http://www.sickosonparade.com/nucleus/ en-us Nucleus CMS v3.64 © Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.sickosonparade.com/nucleus//nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://www.sickosonparade.com/nucleus/ xml-rss2.php?itemid=100

I know you're in the process of making Borderlands 2. I'm writing this letter to both encourage you and to make a very small request.


You could say I liked the original Borderlands, seeing as I triple-dipped on it, buying it for 360, PS3 AND PC, plus the DLC for all of them. While it is true the game was not without its' warts, I'm not writing this to discuss those. I'm sure you've gotten plenty of 'feedback' littered with four-letter words about those. As a loyal customer who is eagerly awaiting the next installment in the Borderlands series, there are a few things I need to state.


You see, I am a man of simple tastes. Things that impress me are often overlooked by others, and things that impress others often don't register with me. For example: while I can certainly appreciate the skill involved in knifing a room full of enemies in the back or using a single-shot pistol to methodically wipe out a legion of thugs, those things don't interest or impress me. Agility, speed, style - these things don't register on my radar. I appreciate their effectiveness, but I don't really care about them on a personal level. Ninjas? Don't care. Martial arts heroes? Nope, sorry. Evil, brooding, 'cool' characters? Snore.


Having said that, I believe you guys need to utilize the considerable talents available to you to make ALL the classes in Borderlands 2 amazing to play. You should make the sniper appeal so much to the sniper fans that they'll all get awesomeness boners from playing as him. You should design the siren so lithe and sneaky that she can wipe out entire armies without being seen. We need the soldier to be the gritty, die-hard bastard who can stand with his turret and fend off dozens of advancing bandits. The techromancer and the Deathtrap should be like a team-up of the Punisher and a Terminator, wading waist-deep through corpses towards item boxes.


I use the magic word 'should' here a lot, because I believe this game SHOULD be fun for everyone, regardless of what I personally want to see. As I stated, most of these things don't appeal to me, but they DO appeal to a lot of people, and I would love to see every single person who buys Borderlands 2 to end up with Joker Venom level smiles on their faces from the sheer joy they get from playing their chosen class. You're capable. I have faith in you. If you can pull off the things I said in the previous paragraph, if you can make the snipering-stealthing-ninjaing-styling-and-profiling crowd happy, Borderlands 2 will easily satisfy 99% of the audience.


The other 1%?


That's guys like me.


What do WE want?







We want to do that.





Love,
-LordVermin
Sickosonparade.com



]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=100 Fri, 11 May 2012 04:15:59 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=97 I never thought I'd do again just a few years ago. Back then, "fighting games" was pretty much SF3 and MvC2, both of which are complete dogshit.

I've had a lot of fun and learned a lot about myself over the years playing SF4 and SSF4. I haven't had as much fun playing a game in 20 years as I did the first week SSF4 was out and the whole SOP crowd was online constantly beating each other up in lobbies. Without Ono, none of that would have happened. He proved me COMPLETELY, TOTALLY wrong with SFxT, which I said would be a total train wreck when I saw the announcement and has turned out to be the best fighting game I've played since... well, since SSF4.

So yeah, he's a troll, and yeah, he's made some boneheaded decisions. Those are both things I'm guilty of myself as well. *I* didn't drag a genre back out of the dark ages and push it kicking and screaming back into the limelight, though. Ono and his SF4 team did. So here's an official SOP get well card for Yoshinori Ono. Stop working yourself to death. We're not going anywhere.


]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=97 Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:37:45 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=96


]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=96 Sat, 24 Dec 2011 23:45:04 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=95
Then Weehawk sends me this:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/07/21/disney-interactive-media-group-appoints-bill-roper-as-vice-presi/]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=95 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:31:55 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=94

One of the things they announced along with this expansion pack was a plan - a plan to give away Diablo 3 to anyone who pays for a year of WoW.


I know what you're thinking. Here's what I'm thinking.



