twilight2000-digest Thursday, July 22 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 051 The following topics are covered in this digest: RE: Thoughts Re: Thoughts RE: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re:Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Re: Thoughts Global warming Re: Thoughts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:39:23 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Thoughts At 09:44 AM 7/21/99 +0300, Puolakka Petri wrote: > > >>WHAT??? > >>I think a reading of U.S. history will show that the use of force by >the >>government in the U.S. has on the whole been lighter than that in most >>other countries. I think perhaps you're mistaking a violent society >for >>government through violence. > >Ahhum... well... yes, let's drop that "force"... (Forgetting the 60'ies >and seventies, which are not relevant here) And sorry, my vocalibury is >not too wide. What I perhaps was meaning was that in many countries the >law enforcement tradition does not so much rely on authority and the >force potential behind it. More, there's some sort of voluntary >obedience to the law, which is not so much based on hard punishments. >But, it is clear that in a nation as heterogenous as US this can never >be established. > With all due respect, I'm a political scientist, and I have to say that the above simply is not true. I mean, it's not even slightly true--law enforcement in most countries doesn't primarily on force (that's an exepensive and unstable way to run a government), but the U.S. would probably be the country of which this is _least_ true. I'm not sure where you've gotten this perception, but it's really not accurate at all. >But, this means that in chaotic circumstances US will need *very much* >force potential behind law enforcement. Maybe more than there is >available in a cituation after and during WW3. > >Also, in countries where there is a tradition of unconditional >obedience, the peaceful conditions necessary for the economy to start >over would be very easy to achieve. This means that SE-Asia and Japan in >particular are in good position. I think you may have been hoodwinked by "Asian values" propaganda--the countries in Asia don't look very different, in the way their politics operate, from European countries perhaps 100 (or in some cases 50) years ago. People obey in these countries, but not really out of "deference"--just as in pre-democratic Europe, people obey because if they disobey they're punished harshly (if not always violently--losing your livelihood can be just as bad as being beaten up). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:52:37 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Thoughts Subject: Re: Thoughts > Yes we must defend ourselves should King George--or those damn apes-- ever > return. Even if the highly trained American populace cannot keep ol George from > invading, well we can sure keep him on his toes like those fine IRA patriots. I > mean the right to bear arms is necessary in order to maintain a militia so we > can blow those federal buildings up, right? And who is gonna control those > Injuns without a colt. With guns we can defend ourselves against anyone (well > maybe not ourselves, but how important are several tens of thousands of people > anyway as long as I can go to the range on weekends). Shucks anyone who doesn't > support guns is a frickin lazy ass liberal right. They're not patriots, they're > commies tryin to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. So some people are > dying ... We need to defend the ideals and traditions and values, THEY are the > very foundations of this country. Die in silence liberals! > > http://www.theonion.com/onion3520/second_amendment.html > > -- > ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) Well I'm not a gun toting redneck yall. But I'm not willing to edit the constitution to facilitate a public safety issue. Accidental fire arm discharge is not a primary cause of injury or death in any demographic, actually there are common diseases and unsafe practices that kill more and more often than guns, yet possess not a fraction of the legislation to deter them. It is a fair retort that gun reformers don't honestly mean well, which I believe most of them do and are patriots wishing a betterment of the Republic. I just don't see a need for constitutional reform to keep a child from hurting itself. Rhetorically "where was the village when this kid was playing with the gun?" With that said I think in T2K the constitutional argument would exist during the reconstruction. I always played IMC that within a few years a 3rd continental congress convened to ratify a nearly identical document, minus the prohibition clauses and such. :-) A few of us thought if a strong enough well meaning leader were to emerge quick enough with media support wrap themselves in the flag and the constitution and use it as a vessel for recovery. Milgov in Armies in NY even gave lip service to the census issue. Hell they would be bound by the same constitution that blocks them from surrendering control