POLITICIANS AND OTHERS IN GAMING

[quoted original message omitted]

LOL-so a discussion of sleazy politicos  does not apply to wargaming
topics?

i suggest a read of how sleazy or incompetent or corrupt, or all three rolled
into one, politicos, has been a problem for nation's security, international
alliances, and "guaranted treaties" since there have been politicos!

just so happens that I model some of my favorite villains and incompetents on
real life politicos, officers, actors, actreses,, public figures and folks
known to myself and my frieinds.

some of you folks do play games with local backgrounds do you not?

just how well do y'all develope these TUFFLEYverse worlds?

or do any of y'all use the toys and rules for alternate universes?

pickup gaming has always been relatively rare among the majority of the folks
i have known as gamers.

we have nearly always had scenarios, since the very beginning, and have done
zillions of campaigns over the years.

planets and star systems are fully developed using the old TRAVELLER RPG
system, maps drawn in advance or when needed and kept on file, personas for
NPCs developed that CAN and DO influence events out of players hands.

we call it tactical RPGing.

sooo, if you want to readily identify a sleazoid politico, law enforcer,
military type, we often use short hand based upon readiy
recognized   PUBLIC  FIGURES, POLITICINS, ACTORS, ACTRESSES, MILITARY
/NAVAL OFFICERS, NCO TYPES, etc.

so when you want to get the point across about the honesty and dedicate of a
colonial lawman, you would say,

'looks and acts just like SEAN CONNERY in OUTLANDS"

want to quickly describe a deadly, remorseless humanoid robot assassin? he is
just like,

"ARNIE in THE TERMINATOR movie!"

or if you want a verbal shorthand description to go with the generate profile
of a lying, sleazy, ccorrupt, self serving bull shit artist of and NPC
colonial governor, you would say,

"looks and acts just like BILL CLINTOON, GARY HART, NEWT GINCRICH, and etc."

you want to depict an NPC bimbo hanging out at a bar, verbal shorthand would
be,

"she looks and acts just like MADONNA at her worst"

a small time dictator from a second or third through seventh rate
power? he/she is just like,

"MUSSOLINI, SADAM HUSSEIN, POPA DOC, EDIE AMEIN, EL SUPREMO, etc"

an incompetent, cowardly general or admiral?

"he is just like GENERAL WINDER before and at THE BATTLE OF BLADENSBURG
."

GOT IT? figured it t now? it is very on topic and useful to model gaming NPC
personas on real life folks.

DAWGIE

From:  DAWGFACE47@webtv.net

> LOL-so a discussion of sleazy politicos does not apply to wargaming

Didn't notice a scenario attached to that particular post, but it does
make good scenario dressing.  "ALL games are role-playing games..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> > GOT IT? figured it t now? it is very on topic

Agreed here. There was no mention in the original message about how topical it
was. Any explanation of
that really ought to be self-contained within the
post.

> Long-winded, heated, SHOUTING, flame wars about

We could/should do that.  I won't subscribe (I've been
attempting to keep any comments I've had of recent threads offlist, as those
I've emailed can attest to. However, should there be a list like that, I won't
subscribe. I just wish people (yes, myself included
at times) could/would show some self-control and just
leave the crap off the list. Unfortunately, I suppose some will just never get
the message. I don't mind the historical discussions (i.e. what if the
Russians had done this instead of that?), but the political sniping is
waaaaaay over the top, on all sides.

> DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:

Dawgie, whatever the hell you posted earlier ("HARKEN") had absolutely nothing
to do with wargaming, much less GZG stuff. It was just spouting, pure and
simple.

> i suggest a read of how sleazy or incompetent or corrupt, or all

Fine, dandy, great. Still, no way does this even begin to address what some of
your posts entail, which are mostly rants and raves. When people here do post
about their worlds, universes, whatever, they do so in the context of that
universe, in the context of the GZGverse or games.

> sooo , if you want to readily identify a sleazoid politico, law
[...]
> an incompetent, cowardly general or admiral?

Actually, no.

Dawgie, your premise above is but a thinly veiled attempt to justify something
that had absolutely nothing to do with anything relevant
for this list. By your logic, ANYthing discussed here is game-related
in some form or other, if one would only stretch one's imagination wide
enough. And therefore this should be a free-flow forum. However, that
is simply not the case. This is a forum for discussing GZG-related
gaming. Yes, it drifts afield and covers a wide spectrum of things, but even
in these forays beyond or around the GZG universe at least people make serious
attempts to make it *related* to the games Jon puts out.

