Ginger_Warrior

He'll score when he wants, he'll score when he waaants. Robin van Persie, he'll score when he wants. Swindon subbed off their goalie today after 20 mins against Preston when they were already 2-0 down. I mean, he had a crap game to that point, don't get me wrong, but it's the one thing you can't really do as a manager. The new goalie let in another two by the end of the match, leading the Preston fans to start cheering, "You're getting subbed in a minute". I have never seen anything like it, honestly.

I don't think the onus is on you to do anything. You're seeing this too much through the lens of "cause and effect". Chances are, whatever you do now won't change the way she feels. What you need to do is decide whether you want to carry on with this. She's messing you around with the whole "I know we're both naked but no" thing. She's messing you around even more with the "I think I like you but I don't think I like you that much so whatever" thing. Some guys don't mind that, they might be more tolerant to the indifference and the ambiguity--you might be one of those people. I wouldn't be in your position though. As Randox said, good guys finish last. Either make your stand or walk away. She'll either chase you or she won't. But at least you've made up your mind and you can get on with life knowing it's a clear decision that hasn't been made for you, and that if she doesn't respond, the ball was in her court.

When I went on the town with some friends (most of my friends are girls, figures) one of them started getting into this other guy who was with us. He was a bit... sleazy. Making sure she had an alcoholic drink at all times, generally quite aggressive towards anyone else who tried to have a conversation with her... but that's only my opinion. She told me she wasn't going to sleep with a guy she'd only just met on a night out. Guess what? When the night ended, they went back to her place (she lives away from her parents). It's really not that unusual a situation, and I knew from the moment she told me she wasn't going to have sex with this guy, that she was going to have sex with this guy. Her body language made it quite obvious.

I know working out whether a girl wants to a hazy area, as Julian Assange found out, but if a girl told me that she didn't want to have sex, and then later stripped naked in front of me and had me do the same to her, and it was as you say getting steamy, I'd disregard the first statement as being clearly untenable. There's not really any other reason for that behaviour, especially when it's being done mutually. You could have just... tried gently brushing your fingers over her and if she wasn't interested for it, she'd have clearly told you to get off her. If she hadn't protested, she clearly either doesn't mind or actively wants you to carry on. Without getting too personal, it's what I've done previously when both me and the girl are dressed--I'm sure others have too--and they had no trouble telling me when they weren't in the mood, and if they did I just backed off. If they didn't say anything then... you know. So long as it's not all the time to the point of badgering, or being done inappropriately, or being done when the girl has told you categorically not to at any time, it's not that big an issue.

We all know you posted that wanting us to reply with, "Please, tell us!". OT: My mind was blown by muggi's signature.

Video games mostly, I guess. I listen to music as well, nothing specific, just stuff that has some kind of personal meaning to me. I don't really have much time for hobbies to be honest, between work, eating and sleeping. I suppose that's kind of sad for a 22 year old but... I'm happiest when I'm working so I don't mind. :) I'm sure there was a similar topic to this not so long ago...

It's very strange to go that way too because the religious far-right in America have already been won over by Ryan's selection for VP, surely. So why go on about it, at the risk of alienating those in the centre, or those on the left who feel disenfranchised from Obama?

You can use the Xbox for MSN too so it's an even more minor point when you consider that (given, no-one or their blind dog uses Messenger these days, but the principle of the argument still holds true... the Xbox does more than gaming too). I'm only speaking from a live tactical POV; that is, the ability to pass on information to specific people as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and in that regard they're both more-or-less equal. The thing I hate about them both however is that people who've never used radio communications in a "real life" setting always talk over each other. On a PTT set you literally can't do this; when two people are on an open channel at the same time, neither message gets through. You have to take turns. Pretty annoying when Team Member A is calling out an enemy location, while Team Member B is shouting down the microphone about how his last death was BS, and Team Member C is using a Kinect and he's got his music on too loud in the background. Team Member A doesn't stand a chance in hell. It's something they could both definitely work on.

I'd have thought the "one sofa" comment would have made it blatantly obvious I wasn't referring to XBL... I was referring to that thing people do face-to-face sometimes. Y'know... Talking. For what it's worth, I'd say Skype is easier to divide conversation up than XBL, simply because it takes longer to do with a controller than a keyboard/mouse. New Xbox's come with headsets included too, although that's a very minor point because PC headsets, while not necessarily included, are inexpensive.

