David Aitken

By seconds. I get the search function to work by using my own member #, which of course means that the links I provide are usually to threads I have participated in myself.

Recent threads on this subject concluded that the Petard mortar on the Churchill AVRE is incorrectly modelled as Hollow Charge instead of High Explosive. This makes it very effective against pillboxes and armoured vehicles, and useless against buildings or infantry. Yet Another SturmTiger thread: ST vs AVRE AVRE: Key new info, perf.& pics--BTS,grogs, mods

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Heidman wrote: As far as they are concerned, and Slappy more than David, dissenting opinion must be crushed out wherever it is found. It is not acceptable for people to want CM to be anything other than what THEY define it as.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So I am on a mission to crush those who would dare question the veracity of BTS's decisions? So where are my posts in all of the other threads on this forum which claim that various aspects of CM are innaccurate or illogical? And where do I actually try to stop these opinions being voiced? Where have I ever failed to present a reasoned argument, and simply attempted to silence the naysayers? I find it amusing that anyone you see arguing a viewpoint which also happens to be BTS's, immediately becomes an intolerant BTS sycophant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And boy do they ever start frothing when you point out their inconsistent logic, as I did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I haven't been aware of you presenting any reasoned argument in this thread. I did notice some childish and irrational sarcasm, which appears to have made you feel very good about yourself. I am delighted for you, but let us know when you actually wish to enter the debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff Heidman wrote: The arguments got nasty when Slappy and David went on their normal crusade to "prove" that the current model is perfection incarnate, and anyone who desires anything different, even as simply a matter of preference, are somehow some kind of 14-year old pre-pubescent boys who couldn't care less about realism, and just want things to go BOOM! and SPLAT!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find it very interesting, although not at all surprising, that you should attempt to blame some of the less civilised facets of this thread on myself and Slapdragon. I went and looked over the whole thread, and concluded quite the opposite. On the whole, the discussion has been very reasonable throughout. The trouble started when some people, namely Fieldmarshall, Echo, deanco, Stacheldraht, Rommel22, Mord and yourself, became upset that anyone should present a counterargument to their desire for more explicit graphics, and started directing accusations at those responsible. Tiger deserves special mention because he is the only person to direct personal insults, and has been the most malevolent force in the thread. You, of course, would seek to brand the dissenting voices as the source of the trouble, rather than those who cannot cope with such dissent and resort to such methods as character assassination to further their argument.

There are plenty of games available to satisfy bloodlust – CM is not one of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mr. Johnson-- wrote: Let BTS respond or not. They can see this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here we go again. This is half of the reason these debates get out of hand. People don't care whether or not BTS has already stated their position on a given subject – they want to hear it again, and they'll keep nagging on about it until someone at BTS stops what they're doing and wades in to the message board to set the issue straight for the tenth time.

That would involve the 3D models being re-coded. The only thing he could do is change the textures, so at best you would have a cross mapped onto a 3D 'dead body'.

