I can get by 100% with one arm, but it's a pain in the ass. I find it much more useful to have two arms. In fact, if I somehow acquired a third arm, I think I would like having three arms much better than even two.
There is no reason - aside from prettier mice, as one poster has suggested - to limit the mouse to one button. Users are generally bright enough to figure out that the right-click context menu has useful stuff in it. Because of this, if a given feature appears only in a right-click menu, it really isn't too much of a problem because the user generally thinks to look there anyway.
I can appreciate most Apple UI decisions. The one-button mouse, on the other hand, was a dumbass move, which is why Apple is moving away from it. Get over it.
They should divide the XBox Live community into two segments. Everyone starts out in the first "nice" segment. Accrue enough demerits and acquire the Habitual Asshole tag, and you get thrown in the "naughty" segment.
"Nice" players would have an option to play in "nice" games (with only other "nice" players) or "naughty" games (with "naughty" players, and any "nice" players who set the option). "Naughty" players would only be able to play "naughty" games. This would be the only disadvantage to being a "naughty" player.
This way, everyone can have fun. The people who dislike verbal abuse and aren't hypercompetitive can have nice, inoffensive afternoons pretending to shoot each other to death. The people who live to swear and honestly believe they will die if they lose a video game, on the other hand, can enjoy the game too.
However, I also enjoy Bomberman DS and Puyo Pop Fever which I like more than most violent games and would recommend for the kids.
Bomberman? Not violent? Am I missing something here?
Don't get me wrong, I love Bomberman, I've been playing Bomberman games since I was a kid, and I'm a peaceful young man. It's not going to turn anyone into the Unabomber. But seeing as the basic premise of the game is to run around blowing shit up with bombs, I'm thinking "nonviolent" is not the best description.
I fully agree that violence is overused. Eventually the industry will reach the limits of violent concepts; some might argue it already has, Either way, there need to be fresh ideas in games. I think the success of Katamari Damacy (which is the epitome of an off-the-wall idea) will encourage some more inventive creations, but there are still some hurdles to overcome.
It will take a while before we really see a wide variety of new ideas, partially because game companies (like all corporations) are reluctant to try something new, but also because the market will have to be built up to receive them. Games like The Sims and Nintendogs are laying the foundation, but it will be a while before a creative (in the sense of creating things), nonviolent game will be as sure a bet as Yet Another FPS(tm). Right now, the people most receptive to games are the main market, gamers who don't yet find violence stale, so most games will be targeted toward them. When more gamers are people who are more interested in nonviolent games, the industry will be happy to create more inventive games to sell to them. Only a matter of time, really.
The fact of the matter is that that violence is easy to do. Human interaction is hard. Plot development is hard. Drama is hard.
Do video games need human interaction, plot development, and drama? They're games, not books or movies. While some games, most notably RPGs, benefit tremendously from human interaction, plot development, and drama, it is not necessary and in many cases not desirable to include them in a game. The vast majority of games require only a setting and a backstory to be excellent games.
Plot development and drama are wasted on multiplayer games, whether FPS, RTS, MMORPG, or any other genre; the gameplay itself is almost always emphasized over any story. For most games, where there is a definite objective and winner, this is evident and accepted. MMORPGs, on the other hand, seem like they might be well-suited to a storyline - but the vast, sweeping majority of players are concerned solely with amassing loot and building up their character, and possibly their guild.
I suggest that the single-player modes of most games also require no plot development or drama. In RTS and FPS games, which commonly have story-based campaigns of some kind, the focus is on accomplishing objectives to progress onto the next level. The story is fixed and generally completely unaffected by the player's actions. For instance, what happens in WarCraft III when you fail a mission? You are informed that you failed the mission, and you try again until you complete the mission, at which point the story continues as though you completed the mission the first time. The stories here could just as effectively be told in a movie or in the manual as in the campaign, and serve mostly to give each mission slightly more background than if you just played a skirmish against the AI.
The stories aren't necessarily bad - they're just completely unnecessary to the game itself. The story of Diablo II is much more detailed and complex than the story of Super Mario Bros., but they have about the same effect on the gameplay: backstory. In Diablo II, you're (insert name), a hero or heroine out to kill the three Prime Evils and save the world; in Super Mario Bros. you're Mario, a hero out to kill Bowser and save the Princess. Your character's personality does not change, develop, or even really exist.
