Epirote

While I didn't know him, best of luck, from me too. Does anyone round here know and may disclose, if he did any work for NWN2?

No Planescape: Torment? No Quest for Glory? No Deus Ex or Vampire: Bloodlines or Wizardry or Ultima or Knights of the Old Republic or BioShock or Diablo or World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy or Arcanum or Fallout or Elder Scrolls? I mean, your list is your list, but it's strange that the top RPGs are all set in the Forgotten Realms and were made by 2 different companies. Nope, sorry, back then money was scarce and gaming was limited to playing demos for me. For a while at least ... I played most of them as demos. I remember a King's Quest by Sierra or some such, being my first full paid game. And to explain my choice, BG1 was my first real RPG and I did not like BG2 at all, for silly and personal reasons. At first coming from BG1 to NWN1, I thought the latter was silly game! Resting everywhere! Not to mention breaking and entering: "Excuse me, coming through to the loot!" ah well .... 2nd place: Although I hate the Spirit Eater Curse and the whole mechanic and all ... I still can objectively judge that this is a great expansion to an excellent OC. 3rd place: HotU was great! :D 4th place: most finished and most played recently, the "infamous" OC. 5th place: Surprise! Surprise! I hated SoZ at first, but it grew on me and my only complaint is that it crashes a lot on me. Well sometimes it crashes like on every second transition to the OM and sometimes I can play 2 hours straight before it crashes. Anyways, it's a great game, too. 6th place: kind of selfexplanatory! Nah, I loved the NWN OC, played it alot and with a lot of different characters. 7th place: SoU - nah, I hated SoU at first and before it had a real chance to really grow on me, HotU arrived. 8. Flop of the Century: BG2, nope, didn't do it for me. Sorry! *ducks to avoid incoming*

NWN was an epic failure in story to the point it was duller than a spoon. The devs focused too much on the play on aspect and being able to make your own dungeons and such that they gave the story of the single player game a back seat. Best RPG ever: 1. BG 1 2. NWN 2: Mask of the Betrayer 3. NWN: HotU 4. NWN 2 OC 5. NWN 2: SoZ 6. NWN OC 7. NWN: SoU] 8. BG 2 Not a fact, just my personal opinion on the matter. o:)

Always! R.I.P. Amen! :good: No, can't say that I bought their games; back then, money was scarce and I somehow missed them.

Maybe this will help: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/for...f=10&t=3032

interests me a lot: what's the cleanest way of setting up such a machine? I'm going to have a similar setup soon, with the exception of Vista, which will be Win 7. 1. install the oldest MS OS, in my case XP 2. then install the newest MS OS, in my case Vista 3. install Ubuntu. If you don't want Ubuntu's bootloader to take over everything, there is an option towards the end of the installation of Ubuntu to install it's bootloader to its own native partition rather than to the MBR. Then use EasyBCD (freeware) from within Win 7 to add it's boot entry to the Win 7 bootloader. In any case, do some research first; google tripple boot XP Win7 Ubuntu, for example. Regarding open source, it matters to me, because even if I don't have the knowledge to alter anything, there is plenty of people out there worldwide who do and thus contribute to the improvement of any open source project. Concerning drivers, the point was that in Ubuntu you don't need to install any drivers, except for graphics card. And yes, I know that Windows Update has a driver section, but to access it, you have to first install network drivers, whereas in Ubuntu you have instant internet access as soon as the installation finishes and you reboot the machine. And concerning bundled software and double standards, I never accused MS of anything; their competitor's did.

