pkanarki

You made a claim and were asked to back it up. How else should it work?
 
Nobody denied that the pipe wasn't blown as is still intact. Solid facts, as you say. Your conclusion was what was challenged.
But we don't have to. Sorry, but that is the established way of debating and gaining knowledge. The one who makes a claim has to back it up. Not the one who challenges the claim. You can make up your own rules but then please don't expect to be taken seriously.
While your facts are solid, they are not conclusive for the claim you make. For once, it is not Putins pipeline but a Russian-German joint venture.  I am not a conspiracy theorists but my government profited at least as much from the blown pipeline as Russia. In fact Russia didn't really profit much at all. The situation before was much more in their favor because Russia was able to blacknail Germany with gas deliveries and thus divide our society. Giving in to Russian blackmailing was an actually heatedly debated solution at that time.
Sure, I'd still count Russia among the prime suspects just for their demonstrated preference to do things others find unreasonable. I'd even say they are one of the likelier suspects. But they are not the only one and your facts are not suited to shorten that list.
That's a) whataboutism. We were discussing your claim, not someone else's. Your claim doesn't get any more credible by someone else making a claim he doesn't prove. And b) I don't discuss with the Russian public in general, I discuss with specific persons on this forum, so that's not a valid point. But if any Russian came here and made the claim the US were behind the blown pipelines I'd ask him to back up his claim, too.
 
Call me pseudo intellectual, again, but that is yet another rhetoric method aimed at discrediting a person's opinion instead of actually arguing his points. You are constructing a false dilemma here: A position is either fair judgement or pro Russian bias. This is false because obviously there can be a lot in between and also outside of that spectrum (for instance I could just be biased towards my line of argumenatation instead of making a fair judgement and still come to the same conclusion). But this way you make it look like everyone who doesn't share your view must be on the Russian side. Which of course discredits the person without having to deal with their points.
 
This deserves a quote...Well spoken Butschi.
Thank you

You made a claim and were asked to back it up. How else should it work?
 
Nobody denied that the pipe wasn't blown as is still intact. Solid facts, as you say. Your conclusion was what was challenged.
But we don't have to. Sorry, but that is the established way of debating and gaining knowledge. The one who makes a claim has to back it up. Not the one who challenges the claim. You can make up your own rules but then please don't expect to be taken seriously.
While your facts are solid, they are not conclusive for the claim you make. For once, it is not Putins pipeline but a Russian-German joint venture.  I am not a conspiracy theorists but my government profited at least as much from the blown pipeline as Russia. In fact Russia didn't really profit much at all. The situation before was much more in their favor because Russia was able to blacknail Germany with gas deliveries and thus divide our society. Giving in to Russian blackmailing was an actually heatedly debated solution at that time.
Sure, I'd still count Russia among the prime suspects just for their demonstrated preference to do things others find unreasonable. I'd even say they are one of the likelier suspects. But they are not the only one and your facts are not suited to shorten that list.
That's a) whataboutism. We were discussing your claim, not someone else's. Your claim doesn't get any more credible by someone else making a claim he doesn't prove. And b) I don't discuss with the Russian public in general, I discuss with specific persons on this forum, so that's not a valid point. But if any Russian came here and made the claim the US were behind the blown pipelines I'd ask him to back up his claim, too.
 
Call me pseudo intellectual, again, but that is yet another rhetoric method aimed at discrediting a person's opinion instead of actually arguing his points. You are constructing a false dilemma here: A position is either fair judgement or pro Russian bias. This is false because obviously there can be a lot in between and also outside of that spectrum (for instance I could just be biased towards my line of argumenatation instead of making a fair judgement and still come to the same conclusion). But this way you make it look like everyone who doesn't share your view must be on the Russian side. Which of course discredits the person without having to deal with their points.
 
This deserves a quote...Well spoken Butschi.
Thank you

You made a claim and were asked to back it up. How else should it work?
 
Nobody denied that the pipe wasn't blown as is still intact. Solid facts, as you say. Your conclusion was what was challenged.
But we don't have to. Sorry, but that is the established way of debating and gaining knowledge. The one who makes a claim has to back it up. Not the one who challenges the claim. You can make up your own rules but then please don't expect to be taken seriously.
While your facts are solid, they are not conclusive for the claim you make. For once, it is not Putins pipeline but a Russian-German joint venture.  I am not a conspiracy theorists but my government profited at least as much from the blown pipeline as Russia. In fact Russia didn't really profit much at all. The situation before was much more in their favor because Russia was able to blacknail Germany with gas deliveries and thus divide our society. Giving in to Russian blackmailing was an actually heatedly debated solution at that time.
Sure, I'd still count Russia among the prime suspects just for their demonstrated preference to do things others find unreasonable. I'd even say they are one of the likelier suspects. But they are not the only one and your facts are not suited to shorten that list.
That's a) whataboutism. We were discussing your claim, not someone else's. Your claim doesn't get any more credible by someone else making a claim he doesn't prove. And b) I don't discuss with the Russian public in general, I discuss with specific persons on this forum, so that's not a valid point. But if any Russian came here and made the claim the US were behind the blown pipelines I'd ask him to back up his claim, too.
 
Call me pseudo intellectual, again, but that is yet another rhetoric method aimed at discrediting a person's opinion instead of actually arguing his points. You are constructing a false dilemma here: A position is either fair judgement or pro Russian bias. This is false because obviously there can be a lot in between and also outside of that spectrum (for instance I could just be biased towards my line of argumenatation instead of making a fair judgement and still come to the same conclusion). But this way you make it look like everyone who doesn't share your view must be on the Russian side. Which of course discredits the person without having to deal with their points.

This bug has been around for many many years, atleast since 2008. 
It is NOT related to brz files not being identical.
This bug ALWAYS exclusively manifests itself on the client-side. Host is unaffected. Tcp/IP lan/internet game. 
Please can we finally have this fixed:
 

Yet another mindblowing example of russian greatness. 
According to my private sources within the former kgb(behind triple vpn, 1024 bit military grade x encryption, i still use the same licence from my retirement from the NSA, just for keeping contacts etc), Stalin much preferred the Arisaka over the Mosin. 
 
Best regards

But why don't you find the joy in that offcourse BF has fixed the bar rifle graphic where the magazine was slightly positioned maybe 0.002 pixel too far to the left, which almost ruined the whole gaming experience. 
 
To be honest. CMBN  is a serious joke and wreck by now.

The wonders of technology...
Invisible AT-guns. The germans would have won the war. -BUT
Good about Combat mission is that it always has been wellbalanced game: so dont worry cause in cmbn the UK and US are also in possesion of invisible AT-guns.

could battlefront please finally look into these AT-guns, it has been reported repeatedly for over one year if not more.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=117232

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=116413

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112664&highlight=antitank