sfhand
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sfhand
-
-
38 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:
Yes! In fact that's one of the clearest signs that you're looking at a dictatorship rather than a true democracy. Democratic elections are competitive. Elections in single-party democracies* (a.k.a. dictatorships) are not competitive, and are really only conducted at all in order to provide the appearance of democratic legitimacy.
*A single-party democracy either only allows one party to run, or may allow other parties to run as straw-men but will only ever allow one party to win. Almost all modern dictatorships are single-party democracies. They provide an advantage over classic dictatorships if you are the dictator since you get a little extra legalistic justification for your rule, without ever really challenging your rule.
Do you know why the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was enacted. Do you know how many consecutive terms FDR held the presidency? Those elections weren't competitive, per se. Are you implying the US was under a dictatorial rule then?
Link here:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/franklin-d-roosevelt-public-approval
-
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Wait a minute. So the Minks agreements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
These were drafted after Russia had taken Crimea and Donbas. The first one failed after Russia broke it. This casts serious doubt as to Minsk 2 and whether it was conducted in good faith by either side. So your theory is that Minsk Treaties were designed to allow Ukraine to go in and “finish the job”? With western support? This would be after Russia basically used conventional troops to back the rebel forces. Minsk 2 was largely viewed as held together by bailing twine and frankly most are surprised it lasted as long at it did.
Even if this somewhat dubious theory held water, how does this justify a full scale invasion of Ukraine along 5-6 operational axis, including the capital by Russia? They did it to protect LNR/DPR? That does not make sense. If Russia wanted to intervene to stabilize a potential Ukrainian ethnic cleansing there are a lot of way to do this that do not involve a full scale invasion. Also, what proof is there that Ukraine was preparing to go into the Donbas? Reports from the opening days of the war show how unprepared Ukraine really was. This was not a state reading for a large scale military operation.
So, we have an opinion here that really does not add up based on what we think we know. Do you have other facts or analysis we are missing?
Did you read the actual agreement, particularly points 9 - 11?
If so, what does restoring territorial integrity to the Ukraine mean to you?
The referendums on territorial autonomy were very messy, see here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27360146
Of course the west supports these types of referendums, i.e. splitting territory from established countries, when it supports their agenda, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Croatian_independence_referendum
Like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight and have no interest in justifying any state actions, including our own, but to say these types of events aren't driven by rational reasoning given the state of the world seems a bridge too far for me. Of course I don't expect you or anyone else here to agree, which I am 100% okay with.
Enjoy your evening...
-
19 hours ago, Baneman said:
So, sfhand - Steve asked some questions and you waved them away. Perhaps you would clarify - for example. for Steve's Point
-
The Putin regime is a brutal dictatorship that has increasingly less tolerance for anything that questions its legitimacy
And you decided the answer was
1.partially true partially false
Now I'd love to hear what part of the Putin regime is tolerant or not a brutal dictatorship ? Because if the statement is partially false, then there must be some tolerance shown. I ( we here ) have not seen any, but perhaps you have access to info we do not ?
-
Russia unilaterally launched a war against Ukraine, unprovoked and without any rational justification.
Again, you go half half
4.partially true partially false in part depending on what one considers a provocation (not universal; see individuals per inverse Plato's Republic) and what one considers violations of treaties and ethnic cleansing
Apparently you think that Russia DID have some provocation, could you state what you believe it is ? Otherwise you're just throwing in "partially false" to try and justify the war somehow.
What treaties are you referring to ? And ethnic cleansing ?You imply these are involved somehow, but again, fail to tell us what/how they inform your opinion.
So c'mon, this forum is a pretty vigorous place for peer review - give us some facts/info to back up your position - everyone else here has.
Baneman, how are you? Well I hope. Long time no see.
Before you think I am dodging you please stop to consider the bandwidth of comments directed at me. I am definitely not addressing all of them, in part because I question the motives of many of the posters, due mainly to their belligerence. Due to our history I will take the time to respond to you now. I am going to be very brief...
