Menchise

quote:Mr. Holland's at it again, making games where you must play a mission 10 times trying to figure out just where you have to be just when in order to get to the next mission. And worse, in this day and age, he includes NO save feature! That's nearly criminal in a game like this. He did the same thing in Xwing, and many of his other games. (Though with some creative Hacking, xwing was pretty fun). Mr. Holland seems to equate 'frustration' with 'fun gaming', and it just ain't so. At least, not for me.The style of missions in Lawrence Holland's games is what separates them from the 'fly to point A, shoot, fly to point B, repeat' missions (a style that had reached its absolute limits in Wing Commander 4). If you play X-Wing the way you play Wing Commander, you're gonna be frustrated. Holland's mission designs are more tactical: you need to be able to distinguish a main attack force from a diversionary force and take the initiative when the situation calls for it. However, I admit that he does go overboard sometimes, and his mission designs are not as robust when bugs are involved. I'm not sure if he did this in Bridge Commander, but in previous games he usually compensates for the high difficulty by providing semi-walkthroughs after mission failures.

quote:I don't think that what the Israeli's are doing is terrorism. What makes it terrorism is the unexpected suddenness of it, not just the fact that it is targeting civilians. Everyone knows that the Israeli's are there. Everyone knows what they are trying to do. Sure, it must be terrifying to be amongst it, but that doesn't make it terrorism.The East Timorese knew that the Indonesian military was slaughtering their people whenever they assembled in protest. Does that mean that the Dili Massacre was not an act of terrorism? Disclaimer: I am not comparing East Timor to Palestine. I am just pointing out the flaw in the belief that anyone who "calls ahead" is not a terrorist.

quote:I would call that a measured response.Measured or not, it's still fighting terrorism with terrorism. I'm sticking with my previous post.

quote:And Menchise, are you saying that war is wrong?I have already written that war is also terrorism. In other words, yes. quote:The use of force to cow or destroy an enemy that is bent on destroying you is NOT wrong.To do what one must do to defend oneself is unavoidable. I don't blame anyone for that. I simply choose not to excuse the act with a euphemism that tries to make it sound less immoral. It doesn't matter whether Israel is defending itself or not, it is still fighting terrorism with terrorism. To say any different is to make it okay for the situation to continue. Force cannot contain a situation forever. quote:The Palestinians have had MANY opportunities for peace with Israel, but peace is NOT what they want. They wish to DESTROY Israel, NOTHING LESS.Of course the Palestinians want the State of Israel to go and they will not give up. However, most of them are still willing to make peace with the Jewish people. That's the key: with the exception of the extremists, the Palestinians only hate the State, not the People. Unfortunately, the extremists have the authority, and all they want is to replace the Jewish state with an Arab state. That's one of the two obstacles. The Israelis are willing to cease hostilities with the Palestinian people and to allow them to have a separate state, but the Palestinians don't want a partitioned Palestine, and the Israelis will not allow Palestinians who used to live within Israel's borders to return to their homes; not because of security, but because they want to maintain a Jewish majority in the population (in other words, a racial democracy) in an effort to preserve the State of Israel. That's the other obstacle: the Israelis are only willing to make peace as long as they are still the dominant power. Here is my position, and as far as I can tell, it's my final revision. This war will end in one of three ways: 1. Either the Palestinians or the Israelis or both are wiped off the face of the earth. 2. Israel and the Palestinian territories are absorbed into a republic with Arab and Jewish representation. 3. All states and centralized governments are abolished and replaced with an association of working communities (hey, I'm a socialist ). [ 04-08-2002, 09:45: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Sorry Menchise, but your definition of Terrorism DOES NOT fit mine. My definition of Terrorism is as follows. The Use of Force against Civilians in order to coerce or force a government to submit due to civilian casualties. That is terrorism, when you target civilians in order to intimidate.Are you saying that destroying a military force is not intimidating? If anything, it's more intimidating than killing civilians because soldiers are more heavily armed, which is why many groups who are not as heavily armed attack civilians in order to intimidate: they can't attack soldiers effectively. What would be more terrorizing? Lone bombers killing civilians because they don't like the way they live, or an army of soldiers taking control of how the civilians live? The Arabs tried it militarily and failed, so now they're resorting to attacks on civilians. quote:Israel used force in order to become a country, but they bombed and destroyed MILITARY targets, and gave fair warning when it was going to happen.Israel is capable of doing it without risking defeat. quote:To use fear and intimidation against a civilian population is immoral, wrong and just begs for reprisals.I agree, but I think civilians would be even more fearful and intimidated if their country was taken over. quote:To say that the palestinians terrorist activity has the same moral standing as a declared war against another countries military is naive and just plain ridiculous.A declaration of war has about as much moral standing as a pre-Reformation indulgence (in other words, none). Telling someone that they're going to be killed before killing them does not make killing any less terrorizing or immoral. The only difference between them is the level of confidence the killer has in succeeding.