Ubuntu rocks! And no, I'm not a linux zealot. I'm your average power user running a tripple boot system (Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit, Vista 64-bit, XP Pro 32-bit). All three have their weaknesses and their strong points. However, it is my experience and my firm belief that Ubuntu is far superior to any MS OS. And here's why: 1.It's free and it's OpenSource. 2.It's more stable than a MS OS (I did not have a CTD or BsoD in Ubuntu yet. I wonder why that is?) 3.No driver installation required. Exception: graphics card drivers, but even in this case Ubuntu is superior, since it properly recognizes your graphics card and offers to download and install the latest drivers, without you having to visit the manufacturer's site). But the most important part is that it doesn't require any network drivers installation. Once you install Ubuntu and boot to desktop, you are instantly connected to the internet. 4.Bootable live CD that does not just boot you to an interface that allows you to install or repair the OS, as MS OS do, but boots you to a fully functional desktop, as if the OS was fully installed with instant internet access, though -understandably- the OS runs at much lower speed, compared to a full installation. This allows you, for example, to troubleshoot boot problems with any OS, before you resort to reinstalling, or to download missing drivers for Windows. I did not have a mb driver disc with my previous machine, so after reinstalling XP for example I would have a lot of unknown devices in device manager, including the network cards. So, I just booted from the Ubuntu CD, downloaded the drivers and I was good to go. 5.Hardware replacement or upgrades don't affect the OS. And I'm not talking about having to reactivate Windows, whenever you as much as swap out a RAM module, for example. A couple of months back, I decided to upgrade my machine, which meant a new motherboard, new CPU and new RAM. I also decided to do it without format and reinstall everything. So, for Windows I had to repair windows afterwards, load all drivers, then delete all ghost devices in device manager left over from the previous machine setup. In Ubuntu all I had to do was boot up (took a tiny bit longer than usual, but once the desktop came up, everything was usable as before. No further action required on my part.) 6.Partitions: an MS OS only sees and can work with it's own native partitions; Ubuntu sees and can work with all partitions. 7.Bundled software, incl. Games: Ubuntu comes bundled with a full Office Suite and other software, incl. simple games. Where a MS OS, has two or three Solitaire games, for example, Ubuntu has a full Solitaire Suite. 8.Flexibility: it is very easy to change a Ubuntu installation to some other linux platform (Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, you name it) by just downloading the appropriate files and installing them. Imagine, for example, XP Home to XP Pro upgrade, simply by downloading required files and installing them. In conclusion, the only thing that keeps me from ditching all MS OS in favor of Ubuntu is my love for games that require DX. But it's not Ubuntu's fault, that the gaming industry has bowed down to MS and develops PC games almost exclusively for that platform.

Death, both on a personal level, and as in death in the family.

Logic is governed by the rules of the respective scientific discipline. doh Facts, have to be examined, as to whether they are real facts or propaganda lies. doh Good one, thanks for making my day. I'm ROFLMAO. I abide by the rules of logic as outlined in the respective scientific discipline. Mostly anyways. And again: there are facts; and there are mass media propaganda lies. The so called fact that the former Secretary of State presented to the UN to get an alliance of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was a fabricated propaganda lie. Proof: no WoMD have been found since the start of the invasion in Iraq. And that's a widely accepted fact internationally. Yes, you have to take my word for it. or you could google the whole thing and form your own opinion. Hey, what's worse than ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care. And yes, that was a sarcastic remark. Seriously though, it is an internationally widely accepted fact that fanatical religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida. I've seen even the BBC report about it, if I'm not mistaken. And if I find the time, I'll be glad to provide you a link. I don't doubt for a minute that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. I just question why it was so important to get rid of Saddam, when there are numerous other ruthless dictators around with or without the potential to endanger the security of the US. That's one question you dodge repeatedly. I'm as rational as your next neighbour, or your next forum member here. I was educated in German High School, and there was a big focus on rational and critical thinking. Something you obviously lack. *plonk* Sorry, about that. Again, just so you get it into your thick head. There is terrorism in Iraq, which has no regards to civilian casualties, and which is condemnable. The invader is an invading army or more precisely a coalition of allied forces. That's a fact, no way around that. Everything else is bending logical definitions. Yeah, whatever you say ... *plonk* To impose economic sanctions you will need to employ diplomacy. Am I right or am I wrong? And if you are implying that I am a propaganda drone, you have proved for all to see that you are not capable of having a civil and rational discussion on a www forum. I feel sorry for you. It seems the blindfolds, of which you accuse me wearing them, are fastened tight to your face. End of line for now.

