Hellbender

Yeah, I know. Sorry about going on a tangent like that . Of course reevers help with base attacks as well, but when I try and use the protoss, I end up not using these as much. Good strategy, but I find when I use carriers they get destroyed easily. I guess they are intended more for air-to-air support with scouts and arbiters more than anything. But then again, I find the protoss difficult to use, so I may not know well. I do know that they seem to have the best all-around air force in the game. I see a good air approach as arbiters can use stasis field to get rid of a lot of grouped units, then send in the scouts, maybe corsairs to cast some spells and support, carriers to cause mass confusion and damage with all those crazy little ships and use the drained arbiters for support and its a fool-proof air strike. Hit and run is a good way to go with the protoss, it seems, as their attacks are powerful, but they are often expensive to losing a lot of units means losing a lot of time, gas a minerals. With the zerg, I use a Flood approach: uprgade then send in massed hydras, lurkers, mutas and ultras and defilers.

This would actually be nice, paleolithic.

Maybe it was considered offensive becasue you were talking about oral sex in a tasteless way maybe? You don't need to be blatantly crude to prove a point.

in my opinion, the best all around air unit. True, but air forces and ultralisks make short work out of the strictly ground based melee zealots. Zerglings are useless to me unless I am using them to cause some form of distraction while my hydras,ultras and defilers dominate the ground attacks. however 2 things I fear are seige tanks in seige mode, large groups of zealots (the best way to use them, IMO) and science vessels. True again, pound for pound this is true, but no one, especially not myself, would send off 12 of the same units without some backup. I love talking strategy, especially starcraft strategy.

No argument here

Live chat isn't my thing, like Phi said Posting gives me time to think and maybe look things up and form more thought-out rebuttles. Chatting is so rapid-fire sometimes, and I just don't type that fast.

Are mosasaurs more closely related to snakes or monitor lizards? Various morphological characteristics such as features in the skull point to at least in-between, or closer to snakes. Having seen a fossil of Tylosaurus myself, while it looked indoubtedly snakelike, I also recognized that it had common featues with modern monitors. Anyone is welcome to discuss their various homologies with snakes and monitors or where they fit in that particular family tree.

That thing was stupid, annoying and blatantly cartoonish. Thanks for reminding me of another reason to hate episode 1. I forgot watto from episode 1 and that creature that anakin faces in the podrace. Also tusken raiders (I hate the noises they make) and Obi-Wan in Episode 4. Surprisingly I like him best in Episode 2, he is such a cantankerous old jerk in episode 4.

yeah thats the thing's name. I hate that little creature.

interesting, but why cuban crocs? Are they already pretty close like varanids?

Varanids are already pretty close to being endothermic, right? I know a lot of bony fish such as mackerel are endotherms, as well as lamnid sharks, as azure pointed out above. Also I read that some type of sea turtle is endothermic, but I will have to google that and see which one it was. Question for Mokele: Is there any evidence that pterosaurs were endothermic as well? Some fossils have been found with hairlike filaments, but I am not quite sure if this is a definite indicator of warm-bloodedness. edit: its the leatherback sea turtle, and it is partially warm-blooded, apparently allowing it to migrate into colder waters.

Jar Jar Binks, I would assume. But there are also some very annoying characters as well. C-3P0 is annoying to me, as well as Luke in Episode 4 with his whining, that guy with the bad haircut that Vader chokes with the force, Yoda (yeah, I said it, he annoys me sometimes), umm like all the ewoks, stormtroopers, who they have bad aim and are sometimes seen bumping into things (okay, more funny than annoying but what they hey) that little bird thing that always sits next to Jabba and giggles, Anakin in episodes 1-2, the cartoonish Gungan leader in episode 1 who spits everywhere, etc.

exactly. The laws of nature are obviously neutral on the topics of morality and ethics. Humans will do what they do and apparently do anything to justify doing it.

I can't use the protoss. Their units are too expensive, and take forever to manufacture. Also, most of the time, you need a lot of them, or any group of devourers/mutalisks or valkeries/wraiths will absolutely destroy them. Dragoons are good, like the Protoss version of Hydralisks, but again, they aren't that great. I do like the Dark Archons, however, becasue they can steal enemy drones. But again, they are expensive.

the name "jango" was never even mentioned until that crappy Episode 2. I don't knwo why you remember "Boba" as "Jango", but maybe you just got them confused recently. Odd. Hey what do you guys think about a poll on the worst star wars character?

Asian mythical dragons do not have the same behavior or physical features to European ones. For starters, on one hand they are revered godlike beings, and on the other, they are scary, destructive monsters that need to be slain. But it is interesting that the concept of a giant flying reptilian creatures is part of mythology in different cultures.

I am disappointed. Only 4 Zerg votes???? I find that hydralisks are the all-around most useful unit in the game.

For a person who hates UFO so much, he certainly had some nice stories about them.

Please, no!

These sites usally charge quite a bit to make you a shirt though.

"Trying is the first step towards failure" --Homer Simpson

i agree. If anything, college is teaching me to absorb information and think aobut it, rather than rote memorize it. high school was mostly about memorizing (something I have no problem with), but it gets boring. Questionin something and thinking about it is the best way to really learn something. I remember sometimes asking my high school biology teacher questions, and him giving quick, short answers becasue we had to continue our 45 minute note taking session.

i voted only in a PM would I give my first name away. If I posted it, I would be afraid some smartass would use my first name while we were arguing. IDK why, but that would really annoy me. I guess becasue I hate when people read your nametag at work and call you by it thinking they are the sooo freakin' clever.

I consider throwing my vote away voting for a party that has no chance of winning. Phi and ecoli, you have good points here, but what I meant is that third parties, like the green party, do not seem to enjoy much support and rarely get a candidate into the final stages of the election process. I am aware that a single vote can make a difference, but again, I am not eager to throw away my vote for exactly that same reason. But that is just my opinion, I don't know that much about politics, but enough.

I would vote for a Green Party candidate provided he or she had hopes of being elected, but this never seems to be the case. Voters seem to like the black and whiteness of either republican or democrat, and thats it. While I supported John Kerry, I did so out of the desire to not see Bush re-elected, which someone was saying before, isn't the best reason to support a candidate. The way I see it is, if there is a green party candidate with at least some hopes of being elected alongisde the other two standard choices, he/she has all my support, but if not (which always seems to be the case ), then I have to go for the lesser of 2 evils and support the democrats. So I guess my point is that it is worth it to vote for a third party if the chances are good, but if not, I wouldn't waste my vote.