a couple of times, which kind of hurt the team, but I think the director was laying easy on us and we probably would have finished the level. We had just made it into the hospital when the server crashed. I'd also played another game right before with some folks and that one did pretty well. Playing with other people can either be a lot easier or a lot more painful. One thing that really stands out is that if you have a decent group, you can make some mistakes and recover whereas you're likely just screwed with the AI. I found out about a cheating spot on Death Toll where, should you stand there, the zombies can't even reach you and the tank doesn't even spawn and you can shoot him to death with the pistol even if he does. Made for me feel dirty just doing it, but it was a very easy final level. Oh, did more WoW. My tank, whom I only play with others, is almost 80 now. My brother has played with me most often and so I want to make sure we're questing together when I hit 80. Then I will have a grand total of two maxed characters. I haven't been concentrating on leveling, but I'll be glad to have my warrior get there. My gear will improve greatly.