Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: Again Slap, I am not arguing tactics. I am simply saying that if you want an evened combined arms game in a ME it just isnt possible. Again, I am not talking tactics here. I believe, that if the combined arms were allocated evenly on both sides then it would be strictly up to the player to choose how advanced he employs his tactics. If what you are saying is true, which it seems, (I am not that great of a commander just yet) then greater tactical use will win everyday anyway. Even if the german side is handicaped in armor points. To me, in many games, I see allied tank superiority in numbers which in turn if used right can rule a battlefield. What I am saying is forget about tactic use. If greater tactic use is superior, why is there an edge in armor for the allied? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, if what you are saying is true, then Infantry is worth less per point than tanks, so the question then becomes how much do we increase the cost of tanks to make it even. 100 points of anything should be able to fight 100 points of anything assuming you know how to go about it. Tactics is an issue because some units are easier to use for less experienced players. Take the King Tiger. A less experienced player benefits when using this heavy because they can just trundle down the street shooting up things, and their tactical mistake is forgiven by the huge gun and massive armour. Facing another inexperienced player, that KT is going to mince three times its points value in Shermans before a lucky round gives it an A or M Kill. But for the experienced player, the trundling King Tiger is grist for the mill. Same goes for infantry. Run them around like track stars and shoot at distance enemy with no hope of scoring, stall them in observed positions and set them up so they cannot form fireteams, fail to recon, ignore your support weapons, and mess up unit cohesion and you are meat. Follow all of those tactics and you can win even if the other guy gets all the tanks they want. Greater tactical skill does not win every day either (which makes CM neat). I have had a new player kill me with a good barrage, and I beat tthe person he first time I played (against an early player) by having an M18 stupidly drive into the open and win a running gunfight with two Panthers. It is just that if 100 points of infantry are not equal to 100 points of armour on the average (I am not talking about attack scenarios either -- only in the heaviest terrain can infantry win an attack without AFVs / HTs) then how much do we have to adjust armour upward to make them equal, and then we could have almost any balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: I mean, guys like, and I cannot remember his name at this moment, but the guy in charge of german arms production, was tried becouse the allies thought he should be punished for having great sufficientcy in german arms production and helping the germans win the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sure their "sufficientcy" in slave labor had no bearing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the choice of Armor Battle only remove the force restrictions? I thought you could still by troops in Armor battles. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the choice of Armor Battle only remove the force restrictions? I thought you could still by troops in Armor battles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can, just less infantry assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: Just as a word of caution on where infromation comes from. 1951 and "from the government" lends itself to be a bit pro allied just to let you know. Though again, it could be true. I mean, guys like, and I cannot remember his name at this moment, but the guy in charge of german arms production, was tried becouse the allies thought he should be punished for having great sufficientcy in german arms production and helping the germans win the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it is good to take any source with a grain of salt. It is what I teach my students and it is a standard in historical research. In this case, the document contains a number of problems, but here we can assume they are correct because: 1) Why would they lie (a powerful arguement) 2) Other later research follows their reasoning and accepts it (ie. Patton at Bay, Keegan, Ambrose etc. -- taking into account that the final one is more general and often less accurate himself). 3) Evidence of this lack of infantry stated earlier (cooks, black soldiers inside of rifle platoons, use of secondary infantry units etc) bears this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Again, if what you are saying is true, then Infantry is worth less per point than tanks, so the question then becomes how much do we increase the cost of tanks to make it even. 100 points of anything should be able to fight 100 points of anything assuming you know how to go about it. Tactics is an issue because some units are easier to use for less experienced players. Take the King Tiger. A less experienced player benefits when using this heavy because they can just trundle down the street shooting up things, and their tactical mistake is forgiven by the huge gun and massive armour. Facing another inexperienced player, that KT is going to mince three times its points value in Shermans before a lucky round gives it an A or M Kill. But for the experienced player, the trundling King Tiger is grist for the mill. Same goes for infantry. Run them around like track stars and shoot at distance enemy with no hope of scoring, stall them in observed positions and set them up so they cannot form fireteams, fail to recon, ignore your support weapons, and mess up unit cohesion and you are meat. Follow all of those tactics and you can win even if the other guy gets all the tanks they want. Greater tactical skill does not win every day either (which makes CM neat). I have had a new player kill me with a good barrage, and I beat tthe person he first time I played (against an early player) by having an M18 stupidly drive into the open and win a running gunfight with two Panthers. It is just that if 100 points of infantry are not equal to 100 points of armour on the average (I am not talking about attack scenarios either -- only in the heaviest terrain can infantry win an attack without AFVs / HTs) then how much do we have to adjust armour upward to make them equal, and then we could have almost any balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We don't need to change the prices. If you give each opponent to opportunity to buy "equal" point values of each infantry and armor then, if all is even, you don't have to figure out how much a platoon of infantry compares