Pukko

Some pictures of that moment... No words to describe the beauty in that goal BTW: It took me some time to find these pics; any tips of a good picture site?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 16 2002,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ May 16 2002,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont think they tolerate gays in the russian military<span id='postcolor'> Actually they do. Since 1993 there is a gay unit within the Federal Border Guards. They also have a unit within the Army, but I've forgotten what its name is and where it is stationed... but there is one.<span id='postcolor'> Ill spare Hasharajima the effort to ask: Do they have Hinds in the Army? (quite stupid question probably (and therefore olny the more justified here), since the attack choppers probably dwell in the Army of all nations)

Back to topic or rather  Anyone who have any comments (and/or links) to Arafats statements the last days about him being open, at least officially, to reform the Palestnian government and recognising a Israeli state? Also, you Swedes. Have you been looking at the 'Dokument utifrĺn' dokumentary about Arafat last week and Israeli critics towards the occupations to night? I recon that they were quite Pro Palestinian biased (at least the last one), what do you think? (And Albert, I too have an essay (or dissertation) to write; but keeps pushing it ahead (no strict dead line)  )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hasharajima @ May 16 2002,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL, Ok how to become GAY? IF i am gay now and can go to russia and marry a gay Hind pilot and thus I can have a hind! YAY~!!! How to become gay? <span id='postcolor'> ROFLMFAO I dont know what to say, could never match your sense of humour, mr wannabe gay (ps you surely are gonna be flamed for that, thinking bout the homophobic vibrations around here , and your chanses of finding a openly gay Russian is quite small too I recon, since they are not very popular in Russia..)

It dont seems like I was able to get my very abstract point out right, and will not be on less than a 100 more pages either I gather; but a basic thing in my thinking is that I always seem to try imagening a society 50 - 200 years ahead (a big problem of mine ). And I will not try to continue this discussion much further either (to avoid the risk of killing this great thread, but this seems to be the only place for this kind of discussion coz most spammers dont look here). </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that a problem is that democracy is a holy cow today. I am not at all that sure that average Sven, Fritz and Joe can decide what's best. You have a lot of descisions that require prior knowledge and understanding of the issue, and that is impossible to expect from the citizens. One other issue is that crowds are generally stupid and easily manipulated. A group of people can easily be turned into a lynching mob.<span id='postcolor'> As I tried to say, this is not something that is possible with the citisens we construct today (the social construction of humans is quite obvious if you look around you). I think I can be quite sure that the citisens we see today are not 'the by nature default' human beings; we are rather maybe 80% products of our own time. And a century or two ahead people will most certainly think in an entire different way than we do today. The question I asked about economics is crucial in the utopia of 'direct democracy' I gather, that most people dont have to be employed (or even can be), but get a good living none the less (and serving society in other ways than today). </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 16 2002,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh man this thread is getting boring...somehow (so dont read it right?). Can we not get back to something slightly more explosive than this Karl Marx bla bla?<span id='postcolor'> You seem to be imprisoned in intellectually mainstreamed theories Albert, only to come with some fancy but quite empty words and concepts. NO offence! - but it is a quite usual way of 'abusing' social theories (that we all fall into, and have to fight); they have no real value in them selves! I do know about Marx, but will never try to reduce something that looks like (but actually dont have to have anything to do with it) it to merely obsolete bla, bla.... If one is scared for everything that looks like failed social experiments; we would be quite fixed, right? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not that we even live in a representative democracy. Year after year, it's the same assholes representing their own interest in the parliament. If we want to have a REAL representative democracy, we should have a lottery where the senators are chosen at random from the whole population. Thus we would have a real average sampling of the people to make the decisions, not skewed by political advertising (=lies). The senators could make even hard decisions, because they need not worry about getting re-elected (almost no chance). Furthermore, the salary of the senators should be very low, so to make it almost a punishment to be assigned to the senate. That way we could eliminate any money hunger motivated meddling with the electoral lottery. Also, political parties could still exist, but this time the parties would have to convince the people, not the other way around. This kind of lotteries would be possible in all the countries where the state knows the name and address of every citizen from birth (like in Finland).<span id='postcolor'> The basics in that sounds like a real good idea, and could probably be implemented even in our primitive time!! With a quite big senate (or what to call it) consisting of 'just anyone' (yes, even 'children' it would be very possible I gather! Thanks for sharing this vision Oligo

