Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Blizzard
> 
>> ...who?
> 
>   In my books you have stopped being a computer nerd from this moment
> forward.
> 

yes, let's begin a campaign to impeach Orchid of his geek position!

hey, guys.  I'm on vacation, but you seem pretty overly active for 
working people... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> Also, did you hear Sun bought MySQL recently? :)
> 
> Heh. How do you guys know all this stuff?
> 

http://slashdot.org

just read the headlines if you're out of time.  But the comments are 
real crux... :)

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote in message
news:47b1d422@news.povray.org...

> hey, guys.  I'm on vacation, but you seem pretty overly active for
> working people... ;)

I have an excuse. It's 7pm and I'm trying very hard to avoid working on my
thesis. So far, complete success. <g>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Speaking of wasting time downloading software ... a few years ago, I 
>> downloaded and tried Staroffice. I found it seriously lacking. Felt like 
>> MS Office circa Windows 3.1
> 
>   You should demand a refund, then.
> 

I did. I never got my 5 minutes back :)

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Speaking of wasting time downloading software ... a few years ago, I 
> downloaded and tried Staroffice. I found it seriously lacking. Felt like 
> MS Office circa Windows 3.1

Just a few years ago, Linux had a GUI which resembled Win95 at best. 
Nowadays, I've been running composite window managers in full graphical 
glory even before Vista was out...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> [Well, I mean obviously it's a massively-multiplayer online role-playing 
> game. But what the hell does that even mean anyway?]

I heard it also stands for "Mostly Men Online Role Playing Girls" and 
"Massively Monotonous Online Repetitive Perpetual Gaming".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Here's a better one: Name two other software companies [that anybody has 
> heard of]. ;-)

Anybody? Or someone who doesn't know who Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs 
are? ;-)

Seriously, name any other company at all in any product range that 
pushes other people's products. It's actually a rather big selling point 
that the "Progressive" insurance company in the USA will actually give 
you quotes for other insurance companies along with theirs. That's the 
only one I can think of.

Does Ford keep a few toyotas on the lot for you to test-drive too? Does 
your local food store keep a section set aside for other food stores to 
offer free samples? Does your bank have other banks' ATMs or brochures 
by the counter?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Blizzard
> 
>> ...who?
> 
>   In my books you have stopped being a computer nerd from this moment
> forward.

LOL!  OK, now I have to look like I'm working for a while...  Everyone 
is wondering what I'm laughing at during a Linux reinstall...

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escribió:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Here's a better one: Name two other software companies [that anybody 
>> has heard of]. ;-)
> 
> Anybody? Or someone who doesn't know who Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs 
> are? ;-)

Does Canonical count as a software company? I think it does.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Does Ford keep a few toyotas on the lot for you to test-drive too?

no, but Toyotas and Fords are built from standard industrial mechanical 
components.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> no, but Toyotas and Fords are built from standard industrial mechanical 
> components.

So ... I can just simply drop a Ford engine into a Toyota? or use a 
steering wheel from a Corolla in a Focus? I had no idea...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:36:05 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I just try not to spend time on things that don't interest me. [I  
> thought everybody else did too...]

The problem is that you seem to be interested in so very few things.


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> 
>> no, but Toyotas and Fords are built from standard industrial 
>> mechanical components.
> 
> So ... I can just simply drop a Ford engine into a Toyota? or use a 
> steering wheel from a Corolla in a Focus? I had no idea...

no, but those are built out of pretty much all the same components.

Like I said about OpenGL, it's not a "competitor's product", it's a 
standard API well known in the industry with several different 
implementations, including from M$.  It's the blueprints of an engine, 
not the engine.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> It's not the "competitors' software", it's an industry-strength API.

It's a floor polish! It's a salad dressing!  But wait, it's both!

Do you think that OpenGL isn't a competitor to DirectX? Do you think 
that DirectX isn't a reason some people buy or develop for Windows?

> They could provider their own implementation,

Like they did with Java, and got sued?

> but regardless of MS participating of
> standards bodies like the W3C, they just choose to turn it down in favour of
> their proprietary incompatible "standards".

Is OpenGL unavailable for Windows?  What, really, is the problem?

> Supporting industry-strength standards should only be a good thing.

They support it. There's a wide difference between "supporting" and 
"providing free as part of a download of a compiler."

> something major players in the industry agreed are a good thing.  It's
> something consumers would agree to be a good thing if only the most used
> platform more actively supported it,

OpenGL runs fine on Windows. It just isn't included by default in MS's 
free compiler download. If you want support for it, buy it.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escribió:
> Do you think that OpenGL isn't a competitor to DirectX? Do you think 
> that DirectX isn't a reason some people buy or develop for Windows?

No. OpenGL and DirectX can't be compared. OpenGL and Direct3D (one of 
the many components of DirectX), ok that could be :)

</nitpick>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> VC is no small 
>> download, not for those of us still struggling with dialup (I get 24Kpbs 
>> here :(...)
> 
>   Which is exactly why it sounds so stupid to immediately uninstall it
> right after he had downloaded and tested it, and just because of such
> a mundane reason.

It wasn't the only reason.

I had already struggled with the 2005 version, which would not link my 
project because the linker claimed to be unable to resolve a reference 
to one of the Windows API library calls.  This was after following all 
of the instructions that dealt with configuring it to build native 
Windows applications, and I did have the appropriate libraries specified 
in the linking.  I didn't uninstall VC 2005, but I did neglect to 
reinstall it after reinstalling WinXP a few weeks ago.

I later found that MSVC 2008 Express was available, and gave it a try.

After importing my project and attempting a build, it issued warnings 
for stupid things like the fact that an explicit recast might cause a 
loss of precision.  "No!  You're kidding!"

It also issued error messages because it couldn't find the database file 
that it generates for each project.  I went looking for the file, and it 
was right there, where the compiler claimed it couldn't find it.  Looked 
  up the error code in the help feature for possible reasons the 
compiler was denying the existence of a file.  The search feature in 
help couldn't find the error code in the docs.

Then I saw the line that indicated that OpenGL was lacking, and I 
decided at that point that getting the compiler to work wasn't going to 
be worth the trouble.  I probably could have copied the stuff over from 
my Watcom directory, true, but at that point I was getting rather 
annoyed at the whole package.

