Race Sim Central
Rec.Autos.Simulators Archive
Archive / 2001 / December

Simmers have got it good right now....

166 posts by 38 people · 02 Dec 2001 15:13 UTC - 11 Dec 2001 08:39 UTC

Flame warSim quality praise spirals into US foreign-policy flame war

Simon Brown argued that sim racers had never had it so good, crediting GPL with raising physics standards across other sims such as NASCAR 4. Others disputed NASCAR 4's physics, track accuracy and damage model. A jibe about Deer Hunter sales and Americans then turned the thread into a long, heated argument about American culture, foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan, which had nothing to do with sims.

game comparisonoff-topicphysics/realism debateGrand Prix LegendsNASCAR Racing 4

Automated summary.

Simon Brown 02 Dec 2001 15:13 UTC#149069
It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. The rest used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think GPL has genuinely helped to push up the quality of physics coding in all other sims. I don't own every sim ever made, so apologies if I'm missing the odd great sim here, but I think there are now five sims that are geuinely worth dedicating time to today. Nascar 4 - Fantastic physics, awesome realism, great graphics and sound. Good AI (now they're fixed) and tremendous close racing. As good a simulation of the Nascar series as you could imagine on a modern PC. F1 2001 (patched) - Despite a few flaws - the odd corner a bit wrong, poor replays - this is a top sim. The bottom line - how it feels to drive the car - is flawless. The force-feedback is exceptional. Great graphics, top sound. Excellent AI. Totally gripping. Mercedes Benz Truck Racing - Another high quality product. Physics, graphics, sound all without fault. Strange menu system :) Top sliding fun and plenty of tracks you won't find in other games. Superbike 2001 - Ok, so the physics maybe isn't quite as good as the other sims in this list, but there are very few bike sims made, and in my opinion, this is the best (just overtaking gp500). Great tracks, graphics and sound. Top fun for bike nuts. Grand Prix Legends - Still the best, and with new tracks and cars, and the new d3d patch, it looks better than ever. The best online play and the cars are always a thrill to drive. Even today I play it way more than anything else, including playing in a fantastic online league. As the subject line says, we've never had it better... Simon.
Douglas Ellison 02 Dec 2001 15:19 UTC↳ reply to Simon Brown#149070
"Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lyrO7.19728$[email hidden]... > It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. The rest > used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think GPLhas > genuinely helped to push up the quality of physics coding in all othersims. > > I don't own every sim ever made, so apologies if I'm missing the odd great > sim here, but I think there are now five sims that are geuinely worth > dedicating time to today. You do? > Nascar 4 No thanks - I know it's an old argument - but I cant stand racing ovals. > F1 2001 (patched) - >Despite a few flaws - the odd corner a bit wrong The games a f**king mess. Tracks are chronically innacurate and physics at best just the sim side of arcade. > Mercedes Benz Truck Racing - Another high quality product. Physics, > graphics, sound all without fault. Strange menu system :) Top slidingfun > and plenty of tracks you won't find in other games. Agreed - but they're trucks - and that sucks. > Superbike 2001 - Ok, so the physics maybe isn't quite as good as the other > sims in this list, but there are very few bike sims made, and in myopinion, > this is the best (just overtaking gp500). Great tracks, graphics andsound. > Top fun for bike nuts. GP500 was the one and only Bike sim - ruined by crap online code. > Grand Prix Legends - Still the best, and with new tracks and cars, and the > new d3d patch, it looks better than ever. The best online play and thecars > are always a thrill to drive. Even today I play it way more than anything > else, including playing in a fantastic online league. Grand Prix Legends is the only sim I still play. Frankly - Sim Racers have it rather poor imo. Doug
Douglas Ellison 02 Dec 2001 15:19 UTC#528664
You do? No thanks - I know it's an old argument - but I cant stand racing ovals. The games a f**king mess. Tracks are chronically innacurate and physics at best just the sim side of arcade. Agreed - but they're trucks - and that sucks. GP500 was the one and only Bike sim - ruined by ***online code. Grand Prix Legends is the only sim I still play. Frankly - Sim Racers have it rather poor imo. Doug
John Pancoast 02 Dec 2001 15:27 UTC↳ reply to Simon Brown#149073
Understand your point, but I'd have to disagree re Nascar 4. It's damage model is ridiculous, the physics are more of a hovercraft than a 3600 lb. stock car, and the track modeling is poor too. Still enjoy it a lot, it is a good sim, but it's got some serious flaws IMO. -John Simon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lyrO7.19728$[email hidden]... > It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. The rest > used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think GPLhas > genuinely helped to push up the quality of physics coding in all othersims.
Quoted text (12 lines)> > I don't own every sim ever made, so apologies if I'm missing the odd great > sim here, but I think there are now five sims that are geuinely worth > dedicating time to today. > > Nascar 4 - Fantastic physics, awesome realism, great graphics and sound. > Good AI (now they're fixed) and tremendous close racing. As good a > simulation of the Nascar series as you could imagine on a modern PC. > > F1 2001 (patched) - Despite a few flaws - the odd corner a bit wrong, poor > replays - this is a top sim. The bottom line - how it feels to drive the > car - is flawless. The force-feedback is exceptional. Great graphics,
top > sound. Excellent AI. Totally gripping. > > Mercedes Benz Truck Racing - Another high quality product. Physics, > graphics, sound all without fault. Strange menu system :) Top slidingfun > and plenty of tracks you won't find in other games. > > Superbike 2001 - Ok, so the physics maybe isn't quite as good as the other > sims in this list, but there are very few bike sims made, and in myopinion, > this is the best (just overtaking gp500). Great tracks, graphics andsound. > Top fun for bike nuts. > > Grand Prix Legends - Still the best, and with new tracks and cars, and the > new d3d patch, it looks better than ever. The best online play and thecars
Quoted text (8 lines)> are always a thrill to drive. Even today I play it way more than anything > else, including playing in a fantastic online league. > > As the subject line says, we've never had it better... > Simon. > >
(unknown) 02 Dec 2001 18:08 UTC↳ reply to Douglas Ellison#148997
"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9udgu3$7l0ek$[email hidden]... > > "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lyrO7.19728$[email hidden]... > > It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. Therest > > used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think GPL > > Nascar 4 > > No thanks - I know it's an old argument - but I cant stand racing ovals. That's fine, that's your opinion but that has nothing to do with the quality of a sim and how good every simmer has it because of that game. You are letting personal preference get in the way. It is an excellent sim and those ovals you can't stand financed GPL and GPL 72, if that is a reality ...
Dan Belcher 02 Dec 2001 18:24 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#149000
>Understand your point, but I'd have to disagree re Nascar 4. It's damage >model is ridiculous, the physics are more of a hovercraft than a 3600 lb. >stock car, and the track modeling is poor too. The physics in N4 feel fine to me--I don't expect to feel the car without real g-forces on my body. I think that you "feel" the car more in NASCAR Heat because of slightly exaggerated grip levels. Also, the track modeling seems excellent to me, but perhaps I'm just missing a glaring error. Got an example? (other than the fact that you can't actually turn around and drive totally out of the racetrack exiting turn 2 at Phoenix. ;) ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Webmaster, http://www.gplworld.racesim.net/simcrash
John Pancoast 02 Dec 2001 19:00 UTC↳ reply to Dan Belcher#149003
Most of the tracks are much, much narrower in the sim than in actuality, especially corner exits. Re physics........well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft on ice.............a bit fishy IMO. Of course, that can be "fixed" via setup/controller tweaks. Heat may or may not have excess grip levels, but N4 then has to weak of them IMO. And of course, then there's the "X number of cars get airborne, flipping end over end, when one is hit at a 10-20 mph" feature..<G> -John Dan Belcher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >Understand your point, but I'd have to disagree re Nascar 4. It's damage > >model is ridiculous, the physics are more of a hovercraft than a 3600 lb. > >stock car, and the track modeling is poor too. > > The physics in N4 feel fine to me--I don't expect to feel the car withoutreal > g-forces on my body. I think that you "feel" the car more in NASCAR Heat > because of slightly exaggerated grip levels. Also, the track modelingseems > excellent to me, but perhaps I'm just missing a glaring error. Got anexample? > (other than the fact that you can't actually turn around and drive totallyout > of the racetrack exiting turn 2 at Phoenix. ;) > > ----------------------------------------- > Dan Belcher > Webmaster, > http://www.gplworld.racesim.net/simcrash
Jan Verschueren 02 Dec 2001 19:13 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#149004
Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to one on any other surface... Jan. ;-) =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "John Pancoast" wrote... > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > on ice.............
Darron Turner 02 Dec 2001 19:48 UTC↳ reply to Jan Verschueren#149008
LOL...was thinking same thing! "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)> Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to one on > any other surface... > > Jan. ;-) > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > on ice............. > >
John Pancoast 02 Dec 2001 19:49 UTC↳ reply to Jan Verschueren#149009
Lol, good point :) -John Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)> Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to one on > any other surface... > > Jan. ;-) > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > on ice............. > >
Dave Henrie 02 Dec 2001 20:13 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#149014
Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is more slick so the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and and less turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with ice means the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will be a pain to maintain. You :) asked! dave henrie "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)> Lol, good point :) > > -John > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to one
on
Quoted text (13 lines)> > any other surface... > > > > Jan. ;-) > > =--- > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > on ice............. > > > > > >
Schooner 02 Dec 2001 20:19 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#149016
Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is more slickso > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and and less > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with icemeans
Quoted text (30 lines)> the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will be a > pain to maintain. > You :) asked! > dave henrie > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Lol, good point :) > > > > -John > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to one > on > > > any other surface... > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > =--- > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > >
John Pancoast 02 Dec 2001 20:44 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#149020
Yeah, what he said! <G> Thanks Dave.......I think <G> -John Dave Henre <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is more slickso > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and and less > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with icemeans
Quoted text (30 lines)> the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will be a > pain to maintain. > You :) asked! > dave henrie > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Lol, good point :) > > > > -John > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to one > on > > > any other surface... > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > =--- > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > >
Tim O 02 Dec 2001 20:45 UTC↳ reply to Simon Brown#149019
On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 15:13:21 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >As the subject line says, we've never had it better... You forgot to mention Viper Racing. I realize GPL is great, but I don't really care about the GPL era. I've played it quite a bit, but it's never addicted me like it has so many here. SCGT is also great, providing you get the excellent user mods to fix it up. Tim
Douglas Ellison 02 Dec 2001 21:11 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#149023
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> > "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9udgu3$7l0ek$[email hidden]... > > > > "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:lyrO7.19728$[email hidden]... > > > It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. The > rest > > > used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think
GPL > > > Nascar 4 > > > > No thanks - I know it's an old argument - but I cant stand racing ovals. > > That's fine, that's your opinion but that has nothing to do with thequality > of a sim and how good every simmer has it because of that game. You are > letting personal preference get in the way. It is an excellent sim andthose > ovals you can't stand financed GPL and GPL 72, if that is a reality ... Cigarette money finances Formula One. Doesnt mean I have to like it. Incidentaly -it's worth noting that Sierra France claim that GPL was not, infact, the failure we are lead to believe it was DOug
SimRacer 02 Dec 2001 21:15 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#149024
John Pancoast <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Most of the tracks are much, much narrower in the sim than in actuality, > especially corner exits. Drive on some of them before you make this comment. I have driven around North Carolina, Lowes, and Bristol in real life. I think Papy actually got this part of their information correct. They look a TON wider on TV and that may be the thing you are basing this on, if so, trust me, they are pretty darn accurate. Coming out of T4 at NC (aka Rockingham) looks like it might be a little wider than a standard 2 lane road in real life. >Re physics........well, when it feels like you're > driving a hovercraft on ice.............a bit fishy IMO. Thats also fairly real, didn't you see Ryan Newman and Bobby Labonte turn themselves around all alone at Charlotte, err Lowes? And Mikey Waltrip also did a loop-d-loop all by himself at the Spring Dover race if I recall correctly. They are called 'slicks' for a reason, and they have to be at the right temperature to grip correctly, also like in real life. Besides, I think a hovercraft on ice would move about like a hovercraft on grass or asphalt for that matter. > Of course, that can be "fixed" via setup/controller tweaks. Heat may or > may not have excess grip levels, but N4 then has to weak of them IMO. You got that right, decent setup helps a ton. Knowing the proper line around a place also helps a lot. > And of course, then there's the "X number of cars get airborne, flipping > end over end, when one is hit at a 10-20 mph" feature..<G> We have had a ton of big wrecks in our league this season (training division anyway) and only the hardest, awkward angle hits have resulted in "flying cars". Of course we don't run the SS's every time so that may be your only experience. > -John
(unknown) 02 Dec 2001 21:28 UTC↳ reply to Douglas Ellison#149025
well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL I'll keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everything here in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9ue5i7$7reb7$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (16 lines)> > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:9udgu3$7l0ek$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:lyrO7.19728$[email hidden]... > > > > It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. The > > rest > > > > used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think > GPL > > > > Nascar 4 > > > > > > No thanks - I know it's an old argument - but I cant stand racing
ovals.
Quoted text (17 lines)> > > > That's fine, that's your opinion but that has nothing to do with the > quality > > of a sim and how good every simmer has it because of that game. You are > > letting personal preference get in the way. It is an excellent sim and > those > > ovals you can't stand financed GPL and GPL 72, if that is a reality ... > > Cigarette money finances Formula One. Doesnt mean I have to like it. > > Incidentaly -it's worth noting that Sierra France claim that GPL was not, > infact, the failure we are lead to believe it was > > DOug > > >
John Pancoast 02 Dec 2001 21:52 UTC↳ reply to SimRacer#149028
Well, never driven on them, but been attending races at almost all of them since 1983, and am a season ticket holder at Bristol, fwiw. TV has nothing to do with my opinion of them <G> And Lowes is one I think was done poorly, as well as Bristol. Rockingham isn't bad. The rest of your comments are obviously because you know nothing about me, where and who I race N4 with, and have in the past, nor how long I've been doing it. If you did, you wouldn't have bothered posting such. No big deal, it's just my opinion of N4. -John SimRacer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HRwO7.134345$[email hidden]... > > John Pancoast <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Most of the tracks are much, much narrower in the sim than inactuality, > > especially corner exits. > > Drive on some of them before you make this comment. I have driven around > North Carolina, Lowes, and Bristol in real life. I think Papy actually got > this part of their information correct. They look a TON wider on TV andthat
Quoted text (9 lines)> may be the thing you are basing this on, if so, trust me, they are pretty > darn accurate. Coming out of T4 at NC (aka Rockingham) looks like it might > be a little wider than a standard 2 lane road in real life. > > >Re physics........well, when it feels like you're > > driving a hovercraft on ice.............a bit fishy IMO. > > Thats also fairly real, didn't you see Ryan Newman and Bobby Labonte turn > themselves around all alone at Charlotte, err Lowes? And Mikey Waltrip
also > did a loop-d-loop all by himself at the Spring Dover race if I recall > correctly. They are called 'slicks' for a reason, and they have to be atthe > right temperature to grip correctly, also like in real life. Besides, I > think a hovercraft on ice would move about like a hovercraft on grass or > asphalt for that matter. > > > Of course, that can be "fixed" via setup/controller tweaks. Heat mayor > > may not have excess grip levels, but N4 then has to weak of them IMO. > > You got that right, decent setup helps a ton. Knowing the proper linearound > a place also helps a lot. > > > And of course, then there's the "X number of cars get airborne,flipping > > end over end, when one is hit at a 10-20 mph" feature..<G> > > We have had a ton of big wrecks in our league this season (trainingdivision
Quoted text (8 lines)> anyway) and only the hardest, awkward angle hits have resulted in "flying > cars". Of course we don't run the SS's every time so that may be your only > experience. > > > -John > > >
Simon Brown 02 Dec 2001 22:22 UTC↳ reply to Douglas Ellison#149032
Well, if you don't like trucks or oval racing, then fair enough you're probably not going to like MBTR and N4. I suppose someone who doesn't like vintage cars or F1 wouldn't like GPL either. They are high quality sims though in my opinion. Actually, come to think of it, I don't like trucks either, but I can't see that it can make a great deal of difference what shape the thing you're driving is on the replays. GP500 was awesome, and yes it is more realistic than Superbike 2001. As for F1 2001, I don't think we're gonna agree here :) I know some of the tracks are bad, but I just learn the tracks as they are in the game and forget that it's supposed to be modelling F1. To be honest, the fact that it's an F1 game is irrelevant for me, it's just a game with some cars and some tracks, and the bottom line for me is that it's fantastic to play. As for the physics, since me saying they're great and you saying they're awful doesn't constitute much of a debate, maybe we should just agree to disagree :) "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9udgu3$7l0ek$[email hidden]... > > "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lyrO7.19728$[email hidden]... > > It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. Therest > > used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think GPL > has > > genuinely helped to push up the quality of physics coding in all other > sims. > > > > I don't own every sim ever made, so apologies if I'm missing the oddgreat
Quoted text (24 lines)> > sim here, but I think there are now five sims that are geuinely worth > > dedicating time to today. > > You do? > > > > Nascar 4 > > No thanks - I know it's an old argument - but I cant stand racing ovals. > > > F1 2001 (patched) - > >Despite a few flaws - the odd corner a bit wrong > > The games a f**king mess. Tracks are chronically innacurate and physics at > best just the sim side of arcade. > > > Mercedes Benz Truck Racing - Another high quality product. Physics, > > graphics, sound all without fault. Strange menu system :) Top sliding > fun > > and plenty of tracks you won't find in other games. > > Agreed - but they're trucks - and that sucks. > > > Superbike 2001 - Ok, so the physics maybe isn't quite as good as the
other
Quoted text (9 lines)> > sims in this list, but there are very few bike sims made, and in my > opinion, > > this is the best (just overtaking gp500). Great tracks, graphics and > sound. > > Top fun for bike nuts. > > GP500 was the one and only Bike sim - ruined by crap online code. > > > Grand Prix Legends - Still the best, and with new tracks and cars, and
the > > new d3d patch, it looks better than ever. The best online play and the > cars > > are always a thrill to drive. Even today I play it way more thananything > > else, including playing in a fantastic online league. > > Grand Prix Legends is the only sim I still play. Frankly - Sim Racershave
Quoted text (7 lines)> it rather poor imo. > > > Doug > > >
Jim Seamus 02 Dec 2001 22:23 UTC↳ reply to Simon Brown#149033
Keep an eye on Rally Trophy. I don't think it deserves to be on this list yet, but it seems pretty likely that a patch will be out soon to fix the most irritating bugs/features... with a little luck this will then let RT reach a higher level of "sim-ness". RTRank support from the guys that do GPLRank will certainly help the long-term replayability as well... http://gplrank.schuerkamp.de/rt_index.html Interesting post Simon, nice one. "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lyrO7.19728$[email hidden]... > It wasn't too long ago when the only sim worth playing was GPL. The rest > used to be all very poor from a physics point of view. Also I think GPLhas > genuinely helped to push up the quality of physics coding in all othersims.
Quoted text (12 lines)> > I don't own every sim ever made, so apologies if I'm missing the odd great > sim here, but I think there are now five sims that are geuinely worth > dedicating time to today. > > Nascar 4 - Fantastic physics, awesome realism, great graphics and sound. > Good AI (now they're fixed) and tremendous close racing. As good a > simulation of the Nascar series as you could imagine on a modern PC. > > F1 2001 (patched) - Despite a few flaws - the odd corner a bit wrong, poor > replays - this is a top sim. The bottom line - how it feels to drive the > car - is flawless. The force-feedback is exceptional. Great graphics,
top > sound. Excellent AI. Totally gripping. > > Mercedes Benz Truck Racing - Another high quality product. Physics, > graphics, sound all without fault. Strange menu system :) Top slidingfun > and plenty of tracks you won't find in other games. > > Superbike 2001 - Ok, so the physics maybe isn't quite as good as the other > sims in this list, but there are very few bike sims made, and in myopinion, > this is the best (just overtaking gp500). Great tracks, graphics andsound. > Top fun for bike nuts. > > Grand Prix Legends - Still the best, and with new tracks and cars, and the > new d3d patch, it looks better than ever. The best online play and thecars