to Civgov to aid in it's recovery. Also I don't think though 88% of the major crime areas are obliterated it will affect the amount of crime per capita. No one has ever been able to abolish prostitution or drug abuse. These undoubtedly will appear again, probably in the riches of the redneck reviera, the Texas oil fields. Considering their proximity to the source. Cheers Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:22:16 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Thoughts At 03:56 PM 7/21/99 +0200, Göran Bergström wrote: > > >>WHAT??? >> >>I think a reading of U.S. history will show that the use of force by the >>government in the U.S. has on the whole been lighter than that in most >>other countries. I think perhaps you're mistaking a violent society for >>government through violence. >> > Hhmm, may I just say: Manifest Destiny... You can say this, but it has no relevance to the point--what relation does it bear to the need for a coercive government? >...The American Civil War... This war was fought because one group of states was resisting attempts by another, larger group to use coercion to impose a specific set of values on the country as a whole. The fact that such a thing was resisted is arguably evidence _against_ your point. >...The >Indian Wars (Wounded Knee anyone?), The Spanish-American War, the treatment >of the Philippines during the first decades of the 20th century, the >"Domino Theory", Bay of Pigs, the Invasion of Grenada, the Invasion of >Panama, and so on. I don't see why you'd bring any of these up, since none of them is related to the topic we're discussing: the discussion was about how the U.S. government behaves towards its citizens, not towards citizens of other countries (or even, really, towards the Indians, whom the U.S. didn't really consider its own people--indeed, in U.S. law, Indian tribes actually retain some state sovereignty as "domestic nations"). >(For those wanting to know more, I can recommend "A >History of World Societies" by McKay, Hill, Buckler,copyright 1992 by >Houghton Mifflin Company) > However, I wouldn't say that the U.S. has acted worse than any >other nation. What my university classes in history has indicated is that >almost all of the countries that are today industrialized, have at one time >or another been "international bullies", using force to take what they >wanted, regardless of what might be right or wrong, especially when dealing >with nations and peoples deemed "inferior". That wasn't what we were talking about.... Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:25:19 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Thoughts At 07:19 AM 7/21/99 PDT, Stephen Dragoo wrote: >>Now if we can juuuuuuust get rid of some of these liberals! > >I personaly like the Raines philosophy: > >Liberals can either grab a gun and defend themselves, or they can get the >hell out of town, because no one sits on their ass around here! > Perhaps you don't like "liberals", not because they "sit on their ass", but because they work very hard to do things you don't personally agree with? Can't you disagree with people without calling them names or suggesting they're evil? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:08:17 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Thoughts Dwight Looney wrote: > Subject: Re: Thoughts > > > Yes we must defend ourselves should King George--or those damn apes-- ever > > return. Even if the highly trained American populace cannot keep ol George > from > > invading, well we can sure keep him on his toes like those fine IRA > patriots. I > > mean the right to bear arms is necessary in order to maintain a militia so > we > > can blow those federal buildings up, right? And who is gonna control those > > Injuns without a colt. With guns we can defend ourselves against anyone > (well > > maybe not ourselves, but how important are several tens of thousands of > people > > anyway as long as I can go to the range on weekends). Shucks anyone who > doesn't > > support guns is a frickin lazy ass liberal right. They're not patriots, > they're > > commies tryin to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. So some > people are > > dying ... We need to defend the ideals and traditions and values, THEY are > the > > very foundations of this country. Die in silence liberals! > > > > http://www.theonion.com/onion3520/second_amendment.html > > > > -- > > ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) > (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) > > Well I'm not a gun toting redneck yall. But I'm not willing to edit the > constitution to facilitate a public safety issue. Accidental fire arm > discharge is not a primary cause of injury or death in any demographic, > actually there are common diseases and unsafe practices that kill more and > more often than guns, yet possess not a fraction of the legislation to deter > them. Not being able to do everything is not an argument to do nothing. For example, saying the US should not have intervened in Kosovo because the US did not intervene in Tibet, etc just, well, doesn't