Pyronius

I think Fighters should be limited by an energy pool like mana. You only get to take X number of swings before you get exhausted(run out of energy). Then you either sit and rest or take a penalty to hit. It would make things make more sense and make fighters limited just like mages instead of the neverending fighting machine. "Neverending fighting machine" is a feat you have to take to give you more energy. Naturally energy would come back faster than it takes to memorize and you would have wuite a bit available attacks than mages have spells, but still.... I'm serious. but... That would piss everyone off. muhahahaaaa Edit: BTW, there is absolutely zero wrong with mana regenerating. Of course, if your fantasyt world says you have to sleep before you regain mana, so be it, go to town and sleep. Nothing saying the game cant be done like that. Besides, there are health pots laying around to be used everywhere in DnD. Why not mana? Also, they ought to re-name mana "energy" or something. That way, when it is used for fighters in melee specials, it makes sense--takes more "energy" to perform special attacks. Also from a mage perspective--it take mental "energy" or even physical "energy" to call down fire from the sky. I see no problem yet. Once again, I think people are just high strung and like to compain. Mana makes sense and is fun and wont ruin anyones day. DnD's magic system makes less sense to me but you dont hear me complaining about the sillyness of it. "Why did i forget that spell that I memorized last night??" I just cast it for god's sake!! Oh well, perhaps I ran out of mana... Dont think about it that much, just play and enjoy.

Someone please explain why mana based is a bad thing. I couldn't care less if it is mana based or not... Why would mana ruin your day? I think if mana inclusion ruins your day, you have problems. Maybe someone can set me straight and tell me why they give a rats ass whether magic is limited by mana not memory. ANd Orik, great point about the sorc. I was gonna post that myself... Sorcs ARE mana based with each spell costing one mana. Facts are that people are stupid and love drama. Dont like mana=you are stupid. Suck it up. You know you're gonna buy both DA and NWN2.

I agree to an extent that having no real threat to your person makes it easy to be a jerk... but I think there is a marked reason why people(including myself) end up more agressive online: trolls. and other various stupid people. Where else than the 'net and particularly forums can you find a mass of heavily opinionated yet uninformed persons? Nowhere. Except maybe political rallies... and we all know how civil politics is. Its the information overload of stupidity that brings out the worst in us. GRRRRRRrrrrr!!!!

The bosoms are symmetric... they can shift when she walks or shifts her weight, you know. Notice the feet, she looks like she walking or just leaning to her right. BTW, that lady has HUGE 'features'! I am a fan of the thin ladies: "B or C is fine by me." Proportional and curvacious hips are great too. EDIT: BTW, My favorite of the pics has got to be the knife. Followed by the guy with horns--"horny guy"?

G35's can be the bomb 4 door. It the only version equipped with ATTESSA or whatver the AWD system is for Nissan. man, if they offered AWD on the 298 HP G35 coupe... itd be great a la r32-r34 Skylines. ATTESSA, unlike most other AWD systems, varies from 100%RWD to 50-50 F/R split. Most AWDs, are either vary from 100%FWD to 50-50 F/R, or they stay about 50-50 all the time and then just switch for max grip between the wheels. Theoretically, the allowance of 100% RWD and max 50% FWD should make the car less understeer and more oversteer tendencies, although that is kinda hard to tell, as wioth AWD you usually get nearly neutral steer. I am a Nissan fan, if you couldnt tell

well, seeing how they haven't really let him play yet... and that they are indeed packed at the forward position in general, I don't see him getting much more if any more playing time in Detroit. If the Pistons really like him, they should sit Devin Harn and up his backup role to like 15 min/game. If they really like him, but dont want to play him, they should trade him to a below par team for an average-quality center. Then sit him. Average is pretty low these days for centers.

That is a very nice car, JE> congrats! I am currently in a 200SX(american, not european). I certainly WISH i was driving an S15 that is called 200SX in some european areas I hear. Anyway, I have seen a few VW R32's in the states. I like them. Lots of new AWD's are quite nice... R32, the Euro Focus AWD, Evo, WRX/STI, now the Mazda6 MPS/Mazdaspeed. I WISH the old Nissan R32, R33, R34's were available stateside, but oh well. Any of the above would be awesome buys. I can't currently afford them, but I have driven an EvoVIII. Man, that car rocks.