Quoted text (7 lines)> are always a thrill to drive. Even today I play it way more than anything > else, including playing in a fantastic online league. > > As the subject line says, we've never had it better... > Simon. > >
JJ Sricklin 03 Dec 2001 00:08 UTC↳ reply to Schooner#148944
Fans would work better, the colder the air, density increases. But I love people trying to baffle everyone with bullshit. Just admit your wrong about the hoovercraft on ice statement and quite trying to BS your way out of it. Be a man. :) "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:s1wO7.68424$[email hidden]... > Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is moreslick > so > > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and andless > > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with ice > means > > the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will bea
Quoted text (13 lines)> > pain to maintain. > > You :) asked! > > dave henrie > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Lol, good point :) > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to
one
Quoted text (18 lines)> > on > > > > any other surface... > > > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > > =--- > > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
JJ Sricklin 03 Dec 2001 00:08 UTC↳ reply to Schooner#148945
Fans would work better, the colder the air, density increases. But I love people trying to baffle everyone with bullshit. Just admit your wrong about the hoovercraft on ice statement and quite trying to BS your way out of it. Be a man. :) "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:s1wO7.68424$[email hidden]... > Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is moreslick > so > > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and andless > > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with ice > means > > the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will bea
Quoted text (13 lines)> > pain to maintain. > > You :) asked! > > dave henrie > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Lol, good point :) > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to
one
Quoted text (18 lines)> > on > > > > any other surface... > > > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > > =--- > > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
JJ Sricklin 03 Dec 2001 00:12 UTC↳ reply to Tim O#148946
Damn, I thought I was the only one who just never caught the GPL bug. > You forgot to mention Viper Racing. I realize GPL is great, but I > don't really care about the GPL era. I've played it quite a bit, but > it's never addicted me like it has so many here. > Tim >
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 00:38 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148947
Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't mean anything? ROTFLMAO. Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious just how inwardly focused you are. Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLI'll > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everythinghere > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ...
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 00:39 UTC↳ reply to JJ Sricklin#148948
Er, it was me who made the hovercraft on ice statement<G> -John JJ Sricklin <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IszO7.5347$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (23 lines)> Fans would work better, the colder the air, density increases. But I love > people trying to baffle > everyone with bullshit. Just admit your wrong about the hoovercraft on ice > statement and quite > trying to BS your way out of it. Be a man. :) > > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:s1wO7.68424$[email hidden]... > > Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. > > > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > > > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is more > slick > > so > > > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and and > less > > > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with ice > > means > > > the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will
be
Quoted text (12 lines)> a > > > pain to maintain. > > > You :) asked! > > > dave henrie > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Lol, good point :) > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
Quoted text (23 lines)> > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to > one > > > on > > > > > any other surface... > > > > > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > > > =--- > > > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Dave Henrie 03 Dec 2001 00:47 UTC↳ reply to JJ Sricklin#148951
nono..the thicker cold air would cause the individual fan blades to fight more drag.(hey at least you recognize bs when you see it.) :) dave henrie "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IszO7.5347$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (23 lines)> Fans would work better, the colder the air, density increases. But I love > people trying to baffle > everyone with bullshit. Just admit your wrong about the hoovercraft on ice > statement and quite > trying to BS your way out of it. Be a man. :) > > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:s1wO7.68424$[email hidden]... > > Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. > > > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > > > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is more > slick > > so > > > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and and > less > > > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with ice > > means > > > the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will
be
Quoted text (12 lines)> a > > > pain to maintain. > > > You :) asked! > > > dave henrie > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Lol, good point :) > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
Quoted text (23 lines)> > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different to > one > > > on > > > > > any other surface... > > > > > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > > > =--- > > > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Alex Kihurani 03 Dec 2001 01:44 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148958
That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate a place so much they've never been to... Thanks, Alex "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (25 lines)> Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > just how inwardly focused you are. > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > iksteh > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL > I'll > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everything > here > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > >
(unknown) 03 Dec 2001 01:56 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148961
Ok, let me lower my iq for a post. Keep up with the stinking thread, sales makes no difference in the quality of a game, that's why it doesn't matter about the sales of Deer Hunter in this thread, nor does it matter what the popular opinion is about hunting in general in real life IN THIS THREAD. There are 5 Deer Hunter titles and a host of others in the genre. Does that mean they are good? Hell no! Does it mean there are more titles though and that the company can do different titles and genres because of those sales? Hell yes! The whole point of my initial response was not to infuriate foreigners as YOU might think, it was to show that personal preference has nothing to do with the quality of a game, whatever that game is, and following later, that those titles that bring home the bacon aren't necessarily great games but should be respected. This world has many different peoples and tastes and a game should not be counted as not good for a simmer because they don't like racing ovals or that they don't like the concept of hunting. I am a big fan of GPL and what it accomplished. It's still fun to drive. But, driving an old car around a bunch of tracks that either don't exist or have been changed a lot since, doesn't keep my attention long and doesn't simulate anything but a fantasy world since most of us weren't alive during that period. Sorry. On the other hand, it did allow for Papyrus to get a rudementary version of the next physics engine out the door for the next NASCAR title (without tire model and the pit experience) and I respect that immensely. The fact that the plans for NASCAR3's physics being the same or near same model as GPL's being scrapped and delayed until Nascar4, was a direct result of that game's financial failure, whether France did well or not. Does that mean the game is bad? Nope. Does that mean I quit driving the game? Maybe in stints but I do fire it up every once in a while. Does that mean that I don't respect the game and what it brings to the table? No. Does that mean that the simmer does not have it well because of personal preference about racing ovals? No, and that's the whole point. Ok, recharging iq level ... Regards, Phillip "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (25 lines)> Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > just how inwardly focused you are. > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > iksteh > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL > I'll > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everything > here > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > >
Bob 03 Dec 2001 02:20 UTC↳ reply to Alex Kihurani#148967
"Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote: >That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate a >place so much they've never been to... > >Thanks, >Alex Uh, I think he nailed it pretty good. And I've been there... Not a question of "hate" at all (far from it). More a case of "what you see is what you get". And a lot of it ain't a pretty sight. Bob
Quoted text (28 lines)>"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]... >> Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't >> mean anything? ROTFLMAO. >> >> Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans >> are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And >> your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America >> is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While >> you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious >> just how inwardly focused you are. >> >> Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in >> the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). >> >> iksteh >> >> <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL >> I'll >> > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everything >> here >> > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... >> >> >> >
Wosco 03 Dec 2001 02:41 UTC↳ reply to SimRacer#148979
LOL @ your comment about "slicks". If you think slick means the tires have low grip, you may have been misinformed at one point. But good try either way. Jesse
Glen Pittman 03 Dec 2001 02:49 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148972
Yep that's us, a bunch of Rednecks who probably have or will help just about every country there is out there. The guys who are always the first to lend a hand when any other country gets in trouble or suffers a tragedy, but we are so inwardly focused. "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (25 lines)> Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > just how inwardly focused you are. > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > iksteh > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL > I'll > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everything > here > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > >
(unknown) 03 Dec 2001 02:55 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#148973
Does not the fan blow in warm or cold weather? Are these European or African fans??? LOL Phillip "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OYzO7.1870$Px.45065@rwcrnsc54... > nono..the thicker cold air would cause the individual fan blades tofight > more drag.(hey at least you recognize bs when you see it.) :) > dave henrie > "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:IszO7.5347$[email hidden]... > > Fans would work better, the colder the air, density increases. But Ilove > > people trying to baffle > > everyone with bullshit. Just admit your wrong about the hoovercraft onice
Quoted text (18 lines)> > statement and quite > > trying to BS your way out of it. Be a man. :) > > > > > > > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:s1wO7.68424$[email hidden]... > > > Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. > > > > > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > > > > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is more > > slick > > > so > > > > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift and and > > less > > > > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with
ice
Quoted text (18 lines)> > > means > > > > the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, and will > be > > a > > > > pain to maintain. > > > > You :) asked! > > > > dave henrie > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Lol, good point :) > > > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in > message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any different
to
Quoted text (21 lines)> > one > > > > on > > > > > > any other surface... > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > > > > =--- > > > > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Kevin Gavitt 03 Dec 2001 03:13 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148975
[email hidden] wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)> Does not the fan blow in warm or cold weather? > > Are these European or African fans??? > > LOL > > Phillip
I don't know. Aaaaargggh! Yes, that's what it says. "Aaaaargggh!" KFG
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 03:39 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148980
LOL!!! He's a witch, burn 'im!! -John <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (34 lines)> Does not the fan blow in warm or cold weather? > > Are these European or African fans??? > > LOL > > Phillip > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:OYzO7.1870$Px.45065@rwcrnsc54... > > nono..the thicker cold air would cause the individual fan blades to > fight > > more drag.(hey at least you recognize bs when you see it.) :) > > dave henrie > > "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:IszO7.5347$[email hidden]... > > > Fans would work better, the colder the air, density increases. But I > love > > > people trying to baffle > > > everyone with bullshit. Just admit your wrong about the hoovercraft on > ice > > > statement and quite > > > trying to BS your way out of it. Be a man. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:s1wO7.68424$[email hidden]... > > > > Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. > > > > > > > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > > > > > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is
more > > > slick > > > > so > > > > > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift andand > > > less > > > > > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with > ice > > > > means > > > > > the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, andwill
Quoted text (16 lines)> > be > > > a > > > > > pain to maintain. > > > > > You :) asked! > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Lol, good point :) > > > > > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in > > message > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any
different
Quoted text (24 lines)> to > > > one > > > > > on > > > > > > > any other surface... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > > > > > =--- > > > > > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
ymenard 03 Dec 2001 04:03 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148983
><[email hidden]> wrote > Does it mean there are more titles though and > that the company can do different titles and genres because of thosesales? > Hell yes! Yeah, we're all awaiting Deer Hunter Legends, where you only have bow/arrow, or perhaps an old winchester. Or an original colt ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...
David G Fisher 03 Dec 2001 04:37 UTC↳ reply to Glen Pittman#148985
Sorry. Have to agree with him. I'd say most people here in the U.S. are overwhelmingly ignorant of the rest of the world. David G Fisher "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pJBO7.49819$[email hidden]... > Yep that's us, a bunch of Rednecks who probably have or will help justabout > every country there is out there. The guys who are always the first tolend
Quoted text (27 lines)> a hand when any other country gets in trouble or suffers a tragedy, but we > are so inwardly focused. > > > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]... > > Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While > > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > > just how inwardly focused you are. > > > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > > > iksteh > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL > > I'll > > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold
everything
Quoted text (8 lines)> > here > > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > > > > > > > >
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 04:53 UTC↳ reply to Alex Kihurani#148987
"Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate a > place so much they've never been to... Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out that from an external viewpoint, the American public are largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the point are Americans. iksteh
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 04:58 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148986
Perhaps if you left your iq where it normally is, you might have been able to reply to what I posted. I don't think I even mentioned Nascar 4 and I hardly need to be infuriated to think the popularity of deer hunter says something about the average american - all I need is a deathwish. iksteh - wondering what the deal is with the black van that just parked outside his house. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ok, let me lower my iq for a post. Keep up with the stinking thread, sales<snip>
Dave Henrie 03 Dec 2001 05:01 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148890
WE ARE NOT LOUD NOR INGNOR...INGNOR...WELL WE AREN'T THAT WORD!!! dave henrie "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)> "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate a > > place so much they've never been to... > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > point are Americans. > > iksteh > >
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 05:05 UTC↳ reply to David G Fisher#148891
Yes, and the rest of the world is sooooooooo enlightened and global <G> Not...... -John David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:skDO7.278969$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)> Sorry. Have to agree with him. I'd say most people here in the U.S. are > overwhelmingly ignorant of the rest of the world. > > David G Fisher > > "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pJBO7.49819$[email hidden]... > > Yep that's us, a bunch of Rednecks who probably have or will help just > about > > every country there is out there. The guys who are always the first to > lend > > a hand when any other country gets in trouble or suffers a tragedy, but
we
Quoted text (13 lines)> > are so inwardly focused. > > > > > > > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]... > > > Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > > > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > > > > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > > > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > > > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > > > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part.
While
Quoted text (11 lines)> > > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > > > just how inwardly focused you are. > > > > > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > > > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > > > > > iksteh > > > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
Quoted text (13 lines)> > > I'll > > > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold > everything > > > here > > > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 05:06 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148892
And from an American viewpoint, the rest of the world is arrogant and uninformed. There, we've both engaged in incorrect, sweeping, generalizations<G> -John iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)> "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate a > > place so much they've never been to... > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > point are Americans. > > iksteh > >
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 05:07 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#148893
LOL! I are not stoopid. -John Dave Henre <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4HDO7.2030$Px.44560@rwcrnsc54...
Quoted text (8 lines)> WE ARE NOT LOUD NOR INGNOR...INGNOR...WELL WE AREN'T THAT WORD!!! > dave henrie > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]... > > "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate
a
Quoted text (12 lines)> > > place so much they've never been to... > > > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > > point are Americans. > > > > iksteh > > > >
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 05:12 UTC↳ reply to Glen Pittman#148895
I meant the average american, and it's not an uncommon opinion. Helping other countries in trouble? What - by bombing and starving their neighbours? By putting military forces around the world to help us all at gunpoint? Try seeing this from outside the states - the USA is seen as the biggest warmongering nation on earth. Your media must feed you so much bs about your behaviour in the international arena. Consider this - If the USA became involved in a skirmish with Mexico, would the United States appreciate 3 Russian carriers with full escorts patrolling within strike distance "in case assistance is needed"? This is exactly what your government is doing to other countries right now. The world doesn't want world police. Most of all, it doesn't want American world police. I realise I've offended a couple of people - it wasn't my intention and I apologise to most of you here. Then again, if the truth hurts this much, maybe it's time to change things. iksteh "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pJBO7.49819$[email hidden]... > Yep that's us, a bunch of Rednecks who probably have or will help justabout > every country there is out there. The guys who are always the first tolend > a hand when any other country gets in trouble or suffers a tragedy, but we > are so inwardly focused.
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 05:13 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148894
All generalizations suck! "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)> And from an American viewpoint, the rest of the world is arrogant and > uninformed. There, we've both engaged in incorrect, sweeping, > generalizations<G> > > -John > > > iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]... > > "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate
a
Quoted text (14 lines)> > > place so much they've never been to... > > > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > > point are Americans. > > > > iksteh > > > > > >
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 05:16 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148896
Agreed :) -John iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b0901$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (16 lines)> All generalizations suck! > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > And from an American viewpoint, the rest of the world is arrogant and > > uninformed. There, we've both engaged in incorrect, sweeping, > > generalizations<G> > > > > -John > > > > > > iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]... > > > "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can
hate
Quoted text (17 lines)> a > > > > place so much they've never been to... > > > > > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > > > > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > > > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > > > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > > > point are Americans. > > > > > > iksteh > > > > > > > > > > > >
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 05:18 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148897
