Tarquelne

In the previous CM games I never appreciated that until I played via LAN (my first H v H games) and could see things from the POV of both MG and target. Or, if playing, hear the complaints. ("Crawl, dammit!")

I suspect that's most of what it is, if not entirely - it's simply a lot more noticeable. (Anecdote: Playing "Closing the Pocket" I lost only 1 man in the first half of the scenario as the Germans. That was a squad leader, gunned down about 6 feet outside the forest where he started. Maybe it was just his heart giving out... Is that simulated? OTOH, same scenario a squad got hammered by a Sherman and was left with just 3 guys - 3 guys which included the leader and the gunner.)

"May" is the really important part. Intel experts - outside the "contractor" types - have been telling us all along that torture is counter-productive under realistic circumstances. At least when you're smarter than the average tin-pot dictator. But oh, the power of "may"! It'll provide an excuse for future Gitmos - future extra-judicial (military or civvy) incarcerations, torture, tossing out the rules and generally pissing on the Constitution whenever the public starts at a sound for decades to come. Mission Accomplished indeed. But, hell, I shouldn't sound so downbeat. Gitmo has had plenty of defenders. Despite the fact they nothing out of Gitmo but the corrosion of American values, American strength, and American standing for years. bin Laden is just icing on the cake: They *never* needed anything of value from Gitmo. We did it because it felt good. Because it kept the boogymen at bay. Because it played well with the base. And because we could. It was the raised fist of tyranny against a world that looked too often to America for salvation, giving too little back in thanks. It got old.

Your feminists are defective. Get an RMA and put them in the post.

How much and where the system is faulty is important. Voting machines are a potentially huge threat that seems under-appreciated. ACORN, OTOH, is the opposite. You seemed to be equating them, and if so that's a big mistake. I'm pretty sure DT's point wasn't that the GOP are corrupt, but rather about how big a threat the voting machines are. And of course the system is faulty - that should be assumed. Faulty registration procedures and could be improved a lot - but we've survived so far. A problem with the voting machines may be nastier by several magnitudes. I very much doubt he was being disingenuous - If the polls are right then tampering with the polling machines really may be the only way they can win. I doubt they (or anyone) could currently pull it off on a large-scale without getting caught... eventually... but maybe not a few cycles from now. And if someone really does do it right it's going to be an absolutely huge PITA to prove.

First of all, note the article is centered around questionable registration laws/rulings, not ACORN-style bogus registration. Bogus registration would help a lot but the essential bit is the gamed rules. Secondly, since every single thing I've ever fact-checked from Pajama's media has turned out to be deceptive, if not bogus, I have indeed stopped frequenting the site. So yeah, in that way I'm not "following the news." Looking at the story I see the "news" is based on some inconclusive anecdotes from 2 partisan blogs. Well and good, but that's the same sort of crap I spent way too much time last election looking up on Snopes. Of course, in this case it's too penny ante to show up on Snopes... Thirdly, please note this passage from the Palestra.net blog: "acutal voter" fraud, not registration. And not ACORN. Note also that, to pick an example case, she found 13 regisitrations and 2 votes and she seems to have concluded that the voters have left the country. No mention of who the others are. No 13 votes. So... maybe some registration fraud, *maybe* some voter fraud. Maybe not. If you get more I'll be glad to see it - assuming it's from a more interesting source. But if that's all you've got I still think you're not part of the solution. Pajamas Media is the place you should go to get fed a partisan line, not to keep informed. Sure, sometimes is may be because the supposedly liberal media can't be bothered to report the truth. More often, though, it's because the conservative/liberal sites are making mountains out of molehills. As DT has said, there's corruption in both parties. Brunner may be an especially bad expression of it, but there's still a long way to go from "I don't like this." ("OMG! HELPING enfranchise voters!!!") to worrisome amounts of fraud. And, please note, unlike what the machines do, this stuff can all be checked. There are places/people to investigate, paper trails. Theft is a crime, and so is catfish noodling. I lock my doors but I don't put cameras around the lake. Some threats are significant, some threats... aren't. Registration fraud sucks but, based on a few anecdotes from suspect sources I still maintain it isn't in the same league with the potential threat from voting machines. Registration fraud may be real, present, and active, but it's about the same threat to democracy as Al Quida. ie, none, unless people get worked up into an irrational froth about it. All this ACORN BS, IMO, is thrown out there for either a good old "stabbed in the back" theory to explain a GOP loss, or, perhaps more likely, the same-old-same-old ****-throwing at every apparently-liberal institution, cause, or person places like PM can make a superficially plausible case against. The point isn't information, it's getting you riled up.