So what's the point in modifying the casualty bitmaps if there's not going to be a lot of blood? What would you have, a couple of nigh-invisible bullet-holes? A bandage? The fact is, war is gory. A bullet hole is no more realistic than "projectile blood vomit" and flying limbs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stuka wrote: Run out of 8" shells have we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He wouldn't be able to tell you the calibre, these things aren't important to him. My vote is a child-induced mid-life crisis. All those years going with the crowd, all that time wasted being a conformist, not thinking, just doing what everyone says is right. Presumably his kid was born with a bar code.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rommel22 wrote: IT'S A FVCKING GAME! You poeple take it too seriously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What you fail to understand, is that this debate is all about taking the game seriously. You may as well walk into a beauty consultancy and announce that looks are only skin deep. True, but irrelevant in the context. You clearly have nothing of value to add to the debate, so kindly take your mindless profanities elsewhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>NightGaunt wrote: I find your views on this game facinating to say the least and want a better understanding of where exactly you are coming from. Now I am not going to go back and forth and check exactly what you wrote, so if i misrepresent your pov, don't take it personally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest that exactly what I wrote is very important, because, as Jeff Heidman apparently fails to grasp, this is a complex issue of degrees, not a simple matter of black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. However, in this case I appreciate that your comments are not precisely dependent on what I have said. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>your pov is: 1. cm is a game not about war 2. blook and guts are sick and promote a bad image and you wouldn't play if it had it because it would make the game a bad morale view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite; if you want to be this specific, I would amend your points to: 1. CM is a reality-based tactical combat simulator, as opposed to a war simulator, because "war" encompasses every facet of the business, including politics, and human suffering outwith actual combat. 2. I would not play CM if it were a 'war simulator', because to see a war accurately recreated on my computer screen would not be an enjoyable experience, and I play CM for enjoyment. This is why I regard the push for 'realism', when it enters the territory of human suffering, as ill-conceived. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. I am amatuer war historian. I read/learn everything I can about the history of warfare, whether that be wwii or the war of 1812. From social to political impact on the world to reasons behind it. 2. CM is a simulation of WWII combat. It is simulating a part of war. In combat people die and are injured and it isn't pretty. It is not chess (which could be argued is a type of combat). 3. When I play any game, I want as much realism as can possibly be brought out of a computer. So to me, blood and gore would be an improvement. I do "get into" cm battles deeply, ie when my tank peeks around the corner of a building, i "sweat" it out, hoping that it doesn't get shot. When my troops are hit, i get upset because I immerse myself and take it personally when they "die". Now, do I want to see every hit of a unit depicted with a huge spray of blood that covers the screen, no because it is not realistic (thats why i don't play fps, no hopping to avoid bullets for me).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would question your logic here. If CM were to become as true to real war as possible, it would cease to be an enjoyable game, and start to be a traumatic experience which most people would not desire to expose themselves to. As I have said, in my opinion, CM is only an enjoyable game as long as it features only the mechanical aspects of war, and divorces the political and human aspects. BTS have thus far chosen not to portray graphic violence in the game. As soon as they introduce this element, they start a motion which will never stop until CM portrays death and suffering in absolute realism. This is exactly what the pro-blood camp here appears to want. What I question is how they could enjoy a game which portrays war in all its horror. Feeling anxiety as you risk your assets in an attempt to prevail over your opponent is one thing; facing the reality of killing people to achieve an arbitrary military objective is quite another. The former makes a good game; the latter is not what I would regard as entertainment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To some up, cause i tend to ramble, I do find your point of view valid, but why limit everyone to what 1 group wants because of personal/moral/ethical beliefs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I have explained to Tiger, this debate has gone beyond the simple matter of whether or not BTS should make the provision for his 'blood' bitmaps. The topic is whether or not CM should portray graphic violence.