According to all the information I can find, the Annual Pass works like this: you agree to pay for one year's worth of game time for World of Warcraft via any of their subscription plans, and by doing so you receive: a free mount for your characters in WoW, guaranteed access to the beta of the new WoW expansion, and a free digital download of Diablo 3. The payment plans they currently offer are as follows:


$14.99 per month for a month-to-month recurring subscription
$13.99 per month for a 3-month recurring subscription
$12.99 per month for a 6-month recurring subscription



So it's $179.88, $167.88 or $155.88, depending on which plan you decide to take advantage of. I don't know for sure, but I imagine Diablo 3 is going to cost around $60 when it releases.


If you're an entrenched WoW player, this deal would make perfect sense for you if you played or planned to play any games not named WoW at any point in your life. WoW players by and large are addicted to stupid shit like mounts and salivate at the chance to get in on Blizz's "beta" programs, which have always been nothing but glorified hype machines (Blizz never lets a product into the hands of the public until it is 98% done, so it is NOT a 'beta test'). So a lot of people who were going to be playing WoW anyway will probably jump on this deal.


But how does this make sense for Blizzard?


Everyone's favorite jizzbag cacodemon Bobby Kotick stated last year that WoW made up 70% of Activision-Blizzard's yearly income. Obviously this is not a good situation to be in. What if, and this is a COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, Blizzard were to... I dunno... put a couple of nimrods who should be blowing each other for nickels at a sideshow in charge of the biggest video game in the world, corn holing the game and causing it to lose a million subscribers in less than a year? I know, I know, they'd NEVER do THAT, but a good business person would never put all their eggs in one basket, no matter how safe that basket looks at any given time.


Regardless of the wisdom of doing it, that's the position Blizzard is in right now. WoW is their golden teat. But anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that Blizzard is the house that Diablo built. You can trace it back to their beginnings: Blizzard has NEVER had an original idea that worked except for Diablo. Everything else they've done was either a failure or a complete ripoff of something else. If it were not for Diablo and Diablo 2, I wouldn't even be writing this because nobody would give two fucks about Blizzard.


Now, finally, after eleven years and counting, we're going to see Diablo 3. Clearly, this is a highly anticipated game that stands to make Blizzard a SHITLOAD of money. It could finally be the thing that releases them from their complete and total dependence on WoW's income to survive - if they were to properly monetize the game post-launch with expansion content and microtransactions (I know, I know, but we're talking the business side here, and its good business) they could turn it into a cash cow with real legs. They're already looking at a huge cash infusion on retail and digital sales alone.


So, in what way does it make any sense for Blizzard to GIVE THE GAME AWAY?


Maybe they're trying to attract people back to WoW? As a former WoW player, I can tell you that Blizzard couldn't get me to sign an agreement to pay for a solid year of WoW if they sent a team of supermodels out to my home to satisfy me sexually. Former WoW players are not going to commit to a year of WoW just to try it again; they'll pay for a month, tops. Most will realize they're still sick of it and quit again. If they want Diablo 3, they'll save themselves a hundred bucks and just buy the fucking thing. That's what I'm going to do and that's what I imagine 99% of all former WoW players interested in Diablo 3 will do. So Blizzard can't be aiming this at former WoW players.


Maybe they're trying to get as many copies out there in consumer hands as possible with the intention of following a monetization plan like the one I referred to? Even if this IS the plan, why give it away for free? People are going to buy Diablo 3. This isn't some dime store niche title, this is a LONG awaited sequel to one of the most successful and highest selling games EVER MADE. There's not now nor has there ever been any doubt that this game is going to blow the doors off retailers and jam up the entire fucking internet with all the simultaneous digital downloads when it finally comes out. People have been waiting TEN YEARS with money in their hands just begging Blizzard to take it. Sure, Blizz can afford to give it away, but WHY should they? Why leave that money on the table?


Maybe it's aimed at CURRENT WoW players? Current WoW players are ALREADY PAYING FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS, what incentive does this provide to keep them doing so? If they enjoy the game, they're going to pay anyway, and by giving them Diablo 3 for free you're robbing yourself of a retail or digital sale of the game. What kind of sense does that make?


Only one kind.


