aramike

quote: In Australia Guns are banned and the crime rate increases. In the UK guns are banned and gun related crime goes down.It is interesting to note, however, that violent crime is UP. So, let me see - ban guns, and gun crime drops. But crime overall climbs. Hmmm. Yeah, guns are the problem. One must wonder if guns are a deterrent to violent crime. I think so. Fendi: well made point.

quote: Originally posted by Jag Uar: Well, Cmdr. Jaguar, I might just be your senior, at least in the age stakes. Jag jr doesn't quite sound right to me......after all, I know absolutely nothing about you. Are you the type to sleep around with just anyone - and if so, BEWARE, you may catch something nasty out there!!!Vice Admiral: Thanks for the simple instructions - in my experience often something so complicated is in reality so simple. Therefore, I'm downloading the patches again and will follow your instructions to the letter. If that fails, I will try the first game - I still have the original patches for it - and launch into space yet!!! No problem. In truth, I had the exact same problem as you when I get going. Just be sure to manually delete the BC3K folder after uninstall.

Heh, good post.

Heh, good post.

quote: Originally posted by Baloogan: Where is Dee --- He was the keeper of the commadner's village, and his hideout is like 4 meters away from my office? Heh, no one knows where he is. Haven't seen him on ICQ in over a year.

I'll get you an extra copy and mail it to you, but you'll have to pay all the costs involved.

quote: Originally posted by MAsta_KFC: Yes i do realize the Salamander will probably slink back home to Gammula Station. However in a fit of desperation i have even tried the postmod cheats to enable the cloaking device artifact and officer 100%AI cheat so i could at least see where the Salamander is. But alas, no salamander patrolling gamma2, gamma1, tyrinnis, LV110 or LV115. i'm beginning to think maybe i'm a bit too late for the party.... Beware that cheats can have an undesired effect on the game.

Well damn - the code tag doesn't prevent HTML formatting. That's what it is SUPPOSED to do... Just click on "Edit Post" and you can see how I did it.

code: Mission Statement Insert Pic Here Assets Location Staff Links Credits That should do it. Just replace the cells with your contents as I've shown. [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Yes people can apply for help from the gov't if thyey're poor. We can keep the ammo but it's sealed in a box (not for use unless called to arms in times of war). Yes we tend to blame the foreigners for most of crime because if there's a shooting (seldom) or people with knifes then there's almost certain a foreigner (especially those who seek asylum) involved. Last but not least I can't deny that we might be a bit xenophobes.Interesting... you have all these weapons READILY available but there aren't many shootings at all. The fact that WE have weapons available is being blamed for shootings... Apparently, the fact that weapons are available isn't the problem.

quote: In my opinion yes.But see, THAT is why we have a Constitution - your opinions should NOT encroach MY rights. The Constitution guards that. I find it odd that you can call the Constitution flawed when you only disagree with one ammendment. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that it is wrong. quote: I actually thought you'd typed the bit about protecting the innocent incorrectly, which is why I questioned it. Sorry if I sounded a little sarcastic, it wasn't meant that way.No problem. I probably would have said the same thing. Just please try to read what's being responded to. That's why I use quotes - it makes for better fluidity. It also assures that I respond to EVERYTHING someone says, rather than picking and choosing. It's fair. quote: Also, the reason the crime rate here in Switzerland is so low is that the Swiss just aren't like that. Even non-violent crime is low (or under-reported). So every able-bodied man having a weapon in the house is not a deterent.Whoa - the nation's crime is low, people can keep weapons in homes, and you're suggesting that it isn't a deterrant? I don't buy that.

quote: Originally posted by Jag Uar: thanks vice admiral - i'll try downloading both patches again but I doubt it will work cause bc3000ad v2 should still work by itself{like on win98first ed.}. If I get frystrated enough I may just install it again to find out. I have had problems running a couple of other programs: b-17 and tropico but that's because they're both badly built platforms. I wonder if direct x 8 is a cause also? As for memory problems, I've tweaked my memory as per instructions in troubleshooting - to no avail. Thanks anyway for the support!!! BCv2 doesn't use DirectX. If it is a corrupt download, that has absolutely nothing to do with Windows. Even Windows 98 can't make a corrupt file to work. Anyway, you should do all this and I'm 99% sure it will work: -Uninstall BC3K. -Go to the BC3K folder and MANUALLY delete it after uninstall. VERY IMPORTANT. -Download the necessary patches. -Install BC3K. -Apply patches. -Go through set up. -Play game.

quote: Really? I thought it was meant to protect the innocent.Yes, that what it is for. You only read the words I wrote, not what I responded to. Shame on you for taking my words out of context. quote: There you go again, throwing your constitution around. Have you ever thought it might be outdated and, well, flawed?So "protecting the innocent" is flawed? Freedom of speech is flawed? Freedom of religion is flawed? Freedom of press is flawed? The right to be free of governmental siezures is flawed? The right to an impartial jury is flawed? The right ot be free of excessive punishment is flawed? Or, is only the right to bear arms flawed? Obviously you know nothing about the Constitution. Those rights are NOT flawed. Those rights are things EVERY person should have. What YOU want to do is pick and choose what rights are proper. That is NOT your RIGHT.

