Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1179 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Socrates Dissatisfied (1727 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
(+8)
Maybe I'm being over sensitive...
But there seems to be a fair bit of misogyny in some posts. All in jest, but still, some posts that are misogynistic in nature. I'm curious as to whether there would be so many if there were more women on the site.
219 replies
Open
CommanderByron (801 D(S))
16 Jul 14 UTC
Vsauce?
So I am an avid viewer of the youtube channel Vsauce and was curious if anyone else watches it?
3 replies
Open
Gobbledydook (1389 D(B))
14 Jul 14 UTC
English Writing Skills Thread
Discuss skills that help you write good prose and poetry.

I'll start:
If you are trying to write an argumentative piece, it helps a lot to be concise. A long-winded piece that just says the same thing in ten different ways just leads readers astray.
29 replies
Open
CommanderByron (801 D(S))
15 Jul 14 UTC
Sandbox
I used to play on an online diplomacy site that had a sandbox. Is it possible to get one on this site, even if just for classic. I looked on the todo list and saw nothing in reference to it.
4 replies
Open
Vikesrussel (839 D)
15 Jul 14 UTC
Un pause please.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=143190
Please Un pause the game.

Russia wont do it.
1 reply
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Obiwan where are you?!
I just finished watching Joss Whedon's production of Much Ado About Nothing and wanted to learn if you had seen it and what your impression was if you had. I quite enjoyed it and felt it was, at the least, comparable to Branagh's version.
Jamiet99uk (1307 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Obiwan is currently busy being wrong about international justice, vis-a-vis Palestine in particular.
Draugnar (0 DX)
14 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Typical. Something I actually want to hear his opinion on is being ignored so he can be a faux intellectual poser.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
I'm sorry I support a two-state solution that includes a state of Palestine and does not include Hamas, while dolling out blame to the Israelis for their immoral and illogical settlement of the West Bank, Jamiet.

So, in short, I'm sorry, I'm in favor of a complex, nuanced view of the crisis, rather than a black-and-white, Rebels vs. Empire, overly-simplistic view of what is one of the most complex situations on the planet...I sure wish I could join the rest of you on that self-righteous, overly-simplified bandwagon...ah well...maybe next time!

As for the Whedon Much Ado, Draug:

I've seen parts...I was going to see it when it came out, actually, but the person I wanted to see it with was busy, and I really didn't feel like going to see it myself when I own the Branagh version and can enjoy him, Emma Thompson, Michael Keaton, Robert Sean Leonard, Kate Beckinsale and Denzel Washington at home. (Keanu Reeves is in that version too, but I don't "enjoy" him...except to look on incredulously at The One--that is, the Expressionless "Whoa" Machine One--and laugh...thankfully, his part is small and nearly as one-note as he is anyway.)

The reviews didn't help--if it'd been getting great reviews I'd have gone, but with a 50-something or so on Rotten Tomatoes, and almost an even split in positive and negative reviews...eh...

Having seen parts of it now, I can say--from what I've seen, that 50-something seems fair, as there are good parts and bad parts alike in this adaptation. Apparently it's up to an 84% now, so maybe it'll age well.

The choice to shoot on black and white I thought was really ancillary and didn't add much. One reason for doing it, apparently, was to keep costs down, since they were filming this as almost a side project at his home and all, so there is method in that madness, as it were. I think the Branagh film looks far better--not just a color vs. black and white thing, there are B&W films that look better than color ones, but rather just how lush and fleshed our and really romantically Italian an pastoral Branagh makes that setting, which is perfect for that kind of play--but on looks alone, the Whedon version isn't bad.

No contest for Benedick--Branagh wins that for me hands down, Denisof seems bland by comparison...admittedly, I'm biased, as Branagh for me "is" Shakespeare on film and a lot of ways, he's "my" Hamlet and "my" Henry V alike (I'd take him over Olivier in both outings) but the man, like Olivier, is a knighted actor for a reason.

I likewise really love Emma Thompson, but Amy Acker does a lot better in her role of Beatrice than does her counterpart. Her lines have the crispness and "knife's point" that role requires, while Denisof feels more dulled, if not exactly dull. As a result, I think Branagh and Thompson are hands-down the better duo, but in fairness, if Acker had a Branagh-esque actor to work off of, I think she could've potentially given Thompson a run for her money.