I might give it another shot on another day, when I have nothing better 
to do, but for now, I'll stick with what works.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> no, but Toyotas and Fords are built from standard industrial 
>>> mechanical components.
>>
>> So ... I can just simply drop a Ford engine into a Toyota? or use a 
>> steering wheel from a Corolla in a Focus? I had no idea...
> 
> no, but those are built out of pretty much all the same components.

Steel?  Yeah, I suppose.

> Like I said about OpenGL, it's not a "competitor's product",

Sure it is. Who do you think created it?  Then they opened the standard 
to make it competitive with MS.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:36:05 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I just try not to spend time on things that don't interest me. [I 
>> thought everybody else did too...]
> 
> The problem is that you seem to be interested in so very few things.

And this is a "problem" because...?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Seriously, name any other company at all in any product range that 
> pushes other people's products.

Washing machine manufacturers seem awfully keen for you to use a 
particular brand of detergent...

[Similarly for cars and engine oil.]

However, that's clearly not a *competing* product. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

>> They could provider their own implementation,
> 
> Like they did with Java, and got sued?

They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make it 
incompatible. [You know, the whole Embrace, Extend, Extinguish trip.]

> Is OpenGL unavailable for Windows?  What, really, is the problem?

Indeed.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> I cringe any time I see Orchid display his ignorance.
> 
> World of Warcraft?  what kind of geek are you to not know Blizzard?! 
> they are the id of hack-and-slash games...

Obviously I've heard of WoW. [I'm in a clan full of people who *play* 
it!] I just hadn't heard of the guys who make it, that's all.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Do you think that OpenGL isn't a competitor to DirectX? Do you think that 
> DirectX isn't a reason some people buy or develop for Windows?

Or put another way...

Is DirectX available for Linux, for cool games?

Do non-programmers have to recompile every application
they use in Linux?

If GTK2HS binary windows distribution for GHC is
maintained by intermitent Linux volunteers who are having
trouble building for GHC 6.8.2 on Linux, and they just got
done doing a GTK2HS 6.8.1 that works fine, how many
months before they bother with a GTK2HS 6.8.2 for
Windows, even though GHC 6.8.2 is just a bugfix?

Aren't the answers, no, yes, and 3 months+ ?

Post a reply to this message

> Does Ford keep a few toyotas on the lot for you to test-drive too?

Most new car lots keep a small inventory of used trade-in cars
of all makes and models, though they usually go to auction after
a bit.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:36:05 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I just try not to spend time on things that don't interest me. [I 
> >> thought everybody else did too...]
> > 
> > The problem is that you seem to be interested in so very few things.

> And this is a "problem" because...?

  Because when you express your ignorance about so many things which can
be considered common knowledge, it doesn't give a very favorable image.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>> The problem is that you seem to be interested in so very few things.
> 
>> And this is a "problem" because...?
> 
>   Because when you express your ignorance about so many things which can
> be considered common knowledge, it doesn't give a very favorable image.

Now that actually made sense...


I wonder how all this common knowledge becomes "common"? I mean, how 
does "everybody" know all this? I guess it's because normal humans talk 
to other people. I generally don't - unless you count this newsgroup. 
Maybe that's the difference?

(Or maybe it's just that unlike normal people, I don't actually care 
about football, pop music, politics, economics, and other things.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I wonder how all this common knowledge becomes "common"?

  You could start by exploring wikipedia. Start from something which
interests you, for example "Half-Life 2" or "Haskell", and read the
articles and follow the links and read those articles, etc. It can be
great fun and rather informative. :)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I wonder how all this common knowledge becomes "common"?
> 
>   You could start by exploring wikipedia. Start from something which
> interests you, for example "Half-Life 2" or "Haskell", and read the
> articles and follow the links and read those articles, etc. It can be
> great fun and rather informative. :)

And how do you *think* I know that chocolate is poisonus to dogs? ;-)

[Hint: It *wasn't* what I went to look up...]

I think there's a - wait, let me find it - ah yes, there is:

http://www.xkcd.com/214/

I loose count of how many times I've done this. LOL! As a result, I now 
know all sorts of rather useless factiods. Indeed, I watched The 
Eggheads last night, and I got more questions right than they did. [A 
pure fluke, as it happens. Usually they ask questions about Greek 
philosophers or something and I haven't got a clue. But tonight it was 
Latin...]

Oddly, I always seem to end up reading about leathal poisons or powerful 
explosives or how guns work or deadly bacteria or... damn it, if anybody 
is watching my surfing habits, they must think I'm a terrorist by now! :-S

Still, I don't follow every link I see, only the "interesting" ones. As 
a result, I never end up reading about the corporate development of IBM 
or the history of American Independence, but instead reading about 
fractal image compression or the undead cat that that guy studied. [You 
know the guy. I just can't spell his name.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> And how do you *think* I know that chocolate is poisonus to dogs? ;-)

it is?!!  oh, Spot, I miss you so much!...

*kiddin*...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> And how do you *think* I know that chocolate is poisonus to dogs? ;-)
> 
> it is?!!  oh, Spot, I miss you so much!...

O___O




> *kiddin*...

OMG, dude!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood escribió:
>> Do you think that OpenGL isn't a competitor to DirectX? Do you think that 
>> DirectX isn't a reason some people buy or develop for Windows?
> 
> Or put another way...
> 
> Is DirectX available for Linux, for cool games?

Yes, that's the whole point of Wine and Cedega.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:22:53 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I wonder how all this common knowledge becomes "common"?
>>    You could start by exploring wikipedia. Start from something which
>> interests you, for example "Half-Life 2"

I demand a step-by-step account of you playing Half-Life2+Eps1 and 2 on  
your blog!

> I loose count of how many times I've done this. LOL! As a result, I now  
> know all sorts of rather useless factiods. Indeed, I watched The  
> Eggheads last night, and I got more questions right than they did. [A  
> pure fluke, as it happens. Usually they ask questions about Greek  
> philosophers or something and I haven't got a clue. But tonight it was  
> Latin...]

Either that or you were remembering them ;-) (they're running through  
repeats since Dermot left the Beeb). The early ones are fun just for the  
Science round - what animal, plant, part of the body...? Ah yes Science  
take a slab of biology and a slab of zoology fill with botany and very  
lightly sprinkle chemistry, physics, and mathematics on top.