Er, the Russians only have one aircraft carrier, and it doesn't have near the capability of a US carrier task force........I know, I know, but I couldn't resist<G> -John iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b08ca$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)> I meant the average american, and it's not an uncommon opinion. > > Helping other countries in trouble? What - by bombing and starving > their neighbours? By putting military forces around the world to help > us all at gunpoint? Try seeing this from outside the states - the USA > is seen as the biggest warmongering nation on earth. Your media must > feed you so much bs about your behaviour in the international arena. > > Consider this - If the USA became involved in a skirmish with Mexico, > would the United States appreciate 3 Russian carriers with full escorts > patrolling within strike distance "in case assistance is needed"? This is > exactly what your government is doing to other countries right now. > > The world doesn't want world police. Most of all, it doesn't want > American world police. > > I realise I've offended a couple of people - it wasn't my intention and > I apologise to most of you here. Then again, if the truth hurts this
much,
Quoted text (11 lines)> maybe it's time to change things. > > iksteh > > "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pJBO7.49819$[email hidden]... > > Yep that's us, a bunch of Rednecks who probably have or will help just > about > > every country there is out there. The guys who are always the first to > lend > > a hand when any other country gets in trouble or suffers a tragedy, but
we > > are so inwardly focused. > > >
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 05:56 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148900
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:12:21 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Consider this - If the USA became involved in a skirmish with Mexico, >would the United States appreciate 3 Russian carriers with full escorts >patrolling within strike distance "in case assistance is needed"? This is >exactly what your government is doing to other countries right now. > It's almost completely inconceivable that we will become involved in a skirmish with Mexico. That diplomatic fact probably is responsible, as much as anything, for the US's ability to focus its attention elsewhere in the world. Maybe if the rest of the world quit "skirmishing" with their neighbors they would be able to compete with the US instead of complaining about it.
STP 03 Dec 2001 06:37 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148911
"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)> Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > point are Americans. > > iksteh
You completely missed the point. His only point was that just because something sells well (is popular) doens't necessarily mean it is good. > >
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 06:38 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148910
Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling argument. I even thought up another one involving India building a spaceborn laser system that could take out ICBMs but it's not worth it. Being the strongest and most able gives great responsibility. But being stronger than your peers does not make you intellectually or morally superior. Nor does it give you the right to pass judgement when you have not been elected to do so. iksteh "meettonysoprano" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:12:21 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote:<snip> > It's almost completely inconceivable that we will become involved in a > skirmish with Mexico. That diplomatic fact probably is responsible, > as much as anything, for the US's ability to focus its attention > elsewhere in the world. Maybe if the rest of the world quit > "skirmishing" with their neighbors they would be able to compete with > the US instead of complaining about it.
STP 03 Dec 2001 06:41 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148912
"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b08ca$0$27197$[email hidden]... > I meant the average american, and it's not an uncommon opinion. It's not an uncommon opinion of dumb arrogant Europeans. BTW, I'm Canadian.
Ryan 03 Dec 2001 06:51 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148913
At least we're doing something besides complaining.... Seems to me there are plenty of countries in the world who are perfectly happy to rip into America and call us ignorant and this and that, but when something goes wrong, they're begging us to help because no one else will. So we do, and we still get called names. What does your media feed you about us?????? Ryan
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 07:00 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148914
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:38:30 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling >argument. It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument. US strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest neighbors. If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force overseas. >I even thought up another one involving India building >a spaceborn laser system that could take out ICBMs but it's not >worth it. Since it is completely immaterial you are correct, it wasn't worth even the time it took to type that and tell me about it. > >Being the strongest and most able gives great responsibility. But >being stronger than your peers does not make you intellectually or >morally superior. Nor does it give you the right to pass judgement >when you have not been elected to do so. As you're the one who's passing judgement (on Americans), from what fount of wisdom do *you* derive that right?
Dave Henrie 03 Dec 2001 07:05 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148915
"meettonysoprano" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:38:30 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling > >argument. > > It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument. US > strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest > neighbors. If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the > border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force > overseas.
If we HAD to have tanks on the borders...they would only need to be there for a couple of weeks...then we'd have a few more States to add to the flag. :) dave henrie > >
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 07:37 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148919
"meettonysoprano" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:38:30 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling > >argument. > > It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument. US > strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest > neighbors. If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the > border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force > overseas.
My point was that the argument was hypothetical. Hypothetical arguments do not have to have origins in fact. They are similar to simulations in that we can build a picture of a situation that may not happen and use it to try and predict an outcome. Predictions often say a lot about our present. > >Nor does it give you the right to pass judgement > >when you have not been elected to do so. > > As you're the one who's passing judgement (on Americans), from what > fount of wisdom do *you* derive that right? In case you hadn't noticed, I am obnoxiously spouting my opinion about Americans. My personal opinion (and hence personal judgement) has been formed through my admittedly limited knowledge of history prior to my own birth, and through living in the age where the United States is the only remaining superpower. And I derive that right through my freedom of speech. It would be un-American to try and suppress that surely? Perhaps to be clearer I should have said - judge, jury and executioner. No matter what my opinion, I will get nicely flamed here, will have little impact on the lives of anyone except take some of your time and give you all an outlet for your aggression. I won't be able to take my judgement and drop fscking bombs on people's houses with it. iksteh
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 07:40 UTC↳ reply to STP#148920
Yeah I know, but by the time I realised, it started getting interesting. Oh well. iksteh "STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:O1FO7.871$[email hidden]... > You completely missed the point. His only point was that just because > something sells well (is popular) doens't necessarily mean it is good.
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 07:45 UTC↳ reply to STP#148922
"STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N5FO7.872$[email hidden]... > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0b08ca$0$27197$[email hidden]... > > I meant the average american, and it's not an uncommon opinion. > It's not an uncommon opinion of dumb arrogant Europeans. BTW, I'mCanadian. oi - I'm not a dumb arrogant European. I'm a drunken sex-crazed obnoxious Aussie yobbo feel free to insert your own generalizations - arse end of the world, kangaroo riding in the airport etc etc, pissy Olympics or whatever. We're not so thin skinned down here... iksteh
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 08:05 UTC↳ reply to Ryan#148923
We get your media. We watch cable news and your network news and get the same Reuters etc feeds that you do. Our media is mostly owned by the same interests. Maybe I just see it differently. I don't see it as some miracle of technology when the bombs are shown hitting buildings - I see it as killing more people. I don't see it as an advancement of civilisation, I see it as more death. Ok - how about a different perspective on recent events. I watched (live, as did many others) an unspeakable act committed on thousands of innocent people. I'm referring to the tragedy in New York in September. I saw the American people feel a huge range of emotions - all perfectly valid and understandable. The feelings were echoed worldwide and that so many innocents had to die was shocking. But then I saw the American war machine move into action. Maybe from the American perspective, this was retaliation or revenge for that hurt that had wronged them. From outside the USA? It looked like a whole lot more people, innocent and guilty were about to die in a hunt for the perpetrators. Tragic though the events of Sept were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in? Surely if this was to be a campaign of years (according to the Bush Admin) then further planning and acting differently would prevent further loss of life? So yes, we get fed the same thing. I guess we just feed it through different value systems as well as having a different emotional charge on the situation. iksteh "Ryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SbFO7.665$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)> At least we're doing something besides complaining.... > > Seems to me there are plenty of countries in the world who are perfectly > happy to rip into America and call us ignorant and this and that, but when > something goes wrong, they're begging us to help because no one else will. > So we do, and we still get called names. What does your media feed you > about us?????? > > Ryan > >
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 08:12 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148924
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:05:28 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Tragic though the events of Sept >were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of >similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in? Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons against the US. I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out that threat?
Will DeRivera 03 Dec 2001 08:15 UTC↳ reply to Ryan#148926
Ryan <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SbFO7.665$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)> At least we're doing something besides complaining.... > > Seems to me there are plenty of countries in the world who are perfectly > happy to rip into America and call us ignorant and this and that, but when > something goes wrong, they're begging us to help because no one else will. > So we do, and we still get called names. What does your media feed you > about us?????? > > Ryan >
No, no...screw 'em. If they don't want the US involved, i say fine, pull our men and hardware home and let 'em hash it out on their own...but not before we finish turning Afghanistan into a parking lot and hopefully finish off Iraq while we're over there. Last i checked, however, most of the US deployments were actually through UN involvement. As far as i'm aware, we built up our armed forces for defense anyways. So again, i say, bring our men and hardware home. Let everyone else deal with their pety little issues on their own, thank you very much. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 08:29 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148929
"meettonysoprano" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:05:28 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote:<snip> > Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their > desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons > against the US. I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh > afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out > that threat? By the same logic, any enemies of the United States should be doing their best to eradicate the existing US supplies of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons before the Americans have time to use them. From what I saw on a Mike Moore doco a little while ago, some chemical agents have been sitting in warehouses (in shells) for decades, guarded by less than 5 on duty soldiers. (gas in question was sarin gas, in artillery shells) And before you say the US wouldn't use nukes - they are still the only nation who has used nuclear weapons in anger and once again that was against innocent civilians. US/Nato military also allow for use chemical and biological weapons, at least published and leaked documents during the 80's show that - surely this constitutes a threat to any enemy of the USA. This is why you don't carry a knife in the street. Other people with knives can identify with you too easily :) iksteh
Will DeRivera 03 Dec 2001 08:29 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148928
iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b315d$0$27198$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)> But then I saw the American war machine move into action. Maybe > from the American perspective, this was retaliation or revenge for > that hurt that had wronged them. From outside the USA? It looked > like a whole lot more people, innocent and guilty were about to > die in a hunt for the perpetrators. Tragic though the events of Sept > were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of > similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in? Surely > if this was to be a campaign of years (according to the Bush Admin) > then further planning and acting differently would prevent further loss > of life? >
Strike one, the Taliban are hardly innocent here. Strike two, we're hardly anywhere near hundreds of thousands of innocents. Strike three, i don't care. They way i see it, we have nearly ten thousand lives to make up for. You wanna strike US soil? Knock yourself out, but be prepared for the backlash and kiss your ass goodbye. I suppose you'd prefer everyone to just sit around with their thumbs up their collective ass and let a bunch of jerkass terrorists take over the place, huh? -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com
iksteh 03 Dec 2001 08:43 UTC↳ reply to Will DeRivera#148931
"Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wJGO7.24686$[email hidden]... > > iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0b315d$0$27198$[email hidden]...<snip> > > Strike one, the Taliban are hardly innocent here. Agree. > Strike two, we're hardly anywhere near hundreds of thousands of innocents. Um, then why are we facing one of the worst refugee disasters this century along the pakistan border? I'm not talking direct casualties. I'm talking about the people who saw it coming and fled with nowhere to go and no hope for a future. You think you guys were scared when you got attacked - how must these people feel to run absolutely nowhere? Wow - inspiring terror into the population of another country is akin to...no, i won't say it. > Strike three, i don't care. They way i see it, we have nearly ten thousand > lives to make up for. You wanna strike US soil? Knock yourself out, but be > prepared for the backlash and kiss your ass goodbye. I suppose you'dprefer > everyone to just sit around with their thumbs up their collective ass andlet a bunch of > jerkass terrorists take over the place, huh? I *am* watching as a bunch of jerkarse terrorists take over the place. iksteh
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 08:51 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148932
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:29:12 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)>"meettonysoprano" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:05:28 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: ><snip> >> Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their >> desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons >> against the US. I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh >> afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out >> that threat? > >By the same logic, any enemies of the United States should be >doing their best to eradicate the existing US supplies of nuclear, >biological and chemical weapons before the Americans have time >to use them. From what I saw on a Mike Moore doco a little >while ago, some chemical agents have been sitting in warehouses >(in shells) for decades, guarded by less than 5 on duty soldiers. >(gas in question was sarin gas, in artillery shells)
No that isn't the same logic. The same logic would be if Bush had just publicly stated that he was going to drop nukes on China as soon as he could find out a way to get them over there, in which case the Chinese in fact would be fully justified in taking any necessary steps to prevent such an action. > >And before you say the US wouldn't use nukes - they are still the >only nation who has used nuclear weapons in anger and once again >that was against innocent civilians. Oh you mean the innocent Japanese who started WW2 in Asia, raped Nanking, turned Korean women into sex slaves and bombed Pearl Harbor. Yeah, right.
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 08:58 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148933
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:29:12 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: oh, and... > US/Nato military also allow >for use chemical and biological weapons, at least published and leaked >documents during the 80's show that - surely this constitutes a threat >to any enemy of the USA. > That "paper threat" was a deterrent against a Soviet quick strike against Europe using their superior numbers of conventional weapons on the ground to steamroll Western Europe before the US could get involved. Whether the US actually intended to use *tactical* nukes in such circumstances is a question that will thankfully never have to be answered since the propoganda value of the leaked (gee, I wonder why?) strategy seems to have worked its purpose.
Asbjørn Bjørnstad 03 Dec 2001 09:08 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148935
[email hidden] (meettonysoprano) writes: > Oh you mean the innocent Japanese who started WW2 in Asia, raped > Nanking, turned Korean women into sex slaves and bombed Pearl Harbor. > Yeah, right. No, not those Japanese, the ones without an uniform sitting in their homes in Hiroshima. (Same can be said of Dresden, London and any other cities that were bombed, of course.) -- -asbjxrn
David G Fisher 03 Dec 2001 09:31 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148937
You're a wise man. Americans don't know that they don't know what's going on in the rest of the world. They also don't care that they don't know that they don't know what's going on in the rest of the world. :-) David G Fisher "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b315d$0$27198$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (41 lines)> We get your media. We watch cable news and your network > news and get the same Reuters etc feeds that you do. Our > media is mostly owned by the same interests. > > Maybe I just see it differently. I don't see it as some miracle > of technology when the bombs are shown hitting buildings - I > see it as killing more people. I don't see it as an advancement > of civilisation, I see it as more death. > > Ok - how about a different perspective on recent events. > I watched (live, as did many others) an unspeakable act committed > on thousands of innocent people. I'm referring to the tragedy in > New York in September. > > I saw the American people feel a huge range of emotions - all > perfectly valid and understandable. The feelings were echoed > worldwide and that so many innocents had to die was shocking. > > But then I saw the American war machine move into action. Maybe > from the American perspective, this was retaliation or revenge for > that hurt that had wronged them. From outside the USA? It looked > like a whole lot more people, innocent and guilty were about to > die in a hunt for the perpetrators. Tragic though the events of Sept > were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of > similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in? Surely > if this was to be a campaign of years (according to the Bush Admin) > then further planning and acting differently would prevent further loss > of life? > > So yes, we get fed the same thing. I guess we just feed it through > different value systems as well as having a different emotional charge > on the situation. > > iksteh > > "Ryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SbFO7.665$[email hidden]... > > At least we're doing something besides complaining.... > > > > Seems to me there are plenty of countries in the world who are perfectly > > happy to rip into America and call us ignorant and this and that, but
when > > something goes wrong, they're begging us to help because no one elsewill.
Quoted text (8 lines)> > So we do, and we still get called names. What does your media feed you > > about us?????? > > > > Ryan > > > > > >
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 10:14 UTC↳ reply to Asbjørn Bjørnstad#148845
On 03 Dec 2001 10:08:06 +0100, [email hidden] (Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad) wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)>[email hidden] (meettonysoprano) writes: > >> Oh you mean the innocent Japanese who started WW2 in Asia, raped >> Nanking, turned Korean women into sex slaves and bombed Pearl Harbor. >> Yeah, right. > >No, not those Japanese, the ones without an uniform sitting in their >homes in Hiroshima. (Same can be said of Dresden, London and any other >cities that were bombed, of course.) >--
It would have been nice if the Japanese had put all their military targets together away from the civilians so we could have avoided civilian casulties, that's for sure. Personally I wish they hadn't attacked us in the first place and we could have let them conquer Southeast Asia (including Australia). Wouldn't have been such a bad thing for world civilization, as the Japanese are certainly more cultured than any of the yahoos they were out to take over. Too bad it didn't work out that way for all of us.
Douglas Ellison 03 Dec 2001 11:27 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148851
"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)> "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate a > > place so much they've never been to... > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > point are Americans.
I agree 100% Doug
andrew 03 Dec 2001 14:04 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148869
lol! iksteh wrote:
Quoted text (31 lines)> All generalizations suck! > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > And from an American viewpoint, the rest of the world is arrogant and > > uninformed. There, we've both engaged in incorrect, sweeping, > > generalizations<G> > > > > -John > > > > > > iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]... > > > "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate > a > > > > place so much they've never been to... > > > > > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > > > > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > > > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > > > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > > > point are Americans. > > > > > > iksteh > > > > > > > > > >
andrew 03 Dec 2001 14:05 UTC↳ reply to STP#148870
AOL STP wrote:
Quoted text (15 lines)> "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]... > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > > point are Americans. > > > > iksteh > > You completely missed the point. His only point was that just because > something sells well (is popular) doens't necessarily mean it is good. > > > >
andrew 03 Dec 2001 14:05 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148871
I neither agree nor disagree; I didn't read your post. One word for you: Paragraphs. [email hidden] wrote:
