General Barron

It is exactly the same language. Only in script files, you can do things like loops, if-then statements, and delays, which means there is a heck of a lot more that you can do in a script instead of in the field of a unit or trigger. Head on over to OFPEC. There you will find all the knowledge you need. My personal suggestion: don't worry about how to write scripts. Just learn how to do little tricks in the init fields of units, and the on activation fields of triggers and waypoints, and last in the condition field of triggers. Anyway, grab the unofficial command reference from OFPEC, and you will see some scripting commands and how to use them. If you don't understand a certain command, just forget about it. Most commands are only really useful in scripts. You can also grab macguba's tutorial mission and look at it for a great example of some things. Also, learn to use scripts others have written in your missions. When you use them, take a peek inside the script and see if you can figure out what is going on. Eventually, when you are comfortable with using scripting commands in init fields, waypoints and triggers, you will be able to move on to writing simple scripts. By that point, you'll see that scripting isn't much different from what you've been doing all along. Anyway, that's how I learned scripting. Don't expect to be able to make super-complex scripts right away. Just take things a step at a time, and you'll get better and better. Also make sure to use the forums, especially the OFPEC ones, when you are stumped about things. Have fun.

You can put gamelogics in a vehicle's cargo, which will "take up" that spot so the next unit gets into the next spot over. As for counting the cargo capacity of a vehicle, you could have a script do something like count how many game logics it can put in the cargo of a vehicle. It would be easier though to just hard-code the values into a script, or have your script use an array that contains vehicle classes and the number of cargo seats they hold: [ ["skodared",3], ["bus", 15] ] etc.

To put a flag at half mast, put two flagpoles on top of each other, and setpos one of the poles into the ground. I don't think you can fly a bigger flag on the BIS flagpoles though, and I don't know of any addon that lets you have bigger flags.

The "speed" command will return the magnitude of a unit's velocity (i.e. its speed without its direction, other than a + or -). Or you could calculate the magnitude from the [x,y,z] velocity, but the speed command is easier. Only problem though, is that for the setvelocity command to work on a 'man' type unit, the unit must not be on the ground. So you have to setpos the unit into the air (z=0.01), and then you have to setvelocity him. However, when you setpos the unit into the air, he cannot move for a moment, so the result would be very choppy.

To quote myself: I believe this should remove the footsteps sound: soundEnabled=false; That would be defined in the animation class config. I could be wrong though. Alternatively, you could define the bat as some sort of aircraft, and make it truly "fly" around. However, your method looks like it works surprisingly well.

Nah, you can't use setvelocity on men if they are standing on the ground. I can think of a couple ways of doing it, but I don't think either one is very pretty: 1) Force the player to walk every few seconds that he is tired (and moving) via the switchmove or playmove command. This gets messy when the player is doing things other than standing up running with a rifle... 2) Units can't move for a half a second or so after they have been setpose'd. Instead of switchmove/playmoves, you could do _unit setpos getpos _unit every few seconds. This could get annoying to play though, and may look weird. There may be better ways to do it, but this is all I can think up off my head. In reality though, it would take you hours to cross from one end of the island to the other on foot, which would be rather boring to play. So unrealistic as it is to be running around all the time and never losing your breath, I think for gameplay reasons it is a good tradeoff.

@Turms If Kerry can get a purple heart for a sliver, than it dilutes the meaning of the award. Most people die or are maimed when they get it. What are you basing this statment on? I am basing my statement off of what the swifties say. I'm guessing you are basing yours off of what Kerry says, right? So I guess we both don't really know then, do we? What source is Akira basing those claims on? Again, I'm telling you what the Swifties are saying. What are those claims based on? The point is: he said he was there. That is called a lie. If you followed US news like I did, you would know. But I get my info from sources other than the internet, so I can't give you a link. But I don't see what is wrong with the link from swiftvets.com, because what they claim is backed up by tapings from the TV broadcast. I'm sorry, but if you think the Democratic Party is a separate entity from the Kerry campaign, then I'm afraid you don't know American politics correctly. There you go again. You refuse to respond to the issues. I have posted what the Swifties claims are. But you refuse to provide evidence disproving their claims. Go back to my post where I explained this logical fallicy. Anyway, the only thing in your post of any merit is the article you found on CNN.com. I won't go thru it all right now, cause I'm short on time, but I will point out that on the first charge (about his first purple heart), the article provides no evidence that the wound was anything more than a sliver, like the swifties are claiming. PS: Have you read "Unfit for Command"? Have you even heard O'Neil in any interviews? If not, then I assume you are looking at this from a biased viewpoint, and that you are only looking for evidence to support Kerry. Obviously you haven't sought out the evidence against him.