Hero/Claudio aren't the reasons anyone comes to see "Much Ado"...that being said...while I think Robert Sean Leonard and Kate Beckinsale are more memorable in those roles (mostly just because they're RSL and Beckinsale), Whedon's version does definitely give more focus to Claudio's misogyny and the problems inherent in that than does Branagh's version which, like most versions, essentially paints the couple as being young fools in love that are thus easily led and easily fooled. Whedon therefore does potentially give more focus and thus more meat to those roles, even leaving in a racist line--comparing someone unfavorably to "an Ethiope" with a black person standing RIGHT THERE--to really underscore that, for Whedon, this is less a misled youth and more a douche that needs some correcting.

And that's actually a view I'd like to see more adaptations take...the BBC ReTold version of this play likewise took that stance that "Claude" was, instead of just being a nice guy that's misled, a real misogynist who Hero SHOULDN'T immediately go back to (which in my view is the weakest part of that play, and is really only there because it's a comedy, and dual weddings were thus kind of the style...it's a weakness in a lot of Shakespeare, Austen, and even later romantically-charged comedies.) So, point Whedon there.

(Side note--if you haven't seen them, look up the 4 Shakespeare ReTold stories, Draug...they used to be on YouTube, but they may be taken down...in any event, the DVD should be cheap. The 4 stories retold in a contemporary setting and with contemporary language are Much Ado, The Taming of the Shrew--complete with Moaning Myrtle!--Macbeth, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. The first three are pretty good...Much Ado might even be the best of them, as it has Hero not immediately go back to Claudio, which in many ways is arguably an improvement from the feminist perspective. The only one I haven't seen is Midsummer's...and that's because A. It wasn't online, and B. Of the four, it got the worst reviews and sounds silly to boot...instead of the Athenian countryside, all these wacky things happen...at an amusement park? O.o)

The other big role that usually stands out in this play is Dogberry, and I like both approaches--Michael Keaton's eccentricity is impeccable, and honestly makes that character even more entertaining than he might be just on paper, but I kind of like Nathan Fillion's trying to be a bit of a tough guy and goofing up, as Dogberry is wont to do.

From what I've seen of it, Whedon's version seems like one that meshes well with the modern era, and is definitely a Joss Whedon Shakespeare film, whereas I think Branagh's is more timeless but less time-specific. It's the difference between the 1968 Zeffirelli "Romeo and Juliet" and the 1996 Baz Luhrmann "Romeo + Juliet" --

The former is less time or culture-savvy, but has a more timeless feel to it, like I could show that film 20 years from now to a class and it might have, more or less, the same kind of impact, because it isn't dated by styles, fashions, technology, lingo or trends, but is instead essentially as close to a realization of the words and romanticism in that play as you're ever going to get, complete with a beautiful score from Nino Rota that's as fresh and fitting today as it was then. The latter was completely a product of its time, a Shakespeare film that could only have been made in the 90s, has the feel of the 90s all over it, from the styles to the designs to the fact it stares Claire Danes and 90s icon Leonardo DiCaprio in his youthful 90s years to the way in which it has a pacing and feel that's more in line with the 90s--it's fast-paced bordering on manic, it feels the need to grab attention for itself every second, it's a constant spectacle and, yes, does feel "extreme" stylistically.

The key difference here, of course, is that love Zeffirelli's gem, as it kicks Luhrmann's pandering schlock in the ass, and I HATE "Romeo + Juliet. Though, in fairness, the 2013 version found a way to be even worse...because the only thing than putting style over substance with acting that's passable to bad to "You KNOW you're speaking English, right, Shakespeare isn't a foreign language here" bad? Absolutely no style whatsoever and acting that's as dull, fumbling and STILL treats Shakespeare like it's a foreign language...YouTube the 2013 version for the Balcony scene. That's as lifeless, dull, clunky, uncertain, unemotional and bad a version of that scene as I've ever seen, including that much-loathed 1996 version...heck, I bet a local school or community theatre's production of that scene could have actors doing it better. That's like doing "Hamlet" and failing the "To be or not to be" speech (so, basically, it's like the Mel Gibson and Ethan Hawke Hamlets.)

Still, when you consider the OTHER Shakespeare films that came out in 1996, Helena Bonham Carter in "Twelfth Night" and the magnum opus that was Branagh's 4-hour, uncut, five-star cast, shooting-in-a-real-palace "Hamlet"...that Luhrmann version is terrible, and now comes across as not just terrible but, just as bad, extremely dated, too. My generation tends to love or hate that film...I'm really not sure if future generations of Shakespeare fans or even film fans will like it or even care that it exists...while the 1968 Zeffirelli film, while potentially having smaller audience nowadays compared to the 1996 version, is likewise a film that will ALWAYS have that audience and, indeed, always have an audience, it will endure.