Quoted text (60 lines)> Ok, let me lower my iq for a post. Keep up with the stinking thread, sales > makes no difference in the quality of a game, that's why it doesn't matter > about the sales of Deer Hunter in this thread, nor does it matter what the > popular opinion is about hunting in general in real life IN THIS THREAD. > There are 5 Deer Hunter titles and a host of others in the genre. Does that > mean they are good? Hell no! Does it mean there are more titles though and > that the company can do different titles and genres because of those sales? > Hell yes! The whole point of my initial response was not to infuriate > foreigners as YOU might think, it was to show that personal preference has > nothing to do with the quality of a game, whatever that game is, and > following later, that those titles that bring home the bacon aren't > necessarily great games but should be respected. This world has many > different peoples and tastes and a game should not be counted as not good > for a simmer because they don't like racing ovals or that they don't like > the concept of hunting. I am a big fan of GPL and what it accomplished. It's > still fun to drive. But, driving an old car around a bunch of tracks that > either don't exist or have been changed a lot since, doesn't keep my > attention long and doesn't simulate anything but a fantasy world since most > of us weren't alive during that period. Sorry. On the other hand, it did > allow for Papyrus to get a rudementary version of the next physics engine > out the door for the next NASCAR title (without tire model and the pit > experience) and I respect that immensely. The fact that the plans for > NASCAR3's physics being the same or near same model as GPL's being scrapped > and delayed until Nascar4, was a direct result of that game's financial > failure, whether France did well or not. Does that mean the game is bad? > Nope. Does that mean I quit driving the game? Maybe in stints but I do fire > it up every once in a while. Does that mean that I don't respect the game > and what it brings to the table? No. Does that mean that the simmer does not > have it well because of personal preference about racing ovals? No, and > that's the whole point. Ok, recharging iq level ... > > Regards, Phillip > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]... > > Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While > > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > > just how inwardly focused you are. > > > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > > > iksteh > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL > > I'll > > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everything > > here > > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > > > > >
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 14:19 UTC↳ reply to Ryan#148873
Ryan wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)> > At least we're doing something besides complaining.... > > Seems to me there are plenty of countries in the world who are perfectly > happy to rip into America and call us ignorant and this and that, but when > something goes wrong, they're begging us to help because no one else will. > So we do, and we still get called names. What does your media feed you > about us?????? > > Ryan
No no no, let's get it right. When the US-installed & propped up regimes falter due to their own corruption & human rights violations THEY come begging to the US for help. The people they supposedly represent want us the hell out of their countries & their lives. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 14:21 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148876
meettonysoprano wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:05:28 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Tragic though the events of Sept > >were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of > >similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in? > > Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their > desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons > against the US. I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh > afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out > that threat?
I guess Japan should be going after us then. We actually USED nukes on them. But's that's OK eh?..... -- Fester
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 14:24 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148877
meettonysoprano wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)> > >And before you say the US wouldn't use nukes - they are still the > >only nation who has used nuclear weapons in anger and once again > >that was against innocent civilians. > > Oh you mean the innocent Japanese who started WW2 in Asia, raped > Nanking, turned Korean women into sex slaves and bombed Pearl Harbor. > Yeah, right.
Sorry to say, there were no military there. The nukes were dropped on women, children & the elderly. Just as innocent as those in NYC. The NY incident was correctly called terrorism & horrendous. What we've done to others is as well, although our govt or media won't acknowledge it as such. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 14:31 UTC↳ reply to Will DeRivera#148878
Will DeRivera wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)> > Strike one, the Taliban are hardly innocent here. Strike two, we're hardly > anywhere near hundreds of thousands of innocents. Strike three, i don't > care. They way i see it, we have nearly ten thousand lives to make up for. > You wanna strike US soil? Knock yourself out, but be prepared for the > backlash and kiss your ass goodbye. I suppose you'd prefer everyone to just > sit around with their thumbs up their collective ass and let a bunch of > jerkass terrorists take over the place, huh?
No, we'd like an end to the hypocrisy. Killing is always wrong, whether it's us or them. If revenge killing is acceptable, there will never be an end to any conflict because there will always be deaths that would have to be avenged. There is nothing holier about US led killings, regardless of motivations or causes, than those of any other group in the world. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 14:32 UTC↳ reply to David G Fisher#148879
David G Fisher wrote: > > Sorry. Have to agree with him. I'd say most people here in the U.S. are > overwhelmingly ignorant of the rest of the world. > > David G Fisher Holy cow. Never thought I'd see the day I agreed with DGF! :-P -- Fester
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 14:35 UTC↳ reply to Will DeRivera#148880
Will DeRivera wrote: > So again, i say, bring our > men and hardware home. Let everyone else deal with their pety little issues > on their own, thank you very much. Absolutely. That's what most of the world has been wishing for decades now. I'm talking the *people* of the world, not necessarily their govts. -- Fester
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 15:23 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148883
I always get a kick out of the crowd who says the US should mind it's own business, while at the same time, saying the US needs to become more aware of world affairs......can't have them both, sorry<G> -John
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 15:46 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148887
John Pancoast wrote: > > I always get a kick out of the crowd who says the US should mind it's own > business, while at the same time, saying the US needs to become more aware > of world affairs......can't have them both, sorry<G> > > -John You couldn't be more wrong. :-) If we were aware of how the world felt & what they really thought, we would realize our overwhelming presence around the globe is mostly not appreciated. -- Fester
John Pancoast 03 Dec 2001 16:23 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148797
"Shrug". Oh well. Hey, how about that GPL fov utility, is that cool or what?<G> -John Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > John Pancoast wrote: > > > > I always get a kick out of the crowd who says the US should mind it'sown > > business, while at the same time, saying the US needs to become moreaware
Quoted text (12 lines)> > of world affairs......can't have them both, sorry<G> > > > > -John > > > You couldn't be more wrong. :-) If we were aware of how the world felt > & what they really thought, we would realize our overwhelming presence > around the globe is mostly not appreciated. > > -- > > Fester
STP 03 Dec 2001 16:26 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148798
"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b2cc3$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> oi - I'm not a dumb arrogant European. > I'm a drunken sex-crazed obnoxious Aussie yobbo > > feel free to insert your own generalizations - arse end of > the world, kangaroo riding in the airport etc etc, pissy > Olympics or whatever. We're not so thin skinned down > here... > > iksteh
Oh geez, it's just another sheep shagger. If truth must be told, I'm really a pom living in Canada. It doesn't matter what country you go to, you will find all levels of enlightenment/ignorance there. Depends on how well educated the general populace is as to how ignorant they are.
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 16:38 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148800
On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:21:41 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (18 lines)>meettonysoprano wrote: >> >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:05:28 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >Tragic though the events of Sept >> >were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of >> >similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in? >> >> Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their >> desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons >> against the US. I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh >> afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out >> that threat? > > >I guess Japan should be going after us then. We actually USED nukes on >them. But's that's OK eh?..... >
Because, unlike you and some other posters on here, the Japanese are a rational people, they recognize the essential difference between the phrase "used nukes" and "are going to use nukes". Also they, again unlike you and some other posters, recognize that they were at war, that they lost the war, and that the war is over.
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 16:42 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148801
On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 15:46:28 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)> > >You couldn't be more wrong. :-) If we were aware of how the world felt >& what they really thought, we would realize our overwhelming presence >around the globe is mostly not appreciated. > >--
Yes, its mostly not appreciated by the very people who wish to use their own military to take by force what we are defending. China doesn't appreciate us being there for Taiwan, but what do our friends the Taiwanese think about it?
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 16:52 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148802
meettonysoprano wrote: > Because, unlike you and some other posters on here, the Japanese are a > rational people, they recognize the essential difference between the > phrase "used nukes" and "are going to use nukes". So then, if bin Laden & company actually USE these nukes instead of just talking about their intentions, that changes everything then? Without a double standard, there is a real lack of logic in that statement. <g> >Also they, again > unlike you and some other posters, recognize that they were at war, > that they lost the war, and that the war is over. Besides the fact that we helped to install a regime who would do/see things basically the way we desired them to. Oops, forgot about that one. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 16:58 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148804
meettonysoprano wrote:
Quoted text (14 lines)> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 15:46:28 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > > > >You couldn't be more wrong. :-) If we were aware of how the world felt > >& what they really thought, we would realize our overwhelming presence > >around the globe is mostly not appreciated. > > > >-- > > Yes, its mostly not appreciated by the very people who wish to use > their own military to take by force what we are defending.
More often than not, they are trying to take back what we've helped to take from them in the first place. Need I remind you of Iran & The Shah? -- Fester
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 17:07 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148807
On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:52:03 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (9 lines)>meettonysoprano wrote: > >> Because, unlike you and some other posters on here, the Japanese are a >> rational people, they recognize the essential difference between the >> phrase "used nukes" and "are going to use nukes". > >So then, if bin Laden & company actually USE these nukes instead of just >talking about their intentions, that changes everything then? Without a >double standard, there is a real lack of logic in that statement. <g>
You are surely not the idiot that your lack of analytical ability implies, so I presume you are just being an ass.
Quoted text (8 lines)> >>Also they, again >> unlike you and some other posters, recognize that they were at war, >> that they lost the war, and that the war is over. > >Besides the fact that we helped to install a regime who would do/see >things basically the way we desired them to. Oops, forgot about that >one.
Install a regime? In Japan? We "installed" democracy which has been functioning effectively with the full support of the Japanese people for over 50 years. Oops, forgot about that one?
meettonysoprano 03 Dec 2001 17:13 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148809
On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:58:45 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote: > >More often than not, they are trying to take back what we've helped to >take from them in the first place. Need I remind you of Iran & The >Shah? > Nice try muddying the waters and changing the subject. In case you didn't notice we never sent US troops into Iran to defend the Shah.
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 17:33 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148810
meettonysoprano wrote:
Quoted text (16 lines)> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:52:03 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >meettonysoprano wrote: > > > >> Because, unlike you and some other posters on here, the Japanese are a > >> rational people, they recognize the essential difference between the > >> phrase "used nukes" and "are going to use nukes". > > > >So then, if bin Laden & company actually USE these nukes instead of just > >talking about their intentions, that changes everything then? Without a > >double standard, there is a real lack of logic in that statement. <g> > > You are surely not the idiot that your lack of analytical ability > implies, so I presume you are just being an ass.
I got exactly what you were saying. You are the one who drew a distinction between using & intending to use. Just as I presumed, you operate with a *double standard*. If it would be wrong for bin Laden & company to use nukes (and I agree it would be VERY wrong), then it was wrong for us to use them as well. I'm not the idiot, with that kind of double standard you are the hypocrite.
Quoted text (9 lines)> >>Also they, again > >> unlike you and some other posters, recognize that they were at war, > >> that they lost the war, and that the war is over. > > > >Besides the fact that we helped to install a regime who would do/see > >things basically the way we desired them to. Oops, forgot about that > >one. > > Install a regime? In Japan? We "installed" democracy ......
Think about that one for a minute eh? -- Fester
Uncle Fester 03 Dec 2001 17:36 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148811
meettonysoprano wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:58:45 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >More often than not, they are trying to take back what we've helped to > >take from them in the first place. Need I remind you of Iran & The > >Shah? > > > > Nice try muddying the waters and changing the subject. In case you > didn't notice we never sent US troops into Iran to defend the Shah.
It shows how things in other people's countries get all screwed up & out of their own people's control once we stick our noses in. Which is why many would prefer we keep to ourselves. -- Fester
Will DeRivera 03 Dec 2001 21:30 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148744
iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b3a32$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)> Um, then why are we facing one of the worst refugee disasters > this century along the pakistan border? I'm not talking direct > casualties. I'm talking about the people who saw it coming and > fled with nowhere to go and no hope for a future. You think you > guys were scared when you got attacked - how must these people > feel to run absolutely nowhere? Wow - inspiring terror into the > population of another country is akin to...no, i won't say it. >
Good for them. At least they had a choice to get out of the way. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com
Will DeRivera 03 Dec 2001 21:52 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148749
Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > So then, if bin Laden & company actually USE these nukes instead of just > talking about their intentions, that changes everything then? Without a > double standard, there is a real lack of logic in that statement. <g> > He's made it pretty clear that when he develops the ability to launch nukes our way, he will. So, are you proposing that we sit around and wait for some nukes to fall on our heads? Oh, and for the record, no, i don't fully agree with the dropping of the bombs on Japan. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com
JJ Sricklin 03 Dec 2001 22:22 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148752
"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yes, and the rest of the world is sooooooooo enlightened and global <G> > Not...... > > -John LOL, Ya John the rest of the world is so enlightened enough to know where to beg for handouts. How they soon forget.
JJ Sricklin 03 Dec 2001 22:27 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148754
> Being the strongest and most able gives great responsibility. But > being stronger than your peers does not make you intellectually or > morally superior. It does when you beat them into submission. :)
Milhouse 03 Dec 2001 22:49 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148757
I am so smart! S M R T! Milhouse. =) "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)> LOL! I are not stoopid. > > -John > > > Dave Henre <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4HDO7.2030$Px.44560@rwcrnsc54... > > WE ARE NOT LOUD NOR INGNOR...INGNOR...WELL WE AREN'T THAT WORD!!! > > dave henrie > > > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]... > > > "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can
hate
Quoted text (15 lines)> a > > > > place so much they've never been to... > > > > > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > > > > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > > > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > > > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > > > point are Americans. > > > > > > iksteh > > > > > > > >
Milhouse 03 Dec 2001 23:08 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148761
> > >> Because, unlike you and some other posters on here, the Japanese area > > >> rational people, they recognize the essential difference between the > > >> phrase "used nukes" and "are going to use nukes". > > > > > >So then, if bin Laden & company actually USE these nukes instead ofjust > > >talking about their intentions, that changes everything then? Withouta
Quoted text (12 lines)> > >double standard, there is a real lack of logic in that statement. <g> > > > > You are surely not the idiot that your lack of analytical ability > > implies, so I presume you are just being an ass. > > > I got exactly what you were saying. You are the one who drew a > distinction between using & intending to use. Just as I presumed, you > operate with a *double standard*. If it would be wrong for bin Laden & > company to use nukes (and I agree it would be VERY wrong), then it was > wrong for us to use them as well. I'm not the idiot, with that kind of > double standard you are the hypocrite.
Realize something here. WWII is OVER. It is DONE. Very few people left in the USA today had ANYTHING to do with it, let alone were alive at the time. It's closing in on 60 YEARS ago. It makes a rather poor comparison, in my opinion. The NY attack wasn't even truly prompted, unless you subscribe to OBL's line of thinking. The nuclear attacks weren't unprovoked; Pearl Harbor and a little thing called three years of WWII helped get that. Something tells me from the raw statistics of those who actually use computers and play video games - hence get into stuff like RAS - that there's an extremely small number of people on this NG who were even alive at the time. Even assuming they were just old enough to be in the military, 18, in 1945, that puts them at a birth year of 1927. That makes anyone that age 74 today. I'm not saying it was a particularly great decision to use nuclear weapons. But really, it was either that, or another long, drawn-out ground war. That's how I see it. Osama is making it very clear that if he ever gets the chance, he'll turn that 'harsh afghan winter' into nuclear winter for the rest of us. This is here, this is now, this is -not- done. We know of a threat, and if the government isn't doing everything it can - within reason, mind you, since if it was doing absolutely everything it could, Afghanistan would be the world's largest source of glass by now - to hunt that bigoted freak of nature down, well, I'd be quite pissed. ../RANT OFF/.. Milhouse
Milhouse 03 Dec 2001 23:11 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148764
Good god, LOL, and I just picked up the special edition DVD set... Where is it? Behind the rabbit? It -is- the rabbit! ... You silly sod!!! You tit! I soiled myself I was so scared!!! Oh, what'll it do, nibble your bum?? Roight, one rabbit stew coming up. ... LOOK!!! *squeak* AAAARRGGGHHHH!!!!! Jeeeeezzzuuuss Chriiiiiist!!! I warned ya! I warned ya!!! I've done it again! Oh, it's just a little bunny they say... Tee hee, no, I haven't been watching it too much lately... Milhouse <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (34 lines)> Does not the fan blow in warm or cold weather? > > Are these European or African fans??? > > LOL > > Phillip > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:OYzO7.1870$Px.45065@rwcrnsc54... > > nono..the thicker cold air would cause the individual fan blades to > fight > > more drag.(hey at least you recognize bs when you see it.) :) > > dave henrie > > "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:IszO7.5347$[email hidden]... > > > Fans would work better, the colder the air, density increases. But I > love > > > people trying to baffle > > > everyone with bullshit. Just admit your wrong about the hoovercraft on > ice > > > statement and quite > > > trying to BS your way out of it. Be a man. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:s1wO7.68424$[email hidden]... > > > > Fans would be more efficient in cold dense air actually. > > > > > > > > "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:jXvO7.2309$R84.942@rwcrnsc52... > > > > > Clearly the friction co-eficient of ice compared to water is
more > > > slick > > > > so > > > > > the air molecules have less to grip which provides less lift andand > > > less > > > > > turning ability. Then too the lower temperatures associated with > ice > > > > means > > > > > the fans won't work as efficiently, will be prone to icing, andwill
Quoted text (16 lines)> > be > > > a > > > > > pain to maintain. > > > > > You :) asked! > > > > > dave henrie > > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Lol, good point :) > > > > > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in > > message > > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Please tell us why a hovercraft on ice would feel any
different
Quoted text (24 lines)> to > > > one > > > > > on > > > > > > > any other surface... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan. ;-) > > > > > > > =--- > > > > > > > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" wrote... > > > > > > > > <snip> well, when it feels like you're driving a hovercraft > > > > > > > > on ice............. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Jens H. Kruuse 03 Dec 2001 23:19 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148766
