baron8000

People who say that kind of thing invariably suck, make it your duty to hunt them relentlessly until they explode from stress :P

well, after my catastrophic memory card wipe I'm now back up to Cult of Personality on expert but I'm damned if I can do it again

WHY is it impossible to get a half decent alliance group for WSG? Everytime I play the alliance team is 20-25 whilst the horde is invariably 28-29 and very very good at their jobs. I try my hardest, obviously I cant flag run being extremely squishie but I defend, bolster the attack, fear flag runners and fear people chasing our carrier and regularly hit top 3 damage (as a warlock should from what I hear) but I just cant do everything :x .

Slight change of subject here but.... Having got a bit further, into the murky depths of duskwood I miss having an instance to throw myself into to break up the monotony and maybe get lucky with something new and shiny. Deadmines is out as I have all the gear that I could use and the mobs are all grey now The stockades is out because frankly, its piss poor. So where does this leave me? Any suggestions? Any suggestions on general gear improving is good as well, I don't like AH buying because I don't know what warlock's really need and I don't want to buy something then have it be replaced in a levels time, instances? lucky drops? BG (although I get roundly whooped as an alliance lvl 25?) Edit - realised actually telling you my character would help - level 27 warlock (affliction spec)

Not that I'm an expert but... Do you mean a new character? You realise you can have lots of characters per account right? Race makes very little difference as far as I know, there may be slight advantages but its nothing game-making. In terms of levelling I've found my warlock to be the fastest and my priest to be the slowest (I think locks are great fun personally and with your pet you can solo a lot of quests that other classes will struggle to do at the same level) Levelling guides if you google allakazam, go onto the site and in guides search "azuarc" for his alliance levelling guide" or "ravennus" for horde (I've found both fairly useful and you can use them for every step or just to suggest a suitable area etc). There are some copies of the paid-guides floating around the forums I think but I'm not sure who has them.

One of the Halo's? the flood controlling thing I think... "its time to kick [wagon] and chew bubblegum...and I'm all out of gum" (its an oldie but a goodie :D )

Its tough to get a good K : D ratio on PC when I'm playing in 50 player matches, lol. :lol: Seriously you console kids don't know what you're missin'. :D I have played the old COD on PC and I know that the controls are much easier to use , thus making everyone good, and I believe it is harder. I will stick with my ps3 This man speaks the truth, FPS are just made for keyboard and mouse controls. Presumably with all the things the ps3 can do it wouldnt be that hard to link up a keyboard and mouse and own all the people using dualshocks? :lol:

^ wait until you play it on expert, for some reason I found it easier - you know the fast strumming parts that have little gaps in between? Well I always had trouble hitting them exactly and often lost my multiplier. On the expert version its just a constant fast strum with no gaps - just a quick flick of the finger is all you need with no break in strumming. Also @ he who said misirlou sucks - blasphemy!

I don't blame you, same here! But reading criminal cases for the last hour had put me in a debating mood :lol: . Now you seem to be making more sense - it almost seemed as you were supporting her assassination (as she was pro-democracy) and saw it as the start of a revolution. I quite agree on the state of the middle east, its something we can do little about - any action we seem to take just makes the situation worse but its a difficult situation to sit back and ignore. Democracy may be a way forward, we can only hope that moderate Islam in the area outweighs extremism and can beat it but that is something that they must do for themselves. A solution? I don't think any of us on a small, game related forum are ever going to find that in a few days of posting but all I know is that the Western method of poking it with a stick to see what happens is not going to work.

Some modular papers are sat in january if I remember rightly, they aren't that bad however (less of them to revise for) and most can be retaken in June if you screw up on them.