Cool. Now ACORN just needs to figure out how to make the jump from registration fraud - the thing they're actually accused of and which seems to do nothing more than waste their time - to actual mass voter fraud. But don't let me get in the way of your presenting the danger of ACORN/registration fraud as equivalent to the danger inherent in poorly secured tally machines. Your conclusion is OK... Well, OTOH, why should we assume an independent it going to be corruption free? Sure, they won't have a party machine to help them be corrupt but as self-starters I'm sure they can cope, should they care to. The best solution is informed voters. And if you think ACORN is in the same league of threat as voting machines, MSB, you're not part of that solution. So far as I know voting machines have never been used to commit mass fraud. The problem is that if they ever are it may be bloody difficult to find out. Registration fraud, OTOH, is significantly checked by every state's voting procedures. Heck, the only guy I know of who's been arrested for registration fraud - a Republican hired by the state GOP, btw - only managed to screw up people's party affiliation, IIRC. They may have lost votes in the primary but not in the general.

I can confirm that. Bill Clinton came to my town and took the local banker's family hostage, only releasing them when the guy had arraigned enough high-profit, high-risk loans. There's "qualified", and then there's "qualified". He also ran over a dog on his way out of town. And I hear my state Rep., a Dem., always bought the morning treats for the nearby loan-mill. Cubicle after cubicle of loan huskers, all hyped-up on decaf-double-milk lattes and éclairs. Nasty. Plus that stuff about handing out "Boiler Room" tapes as part of training, threatening to fire loan officers who check incomes/credit for certain loans, altering loan documents in the "art department", and creating all those "WTF is it?" derivatives? All Barney Frank's ideas. Him or some poor black guy, I'm not sure on some of them. Anyway, as a proud member of the Party of Personal Responsibility I stand with those saying that none of this is our fault, or the lender's or investor's fault. Now give us the f*cking 700 billion! Really? Too "uppity", or something else? EDIT: I want to thank Lars for those first couple of articles. A forum thread without a former Reagan official and a current GOP adviser, both AEI men, blaming the Democrats... well, it just wouldn't be right. EDIT#2: Since this is my last post on the subject I want to be perfectly clear - I am NOT being sarcastic. After hearing that the GOP couldn't get any of it's they-would-have-saved-us bills through the previous couple of legislative sessions even though they had a majority I realized the Democrats must have evil magic powers. They must be stopped. I've joined the Wasilla Assembly of God and have become a proud Republican Witchhunter.

Her original statements were too strong for me to believe the clarification. The "clarification" is almost a reversal - from "I'm a proponent of teaching both." to "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." I think that's setting too low a bar on "pragmatic." I mean something more than "Not attempting to rule from religious authority." ie, I still think it shows she's got a lot of ignorance to share. Show me a quote and I'll believe you. All I've seen was her unqualified "won't support explicit sex ed." I'd also appreciate some context on what she means by "explicit". (Where I am "explicit sex ed" is generally used to force a false binary.) Again I think it's lowering the bar way too much to say that's an example of pragmatism. And now she's up for a position with a lot more power and influence, and may be at it a lot longer than she was governor. I know the previous governor did have creationism in schools come up as an issue. Palin didn't push it, but we don't know what she'd do if she had to make a decision other than "Push or don't push," do we? And if so that's still at a position with considerably less direct and indirect power than VP/president. As president she'd have a lot of influence, via appointments, for one example, in how rules are interpreted. I think Bush's influence led to some real problems at the DoJ, the FDA, the EPA, and well, you get the idea. Then there's funding.... Sure, as governor she didn't withdraw support from non-abstinence only programs. I know she'll have a shot at it as president. Bush already explored that territory with a lot of faith-based/restricted stuff. She wouldn't even have to pioneer. But lets assume you're right about her "pragmatism", which you seem to be using as "won't shove her beliefs down our throats." (That's of course my harsh phrasing.) Ok, fine - I still think she's too ignorant about some important matters to trust as VP/pres. That's based on a few things, but the one that keeps coming to mind is her ID statements. Even if I accepted the clarification, that's still too much ignorance for my taste. ("ID" is *exactly* as much an alternative to evolution as the FSM. Debate on the FSM is just as "healthy.") It may have a lot to do with my training, but I have almost no tolerance for that sort of sloppy thinking. I have no problem with her believing there's a Creator (or IDer) or speaking about it in public. But - pending revelations that she's a highly independent philosophical Maverick - I'm going to go with Ockham's Razor and assume she picked up her ID beliefs from church. And her sex-ed beliefs. That she doesn't run out and try to impose those beliefs on others is good. (Though if she's never going to do that why is she so popular with those who do want the gov. "legislating in the bedroom."...?) But from my POV they still leave her looking like a "theocrat." Or maybe just a dittohead. (Catch her talking about F. Mae/Mac? Maybe she meant implicit gov. support or the charter. I think Ockham's Razor says: Standard GOP talking points inappropriately applied.) So if she's been pragmatic so far I don't trust her to stay that way. I don't trust her to know where the line between fact-based and fantasy-based is. She's going to have to get a lot of information from other people - subject-matter experts - and I don't think she has a good framework for sorting wishful thinking from solid fact. EDIT: Dropping out of the discussion. I want to say I've no reason - other than her party - to think Palin is malicious, stupid, too religious, or a or a religious bigot or nut. I'm willing to giver her a pass on everything on the church videos, even the "God's will" thing. I've been poking around the web for info on Palin and I think she's already showed more intelligence, general competence, and speaking ability than the W. I think she's more fit to be Pres. than him. A lot more. For the reasons I've given above, though, I don't think that's good enough.