Activision-Blizzard is a publicly traded company. They have to report their financial information to their investors in quarterly meetings, usually in conference calls. That's how we all found out Blizz's new WoW design team have managed to turn the biggest gravy train in the history of the industry into the biggest dump wagon the world has ever known in just under ten months. We know this, and Blizz knows it, too. They can see interest in the game is flagging for a number of reasons: the game is dated, it's being run by these two, it's finally met some real competition in the form of Rift with both Star Wars: The Old Republic and Guild Wars 2 on the horizon. SW:TOR by itself is a megalithic elephant in the room for Blizz, something they know is coming but have absolutely no answer for. This new expansion is further dumbing WoW down - keeping in mind that my 62-year old mother, who is not in any way what you would call a hardcore gamer, played it for years, even when it was "difficult", without one iota of problem. It's being turned into a joke at the worst possible time: a time when it's already beginning to circle the bowl with a gigantic competitor about to sit down.


So what can Blizzard do? Easy. That's where the Annual Plan comes in: if they can't produce actual interest in their products, they'll just fake it. Current WoW players will bite on the Annual Plan just to get the mount, beta access and free Diablo 3 - even if they stop playing WoW later, it doesn't matter. They're locked in for a year. Now, for the next four quarters, Blizz will be able to confidently (and truthfully and legally) state to their investors that they still have X number of active accounts which translates to Y amount of projected dollars, and use that hollow figure as evidence that WoW is alive and well instead of in decline. They don't have to tell the investors the active accounts aren't being played, that the game has become a parody of itself, become totally irrelevant to the market and is dying the slow death inflicted on it by the cancerous bags of shit in charge of it - none of that makes any difference. It doesn't matter if the newest raid boss ends up being the Ty-D-Bowl man to symbolize their creative direction and even their stanchest fans turn on them to play something else - they'll be locked in for a year on paper. The free copies of Diablo 3 given out to those subscribers will doubtlessly be spun in a positive way, counted as part of the sales figures or the 'installed base', even more dishonestly inflating their numbers.


If you're thinking 'Wait, this doesn't make any sense', you're right. It doesn't. If the current credit crisis in the world today has taught us all anything, it's that all the businessman cares about is being able to hold up a chart that shows the requisite profit margin. It doesn't matter if those figures won't stand up to a closer look, they just have to look good to the investors. If you combine the sales of Diablo 3 with the fake data they're going to gain for WoW, everything is going to look like roses on paper. So what if it's a castle built on sand, or worse, built on shadow? We don't have to worry about that until fiscal year 2013, and we're BOUND to come up with a plan by then. Right? And hey, who knows? Maybe SW:TOR will fail and Guild Wars 2 won’t deliver and everyone at Trion Worlds will spontaneously combust and Games Workshop will create another IP for Blizz to steal during 2012.


They’re just buying time. It's short-sighted, self-destructive and completely moronic, but it's the only possible reason for this plan. What you're seeing here is panic. Activision-Blizzard is seeing their cash cow foaming at the mouth, they're scared shitless they're about to lose their phoney baloney jobs and must do something immediately to prevent that from happening. You're seeing the first major influence of Bobby Kotick and Activision on Blizzard's business practices, because any PC game fan can tell you that Blizzard USED to be known as one of the few companies in the world you could always count on for quality. Since the merger, Blizz has started to lose that reputation bits at a time, and if things continue along this route, by the middle of the decade that reputation will be a thing of memory. Hell, at this rate, by the end of the decade, Activision-Blizzard itself may be a thing of memory.



As for me? I'm just glad they're getting Diablo 3 out before they go tits up.



]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=94 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:10:07 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=93

I'm not sure how many gamers out there have spent any time in consideration of things that happen outside of their homes or in contemplation of concepts that extend beyond their gamerscore if they have a clean jerk sock available for watching Jugg Fucklers 41 later that morning. From the interactions I've had with the community in general, I'd say the percentage who have is.. well, let's be nice and call it "humble".


That's where I come in. I'm going to introduce all of you reading this to a couple of concepts that you may be aware of, but probably don't know the names of and haven't given more than a moment's thought to before today: objectivity and subjectivity.


