| PAGE GENERATED BY comments.pl v1.5 |
|
View Current Posts |
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Sunday October 31 2004 8:31pm |
|
B(.)(.)bies and peni flying through they air Who they belong to? Nobody cares It's the spirit of the 60's And I have a lotta beers to hold down On this night Under the starless sky Of this Wisconsin town. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Sunday October 31 2004 8:03pm |
| Flying Genitalia. | |
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Sunday October 31 2004 8:45am |
| Hey DBBC: I've got a great follow-up song for Stephen Lynch....If that Dude from that 70's show lost his car....what do you think? | |
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Sunday October 31 2004 1:31am |
|
Backlot has two college-age employees, one from Marquette University Hmm.. Wonder if I know that guy ;) -A |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Friday October 29 2004 9:07pm |
| Word. | |
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Friday October 29 2004 1:45pm |
| Dude. | |
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Thursday October 28 2004 11:08pm |
|
This link is espically here for Justin. Dude, if you're having a rough day give this a click and it will perk you right up. www.whatarerecords.com/sl/keys/ |
|
| Posted by: Intrigue | Posted on: Thursday October 28 2004 11:51am |
|
dont know how i found this, but i did, and i thought all of you would like to read the article on backlot. www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2004/08/16/story7.html?page=1 |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Thursday October 28 2004 7:49am |
|
So it's really the NFL that controls the government. Gotta say I didn't see that one. news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041027/ap_on_el_pr/redskins___politics_1 |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 28 2004 7:25am |
| Won't you take a ride on the flying spoon? | |
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Wednesday October 27 2004 11:53pm |
|
I guess it's time to quote CCR "I see the bad moon a-risin'" -A |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Wednesday October 27 2004 3:14pm |
|
INNOCENT BLOOD WILL BE SHED THIS NIGHT! Gaze upon the blood red moon, and cower in absolute fear...of sure death! This very night, the demon moon will rise, and with it, the hopes and dreams of men will fail! This shall portend your own demise! Feel the harsh mailiase, and know that nothing can stop what has already begun... Goodnight... Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 11:15pm |
|
I got a nes. B_W |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 10:16pm |
| Weekends are hard for me. I go back up to GB to be with the special lady friend and take care of the grandparents lawn. Mon thru friday I'm in town though. | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 7:15pm |
| the first problem to solve is really to find a working NES. I will be providing the old sk00l PeeCee games, as well as Dreamcast, Genesis, SNES, Super Game Boy, and hopefully Master System. But I do not own a working NES, so that will have to be provided by a volunteer. I do have 76,201 roms provided to me by a Puerto Rican at Mayfair, though. I'm sure there's some NES shizzle in there somewhere. | |
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 4:39pm |
|
Excuses, excuses. When you actualy DO something, (anything really) please let me know. Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: Intrigue | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 3:26pm |
| to make a power glove work for the gath, i neeeeeeeed a power glove, still working on it | |
| Posted by: Anonymous | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 1:38pm |
| There be whales here! | |
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 12:05pm |
|
Intrig, I want to see the power glove IN OPERATION by the gath. Make it so. Also, SEND ME THE INFO ON THAT E_MAIL $hit. Oh yeah! DBBQC, Chroma Key shoot this Saturday. Interested? Everyone, I was just talking to Borsk, and he called me a lightweight. I cried and cried! Later G's, D.R. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Tuesday October 26 2004 9:02am |
|
BW, me just want to say again me will help you make videos. Me like making videos too, but me have a lot to learn before tring to solo again (at least outside of animation. There me seem to do okay, but it's tedious as hell). So, me find best teacher me can in l33t video maka/director Big_Whiskey. w00t w00t. I'm joyous this morning. Odd. It's morning. I should be zombie. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Monday October 25 2004 6:50pm |
| Should I bring the power glove? I just recently found the sensors for it. | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Monday October 25 2004 3:30pm |
| Whisky, I have received your correspondence, and responded forthwith. | |
| Posted by: Intrig | Posted on: Monday October 25 2004 3:26pm |
|
so enough of the poltical, banter is is an ad for 01d 5ch001 14n p4r77y www.retrojunk.com/media/25dishfhqr/Nintendo_Power_Glove_Commercial.mpeg |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Monday October 25 2004 11:12am |
|
Nearscape, Do you have your e-mail situation sorted out yet? (just wondering if it would be safe to e-mail you semi-important topics) Could you send me camera guy Ryan's phone #. I am considering calling him in on Thursday's shoot. Thankx B_W |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Sunday October 24 2004 9:13pm |
|
So...I like playing computer games...and games on the console. Does anyone else? You know what, I really enjoy that Counterstrike Source. It's pretty fun. And I really liked that tribes vengence demo. Did anyone else purchase the game? I did. I can't wait to play it some more. Also I like making videos. Lots and lots of videos. Who wants to help me make videos this year? I need lots and lots of help making videos. Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 10:31pm |
|
And you though the 2000 recount was bad: www.know-where-to-go.com/blog_archives/000062.html |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 6:01pm |
|
"ry going over to a coffee shop on Brady Street and inciting the hippies to riot. See how far you get." Allow me to get to them when they're in Kindergarten and I can give you a group of cold blooded killers. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 5:59pm |
|
"Calling them "Muslim Terrorists" is similar to my error in calling Hitler a Christian (since his actions later in life defied the religion he was born into)." Except, of course, you have established, pervasive sects that call themselves Muslim (e.g. Wahabists) which have acheived majority status in several Arab states and have mosques here in the US, where killing infidels is dogma. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, did not teach that Jews should be exterminated from Europe. Meanwhile, the Branch Dividians WERE Christian, it's alright to call them "Christian Terrorists." The Kach ARE Jewsish, they ARE called Jewish Terrorists. Frankly, while it's nice that you have found some Muslim leaders on community television that are condemn the terroists, the response from the Islamic leadership in this regard has been underwhelming. "As a tangent, disputing this perspective would have interesting ramifications in the instance of the Catholic Church. For example, child molesters and money launderers amongst the clergy (who have not been excommunicated, to my knowledge) would carry the implicit endorsement of the organization. Now, despite certain Church officials taking dubious steps to protect these criminals from the law, I think most Catholics agree it's an affront to the practice, and completely unrepresentative. The same should apply to Islam." Sorry, the Catholic Church deserves everything it gets from that scandal. The leadership has to wake up. There, I apply the same to Islam. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 5:49pm |
|
"I have to wonder then why you bothered going into your profession if you doubt the power of the media to shape public opinion. Why is it illegal in the US to incite a crowd to violence?" You think people only make media to shape public opinion? I wonder what Whisky would say about that. For my part, I just want to get paid for doing what I like to do, and hopefully pretty pictures occasionally result. Oh, and the lack of a dress code was motivating. Regardless, I never doubted the media's ability to sway opinion. In fact, I was awarded a $30,000 scolarship for writing an essay on that very topic. What I doubt is the media's ability to create violent, illegal activity in passive people. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference. If there's no one in a crowd wanting and willing to become violent and commit illegal acts, you can incite all day long and nothing will happen. Try going over to a coffee shop on Brady Street and inciting the hippies to riot. See how far you get. It only works when people are already angry about something. Fortunately, most people just don't give a damn. As for the rest of your post, hang on kids, we're going down a slippery slope pretty fast. Like Leiberman, you keep missing the target. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 5:30pm |
|
Here's another angle we missed: religious perversions. Recently, I spoke with some active Muslims who do a faith-based show on MATA. Representing the moderate majority Islam, their leaders take the stance that the perpetrators of 9/11 (for example) were acting directly against the teachings of Islam, and cannot be considered Muslims. Calling them "Muslim Terrorists" is similar to my error in calling Hitler a Christian (since his actions later in life defied the religion he was born into). The fact that they proclaimed themselves to be Muslim may be irrelevant, because I could declare myself a Taoist and start shooting school children while carrying the Tao Te Ching. Would our fair, unbiased media report me as a "Taoist Terrorist?" Unlikely, since that might require them to pronounce the name of the book. In any case, it doesn't say anything accurate about Taoism, so it's irrelevant. As a tangent, disputing this perspective would have interesting ramifications in the instance of the Catholic Church. For example, child molesters and money launderers amongst the clergy (who have not been excommunicated, to my knowledge) would carry the implicit endorsement of the organization. Now, despite certain Church officials taking dubious steps to protect these criminals from the law, I think most Catholics agree it's an affront to the practice, and completely unrepresentative. The same should apply to Islam. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 5:29pm |
|
"That said, here's what I think media/religion can do: It can give you permission to do things you already wanted to do, but it cannot force you to do things you don't want to do." Please note where anyone made this assertion. "That's where I'm coming from, which (in addition to my profession) is why I react harshly to people who hold media or a particular faith responsible for violence." I have to wonder then why you bothered going into your profession if you doubt the power of the media to shape public opinion. Why is it illegal in the US to incite a crowd to violence? Why are those Columbia students getting all uppity over the professor who asked a Jewish student “How many Palestinians have you killed?” With power comes responsibility. Would you doubt this? If the media has no responsibility, speech, which the media trafics in, must have no power. If speech has no power, the First Amendment is superfluous, right? Speech is the most powerful force in the world today. It made the Civil Rights movement possible, it decides who will win a democratically held election, and it ensures there will be plenty of human fodder for the Intifada. The media bares great responsibility in what is disseminated, and what is silenced, thus the media bares responsibility for the results. "I've been listening to angry rock music and playing violent video games all my life...and I'm no closer to blowing up children than I was when I was born." All bow down to the power of anecdotal evidence. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 4:35pm |
|
Jim, my words were: "I think their proximity gives them a perspective you don't appreciate..." I made no assertion of validity either way, only that your experience is incomplete. Since you've never experienced middle-eastern terrorism in your backyard (to my knowledge), the statement is completely valid. As usual, you don't see what is, you see what you want to see. "The truth speaks for itself." |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 4:27pm |
|
Too late, the seed is planted, Peter. ;) A (hopefully brief) forray into the perilous land of psychology, if I may. It's not really something you can argue, because it involves (shudder) belief and human nature. But it's a perspective that might be relevant to the origins of terrorists. Allow me to make a bold claim: religion shares many things in common with the media. In fact, religion is probably the original media. Both are structured means of communicating an agenda, with the goal of attracting a dominant audience. Note that I'm not referring to faith itself, only organized religion. That said, here's what I think media/religion can do: It can give you permission to do things you already wanted to do, but it cannot force you to do things you don't want to do. "Go for it, God is on our side." Sure-fire recruiting tactic for religious murderers. But most people don't want to become murderers, and no amount of propaganda can change that. This theory can explain the fact that only a tiny, tiny minority of Muslim Arabs who watch Al-Jazeera become anti-semitic terrorists, for example. Those factors are insignificant compared to the root psychosis. That's where I'm coming from, which (in addition to my profession) is why I react harshly to people who hold media or a particular faith responsible for violence. I've heard all this before, from intellectual voids like Joe Leiberman. It just doesn't hold water. I've been listening to angry rock music and playing violent video games all my life...and I'm no closer to blowing up children than I was when I was born. At some point, you either pull a trigger, or you don't. It's your own responsibility to decide, no one else's. "Never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of God." - Voltaire, Goth Rocker for thinking people |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 3:42pm |
|
Peter: Keep in mind the original spark of this disagreement between Justin and myself was Justin's assertion that the Arabs may have more valid point of view due to their close proximity, calling my statements armchair quarterbacking. I responded by stating a hypothesis that terrorism is being fostered in the European and Arab community by the anti-semitism pushed in the media, and it is exacerbated in Arab countries by the content of their school textbooks. The implication of this is that there is far too much pervasive, one sided propaganda in the region for Justin's assertion to be true. For this, I was called a racist. Here's a summary of the textbook situation from the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace: The textbooks studied for this complementary report do not change the picture presented by the CMIP former report of Nov. 2001. The Jews are still presented in a negative light historically, yet at the same time denied any part in the history of the country shared by them and the Palestinians. Israel is still not recognized as a sovereign state, but is rather presented as a foreign entity imposed in 1948 on the land. It is a source of aggression, death and destruction to the Palestinians, especially the refugees among them who aspire to return to their former homes within its territory. Hence, no peace is sought after, but rather a war against Israel as the usurper, aggressor and occupier is to be waged. For the first time, some recognition of Judaism's relation to Jerusalem is inferred from a brief statement that appears in one of the teachers' guides, although emphasis is placed on Arab and Christian relations to Jerusalem. |
|
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 12:53am |
| Now, please don't take my previous post as an argument for either side. I am not trying to make an attack. Rather I am trying to get at the point that both Crow and Nearscape are playing games of semantics rather than answering the larger points of discussion. It is a technique used by politicians during debates to duck the issues rather than answering the larger question at hand. So, my suggestion is clean up the discussion into focusing on the larger points and leaving semantics out of the game. Refrain from making striking comments like "You're bleeding pretty badly, so do yourself a favor and don't get up again" which only serve to anger the opponent and adds nothing to the discussion itself. This is a cheap shot, like a child punching a friend because he couldn't think of a witty comeback to an insult. Other than that, I do have to commend both of you on a very lively discussion. I only bring these points to view so that the discussion becomes more intellectually focused and less centered on petty secondary aspects. Keep up the good work you two! | |
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Thursday October 21 2004 12:41am |
| Crow - I was hoping that was NOT what you were getting to, because with the question of what "causes" someone to be a terrorist, now we are delving into the realm of the psychology of motivation, psychology of good and evil, and philosophy of human nature. In any case, your argument of hatred would be an inconsequential point in this arena without a more convincing argument. Unfortunately the burden of proof now lies in your arena for finding apt cause of terrorism. By shouting out "hatred" as a half answer and realizing it is not the cause of terrorism, you have effectively thrown out a blank answer (or a "red herring" as you and Justin seem so fond of saying - by the way, the term red herring is meant to be used in the cases of argumentation and persuasion where the user is intentionally attempting to deceive the other party. In the grounds of this argument, neither party is purposefully deceiving the other. Rather one party may participate in circular, incomplete, or paradoxical logic, but they are not intentionally deceiving the other party). Now if you would like to delve into the psychology of terrorism, be my guest, but this discussion will become an intellectual wasteland after first three rebuttals. Trust me. | |
