igor drukov

Hats off to Greece. They were the best ! I won't kick Santini in the balls, 'coz' he ain't got none, I just wanna send Sylvestre far away from the team. This guys is lame.

Frenchman? Who are you calling French? I'm Swedish The Frenchman has got to be me here, and this is what I say : we are not going to beat Greece, and still less the Czechs, by playing the way we have so far. this euro is a euro and not english premier league. Â Exactly.

ArsÄne Wenger who was commenting on the match on the French channels said the foul would probably not have been whistled in the U.K. because of the different cultures : after all, British football is way more physical than in Latin countries... It is a pity to see the English team go away, even though I think they adopted the same attitude as against France, that is catenaccio defending. Damn, I don't know them too much, but I can't help thinking that this was weird from their part... "La meilleure défense, c'est l'attaque !" (Best defence is attack !)

In France, they broadcast images zooming in on his arm and clearly showing that Ovchinnikov didn't touch the ball with his hand. Admittedly, it was impossible for the referee to see this. But then, I am a strong supporter of video-assistance. It'd change a lot of things in good IMHO. For instance, supporters would be less likely to react violently in the face of an unjust decision by a referee... I saw those pictures with Totti spitting into the face of the Danish player. Yet another example of the twisted aspect of football, unfortunately. Anyway, good riddance.

Poor Mother Russia... Ovchinnikov didn't touch the ball with his hand. Anthems and overall good players (e.g. Rui Costa) whistled, fouls condoned (Lampard, Rooney, Wörms, etc.), innocent gestures mistaken for fouls, jingoistic, aggressive reactions, slime and hype oozing out on our living-room floors, and everybody around happy... I can't believe I actually love this game. Pane e circum

Having the best players is not having the best team, or else Greece would have never won against Portugal. Behaviours such as Wörms' are totally understandable, and (alas !) common, according to the stakes. Yet I think the FIFA should take advantage of these high-level competitions to reenforce a few basic rules through tough refereeing. After all, you can get a yellow card for kicking the ball after whistling. Why not get one when you grasp the arms and waist of a player ? Â

I think Germany showed great potential yesterday, with their multiple changes in pace and quick transversal passes. Too few attackers most of the time, though, and Schweinsteiger impressed noone with his outdated tricks, he should have passed the ball faster in quite a number of cases IMHO. I must admit I had (and still have) a hard time figuring out what exactly the Dutch game is made of. Still, van Nistelrooij's goal is fully deserved IMHO, as I find Wörms' way of defending (by grasping strikers' arms and waists and preventing them from moving) purely and simply outrageous : Brisk should have at least yellowed him, they're playing football, not rugby FFS Â

*  France vs. Germany, 1982 World Cup semi-finals : Littbarski 17, Rummenigge 103, Fischer 108 Platini 27(p), Tresor 92, Giresse 98 * 1993, France vs. Bulgaria, World Cup Qualifications Cantona 32 Kostadinov 37, 90 * The 1999 European Cup Final, May 26th 1999 : Manchester United 2 Bayern Munich 1 Sheringham 90 Solskjaer  90 Basler 5 This "absolute fucking travesty" has a name : football.

Hey there. Italy always seems overrated : remember the Euro 2004, or the World Cup in 1994 ? They kinda snuck their way to the finals. Just when you think you can beat them, they net the ball in three passes. I'd say you can never overrate them too much. Still, Denmark kicked asses today, they offered us a wonderful show. As to Zizou, he repeatedly failed to properly pass the ball and create opportunities yesterday. I have never seen him play that awfully. Imagine France when he really plays well. Impressive Swedish realism too. 5-0, .