So, in answer to your "GOT IT?" question: no. It is not on topic by any
stretch of the imagination when you present things in a manner that has no
bearing on games, scenarios, etc. The msg you posted a couple weeks ago about
a hostage scenario, THAT was on topic. THAT was a good post. Your other stuff
lately....no. Low signal, much noise.

INDY, my spouting was more or less in response to a statement by GLENN about
how we (the US voters) elect rotten politicians over and over again to office.

and in respnose to IMRE's cutting remarks about "men" like FMA posing a threat
to the country. since it was fair game to point out how dangerous members of
our serving militay are to the safety of the country, i thought i air to point
out a prime pair of sleazoid politicians who pose dangers to the country.

soo wot do you say to that?

and to put forward examples of how discussing such things s pertinent to
gaming, since GZG deemed it not to be, i responded to him with a list of
pertinent examples.

also  have you ANYTHING TO   share  about the using of real life jerks,
idiots, sleazoids, historicl figures, and actor's charactors from movies as a
verbal short hand in making positive gaming IDs for NPC developement and ID?
as part of gaming scenarios?

DAWGIE

> --- DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
elect rotten politicians over and over again to office.

> DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:

1) They have a lower noise/signal track record,
2) It was nigh impossible to divine that your msg was in any way a response to
either of the other two, and 3) It was just adding more fuel to a fire (or
sound to the noise) most list members would like to see ended.

> and to put forward examples of how discussing such things s

In the time you have been here, you may have noted that Jon does not
willy-nilly just jump in on any conversation. That he said something
at all should give you pause for thought about either what you post, or how
you are posting things (note item #2 above; often it is more than difficult to
understand you are replying to someone about something).

> also have you ANYTHING TO share about the using of real life

No, my gaming scenarios don't usually revolve around individuals
or role-playing, unless I'm playing a specific RP game.

As for your "MY BUDDY" scenario, that was a valid contribution. It wasn't
necessarily my cup of tea, but it wasn't in the noise
factor, either. You've had some other thought-provoking posts and
ideas in the past, too. I can't remember all of them, though. I only mentioned
the hostage scenario as an example because that was one I remembered off the
top of my head (partly because that
was one of the few list messages I've kept recently ;-).

I know this has been said before, but can we please take any further
discussion of this offlist to email? If it'll make everyone happy, I'll go on
record as saying that you've all proven that you have the biggest
penis/most
testosterone/biggest brains on the list, and I am not worthy to discuss
anything with you due to my inferiority in all of the above categories.

In a message dated 6/3/02 5:44:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
> DAWGFACE47@webtv.net writes:

> also have you ANYTHING TO share about the using of real life

Modeling an NPC or game scenario personality using real-life or movie
roles
is an okay thing. I balk however, at the shorth-hand involved in saying
"like Sean Connery in Outland". Seems to me to be a less than optimal way to
describe what the Player Character sees, feels, experiences, from the world
which, however inadequately we might describe, ideally should have the same
vibrancy as real life. My two cents worth...

Popeye said:
> Modeling an NPC or game scenario personality using real-life or movie

You can say: "You're the lieutentant of a South African unit. Your platoon is
driving through the bush, pursuing SWAPO insurgent forces, when your lead APC
runs onto a stump and gets stuck. SWAPO units are known to carry RPGs so just
sitting here to wait for a recovery vehicle may be unhealthy." and that's a
situation. But you may add color by saying: "Your lieutenant is Sean Connery;
platoon sergeant is being played by John Wayne; heavy weapons corporal is
Charles Bronson; RATELO is Will Smith. Oh, and the SWAPO boss is Jack
Nicholson, with a Soviet
advisor played by Ah-nold Schwarzenegger, and your colonel is Slick
Willy Clinton." Or you may not. You may have a player who says
"Charles...Benson? Wasn't he a jazz musician?" Kinda depends on who your
players are.

very good, LASERLIGHT, hat is exactly how it is done.

but for POPEYE, we also have a complete personality profile developed off the
ancient TONY BATH system to go with our verbal shorthand, so a GM can
determine exactly how the NPC wil react within the game system....

but it is sooooo much faster to do the above than wade through 10 minutes
reading in the middle of a battle only to discover the arch villain has a foot
fetish and likes to play boardgames as well as looking exatly like QUINTEN
TARANTINO.....

