metadigital

They could do with some more resources. Part of the resistance to using the facilities is the perceived ineffectiveness of them ...

There's that great line by Jack Nicholson in The Departed:

ZOMG ATi Fanb01!

Internet drama based on incomplete information, innuendo and rumour.

They are suitable to determine if the film is targeting a different audience.

Hee hee, I can't wait for the fun to begin ... *registers*

It's not out, yet, in the US. And that's the important thing. It's not that funny. That's the important thing. Explain this. "I didn't see it. It's not that funny." How does that work? Because I saw the shorts. And I identified the humour. And I didn't like it.

I will when I get a new PC, at the moment I have a laptop (and about four games installed).

Only if you want to go back to spending lots more money again. For the budget builders, today seems like a better day. You don't have to buy the new card, it will push the price of other cards down.

That's not counting the four times I had to download due to running out of diskspace ..!

Yes, police-worship is the bane of British culture.

Actually, I agree with this.

I still haven't bought it, actually. Though this is likely to get me interested in purchasing the game-plus-expansion package.

IIRC Ultima ]I[ had groups of NPCs (either hostile or otherwise), so that if you attacked someone in a town (making merchants run away and guards chase you), the "guard" was a full complement (platoon) of guards would be populated in each instance of an NPC guard ... so it was perfectly possible to attack and kill Lord British, but then your PC (party) would need to run the gauntlet out of the castle, engaging and defeating all the platoons of guards to get outside and reset all the "friend" properties of the NPCs (and allowing Lord British to re-instance). Although I might be confusing 2 and 3, and it might have been impossible to kill Lord British in Ultima ]I[ (infinite hitpoints). This was because in Ultima ][ it was really easy to kill Lord British, just go up to his throne room and attack (he had a lot of hitpoints, though).

I agree: people instinctively are aware that their mental trauma is a bad thing (typically feeling awful is a big neon sign); they therefore are quite pleased to find someone who is willing to help them try to get better. That's what makes tragedies like this all the more appalling: they are quite preventable, given enough resources, willpower and aptitude. I don't want to offend anyone who chooses the S&M thing, but I must say I always found dom males to be pretty much ****heads. I therefore agree with your analysis. I'm not talking about S&M Sub-Dom, I'm talking about the kind of relationships that, in many cases, lead to neverending abuse. I may have used the wrong word to refer to them. I think you are correct: it's a co-dependency relationship with one person each taking either the dominant or the submissive roles. The fetish special use of the term is exactly that: a special use.

It's not out, yet, in the US. And that's the important thing. It's not that funny. That's the important thing.

Ahahahahaha I am starting to see a connection ...

Reverting to type?

Obviously it is a parable analogy of the supremacy of Christianity over the existing pagan religions.

I have experienced the drowned kitten one, personally. :D

I think the analogy with a loan is a good one (I was very pleased with myself when I thought of it. ^_^) Everyone can apply for credit, after all.

What I see as a possible way forward is to change the process of gaining fire-arms. The absence of evidence of pathological behaviour is only relevant if there is a history. Just as I cannot take out a loan without proving myself as a good credit risk, so too should potential gun owners have a probationary period where they can demonstrate their soundness of mind. Much like a driver or a pilot has to sit an exam and prove competence.