The reason why game storylines are as simplistic as they are is because it is a game, not a story. It is a participatory medium, and to have an actually participatory story, the in-game characters would have to be as human as the player. Pen-and-paper RPGs can achieve a participatory story because a good gamemaster can play the NPCs and make them behave like humans (or the GM's idea of what elves, orcs, aliens, or whatever fictional creature would behave like).
Games do not have creative stories because games are a participatory medium. If you cannot participate in the story, you might as well have watched a movie or read a book. The reason why violence is so much more common in games than drama is because violence makes for a more effective and participatory game than does drama. Violence is also common in video games because the most popular games tend to simulate competitions that are unfeasible or illegal to play in reality, such as warfare or gladiatorial combat. Conversely, human interaction is rare in games because you can quite easily participate in human interaction by interacting with actual people, and most people have done so much human interaction during their lives that it's completely mundane, on the level of eating and sleeping. There are some games - dating simulations - that involve human interaction, but not only are they clunky and inaccurate, the basic premise is utterly idiotic. Without the prospect of meeting people, what the hell is fun about dating?
You mention Katamari Damacy, which is considered to be a very creative game. I admit that the story is quite creative (creative as in, it makes me wonder if I'm not high on marijuana), but it's nothing more than a backdro
Here's an analogy: The new movie The Devil's Rejects is about three psychotic serial killers committing horrifying, brutal, gruesome murders more or less for the fun of it, and contains graphic scenes of violence and mayhem; it's quite appropriately rated R. (The R rating is somewhat analogous to the M rating on video games, such as GTA:SA, although many stores will sell M games without ID.)
Suppose, when The Devil's Rejects is released on DVD, the DVD contains a hidden pornographic scene that is not mentioned on the packaging. The MPAA ignores it. Would this somehow set a precedent where a G-rated Disney DVD could include a similar hidden pornographic scene?
If not, then why would "Hot Coffee" - remember that it's surrounded by gang wars and massive numbers of Federal felonies - somehow set a precedent for sneaking pornographic minigames into E-rated games for children?
Rockstar is being made into an example for all game companies to discourage the insertion of "easter eggs" that might change the rating of the game were they enabled by default.
GTA was misrated to begin with. The horrifying sprees of violence and mayhem I unleashed on the population of Vice City seem like "prolonged scenes of intense violence" (part of the ESRB website's criteria for an AO rating) to me. I suppose that's different because I chose to eviscerate virtual policemen with a chainsaw for hours, whereas the "Hot Coffee" game is much more scripted and essentially forces the player into having rather mundane, consensual sex with his character's girlfriend... but then again you have to choose twice - once to enable the content and once to actually go in and play the minigame - to play the "Hot Coffee" content.
These games are inappropriate for children no matter what other content is hidden on the disc. It is fallacious to suggest that the ESRB ignoring "Hot Coffee" in the already-notorious GTA series would lead to the ESRB ignoring "Freakshow Mode" in an E-rated game intended for children.
Warhammer Fantasy, the tabletop battle game between two Enormous Characters of DEATH (and some lackeys), actually seems like it would be a good setting for a WoW clone, but then again it would still be a WoW clone.
What they should do, IMHO, is make a unique MMORPG incorporating aspects of the tabletop game. The majority of the game would be similar to traditional MMORPGs, where your character goes around and grinds monsters and grabs equipment and suchlike. Players who like that could choose to do that exclusively, but they could also do it to prepare their character for the other part of the game. This would be similar to a cross between WoW's Battlegrounds and the WH Fantasy tabletop game; players would sign up for the battleground, and the server would organize the applicants into an army. Low-level characters would be grouped into regiments of troops. Mid-level characters assigned to lead the regiments and fill squads of specialists. High-level characters would make up groups of elite troops and commander retinues, and epic-level characters would fill the roles of the general, heroes, magicians and the like.
Players would be able to sign up for different scenarios, which would use different army organizations. For instance, a relatively short skirmish might merely have a regiment or two of troops and a special unit, while a large battle a la Alterac Valley would use a full army. Some scenarios would pit the army against another player army, others against a server-controlled army.
The end result of all this would be an MMORPG where players of all levels could participate in a Battlegrounds-like PVP experience. And, if the battlegrounds were made the primary method of gaining levels while the traditional aspects progressed characters' equipment, skills, magic, etc., the end result might be an MMORPG with no grind.
If it was balanced, well-executed, and most importantly reliable, it could be a direct contender to World of Warcraft.
I think if you are to be a gamer, you should have broader horizons.
