Ben Zwycky

Checked and returned. Site looks good to me We need a forum (section) for each wings, maybe a marine/pilot one, and a secure forum (section) for classified stuff. Let's give Nick a nice welcome to his new offices when he gets back .

While I don't have time to look at all of them, out of the three you mentioned I would go for Spacepilot3k. Do you have an account with iss.galcom.net, Zane? If not, contact Remo Williams and he'll create one for you. I have a lot of faith in your abilities.

Well, the votes are in and since we seem to be dispensing with Intel, I have added the daggers to the CIOPS animation (I hope that meets with your approval, Zane ), and added a transition back to their beginnings. These are ready to use from the locations given below and are most likely the final versions, but might at some point be modified to deal with an issue I have been discussing with Zane over email. Enjoy, and watch out for those file sizes! Fleet Logo (double size) (267kb) Defence Wing Logo (double size) (650kb!) CIOPS Wing Logo (double size) (566kb!) Fleet Logo (101kb) Defence Wing Logo (289kb) CIOPS Wing Logo (291kb) Later,

Still no response? OK I guess we'll move on. The first document we will look at will be the Gospel of Thomas. I'll let others go first if they wish, if no-one has said anything by next Monday, I'll start the ball rolling myself.

Three Bens, all married in the last three years? Hmm... *twilight zone music plays softly in background*

I would not be totally against cutting down to just CIOPS and the Defence wing without flight groups, but I'm not sure renaming is necessary, as long as we make it clear what their purposes are in our recruiting/fleet info blurb.

Still no takers? IÔÇÖll have to post my own, then: 1. The sourceÔÇÖs accuracy should be confirmed by other evidence, preferably on multiple points, preferably from multiple sources and preferably in multiple types of evidence: - primary (eyewitness accounts) - secondary (official records, historianÔÇÖs publications, documents containing citations or references to the source in question) - tertiary (peopleÔÇÖs personal reactions to/opinions of the source or events described in it) - circumstantial (physical/political/social/economic/religious impact of events described in the source) This is a good principle, if there is no other evidence that supports anything the source says, or the only evidence that does is extremely vague or unreliable by any other test, then the source should be viewed with suspicion. However, this principle is often overused in the so-called ÔÇÿargument from silenceÔÇÖ which goes something like this: If there is no other source to confirm that an event described in the source occurred, then the source cannot be trusted at that point (or at all in the extreme version of the argument) The vast majority of historical knowledge is from single sources, and a lack of evidence on a single point doesnÔÇÖt mean that much. ÔÇÿAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absenceÔÇÖ, especially when weÔÇÖre talking about ancient evidence. Things get broken, torn, lost, destroyed (intentionally or accidentally) or simply decompose through improper storage through the ravages of time. Any archaeologist will tell you that there are huge holes in all the records, including the official ones. The most academically sound move we can make is to suspend judgement on this point and look at other points where there are overlapping sources or evidence one way or the other. If the source is found to be accurate on other surrounding points, then it is academically sound to accept its reporting on the points where no other evidence exists. Where two sources contradict each other in significant ways, but one is demonstrably much less reliable than the other by all other tests, then the less reliable one should give way to the more reliable one, itÔÇÖs trustworthiness remaining unaffected. 2. The source should have been originally written a relatively short time after the events it describes, the shorter the better. Most scholars would agree that it is only more than two generations away (i.e. after the last person to have had direct contact with living eyewitnesses has died) that legends have any real chance of creeping into the accounts and being believed by anyone of intelligence. This gives us a time period of 80-100 years after the event (20-year-old eyewitness dies aged 60-70, 20 year-old at his death dies aged 60-70). However there are a large number of ancient documents that donÔÇÖt meet this criteria which virtually all scholars trust as historically reliable. 3. There should be enough documentary evidence to be sure that what we now have has not been significantly changed through incompetent or dishonest copying. This should include a relatively short timespan between the oldest copy we have and the date of the original document, and a low variance between the copies that we have. The more ancient copies we have, the more sure we can be of the level of variance between them. We can also compare the copies of the source we have with any other ancient documents (letters, commentaries) containing citations from that source, which may also help us with how the passage was understood and/or applied at the time. 4. Another issue is that of the authorÔÇÖs bias, or rather intellectual honesty. Every single author, modern or ancient is biased in some way and is attempting to convince his audience of something, but that doesnÔÇÖt make their work invalid. To illustrate: There are two mutually exclusive theories, X and Y, one of which is true, and proponents of those theories, Mr A and Mr B. A is biased towards theory X and B is biased towards theory Y, but one of them is still correct, despite being biased. A good modern example would be the Jewish historians who investigated the holocaust. They were very biased for their own people, but this drove them to work very thoroughly and produce the most reliable and detailed reports possible to ensure something like that could never happen again. Later came revisionist historians who tried to play down the importance of those events or denied them ever happening at all. The real issue is whether their bias negates their intellectual integrity. Do they (or their initial audience) seem able to discern between reliable and unreliable sources, between truth and fiction? Do they gloss over uncomfortable details or glamorise events or do they report calmly, leaving in even things that are embarrassing for ÔÇÿtheir sideÔÇÖ? Is the information presented in a verifiable way, or does the author attempt to hide behind a screen of mystery? Things to consider. My boys have been preventing me getting a decent nightÔÇÖs sleep for the past few days, so I canÔÇÖt think of anything else right now. If anyone else can think of some good criteria to be added to this list, or wish to comment on or disagree with anything IÔÇÖve said here, feel free. If no-one has anything to add, then we can start applying these criteria (one at a time) to various documents. After that we can move on to other issues such as borrowing, messianic expectations at the time etc.