I think consoles are generally more sociable. I know the irony of that is I'm writing this message on an internet forum, from a PC. However, from personal experience, it's easier to socialise around one big TV on a big sofa, than lots of individual desks with individual screens and individual office chairs per person. If that doesn't count as a "real" reason, then I'm not exactly sure what does. I mean, comfort would strike me as a legitimate factor in someone's decision to play either/or, simply because of back health and good posture, but... oh well.

Oh, God. Case closed then! :roll: Are you serious?

Sleep occurs when neurological activity reaches below a certain threshold where it can "turn off". Listening to music innervates the nervous system, it doesn't calm it down. Food: Proteins keep the body awake, carbohydrates make the body feel "drowsy" since the body rushes to remove sugars in the bloodstream. Smoking, caffeinated drinks and alcohol disturb the circadian rhythm, effectively keeping the body awake. Try and establish a bedtime routine. Stop watching videos about an hour before you want to go to bed, and do something more relaxing. A word about medication: Unless it's on prescription by a HCP, and therefore its use being monitored, it shouldn't be used as a long-term solution to insomnia, regardless of how effective it may or may not be.

SMART was a good idea. People on all FPS games look for nooks and crannies to gain an advantage so I thought this was a good idea and it was well implemented in the game. It was a human player I was referring to and he wasn't exp-whoring either. Well... I think he just liked fancy numbers flashing up on a screen regardless of the efficiency of it all. When we played Halo: Reach he'd whack out the magnum on spawning and shoot people about 20 yards away rapidly though... then he used to scream at the telly when only two bullets in the eight-clip hit. Maybe I'm being really unfair and judging a whole game because he played it like a pillock, but seemed to do half alright on it. Maybe he just wasn't that good at FPS games. :?

They've said will give their evidence to the UCI to allow them to consider taking the case to arbitration, and then publish it in public. They've already stated the evidence includes analysed data and testimonies from over a dozen of his former colleagues. It does seem strange, that you accuse the USADA of being corrupt because they don't provide evidence, without providing evidence of said corruption yourself. Hypocritical, even. What's even more bizarre is that, given the chance to expose the USADA's alleged corruption, and ridicule these claims as the "nonsense" he has described them, that Lance has decided to pass up on the opportunity because he feels "weary". This is a man who has aggressively sued absolutely anyone, anywhere, whenever they have even implied he used performance-enhancing drugs, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in legal costs and compensation payouts... he's even already tried suing the USADA in a federal court in this case to prevent proceedings continuing any further. But now he can finally deliver a coup de grâce to these claims, and completely legitimise his place as the greatest Tour cyclist of all time, he apparently can't be bothered. Perhaps a more likely explanation is that, just like most athletes and sportspeople who eventually get caught for doping, he's doing two things. 1) Maintaining his innocence in face of the threat of the contrary being exposed, but only by simply stating "I'm innocent" while not following it through with any tangible proof of innocence; and 2) victimising himself. He wouldn't be the first--God, Alberto Contador was doing it only twelve months ago--and he almost certainly won't be the last to follow that pattern of behaviour.

None of the people who I knew played Brink still do. To be honest they stopped after a month because of the scarcity of people online. Looking back... I never really got this game to be honest... when I watched people spawning and buffing everyone else who spawned next to them for no apparently obvious reason, it seemed RuneScape-esque in the horribly fabricated way it simply rewarded doing the action, regardless of context, difficulty or personal skill level. And I've never played CoD so that rules the "CoD fanboy hates anything except CoD" argument out. There might be a place in the market for what Brink tried to do but it needs to be much more tactical to promote situational use rather than, "You're over 50ft from any enemy 'coz you've just spawned next to me... Have a weapon buff!!!" The game was anything but subtle in this aspect. Then again, most of the people I know who bought this would buy a black bag full of garbage if it had a sign labelled "RPG" on it, so it's perhaps understandable why they found that appealing.

