Inigo Montoya

Yeah, I hear you, my friend. I'm totally with you on those two points - there are too many Muslims filled with hate/supporting violence and it seems like the majority of followers of Islam advocate the destruction of Israel. It's not right and makes our world much more dangerous. It's funny because Stalin's quote is actually pointing out that the Q'Ran commands the opposite views: Submit, seek peace, accept differences, allow others to have their faith. There are too many hypocrites...

Rich, In all sincerity I did not mean to suggest my comment about your ignorance was personal. I meant it only as a statement of fact. Here are the facts: You wrote, "When there is violence committed by the few, how many islamic leaders, religious or otherwise, do you find condeming that violence." In the same post, you wrote, "Where are the muslims who are against jihad and the terrorism?" In less than five minutes of searching the web, I found hundreds of quotes condemning the violence and gave you names of muslims who are against jihad and the terrorism. Here is one quote from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, "American Muslims unequivocally condemn these vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism... May we all stand together through these difficult times to promote peace and love over violence and hate." I think I have demonstrated that the two statements you made were factually ignorant. It is not a personal attack. I have shown that your perception that if someone is a follower of Islam that means they support jihad and terrorism is false. You thought you knew something. I demonstrated you did not. Therefore, you were ignorant about that particular issue. I'm sure you know a great many other things, but in this case, I just can't see how you can disagree with me that you *were* ignorant. Now if you can't reply to these facts, then it's actually you who should take your crap elsewhere. My position is very simple. There is a certain segment of every major religion that supports violence. This is the radical fundamentalist segment. All I have asked of you is that you recognize that fundamentalists of any religion don't reflect the entire religion. Please use the terms "radical Islamic fundamentalists" or "Islamofascists." You responded to my request that you were sorry to offend me, but you believe that lumping all Muslims together is accurate. In your mind, to follow Islam means to support jihad and terrorism. It is pure bigotry - and I don't mean that as a person attack I mean it literally. Respectfully, Inigo

You are ignorant. You could have easily found many, many muslims who are against jihad if you had made the effort to look for them. But you didn't look -- you assumed you had a full grasp of the situation. Discrimination is ugliness, but it's hard to look in the mirror and really see yourself. http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php I think you should read every single link listed and then we'll talk. If you are willing to admit you are wrong to generalize all of Islam, we can make some progress together. If you persist in this gross generalization, your self righteousness is blinding you. "Certainty is the enemy of wisdom." - Holocaust Survivor

Ummm, that's like saying that Christianity is trying its very best to finish what Hitler started just because the Aryan Nation is composed of fundamentalist christians. Fundamentalists of any religion don't reflect the entire religion. Please use the terms "radical Islamic fundamentalists" or "Islamofascists." I find your generalizations to all of Islam extremely offensive.

LOL!

Rich, There is a difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. There is a difference between Christianity and Christian fundamentalism. Some Islamic fundamentalists have declared jihad and are at war with America. They are only a fraction of muslims and do not represent Islam. Some Chritian fundamentalists (i.e. the KKK) have declared their opposition to many Americans (i.e. people of color). They are only a fraction of christians and do not represent Chritianity. Quoting the Q'ran is no more propoganda than quoting the bible. Both have equal moral authority.

The reason custom missions need the 1/2 experience penalty is that it is easier to get massive experience than it is in a regular game. Experience is the bedrock of this game's balance. If the customs didn't have the 1/2 penalty, suddenly all the experience you earn in regular games is worth half of what you could be earning in custom games. One of the key ways my pilot Customs Only would get an advantage would be to select starting altitudes. I would have my fighter start at medium altitude flying against an opposing Me-262 flying at low altitude and a bomber squadron at very low altitude. Because I started at medium altitude and the Me-262's were at low, I got to go first. I would swoop down and draw 2 cards because of power dive. Almost everytime I'd kill the leader Me-262 in the first turn with this advantage. Now the opposing wingman moves to leader and loses all his skills. He gets one crack at me, then my wingman and I pound him on the second turn. On the 3rd turn, I power dive to very low altitude where the bombers have no advantage and would never be flying in a regular game. I have 4 turns to kill 2 bombers and all I need an IMS:destroyed to get through for each. By *not* having an escorting fighter pair, I don't have to worry about my teammate leeching experience from me. The bottomline: No matter what the combat value differential says about how hard a custom mission is, it's way, way easier than a regular mission. You get too many advantages when you set up a custom mission and therefore customs should be for penalized. They are good for fun or practice, but they shouldn't ruin the ladder. I'm with Stalin on this one and would love to see all the customs missions not count on the ladder. At the very least, I'm hoping that all the customs missions in the beta (prior to the 1/2 experience penalty) would be stricken from the ladder. It's not right for Customs Only to have the lead spot in experience/mission. A. Machiavelli really should have that spot. I know as the pilot for both that it was much, much harder for A. Machiavelli to accomplish her ~163/mission than for Customs Only to get 308/mission. -The Bride