Show me Obama or Biden's faith dictating some important and/or impractical policy decisions and I'll agree. My issue with Palin isn't her relgion, it's what she does with it. Rest assured that if Biden starts saying cannibalistic feasts in schools would be a good thing I'll criticize him, too. To repeat: It's not their attitude toward religion that I'm saying one's pragmatic about and the other isn't, it's their attitude toward everything else.

Gosh, I don't supposed you've missed the entire point of my last couple of posts? Hell, on the first few pages a couple of other people discussed the difference between talking about faith (or just God - Patton was talking about the freakin' wather) and what Palin's done with the pipeline. And, again, just what they *say* isn't really the point. As I've said the "God's pipeline" thing could have been anything from pandering to a less-than-perfectly formulated sentence. The problem is that it really seems representative of Palin's actions/positions. Pandering isn't what I'm talking about at all, or why I'm in anyway displeased with Palin. On that score you're attacking a strawman. There's a huge difference between being a person of faith to any degree and rather uncritically allowing that faith to dictate your policy positions and/or largely replace your thinking. I've laid out why I think Palin is a theocrat and exactly what I mean by that word. You're being lamely sarcastic. "Lame" because you've entirely missed the point. I can excuse your lack of comprehension but lame sarcasm really ticks me off. It's blasphemous. To the point: Lets see the list, and I want you to explain how they're like Palin's statements. I'm not going to go through and point out how they're different. I've become very wary of "arguing" with a bunch of cut-and-paste. It's too easy for someone to just cut-and-paste more and more in response rather than do some actual thinking.

It's not their attitude toward religion that I'm saying one's pragmatic about and the other isn't, it's their attitude toward everything else. Why is Palin OK with ID being taught in schools? *I* think it's not some conclusion she came to completely independent of her religious beliefs. I think it' one she came to directly because of those beliefs. Or, really, the way she allows religion to color everything else. In the sense I defined above that makes her a "theocrat." At the very least it makes her un-pragmatic in her approach to the world. I'd say her stance on sex-ed is a perfect example of that. Supporting only "Abstinence-till-marriage" is completely correct as far as many religious people are concerned. However, it would be a perfect dictionary illustration for "unpragmatic." If there were really such a word, and if you didn't use a pornographic picture.

No - she prayed that what was going on was part of God's plan. (Obama's statement, if we're looking at the same one, was the same sort of thing.) She said it's God's will that a pipeline be built. Well, technically, that people and corporations unite to get the pipeline built. So maybe she's just preaching that the intolerance toward corporations end and that people accept them and their overwhelming hunger for profits into their lives just as they do their friends and loved ones. Or maybe not. It's possible to read too much into any one indirect statement. You gotta look at a bunch of statements, or positions. My conclusion, looking at Palin's past positions and actions, is that she's a theocrat. And I've defined just what I mean by that. My conclusion, looking at Obama's past positions and actions, is that he isn't. Yeah, even though they both uttered the phrase "God's will."