Colonel_Deadmarsh has a feeling that tanks get taken out too quickly in CM! BTS, fix or do somefink!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Heave-ho wrote: Send Me a Fecking Turn, Aitken!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did, you spoon! Now, for the benefit of Elvish: I sent you file #59 @ 10.23pm (5.23pm Yankee Time) on Thursday. Simply complete this easy questionnaire and return it to us in the reply-paid envelope provided: [ ] YES! I received turn #59 and returned #60 to you! I shall resend it immediately as my mail server (or, more likely, my family lineage) is highly dubious and has doubtlessly pocketed said file on its way to you. [ ] NO! I did not receive turn #59! Please resend immediately as my mail server (or, more likely, my family lineage) is highly dubious and has doubtlessly pocketed said file on its way to me. There, that wasn't too difficult, now was it (stop cackling Costello!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger wrote: I want to have the option to mod a certain portion of the game that is not currently mod-able, for those that want it. Not to be told what I should be able to do based on someone's perceived morality of playing a game about death and killing that's good and wholesome and respectful, as long as you don't have to look at the ugly parts. Out of sight out of mind eh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM is not about death and killing, it is about defeating an opponent in a realistic tactical environment. As I have said, if it really were about death and killing, I would not be interested, as in reality these are highly unpleasant issues – and I don't just mean the act of shooting someone and seeing them drop dead, I mean all the related factors of who you've killed, how they've died, and what the consequences will be. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let's make a game about war but leave out the parts that are not 'fun' out of respect for those that died. Sounds more disrespectful than anything to me as you end up glorifying it when you leave out the bad parts. It's like the movie Schindler's List but with all the bad stuff cut out of the film.... and then you watch it for the enjoyment of knowing there's nothing bad in it you'll have to see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, this is not a game about war. It is supposed to be fun. If someone were to program a game, for entertainment purposes, on the human factors of war – fear, suffering, death, guilt – it would cause international outrage. (Games like Doom based completely on fantasy have been controversial enough as it is.) As I keep saying, if you want the realities of war brought home to you, go out and experience it for real. I, and most of us here, want to enjoy CM as a game, not agonise over the implications of what we are pretending to do. There is no reason why we should be forced to consider such things, as long as these issues are not broached by the game – and in CM they are not. As soon as CM incorporates the human factors of war, then BTS must ensure that the subject is responsibly and respectfully dealt with, which in entertainment software would be impossible. Many of us are very learned about the Second World War, and war in general, but this pursuit is distinct from the playing of CM, and it is not BTS's job to educate people about the realities of war. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Having mod-able casualties is no more an issue than having mod-able tanks, vehicles, terrain, or uniforms. You still have given nothing but personal reasons Aitkens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I have already said, this thread bar your original post is not entirely relevant to your topic. As such – as I have also said – I am not arguing that on no account should you be allowed to do the modifications you desire, I am simply representing my side of the argument which has subsequently developed in your thread. The problem is that you have read my posts and assumed that they are all directed at you, which is not the case. This is why I suggested that you bow out instead of attempting to summarily dismiss my arguments without actually justifying your assertion that I am speaking only out of "personal egotism". I have conveyed what BTS's response has been to such requests in the past, which deals with your original request; beyond that is irrelevant to your request, and as such you should not feel the need to defend yourself against what I am saying. If you wish to engage in the argument which this thread has become, then you should recognise that it is no longer specifically about whether you personally should be allowed to produce a unique bitmap for the 'dead body' markers in the game, and equip yourself with some better assertions than simply that I am "pompous" and "pissing into the wind".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger wrote: Adding moddable casulties, the KIA models, that represent a fallen unit, can add immeasurably to the perception of the brutailty that is war. Anything less, i.e. a "bloodless game", is nothing but a slap in the face to all of those who have fought and died in any war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you can never hope to recreate the entire human element of war. All that CM represents is a battle – not the lives of the soldiers, or their fears and anxieties, or how they contemplate the imminent battle – just the mechanics of how the battle is carried out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You want to sterilize it to make it more palatable, more "enjoyable", so you can have a clear concious while you sit in your comfy room with your slippers on and a beer or cup of coffee, while casually sending unit after unit to their pixelated, electronic deaths, so you can come here and tell people how disrespectful they are for wanting the true horror of war by having mod-able KIA dead bodies (sorry I meant "markers"), you have my utmost contempt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you regard the game as not a game, but a Second World War simulator? How can you possibly enjoy playing it when you're killing hundreds of men and causing so much destruction? Presumably, as sitting in a comfy room with your slippers and your coffee is so unrealistic and disrespectful, every time you play you don full battledress, load up your rifle, cover the floor with several inches of mud and ask a neighbour to chuck grenades through the window? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Make mod-able casulties and we'll see how eager you are to send wave after wave to their certain deats for that one more "victory flag". Of course like all mods it is optional whether you try it or not. Too bad the soldiers who died in WWII didn't have an option.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It appears that you want CM to shock its players with the realities of war, and you want the experience of playing the game to be unpleasant. If CM were a Second World War simulator, I wouldn't play it. If I were reenacting the deaths of hundreds of people in absolute realism, I couldn't possibly enjoy playing the game – and as I have said, it is a game, for the purposes of entertainment. If you want the realities of war, go and find a war. I am confident that most of us here want an enjoyable reality-based game, and don't care for the burden of guilt in 'killing' their pixellated soldiers. We appear to have a direct conflict of opinion; I think that the game is respectful as long as it remains technical, whereas you think that it is respectful only if it represents war as it really is, with the human elements of fear and death, and all the other unpleasant aspects. I disagree with your argument because, as I have explained, anything that goes into CM goes in for the purposes of entertainment. If there is gore and suffering, we are enjoying said gore and suffering – if we didn't enjoy it, we wouldn't play, and therefore it wouldn't be in BTS's interest to include it. We can justify enjoying CM because it simulates armed conflict, rather than real war, which is an infinitely more complex and emotive issue. So on the whole, I think your argument that CM should more realistically depict death and suffering because this would be more respectful is ill conceived. CM currently avoids the issue, as it should – as soon as BTS broaches the subject, they cannot possibly hope to deal with it successfully. To include the horrors of war in the overall drive for realism is to take the game into new and very difficult territory.