I knew it. I knew that nobody would be able to meet my challenge. I knew that if I answered Pathy's challenge, and said why I support Bush, you guys would completely ignore the subject: Wow, thanks for resorting to namecalling. For a second there, I was starting to think that you actually thought about things from an objective standpoint, but now I see that you are truly just another person who just regurgitates the Democratic party line. I guess you missed this part of my post: You'll notice that I wasn't trying to convince anyone of my opinions, because I know that those things have been discussed already on this forum. Way to let your emotions do your thinking, Akira. Stop pretending you know what libertarianism is. And not all libertarians believe the same thing, just like Republicans and Democrats, so don't expect me to be a clone of Dr. Mary J. Ruwart. I have only been discussing one issue in this forum, so you have no way of knowing what my beliefs are. I haven't said anything about the fact that I think drugs, hookers and suicide should be legal, or that I think the draft is slavery, or that I think taxes are robbery, or that I think the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, or any of my other wacky libertarian ideas. You are an idiot to think that you can judge someone's entire political beliefs based on what they say in a post or two on a message board. ------------------------------------------------ I think the only one here who is able to actually hold an intelligent debate is Walker. The rest of you are like a bunch of 3rd graders.

Bush has actively pursued Al Queida and, IMO, has made the US safer. He is pulling troops out of places where they don't need to be (Germany), and he is sending a message of strength and resolve to those who would push the US around. We will not allow our policy to be influenced by terrorist actions, and we will seek out and destroy those who would try to bring that terrorism upon us. He went into Afganistan after 9/11, despite cries of "Vietnam" from the critics. Iraq was a known supporter of Palestinian terrorism, and was known to have developed and used WMDs in the past. After 9/11, it would have been irresponsible to allow such a situation to continue, even if it turns out our intel was flawed. I don't like many of Bush's domestic policies, but I think his foreign policy is required to keep America safe. Obviously many of the people in this forum have different opinions, but those are my reasons for supporting Bush. Your turn.

That story is just one person saying that Kerry is telling the truth... on the other hand, you have dozens of people who have signed affidavits that say the Swifties are telling the truth. The military records were written by Kerry, so that doesn't hold any water either. A bandaid is a little piece of padded tape that is like 7 cm long. It is what you cover your finger with when you get a paper cut. It is not what you cover a stump with when you lose an arm, like many Purple Heart recipients have done. The fact is, Kerry got a purple heart from a sliver... and he had to work hard to get the paperwork for that award pushed through (3 months after he got the "wound"). Kerry has only released a portion of his records. He has not disclosed the records leading to the award of the three purple hearts, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. There are also missing performance evaluations for certain periods of his service as a Navy officer. All he has to do is fill out a 2-page form 180 to release all his records, but instead he has chosen to post a select portion of his records on his website. The link you posted doesn't prove anything, unless you are looking at this through a biased filter, like you are. And you haven't even touched these points yet: -Kerry never was in Cambodia, like he said he was -Kerry recieved a purple heart from a sliver sized wound -The Kerry campaign has repeatedly changed their story, while the Swifties haven't budged at all Then you try to say that there are no ties between Dems and their 527's. And this really shows that you are a mindless puppet of the Kerry campaign: THATS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE THE ONES WHO PULLED THIS PUBLICITY STUNT, not the Republicans! Good god, for one second try thinking for yourself, instead of buying all the BS fed to you by the Kerry folks! I already told you: the lawyer for the DNC is also advising Moveon.org. That is the equivalent of the republican lawyer who advised the Swifties. Kerry knows the FEC isn't going to shut down the swifties, but he knows this little stunt will influence people like you, which is why he did it. ------------------------------------------------- You guys crack me up. I know it's hard, but try to be objective. You're being such hypocrites, and I guess you don't even see it: You say that the Swifties are lying. I ask you to specifically tell me what they are lying about. For clarification, I post their claims here. You say that their website is 'illegitimate' because it is 'biased'. You then post things from Kerry's own website to "prove" that the swift boat vets are lying! You have got to be kidding me.... Don't you see anything hypocritical about that? What's even better, when somebody asks you what Kerry has done in his 19 years in the senate, you people totally dodge the question: That isn't answering the question, Balschoiw. You'd make a good politician. You are just proving that you have no effing idea what Kerry has done. I present a challenge to all of you out there: Make an argument why Jonh Kerry should be elected, without mentioning Bush, without mentioning Vietnam, and with mention of something that he has done while in office. If you cannot do this, then instead you should admit that you are just puppets of the Democratic party, and that you are just blindly following whomever they put against Bush. If you truly think for yourselves, and are informed, then by all means, I'm waiting. PS: I'll be if anyone actually manages to answer this challenge, they will have looked up their info on Kerry's website. So much for thinking for yourselves...

