Gorth

They could be carried. By a swallow ? Yeah right

Speaking of Tribes... How does a game like Halo compare to Tribes 2 ? Are they similar ? Completely different ? I tried Tribes lots of years ago and Tribes 2 a few years ago at a net party. The game was awesome. Actually having to walk on your feet without a jump pack has sucked in FPS's since then

From personal experience, I found it easiest to copy the text I want to quote to notepad or similar program. Then I use: (QUOTE=Sorgoth) My own comments (QUOTE=Sorgoth) Further comments of my own Repeat until message delivered (oh, and use [ and ] instead of ( and ).

So much for world peace...

Oh, and nodwick is quite funny too, unless you're a henchman... http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/nodwick/ The weekly Nodwick is just plain funny DnD self irony...

Heh, our laptops at work have "speakers", but 2x0.25 watt isn't that impressive. And Red-Vs-Blue is all about hilarious dialogue

I don't read that many web comics, but have you ever watched those short Halo movies Red-Vs-Blue on their web page ?

Terror is never a solution, like I said, its a sympton. You have to remove the cause. The tricky bit is that, if you were to remove the cause in this case, you had to kill off all the jews (being the agressors) or all the palestinians (the reactors). Since genocide in the western world is increasingly frowned upon, it's unlikely to happen. As for Europe being "Anti-Israel", it would be more correct to say "less pro-Israel" than the US. Like I said, if the media didn't keep bringing it up, nobody in Europe would probably give a damn about the middle-east conflict. Being the occupying force, the initiative currently lies with the Israeli's, therefore they are expected to take first steps. You have to be pretty naive if you think any palestinian leader has a chance of stopping "terrorists", when there is nothing to gain from it. It would be political suicide for him to preach that/ Thats why I mentioned in a previous post, that both sides have to have the will at the same time for it to happen. There was a chance a decade ago, before the then prime minister was murdered. That was probably the greatest chance for peace the middle east ever had. If only one part looks to gain something from peace, there will be no peace. And yes, the palestinians have frequently asked for internatial observers and military presence. Israel refuses the observers and a foreign military presence has a snowballs chance in hell with Sharon in power. Not to mention that the US would veto it on sheer reflex in a UN vote. So currently, its a Gordian knot Ah well, Sharon doesn't live forever, heck, even Eire got peace eventually. They even play sports against the English again... Unthinkable in 1916

Perhaps less than people would think ? At least in the case of UN resolutions. If put into context, lets take whatever atrocities and aggressions have been committed since the inception of the UN. Most of the worlds military powers were allied to either Nato or the WP during the cold war years, that meant they were pretty "safe" from resolutions, as there was always a permanent member to veto a resolution. The middle east was more of a proxy battle ground, that meant what happened there would get less attention, and more likely to get resolutions passed as long as it didn't involve anything that shifted the military balance in the area. Israel is an ally of the US and Turkey was/is a Nato member. Syria and others were supported (logistically and morally) by the Soviet Union as a counterweight to US and Nato interests. Nobody was interested in any conflicts that could threaten oil supplies to the western countries, therefore nobody was interested in any new full scale, prolonged wars. The underlying general (historical) anti-semitism is probably more widespread in Europe than in the US, but Europe being all focused on the millions of WP troops camped at their doorsteps might have put a dampener on any interests outside their own continent. That pretty much leaves it a conflict between the henchmen of the soviets (quite a handful of arab nations actually, this was before fundamentalism became widespread) and the US/Israeli alliance. Pretty much all (not all, but close) world politics was dominated by Nato, WP and China from WWII up to recent history. @Enderwiggin: Their motivations are different. Bin Laden and Co. are foreigners striking from foreign territory against the US, the Isreali/Palenstine conflict is way more complex. The germans also called French, Dutch, Scandinavian whatever partisans for terrorists for bombing trains, killing soldiers, buildings, factories, train stations. These "terrorist" attacks also killed women, children, old and infirm. But since those former occupied territories were on the victorious side, they are no longer labeled "terrorists" but "freedom fighters" But history and oppinion is written by the victors and those who have the media to convey their own points of view.