Objectivity is a philosophical concept. Something can be said to be objectively true if its conditions are met without the judgment or bias of any conscious being entering in to the equation. An objective truth would be "Oak trees have bark." No, it doesn't matter if you call it 'ham'. Oak trees have a rough outer skin. This is not a debatable subject. You cannot have the opinion that oak trees do not have bark; opinions don't enter into this discussion. A few more examples of objective truths would be: grass is green (that is, the plant known as grass is seen as the color green when viewed through the normal human eye) and Bill Roper is a failure (that is, every project he has ever headed has failed). You cannot say 'Oak trees are milk'. This statement is factually incorrect.


Subjectivity is another philosophical concept. A subjective statement is one that is expressed as a result of an individual's experience. "McDonalds sucks my ass." is a subjective statement (unless multiple people named McDonald actually DO suck your ass, in which case it becomes objective, albeit grammatically incorrect. The correct way to say it would be 'The McDonalds have sucked/are sucking my ass'). Subjective statements don't deal with truth and fact; they are an expression of individual experience and opinion. Since they don't deal with fact, they can't be proved or disproved and are not subject to intellectual debate or objective analysis. They are what they are, and that's that.


Now that we have those brief definitions out of the way, how do they apply to you?


Let's pretend. Let's say you buy a video game console, hypothetically called the V-Box. You interact with this V-Box through a plastic device you hold in your hands called a controller. On this controller, there is a pad for your thumb in the shape of a plus sign. This is known as a directional pad, or D-pad. The four branches of the plus represent four directions. When you press the top one, a character in a V-Box game moves up on the screen, when you press the left one the character moves left and so forth. This is the expected behavior.


Now let's say you buy a shiny new game for you V-Box. Hypothetically speaking, let's call it Clark's Bowls. The object of Clark's Bowls is to navigate a maze while holding your bowls and not being killed. Sounds simple enough, right? The manual for Clark's Bowls confirms what you already thought about it: the d-pad directional controls are standard; up moves up, left moves left, and so on.


Eager to experience your own bowl carrying adventure, you pop Clark's Bowls into your V-Box. When you enter the game, your character Clark walks out on the field carrying his bowls. Suddenly, a giant boulder appears above his head and starts to fall on him! But you have plenty of time. You press the right side of the d-pad to tell Clark to move to the right.


But he doesn't move.


You press it AGAIN, and he starts to move, but not quickly enough to avoid being crushed. You try this again when your next life comes up, and Clark moves to the right the first time you push the pad, easily dodging the boulder. You are momentarily puzzled by this strange behavior: is something wrong with your controller? You switch out Clark's Bowls for another game you've owned for a while and played for hours and find the d-pad works fine, it responds as it always did. The culprit must be Clark's Bowls itself. As you venture through the game, you learn to adapt to the unresponsive controls and compensate for them through earlier decisions and multiple button presses, but they remain unresponsive throughout.


Here is where objectivity comes into play about Clark's Bowls. If Clark's Bowls tells you that pressing the right direction on the d-pad makes you move right, but the game only registers those inputs randomly, then the controls in Clark's Bowls are not functioning properly. If they are not functioning properly, they are bad. There is no room for subjective analysis: the controls are supposed to perform a certain way and fail to do so. The controls are objectively bad.


Now let's back up a moment to the first step out for your first adventure of bowl carrying. The play field set before you is a solid field of yellow. Clark, your character, begins in the bottom left corner. In order to win, you have to navigate him to the upper right corner and deposit your bowls there. Momentarily puzzled at the lack of a visible maze, you step to the right. Nothing happens. You take another step to the right and Clark explodes in a shower of guts, sending bowls flying everywhere. You blink in surprise. Was that supposed to happen? When your next life comes up, you notice Clark has no bowls. You look on the screen and notice a stack of bowls sitting on the spot where you died. You realize you can't win until you go back to get your bowls. So, you go back over to pick them up and instantly explode again. The game tells you 'game over' because you died without having any bowls.


You restart the game and press right one time. Again, nothing happens. This time, though, instead of pressing right a second time, you press up. Eureka! Clark doesn't explode. You press right and Clark falls off a cliff to his death. The game proceeds in this way until, after hours of monotonous, meaningless, instant death that you can't avoid and players from around the world randomly joining your game and stealing your bowls, forcing you to restart, you finally make it to the upper right hand corner. With the only safe route memorized, you can now beat Clark's Bowls at will.


