Siegfried

I'm not sure if this is world wide, but General Grievous is half price (AUD 64.99) at S@H.

It's why I don't like using mini-fig parts in MOCs. I see the torso as one piece and thus if it's not that way then it's "broken".

I thought some members had those sets?

I'm not giving the prize as such but I am bringing something to the party...

I'm very nice to my figs. I rarely change arms and even more rarely remove hands. The torsos are not designed for that kind of treatment. Once or twice I think is OK, but beyond that... On the other hand I'm 33 so I don't have time to play as much as I would like.

Indeed. darthperson speaks the truth. Wikipedia is not the place to find news... and please don't create new topics for every little bit of "news".

I'll close and move this. (It was in the wrong forum too...)

No, just the source. I downloaded it and hosted it here so Chrome should be happy... for now. I'm actually a Vista fanboy. I loved Win2K, hated XP, but I think Vista is great!

Probably. Both are WebKit based.

Actually Google only supports Chrome on Windows. Any details? Do let me stress though that Chrome is wrong in this case and I've never heard of any case of actual malware being on EB.

I can't even see your Avatar.... (I don't have time to answer every question.)

Well you're actually asking this in the wrong topic (this is the right one) but to save everyone time, the answer is "Because that's the way it is". You have control over your avatar and signature; isn't that enough? Titles are just a bit of forum fun and being able to give to yourself is no fun at all, let me assure you of that.

For hosted ones yes. There is the option of banning external images... but many reponsible people use that feature.

This is a case of guilt by associating with another site that was guilty by association. The evil in question is this image; :pir-skull: ----> <----- :pir-skull: Studentport.ru must have something bad on it. Most likely a link to a hacker site. Thus they are deemed evil. We have a link to them. Thus we are deemed evil. I'm very against this chain of logic and I've been bitten by it in the past. Let me assure you that it isn't a virus or anthing. it's just that Chrome is too stupid to differentiate an image from a link. (Chrome is a browser that Google are claiming to have written. In reality much of the hard work was done prior; much like Safari.)

Updated! I miss him actually...

It's probably going to be my job too...

Yours is OK; 100 x 71 pixels. How you can tell depends on your browser, but generally it's; Right click on image Select "properties", "image properties" or similar Look for line in the box about pixels It's a co-incidence. Topics like this result in a lot of rare-posters posting and that makes it clear what ones have slow loading avatars.

Done! Paul cantu: Why didn't you just PM a moderator yourself?

The browser rescales them after they have loaded. The full image is still loaded.

Yes. Small images don't look as good, but they aren't a problem to other users. Our concern with large avatars is purely for bandwidth reasons.

OK, new rule. To be eligible people need to have an avatar (it can be one of the generic ones if you want), and it must be compliant with the site guidelines on avatars. That is, avatar images should be 100x100, and may not be more than 400x400. 1.7 MB avatars are not acceptable...

Don't worry; you've been beaten; 2919 x 2189 pixels (1.7 MB) is the new standard. Thanks for fixing yours.

Thanks for the review! (The pictures are very good.) The sets a lot smaller that I thought it was. They are an old piece. Many of the space sets used them.

Ultimate Collector Series