rnpoole

I checked out Fry's this weekend and get this ... new multiple copies of BCMG and UC on their shelves but no UCCE. (sniffle) I was surprised to see that they had essentially recently restocked with soon to be obsoleted game packages.

Distributed by Take 2! (gasp) The horror ...the horror. I hope it makes it into decent merchants. The Frys and Best Buys around here have one copy of BCMG and one copy of the original UC on their shelves. I kid you not. Walmart or Target? Forget it. I've been following BC3000 since the beginning. I've cursed it, praised it, stayed up too late playing it, and have just really enjoyed the whole business surrounding the development of the BC series. I think it is a unique thing in the industry. If you could bottle up all the tension and anticipation of BC fans waiting for each new release over the years there would be no energy crisis. The development and marketing of the BC series is an incredible story of the persistent die-hard pursuit of a dream. You should sign a few copies of the last box set and run a contest for them or something.

"The boxed version will be out in late July to early August ..." Oh, the weeping and gnashing of teeth!

When should we start looking for the Collectors edition in the stores?

quote:Most likely it will be a digital download. Seems to be the way things have heading, especially considerings SC rough past with conventional publishers.I thought there was an official blurb on this being published in a box as a send-off for the series. Have those plans changed? I hope not.

Irregardless of the origin of the phenomena human beings contribute far far less than other natural factors do. Volcanic activity (Venus' problem) and other natural factors contribute much more in comparison. Given our small contribution to the problem to begin with and our inability to "manage" the entire ecosystem of the world I don't see how we are going to do much more than waste time and resources on something we can't control.

Two out of four inner planets are getting warmer. The icecaps are melting on Mars. Of course Venus is already hot enough to melt lead. (no away teams please) The temperature cycle of a planet is immense. We have data that shows the Earth has gone through several temperature fluctuations in the past, doesn't it make sense that it would continue? quote:Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest By SPACE.com posted: 03:00 pm ET 08 December 2003 Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...age_031208.html quote: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News February 28, 2007 Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturalÔÇöand not a human-inducedÔÇöcause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html quote: Planet Venus: Earth's 'evil twin' By Paul Rincon BBC News science reporter Nasa's Magellan spacecraft mapped 98% of Venus' surface with radar ...Venus has undergone runaway greenhouse warming, whereby trapped solar radiation has heated the planet's surface to an average temperature of 467C (872F) - hot enough to melt lead. A dense atmosphere, composed chiefly of carbon dioxide (CO2), generates a surface pressure 90 times greater than that on Earth. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4335628.stm

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Frozen Ghost: The local Fry's carries Battlecruiser 3000 gold No such title exists. Did you mean Battlecruiser Millennium Gold? Yes, of course. My bad.

The local Fry's carries Battlecruiser 3000 gold but that is about it. I'm guessing they'll carry UCCE.

Can you tell us what stores are going to carry UCCE?

Awesome game! My only complaint is it does bog down when you get a lot of units in play. I have 2 Gig of memory, a 2.8 Pentium, and a X850XT. You'd think I wouldn't have any trouble.

...military budget... Speaking of military budgets and 911, if the military budget was so raped how did the come up with trillions of dollars to loose? "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions, ..." DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week KickoffÔÇöBureaucracy to Battlefield Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, The Pentagon , Monday, September 10, 2001 In the speech Rumsfeld talks about how the military financial systems are antiquated and inadequate. Please not the date. Maybe the trillions of dollars are just misplaced.

