metadigital

So ... ATi cards are okay?

No, that was my excited anticipation emoticon as I downloaded the demo ...

Actually, I believe the neo-cons are not gunning for a hardline neo-christian fascist for the Supreme Court (well, that's not their primary goal, anyway); more that they are aghast at the completely un-Republican behaviour of their President. To wit, I read an accountant's audit of the cost of Dubya's spending so far, not including the Hurricane clean-ups, and (in adjusted dollars) he was already deeper in red ink than JBJ and his now infamous guns AND butter opening gambit. So, Here we have a Republican that has blown the surplus (that was ironically earned by the Democrats) AND burnt a hole in the federal treasury larger than any in history in an attempt to bring in socialist reforms that a democrat would blanch at, whilst fighting a elective war that now has no clear evidential support ... And meanwhile Tony Blair is doing a better Margaret Thatcher impersonation than anyone in the Conservative Party could even dream of ... Have to agree with that as well, after all, who was it that said: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. "? ^_^

Hmmm. I must be tired ...

I hope it fares as well or better than the Diplomacy games ...

Actually, I believe the neo-cons are not gunning for a hardline neo-christian fascist for the Supreme Court (well, that's not their primary goal, anyway); more that they are aghast at the completely un-Republican behaviour of their President. To wit, I read an accountant's audit of the cost of Dubya's spending so far, not including the Hurricane clean-ups, and (in adjusted dollars) he was already deeper in red ink than JBJ and his now infamous guns AND butter opening gambit. So, Here we have a Republican that has blown the surplus (that was ironically earned by the Democrats) AND burnt a hole in the federal treasury larger than any in history in an attempt to bring in socialist reforms that a democrat would blanch at, whilst fighting a elective war that now has no clear evidential support ... And meanwhile Tony Blair is doing a better Margaret Thatcher impersonation than anyone in the Conservative Party could even dream of ...

It is either egregious arrogance or ignorance to have someone who has never demonstrated any inclination, aptitude or ingenuity wrt the US constitution to suddenly be given a 15% vote on interpreting it for common law.

hehe.. yeah I remember our discussion! you really gave me a run for my money with your endless questions!! ^_^ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Reminds me of a person on another board, who had quoted Bizzaro Socrates: The unlived life is not worth examining.

He's under continued investigation for the next six months. More importantly, Fitzgerald, his existence and success so far, are the best reason to hold democracy in general and the US in particular up as role models for the way different parts of the society can check and balance each other.

Well, it was more difficult to understand where Simon was coming from in the movie; it comes across as a bit arrogant to try to dictate the terms of a 'free ride' that saved his (and his sister's) skin. I didn't care awfully much for him in the series, but I understood him. If I had started by just watching the movie, I'd have wondered why he hadn't been thrown off the ship long ago. I'm sure the added toughness was a device to get backstory out in a hurry, and I think it was a commendable effort; it's never easy. But Simon came out a not-so-likable character, who I wouldn't have minded seeing killed off in the end. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought Simon was a great character; he was truly a lawful man and he held filial piety above all else (so refreshing to see, even if it is only fiction). I didn't think he was that arrogant, I felt he was more assertive: River was only a young adult, remember, and had had a sheltered (if not completely warped) upbringing. After all, Simon didn't try to impose on the other crew, and he did his chores (medical aid), he was just trying to ensure that River wasn't put in a dangerous situation. He did offer to leave when the captain and his differences crystalised.

Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the term "pole-dancing", though ... "

Results of 1906 Spring have been posted for your delectation ...

Nice site: thanks Baley.

I was actually building up to that topic with all my posting previous to it. (It is good netiquette to post helpful answers to questions before asking your own questions, after all.) And I think it is a reasonable mutation of this now-nearly-spent topic to discuss first topics. " And I really liked that topic. And maybe Rosbjerg will post more now that it has been mentioned again.

Not so surprising. After the low box office take, and the reason for the movie in the first place was DVD sales, they figured getting the DVD out by christmas would be the best way to get some money out of it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Star Trek films settled on about a $50M gross; the total take only has a bearing if it is a loss on the total film production costs, otherwise it will simply set the budget for the next film in the series. After all, they made a (very, very bad) sequel to Starship Troopers.

Happens all the time in fiction. It's analogous to graphic novels re-inventing stories in cycles, or the Batman Begins film, for example. I think it is a lot healthier for people to think of truth in absolutes, especially in a narrative format, like film, and more in subjective terms. For example, to celebrate its two hundredth anniversary, and in order to build a closer approximation to the objective truth of the Battle of Trafalgar using comprehensive accounts of historical documents from the British, French and Spanish naval archives, the narrative is more complex and richer. But as to what actually is the objective fact, no-one can really be certain.

Here is my first topic.

I would add that it behooves all Game Masters to prepare beforehand. The top three rules are: Plan, Plan, and PLAN. Once you have planned all sorts of "accidental" content you will be in a better position to react to players' behaviour; stuff that might only appear if the party / a particular PC acts tangentially to the main quest, for example. In other words, if you are playing a pre-baked campaign, read it all the way through first. Understand it. Find it's weaknesses and strengths. Add some spice and your own particular flair to bits, if you like (I always do). If you are DIY, then balance is going to be your primary guide: too easy and people get bored and too difficult and people get angry and bored. Once you have prepared the campaign, improvise as your party plays; if they do something ingenious, reward them in some way (a shortcut or easier method to circumnavigate a major challenge in the campaign, perhaps, or the old favourite of a random magic item.) Likewise, if they do something completely inane or deliberately stupid, don't disapoint them: make easy situations harder and tough battles nearly impossible. Then the players will feel that the game is interactive: it follows their moves and gives appropriate feedback. Lastly, remember to have fun, too. It should be just as fun for you to tell the story as it is for the players to be in it.

Ditto.

... Powerword "Flush!"

At which point they cease to be knights. Just like you cant use the 1000+ personel on an aircraft carrier in any way other than to make it function in Civ. A lance is not a rocket powered grenade. Enoch has the right idea. Just hope it dosnt happen often enough to become a factor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Arthur's knights used the holy hand-grenade of Antioch, and they were real knights.