Why, did I bring up something new? Did I even bring up a rumor? Or is that your go at dismissing everything I wrote as merely a rumor?

As VP or president will she promise to do the same: Never give any sort of religions ptich or even address the issues of abortion or marriage? Given her background the lack of a religions pitch might not be restraint so much as it is deception. Hmm... same thing with the issues, actually. They're important political issues. One of her most appealing characteristic to the religions portion of the Right is - not surprisingly - how religious she is. The fact that America isn't a theocracy should make it equally unsurprising that a lot of people are going to be critical - or at least concerned - about that very characteristic. You can't just tally it up as a "Pro" for the RR and say "No one else is allowed to talk about it." Well, OK, you can. But it's stupid. It's called "not just going by her Convention speech." If you want to base your impression of her off of what amounts to an advertisement, go ahead. As of yet, though, there's no law against critical thought.

Good catch. How about the pipeline statement? She says "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that pipeline built, so pray for that. Watching the video again I'm still thinking she means it's God's will. She "thinks it has to be done", not "I think it's God's will." ie, no qualifier on the "God's will" part. Simply a minor misstatement? Could be. Or she's in a church so of course she's bringing God into it? Could be. I still worried by her attitude. The whole "What I think is right" thing seems to lead very quickly to "It's what God wants." I've some experience with churches - even Evangelicals - and they're not all so quick to make that jump. (Way too many are, though.) I imagine (or hope) she'd say it's exactly the other way around: What God wants leads to what she thinks is right. Obviously I'd like to see her biblical references on pipelines. But as far as I'm concerned that's still worrying: There are too many people who say that God's the foundation of their morality when He's really just the excuse. And there's still the question of really knowing what God wants. But maybe Palin's really holding right end of the stick. But given her stance on ID, the book banning thing (few details but I don't think she should have even considered it), sex ed, etc. I think she's a theocrat. Not a err... rabid one. I don't think she'd start burning people. But I think she's the other kind. The lazy thinkers, prone to un-pragmatic decisions, frequent appeals to authority and difficulty in distinguishing disagreement from rebellion against God.

I'm not prepared to believe someone who doesn't understand the difference between science and religion can reliably recognize "pragmatic". Hell, she bet she can't be pragmatic *by definition*: Ok, I stand corrected. I can easily believe that she'd be busy, or even officious or dictatorial. So she fits the archaic definitions... which is only appropriate, I guess.

That you immediately dismiss the idea Palin has a direct line from God shows just how out of touch with the *real* America you liberals are. I applaud Palin. Plenty of people think they have a direct line from God. Sure, lots of them are crazy, more are insecure fools looking for excuses and most of the rest are simply lazy thinkers... but one or two, assuming there is a God, may really have a direct line from God. And why not? With all the murderers, rapists, etc. etc. etc. around He's obviously not overly-busy handing out the the smiting we deserve. There is the problem with appeals to God heading off someone's ability to argue. But - remember - if it's direct from God you shouldn't be arguing at all.* And, anyway, for all the crazy, insecure, and lazy people "arguing" isn't really on the menu.... I guess what I'm getting at is that if you want *efficient* government then appeals to God's plan is the way to go. Fast, good, cheap: You can have two of the three in manufacturing, and one in government. If Palin stands for "fast" then at one of three she's no worse than anyone standing for "good" or "cheap." So get off her back. *Circular argument? I'm not get into all that "is it a feature or is it a bug" thing. It's God's will that this thread not be locked, btw.

I'm impressed with the comic - very frank.