"...but to do so and then to attempt to answer them from only one angle (which isn't even the most LIKELY angle), is intellectually dishonest." "It does appear for all intents and purposes to be the result of a premature news release to the BBC by someone culpable ...What are your takes on this fellas?" So in stating "it appears to be" and "what are your takes" wasn't I positing one way of interpreting the footage and inviting other opinions to foster a discussion? Does that make sense to you Mr. Jerk? I'm not in lock step with 911 conspiracy theorists or the official story. I find it interesting like I find UFO reports interesting and my jury is still out on that as well. About WTC7 I said "...it appears to be ..." I also said, what is your take on it fellas"? I think it was my comment about the myth of the liberal media where things started getting out of hand. I'm sure there are some other things we disagree about as well, like the Warren Report, but I really don't think either of us give a hoot. ... you didn't even broach the MOST LIKELY possibility What I did do was say,"...there are many possibilities as to how and why this could have happened. I think the "official story" of 911 is quite well known and doesn't need a lot of explanation nor does it need to be defended with religious fervor when tested. Of course the first thing that comes to anyone's mind is "it was a mistake, they obviously aren't vetting evertying in an attempt to scoop the other networks.", the next thing that comes to mind is that it is a hoax, after that you might start thinking about what is being said about WTC7's odd fall. I thought it was obvious being Capt. Obvious and all. My statements about WTC 7 were suppositions. No where do I say, "this is how it happened" not did I say "that's not possible" to anything said here. My jury is still out. I guess in the case of folks who already know everything about 911 they don't need to bother with things like this. However, I ran into something new to me and threw it out there for us to chew on because I found it interesting. Pardon me. I'm all for the freedom to worship as you choose. I think it is an important right. I also believe that political correctness will kill us. Religious freedom does not include the right of sedition. Would you not agree? 1. Could it be a hoax? Yes ,but not likely given BBCs response and the CNN reporter commenting that the building had yet fall. 2. Could it be just a mistake? Yes, and this is the most likely explanation. It is the least path of resistance. 3. Could it be a mistake made by conspirators orcastrating the attack. Yes, but it is the least likely of the bunch. However it is the most scary, and deserves to evaluated. Did a shadow government or whatever, plan and execute the attack to make the citizens to want to go to war? I think it may be more possible than it being a hoax of some kind for reasons I've already stated. If it was a mistake then how it happened would be very interesting to know. I'm sure it will be written off as just part of the choas of the day.

quote: And it's exactly because people talk that I doubt 9/11 is a conspiracy. While it is relatively easy to keep a secret when said secret is in line with your perception of duty, it's a complete different matter when common sense tells you that we are talking about a crime against your own people. Leaks usually occur for two reasons: either to push an agenda forward, or because an individual becomes very uneasy/upset with some information he came across. Thanks for a measured response, That is one my major problems with all the 911 conspiracies. People talk. Pissed off people talk even more and 911 pissed off a lot of people.