Any chance of you sending me the info, Nick (for uploading artwork etc.)?

OK, no probs.

OK, great. Now, as I see it, a lot of the issues revolve around sources. How do you determine what is a reliable historical source and what is not? So let's start by setting out what criteria you use (or should be used) to determine whether an ancient source can be trusted (or how much it can be trusted) and go on from there. So, gentlemen, if you please...

It'd have to be pretty good, I put a lot of work into those things, you know. I've smoothed out the fleet animation a little more (straining with thoughts) must... stop... tweaking... Anyway, after the vote, there is another question: do people want me to put in a transition back to the starting frame in each one, (whichever one it turns out to be) or just leave it?

First of all, IÔÇÖd like to apologise for the way you seem to have been treated in the past by those who call themselves Christians (accurately or inaccurately). I am sorry that they failed to appreciate your intellectual needs, or were unable to satisfy your thirst for truth. I apologise for those who (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresented the Christian faith with pat answers or even tried to manipulate you to do things their way. Most of JagÔÇÖs objections have been intellectual ones, but I have noticed in this thread that a number of peopleÔÇÖs replies were more statements of faith than intellectual counter-arguments. I am personally encouraged to see so many professing Christians active on these forums, and have nothing against such statements, but in my opinion they are not the most helpful responses to the objections raised. I am going to approach these issues from a mainly intellectual point of view. If that upsets some people, then IÔÇÖm afraid that wonÔÇÖt change my stance, this is how itÔÇÖs going to be. Personal experience relevant to the issue at hand is welcome, but I would ask those who wish to jump into the discussion with statements of personal belief to rather channel all that positive energy into prayer for wisdom and insight for all those taking part, myself included, as that will be of most benefit. OK, before we start the discussion proper, I feel it necessary that we agree on some ground rules. This should be done to prevent us getting side-tracked on minor issues, and prevent the use of philosophical tricks to obscure the issue at hand or mislead those observing the discussion. These will apply to anyone who wishes to take part in this discussion (and ideally to all intellectual discussions, but thatÔÇÖs asking a bit much ): 1. No personal attacks or insults, including accusations of low intelligence. I sort of assumed that was a given in these forums, but some of the political threads have been bordering on flame wars, and I sincerely hope to prevent this thread becoming another such victim of human passions. I have a lot of respect for your opinions and your character, for the stands you make (for example your stance on marriage) and the personal choices you have made (for example time with your family over higher income ÔÇô I have made a similar choice myself) I do not assume to be your intellectual equal, Jag, let alone superior. I just hope I am close enough to your intellectual level to make this whole exercise interesting for you, and maybe even give you some food for thought. I may well be in for an intellectual hiding along the way, but IÔÇÖm prepared to risk that 2. (This is linked to 1) DonÔÇÖt take it personally. This is an intellectual discussion, not a fight to the death. The other guy (or gal) did not insult your mother (if they did, then they will be reprimanded for breaking rule 1, and are in danger of being kicked off the forum) they are just disagreeing with what they think you just said. 3. No using highly emotive language without proper intellectual justification. If you are going to use words like ÔÇÿscandalÔÇÖ, ÔÇÿcover-upÔÇÖ, ÔÇÿconspiracyÔÇÖ, ÔÇÿdeceitfulÔÇÖ etc. then you must provide evidence to show that this is the case. Such words should not be used in throwaway comments as an excuse for lack of evidence. 4. (Similar to 3) No hiding behind high-sounding buzzwords or complex intellectual jargon. For example, if I throw phrases like ÔÇÿtypological prophecyÔÇÖ into my posts here and there without explanation (ÔÇÿcause I saw it in an article last week and liked the sound of it), it might make me look intelligent (or more like big-headed) but at least 95% of the people reading will have absolutely no clue what IÔÇÖm on about. Be prepared to clarify what you said. If someone misunderstands something or asks you to clarify, it is not a sign of their intellectually inferiority or hostile intent, you may have just been unclear. As the old addage goes: ÔÇ£If a man is unable to simplify a concept and explain it so that the average person on the street can understand, the chances are he doesnÔÇÖt understand it himself.ÔÇØ 5. Go easy on the capital letters and exclamation marks. Using them occasionally when you want to REALLY emphasise something important is fine, but CONSTANTLY using them THROUGHOUT EVERY POST gets EXTREMELY ANNOYING and EVERYONE ELSE taking part in the discussion GETS SICK AND TIRED of reading WHATEVER you have to say. See what I mean? 6. All arguments count both ways. For example, if a reliability test is to be applied to one source, then it must also be applied to all other relevant sources. If a document you view as reliable fails a reliability test that you use on other documents, you must either reject that document as unreliable, or reject that test as useless and stop using it on other documents; A test either applies to all documents or to none. This especially applies to truth tests that fail when applied to themselves, known as ÔÇÿself-stultifying argumentsÔÇÖ. (E.g. ÔÇ£there is no such thing as truthÔÇØ, or ÔÇ£the truth cannot be knownÔÇØ) 7. If you do not wish to dispute a point, then you should concede it, instead of just changing the subject to avoid having to admit the other person is right about something. The only ÔÇÿget-outÔÇÖ clause would be to admit you do not have enough information to comment and will come back to that point after doing some research. Do you wish to dispute, qualify or add to any of the rules in this list? On a personal note, I must warn those taking part that my response time will be slow (partly because of my time-limited connection, meaning read one evening (in my time-zone(GMT+1)), reply the next at the earliest unless I can reply very briefly, partly because I like to plan my responses and carefully consider what I say, and some days I donÔÇÖt even have access to my computer, lengthening the process even further) I hope this will be acceptable and not too frustrating for those taking part/observing. I would also prefer to deal with one issue at a time, to avoid confusion and keep posts to a manageable length (of course with the possibility of returning to an issue at a later date). To accept, press 1 To end the process now, press 2 to further clarify/modify, press 3 for communication in Swahili, press 4ÔǪ

