Nov 23rd 2009 1:46PM My kitty, please. ^_^
Sep 10th 2009 1:40PM The only way this would be totally awesome is if you can make a female gnome. THEN it would be totally cool.
Sep 4th 2009 3:52PM You obviously have no idea what an authenticator is. I think a little research on your part is required before you go spouting off about something.
Sep 4th 2009 1:38PM @sikon: Can I have your stuff?
The general logic behind requiring an authenticator (if it happens, and I hope it does) would be to get rid of hackers and gold sellers. Not a bad idea, really. I really hope they implement it. Too many people don't even know what a good AV programme is these days.
I guess if your WoW account isn't merged with a Battle.net account yet, and they force you to merge it like they will soon, you'll cry and complain then, too, right?
Sep 4th 2009 12:33PM I'm standing by everyone else who feels this is Blizzard trying to lower the number of people getting hacked and having to get their accounts back, costing many hours of work by Blizzard employees that could be doing other more productive things.
I also see nothing wrong with it.
I also see nothing wrong with getting an authenticator.
In the US and Canada (I don't know about anywhere else), it's $6.50 + tax for an authenticator, and they aren't charging for shipping. So I spent $7.07 to protect two WoW accounts. How hard is that?
As for the "Omg, the algorithm could be hacked with a computer programme that could find your username and password, too!" is a stupid reason to not get an authenticator (IF it's even possible). It's much easier for them to use a programme to randomly generate names/email addresses and passwords than it would be to do that AND randomly generate a working code that changes every 30 seconds.
Get yourself a good AV programme, too. NOD32, baby. Do it.
Aug 2nd 2009 12:56PM Step away from whatever it is that you're using for inebriation. Maybe ask your mom to change your cereal to something less sugary.
Either way, you're a moron.
Jul 15th 2009 10:13PM "BitterCupOJoe", your name fits you well. I wasn't saying anything remotely connected to the crap you spewed. If a kid's going to develop Autism, they will, whether they watch tv and play video games or not. The studies you believe to be "truth" and what you will live your life by are paid for by the people who want to see the "statistics" you claim to be what everyone else should live by.
Call my experiences (and many other people's) what you want, but a few scientists wanting "data in statistical models" will bring about whatever results they're trying to achieve; therefore, their results are useless.
Jul 15th 2009 11:45AM I find it interesting to see how many people have some aversion to children playing games or watching tv. I know several children and adults who have been doing both since they were quite small (6 months in some cases), and NONE of them have or had any problems because of it, i.e.: Autism, ADD, ADHD. I also know a few children whose parents have never let them watch tv or play video games, and they DO have Autism, ADD, and/or ADHD.
People need to get off their high horses and realise that just because they feel strongly about something doesn't mean everyone else is going to feel the same way.
I know a 2.5-year-old who knows colours, shapes, some letters, and can count to 10, and she learned it all with the help of her parents, Sesame Street and Mickey Mouse, and a few games. She has a very good attention span for her age. And her parents have their tv on with educational programming several hours during the day.
How 'bout THEM apples?
Jul 15th 2009 3:09AM Your personal "studies" don't count. Links must be provided if you're going to spout crap like that.