Yeah, there's always someone spoiling the stew alright. The line of thought I was trying to follow was: if international bigotry was so great as to motivate the Jews to seize a homeland as you say, what influence does that bigotry have on international resolutions against Israel? (As an aside, I appreciate your discussion of this with me. Thank you.) I'm not sure that it was international "pressure" that caused the existance of the state of Israel. Having shipload after shipload of military trained people (lots of the "new" jewish partisans who fought for the creation of Israel were ex-soldiers from WWII), coordinated by people with lots of skill, probably did more to overtrhow the british rule of Palestine than any international intentions. The climate after WWII might have helped on the logistics side of things because people "felt sorry" for the jews after the horrors of WWII became public knowledge. But as always, once initial enthusiasm wears off, the internationl community reverts to its old ways, that is politics, the cold war (back then), general anti-semitism which has been there for millennia, doesn't just go away overnight, etc. That pretty much leave a people who are capable fighters, but lousy politicans, to fend for themselves with what ever support they can get from countries with strong jewish lobbies (we are still talking late 40's, early 50's). In the shadow of the cold war, the middle east conflict was always page 3 stuff. That leaves pretty much the period after the end of the cold war, where people again gained a growing awareness of these "forgotten conflicts" (tabloids needs something) Since the US has linked its interests with the interests of Israel as an unconditional ally, that pretty much makes the enemies of Israel the enemies of the US (like Bin Laden :ph34r:). The rest of the world probably couldn't care less about Israel and the Palestinians if it wasn't for the constant media coverage, and some obscure parts of human nature always make you sympathetic of the "underdogs", in this case the palestinians. So the "bigotry" is probably that once the western powers had satisfied their need for "absolution" after holocaust, they discovered that perhaps they had let the fox loose in the chickencoop, for the new jewish nation was not only able to take care of itself, but to elevate itself to a major power in the region, gone was any sympathy people might have had before that. Does it make sense ?

Thats pretty much what my dictionary said I guess I just didn't quite understand the question then. I just like a good discussion and think that people should investigate all aspects of a conflict before jumping to (often simple or convenient) conclusions. The creation of the State Isreal solved an age old problem with a homeless people. It created a new problem because their new home was somebody elses old home. It has happened all over the world for millennia, it's just that in these "modern" times, it gets more media exposeure than say a 1000 years ago. When people call the Palestinians "Terrorists" and say they attack busses and homes, it's a result of something. I ask the question then, why do they do that ? The answer is hate. They can't fight on equal footing so that leads to frustration. If you add hate, frustration and no hope for a future, you get pure unrelentless hatred. Terrorism is the symptom of a disease. You need to remove the disease (the original cause of the conflict), then the symptoms will go away eventually. What I think personally ? If the will had been there on both sides, there could have been peace and prosperity in the middle east a decade ago... Apparantly, some interests on both sides aren't interested in peace, hence the constant provocations and needless killings of civilians (goes for both sides in the conflict).

Ehhh, explain abrogate ? (English is not my first, only my third language )

Sure... Having been a nomadic people, spread all over the western world for millenia (spelling), despised by the host nations, persecuted for economical, superstitious and sometimes just convenient (for the people in power) reasons, you have always lived in the hope and knowledge, that someday you will get a place to call your own and finally get a sense of being "home". That opportunity came after WWII, when the British grip on their Palestine mandate was loosening (being under British control since the dismantling of the Ottoman empire). People need some kind of identity, and after the horrors of WWII there was a willingness (and not to mention availability of arms) to fight for a land of your own. Of a long guerilla war against the British and the locals, you finally get what you have dreamed of for millennia, a national identity and a "home". Problem is, all your neighbours disagrees with your very existance and will stop at nothing to eradicate you from the map. Since war is inevitable, the only logical conclusion is to strike first against your neighbours (which you know would attack you sooner or later) and use the element of surprise and almost as importantly, the will to survive as a nation to beat the crap out of your neighbours. So severely, that they won't pose a serious military threat to you again in a foreseeable future. The conquered lands become spoils of war to the victor. Problem is, that although your neighbours are no longer a military threat, they are still very active in supporting insurgents, guerilla fighters, partisans, suicide actions etc. put shortly, the wage low profile war against you. Since you don't have the resources for further full scale wars on all fronts to stomp out all support for the destablising elements, all you can do now is trying to isolate hot spots, prominent leaders, etc. and remove those from the equation in the hope, that eventually those who opposes your right to exist will lose heart and give up.