> DAWGFACE wrote:

> but for POPEYE, we also have a complete personality profile developed

The *GM of your gaming group*, who has access to your "complete personality
profile", can determine exactly how the NPC will react.

However, AFAIK no one of us others here on the GZG mailing list is the GM of
your gaming group.

Therefore we do not have access to your "complete personality profile", and
thus you cannot use this "shorthand" on this list and expect to be understood.
If you want us to understand what you're talking about, you
have to include *all* the relevant data - not just an obscure "verbal
shorthand".

Oh, and you also need to provide the GZG gaming scenario you're talking
about :-/

Regards,

well, OERJAN, lets see here: this is in response to your post titled
POLITICIANS AND OTHERS IN GAMING.

(see attached post)

LASERLIGHT figured it out without even breaking a sweat, so EVERYONE is not in
the dark.

BUT if you want to know MORE about TONY BATH's NPC developement thingy, trot
out and buy, beg or borrow a book called WARGAMES CAMPAIGNS by TONY BATH.
originallY published by WARGAMES RESEARCH GROUP.

it has been around for more tha 30 years, and is problably in print again, if
not i am sure EBAY can come up with one.

DAWGIE

> DAWGFACE wrote:

> but for POPEYE, we also have a complete personality profile developed

The *GM of your gaming group*, who has access to your "complete personality
profile", can determine exactly how the NPC will react.

However, AFAIK no one of us others here on the GZG mailing list is the GM of
your gaming group.

Therefore we do not have access to your "complete personality profile", and
thus you cannot use this "shorthand" on this list and expect to be understood.
If you want us to understand what you're talking about, you
have to include *all* the relevant data - not just an obscure "verbal
shorthand".

Oh, and you also need to provide the GZG gaming scenario you're talking
about :-/

Regards,

Oerjan

> (see attached post)

<grin> *now* we get to fuss at you for sending an attachment to the
list, which is a no-no--it causes problems for people who get the
digest, among others.

> LASERLIGHT figured it out without even breaking a sweat, so EVERYONE

<grin>
a)  I'm a non-player character, I don't count.
b) Also I have had the book you refer to for some years. I can't
imagine how anyone could spend the amount of time that they did--and
it's not like I Have A Life, 'cause I don't. I'd just generate
numbers for  Smart/Experienced, Determined, and Moral--maybe 2d6 or
something like that, and adjust as needed to make an interesting picture. But
never let die rolls stand in the way of scre^h^h^h making life interesting for
your players.

Why is this on topic? Well, there's quite a tendency to throw those little
pieces of lead out there and have them stand to the last man, then crawl
forward on one knee and one elbow, bayonets between teeth as they drag
themselves to a final attack. However, once you name those little bits of
lead, you get a lot more reluctant to regard them as expendable. "First
platoon, Dingo Company. The Euries are swarming forward, Lieutenant Johnson is
down, the medic thinks he might be able to save Sergeant Barclay if we can get
a dustoff in one five minutes, and that puddle you're standing in is what's
left of Bell, so what do we do now, Sarge?" is a lot more evocative than "roll
for your next platoon leader."

And of course, the next step after FMA Skirmish is FMA:The Role Playing Game.

LASERLIGHT!

OOOH, HOW RIGHT YOU ARE ABOUT PAIN IN THE ASS DEVELOPEMENT!

AND how right you are about personalizing those little lead, pewter, and
plastic lumps!

some folks still use the complete system, and the time consuming developement
as layed out in the book.

LOL, others (me too!) as we have gotten older, have used anumber of other
things, including just picking out the parts of the profile to match the
desired NPC role and then assigning a physcical description
.

and it works for us-for 32 years? since  1974.

but what ever the paperwork involved in developement, when it comes down to
the tabletop figiht, the verbal short hand physical
description does  get usd, along   with  some sort of  qualifier;

For OERJAN, who seems lost here;

during the  attack on the   NAC advanced  spaceport,  troops from
CAL-TEX  grunts  were confronted by an NAC naval construction rating
driving a MARK XXX bulldozer.this rating, although repeatedly hit by
CAL-TEX weaposn  fire,  used his  dozer to push 3   light tanks off the
edge of the mountain road, and then rammed a fuel cell, flooding the area with
explose fuel, before expiring. subsequent detonation of the
fuel forced  the surviving CAL-TEX troopers to run for their lives to
avoid the firestorm.

the NPC profile for the NAC rating indiicated that he was above average
height, in his mid 30s, short tempered, prone to taking idiotic risks, and
acustom to commanding others in civilian life. when something comes up, no
matter how unpleasant, his motto is, "A MAN'S GOTTA DO WHAT A MAN'S GOTTA DO!"
pS; he is also a bit of a jerk!