1. Are dictators elected over and over again? I say no. You may say the elections there are rigged and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm more concerned, along with both major political parties in the US depending on who's ahead in the polls, about rigged elections in the US.
I do believe Putin is increasingly less tolerant of dissent, so I said partially true on that. Do I need to point out our leadership, I would say in the "West", is growing less tolerant of anything that questions their legitimacy? See free speech laws in Europe. Obviously you are free to draw your own conclusions. Hopefully you know it is not my way label you for holding them.
4. The tripping point here is unprovoked and without rational justification. To answer your questions about the treaties see: Minsk 1 and Minsk 2. The German chancellor was caught on tape admitting Minsk 2 was entered into to buy time for Ukraine to build up an army revealing that the diplomatic actions undertaken to protect the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from continued attacks, and allow for autonomy to prevent a civil war in Ukraine, were duplicitous and served to buy time in the preparation for war against the east's ethnically Russian population.
Couple this with the fact the CIA, US foreign policy establishment, and intelligence services, along with Senators McCain, Klobuchar, and Graham, were operating in Ukraine in a realized effort to overthrow the democratically elected president of the Ukraine, who still had a year on his term. After the goon squad was done overthrowing the president they went east to kill all who opposed the coup. Russia responded to this by militarily supporting the ethnic Russians.
These are my current understandings of the situation back then. Of course I am open to changing my opinion should compelling information come to my attention, but as it stands the Russians acted rationally, way more rationally than the US and its allies did when invading Iraq. So, grading on a curve...
And yes, one man's goon squad are another mans freedom fighters, who just incidentally overthrew a democratically elected government.
Be well Baneman, it's good to see you still around. All my best to you brother.
-
-
6 minutes ago, photon said:
@The_Capt did this very thing:
6 minutes ago, photon said:@The_Capt did this very thing:
I appreciate it, it happened while I was responding to Steve, or I would have used it as an example of the type of response my question was meant to elicit.
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
...
Thanks for posting your answer to my question, it is greatly appreciated.
-
2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
And how do you know what is really going on? We've asked you to cite your sources and the best we got is Plato and the controversial Mearsheimer.
I can only respond to how you present yourself. You have the opportunity to prove my perception is incorrect, yet at every opportunity you merely reinforce my perceptions. And if you haven't noticed, it's not just me who has formed this opinion of you.
The only person who has mentioned banning you is you. I've made no such threat. In fact, I've done the opposite. I've invited you, and continue to invite you, to engage in a debate by you presenting a coherent argument that you're prepared to back up. Others have challenged you to achieve this very low bar for discussion, yet you refuse. Instead of proving we're wrong, you instead spend your time proving we're right by refusing to display any interest in even the most basic pretense of a discussion.
Yup, it is predicable. Someone comes in 2 years after this discussion started, tells us we're all full of it, then gets huffy when asked to explain why we're wrong, then gets even more bent out of shape when we're not willing to throw aside lifetime's worth of experience just because you say we should.
As I just said, I've seen this play out many times before. As the old saying goes, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
And even with all of that said, you are still welcome to present a coherent position and we will gladly engage according to long established principles of debate. But you need to present a coherent position.
Steve
Steve, I never said I have the answer to figuring it out... That is one of the reasons I asked. I remember your response to the question in my first post, it was something like "I don't just rely on the government and media for my information, I have other sources". I thought that was a cool answer. I didn't take you to task for it internally or externally.
In my view it is okay to not know everything and ask others how they know what they know, especially in this media environment. (I'm hoping you aren't inwardly doing Jack Nicholson's bit in a Few Good Men right now.)
At that point the pile on started (not complaining one bit) and the conversation started drifting. You participated in the drift as well. The fact that I only responded in the thread to you and Capt was an attempt to minimize the amount of time required. I have already spent way more of it than I would like on what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding, and if I feel that way I can only imagine what a pain in the butt this has been for you.
