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 ]

From Sergei: Not at all. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The street runs both ways.

From Sergei: That would require you to know beforehand that they would be offended, and therefore require you to be a mind reader. It also, as I mentioned before, is incumbent upon the recipient to learn what the intent was, not automatically assume that it is offensive. In your example above, someone who chooses to be offended as their default setting is just being boorish and Politically Correct. If they are able to determine that no offense is meant, then it is innappropriate for them to take offense. If they are unable to determine the intent and automatically ascribe the worst motives to the use of a word, then that's their problem and they can deal with it on their own. I don't have any sympathy for their overly tender feelings. [ February 11, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: wbs ]

It's kind of amusing to note that the two people who kicked off this subject (ErikinWest and DaveH), are nowhere to be seen..... That's like starting a Bar brawl between two other guys and then walking out as the Bar patrons start to riot behind them.

From Sergei: Really, how would you know, Sergei? Have you taken a poll? Were you born there/raised there, etc.? If a minority finds it offensive but the majority don't care, why should the use of a word be discontinued? Why should the minority's determination carry more weight than those who feel it's perfectly OK? If no offense is intended by the use of the word, why should the recipient be offended? If Japs can refer to us as "Yanks" or "Aussies" or "Brits" or "Kiwis", why should we not have the same priviledge of verbal shorthand in return? What makes someone's determination that a word is offensive be any more relevant than our own, if we determine that it is not, and we are not using it with malicious intent? Why should the worst interpretation that someone can place on the use of a word carry any more weight than more benign, and also legitmate, uses of the word? Why should I run my life to conform to your standards of right and wrong, any more than you should conform to mine? Why should I not consider it offensive that you somehow think that your interpretation of a word's use is the only correct one, and therefore I must use it only in a way you deem suitable? You wouldn't tolerate it (unless you are a slave to political correctness--are you?), and neither will I. :mad: Think about those questions, Sergei. They will provide you with food for thought, I hope.

It is always important to determine in what context a word is used in order to determine its intent. For example, "Yank" could be used as "F*ck You, you dirty, stinking , subhuman Yank!" :mad: Or it could be "Hey Yank, can I buy you a beer?" The context is all-important. The use of any word in and of itself, with no context, should not be considered offensive.

From Sergei: Sergei, you have provided an excellent example for discussion purposes. Since I have no idea what you said, I have no reason to be offended, and therefore I am not offended. Should I arbitrarily jump on you because I do not know your intent? No, I should first ask and/or learn what your intent was before I respond at all. Or, if it is not important to me to determine your intent, I should just let it pass unchallenged.

From Europa: A breakthrough in foreign relations!, Yay!

From Shmavis: Don't worry, Shmavis, they are perfectly fine terms, as are "Jap", "Kraut", Kiwi, etc., as verbal shorthand. It is the responsibility of people on the receiving end to learn and/or understand (but not decide) the intent of their use--it is not incumbent upon the speaker. He already knows what he means. Furthermore, he cannot be a mindreader and determine beforehand every instance of someone being offended. Finally, people who arbitrarily choose to be offended about it without first determining the speaker's intent need to grow up and stop utilizing the 'victim' mentality. :mad:

From Bone_Vulture: Actually, Bone_Vulture, I was not the one who used it initially. I was just responding to a post made by someone else. What happened is that ErikinWest used it. DaveH then told him it had negative connotations. I replied that it does not, except for those who are slaves to Political Correctness. Then it continued from there with Sergei's reply.

Well, as I don't run my life by committee, don't have to take a public opinion poll before I speak, and will not submit to the attempted dictates of the PC crowd, I will continue to use "Japs". It's a perfectly good piece of verbal shorthand. In my opinion, those who deliberately attempt to cause trouble (I'm not referring to you, Sergei ) generically speaking, over such a matter should either be ignored or aggressively challenged, as political correctness is offensive in itself. Me, I prefer to challenge them. Sergei, those who don't want to use "Japs" are entitled to use whatever word they want to. If "Japanese" works for them, great. However, those people do not have any right to impose their preferences on anyone else. Whether it's Yanks, Brits, Aussies, Krauts, Canucks, Japs, etc., what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They are all merely shorthand forms of expression.