Verenti

Well. I guess that answers that question definitively.

I have a question. It is about Paladins: note the plural. Short form is: will it make sense to have more than one paladin in the party, or will their powers simply not complement each other well? To elaborate: I don't have the backer beta. But since early days, I've really found the idea of Paladins in PoE to be really appealing. I've also found the idea of the Vailian Republic to be really cool. Now, obviously there is an NPC that falls into this niche and I'm cool with that, in fact I think that would be a really fun thing to explore. Two paladins who are both really supportive of their (mutual) homeland, who are two very different people. I know the game won't deal with this dialogue as much as I would like, but it gives me a good basis to know how my character will react to Pallegina and that's good enough for me. My main concern is how well a party with my Paladin and Pallegina will gel mechanically. Will it be a handycap for me to take her along in the party?

I was just about to mention how much I like Suikoden's management of a castle. For those of you who missed those games, the story of Suikoden is based on the Chinese epic, Outlaws of the Marsh, where a group of Bandits and outlaws gathered in Liangshang marsh to defy the corrupt government forces. In the game, you're just rebels in a fantasy land fighting the empire, who has fallen under the control of an immortal sorceress who looks like the Emperor's dead wife. Anyhow, about a quarter through the rebellion acquires a new leader (you) and is forced to find a new HQ, which is a haunted, disused castle in the middle of the lake, which the country is situated around. Now, castle management isn't really an active process. You recruit various people through out the game, such as warriors and tacticians, but also including cooks, merchants and appraisers. While you recruit new members for the Liberation Army, the castle expands. Sometimes it's just based on how many of the 108 characters you recruit, sometimes it's based on where you are in the plot and sometimes characters add function based on their jobs. An inventor might install an elevator. A dandy might install a flower garden. But the game really captures the feeling of a place that goes literally from a haunted ruin to a bustling community and as it does, the music and the furnishings change to look more upbeat and lively. As much as I like managing upgrades, I would rather to capture the feeling that the stronghold is a lively and (somewhat ironic though it may be) dynamic place.

Neat videos.

I really like this idea. As an amateur fencer and someone who has always been interested in sword fighting, this model appeals to me. It seems like a departure from that very medival plate behemoth who just takes all the punishment to this more swashbuckler like model. It makes it seem more like how melee combat ought to be, where you have to wait for an enemy to leave an opening and then capitalise on it. My only suggestion is to include some sort of tactical movement mode, that allows you to remain in combat, while moving slowly away or towards. So if you are defending a strategic location and some rogue is trying to sneak past, you could inch your engagement zone towards him without disengaging from the other guy you're also trying to keep locked down. I want to have the opportunity to put as much thought into my manuvering as a fighter, as I might have with spell selection as a wizard.

There is a new cd coming out on the 26th called "Family Guy - Live in Vegas" and its awesome, You can hear some previews here and if you get three evil monkies on the slot machine you can watch a clip from "Stewie's Sexy Party" video. If you have any questions ask me and I'll try my best to answer them PS. I forgot to add it comes with a bonus dvd.

I believe so. I think it comes from the 19th century pseudo-scientists who were trying to classify the 'races' in order to show that whites were superior. If I'm right, then black people would probably see it as disparaging. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wonder, though. Whenever you see US police dramas, they say things like "I have a caucasian male heading south on 23rd Street!", but you never hear the counterpart "I have a negro male heading south on 23rd street!" Assuming that real police officers actually say the first statement, do they use the second, or something more PC instead? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Its PC to call a Caucasian a caucasian because no-one cares. We are what we are. You get burrs under your skin about race when somone uses yours in a negitive light... like over the course of 400 years of Discrimination. Cops do call Caucasians Caucasian, and Black people "African Americans" (In North America, Even in Canada).

That's not saying anything. As an "equal"? Well, they get the same prices as everyone for trade, I guess. So do the US, Japan, Russia, etc. But none of those have a saying in european politics, including Turkey. Yep. Only a bit earlier they had been part of the Persian empire and later in their history came the Ottoman empire. Both of them had as a goal to overrun Europe (the former the Helenic civilization and the latter Europe itself). Thankfully they both failed. Please note I'm not holding some kind of historical grudge here, it's just they are historically not a part of Europe, and they have a rather distinct culture. And as someone said before, we should fix the house first before inviting more guests in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not saying they're not historical enemies (or that your holding a grudge) but the Ottoman Turks (and by extension Turkey) have been considered to be a European Nation (Well, I assumed so In Europe, Most definatly in North America). I don't remember Europe giving the consideration to Persia, India or the Far East the same consideration they gave the Ottomans in the Crimean War. Not to mention how the Ottomans were one of the Triple Alliance members during the Great War. What other Non European nation has enjoyed the "priviledges" of being an Equal to the Great Empires of Europe (of Past Europe, I should say, Seeing as the French, British, German/Prussian, Russian, Austrian Empires no longer hold the power they once did). Also, I'm not advocating any posisition, stance or descision taken by the EU, as I bear no claim to comment on its policies as a right by my History (My family came over in WWII).