Trust me in this, I would have been more than happy if people had responded in a way that said something to the effect of "I understand why you might find the information issue to be so overwhelming and challenging, here's how I deal with it." We all know nothing like that happened, other than in your initial post, or maybe in some subsequent posts by others I missed. If anyone did post something to that effect I thank you and apologize for missing it.
I'm not happy you can't find any coherence in my words. As the writer I will accept my part in that, it is my failure. It would be dishonest to say the reader has no part in this misunderstanding as well. You can make of that what you will, but considering your bandwidth I will cut you a huge amount of slack. The others? Not so much...
You also labeled me a troll while misconstruing my posts to do so. That lead me to consider the possibility of a banning. I was sad to think you might do that, based on my understanding of and respect for you over the years. But life can have its disappointments, especially when it comes to people.
Of all my faults you might consider standing on principle one of them, I don't know how you feel about it. But I certainly see it as my anchor in the world. I don't consider trolling a principled activity. You don't know me, you have no way of knowing the truth of this, just as you have no way of knowing how arrogant I may be, the knife cuts both ways.
If you missed my posted apology on my misuse of the term "meta" I will do my best to repeat it here. I interpreted the word contextually (heuristics in action) and was incorrect in its meaning. Based on the actual definition of the word my posts were not really meta at all, in the sense that we all rely on our senses and thought facilities in some part to form our opinions and conclusions. This error on my part can potentially explain the charges of arrogance. This conversation could have gone differently had I not misused the word. For any misunderstanding my incorrect use of the word may have caused I apologize.
In summation, I have never said anyone of you is wrong about the war, or full of it as you wrote above. I have also never said you are right. That doesn't mean I think you are right or wrong. I'm not questioning your certainty, I was asking how you came by it. (you already answered this in your first reply which I greatly appreciated) In my view the rest is the result of projection on your part and my poor writing skill.
Perhaps you could consider thinking my heart is in the right place and see if your opinion on any of this situation changes. I mean what in my history leads you to believe I am more of an agent of chaos than any other poster?
Sorry you find my expressions of thought incoherent and not up to your standards. With that being the case, the possibility exists that you may not have understood any of the unfortunate wall of text above, which is why I bolded what I considered to be the the more important points above.
With that, thanks for your valuable time and consideration.
-
6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
There is an open record here. It's pretty easy to audit what has been written in this thread and compare it against how the war has gone. People can judge that record for themselves, but they shouldn't do so without having read it. Which, apparently, you haven't done much of and that means you are in no position to have an informed opinion of what this thread is/isn't.
Very typical. You came in here with a vaguely stated position that amounts to "you're all wrong", you were challenged to back that up, you refused to do so but had no difficulty restating that everybody else is wrong. Now you are forced into showing us that we are wrong, continuing to be called a troll, go away without saying anything, or... as you just chose to do... with a haughty attitude that you're right and nobody here wants to listen to you.
You have just confirmed everything I said in my previous posts. This has nothing to do with me or anybody else here, it has everything to do with you and your need to avoid having to defend your positions. Far easier to just claim we're all dolts who don't appreciate your brilliance and then bugger off. I've seen it countless times here before and in real life.
Steve
I reject wholeheartedly your mischaracterization of my one and only question. Yes, it was a question as follows, in this age of misinformation, How do you know what you know about the war? Initially you did acknowledge that, see your first reply. But since then you have been spinning a false story about what I said and what my motives are.
You do what you need to do, I will not be slandered so disingenuously by the guy with the ban stick. And yes, part of me thinks you are purposefully lying about what I wrote to get your desired result. A ban at this point, after I said I am bowing out, will make that point clear.
And everything here is predictable, your actions and statements included. You don't need to be Nostradamus to to see it.
Seriously, I hope you have a great day.
-
16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I can only judge you by what you've written...
And there in lies the rub.
I don't think this thread is the Magnum Opus of the war. I know you and a lot of similar minded people spent countless hours writing it and think it is more right than wrong, if not 100% right, one poster even said Historians will reference it. That sounds an awful lot like hubris to me, but what do I know, time will tell.
And yes, this mindset does remind me of this place during the Iraq war, hat tip to panzermartin.
