twilight2000-digest Wednesday, May 19 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 041 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Mine Clearing Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 00:46:32 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 12:02 PM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> At 02:43 PM 5/15/99 -0700, Michael Cook wrote: >> > >> >There are other purposes to having the B-2, as proven by its current >> >use in the Kosova conflict. The laser-guided bombs that it can now >> >carry are effective against a wide-variety of hardened targets, and the >> >B-2's stealth nature makes it a better choice against certain targets >> >than other bomb-carrying aircraft in the US arsenal. >> > >> As an earlier poster pointed out, the B-2 wasn't deisgned to carry >> conventional munitions, and wasn't allowed to perform such missions for >> some time. In any case, the F-117 is a cheaper and better way of doing >> this (except for the targets requiring the heaviest bombs). Yes, it's true >> that once we built the B-2's it's worth using them, but that doesnt mean it >> was worth building them. > > Scott, > Given that logic, it wasn't worth building ICBM's either because we >never used them. Just think of how much money we would've saved by not >building them! > Huh? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 01:12:04 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 12:11 PM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> At 08:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> >> >> At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> > >> > --stuff snipped that proves that you weren't really listening-- >> >> No, I was listening, but I don't agree with you. Please get that straight: >> I can listen to you and understand you, and still disagree with you, and >> all without being a Communist. > > No, you weren't listening. You can say that to make yourself feel >better but it doesn't change anything. > I would prefer you answer my responses to your arguments, rather than ignore my arguments and accuse me of doing what you're doing. >> >> In fact, I even answered each of your points specifically. I assume that >> if you had good arguments in response, you'd make them, but all you can do >> in return is claim that I'm not listening to you. > > You didn't answer my arguements. See above. > Yes, I did. Since you snipped my answers, I'll repost the message in question. >> >> I find it ironic that when you can't answer a person's arguments with your >> own, not only do you ignore them, but in place of answering them you >> unjustifiably accuse the other person of doing what you yourself are doing >> (that is, not answering arguments). Another example of this was when an >> earlier poster responded to your unsupported assertions by presenting hard >> facts that seemed to weaken your positions, and YOU accused HIM of not >> using facts. > > When soneone doesn't use facts, then why shouldn't it be pointed out? >Unless, you don't want facts, or think that facts are irrelevant. My >assertions were supported by facts, which you still want to ignore. > The person you accused of not using facts was actually using more facts than you were. That is, not only were you accusing him falsely, but you were being hypocritical. >> >> To repeat: there are really good arguments to the effect that the B-2 >> doesn't do anything useful, and that even if it does do some useful things, >> it's not worth the price we have to pay to do them. People who believe in >> a strong defense, and people who are not in fact Communists, can therefore >> quite reasonably believe that we shouldn't have built the B-2. > > I have yet to see a good arguement against building the B-2. Then >again, I want this country to have a strong defense too. > Try arguing to prove that point. >> >> >> > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if >> >> >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a >> >> >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was >> >> >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. >> >> > >> >> And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. >> > >> > No kidding? Really? This comment only proves that you have to go to >> >extremes to find a reason to support your arguement. >> > >> No, my point was that you were to some extent comparing apples and oranges. > > No, it wasn't apples and oranges. The ability to call something back >is the entire point. > Please, address my argument. >> > It's your kind of thinking that brought us the all-missile fighter >> >back in the 1960's. After all, missiles were the ultimate weapons, you >> >didn't need guns. Care to take a guess at what happened to the >> >all-missile fighter? >> >> It's also that kind of thinking that led us to abandon muzzle-loading >> muskets after the repeating rifle was developed. Sometimes decisions like >> that turn out well, and sometimes they don't, but you can't draw a general >> rule from looking at a single anecdote. > > So we don't have any fighters with guns? > And your point is? >> >> Please try to address my arguments directly rather than attempting to draw >> analogies that may or may not be applicable--the analogies can be good >> illustrations, but if there's no underlying argument, they don't do much >> for you. > > Please try to address my arguements.... I did. