Subj: Traveller-digest V1999 #1451
Date: 12/7/99 2:04:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Reply-to: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Traveller-digest Tuesday, December 7 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 1451
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.
The following topics are covered in this digest:
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...
Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...
[none]
Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Re: Cannon Fodder (Modern Ancients)
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Re:
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
OT Flamebait: realism of war movies
Re: No go on Nova
Re: No go on Nova
Re: SPOILERS: MTJ4 "Lords of Thunder"
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Farewell
RE: Re : One of our worlds is missing!
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Re: GT: Trade routes question
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:40:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Kyle Schuant
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
Rupert scribbled:
> When I first saw it my friends (not ex-military) had
> to physically shut
> me up in the theatre. They were just _so_
> incompentent. Next time I saw
> it I looked upon it as a comedy - much better that
> way.
Kyle replied:
well, our society just isn't too knowledgeable about
war and the military. Fair enough, it's not a pleasant
topic, the one being horrifying, the other boring.
Remember, this is the same western audience who
thought, "Saving Private Ryan" was a realistic war movie.
=====
KA Schuant
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club
Melbourne
Australia
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 19:55:42 -0800
From: "J. Paul Sanders"
Subject: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...
At 06:25 PM 12/6/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Swordy (Colin Michael) wrote:
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: J. Paul Sanders
>> > See you all in the next millennium,
>>
>> You're going away for thirteen months?
>
>I'm glad to know that someone else out there knows how
>to keep time. You know, I blame it on public schools (and
>the advertsers). It's just this sort of muddy thinking that
>would lead to a *year* zero (0) in 3I.
>--
>Jason
I'll rest easy tonight knowing that the worlds anal-retentives are on top
of this reality-shattering problem
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 21:46:41 -0500
From: "Swordy (Colin Michael)"
Subject: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...
Nope, it's bloody consumerism, that's all. As soon as the clock ticks over
and the money is all spent, BOOM, the advertisers will start blasting us
with "Now for the REAL millennium party!" Mark my words.
- -Crusty
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jason T. Barnabas
> I'm glad to know that someone else out there knows how
> to keep time. You know, I blame it on public schools (and
> the advertsers). It's just this sort of muddy thinking that
> would lead to a *year* zero (0) in 3I.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:57:10 -0900
From: "William F. Hostman"
Subject: [none]
>> Chevrolet did change the name for the spanish speaking markets after
>> difficulties in mexico, according to Chevrolet's PA person, during an
>> interview for a show on the history channel. Specifically, the problem was
>> with the Mexican market.
>
>With all due respect, if you can cite a source other than "an interview for
>a show on the history channel", such as approximate airdate, the nature of
>the show, the name of the program itself (especially if it was one of their
>regular shows such as History's Mysteries / In Search of History, Modern
>Marvels, etc.). Alternately, the name of the PA person would be extremely
>helpful.
Since I don't make a habit of writing down pithy bits from TV shows... It
has re-aired in the past 60 days, it was about automobiles, and was made
within the past 3 years. (It referenced 1996 models). It wasn't In Search
of nor History's Mysteries. It mentioned ONLY the Mexican market with a
name change (not the rest of the spanish speaking markets). It aired in
prime time. It may have been Modern Marvels. It was one of the regular
series of shows.
If I see it again, I will jot the citation down.
Also note: some of the debunkers have overzealously labeled some things as
"Fakes" when they did occur. Many of them "debunk" a slightly exagerated or
mis-labeled bit, without knowing that the majority IS true, and without
trying to find the whole truth and debunk only those parts untrue. Net
Hoaxes have been going since the 80's, and debunkers have been making
mistakes on occasion since the 80's. I give the debunking sites no more
credit than I do any other sites on the web... unless they are part of a
major media organization, I give them little to none outside their own
company's lore.
William F. Hostman | "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis mailto:wilh@alaska.com
ICQ:14640742 AIM:AKAramis ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:03:14 -0800 (PST)
From: healyzh@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...
> Nope, it's bloody consumerism, that's all. As soon as the clock ticks over
> and the money is all spent, BOOM, the advertisers will start blasting us
> with "Now for the REAL millennium party!" Mark my words.
>
> -Crusty
Rather cynical, but undoubtably correct. Look at the bright side of things,
all of us that are on "Y2K Disaster Watches" thanks to our jobs will be able
to enjoy the real party :^)
Zane
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:22:13 -0500
From: "Chris Seamans"
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
From: Rupert Boleyn
> When I first saw it my friends (not ex-military) had to physically shut
> me up in the theatre. They were just _so_ incompentent. Next time I saw
> it I looked upon it as a comedy - much better that way.
