Grizzle

Wow, me like what me reads in the VCF. Awesome updates SC. Keep it up! And when you're done, get the heck out of Dodge and take that vacation you had to nix a few months ago.

Move along, nothing to see here folks. Apparently the dispute was over AAR withholding payments for airtime purchased in February which they did not use and the company that owns those stations re-sold the airtime to other interests. A judge has ordered the stations to carry the program again.

My experience has been just the opposite, but maybe that was because when I tried Bit Torrent it was new. I prefer eMule, and everything I've wanted to find has been there. Speed is not an issue with it for me. You can tweak the settings and get great DL speeds. Of course the credit/queue system has a lot to do with ones own performance. A lot of it also has to do with which server you've connected to. You can even use it's search engine to find .torrent files.

eDonkey/eMule are the new P2P stars (shhhhhh.)

I love the missiles. Use them as battle openers and closers, great for hitting those annoying fighters (hint fire when they're close to you) and perfect for cleaning up all those disabled craft you don't feel like towing. Great for setting FATAL targets that are HJ'ing towards you. The missiles launch before they finish hyperjump and they have little chance to jam them.

Sweeeeetttt.

Played it for a few levels until the wow factor wore off. Now it's just another FPS (albeit a gorgeous one), uninstalling as I type this. REALLY disappointed in the theme, but as far as that goes it is the cream of the crop at the moment. I guess I'm just tired of the same old FPS style gameplay sitting behind a new paint job.

Seriously $ilk, enough with the slams against street, your Bahgdad Bob remarks may be funny to you and others but I think it's pretty offensive and is not in keeping with good spirited discussion. If you want to gloat and poke fun because you think you have the upper hand, please do so quietly. Your attacks and name calling, while more subtle than streets, amount to the same damn thing. The interesting thing about all of this banter is that the ending to the story hasn't even been written. Whether attacking Iraq turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen. Until then, it's all postulation. There are two sides to EVERY story and the truth always lies somewhere in between. Words to live by.

quote:Originally posted by Darkling: Your whole "Conspiracy to attack Iraq" deal? That may be debated but it's not a fact, just because someone writes some words in a book that have not been coroborated by any witnesses, doesn't mean that it's a fact. Fuel to the fire...

Oy. Whew, now these criminals can serve two life sentences That'll make a big difference. Does it make anyone feel better that a criminal will be sentenced or put to death for two deaths versus one? Doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned. As the article said, this is just setting the stage for an overturn of abortion rights.

He does NOT laud Clinton. His book (if you are brave enough to read it) points fingers at both Clinton and Bush. More importantly he's uncovering general weaknesses in our intelligence community. Something that benefits everyone regardless of your affiliation. Yeah he's trying to sell a book, but so are Rush, Hannity, Coulter and any other republican pundit that can string two words together ( as long as those words involve 'evil', 'criminal', 'treason' and or 'traitor'. You'll swallow their diatribe hook line and sinker, but from a man who clearly has nothing to gain politically and who voted for Bush, you'll assume he's a liar because he doesn't lavish Bush with praise. As for his contradictions, he stated he was being loyal to Bush and party as they asked him to "accentuate the positive". That's sounds entirely reasonable coming from a man with a 30 year career in government. The fact that the government colors the truth in favor of itself should be news to no one. It's a shame the current National Security Advisor refuses to testify before the 9/11 commission. She seems comfortable enough to comment in public so I guess it's just the "under oath" part she fears. Cheney says Clarke was out of the loop yet Rice says he was in all of the meetings..who's telling the truth? Even if he WAS out of the loop, why the hell is the National Coordinator on Terrorism NOT IN THE LOOP on matters regarding terrorism? I already know nothing will change the minds of those that see this as a partisan attack. And to accuse someone who sees Clarke as credible only doing so because they're democrats is pure BS. Of course from that I can infer that anyone who dismisses his assertions is doing so because they're republican. You see the important point here is NOT partisanship, it's that our government needs to improve their internal processes when it comes to security and intelligence gathering so that future 9/11's can be prevented. I'm not comfortable sitting behind a partisan shield with information like this at hand. [ 03-25-2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Grizzle ]