Since you choose to brand me as a troll it is clear what you have in mind. As a result I will leave this thread and most likely the forum with the knowledge that my opinion only matters to you when I support your business or when I agree with your politics. Note to those who can't differentiate between one stating their intended course of action and a promise, this is not a promise.
You have a great day Steve, I'm out. (my consistent use of this type parting remark is intended to convey that I respect you as a human being and that we are all more than what we write on the internet, apparently I am alone in this thinking as well)
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Hey @sfhand this is how to post a counter-position.
My how nice. For me it is important to note the post in question is not really a counter-position. This does not mean I don't appreciate the writer's message and the way it was delivered. I also appreciate his license to write the post the way he wanted to write the post. But thanks for letting me know what you think is proper.
The quality that makes it not a counter-post in this thread is that it is not pro-Russia. That would be a counter-post in this thread. I suspect if the post was pro-Russia you would have forgotten all about me. Well, maybe not, because apparently it is a Cardinal Sin in these parts to ask how people determine the truth in these times of mis-information (not unlike the rest of human history replete with top down mis-information).
What the writer didn't say is that the time for personal attacks and vilification over political disagreements should come to an end. I'm not saying he should have but I definitely noticed it was not there.
I will now acknowledge that I've been incorrectly using the term meta. My posts are not really meta any more so than anyone else's. I am a participant not the subject. As a result I can understand how my misuse of the term might lead someone to assume I am arrogant. For that I apologize. This is definitely not "all about me."
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
...
Now, let's look at your position. You have come into this thread and effectively stated that I am, kindly put, a naive chump who doesn't know his arse from elbow. I don't know how to study war and really don't know anything about this one because I'm not smart enough to know fact from fiction, informed opinion from fantasy. You, on the other hand, do not suffer such shortcomings and apparently don't even think it's necessary to establish a counter narrative and defend it in debate. Instead, citing Plato and making vague references to various real and imagined narratives is sufficient.
...
I personally think you are quite accomplished in many ways. Paradoxically, you don't know me at all yet you think you do and somehow you think I am the arrogant one here. That amazes me to no end, but to each his own. Personally, I don't put much stock in people taking other peoples inventory whether it's coming or going.
You know what heuristics are right? In your assessment of me, my "motives", and my underlying psychology, you are relying on heuristics not knowledge, and while heuristics can be one of humankinds greatest strengths heuristics are frequently one of our biggest weaknesses, as aptly illustrated by you above. I know myself far better than you or anyone here, the same can be said of us all. Knowing this as fact is not arrogance. Now if we spent any significant period of time together your opinion of me would have more weight but would still be your opinion and not fact. The biggest flaw with heuristics is logical fallacy.
Unlike you and many others here, I know ad hominem as argument is a logical fallacy as well. I am not alone in this knowledge, many other average everyday people are well aware of it, not to mention anyone who has ever studied debate whether in high school or college. Feel free to keep rocking with it though, it is your forum and you can do and say anything you want here.
Do you know the boy's description of the ghosts in the 6th Sense? He said "They see what they want to see, most of them don't even know they're dead". I find that to be the perfect description of humanity. The ghosts were so caught up in seeking gratification it clouded their experience of reality, they didn't even know they were dead. Theoretically this could be what you and some others here are doing when you evaluate a stranger's character and assume the worst. You would see what you want to see and as a result you would feel superior. As in "Gee, I'm so glad I'm not arrogant like X." Which to me means it is possible your views on the war suffer from similar personal prejudice. Note I said possible, only you can say if it might be true. Frankly I don't care either way. Then again, I don't have any aspect of myself tied to the war. None. That I think is the big divide here, you've got 3000 some odd pages of investment here. However, as a US taxpayer sadly I do have a financial stake in this war and all the others.
Enough with the meta, to the chase:
In the face of the current situation in Ukraine I find it absurd to say Russia is currently getting their *** kicked while Ukraine advances to the rear. The thing is, one doesn't need to study war their entire life to reach this conclusion. Nor does one need to agree with this conclusion to be a legitimate human being with valid opinions on the matter. See how easy that is? Agree to disagree and leave personal attacks out of it.
