wbs

I was up at the Syrian Border in the summer of 1983. We were getting an official tour of the Golan Heights from an Israeli Colonel. At the border, there was an Israeli guardpost (which was a shack with a couple of soldiers stationed there), and then about 200 yards ahead was a UN checkpoint, right on the border itself, and then 200 yards beyond that was the Syrian guardpost. There were about 14 of us in our group, and while we were clustered around the Israeli shack, the Syrians stepped out of theirs to get a better look (out of curiosity) at what was going on (or to get a better look at the two very hot babes who were part of our delegation ) About a week later we were in Cairo, Egypt (airport only) while we changed planes (and passports) to go to Jordan for a meeting with King Hussein. It was fun, but I wouldn't want to live there. Too much sunshine. I might die of excessive sunburn, being a redhead.

While I'm not disappointed with the "Near Future" version of CM, it seems to me that if the reason for doing it was because of WWII "Burnout" among the designers, they could have avoided burnout and still done WWII by doing a CM version set in the Pacific. Scenarios could have included US Marines, Japanese and Chinese nationalities, and perhaps Phillipino scout units as well. It would have involved new terrain, new weaponry, etc., and possibly some good amphibious scenarios. I hope that CM will visit the Pacific in one of the future releases.

KEEP: 1) Campaign Game format, in one form or another 2)TCP/IP and PBEM 3) Keep anything not mentioned in "Change", below Change 1) Add Convoy ability to eliminate these clusterf*ck traffic jams 2) Improve terrain types and varieties 3) Improve Indirect Artillery fire 4) Improve AI. Make it a harder opponent, because sometimes that's all I have, and I'm tired of winning 400 games in a row, if you know what I mean. 5) Enable larger scenarios than 5000pts. of purchases, and make maximum gameboard size larger, while keeping current minimum sizes of each. [ August 25, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

From Mr. Spkr: Good article Steve, Thanks

No Objection

From Seanchi: .....which he got out of one of his Y-wing Modeling Kits. No wonder his skull looks strange.

From John D. Salt: I've always thought that "Bombay" was a very cool name for a city. Since we're discussing this on a website devoted to all things military I will cast one vote for "Bombay". Besides, it rolls off my tongue better

From Andreas: I'm sorry Andreas, I must not have clarified one point. These women in question were demanding his forced resignation, i.e. that he be forced to step down from his job. They also were demanding that he undergo mandatory sensitivity training if he wasn't required to resign. That sounds like a call for punishment, don't you think? I saw a news conference that he held a few days later, after the reaction hit, and I have kept abreast of developments in the newspaper starting as soon as it was reported, which was the day after he spoke. All I can say is that he clearly was surprised by the reaction, because (a) he was speculating, and said so, when he made the comments, and ( he was commenting on something that is established fact--that there is disproportionate representation. His speculation for why this is so has never been seriously disputed--that there are differences between men and women as a whole, either because of biology or socialization or differing priorities or something else. OK, fine, there are differences. Any parent or elementary school teacher could tell you that. He made no claim or comment as to the cause of the differences--just that there were some. I would say that this meets the criteria for not intending to offend anyone. If he meant to be offensive, he could well have championed a reason behind the differences, such as "women are inherently less intelligent than men (or whatever cause you want to substitute) This discussion reminds me of Dirtweasle's sig: With the same honest views, the most honest men often form different conclusions. --Thomas Jefferson [ February 11, 2005, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: wbs ]

In my experience, it takes 81mm or above to knock out a tank, either by a direct hit or a near-miss. Anything less will likely only knock out trucks, halftracks, open-topped AFV's and smaller vehicles. I recently played a game where I Top-hit a Stuart 6 times (!!!) with a 45 mm Italian mortar. All 6 hits had 'no effect'. Man, was I swearing a blue streak, as I had no anti tank capability at all except for the hope that this mortar would take him out and allow me to win the scenario. Now, 45 mm isn't all that big, but then neither is a Stuart--and I was hitting him on his top armor, which is the thinnest armor.

From Andreas: Interesting comment, Andreas. The difference, as I see it, is that he wasn't trying to offend them, and in fact was speculating on the issue only because it was the scientific topic at hand. He didn't say anything to indicate that he was being insulting, and for these women to call for him to be punished is to call for a punishment where no offence was intended. IF none is intended, then none should be taken. There was no malice aforethought here. My comment is consistent with my previous statements, in that if these women want to believe that there are no innate differences between men and women, or at least believe that innate differences are not the reason for the disproportionate representation, they can do so. But it is not their place to tell other people, such as me or the president of Harvard, that he is not allowed to express such beliefs and if he does then he must be punished. I don't see anyone calling for these women to be punished for expressing their beliefs even though many in the scientific community disagree with them, do you? That being the case, there is nothing inconsistent or ironic about my previous comment.