Ok. I'm using the terms incorrectly. My bad. You're also correct in that if you do take the most simple explanation for things you'll be right most of the time. The simple answer is it was a mistake. That as you said, an AP wire story was generated by someone with partial information and picked up on by the BBC and CNN. CBS and ABC could have ignored it because they fact checked it first. The BBC and CNN in a rush to beat the others to the punch made a mistake. Or as Director of Collections at the Internet Archive has said "Another explanation is that there was simply confusion at the time and some journalistic ÔÇ£whispering down the laneÔÇØ in which early stories that there was something happening at WTC7 led to rumors of its collapsing which then led to on-air reporting of its collapse. The fact that the WTC7 is still standing and visible in the background of the live shot appears to confirm that the reporting of the collapse did take place before the actual collapse. " The entire BBC archives were released around 2003. It got feed into the Internet Archives and someone reviewing the information in Canada recently found the footage in question. Thinking he had found something important he reported it to a talk show host and posted it on YouTube and it went viral. The BBC may have lost the footage from that entire day as files, tapes, and disks were suffered around in the act duplicating everything for release. Nothing too strange there. Everyone looses things at one time or another. The lack of media coverage is explainable. They just don't consider it a news worthy story. There are more important things to report on like the Walter Reed affair or Britney's tragic conversion into the Antichrist. So yeah, I see the "tin hat" aspect of being concerned when you read about, or in this case, see an anomaly like reporters reporting on things before they occur. I see why someone would think that. Does that mean asking questions about these things and discussing them brands you as a tin-hat nut case? Where does that lead us then? Thinking that someone could screw with the news reports AP puts out to the major networks would be silly wouldn't it? The tales that the footage exists and is confirmed as being actual stamp-stamped BBC World News aren't anything to be concerned about because even if it really exists everything in it is perfectly explainable. WTC 7 obviously fell because it was hit with parts of the falling Twin Towers and caught ablaze weakening its steel frame to the point of collapse. Although no other steel building had ever collapsed before 911, the Twin Towers after all, two of the largest steel buildings in the world, had fallen earlier in the day. And certainly the Twin Towers fell because fire weakened the joists holding up the floor and a pancake collapse occurred, the weight and kinetic energy reducing concrete and office furniture to dust. Military drills occur all of the time without the publics knowledge. The fact that there was a drill being run that day very similar to the actual events was a coincidence as was the bombing drill that was running the day of the tube bombings in London. Its a numbers game. Eventually you'll hit a day where two similar events collide like that. People want to have answers as to why such things happen and if they can't find them they'll create them. They'll take a little detail and it a lench-pen in some world-wide conspiracy. I see and understand to some extent the views of both sides. The problem is there are always more than two sides and more shades than just black and white. I am pretty much convinced we will never know more about what happened than the official story. One other thing, did you explain why the FBI won't release footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Because of my obvious stupidity, ignorance, and refusal to use all-caps for emphasis, I may have missed it. Don't they have film from several cameras that had a clear view of the crash site? The locations of the cameras are already known and some were owned by private businesses. So it isn't like it's a secret. In your professional opinon, why would they hold them back like that? National Security? Maybe its that a film of a plane hitting the Pentagon could reveal aspects of its construction that we want to keep from the enemy. I don't trust the government anymore than I trust the 911 truthers. I have questions about current events other than freaky shit about 911. Like: If we are waging a war against a global Islamic Jihad why are we allowing Mosques to preach radical Islam in this country? Why do we have our pants around our ankles at the border? Would you agree that the simplest explanation is bad management and a refusal to enforce existing laws? >Tin Hat. Jerk.

I don't give a hoot if he works for the Secret Service. That has nothing to do with whether what he said makes sense or not. If you could concentrate on the discussion and actually add something it, it would be cool jag. So what about the Vietnam thing? You really have no valid argument for what you said do you? Of course not. What is the expert's opinion? He said: "Could have been a simple error. I mean, maybe its news to you but the press has been known to jump the gun in sensationalizing things." and "The latest Star Wars took what, a year or so to make a FULL LENGTH film? People would have had YEARS to edit simple background footage on a news report." Its either a simple error where two news agencies got excited and accidentally reported the world's first steel frame building collapse by fire before it happened. Or someone doctored the footage and hired Aaron Brown, the CNN anchor to read the a report of WTC 7 falling before it fell for them too. They should have had him do it without the obvious confusion and dismay in his voice as he reads the building has collapsed when he knows its standing behind him. I'm sorry guys but both of those require me to simply dismiss one the most incredible cock-up(as the head of CNN World News said)of all time as a simple mistake? If you'll watch the footage you'll see the reporters were reading copy someone else had written. Who, why, and how that other someone could know enough to write about a WTC 7s collapse before it actually did should be the real question here. Its not did it happen. It did. The real question is, "Why did it happen and how." I'd like to know the name of the producer that created that report. Don't you? I bet not. Darkling, I hear what you are saying and I respect that, but if everyone is so gung-ho why the constant extensions and why have we drained our reserves already?