I already reskinned the seagull model into a crow. However, OFP doesn't let you define new seagull type units, I'm afraid. I couldn't even change the model of the original seagull in the core config without a CTD. However, I have been thinking about trying to make a "seagull" script that would "fly" an object around like a seagull. Haven't got around to it yet, but it definately is possible. The object should be animated though, so the bat flaps its wings. But I don't know how to make my crow do that.

@Kaliyuga Sorry, but your arguments are automatically untrue because you got that info from biased sources, according to Akira.

You made a big edit, so I'll make a new post instead of editing the other one. So Fox News doesn't count as a news source anymore? But CNN or the New York Times aren't liberal news sources, right? BS. TV and print media in the US are so overwhelmingly liberal, yet you don't hear me complaining that quoting CNN is "swallowing the Democratic line". Don't call someone a parrot just because they disagree with you. You don't even know what a Libertarian is, so perhaps you should stay away from the name calling, and try to debate your positions huh? What are your "independant sources"? My sources are the sworn testimony of veterans who served with Kerry, the doctor who treated Kerry's wound, and the Kerry campaign's own statements. You still haven't disputed the claims made. I call that "trying to hide the fact that one is just blindly supporting Kerry, instead of looking at both sides of the issue" LOL!!! I'm guessing you haven't heard of John Kerry until this year. The man can't open his mouth without talking about his military service. During the Democratic primary, Kerry ran on his military service. Why would Bush have brought up Kerry's service when Kerry was just one of many nominees? And I don't see how 4 months in vietnam qualifies Kerry to be president anyway. Most of our wartime presidents never served in the military, yet we won those wars anyway. Bush has been president for 4 years, and he is claiming that what he did in those 4 years qualifies him to be president again. Kerry was in the senate for 19 years. Yet he is using his 4 month stint in Vietnam to say he qualifies for president. It makes no sense to me logically, but politically it makes perfect sense: Kerry wants to be seen as strong on defense, but his voting record shows him as the opposite. Hence, he relies on the current pro-military attitude instead of what he has been doing in the government for the last 19 years. Errr... it sounds to me like you didn't look it up for yourself either: And actually, I don't watch the news much, and usually I watch CNN when I do. I read the liberally-biased newspaper, and I listen to conservatively-biased talk radio. Um.... show me some sort of evidence that the focus of Bush's campaign is to dispute one of Kerry's medals. You are really talking nonsense here. How long ago did the first Swifties ad air? If it was some 6 months ago, I must have missed it. I could have sworn that Bush was running on what he did in the last 4 years, not what happened in 4 months at Vietnam.... First, there are just as many "ties" between the Dems and many other 527's. Secondly, Kerry is also trying to get publishers of "Unfit for Command" to stop the book. And last, Kerry is dodging the entire issue that the Vets are bringing up, and instead trying to, as you said, shut them up. He isn't even trying to do both at the same time. That speaks volumes about Kerry, IMO, and it ain't good. Kerry is reacting to this whole thing like a real sleazball, if you ask me. And did Kerry vote for or against that act?