I don't mean to be rude, but did you consider the fact that it was *meant*
to be a black comedy in the first place? I mean, this was not a surprising
concept. Paul Verhoeven has built a career around extremely violent,
action-packed science-fiction black comedies. I'm utterly confused by anyone
who expected this movie to be serious or in any way accurate.
This is not somebody who fumbled the ball here, this *is* the same guy who
did Total Recall and RoboCop, after all.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:20:38 -0700
From: cos 90
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
>An evil genius in the grad student dorm council here shows a brace of
>movies every Sunday night; last night's picks were South Park: The Movie
>and Starship Troopers: The Movie.
>
>The merits of the film per se have been discussed already here. I
>actually liked the film more the second time I saw it; maybe it's all the
>lead in the drinking water around here. But the interesting part was the
>audience reaction to it. The elite young minds of America and several
>European countries, our world's future leaders, scientists, analysts,
>financial whizzes, and military brass, thought it was a "really realistic"
>(sic.) movie with a great plot, although they thought the acting was a bit
>weak. They were peevish with me for cheering on the bugs and consistently
>referring to our heros as "the Nazi pigdogs". They thought that the
>future world order in the film was "really pretty reasonable" and "I'd
>sure go for that!" (direct quotes).
Nice review of the South Park movie... but what did you think of Starship
Troopers?
:-D
Glenn St-Germain § Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
cos90@powersurfr.com § http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn
"There is no longer any normal to be"
-- Gary Numan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:30:17 -0700
From: cos 90
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
>ObTrav: I desperately want to run a Trav campaign based on South Park.
>Suggestions welcomed.
First step is to get something that combines South Park with an outer
space setting, just to get into the spirit of things:
http://www.infinicorp.com/babylonpark/
Glenn St-Germain § Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
cos90@powersurfr.com § http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn
"There is no longer any normal to be"
-- Gary Numan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:17:40 -0700
From: cos 90
Subject: Re: Cannon Fodder (Modern Ancients)
>(Anyone remember that in the Star Wars universe, blasters are
>so ancient a tech that animal-riding barbarians seem to throw
>them together with bailing wire and rocks? Droyne tech is that
>routine to them, too.)
"These are not the Droyne you're looking for."
Glenn St-Germain § Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
cos90@powersurfr.com § http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn
"There is no longer any normal to be"
-- Gary Numan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:41:14 -0500
From: Mark Urbin
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
"Douglas E. Berry" puts forth on the Ether:
>At 01:06 PM 12/6/1999 -0600, you wrote:
>>>They thought that the
>>>future world order in the film was "really pretty reasonable" and "I'd
>>>sure go for that!" (direct quotes).
>>Fortunately, these are the same worthys that will encircle the bugs with
>>automatic weapons and start firing.
>With a Sergeant who will see movement on a ridge and not alert his
>formation!! Aiigghh!! That movie was so BAD!! Must.. control.. fist..
>of...Death...
>I saw it at a con, and when they had finally reached Fort Zindernuef, and
>found that the Bugs ate brains, about three peole yelled "They're going to
>starve on this bunch!" All of us were infantry. Two Army, one Marine.
The bad Civil War era military tactics were bloody horrible. I also lost
it when the huge fleet transport vessel in the middle of open space
couldn't spot a monstrously huge (i.e. much larger than the giant space
ship) rock coming at them until they were almost run over by the damn thing.
The few redeeming features of the film were almost verbatim quotes from the
book. The "Moral Philosophy" stuff I was almost certain they wouldn't dare
put it. But then, it was a Verhoven film and he pretty much doesn't give a
flying rat fornication about much.
I rented the DVD version in order to hear the Directory/Writer commentary
soundtrack. It was a busy weekend, so I didn't get through the whole
thing, but I got the impression that while the film's writer had actually
read the book (ok, so he actually came out and said he did), I'm still not
convinced the director did. He had plenty of his own axes to grind in this
film.
Another redeaming feature was Clancy Brown was Sergeant Zim.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
A well-educated electorate being necessary to the prosperity of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed. -- http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:57:51 -0500
From: "Chris Seamans"
Subject: Re:
From: William F. Hostman
> Since I don't make a habit of writing down pithy bits from TV
>shows...