I've used Tail Shooter extensively and it works. Are you sure you were tailing your opponent when you looked for the increased burst? The way I know it is working is when I go from advantaged to tailing, my bursts increase by 2 without Tail Shooter, but by 3 with Tail Shooter. Try it out and report back to us. I bet it's working for you, but you haven't noticed.

I've just talked with Sixx and signed up as the UK for Greece. Time to start working on some experience for my Brits! 8 )

I think everyone now agrees that the introduction is just fine. And Sixx, don't forget that I'm illogical, a failure, and will never amount to anything. My mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberries.

Thank you, a thousand times, thank you!!!!

Sirocco, I will attempt to bring you up to speed. TheHumanMage seems displeased with the scenario descriptions for the Leningrad scenarios. I have compiled a list of his complaints. Leningrad 1942: "On 8 September, 1941, the German offensive code named “Barbarossa” reached the outskirts of Leningrad. What was to transpire was one of the most horrid chapters of World War Two. The inhabitants of Leningrad not only endured what can only be described as massive bombing and artillery barrages, but also faced a cruel fate of starvation and conditions that were so cold, it’s a wonder anyone survived." TheHumanMage feels this introduction is inadequate because 1) It should claim (in TheHumanMage’s opinion) that the German LW was three times larger than the Soviet VVS. 2) It should claim (in TheHumanMage’s opinion) that the Soviet pilots were skilled. Leningrad 1943: "The siege of Leningrad continued throughout 1943. The Wehrmacht was suffering from shortages and the bitter elements, but it was nowhere near the extreme conditions the people trapped in Leningrad were going through. There were a few things that made life more tolerable, including a road of ice that during winter was the primary form of re-supply. The rest of the year ships brought in needed relief. By this time, the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous and much better in combat. The Germans on the otherhand while still excellent were becoming fatigued and were having much more difficulty in replacing quality pilots and aircraft. By the end of 1943 the Soviets would start to exact their revenge…" TheHumanMage feels this introduction is inadequate because 1) He does not feel the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous. 2) He does not feel the Wehrmacht suffered from shortages. 3) He does not feel the Wehrmacht suffered from the bitter elements. Leningrad 1944: "With the siege lifted in January 1944, the Soviets were now on the offensive. The retreating Germans not only had to deal with the crushing numbers the Soviets were throwing at them, but also the unforgiving winter with equipment that wasn’t designed for such harsh conditions. The Luftwaffe, while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft, would eventually succumb to the massive onslaught that the V-VS was unleashing. In the year that followed, the Germans would not only be pushed out of Russia, but would also realize that they had lost the war and were now going to be the ones under siege." TheHumanMage feels this introduction is inadequate because 1) He feels the winter of 1944 played, as he puts it, “ZERO part.” 2) He disagrees that the Germans had “equipment that wasn’t designed for such harsh conditions.” 3) He contests the phrase, "while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft..." Many have tried to reason with him. Stalin's Organist, Rune, and I have given up and are now choosing to ignore him. Stalin - I'm predicting an even dozen more postings from Sirocco before he joins us. So 10 or less, you win the bet, 12 or more I win. If he goes 11 and then gives up on him, we'll call it a draw.