> Oddly, I always seem to end up reading about leathal poisons or powerful  
> explosives or how guns work or deadly bacteria or... damn it, if anybody  
> is watching my surfing habits, they must think I'm a terrorist by now!  
> :-S
>
> Still, I don't follow every link I see, only the "interesting" ones.

At which point we hit recursion. :-)

> As a result, I never end up reading about the corporate development of  
> IBM or the history of American Independence, but instead reading about  
> fractal image compression

Hmm let's see some of my Wikipedia hits - Berlaymont building, Conspiracy  
Theory, Craning, Cyniscism, Eisenstein, Horus, Rise of the Triad. Leading  
of course to others.

> or the undead cat that that guy studied. [You know the guy. I just can't  
> spell his name.]

Oo I know this - it was Giles in Episode 3.2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> I demand a step-by-step account of you playing Half-Life2+Eps1 and 2 on 
> your blog!

Uh... why? It's not like anybody would read it...

>> I loose count of how many times I've done this. LOL! As a result, I 
>> now know all sorts of rather useless factiods. Indeed, I watched The 
>> Eggheads last night, and I got more questions right than they did. [A 
>> pure fluke, as it happens. Usually they ask questions about Greek 
>> philosophers or something and I haven't got a clue. But tonight it was 
>> Latin...]
> 
> Either that or you were remembering them ;-)

Unlikely. I make a point of never, ever watching that pathetic program. 
It's so damn boring. But my mum seems to positively *enjoy* the stupid 
thing...

> (they're running through 
> repeats since Dermot left the Beeb).

He left?

He's called Dermot?

>> Still, I don't follow every link I see, only the "interesting" ones.
> 
> At which point we hit recursion. :-)

Hey, it's functional. ;-)

>> As a result, I never end up reading about the corporate development of 
>> IBM or the history of American Independence, but instead reading about 
>> fractal image compression
> 
> Hmm let's see some of my Wikipedia hits - Berlaymont building, 
> Conspiracy Theory, Craning, Cyniscism, Eisenstein, Horus, Rise of the 
> Triad. Leading of course to others.

Uh... what?

>> or the undead cat that that guy studied. [You know the guy. I just 
>> can't spell his name.]
> 
> Oo I know this - it was Giles in Episode 3.2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Possibly the silliest episode every...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> Phil Cook wrote:
> 
>> I demand a step-by-step account of you playing Half-Life2+Eps1 and 2 
>> on your blog!
> 
> Uh... why? It's not like anybody would read it...
> 

As much as we read your rants on the newsgroup, I guess...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:37:37 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> I demand a step-by-step account of you playing Half-Life2+Eps1 and 2 on  
>> your blog!
>
> Uh... why? It's not like anybody would read it...

Ditto Nicolas.

>>> I loose count of how many times I've done this. LOL! As a result, I  
>>> now know all sorts of rather useless factiods. Indeed, I watched The  
>>> Eggheads last night, and I got more questions right than they did. [A  
>>> pure fluke, as it happens. Usually they ask questions about Greek  
>>> philosophers or something and I haven't got a clue. But tonight it was  
>>> Latin...]
>>  Either that or you were remembering them ;-)
>
> Unlikely. I make a point of never, ever watching that pathetic program.  
> It's so damn boring. But my mum seems to positively *enjoy* the stupid  
> thing...

I like quiz programs they make me think, I just didn't like Dermot.

"So at the end of the first round the Challengers have lost one brain and  
the Eggheads none" Yes I know I've just watched that happen, likewise I  
can also detemine that after the first round in a knockout situation the  
scores are going to contain both a 1 and a 0 in some order.

>> (they're running through repeats since Dermot left the Beeb).
>
> He left?

Over the sea to Sky IIRC

> He's called Dermot?

Yes Dermot Murnaghan, or as I kept calling him Dermot McMurnahanrahanrahan  
because he just ticked me off.

>>> Still, I don't follow every link I see, only the "interesting" ones.
>>  At which point we hit recursion. :-)
>
> Hey, it's functional. ;-)

Only in a limited pattern.

>>> As a result, I never end up reading about the corporate development of  
>>> IBM or the history of American Independence, but instead reading about  
>>> fractal image compression
>>  Hmm let's see some of my Wikipedia hits - Berlaymont building,  
>> Conspiracy Theory, Craning, Cyniscism, Eisenstein, Horus, Rise of the  
>> Triad. Leading of course to others.
>
> Uh... what?

Well Berlaymont was because I couldn't recall the name of one of the EU  
buildings, I can't tell you why I was looking at Conspiracy Theory,  
Craning from wfa.org.uk regarding urban exploration, Cyniscism to make a  
point, Eisenstein and Horus from W40k, and Rise of the Triad to refresh my  
memory on something.

>>> or the undead cat that that guy studied. [You know the guy. I just  
>>> can't spell his name.]
>>  Oo I know this - it was Giles in Episode 3.2 of Buffy the Vampire  
>> Slayer.
>
> Possibly the silliest episode every...

"Do you like my mask? Isn't it pretty? It raises the dead... Americans!"

Wait one second you've seen this episode? *You've* watched Buffy the  
Vampire Slayer?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:59:55 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> It's a floor polish! It's a salad dressing!  But wait, it's both!

Have you been buying Heinz Salad Cream?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>
> Hmm let's see some of my Wikipedia hits - Berlaymont building, Conspiracy
> Theory, Craning, Cyniscism, Eisenstein, Horus, Rise of the Triad. Leading
> of course to others.

Interesting. Going to have to look several of those up. Let's see.
Recent Wiki hits: (related on same line)

Thermodynamics, Laws of thermodynamics
Great Pyramid, Giza
OODA_Loop
Arming Sword, Longsword, Viking swords
Knights Templar, Jerusalem, Crusades, Richard the Lionhearted, Kingdom of
Heaven (movie)
Great Hyperspace war
Swansea, Gower Peninsula, Three Cliffs bay

Post a reply to this message

>>> I demand a step-by-step account of you playing Half-Life2+Eps1 and 2 
>>> on your blog!
>>
>> Uh... why? It's not like anybody would read it...
> 
> Ditto Nicolas.

http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/140

Points of note:

1. This was posted several months ago.

2. Nobody read it.

> Wait one second you've seen this episode? *You've* watched Buffy the 
> Vampire Slayer?