Taks, considering your views, it seems like you'd also be against the gov't, that is supposed to be separate from satate BTW, calling religions invalid and backing another religion. That crap has no place in politics. I am a christian, but I think people that use that as a political crutch and even people that need religion to validate their moral vaues are pathetic. And BTW, your comments about RHomal are all utterly wrong and you are ridiculously out of line putting words in his mouth. What you said to him on the 1st page is like me saying that you are a devout christian. SOuthern baptist. You go to church down the road from here. And I know your mother. You defended Bush, YOU MUST BE A CHRISTIAN!!!! You keep on bashing Rhomal, a witch... YOU MUST BE A CHRISTIAN!!! How ridiculous can you get? But whatever. People can think what they want... people choose bush as their leader thats their perogative. Their views have to be respected. Bush is more like a didtator every day, not that he acts any different, but people treat him like royalty and he is not to be questioned. Now its bad when the judicial system tells everyone that his holding "terrorists" without judicial review is unconstitutional? It IS unconstitutional, its a lack of due process. The judicial system is losing its check on the executive branch. Its there for a reason. But people just want his will be done no questions asked. That ruffles a lot of feathers, but then, the opposite ppl would be mad if bush was more socialistic, for example.

I am a graduated Electrical Engineer working as a substitute teacher. Its cute. I will be going back for a masters, soon, is part of the reasoning behind my job choice.

What is wrong with you? let me tell you why that is a ridiculous statement to tell me: Your point: Jon Stewart is a bush hating moron. My response: IOW he isn't a bush hating moron, as he doesn't constantly dog bush. Your point: I wish that news networks would hire some hosts who don't waste time pretending to be civil and who will slap morons like Jon Stewart back into their place. My response: 'Its called FOX news' -- the hosts' names are Hannity and Orielly. I addressed your point. Completely, and reasonably. If you call it whining, fine, label it as you please, I was indeed expressing my dissatisfaction with some FOX hosts. If you call that "whining" then fine. Playing the word label game is stupid and a pre-school trick, but I dont really mind if you resort to it. FOX news is fine as a whole BTW, I just don't like bull headed, uscrupulous hosts. unscrupulous-Devoid of scruples; oblivious to or contemptuous of what is right or honorable.

DnD should never have been made into a comedy movie. I have never seen the movie and never will. Its existance pisses me off. If they'd be serious about it and make a LoTR quality movie that is based on some DnD heros I would be all for it.

I'd rather Blizzard make a Warcraft or Diablo movie, actually. Have you seen the latest cinematics for WoW? Awesome bear and Dwarf.

By the way, there IS a news network that doesn't waste time being civil. Its called FOX News. Half their hosts actually dont bother wasting time on being civl. A few guilty parties on FOX: Hannity O'rielly These guys obviously have a Republican or right bias. But they dont admit it half the time. Anyway, I just hate their bullheaded way about their shows. They always talk over their guests and not with anything more than yelling and filler to shut up people when they try to get a point across. Compare that to left or Ind/Dem hosts like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher(politically incorrect). Maher keeps it WAY more civil and lets his guests speak. He lets them talk then he gives his view of the things they said. This guy obviously is Democrat/Ind. But then , he's pretty open about that. Way more civil than the FOX group... they are usually nasty, talk-over-you, disrespectful and frankly that equals unrespectable in my book. SO the point: Civility is a good thing. If you dont think so, there is something wrong. Or maybe you're a republican. :-P OK ok, that was unfair, there are plenty of jerk Democrats too, and rest assured i feel the same way about them as I do Hannity and Orielly.

My bad. I was just making a funny. ha-ha. It wasnt very nice though. Sorry bro Kilborn was good. I dont know if Jon Stewart is funyy as much as what he reports is funny. Anyway i enjoy the show. Then again, I am a bush-hating moron or something

I consider "Bush-hating moron" an oxymoron. But we'll ignore that for the sake of argument. LOL. J/K: people that HATE bush are indeed probably morons, people that civilly decide not to back him... are fully entitled to their opinion. Anyway, to be fair, Jon Stewart's Daily Show made fun of both Bush/Kerry equally during their campaigns. It bashes Democratic and Republican themes and ideas pretty much equally on the show. If anything it seems to have an independant bias. Thats the difference in guys like him and Bush-loving morons, for instance. Bush hating morons make fun of bush and make fun of themselves and their own party(I'll assume he's Democratic). Bush loving morons hate everyone that makes fun of Bush, even when he obviously deserves it. They may make fun of the opposition, but making fun of Bush is usually off limits somehow for these people. Seems kinda like they value him as a power icon WAY too much. Just my opinion. BTW if you dont find the Daily Show funny, you need to go return that sense of humour. Yours is broken. I bet you frown a lot. Unless you are hugging a picture of Bush, perhaps? (had to throw that in, sorry )

I pray he can turn his head left/right independantly from his shoulders. That is all.