Hurrah! Now Stalin's Organist joins with Rune and myself in the group of people who have reached the conclusion TheHumanMage is hopeless and is best ignored. One by one our group grows stronger!

Stalin, just wanted you to know that nowhere have Zanadu or I said any such thing. He cannot produce any quote where I said the Soviets had limitless men and material. It is an outright lie! I am a very logical person and would be quite circumspect in using the word "limitless" in any context. Please be very skeptical about anything TheHumanMage alleges.

To Rune, There is no need for you to provide any numbers for 1941 or 1942. Your numbers for January 1944 (VVS 6000 vs LW 1500) is all that is required to prove your point. Here is the contested introduction: Leningrad 1943: "The siege of Leningrad continued throughout 1943. The Wehrmacht was suffering from shortages and the bitter elements, but it was nowhere near the extreme conditions the people trapped in Leningrad were going through. There were a few things that made life more tolerable, including a road of ice that during winter was the primary form of re-supply. The rest of the year ships brought in needed relief. By this time, the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous and much better in combat. The Germans on the otherhand while still excellent were becoming fatigued and were having much more difficulty in replacing quality pilots and aircraft. By the end of 1943 the Soviets would start to exact their revenge…" The facts are that the Soviets *were* becoming more numerous during 1943. Your numbers of 6000 vs 1500 prove it. It's not like 4500 Soviet planes magically appeared Jaunary 1st, 1944. They were built in 1943 as the Soviets were becoming more numerous. Don't waste anymore of your time on TheHumanMage. He will not change his position, listen, admit he was wrong, or reach understanding.

To Rune, One by one, people will come over to my way of thinking about TheHumanMage. Poor Rune, you put so much time and effort into providing data and numbers. This fellow ignores data, logic, and reasoned argument. His references to receiving an F and his slavish adherence to Professor Overy make me suspect he is a university student. His mind is programmed at this point in his life to blindly accept what his professors tell him. Later in life, he will come to be able to evaluate data for himself and might then be able to make an attempt to understand or listen. Until that time, I'm predicting one by one members of this forum will join us in ignoring TheHumanMage.

No worries, Rune! *Everyone* else is understanding this. Here's the last message I sent TheHumanMage. It's the last communication I'm having with him. You are beyond comprehension. Many of us have tried to provide enlightenment to you, but your mind is closed up tight. You do not allow light to enter and sweep clean your misconceptions. You are lost to us and I pity you. Socrates said the first step to wisdom is admitting your ignorance. In regards to this topic, you are never going to achieve wisdom. You will persist in your view that the winter weather in the Soviet Union only affected the Germans in 1942. You will persist in your view that the Soviet forces were not numerous. You will persist in your view that the Wehrmacht was not suffering from shortages after 1942. Sixxkiller, Stalin's Organist, Rune, Zanadu, Rastakyle(rastak), Lakespeed, and I have all tried to point out your errors in reasoning. You seem incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything so you are not worth my time. I am forced to ignore any further postings from you. I predict everyone else will come around to my position on TheHumanMage eventually.

TheHumanMage, You are beyond comprehension. Many of us have tried to provide enlightenment to you, but your mind is closed up tight. You do not allow light to enter and sweep clean your misconceptions. You are lost to us and I pity you. Socrates said the first step to wisdom is admitting your ignorance. In regards to this topic, you are never going to achieve wisdom. You will persist in your view that the winter weather in the Soviet Union only affected the Germans in 1942. You will persist in your view that the Soviet forces were not numerous. You will persist in your view that the Wehrmacht was not suffering from shortages after 1942. Sixxkiller, Stalin's Organist, Rune, Zanadu, Rastakyle(rastak), Lakespeed, and I have all tried to point out your errors in reasoning. You seem incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything so you are not worth my time. I am forced to ignore any further postings from you. Civilly, The Bride