I think I had it the other way around: Blurry in earlier versions, but it was so sharp in 1.55 that I noticed it actually! I got a Geforce2 MX, and am quite sure that there has been a direct connection between the 'visual quality' settings on my GFX poroperties and blurriness, in earlier versions anyway..

I made  a search in the 'not so good working' forum search engine but could not find this. It was however present in version 1.46 too.. The problem is: Playing a MP misson with group-respawn as leader and die; when respawning to a 'halted' ('stop status' ) team member, I will not be able to get my team in formation again, since my status continues to be 'halted', and they dont seem to be able to follow an 'halted' leader.. The radio command issued is like 'all follow all', or all follow [the number following the leaders number]. Would it be possible to clear a soldiers status when respawning to him?

Yo, here comes the abstact man! I know I will not be able to keep this post either at an concrete (that IMO only is too reducing and therefore pointless) level; but I'll try to make sense out of it I will once again make a list to get some structure: 1. The 'representative democracies' we live in is IMO a very primitive government form. The ultimate utopia I can think of at this time is 'direct democracy' - where everyone has a electronic identity and have the chanse to give their opinion on all questions. This is for sure nothing that could be implemented today, since it would require a whole new form of citisens; citicens with time to give their opinion, with knowledge enough to do it and most importantly: Citisens whos only goal is NOT just to grow personally by reducing others - a society where everyone is BIG and not just a few. This is the core of most, if not all, of the problems we are facing today IMO - the reducing of one self and others. I would like to call our "civilised" society a 'prestige society'. But seing how we day by day, more and more, see through the illusion of differencies I really do am hopeful for the future. Well I could go on and on trying to explain what I mean but this will have to do for now, but I will come back to it in other ways below. 2. Feedom of speech? LOL! So we can pull out some in the long run completely meaningless 'critics' against our government? I would say that we actually have a very limited freedom of speech; can you really say what you want, when the areas in which we even dare to think are so limited? Ever heard of ruling ideals and TABOOS? We learn them good from day one through media and education. I have said it before: we live in a society where we oppress ourselves by 'symbolic violence' - if you dare say or do things that are not socially accepted to some extent, one of the few ways out are suicide................ 3. I see some of you writes that all humans have the right to get their voice heard in our society. What about the huge group of children?? Yeah, right, they are not human beings - rather human becomings, or? They have about no chanse to affect their living conditions - but are completely depending on adults goodwill. To whom does childhood belong? To no one, but everybody competes to control it - where the main combatants are society and family, while children themselves by definition are excluded from the power game. When you look closer at it you will find many similarities with older forms of oppression aganst social groups like women and various ethnical groups. 4. Lastly I would like to ask you who are well orientated in national economics: How important is it in strictly economical terms that 'everyone' works? Is the fact that 'everyone' is employed the very core to national economics, or would there in a really streamlined society be possible to gain enough surplus to let the majority of citisens be out of directly economically gainful 'business'? Again strictly economical, not about motivation or such

Done Placebo, a question: I was thinking alot about using a Internet questionairy for my (University) essay this year, but have decided not to this time. But for the future; would you accept (and even support by sticking it) if I decide to use this forum for that purpose in the future? It would be a very serious one, and probalby also to some extent related to forum experiences (like 'childrens' relationship to 'adults' at forums for example). I would just be happy to know, so I can have it in mind when planning future essays