What I will try to give here in this post are a few hints about the bases of Roman Catholic theology today and a few useful philosophical and historical reminders. I will stick to the fundamentals, bearing in mind that these fundamentals are also acknowledged by non-Catholic Christians, at least here in France, where I live. The core issues (trans-/cons-substantiation, individual/codified reading of the Bible, sufficient/efficient grace) will be set aside, as they are really too O.T. I will start with a quote by Hölderlin, who, though he was a poet and not a theologian, caught the essence of today's Christian theology : Then, in the original text of the Genesis, man (adam) has been created to look after the earth (adamah). adam is the masculine version of adamah. What does this mean, what does this imply ? Nothing more than man comes from the earth, and nothing less than literal interpretations of the Bible are preposterous : translating is betraying, and I am not even mentioning the obstacles of a 4000-year-old language. At this point, I should add that literal Protestants seem to me to be one specificity of American Christianity. I am not judging,  I am not explaining anything either, I am only stating. In France, there are virtually none, and I am very tempted to say that there aren't too many in Europe. I really do not want to linger on the necessity not to read the Bible literally. Hannah Arendt for instance in the Human condition has shown well the absurdity of reading Matthew 5:39 literally : This is mere Scheinheiligkeit, tartufferie, as it goes against the very Christian idea of goodness. The moment you think your actions are good, and potentially become proud of it, these actions become less good. Cf. Matthew 6:3 : Anyway, two things are also deemed highly important. First, the fact that (This is quoted from the King James Bible, Genesis, 1:27, which is the only English Bible I have at home. Admittedly, it might not be the most "faithful". But what a beautiful piece of literature...)To serve my point that literal readings are ludicrous, to say the least, I will simply enjoin you to read Genesis, 2:21 and following (where the woman is created out of one of Adam's ribs). Yes, this is contradictory. The second idea is that of the original sin. The Genesis, and many other parts of the Bible are to be read metaphorically. How else to explain that Jesus, God's son, used parabols to make intricate, subtle truths, clear to us ? These two ideas, man as God's image and the original sin are key-ideas first because they fully answer any ontological questions one might ask oneself (see below for more), then because they contain the implication that man is free. Paradoxically, to have sinned, to be sinful, is the prerequisite for man to be able to deliberate, judge and choose his fate (cf. Aristotle's bouleutikon and proairesis as defining ontological attributes of man). Another crucial point is the relationship to sciences. Here I will freely quote one of the most influential theologians today, Christof Theobald : As this is pretty self-explanatory, I will go on, and deal with the accusations made against the Christians in general, and the Catholics in particular. Christians and Catholics have made mistakes throughout history, this is undeniable, but they are also the only ones to truly repent for this, and ask for forgiveness. At any rate, whether this was because of their religion only is way less defendable. Take the Crusades : it has been argued that they were organized out of spite and envy towards the wealth of the East, and to give something to do to the numerous soldiers and mercenaries that roamed the roads of Europe after the end of the feudal wars between the lords for kingdom. As to the Spanish Inquisition, it remained local to specific geographical and historical coordinates, and can not be at any rate extended to the Church in general : that would be taking the exception for the rule. Yes, this was a pretty fucked-up thing, partly explainable by the Muslim invasion of Spain, and of course more political than religious. Anyway, as many other things, that would not be possible today, as anyone who knows about the Council of Vatican II will admit. Galileo ? Historical reality is often more complicated than what the lay man would like it to be. Everything would be so much simpler if everything were black or white ! I am afraid it all comes in shades of grey. I will just mention Bellarmin's warnings to Galileo to add hedges to his book, and make his thesis appear more like an assumption than an assertion. Anyway, Galileo won, and there is not a single Catholic today that doubts that the earth revolves around the sun (or is it the other way round ?  ) Hitler, the Jews : what is the story again about Hitler being a Roman Catholic ? The link you gave, Baron, does not work. For today, read this. Back then, there was Mit Brennender Sorge, too. The behaviour of the Catholic Church in WWII is explainable by the fact that the Pope was shit-scared that German Catholics might also be persecuted. At the beginning of 1944, there were 750 000 Jews in Hungary. They had not been touched yet. The Church did everything it could to save some when Hitler decided to seal their fate. 5000 of them could be exfiltrated by the Catholics' networks, even though many historian Jews acknowledge the fact that nothing more could really be done. 5000. Something else : antijudaism must not be confused with antisemitism. Antijudaism is the hatred of Jews as belonging to a deicide people. In the course of the 19th century, antisemitism appeared, stemming partly from Christian antijudaism, but mainly from positivist and evolutionist ideas of a hierarchy of races, along with certain socio-economic features (like the Jews were richer, took the jobs from the "pure", etc.). The Jews were no longer seen as members of a religion (who could be "cured" by conversion), but as a "race", and inferior with that. Condoms : the Catholic Church's message aims at being both universal and intemporal. To make an exception for Africa would cause the Church to CTD. Why anyway should the Catholic Africans not (try to !) refrain from having sex any more than their counterparts from other parts of the world ? This is where I have to mention one of Baron's key-argument, that : To me, there is some truth in this, but I also agree with Major Fubar : Abolishing religions would not solve the problem, symbollically formulated by the metaphor of the original sin, of man's trend to make evil. Historically, by the way, systematically opposing faith to reason is evidence of ignorance. Reconciling both was the obsession of men such as Averroes for Islam, or scholastics 150 years later for Christianity (Saint Thomas of Aquinus, Pierre Abélard, way later Thomas More, later again, the scientist Blaise Pascal, and so on...). Please do not come up to me by saying that the use of "reason" can keep us away from that : first, because nobody is always rational, then because man is more (or less, it is all up to you) than reason only, then because it is too often deemed rational to cultivate strength to crush one's enemy, last because two or more solutions to a given problem can be rational. Scientists and self-appointed free-thinkers today always carefully overlook ontological and eschatological issues, that is to say they fail, most of the time willingly, to ask themselves the following simple questions (the formulating of which, and attempts at answering of which, were the starting point of philosophy and sciences in the Western tradition) : where do I come from ? Where do I go ? What am I ? Who am I ? As to fanatics of all kinds, be they Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, well, we can spot them from far away. They want to change you. They often want to kill you. Unfortunately, there is no debate with them, for they do not negotiate. How to treat them, I leave the question open to you . My main point here is to show things are way more complicated than what demagogues or ignorants would like them to be. Only open-mindedness and moderation can claim to take us all closer to the truth. What good is there to pray ? What good is there to bring solace to a poor child in India ? This is not quantifiable. One might want to burn down all religious buildings, one might want to make useful things only. Define useful. Anyway, I think it is a lesser evil to pray.