Which brings up your statements forming your narrative that you asked my views on. I didn't just arrogantly offer my views on the statements, you asked me for them. Instead of following up you then write your hagiography and attack my character. I can guess at your motives behind the switcheroo but that's not me. To each his own.
Look man, I don't need to keep this going. Unlike some here I can agree to disagree and move on. This isn't about my honor or integrity despite the many accusations and efforts to make it be so.
Like always, even when we disagree like now, I sincerely hope you have a great day.
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Seriously what do they teach kids these days?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
How hard is it to do a google search and go on a personal learning journey? But instead I will go troll a forum? Next he will come back and declare that it was an “honest question” and we are all “sheeple”. “Jesus was not actually born on 25 Dec! Thalidomide! United Fruit Company! C’mon man, it was the ‘global elitist’ who started this war to distract from fluoride in the water!!”
And here, no evidence of a good faith discussion to be found. Start out assuming the worst possible motive and ATTACK!!! And I am a kid? How old are you? I'm betting I am older, and better looking to boot.
Really, have a great day!
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Dude, you promised “one and only post”. Now you are weighing in and trying to defend something that none of are really sure what you are going on about.
Your question was “how do we really know what is happening” and then a bunch of conspiracy stuff from Vietnam to Hunter Biden. Misinformation is a thing. Disinformation is a thing. So what is your point? If you are honestly asking how to suss out the truth, or at least something close to it - well go broad in sources, cross check and put in the work. Use Occam’s Razor heavily and avoid huge leaps of logic built on shaky assumptions. The whole Vietnam Pentagon Papers has been so dramatized that the any truth has been lost. Sure the higher ups knew the war was essentially unwinnable, but what were they going to do with that? They did what we always did, kept going and hoped something would change to bail them out. This is not a Star Chamber conspiracy. It is simple “we are f#cked, and all out of ideas”.
Hey, slow down. Stating ones intentions is not making a promise. Conspiracy stuff? I'm supposed to believe the Pentagon Papers were, how do you guys say it, a nothingburger? Not gonna happen. It's okay if its not your thing.
I sincerely hope you have a great day.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
So, I'm curious. What do you think we're being lied to about? Or do you think Hunter Biden is putting this big show on to help his daddy look good?
Here, I'll give you a helping hand. Which of these statements do you disagree with and why:
-
The Putin regime is a brutal dictatorship that has increasingly less tolerance for anything that questions its legitimacy
-
Russia is a "bad actor" in the sense that it deliberately seeks to provoke conflict and undermine its opponents (i.e. everybody that isn't a subservient state)
-
Ukraine has a right to exist
-
Russia unilaterally launched a war against Ukraine, unprovoked and without any rational justification.
-
The war is one of genocide (see UN definition) that is intended to wipe Ukraine's culture and language off the map
-
Russia is losing massive quantities of military hardware that could have been, or would be, used to intimidate and/or invade its neighbors
Is there anything wrong with this narrative?
Steve
P.S. And yes, I know Plato's Cave. I studied it in college when I was getting my degree in History, with a particular concentration on the Soviet Union and Russia.
Steve,
I'm sure you appreciate my being a loyal customer of BF. You've stated so on this forum on more than one occasion if I remember correctly. So let me get this right, the hostility here, not necessarily from you, has nothing to do with my support for your business and my enjoyment of your products but over a political question? Really?
In my first post by design I did not address the topics of your current statements. Living in the US I have been exposed to all of the statements you put forward in some form or another. I have also been exposed to ideas that run counter to those statements. To get to the point, there are a few things that are ubiquitous in every war. Those things include death, suffering, and propaganda. I like to avoid all 3 when I don't have a dog in the fight, and in this case I don't have a dog in the fight. In short, I don't have a problem with anyone believing or disbelieving in the narrative you laid out.