Yep, seems to be like everytime they have released a new patch! (the latest in marh - old times)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ May 15 2002,06:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now..if you want a primer...here ya go: There are three main controls to flying a helicopter.  The collective, the cyclic and the anti torque rotor. The cyclic controls the rotor disc. It is the joystick control.  When you move it, it tilts the disc forward, back, and side to side.  Tilt it, the helicopter moves in that direction. The rotor disk causes a huge amount of torque. So they stick that little prop back on the tail boom.  It spins and creates counter-force to the main rotor disck.  The foot pedals control the anti torque rotor. Basically this is what keeps you pointed in the direction you want to go, or lets you slew the tail of the helicopter. The collective is a stick on the left hand side of the pilot seat.  Raise the collective, it increases the pitch of the rotor blades and makes the helicopter go up. Lower it, it decreases and the helicopter goes down.  The throttle control is also usually on the collective as well. Every time you move one control, it affects the toher, so you are constantly making changes to all of the controls. Hope this helped you. BTW...I am not a helicopter pilot..I just know the basics.<span id='postcolor'> I'll just add a thing here that are in my opinion a quite annoying and usual misconception, and to give you a little more orientation in choppers. Almost all helicopters (except some real small ones that may use piston engines) use 'turbo-shaft' engines; jet engines that transform all power to a outout shaft. The output shaft is directly connected to a 'free turbine' that basically absorbs all power (accelerated air) from the 'gas-turbine' (the actual engine that works like an ordinary jet engine). The free-turbine is completely free (in matter of rotation speed) from the gas-turbine, and is furthermore directly connected to the  main and tail rotor (via the output shaft, gearbox and a freewheel that only drives in one direction - so that the rotors continue rotating even if the engine fails; gives the opportunity to make a controlled emergency landing - autorotation). Now to my point: There is no ordinary throttle in a chopper; you basically just turn a swich on when starting the chopper, and it goes automatically up to flight idle power. You never adjust throttle manually; its all made by the FCU (fuel control unit) that always monitors the free-turbine speed (and therefore also the rotor speeds) and tries to keep that at a constant RPM - through adjusting the gas-turbine RPM (its power). The manual thottle, usually mounted on the collective (or on the floor below), is only used for emergency situations when the FCU fails, and in some cases during startup and shutdown. Hope that made sense

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LANDWARRIOR @ May 14 2002,03:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Second I dont know which one fo you fuckers hacked my site but when I go in there tomorrow and see what your IP is you can expect a virus!!! Unless the person confesses and apologizes for their action and if my forums are deleted which I hve in a secret folder in there I will really be po'd becasue its hard customizing yabb forums!!<span id='postcolor'> I saw what has happened to the startpage of your site LANDWARRIOR, and went to to the first page of this thread to check out what Advocat meant with 'nothing shows up'; looking for another url than the 'domain root'. I right clicked on a picture you had linked to, and the link is a ftp adress with username & password...... I was just about to check if it worked, but thought you might find my IP at the server and blame me for deleting your stuff - so im posting here instead. I feel really sorry for you, but why did'nt you post the http url instead? If that account has all rights it would not need to be a hacker to delete the stuff   BTW I made a search for "t4l1b4n" on Google and it seems like someone goes under that name when gaming too... And personally I have nothing against it if you release your modified models, as long as you give credit to the author; thinking bout all the time you seem to have put down on it it would be a shame if it was all for nothing. And you guys blaming him  - give it a rest, if its true what he has written in the last posts, the only 'negative' thing is that he did not mention they were modified from the start; not a real big deal is it?