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 11:39pm |
|
"Why I Won't Vote For Bush" www.europundits.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_europundits_archive.html#109826310049739077 |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 8:33pm |
| Peter: It only "makes" you a terrorist in the sense of terrorism being the nature of a terrorist. I never questioned the nature of a terrorist being one who commits terrorist acts, so such an argument must be a red herring to the discussion. It does not make you a terrorist in the sense that it is what CAUSES you to commit the act, which is what I AM discussing. The act itself is not the cause of someone being a terrorist, it is the end result of being a terrorist. | |
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 7:37pm |
|
I also wanted to add that I agree with Crow that hatred may lead to terrorism, but it doesn't always have to. However, since this shows that emotions alone are not sufficient to make one a terrorist, the argument remains that it is the actions that make you a terrorist, not your emotions. Yoda: "...Hate leads to suffering." |
|
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 7:33pm |
|
I thought I'd chime in here... I think Crow and nearscape need to clarify their remarks a bit. Crow - It is your ACTIONS that make you a terrorist, not just the feelings behind them. If you have a hatred of a country, you are not a terrorist. Actions must take place before you become a terrorist. However, those actions do not need to precipitate to an all out scale attack in order for you to be considered a terrorist(and this may be considered where Justin may have outstepped his bounds). Terrorists, just as their name implies, spread terror. That is the action- "spreading terror". We don't refer to all militia members in the back woods as terrorists is they just have a grudge and possess deep hatred for something. What would make them terrorists would be the ACTION of spreading fear. This can be at a very local level, but until you make a move you are only a conspirator with malicious intent. The actions of organizing and plotting puts you into the gray area of terrorism between the connotation implied by recent events and propagated by the media and other sources and the denotation which Justin mentioned. Regardless, it is your actions that make you a terrorist. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 2:15pm |
|
"So, hatred can make you a terrorist, not your actions alone." Yes, and your actions are the effect, not the cause. "Shit man, I better turn myself in, I've been harboring a strong dislike of baked fish all these years." Nice Straw Man. Do you know what "overly simplistic" means? Guess not. "Here, all along, I thought we lived in a society where opinions are separate from actions. My mistake." So, you're telling me, that people just spontaneously become terrorists? They walk into a cafe one day, are ordering their coffee, and then, completely out of the blue, they decide "You know, I feel like killing people today?" The moment before they weren't going to do anything to harm anyone? Nothing made them fanatical killers? I'm going to repeat your question: "What makes a person a terrorist?" What do you cite to rebut my answer? What a terrorist is. How about thinking a bit before your next response. You know, make sure you actually adress what I'm saying for a change? |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 1:56pm |
|
"Easy, because you already ARE a terrorist when you commit the act. " /me laughs out loud. So, hatred can make you a terrorist, not your actions alone. Shit man, I better turn myself in, I've been harboring a strong dislike of baked fish all these years. Here, all along, I thought we lived in a society where opinions are separate from actions. My mistake. Acts of terrorism are both sufficient and necessary cause identify a terrorist. Webster agrees with me: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist Answer d) is both necessary and sufficient for my question, a), b), and c), are neither necessary nor sufficient. The solution is complete, backed by several dictionaries, no false dilemma occured. Jim, when your head is this far up your ass, you should consider keeping your mouth shut. It'll taste better. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 1:06pm |
|
Which of the following makes a kitchen cabinent: A) Hammer B) Saw C) Screwdriver D) Storing pots, dishes, and glasses. Answer) A Carpenter. "Also, prove that committing terrorist acts does not make one a terrorist." Easy, because you already ARE a terrorist when you commit the act. Now, what actually made you a terrorist? Answer: In overly simplistic terms: Hatred. Hatred with encouragement to act upon that Hatred. Hence, your false dilemma. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 12:13pm |
|
"False Dilemma" Ok, then identify the missing option(s). Also, prove that committing terrorist acts does not make one a terrorist. Otherwise, you're full of shit. |
|
| Posted by: Anonymous | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 11:29am |
| Well Jim, then take makes two of you who have not had anything substantial to say! | |
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 10:57am |
|
Alright, here is my answer: False Dilemma "I'm still trying to figure out why you brought up all this." Gee, why would I bring up the influence of the media and what kids are being taught in school in relation to pervasive anti-semitism in a group? The two are completely unrelated, right? "I have nothing more to say to you." So far you've had nothing substantive to say, so I do not see this as a horrible loss on my part. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 10:04am |
| Jim, why are you still rambling? Are you going to answer the question? I'm still trying to figure out why you brought up all this. All it takes is an answer, I have nothing more to say to you. You can even use multiple items, if you like. | |
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 12:40am |
|
"This marks the first invokation of the media, and the terms 'Arab' and 'Muslim'." Ah, quite right you are. I was looking for the uppercase "M." Of course though, there is no generalization being made here about Muslims. "I took particular offense to the term 'Muslim Terrorist', because a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of faith." Not when it comes to reporting. It matters whether the terrorist is a member of the IRA (Catholic), the Basques (also Catholic), the Kach (Jewish) or Muslim when you are talking about how al-Jazeera, a muslim broadcast station that is the undisputed media powerhouse in the Middle East, covers them. If it offended you, then too bad. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 12:29am |
|
"Every person in Germany must have been a Jew-hating Nazi in 1940, since that dominated the media." No, but the overwhelming majority either was or permited it to occur, with dissenters being all too rare, and certainly NOT vocal, just like what is happening in the Arab states today, and had been happening throughout most of the 20th century. I like how you assume that I refer to ALL Arabs. It must really rile you when you hear someone talk about Americans. Hey Justin, in 1996 the Americans voted Clinton in office. That statement must mean all Americans voted for Clinton, right? Right? "Certainly, we Americans would never circulate revisionist textbooks, or opinionated commentary of any kind. Nope, never happens." Oh, we do (oh, now you'll bite my head off by saying not all Americans are in the book distribution buisness or something I'm sure). Have I ever stated that the US is a special case? You're telling me that, if you look at a region and find that it requires school textbooks to talk about Creationism, that it says nothing about the culture? Of course though, our textbooks don't call Jews things like "swine," so it would not be a good case study to see if revisionism can influence anti-semitism. As a control group, perhaps. Plus our media, while disseminating almost nothing but opinionated commentary, gives us a WIDE RANGE of dissenting ones with high frequency; something the Middle-East lacks. Now I'm curious. Do you support the First Amendment? If so, why? Your argument so far seems to imply that words are powerless to shape someone's thoughts, which to me would make freedom of speech unnecessary. For that matter, why even post here? Why debate with me? You're not quite there yet, or perhaps you are, just showing you the road you're on. "I repeat: no direct causal relationship with terrorism." You know what this is an example of? Argumentum ad nauseam. You present no proof, and yet you repeat. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 20 2004 12:03am |
|
On Tuesday October 19 2004 3:30pm, CrowScape wrote: "Uh, no, the Europeans are not having their homes blown up, and neither are the Iranians, the Saudies, the Syrians, the Egyptians, etc. Also, have this nice fliter called al-Jazeera that routinely neglects to mention whenever muslim terrorists kill a bunch of children, but rushes to print the latest photo taken at an Israeli checkpoint by a photographer who stayed there all week, just trying to get the proper angle so that the soldier giving directions to the old woman looks like he's threatening her with an automatic rifle. Their only perspective is ingrained anti-semetisim and, for the Arabs, the fact that they get their asses kicked everytime they try to invade Israel." This marks the first invokation of the media, and the terms "Arab" and "Muslim". I took particular offense to the term "Muslim Terrorist", because a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of faith. Hence the 4 options in my question. Let's see how he answers, ladies and gentlemen. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 11:51pm |
|
The Catholic Church inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment to fuel the Crusades. Then you declared my thesis was "that the Catholic Church started picking on the peaceful Muslims". I never claimed the Muslims didn't invade anyone, or that the Muslims were peaceful in any way. I don't see a "justin vs. justin" conflict here, just you twisting my words as usual. Who are you trying to convince with this bullshit? What exactly is this point you speak of? To put words into my mouth I never said, apparently. See: foment. "If/When it reaches an almost monopolistic status, I will actually agree that it DOES reflect on the culture as a whole. But, again, you ignore the textbooks." Ok, so when a people have no choice in the media, because it's a monopoly, then population is...what? What is your point? They don't all suddenly agree with the agenda expressed. They aren't guilty of anything. Every person in Germany must have been a Jew-hating Nazi in 1940, since that dominated the media. Thank you for once again demonstrating your own cluelessness, it really reduces my workload. Certainly, we Americans would never circulate revisionist textbooks, or opinionated commentary of any kind. Nope, never happens. I repeat: no direct causal relationship with terrorism. So why are you babbling? You're never anywhere near overturning my key points, and your hypocrisy is rising with every straw man. Nice attempts at distraction. Come on, be a man and admit your post hoc fallacy. What makes a person a terrorist? a) The Media b) Religion c) Race d) Terrorist Acts Take your time. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 11:05pm |
|
Oh, just one more thing to adress: "Based on that data, I'm saying that religion is an inappropriate indicator of malice." Take this down: "Arab" is not a synonym for "Muslim." "Arab" is not a religion. The Islamic/Muslim religion was not brought up until you mentioned it. So, I must ask, why was it important for you to say the above? |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 9:59pm |
|
"That's the most sense you've made yet, since I never proposed anything resembling that." Versus "Absolutely conditioning is occuring in the Arab world, just like much of this country has been conditioned to despise Muslims without question. The Catholic Church started it hundreds of years ago, and the Bush administration merely kicked it up a notch." Justin versus Justin! Fight! "How dense are you that you can't distinguish between the man and the Administration, which I clearly referenced?" Well dear me, I miss spoke. OK, so when I referenced Karl Rove, Republican operatives, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coutler, I was obviously refering only to GB? My point still stands, and you still attempted to attach it to a topic it was not made in reference to. "And what does 'fomenting' mean, dictionary man?" fo·ment tr.v. fo·ment·ed, fo·ment·ing, fo·ments 1. To promote the growth of; incite. 2. To treat (the skin, for example) by fomentation. Pleased to help you grow your vocabulary. "Sure, no problem. You can't condemn a whole people for the propaganda of a few. With me so far?" Well, you can (only a few were producing and distributing propaganda in Germany in the '30s and '40s), but sure, go ahead. "Now, substitute CNN or Fox News or whatever you want, the example doesn't invalidate the premise." Now, here's the problem: CNN is not the most prevelent news organization, neither is Fox. There's a LOT of competition out there. Fox is pulling ahead, quickly, but it doesn't have the lion's share just yet. If/When it reaches an almost monopolistic status, I will actually agree that it DOES reflect on the culture as a whole. But, again, you ignore the textbooks. "Apparently, you've never heard of a thing called the Bible." Apparently you don't know that the Jews were actually encouraged to immigrate to Israel (OK, the Roman term "Palestine") by the Ottomans in order to revitalize the area in the late 1800's. It was a great success until the 1920's, which is when the current troubles started. That's ok, it doesn't really matter. As I stated, "the Jews CURRENTLY in Israel." They did not gain their land through military conquest, although they later had to use force to hold on to it. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 9:24pm |
|
"So I fail to see the relevence of this event in regards to your thesis that the Catholic Church started picking on the peaceful Muslims." That's the most sense you've made yet, since I never proposed anything resembling that. What were you just saying about context? Hateful propaganda is not the sole jurisdiction of Islam, that's the "thesis" of that paragraph, if a rational person were to read it. There have been many hateful, brainwashed, murderers who have been Jewish, Catholic, and Muslim, and you can't evade that point forever. Based on that data, I'm saying that religion is an inappropriate indicator of malice. Those hijackers were evil because they flew planes into buildings and killed people, not because they were Muslim. So why did you bring it up, hmmm? re: "...your claim that George Bush was fomenting religious hatred of the Muslims..." How dense are you that you can't distinguish between the man and the Administration, which I clearly referenced? And what does "fomenting" mean, dictionary man? No, I'm sure George Bush will make it all better. Maybe just one more "Axis of Evil" speech referring to Arab states will alleviate tension. The depth of your delusion is truly impressive. "Explain how your comparison is valid again, especially given the included aspect of Arab textbooks (you know, what they actually teach their kids)." Sure, no problem. You can't condemn a whole people for the propaganda of a few. With me so far? Now, substitute CNN or Fox News or whatever you want, the example doesn't invalidate the premise. Or, are you now going to start claiming that CNN is pure, unbiased news? There are always people that reject the message, or don't even watch it, so you can't generalize about a people or a region based on the media. "Are you implying that the Jews currently in Israel are there as a result of military force?" Apparently, you've never heard of a thing called the Bible. That's ok, it doesn't really matter. Boy, I'm running out of fingers on which to count your straw men, here. You really do have an infatuation with those little guys. Keep up the good work! |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 9:09pm |
|
More about my original claim: Terrorists for Kerry. www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/19/41747eb05b946 |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 8:08pm |
|
"Does the Children's Crusade ring a bell?" Why yes it does. In fact, it occured in 1212 AD. Was that before or after the Muslims invaded Spain in 711 AD? So I fail to see the relevence of this event in regards to your thesis that the Catholic Church started picking on the peaceful Muslims. "We also better not bring up the fact that the region was populated long before the Jews invaded it." Interesting. Are you implying that the Jews currently in Israel are there as a result of military force? If so, I suggest you brush up on your history. "Nope, it's just completely irrelevant, that's all. Hitler was a devout Christian. Your point?" It's only irrelevant if you pretend the statement is in response to something that it isn't. The remark was made with reference to your claim that George Bush was fomenting religious hatred of the Muslims. Either argue within context or don't comment at all. Oh, and BTW: Hitler was not a devout Christian. He may have been born Catholic, but that's the extent of his relationship with the Church, unless you count his detruction of all Church property and execution of all clergy in Poland. Such a devout man... "Do we hold Christians accountable for his actions?" I suggest you study up on your vocabulary: some adj. 1. Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into the room. Would you like some sugar? 2. Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group: He likes some modern scupture but not all. 3. Being a considerable number or quantity: She has been directing films for some years now. 4. Unknown or unspecified by name: Some man called. 5. Logic. Being part and perhaps all of a class. 6. Informal. Remarkable: She is some skier. "The existance of Al-Jazeera doesn't justify generalizations about Arab thought, any more than the popularity of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is evidence that all Americans follow Michael Moore." Except one is the primary news outlet for a region, while the other is a single movie from a culture that generates hundreds or thousands a year. Explain how your comparison is valid again, especially given the included aspect of Arab textbooks (you know, what they actually teach their kids). |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 7:12pm |
