your mail

> Date sent: 27-JUN-1996 10:04:13
I'll
> >> definitely be in Birmingham and Leicester, so a store near either

Please remove me from your mail list.

T.hale

u
> > Authenticated sender is <qq99qq@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: 2/20 >
Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > EMAIL MARKETING WORKS!! > > Bull's
Eye Gold is the PREMIER email address collection tool.
> This program allows you to develop TARGETED lists of email

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 jhan@idigital.net wrote:

Problem Jerry?

Later,

> Mark Siefert wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 jhan@idigital.net wrote:

85 megabyte file in /tmp.  Netscrape decided that since it couldn't
write
to /tmp, it wouldn't send the body of e-mail messages, even though it
would send something. Just enough to make me look like I had a spasm over the
keyboard, because there was NO warning from Netscrape, and
I didn't realize it until e-mails I sent to lists disappeared or
bounced.

*sigh*

On a FT note: does anybody have a reliable way of carving 'decking' details
into things like hardened Sculpy? (By decking, I mean to add texture so that
it looks like armour plate, as opposed to a solid block of clay.

(8-) )I built myself a bunch of Bolos from extra Renegade Legion tanks
and Sculpy, and put it all together.Unfortunately, I have this nice sculpted
chassis, and a big square block on top for a turret. I've already resigned
myself into sanding the block on top into something a little more angular, but
putting some texture into the surface would be nice. I'm aware that

since I've already fired it, it's probably too late. Then, however, if people
have ideas of how I can add texture that looks like plating before I fire
it...

Thanks,
J.

> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Jerry Han wrote:

> On a FT note: does anybody have a reliable way of carving 'decking'
If you have access to a workshop that has one, use a sand blaster to etch a
rough surface onto the sculpey. use masking tape to cover the areas you don't
want etched. Then carve in plate seams with either wood carvind
tools or the specialized x-acto blades.

--Binhan

> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:49:50PM -0000, Tim Bancroft wrote:

> with human ships B1/2 and a few 3 (Markgraf/Voroshilev and below). Has

> anyone else experienced this (or has no-one used such small squadrons

I haven't observed this, but I play vector pretty much exclusively. Which
movement system were you using? Are the hull sizes in your test
games fairly comparable (there's a known bug in the NPV system - see
for example http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200106/msg01172.html for
Oerjan's recommended fix)?

> > What's bigger than an SDN?
might
> > work.

Hmm, Leviathan is not bad, although it sounds a bit pompous to me. Titan could
be good. Monitors should probably be reserved for large system defense ships,
usually without ftl drives. I've been wanting something that conveys the fact
that they are both carriers *and* heavy battle units. Maybe this would work:

        Battle Carrier - BCV -  The normal UN CVL with a BC/BB front end
instead.

        Combat Carrier - CCV -  A UN SDN with one figher pod.

        Heavy Combat Carrier - HCV - A UN SDN-x with two fighter pods.

I was thinking that I would use the 4 engine design on the CCV and HCV. the
CCV would still be thrust 4, but the HCV would be thrust 2. Now of course, I
still need "class" names for them. The UN used Constellation for it's heavy
carrier, so what's next? It would need to be something geologic or astronomic,
but significant. Hmmm.

My idea was that as the Seige of Sol began to lessen, the UN decided that it
needed a number of larger ships to lead task forces in deep raids against the
Kravak. Fortunately, they had a number of contingency plans already drawn up
for such ships using the modular nature of their design. A number of modules
were already under construction, and these were diverted into these new ships.
Several heavily damaged CVL's were also converted into the BCV configuration
as a "test of concept" design which proved to be sound.
  All the ships would prove too operationally expensive in non-war
situations, but were justified by the severity of the Kravak situation.