I was thinking something, quite silly indeed, about Camp X-Ray --> If the US government are hoping, among other reasons to keep the prisoners there, that future terrorists will reveal themselves by demanding (a' la Die hard kind of movies) the prisoners to be released; and they thereby have hard evidence to some group, in differance to 9/11 'evidence'. But ofcourse recorded demand messages is as easy to make up as a Bin Laden video, airport photos, or other media 'evidence'. Therefore its very likely to see this kind of stuff - but until its confirmed by the terror group to several sources, its worth nothing (US intelligence has earned very low international trustwothlyness through the years..) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ May 10 2002,06:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">,,. probably just  token force.. just enough to grab some of the glory without any real commitment (like most other countries do)<span id='postcolor'> Yep, like USA after WW2, right? Even if 'grab some of the gory' is quite an understatement there... And RedStar, the struggles of Amnesty is not an easy one - and critics are probably as easy to find as against USA or any other..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sid @ May 09 2002,05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My moomie says I dont supposed to let me's ages out to othre ppls on teh intreneat.<span id='postcolor'> WHHAAAAAAA! Now we all gonna eat you alive, you little alien 27, ooops recetly upgraded to version 28 actually. Behavioural science student, ex civil aircraft maintenance engineer (mostly helicopters)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 09 2002,21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can check out all the sixteen cases in here: Imminent nuclear showdowns <span id='postcolor'> Very interesting reading. I never knew for instance that Grobachev proposed in 1985 to get rid of all the worlds nuclear weapons by the year 2000. I wonder who stopped that?<span id='postcolor'> General Guba of course! </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's good that you don't believe the 'evil empire' shit. But really, yours and their politics are not that different. The soviets maybe took over some countries by force, but you did it and still do it by the trash culture you export everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining against your cultural conquest, I don't care. I'm just pointing out that you are swallowing up other countries all the time. <span id='postcolor'> Don't kid yourself. We want that trash culture. It is a free world market. The things we don't want, we don't import (I hear that Disneyland in Paris and McDonalds in France is loosing money big time. USA is a very stron industrial nation and we want their stuff.<span id='postcolor'> I do believe that more and more people grow tired of US influence - in many many forms - in our everyday, at least European, life. It seems like cheap US culture is most popular amongst younger people; maybe it is because most of it is based on the same few illusions that one see through, and grows tired of, with time. Probably much of the 'anti American' influences spreading can be traced to US export of culture and media worldwide (I heard that some US media company (or the government) wanted to start broadcasting  radio specially for the Muslim countries; while the Arabic Al Jazirah wants to broadcast TV news in USA - wonders who is most likely to succeed ) The thing I personally am most frustrated with is the dozens of US 'advertising' spam mails I recieve everyday in the mailboxes. They can be a little amusingly stupid sometimes, but most of the time only very frustrating shit that furthermore primary relates only to US citisens.. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 09 2002,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 08 2002,16:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that's the problem - we tolerate biased, sided and emotional journalism.<span id='postcolor'> It is not just a question of tolerating biased journalism. Sun Tzu wrote already in 500 BC in his book "Art of War" how intel is always notoriously unreliable. The problem is that we have no fix reference except our interpretations of our own experiences to judge information provided by others. Even if you accept that there is such a thing as an objective reality, you always have some form of interpretation in the end. All the information that we get has been processed and interpreted by human beings. One other basic premissis of intel analysis is that ones greatest enemy is common sense. Common sense is our way of trying to exrapolate our own every day experiences to things we actually have no clues about. Incorrect assumptions that might seem rational are one major source of error. Averaging the information that you get from multiple sources (preferably infinitely many) can give you a clue of an average interpretation of an event. This doesn't at all mean that it is correct, and most of all *you* are interpreting the data in the end. Our Neural Networks in the brain process data by generalisation of previous data. That means that information is processed in different ways depending on who you are and what you have experienced. This