Objectivity here! Did you notice that Clark's Bowls had no situations in which your personal reflexes, hand-eye coordination or problem solving abilities factored in at all? You go online and read reviews at a site, hypothetically called Moronacritic, that praises Clark's Bowls for it's 'difficulty'. Since you're an intelligent, thinking individual and not a brainless troll, you thumb through your mental dictionary for the definition of "difficult".



dif•fi•cult
/ˈdɪfɪˌkʌlt, -kəlt/ [dif-i-kuhlt, -kuhlt]
adjective
1. not easily or readily done; requiring much labor, skill, or planning to be performed successfully; hard: a difficult job.
2.hard to understand or solve: a difficult problem.
3.hard to deal with or get on with: a difficult pupil.
4.hard to please or satisfy: a difficult employer.
5.hard to persuade or induce; stubborn: a difficult old man.



One by one you apply your experience with Clark's Bowls to the definition of 'difficult'. 'not easily or readily done'. Untrue for Clark's Bowls, you can walk through the maze now at will. 'requiring much labor, skill, or planning to be performed successfully'. Also untrue. It didn't take a substantially larger amount of time than any other game to finish and no amount of skill or planning made any difference in Clark's Bowls because all the traps were invisible. No amount of skill could save you and you couldn't plan for something you have no way of knowing is there. 'hard to understand or solve'. This doesn't apply to Clark's Bowls. As long as you follow the memorized path, you can't possibly die, and you can't use forethought to solve anything because you don't know where the traps are until you hit them. The last three definitions aren't applicable to the current subject, so you tick them off automatically. You have now determined that Clark's Bowls is not difficult. It's not a subjective matter, it's an objective truth: Clark's Bowls fits none of the criteria to be considered 'difficult'.


You come to the obvious conclusion that Clark's Bowls is not difficult, that anyone who says it is difficult is wrong, and anyone who vehemently repeats the claim that it IS difficult even after being patiently told why it isn't is, by the very definitions of the words, either criminally insane or completely stupid.


Now after all of that, you take Clark's Bowls out of your V-Box and hold it in your hand. The controls are objectively bad; they caused you to die several times when you pressed a direction and Clark walked in a different direction than you pressed. The game also has no difficulty at all. You were never mentally or physically engaged with it in any real, measurable way. By any and all reasonable standards, you are led to the conclusion that Clark's Bowls is an objectively bad game. Horrible, in fact.


But somehow, you just don't want to get rid of it. Maybe it was Clark exploding in a particularly funny way or when that Earth Golem shoved all the bowls up his ass all those times, but there's a fond place in your heart for the game now. You realize and acknowledge the game is objectively bad, but your subjective experience judgment found you liking it. You put it back in the case, feeling no guilt over the fact that you love a bad game.



Now let's stop pretending. I would hope that I don't have to explain everything I've written here so far, but having run several forums and having played lots of Street Fighter online, not to mention reading comment boards on game news sites… I know that's not true. If I told you to eat your own nuts I'd have to tell you where they were first. So: you need to recognize the difference between objective truth and subjective judgment. It IS possible to both realize and acknowledge that a game is shitty but still love the game at the same time, just as it is possible to realize and acknowledge that a game is good but hate it. As a race, we've been doing it for movies, television shows and books for centuries, not to mention we've applied the same concepts to millions of subjects outside the field of entertainment. Trust me on this one: if you are mentally capable of doing multiple FADC combos or getting a 50-1 KDR or scoring 100 points on a Payload map or any other relatively impressive gaming feat, and if you've read this far without stopping to jack off or blow your cat, you have the mental agility and powers of reason enough to grasp this. I promise.