With all due respect, maybe you should if you're going to cite them. I have
cited my sources in another post. More on that in a second.
>It has re-aired in the past 60 days, it was about automobiles, and
>was made within the past 3 years. (It referenced 1996 models). It
>wasn't In Search of nor History's Mysteries.
Not "In Search of...", but "In Search of History," totally different show
with a totally different theme and context. It is now known as "History's
Mysteries" with little bits added.
>It mentioned ONLY the Mexican market with a name change (not the
>rest of the spanish speaking markets). It aired in prime time. It may
>have been Modern Marvels. It was one of the regular series of
>shows.
It must have been Modern Marvels.
> If I see it again, I will jot the citation down.
Good deal.
> Also note: some of the debunkers have overzealously labeled some
>things as "Fakes" when they did occur.
Yes, among them specifically is "the body under the motel room bed." There
are also grey areas with urban legends, where a proper starting date for a
legend is tough to come by, or where a similar event may be inspired by a
legend. The legend of the cement filled car is a perfect example.
>Many of them "debunk" a slightly exagerated or
> mis-labeled bit, without knowing that the majority IS true, and without
> trying to find the whole truth and debunk only those parts untrue.
In the case of Barbara Mikkelson, this is quite unlikely. If you want to go
to the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society's reference webpage and find
something there which is demonstrably false, be my guest... until then, I'll
be inclined to trust a scholarly source in my own area of expertise.
Please don't be insulted by this statement. Put yourself in my shoes:
You have a certain amount of knowledge about something. You can cite a
reference which is well known and well respected in a specific field. This
is something in a field which you have considerable interest in, and which
you have done your own independent research on.
Someone tells you, "It's true, I saw it on TV!", while calling into question
the credibility of the source you're citing, while showing no evidence he's
read any of the materials in question.
>Net Hoaxes have been going since the 80's, and debunkers have
>been making mistakes on occasion since the 80's. I give the
>debunking sites no more credit than I do any other sites on the web...
>unless they are part of a major media organization, I give them little
>to none outside their own company's lore.
Fair enough. As I said, if you want to give me something that Barbara
Mikkelson has written which is demonstrably false, I would love to see it.
Until that time, I will treat the SFVFS's Urban Legends Reference Pages as
I have since I discovered them: a valuable and accurate resource with regard
to folklore.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:06:45 -0500
From: "Chris Seamans"
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
From: Kyle Schuant
> well, our society just isn't too knowledgeable about
> war and the military. Fair enough, it's not a pleasant
> topic, the one being horrifying, the other boring.
> Remember, this is the same western audience who
> thought, "Saving Private Ryan" was a realistic war movie.
Ah! We have a D-Day veteran on the list!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:34:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Kyle Schuant
Subject: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies
- --- Chris Seamans wrote:
> From: Kyle Schuant
>
>
> > well, our society just isn't too knowledgeable
> about
> > war and the military. Fair enough, it's not a
> pleasant
> > topic, the one being horrifying, the other boring.
> > Remember, this is the same western audience who
> > thought, "Saving Private Ryan" was a realistic war
> movie.
>
> Ah! We have a D-Day veteran on the list!
>
Kyle laughs and responds:
Not quite! But a veteran of fighting... and I know
that the one thing not shown in that movie, the one
thing that no movie will _ever_ show because it drives
a rusty salt-encrusted blad into the heart of all our
myths of our warrior past, is that most soldiers never
fire directly at the enemy. They do their damned best
to avoid it.
Instead of eight guys fighting, you would have had
maybe two of them firing, another couple "Oh, I'm just
loading magazines for him," another couple pointing
out targets, "quick, shoot him, Joe!", one patching up
wounds, and another one running messages. But in this
movie, they were all killers, except for the wimpy
translator, who only shot an unarmed man, and his not
killing was depicted as cowardice.
Guys pointing out targets or loading magazines
obviously are as morally reposnsible for the killing
as the firer, but it doesn't _feel_ the same. Believe
me.
It's not cowardice, but that's how audiences would
view it. Most men never fire, or just fire around the
enemy, to scare him off. If an officer is standing
right next to them, shouting, "shoot, damnit!" they
will, but as soon as he goes away...
This has been true for all armies through history, all
that we can study at all, or have records for. It's
just damned hard to look another human being in the
eyes and kill them. This is the real reason that
artillery and bombers and mines kill more people than
bullets: if all you;re doing is firing on a point on a
map, well, that's easy to live with. This is the real
reason muskets supplanted the longbow and the sword:
it's harder for a man to make the psychological
connection at a gut level between his gun and the
guy's wounds, than between a sword and his wounds.
