metadigital

Why? It is a good story driven FPS with good actiony bits. The only game that comes close to its style is Stalker. The player can adapt JC (e.g. change PC statistics, like improve sniper-rifle skills at the cost of blunt weapons) to PLAY A ROLE, from a totally stealthy character to a tank. That says to me that it is a ROLE-PLAYING GAME. Your mileage may differ.

reductio ad absurdum Having a charisma of 8 when all the companions have a charisma of 5 might give her an advantage, but really, low charisma means low ability to influence others.

YEAH!

Cheaper to run, too: the LCD twists crystals to produce black (cell becomes opaque to light) when a current is run through the cell, so if you watch a lot of black, the current will be huge. Plasma tends to be a much better buy (it's a better, sharper and brighter picture) at larger sizes, as the LCD cheapness is less evident. I haven't started looking at the tv tech, but I would always advise reading a few magazines ("What HomeCinema" or the like). Here's a sight I found with one google. PS LG is an "entry level" brand of Philips, and the products come out of the same factories.

... and a cup. (Or a catheter.)

There is intent AND the fact that the parents reacted by sending their daughter away afterwards lead to the inescapable conclusion that they had a defective relationship, to begin with. What possible purpose could this have served? I've known people (I hesitate to call them friends, though they were friends of friends) who, when suitably inebriated, would mistake their own wardrobe for the toilet. Regularly. As for why strangers would do such a thing, either they were in an altered state of mythic dimensions, or they thought it was a good way to help the daughter attack her parents (whether she was an accomplice before the fact, or not, remains to be seen).

I agree with everything you've said and I find the biggest flaw of 300 is also the reason why I enjoyed it so much: it faithfully recreates the graphic novel. I certainly would have appreciated a lot more detail concerning the historical and political realities of the time, but 300 was more of a stylistic interpretation of history than an actual depiction. It works well for what it tries to be. I also didn't like some of the events because of special effects: for instance, gains good foreshadowing but is then ruined by a poor use of camera and lighting effects; by comparison, the rather bare bones (no pun intended) display of the wall being built with was more effective. The battles were also a bit hit or miss, with the use of slowdown being a bit convoluted for my tastes (though I prefered that to the chaotic and epileptic camera juggling of, say, Braveheart). However, it was still a somewhat enjoyable movie - there were some very good scenes in it - but it's not something I'd bother watching a second time. Yep yep, totally agree. It was a shame that the fighting scenes were not based more on the actual fight, or indeed just Spartan tactics in general. From what we know of the battle, especially the second day , the Spartans fought all day and demonstrated their professionalism by employing (at the end of a very long day) a series of fake retreats to induce the Persians out of their tactical formations; an insanely difficult manœuvre that demonstrates beyond doubt the superior fighting abilities of the Spartans. Instead we got some mediochre fight scenes that could have been created by some amateur nineteenth-century choreographer. Even with the demonstrably poorer special effects, the original film that gave Miller his idea, The 300 Spartans, is more historically accurate and narratively inspiring (though the influence of the modern Greek state and Royal family is also obvious, when the Spartans state they are "fighting for a united Greece"; the only way Sparta wanted to unite Greece was under their hegemony).

Good advice for surviving life, really.

North Korea has a neighbour called China.

I'm sure it isn't, but the stupid marketing twerps make a direct comparison on the dustjacket, which was v. dumb and made me hesitate to purchase it.

(Is this a Fox programme, or am I missing your reference?) I agree that they are re-inforcing existing prejudices, but I disagree that it only deserves scorn.

They only have Slaughterhouse Five in my local retarded Waterstones, which I peremptorily surveyed to find that it was a Catch-22 type novel, which caused my enthusiasm for it to wane considerably. (I was expecting them to have Mr Vonnegut's work on sale, to take advantage of the serendipitous marketing event.)

Nettles are actually quite edible (British seasonal crazies notwithstanding); they just need to be cooked, first.

... With the all-over bodily electrode interface ..!

No, MY OPINION IS BETTER THAN YOURS, so NYAAAAH!

If you don't like it. Just. Don't. Play. It.

Closest I can get is Benjamin Franklin: "Well done is better than well said." I thought elves were goodies?

When the forum software was updated all the topics and replies were reset to "unread" by default.

Agreed. He wasn't even particularly religious, initially (or arguably at all). He was in the process of building the largest mosque in the world, as part of his new image as Arab religious leader. I wouldn't be surprised if he harboured a desire to become the Caliph of the Ummah.

This was no accident. Maybe the scale was more than she expected, but she planned a trashing of her parent's property ... on purpose.

I'm not sure I can sit through any Star Trek films any more ... and I own a few of them, still (Wrath being one). That being said, I saw the original episode with Ricardo Montalban the other week (they are re-running all the original episodes on BBC2), and it was surprisingly good. (When the original episodes are good they are okay ... when they are bad they're even better. If you're in the mood.) Apocalypse Now, I'd watch the Redux version (although I haven't seen it, only the original). Brando was so self-conscious about his weight he wouldn't permit any proper shots of him, just silhouettes and close-ups of his face. Also the Redux version has a lot more stuff added, including a risque scene with the Playboy models and the price they have to pay to escape the riot ... La Dolce Vita you'll love this, it's right up your arty-alley. Not that Fellini isn't excellent, just that you'll get more excited than perhaps you should. Fahrenheit 9/11 (Parts of it.) I can't recall if I've seen all of this; regardless, only see it when you need some dark humour about the standards of US critical thinking. Secrets & Lies absolutely fantastic (if very bleak) film; you won't want any popcorn, but you'll certainly know you've experienced a little bit more of life when it's finished. Mike Leigh is fantastic. The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a(nother) sensational film; I tried watching it on the plane last year and gave up (no noise-cancelling earphones and a dialogue-intensive film don't mix); I've seen a piece with Ken Loach where the interviewer (either deliberately or not) challenged the brutality of the British soldiers depicted in the film; he responded with chapter and verse from the military advisors he had to remove all doubt about the accuracy of the appalling tactics that were (and in some instances still are) used.

I hope you are ready for the renewed onslaught ...

Ok. Thanks. Done and done.

That's a brilliant method for poison, too ... there are some leaves in the jungle, I've heard, that are broad and look very useful for toilet purposes, but that are actually very toxic.

I thought We Were Soldiers was a good film, actually. (Mel Gibson pushing his Catholic barrow, aside.) The scene where Madeleine Stowe had to deliver the telegrams is one of the most powerful there is ... a very effective way to make those incidental bullet-ridden, blood-washed background deaths suddenly have some very tangible existence, the effects of which are recorded in the emotions of the loved ones. Also Sam Elliott is the duck's nuts.