The difference between Isreal and Turkey as far as membership in the continent of Europe is that Turkey has for more than half a century has been dealing with European Nations as an Equal. Its co-existed in the "arena" for so long its considered a European Nation, Couple that fact with the large ammount of Greeks in Anatolia (I don't know if this is still the case) and the that Turkey was a part of the Byzantine Empire. These combined makes Anatolia considered a part of Europe.

I'm a Native English speaker (whose supposed to be bilingual with French, but I'm not) and I do that too. I think its simply adapting to the Social conditions. As one would not speak proper english to an average teenager in this day and age, They get confused with all the "big words".

I'm Nova Scotian, Which is in Canada (Although, I usually associate the Term "Canada" with Ontario and I'm not that close with the "Westerners") and I'm not so much a believer in Communism as my views may seem. I'm more Democratic, so naturally a society that emphasizes the strength of Corperation over the people it services is a vile crime. Ditto with emphasizing the Government over the people is serves. A state should make sure its citizens can live to the fullest of their ideals by protecting their rights, not help somone take advantage of those very citizens that comprises it. I apologize for any grammarical or spelling mistakes, I just got in from my Saturday Romp about the town and its nearing 4 am.

My my, What an elegant way to refute somone. I always think somone who starts a sentence with a word that is completely capitalised is a man of reason. Proof that Capitalism is all about Greed? My good man, Anyone who'se lived in one of these government who prays to the god of commerce would find this truth to be Evident to those with eyes: Where are advertisements: Everywhere What's the most common wage: Minimum What's the drive for society: Wealth They sell shotty goods at inflated prices, anything to take the final dollar from the people. They use immoral practices to make their products at pennies a pop, Then they sell them as designer wear at hundreds of dollars for a shirt, that will start falling apart in a week. Infact even look at the name "Capitalism", if my lingustic skills are correct then it would be "by Capitalists". Capitalists being, in plain English, the wealthy bourgeois upperclass (Almost a contradiction of terms, but I assure you they're not) who own factories, corperations, et cetera. So basically a system of the extremely rich: Where does that make mention of the poor at all. Infact Capitalists, like every other group throughout history, would rather not share their power, So really there would be a glass ceiling for the working class against the grandoise CEOs of the Modern World. What a fair system 90% of the wealth is in 10% of the population. If you read my previous post that leaves, In the US, 12% of the population with near nothing. Pray tell, How are these poor working stiffs going to help one another out? If the system of Capitalism's focus on greed is not apparent to you then you must fantastically indoctrinated into the myth of which you hold so dear.

Good god taks. You know why we don't make people pay for social services? Because some people can't pay. And when the quality of life for individuals gets low, people get angry. Really fantastically angry. People that angry riot and kill. Do you know how many people are below the Poverty Line in the US? 24,418,964 (12%!) according to the CIA World Fact Book. How do you tell people like that "Oh I'm sorry, You don't get the medical treatment you need to live because your poor" or "You don't get to attend school because you can't afford it". How does that help anyone? You're just going to accelerate a state where the poor become extremely poor and the rich suck the marrow from their bones. How is that a better system to do thing and for what benefits? A few extra dollars? On the Subject of the USSR I think that the best description of their Government would be a Prolitariat Dictatorship. It was rule by the former Serf Class: Stalin and Lenin, These men were not rich men before the revolution. Thus it was rule by the poor.

Hardly Sir. By its nature, the promotion of Capitalists, Capitalistism is a system of greed and any system of greed does not support charitable notions. You might reference to Tax cuts for Charitable donations but that is not a Capitialist notion: That is a Socialist system trying to get money for the impoverished people from Capitalists. Capitalists are, by definition, the wealthy elite that own the industry. The notion that anyone can become part of that corperate oligarchy is a popular myth. You can only be raised into the inner circle if you are already from wealthy stock: How is anyone going to become a factory owner when the corperations pay as little as they can get away with: Minimal Wage. How can a system that incourages paying minimal wage, the lowest possible wage, also be a strong propellent of Charities? How can a system based ENTIRELY on greed help the little guy?