I note and applaud you for having done the work to earn a degree in History with a particular concentration on the Soviet Union and Russia. Unless I am mistaken, on this topic you disagree with Prof. John Mearsheimer whose credentials are as impressive as yours, if not more so.
On to the statements according to my current understanding of the world:
1.partially true partially false
2. disproven by brics
3. sure
4.partially true partially false in part depending on what one considers a provocation (not universal; see individuals per inverse Plato's Republic) and what one considers violations of treaties and ethnic cleansing
5.I am not going to look up the UN definition of Genocide, a bridge too far, sorry, I am not a human rights lawyer
6.purely speculative
Now about that hostility. This is not directed at you Steve. Like the rest of you I have my big boy pants on. Like the rest of you I don't really give a rats behind what your opinions are about anything other than Combat Mission, and in most cases even that's questionable. What I was curious about is how so many can be so certain while living in a world so riddled with disinformation and propaganda. A few have resorted to varying forms of ad hominem, keep it up it reveals who you are and the absence of any cogent argument you might make, but most importantly the thinness of your skin.
I sincerely hope everyone is having a great day!
-
-
20 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Well we can’t and probably won’t in our lifetimes. The “truth” is a floating point of agreement (are disagreement) among humans. We are essentially a species with brains big enough to invent the big beautiful fictions. We believe in them so hard that they may as well be true because they create conative impulse. I don’t believe in God but Holy Wars are still going to happen.
As to the weird string of political conspiracies (John Kettler is that you?). In my experience in government, conspiracies are the rare exception - and they usually get caught out…that is how we know about them. Governments leak like sburke after a few beers on a good day. Most TS stuff is over classified and sitting on 00’s era desktops. The government can barely get above board things done let alone wage an effective mid/dis information campaign against its people. The governments that can have to spend a ridiculous amount of time and energy, over a long period of time, to even get close. Russia tries very hard but we know there are holes in the fence. Hell even NK is not fully able to fully insulate its population from outside info.
So while people like you are digging bunkers and fitting for aluminum hats, the reality is that governments are big slow moving bureaucracies good at only one thing…protecting the bureaucracy.
Beyond that I am not sure what Neo/Matrix thing you are really talking about. The war? The causes of the war? The progress of the war? We will never really know the truth about any of it in some universal truth because no such human truth exists outside of science. How do I know gravity works like they tell me? Well go jump off a building. As to the rest it is best guesses and close enough. We can see what we can see.
What is really weird is that the Information Age should make it impossible to lie. One can quickly verify a lie in the ocean of information out there…that was the theory. But what did we do with that ocean of info? We saw more lies! We linked patterns that are not there. Are you being lied to…definitely. And what should bake you noodle is that because you are a human being the front and center culprit in those lies are not XYZ…it is you, to yourself. We lie to ourselves all the time. We filter, bias, ignore, reject and spin every time you look in the mirror. We lie to ourselves about everything all the time. Welcome to humanity.
Thanks for the thoughtful response,
I love almost all of it... except your notion of people like me... I am not a bunker and aluminum hat kind of guy. I also don't understand the "weird string of political conspiracies" bit (which both the political right and left engage in here in the good old USA, especially during election season) I used to be a part of "the reality based community" until they lost there minds along with their attempt to be reality based. I tend to try to stand on principle. That means I don't fit into the American political scene or the notions of many posters here.
We are all human. Just grains of sand on the beach of humanity (we all are, regardless of bunkers or social aspirations, they are us). Unlike all yet like all. Our greatest strengths are also our greatest weaknesses. As for myself, I accept reality as I understand it and am open to new insights.
Thanks again, have a great day!!!
-
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I have no idea what this is about, other than rather tired one sided "truth is only what I want it to be" filtering of facts into neat, convenient, self defined buckets of right and wrong.
Anyway, I figured I'd just state that for me, personally, government sources of information and mainstream media make up a fraction of the information I've absorbed about this war over the last two years. If someone says a house is on fire I check to see if it is before making a conclusion one way or another.
Steve
Steve,
What?