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 01:12:36 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> At 04:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> >> >> At 11:55 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> >> >> >> > Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and >> >> >effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses >> >> >isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack >> >> >without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. >> >> > >> >> In exactly what situation would you want to do that with a nuclear payload >> >> (which is what the B-2 was designed to carry)? Why? >> > >> > The only reason I can think of to want to be seen attacking is if you >> >want to lose an aircraft. Even if you're delivering nuclear weapons, >> >being shot down before delivering your weapons to the target seems like >> >a bad idea. If the enemy doesn't know you're coming, it's a lot easier >> >to drop bombs on target. >> > >> Okay, let me ask again. WHY would you want to use a bomber to drop a >> nuclear device, when you have perfectly good ICBM's which are just as >> accurate, cheaper, and harder to intercept? What's the point? >> >> Scott Orr > > Sorry, but ICBM's are not just as accurate. Yes, actually, they are, as long as you're dropping nuclear weapons: an aircraft can launch laser-guided bombs, of course, but not with nukes, since you have to be a lot closer to the target for that than you want to be with a nuke. And a B-52 firing cruise misiles would be more accurate than either (and avoid the necessity of having the aircraft penetrate enemy airspace). Assuming that there's a difference in accuracy, is the difference worth the extra cost of the B-2? >Not that that makes much >of a difference with nuclear weapons, but it is a difference. Well, no, it isn't a difference, unless your objective it to take out hardened targets, like command centers or missile silos. However, you only do a stupid thing like that if you're planning to "win" a nuclear war by taking out the enemy's nuclear weapons before than can be fired. In fact, the _only_ purpose of having the B-2 is to destroy enemy nuclear weapons before those weapons can fire. If this actually is workable, it's an _extremely_ destabilizing capability to have, because it puts the enemy in a "use it or lose it" situation with his nuclear weapons, prompting him perhaps to use them before he otherwise might. And unless this capbility works _perfectly_, it won't keep your country from getting hurt in nuclear war. Because of the above, many people would argue that the B-2 has no real use--in fact, you could even make the argument that having such weapons _reduces_ the country's security. [Note that the above remarks on nuclear escalation constitute Actual Twilight: 2000 Content.] > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. > And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. The flaw in the logic above is that, while it's true you can call the bomber back, it's equally true that you have to launch the bomber a lot sooner than you'd launch a missile for a given time on target. It's true that there's some advantage to being able to get the aircraft off the ground when you think there's a strike coming in, but a B-52 works well enough for that, even if you don't think your submarines already fulfill that role. So yes, there are in fact very good reasons for people to think that the B-2 is a waste of money--even people who never wanted the Soviets to take over. In fact, I'd suggest that if you think that everyone who disagrees with you is as Communist, you're not truly partaking of the spirit of democracy. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:36:24 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: --meaningless stuff snipped-- > > > > Please try to address my arguements.... > > I did. > > Scott Orr No you didn't. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:39:12 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> > >> At 04:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >> >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> >> > >> >> At 11:55 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and > >> >> >effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses > >> >> >isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack > >> >> >without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. > >> >> > > >> >> In exactly what situation would you want to do that with a nuclear > payload > >> >> (which is what the B-2 was designed to carry)? Why? > >> > > >> > The only reason I can think of to want to be seen attacking is if you > >> >want to lose an aircraft. Even if you're delivering nuclear weapons, > >> >being shot down before delivering your weapons to the target seems like > >> >a bad idea. If the enemy doesn't know you're coming, it's a lot easier > >> >to drop bombs on target. > >> > > >> Okay, let me ask again. WHY would you want to use a bomber to drop a > >> nuclear device, when you have perfectly good ICBM's which are just as > >> accurate, cheaper, and harder to intercept? What's the point? > >> > >> Scott Orr > > > > Sorry, but ICBM's are not just as accurate. > > Yes, actually, they are, as long as you're dropping nuclear weapons: an > aircraft can launch laser-guided bombs, of course, but not with nukes, > since you have to be a lot closer to the target for that than you want to > be with a nuke. And a B-52 firing cruise misiles would be more accurate > than either (and avoid the necessity of having the aircraft penetrate enemy > airspace). > > Assuming that there's a difference in accuracy, is the difference worth the > extra cost of the B-2? > > >Not that that makes much > >of a difference with nuclear weapons, but it is a difference. > > Well, no, it isn't a difference, unless your objective it to take out > hardened targets, like command centers or missile silos. However, you only > do a stupid thing like that if you're planning to "win" a nuclear war by > taking out the enemy's nuclear weapons before than can be fired. > > In fact, the _only_ purpose of having the B-2 is to destroy enemy nuclear > weapons before those weapons can fire. If this actually is workable, it's > an _extremely_ destabilizing capability to have, because it puts the enemy > in a "use it or lose it" situation with his nuclear weapons, prompting him > perhaps to use them before he otherwise might. And unless this capbility > works _perfectly_, it won't keep your country from getting hurt in nuclear > war. > > Because of the above, many people would argue that the B-2 has no real > use--in fact, you could even make the argument that having such weapons > _reduces_ the country's security. > > [Note that the above remarks on nuclear escalation constitute Actual > Twilight: 2000 Content.] > > > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if > >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a > >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was > >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. > > > And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. The > flaw in the logic above is that, while it's true you can call the bomber > back, it's equally true that you have to launch the bomber a lot sooner > than you'd launch a missile for a given time on target. It's true that > there's some advantage to being able to get the aircraft off the ground > when you think there's a strike coming in, but a B-52 works well enough for > that, even if you don't think your submarines already fulfill that role. > > So yes, there are in fact very good reasons for people to think that the > B-2 is a waste of money--even people who never wanted the Soviets to take > over. In fact, I'd suggest that if you think that everyone who disagrees > with you is as Communist, you're not truly partaking of the spirit of > democracy. > > Scott Orr Why are you sending this again when I already responded to it? I can only think that you expect me to give a different response this time. --see my earlier response-- John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 00:42:08 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline "John H. Schneider II" wrote: > Scott David Orr wrote: > > --meaningless stuff snipped-- > > > > > > > Please try to address my arguements.... > > > > I did. > > > > Scott Orr > > No you didn't. > > John II Come on guys, this is getting ridiculous... ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 19:46:27 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Peter Vieth wrote: > > "John H. Schneider II" wrote: > > > Scott David Orr wrote: > > > > --meaningless stuff snipped-- > > > > > > > > > > Please try to address my arguements.... > > > > > > I did. > > > > > > Scott Orr > > > > No you didn't. > > > > John II > > Come on guys, this is getting ridiculous... > > ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) > Agreed! John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 11:14:40 +0200 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Mine Clearing Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, loonz857@mindspring.com produced: > I saw that in April the US Army is testing a Flail tank, and the German Army > is testing a Bull dozer blade for their Dachs Pioneerpanzer in May. Which are actually similar to a design by Krohn. He (yes, it's a single private citizen, owning a small firm in Germany, IIRC) designed an, uh, inverse flail type of mine clearer (against AP mines only at the moment, but there's devellopment), where the cutters slash through the ground and from below through the mines. The idea is to reach the trigger of the mine last, so all you get is a tiny explosion which can't damage much). Where it's being used it's very successfull, from what I hear, more than manual mine cleaning, and much safer to boot. Note that these vehicles --- while well armored against the occasional 'bad' mine (i.e. 90° turned, facing the 'enemy') --- is still a civilian vehicle. I seem to remember that his design is the original one, but I have no facts to substantiate this. Note that all the above is hearsay. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:51:25 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 18:36 15.5.1999 -0500, you wrote: Stop this stupid conversation or try it somewhere else. This is not a right place. Hoping to get some TW2000 material in TW2000 Mailing list. Peter >Scott David Orr wrote: > > --meaningless stuff snipped-- > >> > >> > Please try to address my arguements.... >> >> I did. >> >> Scott Orr > > No you didn't. > > John II >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *Never trust a smiling cat* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:11:42 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline For those of us who don't have time for the poli-sci lessons, I've started a mailing list at http://www.onelist.com the title is t2k@onelist.com It's an alternative in case this one doesn't do an about face. Loonz http://bookmark.findhere.com http://t2k.findhere.com > Stop this stupid conversation or try it somewhere else. This is not a right > place. > > Hoping to get some TW2000 material in TW2000 Mailing list. > > Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:33:22 +0100 From: "Mark OIiver" Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases >There's a text translator on my source page from Alta Vista. I was working >on the exact same thing, since I saw the T2K slang on Grimaces site. I just >hadn't got around to posting yet. Do you have Grimaces address? How accurate are the automatic translators? I'm wondering how 'true' they might be. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:31:59 +0100 From: "Mark OIiver" Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases >I can provide some phrases in Polish; I also know people who speak Russian and >can ask them for Russian phrases. > >([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) > Please do ask the people you know for some phrases. If you can supply me with some stock Polish phrases I would really appreciate it. I'm sure you can imagine the sort of thing. "Halt!", "Who goes there?", "Where are you going?", "Take cover!" etc. I'll appreciate all you can pass on to me :) Thanks, Mark *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:02:17 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases > Do you have Grimaces address? > > How accurate are the automatic translators? I'm wondering how 'true' they > might be. I've been using the translators about a year now and they work OK, we know you'll never get a degree using one. :-) Grimaces site is on my link page. Loonz http://bookmark.findhere.com http://t2k.findhere.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:39:49 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases Mark OIiver wrote: > >I can provide some phrases in Polish; I also know people who speak Russian > and > >can ask them for Russian phrases. > > > >([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) > (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) > > > > Please do ask the people you know for some phrases. If you can supply me > with some stock Polish phrases I would really appreciate it. I'm sure you > can imagine the sort of thing. "Halt!", "Who goes there?", "Where are you > going?", "Take cover!" etc. > > I'll appreciate all you can pass on to me :) > > Thanks, > > Mark > Polish - ------ j = y, w=v, l with a dash =w, vowels are hard (a is like ah instead of ate) word: "spelling", [english pronunciation] Stop!: "Stoj!" [stuy!] Who is it?: "Kto to jest?" [ktoh toh yest?] Where are you going?: "Dokad idziesz?" [dokond iyd-jesh?] Take cover!: "Kryc sie!" [krich shey!] Whats your name?: "Jak sie nazywasz?" [yak shey nazivash?] How old are you?: "Ile masz lat?" [ee-le mash lat?] Where are you from?: "Skad jestes?" [skond yestesh?] What time is it?: "Ktora godzina?" [ktura godjina?] Go north: "Idz na polnoc" [eedz nah poownots] south: "poludnie" [pow-wood-nay] West: "zachod" [za-hod] East: "wschod" [vi s-hod] there is an s (like snake) then h sound but not sh like in SHH! Quiet!: "Cisza!" [chisha!] Run!: "Biegnij" [biegniy!] Help me!: "Na pomoc!" [na pomots] 0: zero 1: jeden 2: dwa 3: trzy 4: cztery 5: piec 6: szesc 7: siedem 8: osiem 9: dziewiec 10: dziesiec army: "armia" horse: s. "kon" pl. "kony" [kon] the n