The thing with "gamer" is that all the different subsets of gamers - video gamers, tabletop wargamers, role-playing gamers, board gamers - call themselves simply "gamers" when talking amongst themselves. If they mention one of the other subsets, they use the more specific name for them. On a Warhammer 40,000 message board, for example, a poster will refer to tabletop wargamers as simply "gamers", but if he wants to talk about his hardcore FPS-player friend, he'll call him a "video gamer".
The reason why most people assume "gamer" refers to a video gamer is simply that hardcore video gamers are the most numerous and the most outspoken. It's more socially acceptable to be a hardcore video gamer than, say, a hardcore board gamer (as board games are generally seen as casual pastimes) or a hardcore RPGer, so video gamers are more comfortable in prominently displaying their gamerness (not a word, I know).
Many hardcore video gamers are also fans of other kinds of games as well - I, myself, am a hardcore video gamer, but I also take an interest in card games, tabletop RPGS and wargames. The problem is that many kinds of gaming tend to be quite time-consuming, and prevent the gamer from broadening his or her horizons too much. Some games - MMORPGS come to mind - keep you from doing much of anything else at all!
Finally, while sports are games, they're very different from other kinds of games. Sports require both physical and mental skill, but the physical skill is generally emphasized. Most hardcore "other" gamers, no matter how clever, simply aren't athletic enough to compete with even an average athlete. Furthermore, physical skill doesn't translate particularly well to most other kinds of games... All the cross-country running in the world won't help you if you're losing a game of chess.
It's all a matter of perspective. The kids these days see it as, those adults all think they have 'mad skillz' in everything, whereas in fact they can't even buy clothes that fall off their asses properly.
Guess what? If they can't make any money off of it then they can go get another job.
I know a guy who builds and paints models on commission for table-top war games like Warhammer. Some months he can make upward of $1000 - but most of the time he only gets a few hundred a month. That's not enough to live off of... which is why he has a real job, too.
If voice actors actually feel like they should get paid enough doing 10 hours of work a year to live off of, I have no sympathy for them. They're complaining that they don't get enough money for working fewer hours in a year than I do in one day!
At least for me and my friends, LAN parties are more fun because of their dual nature - aside from the multiplayer gaming, they are also physical gatherings of like-minded people. The games are only a part of the experience, as we can share our music (often at high decibel levels), show each other amusing websites between games, talk trash as one can only do in person, and feel the goodwill and cameraderie that comes about from the donation of drinks and snacks to the party. And don't even get me started on the communal partaking of pizza.
It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.
American schools know nothing about food. PB&J is only the start.
In elementary school, expecting the food to be made well (i.e. not still half-frozen) was foolish, expecting it to taste good was absurd, and expecting it to be fresh was utterly delusional. The administrators equated "healthy" with "bland" and so the offerings were always greasy, fatty and/or sugary, but still managed to be unpalatable. We didn't tease the kids whose mothers prepared them lunch - we envied them.
Junior high was a dubious improvement. You could choose what half-frozen low-quality grease-drenched food-like substance you wanted to eat, which was nice. Of course, you had to pay for it, despite the massive education budgets and miserable teacher salaries we Americans enjoy. So, it was kind of a trade-off. Keep in mind that it's still the same nearly-inedible stuff they gave us for free in elementary school. Thankfully, junior highs have soda machines, so I usually just drank a few bottles of Mountain Dew and then ate heartily at home. I seem to have turned out quite alright.
High school food was marginally (marginally) better than junior high food. It cost more, but there was a better variety, and as far as taste it was generally on par with cheap gas-station food. My own high school switched between several suppliers of pizza, some of which produced surprisingly tasty pizza and some of which produced pizza-shaped piles of shit, and would occasionally serve Pizza Hut instead. Pizza Hut is a large chain here in America, and their pizza is stellar compared to school pizza - even after an hour or three under heat lamps. I usually ate pizza if I hadn't given all my money to a certain girl I spent my lunch periods with, and if the current supplier of pizza was unsuitable to my tastes, I would eat overpriced french fries instead.
It irritates me mightily to hear the bureaucrats here trumpeting about health initiatives. Their idea of health initiatives is getting rid of soda machines in favor of sports drinks (which are pretty sugary themselves) and processed, flavored milk (which is just as sugared up as the sports drinks yet still tastes terrible). I always found it ironic to see the obese Mormon kids who never drank soda, when my scrawny friends and I drained bottle after bottle.
I always wished they'd stop kidding themselves have actual fast-food outlets in schools. Contrary to what politicians try to tell you, it wouldn't be any less healthy than what they had.