make sense. Accidental discharge of a firearm isn't a very common cause of injury or death. Getting shot in general is common enough (as likely as dying in a car accident, if I remember correctly). And, really, I don't want to get shot. I don't want to die. So if there is something I can do about, well good. If someone comes after me with a knife I can run. Good luck if you're getting shot at. > It is a fair retort that gun reformers don't honestly mean well, > which I believe most of them do and are patriots wishing a betterment of the > Republic. I just don't see a need for constitutional reform to keep a child > from hurting itself. Rhetorically "where was the village when this kid was > playing with the gun?" I believe most people are looking out for the interests of the Republic.. as misguided as it may seem to me. I was refering more to the inference that people who do not believe in keeping guns legal wish to destroy the republic. That is just as ludicrous as people who do support the legality of firearms wishing for the US to be destroyed. I used to believe that guns should be legal. I thought I would like the chance to own one. My father had one, and his grandfather. But they actually used them for a useful purpose (you could make up for food shortages the communists caused by going hunting, you see). For myself, the only purpose would be for recreation. And really I can't have a clear conscience if I know that lots of people are dying just because I would like to go hunting or something. The idea that citizens with their rifles or pistols could fight off an invasion is even more silly, a pipe dream that I don't think a single life is worth wasting for. > With that said I think in T2K the constitutional argument would exist during > the reconstruction. I always played IMC that within a few years a 3rd > continental congress convened to ratify a nearly identical document, minus > the prohibition clauses and such. :-) > Heh probably a good idea. I've never run a campaign located in the US but I plan to do that next. > A few of us thought if a strong enough well meaning leader were to emerge > quick enough with media support wrap themselves in the flag > and the constitution and use it as a vessel for recovery. I always thought that there wasn't enough coverage of radio in T2k. Building an AM radio is extremely simple (like a crystal set radio). Transmitters are more complicated but it should be possible to build them. Having networks of ham radio operators, etc sending information around a country would add another level to a campaign. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:30:40 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Thoughts Subject: Re: Thoughts > Not being able to do everything is not an argument to do nothing. For example, > saying the US should not have intervened in Kosovo because the US did not > intervene in Tibet, etc just, well, doesn't make sense. Well that's easier ta say if your not a citizen of this country. Personally I get nervous coming back from deployment and a majority of my countrymen can't find where my government sent me on a map. But point taken. I understand what your saying. > I believe most people are looking out for the interests of the Republic.. as > misguided as it may seem to me. I was refering more to the inference that people > who do not believe in keeping guns legal wish to destroy the republic. That is > just as ludicrous as people who do support the legality of firearms wishing for > the US to be destroyed. Your absolutly correct Peter that is ludicrous I used to believe that guns should be legal. I thought I > would like the chance to own one. My father had one, and his grandfather. But > they actually used them for a useful purpose (you could make up for food > shortages the communists caused by going hunting, you see). For myself, the only > purpose would be for recreation. And really I can't have a clear conscience if I > know that lots of people are dying just because I would like to go hunting or > something. With a LARGE portion of Americans it isn't guns at all but access to the Constitution by someone you really can't stand. Maybe Kennedy or Carter would have better luck. But non Democrats will never give Hillary or her party access to the Constitution. The idea that citizens with their rifles or pistols could fight off > an invasion is even more silly, a pipe dream that I don't think a single life is > worth wasting for. I beleive the US has many more vial luxeries than guns that kill. Sports cars kill more than guns and we raised the speed limits, duh? :-) > > With that said I think in T2K the constitutional argument would exist during > > the reconstruction. I always played IMC that within a few years a 3rd > > continental congress convened to ratify a nearly identical document, minus > > the prohibition clauses and such. :-) GDW was correct in centering the Civ Mil conflict on Consttutional law, just they came up with a real wacky way of doin it. > Heh probably a good idea. I've never run a campaign located in the US but I plan > to do that next. > I