This is the real reason bayonet charges still work
sometimes: the thought that someone really is willing
to stick several inches of cold steel in your body is
quite chilling. Bullets and bombs are as deadly, but
somehow bayonets are more personal and chilling.
It's a very hard thing to do, to kill someone, and
most men in war do their damnedest to avoid - if
they're grunts. I've not heard of any non-firers
amongst artillerymen, or mine-layers.
Since people always ask for references, I refer those
interested to Col David Grossman's excellent work, "On
Killing", where he discusses exactly this military
problem, and how the (US) military has tried to
overcome it.
My own aussie military has not been so successful, I'd
say. Bad for the army, good for humanity.
But non-firing will never be depicted in the movies
except as cowardice. Such men are not cowards, they're
simply human. They risk their lives to save comrades,
they just don't want to take other lives. That's
humanity, not cowardice. But this is rather too fine a
distinction to make for most film-makers (note I don't
say, "film-goers", I think makers underestimate the
intelligence of film-goers.)
=====
KA Schuant
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club
Melbourne
Australia
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:13:51 -0600
From: "Eris Reddoch"
Subject: Re: No go on Nova
On 12/06/99 at 03:21 PM, "Jason Kemp" said:
>> Yes, but "decease" doesn't convey the meaning "de-cease (stop stopping)
>> to English readers.
>I think the situation is more akin to seeing "ItWontGo" ,
>"WillNotWork" or "DoesNotWork" as an official automobile brand name.
>Strange, hard to read, but intelligible and not exactly
>confidence-inspiring. :)
Hee, hee, actually the best example I can think of is Win CE,
Microsoft's Windows for the palm top market. Nothing wrong with Win
Ce as a name...right? Not unless it makes you wince.
Ob Traveller...does anyone have any good Traveller ancronyms with
double meanings?
Eris
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:29:08 -0500
From: "Josh W. Spencer"
Subject: Re: No go on Nova
Eris Reddoch wrote:
>
> Hee, hee, actually the best example I can think of is Win CE,
> Microsoft's Windows for the palm top market. Nothing wrong with Win
> Ce as a name...right? Not unless it makes you wince.
Microsoft always makes me WinCE...being a relatively new Palm Piloteer!
(I have a IIIx).
:) :)
- --
Josh
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:22:22 -0800
From: Richard Hough
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: MTJ4 "Lords of Thunder"
> >> They got to their moon using their own tech first, then fought high-
> >>tech sophonts. Per MTJ4 (?), their may have been archeological material
>>>on Kirur itself to aid them, but that could be argued for any species.
>>
>>I dug my copy of MTJ4 out to check. The timeline does not go into
>>detail, but when the Droashav invaded the Kirur system, the K'Kree
> >could not have been above TL 7.
>
> It looks (pps. 62, 64) as though the K'kree were a lot closer to
>"sharp stick" tech when they had their guests over to dinner.
The timeline didn't say when the Droashav invaded, but you are
correct. They were probably TL 1 or even 0 at the time! Thanks for
the page reference, I missed that.
Your remark about "archeological material" now seems prescient.
- --
IMTU t4+ ru ge+ !3i(3i++) jt-- au+ ls-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 00:53:47 -0600
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich"
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
> With a Sergeant who will see movement on a ridge and not alert his
> formation!! Aiigghh!!
Ah yes, that was my favorite.
He looks up, seeing movement, apparently thinks nothing of it, and then
sends the radioman up to get better reception.
"Son, go up onto that ridge to get a better signal."
Many insane giggles were heard in our little theater at that.
Cripes, I felt violated after seeing that movie -- even moreso than
_Highlander 2_ or _Sky Bandits_.
Ciao,
Joseph R. Dietrich
yikes@evansville.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:57:12 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin"
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
> From: "Douglas E. Berry"
> >ObTrav: I desperately want to run a Trav campaign based on South Park.
> OhmyGod, they killed Strephon! You BASTARDS!
I am again glad that I was not drinking while reading the TML. Rice
milk through the nose would be unpleasant.
- --Glenn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:55:06 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin"
Subject: Farewell
> From: jmaclean@ix.netcom.com
> Real Life commitments require that I unsubscribe from the TML. I've been a
> member almost without interruption since 1991 and I'll miss the hurly-burly
> of the list. The List has grown enormously in membership and traffic since
> I joined, and I just can't keep up with it all anymore. I can still be
> found on SJGames Traveller bulletin boards and reached via email.