Not the logic and facts of a war supporter, no, sorry won't work ... I don't see why I have to bend to your logic and your (mostly fabricated) facts ... sorry, no can do. Yeah, jeez. Now explain Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to me. Trust me, for an invaded country and its people it doesn't matter much who the invader is. Go ask an Iraqi who has lost all his family due to indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas and report back what he will tell you. Against the invader, simple as that. If you believe the invaders are liberators and should be greeted with open arms, it's your right to do so, but don't go demanding that everybody should share it and embrace it as the ultimate truth. When countries negotiate, they usually sign legal binding contracts at the end of them. It is nevertheless undeniable that this is a case where diplomacy did work and the US got what they wanted, at least that's my take on it. You are welcome to disagree. I agree that it is the civilian population that suffers most from economic sanctions. The trick is to make the population rally against its incompetent government instead. Right, yeah, and all that preemptive strike crap alongside that ... And I have to take your word for it, right? You, of course, as the Grandmaster of Logic and Facts don't have to prove anything; you can claim things and expect them to be accepted as the universal, undeniable truth. Doesn't change the fact that an unauthorized police act like that still constitutes legally a casus belli. I'm pretty sure that if the same thing had happened in Greek territory, but by let's say Russian military forces, we would loudly protest and consider it a casus belli. We wouldn't go to war with Russia of course, but we definitely would bring the matter to the UN. ... which you actually haven't proved; we [there is no we!] must actually take your word for that ... It's a well known fact of world politics that terrorists and rebel, "revolutionary" armies don't concern themselves to comply with the Geneva Conventions on Conduct during War. Any civilized country and its army, however, should sign said conventions and abide by them. Again explain the toleration of fanatic religious schools in Pakistan, whereas it is a known fact that these religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida and other militant muslim organizations. And boy, do they have a repressive dictator governing them, but I forget, he is a friendly one, he gives the US exactly what it wants.

If it's a game to you, I pity you. May be, randoomn00b just fell into a logical treap, there. May be this reference was there, to provoke this exact answer. And no I don't feel squashed. And it's not a game nor a competition for me. It's a hopefully civil exchange of opinions on an issue of world politics.

Sorry, my bad, I just assummed they had, by looking at my boxes, since there name was listed first.

You sure about that, bub? How about policing their own territory and making sure the US have no reason to cross over and make a mess? Oh wait, I forgot. The US weren't really after terrorists - they were bombing towns indiscriminately, for fun. My bad. I'm not your bub, ok? sheesh And no, your bad is that you put words in my mouth that I did not say in the context of the attack on Syrian soil. Smear tactics don't work on me ... neither do flamebaits ... And on the policing matter, how come the US don't make the same demands on countries like Germany, after all some the 9/11 terrorists started out from that country? I don't know where you're from, but I don't recall any instances of insurgency causing hundreds of civilian casualties by targeting markets during rush hour, in WW2. Might be wrong, though. But even if they were, not only were they terrorists, they were a bunch of cowardly douchebags. edit: just realized you're probably Greek. For some odd reason I was under the impression that you were Argentinian... Would it have mattered, if I were Argentinian? And yes, that's the difference between resistance and terrorism. Doesn't change the fact that to the occupying forces back then all resistance fighters were terrorists. Much the same as in Iraq today ... I agree with you though that there is a lot of terrorist activity in Iraq and most of it is condemnable, because it has no regards for civilian lives. However, there is also a lot of genuine resistance activity and it gets labeled as terrorism. What, you mean how Iraq was sanctioned to the point where the "Food for Oil" programme had to be enacted to prevent a mass famine - and even now nobody's quite clear on what exactly did Saddam do with it? Yeah, that approach works real good. As I said: seems to have worked in the case of North Korea. Of course, you fail to even address that, because it is enconvient, may be? Or the security of another's. Agreed, though I fail to see how Syria or Iraq threatens the security of the US as a state. In fact, I don't remember the US ever being invaded and occupied for a prolonged period of time; it's always the other way round. I wonder why that is? The right is given to them by the American people. They have the ability and the duty to protect their country, and their responsibility is first to the US citizenry, and then to the rest of the world, in that order of priority. Sorry if you don't like how things are, but the US isn't an NGO, nor should it be. I never said that the US was or should be an NGO. And far be it from me to deny them the right to protect their people. But there is a difference between defending your country and protecting your people and playing world wide cop. Also, you completely dodged my question on applying double standards, but that's ok. I didn't really expect anything different from you.

Hm, yeah, major turndown and it would be a good reason not to buy games that include this version of SecuROM for me, although I'm currently dual booting Vista64 and XP, so it might not affect me at all. Nevertheless, I agree that this is just one step too far ...

Black Isle developed both Games.

