whisperFFW06

I've missed something... The last 2 posts don't make sense at all. What are you referring to, guys? Placebo, sure your post is not targeted at my poor post prior to my last (in which case I'm not brgnorway ;) )? Whis', clueless

Did you care to read what I wrote after? Let's see the original sentence : "It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil". Which in no way means that you can't draw this line without religion. Religion helps. And you feel insulted? Sorry, I don't see how... 1) No way you should fell insulted, see above 2) As I wrote earlier, I'm not christian. I'm atheist, even if I'm not quite sure of my convictions at the moment. But I forgot you didn't care reading my post, it was not correctly written by that time. Sorry, really, for not being native english To the rest of my post : my bad, accept my sincere apologies. It should not have been written. I'm guilty of doing exactly what I was reproaching you. Now that I'm more calm. We repeated that religion (religion as opposed to atheism) helps answering questions like "what will happen after I'm dead" and "why am I here? Why this silly world? Is there a meaning behind it?". Science would answer... not really much. Appart from "don't know", "probably nothing". Accepting the existence of a god permits to see somthing after your death, some kind of mind behind the world's schemes. It helps certain people to accept living in this world. Unless science disproves the existence of a God (something I'm not aware of), why refusing religion? From what I see : What you refuse is the use and abuse of some religions by some people. You deny the right of a belief to avoid misuse of this belief by a certain portion of the believers. But the real issue is not the belief (scientifically not disproven) but the misuse (scientifically debatable).

And he continues. Carefully avoiding touchy comments, throwing assertions without backup, and continually criticizing religious beliefs with scientific "arguments" (his whole idea being that religion is not scientifically proven, which it should not have to). FSPilot has a new name! Baron, all your questions are answered here : Quote from Albert Schweizer, that you carefully ignored until he came back a second time. Religion is exactly about this, helping people when thay have problem that rationnal debating, logic and everything else fails. You are lucky enough to not have stumble on such issues. But consider yourself lucky. That shouldn't mean that your case is the ultimate truth. I can't believe you didn't see this post. I believe you simply ignored it. Instead, after having repeatedly insulted people here, you try to make yourself a victim : Do you realise that you are being incredibly insulting not just to me (I don't really care) but to every other free-thinker are irreligious person? You are saying that people without religion are sub-human - psychopaths.You should learn the meaning of word "to help"... It's different from "to be the only way to..."... Or you perfectly know the difference and feel the need to be seen as the insulted one? (Yeah, you got it, I'm getting fed up with your attitude here)You throw assertions scientifically proven : No it isn't.Yes, it is. No it wasn't.Yes, it was (\o/ whoohoo, THAT'S debate! scientific arguments flying everywhere!) No, it would not, and no, it does not.Yes, it would, and yes, it does (You know that I'm beginning to love your way of argumenting? I'm aroused!)You see, same type of reply, nothing proven/explained, exactly like you do. Ho! One last thing : And old religions pre-date the ethics which pre-date the modern religions. In fact the first Homo Sapiens group considered as a civilization was the one who began to bury it's deads. As soon as they though about a possible after-death life, they are considered as "civilized" (and this is current scientific research). Even today scientist are not as science-fundamentalist (because that's what you show us, Baron, fundamentalism, the same kind as islamic one.... yes you can now feel insulted) as you are here (and, like you said, you wouldn't be IRL, just over Internet, how strange).

Christ - mas ?

I can't give you an answer religion can give to people, because you are waiting for a scientific answer, with proven fact and scientific method. So you will reply with your "unsatisfactory" stamp. Fact is that people can find the answer : "You'll end in heaven if your action on this Earth are nice" (<- I'm grossly exagerating ) satisfactory to the question "what do I become when I'm dead", or that, when they ask themselves "Why do I live?", religion answer "to serve your God's beliefs in good and evil" is satisfactory, more satisfactory than science's answers to these questions (simply because the goal of science is NOT to answer these questions).

and No, you're just saying that they believe in bullshit and are peasant. Interesting way of discussing.