So, "How do you know what you know?" is now "rather tired one sided "truth is only what I want it to be" filtering of facts into neat, convenient, self defined buckets of right and wrong." ???
I guess you feel that way about Plato's cave allegory too... Good luck with that.
The essence of a good con is telling people what they want to hear, at least from my experience on both sides of the equation. Ignore it at your own peril.
Objecting to a government (any government, not just "mine") lying its people into war is "self defined buckets of right and wrong"? So, noble governmental lying then...
Do you endorse all governmental lying or just the lying that confirms your biases? As a thought experiment, without moralizing, how do you feel about the Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee?
Or maybe you don't have any biases and have left the rest of us in Plato's cave?
Yeah, I could have been more direct and left it to "How do you know what you know?" disregarding some of our recent history but that was my choice and I stand by it as relevant to the question because "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" used to be considered wisdom. I guess it is now considered personal glorification through moralizing in some circles.
This entire "war" has been presented through moral lenses, name one war that hasn't been. So I understand why you seemingly assign that position of morality to me. While, just like everyone but narcissists and psychopaths, I have a sense of morality, highlighting that was not the purpose of the post. So many hold their beliefs with such certainty, unwarranted certainty IMHO, without ever asking "how do I know this to be true". Which brings us back to Plato's cave.
I don't object to you being stuck in Plato's cave with the rest of us. Of course you could claim you are no longer in the cave, but one can never be certain due to the nature of the cave. Maybe next time stop at "I have no idea what this is all about".
As for the those being overtly hostile and rude, whatever makes them happy, I don't care... they define themselves not me. Rock on!!!
As always, I hope everyone is having a great day.
-
My plan is to have this be my only post in this thread... I've known about the thread from day one. I really only have one question about the whole thing.
How can anyone know the truth of the matter?
Yeah, when we invaded Iraq because of WMD's I was one of the ones questioning the decision. I watched in disbelief Colin Powell's address to the UN, the one with the crudely made computer generations of Iraq's supposed mobile WMD labs. Not satellite photos... crudely made computer representations - the lack of no photos was a big tell. I also read all of Hans Blix's report about there being no proof of WMD's and his willingness to keep investigating.
Why was I so skeptical of the US government? I missed the Vietnam draft by 2 years. The Pentagon papers clearly showed those "in command" were lying through their teeth about the state of things. For me, this type of government mendacity erodes trust. Fast forward to Iraq and my saying to a friend during a work break meal as we watched the opening salvo Shock and Awe bombing on TV "I can't believe anyone believes the reasons for this after having gone through Vietnam". My friend's response "Obviously you don't know anyone who lives in New York" (guess where he was from). It was a very enlightening moment about the human condition and yet not enlightening at all about the justifications for the war.
Then there's Russia-gate. You all know it has been thoroughly debunked right? In a court of law no less. See the Durham report. The whole "thing" was plotted by the Clinton campaign. There is also the Inspector General's report (Horowitz) about the FBI, and its head honchos, losing its/their way. When these truths were exposed one NYT reporter commented about the Clinton campaign liars thusly "...they lied and with sanctimony...".
We were told the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation... Trump (who I will never vote for) was called out in a debate with Biden for promoting Russian disinformation by the mainstream media moderator because he mentioned the laptop. The moderator's reasoning: 50 former high ranking intelligence operatives said the laptop bore all the classic hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.
Have you ever wondered why Paul Manafort was tried and convicted for FARA violations while Hunter Biden is given a free pass? Or the fact that Peter Navarro was sentenced to prison for ignoring a congressional subpoena (yanked off an airplane and handcuffed) but Hunter faces no repercussions?
So, we've got the CIA and the FBI running covert ops against the American public in order for form public opinion in their favor. Apparently there is a healthy appetite for wolf attacks these days because no one ever seems to ignore or tire of the boy calling wolf in real life. At this point Regan definitely got it backwards: verify before trusting.
The essence of a good con is telling the mark what they want to hear. No con can succeed without it.