Firstly, about Chamberlain, that is a digressed point. Comparing foreign policy to government structure is frankly like comparing chalk and cheese. On that point, there were plenty of opportunities to use diplomacy without the need to bend over the other way and follow a policy of appeasement. Nowadays, I point you to both the UN and the EU which in effect are bodies designed to maintain Capitalist democracies if nothing else, yet are both examples of diplomacy. ok, examples of where revolution is not a good historical precedent: Kronstadt rising of russian sailors against the Soviet state - failed, all members hunted and executed Munich putsch - rebellion lead by ex-german army officers (a young hitler amongst the ranks) against the new democractic weimer government - failed, no reform of government structure (ironically the later reform into nazi government was entirely legal and did not require nor result in civil war) Greek civil war - communist uprising against democratic greek goverment - failed, no reform of goverment structure This is why historical precedent is a poor method of reasoning - there is always the opposite result in history and there is simply no way of telling which result will occur short of outside interference creating a defunct state. Also, if you honestly believe the Irish managed to gain their indepedance from the Union without violence then you believe that. Are you suggesting that the formation of the IRA through Sinn Fein, the Easter Rebellion and the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-21 were examples of "peaceful negotiation"? For the matter, Ireland had no need for a revolution. It transferred from a democracy ruled over in Westminster, to a democracy controlled in Dublin. I'm pretty sure I referenced the violence when I reference the IRA and other terrorist organisations, maybe you missed that. You seem to have me wrong, my point was all of those violent actions did nothing to change the government or attain peace in N.I. - only in the recent years (say the past decade?) has any stability appeared in the region, all the product of diplomacy - who would have though the opposite sides would be sat round a table a decade ago? Thirdly, where did I say revolutions had to be violent? Britain experienced its Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Russia had its Agrarian Revolution in the start of the 20th Century. Neither of those were violent, but were still examples of rapid change. rapid changes in society sure, neither of these changed the government of the time's structure (i.e. what we are actually discussing) so I fail to see the admissibility Let's ignore those two points though and move back to the topic in-hand. That country cannot continue in the way it's going. Its army's de facto leader is the supreme commander of political power. At the click of his finger, he could declare martial law and would meet little resistance in doing so. The leader of the opposition to that man has just been killed in alledgedly Pakistan's most secure city by extremists who are clearly strong enough to undermine what democratic process still remains in Pakistan. Any elections held in the near future will result in mass political violence and civil unrest. so how on earth will a revolution that will be so easily crushed help? West help would of course = West indebted puppet government as always What on Earth is the solution? We, as the Western European powers, take a spectator's seat and watch the country descend into anarchy; an anarchy Osama himself will likely flourish in? The west stops playing its damn World Police role, interfering in countries that don't want our help which only results in an even stronger hatred for the west (see: Iraq). The west needs to realise we do NOT own the world, nor dictate what should happen where and when - if the country looks to be turning into a threat to us, then we step in for own interests, not before. edit - fudged up quotes

Don't worry, my friend said he sucks. Beaten slash on expert, I will have this game finished on expert again dammit. Also, I agree on the medium/easy being stupidly simple - I can understand screwing up the first time you pick it up but once you have the basics how hard can one note at a time (out of a possible 4) be?

If he didn't freeze them and then pull the spine out in one swift movement then it wasn't mortal kombat and they were doing it wrong. Its a terrible thing to laugh about, but I can't help myself

I'm a sucker for a gentleman's challenge! I bet $500 on #6, to win! I'm afraid the bet of "win" is not possible in this scenario sir, we are but wagering on the likelihood and epicness of his "fail"

I for one shall be running a sweepstake on how long he takes to fall asleep/fall into a coma/die any takers?

This isn't about the company at all - its the one person making the decision, if that person cares more about revenue, stockholders and shares then he/she will make that call. If the CEO is an avid gamer who loves his product and wants it to be everywhere at the cost of profit then he will go in the other direction. The "company" does not exist as a separate entity - its the people at its head, be they a Samaritan or an asshat, that will make the difference.