By contrast to all of THAT, I didn't hate the parts I saw of Whedon's "Much Ado," and its relative score on Rotten Tomatoes--91% for Branagh vs. 84% for Whedon--seems fair. Branagh's version is, in my opinion, the better and more enduring version, in part because of its timeless setting, and in part because, even with Keanu Reeves, it has an absurdly-A-list cast, so if you were going to pick a version to watch knowing nothing about the play but instead picked on star power alone, it's Branagh and Co. vs. Whedon. That's why I use the above analogy--Whedon might win that battle for a lot of people today because he's popular now, with Buffy and The Avengers and other pop culture works. How well he or those works age is still to be seen...but even if both age well, in 20 years, would his name alone beat out the great roster of Branagh's film? Maybe, but even then, I think future audiences would still side with Branagh's on the whole...it'd be close, as it is now on Rotten Tomatoes, but I think Branagh will still win, for one key reason.

Some Shakespeare plays are character-centric, some are ensemble, and some seem like one of those two but, on closer inspection, is actually the latter. If you do "Hamlet," your cast may be great, but if your Hamlet sucks, so will your film. I'd argue the perfect example of that is the 1991 Zeffirelli "Hamlet"--Glenn Close as Gertrude is brilliant and Helena Bonham Carter, with all her craziness, is a natural choice as Ophelia, but even forgetting his Antisemitism, Mel Gibson's a terrible Hamlet, because he's Mel Gibson--you don't BUY this is a guy that would struggle for 3 hours and 5 acts over whether to kill someone or not...he always looks angry, even when brooding, and always looks violent (or maybe that's just him looking like Mel Gibson.) Even the poster for that movie got it wrong--Hamlet posing while holding a sword is like Superman posing while holding Kryptonite--that character just doesn't work that way; if Gibson were playing Macbeth that might work, but not Hamlet, and so while the rest of that film works, Gibson doesn't, and thus the film really fails...you can't do "Hamlet" with a dud Hamlet.

The same is true for "Much Ado"--even though it appears to be an ensemble, and that's how Whedon treats it, it's really not...it's really Benedick and Beatrice's play, at heart if not in text. They're what draw us in and what's kept drawing people back for 400 years. You can have a good Hero, good Claudio, good Don Juan, even a good Dogberry--if your Beatrice and Benedick are off, your adaptation will be off.

With Branagh's version, you have a perfect match--Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson, and they were actually married when doing this role, so that just adds to their chemistry. They're great apart, but in these roles, opposite each other, they're a 10 out of 10--maybe an 11.

The same can't be said for Whedon's film...or maybe it can, but it's not my take. Again, Acker does a good job--it's just a shame her doubles partner here can barely get it over the net at times while she, by contrast, looks like she could very well master the backhand and overhand smash and dominate the game with another partner. It isn't even that Denisof's bad--as I said, the worst I can say about him is that he's dull sometimes. But they just don't pop the way Branagh/Thomson do, and of all the many reasons there can be for that, some of which I've already said, I think one key factor is the way they seem to approach their lines.

With Denisof, I get the impression that yes, unlike, say, DiCaprio in "Romeo + Juliet," he DOES know what he's saying, and what his character is and what the other characters are and so on. But with him, it seems to stop there--if he says a line, I know what he means, and I know he knows what he means, but I don't get the impression he's taking advantage of the LANGUAGE, word for word, beat for beat, and sometimes syllable for syllable and inflection for inflection. That might in part be down to Whedon himself, actually, as Whedon works on projects that operate at the macro level. The Avengers is a perfect example--it's a huge world with a huge cast of extraordinary heroes, and so a lot of the focus is thus on concepts and world building and interacting with that world. Chances are, when The Hulk smashes someone, there may not be that same attention to what every word or beat or syllable or inflection means or can do--which is fine, the focus isn't on that, it's on the Hulk smashing and the who, what, how and why of the Hulk smashing someone.

By contrast, what makes Shakespeare better than No Fear Shakespeare IS the language half the time--we bash "Romeo and Juliet"-style plots today because it was already cliche plot when Shakespeare did it, but we remember his play and keep coming back to it because his language makes that play something more, and thus more lasting. Strip it of that, and it becomes just another schlock romance movie, the same way "Pride and Prejudice"-style movies stripped of their lines so often become just another bad romantic comedy.