>
> Jim MacLean
> Economist, Traveller Fan
> GT: Far Trader co-author
We'll miss you. Remember, you don't have to read and respond to every
message -- many of us drop off for long stretches of time and jump back
in when we have time again. I myself have deleted countless unread
digests.
- --Glenn
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:56:06 -0800
From: "Antony Farrell"
Subject: RE: Re : One of our worlds is missing!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> O'Connor
> Sent: Sunday, 5 December 1999 1:26 PM
> To: TML
> Subject: Re : One of our worlds is missing!
>
>
> Steve Bonneville wrote :-
> > > My copy of Galactic 2.4 has this world down as :-
> > > Amwold D6583M0-3
> >
> > Gov code M? What the heck is gov code M?
> >
> > > I'm not sure what the paper reference is.
> >
> > Good question.
>
> Government code 'M' is a 'Tribal Government' if using TNE, or one of the
> Aslan clan variants if not.
>
> The UWP appears in a TNE sector data file.
> Maybe the answer can be found in the Star Vikings sourcebook.
>
> Robert O'Connor
> Medico, Gamer
>
The original government type M goes back to CT and was meant to refer to
government by the Military, usually following a coup, ie Uganda under Idi
Amin etc.
Antony
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:54:36 +0100 (MET)
From: Tommy Grav
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>And an officer who shoots his own men, when he could've nailed the bug
>and gone and recovered his man. And they send their sigs to high ground
>with no security. Sigs may be a lower form of life, but they do have
>their uses (carrying heavy radios and soaking sniper fire, for
>starters).
>
>When I first saw it my friends (not ex-military) had to physically shut
>me up in the theatre. They were just _so_ incompentent. Next time I saw
>it I looked upon it as a comedy - much better that way.
This is exactly the problem I have (or one of the problems) with Star Trek,
who the hell sends down their main officers to an unsecure planet to
investigate some unknown phenomena, armed only with a hand phaser.
They just went through showin Space Above and Beyond here and for all
its shortcoming, I like the fact that these guys/girls go down to
planets, armed with real guns :-)
>Rupert Boleyn
Tommy Grav
- -------------------------------------------------------------
tommy.grav@astro.uio.no http://www.uio.no/~tommygr/
Institute of Astrophysics, UiO, No
IMTU tn++t4+tg+ ru+ge++ !3i jt+au+st+ls hi++dr-so++zh-sy-sw++
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:03:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Terry Mixon
Subject: Re: GT: Trade routes question
- --- jmaclean@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Terry Mixon wrote:
> > A quick question. I have gotten to the point of doing the minor
> >trade routes for the entire Spinward Marches subsector, having
> >mapped out the major and feeder routes. GT: Far Trader says to
> >use J-2 routes unless a feeder or above would save a jump or more
> >or if it is along an x-boat route. Would a minor route then be
> >able to use a higher jump route created by the major and feeder
> >process? I can't see why it wouldn't but that eventuality was
> >not mentioned. If the route is already in existance, my guess is
> >that a minor route could use it but I wanted to ask for opinions.
>
> The short answer to your question is "yes, minor routes can
> 'piggyback' on J-3+ routes if doing so reduces the number of jumps
> needed to reach their destination."
>
> The language on designating routes is rather tortured, I admit. Part
> of the problem is that "routes" is used to refer to the amount of
> trade between two worlds, the path that trade takes, and the total
> level of traffic between two adjacent worlds. Inevitably, this leads
> to confusion. If there's ever a FT 2e, revamping the vocabulary will
> be a top priority.
That is what I thought. Thanks for clearing that up for me. The
project continues...
> >I sent a message to Jim Maclean but he must be busy and I never
> >got an answer.
>
> Sorry, I got busy and when I checked my email again my "Traveller"
> mailfolder had over 2000 messages in it. I'm still digging out.
I know how that is. No problem. Thanks for the help.
Terry Mixon
http://www.ghg.net/tmixon/Trade
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
------------------------------
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1451
***********************************
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:
unsubscribe traveller-digest
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path:
Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97]) by air-za03.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 05:04:42 -0500
Received: from lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-za01.mx.aol.com (v66.4) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 05:04:30 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id FAA75534;
Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:53 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:11 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id FAA75483
for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:11 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199912071003.FAA75483@lists.imagiconline.com>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1451
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com