Gorth

Sunflower seed fed african swallows might have a greater chance of carrying a coconut then the Squirrel Posse. Although... there is still the problem of getting a good grip on a coconut ?!?

Poor spam quality.

Well i think you are right. What i am actually saying is that the programming of the KotOR`s engine was bad cause i have a AMD 2700+ with ATi 9600XT & 500MB RAm and still can`t play it well at 1024x760 resolution! :angry: It may be the drivers you're using with your Radeon. Any drivers later then the 4.2 Catalyst drivers seem to have serious problems with KOTOR. I had to go back from the 4.5 drivers because I was getting less then 5 FPS in some places of the game. After I re-installed the older ones I got much higher frame rates. I would suspect your drivers too of playing tricks on you. I have a slightly similar setup, though with a nVidia card. Runs absolutely smoothly in something like 1600x1200 with all effects on.

Coffee has to be fetched correctly. The right coffee, the right time of day, the right size of cup. Never underestimate coffee! No coffee ? mv -Rf ~/gorth/work /dev/null

Would probably be an ungrateful task with the engine they have at the moment. Enemies line up to the left, friends to the right, there you go, start hacking and slashing at each other. While having other limitations, isometric 3D actually offers a better tactical view for games, where you can expand your one dimensional combat into two dimensional combat by having "depth" and manouvres (spelling?) as part of your tactical options.

Ewoks = low budget wookies ?!? He wa$ probably already con$idering $elling the right$ for children$ daytime tv...

Leather clothing, rivets, high heels and a whip ?

Combat was probably on the easy side (most of the combats, with a few exceptions). Problem was that you levelled up too fast and too high in the game.

I'm guilty of voting Don't care... They could remove more of the combat of they wanted to, it was just a tedious distraction from the story and the game. No bonus points for guessing like I like roleplaying better than combat games (unless of course, you consider Kill Bill style combat games as roleplaying ) As long as it comes with a combat difficulty slider where I can adjust combat to suit my casual attitutde towards combat, I'm perfectly fine.

The game plays in two time periods, one is a flashback to the Mandalorian Wars where you do stuff, then flashback to the "present" where past actions impact your choices, then flashback to the past, to the present etc. Then you'll have a game that happens 5 years before and 5 years after Kotor1

Not even two swallows are strong enough to carry a coconut. Not even if trying to use the thermals of Lac Dinneshire

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 )