OR

there is a HUGE MOTHER OF A BULLDOZER clanking out of the woods on your flank,
driven by an NAC rating who LOOKS JUST LIKE JOHN WAYNE in the FIGHTING SEABEES
....

The trick lies in making sure everyone gets your references. Oerjan isn't
American and should be expected (if not encouraged) to miss some cultural
references made by Americans. And vice versa. The UK and Commonwealth folks on
this list give me a smattering of 'local' slang and dialect that has proved
endearing more often than embarassing when dealing with visitors to the US.

For example, on the off chance, someone hasn't seen the Fighting Seabees, they
might get the idea and they might not. What's a Seabee and

how does that relate to the bulldozer? Maybe they don't know who JohnWayne is.
It's possible on the Internet.

In your local gaming group, with people you know, it's a LOT easier to use
references given the common background. But everybody ain't from these here
parts.

> DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:

> OR

> and in respnose to IMRE's cutting remarks about "men" like FMA posing

Have you ever heard of a certain U.S. Admiral who was quit well known for both
his contempt of his most likely enemy and his bravado in the forces he
commanded? His name was Husband E. Kimmel, his most likely enemy was Japan,
and December 7, 1941 happened. Source: Victory at Sea: World War Two in the
Pacific by James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi, page 445.

Individuals with attitudes similar to Admiral Kimmel's are a threat to the
security of the U.S. just as Admiral Kimmel was.

Unfair comparison, as Kimmel didn't have all of the information that he should
have. Doesn't excuse his attitude, nor does it necessarily mean that it
would've made much difference in the outcome, but the fact that 1) Pearl
Harbor didn't have access to the Purple Intercepts, and 2) his own government
didn't keep him informed as to the seriousness of the political situation,
ameliorates his ultimate responsibility somewhat. Perhaps a better example of
what you're trying to illustrate would be Douglas MacArthur, who had access to
those intercepts, and showed his inability to consider the capabilities of the
enemy not only in WWII, but also in Korea (which was probably a more
aggregious failure on his part than the Philippines).

Mark

> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:

> Have you ever heard of a certain U.S. Admiral who was quit well known

> Unfair comparison, as Kimmel didn't have all of the information that
Pearl Harbor
> didn't have access to the Purple Intercepts, and 2) his own government

He didn't need the Purple Intercepts, and he never should have trusted his
government to give him accurate information in the first place. What he did
know was that the U.S. Navy had conducted exercises of carrier air raids on
San Diego, the Panamal Cannal, and Pearl Harbor. The results were that it was
a fairly easy thing to do. It is an exception when government gives accurate
information, not the rule. The comparison stands.

> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:

> He didn't need the Purple Intercepts, and he never should have trusted

I disagree (obviously). As commander of the Hawaiin Department and Pacific
Fleet, he damned well should have expected accurate information from the
government, and it should've been forthcoming. In addition, if you're going to
lay blame at his feet primarily because of the fleet exercises (and the theory
of a carrier-based attack which had been posited as early as the
1920's), then the only man in the command structure of the US Navy who
should've been blameless should be Admiral Richardson (who Kimmel replaced)
because Richardson didn't want the fleet moored at Pearl Harbor precisely
because he was afraid of an attack that might bottle up the fleet. Admiral
King also should've known that it was an "easy thing to do" as you put it, and
therefore also shares the blame. The comparison does NOT stand, since Kimmel
didn't have the information that others did. All he had was a vague warning of
some type of possible trouble in the Pacific, but he didn't think that the
Japanese had the capability to strike at Pearl Harbor. In that respect, he is
no more or less to blame than anyone above him in the command structure.

> At 07:11 PM 6/4/2002 -0700, you wrote:

> The trick lies in making sure everyone gets your references. Oerjan

And this can be really fun if like me, you're an ex-pat Brit living and
gaming in Miami, FL, and having to cope with the US version of English, and
players who break into Spanish at points...

John Sowerby schrieb:
> And this can be really fun if like me, you're an ex-pat

Another nice one is to hear English-speakers pronounce Russian, German,
Latin, etc. names. I never know what they are talking about.