I never get the impression from Denisof that he's making the most of those words, beats and syllables. He knows what he's saying, but HOW he says it, and WHAT the words are rather than just what they translate to, are muted. This "Much Ado" feels more contemporary in tone, which is part of why I wonder how well it will age--

On the one hand, that makes it more accessible now, but on the other hand, a more contemporary delivery, in Denisof's case, at least, mutes the actual language and resonance of each word, beat and syllable, meaning that instead of lines flowing or special emphasis being given to special words that can have multiple meanings, it sounds very naturalistic, almost like something you'd hear on TV. That makes it accessible, but by the same token, that makes it contemporary and accessible to "now"--20, 30 years from now? Maybe, but the novelty might also be lost, and without the crispness or full richness of his lines, part of his performance might be lost, too.

Acker fares better, and again, I think it's because she does seem to dig more into those individual words and syllables, rather than go over them with a broad brush. Where Denisof focuses mostly on what his character's saying and his motivation, Acker does that and likewise focuses on how Beatrice is saying things, what specific words she uses, when she uses them, how they impact the iambic flow, if a syllable is left hanging at the end of a line or if two stresses or somewhat-stressed syllables follow concurrently, and so on. That gives her delivery and thus her performance and thus her character that extra level of depth that Branagh and Thompson were able to tap into, and which is lacking from Denisof.

As a result, with this play needing a solid Beatrice and Benedick to work, this adaptation likewise works, because both ARE solid...but where Branagh and Thompson were both great, Denisof is merely average and Acker good, with the potential for greatness there if she'd been paired with another actor (or acting approach) that could've helped add oomph to those exchanges. On the other hand, both Denisof and Acker, for as variously as they realize their lines' potential, both melt into the roles, whereas David Tennant and Catherine Tate, when they did this play, seemed to really realize the language and play with it, but you're still mostly just seeing Tennant and Tate reading Shakespeare characters rather than them "being" those characters themselves. In fairness to Tennant, he had a better outing as "Hamlet," but I digress.

All in all, then, I think it's a decent adaptation, and I'll be interested to see how it ages...I don't think it matches Branagh's, mostly because of the leading duos involved, but at the same time, it does do new things and flesh out a couple more parts in comparison to Branagh's, so it's a worthy, if not world-beating, film.

"The Rest is Silence." :)
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
"Typical. Something I actually want to hear his opinion on is being ignored so he can be a faux intellectual poser."

Naw...I just saw this an hour and a half or so ago and was just busy typing, see?

:p
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 14 UTC
tl;dr obi hasn't watched it yet. : p
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
I guess the tl;dr version would be--

From the parts I've seen, it's a decent adaptation, but both its tone, which is rooted enough in a contemporary setting that it risks dating itself slightly, and the duo, wherein Acker is fine but Denisof less so for the reasons I go into above, I think the Branagh/Thompson version is still superior, albeit not by a huge gulf, mostly because Branagh/Thompson beat Densiof/Acker as a duo, and this play hinges on said duo making or breaking the production. Still, Whedon deserves credit for doing a couple things Branagh's film doesn't do, primarily shedding a none-too-flattering light on the racist misogynist that Claudio is and calling him out for that more than most productions (including Branagh's) do, which usually instead just cast him as a stupid easily-tricked youngster instead of a guy in need of a real attitude change.
steephie22 (182 D(S))
14 Jul 14 UTC
"tl;dr obi hasn't watched it yet. : p"

... Seriously?

I was already wondering why it was so short...
steephie22 (182 D(S))
14 Jul 14 UTC
Also, obi, your tl;dr looks more like a regular post..
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
*Shrug*

Shakespeare is something I can actually talk about and be sure I can defend my points on. :) A lot of the academic and economic success I've had are due to just reading a lot, and he's the guy I know best...he's my, go-to, Jerry Rice-type receiver.

Shame I'd be a 12th rate QB in this metaphor. :p
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 14 UTC
@obi

Do you enjoy reading Shakespeare plays as much as watching them?

I've greatly enjoyed all of the plays/movies I've seen, but I can't say I've enjoyed reading them all that much.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Depends on the play, honestly.

Hamlet I can read or watch and be just as happy, it's just that well-written.