Good to see you found a transcript. First off, lets take on his claim that "150 honorably discharged and many highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in southeast asia". This book (Stolen Valor) talks alot about how this "hearing" was a bunch of bullshit: http://www.amazon.com/exec....6845414 First off, this "investigation", called the Winter Soldiers Hearing, was funded by communist sympathizer Jane Fonda. The rest of the funders were pretty shady characters as well: Many of those same liars quoted in Lane's book. "Winter soldier" Michael Schneider testified that he had been told by a sadistic lieutenant to attach wires from a field telephone to a mans testicles, which Kerry uses in his speech. Schneider told Lane that his father was a: The book goes on to say: This "hearing" that Kerry had attended was chock full of such liars. Some fake "witnesses" had even appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Aside from the fact that the 'testimony' Kerry based his "off the cuff" speech on, it also turns out that a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky wrote the speech, and also tutored him on how to present it. Anyway, now onto the speech: http://ice.he.net/~freepn....4347380 He starts off his speech by saying that those "winter soldiers" (the liars and conmen who claimed that they had been in Vietnam, but really hadn't) told stories about how they personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, randomly shot at civillians, etc etc. You're right, Kerry didn't say that he personally saw those things, but he did pass along outright lies, either knowingly or unknowingly. LOL! Yeah, at the time it was politically savvy to be "ashamed" of his service. How come he is so proud of it now, all the sudden? But that is just like Kerry isn't it? He flip-flops on just about every issue; why would this be any different? He then goes on to claim that the people of South Vietnam basically didn't care if their country was taken over by the North Vietnamese. Right. He later says that "we [the US military] are more guilty than any other body [group/army] of violations of those Geneva Conventions...". He then says that he wishes he could forget the memories of his service (but I guess remember them again when running for president). I especially like his conclusion: "...30 years from now....we will be able to say 'Vietnam' and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning." Yup, "soldiers" like Kerry sure helped America turn and run in vietnam... and just look at how happy they are now under their new, oppressive communist dictatorship? Anyway, I'm getting off the subject. I'm not trying to argue whether the Vietnam war was good or bad. Although, you're right that a lot of the arguments Kerry made could be used against the Iraq war today. It really makes me wonder why Kerry isn't talking like that today. He voted for the war in Iraq, and he isn't running on the claim that he will pull us out of Iraq right now, like Dean was. Could it be that, <gasp> he bases his positions on what he thinks will get him ahead politically, instead of some sort of moral code? Again, that sure would explain all those flip-flops that Kerry loves to make. And the way he always tries to straddle both sides of the issue. Whether you agree or disagree with Bush, you have to admit: he makes his positions very clear. And he sticks to his positions, even when they become somewhat unpopular (such as Iraq). You can't say the same thing about Kerry. However, the Swiftie's 2nd ad (the one where they use parts of Kerry's speech we are talking about) is an attempt to show that he basically let-down his "band of brothers" when he got back home. Vietnam Vets were spit on, yelled at, insulted, called baby-killers, etc, and the Swifties are trying to say that Kerry helped to stir up that kind of hatred. I wasn't alive then, but I would think that having somebody say the things Kerry said to congress would have that effect (Not a long-haired hippie, but a clean-cut, rich veteran). So tell me, what exactly is wrong about the swifties commercial again? If there isn't anything wrong with what Kerry said, then why all this fuss? I'm sure it has nothing to do with what is politically popular at the time, either.

You did not: a) State specificially the claims that you say the swiftvets are lying about, and b) Provide evidence to refute those claims. You never provided me with any links: only a quote from someone on this forum. You are trying to argue that the claims made by the swiftvets are untrue, yet you will not respond to their specific claims when I posted them here. That is not a convincing way to prove that somebody is lying. --------EDIT -- For educational purposes only In logic, this type of fallacious argument is called "Petitio Principii"--"Postulation of the Beginning". Commonly called "Begging the Question". This is where you employ the conclusion of an argument as a premise in support of that same conclusion. For example: 1. The bible says God exists 2. The bible is the word of god 3. Anything that is the word of god is true 4. Therefore, God exists. This is exactly the type of argument that turms is trying to make: 1. The swiftvets are lying 2. You are using their website as evidence that they aren't lying 3. Their website is not a reliable site 4. Your evidence is thus invalid 4. Therefore, they are indeed lying. Notice that the 3rd premise is based on the 1st premise; his entire argument is based on the premise that the vets are lying, yet he does not actually support that premise. Instead, he uses that premise to try to discredit any evidence to the contrary. That's fuzzy logic, if I ever saw it.... -----------END EDIT Eight words: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!" John Kerry made his Vietnam service the focus of his campaign. I guess he thinks his 4 months in vietnam is more important than his 19 years in the senate... or else he doesn't think he can win by running on the votes he cast in the senate.