> players who break into Spanish at points...

It's so convenient to have code-speak available. And so much fun if
they don't know you have cracked their code :-)

Greetings

John Sowerby schrieb:
> And this can be really fun if like me, you're an ex-pat

Or if you're just gaming with someone who's outside the main stream. When was
was getting my MA, I used to joke "I'm studying mass media communications. You
can tell because I don't read newspapers, subscribe to magazines, watch TV,
listen to the radio, or go to the movies." Fortunately my wife was a
professional actress so I now have some small
chance of telling Katherine Bermann from Ingrid Heburn.  ;-)

> Michael Llaneza wrote:

> The trick lies in making sure everyone gets your references. Oerjan

Exactly right. In fact some people who know where I come from are occasionally
surprised when I *do* understand obscure cultural
references :-)

In addition I (who am not only not American, but not even a native
English-speaker) often have different impressions of cultural references

than English-speakers do - even in the few cases where all
English-speakers
get the same impression of said reference.

As an example to help DAWGFACE understand the problems surrounding the
shorthand descriptions, here's a verbal short-hand description of
the chain of command for a scenario which the gamers in my local area would
understand without any problems. Please try to figure out exactly what
relations they have to one another, and what type of personalities I am
thinking of:

The colonel is like Alf Svensson The major is like Olof Palme The captain is
like Göran Persson (not physically, though!) The liutenant is like Carl Bildt
The sergeant is like Ingvar Carlsson

Just to make things interesting, I've deliberately chosen examples where

the persons referred to have quite different reputations in different
political camps in my country. In addition at least two of them also have
quite different reputations at home and abroad. This means that unless you
know what country I'm from and what political

faction I support, and you *also* know the reputations of the persons referred
to in these various places and political camps, it may be somewhat difficult
for you to determine what personalities I'm thinking of for the various
officers in the above chain of command. My regular opponents have all this
knowledge, but I suspect that most people on this mailing list don't. It would
however be very interesting to see what personality interpretations you come
up with, and
compare them to what I actually meant :-)

(FWIW the distinction between different political camps isn't nearly as
outrageous as it may sound - several of DAWGFACE's examples would be
interpreted in *very* different ways in the different political camps of my
country as well.)

> For example, on the off chance, someone hasn't seen the Fighting

A SeaBee is a small amphibious plane (IIRC the full name is "Republic
RC-3
Seabee"); it is unarmed so is unlikely to do much fighting (although it has
been used as a light transport and liason craft by several armed forces
including the early Israeli Air Force), and it doesn't relate to a bulldozer
in any way that I can see...

;-) ;-) ;-)

> Maybe they don't know who JohnWayne is.

Heard of 'im. Famous for playing a marine getting shot by a sniper IIRC,

and he's given names (or at least caused names to be given) to various terrain
features at the NTC <VBG>

***

> DAWGFACE wrote:

> well, OERJAN, lets see here: this is in response to your post titled

This was a good reference, though repeating the title of my post was kinda
redundant since your own post has exactly the same title. (You only need to
specify the title of the post you're replying to when you change the title of
your reply to something else, as you did in the initial "HARKEN" post.)

Similarly it isn't always necessary to include the entire post you're replying
to; only the bits of it that are relevant to your reply. The rest can be
snipped out.

> LASERLIGHT figured it out without even breaking a sweat, so EVERYONE

I too easily understood the *general idea* of referring to "cultural
arketypes" to explain personalities - not very hard, since I read Tony's

(RIP) book a couple years ago.

However, since I don't share your and Laserlight's collective USAmerican

cultural background *) several of the specific "shorthands" or "cultural

arketypes" you used didn't tell me very much. OK, they probably made more
sense to me than the chain-of-command example I gave above makes to
you...
but your shorthands don't make nearly as *much* sense to me as they would
to an American, or even to someone from another English-speaking country

than the US.

*) Such as it is - I'm well aware that different segments of the
USAmerican population have rather different cultural backgrounds. However, in
spite of their differences most of these segments have more of their culture
in common with one another than they have with me.

***
> In another post, DAWGFACE wrote:

> For OERJAN, who seems lost here;

[Two reports of the same situation snipped]

Thanks. Explains the John Wayne/SeaBee reference nicely. That leaves the

rest <g> (Well, maybe not the Marilyn Monroe one ;-) )

FYI, the first of the two reports told me exactly what was happening,
though it read more like an AAR than a pre-battle briefing or sitrep.
The second report, the shorthand one, told me that there's a large bulldozer

driven by a man coming out of the forest... but it told me nothing about

what to expect from that dozer :-/

As a slight twist of your reports, replace the man driving the dozer with a
curvy brown-haired young woman. (In the heat of combat, it's hard to see

exactly what she looks like.) What type of personality do you think she is,
and what threat does she represent?