With this, I am out. I don't expect anyone in this thread to agree with anything I've added to this conversation and I am very much okay with it. I did want to voice my thoughts on the fundamental nature of matter. I hope you all are having a great day/night and enjoying life one day at a time.
-
For me it all started with Pong... I've dabbled and dived into all types of games since. I don't CM much anymore but that could change on a whim. As a gamer I find there are a lot of fantastic games to appreciate and enjoy. The last time I dabbled in CM it was like I never played before, those who've vanquished me in H2H will not be surprised by this
But don't write me off, like MacArthur, I shall return.
-
Lots of license keys to sift through... it is a good problem to have
-
Steve, thanks for the update.
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
P.S. thanks for nobody pointing out my repeated use of "starboard" instead of "port" in my post from a few days ago. I do really know which is which. In my defense, I don't know my right from my left so...
Which means you can't really know which is which, lol...
-
Ask or not, answer or not, how many times, forum police or not, none of it matters. Try the demos is usually good advice prior to a purchase - an option that is a rarity in gaming these days. Which titles are you most interested in buying and what are your hopes and expectations of each? People with more knowledge and game time than me can answer these specific questions very reliably when you consider they are expressing their preferences.
Back in the day I pre-ordered CMSF and didn't really play it for over a year due to its state. At some point in the patching process I was satisfied enough with the purchase to pre-order all the expansions as they were released. Not because I thought the games were perfect, but because I was invested in the vision. My preferences probably are irrelevant to you even though I own all the games/expansions and when I play (I am currently on sabbatical) I rarely play anything other than pvp. I like them all in their own way.
I could say try CMBN first, because it has the most content - especially when you consider user made content (I think this is still true). However, if you don't like CMBN all the content in the world won't make a difference. Hence the bolded part above.
-
On 6/30/2021 at 6:39 AM, Bufo said:
Steam does improve the patching process. If it has a patch. If it doesn't, it's not the fault of steam, plain and simple.
We don't know if the delay is due to Steam's QA process or Slitherene's (or some other internal issue/policy with either or both companies). We do know when BF released the patch. We do know the BF patching process:
1) check to see if there is a patch - done automatically by Steam
2) download patch - done automatically by steam
3) extract patch - done automatically by Steam (if they receive compressed patches from their vendors)
4) pause anti-virus protection - not done by Steam
5) run patch as administrator - not done by Steam (afaik)
Side note: Steam's patching process is not error free, yesterday one of my Steam games wouldn't start after a recent patch. As a long time Steam user, I knew to check the integrity of the game files which solved the problem. I knew to do this because it has happened before with various Steam games. I have never had any issues with BF patches by following the simple steps above.
My earlier post was about keeping the BF patch releases without artificial delays, it was not intended as a slam on Steam or its functionality.
-
On 6/25/2021 at 4:34 PM, BFCElvis said:
Ugh. Who on this blessed planet said they were testing and installer for a month?
It is now clear that you're just trying to make stuff up to be rude about. Man, that's a hard way to go through life, brother.
But you have given me a good idea. We should coordinate our patch releases and hold ours back until they are ready. It would avoid pointless nonsense like this.
Nooooooo.... Full disclosure: I noticed Steam downloading a patch for CMBS so I came here and downloaded the patch for my BF version. So in this instance Steam helped me.
However, the idea of having to wait an extra month for a patch to BF versions of the games due to Slitherene or Steam's QA process seems like it erases one of the perks of buying direct from BF (I only have Steam versions because of the free license for BF customers). I'm thinking of the times most of us (the silent majority) have patiently waited for a patch to fix something without complaining about it.
I think this episode clearly illustrates that while Steam may provide CM wider exposure it does not improve the patching process, at least not in my view.
-
BFCElvis, you are the best.
But don't write me off, like MacArthur, I shall return.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
So, to be clear, you are saying that disagreeing on geopolitics is a bannable offense here now? Well I'm not gonna recant but I am not trying to offend your geopolitical sensibilities. By the way, I'm not conspiring with anyone. I feel like I've been thrown back into the 1950s.