Having already entered medical school (and having left very soon after), I'll be starting a degree in nursing this September. It's more appealing to me and I'm looking forward to it much more than I ever looked forward to a career in medicine. But I guess both of those careers are now degree-only. Medicine has been for a long time and nursing had its last intake for non-degree level students this year, and those student will have to "top up" after their diplomas have been completed anyway. Nursing as a degree is very broad, but provides the essentials, so you can start working straight after registration, but you've got so many paths to choose from it's crazy. I could work literally anywhere in the NHS, except paediatrics. So I'm feeling very rosy about the future, but I know it's a tough three years ahead. I think people who study "Mickey Mouse" degrees still gain something out of the experience of studying at that level. No degree is a walk in the park, though some are less hard than others. It's a much tougher question for them though, given tuition fees are now so high. At least £27K debt after graduation is no small total, and if your job prospects don't increase considerably for having the degree you're studying, I think it's very difficult to justify. That people drink and have sex (I mean, perish the thought of grown adults having sex with each other!) at university is neither here nor there to be honest... the government doesn't pay for that part of their funding. It's essentially their own money they're pissing into the wind on booze and whatever else, which they'll have to pay back now or later.

Well, Jagex themselves are probably equally unable at quantifying how many bots are actually in the game. The whole point, after all, is that they're hidden from public view. Things immediately after the update did improve though. I can't argue against stark reality. I'm not as much interested in how the average player thinks about RuneScape's RWT/bot policies, than how Diablo's RMAH might change things across the whole genre. The latter has effectively absolved the company of any responsibility to stop it and said, "Let's all have a slice of this pie, instead of only those corrupt enough to abuse it." But where you have large amounts of RWT, you invariably find lots of (cheating, arguably illegal) bots, so there's a very complex interplay between the two.

Now, I could get really semantic and say that isn't proof either. Jagex could, after all, be using that as a reason when, in fact, the drop in numbers is explained elsewhere by factors which don't favour their rose-tinted view. But I'll assume good faith and admit he's probably right. That said, you could skin Jagex both ways depending on your personal viewpoint. Either there's no bots in the game, and there's simply been a substantial drop in membership; or there were (and probably, still are) bots in the game, and their rhetoric about a "bot-free" RuneScape when they made removed the limits on unbalanced trading didn't come to fruition. It does seem more likely it's the latter, but that doesn't really compliment Jagex in glory when it essentially confirms they were wrong to make those promises in the first place.

I'm guessing blue is the character and red the sword which can't take damage despite dealing it. In which case that's totally ridiculous. I thought Snake was bad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTJtMqkvetI

Wouldn't "name and shame" of a black market that could, in all probability, continue to exist relatively unfettered be tantamount to free advertising space?

Those look more like anomalous results to me. Try doing some proper statistical work before pulling up a graph and saying, "Ooo... that looks funny--let's blog about it!" You've not explored alternative theses. You've not established whether it's a causal effect. You've not worked out whether the results simply "regress to the mean". You've not worked out whether the results are statistically significant. You've not established that the results are repeatable and consistent. ... You've not even established whether the results are part of a trend at all. Stop trying to sound sciencey. Just do the science first. Also, take away the "Why I will quit RuneScape" tag at the end. To me that said, "He's cherry-picked the results to form a conclusion that justifies his rationale for something entirely unrelated to what's being investigated here." I'm not making any statement about bots. They may exist, they may not exist. I haven't got any information to form a judgement either way. I'm just saying you've investigated this uncritically and, therefore, not very well.

Today I found out my Olympic staff accreditation pass could be worth up to £100 online. Easy money for something I got for free, it's NFS though.

Surely the tea party was going to vote for Romney anyway, even if they don't completely agree with him. Put simply, he holds their best chance of stopping Obama, which is what they really​ want. I think it's a bad strategy to appeal to those you've already won over, especially in a democratic system where there's only two real options to choose from: right wing and (what you like to think is) "left" wing. In history, the right has always been more willing than the left to back a candidate they don't fully see eye-to-eye with. Which makes it even more baffling he would choose someone so fundamentally conservative. He needs to win over the 'middle ground', he won't with Ryan.

If cost is the only factor when two people enjoy both similarly, as you say, and we've discussed this back and forth to death over numerous pages, is there any discursive value in this thread left anyway? If he's cutting the heart out of the discussion, then it's already had a triple bypass and gone into VF anyway. Let it die.

With an avatar like that, you can stay at least ten tiles away from me at all times. Failure to do so will result in further action, including a bow, a diamond sword, or rapid trap building (frenzied, perhaps) in an attempt to obstruct your path towards me. With that in mind, enjoy your stay.