Ooo, you're quick today. :-P

I have watched several, yes. I know somebody who is an utter Buffy 
nutter. Personally I don't find it all that entertaining...

I prefer Charmed.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:39:59 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>>> I demand a step-by-step account of you playing Half-Life2+Eps1 and 2  
>>>> on your blog!
>>>
>>> Uh... why? It's not like anybody would read it...
>>  Ditto Nicolas.
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/140
>
> Points of note:
>
> 1. This was posted several months ago.
>
> 2. Nobody read it.

Odd I've read the entry before it, I've read the entry after it, and the  
contents of the one you've linked to is familiar to me... so um yes I read  
it.

>> Wait one second you've seen this episode? *You've* watched Buffy the  
>> Vampire Slayer?
>
> Ooo, you're quick today. :-P

Well I'd have been expected you to get confused, say WTF the lot, and then  
never watch another episode. :-)

> I have watched several, yes. I know somebody who is an utter Buffy  
> nutter. Personally I don't find it all that entertaining...

What you don't find Giles entertaining "I just think it's rather odd that  
a nation which prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to  
strap on forty pounds of protective gear in order to play rugby" or Willow  
"Excuse me - Jewish; not all of us worship Santa"

> I prefer Charmed.

Saw some of the first season and didn't gel with it, missed a load then  
caught something about Rose (daughter of a White Lighter) coming in, then  
Shannen disppeared, there was a marriage to that White Lighter, the birth  
of their son, and Phoebe working as an Agony Aunt and her relationship  
with some demon called Balthazar; I just enjoyed listening to "How Soon is  
Now?" at the beginning. It's not a show I watch.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> Odd I've read the entry before it, I've read the entry after it, and the 
> contents of the one you've linked to is familiar to me... so um yes I 
> read it.

OK... so why the demands? :-P

>>> Wait one second you've seen this episode? *You've* watched Buffy the 
>>> Vampire Slayer?
>>
>> Ooo, you're quick today. :-P
> 
> Well I'd have been expected you to get confused, say WTF the lot, and 
> then never watch another episode. :-)

I never watched the *film* BTW. But my sister did. Apparently it sucked 
greatly. Which isn't all that surprising...

>> I have watched several, yes. I know somebody who is an utter Buffy 
>> nutter. Personally I don't find it all that entertaining...
> 
> What you don't find Giles entertaining "I just think it's rather odd 
> that a nation which prides itself on its virility should feel compelled 
> to strap on forty pounds of protective gear in order to play rugby" or 
> Willow "Excuse me - Jewish; not all of us worship Santa"

There are some funny lines in there. Those aren't the ones I'd pick, but 
sure.

>> I prefer Charmed.
> 
> Saw some of the first season and didn't gel with it, missed a load then 
> caught something about Rose (daughter of a White Lighter) coming in, 
> then Shannen disppeared, there was a marriage to that White Lighter, the 
> birth of their son, and Phoebe working as an Agony Aunt and her 
> relationship with some demon called Balthazar; I just enjoyed listening 
> to "How Soon is Now?" at the beginning. It's not a show I watch.

If you can get over the fact that it's blatently shallow and silly, it's 
quite comic. Not something you can take too seriously, I feel.

Much like Xena...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:21:06 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>> Odd I've read the entry before it, I've read the entry after it, and  
>> the contents of the one you've linked to is familiar to me... so um yes  
>> I read it.
>
> OK... so why the demands? :-P

'I liked the Antlion tunnels, the lift took me two hours to get through, I  
hate hunters..." So how about Ravenholm, what about the water/driving  
segments, which weapon did/do you favour etc.

>>>> Wait one second you've seen this episode? *You've* watched Buffy the  
>>>> Vampire Slayer?
>>>
>>> Ooo, you're quick today. :-P
>>  Well I'd have been expected you to get confused, say WTF the lot, and  
>> then never watch another episode. :-)
>
> I never watched the *film* BTW. But my sister did. Apparently it sucked  
> greatly. Which isn't all that surprising...

It wasn't great.

>>> I have watched several, yes. I know somebody who is an utter Buffy  
>>> nutter. Personally I don't find it all that entertaining...
>>  What you don't find Giles entertaining "I just think it's rather odd  
>> that a nation which prides itself on its virility should feel compelled  
>> to strap on forty pounds of protective gear in order to play rugby" or  
>> Willow "Excuse me - Jewish; not all of us worship Santa"
>
> There are some funny lines in there. Those aren't the ones I'd pick, but  
> sure.

Not to mention the fighting, the lengthy storylines, the character  
development ...

>>> I prefer Charmed.
>>  Saw some of the first season and didn't gel with it, missed a load  
>> then caught something about Rose (daughter of a White Lighter) coming  
>> in, then Shannen disppeared, there was a marriage to that White  
>> Lighter, the birth of their son, and Phoebe working as an Agony Aunt  
>> and her relationship with some demon called Balthazar; I just enjoyed  
>> listening to "How Soon is Now?" at the beginning. It's not a show I  
>> watch.
>
> If you can get over the fact that it's blatently shallow and silly,

Which I wouldn't have minded if that was the way it was shown, but it  
seems they take every shallow storyline as if it was of some great portent  
and play it totally straight; at least of the episodes I've seen.

> it's quite comic. Not something you can take too seriously, I feel.

Except as I say you don't get the feeling that the actors are having fun,  
they're taking it seriously.

> Much like Xena...

You're comparing Charmed to Xena... you are so dead :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

>> OK... so why the demands? :-P
> 
> 'I liked the Antlion tunnels, the lift took me two hours to get through, 
> I hate hunters..." So how about Ravenholm, what about the water/driving 
> segments, which weapon did/do you favour etc.

I played HL2 once, and didn't enjoy it very much. The scenary is far too 
drab and boring. The enemies are all humanoids of some kind. There's 
little or no variation in the game. They took out all of the most 
interesting weapons. Yawn.

Obviously, all the vehicles are almost completely uncontrolable. Digital 
steering is like that.

Obviously the best weapon is the magnum. Unfortunately it fires slower 
than milk float, has only 6 shots and an insane reload time. But it has 
an extremely long range, and if you actually hit something with it, it 
WILL die. I can't stress how important that last part is. What's the 
point of shooting something if it doesn't die when you hit it?