Slashdot Mirror
I can get by 100% with one arm, but it's a pain in the ass. I find it much more useful to have two arms. In fact, if I somehow acquired a third arm, I think I would like having three arms much better than even two.
There is no reason - aside from prettier mice, as one poster has suggested - to limit the mouse to one button. Users are generally bright enough to figure out that the right-click context menu has useful stuff in it. Because of this, if a given feature appears only in a right-click menu, it really isn't too much of a problem because the user generally thinks to look there anyway.
I can appreciate most Apple UI decisions. The one-button mouse, on the other hand, was a dumbass move, which is why Apple is moving away from it. Get over it.
They should divide the XBox Live community into two segments. Everyone starts out in the first "nice" segment. Accrue enough demerits and acquire the Habitual Asshole tag, and you get thrown in the "naughty" segment.
"Nice" players would have an option to play in "nice" games (with only other "nice" players) or "naughty" games (with "naughty" players, and any "nice" players who set the option). "Naughty" players would only be able to play "naughty" games. This would be the only disadvantage to being a "naughty" player.
This way, everyone can have fun. The people who dislike verbal abuse and aren't hypercompetitive can have nice, inoffensive afternoons pretending to shoot each other to death. The people who live to swear and honestly believe they will die if they lose a video game, on the other hand, can enjoy the game too.
Don't get me wrong, I love Bomberman, I've been playing Bomberman games since I was a kid, and I'm a peaceful young man. It's not going to turn anyone into the Unabomber. But seeing as the basic premise of the game is to run around blowing shit up with bombs, I'm thinking "nonviolent" is not the best description.
I fully agree that violence is overused. Eventually the industry will reach the limits of violent concepts; some might argue it already has, Either way, there need to be fresh ideas in games. I think the success of Katamari Damacy (which is the epitome of an off-the-wall idea) will encourage some more inventive creations, but there are still some hurdles to overcome.
It will take a while before we really see a wide variety of new ideas, partially because game companies (like all corporations) are reluctant to try something new, but also because the market will have to be built up to receive them. Games like The Sims and Nintendogs are laying the foundation, but it will be a while before a creative (in the sense of creating things), nonviolent game will be as sure a bet as Yet Another FPS(tm). Right now, the people most receptive to games are the main market, gamers who don't yet find violence stale, so most games will be targeted toward them. When more gamers are people who are more interested in nonviolent games, the industry will be happy to create more inventive games to sell to them. Only a matter of time, really.
The fact of the matter is that that violence is easy to do. Human interaction is hard. Plot development is hard. Drama is hard. Do video games need human interaction, plot development, and drama? They're games, not books or movies. While some games, most notably RPGs, benefit tremendously from human interaction, plot development, and drama, it is not necessary and in many cases not desirable to include them in a game. The vast majority of games require only a setting and a backstory to be excellent games.
Plot development and drama are wasted on multiplayer games, whether FPS, RTS, MMORPG, or any other genre; the gameplay itself is almost always emphasized over any story. For most games, where there is a definite objective and winner, this is evident and accepted. MMORPGs, on the other hand, seem like they might be well-suited to a storyline - but the vast, sweeping majority of players are concerned solely with amassing loot and building up their character, and possibly their guild.
I suggest that the single-player modes of most games also require no plot development or drama. In RTS and FPS games, which commonly have story-based campaigns of some kind, the focus is on accomplishing objectives to progress onto the next level. The story is fixed and generally completely unaffected by the player's actions. For instance, what happens in WarCraft III when you fail a mission? You are informed that you failed the mission, and you try again until you complete the mission, at which point the story continues as though you completed the mission the first time. The stories here could just as effectively be told in a movie or in the manual as in the campaign, and serve mostly to give each mission slightly more background than if you just played a skirmish against the AI.
The stories aren't necessarily bad - they're just completely unnecessary to the game itself. The story of Diablo II is much more detailed and complex than the story of Super Mario Bros., but they have about the same effect on the gameplay: backstory. In Diablo II, you're (insert name), a hero or heroine out to kill the three Prime Evils and save the world; in Super Mario Bros. you're Mario, a hero out to kill Bowser and save the Princess. Your character's personality does not change, develop, or even really exist.
The reason why game storylines are as simplistic as they are is because it is a game, not a story. It is a participatory medium, and to have an actually participatory story, the in-game characters would have to be as human as the player. Pen-and-paper RPGs can achieve a participatory story because a good gamemaster can play the NPCs and make them behave like humans (or the GM's idea of what elves, orcs, aliens, or whatever fictional creature would behave like).