to a Tank. Which I don't think you can really do directly. You see how changing the amount of points in each category screws up game balance? You now have to compare Tanks to guys with rifles. Jeff ------------------ I once killed a six pack just to watch it die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 The best thing about this whole stupid argument is that you know if BTS had changed the ratio to 50 armor points for Germans, or 400, or none, or 1000, SlippySlap and wanna-be would be frothing at the mouth just the same as to how THAT was the perfectly historical reality. Notice the complete lack of actual evidence to support their claims that 20% effective combat power in armor is somehow more historical for German combined arms units than 30%. Hey Cav, could you point me to the source that lists all German units and how it is clear that in NO case did the proportion of armor to infantry fall somewhere between what is currently given in combined arms restriction (20%)and what was available in an armor restriction (IIRC 80%)? Thanks. For that amtter, find me the historical records that specify what the average percentages in combat power were for a "Combined Arms" unit to begin with. This is getting boring. Arguing with these two is like trying to argue religion with a fanatic. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 According to these guys, BTS could reduce the ratio to 0% armor for Germans in combined arms, and that would still be perfectly fine. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: We don't need to change the prices. If you give each opponent to opportunity to buy "equal" point values of each infantry and armor then, if all is even, you don't have to figure out how much a platoon of infantry compares to a Tank. Which I don't think you can really do directly. You see how changing the amount of points in each category screws up game balance? You now have to compare Tanks to guys with rifles. Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you have to figure that anyway. Why 29 points for an infantry and 122 for an M4. Some abstract system is needed. Even if we ditched all purchase restrictions it would remain in effect. So here you need to answer the question: how much does armour need to be increased to give infantry parity with it. I will even accept your gut feeling for now, planty of time to work out exact formulas when it is presented to BTS. Then we place the historical patina over it. Here you have two choices, go whole hog within the limitations of QB or just admit we are playing Battlecraft and the Orcs get the same number of units as the humans. The question here is how historical do you want the game to be? CM is tops in this arena, but it could be notched down to CC, Steel Panthers, or even Squad Leader the video game. Depends. As I said earlier, all unit purchase restrictions, from purchase of platoons of infantry to timeline restrictions of the purchase of some units, are designed to create battles that could of been. Charles is right that the meeting engagement is not historical, but the attack and defense stuff if pretty dang realistic. If you assume that the higher echelon did not know it was going to be an even match or did not have enough forces to deal with it, then you have a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Thats what I was trying to say to you Slap. Must take things with a grain of salt. As for your points... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1) Why would they lie (a powerful arguement) 2) Other later research follows their reasoning and accepts it (ie. Patton at Bay, Keegan, Ambrose etc. -- taking into account that the final one is more general and often less accurate himself). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Point 1...I dont know exactly. But with a lot of U.S. slanted information (trying to make the U.S. look good) it seems that it is hard to differentiant sometimes. It would be hard for me to make any argument with you, with my lack of knowledge and research on this. But thanks for the information. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: The best thing about this whole stupid argument is that you know if BTS had changed the ratio to 50 armor points for Germans, or 400, or none, or 1000, SlippySlap and wanna-be would be frothing at the mouth just the same as to how THAT was the perfectly historical reality. Notice the complete lack of actual evidence to support their claims that 20% effective combat power in armor is somehow more historical for German combined arms units than 30%. Hey Cav, could you point me to the source that lists all German units and how it is clear that in NO case did the proportion of armor to infantry fall somewhere between what is currently given in combined arms restriction (20%)and what was available in an armor restriction (IIRC 80%)? Thanks. For that amtter, find me the historical records that specify what the average percentages in combat power were for a "Combined Arms" unit to begin with. This is getting boring. Arguing with these two is like trying to argue religion with a fanatic. Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff man, break your pills in half no matter what your doctor says. You need to get a grip. The adults are having a discussion now, time for you to run along and be happy. Acid tounge and demands for BTS to prove to you why they did things are kind of useless, and just raise your blood pressure and start you insulting other posters without cause. If you do not want to read the posts and respond in an intelligent and adult manner, go to the Barney discussion and pick on the 4th graders for awhile about the color purple. Best thing, borrow a VCR from someone, get a drink with no booze in it (mixes bad with the pills), and watch the sound of music. Then when it is over you will feel much better and not feel the need to be a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: But you have to figure that anyway. Why 29 points for an infantry and 122 for an M4. Some abstract system is needed. Even if we ditched all purchase restrictions it would remain in effect. So here you need to answer the question: how much does armour need to be increased to give infantry parity with it. I will even accept your gut feeling for now, planty of time to work out exact formulas when it is presented to BTS. Then we place the historical patina over it. Here you have two choices, go whole hog within the limitations of QB or just admit we are playing Battlecraft and the Orcs get the same number of units as the humans. The question here is how historical do you want the game to be? CM is tops in this arena, but it could be notched down to CC, Steel Panthers, or even Squad Leader the video game. Depends. As I said earlier, all unit purchase restrictions, from