From the US point of view, it sure was the right thing to do. From Syria's point of view, it was a violation of it's boarders and it's sovereignity. Unfortunaltely for them, there is not much they can do, apart from protesting and bringing the matter to the UN, where it most probably will be vetoed down - unless they want to share the fate of Iraq. On the matter of terrorism in Iraq, there is terrorism and there is resistance and sometimes the lines are blurred. During the German occupation, for example, the resistance in my country was also labeled terrorism or would have been by today's standards. There are no magical solutions to anything, although before invading a country you can always try getting them to the negotiation table with economic sanctions. Seems to have worked in the case of North Korea. And of course, it always depends on the subject of the negotiations. Some things are just not negiotiable, like the sovereignity of one's home country. What gives the US the right to behave as an international police force anyway? Is it because they are the no. 1 superpower and can get away with anything? And why is it that the US applies double standards when it comes to jihad and terrorism? Pakistan, for example, supports terrorism as much as any other muslim country, by allowing fantatic religious schools to teach jihad. Also, how come it's ok for Pakistan or India or Israel to have nuclear power and nuclear weapons, but it is not ok for Iran?

@randomn00b Read them yourself; I know I did. So, bombing a crowded market is a military target? Or is it the usual excuse: the damn insurgent hide behind civilians, so we have no choice but to kill them all? The use of cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods is not indiscriminate bombing? The use of cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods with no military targets around is according to some of the actual eyewitnesses and international reporters an undeniable fact. But I get it peace loving people are irrational for you, while bombing the hell out of innocent women and children is a rational consequence of modern warfare. End of discussion for me. I am not here to prove anything. I am not here to convince anybody that my opinion is the one and only right one. I am only here to exercise my freedom of speech right and to state my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with it.

No. You seem to fail to understand, among many other things, how things work in a discussion. You make a random statement, you come up with the arguments to support it before anyone takes it seriously. I guess Lennon didn't make any songs about it. Here you go knock yourself out: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3466.htm http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/page327 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/12/14/usint17554.htm http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news...nvasion-2096-1/ http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Audit_6_05_Roberts.pdf http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40758 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2897117.stm And if you think, belittling me, my beliefs and my personality is a form of a civilized discussion, go ahead, insult me more. Just shows me really that you are not capable of a rational discussion, that in lack of proper arguments, you resort to ridiculing and insulting me. On the burden of proof thing, none of us can really prove anything here, for every link provided as "proof" there are easily links found that prove differently. That does not matter to victims and their surviving relatives however.

No. You are the one claiming that the US military bombed Baghdad indiscriminately. You come up with the figures, buddy. First of all, I'm not your buddy, ok? Want figures go find them. Google is your friend. I just recounted what I remembered seeing on the mass media in my country. Only in the day of mass media, wars are fought as much in the homefront against the attrition in the public opinion, as they are on the battlefield. You can't just firebomb a city to rubble nowadays and expect to get away with it. Oh wait, you can, if you're Russian. But yeah, it's no fun bashing anyone that's not America. It's not surprising that after such display of one-dimensional thinking one can make arguments such as this, and keep anything resembling a straight face: I don't condone any unnecessary violence and killing of innocent civilians. And FYI America does not equal the USA. The USA are just a part of America. So, I wasn't bashing America, but the US policy on foreign affairs. Yeah. Good ol' Johnny is right up there with a bunch of other all-time greatest political theorists such as Che Guevara and Khomeini. For you may be, but putting John Lennon into the same category as Che Guevara and Khomeini, wow, what can I say? Considering that John Lennon was a pacifist all his life and the song I quoted is a pacifist song, I'd say: nice try buster, but try again. This time try harder.

I said defensive war didn't I? Besides, both our countries belong to NATO and abide by NATO rules and regulations. And as far as WWII is concerned, Canada had no choice really, since it belongs to the Commonwealth. Can any of us prove either point? Anyway, my point was that Iran was supporting terrorists far more than Iraq. Iran trains terrorist, provides them save harbor and passage. Saddam did none of those. At least not to my knowledge. I was referring to Arab allies there. The US doesn't need any bases in your country. You're neighbors and you're also a NATO member. I never said he was an ally. I said he was considered friendly and was supported. I am not trying to excuse what Saddam did; I was saying that it was US and EU companies that sold Saddam a small arsenal of chemical weapons. On the contrary, the war for oil in Iraq was a complete success as far as securing a vast oil field is concerned. Where it failed is that it was not anticipated that the resistance to the prolonged occupation would be so fierce and never ending. And the fact that oil prices have gone that high is irrelevant to those who started this war to secure the oil reserves. In fact, they are profiting from that, too. It's not the definition of imperialism that has changed, but the US politics on foreign affairs, namely from isolationism to imperialism.