Just an article from the April 10th issue of the Times, in the comment section. It was written by Patrick West, the author of : Conspicuous compassion : why sometimes it really is cruel to be kind. The article is called : Religion does not cause wars. People do. edit : typo

No, that would be Philosophy and Ethics. Â Are you saying that all atheists / irreligious don't want to answer these questions? Â Because that is both insulting and wrong Where did you get such an implicature ? I said : religion does A. Why do you infer that non-religion can not do A ? Is this some kind of Freudian slip ? Lay back, dude, and grab a beer. You are the only one insulting people around here. We can use intelligence to stifle and subvert our ethics. So it goes the other way round : we must use our ethics to guide our intelligence. 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? Whis' has rightfully underlined the importance of "help" in this sentence. I suspect you are longing to be actually insulted the way you do other folks. Anyone sensible (or may I say that has been to school and properly learnt to read ?) will have understood that I don't see religions as having the monopoly of ethics. Also, watch your syntax. Another totally wrong implicature. By the way, what is the hierarchy ? Is a chimp superior to a peasant, who is himself superior to a psychopath, or is it the other way round ? And is a peasant a sub-human ? Is it to be understood from your very own words that you have the morality and ethics of a chimp, since you have no religion ? You are scary. No it isn't. Pretty convincing explanation there, thanks. No it wasn't. Your skills as a debater are breath-taking. Leader of The Economist, March 27th 2004 : Sure, but the ethical orientation of the action has nothing to do with this. Evil can be rationally planned, as the example above shows. I understand you like Heroic Fantsy, there. So when exactly were those "Dark Ages" ? The years when people built cathedrals, when women were equal to men, and education was spreading because a book was seen as holy ? Be careful not to confuse Catholic with Christian either, schisms happen... Hang on, so there was a time when everyone was Catholic ? I would say this is dangerous thinking. How do I assess that the information old people MIGHT give me is more profitable than getting rid of them ? As to girls, why should I care ? I will just get another one, and another one, and so on... Why do people always seek power ? Because if you are strong enough, you might just get away with it, and kill without being killed. Besides, and this is unfortunate, intelligent and rational people sometimes happen to kill. Goto loop : we must use our ethics to guide our intelligence.