I'm not sure why religious differences cause so much hate. It makes no sense. Christianity(I am christian) is supposed to teach love of neighbor and even enemy. Still many that call themselves christians constantly cross the lines. They use the followers of christianity. I E the crusades. Obvisously this is a non-christian act. Period. However, it is done in the name of christianity. I dont know much about the Muslim faith but some muslims have told me that their religion has been similarly "used" violently when that is not the true message of their faith. THose that cause war and violence based on religius differences often cross the rules and basic principles of their religion to do so. This all leads me to believe religion is not the actual root of this problem. Take it away and I bet people will still be angry and hateful towards others. Just a hunch...

You know, he did eventually but there was such a controversy when he denied it but applauded to whoever did do it...then later said he did it, and stuck with that eventually. maybe they didn't want to deal with that stuff. More likely: maybe they wold rather not give incentive for another person/group to get their name in there for that record... As they have it, they highlight the record and give the record to the tragedy, not the person responsible. That is how it should be. No need to recognize Bin laden and give him the respect for that accomplishment, as it were.

Ok. Thats just nasty. I won't even try to prove that Kerry doesn't lie. I'm sure he does. All politicians do. But Bush's ads against Kerry are blatantly word-twisting lies. At the very best for your causes, both are lying, word twisting, backstabbing politicians. Bush and or his people obviosuly twist facts for commercials. Lets take one commercial that attacks Kerry's support of military. It states that he is not supporting military because he voted agianst some bill that funded vests and other armour for Iraq. In itself, it is true. He DID vote against that bill. But not because he doesnt support military. The bill included a lot of things OTHER than the vests and armour things. Since those other things were not things he was for, he voted against the bill. That way, it would be re-written and then passed. It is obvious that everyone in the senate supports the troops. No one in the senate is a freaking anti-american. DUH! They WILL pass a bill to get the troops what they need. Anyhow, as it goes, the bill was indeed revised and the Kerry voted FOR it. See how it works? The troops got their supplies, and the silly clauses that some people opposed(like kerry) were removed. Thats how the senate works. But Bush's ad makes it look like Kerry was saying troops should not get that funding. That is textbook word twisting. Want more? No? OK one more then. The same situation is used to twist facts and make Kerry look like a "flip-flopper". Notice he voted AGAINST it then FOR it! The ad takes a clip of Kerry saying something like "I actually voted FOR that bill after I voted AGAINST it". Then the ad goes on some rant on how Kerry doesn't know what he's for and against while Bush is resolute or some crap like that. A big twisted lie. What kerry said is true--he voted against the first form of the bill, then voted for the altered(fixed) version. but that doesnt make him a flip flopper. It makes him a responsible Senator. He actually read the whole bill to make sure it was up to snuff. some parts weren't so he voted agisnt it until re-written. Bush and his people twisted that one clip to make him look like a flip flopper. There are more, but whatever. Kerry's campaing people ran a few ads against bush too. I dunno, there were probably some long shots from truth in there too. I didn't notice any though(doesnt mean there weren't any, I just cant recall them if they were in there.) The thing I am trying to do is show how you should not be so blinded by Bush's semblance of trust and Christian morals. As a christian myself, I would never run an ad as dishonest and twisted as Bush has(he has said all of these things in speeches too). They are tantamount to lieing. Very un-Christian. and frankly unrespectable. Don't back Bush because he is supposed to be a respectable christian. He lies like a politician. So far i find Kerry more respectable. Bush has way more charisma and is funnier and more simple spoken(all good things IMO). Take some of those as Bush's selling points, because "respectible" and "not a liar" are not accurate descriptions. I won't say he's not a Christian, that would be below the belt. I respect his faith. I just wish he'd make more christian like decisions if he's going to use christian faith as a selling point.

I would certainly NOT automatically assume any WMD's were planted. However, It is certainly a possibility. Like i said, I doubt the US would ever do that, but it is a possibility. I apologise about the "we armed Iraq" thing. I don't know that as a fact. As of today I cannot find records of it from reliable sources. The best I have now is a scotland newspaper. I am not ure about their integrity, even though they don't look like crazy conspiracy ppl. I don't find conspiracy theorist sites reliable, despite my views(no I am not a conspiracy theorist). In any case, US sanctions have indeed hurt and killed Iraqi citizens. Also, its pretty safe to say that the US has killed many times the number of civillians killed in 9-11 during its attacks on military targets. in Iraq especially, but also in Afghanistan. It is never worth it to kill civilians to get at the 'bad guys'. I mean, if that was done in the US borders, people would not accept it. Its not worth it. Do not come back at that... If you think that many Iraqi/Afghani civilian lives were worth killing a terrorists, then I'd rather not know. Sad day.