"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse news:[email hidden]... > > It shows how things in other people's countries get all screwed up &out > of their own people's control once we stick our noses in. Which iswhy > many would prefer we keep to ourselves. >This is immensely interesting. On one hand you have calm, rational, empathy and on the other emotional bursts of ignorance exhibited for the World & dog to see. Any sort of middle ground has been carefully exposed to saturation bombing. Keep up the good work guys, the hole is getting bigger by the post. Cheers, Jens
John Pancoast 04 Dec 2001 00:09 UTC↳ reply to JJ Sricklin#148772
:) Funny, we're nothing but trouble-makers, busy bodies, sending our military to interfere all over the world............where did the two worst wars in history start again?<G> Oops, forgot; those are our fault too.......<G> -John JJ Sricklin <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fVSO7.5533$[email hidden]... > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Yes, and the rest of the world is sooooooooo enlightened and global<G> > > Not...... > > > > -John > > > LOL, Ya John the rest of the world is so enlightened enough to know whereto > beg for handouts. How they > soon forget. > > >
Glen Pittman 04 Dec 2001 00:44 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148780
And from an external viewpoint, so are the French, and etc... "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b0479$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)> "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FNAO7.1286$[email hidden]... > > That was a pretty low blow, and I think it's sad that people can hate a > > place so much they've never been to... > > Low blows are my specialty - hence asbestos undies :) > > I don't hate America, or Americans. I just pointed out > that from an external viewpoint, the American public are > largely loud and ignorant. The only people arguing the > point are Americans. > > iksteh > >
iksteh 04 Dec 2001 00:54 UTC↳ reply to STP#148783
"STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KFNO7.956$[email hidden]... <snip> > Oh geez, it's just another sheep shagger. If truth must be told, I'mreally > a pom living in Canada. It doesn't matter what country you go to, you will > find all levels of enlightenment/ignorance there. Depends on how well > educated the general populace is as to how ignorant they are. I agree - it also depends on whether the populace are taught to think for themselves or whether they are taught "policy". As for shagging sheep - that's New Zealand, in Australia we shag english tourists cos they are are easier to find and don't keep you up all night bleating after sex. iksteh
ymenard 04 Dec 2001 01:03 UTC↳ reply to STP#148787
>"STP" <[email hidden]> wrote > Oh geez, it's just another sheep shagger. If truth must be told, I'mreally > a pom living in Canada. Yeah and I must be some sort of freak terrorist that will do anything to get my own country ;) (just teasing, hehe) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...
iksteh 04 Dec 2001 01:08 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148786
"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I always get a kick out of the crowd who says the US should mind it'sown > business, while at the same time, saying the US needs to become more aware > of world affairs......can't have them both, sorry<G> Surely if the US was more aware of world affairs, they *would* be minding their own business? You can definately be aware of something without trying to exert your own influence on it. iksteh
ymenard 04 Dec 2001 01:08 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148691
>"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote > "Shrug". Oh well. Hey, how about that GPL fov utility, is that cool or > what?<G> I hate Bullet-time ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...
Glen Pittman 04 Dec 2001 01:21 UTC↳ reply to andrew#148692
kill file "andrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> I neither agree nor disagree; > > I didn't read your post. One word for you: > > Paragraphs. > > [email hidden] wrote: > > > Ok, let me lower my iq for a post. Keep up with the stinking thread,
sales > > makes no difference in the quality of a game, that's why it doesn'tmatter > > about the sales of Deer Hunter in this thread, nor does it matter whatthe > > popular opinion is about hunting in general in real life IN THIS THREAD. > > There are 5 Deer Hunter titles and a host of others in the genre. Doesthat > > mean they are good? Hell no! Does it mean there are more titles thoughand > > that the company can do different titles and genres because of thosesales? > > Hell yes! The whole point of my initial response was not to infuriate > > foreigners as YOU might think, it was to show that personal preferencehas > > nothing to do with the quality of a game, whatever that game is, and > > following later, that those titles that bring home the bacon aren't > > necessarily great games but should be respected. This world has many > > different peoples and tastes and a game should not be counted as notgood > > for a simmer because they don't like racing ovals or that they don'tlike > > the concept of hunting. I am a big fan of GPL and what it accomplished.It's > > still fun to drive. But, driving an old car around a bunch of tracksthat > > either don't exist or have been changed a lot since, doesn't keep my > > attention long and doesn't simulate anything but a fantasy world sincemost > > of us weren't alive during that period. Sorry. On the other hand, it did > > allow for Papyrus to get a rudementary version of the next physicsengine > > out the door for the next NASCAR title (without tire model and the pit > > experience) and I respect that immensely. The fact that the plans for > > NASCAR3's physics being the same or near same model as GPL's beingscrapped > > and delayed until Nascar4, was a direct result of that game's financial > > failure, whether France did well or not. Does that mean the game is bad? > > Nope. Does that mean I quit driving the game? Maybe in stints but I dofire > > it up every once in a while. Does that mean that I don't respect thegame > > and what it brings to the table? No. Does that mean that the simmer doesnot
Quoted text (14 lines)> > have it well because of personal preference about racing ovals? No, and > > that's the whole point. Ok, recharging iq level ... > > > > Regards, Phillip > > > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]... > > > Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > > > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > > > > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > > > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > > > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > > > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part.
While
Quoted text (11 lines)> > > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > > > just how inwardly focused you are. > > > > > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > > > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > > > > > iksteh > > > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL > > > I'll > > > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsoldeverything > > > here > > > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > > > > > > > > >
John Pancoast 04 Dec 2001 01:40 UTC↳ reply to ymenard#148698
Understood <G> Is Jacob's ng back up? Send me the IP, etc. if you can, thanks. -John ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_hVO7.13125$[email hidden]... > >"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote > > "Shrug". Oh well. Hey, how about that GPL fov utility, is that coolor
Quoted text (17 lines)> > what?<G> > > > I hate Bullet-time ;-) > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >
John Pancoast 04 Dec 2001 01:41 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148699
I'm still having trouble with VROC chat too. Any luck on your end? -John iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0c2132$0$27196$[email hidden]... > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I always get a kick out of the crowd who says the US should mind it's > own > > business, while at the same time, saying the US needs to become moreaware
Quoted text (9 lines)> > of world affairs......can't have them both, sorry<G> > > Surely if the US was more aware of world affairs, they *would* be > minding their own business? You can definately be aware of something > without trying to exert your own influence on it. > > iksteh > >
Glen Pittman 04 Dec 2001 01:41 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148700
At least the people there have the option to run. The people in NYC had no option. If you want to blame someone, blame the Taliban for hiding the terrorists. We gave them plenty of chance to help bring him to justice, but they continue to play on his side. If you want to protect the people of the country, you can't protect the terrorists. I really feel for the people there, but I do not believe that denial will solve anything. If we act like nothing happened, then it will only get much, much worse. First the US, then who? France, England, Australia ? Hitler was a terrorist of sorts, and no one dared to fix the problem before it became a World War. The same could happen here. "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0b3a32$0$27197$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)> "Will DeRivera" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wJGO7.24686$[email hidden]... > > > > iksteh <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c0b315d$0$27198$[email hidden]... > <snip> > > > > Strike one, the Taliban are hardly innocent here. > > Agree. > > > Strike two, we're hardly anywhere near hundreds of thousands of
innocents.
Quoted text (10 lines)> > Um, then why are we facing one of the worst refugee disasters > this century along the pakistan border? I'm not talking direct > casualties. I'm talking about the people who saw it coming and > fled with nowhere to go and no hope for a future. You think you > guys were scared when you got attacked - how must these people > feel to run absolutely nowhere? Wow - inspiring terror into the > population of another country is akin to...no, i won't say it. > > > Strike three, i don't care. They way i see it, we have nearly ten
thousand > > lives to make up for. You wanna strike US soil? Knock yourself out, butbe > > prepared for the backlash and kiss your ass goodbye. I suppose you'd > prefer > > everyone to just sit around with their thumbs up their collective assand
Quoted text (8 lines)> let a bunch of > > jerkass terrorists take over the place, huh? > > I *am* watching as a bunch of jerkarse terrorists take over the place. > > iksteh > >
Glen Pittman 04 Dec 2001 01:45 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148703
But the *people* are to stupid to understand that you don't handle everything by ignoring the problem. If you believe that the world would be fine if each country only looked out for itself, then you sir are one of the *people*. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Will DeRivera wrote: > > So again, i say, bring our > > men and hardware home. Let everyone else deal with their pety littleissues
Quoted text (10 lines)> > on their own, thank you very much. > > > Absolutely. That's what most of the world has been wishing for decades > now. I'm talking the *people* of the world, not necessarily their > govts. > > -- > > Fester
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 03:51 UTC↳ reply to JJ Sricklin#148721
JJ Sricklin wrote: > > > Being the strongest and most able gives great responsibility. But > > being stronger than your peers does not make you intellectually or > > morally superior. > > It does when you beat them into submission. :) Spoken like a true American. :-)) Cheers. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 04:03 UTC↳ reply to Will DeRivera#148724
Will DeRivera wrote:
Quoted text (19 lines)> > Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > So then, if bin Laden & company actually USE these nukes instead of just > > talking about their intentions, that changes everything then? Without a > > double standard, there is a real lack of logic in that statement. <g> > > > > He's made it pretty clear that when he develops the ability to launch nukes > our way, he will. So, are you proposing that we sit around and wait for some > nukes to fall on our heads? > > Oh, and for the record, no, i don't fully agree with the dropping of the > bombs on Japan. > -- > - Will DeRivera > - http://www.numic.net > - http://www.luxt.com
No, to make things clear I don't cherish the thought myself. I just find it appalling that we believe (collectively, as a nation) that our use of nukes was somehow OK, but is wrong when it's anybody else. Some are taking me the opposite way as I'm speaking. I don't support being nuked, I feel it's wrong for everybody (including the US) to engage in such things. Just as they were wrong to attack the Trade Centers & kill innocent civilians, we are equally wrong in attacking them & killing their innocent civilians. So now that we are here & now in this predicament, what do we do? Don't know for sure, it's awfully sticky for sure. But I can tell you it was avoidable in the first place. We've been getting warned since at least 1979 that I'm aware of to take ourselves on home where we belong. Do we have to listen? Of course not. But don't be surprised when something happens because of our refusals. When you are tresspassing on someone else's property, don't be surprised at what may happen when you refuse to leave. -- Fester Why can't we all just get along? <g>
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 04:10 UTC↳ reply to Milhouse#148727
Milhouse wrote:
Quoted text (14 lines)> > Realize something here. > > WWII is OVER. It is DONE. Very few people left in the USA today had > ANYTHING to do with it, let alone were alive at the time. It's closing in > on 60 YEARS ago. It makes a rather poor comparison, in my opinion. The NY > attack wasn't even truly prompted, unless you subscribe to OBL's line of > thinking. The nuclear attacks weren't unprovoked; Pearl Harbor and a little > thing called three years of WWII helped get that. Something tells me from > the raw statistics of those who actually use computers and play video > games - hence get into stuff like RAS - that there's an extremely small > number of people on this NG who were even alive at the time. Even assuming > they were just old enough to be in the military, 18, in 1945, that puts them > at a birth year of 1927. That makes anyone that age 74 today.
So since it was a long time ago, that makes everything OK? > I'm not saying it was a particularly great decision to use nuclear weapons. > But really, it was either that, or another long, drawn-out ground war. > That's how I see it. So rather than have our military men fight their military men, we run back behind enemy lines & bomb their homes. And their women, children & elderly, seeing how the able young men were off in the Pacific fighting us. In other words, killing innocents. And not once either. Twice. :-/
Quoted text (7 lines)> Osama is making it very clear that if he ever gets the chance, he'll turn > that 'harsh afghan winter' into nuclear winter for the rest of us. This is > here, this is now, this is -not- done. We know of a threat, and if the > government isn't doing everything it can - within reason, mind you, since if > it was doing absolutely everything it could, Afghanistan would be the > world's largest source of glass by now - to hunt that bigoted freak of > nature down, well, I'd be quite pissed.
Unpleasant situation to be sure. However, *we* picked this fight. More correctly, our government picked this fight. You know the most frightening question in all this? With all our meddling world wide, who else are we enraging against us for future terrorist acts? I don't even want to think about it. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 04:21 UTC↳ reply to Glen Pittman#148728
Glen Pittman wrote: > > At least the people there have the option to run. The people in NYC had no > option. If you want to blame someone, blame the Taliban for hiding the > terrorists. We gave them plenty of chance to help bring him to justice, but > they continue to play on his side. If you want to protect the people of the > country, you can't protect the terrorists. So let's end the hypocrisy. Spain itself has al 8 Qaeda members detained that it refuses to turn over. Why is it Arab countries get bombed for not handing over terrorists but not European countries when they do the same? (No I don't advocate a bombing campaign on Spain. It just illustrates the way we treat certain groups. Once again, double standards.) > I really feel for the people there, but I do not believe that denial will > solve anything. If we act like nothing happened, then it will only get > much, much worse. First the US, then who? France, England, Australia ? > Hitler was a terrorist of sorts, and no one dared to fix the problem before > it became a World War. The same could happen here. It is happening. -- Fester
meettonysoprano 04 Dec 2001 04:24 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148730
On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 17:36:17 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (9 lines)>> >> Nice try muddying the waters and changing the subject. In case you >> didn't notice we never sent US troops into Iran to defend the Shah. > > >It shows how things in other people's countries get all screwed up & out >of their own people's control once we stick our noses in. Which is why >many would prefer we keep to ourselves. >
Things in Persia were "screwed up" a long time before we stuck our noses in. In fact the American role is Iran is almost entirely symbolic, that of the scape goat.
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 04:25 UTC↳ reply to Glen Pittman#148729
Glen Pittman wrote: > > But the *people* are to stupid to understand that you don't handle > everything by ignoring the problem. If you believe that the world would be > fine if each country only looked out for itself, then you sir are one of the > *people*. So instead let this government go around the globe imposing it's will on everybody. Those who have the audacity to stand up to us, the bullies of the schoolyard, & bloody our nose should just be bombed back to the stone age? Real civilization there. -- Fester
(unknown) 04 Dec 2001 04:26 UTC↳ reply to andrew#148731
Well, if we are going to grade style, then you just broke up one sentence over 5 lines. So, one word for you: Fragments. "andrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> I neither agree nor disagree; > > I didn't read your post. One word for you: > > Paragraphs. > > [email hidden] wrote: > > > Ok, let me lower my iq for a post. Keep up with the stinking thread,
sales > > makes no difference in the quality of a game, that's why it doesn'tmatter > > about the sales of Deer Hunter in this thread, nor does it matter whatthe > > popular opinion is about hunting in general in real life IN THIS THREAD. > > There are 5 Deer Hunter titles and a host of others in the genre. Doesthat > > mean they are good? Hell no! Does it mean there are more titles thoughand > > that the company can do different titles and genres because of thosesales? > > Hell yes! The whole point of my initial response was not to infuriate > > foreigners as YOU might think, it was to show that personal preferencehas > > nothing to do with the quality of a game, whatever that game is, and > > following later, that those titles that bring home the bacon aren't > > necessarily great games but should be respected. This world has many > > different peoples and tastes and a game should not be counted as notgood > > for a simmer because they don't like racing ovals or that they don'tlike > > the concept of hunting. I am a big fan of GPL and what it accomplished.It's > > still fun to drive. But, driving an old car around a bunch of tracksthat > > either don't exist or have been changed a lot since, doesn't keep my > > attention long and doesn't simulate anything but a fantasy world sincemost > > of us weren't alive during that period. Sorry. On the other hand, it did > > allow for Papyrus to get a rudementary version of the next physicsengine > > out the door for the next NASCAR title (without tire model and the pit > > experience) and I respect that immensely. The fact that the plans for > > NASCAR3's physics being the same or near same model as GPL's beingscrapped > > and delayed until Nascar4, was a direct result of that game's financial > > failure, whether France did well or not. Does that mean the game is bad? > > Nope. Does that mean I quit driving the game? Maybe in stints but I dofire > > it up every once in a while. Does that mean that I don't respect thegame > > and what it brings to the table? No. Does that mean that the simmer doesnot
Quoted text (14 lines)> > have it well because of personal preference about racing ovals? No, and > > that's the whole point. Ok, recharging iq level ... > > > > Regards, Phillip > > > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]... > > > Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > > > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > > > > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > > > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > > > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > > > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part.
While
Quoted text (11 lines)> > > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > > > just how inwardly focused you are. > > > > > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > > > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > > > > > iksteh > > > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL > > > I'll > > > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsoldeverything > > > here > > > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > > > > > > > > >
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 04:29 UTC↳ reply to Jens H. Kruuse#148732
"Jens H. Kruuse" wrote:
Quoted text (19 lines)> > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse > news:[email hidden]... > > > > It shows how things in other people's countries get all screwed up & > out > > of their own people's control once we stick our noses in. Which is > why > > many would prefer we keep to ourselves. > > > This is immensely interesting. On one hand you have calm, rational, > empathy and on the other emotional bursts of ignorance exhibited for the > World & dog to see. Any sort of middle ground has been carefully exposed > to saturation bombing. > > Keep up the good work guys, the hole is getting bigger by the post. > > Cheers, > Jens
Hmmm... you for us or against us? :-) -- Fester
(unknown) 04 Dec 2001 04:45 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148736
Do you know what the difference is between us bombing them and them coming after us is? Since you can't figure it out on your own, the Afghan gov't was given an option to stop it all, just like the Japanese were. We told the Afghan gov't to turn over the guy or face the consequences, right? Just like we did with Japan. The Afghan gov't doesnt give two shits about their people or they would turn him over, just like the Japanese gov't didn't give two shits about their people when we had to drop not one but TWO atomic bombs on them before they would surrender. They saw the damage of the first, were given the opportunity to surrender and didn't, and then were bombed again. An unannounced attack vs. a turn him over or else approach is vastly different. Wake up and smell the coffee. The last time I checked, we werent bombing the Japanese before they attacked Pearl Harbor and we were staying out of the war, and the last time I checked, we were not bombing where we are now until we were attacked, and even then we were not until after we told them to let go of Osama or face the consequences. If you can't see the difference, then that's a shame. Have a nice day, Phillip "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (21 lines)> meettonysoprano wrote: > > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:05:28 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Tragic though the events of Sept > > >were - how can the US justify displacing hundreds of thousands of > > >similar innocents just before the harsh afghan winter sets in? > > > > Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban friends have stated quite openly their > > desire to obtain and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons > > against the US. I suppose we should sit around waiting for the harsh > > afghan winter to dissipate before we try to prevent them carrying out > > that threat? > > > I guess Japan should be going after us then. We actually USED nukes on > them. But's that's OK eh?..... > > -- > > Fester
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 05:02 UTC↳ reply to (unknown)#148643