is relevant since there is no value in raw data. The value of information comes with its interpretation. Another problem is the lack of completeness. We have infinitely data to choose from when we select what to report. There are of course norms for what you report if you say are covering an election. In the end it comes down to personal opinions of what is relevant and what is not. Even if we all thought alike it would be impossible since the world is to complex to be handeled in a determinstic way (event A leads to event B that leads to event C, therefor A leads to C). We simply have no theoretical way of knowing all the facts that are related to an event. So when people are claiming that 10000000 people were killed in Jemen or 10 ppl were killed think about this: Have you ever experienced first hand killings of > 10 people? Do you have any actual real life reference to anything similar? What is the source for this information in the first place? How do you know the validity of that source? What are the ommitted facts (10000000 people were killed in Jemen the last 1000000 years by natural causes).  And finally, what is the point of this information. What is the intended interpretation of it. What is your interpretation of it?<span id='postcolor'> I recon news has all too much in common with entertainment. It should be easy, concrete and trustworthy (among other official goals that they dont live up to). Resulting in dogmatic and pointless news. I remember Pete writing (about reasons to argue for war) something like "sometimes i wonder if you just want to see more cool military stuff on the news". It might be partly due to that news during the last decades has been in hard competition with other entertainment; but I recon that they never has been particulary good. I wrote an essay last year about Swedish tv news (analysing many hours of Aktuellt, Rapport, TV3 Direkt and Nyheterna) and came to the conclusion that the in common sense 3 more 'serious' newsprograms really was not much, or at all, 'better' than the less 'serious' TV3 Direkt - only more dogmatic. The entertainment factor in news rather seems to be in our 'news ideology' - what we want is what we are used to get and are considering as good. Or I would even dare to say that it is a matter of western culture in general; the most important thing in the western culture (and of course, but in other forms, in other cultures) is illusion, and it seems like more and more of our illusions are falling to pieces - giving us a hard, but creative, time in the future. What I mean in this case is that officially we are to believe that society wants us to be reflecting and objectively informed citisens - but since that might not be compatible with more important interests that is not what is happening. I regard news rather as a form of 'adult school' that works by the same ideologies as the regular school system - primary for the best interests of society. The responsible-feeling and honestly-meaning journalist have no chance but to follow the general ideology. What Denoir writes above about the impossible objectivity and false common sense is crucial. The thing I recon is most important, and that today does not seem to exists, in news is humble SELF CRITICISM as a big part when reporting news. But in our time when the news progams wants to be the best, most reliable and interesting - and the viewer moreover want easy and actionladen news - it seems like a long way to go.... If the journalists were to be openly self critic (towards the viewer/reader) about their own position in the matter, the sources chosen, people participating etc - social sciences would no longer be nessesary; the viewer/reader would not just be passive consumers of information (and just strengthen ruling/popular paradigms/ideologies), but stimulated to really reflect and think about the matter in a creative way. But that is probably a news form for a far more developed society than ours, and would not work in the pathetic society we live in now, actually such people are dangerous to our society.............. Well, enough of my dogmatic bullshit for today. Goodnight!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ May 08 2002,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a way to maybe temperarely fix this problem is to whack Saddam Huesane. he is the one who is providing funds as a reward for the muderers whom are responsible.<span id='postcolor'> I'm sceptical if Saddams rewards are worth anything compared to the inspiration to violence the Palestinians get from Israeli actions.. And PitViper, have you seen too many Vampire movies?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ May 08 2002,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, then they should move out of Isreal instead of causing carnage. I can think of seveal neighboring countries that would accept them.<span id='postcolor'> Avon is good at motivating this solution, ask her.. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't they just live in Isreal peacefully?? Â Hmm? <span id='postcolor'> They have never become integrated members of the Israeli society (after Israel conquered the West bank and Gaza during the 6 days war) for a number of reasons, and its probably a little too late to make an effort for it now