|
www.planethalflife.com/news/archive.asp?month=10&day=18&year=2004 Thatch that roofing, quick. The sky may, after all, be falling. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 7:06pm |
|
Does the Children's Crusade ring a bell? I suppose all is excused, since they weren't the first brainwashing, murderous lunatics around. We also better not bring up the fact that the region was populated long before the Jews invaded it. Damned inconvenient, history is. The guilt of one doesn't necessarily exonerate the others. "Is the fact that all the hijackers were Muslim Arabs a fabrication by Karl Rove?" Nope, it's just completely irrelevant, that's all. Hitler was a devout Christian. Your point? Do we hold Christians accountable for his actions? The existance of Al-Jazeera doesn't justify generalizations about Arab thought, any more than the popularity of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is evidence that all Americans follow Michael Moore. I suggest you study up on your causal fallacies before you continue this line of "reasoning". www.datanation.com/fallacies/causal.htm Coincidental correlation is a particularly good read. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 6:37pm |
|
www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/10/17/news/top_story/gtsun01.txt "When Chris van Rossman moved into his downtown apartment about a year ago, his parents bought him a new 20-inch color TV with all the bells and whistles. The flat-screen Toshiba came with its own set of stereo speakers, a 181-channel tuner, built-in VCR, DVD and CD players, a V-chip for parental control over content and, of course, a remote control. Van Rossman, unfortunately, does not have cable and can only get four channels in his apartment. He mostly watches Oregon Public Broadcasting, which comes in clearest, and he's acquired a taste for OPB children's programming. Maybe the television suffered an identity crisis. Maybe it aspired to higher things. Whatever the reason, van Rossman's TV set sent out a cry for help. It began emitting the international distress signal on the night of Oct. 2." |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 6:23pm |
|
Gee, I could say that the Muslim's started it hundreds of years before that by sacking Constantinople and invading Spain. "Convert or Die" ring a bell? That was well before the Inquisitions, mind you. Nah, that wouldn't be PC. Best to ignore that. As for Bush kicking it up a notch, what about all that stuff about not waging a war on Islam? If he's generating so much hatred for Muslims, why are we trying to rebuild Afgahnistan and Iraq instead of just glassing it? Is the fact that all the hijackers were Muslim Arabs a fabrication by Karl Rove? Who are those men beheading truck drivers and humanitarian aid workers? Republican operatives? Is Rush Limbaugh the planner behind the Madrid bombings? Ann Coulter the blond bombshell that took a chunk out of the USS Cole? No, you see, you have it reversed. Bush is actually trying to keep hatred towards Muslims down, he needs us to have faith in the goodness of humanity for his plan to work, while some Muslims are doing their best to get us to hate them even more so that we give up. "Unfortunately, we're not in a great position economically to ignore global politics," But ignore we must if we want to keep our enconomy roaring ::COUGH::kyoto::COUGH::. The Europeans may hate our policies, but they will always love our money. See, they lack this thing called a moral backbone. When they get that, then we may be in trouble, but then again, that may be just the thing to bring them around to our way of thinking. I remember another politician that didn't care too much about world opinion. Turns out history was kind to Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile, history took down the man who cared too much, as Carter's now considered the most ineffective president ever, and perhaps the originator of some of our current troubles. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 5:56pm |
|
"Is it racist to say Southerners owned slaves?" It is racist to say all Southerners owned slaves, that the only defining trait of a Southerner is that they own slaves. I just wanted to make sure you weren't saying that. Absolutely conditioning is occuring in the Arab world, just like much of this country has been conditioned to despise Muslims without question. The Catholic Church started it hundreds of years ago, and the Bush administration merely kicked it up a notch. It works both ways, you see. I prefer to question all the propaganda, not just some of it. "As for Veitnam: it was only a political disaster, the military aspect had nothing to do with it." Perhaps you now see the similarity. No one has ever questioned our military's ability to knock out the Baath party, for example. It's the political idiocy where we get mired. Military is great for killing bad guys, not so good for making good guys. Unfortunately, we're not in a great position economically to ignore global politics, despite W's best efforts to isolate us. We can't "fight to win" anymore than China can invade us, and expect to come out better for it. "Did americans feel any kind of fear of attack during Vietnam?" Hell yes. They feared being drafted and sent into a jungle to be shot at, through no fault of their own. I'd call that an attack. If there was no fear, then why so many draft evasions? It's kind of hard to pass off My Lai as a KGB fabrication. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 5:00pm |
|
Justin: Take a look at Arab textbooks and tell me there is no ingrained anti-semetism with a straight face. Switch on some al-Jazeera and tell me that's not anti-Jewish propaganda that's being spewed. What, is it now racist to say that the Germans were being conditioned to tolerate the mass slaughter of the Jewish population in the 1930's? Is it racist to say Southerners owned slaves? They must have changed the definition when I wasn't looking. As for Veitnam: it was only a political disaster, the military aspect had nothing to do with it. Our troops were constrained by the politicians, not allowed to invade the North. Meanwhile, the KGB was fabricating stories and passing them onto the press, where much to their surprise they found their stories being disseminated without question. To this day former KGB agents happily take credit for the modern anti-war movement. For the draft: If Congress would allow it, the armed forces could TRIPLE in size on volunteers alone. Congress doesn't do this, of course, because of $$$, $$$, and $$$. If people would realize this, there would be no draft fears. If they really feared another Vietnam, they'd be chasing Kerry, Carter, McAulif and their ilk out of the country after having tarred and feathered them (a practice we should get back to, I believe). |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 4:47pm |
|
"If you think Vietnam was anywhere near WWI, WWII, The Civil War, or practially any european war, then you're delusional" Not at all, I never said that. I wouldn't call it "incredible peace" either, though. It was a big deal for us, with the draft and all. A major reason there's so much resistance to Iraq and the notion of a "backdoor draft" is because people are terrified of this developing into another Vietnam. You shouldn't trivialize it, just because you didn't live through it. "I think we do agree that bigger tanks won't stop Osama, but they might just deter China, and that war could end in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people." I just don't share this paranoia that China is just itching to wipe us all out, and war is inevitable if we so much as blink. Where's the motive? Favored trade status with a healthy USA is far more valuable than a hopeless, decimating war. If I'm naive for thinking the world's largest nation isn't completely suicidal, that they'd rather just build roofs over their heads and pirate our movies, then so be it. It's better than being paranoid. "Their only perspective is ingrained anti-semetisem" And you know this how? You've talked to them all? Every Arab hates every Jew? That's pretty fucking racist. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 3:30pm |
|
"I think their proximity gives them a perspective you don't appreciate, specifically, their homes are being blown up, while we quarterback from our armchairs." Uh, no, the Europeans are not having their homes blown up, and neither are the Iranians, the Saudies, the Syrians, the Egyptians, etc. Also, have this nice fliter called al-Jazeera that routinely neglects to mention whenever muslim terrorists kill a bunch of children, but rushes to print the latest photo taken at an Israeli checkpoint by a photographer who stayed there all week, just trying to get the proper angle so that the soldier giving directions to the old woman looks like he's threatening her with an automatic rifle. Their only perspective is ingrained anti-semetisim and, for the Arabs, the fact that they get their asses kicked everytime they try to invade Israel. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 3:30pm |
|
Nearscape, If you think Vietnam was anywhere near WWI, WWII, The Civil War, or practially any european war, then you're delusional. Did americans feel any kind of fear of attack during Vietnam? Oh, and by the way, we weren't trying to win the Vietnam war, just like we aren't trying to win any of the conflicts we are in now, mostly for these ideological political reasons, good or bad. So, if you think Vietnam was this big huge earth shattering war, (with a whole 45,000 american dead...400,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from smoking) then you are a product of this very peaceful last fifty years brought about by American military superiority. I think we do agree that bigger tanks won't stop Osama, but they might just deter China, and that war could end in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. So there is a purpose to all this. Now if only I could develop those robot dogs, we would put an end to war in general...let's put Kruger on that one. B_W |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 2:13pm |
|
"Screw what the Europeans and Arabs think; they've been living in a delusional world regarding Israel for years." I think their proximity gives them a perspective you don't appreciate, specifically, their homes are being blown up, while we quarterback from our armchairs. I think we should be focusing on other fish, like those who have actually declared hostilities against us, before we fuss over Israel's security. "do you also realize that we have had a period of about fifty years of incredible peace? Isn't that amazing?" I think there are some Vietnam vets who would disagree with you. Just a hunch. But I do agree that our technology has changed the battlefield, that's something I've advocated all along. Now we need different technology to seal up those "cracks". Bigger tanks won't help there. Just because no one is declaring war on us, hasn't stopped us from putting our troops in harms way. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 12:12pm |
| Arafat is a terrorist. In fact, he's the oldest living terrorist. It should also be noted that he (and thus, the PA) has rejected the "two state solution," which cuts the legs out from any and all arguments, which were already tenuous at best, that the Palestinians who blow themselves up in cafes are freedom fighters. Screw what the Europeans and Arabs think; they've been living in a delusional world regarding Israel for years. | |
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 11:44am |
|
Another bummer to the B5 universe. Zathras is dead. :( www.imdb.com/name/nm0158678/ |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 11:24am |
|
Nearscape, do you also realize that we have had a period of about fifty years of incredible peace? Isn't that amazing? I wonder why? Could it be the fact that we are indeed so well equiped, that no nation wants to oppose us in the field? That our tanks and other heavy platforms are second to none in the world? Just like water finds the cracks, so too are terrorists and tyrants finding ways to pick away at the US without allowing us to use our full strength. And just like every other conflict this country has faced we will find a way to deal with these problems. It's not that our weapons are now, 'out of date', or 'not useful' it's in fact their use and our owning them that's shifting the battle to a different level. We can't get rid of them. We can't ignore that style of combat. Our superiority fosters peace, and fosters a reduction in the amount and scale of combat we are currently facing. It also forces more discussion, and more negotiation. As for the 'global test', if Sadam had done something horrible, we would be having the same conversation we are having over 9/11. "we ignored critical information". Whatever. I think the US should pull back all of its forces and let the world try to make it on it's own. That would be the real 'global test', but unfortunatly we can't do that and have a 'clean conscience'. As for Yasser, well, it's no surprise. This must have been one of the 'leaders' Kerry was talking about. B_W |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 19 2004 10:11am |
|
"As I said yesterday, we haven't fought a real war in a long time." That's pretty much what I've been saying for weeks. We're not engaging countries or cities like we used to, only individuals. Different rules apply, politics trump military might. We can't use all our goods, so we're having trouble winning anything. Kerry spoke of "global test", and people laughed at him, but he's quite accurate. We've been going through one since the Clinton administration / Mogadishu, and not exactly excelling. It may not change for a while. CrowScape, I hope you're not extending "terrorist" to include everything Palestinian. Most people over there view the Israelis as terrorists, and by aiding them, we're accomplices every time they blow shit up. It's not a black / white thing. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 10:34pm |
|
Alright, it is officially no longer hyperbole to say terrorists support Kerry. It is now a documented fact: www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988 |
|
| Posted by: B_W | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 10:06pm |
|
I would listen / fornicate to that. B_W |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 10:05pm |
|
Sorry nearscape, I don't care how many chips you put in your rifle, it won't beat an enemy armed to the teeth and not caring how much collateral dammage he has to do to kill you. Numbers and 'will' are still formatable opponents on the battlefield. You still have to aim the gun and pull the trigger. You're fancy pants weapons can be perfect, but if I am happy at 10 to 1 loss rates, I'm sorry, no one can beat me. All the laptops strapped to all the asses in the world won't change that. Oh, one more thing, you will never see Big_Whisky holding a piece he might have to 'reboot' on the battlefield, that's for gosh darn sure. And you're right, you can't use tanks if the enemy is mingling with civilains. Or can you? At least the tanks can protect your own people, when used in a support role. (or when we're actualy TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, unlike what we've been up to in the last 50 years...) As I said yesterday, we haven't fought a real war in a long time. Or a war where our enemy cared about it's own people. That day will come again... B_W |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 2:22pm |
|
Now this is funny. spherule.com/media/video/gates_pie.mpg |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 2:14pm |
|
It... just keeps going... Like that bunny. It won't stop. WHO IS THIS GUY?!?!?! Why is this guy? spherule.com/media/video/i_think_were_a_clone_now.mov At least it didn't happen under Jobs. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 11:23am |
|
They actually had Rygel swim down to the ocean floor, eat Aeryn and Crichton's remains, and then vomit them up. Then the Diagnosan, the one who got the chip out of Crichton's brain before, came and put Mr and Mrs. Humpty Dumpty back together again. Unfortunately, the child Aeryn was carrying was NOT vomited up by Rygel, who is now pregnant. Of course, now that they have brought two characters back from the dead, they felt compelled to kill off Jewel, Chiana, and D'Argo. Chiana and D'Argo were brought back by the end, however. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 11:07am |
|
And there was much rejoycing. Then I saw the $50 price tag. Rejoycing stopped. Still... www.bbsdocumentary.com/ Ah, memories. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 11:02am |
| I tuned into that Peacekeeper stuff a little too late, saw that Aeryn and Criton were clearly alive, and promptly turned it off. Maybe next time I'll catch the beginning. Or, do they pull a Farscape and conveniently forget they were killed, with no explanation? That would be more in the spirit of the show. | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 10:53am |
|
Whisky, By "land warrior" I was invoking the slang for OICW, such as: www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/oicw.htm Those AK-47s won't stand a chance. Too bad Dubya didn't wait for these to be deployed before sending our boys into into Iraq. You can't use a tank when the bad guys are mingling with women and children, yo. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 7:49am |
|