Some plays, like "Titus Andronicus," need to be performed, because on the page, they're very raw, and without that rawness ant atmosphere being translated into action onstage or onscreen, it's nowhere near as good. ("Titus Andronicus" itself isn't exactly a great play--noteworthy within the history of his canon and definitely interesting to see, but yeah, not exactly a poetic masterpiece--but that's beside the point.)

And there are plays that are pro/con on the reading/watching front...

"Romeo and Juliet" relies extremely heavily on its poetry, so it comes down to which method brings that poetry out better. Sometimes, the poetry on the page alone is better than when it's acted (ie, the 1996 version) but then sometimes it works better onstage or onscreen, and then you have works like the history plays, which are FAR more fun to watch than read, when the political intrigue or battle speeches are given life, and it's easier to keep track of all the different nobility when you can put an actual face to them.
Draugnar (0 DX)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Had to take a break from the tl; dr; version but will say this. I agree that Denisof is no Branagh and that, alone, makes the film the lesser of the two. But I disagree on Acker and Thompson. I actually prefer Amy Acker's version. Maybe it's that I've seen the range she has and this showed even more to her range. From Root on Person of Interest and her role on Angle as well as guest spots in a variety of other shows, I just think Amy Acker is an excellent actress and took the role and really made it her own. If she had a stronger Benedick, I think you would feel she had captured the role perfectly.

But what I really found excellent was the score. I know the score isn't the film, but a great score can make or break a film. Branagh's Henry V and Hamlet had amazing scores but his Much Ado was a lackluster score. The use of contemporary jazz and some interesting original songs really helped boost Whedon's Much Ado above simply "Buffy/Firefly does Shakespeare".

As far as Romeo and Juliet, I've seen both the 96 and the Zeff version and you are spot on in that analysis. While some of the supporting cast in the 96 version were top notch, Danes and DiCaprio were not strong enough and seemed lost with what they were saying. And again, score really helped make the movie. Nino Rota nails the score for the Zeff version.

I'll get back to your analysis after dinner. Blood sugar is really dropping (about 60 right now) so I need to eat.
Putin33 (111 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Does Obi not know what tl;dr means?

That explains a lot.
The Hanged Man (4160 D(G))
14 Jul 14 UTC
(+3)
totally listening; drone relentlessly
Jamiet99uk (1307 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Haha!
Putin33 (111 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
"I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: “King Lear,” “Romeo and Juliet,” “Hamlet” and “Macbeth,” not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium, and doubted as to whether I was senseless in feeling works regarded as the summit of perfection by the whole of the civilized world to be trivial and positively bad, or whether the significance which this civilized world attributes to the works of Shakespeare was itself senseless." - Leo Tolstoy

Sums it up nicely
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jul 14 UTC
^
"Senseless in feeling"

Sums it up nicely.

How about, say, one Tolstoy doesn't mention (in this excerpt, anyway, I think he does in others) the St. Crispin's Day Speech, from "Henry V?" That speech is, in my opinion, the most purely-rousing and maybe one of the most uplifting speeches in all of Shakespeare, especially given the fact we've spent 15 acts and 3 plays watching Harry grow from an irresponsible buddy of Falstaff's to an over-leader that his own men doubt to the guy who delivers that speech and finds the force of will and strength of character to rally his men when they need it most and win the day...

Because this is Shakespeare's version of history, wherein its pure English superiority that wins the day at Agincourt, and the mud had nothing to do with it, lol!

"totally listening; drone relentlessly"

"Brevity is the soul of wit"...says the never-brief Polonius. ;) (Who I actually played back in high school, so there we go, lol.)
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jul 14 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-yZNMWFqvM

Olivier's fine and good, and Hiddleston...I like his Prince Hal more than Henry V...

BRANAGH is the man you want delivering that speech!

@Draug:

I haven't seen Amy Acker in anything else, but I wouldn't mind seeing her again after this.

I listened to the score after I watched some...and yeah, it does fit the tone of the production. And yes, Branagh's score for "Henry V" is like his version, from opening to that speech to the almost-finale with Non Nobis Domine across the war-torn field, carrying little baby Christian Bale for a solid 5 minutes--AWESOME. :) The score for "Much Ado" isn't nearly as good, but it's not bad, either...it's just not as good as "Henry"...nor is the production, and nor is the play itself, for that matter.

Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Henry V and Twelfth Night are my Top 5 favorites for Shakespeare...need at least one history and one comedy play int here, and I'd take Twelfth Night over The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado, A Midsummer Night's Dream and (not a Comedy, strictly speaking, but still) The Tempest.