Tiger wrote: Don't patronize me Aitken. It really shows your true lack of character. (snip) Aitken, you haven't changed since I came to this forum last July 2000. The words. Here they come: pompous, holier-than thou, patronizing arguments based on nothing more than personal egotism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzerman wrote Maybe it is sick but...that s the reality of war people die or did you forget?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want sick, go and find a war. CM is a game, and most of us play games for enjoyment. Basing a game on a historical war is indeed questionable, but provided you keep it technical and leave out the politics, there is no reason why people should not enjoy battling each other with realistic weapons. Where it becomes seriously questionable is where you introduce the element of human suffering. We must remember that a game is for entertainment. No-one wants unpleasant elements in their entertainment, so any unpleasantness must be perversely enjoyable in order for the creators to include it. This, of course, brings us to the perpetual violence-in-entertainment debate, which I do not intend to pursue here. Suffice it to say that anyone who wants blood and gore in CM does so because it gives them some form of satisfaction or pleasure – maybe because they enjoy the realism, or maybe because they just like seeing people die. Either way, it is questionable to have graphic violence in an entertainment product, and especially so where it can be seen to recreate the historical suffering of specific groups of people. CM is justifiable as an impartial technical simulator, but as soon as it starts to recreate death and suffering, it enters very shaky ground in moral terms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger wrote: Eyecandy is for the players, by the players, and nobody has the right to decide for everyone else what is useless eyecandy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS does. If you expect them to expend effort in allowing you to alter their game in particular ways, you can expect them to be opposed to it if it perverts their vision of what they want the game to be. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That said, the dead soldiers lying on the ground are more than simply unit elimination markers. They serve as a graphical representation of a squad of men, soldiers, who have for all intents and purposes become casualties in a battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds like two different ways of saying the same thing. It doesn't explain why the marker should be splattered with blood. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your arguments Aitken about being disrespectful or this being unnecessary eyecandy are poor attempts to lead the question about mod-able casualties astray on some meaningless tangent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed the discussion has developed somewhat, so I'm not surprised that you find some of what I've been saying irrelevant to your original post. Only BTS can answer your question, so I'm not sure why you're bothered by the subsequent discussion, considering that the alternative is having your post disappear off into the archives. What is relevant to you is that BTS are unlikely to specifically move to allow you to do things with their game which they don't approve of. You are of course free to create bright yellow Shermans and soldiers in pink catsuits of you so desire, and BTS can't stop you. But when you request that they allow you to introduce blood and gore into the game when they have expressed their desire to avoid this, you are unlikely to see any progress. Moreover, many of us would protest at BTS spending time, even if they wanted to, catering for the desires of a small faction of CM players. The answer to your request is likely to be 'no', if you weren't already aware, as this has been brought up before. The subsequent discussion is indeed irrelevant to some degree, but it's not exactly taking the thread off course, because there was nothing more relevant that could be said on the subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fieldmarshall wrote: Listen most of you are blowing your tops for no reason..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure I'd characterise any of the participants in this discussion as "blowing their top". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>if Tiger wants to or wants to know if he can make a dead body mod, because he thinks it will make the game better, and more entertaining for him..then let him, what business of it is yours..he just wanted to know if he could, not why he shouldnt or how he should do it if he could, just answere the mans question<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are mistaken – he was requesting that BTS program the ability of eliminated unit markers to be modified with unique textures. I think he's been around quite long enough, and had enough experience, to know whether or not it's possible. You sound more like you're "blowing your top" than anyone here. I might suggest you check your facts before you jump in with such an incoherent ramble.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stacheldraht wrote: Actually, it would be highly realistic, for obvious reasons: killing, injuries, and death are central to warfare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 'realism' in question is vague and emotive, rather than accurate and informative. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Granted, the details of each soldier's injuries don't necessarily directly impart tactically relevant data, but seeing the effects of the battle in more personal and realistic terms could, arguably, make real effects on players' tactical decision making. (I.e., they might be less inclined to send more men into the meat grinder as if they weren't men at all. Many human lives were at stake in WWII, after all.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no point in BTS spending time trying to create an emotional response in the player to realistically affect their decisions. The realism they have brought to CM and will continue to develop is purely technical. Trying to develop the 'human' element is pointless, and actually disrespectful – CM is a game, and to try and make it a 'war simulator' would be impossible and ridiculous. We play CM for entertainment and to attempt to defeat our opponent using historically accurate weapons. Emotional response to what we are pretending to do – wreaking destruction and killing people – would be entirely realistic, but totally out of place. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, visual depictions of the appropriate wounds would let you know what type of enemy unit caused the casualties, which isn't always clear as it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This would only be the case if every casualty were accurately depicted, which is not going to happen. