Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Knavey
And yes...the clues...I converted the kph to mph hoping to put people into a land vehicle as opposed to a ship. AND, I did say the clues would "drive" you in the right direction.
Oh yes, and the fact that it never fired a shot in battle.
Good job String. How did you find it?
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
What was that thing supposed to be used for? It seems to me like a waste of resources.
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
Almost every forum moderator claims politics on these forums are verbotten, but it's not posted in the forum rules. Of course, arguing this w/a moderator could be interpreted as disrespectful, which is a rule.
In any case, it shouldn't be difficult for Matrix to edit their list and add "no politics" -- w/a definition of what is political -- to the end of it.
Or has this thread now become "political"? If so, mea culpa, in advance.
Since you feel that way Hans , why don't you create a good defination for the moderators to adopt. That way it will measure up to your standard , and there should be no argument about it. I'm sure that they and all the other users of the forum would be greatly in your debt.ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
Almost every forum moderator claims politics on these forums are verbotten, but it's not posted in the forum rules. Of course, arguing this w/a moderator could be interpreted as disrespectful, which is a rule.
In any case, it shouldn't be difficult for Matrix to edit their list and add "no politics" -- w/a definition of what is political -- to the end of it.
Or has this thread now become "political"? If so, mea culpa, in advance.
Technically, Joe, it isn't an argument if the the user is correct and the moderator is incorrect. Neither is it disrespectful to correct some one who is incorrect. It may be interpreted that way by the person on the receiving end of the correction as a result of perhaps too thin a skin, but from the "correct" perspective it is a disprespectful to the truth not to correct them. Truth trumps always!
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
One of the truely remarkable things about this forum is how self-policing it is. I think this is largely due to it's members showing a great deal of restraint of themselves and consideration to others. I'm really glad to see this is still in play on this particular thread. [:)]
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
... but from the "correct" perspective it is a disprespectful to the truth not to correct them. Truth trumps always!
[/center] ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Since you feel that way Hans , why don't you create a good defination for the moderators to adopt. That way it will measure up to your standard , and there should be no argument about it. I'm sure that they and all the other users of the forum would be greatly in your debt.ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
Almost every forum moderator claims politics on these forums are verbotten, but it's not posted in the forum rules. Of course, arguing this w/a moderator could be interpreted as disrespectful, which is a rule.
In any case, it shouldn't be difficult for Matrix to edit their list and add "no politics" -- w/a definition of what is political -- to the end of it.
Or has this thread now become "political"? If so, mea culpa, in advance.
Technically, Joe, it isn't an argument if the the user is correct and the moderator is incorrect. Neither is it disrespectful to correct some one who is incorrect. It may be interpreted that way by the person on the receiving end of the correction as a result of perhaps too thin a skin, but from the "correct" perspective it is a disprespectful to the truth not to correct them. Truth trumps always!
[:)] Sorry you seem to think I'm offended. I'm certainly not. I've just always found that when "hair splitters" find fault with anything (like a defination) , it's best to let them make the defination. It then becomes a situation of "put up or shut up". If they are they sincere in their critic , then they generally will jump in and resolve the problem or issue. If they are simply trying to aggravate the issue , they often claim that they are under attack or find some reason to be elsewhere , doing something else. An INTJ type personality is a person who generally is a great thinker and a problem solver.Obviously you are not a hair-splitter. So what I'm asking Merrill, is for you to help solve the problem. And who better than the person who discoverd and defined it? You can do a good deed for the forum , and end this re-occurring problem , once and for all. So please , help us out , and come up with a defination that we can submit to the moderators. We would all be in your debt. [:)]ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Since you feel that way Hans , why don't you create a good defination for the moderators to adopt. That way it will measure up to your standard , and there should be no argument about it. I'm sure that they and all the other users of the forum would be greatly in your debt.ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Technically, Joe, it isn't an argument if the the user is correct and the moderator is incorrect. Neither is it disrespectful to correct some one who is incorrect. It may be interpreted that way by the person on the receiving end of the correction as a result of perhaps too thin a skin, but from the "correct" perspective it is a disprespectful to the truth not to correct them. Truth trumps always!
Hey, what can I say. I'm actually not sorry you seem to be offended and I actually can't keep from not being sorry since, like so many others on this forum, I am an INTJ (see the "what personality type are you" thread). [:D]
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Great response.
I'll see what I can do, but I am starting vacation at the end of the day and I already have one foot out the door, so to speak, so it may be a week and a half before I can get back to you on it.
However, since, like I said, there seems to be an inordinately high percentage of INTJs on the forums and one can expect that since this seems to reflect that this hobby attracts the small percentage of the population that are INTJ, one can likely expect a similar high percentage of INTJs amongst the Moderators, they likely already have the answers and have implemented the structure they are certain is correct.
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
The way designers were taught in school maybe. Hmmm, interesting question.
And the P-38??ORIGINAL: pbear
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
The way designers were taught in school maybe. Hmmm, interesting question.
Partly, the other part would be the industry the designer works in, tradition. I guess it would also have to do with nation character. As an example French aircraft from WWII tend to be sleak and artistic. American blunt and brutish. This is not to say that this applies to all aircraft from these countries. To me a P-47 is beautiful, but it is blunt and brutish. [8D]
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
And the P-38??ORIGINAL: pbear
ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
The way designers were taught in school maybe. Hmmm, interesting question.
Partly, the other part would be the industry the designer works in, tradition. I guess it would also have to do with nation character. As an example French aircraft from WWII tend to be sleak and artistic. American blunt and brutish. This is not to say that this applies to all aircraft from these countries. To me a P-47 is beautiful, but it is blunt and brutish. [8D]
ORIGINAL: Whipple
How come Japanese stuff always "looks" Japanese? Even this little craft has a Japanse looking "superstructure". Whats up with that?
Whipple
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: Knavey
I carried 2 torpedoes ...
[:D]
I guess the keyword is "carried"; looking at the computer model, I can't see how these fish could launch w/o turning the tank into a submarine!
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Thank you for the post. I certainly am not offended , and I greatly appreciate both your joke and explaination. I don't think anyone here has an exceptionally thin skin, but everybody occasionally has a bad day , where minor things can agravate and cause an unpleasant situation. One of the truely remarkable things about this forum is how self-policing it is. I think this is largely due to it's members showing a great deal of restraint of themselves and consideration to others. I'm really glad to see this is still in play on this particular thread. [:)]ORIGINAL: Feltan
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Feltan , I think maybe we sometimes forget that there are "unwritten rules". While I haven't been responding to these forums for anywhere near the time that Terminus has , in my short time here I have seen numerous commentary from the correspondents to the these threads , almost entirely in support of the concept of "no politics". While there may be no posted rules (which I somewhat doubt, I'm sure if you go back far enough , there is some posting to that effect) , good manners and common sense should govern us here. Consider that nearly every country and continient is represented here. How can you possibly make any political comment here and not offend someone? And how does a political comment do anything to promote our understanding and enjoyment of WITP? Let's just let this one slide , before some moderator reads this and makes a rule.
[:)]
Your point is well taken.
I have been known to be a bit provocative at times, and my sense of humor does not always tranlate well to those with exceptionally thin skin either. However, I would not knowingly violate forum rules nor post anything I thought was patently offensive. And I maintain there is a difference between violating rules, and posting something that is inapproprate in someone's personal opinion -- heck, almost anything you write could be against someone's opinion.
That being said, if I tweaked anyone too much with a slight political jab then I apologize. The sense of the forum has importance too, and I will refrain from doing so in the future.
Regards,
Feltan