[email hidden] wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)> > Do you know what the difference is between us bombing them and them coming > after us is? Since you can't figure it out on your own, the Afghan gov't was > given an option to stop it all, just like the Japanese were. We told the > Afghan gov't to turn over the guy or face the consequences, right? Just like > we did with Japan. The Afghan gov't doesnt give two shits about their people > or they would turn him over, just like the Japanese gov't didn't give two > shits about their people when we had to drop not one but TWO atomic bombs on > them before they would surrender. They saw the damage of the first, were > given the opportunity to surrender and didn't, and then were bombed again. > An unannounced attack vs. a turn him over or else approach is vastly > different. Wake up and smell the coffee. The last time I checked, we werent > bombing the Japanese before they attacked Pearl Harbor and we were staying > out of the war, and the last time I checked, we were not bombing where we > are now until we were attacked, and even then we were not until after we > told them to let go of Osama or face the consequences. If you can't see the > difference, then that's a shame.
I'm getting rather bored of all this. Before I go, we're gonna play a game of Let's Make a Deal. Let's see what's behind the 3 doors... Door #1 - Bombing & killing innocent civilians is always OK. -- If you choose this door, clam up about NYC. Door #2 - Bombing & killing innocent civilians is always wrong -- Have the backbone to stand up & be counted as you condemn ALL who engage in such activities. Including your own government. Door #3 - Sometimes it's OK, sometimes it isn't. As in "It's OK for us to do it, but not anyone else". Relegate yourself to the heap where the hypocrites & those who are irrelevant stay. Which door you want? I'll take door #2 myself. We can settle this on the track someday. :-) Cheers. -- Fester
David G Fisher 04 Dec 2001 05:52 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148653
I've agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread. How does that make you feel? :-) BTW, we Americans celebrated in the streets after the bombing of Japan, and it's surrender. That's kind of sickening. David G Fisher "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [email hidden] wrote: > > > > Do you know what the difference is between us bombing them and themcoming > > after us is? Since you can't figure it out on your own, the Afghan gov'twas > > given an option to stop it all, just like the Japanese were. We told the > > Afghan gov't to turn over the guy or face the consequences, right? Justlike > > we did with Japan. The Afghan gov't doesnt give two shits about theirpeople > > or they would turn him over, just like the Japanese gov't didn't givetwo > > shits about their people when we had to drop not one but TWO atomicbombs on > > them before they would surrender. They saw the damage of the first, were > > given the opportunity to surrender and didn't, and then were bombedagain. > > An unannounced attack vs. a turn him over or else approach is vastly > > different. Wake up and smell the coffee. The last time I checked, wewerent > > bombing the Japanese before they attacked Pearl Harbor and we werestaying > > out of the war, and the last time I checked, we were not bombing wherewe > > are now until we were attacked, and even then we were not until after we > > told them to let go of Osama or face the consequences. If you can't seethe
Quoted text (24 lines)> > difference, then that's a shame. > > > I'm getting rather bored of all this. Before I go, we're gonna play a > game of Let's Make a Deal. Let's see what's behind the 3 doors... > > Door #1 - Bombing & killing innocent civilians is always OK. -- If you > choose this door, clam up about NYC. > > Door #2 - Bombing & killing innocent civilians is always wrong -- Have > the backbone to stand up & be counted as you condemn ALL who engage in > such activities. Including your own government. > > Door #3 - Sometimes it's OK, sometimes it isn't. As in "It's OK for us > to do it, but not anyone else". Relegate yourself to the heap where the > hypocrites & those who are irrelevant stay. > > Which door you want? I'll take door #2 myself. > > We can settle this on the track someday. :-) Cheers. > > -- > > Fester
Dave Henrie 04 Dec 2001 06:43 UTC↳ reply to David G Fisher#148658
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pwZO7.281896$[email hidden]... > I've agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread. > > How does that make you feel? :-) > > BTW, we Americans celebrated in the streets after the bombing of Japan,and > it's surrender. That's kind of sickening. > > David G Fisher What were they celebrating? The killing, maiming, destroying of Japanese? No I think the celebrations were there for two things...a) We won and in winning validated our system/lives etc. B) <note the capitol letter, cuz this is the more important reason> Our husbands, our sons, our Fathers, our friends our Uncles, our neighbors, our cousins our daughters our sisters could now come home. That, in my opinion, was the basis for much of the celebration. Not that we had triumphed over evil, or tyrants, or any socio-economic reason...Our Families were going to be whole again. Unfortunately..the sick thing is...many of those families were not ever whole again. dave henrie
David G Fisher 04 Dec 2001 09:18 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#148675
Sorry, but under NO circumstances would I EVER in ANY way celebrate ANYTHING after 250,000 innocent people were just fried. David G Fisher "Dave Henre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sg_O7.3710$R84.21091@rwcrnsc52...
Quoted text (12 lines)> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:pwZO7.281896$[email hidden]... > > I've agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread. > > > > How does that make you feel? :-) > > > > BTW, we Americans celebrated in the streets after the bombing of Japan, > and > > it's surrender. That's kind of sickening. > > > > David G Fisher > What were they celebrating? The killing, maiming, destroying of
Japanese? > No I think the celebrations were there for two things...a) We won and in > winning validated our system/lives etc. B) <note the capitol letter, cuz > this is the more important reason> Our husbands, our sons, our Fathers,our
Quoted text (9 lines)> friends our Uncles, our neighbors, our cousins our daughters our sisters > could now come home. That, in my opinion, was the basis for much of the > celebration. Not that we had triumphed over evil, or tyrants, or any > socio-economic reason...Our Families were going to be whole again. > Unfortunately..the sick thing is...many of those families were not ever > whole again. > dave henrie > >
Jan Verschueren 04 Dec 2001 09:53 UTC↳ reply to David G Fisher#148678
Substitute "knowing" for "after" and you might get closer to the reason why people celebrated. 1945 was not exactly the information age. Even if the brutal details made it to the papers, I'm sure most people didn't read past "War Over" initially. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "David G Fisher" wrote... > Sorry, but under NO circumstances would I EVER in ANY way > celebrate ANYTHING after 250,000 innocent people were just > fried. > > David G Fisher
jason moyer 04 Dec 2001 10:42 UTC↳ reply to Glen Pittman#148682
As a fellow American, I have to agree that we're really a friendly nation (after we train terrorists to kill your leaders and install military dictatorships in place of your rightfully elected governments) and will offer a helping hand to those in need (if you have enough oil or opium). We're also an extremely well-informed people (more TV's than bathrooms, according to surveys) with a real sense of national pride and unity (if you're not Asian, Black, Hispanic, or Arabic). Our government sets the global standard (in terms of scandals and corruption), being run by intelligent (Bush), compassionate (Ashcroft), and peaceful (Cheney) men who will risk life and limb (hiding in underground bunkers) to protect truth (via domestic and foreign covert operations), justice (unless you're ruling on an election which you have direct personal and financial ties to), and freedom (unless explicity taken away by the Patriot act). It's bad enough we feel the need to police the world, but do we have to put the LAPD in charge of it? America is a land of cowboys drinking crap corporate beer, but thankfully most of us have no interest in messing with these gosh dang computer thingamajigs. In response to Iksteh, the reason F1 sales in the US suck is because modern F1 is a pile of crap. I love 1950-1990ish F1 to death, and am salivating over the thought of GPL 72, but you can't tell me drag racing between 30mph corners and chicanes is a great motorsport. CART has F1 beat in nearly every conceivable way, from the layout of the tracks to the on-track competition (ok, so we're lacking in marketing, 2 out 3 isn't bad =). If you want to export something useful to the US, give us some rally TV coverage and some real rally sims (I'm talking Rally Masters handling with Mobil 1 tracks and damage realism here). I live in Pittsburgh, so I could trade you some, uh, steel or something for it. We proud and self-sustaining Americans import most of it nowadays anyway. --Jason (Guinness anyone?) "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<pJBO7.49819$[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (34 lines)> Yep that's us, a bunch of Rednecks who probably have or will help just about > every country there is out there. The guys who are always the first to lend > a hand when any other country gets in trouble or suffers a tragedy, but we > are so inwardly focused. > > > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c0ac8a6$0$27198$[email hidden]... > > Deer Hunter outsells everything else in the USA and it doesn't > > mean anything? ROTFLMAO. > > > > Looking from the outside in, it implies the majority of Americans > > are a bunch of rednecks who love killing innocent creatures. And > > your comment about French sales just about clinches it...America > > is not the be-all, end-all of the world - just the loudest part. While > > you dismiss the rest of the world as unimportant, you make it obvious > > just how inwardly focused you are. > > > > Did it ever occur to you that F1 game sales shouldn't do as well in > > the USA as in European countries (given the origins of F1). > > > > iksteh > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > well, it's great to see the game did well in France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL > I'll > > > keep that in mind if I ever go there ... Deer Hunter outsold everything > here > > > in the states, that doesn't mean anything ... > > > > > >
Rafe McAuliffe 04 Dec 2001 12:16 UTC↳ reply to jason moyer#148595
On 4 Dec 2001 02:42:54 -0800, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)>As a fellow American, I have to agree that we're really a friendly >nation (after we train terrorists to kill your leaders and install >military dictatorships in place of your rightfully elected >governments) and will offer a helping hand to those in need (if you >have enough oil or opium). We're also an extremely well-informed >people (more TV's than bathrooms, according to surveys) with a real >sense of national pride and unity (if you're not Asian, Black, >Hispanic, or Arabic). Our government sets the global standard (in >terms of scandals and corruption), being run by intelligent (Bush), >compassionate (Ashcroft), and peaceful (Cheney) men who will risk life >and limb (hiding in underground bunkers) to protect truth (via >domestic and foreign covert operations), justice (unless you're ruling >on an election which you have direct personal and financial ties to), >and freedom (unless explicity taken away by the Patriot act). It's >bad enough we feel the need to police the world, but do we have to put >the LAPD in charge of it? >
Quality post, I like :) Rafe Mc
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 12:48 UTC↳ reply to Jan Verschueren#148600
Jan Verschueren wrote: > > Substitute "knowing" for "after" and you might get closer to the reason why > people celebrated. 1945 was not exactly the information age. Even if the > brutal details made it to the papers, I'm sure most people didn't read past > "War Over" initially. Although I wholeheartedly agree with David's sentiments, I believe you are more correct on what was happening in the people's minds at the time. :-( -- Fester
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 12:49 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#148601
Dave Henre wrote: > > Unfortunately..the sick thing is...many of those families were not ever > whole again. > dave henrie Yes, sad indeed. In war there are no winners. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 12:52 UTC↳ reply to David G Fisher#148603
David G Fisher wrote: > > I've agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread. > > How does that make you feel? :-) Mortified. :-) > BTW, we Americans celebrated in the streets after the bombing of Japan, and > it's surrender. That's kind of sickening. Reminds me of the Palestinian celebrations after the WTC bombings. However I think Jan has a firm grip on our mindset at the time. Doesn't justify it totally, mind you, but helps to explain it I guess. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 13:02 UTC↳ reply to jason moyer#148606
jason moyer wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)> > As a fellow American, I have to agree that we're really a friendly > nation (after we train terrorists to kill your leaders and install > military dictatorships in place of your rightfully elected > governments) and will offer a helping hand to those in need (if you > have enough oil or opium). We're also an extremely well-informed > people (more TV's than bathrooms, according to surveys) with a real > sense of national pride and unity (if you're not Asian, Black, > Hispanic, or Arabic). Our government sets the global standard (in > terms of scandals and corruption), being run by intelligent (Bush), > compassionate (Ashcroft), and peaceful (Cheney) men who will risk life > and limb (hiding in underground bunkers) to protect truth (via > domestic and foreign covert operations), justice (unless you're ruling > on an election which you have direct personal and financial ties to), > and freedom (unless explicity taken away by the Patriot act). It's > bad enough we feel the need to police the world, but do we have to put > the LAPD in charge of it?
God this is funny! My sides ache. Too much truth in here. :-) -- Fester
Stephen Ferguson 04 Dec 2001 14:02 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148617
Of course, none of us have ever personally experienced a major war, so I think it is difficult to say what our real reactions would be. Stephen "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Jan Verschueren wrote: > > > > Substitute "knowing" for "after" and you might get closer to the reasonwhy > > people celebrated. 1945 was not exactly the information age. Even if the > > brutal details made it to the papers, I'm sure most people didn't readpast
Quoted text (10 lines)> > "War Over" initially. > > > Although I wholeheartedly agree with David's sentiments, I believe you > are more correct on what was happening in the people's minds at the > time. :-( > > -- > > Fester
John Pancoast 04 Dec 2001 14:51 UTC↳ reply to David G Fisher#148625
Considering that that bombing most likely save my Grandfather's life, I would have too. -John David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pwZO7.281896$[email hidden]... > I've agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread. > > How does that make you feel? :-) > > BTW, we Americans celebrated in the streets after the bombing of Japan,and
Quoted text (13 lines)> it's surrender. That's kind of sickening. > > David G Fisher > > > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > [email hidden] wrote: > > > > > > Do you know what the difference is between us bombing them and them > coming > > > after us is? Since you can't figure it out on your own, the Afghan
gov't > was > > > given an option to stop it all, just like the Japanese were. We toldthe > > > Afghan gov't to turn over the guy or face the consequences, right?Just
Quoted text (8 lines)> like > > > we did with Japan. The Afghan gov't doesnt give two shits about their > people > > > or they would turn him over, just like the Japanese gov't didn't give > two > > > shits about their people when we had to drop not one but TWO atomic > bombs on > > > them before they would surrender. They saw the damage of the first,
were
Quoted text (10 lines)> > > given the opportunity to surrender and didn't, and then were bombed > again. > > > An unannounced attack vs. a turn him over or else approach is vastly > > > different. Wake up and smell the coffee. The last time I checked, we > werent > > > bombing the Japanese before they attacked Pearl Harbor and we were > staying > > > out of the war, and the last time I checked, we were not bombing where > we > > > are now until we were attacked, and even then we were not until after
we > > > told them to let go of Osama or face the consequences. If you can'tsee
Quoted text (27 lines)> the > > > difference, then that's a shame. > > > > > > I'm getting rather bored of all this. Before I go, we're gonna play a > > game of Let's Make a Deal. Let's see what's behind the 3 doors... > > > > Door #1 - Bombing & killing innocent civilians is always OK. -- If you > > choose this door, clam up about NYC. > > > > Door #2 - Bombing & killing innocent civilians is always wrong -- Have > > the backbone to stand up & be counted as you condemn ALL who engage in > > such activities. Including your own government. > > > > Door #3 - Sometimes it's OK, sometimes it isn't. As in "It's OK for us > > to do it, but not anyone else". Relegate yourself to the heap where the > > hypocrites & those who are irrelevant stay. > > > > Which door you want? I'll take door #2 myself. > > > > We can settle this on the track someday. :-) Cheers. > > > > -- > > > > Fester > >
Ryan 04 Dec 2001 15:07 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148626
> So let's end the hypocrisy. Spain itself has al 8 Qaeda members > detained that it refuses to turn over. Why is it Arab countries get > bombed for not handing over terrorists but not European countries when > they do the same? (No I don't advocate a bombing campaign on Spain. It > just illustrates the way we treat certain groups. Once again, double > standards.)Because at least we know that Spain won't let them go until they have had their day in court. Most of the Arab countries would probably release them and never even try them at all. As long as Spain detains them, we know where they are. And besides, Spain isn't harboring the terrorists like Afghanistan does. > It is happening.How? Ryan
Uncle Fester 04 Dec 2001 15:47 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148630
John Pancoast wrote: > > Considering that that bombing most likely save my Grandfather's life, I > would have too. And I am glad for your grandfather's sake. But I am deeply saddened for all the other grandfathers who lost their lives at our hands in those attacks. They were not guilty parties who deserved retribution from us. Those civilians who lost their lives in Japan did nothing to us. Their government/military did, although that's another subject entirely. -- Fester
John Pancoast 04 Dec 2001 19:49 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148568
Agreed, though there was plenty of Chinese, American, British, etc. civilians who suffered the same fate(death, etc.)from those who started the war, the Japanese. I just have a problem applying 2001 morals to a 1945 event. Borders on revisionism IMO. -John Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > John Pancoast wrote: > > > > Considering that that bombing most likely save my Grandfather's life,I
Quoted text (13 lines)> > would have too. > > > > And I am glad for your grandfather's sake. But I am deeply saddened for > all the other grandfathers who lost their lives at our hands in those > attacks. They were not guilty parties who deserved retribution from > us. Those civilians who lost their lives in Japan did nothing to us. > Their government/military did, although that's another subject entirely. > > -- > > Fester
Milhouse 04 Dec 2001 22:05 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148578
"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Milhouse wrote: > > > > Realize something here. > > > > WWII is OVER. It is DONE. Very few people left in the USA today had > > ANYTHING to do with it, let alone were alive at the time. It'sclosing in > > on 60 YEARS ago. It makes a rather poor comparison, in my opinion. TheNY > > attack wasn't even truly prompted, unless you subscribe to OBL's line of > > thinking. The nuclear attacks weren't unprovoked; Pearl Harbor and alittle > > thing called three years of WWII helped get that. Something tells mefrom > > the raw statistics of those who actually use computers and play video > > games - hence get into stuff like RAS - that there's an extremely small > > number of people on this NG who were even alive at the time. Evenassuming > > they were just old enough to be in the military, 18, in 1945, that putsthem > > at a birth year of 1927. That makes anyone that age 74 today. > > > So since it was a long time ago, that makes everything OK? Not particularly so. But arguing and bickering about it isn't going to change history, is it? > > > I'm not saying it was a particularly great decision to use nuclearweapons.
Quoted text (9 lines)> > But really, it was either that, or another long, drawn-out ground war. > > That's how I see it. > > > So rather than have our military men fight their military men, we run > back behind enemy lines & bomb their homes. And their women, children & > elderly, seeing how the able young men were off in the Pacific fighting > us. In other words, killing innocents. And not once either. Twice. > :-/
You really think that if they'd have just fought a ground war, it'd have never gotten onto the home turf either way? If there hadn't have been the nukes, it'd have been a ground war; and one side would eventually drive the other back to their homeland and continue the fighting there. So, with the ground war, you throw in a bunch of military casualties on both sides while you're at it, and one side - it could've been us, even - still ends up with some areas of wasteland, massive civillian casualties, and everything that goes along with it. > > > Osama is making it very clear that if he ever gets the chance, he'llturn > > that 'harsh afghan winter' into nuclear winter for the rest of us. Thisis > > here, this is now, this is -not- done. We know of a threat, and if the > > government isn't doing everything it can - within reason, mind you,since if
Quoted text (10 lines)> > it was doing absolutely everything it could, Afghanistan would be the > > world's largest source of glass by now - to hunt that bigoted freak of > > nature down, well, I'd be quite pissed. > > > Unpleasant situation to be sure. However, *we* picked this fight. More > correctly, our government picked this fight. You know the most > frightening question in all this? With all our meddling world wide, who > else are we enraging against us for future terrorist acts? I don't even > want to think about it.
Excuse me? We picked this fight? We're talking about the kind of guy who would shoot a woman in the street if she wasn't covered head to toe. And then, if you use your we-picked-this-fight logic...well, what are we going to do then, not finish it? Milhouse
Milhouse 04 Dec 2001 22:14 UTC↳ reply to Wosco#148579
More like 'LOL @ you'. Slicks aren't necessarily called that for their performance characteristics, but what he said of their performance is quite true. You won't find much grip in them at all until you heat them up. And to everyone complaining about the lack of grip...Winston Cup cars are NOT CART cars. They don't have ground effects, they don't have terribly sophisticated suspensions (they still use a live axle!), and they weigh 3600lbs with 800 horsepower. Just try to make that ride anything but an exercise in trying to find grip. Milhouse "Jesse Black" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9ueopa$37e$[email hidden]... > LOL @ your comment about "slicks". If you think slick means the tireshave > low grip, you may have been misinformed at one point. But good try either > way. > > Jesse > >
Gerald Moore 04 Dec 2001 22:20 UTC↳ reply to jason moyer#148582
[email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (16 lines)> As a fellow American, I have to agree that we're really a friendly > nation (after we train terrorists to kill your leaders and install > military dictatorships in place of your rightfully elected > governments) and will offer a helping hand to those in need (if you > have enough oil or opium). We're also an extremely well-informed > people (more TV's than bathrooms, according to surveys) with a real > sense of national pride and unity (if you're not Asian, Black, > Hispanic, or Arabic). Our government sets the global standard (in > terms of scandals and corruption), being run by intelligent (Bush), > compassionate (Ashcroft), and peaceful (Cheney) men who will risk life > and limb (hiding in underground bunkers) to protect truth (via > domestic and foreign covert operations), justice (unless you're ruling > on an election which you have direct personal and financial ties to), > and freedom (unless explicity taken away by the Patriot act). It's > bad enough we feel the need to police the world, but do we have to put > the LAPD in charge of it?