Games do not have creative stories because games are a participatory medium. If you cannot participate in the story, you might as well have watched a movie or read a book. The reason why violence is so much more common in games than drama is because violence makes for a more effective and participatory game than does drama. Violence is also common in video games because the most popular games tend to simulate competitions that are unfeasible or illegal to play in reality, such as warfare or gladiatorial combat. Conversely, human interaction is rare in games because you can quite easily participate in human interaction by interacting with actual people, and most people have done so much human interaction during their lives that it's completely mundane, on the level of eating and sleeping. There are some games - dating simulations - that involve human interaction, but not only are they clunky and inaccurate, the basic premise is utterly idiotic. Without the prospect of meeting people, what the hell is fun about dating?
You mention Katamari Damacy, which is considered to be a very creative game. I admit that the story is quite creative (creative as in, it makes me wonder if I'm not high on marijuana), but it's nothing more than a backdro
Suppose, when The Devil's Rejects is released on DVD, the DVD contains a hidden pornographic scene that is not mentioned on the packaging. The MPAA ignores it. Would this somehow set a precedent where a G-rated Disney DVD could include a similar hidden pornographic scene?
If not, then why would "Hot Coffee" - remember that it's surrounded by gang wars and massive numbers of Federal felonies - somehow set a precedent for sneaking pornographic minigames into E-rated games for children? GTA was misrated to begin with. The horrifying sprees of violence and mayhem I unleashed on the population of Vice City seem like "prolonged scenes of intense violence" (part of the ESRB website's criteria for an AO rating) to me. I suppose that's different because I chose to eviscerate virtual policemen with a chainsaw for hours, whereas the "Hot Coffee" game is much more scripted and essentially forces the player into having rather mundane, consensual sex with his character's girlfriend... but then again you have to choose twice - once to enable the content and once to actually go in and play the minigame - to play the "Hot Coffee" content.
These games are inappropriate for children no matter what other content is hidden on the disc. It is fallacious to suggest that the ESRB ignoring "Hot Coffee" in the already-notorious GTA series would lead to the ESRB ignoring "Freakshow Mode" in an E-rated game intended for children.
Warhammer Fantasy, the tabletop battle game between two Enormous Characters of DEATH (and some lackeys), actually seems like it would be a good setting for a WoW clone, but then again it would still be a WoW clone.
What they should do, IMHO, is make a unique MMORPG incorporating aspects of the tabletop game. The majority of the game would be similar to traditional MMORPGs, where your character goes around and grinds monsters and grabs equipment and suchlike. Players who like that could choose to do that exclusively, but they could also do it to prepare their character for the other part of the game. This would be similar to a cross between WoW's Battlegrounds and the WH Fantasy tabletop game; players would sign up for the battleground, and the server would organize the applicants into an army. Low-level characters would be grouped into regiments of troops. Mid-level characters assigned to lead the regiments and fill squads of specialists. High-level characters would make up groups of elite troops and commander retinues, and epic-level characters would fill the roles of the general, heroes, magicians and the like.
Players would be able to sign up for different scenarios, which would use different army organizations. For instance, a relatively short skirmish might merely have a regiment or two of troops and a special unit, while a large battle a la Alterac Valley would use a full army. Some scenarios would pit the army against another player army, others against a server-controlled army.
The end result of all this would be an MMORPG where players of all levels could participate in a Battlegrounds-like PVP experience. And, if the battlegrounds were made the primary method of gaining levels while the traditional aspects progressed characters' equipment, skills, magic, etc., the end result might be an MMORPG with no grind.
If it was balanced, well-executed, and most importantly reliable, it could be a direct contender to World of Warcraft.
The reason why most people assume "gamer" refers to a video gamer is simply that hardcore video gamers are the most numerous and the most outspoken. It's more socially acceptable to be a hardcore video gamer than, say, a hardcore board gamer (as board games are generally seen as casual pastimes) or a hardcore RPGer, so video gamers are more comfortable in prominently displaying their gamerness (not a word, I know).
Many hardcore video gamers are also fans of other kinds of games as well - I, myself, am a hardcore video gamer, but I also take an interest in card games, tabletop RPGS and wargames. The problem is that many kinds of gaming tend to be quite time-consuming, and prevent the gamer from broadening his or her horizons too much. Some games - MMORPGS come to mind - keep you from doing much of anything else at all!