From http://swiftvets.com: For starters: Yes, some who served with him have also joined the Kerry campaign (but they aren't Puppets of the Democrats? ). But the majority have joined the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Now, I already told you that one of his Purple Hearts was the result of a piece of shrapnel so tiny it was removed by tweezers. Here is the story behind that medal: Yes, Akira is correct: the doctor who treated his wound wasn't even there. I don't see how that changes the fact that: As said by the doctor who treated the wound. Wow, thats some wound... even if it was obtained from enemy fire, I would hardly think that qualifies him for a purple heart. Now, of course figuring out the truth would be easier, if Kerry would disclose his full service records (as was demanded of Bush, who did so): If he doesn't have anything to hide, then why wouldn't he release those records? BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE: KERRY CAMPAIGN BACKTRACKS ON FIRST PURPLE HEART AWARD Campaign Says May Have Been Self-Inflicted Well, would you look at that! It seems that Kerry is admitting that the swift vets.... just may... be.... right. I dunno, maybe Kerry is just a republican puppet too. Â And then there is this little gem, which it takes a Clinton-esque lie to call false: It's kinda hard to debate that one, when he said it on the Senate floor, and it's on tape and all. Hmm... I guess they just made those tapes on a computer or something though.... EDIT Good, you aren't trying to deny what Kerry said above, and in the TV ad. Yes, of course war crimes were committed in the Vietnam war by the US, just like they have been committed in EVERY war fought by EVERY country in the world. However, Kerry claimed that such things occured "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command". THAT statement slandered EVERY one of his "brothers" who fought in Vietnam. It is also a baldfaced, disgraceful lie. It is disgusting that this man would say those kinds of things, and then run for president claiming to be a war hero who is proud of his service. EDIT #2

And you havent prooven a single thing that the Swifties have lied. But I think it is pretty obvious that it is untrue that "crimes and atrocities were committed on a day to day basis" by the US in the Vietnam war, which Kerry said. But Kerry hasn't even tried to refute what he said--which is why these vets are still pissed off at him. He hasn't apoligised for slandering them yet.

Great way to argue a political point of view. Of course, if you take Kerry's own words for the truth, then having served in 'Nam makes you equivalent to a Nazi yourself.

No one said the dems shouldn't argue back. But I don't see how you are "arguing for freedom" if you try to use the power of government to shut your critics up, which is exactly what Kerry is trying to do. I didn't see Bush reacting to Moore's film in the same way Kerry is reacting to these ads. You tell me who is on the side of free speech there. And why doesn't Kerry defend himself against the specific charges made by the swift boat vets, instead of just trying to call them a bunch republican puppets? You'd think that if they were wrong and he was right, then he'd point out where they are wrong, instead of just trying to kill the messengers. Lol.... you must have missed the one about how the Kerry family owns an SUV. I think Kerry tried to get around that one by saying "it isn't my car, it's a family car". Oh, but the other SUV owners are evil, I guess. Then there is the fact that Michael Moore flies around in a private jet, and is driven around in an SUV as well. The LA Times did a nice little report on that when he visited there. Um.... on paper, the two may sound the same (both calling for extremely limited government). But from what I've seen/read about anarchists, they seem more like communists than Libertarians to me; i.e., they want to redistribute the wealth and make everyone "equal". And I don't see how bashing in the windows of some Seattle Starbucks in '99 is helping anyone be more equal. Hmm... both books I've seen laying around my dad's house. I still haven't gotten around to reading any Ann Rand books (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, etc) yet though. Those are kinda "classic" libertarian works, so I think I should... but they are so much thicker than "Give me a Break" by John Stossel. Edit @Frisbee Good! You don't like gun control either, I see.