The best weapon in HL1 was the neato orange cannon - but unfortunately 
they removed that because it was too useful and interesting.

Ravenholm gave me nightmares for weeks. And weeks is how long it took to 
complete because there's...just...no...ammo...anywhere. Killing those 
fast zombies with a crowbar isn't even funny. And there's no healthpacks 
anywhere either. So I just had to replay every tiny segment endlessly 
again and again until I got lucky enough to stumble out with 2% health 
left instead of 0%. It was like something out of a low-budget horror 
film, and it wasn't very nice.

Ditto for Low Life in HL2:EP1. Mercifully, HL2:EP2 doesn't really 
contain anything comparable. I really hate zombies...

>> There are some funny lines in there. Those aren't the ones I'd pick, 
>> but sure.
> 
> Not to mention the fighting, the lengthy storylines, the character 
> development ...

I haven't watched nearly enough of it to notice that. But part way 
through, it seems the writers noticed that the more unhappy Buffy is, 
the better the ratings are. That's when I really, really stopped 
watching. I don't *want* Buffy to be unhappy...

>> it's quite comic. Not something you can take too seriously, I feel.
> 
> Except as I say you don't get the feeling that the actors are having 
> fun, they're taking it seriously.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

>> Much like Xena...
> 
> You're comparing Charmed to Xena... you are so dead :-P

I'm just trying to freak you out now. ;-)

Is it working? :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:57:54 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> OK... so why the demands? :-P
>>  'I liked the Antlion tunnels, the lift took me two hours to get  
>> through, I hate hunters..." So how about Ravenholm, what about the  
>> water/driving segments, which weapon did/do you favour etc.
>
> I played HL2 once, and didn't enjoy it very much. The scenary is far too  
> drab and boring. The enemies are all humanoids of some kind.

Except the headcrabs, and the antlions, and the stalkers, and the  
heliships; but yeah I know what you mean

> There's little or no variation in the game. They took out all of the  
> most interesting weapons. Yawn.
>
> Obviously, all the vehicles are almost completely uncontrolable. Digital  
> steering is like that.

Pffh I'm using an analogue controller on the console and it's terrible.  
Anyway I'm in the middle of tidying up my review so I won't go into details

> Obviously the best weapon is the magnum. Unfortunately it fires slower  
> than milk float, has only 6 shots and an insane reload time. But it has  
> an extremely long range, and if you actually hit something with it, it  
> WILL die. I can't stress how important that last part is. What's the  
> point of shooting something if it doesn't die when you hit it?

I like the crossbow for the long range stuff, magnum for those headcrab  
carriers

> The best weapon in HL1 was the neato orange cannon - but unfortunately  
> they removed that because it was too useful and interesting.

Orange cannon? Hold on....the Tau cannon, meh I never really used it that  
much.

> Ravenholm gave me nightmares for weeks. And weeks is how long it took to  
> complete because there's...just...no...ammo...anywhere. Killing those  
> fast zombies with a crowbar isn't even funny.

Shotgun to the head for them, grav-gun for the headcrabs, and grav-gun  
buzzsaw blade for slow zombies. If you're talking about that village  
square then the slow zombies respawn, the fast ones are script triggered,  
and there are two headcrab carriers around which I always try to take out  
first. Allow for one death just to work out what you're supposed to be  
doing.

> And there's no healthpacks anywhere either.

I do recall a dearth of such in Ravenholm

> So I just had to replay every tiny segment endlessly again and again  
> until I got lucky enough to stumble out with 2% health left instead of  
> 0%. It was like something out of a low-budget horror film, and it wasn't  
> very nice.
>
> Ditto for Low Life in HL2:EP1. Mercifully, HL2:EP2 doesn't really  
> contain anything comparable. I really hate zombies...

As I've said it's the Mr Benn approach that irks me.

>>> There are some funny lines in there. Those aren't the ones I'd pick,  
>>> but sure.
>>  Not to mention the fighting, the lengthy storylines, the character  
>> development ...
>
> I haven't watched nearly enough of it to notice that. But part way  
> through, it seems the writers noticed that the more unhappy Buffy is,  
> the better the ratings are. That's when I really, really stopped  
> watching. I don't *want* Buffy to be unhappy...

It goes up and down, you know a bit like real life. How far did you get,  
can you recall?

>>> it's quite comic. Not something you can take too seriously, I feel.
>>  Except as I say you don't get the feeling that the actors are having  
>> fun, they're taking it seriously.
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean.

'This is art goddamnit and you will appreciate it'

>>> Much like Xena...
>>  You're comparing Charmed to Xena... you are so dead :-P
>
> I'm just trying to freak you out now. ;-)
>
> Is it working? :-D

So how many shows of Xena have you caught?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> I played HL2 once, and didn't enjoy it very much. The scenary is far 
>> too drab and boring. The enemies are all humanoids of some kind.
> 
> Except the headcrabs, and the antlions, and the stalkers, and the 
> heliships; but yeah I know what you mean

Stalkers are humanoid. I presume you mean Striders? :-P

>> Obviously, all the vehicles are almost completely uncontrolable. 
>> Digital steering is like that.
> 
> Pffh I'm using an analogue controller on the console and it's terrible. 

Really? That's odd.

Still, I guess you still have digital accelerator control. Not that that 
stopped me in my Perguet 205 says. >:-D

> I like the crossbow for the long range stuff, magnum for those headcrab 
> carriers

I like the magnum for... everything, really. Except that you fire a 
couple of shots and you are now *out* of ammo. Completely. I mean, you 
get 2-dozen bullets before you can't carry any more?

The SMG *was* a damn good weapon in HL1. But in HL2 it doesn't seem to 
cause much damage any more...

>> The best weapon in HL1 was the neato orange cannon - but unfortunately 
>> they removed that because it was too useful and interesting.
> 
> Orange cannon? Hold on....the Tau cannon, meh I never really used it 
> that much.

I used it for absolutely everything. It shoots round corners, it has 
amazing range, it takes down helicopters faster than a rocket launcher 
(!!), and it also glows. Oh yeah - and there's no ammo around...

