| From: | Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Ivy's Replies...rather lengthy. |
| Date: | Mon, 13 Dec 1993 03:00:35 -0600 |
>In fact, *FOR MY GAME ONLY* we have a *completely* united Germany
>which is the same as the pre-WWI version. Poland is much smaller and
>takes up part of Byelorussia. Use the map in the Hammond Historical
>World Atlas, Volume 2, page H44. Austir itself is a part of
>re-united Germany but the rest of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire has
>broken into city-states.
Sounds similar to my version. Danke for the reference, I shall have to
research that.
>Nukes:
>Europe, they make no mention of the Russians nuking their way across
>Europe. That *was* a part of the original Russian plan, according to
>Field Marshall Cherenkov. Why didn't they use them then, when they
>really *needed* them?
According to Herr Marc Van Rey, a person with which I corresponded quite a bit
on the topic of Deutschland in dem Schatten (the German language version of the
German sourcebook), the history -- as he related it to me -- made mention of
the Russian attempt to utilize their nuclear arsenals in the Euro-War, although
they were foiled in this endeavor. [ Herr Van Rey did not indicate to me as to
WHY they failed, merely that they were foiled in the attempt. ]
I therefore submit that your hypothesis might be operating with insufficient
information.
>To: Robert Watkins and Jason Carter
>re: Cyber-Soldiers
[Fictitious fabrication of a battlefield
simulation deleted, as it proves nothing]
One cannot prove one's point by scripting a battlefield simulation...such a
proposition is inherently biased. One requires an objective medium...such as
a legitimate simulator.
>re: Corporations more powerful than governments, comment by Robert
>Watkins
>Military power gets you economic power. The backthread throughout
>the Shadowrun history is the UCAS government starting to re-impose
>their control on the corporations.
I share your sentiment in that not all governments are as impotent as the
common referent for such matters, namely, the UCAS. Few would make the case
that either of the Elven nations are powerless to corporate interests, and the
profile provided of England indicates that the government of the Lord Protector
is probably not to be underestimated. Certainly, my version of Germany has
corporate interests wary of their Imperial hosts.
>to: Doctor Doom
>re: Cyber-Military
>GREAT Thesis! I don't agree, but it's well written. I think, from
>studying the subject myself, that the incredible advantages cyber
>gives the soldier will turn any battle. See my description above.
Vielen Dank fuer deine shoene Worten.
My thesis was merely to introduce the point that this debate actually
encompassed major trends of thought regarding the military...does one
exploit all avenues of higher technology? The two camps are divided
in their degree of reliance upon it. My conclusion was merely that
one could not simply concluded that either force (the cybered or the
mundane) shall win with certainty.
One must still overcome the force of numbers. That is one factor that in your
discussion that your are unable to dismiss wholesale--especially with figures
which speculate totals of a mere 150,000 for a nation's military.
Significantly larger forces shall pose a significant problem...although neither
I nor you can categorically claim which shall emerge as victor.
>re: Dr. Dooms Germany
>It's GREAT!!
>Thank you for your Fourth Reich!!! I shall incorporate parts into my
>own. GREAT WORK!!!
>I use a Germany much the size of the pre WWI Germany but including
>modern Austria. Politically, seems a bit like your version, mayhap a
>bit more individualistic. I got the individualistic part from
[...]
>very individualistic themselves, and, historically, so were the
>German soldiers during the war. Dedicated to their country, but
>no-one's robots.
You have paid me many compliments, meine Dame. Dankeschoen.
However, as to your commentary, I fail to recall any references in which I
referred to the denizens of Deutschland as automatons. How/where did you reach
such a conclusion, or interpret such intent. As such discussion is not salient
to the matters at hand on the list, I would request that you contact me
privately with your insights.
>to: Everyone
>re: Hydrostatic Shock
>That concept has been disproven *years* ago. The solid portions of a
[...]
>Medical shock is different. My posting on bullet damage was
>state-of-the-art as of 3 months ago.
Then I defer to more recent developments, naturally, if they come from a
reliable source. I, for one, openly admit the possibility of my date being
somwhat dated.
Although, as I indicated, the effect of hydrostatic shock, as presented in my
post, was depicted as a supplementary effect rather than the truly life
terminating force evolving from the specific impact. Nor did I make the error
of equating it with the Medical condition of "shock."
>to: Marcel Emani
>re: Emotional effects of cyberware
>Huh? you are kidding, right? I actually know a man, Gary Nixon by
>name, motorcycle racer by fame, who is more metal than bone. HE
>certainly doesn't have emotional problems with it.
I believe Herr Emani was in cases were the individual in question had loss
Essence, which can be broadly defined as the measure of nervous system that is
intact and viable. Replacing bone with metal does not affect this. Such
things are not so invasive as cyberware. Modern examples are inadequate for
appropriate referents, I claim.
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Now, I directed the audience's attention to a
subject for decidedly more public consumption:
I wish to express my taking violent issue with
various comments as put forth by Ivy:
>re: Corporations more powerful than governments, comment by Robert
>Watkins
>Due to the fact that you two haven't enough knowledge of the subject
>of the military, combat, or national defense, or how these things are
>bought, paid for, used, or deployed to hold a meaningful debate this,
>and my recent response to Ed Matuskey are the last answers on the
>subject I shall be making to you two. Learn something of what you
>two are trying to babble about and try me later.
>to: Robert M. Hayden
>>You disagree. . . Of COURSE you do. So?
>As for re-evaluating *my* thinking, maybe *you* should try it
>instead. I think I have the experience margin, and the training
>margin, that you haven't even thought of.
>Learn, get experience, then try talking again.
>to: Everyone
>re: Meaningless posting by unknowledgeable people.
>I've read, and answered, too many of them! I'm outa here!
Now, I, myself, have been intermittently been accused, and upon reflection,
not without some measure of justification, of being overly condescending or
strident. Nevertheless, never were my words so blatant, so blunt, so
sickeningly self-righteous. I submit that my transgressions of this variety
pale in comparison to Ivy's supercilious statements.
Naturally, crassness, to any degree, does grate upon recipients and observers--
I have been guilty of meting it out myself--but I consider the above examples
to transcend the typical limits of that which constitutes social propriety. I
think it not far-fetched to claim that the targets of these exceedingly
arrogant dismissals were undeserving of their treatment. Were I the target of
the previous statements, I would interpret it as a personal attack, and
consequently take most grievous offense.
Indeed, when another list member of a bygone time made similar insinuations
regarding my abilities, I contacted the offending individual by private
electronic correspondence and quickly set about to explain my case in NO
UNCERTAIN TERMS. He recanted, also explaining that the wording selected for
his original posting was ill-suited to the task, and as a result, intended no
insult.
It being the case that I was not singled out to be the proud recipient of her
rebuttals, I would call upon her to repent of this behavior, in the interests
of general good-will. As the situation has resulted from her withdrawal, such
efforts would naturally come to naught. Regrettable, to my mind. However, it
is, perhaps, for the best.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Infidel defilers...they shall all drown in lakes of blood.
Now they shall know why they are afraid of the dark.
Now they shall learn why the fear the coming of the night.
-- Doom