always thought that there wasn't enough coverage of radio in T2k. Building an > AM radio is extremely simple (like a crystal set radio). Transmitters are more > complicated but it should be possible to build them. Having networks of ham > radio operators, etc sending information around a country would add another > level to a campaign. That not much is made of radio in T2K is ridiculaous, Hf during solar flares isn't fun I think a half way decent hammer can handle some residual radition for a few years. AM should be a focal point of the recovery. IMO. Oh and if you don't think Billy Bob and his hunting club can't put a scare in some line Infantry if properly led then you haven't run a US campaign near Denver or Atlanta with an Army retirement community to draw from. Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:10:55 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Thoughts >I always thought that there wasn't enough coverage of radio in T2k. Building an >AM radio is extremely simple (like a crystal set radio). Transmitters are more >complicated but it should be possible to build them. Having networks of ham >radio operators, etc sending information around a country would add another >level to a campaign. >-- >([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) Great point ! What is the state of communications in t2k ? Does anyone have a list of the types of radio ? What the hell is sideband anyway ?! Can someone knowledgable come up with a list and the ranges, suceptability to jamming etc. Is there any effect on radio due to the tons of crap thrown into the troposphere by all these nukes ? I think the biggest grey area is that player's aren't sure if they can get into contact with higher command, get orders and make a difference rather than just E & E'ing back to where ever. Jim. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:45:00 EDT From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: Re:Thoughts I'm not political scientist. I'm not a soldier. I'm not a liberal. I'm not even a good speller. All I do know is that, according to my schoolin', without firearms in the possession of civilian hands there would be no United States of America. There would be no freedom. There would be no Twilight:2000. There would be no internet. And none of us would be having this conversation. God Bless America *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:54:00 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Thoughts > Don't know if anyone's ever read them or not, but an interesting series of > books is the Ashes series by William W. Johnstone. Besides the fact that > the author and the main character, Benjamin Raines, are both very > conservative, gun-loving, patriotic right-wingers, it describes a > post-Apocalyptic world where the main focus is on Ben's dream of rebuilding > America to correct the mistakes made by modern society, using scrounged and > stolen military equipment (including some old WWII favorites like the M-42 > Duster and M1 Thompson SMG). > > >Now if we can juuuuuuust get rid of some of these liberals! > > I personaly like the Raines philosophy: > > Liberals can either grab a gun and defend themselves, or they can get the > hell out of town, because no one sits on their ass around here! I have read some of the books too. Sometimes Raines is just a wee-bit on the hard side but if I was thrust in those circumstances, I could support him, I do admire Raines very much. I liked his uses of the P-51's the "Ashes" books. I also like to read Ayn Rand too, she's a wee-bit extreme for me too but almost all the principles she exhibits in her writings are quite thought provoking, especially _Atlas Shrugged._ Back to Raines, like him, a lot of these liberals drive me up the wall too, they can't see reality. I think the Ashes books and another book series, Jerry Ahern's "The Survivalist" (the early books) would make good fodder for TW2K. If I may get on the soapbox for a sec, I think our Constitution and what has made America is special in all of history. Our Founding Fathers have codified a basic contract on the limitations of government power on individuals on paper for the first time in history. The process started from the time of Hammurabi with his codes, the Magna Carta, and up to the ultimate, the U.S. Constitution. In the Constitution the basic human rights have been put down on paper. These rights to many have come down from God and/or the sake of being rational humans. It was a special time in history. Had the Constitution been written today, it would be so screwed up by the various special interest groups it would be a quagmire at best and a tool for tyranny at worst because there are various groups that would want clauses to "get even" with other groups for misdeeds real or imagined. I'm sure everyone's ancestors were screwed over by some other groups in the past but we need to stop going after each other for payback. The Constitution was perfect, nothing is, there was unfinished business, especially with the status of Negro slaves and women but over time they were gradually fixed. It may