Nice text Denoir. I personnally fail to see how this makes "science" a better tool at answering some vital question than "religion". I'm atheist. I follow closely the evolution of fundamental research, in fact I wanted to work in quantum physics (before realising it was too hard for my limited brain  ). But I try not to dismiss what others do believe. Perhaps they are right, who knows? Not me. Just as an example, and for blabbling, because it doesn't really bring much to the discussion, let's take your "problems with the religion". Throughout history, science had the exact same problems. - Inconsistencies with real world empirical testing and observation. Today, most advanced theories can't be proven because of lack of precision in current observation capabilities. The energy levels required are too high to see "super-corde" (french word, I don't know the english translation, sorry) theory proven, for example. In the past centuries, lack of precision could not make the relativity theory visible. Therefore classical mecanics was the parangon of science, the end of it for many scientists, and soon everything should have been discovered. History has proven it wrong, and one should take care of making the same mistake today. We lack precision in observation, and as such have probably a false representation of reality. - internal inconsistencies. Relativity + quantum mecanics = infinite numbers. Something is inconsistent between the 2 theories. See above for issues when trying to resolve it  - external inconsistencies : science history has shown plenty. I'm aware many of this inconsistencies had a religious basis, and it's probably one of the strong point of science to be globally consistent within its members. EDIT : oops, wrong button, I've submit my post too soon... Ok, let's continue. So, my main problem when reading you guys is that 1) you seem to see science as the ultimate answer to your questions, better than religion, when in fact the 2 do not answer the same questions, and 2) you are repeating mistakes already done about the current state of science, like : I bet some very reknown scientists in 19th century were saying the very same sentence about Newton gravity. Gravity which has changed A LOT since. Kind of though which leads you to things like "scientology". Dangerous way of thinking.

Sorry if you don't understand my posts, I'm not native english, I do my best. And thanks for the course, but I repeat that science doesn't explain anything about creation. There is a number of factors stopping scientists to know what happened at instant zero. It is currently an explanation of what happened a few moment after this instant zero. This explanation seems to satisfy you, when in facts, it doesn't explain anything. Could we not say that this theories are impressing peasants while bringing nothing? "I'm afraid of death. What will happen to me when I'm dead?" Question answer by religion, in a satisfatory manner for many, it is event the main lever religion has over humans. No, it was created to answer legitimate questions, like the one above. It was USED afterwards to impress peasant, that's the whole difference. It is a TOOL, not created for this purpose, but used for this purpose. Quantum mechanics was not thought to built nuclear bombs. But nuclear bombs are built, using quantum mecanics as a TOOL. Religion. Science. They are tools in the hand of human being. Their purpose is different (one tries to answer "why?", the other "how?"). You seem to think that the current state of science is the penultimate state of what can be done by humanity. You disregard what humanity belived in centuries ago because of this belief. Be sure that in a few centuries, some people will disregard what you think today, because things will have changed. Whis' PS : Hitler persecuted another race for the (hatefull) "good" of another race.

It doesn't explain anything about creation (so anything about what IS the world). The very foundation is still not explained by scientist, and any explanation can be read as : "do you believe in god, or not". Science has nothing to do in this matter. It's not the tool for the issue (currently, and I bet for a looong time to come). If science explanations are enough for you, you either did not get too deep on the matter, or do not believe in god, science or not science (I'm personnaly still wondering about God existence). If you did not get deep enough, I'll return you the "impressing peasant" comment ;) But saying that religion is the source of all wrong because it's something done on purpose to "impress peasant", while science is the answer to everything, I can't agree. Religion has been a tool for many to gain advantage, in power, in wealth, in territory. They did not create it, they used it. In the same way, science has been a tool, see all the way a human has to destroy his fellow humans today. In fact, the 2 worst things which happened in 20th century were not religious acts.

Science currently doesn't explains the "world" better than religion. Is it a story to impress peasant?