Well, maybe not my bass alone. For the baseball/asteroid I do beleive I would need to say the magic words that transform my musical fleet into a gainormous, fearsome mech and use it's trumpet powers to shatter the ball. Fortunately, to human ears it the trumpet would just sound like good jazz. And afterward, there would be much fornication. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 12:04am |
|
Nearscape, What happens when your tiny platoon of 'land warriors' meets up with my batalion of crazed ak-47 wielding maniacs? You would wish you had some really big F***ING tanks. Or at least some robot dogs. The land warriors and B2s are nice when you only want to do a little, but those big ticket items will never be used in a real war. We haven't seen a real war in a LONG time, and I hope we never see one again. But if we do, something tells me both sides will be using a heck of alot more 'grunt weaponry' and 'large platform' weapons than we are currently using in these 'police' actions we've been participating in. Oh, and let's go painballing. My team will get the automatics. Your team can have the laptop strapped to their ass with the crazy camera on top. Let's see who wins. ;) Then we will play one more where I get the robot dogs. Yeah. That would be sweet. B_W |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Monday October 18 2004 12:00am |
| That may be, DBBQC, but will it deflect a massive baseball from space, and how is that supposed to stop the giant iron from removing all of Earth's wrinkles? | |
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Sunday October 17 2004 11:52pm |
|
DBBQC, You just keep believing that. Meanwhile I will continue honing my own methods of defence. Don't worry, when needed I will defend you. Someone has to. ;) Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Sunday October 17 2004 11:10pm |
|
Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka:Wakka ja wakka Play that funky music. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Sunday October 17 2004 11:09pm |
| My bass guitar, and a good swing, shall thwart all human ordinance! | |
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Sunday October 17 2004 12:16pm |
| Just a reminder: Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars is on tonight on SciFi | |
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Saturday October 16 2004 4:27pm |
| Great, Justin now has to add a banning feature because we have trolls on the board. | |
| Posted by: Anonymous | Posted on: Saturday October 16 2004 4:06pm |
| That's funny, Jim, because I found that if I ever quoted you, I would have good reason to laugh at myself! Isn't that ironic? | |
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Saturday October 16 2004 4:05pm |
|
Fellowship 9/11: www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2651184 "Does he know how many people he unemployed when he blew up Alderon? Yeah, five BILLION! Hey! Is it true you're building the next Death Star in Mexico!" |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 8:29pm |
|
What's that sound? Why that's the sound of the last vestiges of the BBC's credibility being thrown out the window: www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html So, here's a list of "news" services that, if you quote, I have good cause to laugh at you: BBC, CBS, NYT, Boston Globe, AP. ABC is trying to get in there though, but they actually issued a retraction: www.rathergate.com/index.php?p=319 |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 3:00pm |
| Actually, I'm trying to get you to stop changing arguments. Your initial arguement was technology causes things like tanks to be phased out by things the size of the RC cars you find at Toys 'R Us, not that technology would cause a single tank to eventually perform better than ten older tanks. Is there something that you can cite in your original post that I missed? Didn't think so. You were trying to explain why hercs no longer existed, which was Big_Whisky's complaint, not why they were simply less common. You even declared that I ignored the purpose of the game dispite the fact that "it's a game" was precisely my explanation at the outset. Your attempts to change history by asserting otherwise do not work here. I hope that you will some day soon stop thinking like a Kerry Democrat and get back to rational thought. | |
| Posted by: HULK | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 2:38pm |
| HULK SMASH? | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 2:31pm |
| Your attempts to bully me into changing arguments are pathetic. You make erroneous presumptions about what I've researched, and then preach about ignorance? Jim, when you stand before a globe and declare that the world is flat, there's only so much I can do to help you. Eventually, it's a problem you'll have to work out on your own, and you'll need more than semantic riddles. I wish you luck with that. | |
| Posted by: crowscape | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 2:14pm |
|
Well, Mrs. Heinze-Kerry can't be all that bad if she endorses gin! Heinz Kerry ended with what she called “a highly effective” remedy for arthritis that drew laughter and some skepticism from the audience. “You get some gin and get some white raisins — and only white raisins — and soak them in the gin for two weeks,” she said. “Then eat nine of the raisins a day.” |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 1:50pm |
|
Likewise, a B-2 replaces not a single B-17, but an entire fleet of B-17s and their support craft. Unrefuted proof of downsizing. DOWNSIZING, not MINITURIZATION. Please Nearscape, argue the point, not what you want to talk about in your fevered dreams because you know you're losing badly. You initial post, the one to which I responded, was not talking about whole batalions of hercs being reduced to a couple, better hercs. Instead it was talking about whole batalions of hercs being replaced by whole batalions of armored suits. Hence, you moved the goal posts. Just admit that your original post was wrong and we can be done with this. Some plaforms, like nuclear weapons, we've been so far unable downsize to match our targets, so they have disappeared from the active battlefield entirely. Incorrect. Nuclear weapons have not been used on the battle field because of political reasons. However, we have been able to downsize them: 600 lbs. The use? Bunker busters as well as being the only weapon that can safely target stockpiles of biological weapons without causing massive contagion (radiation sanitizes everything). Again, politics, not military utility, has prevented their use. Basic research could have informed you of this. Instead, you speak from ignorance and market it as fact. What are you, a Kerry supporter? Now, someone call 911, Nearscape's neck has been broken and his lung punctured. |
|
| Posted by: HULK | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 11:19am |
|
HULK no know what either Nearscape or Crowscape arguing about. When HULK get angry, it no matter what platform use. HULK SMASH! Hulk see puny Banner, HULK SMASH! Hulk see Mech, HULK SMASH! If Hulk see puny Nearscape or Crowscape...HULK SMASH! HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMASH!HULK SMA..... What Hulk talking about again? Oh..yeah...Hulk like fuzzy bunny. Pie good punishment, tasty too! |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 10:56am |
|
You still don't get it, CrowScape. That's dissappointing. Let me give you an elementary education: the part does not equal the whole. The bolt is not the same battle platform as the tank. The utility is not comparable. Likewise, a B-2 replaces not a single B-17, but an entire fleet of B-17s and their support craft. Unrefuted proof of downsizing. A tiny platoon of versatile land warriors replaces entire legions of specialized infantry. Unrefuted proof of downsizing. Meanwhile, you are comparing apples to kookaburras, declaring that their weights are similar, and that my arguments are straw men. I direct you once again to the definitions. "you instead started talking about firebombing cities and how we don't need to send a thousand smaller planes to do what one bigger one can do anymore, all of which has nothing to do with miniturization" It has everything to do with it. Our targets have downsized, which dictates the re-engineering of our platforms. Some plaforms, like nuclear weapons, we've been so far unable downsize to match our targets, so they have disappeared from the active battlefield entirely. Unrefuted proof of platform obsolescence. I'm baffled that this simple progression eludes you. Oh, look at that. It's Jim on the floor, crying into an empty cup. Too bad all his water as flowed out through the holes. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Friday October 15 2004 8:09am |
|
Hmm.... desktop.google.com/ There was light blue on the radar this morning. Up over lake superior. Still, it's getting close. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 5:06pm |
|
I have proven that an effective bomber mission today utilizes 5%-30% of the ordinance weight that it did 60 years ago Which would be great if we were talking about missions. Unfortunately we are talking about the ordinence weight carried by a SINGLE UNIT. By a PLATFORM. This is constant, as I have proven. Regardless, that was your little tangent and doesn't defeat any of my objectives, even if you could prove it. I think it's time to remind you what your objective was: While not the first games produced in the franchise, yes the Earthsiege games take place very early on in the same timeline as Starsiege and eventually Tribes. So where did the technology go? Nowhere, it was simply downsized and refined, just like happens with all technology. I think the engineers have a concise term for why things are big and bulky at first, and then small and sleek in later iterations. The new suits serve the same purpose as those old mechs, with one critical difference: they no longer suck ass. Mechs are slow, expensive, big targets that are difficult to operate. Once technology evolves to a point where you can build them smaller, faster, and better, using fewer raw materials, why would you continue using the old Mechs? You don't go up to our soldiers in Iraq and inquire "what happened to all the horse-drawn cannonball artillery? They worked so well in the past." THAT was your original post, the one I responded to. My position has never wavered, and can't be a straw man since I started the discussion Yes Justin, it can be a straw man because you moved the goal posts. Instead of arguing that all things will get smaller, that a big mech will be completely replaced by smaller suits, which was your original point, the one I took exception to, you instead started talking about firebombing cities and how we don't need to send a thousand smaller planes to do what one bigger one can do anymore, all of which has nothing to do with miniturization. Look Justin, your bones are broken, there's a lot of internal bleeding. For your own good, don't get back up. Stay down. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 4:49pm |
|
We do 'hybred' cd's in Director 8 & MX here at IV. They work fine. I haven't heard anyone complain that they don't work. I will ask J[eff]B[lume] when I get a chance, to see what he has to say. B_W |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 3:59pm |
|
ok...so, supposedly Director 2004 allows publishing executibles on multiple platforms (MacX, Mac9, Windows). Does anyone know anyone who has this or has tried it? What are the catches, with regards to fonts, audio, Lingo, etc? I'm wading through the tech docs at Macromedia, but it's slow going and nothing beats experience. MMMmm....deer droppings.... Also, Crowscape, I encountered two more great quotes from Stargate, one of which you warned me about: -- Carter: "Do you remember anyone from your dreams?" O'Neal: "Only a large, bald man...I believe his name was Homer." -- Paranoid Man: "There's this large ring, with shimmering water, and you can travel through it to other planets!" O'Neal: "Really. That sounds like a great idea for a TV show." |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 3:26pm |
|
but what about the grapes? --- I don't know how much more simple I can make this for you, Jim. I have proven that an effective bomber mission today utilizes 5%-30% of the ordinance weight that it did 60 years ago, yet you maintain the platform is the same and weight is constant, even though your own data disproves it. If you aren't arguing numbers, why do you constantly bring them up? Another red herring perhaps? Regardless, that was your little tangent and doesn't defeat any of my objectives, even if you could prove it. Platform vs. Tactics is a childish semantic game I won't play with you, since you *STILL HAVEN'T* defined a platform, and the two share inextricable relationships. "Round and Round" refers to your transient position on the relevance of utility. Dancing around the issue and then whining about imaginary straw men doesn't work, since your words are right there on the screen. My position has never wavered, and can't be a straw man since I started the discussion: Mission matters, mission changes, and sometimes takes platform with it. You're going to need some new tricks, I'm getting bored with this line of insults. See the tangent about lost technology, which I see now is really a different premise, but just happens to prove the same conclusion. |
|
| Posted by: Borsk | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 3:04pm |
|
You're darn right you shouldn't confuse me with Borsch! What kind of a lightweight are you? Confusing the great Borsk with some Russian byproduct. It's good to hear that Bosar might be getting a little more protien though! Perhaps the Pulgari Trap has hope yet! That's it for me! BWWWWAAHHAHAAHHHAH! Borsk |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 2:56pm |
|
Peter, I don't read disclaimers, so I will take your statement as the gospel truth! Way to go Lithuanians! B_W |
|
| Posted by: ...big_whisky.. | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 1:27pm |
| ...i just wanted to know what happened to the robot dogs.... | |
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 1:15pm |
|
Whisky - There is no Lithuanian chili! Instead we have a nourishing gruel made of turnips and ground deer droppings that we would force the Soviets to eat as our own way of undermining their authority and weakening their forces by sending them to the latrines every 15 minutes. The plan was to cause mass diahrea amongst the entire Soviet army and secretely label all toilets as OUT OF ORDER, thereby forcing them to hold it or do their business out in the woods where they would be eaten by a bear or possibly a hungry Lithuanian. Much to our surprise, the soldiers actually found the taste of ground deer droppings very similar to the Russian Borsch (not to be confused with Borrsk)and developed a fondness for Lithuanian cuisine. Sad to say, that gruel was the last best hope for peace....it failed. (*DISCLAIMER: The preceding text of this post is a work of fiction however creative the narrative may be. The Lithuanians made no such attempt to poison the Soviets and maintain no such gruel. The Lithuanians are worldly reknown for many of their culinary masterpieces and would never attempt to make anything like the concoction mentioned above. The description of the average Soviet pallate, however, is true....C'mon, have you ever tried Borsch? No one with even average taste sensation/perception could classify that as food! You might as well eat Platypus @#$!*) (*DISCLAIMER TO THE DISCLAIMER: We do not mock the great and noble platypus and wish not to mire its reputation by linking it to the Soviets or their pallates in any way.*) |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 12:02pm |
|
Nearscape: When you learn the difference between "platform" and "tactic," please feel free to participate in these discussions. Otherwise I strongly suggest that you stop now before you make a furthur fool of yourself. We are discussing the obsolecense of a platform: namely the herc in Tribes, through the proxy of the bomber. We are not arguing how COMMON, how MANY, of either are in existance, and I have NEVER attempted to argue that, so where you get this "round and round you go" buisness I have no idea. Someone must have spiked your cinammon tea with LSD or something. Again, you are arguing against a argument THAT I HAVE NOT MADE. This is the definition of the Straw Man. It seems to be all you know how to do. Also, you assume all planes carry their maximum payload, with no proof. Justin: Read this article, then do some basic math: www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p25s01-usmi.html 48 targets, each hit by a 2000 lb JDAM, 3 B2 bombers: 32,000 lbs a piece for planes that carry 40,000, assuming there was nothing given for contigency actions. Additionally, it does not matter that all planes carry their maximum payload at all times. All that matters is that it is practicle for them to do so, sometimes necessary. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 11:50am |
|
I don't get it, but I enjoyed it anyway. I will now make bold claims as to my position as Captain of the USS Starship, 'Hot'! Please explain that cartoon to me Ensign Nearscape. Make it so! Captain Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 11:25am |
|
Hey, Whisky, I do believe this might qualify as "hot". www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-08-04&res=l Your star burns! I demand Lithuanian treats. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 11:14am |
|
The first Chili Night was successful, thanks to everyone whom attended. Let's do it again reel soon... So, who here can make a good chili? (Placas, perhaps some lithuanian chili? ;) D.R. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 14 2004 11:00am |
|