take a while but again our Founding Fathers have made it quite hard to amend the Constitution so that special interest groups and malevolent powers can't just amend it quick to get their way. I have seen some posts here, presumably originating from Europe that state they would give up their guns to stop crime. That's pure "Bravo Sierra." Why should law abiding citizens give up their firearms or not be able to buy them because of a criminal element? That's like punishing many innocents for the actions of a few bad people. Plus too, a good reason for an armed population is to make it harder for a tyrannical government to run roughshod over the people. Many times in history, governments have disarmed people before throwing their weight around. Benjamin Franklin said it all, "those would would trade liberty for security deserve neither." Well, I just wanted to pass some thoughts for now, thanks for the opportunity. Chuck DE KA3WRW - ------ "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:04:11 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Thoughts At 11:54 PM 7/21/99 -0400, Chuck Mandus wrote: [Snip.] >Had the Constitution been written today, it would be so screwed up by the >various special interest groups.... It was. Take a long read of it, and note the exceptions and special clauses to benefit particular states or groups of people, such as the creation of both a House and Senate, or the 3/5 compromise over counting slaves. >...it would be a quagmire at best and a tool >for tyranny at worst.... Not to put too fine a point on it, but it was--it codified slavery. The Constitution is a brilliant document, but the idea that the Founding Fathers were perfectly noble and that we've regressed since then is just "Good Old Days" nostalgia, without any real foundation. The country is a lot more democratic--and politics are a lot more honest--then it was in 1800 (and yes, if you really, really want, I can provide the empirical proof for that). [Snip.] > >The Constitution was perfect, nothing is, there was unfinished business, >especially with the status of Negro slaves and women but over time they were >gradually fixed. It may take a while but again our Founding Fathers have >made it quite hard to amend the Constitution so that special interest groups >and malevolent powers can't just amend it quick to get their way. > These things were fixed because the society itself improved, and decided to fix them. Like I said, the U.S. Constitution is a great document--but it's only as good as the society in which it exists. There are plenty of contitutions that are just as good but which simply aren't followed; the beauty of the U.S. Constitution is that everyone has abided by it, for the most part, for over 200 years. [Snip.] Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:20:39 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: Thoughts Hey All, I've been a lurker on the list for quite awhile but haven't had time to do any reading for the last couple of months. Tonight I sat down and saw this incredible number of posts on the list regarding thoughts and figured I'd read them. Well, I thought I'd throw in my two cents worth and ask a couple of questions while I was at it. On the issue of gun control in the US, let's look at some statistics here. How many people shoot other people and aren't in fact either performing some sort of criminal activity when they do it, or defending against such activity? I mean right off the bat take out the shootings because of people being on drugs, take out the shootings where contraband materials were involved. In states that do have gun control laws, take out such shootings as unregistered firearms, discharging firearms within city limits (except in personal defense in most states), minor possession of firearms...How many shootings are there then? Okay, now let's take the firearms away from the people who will obey such a law and what do we have? Criminals with guns- that's what. How many guns are there in the US? Wasn't it like 2.5 per person? Would that change with even extreme gun laws in this country? I doubt it. Maybe it sounds like a "strongarm" approach, but I don't see how the laws could possibly have an affect on shootings in this situation. I mean, here's a guy who is willing to blow somebody's head off because they cut him off at the last intersection, flipped him off, looked at him funny, cheated him, looked at his wife, and after pulling that trigger faces life in prison or death if he's caught and he's going to quit carrying a gun because? He "might" do jail time or have a fine IF he's caught carrying it? Meanwhile, the average law-abiding citizen who is sitting in his home is armed with a kitchen knife or mop handle when the criminals come calling because he's worried about trying to obey the law and got rid of his 2.5 guns or had them confiscated. Give me a break, I'm sorry but I've never seen or heard of any convincing evidence that gun control has ever helped. Reminds me of the paper I was reading the other day where a high school imposed stricter controls on weapons in the school. While