Ok, lets discuss Israel then. Since I brought it up, I'll play the devils advocate (I have no relations to the middleeast whatsoever) and speak the Palestinian point of view. Let me guess, you live in the US (I sort of remember you mentioning that in another thread B) ) Hypothetical situation: Canada decides that that the US is for some obscure reason rightfully part of the British crown. Canadian troops invades your home country. Canadian troops "cleanses" the countryside, burning villages and towns, razing down buildings, killing villagers wholesale if they don't "relocate" fast enough (we are talking 1948 now, I know an old geezer who was there as a soldier then). Karadzic would have been envious. The people, you, your (surviving) family members etc. are now living in koncentration like camps. Your home is gone, no job, no future, constant humiliations by the occupation forces. Do you A) Congratulaty the Canadians for their tactical masterstrokes and offers to lie down and die peacefully here and now ? B) Fight back against a superior military power with whatever means you have available ? (No insult intended against Canadians )

1955-1992: * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors". * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return. And thats not counting those after 1992...

http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet6vpn.pdf These are the ones currently violated by all nations besides Iraq. They might be sharing first place with Turkey (Cyprus issues) at the moment. If including condemning resolutions, you get 80+ UN resolutions, and thats only those that passed through without vetos. You want a spork to eat that ? Besides, it sounds like you need to turn down a bit on the Fox News... try asking yourself why people are doing what they do. You might discover new knowledge

You seem to forget a small but important detail. The US has a veto right in the security council and is *never* forced to deploy troops, unless they do so willingly (read: It suits their interests) To take a hot topic as an example: Israel has been in violation of more UN resolution than probably any other country in the world. Do you seriously think the US would send in the marines to liberate the Israeli occupied territories ? (No, this is *not* a cue to start a Israel/Palestine debate, but to illustrate the invalidity of the original statement

If you haven't noticed....that thread is asking you which is the better KOTOR 1 version. This thread is asking you which platform will you get KOTOR 2 on. Totally different concepts if you ask me.... Learn to read then to speak... The poll is about which platform you played Kotor1 on, the question of the thread was which platform are you getting Kotor2 for. Not really that different concepts. Even funnier when mistakes are emphasised B)

As if we needed more of those threads...? http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=1071&hl=

Bah, democracy is way overrated anyway. It's a social experiment introduced and formalised by the ancient greek and has only be used less than two centuries in modern history. And even that, only in parts of the world. Eventually, like all other things, it will die out and thinkers and decisionmakers will come up with replacements for that.

I'm old enough to enjoy a good Cognac... As for who I would like to actually meet of the board members ? Probably the top ten posters, so I could tell them face to face to get a life

It's called evolution, or rather "Survival of the stubbornest" (I'll wait for spelling buddy to tell me the correct form of that word ) Let the information dry up slowly, then see whos left. That will be old BIS fans and possibly some hardcore Starwars fans. The more sensible ones will have left (bye bye!) for whatever is currently fashionable places to hang out. Yes, this board was actually more fun before the official announcement for some obscure reason Anyway, once Kotor2 is out the door and project the one after Delaware is announced, perhaps some sense of madness will return to this place

Akari is a nice guy No thanks, currently trying to spot the cause of a deadlock in a 250 user application... Thanks for clarifying. While it doesn't speed up the cutscenes in Kotor1, it's nice to know, that we aren't just waiting for arbitrarily timed dialogues....