No one could have watched Clarkes testimony and come away feeling he was anything but concise, truthful and entirely believable. Interesting to note that he also stated on Larry King last night that he felt Bush Sr. was the president with the best ability/record in dealing with international terrorism. I believe him. Nevertheless, he'll still be demonized and marginalized by the right wingers because he dares to bare the fact that our current administration is not infallible. Anyone capable of raising themselves above partisanship should be praising him for his forthrightness in exposing the weaknesses in our government. Regardless of your take on him personally, his words and accusations can only serve to improve the way our government operates in all areas of intelligence and security. This is a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you reside on.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: Is this all the Democrats know how to do, cry about Bush, cry about Nader or cry about everything it seems. Nice, another broad brushed stroke from the Republicans. Find that sour note and play the hell out of it, it'll start to sound good if you play it long enough. Sooner or later those that are so deeply entrenched in their own partisanship will realize that it's just politics as usual. Hypocrisy, secrecy and incompetence abounds on both sides. Talk about 'Slick Willy' how about 'Greasy George'? $ilk, do some research on Clintons response to all the terrorist activities. He WAS active and not only that, the republican congress stonewalled his first Anti-Terrorism bill. You also fail to account for the fact that a lot of governments failed to cooperate when Clinton asked for extradition of known terrorists. The Sudanese wanted us to lift sanctions we imposed on them for harboring terrorists so they offered us Bin Laden in exchange for lifting them. Should we have taken the offer? Probably, but hindsight is 20-20 and who knows what would have happened had Osama been captured/killed at that time. It's so easy to hear the republican pundits dismiss Clintons efforts out of hand, and while I would agree they were not very effective, you can't imply the man sat by and did nothing. If you do then you're not being very honest about the situation. As for the aspirin factory, I guess we'll never know, but maybe thats where all the WMD's were [ 03-23-2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Grizzle ]

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: Naturally since he caught a big demotion. As Cheney said: Clarke wasn't even in-the-loop considering he was responsible for electronic terror countermeasures or something. 9/11 is a big thing, and in an election year, this was his perfect chance for some revenge. I doubt the "demotion" was an issue, if it is even considered a demotion. Pay attention to who throws that word out there. Even so, that doesn't change the fact they ignored his message. Poo on them. quote: Viacom is the company marketing his book - and his appearance on 60 minutes (a Viacom company) was a glorified book sales pitch.. And that negates the facts in his book how? When he begins appearing on other shows will that make his claims more credible? (Red herring.) quote: What about the questions I listed to ask this guy? How can he blame Bush for not taking action during the first 9 months of his term, while Clinton had 8 years in which to prevent 9/11? Quite an exaggeration there. Clinton did take steps to fight Al Qaeda only you all were too busy trying to impeach the man to notice. Except for accusing him of trying to divert attention from the scandal when he did try to strike out. Here's a thought, lets blame the congress, Ken Starr and anyone else that wasted 8 years of our governments time trying to impeach the President rather than let him deal with the real issues. Yes, his attempts at bin Laden could have been handled differently, but they weren't. Poo on Clinton. None of this changes anything regarding Bush's actions. Clinton is gone, we can blame him all we want, but we have to deal with Bush NOW since he is the one calling the shots and is the topic of the book. Seriously, don't you think it's funny how anything negative about Clinton is immediately accepted as truth, but negative things about Bush are adamantly denied as partisan attacks. Let me put Rush's argument in more mundane terms. Lets say Clinton literally left a ticking time bomb in the Whitehouse when he left office. Bush and Co ignore it because it came from Clinton. The bomb goes off. Is the more important issue that Clinton left the bomb or that Bush, knowing about it, failed to diffuse it? Bush "Don't blame me...I didn't put it there, Clinton did." Public "Yes, but you knew it was there and failed to address it"

You can tell the Bushies are a bit frightened of Clarkes accusations. As for him being a Clinton holdover, he served for Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and now Jr. His Washington career has lasted for thirty years under both parties. He's not a hack. He's pissed off. Even if he is doing it for partisan reasons (thus far I haven't seen his affiliation mentioned anywhere), if the accusations are true, Bush Inc has lots of explaining to do. At least we can count on the Reps to cloud the issue with lots of Clinton questions. It's the easiest way to shut down republican minds and avoid the real issues.