The main object of religion is to give a meaning to one’s life. Where do I come from ? Why do I live ? Where will I go ? Many people, and I am one of them, just can not live without at least trying to answer those questions. Sciences tell me that I am a combination of cells, fine. But they will never tell me what I should or should not do with my life, they will never tell me why it is so that I have instincts or even sometimes rational thoughts, that I MUST not obey. Let’s take a few of Albert Schweizer’s examples. Having sex with every fertile female in her teens is both instinctive and rational. Insulting those who don't think like you is instinctive. Killing the old, who live off our work, who are both improductive and barren, is rational. Creating a clone of oneself to use as a spare-part storing device is rational. Eugenism is rational. The genocide in Rwanda was rational for the Hutu leaders. And so on. It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil, that one of their primary objectives is to try to make us live together. Yes, murders have been, and are still, committed in their behalfs. Yes, religion as a whole has stood, and sometimes still stands, in the way of sciences. That is because none of us is perfect, because the inner violence, pride and selfishness contained somewhere in our cells is too often given destructive outlets. We can all fail. Most true pious –those that separate politics, sciences and religion with a CLEAR line- at least care and try. People –mostly atheists- who watch religions and their believers often see them as a mere bunch of illuminated people. I am a Catholic, I can tell you I would be very worried about my mental health if I ever happened to see an angel by my nightstand. My FAITH does not require me to SEE anything. I am not looking for a PROOF that God exists. I just know that if everyone did love their neighbour, with their faults and their qualities, that is, for what they are, this world would be a way more pleasant place to live in.

It's in English. About 2.6 Mb. I have to say that what I've seen is excellent so far.

I'll hit 29 in two weeks. I didn't know that. It doesn't seem to work on my 4-way stereo . By the way, I'm still trying to figure out the use of this power/standby button. Anyone got a clue ?

@ denoir Your contradictory arguments are very stimulating. However, I fear you might have a vision of religion which confines itself exclusively to extremist, fanatic views. Apart from the tedious chore of regularly going to the church, the temple, the mosque or the synagogue, and the somewhat modern awkwardness, when you are a basic educated Westerner, of claiming something such as "I believe in something I can't see", most of today's impopularity for religions in the West, and especially in Europe, stems from the extreme acts of violence carried out in their behalf. These acts shed light on the excesses religion can beget, but they are the tip of the iceberg. Violent or integrist religious groups are  most conspicuous, and tend to hide the silent, imperfectly pious but so human majority from the public view. Lol. Generalizing this vision of "sinners burning in hell" sounds totally anachronistic to me. Still, I'd say it is totally true when it comes to extremists. For the meek and mild majority,there is something called forgiveness, which is granted when you repent. We all make mistakes, we are humans. Repent, sincerely, (and that is totally impossible to assess), and ride on ! Lol too. I wouldn't say so, but I sure was given a religious education  . What I meant by "historically" is that the first signs of humanity on earth are religious or artistic ones : tombs, small statues of goddesses, paintings... There seems to be a "natural" religiousness in humanity.  For instance, all great civilizations have their founding myths and mythologies, etc. Atheism is a pretty recent thing. Thank God, I might add ( ), because the two overtly atheistic and anti-religious political régimes that ever existed have led to humanity's most egregious crimes. I obviously fully endorse that. In my first post in this thread, I should indeed have added sciences to the matters religion had nothing to do with. My view of religion is a bit naive, I am an optimistic dude, and I tend to overlook evil. Yeah, same as above, i fully endorse this. The issue of faith vs. reason was supposedly resolved with Saint Thomas of Aquinus or Pierre Abélard, and even before that with Averroes. But religions have their demons. Still today, after Galileo and Bellarmin, after Lamarck and Darwin, some peeps argue Eve is my Granny.  @ Baron I find your definition of a "respectful way to discuss things" somewhat loose. I understand that you bear a hefty grudge against all forms of religions, but your tone doesn't have to be aggressively smug or condescending. Kant said that intelligence was the ability to make relationships between things. When you don't know the truth, you make approximations and assumptions. In sciences, this is called "theory" ; in religion, "belief". As to going back to school... I am humble enough to believe I still have things to learn  ! Not all of it, and what I read in it (the Gospels, mainly) didn't give me the impression that the God in there tortured anyone  . Assume means exactly that, that I take into account the fact that it is not necessarily true.  ROFLMAO. Not only atheists can have good laughs in religious discussions. I just don't bury/burn my friends and relatives for hygienic reasons only. I was speaking of what faith was, to me. I found little help in the theories of the Chicago school when my best friend died at 18. Whoever said that ?  Atheism is a b-e-l-i-e-f.