Ok, tell me specifically what they accused him of, what their evidence was, and what Kerry's defense is. The stuff that I have heard/read sounds pretty convincing for the Swiftie's side of the story.... Ah yes. And of course, the president has absolutely full control over the economy. There is no congress, there is no free market, there was no 9/11..... I bet you were one of the ones who was bitching at Bush for causing a recession in his first years, even though the recession started when Clinton was in office.

The way I was taught it in school, the law looks at these things differently when the supposed "victim" is a celebrity/president/senator. If you consider the swifties ads libel, than surely you would consider some of the stuff coming from the left libel as well? I find it funny that you would call Republicans commies. At least in theory, republicans are supposed to be bigger supporters of freemarket capitalism than democrats are. However, I'm not a Republican by any stretch of the term. I'm a Libertarian, in fact. So... sticks and stones, boyo. The claims the Swifties are making are based on people that were there as well, in other boats. And many of these navy records were actually written by Kerry. And its the Kerry camp that keeps changing their story on everything. The Swifties haven't been changing their story at all. Be very specific and tell me what they have lied about, otherwise you shouldn't be saying things like that. You can't seriously be telling me that Kerry didn't accuse vets of commiting war crimes on a day to day basis, can you? I've heard the whole tape, before it was used in the TV ad, and Kerry says "I witnessed this and that". I'll try to find a transcript, but you got to be kidding me with this whole "he is telling of what he heard" crap. You know a lot of those people he "heard" this stuff from weren't even in 'Nam? Kerry slandered every American over in Vietnam. He sold them out for his own political gain, and that has really pissed a lot of them off. And then for Kerry to make himself out to be a war hero... I respect his service, but he was only there for 4 months; not a full year like most other vets. Of his "3 purple hearts"... one of them was a tiny piece of shrapnel that was removed with tweezers, and one was possibly inflicted by his own grenade. He wasn't crippled, he didn't lose a limb, nothing.... yet he left his "band of brothers" early because he got 3 purple hearts. He never wanted to be in harms way (he said in a book that "I didn't want to get too involved in the war"), and when he signed up for Swiftboat duty, the boats were doing very safe operations. He joined the navy because he knew it would be good for his political career. Why else would he have been taking so many videos of him prancing around with some Army grenades he borrowed?

Name specifically what they lied about. Are you going to tell me that Kerry really didn't compare American soldiers to Gengis Kahn's thugs? I could have SWORN that it was Kerry's voice in that commercial. I won't even get into Michael Moore's lies. However, in America we have the freedom to lie, be it in a book or a "documentary". Wow, if that were the law here in America, a lot of people would be in jail. Have you seen any of the anti-bush ads around here? I'd be pretty insulted, if I were Bush.

That's not what you said here: He didn't fund it, he just appeared in a commercial. And obviously the Bush campaign decided that it wasn't a good idea for him to still be working for the campaign after appearing in the ad, so they forced him to quit. This is a ridiculous argument though. Obviously, Kerry has been benefiting FAR MORE from these 527's than Bush has. This whole FEC BS is just a publicity stunt by the Kerry campaign, and apparently it is working. How about this: the FEC should investigate possible ties between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans for Trush. At the same time, the FEC should investigate possible ties between the Kerry campaign and 527's such as Moveon.org, the media fund, etc. Anyone who would only call for an end to certain 527's on ONE side of the issue is being a hypocrite. How about we see some debate over the issues and not this stupid crap?

Again, an irrelevant argument. You implied that the Bush campaign was funding these ads. There is nothing illegal with a person who contributes money to one campaign also contributing money to one of these 527s. If there was, then George Sorros would be in a $h!t load of trouble. Ok, but you just said yourself that the DNC is coordinating efforts with Kerry's campaign, and thus it cannot be considered an independent group:

The Bush campaign isn't funding these ads either  . You're argument is irrelevent. The DNC's lawyer sure is doing that. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/veterans.group.ap/ Besides, so what if the Bush campaign's former lawyer was giving advice to both groups? Show me where that is illegal. *edit* The law states that these 527 groups cannot coordinate their efforts with any candidate. A lawyer giving legal advise to a group is in no way coordinating with that group, no matter who he is employed by at the time. If you can find evidence that this lawyer actually did more than just give legal advise to the group, and actually coordinated things with the group, then it is illegal.