Well, I live just outside Prague, one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, used as a location for many films and a major tourist centre, so pickpockets are pretty active in the city centre (keep your valuables and documents well hidden if you look like a tourist) I live in a small village on the outskirts, where the people are generally friendly, we get great sunsets most evenings and on a clear day we can see various mountain ranges from our bedroom window. As far as weather is concerned, weÔÇÖve been getting some pretty extreme examples lately. 2 years ago we had the biggest floods for 500 years, last year we had the worst drought for 80 years, in February this year, daytime temperatures rose from ÔÇô15 to +25 Celsius in just two weeks and just last week we had our biggest single lightning storm in recorded history with over 50,000 strikes overnight. That was quite a show.

OK, smoothed out versions of CIOPS, Defence and Fleet animation are up (only minor changes) I guess these are final (except for adding the fleet animation to the wing badges, if that ends up as the final consensus)

Sorry this is reviving this topic so late, but for a while now, IÔÇÖve been chewing over in my mind whether or not to discuss this topic in depth. In my thinking, I keep coming back to the same question- would there be any point? For example, if someone were to answer all the intellectual objections mentioned here to your satisfaction, Jag, would you change your mind about the historical accuracy of the New Testament, or would you just go looking around for more objections? (IÔÇÖm not promising I will, I just want to know if there would be any point in trying)

Thanks, Quazar, I have a little smoothing out to do on a couple of the transitions in the fleet animation (IMO anyway), but I have that well under way. I have also smoothed out the CIOPS sparking effect a little since the version in my Gallery (maybe no-one will notice the difference, but I like doing things well). Maybe if I get some more sleep, I'll work on improving the Defence text cooling animation (but maybe that's OK as it is, and I'm feeling lazy) I don't know, if people from other fleets like them, then that means noobs might join our fleet just so they can put our animations in their sigs (part of my intention in making them ) Yes, it's primarily an internal fleet matter, but I'll let Jamont decide whether other votes are valid or not. If other people vote, then please let us know in this thread what you voted, so we can get the accurate fleet picture. I can tell people what I voted for if they want, if they want to let that affect their decision. Later, [ 07-10-2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Ben Zwycky ]

