wakelim

I stumbled across this game while extremely bored, but I think it's amazingly fun. The soundtrack's actually really good for a free game and I just love the physics and the enviroments. Call me sad, but try it out first!

Some stats (as of 21st October 2005):Chelsea have played 9, won 9, scored 23, conceded 3 and are already 9 points clear at the top.Isn't this just ridiculous? At least when Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool had their little domains of power over the last 20 years there was a possibility of them losing one week. You didn't go along to see them knowing that their opposition was just going to sit back and defend, but that they would still win. With Chelsea it's a for-gone conclusion even before the game starts. It's so predictable that some betting companies have already stopped taking bets on Chelsea winning the league and are taking bets on who comes second. And there's still 21 games to go!Take other leagues' competitiors: Scotland - Rangers, Celtic, HeartsItaly - Juventus, AC Milan, Inter Milan, LazioSpain - Real Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and moreGermany - Wermer Bremen, Bayern Munich, Schalke and moreIn all these countries it is still entirely close at the top of the table and you couldn't say for sure who would win the next fixture. And people are suprised about falling attendance figures?As most people know, the only reason Chelsea are so good is because they have a billionaire pumping endless ammounts of money into the club. They've spent in the region of ?240 million ($424M or 355M Euros) into Chelsea in the last three years or so. That's well over any ammount any club has ever spent in so short a time period. They now have some of the best players and staff in the world, and only by paying double what other clubs could afford for them. Isn't it about time UEFA or FIFA put a limit on the ammount of money clubs can spend on transfers etc.? Is it really fair that Chelsea can "buy" the Premiership year after year?

With regards to The Beatles, I would say they outstrip them easily. I would also say that they're most likely the best band Britain has ever produced (yes, they are British ). Maybe that's just my taste, but I would say that they have about 45 top, top-quality songs on their Greatest Hits album.P.S. What's the point of buying five or six times the albums for not alot more songs. I'd have to be mentally in love with Queen to buy all their albums. The Greatest Hits three and a half hours of music on it's Greatest Hits anyway.

Haven't you noticed that every group contains teams that were never going to be challenging for the World Cup. About two thirds of the teams that are in the qualifications are not counted as Europe's elite. England could have had a more challenging group, but they could also have had an easier one. You're forgetting that Wales only narrowly missed out on Euro 2004 qualification to Russia in the playoffs. Austria aren't that bad either. At the end of the day, we finished the group with a dominating win against Poland, topped the groups, and did so with one of the highest points tallies in Europe. You can't really complain about that. The only thing that was lacking after the defeat to Northern Ireland was confidence and fitness of key players. We've got the confidence back and (assuming, as Peaktao said, we keep to 4-4-2) if we have the other then we should be seriously challenging for the World Cup in Germany next Summer.

Well, England haven't been playing well of late. Surely that's the mark of a good team, though. To be able to play badly and still get three points. There's a long time befoer the World Cup yet, and we have one of the best teams in the world, whatever people might say. We can still win the World Cup next year.I think that the main reason behind England losing (and if you've been following England in the English media in any way you'll know this) was the 4-5-1 formation. This involved playing players out of position, namely Wayne Rooney. This was the reason behind the humiliating defeats to Denmark and Northern Ireland. We're back to the 4-4-2 formation now, that we work best in.You still have to look at the team as a whole, though. We performed well as whole throughout the qualification, beating Poland away and thumping Northern Ireland 4-0 at home. As long as we play our best players that are fit and played in the right positions there is no reason why we can't reach at least the semi-finals at the World Cup next year.

This is turning slightly into a "Harry Potter and Christians" debate, but it does apply to Halloween too in a way. Maybe these things are perfectly normal things in the world around us that can be turned to either "good" or "evil" depending on how you act on them or view them. After all, isn't that what the devil does best? Turning normal and innocent things into something distruptive. In the same way, though, God can turn these things into positive things (as I mentioned above about New Year). Mostly, I agree with you, though.