Finally, while sports are games, they're very different from other kinds of games. Sports require both physical and mental skill, but the physical skill is generally emphasized. Most hardcore "other" gamers, no matter how clever, simply aren't athletic enough to compete with even an average athlete. Furthermore, physical skill doesn't translate particularly well to most other kinds of games... All the cross-country running in the world won't help you if you're losing a game of chess.
It's all a matter of perspective. The kids these days see it as, those adults all think they have 'mad skillz' in everything, whereas in fact they can't even buy clothes that fall off their asses properly.
Guess what? If they can't make any money off of it then they can go get another job.
I know a guy who builds and paints models on commission for table-top war games like Warhammer. Some months he can make upward of $1000 - but most of the time he only gets a few hundred a month. That's not enough to live off of... which is why he has a real job, too.
If voice actors actually feel like they should get paid enough doing 10 hours of work a year to live off of, I have no sympathy for them. They're complaining that they don't get enough money for working fewer hours in a year than I do in one day!
Don't say that! Now they'll pass off the next violent-games bill as helping the impoverished.
All the teenage boys I know will relish the opportunity to make outrageous claims about their "memory units."
"Hey Sean, my memory unit is twice as big as yours!"
At least for me and my friends, LAN parties are more fun because of their dual nature - aside from the multiplayer gaming, they are also physical gatherings of like-minded people. The games are only a part of the experience, as we can share our music (often at high decibel levels), show each other amusing websites between games, talk trash as one can only do in person, and feel the goodwill and cameraderie that comes about from the donation of drinks and snacks to the party. And don't even get me started on the communal partaking of pizza.
It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.
American schools know nothing about food. PB&J is only the start.
In elementary school, expecting the food to be made well (i.e. not still half-frozen) was foolish, expecting it to taste good was absurd, and expecting it to be fresh was utterly delusional. The administrators equated "healthy" with "bland" and so the offerings were always greasy, fatty and/or sugary, but still managed to be unpalatable. We didn't tease the kids whose mothers prepared them lunch - we envied them.
Junior high was a dubious improvement. You could choose what half-frozen low-quality grease-drenched food-like substance you wanted to eat, which was nice. Of course, you had to pay for it, despite the massive education budgets and miserable teacher salaries we Americans enjoy. So, it was kind of a trade-off. Keep in mind that it's still the same nearly-inedible stuff they gave us for free in elementary school. Thankfully, junior highs have soda machines, so I usually just drank a few bottles of Mountain Dew and then ate heartily at home. I seem to have turned out quite alright.
High school food was marginally (marginally) better than junior high food. It cost more, but there was a better variety, and as far as taste it was generally on par with cheap gas-station food. My own high school switched between several suppliers of pizza, some of which produced surprisingly tasty pizza and some of which produced pizza-shaped piles of shit, and would occasionally serve Pizza Hut instead. Pizza Hut is a large chain here in America, and their pizza is stellar compared to school pizza - even after an hour or three under heat lamps. I usually ate pizza if I hadn't given all my money to a certain girl I spent my lunch periods with, and if the current supplier of pizza was unsuitable to my tastes, I would eat overpriced french fries instead.
It irritates me mightily to hear the bureaucrats here trumpeting about health initiatives. Their idea of health initiatives is getting rid of soda machines in favor of sports drinks (which are pretty sugary themselves) and processed, flavored milk (which is just as sugared up as the sports drinks yet still tastes terrible). I always found it ironic to see the obese Mormon kids who never drank soda, when my scrawny friends and I drained bottle after bottle.
I always wished they'd stop kidding themselves have actual fast-food outlets in schools. Contrary to what politicians try to tell you, it wouldn't be any less healthy than what they had.
All these replies and nobody noticed that it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken.
I must say, though, that the idea of having a tradition that is impossible to follow is pretty funny.
How would you know? Are you constantly refreshing the page, thereby increasing the pain on his hosting?
Prime them first. Games Workshop has a nice (but exorbitantly expensive, $9-a-can) spray primer available in white or black.
/me walks away from the keyboard for the night and cries himself to sleep, knowing that no girl would ever go near his geeky ass.
Show me a MUD where I'm a member of a counter-terrorist team working to eliminate a team of terrorists, and I'll be right on it.
All the gamer-girls I know love Sephiroth from Final Fantasy 7.
This guy doesn't even exist and he gets more chicks than I do. Fuck Sephiroth.
I know my neighbors... but I wish I didn't.
See, there are these trolls that claim Netcraft announces BSD is dead and... oh fuck it.