Ok, I'll give you that. It was poorly phrased. I should have said: It's even uglier, when it's fought for no valid reason. Valid reason to go to war for me and my country is only a defensive war. I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Prior to the invasion there was very little support for terrorism in Iraq. I wonder what made Saddam unacceptable to the US. I remember a time when he was counted among friendly to the US Arab leaders. I also seem to remember that he got weapons of chemical warfare from the US and the EU and he used it all on dissident Kurdish people. That's why they never found any weapons of mass destruction by the way, despite the propaganda lies that the then Secretary of State told the UN, to get the approval to invade Iraq. As far as allies are concerned: sure, as long as they give the US what they want, namely military bases and oil, there ok, but as soon as they dissent, they are bound to become a target. At least, we both agree that war is ugly and best avoided. I am not a US citizen and I don't hate US citizens. I hate it's leadership and what it does to this world. I happen to live in a country, where the CIA helped stage a military coup d'etat to help some crazy right wing militarist run the country for seven years. I also happen to be peace loving and hate war, especially a imperialistic war fought to secure more oil.

You seem like a reasonable chap, so I'll ask you to justify your claim that the war was fought without any regard for civilian casualties. I've met senior RAF officers who still worry about decisions made. Not to mention the fact that the publicised order of battle has whole units whose only job is to worry about civilian casualties. From politicians, to generals, to air controllers, to pilots to ground crew I've seen and heard people worrying about civilian casualties. Not in a newspaper or a public relations exercise. I mean candidly, off the record. Your example of hiroshima is just one more reason why they DO worry now. Because we've like, you know, learned from our mistakes. However, I won't disagree that victors write the rules of the game. Which is why doing the right thing has to be balanced aginst bloody winning. Lest the history of this period be written by the humourless bastards, in between their attempts to outlaw women, fun, free thought, and waffles. I really don't see what viable alternative viewpoint could be seriously entertained. You could go look up civilian casualties during the assault on Bagdad, I guess. The fact is when you bomb a city, there are a lot of civilian casualties. Also, the RAF and the British army, behaves very differently from the USAF or the US Army. And worrying or saying you're sorry, doesn't change anything. I'll just give you two more examples of US Army ruthlessness: 1. During the war in Yugoslavia, the USAF bombed a civilian train. The official excuse was: "Sorry, we mistook it for a weapons convoy." Well, if the most advanced army of the world with the most advance military satellites mistakes a train for a weapon's convoy, I don't know what to say. 2. In Afghanistan, they bombed a village during a wedding and wiped it out. Apparently, they had some intelligence that an Al Qaida official would attend the wedding, which he didn't. What is doing the right thing? For a military commander carpet bombing a city sure is the right thing to do, because it minimizes casualties on his side and maximizes casualties on the opponents side, even if they include civilians. As I said, or more precisely US Army officials, have said: collateral damage. Is it right to impose your political system and your way of life on somebody else? As to the alternative viewpoint: end all wars now! Utopic, yes, but: "Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one" John Lennon, Imagine

Volourn, first of all, learn to quote. Second, get a spell checker. That said, they way I remember the declaration of war on Iraq is: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it supports Al Quaida." Both of the reasons, were simply fabrications. The real reason was to get some revenge on the "bloody arabs" and most importantly to secure the oil fields of Iraq for the US. On the bombing of Bagdad: it's undeniable that they bombed a lot of targets in the city that had no military value, with high civilian casualties, and with the only intent to break the morale of the opponent and make him surrender. And yes, war is ugly. It's even uglier when it is fought for no reason.

The Witcher, if only because I haven't finished this one yet.

Yes, I meant the US Army leadership, including the political leadership. Soldiers are the same all over the world; they simply follow orders. It's those issuing those orders that are responsible and should be on trial. To illustrate my point more: after WWII German leaders were tried for crimes against humanity, while the victors went unpunished, although they had committed equally hideous acts, eg. bombing of Dresden (at that time Dresden was full of refugees with very little defending forces), the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were really more intended to show the world: Watch out, we got the ultimate bomb! The War on Iraq is another example: not only was this war fought under false pretense, but Bagdad was bombed into submission with no real regard or consideration for civilian casualties. I could rant on four hours, citing example after example, but it's rather pointless. I'll just repeat: history is written by victors and conquerors. They dictate the rules of the game.