purchase of platoons of infantry to timeline restrictions of the purchase of some units, are designed to create battles that could of been. Charles is right that the meeting engagement is not historical, but the attack and defense stuff if pretty dang realistic. If you assume that the higher echelon did not know it was going to be an even match or did not have enough forces to deal with it, then you have a QB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can ask the same quesiton of why is a 1.55 to 1 ratio less historical then 1.5 to 1? It's not! The reason it was changed was for game balancing. It is just that simple. We could sit here and hash out some points system that would closely resemble BTS's but why? They have already done it. But just because you put a price on units doesn't mean you can start comparing Apples to Oranges. I would argue that just because you can compare Tanks to Tanks and maybe some lighter tanks to AFVs you can't just make a leap to say snipers and compare a KT to them. Like 20 Snipers "equals" 1 KT? I don't think so. The ony way to be sure you have an even balanced game is to compare Oranges to Oranges and Apples to Apples. There WILL be some crossvoer I admit, which is a good thing cause it will allow you to see if things are equaling out and looking fair. But by no means is it perfect. That is why you SHOULD keep the point allotments the same. In the past I have never had a complaint about Combined Arms MEs and I have played the Allies numerous times. I would like a reason from BTS as to why they ever changed this in the first place. Jeff ------------------ I once killed a six pack just to watch it die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: We could sit here and hash out some points system that would closely resemble BTS's but why? They have already done it. But just because you put a price on units doesn't mean you can start comparing Apples to Oranges. I would argue that just because you can compare Tanks to Tanks and maybe some lighter tanks to AFVs you can't just make a leap to say snipers and compare a KT to them. Like 20 Snipers "equals" 1 KT? I don't think so. The ony way to be sure you have an even balanced game is to compare Oranges to Oranges and Apples to Apples. There WILL be some crossvoer I admit, which is a good thing cause it will allow you to see if things are equaling out and looking fair. But by no means is it perfect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some would argue that comparing German tanks to Allied tanks is comparing apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Jeff man, break your pills in half no matter what your doctor says. You need to get a grip. The adults are having a discussion now, time for you to run along and be happy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry SillySlap, but you hardly qualify as an adult, and you certainly have shown yourself incapable of discussion. You standing on your pedastal pontificating to the unwashed masses hardly qualifies as a discussion, no amtter how superior it might make you feel. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Acid tounge and demands for BTS to prove to you why they did things are kind of useless, and just raise your blood pressure and start you insulting other posters without cause. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here we go again. Were did I demand that BTS "prove" anything? jsut another logical falalcy from SlapAndTickle. Pointing out flaws in your long-winded and yet consistently flawed reasoning is not an attack. Try not to take things so personally. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you do not want to read the posts and respond in an intelligent and adult manner, go to the Barney discussion and pick on the 4th graders for awhile about the color purple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think my irony meter just broke. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Best thing, borrow a VCR from someone, get a drink with no booze in it (mixes bad with the pills), and watch the sound of music. Then when it is over you will feel much better and not feel the need to be a troll.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You and CavBoy are the biggest trolls on this forum. You have yet to provide an ounce of actual discourse. I am still unconvinced that you two are not a couple of bots to begin with. I notice that neither of you responded to a single point. Or are you still busy looking up those supporting references? Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).] [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: You can ask the same quesiton of why is a 1.55 to 1 ratio less historical then 1.5 to 1? It's not! The reason it was changed was for game balancing. It is just that simple. We could sit here and hash out some points system that would closely resemble BTS's but why? They have already done it. But just because you put a price on units doesn't mean you can start comparing Apples to Oranges. I would argue that just because you can compare Tanks to Tanks and maybe some lighter tanks to AFVs you can't just make a leap to say snipers and compare a KT to them. Like 20 Snipers "equals" 1 KT? I don't think so. The ony way to be sure you have an even balanced game is to compare Oranges to Oranges and Apples to Apples. There WILL be some crossvoer I admit, which is a good thing cause it will allow you to see if things are equaling out and looking fair. But by no means is it perfect. That is why you SHOULD keep the point allotments the same. In the past I have never had a complaint about Combined Arms MEs and I have played the Allies numerous times. I would like a reason from BTS as to why they ever changed this in the first place. Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So CM cannot simulate an assault on an infantry battalion by an section of a Combat Command, because they are oranges and apples? The fact is, as it stands, the game still comes out equal. I can beat a US force tank to tank with a lesser German force of tanks. I just did last night, and I will do it again this weekend (I hope). Fact is, a rifle company and a group of tanks are not apple and oranges, but fighting units with similar capabilities to effect the battlefield for similar point spreads. The only change is that a very very few people who are wedded to Germans and Armour (not you Jeff, you already said you play a lot of US) are feeling very insecure. Notice how Jeff Hiedmann just lashed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basebal351 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: And you'd have to have been here this time last year to be around before I showed up... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I apologize for the misunderstandings we are apparently having, but I was referring to this thread. Not the board... Thanks, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: Thats what I was trying to say to you Slap. Must take things with a grain of salt. As for your points... Point 1...I dont know exactly. But with a lot of U.S. slanted information (trying to make the U.S. look good) it seems that it is hard to differentiant sometimes. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, grain of salt is exactly right. In situations like this, what we have are a way of doing things (the game) which is the current paradigm. Calls for change are requests for paradigm shifts (after Thomas Kuhn). To enact a paradigm shift, you need to build a case, support it with evidence, and then state the case in ways people can check on things and see if it fits. Mr. Heidman and other, usually out of frustration, want it the other way around. Each paradigm must prove it to themselves instead of them making a logical arguement, which throws the ball in the court of the standing paradigm and makes sure that they can tilt at the windmill without knowing anything about the subject. With historic evidence, the written word is really considered true unless it gets impeached. A good researcher looks at some works, like the government work in question, and will immediately think that social construction type bias is a possible grounds for impeachment, but that does not mean it is no good. Even from deepest darkest communist Russian in the top of communism documents were produced that were remarkably candid and useful. Here a big grain of salt is needed, but it may turn out the document is good. Also, it is important that arguements, even rhetorical, be built on some foundation if one wants to change the system. It is easy to point at Charles and say he is wrong, hard to come up with evidence, which is why you see so much "change the game cause" and not a lot of building new paradigms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Some would argue that comparing German tanks to Allied tanks is comparing apples and oranges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They could say that but I would then ask what else is similar? Tanks are tanks are tanks. They may be different in design but conceptually they are equal in the purpose that they were built to serve. That is what I think Steve and Charles are basing the whole point system off of to begin with. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The only change is that a very very few people who are wedded to Germans and Armour (not you Jeff, you already said you play a lot of US) are feeling very insecure. Notice how Jeff Hiedmann just lashed out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are just a liar. Plain and simple. Your consistent lack of honesty is appalling. Please cite the source where I said I am wedded to Germans and/or Armor, or some post that would make one think that. At the moment I am playing 2 operations, and 3 scenarios, and only in one of those do I happen to be playing the Germans. And you call me the troll? this isn't even the first example of you out and out lying about someone you were in an argument with. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).] [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I notice that neither of you responded to a single point. Or are you still busy looking up those supporting references? Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).] [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Jeff, and I am serious about this, the reason you do not think I have responded is because you do not read other's posts. Go back and reread mine, then reply. You started this Troll thing by baiting CavScout, and then you took after me. Jeff, lots of people dismiss what you say because it is attached to Troll attacks. I am sure in real life you are not a troll, you seem intelligent and sometimes you can come up with some good arguements. You did a good job in the 76mm US is to weak thread defending the game in that situation, but it never holds. Joke more Jeff. Starting a troll war with CavScout is no way to present a case, and expanding it to me WHILE taking the luddite route to an argument is certainly no good either. Jshandorf is arguing rationally and people probably see what he is saying in a much better light. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 The funny thing is Slap, that I could take your post, reverse the names, and it would sound exactly correct. Funny how when I defend the game I am intelligent, but when I do not, I am a troll. Curious. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: You are just a liar. Plain and simple. Your consistent lack of honesty is appalling. Please cite the source where I said I am wedded to Germans and/or Armor, or some post that would make one think that. At the moment I am playing 2 operations, and 3 scenarios, and only in one of those do I happen to be playing the Germans. And you call me the troll? this isn't even the first example of you out and out lying about someone you were in an argument with. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).] [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Be calm Jeff, reread the comment. You are foaming at the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Why did I, as an allied player, lost freedom of choice and I'm forced to buy more armor ? What will gain BTS in knowing that as a German player I will be forced to play an ahistorical battle in a more historical way ? If you love history so much why not give 2:1 or 3:1 or even 4:1 odds to the allies ? Where is BTS ? If there is a past post explaining this, please could you point me in that direction... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sure, grain of salt is exactly right. In situations like this, what we have are a way of doing things (the game) which is the current paradigm. Calls for change are requests for paradigm shifts (after Thomas Kuhn). To enact a paradigm shift, you need to build a case, support it with evidence, and then state the case in ways people can check on things and see if it fits. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This does not work in this situation. What is being discussed *IS* a paradigm shift. The game did work one way, and now it works in a different way. Some people are curious as to why that change was made, and what the justification is for it. The burden of proof cuts both ways. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Be calm Jeff, reread the comment. You are foaming at the mouth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good thing you are so above those personal attacks. OK, re-read the comment. You are still a liar. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts