Friends - I'm in trouble - and I need your help

Crap! With you guys doing Germany, USA, and UK in a row, I’m gonna have to repaint my whole BOTB game! Oh well, time to find the paints again…  :wink:

LMAO

During the last session of our teaching workshop, participants were asked to state their personal goals for the immediate future.  One teacher vowed to update photo albums, another to lose weight.  The goal that got the most response, however, was given by a slightly out-of-shape kindergarten teacher.  “I resolve to exercise until I can complete a 20-minute workout in less than an hour.”

I was hoping someone would open a thread about this.  Here’s a piece I wrote while exchanging e-mails with a friend on Lost in Translation.  Hope it doesn’t give anything away.
–----------
Hmm…I am wondering if my comments right now are influenced by seeing Munich over the weekend.  I felt Spielberg was reaching for a particular audience, specifically the hard conservative Israelis.  While the movie isn’t sympathetic to the Palestinians, it’s not unsympathetic to them either.  But really, it creates very thin Palestinian characters without really exploring what it is they are doing.  I believe Spielberg chose this route because he wanted to appeal to those conservatives, who really don’t give a damn what the Palestinians feel or want or need.  Rather, the movie showed everything a right-wing Israeli would see:  murders, terror, etc.  It also expressed the rage, anger, and frustration of the conservatives as well.  But then it showed what the logical extension of all those feelings, what those ideas would lead to, and not on a social level, but a deeply personal one, especially how loving Israel can make you less Jewish.

As such, I don’t think this is an Israel-Palestine movie.  It’s something that has been done rarely:  an Israel-Israel movie.  It’s an attempt in my mind to bridge the gap between the deep divisions in Israeli society.  Or maybe not bridge, but convince the other side.  Hence, its appeal and its focus are tightly played on the self-destructive nature of revenge, typical in some ways of many revenge movies recently (with the notable exception of Quentin Tarrantino), but also elevating that sensibility and relating it to a concrete social dilemma.

LMAO one just happened a few mins ago that got me laughin :lol:

Geze: Ya, 1000 registered users but how many have actualy posted?

432 never posted

and 266 have only posted one or twice

thats 698 users of 1008 that have posted 0, 1 or 2 times!

Dezrtfish:Well, it’s a good thing you have posted once for each of them.

AahahahAHahhAhahHAHahaH!!! now that’s comedy. Well it’s funny if Dezrt is saying what I think he is. I hope he is, cuz then it’s funny.

regarding Risk 2110, I have played it and it is a lot of fun. Not nearly so involved as the AA games, but it is fast paced and wildly unpredictable. The main problem of the original Risk - players amassing enormous armies til it was foolhardy for anyone to attack anyone else - has been eliminated with the introduction of the command cards and “energy chips” (money). We got a four player game together, and there was just no way to tell who was “winning” because those damn cards can swing the balance of power in an instant. There’s also only 5 rounds to a game, so a player has to think ahead and yet not bide his time TOO long. Only played twice, but I’d say it’s worth the purchase price.

it works fine on my comp, not sure if you can change it in the game. If not i would suggest changing the resolution of your computer