Note that I started this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000668 in order to avoid the silliness of your repeated use of coal, labor, etc. Those numbers prove nothing, although you repeatedly trumpet them. You beg repeatedly for Sixx to confirm he has read them. I would like to tell you that I myself had read them everytime you posted them. You don't need to post them again. They aren't magic and won't win an argument for you. You have to *use* the numbers to make a point. The point we had reached in this thread was this: 1) The Germans were retreating. - You agree 2) The Soviets were numerous. - You disagree because you feel numerous would mean the Soviets had more planes than the Germans. 3) The winter was unforgiving. - You agree 4) The German equipment wasn't designed for such harsh conditions. - You initially agreed, but felt the Germans were "retarded." Now you think all German equipment was designed for harsh conditions and there was "ZERO" impact from winter. In your reality, [sarcasm] German planes did not ice up on their electrically heated runways. They flew in blizzards despite white-out conditions. Santa Claus delivered supplies without any problems from muddy roads, snow drifts, or ice. [/sarcasm]

So to answer the three questions for you: -1942- #1) You agree the introduction for Leningrad 1942 is perfectly acceptable. -1943- #2) You are choosing to interpret "more numerous" to mean "more than the Germans at that time." You are confused about the meaning of this sentence and nothing needs to be changed. #3) You have two complaints about the second sentence in the introduction to Leningrad 1943. To wit: a) You disagree with phrase "The Wehrmacht was suffering from shortages" You assert the Wehrmacht was not suffering from shortages because they may have had more supplies than the Soviets. While that assertion is debatable, it matters not. The Wehrmacht *was* suffering from shortages. Fact: any occupying army in the history of the world suffered shortages. Let's say I'm short $100 on my rent this month and you are short $200 on your rent for the month. By your analysis, I'm NOT short on my rent because I am experiencing less of a shortage than you are. That is illogical. The truth is, we are both short. Similarly, both the Germans and Soviets experienced shortages. I don't think a change needs to be made here. You disagree with phrase "The Wehrmacht was suffering from... the bitter elements..." You assert the Wehrmacht was "very very very very very prepard for winter they had gone to the HARD school the last year and did not make the same mistake twice." It will take more than five very's to prove your claim that the Germans didn't suffer from the bitter elements. I am willing to agree to disagree with you here. I am fairly confident you won't get a single other poster to agree with you on this point, but if you do, I will then begin to debate it with you. Until that happens, the consensus remains the Germans *did* suffer from the bitter elements in 1943. -1944- You write, "Upgrades and adoptations had been made by winter 43-44 many new planes have been designed and produced the winter played ZERO part it affected the Soviets more then it did the Germans." Let's say the Germans did indeed produce a miracle plane completely unaffected by the Soviet winter. Still, the Germans were using plenty of other equipment which was affected by the winter. For example, a portion of the German logistical supply line was horse drawn wagons. The fact that the Germans had halftracks which helped support a portion of the supply line and were better equipped to operate in the winter does not negate that the horse drawn wagons carrying supply to airbases were indeed affected by the unforgiving winter. If logistics are in anyway affected, the operational strength of your fighting force declines. There is not enough ammunition or fuel for your planes. Although Germany may have had enough food or heavy winter coats, they couldn't deliver everything needed in winter. Your claim the winter played ZERO part demonstrates ignorance. To be blunt, it is preposterous. You know nothing of war if that is your position. You contest the phrase, "while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft..." This may actually be your strongest point yet. I do not actually know the truth in this matter and would appreciate input from others in this regard. You write, "There was no RUSSIA there was only the Soviet Union, Russia was one out of 15 Soviet republics." Russia was part of the Soviet Union. There still was a Russia, just as there was Ukraine, Georgia, Siberia, etc. Thus, the phrase, "...the Germans would not only be pushed out of Russia..." still makes sense and does not need to be changed. [ September 26, 2006, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Inigo Montoya ]