"The NUMBER is not important, the UTILITY is." Round and round you go. Now, what it does matters once again. If I knew you would flip-flop again, I would have specified "bomber mission". Of course, you compare a single B-17 to a B-2, which is invalid because a single B-17 never had the utility to complete its mission. The whole platform depended on numbers, much like the specialized legions of old that Intrigue mentioned. Back in reality, the more relevant numbers would be (roughly): B-17 x 10-20 planes, payload of 176,000 to 352,000 lbs to take out a target B-2, payload of 40,000 lbs for multiple targets Oops! What do you know. The largest platforms of all, fleets and legions, are practically obsolete. Also, you assume all planes carry their maximum payload, with no proof. Nice try, maybe next time you'll have something of substance. By the way, a species' numbers do not have to hit zero in order for scientists to consider it extinct, effectively. I saw a flying fortress at the Summerfest grounds 2 months ago, but this is about the changing battlefront (well, at least it is for me, you're talking about tigers). Whisky: Actually, bombers are still around in Tribes 2, and they do incorporate smarter guidance systems, as do the armors on the ground. So there's no problem there. Folks, this is the crux of it. Total war, natural disaster, and biological accidents sometimes cause technology to be lost. Look at some of the Egyptian technologies that were lost for hundreds of years, or the Dark Ages during which many Greek and Roman discoveries had to be re-discovered. Given that the Starsiege universe is embroiled in wars the scope of which we've never seen, covering thousands of years, why is it so hard to imagine that things can be lost or changed? Just because we have something now, doesn't mean we'll always have it. This isn't brain surgery, it's just shit happening, like it always does. I'll never be able to convince you if you deny 6,000 years of recorded history. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 9:34pm |
| Nothing like watching debates at DOOM res. Oh yeah! | |
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 6:18pm |
|
B-17 AKA "Flying Fortress" (no longer in service) - Payload: 17600 lbs. B-52 bomber (still in service): Payload: approximately 50000 lbs. B2 stealth bomber (still in service): Payload: approximately 40000 lbs. Nearscape: Some large platforms have gone away or changed to small platforms. CrowScape: Large platforms persist, they just get more heavily armed. NearScape: We could have more heavily armed flying-fortress fleets, but we don't. They're not necessary. A few B-2s are sufficient. The fact that a few B2s are sufficient does not show that the platform has gone away. That's like saying big cats are extinct as only a few tigers remain. The NUMBER is not important, the UTILITY is. A platform is so efficient that you only need a handful to accomplish your goal; that's an arguement that runs COUNTER to obsolecence, not for it as you seem to think. CrowScape: Ordinance weight is constant. NearScape: Nukes and smart-bombs change that. Also, we no longer take out cities with atomic and firebombing. CrowScape: We still use those! NearScape: ???? Smart-bombs did NOT change that. Smart bombs only changed the number of sortees that needed to be flown. Nukes did not change that. Do you how much nukes weigh? They go up to over FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS. Even with smaller atomic bombs, SAC bombers were given multiple targets to hit. The fact that we do not take out cities with atomic bombs or firebombs does NOT change ordinance weight, at least not how you think it might. In fact, the reality that we have to hit many more, smaller targets would make it necessary to carry smaller, but even more numerous, bombs, either filled with less explosives or filled with inert concrete so you don't level a city block just to take out an AA battery. When one big bomb is no longer acceptable to take out a system, your going to increase weight by adding multiple smaller bombs, each with their own casing, guidance system, and control surfaces, to take out the same target. Additionally, we also have to deal with bigger, better reinforced bunkers, some burrowed deep into mountains. How do we do this? With the new MOAB, TWENTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS of big happy fun time party. The BIGGEST conventional bomb to date. OK, so I might have been wrong about ordinence weight, so I'll revise: Ordinence weight is either constant or increasing. What's that sound? It's NearScape's argument screaming as it is torn limb from limb. |
|
| Posted by: intrigue | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 6:18pm |
| leather is more natural, than nylon or polyester | |
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 4:37pm |
|
But what about the robot dogs? Yeah, if only the weapons on those bombers were effective. The Earthseige weapsons could 'lock on' and be 'efficient' almost 'devistating'. (like a german bout of sex) Oh well, I guess technology must have 'regressed' as much as it 'progressed'. It's interesting that they threw that in, considering that later those things went away in 'later' versions. ;) Oh well. Yes...clothing must be...natural. (unless you're Kruger, then he might wear his 'leathers' ;) Here's that post again for anyone who missed it. +++ *KORPORATE PARTY* Just so that everyone is clear, there will be a KORPORATE party on December 4th, 2004. Tenative location will be the Jefferson Block apartments rumpus room. (where we will rumpus) Date: December 4, 2004 Time: starts at 7:00 Place: Jefferson Block Apartments 145 N Jackson St Milwaukee, WI 53202 Present will be: -Liquor -Media -Food -Social Interaction Rulez: Must wear the most 'corporate' and 'appropriate' attire possible, after all this is a KORPORATE Event. More information will be made available as needed. If you would like to produce some media for the event, please kontact David @ doublerig@yahoo.com . Thanx David R. KORPORATE MEDIA |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 3:32pm |
|
Actually, Whisky, that's great that you brought up that UT artilery, because that solves your original question better than any of this nonsense. So far no one has mentioned that Tribes does in fact have big flying bombers, capable of unleashing far more devastating attacks than the dudes in armor. Of course, they aren't capable of acheiving any of the mission objectives, but they sure do make some of the battles more interesting. So there you go: Mechs went away because they were replaced by heavy armor and flying platforms, capable of traversing terrain that mechs can't. --- The retro event is on! Earlier this week, a new release of WinROTT hit the scene that supports 10 players on a LAN, and custom maps. Oh, baby, I've been waiting for this for years. So, that's one thing for the schedule. What does everyone else want to do? Maybe a little Scorched Earth? What consoles will we feature? I would imagine an NES to be a necessity. I know Whisky has quite the museum stashed away, which includes (but is not limited to) like a hundred 3DO games. CrowScape was kind enough to leave us some Intelligames. The possibilities are overwhelming. On what shall we focus? |
|
| Posted by: Intrigue | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 3:32pm |
|
ok, so now i am in on this discussion. I want to clarify the point to contend first, i am not going to argue, whether or not a platfrom does or does not exist, once any thing is discovered and as long as it is remembered by someone or something, it still exists, and for the sake of argument. Things of importance are not forgotten, so as an asumption, i will state that things of ware can and will be used when appropriate. The point i would like to argue, is that the platforms in use DO change, and they change for many reasons. In a war where there must be a victor, the most efficeint use of technology and resources, will often times lead to victory. However, sometimes the perception of victory is based on whether the triumphent force followed the rules of combat. As such, there are two things that declare victory, who has more forceful control, and whom followed the rules. In modern day, there is the UN to contend with and humanitarian reasons that we dont use all of the platforms avalible to us, in fact, the nueclear wepon is a weapon that has only been used in treat since its initial use, and depending on your viewpoint may or may not be a battleplatform. The issue, is whether using a battlefront like the nueclear weapon would actually win something. It is modern cultural beleif that the use of nueclear weapons is not ethical, as it will kill civilians and not just leader ship. Since the last world war, we have made a decision as a human culture, that leaders are fair target as they make desicions of war, but that civilians share no such responsibility and so to kill someone that is not responsible for the conflict is not just and thus you will loose teritory in terms of political power if such an act is commited intentionally for land resources. I will argue this point on biological weapons, too. Durring the cold war, these technologies were developed, because the support network of knowledge made it possible, but we as a glob have decidded, that because it could kill those not responsible for the conflict, it is not justifiable to use such force. On the flip side, if we could target just one person with bio weapons, or nukes, then those platfroms would exits on the battlefront as they are viable options to win territory, politically and geographically. It is obvious to point out that we do not use leagions any longer, the idea, of large groups of people in a single location using a single type of handled weapon just doesnt make sense, those men would die, with the one WMD, and many lives would be lost that where not the result of the conflict, a good leader will never do this, else he loses political territory with his people. On the flipside, a leagion of people flying jets might be possible with Unmanned veihicals, as the location of the troop is not disclosed, and thus the chances of victory are higher, the resources of technology and of political power where used more efficiently. In the future, we will engauge in another battlefront beyond geographic, and political. As the information age spreads beyond buisnesses in the modern world. There will be something to gain as a result of winning wars based on information management. WIth that said, if the value of information is higher than that of geography, or that of political apeasement, then those methods will cease to exist. Right now terrorism models are based on information management and physical political force. Terrorism, does not need geography to raise resources to do battle, they need information resources. The modern military is developing technologies to control the informaiton of the terrorists, as well as removing political figures in the terrorist movement. Terrorism will exist as long as governments cant control the information flow completely, i find this scarry, it puts a tremendous amount of trust in a goverment, that already has geographical and political power. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 2:02pm |
|
Must attire also be...natural? ... "I have to admit, I can't really follow your logic on some of your points." If you'd care to specify, I'd be happy to walk you through it. The Dilbert Principle specifies that it's difficult to follow logic when one disagrees with the outcome, but that does not invalidate the logic. I doubt it's impervious, though. But that doesn't change the point, which is quite simple, despite CrowScape's agitated attempts at obfuscation. In the distant past, I stated, paraphrased for brevity: A likely explanation for the changing look of the battlefield in Starsiege, mirrored in our own history would be... a) changing technology and changing circumstances often dictate the function and appearance of battle platforms. b) this reality often results in the re-engineering of platforms beyond recognition, and sometimes they disappear from the battlefield for indefinite periods of time. c) powered armor has replaced Mechs because they are better suited to the task at hand, since both a) and b) have occured over time. This was posted on October 6th. Since then, various evidence has been proposed for platforms no longer in use, ranging from the phalanx up to atomic weapons. Nearscape: Some large platforms have gone away or changed to small platforms. CrowScape: Large platforms persist, they just get more heavily armed. NearScape: We could have more heavily armed flying-fortress fleets, but we don't. They're not necessary. A few B-2s are sufficient. ... CrowScape: Ordinance weight is constant. NearScape: Nukes and smart-bombs change that. Also, we no longer take out cities with atomic and firebombing. CrowScape: We still use those! NearScape: ???? So forth. Perhaps the problem is that I won't be baited into a semantic riddle with CrowScape. He depends upon a definition of platform that is so nebulous and malleable that it serves no logical purpose. That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a winning argument. He's been trying that on Schmunk and myself since O'D Hall, so we no longer fall for it. Rather, I'm saying that you must consider what an asset is doing before you can define a platform. My grandmother does not fit any battle platform, even though she is a person. So yes, I brought up mission, because there's no point in talking without it. Jim: There's a difference between declaration and proof. Let's see what a typical bomber mission carries today, and what it carried in 1942, and what the Enola Bay carried. Let's see some numbers, or drop it. I bet we tend to carry what we need for the mission, no what we can, but the burden of proof is with you. I asked a very specific question about firebombing cities, and you red-herring again on "forces". Please focus on the road, here. Whether you are rambling about magical Tribes fuel economy or game design itself, it is subjective and entirely fictional. You are not an expert, and actual experts disagree on such matters, sufficient proof of an appeal to authority fallacy. If you are getting confused by all these terms, here's a few handy guides: www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ I did my homework, now it's your turn. I can help with the big words. I see your appeal to force, and raise you an ad hominem. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 12:25pm |
|
*KORPORATE PARTY* Just so that everyone is clear, there will be a KORPORATE party on December 4th, 2004. Tenative location will be the Jefferson Block apartments rumpus room. (where we will rumpus) Date: December 4, 2004 Time: starts at 7:00 Place: Jefferson Block Apartments 145 N Jackson St Milwaukee, WI 53202 Present will be: -Liquor -Media -Food -Social Interaction Rulez: Must wear the most 'corporate' and 'appropriate' attire possible, after all this is a KORPORATE Event. More information will be made available as needed. If you would like to produce some media for the event, please kontact David @ doublerig@yahoo.com . Thanx David R. KORPORATE MEDIA |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Wednesday October 13 2004 12:17pm |
|
Nearscape, I have to admit, I can't really follow your logic on some of your points. I think you might need to take logic class again. ;) Break out some of those venn-diagrams. They always clear stuff up. Big_Whisky Oh and by the way, if jetpacks were more effective than tanks, (or battleships, nuclear weapons, etc.) we would have jetpacks by now. But we don't. They are a heck of a lot of fun though. In a game, that is. I wouldn't want to use one in real life, by legs would be broken in, like five minutes. Oh, and as an example of how disorienting well placed artillary can be, (from a large platform) remember that one time we fought against the computer in UT and got our asses handed to us because of their accurate fire? Makes me feel like an iraqi soldier. Pretty overpowering. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Tuesday October 12 2004 7:05pm |
|
Justin, I have come to the conclusion that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Pay attention here: YOU BROUGHT UP MISSION REQUIREMENTS, not me. A Samuri is NOT a platform, a human being is. ::Slams Justin's head on the desk multiple times to hammer this point through:: And yes Justin, I have proven that ordinence weight remains constant. Just because you close your ears and shout "LALALALALALALALALALA" does not mean that there is a problem on my end. You continually adress points that I have NOT raised (did I say that we carpet bombed cities? No, I said we carpet bombed forces. Could that be why the lights remained on? Duh... maybe?) in a futile attempt to "prove" your point. My goal posts have remained constant: Large platforms will always exist because there will always be large weapons that require them. Yours has changed from "there won't always be large weapons" to "we don't level cities anymore," which is a premise that has nothing to do with your conclusion. I bring up the shear number of planets to talk about available resources for building mechs and you go off and talk about cold fussion in response. WTF are you on? Now, while your continous misuse of logical falacy terms is amussing (appeal to authority about the game bit??? Are you just randomly picking these out of a hat? Now I'm sure you'll respond with something Shmunk told you in a nice bit of irony), I must leave now and write a paper. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 12 2004 4:40pm |
|
Finally, I see a strategy emerging. You simply change the rules everytime I score a hit. That makes things easier, now all I have to do is list your fallacies. "Ordinance weight is a constant..." You have no proof, and you ignore yield. When 500 lbs of nuclear weapons delivers the force of 1,000,000 lbs of conventional bombs, you don't start carrying 1,000,000 lbs of nuclear weapons, because it serves no purpose. Fallacies of exclusion, division, hasty generalization, slothful induction. Re: UAVs Insignificant causality, limited scope. You assume limitations that don't exist, or are temporary. Re: Fuel Economy in Tribes Subverted support, untestability, general irrelevance, etc. Re: bombless missions This is significant because reconnaisance matters, is not usually time-sensitive, and is supported by aircraft carriers. In fact, most of the time we are in the air, we are not dropping bombs. You commit falacies of unrepresentative sample, and then proceed to put words in my mouth. "The word "Samuri" means "To Serve." Their purpose was to defend their lord." Exactly. Their platform is tied to a person, the Secret Service is not, more of a position. If you are saying there's no difference, you trivialize the very definition of democracy. When the President changes, our Secret Service does not become Ronin. False analogy, equivocation. Re: B-2 vs B-17 vs 747 Complex question, false dilemma, joint effect, begging the question. You fail to prove that ordinance weight is constant, and that we're in the business of leveling cities, but proceed to draw irrelevant conclusions. "What does this have to do with anything? Is anyone arguing that missions remain constant?" Pay attention, because this is important. You are. You compared Samurai and Secret Service based on their objectives, same with the B-2. Then you say "Consistancy of Mission is irrelevant to the survival of a platform." You argue that missions are relevant, you argue that missions are irrelevant. Which is it, John Kerry? Amphiboly, failure to elucidate, conflicting conditions...as you so eloquently put it, "moving the goal posts". "What, so now we only judge by cost?" I never said that. I provided numerous factors that you ignore. Too narrow, straw man, irrelevant conclusion, slothful induction. You imagine a DoD in which a human life has no value, and resources are infinite. Next you claim objective distinction is a straw man. Now that's just funny. Look up "red herring". Moving on... "We've carpet bombed the hell out of Iraqi forces..." Ah, that explains why the power remained on during Shock and Awe, while we burned Japanese cities to the ground in WWII. Clearly, the same strategy at work. A JDAM is not napalm. I already addressed your flip-flopping on mission relevance...getting pretty thin here... "whatever space you save will be taken up by more armaments." Been over that, still looking for your facts. "I made a point that the reason Mechs were removed from the universe is because it's a fricken GAME and you want military theory?" Not at all. I didn't initially address that statement because I agree, jetpacks are more fun. They also happen to be effective. Subjective, appeal to authority, distraction from ignorance. "Gee, what are all those planets made up of?" Gee, what are all of earth's oceans made of? A clean, virtually inexhaustible energy source? If only we had a few cold fusion plants laying around. Processing matters. Straw man, wrong direction, affirming the consequent. Why won't you plant a goalpost? Every trait that might define a platform, from payload to target to capability to intelligence to size to cost to risk, you've deemed irrelevant straw men at some point in your meandering rant. There are no rules left to your game. With your thumbs in your ears, screaming "straw man" to the wind is no way to win an argument. How's Mrs. Kerry doing? |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Monday October 11 2004 7:51pm |
|
Wait a minute...first you were talking about how existing platforms improve over time, and now you're assuming ordinance weight, fuel economy, and speed are constants? And what about missions that don't envolve carrying bombs? What about the cost? Recruitment? Training time? Humanitarian concerns? Actually, ordinance weight IS a constant. Example: US Army infantry is issued .22 caliber ammunition instead of .50 caliber ammunition. .22 caliber ammunition is half the weight of .50 caliber. Does this mean the grunt gets a load off his back? No, it means he carries twice as much by unit. Similarly, instead of hanging twelve 2000lb bombs under a plane, we're starting to sling 48 500lb bombs. Ordinance weight is constant. For speed: UAVs are great because they can take on riskier missions, which generally involves flying low and SLOW. Hell, they're prop driven because going fast is not a mission requirement. Fuel economy: In Tribes, all airborne vehicles use some form of engine that vents large ammounts of material in order to provide thrust. The glowing exhaust shows that this envolves something far more than spinning air around. This is especially important because these suits supposidly work outside of an atmosphere. I'd say fuel economy isn't much better in the Tribes universe; it's possibly worse outside of vacuum if they don't rely on the wonderful lift properties of the atmosphere to conserve fuel. As for missions that don't require bombs, I don't see what your point is here. Just because some missions don't require bombs doesn't mean you scrap all your assets that revolve around the use of bombs. If Secret Service agents were involved in the acquisition and defense of feudal territory for unelected lords, you might have a point. Different mission, different target, different platform. It is you who are off the tracks. The word "Samuri" means "To Serve." Their purpose was to defend their lord. Secret Service agents fullfill this exact role. Besides, the human platform is still around today. But feel free to tell the 4ID that they're obsolete. With the change of a single word, you've made my argument for me. The B-17 is that size because it had to be to support the number of bombs and hit its target. That was the past. In case you haven't been paying attention, it no longer takes hundreds of planes carrying thousands of bombs to level a city, that's why the platform is extinct. Oh, that and the fact that we no longer level cities at all, because it is unnecessary, wasteful, immoral, etc. A 747, laser or no laser, is not in the business of leveling a city, nor will it remain in service when a smaller, cheaper flying laser is available. You are all over the place, man. The one does not lead to the other by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I'm aware that technology dictates size, that in fact was my original post. You only build big when you need to. No, it takes a single plane carrying the exact same ammount of ordinance (remember, ordinance weight is constant) to destroy hundreds of targets. The platform is NOT extinct, or are you now claiming the B-2 does not exist? And when there are cheaper, smaller flying lasers around, there will also be even more powerful huge lasers requireing the need of something like the 747. Possibly. It would help if you gave me something to work with, like a few concrete examples or a consistent premise. For starters: The last populated city we leveled with ordinance, and why. What does this have to do with anything? Is anyone arguing that missions remain constant? I reiterate: look up Straw Man. Or, the number of people it takes to operate an aircraft carrier, their salaries, and the cost of fueling a UAV for global range. What, so now we only judge by cost? I'd hate for you to get a job in the DoD, our military would be horrbily weakend under your suggested leadership. Even if this were true, we're not engaging the same targets for the same reasons, so most of these "platforms" would be useless and idle. When was the last time the United States expanded its borders? Which countries are we currently at war with? (here's where you bring up the lack of resolution during the last Korean conflict) ::COUGH::straw man::COUGH:: By critiquing your assumptions? No, by argueing points that are not relevant to the discussion. !IAll platforms that employ scorched earth tactics, such as carpet bombers, napalm, atomic bombs, so forth. Chemicals and biologicals. Pretty much everthing that worked during WWI and II, because they killed or destroyed everything. I don't believe we've used the "platform" of full-scale war against a country since then, because it wouldn't work. The rules are different now. Technology, politics, and the global economy don't allow any gain from it. NEWS FLASH: We still use those. We've carpet bombed the hell out of Iraqi forces in both GW I and GW II. We have never used biological weapons. Full-scale war (the term you are actually looking for is "Total War") is not a "platform," it's a strategy. ::COUGH::straw man::COUGH:: The visibility of assets is not in dispute. The relevance of Cold War era manned nuke subs is, although you fail to address it directly. An unmanned submersible serving small-ordinance interdiction is not the same as 100 men sitting huge can waiting to nuke Russia. Mission, cost, size, target, power, all different. But they do both sit in the water, I'll give you that. If you want to compare apples to oranges based on the existence of trees, that's a semantic issue. Repeat after me because you seem to have a chronic problem: "Consistancy of Mission is irrelevant to the survival of a platform." As for not having 100 men on a sub; that's great, more room for ammo. Get used to it; whatever space you save will be taken up by more armaments. It is the nature of the beast. My first guess would be "fun", or possibly gameplay design. Not much military theory there. And your statement about capturing flags is what? A discertation on the military industrial complex? I made a point that the reason Mechs were removed from the universe is because it's a fricken GAME and you want military theory? I'm talking raw materials, and you're talking the technical skills of space travel. You need a roof over your head, you don't need a mech, especially when its services don't apply. Gee, what are all those planets made up of? Man, if only there was some magical way that people could get raw materials from a planet, perhaps by creating a hole to gain access to subterrainian deposits. I know, pure fantasy. Your arguments and the issue of battle platform obsolescence share no contiguous points. Pot, meet kettle. Saying it's so don't make it so. Saddam once said he was successful at Gulf War I. Justin, that's a mirror, I'm over here. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Monday October 11 2004 5:54pm |
|
Indeed. Now, back to the matter at hand. "Fuel (need more); armament (can carry less, need that weight for FUEL); time (so instead of loitering over the target for twelve hours I have two); sortees. Aircraft carriers win." Wait a minute...first you were talking about how existing platforms improve over time, and now you're assuming ordinance weight, fuel economy, and speed are constants? And what about missions that don't envolve carrying bombs? What about the cost? Recruitment? Training time? Humanitarian concerns? "Try finding a Samurai to tell that to." "Sure, now where's a Secret Service agent when you need one..." If Secret Service agents were involved in the acquisition and defense of feudal territory for unelected lords, you might have a point. Different mission, different target, different platform. It is you who are off the tracks. "The B-17 is that size because it HAS to be to support the number of bombs and hit its target." With the change of a single word, you've made my argument for me. The B-17 is that size because it had to be to support the number of bombs and hit its target. That was the past. In case you haven't been paying attention, it no longer takes hundreds of planes carrying thousands of bombs to level a city, that's why the platform is extinct. Oh, that and the fact that we no longer level cities at all, because it is unnecessary, wasteful, immoral, etc. A 747, laser or no laser, is not in the business of leveling a city, nor will it remain in service when a smaller, cheaper flying laser is available. You are all over the place, man. The one does not lead to the other by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I'm aware that technology dictates size, that in fact was my original post. You only build big when you need to. "You may want to look up the definition of Straw Man and get back to me." Possibly. It would help if you gave me something to work with, like a few concrete examples or a consistent premise. For starters: The last populated city we leveled with ordinance, and why. Or, the number of people it takes to operate an aircraft carrier, their salaries, and the cost of fueling a UAV for global range. Perhaps a comparison of recent battleship design sizes. The last time a city moved out of the way, just in time to avoid a sortie. "Fail to see what point you're trying to make here. We still have all the platforms the feudal ages had, plus more." Even if this were true, we're not engaging the same targets for the same reasons, so most of these "platforms" would be useless and idle. When was the last time the United States expanded its borders? Which countries are we currently at war with? (here's where you bring up the lack of resolution during the last Korean conflict) Re: Nukes deter the use of nukes Here, you make assumptions that China (among others) would nuke us if we couldn't nuke them. First, you couldn't possibly know that. Second, that doesn't make any sense. We pour more money into China than any one else. In terms of economics, technology, and nation-building, we are their greatest ally. Why would they nuke their biggest source of income? Why would you nuke the very schools that are educating your greatest minds? You need to update your world view. Nukes, the ultimate suicide bomb, are only useful when you have nothing to lose. Our nukes can't deter those who are truly willing to use them on us. If we get nuked in my lifetime, I bet that no country will take credit. Your claim assumes that we'd retaliate. Against who? Would we really nuke Iran because our very fallible intelligience thinks it may be someone from there? It took us 2 years to determine that Iraq probably wasn't involved with 9/11. It's a bit too late. You're depending on absolute insanity, not to mention immorality, on our part. "You've gone off the tracks." By critiquing your assumptions? Really. I guess I better go home, since I can never defeat that reasoning. Back in reality, we have technology that is no longer effective. "What platform have we stopped using?" All platforms that employ scorched earth tactics, such as carpet bombers, napalm, atomic bombs, so forth. Chemicals and biologicals. Pretty much everthing that worked during WWI and II, because they killed or destroyed everything. I don't believe we've used the "platform" of full-scale war against a country since then, because it wouldn't work. The rules are different now. Technology, politics, and the global economy don't allow any gain from it. "...manned submarines will be obsolete in our lifetimes." "Submarines are great because in an erra where the enemy can see where all your assets are from space, the submarine still illudes them." The visibility of assets is not in dispute. The relevance of Cold War era manned nuke subs is, although you fail to address it directly. An unmanned submersible serving small-ordinance interdiction is not the same as 100 men sitting huge can waiting to nuke Russia. Mission, cost, size, target, power, all different. But they do both sit in the water, I'll give you that. If you want to compare apples to oranges based on the existence of trees, that's a semantic issue. "what was that statement about jetpacks being more fun than mechs all about?" My first guess would be "fun", or possibly gameplay design. Not much military theory there. "Bull. These people aren't limited to a single planet, they have the technical skills to make personal armor, which you claim is more advanced than mechs, and they've got dropships and floating bases. Mechs may not be EVERYWHERE, but they certainly have the resources to build them." I'm talking raw materials, and you're talking the technical skills of space travel. You need a roof over your head, you don't need a mech, especially when its services don't apply. "BTW: Nice attempt to move the goalposts. You need to change arguements reflects that I was successful." Your arguments and the issue of battle platform obsolescence share no contiguous points. Pot, meet kettle. Saying it's so don't make it so. Saddam once said he was successful at Gulf War I. |
|
| Posted by: HULK | Posted on: Monday October 11 2004 1:00pm |
| Rrraarrggghh! Hulk eat corn, Hulk poop corn. How corn be nutricious if it come out looking the same way it look coming in? | |
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Monday October 11 2004 11:09am |
|
Greetings all, Toms reviewed my new best friend...my laser mouse. www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20040924/index.html I love you laser mouse! B_W |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Monday October 11 2004 7:39am |
|
January? Hmm... Mayhap a new box for me will be living by then. Oh well, time to start joggin to work. Fwee! |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Sunday October 10 2004 9:08pm |
|
Great LAN event as always. The room was different, but good. Next time we will have a better handle on things. All in all a very successful event with some very promicing new titles. ;) Can't wait till January. (or December of course!) Time for some sleep...and working. ;) Later G's B_W |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Friday October 8 2004 10:47am |
|
Wow. Great arguements! Now let me bring this back to the gaming realm for just a second with an example. You have a game, say Unreal Tournament. How do you make it better? Add Tribes like vehicles, not much stopping power, but gets you around. Now how do you make it even better yet? Add F*CK*NG massive vehicles such as tanks, and, oh, a little thing called the 'LEVIATHAN' which is freaking huge, freaking slow, and if properly supported with INFANTRY (the whole concept of tank warfare in the first place requires infantrysupport) is absolutly devistating, and might I also add tremendously fun. This weekend we might play a little battlefront, where we have a battle on a little planet called 'Hoth' where the empire sends in massive mech like tanks to complete it's objective. (suppored by infantry, very large targets, very effective) Those tanks are pretty indestructable, and also might I add, fun. Now, let's first consider the tribes 'universe' for a moment. In 'Earthseige' what is the goal? Blow the F*u*K out of your opponent (which if I remember correctly was a bunch of computers) and steal the metal from their mechs. When did this turn into a 'steal the magical flag' fest? I am assuming it didn't, because so far in Vengence, all I am seeing are people heartlessly killing each other, and destroying their +massive+ space crusiers. (much more massive than any mech) The body count is also un-naturaly (*smirk*) high. So, I get back to my original point. Giant platforms, are effective. You wouldn't want to capture the flag with a leviathan, but you sure would want to park one outside the enemy base and blast the jungle hell out of anything that moves. (and support your much ligher infantry doing the dirty work) Not to mension unleashing the robotic dogs...that would be f*c*ing 133t. I think the major problem is that Tribes is not a 'war' but rather a game of 'football'. The object is not to annihilate the enemy, rather to simply avoid them with as little conflict as possible, in order to achieve a very strange, un-natural, arbitrary goal...to capture a flag. That is why we don't see the kick ass $hit in the Starseige universe, that we saw in the Earthseige universe. In conclusion...long live the LEVIATHAN! Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Thursday October 7 2004 6:54pm |