A democracy involves two or more political powers grinding against one another in an attempt to win votes. In ours and the US's democracy, that's safe because the Armed Forces are more-or-less independant from the government, let alone a political party. Pakistan is ruled by someone who until a month ago was your equivalent of a Commander-in-Chief. It is descending into civil war, and only the Taleban operating over the border in Afghanistan can benefit from this. I fear that we are going to hear the phrase 'Civil War' more often in the future if this really gets out of hand. President Bush and PM Brown have strategically blamed extremists, because blaming Musharraf will end up in a diplomatic dispute. However, that doesn't rule out the opinion that he may have had a hand in the attacks. If it turns out he has had a hand in this, we will certainly be hearing 'Civil War' in the future. All Pakistan needs to be thrown into a civil war is for the pro-democratic people to take up arms against Musharraf and/or the extremists. If you want my honest opinion on South Asia/Middle East in general, that whole region needs to be thrown into revolution. Pakistan could prove to be the birthplace of a democratic republican Middle East, just as Russia proved to be the birthplace of Sovietism. This idea by the Allies that these countries can honestly tranform their governments from tyrannical fundamentalist dictatorships to liberal democracies without a revolution of some sort is completely ignorant to what our own histories teach on the matter. We had to have a war that lasted decades before we installed a Parliament. America had to fight for its independance. As did France to overthrow its monarchy. Wherever there is a change of government, a revolution has to precede. Bush needs to get it into his head that until that happens, the Middle East will continue to be split down the centre in political instability. Hence why our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have not helped this situation in the slightest. And what happens if the revolutionaries lose? Or will the west be funnelling whichever side we choose with weapons and supplies thus creating a state forever indebted to whichever country gave them victory, no thank you. That and historical precedent is possibly one of the worst ways you could have sought to justify your point - just because it worked (or indeed didn't work) somewhere before means that it should be repeated ad nauseum? Well by that token Chamberlain tried to appease a rogue state and avoid war with Hitler and that didn't work so should we never try diplomacy and run in all guns blazing? Just because its happened before doesn't mean it will happen again. If we ignore this for a moment there are plenty of countries that have formed a stable government and peace without the need for a full blown revolution. Obviously the transistion will never be peaceful (and rarely bloodless) but it will rarely degrade into the full blown civil war you seem to be talking about. Take Ireland for example, sure there was the IRA, terrorist organisations and the like, but never did a full scale successful revolution occur yet the region is now relatively peaceful and stable. How was this achieved? Through peaceful negotiation and diplomacy. Revolution and civil war is a bloody, volatile and unpredictable business - all too often they are hijacked by madmen and lunatics and it is a difficult thing to condone. Trying to control and shape the revolution would result in it not being a true revolution, leaving us at square one - I fail to see how this is the answer.

bloody sodding typical, every song completed and damn near 5 starred on expert (except TTFATF of course) and my bloody memory card corrupts the data - couldn't have corrupted any of my brother's saved games ohhhhh no. Pah.

She wasn't the nicest of people it seems, previous support for the Taliban, corruption charges that have removed her from office twice and numerous other shady dealings. Either way she didn't deserve to die, and assassination is obviously not a supportable political method - I wouldn't be surprised to see the region have some serious troubles over the next few days/weeks or even longer. Makes me realise how lucky I am to be living in a country with a stable political system that never resorts to this kind of thing.

hah, we invented gangsters, proper gangsters as in the Kray Brothers - those guys knew how to run organised crime and a gang, one of them, ONE managed to smuggle ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã39 million pounds of cocaine (bear in mind this is in the 60's) during his lifetime. Not that that's a good thing, but if you're going to do something do it properly eh :lol:

[email protected] I'm going to regret this...I have essays to write but I'm bored dammit.

Ditto, you have to learn that without citations your essay is worthless.

zero, and rightly so.

A noob joke...whats the punchline? Thats it! the OP!

Don't worry about it - when I bought my dog (almost ten years ago) she was only 6 weeks old; his mother was unfortunately ill after giving birth to a huge litter so they all had to be taken away for her own health. If we hadn't taken him I shudder to think what may have happened to him. The first few nights will be difficult, the puppy WILL cry, lots, and incessantly. On the advice of people who had been through similar things we did a few things that may help you. In the dogs basket (or box, or wherever he/she will sleep) place: a very very soft blanket a warm (but not boiling) hot water bottle a clock which ticks fairly loudly These (apparently) will simulate the feel,heat and heartbeat of the mother/companion he's used to and should help (it did with our puppy). Good luck! P.S. ignore all those who would cry barbarism - most are ignorant to keeping a dog properly, I had enough people shout it at me for having my dog's tail docked...idiots.