Zonorhc

So, uh... If I wrote "John Smith"... M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!

Team dueling. Sit in the corner and think about that for a few minutes.

I can see that the age-old TIF tradition of only replying to the first post without reading any of the others still stands.

Truly, only a man with "homies" can find that abomination sexy.

Am I the only one who gave that a resounding mental "meh"? Shouldn't really affect anyone who doesn't subsist on those drinks.

I didn't say it would be good. Anyhow, with what voters seem to inflict upon themselves, a malevolent dictatorship might not be much of a step down for you lot.

Well, a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government... And I love how idiot voters (tautology, yeah) over there are still convinced that they're keeping this guy in power in the interests of liberty and democracy, even considering the fact that the US isn't actually a democracy to begin with.

TRUST NOT THE HEATHEN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! BE STRONG IN YOUR IGNORANCE! INCEST IS WONDERFUL!

Worms: World Party. Did this question need to be asked?

Thread over. Bubsa wins two internets.

"Can you afford this?" "No, but will you accept two chickens and a bolt of silk?"

This doesn't make sense. If you're suggesting that you can use any one-handed weapon in two hands, that's not actually as realistic as you argue it to be. Using a broadsword with two hands won't help much, because you would have to overlap your hands on the hilt, which means you don't actually get any extra power or control. To use a weapon two-handed, it needs to be able to be used in that way in the first place, i.e. it has a long hilt or haft, in the case of an axe. Either that, or you half-sword, which basically turns your sword into a club with edges. If you're suggesting dual-wielding, then you should run a search on topics that have tried to suggest it. I'm sick of repeating the same arguments over and over because people want to introduce some ridiculous notion of "realism" that they picked up from Hollywood.

Well there's a stupid argument. Who would carry a weapon that weighs more than a suit of plate armour? Shows what you know. =P They were two-handed because while you could hold and even swing them with one hand, it would tire you out crazy fast, and their hafts are longer to accommodate two hands without actually increasing the weight of the head overmuch. Most single-handed battle axes had only one blade, balanced by a fluke or counterweight. Having two blades on a single-handed axe would harm more than help. If you wanted two edges for backslashing, use a broadsword. Source? Armour is a lot tougher than popular culture gives it credit, and when you're talking about steel armour, which is more often seen in later medieval plate, you'd hardly break it with any weapon short of a warhammer. Shearing through armour with an axe is going to take a lot of effort and wouldn't exactly be a common occurrence.

Jesus Christ, people, he meant pants that are worn around one's knees, not baggy pants in general. Just because he didn't word it particularly well doesn't mean that you suddenly stop knowing how to read.

The only indecent exposure is a lack thereof!* * Statement void if aged <16 or >35

Yeah. That was the point. Whoosh.

Unlike those poor, misguided fools, I don't feel the need to overcompensate by wearing my pants ridiculously low. Instead, I went for the practical alternative and just had a third leg sewn onto my jeans.

As someone who intends to become a teacher in the future, I would like to request that you cease breathing the same oxygen as me. Why haven't you been put down for blatant disrespect? I'm sure society doesn't actually need people like you. If I was in your situation I'd let my friend cop it unless I actually knew that what happened was different to what the teacher saw it as. You don't help anyone by disrupting the disciplinary process. Oh, fun fact: Did you know that children and young people were better behaved during and after school back when teachers were still allowed to use the cane? Food for thought.

I work at a market research and opinion polling company, and I can say with great confidence that the data we collect is actually extremely accurate. For example: We managed to peg the NSW state election results with a 1% accuracy. That was actually worse than our usual .5%. Simply put, when mass media starts throwing out bogus statistics, you should know better than to listen to them without cross-referencing those, or at least trying to find their source and if it's a credible one. And yeah, the media's biased. So what? Nothing's stopping you from cross-referencing one network's crap with another network's counter-crap. You might even be able to find a shred of truth somewhere. Reading American news online always gives me a headache. It's obvious that they're catering for the lowest common denominator that don't even suspect they're being influenced towards certain ways of thinking by what they read or watch. But you don't have to read or watch that stuff and take it at face value if you have half a brain to begin with.

Since when did "pretentious art student" equate to "vampire"?

You could, you know, get Dawn of War because it's better than Mark of Chaos. And don't say that nobody's heard of Mechwarrior 4, because you're wrong. Also, get Medieval: Total War.

They don't really go over the top in the sense that everything they do is legal. They are from Law Revue at the University of Sydney.

Let's stop kidding ourselves and face the facts, which are thus: Blizzard can defecate in three collector's edition boxes and the rabid fanbase would be more than happy to kill each other to get at them.

I thought you meant chicks in miniskirts playing DDR. THREAD FAIL.

Not primarily, but daggers were more important than ignorants like you give them credit for. When combat degenerates into a vicious m̮̻̉̉l̮̩̉̉e and there isn't any room to swing a bloody huge claymore or hack at someone with your broadsword, you want a dagger to jam into the other bloke's joints. Daggers are a damn good close combat weapon. Scimitar. SCIMITAR. And no. The "aerodynamics" has nothing to do with it. A scimitar is about as aerodynamic as your average broadsword, and you can't thrust with it to save yourself. It's about as fast as someone can swing it, which is about the same as a broadsword since you don't have as much momentum to play around with. It's very efficient at killing unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents, but beyond that, I'd rather have a heavier blade. More mass = more momentum = more kinetic energy = more power. Just stick to debating game mechanics, because it looks like those of you who want to argue for weapons based on their "realistic value" don't actually have a clue about what you're saying.