quote:The only way to stop terrorism in it's tracks is to destroy it whenever it is found, PERIOD.Stopping terrorism with terrorism doesn't work, and make no mistake, war is also terrorism. terrorism: 1. the use of terrorising methods. 2. the state of fear and submission so produced. 3. a method of resisting a government or of governing by deliberate acts of armed violence. war: 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or states, or between parties within a state; warfare (by land, or sea, or in the air). - The Macquarie Dictionary The popular definition of terrorism that is used in the media has been narrowed down to a definition of a "poor man's war" (when someone is incapable of directly challenging the military), and any form of counter-terrorism (fighting terrorism with more terrorism) by a favourably recognized state is defined as justice. If these definitions were true, then it can be argued that the 'founding fathers' of the USA were promoting terrorism when they wrote about the need for people's militias to keep the government accountable, hence the unpopularity of people's militias in the American media. It is a naive, hypocritical, and statist definition. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong and it doesn't matter whether it's necessary or unnecessary; terrorism is terrorism. To call it anything else because it's carried out by an allied military is naive.

LOL! [ 04-06-2002, 10:28: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:I dispute this statement. Terrorism is defined by the intent of the action, not the outcome.Yes, that is a more accurate statement. I was mainly concerned about the focus on the weapons used. Anyway, here is a 'brief' history of Israel's creation, dating from the early days of Zionism to the declaration of the state. 1896: Zionist movement conceived by Theodor Herzl. Its motivation was to advance the political emancipation of the Jews, which was being blocked by anti-Semitism and pressure by conservatives to assimilate into Euro-Christian society. 1897: 1st Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. The Basel Program is developed as a platform for the movement. The program includes the Zionists' main goal: to create "a home in Palestine secured by public law" (a Jewish state). The WZO (World Zionist Organization) is formed. 1897-1904: Herzl commences diplomatic relations with Britain after negotiations with Turkey fail. Britain proposes a feasibility study on Jewish colonization in East Africa - the Uganda Scheme. Herzl's acceptance triggers a temporary split in the Zionist movement. Herzl eventually reconciles with the split factions. 1905: The 7th Zionist Congress rejects the Uganda Scheme. 1905-onwards: Development of the kibbutz and yishuv (Jewish community) continues in Palestine. 1914: First World War begins. 1917: In their efforts to gain control of Palestine from Turkey, the British issue the Balfour Declaration to gain Zionist support in the war. The declaration was a promise that if Palestine came under British rule, a Jewish state would be established. 1918: First World War ends. 1922: The League of Nations approves the British Mandate over Palestine, which includes the terms of the Balfour Declaration. 1922-1936: Palestinian Arab opposition to British rule and Zionism emerges, escalating into riots. 1936-1939: Riots and nationalist uprisings lead to an Arab revolt, which is eventually suppressed by British troops. In reaction, the Zionists adopt the approach of forming a joint Arab-Jewish state with a Jewish majority. 1939: The British Government reverses the Balfour Declaration by issuing the White Paper, which promises a Palestinian state within ten years and Arab control over Jewish immigration after five years. 1939-1944: The termination of Anglo-Zionist cooperation provokes violent protests by the yishuv. 1944: Zionist guerillas led by Menachem Begin initiate an armed revolt against British rule. 1947: The British withdrawal from Palestine begins. The government calls on the United Nations to handle the issue of the country's future. The UN resolution - passed by a vote of 33 to 13 - called for the partition of Palestine into an economic union of Jewish and Arab states, the establishment of an international zone over Jerusalem, and the end of the British Mandate in 1948. The partition plan provokes violent protests from Palestinian Arabs which escalate into civil war. May 14, 1948: The day the British Mandate ends, the yishuv declares the State of Israel, with Tel Aviv as its capital. The first Arab-Israeli war begins the next day.

