Humodour

Hahaha I can guarantee you this **** won't pass Australia's legal system (even if it does have to go to the High Court). Eh, disregard that; they're suing in Britain, they might win. I'm concerned for the Motherland. Maybe a good dose of right-wing government would help.

For dinner I drank 4 cans of Kilkenny

Yes and yes!

Such a sad, sad, day. Now you still don't have proper healthcare, but you're slightly closer to having a system as effective as every other Western country's. Woe is you.

Democrats: "We need health care reform" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better" Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses" 12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States Democrats: "We need health care reform" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!" Democrats: "OK, let's compromise" Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done" Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas" Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate" Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting" Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill" Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no" Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys." One month later Republicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever." Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now" Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster" Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You haven't listened to our ideas! You've shut us out of this whole process!" Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal" Republicans: "Smaller government" Democrats: "That's not very specific" Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting" Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals" Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!" Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!" Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Can't you see the American people don't want this?" Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)" Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!" Democrats: "We should really consider voting--" Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!" Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes" EDIT: Stolen from Slashdot which stole it from Digg

Image is old, of questionable value and definitely used irresponsibly to hate monger here. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp http://newsblaze.com/story/20060827211403n...b/topstory.html Oh, mirror images are hate-mongering now are they?

Screw you European bastards and your snow.

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda. So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist. So what's the difference, in your opinion, between a criminal who sows fear & panic and targets civilians by, say, murdering them serial-killer style and a "terrorist"? Intention. Case closed. This guy was not a terrorist, because his intent was not to cause terror and he had no political agenda. His intent was to destroy the IRS building, because he was mad as hell that he couldn't pay his taxes. Case reopened. This guy's intent was to target innocents for political reasons. Sorry Di, but tax is pretty political. Especially in America.

Hahahahahahah.

It kind of is. RPGs should make it impossible to branch out. If Alpha Protocol has it so that you can only max one weapon class if you ignore all others, that's a problem. I don't expect you to be able to max everything by the end of the game, but variety rocks man. When you constrict it artificially it feels ****. I know the devs must be tired of the comparisons, but Deus Ex managed to do it pretty well - allowing you to both max a few augs and also max a few weapon skills (though certainly you still had to think hard about where you put your points, it was a rewarding system). System Shock also did it well, IIRC.

Um. I guess you've left me wondering: do we even have any Frenchmen on here?

What does that have to do with anything? This is about Splintercell selling LESS, meaning Alpha Protocol has the potential to sell MORE.

That chick is so ****ing awesome.

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda. So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist. So what's the difference, in your opinion, between a criminal who sows fear & panic and targets civilians by, say, murdering them serial-killer style and a "terrorist"? Intention.

I woke up, snacked on three mandarins then ate 1kg of spaghetti from a can. I am now eating 4 slices of vegemite on toast while drinking a glass of Kilkenny. It it the best. When I come back in a year's time, I expect you to still be posting your daily meals in this thread unless Obsidian has gone bankrupt.

Can you qualify your statement? It seems a little vague.

The cult of Scientology is dangerous but they are not terrorists; their agenda is insidious but it does not seek to sow fear in civilian institutions. They are currently being heavily scrutinised by various government agencies here in Australia and elsewhere (e.g. Germany) for their typical practices: kidnapping, forced abortions, black mail, fraud.

I'd love to join some L4D

Clearly, the Jews did 9/11.

Back before Muslims got involved, 'terrorist' meant somebody who sows fear & panic and targets civilians to further a political/ideological agenda. So yeah, he's definitely a terrorist.

No, because this is an extension of an existing mechanism. Add a few terms and shazaam. And frankly nuts to your point about hypothetical newbies. I contend there are constantly new people here, and if there aren't then Obs may as well pack the whole thing in. We fail. The existing mechanism is in place overwhelmingly for smileys, and not to enforce a certain posting style. Further, it's optional, and in the cases it's not, it causes problems (auto-substitution of (r) for

About a third of sales come from the PC version, so it matters a lot, especially for an initial title like this. You sell even a quarter less PC copies and you've just earnt 8.3% less profit. That's a huge amount.

Whatever account you buy the game under, it is permanently linked to that account. You can download a game and one account a play it on another without having to re-download it however, as long as you own the game on both accounts. You can certainly install it on as many PCs as you want - just don't have them both logged into Steam at the same time or it'll kick one off.

Who is up for a game?

Splinter Cell also has Ubisoft's ****ing ****ty awful DRM that drops you out of your singleplayer game when your net drops out (assuming you even have a net connection in the first place, for whatever reason) I think Obsidian is in a decent position.