> Shotgun to the head for them

This requires you to actually *have* some shotgun shells. Or even 
bullets for the pistol. I mean *damn*... After playing Ravenholm for 
about 4 minutes, I was *out* of ammo. Of any kind. Even grenades (which, 
obviously, I never use). Good thing there's so many leathal traps around...

> grav-gun for the headcrabs, and grav-gun 
> buzzsaw blade for slow zombies.

You can't *kill* things with a gravity gun! (At least, except under lab 
conditions anyway...)

>> And there's no healthpacks anywhere either.
> 
> I do recall a dearth of such in Ravenholm

Slightly...

> As I've said it's the Mr Benn approach that irks me.

The what?

>> I haven't watched nearly enough of it to notice that. But part way 
>> through, it seems the writers noticed that the more unhappy Buffy is, 
>> the better the ratings are. That's when I really, really stopped 
>> watching. I don't *want* Buffy to be unhappy...
> 
> It goes up and down, you know a bit like real life. How far did you get, 
> can you recall?

Well, ya know, first Spike was evil, then Spike couldn't actually be 
evil any more but wanted to help out other evil guys, the Spike was 
good, then Spike became bad again... [Said Buffy fanatic was *obsessed* 
with Spike... wanted to marry him and stuff. Yes, she was a teenager.]

I do recall Spike had a rebot made that looks exactly like Buffy. And 
one time Buffy was invisible and decided to start... uh... having fun 
with Spike. ("No, this is a bad idea. Hey!... What are you doing down 
there?... That's not fair...")

> So how many shows of Xena have you caught?

Not many. (Not even enough to work out the various characters' names.)

I do recall an episode where Xena's nemesis stole her unborn child's 
soul and wanted Xena's to bring her back to the living world before she 
would relinquish it. So Xena had a bunch of people hold hands and 
meditate to create a non-real world to "rescue" her to... or... 
something. I do remember there was lots of fighting...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I played HL2 once, and didn't enjoy it very much. The scenary is far too 
> drab and boring.

  You must have played a different HL2 than I did.

  Compare the scenery of HL2 to, for example, the scenery of Doom3 or
Quake4. There just isn't comparison. We are talking about this:

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/54/150018_full.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/54/149822_full.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/54/150429_full.jpg

  vs. this:

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/36/1264_full.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/36/1249_full.jpg

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I played HL2 once, and didn't enjoy it very much. The scenary is far too 
>> drab and boring.
> 
>   You must have played a different HL2 than I did.
> 
>   Compare the scenery of HL2 to, for example, the scenery of Doom3 or
> Quake4. There just isn't comparison. We are talking about this:


<Derelict trackway overlooked by deserted block of flats>
<Deserted waterway>
<Derelict dockyard overlooking deserted waterway>

>   vs. this:
> 
> http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/36/1264_full.jpg
> http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/36/1249_full.jpg

I'm sorry. On my lame monitor at work, both of these come out jet black.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:43:42 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> I played HL2 once, and didn't enjoy it very much. The scenary is far  
>>> too drab and boring. The enemies are all humanoids of some kind.
>>  Except the headcrabs, and the antlions, and the stalkers, and the  
>> heliships; but yeah I know what you mean
>
> Stalkers are humanoid. I presume you mean Striders? :-P

Yeah the tripod knock-offs

>>> Obviously, all the vehicles are almost completely uncontrolable.  
>>> Digital steering is like that.
>>  Pffh I'm using an analogue controller on the console and it's terrible.
>
> Really? That's odd.

Accelerate, brake and steer controlled by the movement of one stick.

> Still, I guess you still have digital accelerator control. Not that that  
> stopped me in my Perguet 205 says. >:-D
>
>> I like the crossbow for the long range stuff, magnum for those headcrab  
>> carriers
>
> I like the magnum for... everything, really. Except that you fire a  
> couple of shots and you are now *out* of ammo. Completely. I mean, you  
> get 2-dozen bullets before you can't carry any more?

That's because it's a one-shot kill, if there was a ton af ammo about  
you'd use it for everything and it would get boring.

> The SMG *was* a damn good weapon in HL1. But in HL2 it doesn't seem to  
> cause much damage any more...

No I didn't use it a lot in HL2, too inaccurate.

>>> The best weapon in HL1 was the neato orange cannon - but unfortunately  
>>> they removed that because it was too useful and interesting.
>>  Orange cannon? Hold on....the Tau cannon, meh I never really used it  
>> that much.
>
> I used it for absolutely everything. It shoots round corners, it has  
> amazing range, it takes down helicopters faster than a rocket launcher  
> (!!), and it also glows. Oh yeah - and there's no ammo around...
>
>> Shotgun to the head for them
>
> This requires you to actually *have* some shotgun shells.

Well yeah, but it only needs one clear shot to the head. I think I've  
needed three max to take ones of them down.

> Or even bullets for the pistol. I mean *damn*... After playing Ravenholm  
> for about 4 minutes, I was *out* of ammo. Of any kind. Even grenades  
> (which, obviously, I never use). Good thing there's so many leathal  
> traps around...

Hmm odd I wasn't

>> grav-gun for the headcrabs, and grav-gun buzzsaw blade for slow zombies.
>
> You can't *kill* things with a gravity gun! (At least, except under lab  
> conditions anyway...)

On the PS3 at least both types of headcrabs can be knocked about and  
eventually killed by the grav-gun alone, otherwise gotta love the saw  
blades.

>>> And there's no healthpacks anywhere either.
>>  I do recall a dearth of such in Ravenholm
>
> Slightly...
>
>> As I've said it's the Mr Benn approach that irks me.
>
> The what?

"As if by magic the shopkeeper appeared" substitute shopkeeper with  
zombies, or any other enemy you care to mention.

>>> I haven't watched nearly enough of it to notice that. But part way  
>>> through, it seems the writers noticed that the more unhappy Buffy is,  
>>> the better the ratings are. That's when I really, really stopped  
>>> watching. I don't *want* Buffy to be unhappy...
>>  It goes up and down, you know a bit like real life. How far did you  
>> get, can you recall?
>
> Well, ya know, first Spike was evil, then Spike couldn't actually be  
> evil any more but wanted to help out other evil guys, the Spike was  
> good, then Spike became bad again... [Said Buffy fanatic was *obsessed*  
> with Spike... wanted to marry him and stuff. Yes, she was a teenager.]