assaults involving weapons dropped significantly (like 8%), non-weapon assaults- like pencils and other such tools increased by some 30%. Was weapon control effective? Anyway, sorry for such a speech, I just can't help it when I hear the rules on gun control, then think about the voluntary disarmament that the Native Americans went through just to find their families slaughtered by armed cavalry while they stood helplessly by- maybe throwing rocks at their opponents, and other such types of disarmament tactics. Another quick thought here too- While we keep hearing about deaths and crime being sooo high compared to "x" European nation, has anyone considered the fact that the US is larger than most European countries? Not a liittle larger, but significantly larger. Or the fact that many areas of the US have larger, denser, population centers than European cities? Wouldn't it stand to reason that crime and killings would be higher? Okay, off the guns issue. Scott D. Orr wrote... "The country is a lot more democratic- and politics are a lot more honest- then it was in 1800 (and yes, if you really, really want, I can provide the empirical proof for that)" I'm not arguing your points Scott, but I am curious as to what "evidence" you're talking about. I would like to see it- even via private mail if others on the list aren't interested. I would really appreciate it. It was stated that radio wasn't dealt with much in the T2k rules and accessories. Here, I'm not sure if you're talking about 1st or 2nd edition (I have them both), however the module Urban Guerilla (1st ed) talked about the effects of nukes on electronics due to the EMP's, and they intricately covered New America's use of AM radios to centralize authority and establish organization in the wake of the war. Here, I don't want to sound prejudicial (and I usually get accused of it before being allowed to finish my statements), but I really have to question whether the constitution was really "fixed" on the part of Negro slaves and on women. Let me explain that radical changes were fully necessary and that equality were very necessary. I definitely see those points and agree with them. However, I have many questions on how people can accept them in their current forms. I mean things like hiring quotas, under "equal rights for all" special benefits or advantages to specific ethnic groups or genders that do not include "white" or "male". As two examples, there is no "Bureau of White Affairs" or "United White College Fund" and such things. Now that I've probably insulted at least a few of you with the above statements, I have to agree that the ratifications were necessary and that things like the virtual genocide of the Native Americans, the Enslavement of the Negro people, and restriction of their (and women's) rights to vote, own personal property, and to have equal pay were abhorrent. Okay, so here's the sum of my "beef". It is that we need to have "equal rights for all". If we're going to write up laws allowing for quotas on minorities, then it needs to be geared towards the minority in the specific area that we're talking about. If we're going to set aside government funding- then it shouldn't be based on gender, age, or ethnic origin. Why can't we all just be proud of our heritage and the heritage of others and classify ourselves as Americans who work together, play together, go to school together, and fight together when the need arises? I don't know, maybe I'm confused about the whole issue because I am a white male American? I most sincerely apologize if I've insulted anyone, this definitely was not the intent that I had in writing this. Just before you accuse me of being a bigot, or prejudices- take a good hard look at the movie Die Hard-3. Now for a question or two. I have the 1st and 2nd ed. boxed sets- the only two that I've ever seen. I keep hearing about V2.2 I am just wondering what the differences between 2 and 2.2 are and how you can tell. Is the box marked differently, is there a "cut off" year that 2 became 2.2 or what? Has anyone put together a list of equipment, vehicles, and weaponry that weren't covered in one of those two boxed sets and the supplemental material? What about a comprehensive list of Bio/Chem warfare agents, Orders of Battle that weren't in the various accessories, and location maps of various bases and such things? Well, for those of you who actually made it this far, I just want to thank you for the "food for thought" that this thread has evoked, and for being a part of what makes this country so great- the chance to express an opinion openly and freely. Finally, I want to salute those of you who are in the armed forces (Here in the US or anywhere else in the world)- you have shown your loyalties to your beliefs, your honor and integrity, and you help defend the lives of us civillians so that we can live how we choose in the country of our choices. Thanks. Jesse. Vanquer@email.