213374U

Only loosely. If it's not SW d20, you can't quite compare.

The exile doesn't play by the same rules. It's a different ruleset, so the exile's 50 levels aren't worth jack when comparing him/her to other's d20 stats.

I disagree. Force Camo allows you to have a stealth-focused character while leaving the belt slot free for some great belts (utility, or that nice +4 STR belt). Stealth attacks allows for good openings in combat. But then again, you are going to cut through those poor SOBs so easily, it really doesn't matter how you do it.

You must be kidding.

Great analogy.

There is nothing wrong with it, unless you want to use it for gaming. It's just that my last PC was Celeron-based and I grew to hate them. My fault for not being well informed first.

And why shouldn't they?

Did you say Celeron? *shivers*

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.

In Spain foreign language is mandatory since... well, early enough. However, most people don't reach a good level in whatever that language is, unless they spend some time abroad. And that's grammar-wise. Pronunciation and fluency are even worse. I myself can hardly speak without thinking unless I've had a few drinks. After that, it's all fun and games... "

It's short on RAM. You'll want absolutely no less than 512 Mb to run games (and WinXP unless you are going for 2k or linux!) relatively smoothly. You should also try to find out what the motherboard model is. I can't say about the graphics card, I don't know that one.

No need for that. For all your spelling needs.

That's simplifying a tad too much.

You are obviously not cut out for politics, my friend.

Yeah, sounds OK to me. We can offer membership to China, too. They might not be so close, but they sure are a juicy market. Phear the power of the Afroeurasian Union!

And they are as much a part of Europe as Israel. Is Israel the next candidate for EU membership?

I'm inclined to agree. But it can be argued that in a communist society, there is no room for charity since there should be no need for it. Often what happens IRL is that the individual can't give away any of their resources for charity, but charity would be needed anyway.

OMG you pissed Sandra Bullock! Lawsuit ensues... "

Words of wisdom. This "tactic" is enough to beat the whole game.

General Grievous and all the Jedi he effortlessly slaughtered would probably disagree. Now THAT is siggy material.

Yep. It's always nice to know that my old skool trolling style still attracts new fans. Oh, and that toothless smily reminds me of my grand-grandma. :ph34r:

I'm not going to give you a speech on this subject, but women usually find being thrown off-balance at least intriging. And getting their attention is half of the job. What I do know is that playing the nice guy will get you nowhere. Nowere near the bedroom, that is. Also, don't mistake being c0cky and funny with being a f*ckhead. Women LOVE self-confidence. What role does Jar Jar Binks exactly play in all of that?

Um... Wil Wheaton. Sorry, couldn't help it. I read his blog once, too. But calling him a celebrity is like calling John Kerry "Mr. President". I mean, what has that guy done since "the most hated character in all of ST"? But anyway. It would be nice if people could actually interact with (or at least get to know) "celebs". But unfortunately, I don't think such a thing is possible. Those people's living depends on their images, and while mr Wheaton is probably working on a McDonalds now and can post whatever he feels like, I don't think you are going to find a lot of truth about that person in say, Jude Law's Blog (if such a thing exists, anyway). It's just a part of their imposture, and it should be taken with a pinch of salt. But then again, I don't really care that much for celebs. They are just flesh and bone like you and me. [/cap'n obvious]

I still think it had strong socialist elements, from a economic standpoint at least. Perhaps you are seeking to apply a by-the-book definition to that situation, and as I stated before, I don't think you are going to find pure theory applied in a verbatim way, in any real world situation. No, not really. In fact it would just need for people to demand just what they need, and at the same time work for the common good, without any perspective of selfish personal improvement from a material standpoint. However, people are not ants. It can be argued that such a society would in the end stagnate and die because it assumes that every single individual is just another block without any chance of promotion, in any way. And while there are other many motivations, personal gain is the ultimate engine of progress, as it has been proven through History. In fact, History proves otherwise. But at any rate, all extremes are bad. A society in which capitalism runs rampant is bound to suffer worker revolts, as it happened in 19th century Europe. A society in which the individual has no room for growth in a material way is doomed to fall because the lack of enthusiasm of its members. I suggest you revise your figures. And don't mistake socialism with a bad management. Having social care in exchange for higher taxes doesn't mean killing the market system, or suppressing the law of supply and demand. Granted, the balance is difficult to achieve and you have to be absolutely ruthless when dealing with the parasytes of the system, but it works. We europeans are living proof of that, and we aren't any closer to economic collapse than the US are. On a side note, I am somewhat puzzled by your discourse. You seem to be a reasonable person with a good knowledge of economics theory, but for some reason, your prejudices towards any "left-wing" economic policies blind you to the facts and drive you to assume some rather extreme stances. Perhaps you could illustrate with facts what forces you to display such opinions? And... um, I was a bit drunk when I wrote all of that, so don't be too hard on me.