TheHumanMage seems displeased with the scenario descriptions for the Leningrad scenarios. Let us review them and see if there are any areas we as a group agree need adjustment. Leningrad 1942: "On 8 September, 1941, the German offensive code named “Barbarossa” reached the outskirts of Leningrad. What was to transpire was one of the most horrid chapters of World War Two. The inhabitants of Leningrad not only endured what can only be described as massive bombing and artillery barrages, but also faced a cruel fate of starvation and conditions that were so cold, it’s a wonder anyone survived." I cannot see anything in this introduction one might find fault with. QUESTION #1 for TheHumanMage: Do you agree the introduction for Leningrad 1942 is perfectly acceptable? Leningrad 1943: "The siege of Leningrad continued throughout 1943. The Wehrmacht was suffering from shortages and the bitter elements, but it was nowhere near the extreme conditions the people trapped in Leningrad were going through. There were a few things that made life more tolerable, including a road of ice that during winter was the primary form of re-supply. The rest of the year ships brought in needed relief. By this time, the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous and much better in combat. The Germans on the otherhand while still excellent were becoming fatigued and were having much more difficulty in replacing quality pilots and aircraft. By the end of 1943 the Soviets would start to exact their revenge…" The only area of contention I can foresee here is the second paragraph where it says the Soviet pilots were getting more numerous. I personally believe this is unassailable, but I can see why TheHumanMage might be confused. I interpret the phrase "more numerous" to mean "the Soviet pilots were increasing their numbers over the number of Soviet pilots flying the previous year." There's really no room for debate about this fact. Numbers are numbers and facts are facts. On the other hand, if one argues that "more numerous" means "the Soviet pilots outnumbered the German pilots at this time" then perhaps someone can look up the numbers and prove or disprove this. QUESTION #2 for TheHumanMage: Are you interpreting "more numerous" to mean a) more than previously or more than the Germans at that time? QUESTION #3 for TheHumanMage: Other than the phrase "more numerous," do you agree the introduction for Leningrad 1943 is perfectly acceptable? Leningrad 1944: "With the siege lifted in January 1944, the Soviets were now on the offensive. The retreating Germans not only had to deal with the crushing numbers the Soviets were throwing at them, but also the unforgiving winter with equipment that wasn’t designed for such harsh conditions. The Luftwaffe, while still superior in pilot skill and better quality aircraft, would eventually succumb to the massive onslaught that the V-VS was unleashing. In the year that followed, the Germans would not only be pushed out of Russia, but would also realize that they had lost the war and were now going to be the ones under siege." From our prior posting/conversations, it seems you are now willing to admit there is nothing wrong with this introduction, so at least we've come to a consensus on that. Please answer questions 1, 2 and 3 and we can begin to sort out any remaining differences on this topic.

Are you now saying that you have no problem with the introductory text for the 1944 Leningrad campaign and instead are now directing your complaint to the 1942 and 1943 Leningrad campaigns?

You feel the introduction to Lenigrad 1944 was "a pile of ****" because it states the Soviet forces were numerous. You think this is a "myth." Any numbers to back *that* up for the time frame of the Leningrad 1944 scenario? On a different note, it seems you are calling the German High Command retarded for continuing to use a great deal of equipment not designed for winter. That's your opinion. It has nothing to do with the scenario description though. The scenario description is accurate. So I see nothing wrong with the scenario description and it sounds like your only complaint with the description is you feel the Soviets did not possess "numerous forces." 1) The Germans were retreating. - You agree 2) The Soviets were numerous. - You disagree 3) The winter was unforgiving. - You agree 4) The German equipment wasn't designed for such harsh conditions. - You agree, but feel the Germans were "retarded."

Helpful tip for taunting: When you mock the intelligence of Sixx in your post, demonstrate a modicum of intelligence yourself by knowing the difference between to and too.

Let us break it down: 1) The Germans were retreating. 2) The Soviets were numerous. 3) The winter was unforgiving. 4) The German equipment wasn't designed for such harsh conditions. What do you disagree with? It seems like you think he wrote that the Germans weren't expecting snow in Russia. They most certainly were expecting snow every year of the war, and yet their equipment wasn't designed for such harsh conditions. For example, most German artillery was horse drawn (despite your incoherent ravings about the Germans choosing to build high cost items). On a related note, the German u-boat campaign was the opposite of your "high cost items" contention. I respectfully find you ignorant. Who is the retard? The German High Command? The plan was to capture Moscow before the Winter of '41. Most equipment used wasn't specifically designed for a campaign against Russia nor for winter conditions. Are you ranting against decisions made by the German army 60+ years ago? Wow. :eek: Where did you get this? From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law), "Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."