Another important information control term to be familiar with is 'compartmentalization". I knew this before I went to work there but when I was an employee of a large military contractor I saw the effectiveness of the compartmentalization of information first hand. By only allowing someone to know about his small piece of the project and not the entire enterprise, it is possible to carry out very sophisticated projects while 98% of the people carrying it out do not understand what they are doing in relation to the overall project. It is possible to have someone make a part of a weapon system and believe they are making components for communications equipment. You understand this principle I'm sure. A large classified operation requires many tasks that by themselves mean nothing to the individuals carrying them out but which contribute to the unknown (to them) end goal. You must know as well as I that there have been many secret operations that were only disclosed until many years had later transpired and they were declassified for the gatekeepers to release. There are many questions surrounding the events of 911 that have not been answered to the satisfaction of reason. Why would the President resist an investigation into the events of 911 like he did? If there is nothing to hide then why has the FBI not released the footage clearly showing the aircraft striking the pentagon? Why or even how could the BBC suddenly become aware of the total loss of all 911 footage they shot only after someone points out a rather glaring inconsistency in their reporting for that day? These are all bizarre happenings if everyone was on the up and up don't you think? To not question the official story of 911 would require me to be more trusting of the government and big business than I am at the moment. That in the light of history seems to be an unintelligent choice. Would you not agree? It seems as though a lot of pro-war and pro-bush folks think to question the government is unpatriotic. Its like expecting my government to account for the Trillion dollars that Romsfield said the Pentagon lost is unamerican instead of good stewardship. If I question the official story and I'm wrong there is no harm done. If I believe everything the government tells me and they are liars then a great deal of harm is done. Therefore, I don't see the harm in questions but I do see the harm in not asking them. Would you agree with that? I really would like to see Jaq put some substance to his assertions that Vietnam was a righteous war that we were winning until it was subverted by liberal propaganda. I mean really man, if I have that all wrong I'd like to see the evidence to the contray. I would love to not think LBJ lied to get us into it and wouldn't provide the means for his generals to "win" the war (whatever the hell win means) So please, give me some references that support your claims. I mean for Pete's sake man, you're the "Head of Diplomacy Fleet". Be diplomatic or just do it to show me up because I'm libel to continue to think you're prone to making unsupported claims because ... well ... you can't support them with a valid argument or evidence. What is it called when a poster is prone to make unsubstantiated controversial or inflammatory statements in a forum and falls to ad homen attacks when challenged? Well anyway, I'd love to be proven wrong about Vietnam and my suspensions about 911. I mean, it sucks, I want to trust my government and live the American dream like everyone else, happy as can be. Help me out if you have the wherewithall. References, quotes, authors, news reports, a well thought out argument, just something other than hollow proclamations and logical fallacies. I'm an independent. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. I'm beginning to think that the Constitutionalists have it right. I really don't want to foster any ill will. But honestly, it would be nice to see something of substance rather than hollow accusations of ignorance on my part. Cure my "ignorance" and help another poor slob out whose trying to make sense of this felgercarb. I need a little more than "because I said so."

Let me make sure no one misunderstands me. I don't know why the BBC and CNN would prematurely report the collapse of that building. I'd just like to see a reasonable explanation as to why. I have yet to see one. I'd also like to see a reasonable explanation for its absence in the main media. Are those such unreasonable, revolutionary, and conspiratorial things to ask? If anything I'm curious because of the unprecedented nature of the event. Has it got to be where asking "why?" is Politically Incorrect? Is that the way you think it should be in America gentlemen? I don't. Look, I'm under no delusion that anyone here is going to supply a reasonable answer. That isn't the point. That can only come from CNN and BBC. They have yet to do so. One can only wonder why that is so I suppose unless you're predisposed to being blissfully ignorant and not apt to question those in authority over you.

That and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee jaq.