is like an n and i, that is an n with the ih sound of an i, like nee-ih militia: "milicja" soap: "mydlo" [mid-wo] smoke: "dym" sand: "piasek" refugee: "zbieg" train: "pociag" [poh-chohng] car: "samochod" [samohod] town, city: "miasto" tank: "cholg" [chowg] gas: "gaz" farewell!: [do vyd-dzenia!] hope this helps - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:39:59 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases Mark OIiver wrote: > >There's a text translator on my source page from Alta Vista. I was working > >on the exact same thing, since I saw the T2K slang on Grimaces site. I > just > >hadn't got around to posting yet. > > Do you have Grimaces address? > > How accurate are the automatic translators? I'm wondering how 'true' they > might be. > They're not that good from my experience. If you know another language type that in and translate to english. I tried Spanish to English and it worked reasonably well for simple sentences, long, complicated ones just got messed up. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:50:30 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases Peter Vieth wrote: > Mark OIiver wrote: snipped oh yah, sz = sh, cz = ch, so on - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 03:57:06 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases At 11:39 PM 5/16/99 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: >Polish >------ > >j = y, w=v, l with a dash =w, vowels are hard (a is like ah instead of ate) >word: "spelling", [english pronunciation] These look good, but the polite forms for a few of them (for soldiers with better edicate :) >Where are you going?: "Dokad idziesz?" [dokond iyd-jesh?] "Dokad pan idzie?" (or "pani" for a woman) >Whats your name?: "Jak sie nazywasz?" [yak shey nazivash?] "Jak sie pan nazywa?" >How old are you?: "Ile masz lat?" [ee-le mash lat?] "Ile ma pan lat?" >Where are you from?: "Skad jestes?" [skond yestesh?] "Skad pan jest?" >Go north: "Idz na polnoc" [eedz nah poownots] "Isc na polnoc" or "Prosze isc no polnoc" ("PRO-sheh eeshch") >militia: "milicja" >soap: "mydlo" [mid-wo] >smoke: "dym" >sand: "piasek" >refugee: "zbieg" >train: "pociag" [poh-chohng] >car: "samochod" [samohod] >town, city: "miasto" >tank: "cholg" [chowg] >gas: "gaz" >farewell!: [do vyd-dzenia!] > food or meal is "jedzenie" (yed-ZEN-yeh) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 04:01:12 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases At 11:50 PM 5/16/99 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: >Peter Vieth wrote: > >> Mark OIiver wrote: > >snipped > >oh yah, sz = sh, cz = ch, so on > And "s" with a dot over it is the same as "sz", while "z" with a dot over it is equivalent, sort of a "zh" (like the "j" in French). There are also "soft" versions of the above that are proncouned more at the palate than at the lips: "si" or "s" with a slash over it, "ci" or "c" with a slah, and "zi" or "z" with a slash. Where there's an "i" and no other vowel afterward, you also include the "i" sound (pronounced "ee"). Oh, and the accent is always on the next-to-last syllable. :) Scott Orr > > >-- >([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 04:20:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Thanks Loonz, I went and signed up, but I haven't given up on this list however, because there is still T2K discussion going on. - --- Dwight Looney wrote: > For those of us who don't have time for the poli-sci lessons, > I've started a > mailing list at http://www.onelist.com > the title is t2k@onelist.com > It's an alternative in case this one doesn't do an about face. > Loonz > http://bookmark.findhere.com > http://t2k.findhere.com > > > Stop this stupid conversation or try it somewhere else. This > is not a > right > > place. > > > > Hoping to get some TW2000 material in TW2000 Mailing list. > > > > Peter > > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com > with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:32:14 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases Scott David Orr wrote: > At 11:50 PM 5/16/99 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: > >Peter Vieth wrote: > > > >> Mark OIiver wrote: > > > >snipped > > > >oh yah, sz = sh, cz = ch, so on > > > And "s" with a dot over it is the same as "sz", while "z" with a dot over > it is equivalent, sort of a "zh" (like the "j" in French). > > There are also "soft" versions of the above that are proncouned more at the > palate than at the lips: "si" or "s" with a slash over it, "ci" or "c" > with a slah, and "zi" or "z" with a slash. Where there's an "i" and no > other vowel afterward, you also include the "i" sound (pronounced "ee"). > > Oh, and the accent is always on the next-to-last syllable. :) > > Scott Orr Unfortunately the ASCII character set does not include many of these letters heh... anyway... Perhaps someone should come up with a set of words that people on the list could post in the other languages they know, and also include some general rules? I'll happily add these to my site but i'm too busy at the moment to compose such a list. BTW, I may try posting sound recordings of the words later. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:57:20 +0100 From: "Mark OIiver" Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases Thanks for the quotes people have been passing around. If people don't mind I'll add them onto my site. If anybody would like to e-mail me( marko@syslogic.com ) any more I'll be most grateful. I'll sort out a few general phrases that I'll be looking for but will also include a section of misc. phrases. Always useful for atmosphere. Plus one of my players is bound to dig up a language book and won't he/she be in for a shock when they see I've actually been doing my homework too :) Thanks for the response, keep them coming :) Regards, Mark - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Vieth To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: 18 May 1999 01:44 Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> At 11:50 PM 5/16/99 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: >> >Peter Vieth wrote: >> > >> >> Mark OIiver wrote: >> > >> >snipped >> > >> >oh yah, sz = sh, cz = ch, so on >> > >> And "s" with a dot over it is the same as "sz", while "z" with a dot over >> it is equivalent, sort of a "zh" (like the "j" in French). >> >> There are also "soft" versions of the above that are proncouned more at the >> palate than at the lips: "si" or "s" with a slash over it, "ci" or "c" >> with a slah, and "zi" or "z" with a slash. Where there's an "i" and no >> other vowel afterward, you also include the "i" sound (pronounced "ee"). >> >> Oh, and the accent is always on the next-to-last syllable. :) >> >> Scott Orr > >Unfortunately the ASCII character set does not include many of these letters >heh... anyway... > >Perhaps someone should come up with a set of words that people on the list could >post in the other languages they know, and also include some general rules? I'll >happily add these to my site but i'm too busy at the moment to compose such a >list. > >BTW, I may try posting sound recordings of the words later. > >-- >([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:14:33 -0700 (PDT) From: M H Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases Mark, if your interested in asia/pacific, i could ask around for some phrases in japanese and chinese (taiwanese). also, to everyone - after much calculation and modification i have been able to compile a system for deriving small arms ratings information for slug-throwers from hold-out up through heavy mg. the bonus is that unlike the T2K system given in the foreword of "infantry weapons of the world" is that it doesn't leave range and pen up to judgement (= best guess). i've based it as much on the t2k system as possible with much addition from BTRC's very excellent "Guns Guns Guns: 3G^3" system. it is based on actual ballistics - but simplified greatly. i've run 200 or so guns through it and they've all come out exceptionally well vs. the t2k stuff - and much more consistant. my biggest problem with IWotW was that the weapons stats they created could in several cases not be duplicated with the rules they provided - also there were several inconsitant entries in the book. i.e. why does the M21 (an accurized M14) have a range that is 5m SHORTER than the standard M14? anyway, i've found this system to work very well and i intend to adapt it to tank armament and heavy wapons when time permits. also let me state that the figures given by this system fit well with existing t2k stuff - therefore it can be used to give a more accurate picture of an M16 while stock T2K stats for the M203 can be used right alongside it. in brief: you need several real world figures on the gun (i recomend Janes Infantry Weapons of The World - the big book not that little half-size piece of crap). From it you need the following basic stuff like; Basic info like manufacturer, name, calibre etc. now here's how you figure the stats: ROF rate of fire is figured out as per T2K with a modification. the old "chart" had a big hole between 700-1000rpm (10) and 1001-5000rpm (50). this puts an Ingram M11 in the 50 range (Cyclic ROF=1200rpm) yet it is listed with an ROF of 10 on p.26 of IWotW. thus the addition of an ROF 20 to my chart. Cyclic ROF = T2K ROF 700 or less = 5 701-1000 = 10 1001-2000 = 20 2001-5000 = 50 5001 or higher = 100 Naturally SA/DAR/SS remain the same. DAM Damage influenced by 2 factors, Muzzel Energy and Bullet Cross-Section. Muzzel Energy is derived from the following formula: (Projectile mass in grams)x(Muzzel Velocity in m/sec)^2/2011 = Muzzel Energy (ME) in Joules (taken verbatim from 3G^3 p. 13.) Cross Section is the diameter of the projectile in millimeters. Damage is figured in this equation: (Damage) = {[({[(ME)x0.735]x[Projectile Diameter in mm/10]}^0.5)/10]^0.86} incidentally this