Alright, I'm starting to come round to your way of thinking, wild20. I still think you're a little over-the-top in your thinking here, though. You have to understand that something isn't refined by what a dictionary or website says it is. It's defined by what people think it is. People don't see Halloween as an opportunity to worship the dead or evil spirits or anything else. They just see it as an opportunity for children to dress up and get sweets, as the majority of posts in this discussion suggests. I agree that God might not be entirely happy about Christians dressing up as witches and stuff, though.(P.S. As far as I know JK Rowling never practiced witchcraft in her "research" of the Harry Potter books. She says (and she's the only one who'll really know) she got the idea on long train journey from Edinborough to London and the characters and plots formed in her head then. She didn't go out with the intention of turning children into witches and wizards any more than George Lucas wanted to turn people into Jedi by releasing the Star Wars films.)

Does the fact that some children happen to be mislead into witchcraft make the books evil? The books were never written to encourage children to practice these things. The only people who are despnsible for that are the companies that churn out Harry Potter wand merchandise and other things like that. I personally believe with all my heart that it's nonsence that the Harry Potter books "let the devil in"to your mind. I acknowledge that the things that you listen to and read etc. does have an effect on you, but this certainly doesn't have that drastic an effect (at least not on me).Also, the Bible doesn't have to support it. There are many things the Bible doesn't support, from double glazing to fridge-freezers and from tennis to computers. Does that mean we should disassociate ourselves from everything and go and live as Nomads in Jeruselem? Maybe not.As to the dressing up, many people dress up as things all the time. Perfectly normal things like businessmen. If you take it to the extreme you could say that you "dress up" every day by putting on clothes. The way that you dress is not important as long as it has reasonable coverage and isn't being used to show other people up or stand out from the crowd. As long as you're not thinking "witchy thoughts" as you go around, I can't see a problem with it.P.S. Who said that you have to dress up to be involved with Halloween anyway? You could just go trickle-treating nicely with your friends. Or, to turn the situation on its head, go to (or organise) a Christian Halloween party. I know of a Christian holiday that runs over New Year. They have a full-on banquet and then a disco and just general fun. And you're surrounded by Christians. I think this is a brilliant way to make a period of time usually darkened by drink, drugs, wild partying etc. into a positive way to serve God and have a good time.

There's some good points there, concertina226. I think there's alot of similarity with this issue and Harry Potter. I know Christians who think that it's wrong to read Harry Potter books and watch Harry Potter films etc. I would disagree with them by saying that I'm not a wizard and I don't actually practice "magic" and that stuff. I just read them because I think JK Rowling's a good writer. I can see where they're coming from by saying that reading Harry Potter is taking power away from God and presenting it to humans in the form of magic. I feel that it's silly to get worked up about it. It's the same with halloween. OK, the original basis of the festivities may have been supernatural, but does the average child going out on halloween think about those things? No. The action in this case is, in itself, not sinful. It very much depends on your emphasis for the action. If you're going around trickle-treating to terrorise old grannies or to egg people's houses just becuase they won't give you sweets then that's obviously not very loving. If you're just having a good time and acknowledging that you're not all-powerful over God, then I would say that you're fine. In regards to the Bible quotation, I noticed it said "...who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft...". Going around in a witches costume is no more practising witchcraft than walking around in a Spiderman suit is flying around New York. Paul writes in the New Testament that all women that go to church without a hat on are to be disgraced. That was only because people wandering around in the streets at the time were prostitutes. Is there anyone who would stand at the door of their local church giving abuse to women without hats on? Some Bible passages simply need to be taken into context.

The best thing I've seen about this game is the fact that you can fly around in space in your own little pod thing and do battle against the Sith or Rebels. The most impressive of these battles has got to be the movies I've seen with the battle over Corusant from Episode 3. You can also do barrel rolls and stuff. It just looks visually amazing.Not to mention playable heroes like from above and the missions with soldiers. I'm still unsure about whether I'll get it or not, though.

I have to say that you can't necessarilly accuse someone of being a poser just because of one thing. OK, so if you have a person in your class that wears what you view as cool clothing (whatever that is), does that make them a bad person? Does that even mean that their the kind of person that shows off? I would suggest that sometimes jealousy could be clouding your judgement. I'm not saying that your not cool or kind, switch, but I know that sometimes when people are dressed better than me, or are more popular than me etc., that that clouds my judgement. They haven't done anything to me, but I judge them from a distance without even talking to them. Does that explain anything?