>Umm yeah. Perhaps I should clue you in to the fact that you're talking to a guy who's 17 year >military career was in "information control". And I'm the King of England, a former employee of the 'Military Industrial ComplexÔÇØ, and a technical communication specialist. Ok ... I'm not the freaking King of England. You caught me. Information control can be anything from a filing clerk, a reporter for Az-Zaman, to a writer for the Us Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Journal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Impress me with your intricate knowledge of the mechanics and limitations of such operations and why it just couldn't be so. >I agree. But that's where your logic completely dodges my point. >Yes, someone perpetuating a hoax of this magnitude would want to control information >regarding it. NO, they would not likely be ABLE TO. I don't see anything in your unsupported statement to convince me that they would ÔÇ£not likelyÔÇØ be able to. Care to elaborate or should I just take your opinion for it? >Sorry, sir, but that is NOT Psy-Ops. Psy-Ops are information campaigns dedicated to causing a >specific emotional and/or psychological response to information. >What you're referring to is called "Information Warfare" which involves the control and >dissemination of information. Yes, the whole 911 operation, regardless of who did it, was to induce a very specific emotional and psychological response in the American public and the world. Do you deny that? All terrorist acts are by definition Psychological Operations calculated to induce a emotional and psychological response to bring about change. Are you telling me that providing enemies (Ben Lauden was fingered 33 mins after the first crash), carefully crafted(but premature) reporting that massive buildings are falling in New York due to fire induced structural weakness (when none had ever done so before 911) and generally undercutting the sense of security of every American not a Psy-Op? >Did you miss the fact that the IRAQI press doesn't have NEARLY the power of the >American and British media? This has relevance how? Are you to trying to suggest that someone who could manipulate the small IRAQI press because they are in complete control of it wouldn't be unable to manipulate the BBC and CNN because you assume they are not? I need more an argument than that given the evidence in hand. One word, and since you're an old intelligence man from way back, you'll understand what I mean when I say ÔÇ£gatekeepersÔÇØ. Maybe you could elaborate on the necessity of regulating the flow of information or propaganda that is provided to local news organizations to ensure the event is perceived as designed. Example: Bay of Tonkin. >Or, did you COMPLETELY overlook the fact that the American media has the FIRST >AMMENDMENT protecting it's dissemination of information? That is correct, the constitution does. However do you think that is what is really happening here? If that is so then why hasn't the WTC 7 911 BBC/CNN premature report not been reported in the mainstream media, especially since it was on the tail of a BBC 911 special? If the corporations or government doesn't have any power over the dissemination of information why hasn't any of the other networks, who are normally quite eager to point out their competitions mistakes? >Could have been a simple error. I mean, maybe its news to you but the press has been known >to jump the gun in sensationalizing things. You want me to just dismiss out of hand a major and quite incredible blunder made by not one but two of the worlds major networks on one the most significant days in American history for what reason exactly? I have yet to get anything from you but your emphatic unsupported opinion about how things are ... in CAPS YET. Sensationalizing things? Have you watched the actual footage in question? Besides, they hardly needed to sensationalize anything about 911, I'm sure you'll agree with me there. >Now, I know you probably WANT to think that its a grand government conspiracy, but... Quite frankly a person would have to be crazy to want to think something like that. It's the last thing I want to think. I've been trying very hard not to and until just recently wasn't taking it seriously. >Show me where the BBC ITSELF says they lost all of the tapes, not just where someone says >that they say it. You want me to believe you had 17 years in military information control and you need me to show you the BBC NEWS, THE EDITORS article by Head of BBC World News Editor Richard Porter himself because you either have dismissed this out-of-hand because you just inherently ÔÇ£know betterÔÇØ, you don't know how, or you don't really care enough to look? In any case here it is amigo. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html >The latest Star Wars took what, a year or so to make a FULL LENGTH film? People would have >had YEARS to edit simple background footage on a news report. I wish you fellows would educate yourselves before you try to have a conversation about something. You're wasting my time and propagating misinformation. The footage is archive footage. A key fact here is that the BBC admits the mistake. There is no question that they broadcast the demise of WTC 7, with the official story, at least 30 minutes before hand. There is no question that CNN did the same. >The footage is not that impressive. Well, I'll have to say you haven't been either. >And why should we trust them? Well don't. You're an ex-military information control specialist. Trust government and big business, after all, you should know best that history has shown they have your best interests at heart. So Jag, did you ever find those Vietnam War history books you were reading where it was a righteous war where we had 'em on the run and that we would have just won if it hadn't been for those dang war-hating pussies? I thought you were going to set me straight on that. I'd be more than glad to read your source material and change my opinon if the evidence warrants it. I've come to the conviction that anyone who hurls the words Conservatives or Liberals around like they were two homogeneous groups of people are either truly ignorant of the American political landscape or simply caught up in the false dualism with which public opinion is manipulated. In either case they are usually followed or proceeded by the most intelligence insulting hyperbole imaginable. Is that just me or has anyone else come to that conclusion?