Look at the animated wing logos in the gallery of my ship's website. Link is in my sig. We have several options on which ones to use. the first question is about wing logo badges to put into signatures. The second question is to do with the headings on the official fleet and wing webpages, wherever they end up being hosted. [ 07-09-2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Ben Zwycky ]

Thanks guys. I'd shorten the defence wing animation, but looking at it again, it's not so terrible and I'm running low on creative energy. Once the decision is made, I'll do some last-minute clean-up work (there are a couple of places where the animation is not as smooth as I'd like (I'm picky, in case you hadn't noticed by now ) then publish the final versions (or upload them directly to the sub-domain if Jamont gives me clearance.) (btw, you don't want to know how many tricks I used or how much work that eagle landing animation was. I only had the first picture and the last (completely different sizes) Dennymala, If you want any tips with an animation, just ask. You should be fine with Photoshop 6.5, it's more precise than the Gimp. I don't know what filters 6.5 has, but the Gimp has some cool ones that 4.0 doesn't. Still no votes? Maybe you should set up a poll as a priority fleet thread, Nick, accompanied by a fleet-wide email notification? edit- created the poll, get voting guys, you have until midnight next week to vote. [ 07-09-2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Ben Zwycky ]

"No." "Oh, please!"

added the upgraded CIOPS badge (same link as the old version) Come on, guys, let's hear ya!

I was supporting both England and the Czech Republic, so I ended up seeing both of my teams knocked out cruelly (Penalties, silver goal 30 seconds before the end). Was quite a ride up 'til that point, though.

Nah, just have lots of free time at the moment. (ten out of eleven of the lessons I teach a week have been permanently cancelled (they're all in the same firm (When I got there on Thursday they told me that they had forgotten to tell me on Tuesday that they're ending my contract. Nice, huh?) Also, I just get these bursts of inspiration and creative energy from time to time and if I act on them, I know something pretty good is going to come out of it, and I hate leaving a good job half-done. *fanfare* Take another look at the gallery - note the new entry (third from the top) I intend to do the improved CIOPS animation tomorrow. I got a little carried away, as I tend to do when I get these creative urges, so we have some options here. Either 1. We can use this as the new fleet logo. I can whip up a double-size version for the fleet website in about 10 minutes and use the double-size wing badges in their present form (approximately ) as headers for the wing pages. or 2. I can add this animation to the start of the wing badges (what I intended to do in the first place, but it makes them pretty big (an extra 23 frames ) or both. What do you think? would the badges be too big with this new addition, or not? Later,

I'll send you the encryption program by email, Jamont. Thanks, guys. I found a workaround, and in spades Give me a couple of days, and those badges will reach all new heights of coolness (It'll add somewhere between 12-15 frames to each animation, but it'll be well worth it, trust me. I'll probably shorten the defence wing animation to compensate, the whole letter cooling bit doesn't work too well imho and beef up the CIOPS animation while I'm at it (don't I know when to stop?! ) I used Adobe Photoshop 4.0 (which is extremely unstable on my win2k system, so I just use it for resizing and filling, and file conversion) for doing most of the grunt work I used The Gimp a freeware graphics program. It's pretty darn good for the money For putting the frames together into animated gifs I used Microsoft Gif Animator 1.0 (really old, really basic, and freeware 6-7 years ago) My main instrument was imagination, patience, unhealthy perfectionism and finger joints that are now begging for mercy Later,

OK, within 15 minutes of this post there will be some new artwork available for viewing in the Gallery in my ship's website (follow the link in my sig, then choose Gallery and look at the various animated wing forum badges) My server does not allow direct links, you have to go through the link in my sig first. (This means these badges cannot be used from my server, they will have to be put either on fluxgames or the iss subdomain of galcom.net). I have all of those animated badges available also double-size for a better look at them (for display purposes), but that means they take up four times as much filespace (the larger Defence badge is over 500k ) I took my inspiration somewhat from prime fleet's badge (i.e. do some funky transitions) though I'm unable to do any decent manipulation with the terran/galcom badges (my graphics packages won't let me, or I haven't figured out a workaround yet.) Have I overdone it? (these are relatively big files) I did the CIOPS one first, that's why it's the simplest, I could do a more complex one if requested to more closely match the other two. Another topic: We need a classified forum section (or at least some encrypted fleet communication techniques. (After all, we are an intel and counter-intel fleet ) I do have a freeware encryption program (I think it's the one Desylva distributed to us oldies, but I'm not sure), so we could distribute it among fleet members and assign different security clearances (access level passwords) to different members, which would allow them to read classified documents up to and including their level of clearance. Feedback required, must dash edit - pics are up

btw, am working on something for the fleet, will share it when it's done (prolly Monday night)