The "flaming is not cool" stamp is not made to stop someone expressing opinion. It is just an addonmaker answer to some1 flaming no-end his work, saying : - I hear ya - I don't see your point, you are flaming and don't bring anything to discussion - So, I can't answer - Come back with clear argument, you'll have your answer It's just another way of ignoring a flamer, and answering, at the same time

Because of different MODs, perhaps ;)

Then comes the problem of "who is persistant flamer?" You can't ban someone criticizing, but you could ban "persistant flamer"? What's the difference? No, this would simply lead to people feeling injustly baned, etc... In fact, what makes a flamer persistant is the fact that he is heard, and receive (often in heat tone) replies. Seeing that his rant gives results, he continues. Moreover, sometimes, even in the middle of a big flaming post, there is something true. It can be usefull, even if it's the case for only 5% of the flaming posts. Like I said in CSLA-II thread, 99% of the user are thankfull to addonmakers. Unfortunately there is this 1% vocal minority of stupid flamers, you can't avoid them, they are, that's it. Making a post about it, while there is no solution against it, will make the community more uncomfortable on the subject. Perhaps having a pre-formatted answer, stating like "this is something we searched about, made decision about, and encountered issues with it, we decided to do it that way and none other, that's OUR decision. If you don't feel ok with it, not our fault, do it yourself if you want/can." Whis'

Do you plan on integrating something like DKMM did in their 2S6 ver. 2, some proximity fuze for AA missile, on the M6?

And you can add the "fired" eventhandler to any infantry unit? Because while I'm a BAS Ranger, I can pick up a Molotov and throw it succesfully. You need a mod to do it.

And back to English, by Babel Fish: ROFL Excellent! Can I ask, is there any1 still finding these jokes funny?

Be sure that 99% of your addon user are more than respectful of your work. The vocal 1% left you can't make dissapear. They will be there.

http://www.foreningenp5.com/movies/bmp1_1.mpg Is there always so much smoke?

Soft vehicles, and at best APCs. Not heavy armor. Static AT and some portable AT weapons are there for heavy armors. LAW and RPG-75 definitly shouldn't be able to disable, in 3 approximative shots, heavy armor.

Does the flag move? If not, the original "move WP" created by the move command is the good one. Why do you need to change group? I mean, your problem is that they start moving as soon as they respawn. So you created a new group, to "forget" (for a short time) the flag destination. Why not stop them, keeping them in the same group, until they are all respawned, and release them? To stop them, just switchMove them in a animation state in which they can't move, and switchMove them back to "" to enable moving.

I would rather point to OFrP ABL ;)

Americans in Vietnam destroyed NVA PT-76's with one 66mm LAW, with only 14mm of armour it is very vulnerable to practically everything including anti tank rifles. The BMP series of tanks carries its fuel in the back doors, and its ammunition near the sides of the APC. I have heard of 50 caliber shells defeating the armour and causing fatal explosions. You say that the RPG-7 is a tank killer but it still takes me 2 shots to disable a tank, and by then it has turned around and shot me. The RPG-75 can defeat over 200mm of homogenous steel armour at 30 degree slope, I don't think any APC in this pack can survive a hit to the main compartment from any of these RPGs. If you don't want one hit kills, perhaps you should make the RPGs capable of disabling a tread or the turret in on hit. From what I read in Bobby post, they are perfectly aware that LAW and RPG-75 can indeed defeat BMP and other APCs. The fact is that LAW and RPG-75 are disposable, you can't reload them, you shoot, you throw it. OFP LAW/RPG-75 aren't disposable. Reducing damage is CSLA's workaround.

Ganja, see some pages before for an explanation on the RPG values. It is made to mimic no-reload real LAW/RPG

Does it interfere with non-FDF version running on the same server? I've copied FDF config to root directory, and run a FDF server with -mod, and a normal version without. I didn't seem to notice anything wrong, but it is surprising the "normal" version doesn't seem to see the config files at root, while a -mod version requires it

I didn't get it that way!  Ok! "Avance, char de mort" is perfect  Or "En avant, char de mort!"