Right on. Sometimes, I feel like I am the Skipper living in an entire land of Gilligans. > America is a land of cowboys drinking crap corporate beer, but > thankfully most of us have no interest in messing with these gosh dang > computer thingamajigs. So, drunk cowboys playing with computers is a bad thing? I'm confused. I thought that was the m/o of the USAF. Maybe I need another Coors Light. > --Jason (Guinness anyone?) Sure, you buyin? Have you tried the draft in the bottle?
Jens H. Kruuse 04 Dec 2001 22:31 UTC↳ reply to Milhouse#148586
"Milhouse" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse news:4NbP7.29495$[email hidden]... > <Snip!> > You really think that if they'd have just fought a ground war, it'dhave > never gotten onto the home turf either way? If there hadn't have beenthe > nukes, it'd have been a ground war; and one side would eventuallydrive the > other back to their homeland and continue the fighting there. So,with the > ground war, you throw in a bunch of military casualties on both sideswhile > you're at it, and one side - it could've been us, even - still ends upwith > some areas of wasteland, massive civillian casualties, and everythingthat > goes along with it. > Let's dispell this myth once and for all, shall we? Abstaining from using the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not force the Allies to invade Japan. As a matter of fact, the firebombings carried out by the Americans from early March and onwards took a much greater toll on the Japanese people's will to fight. The damage caused by these bombings was much greater than that of the nuclear bombs. The effort nearly depleted the US stores of incendiary bombs according to one source, which I unfortunately cannot find at the moment. By the time the nukes fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was beaten. Utterly and completely. For an excellent (and horrible) summary, see: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jmt26/firebomb.htm Additional sources are listed at the bottom. "In the aftermath of the war, casualty figures for the Tokyo attack was reported anywhere from 152,689 to 234,412." /Jens
ymenard 04 Dec 2001 22:50 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148491
>"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote > Understood <G> Is Jacob's ng back up? Send me the IP, etc. if youcan, > thanks. > > ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote > > I hate Bullet-time ;-) Yeah the "nerd" (hehe) gave food to some of his hamsters so they started going around the wheel, thus making electricity for his news server to work temporarily. You can find it as it's usual old address, news.simracing.org . Not much happening there at the moment. MHO will come back as soon as the whole @home issue is solved. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...
Will DeRivera 04 Dec 2001 23:37 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148498
John Pancoast <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Agreed, though there was plenty of Chinese, American, British, etc. > civilians who suffered the same fate(death, etc.)from those who startedthe > war, the Japanese. > I just have a problem applying 2001 morals to a 1945 event. Borders on > revisionism IMO. > > -John > Thank you. I'm glad i'm not the only one who can see the difference. -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com
John Pancoast 05 Dec 2001 00:23 UTC↳ reply to ymenard#148503
Lol, thanks. -John > > Yeah the "nerd" (hehe) gave food to some of his hamsters so they started > going around the wheel, thus making electricity for his news server towork > temporarily. You can find it as it's usual old address,news.simracing.org
Quoted text (15 lines)> . Not much happening there at the moment. MHO will come back as soon as > the whole @home issue is solved. > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >
John Pancoast 05 Dec 2001 00:26 UTC↳ reply to Milhouse#148504
They have more than is in N4 <G> -John
Quoted text (11 lines)> And to everyone complaining about the lack of grip...Winston Cup cars are > NOT CART cars. They don't have ground effects, they don't have terribly > sophisticated suspensions (they still use a live axle!), and they weigh > 3600lbs with 800 horsepower. Just try to make that ride anything but an > exercise in trying to find grip. > > Milhouse > > " > >
John Pancoast 05 Dec 2001 02:05 UTC↳ reply to Will DeRivera#148521
Np......now, does this mean you'll slow down(waaay down, lol) and let me pass you Friday night for a change<G>? -John Will DeRivera <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:l7dP7.2479$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (20 lines)> > John Pancoast <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Agreed, though there was plenty of Chinese, American, British, etc. > > civilians who suffered the same fate(death, etc.)from those who started > the > > war, the Japanese. > > I just have a problem applying 2001 morals to a 1945 event. Borders on > > revisionism IMO. > > > > -John > > > > Thank you. I'm glad i'm not the only one who can see the difference. > -- > - Will DeRivera > - http://www.numic.net > - http://www.luxt.com > >
Uncle Fester 05 Dec 2001 03:51 UTC↳ reply to Jens H. Kruuse#148534
"Jens H. Kruuse" wrote:
Quoted text (11 lines)> By the time the nukes fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was beaten. > Utterly and completely. > > For an excellent (and horrible) summary, see: > http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jmt26/firebomb.htm > Additional sources are listed at the bottom. > > "In the aftermath of the war, casualty figures for the Tokyo attack was > reported anywhere from 152,689 to 234,412." > > /Jens
Very informative site. Thanks for the link. -- Fester
Uncle Fester 05 Dec 2001 03:53 UTC↳ reply to John Pancoast#148535
John Pancoast wrote: > > Agreed, though there was plenty of Chinese, American, British, etc. > civilians who suffered the same fate(death, etc.)from those who started the > war, the Japanese. > I just have a problem applying 2001 morals to a 1945 event. Borders on > revisionism IMO. Pardon me? Killing innocents is 2001 morals? OK..... -- Fester
John Pancoast 05 Dec 2001 04:28 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148538
No, but judging whether the bomb should/should not have been used is. That's just having "crystal clear" vision.........56 years after the fact. No big deal; no one's really "right", just viewpoints is all. -John Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > John Pancoast wrote: > > > > Agreed, though there was plenty of Chinese, American, British, etc. > > civilians who suffered the same fate(death, etc.)from those who startedthe
Quoted text (10 lines)> > war, the Japanese. > > I just have a problem applying 2001 morals to a 1945 event. Borders on > > revisionism IMO. > > > Pardon me? Killing innocents is 2001 morals? OK..... > > -- > > Fester
jason moyer 05 Dec 2001 06:03 UTC↳ reply to Gerald Moore#148453
[email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote in message > > --Jason (Guinness anyone?) > > Sure, you buyin? Sure thing. I can get Guinness here for $2/pint which isn't too bad considering that a case is $45 and I pay $3 for a bottle of Yuengling half the time. > Have you tried the draft in the bottle? I saw an ad for the new bottled Guinness but honestly I have to say I'm a little bit skeptical considering how bad bottled Guinness has traditionally been. If I can find a place serving it around here I'll have to check it out. --Jason
Stephen Ferguson 05 Dec 2001 09:03 UTC↳ reply to Jens H. Kruuse#148463
"Jens H. Kruuse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%8cP7.2671$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (22 lines)> > > Let's dispell this myth once and for all, shall we? Abstaining from > using the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not force the Allies > to invade Japan. As a matter of fact, the firebombings carried out by > the Americans from early March and onwards took a much greater toll on > the Japanese people's will to fight. The damage caused by these bombings > was much greater than that of the nuclear bombs. The effort nearly > depleted the US stores of incendiary bombs according to one source, > which I unfortunately cannot find at the moment. > > By the time the nukes fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was beaten. > Utterly and completely. > > For an excellent (and horrible) summary, see: > http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jmt26/firebomb.htm > Additional sources are listed at the bottom. > > "In the aftermath of the war, casualty figures for the Tokyo attack was > reported anywhere from 152,689 to 234,412." > > /Jens >
Yep. After they saw what a "good" idea it was with Dresden, they just loaded them as fast as they could into the planes. Stephen
Gerald Moore 05 Dec 2001 14:10 UTC↳ reply to jason moyer#148390
Nice price. It's about $4 or $5 here for a pint. They have been selling it in the grocery stores here in a tall can, with some sort of "widget" which magically transforms it into a more authentic replica of the actual draft beer. Assume the new bottle works the same way. cheers, Gerald [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (18 lines)> [email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote in message > > > > --Jason (Guinness anyone?) > > > > Sure, you buyin? > > Sure thing. I can get Guinness here for $2/pint which isn't too bad > considering that a case is $45 and I pay $3 for a bottle of Yuengling > half the time. > > > Have you tried the draft in the bottle? > > I saw an ad for the new bottled Guinness but honestly I have to say > I'm a little bit skeptical considering how bad bottled Guinness has > traditionally been. If I can find a place serving it around here I'll > have to check it out. > > --Jason
Kevin Gavitt 05 Dec 2001 19:31 UTC↳ reply to meettonysoprano#148417
meettonysoprano wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:38:30 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling >>argument. > > It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument. US > strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest > neighbors. If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the > border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force > overseas. > >
Well, of course, for the first 100 years of its exitence America skirmished with both Mexico and Canada on an almost continuing basis. We may have friendly borders now, but such has not always been the case. One could make the argument that the only proper use of a standing army in times of internal peace is to stand on the border. American can project its forces overseas largely due to the fact that it has the largest standing army and spends the most money on it, *despite* the fact that it has no agressive neighbors. Did you know that America spends more on the military than the next *20* countries combined? That's right. Take England, Germany, Russia, China etc. Add their military expenditures up. The US spends more. The issue here is not that the US has secure borders, but rather that it has always looked far afield for enemies. We may not have to worry about attack from Canada, but we consider the borders of our military interests to extend at least as far as Kuwait and Vietnam. We think locally and act globally, exactly the opposite reccomended by the bumper sticker. KFG
Kevin Gavitt 05 Dec 2001 19:41 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#148418
Dave Henre wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)> > "meettonysoprano" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:38:30 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >Picking holes in a hypothetical scenario is hardly a compelling >> >argument. >> >> It isn't picking holes, it is fundamental to your entire argument. US >> strength is predicated on friendly relations with its nearest >> neighbors. If the US had to have a standing army of tanks on the >> border with Mexico and Canada it wouldn't be able to project its force >> overseas. > If we HAD to have tanks on the borders...they would only need to be > there > for a couple of weeks...then we'd have a few more States to add to the > flag. > :) > dave henrie > >> >>
Historically this is, of course, how we aquired most of our states in the first place. We stole them by force from Canada and Mexico, fair and square. And of course Canada is seperated from the US only by politics. They are, literally, the Americans of a different political persuasion, but are historically and culturally the same people as those residing in the northern states of America. If Canada decided to join the Union it would be a fairly simple political issue decided by votes. This isn't true of Mexico. Mexico is a foriegn culture, and the US has done everthing in its power to crush that culture in lands that were once Mexican but are now American. Take one step across the border though, and it is absolutely undeniable that one has entered a different country. If Mexico decided to join the Union there would be rioting in the streets of San Antonio. KFG
Kevin Gavitt 05 Dec 2001 19:44 UTC↳ reply to Uncle Fester#148419
Uncle Fester wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)> Dave Henre wrote: >> >> Unfortunately..the sick thing is...many of those families were not ever >> whole again. >> dave henrie > > > Yes, sad indeed. In war there are no winners. > > -- > > Fester
This is literally true. In virtually all wars the *winner* would have ended up better off if instead of fighting it simply unconditionally capitulated to the eventual loser. There are exceptions to this, of course, but they are shockingly few. KFG
Rob Adams 05 Dec 2001 20:09 UTC↳ reply to Kevin Gavitt#148421
"Kevin F. Gavitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ILuP7.8951 > > Historically this is, of course, how we aquired most of our states in the > first place. We stole them by force from Canada and Mexico, fair andsquare. You can still have Saskatchewan if you want it! (just kidding) > > And of course Canada is separated from the US only by politics. They are, > literally, the Americans of a different political persuasion, but are > historically and culturally the same people as those residing in the > northern states of America. I think you'd find some cultural differences if you visited Quebec, Newfoundland or the North, eh? > If Canada decided to join the Union it would be > a fairly simple political issue decided by votes. Some Western Separatists have tried to get this vote to happen but fortunately it hasn't happened yet. If Canada does become part of the Union while I'm alive I'm moving to England.
Kevin Gavitt 05 Dec 2001 23:48 UTC↳ reply to Rob Adams#148344
Rob Adams wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)> "Kevin F. Gavitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ILuP7.8951 >> >> Historically this is, of course, how we aquired most of our states in the >> first place. We stole them by force from Canada and Mexico, fair and > square. > > You can still have Saskatchewan if you want it! (just kidding)
NOBODY wants Saskatchewan! I honestly don't see why the Britsh made such a big deal about keeping it. : )
Quoted text (9 lines)> >> >> And of course Canada is separated from the US only by politics. They are, >> literally, the Americans of a different political persuasion, but are >> historically and culturally the same people as those residing in the >> northern states of America. > > I think you'd find some cultural differences if you visited Quebec, > Newfoundland or the North, eh?
I've been to Quebec at least. The cultural differences certainly exist, but arnt' as great as some might think. There are many towns in the Northeast US where French is still the culture and daily language. NYS's capital building is obviously architecturally related the Chateau Frontenac.
Quoted text (7 lines)> >> If Canada decided to join the Union it would be >> a fairly simple political issue decided by votes. > > Some Western Separatists have tried to get this vote to happen but > fortunately it hasn't happened yet. If Canada does become part of the > Union while I'm alive I'm moving to England.
Like I said, we ARE definately seperated by politics. KFG
STP 07 Dec 2001 00:44 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148227
"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c0c1dd9$0$27196$[email hidden]... > As for shagging sheep - that's New Zealand, in Australia we > shag english tourists cos they are are easier to find and don't > keep you up all night bleating after sex. > > iksteh I hear you have lots of sheep there too. Just not of the same quality as the New Zealand kind. OK, how's this? Mutton Shaggers!
EldredP 07 Dec 2001 00:49 UTC↳ reply to iksteh#148236
In article <3c0b08ca$0$27197$[email hidden]>, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> writes: >The world doesn't want world police. Most of all, it doesn't want >American world police. > *This* American would be more than happy to stop sending our guys to die, and stop giving money, food, etc. to countries that don't like us, or even appreciate the help. Fuck 'em - let them kill each other for all I care... The majority of these conflicts are religious in nature,and have been going on for GENERATIONS. That means it won't stop until one side(or both) is totally wiped out. :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Will DeRivera 07 Dec 2001 05:35 UTC↳ reply to EldredP#148173
EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > *This* American would be more than happy to stop sending our guys to die,and > stop giving money, food, etc. to countries that don't like us, or even > appreciate the help. Fuck 'em - let them kill each other for all Icare... > The majority of these conflicts are religious in nature,and have beengoing on > for GENERATIONS. That means it won't stop until one side(or both) istotally > wiped out. :( > Same here, Eldred. I'm with you all the way with that, word for word! -- - Will DeRivera - http://www.numic.net - http://www.luxt.com
Don Burnette 08 Dec 2001 00:32 UTC↳ reply to EldredP#147957
"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)> In article <3c0b08ca$0$27197$[email hidden]>, "iksteh" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >The world doesn't want world police. Most of all, it doesn't want > >American world police. > > > > *This* American would be more than happy to stop sending our guys to die,
and > stop giving money, food, etc. to countries that don't like us, or even > appreciate the help. Fuck 'em - let them kill each other for all Icare... > The majority of these conflicts are religious in nature,and have beengoing on > for GENERATIONS. That means it won't stop until one side(or both) istotally > wiped out. :( > > Eldred Only problem with that Eldred, is sooner or later they will come after us, much like the events of 9/11. They don't believe it freedom of any kind, don't believe in humanity, and don't believe in equality. They are an abomination to mankind. They have proved what they will do when left to their own devices, and it will only get worse from here if nothing is done about it. They now know the might of the United States when angered, much like the Japanese found out 60 years ago. Others will soon learn as well. I want my children to enjoy the same freedoms I have enjoyed, freedoms people like my father fought for against the Germans at the time. We've had it good, it's time we insured those we leave behind have the same chance. God Bless America, Don Burnette
EldredP 10 Dec 2001 00:50 UTC↳ reply to Don Burnette#147716
In article <LcdQ7.45693$[email hidden]>, "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> writes:
Quoted text (13 lines)>Only problem with that Eldred, is sooner or later they will come after us, >much like the events of 9/11. >They don't believe it freedom of any kind, don't believe in humanity, and >don't believe in equality. They are an abomination to mankind. They have >proved what they will do when left to their own devices, and it will only >get worse from here if nothing is done about it. >They now know the might of the United States when angered, much like the >Japanese found out 60 years ago. >Others will soon learn as well. >I want my children to enjoy the same freedoms I have enjoyed, freedoms >people like my father fought for against the Germans at the time. >We've had it good, it's time we insured those we leave behind have the same >chance.
My dad fought against the Japanese, so I understand where you're coming from. Like I said, it won't stop until one side is wiped out. Should we do that? 6 weeks ago I would have been all for turning Afghanistan into a sheet of glass. Now? I don't know. It's a no-win situation. If we kill all the current terrorists, who's to say another group won't jump in it against us? Remember, these people belive it's an HONOR to die in an atack against us. Even their women and children support those actions, so logically, we'd have to kill them too. If we pull out of the hot-spots where we have troops, others will see it as though the terrorism worked. I honestly don't believe that leaving them alone will stop attacks, either. I wish I had the answer. It DAMN sure isn't religion... :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
EldredP 10 Dec 2001 21:12 UTC↳ reply to Stephen Ferguson#147522
In article <3c0cd740$[email hidden]>, "Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> writes: >Of course, none of us have ever personally experienced a major war, so I >think it is difficult to say what our real reactions would be. > >Stephen > How do you know that, Stephen? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Mario Petrinovic 10 Dec 2001 21:32 UTC↳ reply to EldredP#147531
I fought real war, if somebody is interested. But don't have whole thread, and cannot find Stephens post. I have only last 11 posts, from which I couldn't figure out what is this thread about. But if you have any question, ask freely. I'm not American (Croat ), but I am on American side. I think freedom is the greatest value, and it seems that America is protecting it, thanks god. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)> In article <3c0cd740$[email hidden]>, "Stephen Ferguson" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Of course, none of us have ever personally experienced a major war, so I > >think it is difficult to say what our real reactions would be. > > > >Stephen > > > > How do you know that, Stephen? > > Eldred > -- > Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank - under construction... > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
EldredP 11 Dec 2001 05:32 UTC↳ reply to Mario Petrinovic#147488
In article <9v39ks$a9s$[email hidden]>, "Mario Petrinovic" <[email hidden]> writes:
Quoted text (7 lines)> I fought real war, if somebody is interested. But don't have >whole thread, and cannot find Stephens post. I have only last 11 >posts, from which I couldn't figure out what is this thread about. >But if you have any question, ask freely. I'm not American >(Croat ), but I am on American side. I think freedom is the >greatest value, and it seems that America is protecting it, thanks >god.
Oh I fully believe there are others here who have fought in a war. I was just questioning Stephen's certainty that no one here had ever been in a war. I'd guess that we have enough of an age range here to cover from the Persian Gulf war all the way back to Korea. I doubt that someone old enough to have fought in WWII would give a hoot about simes, though...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Stephen Ferguson 11 Dec 2001 08:37 UTC↳ reply to EldredP#147411
"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)> In article <3c0cd740$[email hidden]>, "Stephen Ferguson" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Of course, none of us have ever personally experienced a major war, so I > >think it is difficult to say what our real reactions would be. > > > >Stephen > > > > How do you know that, Stephen? > > Eldred
My mistake, of course. My first assumption is that the newsgroup is dominated by Brits, Americans etc all under the age of 40 or so. Not likely. My second obvious error is completely overlooking the fact that there are likely several group members from Bosnia etc., where you don't have to be old to have experienced a major war. However, I still think that a lot of the rhetoric comes from people projecting values formed without this experience. Stephen
Stephen Ferguson 11 Dec 2001 08:39 UTC↳ reply to Mario Petrinovic#147412
"Mario Petrinovic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9v39ks$a9s$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> I fought real war, if somebody is interested. But don't have > whole thread, and cannot find Stephens post. I have only last 11 > posts, from which I couldn't figure out what is this thread about. > But if you have any question, ask freely. I'm not American > (Croat ), but I am on American side. I think freedom is the > greatest value, and it seems that America is protecting it, thanks > god. > >
My mistake. I was locked into a WWII focus. Having personally worked with several Serbs and Croats (as we received many refugees in Switzerland) this was a rather obvious oversight on my part. Stephen