"Clark's Bowls is bad" is not a subjective statement, it's an objective one. It can be debated with facts and proven true or false. It exists independently of any subjective statement formed by a player's experience and must be determined as true or false without the influence of those experiences. You, me or anyone liking or disliking it plays absolutely no role in determining if it is good or bad. "I like Clark's Bowls" is a subjective statement that does not in any way involve fact or truth, and therefore it cannot be proven OR disproven. It is because you SAY it is, and unless you change your opinion, it will always be that way. You will like Clark's Bowls until you choose not to, and this opinion exists entirely independently of the fact that Clark's Bowls is a good or bad game.



Yes, I get worked up about these things. Why? Because we've got a huge cadre of jackoffs in the gaming community that demand that games be taken 'seriously' as an 'art form' when gamers can't even apply simple logical concepts of evaluation to games. You can't even make the upper-class twit sized leap of logic that it takes to reason your way through something as simple as objectivity and subjectivity. You, as a group, don't deserve to be taken seriously. I'm not a genius. I went to ten different elementary schools, went to a ghetto high school, almost failed technical school and never finished college. Every scrap of intelligence I've managed to accumulate I did on my own, and if I can do it, you could, too. You just won't. If it doesn't exist inside your dumbass little world then it doesn’t apply to you. You can't put your controller down long enough to do anything that doesn't involve the prolonging of your miserable existence or fondling yourself. If you let your opinion of a game - or ANYTHING - override the facts that basic human reason makes plain to you, then you're dangerously close to someone who fucks horses or goes around raping old women. The concepts behind them all are the same: "If I like it, it's good". You're willfully stupid and nothing irritates me more that willful stupidity. Clearly, if this is how you act, if this is truly the limit of your mental capacity, then you're a mouth breathing pants-shitter and interacting with you should be restricted to my fist interacting with your throat or my foot interacting with your ass. You can consider this post the latter.



I shouldn't have to write this kind of shit to you, you should be inquisitive enough to think about this kind of thing on your own. You should take a few minutes and do some examination and contemplation of the human condition outside the bubble you live in. Try to develop a sense of understanding. Give up shaving the carrot one night a week to read a fucking book, preferably one written by someone who was dead before video games were ever conceptualized. Wipe the drool off your fucking face and the Vaseline off your hands and make a fucking effort to understand the world around you. I know some of you have, and if you have, this obviously doesn't apply to you, but I bet you know somebody who doesn't have the slightest clue. Send them here to read this. Be sure to tell them this: if you can't grasp the things I've presented here, then you're objectively a moron, and subjectively I think taking a dump on your face would be a waste of shit.



]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=93 Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:14:34 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=90 http://saveandquitgaming.com/xbox-360/drink-mt-dew-for-double-xp-in-modern-warfare-3/

Yes, friends! By scarfing down Doritoes and drowning yourself in penis-shrinking Mountain Dew, you can earn up to 15 minutes of double experience gain in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3! You only get 15 minutes for a can or 44oz fountain cup of the green stuff, but if you buy a Wal-Mart 20 pack, you get 90 full minutes! That's an hour and a half for the math challenged out there.

There's a better deal out there, though: I heard that if you want QUADRUPLE experience gain in Modern Warfare 3, all you have to do is drink Clorox bleach or eat some Brillo pads! A few swallows/bites will only get you 15 minutes, but if you drink a gallon bottle, you'll get it FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE! So all you Modern Warfare nuts out there, forget the corn chips and soda, go straight for the throat of all your fellow dudebros and do the rest of the world a huge favor in the process.]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=90 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:24:18 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=89 ]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=89 Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:07:03 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=85


Happy Birthday to SOP contributor Z-Force. He gives me all kinds of free shit so I have to say SOMETHING.]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=85 Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:01:26 -0500 xml-rss2.php?itemid=79


The release of MK9 has brought us all back to the strange and wonderful world of Mortal Kombat. While the violence, X-Ray attacks, Fatalities and huge boobs have given us all a good laugh or tug, SOP.com has been doing some digging and we've uncovered the seedy underbelly of the MK universe. That's right, fans: there are secrets the Mortal Kombat fighters don't want you to know, things they want to keep from everybody.

But with my impeccable detective skills, I've managed to unearth some startling facts about some of the MK universe's most famous personalities. Read on and discover how YOUR favorite MK characters acts behind closed doors.

Click Here to read further.
]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=79 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:20:52 -0500