Sorry hinny, sorry moderators, I just would like to react to a few things. Indeed, tolerance is  the key-word. For in the end, proselytizing people, who can be atheists too, will always wind up calling you names   . @ Gollum1 : Strong as it may be, a theory is still a belief. And a lack of belief is not knowledge. Denying the existence of something is not establishing "scientifically" its non-existence. @ Baron : Unless you are a determinist, men are FREE and RESPONSIBLE for their actions. I don't know of a God that tortures anyone. I won't react to the rest of your message, which assumes, out of your faith in godlessness, that I said things I didn't say. Unlike you, I am/was not proselytizing or trying to prove anything but that people have (thank whoever you want, for the sake of variety) different creeds, among which atheism. @ denoir Funny way of putting things. This can not be more historically inaccurate. Most people sure did and do not have the security, comfort and education level of Swedes today. Assume faith gives them hope in a dangerous world. Just a question : are there cutting-edge scientists (in neuro-sciences, in quantum mechanics, etc.) that believe in God ? Why prove anything at all ? Why should there be a burden of proof on anyone at all ? There will be nitpicking, hair-splitting, and abuse in the end. Besides, faith and scientific knowledge are two things very different in nature : sciences do not help me mourn the dead ; they do not entice me to try and behave better towards the others. Here is what Thomas More wrote in Utopia 500 years ago : I find the black ribbon a very decent and dignified way to show one's sympathy. The absence of reference to any particular religion is worthy of notice. Take it easy  , "Captain of NSA" Igor Drukov Â

Definition from The Oxford English dictionary : Dude, you can't prove that God exist, but you can't prove that He does not exist, either. Out of the 6 billion people on earth, at least 5 billion believe in "something". You know why ? Because they suffer, because they see their friends and relatives die, and because they need a way to alleviate their pain and cheer up sometimes. There's a fine line between humans and animals, but one of the greatest difference, the very source of the religious feeling I'd say, is that humans CARE for their dead, and that they're able to sympathize. Wars, slaughters, rapes happen when these worthy feelings are overcome. Needless to say, religions have too often overlooked their primary function and helped those massacres. But that's mostly when they start focusing on something which is none of their business, that is, politics and power.

Hey ! Reply #8. Ig.

This note to say THANK YOU : this campaign is of very high quality, the details and conversations to increase immersion and realism are well-found and refined... Well I guess the price to pay for such excellence is downloading those pretty hefty sound files : still, it is definitely worth  every single bit of it. I happen to experience an unusually high number of CTDs on reloading, though, especially on mission 4 : anyone else going through this ? I play on version 1.96. But let this not discourage anyone : first because I'm a frequent dier  , and then because it is a flaw due to the game itself (or my CPU ?), not to the authors. Anyway, once again, thank you, this campaign ROCKS. Â

Or click here.