Let me put this in a way you just might understand it: suppose you're a weaker kid in the schoolyard, and there are bullies and whatnot, and they sometimes pick on you. Wouldn't you want the bigger, stronger, more benevolent, boys to help you out when that happens? Because you might stand on your own verbally, but when push comes to shove, you're done. Get the message yet?Its the same with the U.S. and people around the globe. I'm not saying its a moral obligation, per se, just that its always a good idea to thwart "the bad guys" before they make their way to you. And concerning what someone else said, yes, Saddam DID have WMDs. Since you think he didn't, then why are there irradiated mass graves in Northern Iraq, filled with the bodies of Kurdish prisoners and civilians, their bodies reeking of chemical weapons? Or the fact that in 2003, a platoon discovered several mobile trailers the size of a standard Kenmore Big-Rig, with bioweaponry labs and sterile rooms inside? Or the fact that during Clinton's reign, nearly all the world agreed that Hussein had WMDS, yet when Bush actually does something about it (those 12 U.N. sanctions were completely useless) the world turns its back on the guy doing right? Typical. Thats all these radical liberals and their beloved U.N. seem to be good at: they can talk the talk, yet they never want to walk the walk. BTW, consider this: A standard Bioweapon is the size of briefcase. How easy would it be hide about two or so in a country bigger than California? You could set a 100,000 people looking for it and they would NEVER find it. Yet that doesn't mean its not there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eh, that country was so scrutinized as far as import export, I doubt many "chemical agents" were developed by them. They may have has some, but it most they had was likely the large amounts of I think it was mustard gas and other chemical weapons that the US gave Iraq back in the day(80s, right?). It hardly is proof of a WMD program even if they actually found some eventually. It is concieveable that some of that load of weapons still exists. Besides, the longer US occupies Iraq, the more chance US has to plant WMD to magically find. It is a testiment to the US's character that they actually haven't found any yet. I hope they wouldn't plant the stuff now, and really dont think they would...but its still very possible. And BTW, you have NO IDEA what Iraq had and did not have. Don't give definitive "they had" when you really have no idea(and neither do I for that matter).

kinda funny... but I'm ashamed to laugh because all in all its based on a lot of truth.

Its amazing to see, really. Amazing to see the RedSox beat the Yanks too. Its great for their city. I'm glad they got a big win.

There is no right time to go in and destroy Saddam's regime. Frankly, i think they should have simply lifted all those sanctions on Iraq... it would go a long way to mendin the US-Iraq relations. I mean, really, why WOULD saddam go along with all the inspections if they were sanctioning their trades? BTW these kinds of sanctions do not ever hurt the leaders, it only hurts/kills civillians the leaders and rich are the last to be hurt. IMO the sanctions are designed to make people 1)hate the US. 2) Try to revolt against their gov't in the chance that the US will stop the sanctions. Anyway, that is all totally irrelevant. The fact is that the US went in totally on the skirts of 9-11. The only way they could. The scary part is now, ALL military actions seem to be justified by this "war on terror" that was only made possible by 9-11. What BS. Exactly. So stop the war on terror crap. No, you contact Japs and tell them you want to talk. Or you gather forces and intercept. Or both. You don't sit there and you don't go drop the A-Bomb on innocents. And what if we THOUGHT or were lead to believe China was going to attack tomorrow? We attack them? I think not. This kind of "strike first before we are attacked" mentality leads to paranoia and war. If the war comes, so be it. Don't start it. The violations are UN violations dealt with by UN. WE went against those that made the rules and enforce them. Notice--THE US acted AGAINST the UN in more and greater ways than did Iraq. There is no way you justify the invasion on UN resolutions when we went against the UN to go in. Like I said, the sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq, not Saddam. sanctions weakening?? Great. I should have left out the examples... the country names were not hand picked or meaningful. Still, like I said, why can WE go and be world police but not allow the same policing by other nations? Its stupid and makes lots of countries mad. Mad people means danger. THus, limit the danger by stopping the double standards.

One more fact for the road: Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.