quote: STFU = gentle policing? A stretch but ok.Uhm, Charles, I was being goofy. I would that that, in this community, it would be obvious that no one should use STFU for simple little things. Now, as for this: quote: "Someone may not (use RP tags and then someone else may misconstrue that as fact)". "That's what Karl was saying." Meaning; back to the original problem of misconstrued fact. Leaps of logic. Correct but unclear. Sorry.Again, I find it irritating when someone enters a thread and doesn't bother to read the whole thing. Read these quotes, please: quote: There is every reason a recruiter can't make references to roleplaying events. Mainly because it is not official "roleplaying " histories. quote: My point is that we shouldn't bring what happens in the rping threads into the rest of the forums by making references to "events", "battles" and such, unless SC does so.The first one was written after I said, "There is no reason that a "recruiter" can't use "unofficial" histories as a part of his fleet. I don't see why, nor how this affects recruitment. If a fleet is getting a guy that doesn't realize that RP is different than what has REALLY happened, you should feel sorry for that fleet - that guy ain't too bright." Also, I've maintained from the get-go that, so long as things are in RP tags, they can be used. Outside of RP tags, they cannot be used. So, for you to say this: quote: "Someone may not (use RP tags and then someone else may misconstrue that as fact)". "That's what Karl was saying." Meaning; back to the original problem of misconstrued fact. Leaps of logic. Correct but unclear. Sorry....makes no sense. Why would we continue to discuss using RP events if RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING it was said that, so long as they are in RP tags, it is OK? If Karl was OK with using unofficial histories so long as they are in RP tags, why would he continue debating the subject after that was agreed upon? Sorry.

Hey guys. I'm stopping over at AW in a few. Anyone wish to meet me there? Gotta see these new areas.

quote: Someone may not. That's what Karl was saying. That's where the gentle policing comes in.Actually, Charles, I was saying that - not Karl. Read this thread again. I IMMEDIATELY said that, if RP tags are used, there is no problem. Had to clear that up.

Paddy, who said anything about shoving freedom of speech in anyone's face? Did the point totally go over your head? Also, just one cannot remove the rights of people as a response to those who abuse those rights. That is called punishing the innocent, and is what our constitution stands for.

Charles, I said the same thing as you. If RP is NOT presented as fact, then I don't see what the problem is. Use RP tags. Seems pretty simple, huh?

quote: There is every reason a recruiter can't make references to roleplaying events. Mainly because it is not official "roleplaying " histories.Considering that, right now, fleets are PRIMARILY for roleplaying, I ask again, WHY NOT? quote: The roles of the fleet that is stated at this site that DS put up is official roleplay material. Can no one else see the differenc between what's player roleplay and the official deal?I can, so please tell me where I can go to join in the "official deal". It doesn't exist yet. Seriously, A LOT of people join fleets based upon a roleplay decision. As long as the recruit KNOWS that what is being said is roleplay, then WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? Why is it a problem? Look, I've TRIED to set things up so that we ensure that a recruit knows what is roleplay and not, but apparently that isn't good enough. You want nothing less than a total ban of all discussion of roleplay - sorry, no. If someone joins a fleet because of roleplay conquests, oh well. They know it is not real (considering that there hasn't been ANY real conquests). So, give me ONE, GOOD reason that RP in RP tags should not be allowed. Just one, please. And if I hear simply "because its not official", I'm going to vomit. PS: Sure, perhaps RPing fleets get more recruits, but SO WHAT? If a fleet isn't into RP, they aren't very active as there isn't much else to do. If a recruit wants to join an ACTIVE fleet, then let him. [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Blades I’m not disputing or degrading anything that you have said or done in the rping thread. And to tell you the truth I had no ideal what’s been going on in the rping because I don’t read up on it much. So my stance in this matter isn’t because of anything currently going on in roleplay. And as much as you all would like to believe to the contrary all that happens in the roleplaying thread is purely player created and thus not part of the official BC universe. Fleets themselves are not part of the official, written BC universe. But, they still are there. And, a lot of the FLEET NAMES come from RP. Should we get rid of those too? quote: It’s nothing wrong with fleshing out your character, ship and it’s crew. My focus is when you bring major events that’s happened in rping (wars, battles, etc...)into other threads treating those events as if they are official when they are not. Now if DS comes in an make something that’s happened in rping part of the official universe then it’s all good. But until then you can’t expect other commanders not participating in rping to abide by events that transpire there.Use RP tags. Anyone with ANY knowledge of the game should be aware that there hasn't been MP play yet, anyway. quote: And if I recall correctly a question was put to DS once in reference to roleplaying thread being part of the history, and he said no. That he would either flesh out the universe himself or hire someone to do it for him. And that nothing that happens in the rping thread would be part of the official histories. I’m sure if I paraphrased him wrong, he’ll be the first one to correct me.There is no reason that a "recruiter" can't use "unofficial" histories as a part of his fleet. I don't see why, nor how this affects recruitment. If a fleet is getting a guy that doesn't realize that RP is different than what has REALLY happened, you should feel sorry for that fleet - that guy ain't too bright. Perhaps an addition to the fleet FAQ should be made? Also, if you look at the Fleet FAQ (which is official), you'll notice that each of the fleet's functions are also listed. Considering that, until now, no one has "done" ANYTHING with these fleets, one could also argue that the functions are RP. [ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Karl Wolf: That's correct Tyrn, the problem arises at least for me when the events in the rping being to take on the sense that's it's official and references to those events began to be posted outside of the rping thread.Aramike , I’m not refering to when we banter back and forth from time to time in different threads when using tags but when no tags are used espeically when a statement about a rping event that took place is stated, as a matter of fact, when it is not a fact, as far as the BC official universe is concerned. I know. That's why, for now on, when referring to "unofficial" history, everyone should just use RP tags. Problem solved.

Fair enough. There's the new rule, then. Use RP tags or don't reference RP. Agree?

I don't agree. That is why we use [rp] tags.