|
For example, when you have planes that can circle the globe undetectable by radar, with no concerns for a pilot, would we keep building aircraft carriers and maintaining air bases in Turkey? Fuel (need more); armament (can carry less, need that weight for FUEL); time (so instead of loitering over the target for twelve hours I have two); sortees. Aircraft carriers win. When does redesign and improvement become a new technology? You seem to be claiming that battle platforms never go away, they just get better. Try finding a Samurai to tell that to. Sure, now where's a Secret Service agent when you need one... Are you implying there's some battlefield relationship between an B-17 and a 747, because they're both big and fly? Yes, actually. The 747 is the size that it is because it HAS to be to support the weapon and be able to cover its target. The B-17 is that size because it HAS to be to support the number of bombs and hit its target. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? A car is not the evolution of the blunderbuss, just because they can both kill people. A Veitnamese Potbellied Pig is not the same as a beer keg, even though their dimensions are similar. What is your reasoning? Your comparisons thus far have been without purpose. You may want to look up the definition of Straw Man and get back to me. In the feudal ages, a "country" was not a valid target, because neither the governments nor the weaponry were appropriate to mount such an attack. In our current battlefield, we (as in the United States Military) no longer actively engages the following targets, for example: Countries, Cities. Fail to see what point you're trying to make here. We still have all the platforms the feudal ages had, plus more. Who, precisely, are we deterring with our nukes? What, Canada's vile expansionist ideals? The sinister machinations of Lithuania? Because they sure aren't deterring Zarqawi or Kim Jong-Il. Iran, North Korea, and China. Oh what? North Korea is getting nukes? D3T3RR4NTS AR3 TEH F4ILUR3! The possession of nukes has never deterred the aquisition of nukes (or else that whole Cold War thing would have never started). Only their use. The biggest deterrent functioning in the world today is global political and economic pressure, I would suggest. It may be the only thing deterring anyone. It constantly prevents us from taking out threats. All our Nukes can't prevent North Korea from building more and possibly even using them, because we can't use our nukes without bringing even greater harm to ourselves. And the rest of the world knows it. When the enemy knows you can't actually fire your guns, he's no longer afraid to piss on your lawn. Deterrent obsolete. The evidence is mounting worldwide. The current crop of bad guys just aren't scared of us, or Al-Qaeda recruitment would not so successful. You've gone off the tracks. Since 1990, large portions of our weapons tech have become obsolete because they cannot be adapted to any current mission. What platform have we stopped using? A nuclear submarine does no good on the streets of Baghdad, and never will, no matter how big or shiny you make it. That much is incontrovertible. No, but it does great when you load them up with varients of PAC-2s and station them off the coast of, say, North Korea so they can shoot down anything that gets launched. Or give them cruise missiles. Submarines are great because in an erra where the enemy can see where all your assets are from space, the submarine still illudes them. First, you are completely ignoring the primary goal of the game, which is (for whatever reason) to move a small, possibly magical "flag" from point A to point B as quickly and as safely as possible. I did? Gee, what was that statement about jetpacks being more fun than mechs all about? Second, "if you believe the game world is logical", and take into account the lack of an organized military-industrial complex in the relevant fiction, you fail to account for the existence of finite raw materials. A mech consumes much and destoys more, therefore it is entirely inappropriate in that setting. Bull. These people aren't limited to a single planet, they have the technical skills to make personal armor, which you claim is more advanced than mechs, and they've got dropships and floating bases. Mechs may not be EVERYWHERE, but they certainly have the resources to build them. BTW: Nice attempt to move the goalposts. You need to change arguements reflects that I was successful. |
|
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Thursday October 7 2004 5:41pm |
| Okay...Okay...we were supplying Iraq with weapons of mass destruction.....and we would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you meddling spoolan-ers! | |
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Thursday October 7 2004 5:22pm |
| The sinister machinations of Lithuania? ....Oh crud! He's on to us! Run for it! | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Thursday October 7 2004 3:47pm |
|
of course, you're conveniently ignoring everything that matters, CrowScape. The significance of UAVs has nothing to do with their size, it's the various support platforms that would go away or have their roles greatly reduced. For example, when you have planes that can circle the globe undetectable by radar, with no concerns for a pilot, would we keep building aircraft carriers and maintaining air bases in Turkey? Unlikely, because a few joysticks in Utah can now take over many of those same functions at far less cost. Where, exactly, would you draw the line then? When does redesign and improvement become a new technology? You seem to be claiming that battle platforms never go away, they just get better. Try finding a Samurai to tell that to. Are you implying there's some battlefield relationship between an B-17 and a 747, because they're both big and fly? That's rediculous, their purposes are completely different. In terms of function, these new laser jets have more in common with AA Flak guns or SAMs. A car is not the evolution of the blunderbuss, just because they can both kill people. A Veitnamese Potbellied Pig is not the same as a beer keg, even though their dimensions are similar. What is your reasoning? Your comparisons thus far have been without purpose. My first premise is: As technology changes, things that look the same don't necessarily have the same function. Likewise, things that look different can have the same function. Can you agree to that? If so, it's pointless to continue without a mutual definition of "battle platform". I would suggest that such a definition is at least partially dependent on their intended targets. There are classes of targets. Furthermore, at various points in both our history and probable future, whole classes of targets become irrelevant for one reason or another. In the feudal ages, a "country" was not a valid target, because neither the governments nor the weaponry were appropriate to mount such an attack. In our current battlefield, we (as in the United States Military) no longer actively engages the following targets, for example: Countries, Cities. Instead, we are engaged in or preparing to engage in 3 significant wars at present, based in Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea in which the targets are in fact Individuals, not Countries and Cities. A battle platform's obsolescence becomes very real when its targets are no longer valid, because targets can rarely be changed. We can't modify our ICBMs to target Osama Bin Laden. It just doesn't work that way. As a result, most of the weaponry we developed before Gulf War I is no longer relevant for achieving our goals. Your reasoning reveals a Cold War mentality. So, on to your red herring, which has nothing to do with our current battles: deterrence. I already stated that deterrence was in fact the original target of our nuclear arsenal. It fulfilled that task in the past. But consider the present: Who, precisely, are we deterring with our nukes? What, Canada's vile expansionist ideals? The sinister machinations of Lithuania? Because they sure aren't deterring Zarqawi or Kim Jong-Il. Your claim is unsubstantiated in the current conflict, and has no point in this debate. The biggest deterrent functioning in the world today is global political and economic pressure, I would suggest. It may be the only thing deterring anyone. It constantly prevents us from taking out threats. All our Nukes can't prevent North Korea from building more and possibly even using them, because we can't use our nukes without bringing even greater harm to ourselves. And the rest of the world knows it. When the enemy knows you can't actually fire your guns, he's no longer afraid to piss on your lawn. Deterrent obsolete. The evidence is mounting worldwide. The current crop of bad guys just aren't scared of us, or Al-Qaeda recruitment would not so successful. So the second premise is based on your own words: "Only when the weapons themselves become obsolete does the platform disappear if it cannot be adapted to other missions." Since 1990, large portions of our weapons tech have become obsolete because they cannot be adapted to any current mission. A nuclear submarine does no good on the streets of Baghdad, and never will, no matter how big or shiny you make it. That much is incontrovertible. Finally, if we must relate this to the arbitrary rules of Tribes, you've made two critical omissions there as well. First, you are completely ignoring the primary goal of the game, which is (for whatever reason) to move a small, possibly magical "flag" from point A to point B as quickly and as safely as possible. And a Mech cannot accomplish this goal, because it is too slow, too big, and too easy to hit. Small flying armor is the closest viable option, because it is essentially a Mech that has been adapted to the current target. Second, "if you believe the game world is logical", and take into account the lack of an organized military-industrial complex in the relevant fiction, you fail to account for the existence of finite raw materials. A mech consumes much and destoys more, therefore it is entirely inappropriate in that setting. |
|
| Posted by: HULK | Posted on: Thursday October 7 2004 10:59am |
| Hulk want to go Fonzie party too! | |
| Posted by: Folken | Posted on: Thursday October 7 2004 8:25am |
|
Hey guys, I'll be around for Friday night and a chunk of Saturday morning and afternoon. I won't be bringing my machine, so I'd be grateful for a loaner PC during that time from either Bosar or Dave. Thanks |
|
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Thursday October 7 2004 12:59am |
|
ns... I will probably have the mac in tow with me, but it's practically useless as a gaming machine.... Also, did I miss something about this requireing some sort of costume or something? -A |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 11:25pm |
|
Still wrong. Our ICBMs are still used as deterants. But you're looking at a weapon that was NEVER USED IN BATTLE. Our large scale "flying fortress" bombers have changed. Now we have the B-2, which is still BIG. The platform still exists, it has only improved lethality. Just because we don't have thousands of them does not mean they're becoming obsolete. Just the opposite; they're becoming thousands of times more effective. And yes our aircraft are becoming unmanned, but they're still BIG. Have you seen the Predator? Image how big these UAVs get when we REALLY start arming them. And then you mention the 747: an even BIGGER platform than the B-17. And so what if there are no manned submarines anymore? There still will be submarines, and they'll be limited in size based on the weapons they are expected to carry. Only when the weapons themselves become obsolete does the platform disappear if it cannot be adapted to other missions. Are you telling me that in the StarSeige universe there would be no need for a large mech that could launch five foot diameter spinfusors, or high-energy plasma bursts, or quad chainguns, or gatling blasters? How about just having a mobile rocket turret or two? These are weapons that should be possible and would be devastating on the battlefield (as anyone whose played any of the mods could guess). There are just three things that prevent them from being realized if you believe the game world is logical; weight, power, and ammo storage. A Mech could handle all of them and have a kick-ass shield to boot. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 8:57pm |
|
Nonsense. Battle platforms become obsolete all the time. Much of the technology we developed near the end of the Cold War is now obsolete, because there are no more appropriate targets. Exhibit A: our supply of MIRV nuclear missles, capable of destroying the surface of the planet many times over. In 1980, the viable objective was mutually assured destruction with the Soviet Union, and it worked very well. Today, that arsenal is utterly useless for achieving any objective of ours, so we are no longer building at that level. A single, 1960's era atomic bomb in the hands of a terrorist is far more powerful than our entire fleet of nukes, and nuclear delivery vehicles. Since the target (an unknown terrorist with no State) cannot be target by a 50-megaton MIRV, that battle platform is obsolete in the current conflict. Exhibit B: large-scale "flying fortress" bombers. Very decisive in WWII, and completely obsolete today. They weren't developed into bigger flying fortresses with more guns, as you suggest. Instead, the whole platform disappeared and its function was absorbed into smaller, better classes of fighters and stealth bombers that have little or no resemblence to their ancestors (and require far less material to construct). Schmunk once described most of the missions performed by manned aircraft today will be completely unmanned in the near future. In addition, the idea of a manned submarine will be obsolete in our lifetimes. To entire classes of warfare are about to dissappear. When you can shoot down a missle with a laser on a 747, you don't need anything under water, as there's nothing underwater to destroy! This is what happens in the Starsiege Universe. By the time you get to the Tribes timeline, government has collapsed and you're operating in a feudal environment. There are no large cities or borders. In short, there is nothing big to destroy, which would warrant larger battle platforms. Even if there were huge fortresses, when you lack a central government and a military-industrial complex, you couldn't fashion sufficient weaponry even if you wanted to. A single Tribes doesn't control to sufficient natural resources to build a fleet of anything, much less huge, ineffecient Mechs with which to destroy dirt. |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 6:43pm |
|
First: If there's one thing I've learned from the news in the past few years, it's never believe the first report, or the second, and when the third comes out you should probably sit on that one too: www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777 NearScape: that's not a reasonable explanation. There will always be size classes for military platforms for one simple reason: the more massive your projectile and the more velocity you can give it, the more powerfull it will be. Bigger platforms mean you can do just that. Just because you can put the firepower of an old gattling gun into a rifle that weighs five pounds does not mean that artilery pieces become obsolete. Instead, they gain even MORE firepower. Where did the horse drawn cannon go? It didn't become the 81mm mortar, it became the Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer. So, Mechs should still be a very potent force on the battlefield. However, this explanation holds more water: Mechs are not as fun as jetpacks. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 6:22pm |
|
www.forumplanet.com/planethalflife/topic.asp?fid=2348&tid=1497446 hey Whisky, according to this the final (gold?) version of Counter-Strike: Source is available on Steam tomorrow, but it seems you must purchase HL2 to get it, which may be the equivalent of purchasing air given its legal status. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 3:44pm |
| oh, and transporting Interweb down there seems to be as simple as plugging in the cable modem, so Whisky, we probably won't need the 300' of BNC coax. Also, if you want to store computers in 413 friday night, we will have a space set aside for that. | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 3:42pm |
|