Can we stop with the straw man arguments about pedophilia and incest etc...? Last I heard those things were illegal, and being a homosexual is NOT. When one of you can come up with a sound legal argument as to why two consenting adults in a long term, committed relationship shouldn't benefit in the same ways other members of society do then have at it. Since I have no personal stake in the issue it really doesn't matter how it turns out. I just think it's sad that so many are comfortable relegating a group of individuals to second class citizen status simply because they fear what they don't understand. As I said in my first post, it's inevitable and the sooner we all get used to the idea the smoother it will go. I've pretty much said all I care to say on the matter. You guys can continue on and have fun with all your negative "what-if" scenarios.

Given the fact that homosexuals are a minority group asking to be treated equally before the law, I'd say it's pretty close to other struggles minorities have faced in this country. No it's not equal to them, I wouldn't equate any one of them to another. But this is NOT a question of the magnitude or severity of suffering being used as a qualifier to validate the issue. It's a question of legal discrimination. Pure and simple. People can continue to throw out religious, social, economic and moral reasons why this is a bad idea, but in the end it will be decided purely on a legal basis. I think we can all take a good guess how it'll turn out too.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: It's important because Marriage is society's way of ensuring survival of our species in a man-woman coupling with hopefully a healthy upbringing for the child. Read the article's I've posted to.Marriage is a word. People can successfully procreate and perpetuate our species without marriage. If you don't want the word Marriage sullied that's fine, but don't presume that without it the human race would die out. quote: Recognizing homosexual unions publicly is flawed as well - because it is simply normalizing something that is not normal. There was a time when blacks were not considered "normal" either. quote: Homosexuality is really no different than an attraction to animals, children, etc. except for the fact that it is occuring between two consenting adults. People are attracted to different things - there are reasons why it should be kept in the closet - just like pedophiles and bestiality. If you can't draw a distinction between pedophilia, beastiality and homosexuality then you really shouldn't be commenting on the topic. Did it ever occur to you that homosexual couples can raise children? They have several options open to them including adoption and surrogacy. So by your definition of marriage, if a homosexual couple raises healthy happy children, they would qualify for benefits. Or is it that your definition requires the child be born of a sexual realtionship between the two? All of the gay people I know are born that way. God made them gay, if you choose to believe otherwise then it's your problem. You see sexuality is NOT cut and dried. Nature consists of asexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals etc... Yes, hetero is the "norm", but all other aspects exist. Here's a brain twister for ya, how do we handle marriage between two hermaphrodites (those few that God saw fit to make "abnormal").

The only weapon I have is my wits. Yeah, I know, some weapon huh? Well, it's gotten me this far

I want this guy to come back and tell us what he ended up doing!!

quote:Originally posted by Dambreville: If the bots were not pathetic, like I knew they would be, then I would consider buying BFV. You would think they could have made improvements on them from the original, but they behave poorly as ever.True, but BF has always been primarily an online game. The bots/singleplay aren't really needed and wouldn't be missed if they nixxed it.

Eps, I have the Tungsten/E and I think it's great. Palm has come a long way, but it's not a Pocket PC. I'd definitely recommend it if it seems to do the things you're looking for. The battery life is excellent, the display is crisp and bright and it definitely has that cool factor.

So I got BFVN yesterday and played the hell out of it. I like it. Nothing to write home about, but it does what it does well. It doesn't feel much like Vietnam (I think Vetcong did a better job of that), but the foliage and terrain is pretty sweet. Sniping is awesome now with all that cover I died a lot too, due to unseen enemies and all the damn foliage, but I guess that's the "Vietnam" part. I'd say if you liked BF42 you'll like BFVN, that is unless you're sick of the BF series. Tak - The only map GC had when released was Hoth. I'm guessing they have a few more now.

quote:Originally posted by Takvah: Probably going to skip Battlefield Vietnam unless major mods are produced for it. I have been playing Galactic Conquest the Star Wars Mod for BF1942 and I am thoroughly enjoying it. Anyone that hasn't played GC yet should give it a try. Peace I tried GC when it came out, thought it was pretty cool. Have they added any more maps yet Tak?

I'll probably pick up BV, mostly because I played BF42 a hell of a lot and I really liked it (haven't played it in almost a year now though) and because some buddies of mine are forming a clan. I'm going to pass on UT2k4, I played UT2k3 for about a week, played the 2k4 demo for about 2 hours. Same old same old IMHO. I think the original UT was still the best of that lot (at least I played it a lot longer and had waaaay more fun.) The other game mentioned, Tribes, kicked azz and I don't see why so many people bash Tribes2. It was a great game too and I played it for a very long time. I loved being a Shrike pilot...damn that was cool.