If I add that she has a *very* tight dark top and shorts that are, well,

rather too short, does your evaluation of her change and if so how? (And

what well-known movie figure is it I am referring to? <g>)

Later,

> As a slight twist of your reports, replace the man driving the dozer
(And
> what well-known movie figure is it I am referring to? <g>)

Backpack? Pistols at each thigh? Lara? My evaluation doesn't change:
"That's a title character--I persuade some other flunky to shoot

Ok, I'll spell it out for you...

How did Admiral Kimmel's well known bravado in U.S. forces and contempt for
the Japanesse influence the actions of the men under him that led to the
disaster at Pearl Harbor?

The radar operator who picked up a large flight of aircraft coming from the
opposite direction the aircraft due to arrive that day should have been coming
from that day.

The non-response from fleet when a U.S. Destroyer detected, attacked,
and destroyed a midget submarine trying to enter Pearl Harbor before the
attack on Pearl Harbor.

I vaguely remmeber something about an imortant message (possibly about the
midget sub) that was left sitting on an officiers desk instead of being
forwarded and acted upon.

In everyone of these cases, there was sufficient cause to put that base and
those ships on alert. But why weren't they. Could have Admiral Kimmel's over
confidence and contempt infected his men and resulted in them making a serries
of bad mistakes? No one knows the answer to this, but his attitude most
certainly did nothing to discourage it.

Note, that in none of this did Admiral Kimmel need accurate information from
Washington.

> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:

> Ok, I'll spell it out for you...

Look, if you want to discuss this, great. But stop the patronizing bullshit
right now, or we've got nothing left to discuss.

> How did Admiral Kimmel's well known bravado in U.S. forces and

Those were army personnel who were responsible for that radar station, and the
highest that warning got was to a Lieutenant who was in charge of the
information center at the time the call came in. Also note that the
B-17s that
came into Hawaii that day were caught in the attack, and that use of radar was
in its infancy at the time.

> The non-response from fleet when a U.S. Destroyer detected, attacked,

That was the result of the message being misinterpreted. When the Ward fired
on the midget sub and sent the message, it was interpreted to mean that they
*thought* they had seen something and fired on it, not that they had actually
seen and sunk the midget sub.

> I vaguely remmeber something about an imortant message (possibly about

I don't recall the reference, so I'm not going to comment one way or another.

> In everyone of these cases, there was sufficient cause to put that

Then why do you bother to posit it in the first place?

> Note, that in none of this did Admiral Kimmel need accurate

Again, bull. Kimmel should have had information about the political situation
at the time. Kimmel should have had information that the Japanese First Air
Fleet had "disappeared from the radar screen" and its position was unknown to
the United States prior to Dec. 7, and Kimmel should have been in the loop as
the messages were decoded. Kimmel (and Gen. Short) should have gotten the war
warning sooner than 5 hours after the attack took place. They didn't. Had they
received that warning and still done nothing, then they'd be just as culpable
as you seem to believe. One last note. How many sources have you read about
Pearl Harbor? Are you basing your opinions on one single source, or have you
read multiple ones? I've got about six books on Pearl Harbor sitting on my
bookshelf right now, in addition to having written an extensive research paper
on the topic about 12 years ago. If you wish to discuss it further, I'm more
than happy to do so, but let me "spell it out for you": I'm not going to
bother if you're going to have a patronizing attitude, nor am I going to
continue it in this forum. You may take it to email if you wish to continue.

Give this one a rest, PLEASE!

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> Ok, I'll spell it out for you...

> Give this one a rest, PLEASE !

I think most here would agree that this is a classic example of the kind of
thread that should have been moved at an OT list several posts ago. It may
still be of peripheral interest to some listers, but the rest of us are
calling the Fire Service.....

> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> I think most here would agree that this is a classic

Agreed, and already requested that it go to email if it goes further.

That's definitely an opinion and VERY OT by now, no?

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:48:55 -0700 (PDT) John Leary
> <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> writes:

> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:

Agree with the opinion comment, if you agree that I really do not have control
over when the message shows up!

Bye for now,