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ May 07 2002,23:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But honestly. Â There is no Palestine. Â Where are the Palestinian people living? Â Where is Arafat HQ? Â Are they living inside Isreal? Â How can you make a security task force when you don't have any boundaries to secure?<span id='postcolor'> Bingo, Bingo! The Palestinians have no nation neither many rights or possibilities for a what we would call 'decent life'.......

Regading the great defeat of the Talibans: I really hate the way western media alienates the Talibans as the most evil and cruel people around. Look, I dont really 'defend' them; rather trying to give the face of humans - the same goes for Palestinians (both in popular opinion viewed as Tolkiens Orcs or something): 1: The main problem we had with the Talibans was that they did not accepted western culture; all that we know of!!! Is that illegal? To think that its a sin to live a western life? Is religions illegal, and their (even if extremely interpreted) goal of salvation evil?? 2: Afganistan happened to be a very poor nation, maybe to be considered a century after some western nations (partly due to exploation, unfair competition, war, different interests etc). How the fuck good were we, the allmighty and holy western nations, some 100-200 years ago? Is the fact that a nation (to big parts due to us) has fallen behind reason enough to hate them and kill the evil Talibans who have been leading them for a few years?? 3: Remember that the Taliban was vastly much better than what was around before they came to power. 4: Western nations are also very oppressive - but in differance of the Talibans we dont, at least not usually, use concrete violence or 'more strict rules than anyone else'; creating the illusion that we are relatively better than the Talibans. But i can tell you - dare look under the shiny surface of western society; its far more smelling and ugly than any Talibans. Oppression of women? PLEASE! We have been the fucking masters of female opression until very recently!!!!!! And dare I say our very present disguting oppression of children?? Im writing an essay on that topic at the moment - quite abstract and hard to accept, so I will not try to explain that more here. The only differance between the western world and the Talibans is that we use SYMBOLIC violence; an abstract form of oppression that only ages of social research can destroy; we have SO much in our everyday life that we think is good and natural - but before we die of old age we will puke on many of them......... 5: The way things turn out in Afaganistan now, its very likely we will leave them to their destiny once again - and they will be back to the awful time that were before the Talibans

But it would be nice if the soldiers would fire at choppers if one give commands: All, target Blackhawk All, fire (all + 3 + 3) With this command the sodiers fire at most things they would not fire at normally, could probably work good if the AI recalls that they can fire in the air..

Regarding soldires not firing - I think SUMA wrote that they are not supposed to; since soldiers dont usually do in real war according to him. I can accept that; seriously it would probably be quite frustrating when the AI guys in squad empty their magazines on choppers - its bad enough that they fire all they got as soon as they see a empty 'enemy' vehicle... But the tanks AA fireing should really be fixed, sice that must be considered a bug, right??

I have been complaining about the tanks not firing too... Most people dont seems to care. Some of the tanks do fire at some of the aircrafts (T80 on Cobra and Blackhawk, but not on Apache or Chinook for example, T72 dont seems to fire AA at all anylonger (did in earlier versions)) - and thats the most irritaing thing; the inconsistency in AI shooting AA fire with machineguns... OFFTOPIC (the search engine still seems to be bad, cant find out if its a common problem): Another bug I found when playing MP yesterday was that when respawning to a 'halted' team member, the other teammembers will not 'fall back into formation' since they seems to think that they cant follow someone with the status 'stop'...

One of my brothers called me in early April 01 telling that he had found this great demo of a modern infatry game where you would drive a jeep commanded by a officer; and further more the 'world' was supposed to be outstanding with real sun and star modelling etc... Download this movie he said - done; I clearly remebered that I fell in love with the sequence of a T-72 rolling down a slope at high speed - "Hey, that looks awsome" I thought; looking at the 'mud smoke' and the fact that not only did the tracks move at correct speed compared to the ground, the 'track wheels' were also moving like they followed an uneven terrain! After downloading the demo right away (and lowering the priority of the essay I was supposed the write), I played the demo with different 'demo missions' at all time I could spare until June 20:th when the game was released. OFP has given me a whole new perspective on computer games - losing interest in most other ordinary strictly scripted games. I have tried out Max Payne and MOHAA since; I really felt like I wanted to puke on them - I was really pissed off, and thought like "how can they make such cheap games today, and expect someone to PAY for it?"; I really felt like a prisoner in a tiny scripted world in those games - would probably have more fun starting up my C64 emulator.....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ May 04 2002,06<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> "Thats no ordinary rabbit, thats the most faul, cruel and badtempered rodent you've ever set eyes on"

Just a few short (and tired-stupid) comments before bed: 1: Probably the fact that Russia is poor and would suffer badly from sanctions play a part here. maybe.. 2: Was that agreement (Oslo) really taken seriously by either side; did the living conditions of Palestinians increase dramatically? If you have no hope - why not kill yourself and take a few 'enemies' with you? 3: I have heard jews in Sweden complaining about, at least Sharon, Israeli politicians claiming to speak for all jews in the world; and thereby increasing the mixing up of all Jews with Israel.