From Sergei: Is that so? Take a look at the latest uproar involving the President of Harvard University, who I think we can agree is likely to be a pretty smart guy. He recently spoke at an event which was examining why women are so underrepresented in Math and the hard Sciences. It cannot be denied that the representation is disproportional, but no one knows why for sure. I think we can agree that males and females think and act differently from each other. A class of 15 boys and 5 girls is likely to be substancially different, behavior and discussion-wise, than a class of 15 girls and 5 boys. These diffences persist into adulthood, wouldn't you agree? At any rate, the gentleman in question merely referenced that when he speculated that maybe the underrepresentation of women is due to innate differences between men and women. He didn't claim it as fact (that there are differences), and he didn't say anything about whether the existence of innate differences was a good thing or a bad thing. Womens' groups chose to be offended, claiming that he was a sexist pig, and have demanded an apology, his resignation, sensitivity training for him, etc., which is all Bullcrap. Now, he didn't intend to offend anyone, and short of not speaking to the topic at hand, I don't see how he could have avoided their reaction. These groups chose to be offended where none was meant, and this type of response is innappropriate. Should he never make that statement again because someone might be offended, when the evidence (that there are behavioral/thought processing differences)supporting his speculation is right before his eyes and has been documented in scientific studies? Even if the cause of the differences is not known, the existence itself is known. How would he know these women would be offended beforehand unless he was a mindreader, Sergei? And even if he could, why should he be under any obligation to modify his remarks if they are truthful? Getting back to the "Jap" issue for a moment, why should I be under any obligation to refrain from using a term which is widely used in this country without malice aforethought? If you don't want to use the term, then don't use it. But what business is it of yours what terminology I or others may use? You don't have any authority to make that decision for others.

Ha, I remember reading an account of how, early in the Battle of Britain, a newspaper reporter asked a Defence Ministry official how it was that British pilots were so good at getting the jump on German formations. The reporter was told that it was because of the large quantities of carrots that British pilots ate (instead of radar). This was duly reported by the newspaper. Within a few weeks, the commander of at least one Luftwaffe fighter squadron on the French coast started feeding his pilots substancially increased quantities of carrots. Needless to say, he didn't see much of a change in things, vis-a vis British pilots getting a jump on his formations.

Just out of curiosity, do any of the Finns here object to being referred to that way instead of 'Finnish'? Based on what I've observed over 4 years on this Boad I would be surprised if any of you are. If any of you do object, why?

You know, this may be the most entertaining debate I've had on this Board since.... well, since the Political Forum was closed. And I didn't even start it.

From Andreas, via John D. Salt's post: I routinely use "Negro" (or sometimes 'Black'), and "Colored" as well. Certainly there are well-known organizations that proudly use them, such as the NAACP (Nat'l Assoc. for the Advancement of Colored People), the Negro College Fund, the Negro College Women's Assoc. (or something close to that), etc. Another word the PC crowd would like to ban is "Indian" They would prefer the touchy-feely 'Native American'. I don't care if people want to use it, but don't try to make me do so. It is Grammatically Incorrect to use "Native American" to only refer to Indians. By definition, I am a Native American, and so is anyone who is born here. Furthermore, the U.S. Gov't routinely uses the term (Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc.). A recent poll (last year, I think--it was reported in 'USA Today' Newspaper) of Indians found that only 9% of Indians preferred 'Native American'. The rest either didn't care or preferred 'Indian'. The same Poll also found that only 2% of Indians surveyed disliked "Redskin" as used in the name of Washington DC's NFL Football team. The rest either liked it or had no opinion. My point is that those who worship the Great God of Political Correctness frequently blow out of proportion the number of people who they say are offended. Sergei says that the majority of Japs, Poles, etc. are offended by slang National terminology, but are they? How many of each has he spoken to, and how does he know that they are a representative sample? The answer is that he does not and cannot know. He is using generalizations. Is he right? Maybe. Or Maybe not. It's not up to him to claim to be the authority on their behalf, though, as these people can speak for themselves, determine intent, and then decide if they are offended. Edit--Sorry John., if you thought I was responding to you. I was responding to Andreas and it was easier to copy your Post. [ February 01, 2005, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: wbs ]