What's your problem? That first article is great. He's dead right about there having been no public debate on the cause of global warming. We've all been too damn busy for the last couple decades arguing about whether it exists at all. As for the second: Didn't you see the graphs!? Didn't you see how complicated NASA is making out simply reading the temperature to be? Just another case of scientists acting like something is too complicated for other people to understand. Like that whole quantum mechanics farce. "Spin once to rotate twice", my ass! And when the popular press oversimplifies something they act like it's not what they planned all along. No one else has that problem - reports of football games are crystal clear and there can be some *very* complicated plays. Anyway, the world just sucks. All the "science" blogs/mags are still soooooo "on" about climate change. We have to read the Australian and IT rags like the Reg to get the truth! I don't know the exact show bruce saw, but I've seen similar reports. If you look into them, though, generally the media's simply caved into Big Green. When you get more details of the report all they're usually talking about are scientists having doubts about a few of the particulars, not the whole ball of organic beeswax. Hell, even the guy in the Australian seems more into quibbling about CO2 vs. other sources of antro-change rather than demonstrating that the whole thing is a hoax. To his credit, though, at least he's taking on Al Gore... The head vampire, if you will. If you can cast doubt on Al Gore's movie the whole thing will just collapse. Like the internet, Al Gore has pretty much just made the whole thing up. Anyway, I've seen some of the rebuttals to the pieces you guys linked to. For example here and here. They make it sound like there are very good reasons the linked-to articles in the previous posts represent relatively few "experts." (Or whatever Goddard is - "concerned", I guess.) But - and here's the catch - it's information from practicing climate scientists representing the majority of such people. For f*cks sake, why the hell should we believe them? Do I go to a *doctor* for medial care? HELL NO! He makes money every time I get sick! Do I ask a geologist where I should dig or drill? HELL NO! She's made her career off the idea you can actually predict and/or control geologic forces. It's sheer hubris. So I'm a little portly, so my house is ah, "settling" and the mountain is smoking a bit. All that stuff with numbers is just to obfuscate the common-sense fact that there's no way I need to change what I do or think. Or that there's any way in hell a known liberals such as Al Gore or most scientists could be right. (You do see that, right? Most scientists are liberals. Most scientists support the "mainstream" GW interpretation. The partisan bias couldn't be clearer.) Back to doctors, etc.: Yes, yes, there is something of a difference - doctors, etc say they can "prove" their effectiveness in a way a climate scientist can't. But it's the principle of the thing: If you're just hanging around waiting for proof you're conceding that you don't have the so-called expertise to participate in the debate. Or vote on the issues. And what are op-eds for, after all, but to give us the opinions we want about matters for which we don't actually have a clue? The world, frankly, is a mess. I'm glad more and more people can see that homeopathic science is the only answer: For any issue with which you don't have personal training always side with the expert's *minority*. Especially if they have graphs. Especially if they aren't actually experts. This is the 21st century - You can't just cherry-pick personal anecdotes anymore. Before adopting this position I used to think one of the most prolific posters here was a loon. Red? I'm practically crimson, I don't know where to look. But this forum is great - it has posts like the ones above, for example. Now *that's* sarcasm. Make this place contrarian as you want... but one liners, frikin fake-posters? That's not sarcasm, that's whining. You guys such lightweights - it's embarrassing.

From talking to a variety of people who must sell through publishers I get the impression that is correct. It's a matter of gestation time. After the Publisher Queen implants her eggs they'll be bursting through chest walls come hell or high water. At that point there's a lot of hungry little Marketers running around. If you don't have large quantities of warm mammalian blood available, plus a ready-to-ship product, you'll find yourself in quite a pickle. For one thing, if fed on nothing but blood the next stage of the life-cycle is Lawyer. Shipping really is the best option.

Nice idea, but the problem is the big "NOT PAUSED" message we'll have to look at while the action takes place. Seriously, you need to think these things through.

Does the game have a mechanism to reflect a methodical, extended application of fire to a building? I mean as opposed to just hitting the building with a general area-fire more than once. (The 50 cals are accurate enough to make the distinction significant, right?)

Yes. That +and+ a slap in the face of every loyal customer, serious wargamer, and true-blooded American. It's like you're talking about fluoridation while leaving out the commie plot. People like you make me sick.

I think they could - and should - make a distinction between pause-less "continuous time" and what CMSF now offers: Pause-able (with orders) real-time. I have to admit, though, I might have interpreted the passage you quoted as you did. But only if I were reading the manual with the operating assumption that they're idiots, or have been taken over by evil aliens since CMBB. If they were wrong, I'd say they were wrong in the CMBB manual for not considering the possible role of the pause. (OTOH, "pause" seems verboten in just about every RT online game. (HOI is an exception?) Something about feral 14 year olds, I'd guess.) And, anyway, IIRC BFC has also said that CMSF is designed with smaller battles in mind than were often available with CMBB. The plan is that the big stuff for CMSF will be do-able when "co-play" comes online. If CMSF offered only pausless RT for human vs. human I think you'd have a good point. Since they still offer WEGO and PBEM, even with some problems, I think you're just desperate to fling mud. [ September 12, 2007, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]