is a combination of the 3G^3 DV formula with the Cross Sectional modification reversed "/" to "x" (to convert thier penetration based DV into a tissue disruption Dam) and the DV to T2K Dam formula. Small bullets penetrate better than a bigger bullet of equal weight moving at an equal speed, but a bigger bullet causes more tisse shock. Unmodified DV formula can be found in 3G^3 p.10. T2K conversion formula is listed in 3G^3 "More Guns" supplement p.187. PEN Penetration is very simple. projectiles with a diameter of 7mm or less have a base Pen of 1. those with a diameter of more than 7mm (i.e. 7.62mm) have a base Pen of 2. Pen must be at least 1 less than Dam (i.e. 7.62mmN in most cases = Dam 4 Pen 2). Pens equal to the Dam become "Nil." (i.e. 9mm Para in most cases = Dam 2 Pen 2 -> Dam 2 Pen Nil). BLK Bulk is pretty much unaltered. overall length (cm round down) = T2K Bulk 15cm and down = 0 16-30cm = 1 31-45cm = 2 46-75cm = 3 76-90cm = 4 91cm and up = 5 MAG pretty self explanatory. RECOIL (SS/BRST) pretty much the standard T2K formula (i tried to keep as much of the original system as possible). Recoil is figured out from the following formulas. {[(Projectile Mass)x{[(MV)x3.2808399]/1000}^2]^0.5}/(Loaded Weapon Mass in kg) = SS Recoil [(SS Recoil)x(T2K ROF)]/2 = BRST Recoil You can follow the T2K convention of doubling non-pistol SS Recoil - but i don't see the logic in that. Additionally T2K states that if the square route of the ME is high to add to the base recoil. Remember that the ME above is in Joules not the non-existant unit T2k made up (they mixed metric and english). You'd have to figure it thier way. MV in m/sec x 3.2808299 = V in feet/sec E (T2K's fake energy unit) = (projectile mass in grams)xV^2 if the square root of E = 10 add 1 to the SS Recoil E = 15 add 2 E = 20 add 3 E = 25 add 4 i'm still working on a way to simplify this - suggesttions welcome. RNG finally we have range, derived from the weapons barrel length, its stabilizing points and its muzzel velocity. First off stabilizing points. It is assumed that all weapons at least have a grip. therefore pistols have a SP value of "0" (grip is included) if the pistol has a very short grip (~4cm or less from the base of the trigger guard to the end of the front of the grip) which allows for only three or less of the digits (not counting thumb) to grasp the weapon it is considered to have a "half grip." Additionally weapons like the Norinco Type 86 Knife Pistol don't have a conventional (opposed) grip and are included here. Rifles with out a pistol grip but a grip type stock (M14, M1, SKS etc) are considered to have a FULL grip. Half Grip weapons have an SP of "-0.5" Conventional Foregrips (M16, FN Fal, MP5A5 etc) add "0.5" to the SP. Forward pistol grips (MP5K, Beretta M12S, Steyr AUG etc.) add a full "1.0" to SP. Stocks, retractable or otherwise add "2" to the SP. thus an HK MP5A5 would have an SP of 2.5 HK MP5K would have an SP of 1 Beretta M93R (w/ the foregrip and no stock) 1 Beretta M93R (w/ foregrip and a stock) 3 anyway range is a function of projectile velocity, recoil handling and barrel length (for accuracy over range anyway). Thus the following formula. {[(MV in m/sec)/20]+[(Barrel length in cm)*0.75]/2}+[(SP)x4] alternative ranges can be determined for guns with folding stocks by altering the SP appropriately. well there you go everything you need. i hope you guys enjoy it - i know it looks daunting, but really it isn't. i just drop the formulas into an excel spread sheet and go from there. and believe me i'm not the most math oriented individual out there - most of this is based on ballistics and physics, but i (and a bunch of my colleuges) have simplified them to a game appropriate level. oh... when you figure out weapon mass, remember that they are ussually given unloaded. remember to add the additional payload mass. i use the tables in the back of 3G^3 to determine round mass and multiply it by the magazine capacity. i even do this when they give the mass loaded to keep it consistant. i figure its better to be a little off reality and consistant. That way any mistakes are transfered to all my results and everything stays pretty close in comparison (guess i should thank college stats classes for that). enjoy. - --- Mark OIiver wrote: > Thanks for the quotes people have been passing > around. > > If people don't mind I'll add them onto my site. If > anybody would like to > e-mail me( marko@syslogic.com ) any more I'll be > most grateful. > > I'll sort out a few general phrases that I'll be > looking for but will also > include a section of misc. phrases. Always useful > for atmosphere. Plus one > of my players is bound to dig up a language book and > won't he/she be in for > a shock when they see I've actually been doing my > homework too :) > > Thanks for the response, keep them coming :) > > Regards, > > Mark > _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #41 ************************************