Hello ! Your problem is that you mix up two different things : text resources and dialogs. "TitleRsc" will display your text as defined in the description, but "CtrlSetText" will only modify texts which appear in a dialog. Ig.

Hello ! The problem comes from the unit you select when you type : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">((units _groupname) select 0) moveindriver _tank ((units _groupname) select 1) moveincommander _tank ((units _groupname) select 2) moveingunner _tank ((units _groupname) select 3) moveincargo _tank Actually, ((units _groupname) select 0) refers to... the gamelogic itself ! Therefore, your vehicle has no driver, and your marine no assignment (as he is in fact ((units _groupname) select 4)). There are several solutions to fix this, depending on whether you want to call the script several times or not. As far as I have noticed, the init line of spawned units (which comes right after _groupname and right before 0.7 in your sample) won't work with local variables : you then have to give your tank a global variable name. Therefore, a simple fix goes as follows : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_pos = _this select 0 _groupname = _this select 1 tank = "aav7 createvehicle (getpos _pos) "SoldierWCrew" createUnit [(getpos _pos), _groupname, "this moveingunner tank", 0.7, "CAPTAIN"] "SoldierWCrew" createUnit [(getpos _pos), _groupname, "this moveincommander tank", 0.7, "CAPTAIN"] "SoldierWCrew" createUnit [(getpos _pos), _groupname, "this moveindriver tank", 0.7, "CAPTAIN"] "SUCHusmcrifle" createUnit [(getpos _pos), _groupname, "this moveincargo tank", 0.7, "LIEUTENANT"] _groupname setbehaviour "aware" exit To make the team follow another unit ALL THE TIME, I'd say the best would be to use another script. Ig.

Hey ! A touching thread. My penny : Categorizing people is something too reassuring and orderly to fit reality. Sticking to one's judg(e)ment is also a dangerous mistake : fortunately, life is such that people's tempers, knowledge, feelings, reactions keep readjusting all the time to whatever interactions they are experiencing. A free mind will be hovering over this ocean of chaos, considering things with a benevolent eye, and retaining the ones that will enable to improve this world, in the hope of being imitated. It can't let itself be hurt by words, especially ones badly-typed by strangers. It keeps moving on, knowing that it might stray away, too. The main question should be : what have I done today to put an end to, or retire from, that egregious rat-race everyone so naturally takes part in ? And the main obsacle is : most things we accomplish and believe are good do nothing but feed our pride or quench our thirst for power. One striking thing about the OFP community : we are all freaks, spending time to create new ingame military gear or missions, coding things in a weird language to reproduce the worst things mankind has ever come up with. Albeit, many of us are mature, sensible adults, with wife and kids. One place where people amazingly do try to help one another in OFP (and that many of you are already patrons of) : OFPEC. Why ? Because their greed is not aroused. How ? Post counting is disabled. No crap, no spam, no flaming. Straight to the point. Ig. Note 1 : I hope you get my point, English is not my mother-tongue. Note 2 : "Treat others how you would like to be treated yourself", courtesy of Emmanuel Kant. Note 3 : Addons account for 50% of my hard-disc. Call me enthusiastic n00b, or do-gooder, or ignorami, or moron, or combo special, look down on me, why should I care ? They have filled me with joy and awe. I thank all add-on makers for that.

May I suggest you guys try my mission... Â For feedback, you can go here (there's also a thread in the user missions forum on page 4...) Anyway, Normandie is indeed a beautiful island, with lots of potentialities. At least, it's the only one that tries to reproduce what a bocage really looks like (though there remain a few things to do). But living in Normandy IRL, I wish Jean-Christophe didn't try to reproduce the area's "big" cities (such as Caen, Argentan, Flers), but rather one of its uncountable villages with names that sound like poems... (J-C, ask me anything you want about Normandie's history or geography, I'll be glad to help !) The island would gain in realism (recreating WW2 Caen in OFP is as feasible as recreating Stalingrad). Still, I can't wait for the final version, with all the new houses and fields and bocages... * The lonely WW2 Normandie freak scurries back into his foxhole after bowing his way out *