Yeah, but James Marsters *is* good as Spike.

> I do recall Spike had a rebot made that looks exactly like Buffy. And  
> one time Buffy was invisible and decided to start... uh... having fun  
> with Spike. ("No, this is a bad idea. Hey!... What are you doing down  
> there?... That's not fair...")
>
>> So how many shows of Xena have you caught?
>
> Not many. (Not even enough to work out the various characters' names.)

Always liked Callisto, Hudson Leick got the character perfectly.

> I do recall an episode where Xena's nemesis stole her unborn child's  
> soul and wanted Xena's to bring her back to the living world before she  
> would relinquish it. So Xena had a bunch of people hold hands and  
> meditate to create a non-real world to "rescue" her to... or...  
> something. I do remember there was lots of fighting...

Yeah that wasn't one of the best ones, IIRC it was the one with the bad  
CGI skeletons in it.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Stalkers are humanoid. I presume you mean Striders? :-P
> 
> Yeah the tripod knock-offs

Those are Strider, dear. Stalkers are the little humanoid guys with 
their intensines missing who walk around pointing lazers at things. You 
meet a whole bunch of 'em in EP1...

>>>> Obviously, all the vehicles are almost completely uncontrolable. 
>>>> Digital steering is like that.
>>>  Pffh I'm using an analogue controller on the console and it's terrible.
>>
>> Really? That's odd.
> 
> Accelerate, brake and steer controlled by the movement of one stick.

Ah. That's Not Good(tm).

>> The SMG *was* a damn good weapon in HL1. But in HL2 it doesn't seem to 
>> cause much damage any more...
> 
> No I didn't use it a lot in HL2, too inaccurate.

In HL1, it was accurate, rapid-firing and very leathal. Only trouble is 
you run out of ammo so fast. In HL2, it's worthless.

>>> Shotgun to the head for them
>>
>> This requires you to actually *have* some shotgun shells.
> 
> Well yeah, but it only needs one clear shot to the head.

Unless you miss for some reason. Perhaps because one of the buggers has 
swiped you and sent you half way across the map. Let's not go into the 
whole reloading part...

>>> grav-gun for the headcrabs, and grav-gun buzzsaw blade for slow zombies.
>>
>> You can't *kill* things with a gravity gun! (At least, except under 
>> lab conditions anyway...)
> 
> On the PS3 at least both types of headcrabs can be knocked about and 
> eventually killed by the grav-gun alone, otherwise gotta love the saw 
> blades.

Sure. Not that you can find any saw blades when you actually need 'em. 
And if you happen to miss... oh dear. You are now dead.

>> Well, ya know, first Spike was evil, then Spike couldn't actually be 
>> evil any more but wanted to help out other evil guys, the Spike was 
>> good, then Spike became bad again... [Said Buffy fanatic was 
>> *obsessed* with Spike... wanted to marry him and stuff. Yes, she was a 
>> teenager.]
> 
> Yeah, but James Marsters *is* good as Spike.

...is name is James Marsters?

[insert whitty remark here]

>>> So how many shows of Xena have you caught?
>>
>> Not many. (Not even enough to work out the various characters' names.)
> 
> Always liked Callisto, Hudson Leick got the character perfectly.

Damn, why are these people's real names always *more* improbable than 
the characters they're playing??

>> I do recall an episode where Xena's nemesis stole her unborn child's 
>> soul and wanted Xena's to bring her back to the living world before 
>> she would relinquish it. So Xena had a bunch of people hold hands and 
>> meditate to create a non-real world to "rescue" her to... or... 
>> something. I do remember there was lots of fighting...
> 
> Yeah that wasn't one of the best ones, IIRC it was the one with the bad 
> CGI skeletons in it.

Ah, you remember it then...

Also liked the one where the little girl suddenly sticks out her arm and 
grabs a flying arrow out of the air, just before it hits Xena. And she's 
all like "OMG, I actually *caught* that!"

And then later she tries to do it again, but can't. But eventually she 
manages it. "Well, I did it eventually!" "You missed a few though." "Oh 
yeah - I can see how that would be a problem..." LOL!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:21:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> Stalkers are humanoid. I presume you mean Striders? :-P
>>  Yeah the tripod knock-offs
>
> Those are Strider, dear. Stalkers are the little humanoid guys with  
> their intensines missing who walk around pointing lazers at things. You  
> meet a whole bunch of 'em in EP1...

Meh I don't need to know their names just how to kill them.

>>>>> Obviously, all the vehicles are almost completely uncontrolable.  
>>>>> Digital steering is like that.
>>>>  Pffh I'm using an analogue controller on the console and it's  
>>>> terrible.
>>>
>>> Really? That's odd.
>>  Accelerate, brake and steer controlled by the movement of one stick.
>
> Ah. That's Not Good(tm).

Not in a firefight no.

>>>> Shotgun to the head for them
>>>
>>> This requires you to actually *have* some shotgun shells.
>>  Well yeah, but it only needs one clear shot to the head.
>
> Unless you miss for some reason. Perhaps because one of the buggers has  
> swiped you and sent you half way across the map. Let's not go into the  
> whole reloading part...

It's advisable to shoot them prior to them getting that close.

>>>> grav-gun for the headcrabs, and grav-gun buzzsaw blade for slow  
>>>> zombies.
>>>
>>> You can't *kill* things with a gravity gun! (At least, except under  
>>> lab conditions anyway...)
>>  On the PS3 at least both types of headcrabs can be knocked about and  
>> eventually killed by the grav-gun alone, otherwise gotta love the saw  
>> blades.
>
> Sure. Not that you can find any saw blades when you actually need 'em.  
> And if you happen to miss... oh dear. You are now dead.

"It's advisable to shoot them prior to them getting that close."

>>> Well, ya know, first Spike was evil, then Spike couldn't actually be  
>>> evil any more but wanted to help out other evil guys, the Spike was  
>>> good, then Spike became bad again... [Said Buffy fanatic was  
>>> *obsessed* with Spike... wanted to marry him and stuff. Yes, she was a  
>>> teenager.]
>>  Yeah, but James Marsters *is* good as Spike.
>
> ...is name is James Marsters?
>
> [insert whitty remark here]

[insert witty reply here]

>>>> So how many shows of Xena have you caught?
>>>
>>> Not many. (Not even enough to work out the various characters' names.)
>>  Always liked Callisto, Hudson Leick got the character perfectly.
>
> Damn, why are these people's real names always *more* improbable than  
> the characters they're playing??