quote:The arab nations surrounding Israel were vehemently oppsosed to the creation of a separate Israeli state after WWII. They vowed to erase that state from the map once Britain pulled out. After their failure to destroy Israel then, these arab states have tried a couple of times to again destroy Israel. Each attepmt has met with a loss of land for the Arabs.That just about covers it. The fact that the establishment of an Israeli state contradicted with peaceful coexistence with neighbouring Arabs was a focal point in some heated debates that led to factional splits within the Zionist movement during the early 20th century. quote:The Jews actually had posession of what we call modern day Israel since at least Babylonian times. After they were returned from captivity they once again possessed this land until the Roman Empire absorbed them and I believe they were still settled there until 70AD when Titus was sent to quell the Jewish revolt. Since that time Israel has not had posession of the land we call Israel.Hmm. Learn something new everyday. [ 04-05-2002, 08:57: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:the reason why the west sol the weapons was because every single arab natiion in the region attacked israel not once but three times!Why? quote:suicide bombers is a from of terrorism which is exactly what the us is fighting against, not only are they commtting acts of terrorism they are getting money from arab states for doing so!Suicide bombers are the most destructive weapons that they have (they don't have armoured vehicles or aircraft). If killing a civilian with a bomb attached to someone's chest is terrorism, then killing a civilian with a rocket fired from a helicopter 1000 feet away is also terrorism. Terrorism is defined by the outcome of its action, not by the weapon that is used. quote:The Palestinians are Jordanians, Israel should kick thier little hind ends right back there.Palestinians were living in what is now modern day Israel before the yishuv (Jewish settlements) even existed. Sending them back is exactly what Israel does not want to do. quote:As far as no difference between Tanks and Suicide bombers....GET REAL! Bloody *bass-tirds* are walking into *fug-grin* stores, shopping malls, coffee shops and caffe's killing kids, women, old folks.The only difference between that and a tank is that a tank can park outside and kill, which is no difference in my book. quote:No excuse what-so-ever for that kind of crap... if Arafat had stopped the suicide bombings a cease fire would already be in place and negotiations would have started.Even if Arafat wanted to stop the bombings (which he doesn't) he could not have done so without making himself a target for the bombers. The mere fact that he took diplomacy seriously at one point made him very unpopular with his people. I'm surprised that the Palestinians haven't blown HIM up. quote:The tanks are being used in response to over a year of constant murder of the civilians of Israel.What's their response? Killing civilians in the Palestinian territories. Catch-22. [ 04-05-2002, 01:38: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Well who do you think is "right"Both Israel and Palestine want peace...with one on top of the other. Neither is right. quote:There is no excuse for suicide bombersThere is no excuse for tanks either. quote:and now iraq has upped the amount of cash it's giving to the relatives of the suicide bombers, and dead gunmen?!!!and the West sells tanks and attack helicopters to a state with nuclear weapons. No difference. quote:Palestine needs to back off.Both sides need to back off from their segregationist positions, which means abandoning the whole concept of a Palestinian state and an Israeli state and forming either an integrated state or a stateless association.

Happy Birthday!

quote:Am too old to remember the yearIf I was in a mean mood, I would start guessing, but since I'm not, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

I'm confused. What's the difference between a clip and a magazine? Is one for pistol and the other for auto?

quote:Resucitate Resnig (the last sport of the day... we can't let him die or there'll be no festival next year!!No, no, no. The festival should not end until Resnig is killed. If you keep him alive he will become competent and there will be no more bashing festivals. The first event of each festival should be to clone the foolish Resnig.

quote:This site is hacker proof.I thought there was no such thing as a hacker-proof site.

quote:Here's more: Democrats vs. New Media. This one's more political, and it has lots of good imebedded links, as well.That one's a bit too political. The author is trying to make it sound as if the rest of the Democratic Party supports Hollings' proposal, and that the Republicans don't (one of Hollings' sponsors is Republican). Unless Joe Lieberman starts praising it, I'm not convinced.

*sigh* It's understandable that piracy is a serious problem, but to take another step towards the infamous police state that's forming for the defense of corporate interests is to beg for more serious problems.

They had a dodgy beginning with their early releases from Terminal Reality (Fury 3 and Hellbender), but it's been looking up ever since.

Two and a half months away from 20. Happy belated birthday to JJ and Aramike, and a happy upcoming birthday to the SC (in case I forget on the day ).

quote:one word : w00t!I'll w00t to that too. Although it is kinda disgusting that we need courts to protect the dictionary. MS holding a trademark on the word 'windows' is about as ridiculous as Mastercard's trademark on 'priceless'.

Seems like everything is being made into a trilogy now (Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Star Wars prequels, Harry Potter). At this rate there will probably be a Scary Movie 3 and a Rush Hour 3, both of which will probably suck.

If Blizzard were to start developing Starcraft II right now, it would probably be in stores by December 2007 (three years past release date), over budget, released on the brink of cancellation, and still kick ass and make millions. They're the Zoetrope Studios of the gaming industry! quote:But StarCraft barely rates above an action-arcade game with lots of stuff for you to control.It's much more than that. In order to defeat the really tough opponents (read: not campaign AI), you have to exploit the terrain effectively, learn the strengths and weaknesses of every unit, plan ahead in fast motion, etc.

quote:0r10n 0wNz j00 f00zT#|nk 464|n 13mm|n6! T#3 |n5_r63n75 0wnz 411 641c0m f00z! [ 03-20-2002, 03:32: Message edited by: Menchise ]

An interesting hypothesis.