"Logic: Think about how stupid it would be to give notice on an event such as this to the media when the media would CLEARLY require NO NOTICE to cover it." That was hardly an exercise in logic and displays some ignorance about modern warfare and the importance placed on information control.It is conceivable and very probable that someone perpetrating a hoax of this magnitude would want to control the flow of information about it to ensure it is perceived in the manner intended. It's called Pys-ops and it is done all the time. We've already been caught manipulating the press in Iraq. Did you miss that one? Due to the similarities in the CNN report it begs the question, Where did that information come from? A fax? A hand-written note? Did it come off an API feed or what? Those are reasonable questions to ask about this. I think they were handed something that came over the 'wire' or whatever and just read it. The CNN reporter had the savvy to know the building had not yet fallen and expressed dismay at the report as he was reading it. And yeah, I've been in a couple of television studios during broadcasts. "Breaking News" can be something the producer snatched off the printer and handed to the anchor seconds before they come back from a commercial. The news rooms all over the world that day were in chaos. Where is the logic in the BBC loosing all the tapes from that day? They are lying. Someone would have had to destroy multiple copies in multiple formats. They didn't loose anything. You have to ask yourself why they would say such a thing knowing that many people would understand the great unlikelihood of that happening. "The evidence at this point is irrefutable. Major TV networks were feed a story about WTC 7 falling and "why" before it happened by someone." ...There IS NO EVIDENCE, not to mention NONE THAT IS IRREFUTABLE. What do you call the footage? What do you call the admission of BBC that it indeed did happen? It happened that is irrefutable. We have it on video. You can watch it happen in the CNN footage and the BBC footage. They reported on the building falling and "why" before the event and then lost the feed before it did collapse. Lost the footage, lost the feed, ...but you can trust us ... sure we can. Time will tell. I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. And yes, there are clips with timestamps.

"do you REALLY think that they would alert a LIBERALLY-BIASED MEDIA it" The whole Liberally-biased media business is a myth. No, I'm saying it is obvious the media was being used to shape the public perception of the WTC 7 destruction. CNN, BBC, and now I hear ABC all reported the fall of building 7 before it happened. This is purely a matter of reporters reading the teleprompter and trusting that the producer knows what they are talking about. Several networks reported the same false information in much the same way at the same time. It seems reasonable to say they received the information from the same source. The source needs to be identified. "Right" Whatever the explanation wouldn't you agree that it needs to be throughly investigated? The evidence at this point is irrefutable. Major TV networks were feed a story about WTC 7 falling and "why" before it happened by someone.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Yep. What I want to know is, where he got the DNA samples from to use as a comparison. Exactly. I think the whole thing is preposterous.

It would take a lot more than a coincidence of common names in a family tomb to make me seriously consider this claim. I don't see how this could be more than a tattered supposition. It could have been hoaxed in antiquity for all we know. It is an interesting diversion and an incredibly divisional claim to have come up as the Bush administration has cocked the hammer on Iran.

VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE Some of you may have already seen this. There are many possibilities as to how and why this could have happened. It does appear for all intents and purposes to be the result of a premature news release to the BBC by someone culpable in the apparent controlled demolition of WTC 7 and the destruction of the TT. Although various cuts of this video are available numerous places on the web now this one at LiveLeak has some explanatory text added. What are your takes on this fellas? VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed. This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096