Sponsors

Affiliate Links

Sim Gaming Expo MOZA Racing Sim-Lab Fanatec TrakRacer Asetek Internet Privacy From NordVPN Dreamhost Capital One Credit Card Application Fanatical CDKeys Amazon Amazon UK Project Motor Racing iRacing Get your racing gloves, boots and more from Demon Tweeks. Enlist at Roberts Space Industries, developers of Star Citizen and Squadron 42


Back from the ashes since July, 2019. First created in 2001 with the merger of Legends Central (founded 1999) and simracing.dk.

A site by a sort of sim racer, for sim racers, about racing sims. News and information on both modern and historic sim racing software titles.

All products and licenses property of their respective owners.

Facebook Threads Bluesky Twitter Mastodon Instagram YouTube Tiktok Twitch Reddit Google News Apple News Subscribe via WordPress Flipboard eBay

News

All News
Software News
Hardware News
Developer News
Mod News

Articles

All Articles
Previews/Reviews
Interviews
Lost Titles
Software
Hardware

Database

Developers
Software
Cars/Bikes
Tracks
Downloads
Print Ads
3D Box Scans
Web Archives
On This Day

Guides

Car Setup
How To Run
Race Sim Central © 1999-2026 | Some links pay RSC a commission. Advertising does not equal endorsement.Cookie Policy