The score for the Branagh version of "Hamlet" is fantastic...like just about every other part of that film...they even have Placido Domingo sing an aria at the end, as if that film wasn't star-studded enough.
Draugnar (0 DX)
15 Jul 14 UTC
Patrick Doyle was an extra on the set of Henry V and was inspired to do some tunes for the battles on a small keyboard while he was waiting around. Branagh heard them, liked them, hired him and had Simon Rattle orchestrate them and a career was born. He has pretty much done everything for Branagh since, including the music to Thor (also an excellent score).


19 replies
krellin (80 DX)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Dead Children = Liberal Compassion
Truth in Action - One of the brilliant ideas of Libtards is "open borders"...it's compassionate. Everyone deserves blah blah blah. Yeah, but there are CONSEQUENCES: ** Dead CHILDREN on the shores of the Rio Grande **

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/report-small-lifeless-dead-children-found-washed-up-along-riverbank-of-rio-grande/
153 replies
Open
King Atom (100 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
Millions of Germans just wet themselves...
...and probably plenty of other Europeans too...

Congrats and all.
2 replies
Open
SantaClausowitz (360 D)
15 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Little Known Casual Board Games That Are Excellent
Getting some opinions
47 replies
Open
CommanderByron (801 D(S))
15 Jul 14 UTC
England?
So I have played maybe 100+ games of classic and never have I played as England. Now for the first time here I am. What are some good strategies?
18 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
15 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
What it means to be human
A question and some thoughts
13 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2736 D(B))
14 Jul 14 UTC
Shopping
In an effort to make this site more female friendly, I'd like to discuss where us WebDippers buy clothing, household goods, and anything else relevant.
97 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
15 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
I SAW THE BANNER
I SAW THE DAMN COMMUNITY FREEDOM OF SPEECH BANNER THINGY WHAT'S GOING ON ZULTAR
8 replies
Open
SplitDiplomat (101466 D)
11 Jun 14 UTC
New Top 7 GB game
The game is about to start so an info for the
participants only,about the final roster;
50 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
14 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Look how modern the Church of England is...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28300618

I can't wait until they officially include LGBT Bishops .... and officially outlaw paedophilia, then I might start taking them a bit more serious
30 replies
Open
tvrocks (388 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
how to play Italy, france, and germany
All other countries have been done so i've decided to make a thread for the last 3 to hopefully make it so that there won't be any more on this topic. (though i am at fault for one of them)
5 replies
Open
Maniac (189 D(B))
14 Jul 14 UTC
What are "agreed hypothetical facts"
There is a case going on in the UK about whether our surveillance service have broken any laws. As they can't confirm or deny what they have done the case is proceeding based on "agreed hypothetical facts". Is this bending the language too far?
21 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
14 Jul 14 UTC
How to Play...
A hot blonde...regardless of coutnry of origin. Go.
15 replies
Open
mollie bean (102 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
doctrine of shock
New ppsc game please join
3 replies
Open
Putin33 (111 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Happy 14-Juillet
Vive La France! What is everyone doing for La Fete Nationale?
7 replies
Open
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Troll Supergroup
This thread is to hail the coming of the troll supergroup

1 reply
Open
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
07 Jul 14 UTC
Chaqa Outreach
Gentlemen: Let's stage an intervention for our most troubled member, userID=30476

Why does Chaqa hate?
39 replies
Open
denis (864 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
Germany
World Cup Champions
39 replies
Open
Al Swearengen (0 DX)
14 Jul 14 UTC
Overflow Thread
This is the overflow thread.
4 replies
Open
Maniac (189 D(B))
14 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Women Bishops
Finally women bishops in the Church of England, about time.
3 replies
Open
tvrocks (388 D)
12 Jul 14 UTC
How to play england
I've played as england a lot lately and have realized that i'm bad at it. So how exactly can someone do well as england?
14 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
04 Jul 14 UTC
(+3)
americans need to answer.....
When will Palestinians get THEIR Fourth of July?
306 replies
Open
Crazy Anglican (1100 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
WTA games
Not to comment on ongoing games, but I haven't played very many.
5 replies
Open
Ogion (3817 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
Quick question: accessing PMs?
Hey folks. I've never figured out how to get to the Messages page so i can look at old PMs and send them. What am I missing here?
3 replies
Open
denis (864 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
How to Play
With all these How to Play X (insert country) threads going around why not just get down to the simpler question how to play and thoughts about the game.
16 replies
Open
Page 1179 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top