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:19:22 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: Thoughts > Now for a question or two. I have the 1st and 2nd ed. boxed sets- the >only two that I've ever seen. I keep hearing about V2.2 I am just wondering >what the differences between 2 and 2.2 are and how you can tell. Is the box >marked differently, is there a "cut off" year that 2 became 2.2 or what? > Has anyone put together a list of equipment, vehicles, and weaponry that >weren't covered in one of those two boxed sets and the supplemental >material? What about a comprehensive list of Bio/Chem warfare agents, Orders >of Battle that weren't in the various accessories, and location maps of >various bases and such things? > Version 2.2 Switched to the d20 system I believe? You added the stat and the skill together and had to roll under that number instead of rolling under just the skill, there were some skill changes too, I think they brought the system more in line with TNE/MT, ie you had Autogun, Grenade Launcher, Tac Missile skills instead of just the umbrella skill of Heavy Weapons. Regards, JC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:57:27 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Thoughts Subject: Re: Thoughts > The Constitution is a brilliant document, but the idea that the Founding > Fathers were perfectly noble and that we've regressed since then is just > "Good Old Days" nostalgia, without any real foundation. The country is a > lot more democratic--and politics are a lot more honest--then it was in > 1800 (and yes, if you really, really want, I can provide the empirical > proof for that). > A deserved observation on evidence of Historical vs a Physical nature. Rules of thumb like "the victors write the history" are not without a firm basis in truth. Solid, long excepted theories on historical events and they're participants have for my entire adult life been constantly changing. Some times it's the powers that be get a small opportunity to put their advantageous spin on events. A battle archeologists regularly lose. One blaring example of why the Constitution probably never mentioned education. The next time your kids do their elementary school projects on civil rights see how many abolitionists are on the list of hero's to research. It's as though the battle for equality was won solely by the victims, with no help from whites or Europeans that found the practice reprehensible. Your child's social studies book may have your practiced faith (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist) indexed with Greek Mythos and Aztec rituals. Everything from the illicit affairs of our founding fathers to declassified war records and their relation to area 51, historical evidence has forever been tainted. So some have become to believe what they can touch or have experienced. With this said in relation to T2K. Just because a history book says x did y. Feel free to twist it to fit your plot line. Just don't start to believing it, (as some liberals want you to). :-) Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:56:38 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Global warming Interesting story; http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/brief4.html Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:04:05 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Thoughts > >>Now if we can juuuuuuust get rid of some of these liberals! > > > >I personaly like the Raines philosophy: > > > >Liberals can either grab a gun and defend themselves, or they can get the > >hell out of town, because no one sits on their ass around here! > > >Perhaps you don't like "liberals", not because they "sit on their ass", but >because they work very hard to do things you don't personally agree with? >Can't you disagree with people without calling them names or suggesting >they're evil? > OK, now I'm ready to respond. I probably should have reiterated that Ben Raines' philosophy is dealing with a fictional setting where, except for a few brief periods where he was either the President or was allied with the reconstructed USA, the US government was all but useless, powerless, and dysfunctional in the extreme. And no, I don't mean the US like it is today; I mean the US after a major nuclear/chemical weapons exchange involving us and the Russians, the Russians and China, us and China, etc., a time of barbarism and chaos. As for liberals and their views, I do not advocate shooting them. Aside from the fact that murder is morally, ethically, and legally wrong, it'd be a waste of a good bullet . If anything, I only take a dislike to the ultra-liberal point of view, and the effects it has had on us. After all, without them we wouldn't have frivolous lawsuits filed by criminals who were injured by the very private citizens they tried to assault or steal from... _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #51 ************************************ To subscribe to Twilight2000-Digest, send the command: subscribe twilight2000-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-twlight2000": subscribe twlight2000-digest local-twilight2000@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "twilight2000-digest" in the commands above with "twilight2000".