Queen have to be the most musically and vocally inventive, not to mention talented, band of all time. They had rolled out so many good tunes over the years, it's actually hard to believe that the songs are all by one band. From what I hear, they were quite amazing live as well. The thing that suprised me was, when I listened to their Greatest Hits album for the first time, that they're a band that has produced tunes that are better than some bands have ever produced, that most people have never heard of. Every single aspect of their songs are awesome. Freddie Mercury can vary his voice to suit almost any song, from retro rock like in "Another One Bites The Dust" to opera singing like in "Bohemian Rhapsody" to female singing like in "I Want To Break Free". The guitar-playing is exceptional as well. In quite alot of their songs Brain May really goes to town with solos. What other band could tempt Elton John, David Barry and George Michael to sing songs with them, and still end up with those songs on the third CD of their Greatest Hits album? They've wowed audiences over 3 decades and their still popular, even after the death of their lead singer. You simply have to get, or at least listen to, this album before you die.

My favourite song is "We are the champions" by Queen. The verses and chorus and just so uplifting and triumphant. The lyrics are even quite good. There isn't a single second of that song which is bad. If I had to pick a song that wasn't by Queen, however, I'd probably choose "Take Me Out" by Franz Ferdinand.

Another point about Christ, by the way, is that he went the "wrong way" compared to other religions. GOD Jesus ^ ^ v ^ ^ v ^ ^ v ^ ^ v ^ ^ v Muhammad Sid-Arthur Guitama etc. EARTH Every figurehead of major religions were humans that claimed to be inspired by God. They then ascended into "heaven", or enlightenment, or whatever. Jesus, instead, claimed to be God on earth from the beginning. He goes down onto earth with, Christians believe, the final intension of saving the human race. Now, before long, someone is going to come along and say that this discussion is about more than just Jesus and Christianity. However, as Jesus is involved in strong beliefs in three major world religions, it it important to clear this issue up first. Chritians believe : Jesus was the Son of God who came down to earth to teach His people and to die for them so that they could be saved as soon as they asked for forgiveness. Jews believe : Jesus was not who he said he was. The true Messiah is yet to come. Muslims believe: Jesus was wrong in his major teaching that he was the Son of God, but he was still a prophet with alot of good things to say about attitude etc. If any of the above is wrong then please correct me. I'd hate to assume things about other people's religions that are wrong. But here we can see that Jesus has sparked controversy. Surely it doesn't matter whether he was the Son of God or not? The people who believe in Him can follow Him, right? No. Jesus said that He was "the way, the truth, and the light" and that "whoever trusts in Him will have eternal life". By this logic, whoever does not trust in Him will have the opersite to eternal life, which the Bible claims is Hell. If Jesus is not off His head, then the Jews and the Muslims are in serious trouble. Now, about other religions. I don't know an aweful lot about other religions, like Hinduism and Buddism, but they seem a little, you'll forgive me here, flexible. Christianity is very clear cut. You trust in God and make a commitment to Him by believing Jesus was God, or you don't. It seems that with these other religions, they're alot more like hobbies. You go to the mosque and make a few little changes in your lifestyle here and there, but the religions don't talk about clear lifestyle choices. Other religions seem to outline "good" and "evil" alot more clearly. e.g. Trusting in idols is "evil", reading the Bible more is "good". Does a Hindu (or any other follower of these relgions) have sex as often as they please, take drugs, commit crimes, or simply lie, without feeling any enphaisis that what they're doing is wrong spiritually? Perhaps someone could clear my thinking on this up a little?

That's an interesting new thing to talk about. Should homosexual relationships be allowed if they harm any children that may be involved?For example, a homosexual couple [get married] and decide that they would like to take the relationship to the next level and have children. They can't have children of their own for obvious reasons, and so adopt. Would the child/children adopted be going into an enviroment they don't feel comfortable with. Maybe they don't agree with homosexuality. This would obviously create alot of barriers between the parents and the child, resulting in a lack of a loving relationship that children need at that age. Also, is it fair that a child would have to face bullying and abuse because of their parents' sexuality? Would it be fairer on the child to find a straight couple instead?