regarding LAN concerns, utilizing an arbitrary numbering scheme: 1) I've got a disc with UT, WarCraft, and Tribes files delivered by a little Director program. 2) I will provide Tequila. 3) Bon Bon Cafe now offers convenience-store groceries within our building. If you want to bring snacks, that's great, but know that it should also be possible to purchase things at the event - possibly without donning pants. 4) I will provide more Tequila, if necessary. 5) We will probably need the usual compliment of tables and chairs. There are several couches and chairs in the facility, but they may be too low for comfortable gaming. 6) The party room has a full kitchen. 7) Tequila is my bestest friend. 8) There are roughly 3x as many power outlets available as previous gatherings, spread between 2 floors. Exact circuit/load configuration unknown, but given split-level and the presence of a kitchen, big-screen TV, etc, chances are good it is more conducive than the apartment. 9) Large items should probably be taken directly from cars, through the courtyard into the room. 10) Buzz-ins are much easier, because people can walk right up to the party room door (or windows) through the courtyard. I will probably post signs at the entrances. 11) Today is the second day since the release of William Shatner's "Has Been" CD, and the first day of the rest of your life. 12) I last spotted your pants hitchhiking down Bremen Street. 13) My costume may consist of Corporate Swag. Regarding food, for first-meal on Saturday, during or after set-up, I anticipate ordering hot sandwich platters from Potbelly's which can be delivered for around $4.50 a person. They are tasty, and require almost to time from us. Saturday night, I would like each person to "do their part". That means if you can bring or make something, please do it, or at least talk about it here. If you want to bring red-red-meat, Dan has given us permission to use his very fine grill up in 650. I will probably make use of this grill, and also prepare Pico de Gallo for guests to graze on. Intrigue, if you are planning on cooking, please say so here. The term I've heard humans use is "pot-luck". Sunday morning, I will prepare items involving eggs, spam, and fried bread in kind of an omelette sandwich. If this offends you, plan accordingly. Any more questions, keep 'em coming. If you are coming without a computer, speak up now so we can take appropriate steps. Aphex is available as always, and runs Vengeance remarkably well, considering how cheap it is. Whisky, do you now have 2 machines including Barton? Because Intrigue seems to have fucked up his machines with "work stuff", so we might need them. Although I think a laptop may be available and functional. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 3:01pm |
|
as some of you know, lately i've been watching the Stargate:SG1 in massive quantities, and they take the approach of "cram as much shit on a disc as possible", and that is not a good route. Some discs have five 46 minute episodes plus featurettes, and the compression is quite horrendous on those discs. It's funny watching Tealc's tatto drift around on his forehead because there aren't enough keyframes. Also, I am of the opinion that Crusade was the most promising offering in the B5 universe, far better than "Legend of the Rangers" (which was indeed crap), but like Firefly it was castrated by the network before it could achieve full erection. --- While not the first games produced in the franchise, yes the Earthsiege games take place very early on in the same timeline as Starsiege and eventually Tribes. So where did the technology go? Nowhere, it was simply downsized and refined, just like happens with all technology. I think the engineers have a concise term for why things are big and bulky at first, and then small and sleek in later iterations. The new suits serve the same purpose as those old mechs, with one critical difference: they no longer suck ass. Mechs are slow, expensive, big targets that are difficult to operate. Once technology evolves to a point where you can build them smaller, faster, and better, using fewer raw materials, why would you continue using the old Mechs? You don't go up to our soldiers in Iraq and inquire "what happened to all the horse-drawn cannonball artillery? They worked so well in the past." Now that we have a prequel in Vengeance, take a look at the Heavy Armor and compare it to the heavy armor in Tribes 2, which takes place many years down the line. Heavies in Vengeance are little more than small mechs, but they eventually become more manageable. This is the progression of things. In Starship Troopers (the Heinlein book, not the movie), "powered armor" is first described as the logical end in military technology, the perfect blend of infantry and traditional armor (tanks). This is probably where the designs in Tribes came from. It's sound military theory: You build something that is small enough to move easily, requires little training to operate (because it's naturalistic), yet protects and extends battlefield life expectancy. It makes perfect sense. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 1:26pm |
|
Wait... Earthsiege was the first precursor to tribes? That doesn't make any sense! If that is the case (which it is) where are the crazy mech battles and vehicles (and most importantly mech-hounds)in Tribes? After all, these are all ground wars (to some extent...not space wars) that are being fought. Something's not right. I am sure justin will correct me in 3-2-1... Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 12:36pm |
|
Well...unfortunately the rumor was denied even before I could relay it to Nearscape. As you are all aware, 2006 will see the creation of a Star Wars Universe-based TV show. A rumor began on Monday that JMS was slated to be the writer of the series. Unfortunately, this rumor appears to be untrue. Read this TFN article for more: www.theforce.net/holonet/index.shtml#24929 or visit his official site: jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17198 |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 11:38am |
|
Ok, what's the score here? We've got an event comming up. What's the tequila situation, what kind of beverages and snacks will we be needing, does this 'party room' have some kind of kitchenary also? Will my table be needed? How about chairs? How will we transport all this goodness down to the room and back again? What about monitors? Will power be an issue? How will people be able to 'buzz' in while we are Lanning? Who else is dressing up? What day is it? Where are my pants? All important questions, people, and we need answers posthaste!!! ;) Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Wednesday October 6 2004 12:00am |
|
Yeah, I got Boogiepop Phantom on DVD: 13 episodes, four DVDs... and those are just thirty minute episodes (well.. episodes slated to fill a 30 minute broadcast slot). Crusade's setup is akin to putting seven or eight anime episodes on a disc (datawise), and that's not too common of an occurance. And yes, I do notice a quality difference (generally speaking) between those discs with few episodes and those with a lot. Oh, and no, Crusade is not better than the Rangers... especially the music OH GOD THE MUSIC! |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whiksky | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 11:30pm |
|
Well...at an hour a piece, at the maximum bitrate (9.0 megabits, 1 hour = 4.5 gig per layer x2), that will get you 2 episodes per DVD. 2x4=8 So that's not so outrageous. They probably used a variable bitrate, and they probably aren't an hour, so that workes out OK. You want more DVDs per episode usually. That's a good sign. I hope this crusade you speak of is better than that rangers crap. It was crap. Now, I will go to a place of hope, a place of dispair, a place of joy, a place of tribulation... bed. Later G's. B_W (that last part was a rangers referance...if you didn't already get it.) |
|
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 11:05pm |
|
For those of you not already aware....Crusade comes out on DVD on December 7th www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00061QJSK/ref=ase_joblosmovieempor/102-9423017-8963311?v=glance&s=dvd 13 episodes on 4 DVDs? There had better be some great long bonus features! Perhaps the lost actual footage of Snow White and the 7 Pak'ma'ra? Or perhaps Who's your Little Narn? |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 3:47pm |
|
www.mcai-milwaukee.com/calendar/calendar2.asp?id=206 A "Media Crawl" through the Third Ward. Those of us on the inside know that it also includes pubs. I'm in the greatest industry ever. |
|
| Posted by: Dream BBQ Child | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 2:27pm |
| I will enjoy Has Been. | |
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 1:57pm |
|
Wow. The Ginsing beer made my day. There is a former Ginsing farmer here at IV. The parts are from my old massive dual computer, MEDIA FACTORY. It let me down one too many times. (10,001 to be exact) It will be stripped down and sold off now. Anyone looking for a $400 athlon MP 1.67 with 512 and an above average video card? Or just 1 MP processor, and 1 stick of memory? Or some combo there-of? It's good $hit. Price negotiable. Later G's B_W |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 1:16pm |
|
quite easily, since I've never paid any attention to Anheuser-Busch and their shitty products. The Bill Shatner album is "Has Been", arranged and produced by Ben Folds. www.shatnerhasbeen.com |
|
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 12:49pm |
|
How did we miss this one? Budweiser is launching a caffinated beer: money.cnn.com/2004/10/05/news/fortune500/anheuser_busch.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes -A |
|
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 12:42pm |
|
BW.. Where did you find the parts? I'm looking into slapping together a box for use at LAN parties as there's not many games out on the Mac. -A |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 11:36am |
|
yeah, check out this sweet action!!! slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1187§ion=mainpage&aid=4 I am so freaking 133t! B_W sorry about all these posts, I am REALLY bored... |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 10:56am |
|
Oh, and for the LAN, I should have a fresh 1.67 athlon box with a gig of RAM and a Ti4200 video card available. Perhaps that could serve as a good server? (it's the old parts from FACTORY recycled.... soon to be 1 of 2) So Justin, yes, I will have a new box. ;) Oh and for all you bitches out there, I will be bringing some phat new technology, so just you wait, your asses will all be grasses by the time I am through with ya'll. Later! D.R. |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 10:48am |
|
What is this album called? I will listen to it on Rhapsody POSTHASTE!!! P.S. I love Rhapsody. Big_Whisky p.s. when is the oldschool event? |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Tuesday October 5 2004 10:19am |
|
memorable moment's from this morning's streaming of the new Shatner album: "Live life like you're gonna die...because you're gonna!" - Shatner "I love what you eat. You want yogurt, you got yogurt!" - Shatner "Leaf blowers. Is there anything more futile?" - Shatner "I can't get behind that!" - Henry Rollins I'm speechless. It's great! |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Monday October 4 2004 8:23pm |
|
Ahh, that was a fine day of modeling the Johnson Controls Battery Technology Campus. Now, I would like to discuss something truly important: Tribes Vengeance. Now that we've migrated from the beta to the final demo, I took some time to re-acquaint myself with the game, and noticed a few nifty things that I hadn't before. Since I'm quite fried right now, I'll take the opportunity to ramble about it. Considering the tremendous speeds involved in the franchise, the net play is remarkably lag-free, even with 24 players. I find that I'm able to hit heavy armors in mid-air on a regular basis (the medium and heavy models are considerably bulkier in this time period). And speaking of Heavies, they've been rebalanced and it seems to work brilliantly. First, they can ski around pretty easily on these new maps outside, but are very slow indoors. And while it is certainly easier to hit them, the take a lot more damage than the other classes. At first, I thought they would be too powerful considering all this, but in gameplay it works out. A few lights can pelt them with chainguns from a fair distance away given their increased size. Also, they carry fewer weapons (only 3 like everyone else) and less ammo overall, so base-spamming isn't very effective (and I haven't encountered any bunker-bases like Raindance with only one way out, which helps). Overall, they are still very popular, just not annoying like in previous iterations. Dueling is a lot more fun because they've implemented "ping" sounds whenever you damage someone. The chaingun and spinfusor combo is very smooth, and no more wondering if your bullets are hitting anything other than air. I was worried about the reduced size of the maps, the ease of skiing, and the exposed nature of the flag bases making every Vengeance game play like Rollercoaster against vets. It's actually not that bad. I made a point of playing flag-D over the weekend on a few servers. Even on the "Emerald" map, where the flag is just hanging the fuck out in the open, I was able to hold it down against multiple skiers and the occasional mortar assault. They've done brilliant work at re-balancing the deployables to compensate for the increased speed. The deployable turrets are more effective because a single disc hit no longer disables them. They fire as chainguns now, and can rip an unsuspecting light to shreds in no time (but they are mostly useless against vehicles and heavies). In addition, the map design which initially appears too "out in the open" actually offers a lot of cover for farmers and their toys. "Emerald" in particular offers dense clumps of trees, which cast a convenient, dark shadow on the ground, perfect for hiding turrets and supply stations, and offering many options for devising a defense grid. And you can deploy everything as a light, so farmers are no longer slow targets for mortars, and when your toys get broken you can replace them more quickly. And speaking of toys, they've added something I've always wanted: a deployable repair beacon. Basically, it's a magic little box that you can hide in the tall grass. If any damaged friendlies are within range, it will automatically start repairing them. This includes units, turrets, generators, and even mines. Or, if you carry a repair pack, you can use that for brief bursts without disarming your weapon. Which means you can finally defend yourself while repairing that damn sensor. So, offense in Vengeance is very fast, which is to be expected. Skiing is easy and bases are close. But they actually gave willing defenders the tools to balance it, which makes me very pleased. And you even get credit. If a turret you deployed kills an enemy, you get a point. If they had your flag, you get 2 points. I totally rocked the scoreboard in one game just by repairing and rearming everything in sight. Yup, this shit's hot! |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Monday October 4 2004 7:30pm |
|
"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere." - John Kerry "but elsewhere?" So Kerry is now going after the gray and the lizardoid vote? |
|
| Posted by: Big_Whisky | Posted on: Monday October 4 2004 3:11pm |
|
I don't know who this anti-whisky is, but I will find you and give you a very tremendous beating. Whomever you are. Then, later, I will remember how good the beating really was. Oh, yes, that will rightly be a treasured memory, replayed, and possibly repeated, many many times. Oh yes. Don't mess with 'The Whisky'. Big_Whisky |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 11:32pm |
| My God, I feel so sorry for you, surrounded by all those Kerry supporters. How did you survive? Oh... I see how... | |
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 11:31pm |
|
Big.. I hardly watch it anymore.. I just happened to flip past it. It's gotten to the point where even TSS is annoying (I HATE THAT ALEX GUY!!!) All of the good shows have gotten ruined or are now being produced in Canada (g4techtv.ca/callforhelp/) -A |
|
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 11:19pm |
|
Yeah.. I bet you all are jealous: www.livejournal.com/users/rockmanac/212475.html -A |
|
| Posted by: The Anti-Whisky | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 10:59pm |
| Just to let everyone know there is a new bonus pack for Unreal 2k4, called editors choice. More maps and more vehicles. Just thought I would let everyone know in advance to try and save some updating time. Also for those of us playing Warcraft III get the 1.17 pathch from Battle.Net. | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 10:16pm |
|
for those strong young men with the will, please prepare yourselves before this weekend's festivities: www.tribalwar.com/rdb/index.php?fileid=2793 unless, of course, enough people actually purchase the retail game. |
|
| Posted by: big_whisky | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 8:06pm |
|
adam, unfortunatly I don't even watch techtv anymore. I don't have the stomach for it. B_W |
|
| Posted by: BIG_WHISKY | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 12:51pm |
|
Very Interesting. Lucky Jim, now you have a costume you can wear to the LAN event! Isn't that super great? B_W |
|
| Posted by: CrowScape | Posted on: Sunday October 3 2004 9:34am |
|
Oh, so that's why Kerry didn't do bad in the debate: www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php |
|
| Posted by: adam | Posted on: Friday October 1 2004 10:35pm |
|
BW... You weren't just on Unscrewed were you? I swear the guy doing the VO sounded exactly like you. -A |
|
| Posted by: big_whisky | Posted on: Friday October 1 2004 7:02pm |
|
Well...what do we get if we get 30 people? How do we prove 30 were here? What are the RULEZZZ LATER G's, BiG_WhIsKy |
|
| Posted by: intrigue | Posted on: Friday October 1 2004 6:33pm |
|
just as an interesting note, as ideix is growing, we plan to add another file server, and in that process i found this interesting tidbit about monarchcomputer.com www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=M&Category_Code=lanevent it seems that monarch is very fond of lan gaming and they want to sponsor our next lanparty, if we can get 30 people to attend, so what do you guys think? Nvidia has simular rules. here is thier form www.nvidia.com/content/sponsorship/frmsponsorship.asp |
|
| Posted by: Peter | Posted on: Friday October 1 2004 2:42pm |
| Be sure to check out the DreamBBQChild suggested modifications to the sidebar on Pulgaritrap.com! | |
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Friday October 1 2004 9:56am |
|
www.forumplanet.com/planethalflife/topic.asp?fid=2348&tid=1492091 nothing concrete about a release date, but it sounds like this elusive new Counter-Strike is the only multiplayer available in Half-Life 2. No Team Fortress, no CTF with HL weapons, nothing. That's a shame, because the physics do seem to be quite a bit more advanced than UT, and could have added a bit of fun with properly designed maps. Hopefully the mod community will do their work for them. I always enjoyed Team Fortress Classic more than the original HL anyway. |
|
| Posted by: nearscape | Posted on: Friday October 1 2004 9:07am |
| are you sure? Tycho Brahe, Gabe Newell of Valve, and most of the gaming community claim otherwise...maybe they are referring to a beta? People are playing it somehow. | |