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How is information about casualties inaccurate? It would only be inaccurate if the game were to somehow display or not display visual or other data that mislead you about the number of casualties, what caused them, and/or when they occurred.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is innaccurate because it cannot be accurate within the scope of the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, one very easily could argue that it improves immersiveness. Please be aware that immersiveness can be or is a major or even central feature of the gaming experience for many gamers and games. That immersiveness works on multiple levels, both emotional and intellectual. One is not inherently better or more important than the other. Clearly, among many CM players there's a real interest in the presentation of the game, given the enthusiasm over graphic and sound mod creation and use. Not all of us see these things as "fluff," as if what we see and hear somehow made no difference in our experience of the game. Happily, CM isn't abstracted to the point where we just see streams of 0's and 1's scrolling down the screen. I can see how that might appeal to one or two people, but I can't imagine that group would be more numerous. It's highly debatable that BTS "wastes time" by implementing the graphics and sound of the game or that they'd be wasting time by improving those major and absolutely vital aspects of it. These would only be improvements, not detriments, and it's quite clear that they wouldn't come at the expense of hard historical data, given BTS's stance on such issues. It's also clear, based on personal experience and numerous anecdotes that I've read on this board, that the visual presenation of CM, particularly "out of the box," has turned away many a gamer. That has a real effect on the sales and popularity of the game. That fact alone means these things aren't "fluff," but are actually quite important on a number of levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The kind of people who would dismiss CM on the basis of its graphics are not the kind of people who are likely to appreciate the underlying accuracy, or indeed buy the game. As I have said many times before, there are plenty of photorealistic games out there to please aesthetes, with very little substance underneath. I am quite happy for BTS to improve the game's graphics over time, but I would still play the game whether they did or not. The important thing is the underlying engine, and in graphic terms all that is needed is a representation of each of the processes which is going on underneath; this is a tank, this is a squad, this squad is firing, this squad is taking cover, a large artillery shell has just landed here, etcetera. If it is practical to develop these representations to the extent that the result looks true-to-life, that's great. But if you push too hard for graphical realism, you start to outrun the engine, and it becomes necessary to do a lot of programming just to provide visual effects, rather than having each effect tied to an underlying process. So the distinction I make between necessary and unnecessary graphical effects, is whether or not they provide accurate and useful information. A tank model tells you that there is a tank on the map, where it is and what it is doing. An explosion effect tells you that a shell has landed, where it has landed, and approximately what size it was. A 'dead body' tells you that a squad or team has been eliminated, where the last man became a casualty, and allows you to click on it to confirm what it was and how many casualties there are. On the other hand, a 'bloody' bitmap on that 'dead body' tells you nothing, because you already know what the figure represents. If the bitmap were applied to active soldiers, telling you what physical condition they are in, in that case it would be appropriate (although this example is, of course, irrelevant to CM) – but where it simply embellishes present information with innaccurate and emotive graphical fluff, it is in my opinion undesirable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Richard Cuccia wrote: and a gorgeous actress (I am drawing a blank right now on her name and I will remeber her name as soon as I finish this post. Lol.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Senta Berger, according to my DVD. That part of the film seemed a bit token to me – I don't remember what it was like in the book.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stacheldraht wrote: Visuals in general, btw, are most certainly not irrelevant to any software program that is primarily based on visual interaction, let alone the 3D depiction of realistic or historical physical objects (e.g., terrain, tanks, troops.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is, however, a distinction to be drawn between bitmaps which serve to make the visuals more realistic, and bitmaps which serve simply to sensationalise what is there. A realistic bitmap of a tank or a soldier's uniform is indeed important, but a bitmap of a 'dead' soldier with blood or bullet holes or whatever is simply unrealistic and unnecessary. It is conveying inaccurate information – blood for the sake of blood, which provides you with no relevant information which you didn't already have. You can argue that it improves 'immersiveness', but then so would no end of graphical fluff which BTS could have wasted their time programming.

Yes! Keep at it guys, I distinctly remember Madmatt promising to ban you both the next time you start bickering.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger wrote: Following this reasoning, all mods are pure eyecandy and irrevelant to the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed.

ENOUGH! Elvish, you fairy-man, cower before your nemesis! My PBEM folder contains a folder for each of the people I am playing or have ever played. Within each of these folders is a folder for each of the games I am playing or have ever played against that particular person, denoted by the start date of the game, eg. 2001.07.22 . Within each of these dated folders is all of the files which comprise that game. But wait! There is more. Each of my 'person' folders is labelled, green for 'currently active', blue for 'on hold', and red for 'finished'. Each of my 'game' folders is also labelled, yellow for 'win', purple for 'loss' and pink for 'draw'. I have the files therein listed to show me the size, so I can tell which are orders files and which are action files. The only measure I haven't taken is to mark which are my files and which are my opponent's (thanks Seanachai). And the pathetic Mr Elvish dares request a REASON? Well let me tell you this, matey, I DON'T BLOODY WELL NEED A REASON! If I needed a reason, I WOULDN'T BE ON THIS GODFORSAKEN PLANET, YOU MONGOLOID! Junior needs its nappy changed, run along.