What you mean Lucy Lawless, Renee O'Connor, Hudson Leick, Kevin Sorbo, and  
Bruce Campbell? :-)

>>> I do recall an episode where Xena's nemesis stole her unborn child's  
>>> soul and wanted Xena's to bring her back to the living world before  
>>> she would relinquish it. So Xena had a bunch of people hold hands and  
>>> meditate to create a non-real world to "rescue" her to... or...  
>>> something. I do remember there was lots of fighting...
>>  Yeah that wasn't one of the best ones, IIRC it was the one with the  
>> bad CGI skeletons in it.
>
> Ah, you remember it then...

Kinda sticks in the memory due to vast suckage.

> Also liked the one where the little girl

Renee O'Connor playing Gabrielle

> suddenly sticks out her arm and grabs a flying arrow out of the air,  
> just before it hits Xena. And she's all like "OMG, I actually *caught*  
> that!"

Just to clarify it was her quarterstaff that intercepted the arrow in that  
particular episode.

> And then later she tries to do it again, but can't. But eventually she  
> manages it. "Well, I did it eventually!" "You missed a few though." "Oh  
> yeah - I can see how that would be a problem..." LOL!

See - funny stuff.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> Meh I don't need to know their names just how to kill them.

And people tell *me* my interests are too narrow. ;-)

>>>  Well yeah, but it only needs one clear shot to the head.
>>
>> Unless you miss for some reason. Perhaps because one of the buggers 
>> has swiped you and sent you half way across the map. Let's not go into 
>> the whole reloading part...
> 
> It's advisable to shoot them prior to them getting that close.

The shotgun only works from close range.

Plus, most of Ravenholm is of the form "you walk down a dark alleyway. 
Suddenly 12 zombies stagger towards you, coming from all directions." 
Plus, it takes time to kill the first one, time to kill the second one, 
more time to kill the third one... gee, the rest are getting quite close 
now...

>> Sure. Not that you can find any saw blades when you actually need 'em. 
>> And if you happen to miss... oh dear. You are now dead.
> 
> "It's advisable to shoot them prior to them getting that close."

Yeah, but if you miss, you now have no ammo. Good luck...

>> Damn, why are these people's real names always *more* improbable than 
>> the characters they're playing??
> 
> What you mean Lucy Lawless, Renee O'Connor, Hudson Leick, Kevin Sorbo, 
> and Bruce Campbell? :-)

Yes. Like that.

> Renee O'Connor playing Gabrielle

Heh. And I thought *I* was strange for having a signed picture in my 
room of Major Carter wearing only a USA flag...

> Just to clarify it was her quarterstaff that intercepted the arrow in 
> that particular episode.

Not that you've memorised every episode or anything like that...

> See - funny stuff.

Mildly amusing sometimes, yeah.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:53:29 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Meh I don't need to know their names just how to kill them.
>
> And people tell *me* my interests are too narrow. ;-)

Except the level of interaction between us is limited to movement,  
trigger, sqwark; with only the occasional duck, reload, scramble for the  
bigger brutes. Now if I were in the possession of multiple enemy-specific  
weaponry then sure I'd bother to learn their names :-)

>>>>  Well yeah, but it only needs one clear shot to the head.
>>>
>>> Unless you miss for some reason. Perhaps because one of the buggers  
>>> has swiped you and sent you half way across the map. Let's not go into  
>>> the whole reloading part...
>>  It's advisable to shoot them prior to them getting that close.
>
> The shotgun only works from close range.

The fast ones have a simple AI - when they reach a certain distance from  
you they crouch jump, just step back/to the side and pow as they're in the  
air.

> Plus, most of Ravenholm is of the form "you walk down a dark alleyway.  
> Suddenly 12 zombies stagger towards you, coming from all directions."  
> Plus, it takes time to kill the first one, time to kill the second one,  
> more time to kill the third one... gee, the rest are getting quite close  
> now...

Don't kill them then, you don't get points or experience for doing so. If  
the objective is to get from point A to point B then that's what you do,  
don't go looking for trouble.

Take the Ravenholm Square for instance, I come in and take out the  
scuttling head crab before heading straight for the headcrab carrier  
hidden on the left, grav-gun+barrel and a magnum chaser.

Activate the trap in the middle to slow down the horde behind me and dart  
to the right. Up the stairs and pull the lever, down and back out. Head  
down to the right for another headcrab carrier, up onto the roof and relax  
for a moment.

Onward keeping my eyes open for the fast zombies, shotgun the ones in my  
way before heading over the gap and into the house and a section load.  
Directly I've taken out maybe five zombies and a headcrab tops out of the  
dozen or so now shuffling around below me.

>>> Sure. Not that you can find any saw blades when you actually need 'em.  
>>> And if you happen to miss... oh dear. You are now dead.
>>  "It's advisable to shoot them prior to them getting that close."
>
> Yeah, but if you miss, you now have no ammo. Good luck...

The grav-gun (when it works) can pull things from a reasonable distance  
and as I've mentioned it's a toggle on the console.

>>> Damn, why are these people's real names always *more* improbable than  
>>> the characters they're playing??
>>  What you mean Lucy Lawless, Renee O'Connor, Hudson Leick, Kevin Sorbo,  
>> and Bruce Campbell? :-)
>
> Yes. Like that.

Come on though - Bruce Campbell's in it!

>> Renee O'Connor playing Gabrielle
>
> Heh. And I thought *I* was strange for having a signed picture in my  
> room of Major Carter wearing only a USA flag...

Ah Stargate:Franchise never could get into that from day one "Greetings  
we've been cut off from Earth for thousands of years and yet can quite  
clearly speak American English" at least prior to the ret-con Star Trek  
had the excuse for being made 40 years ago and just not knowing better :-)  
Now the film on the other hand, that was good.

>> Just to clarify it was her quarterstaff that intercepted the arrow in  
>> that particular episode.
>
> Not that you've memorised every episode or anything like that...

I've got the box-set and that sort of memory.

>> See - funny stuff.
>
> Mildly amusing sometimes, yeah.

Better then Charmed, more scantily clad women too.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message