<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1451</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/7/99 2:04:42 AM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
From:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Reply-to:	traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
To:	traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, December 7 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1451<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.<BR>
All rights reserved.<BR>
<BR>
The following topics are covered in this digest:<BR>
<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...<BR>
Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...<BR>
[none]<BR>
Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: Cannon Fodder (Modern Ancients)<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: <BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: No go on Nova<BR>
Re: No go on Nova<BR>
Re: SPOILERS: MTJ4 "Lords of Thunder"<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Farewell<BR>
RE: Re : One of our worlds is missing!<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: GT: Trade routes question<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:40:51 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
Rupert scribbled:<BR>
> When I first saw it my friends (not ex-military) had<BR>
> to physically shut <BR>
> me up in the theatre. They were just _so_<BR>
> incompentent. Next time I saw <BR>
> it I looked upon it as a comedy - much better that<BR>
> way.<BR>
<BR>
Kyle replied:<BR>
well, our society just isn't too knowledgeable about<BR>
war and the military. Fair enough, it's not a pleasant<BR>
topic, the one being horrifying, the other boring.<BR>
Remember, this is the same western audience who<BR>
thought, "Saving Private Ryan" was a realistic war movie.<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 19:55:42 -0800<BR>
From: "J. Paul Sanders" <timmon@primenet.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...<BR>
<BR>
At 06:25 PM 12/6/99 -0800, you wrote:<BR>
>Swordy (Colin Michael) <swordworlder@clinic.net> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>
>> From: J. Paul Sanders <timmon@primenet.com><BR>
>> > See you all in the next millennium,<BR>
>><BR>
>> You're going away for thirteen months?<BR>
><BR>
>I'm glad to know that someone else out there knows how<BR>
>to keep time.  You know, I blame it on public schools (and<BR>
>the advertsers).  It's just this sort of muddy thinking that<BR>
>would lead to a *year* zero (0) in 3I.<BR>
>--<BR>
>Jason<BR>
<BR>
I'll rest easy tonight knowing that the worlds anal-retentives are on top<BR>
of this reality-shattering problem<BR>
<BR>
Paul<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 21:46:41 -0500<BR>
From: "Swordy (Colin Michael)" <swordworlder@clinic.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...<BR>
<BR>
Nope, it's bloody consumerism, that's all.  As soon as the clock ticks over<BR>
and the money is all spent, BOOM, the advertisers will start blasting us<BR>
with "Now for the REAL millennium party!"  Mark my words.<BR>
<BR>
- -Crusty<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Jason T. Barnabas <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
> I'm glad to know that someone else out there knows how<BR>
> to keep time.  You know, I blame it on public schools (and<BR>
> the advertsers).  It's just this sort of muddy thinking that<BR>
> would lead to a *year* zero (0) in 3I.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:57:10 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: [none]<BR>
<BR>
>> Chevrolet did change the name for the spanish speaking markets after<BR>
>> difficulties in mexico, according to Chevrolet's PA person, during an<BR>
>> interview for a show on the history channel. Specifically, the problem was<BR>
>> with the Mexican market.<BR>
><BR>
>With all due respect, if you can cite a source other than "an interview for<BR>
>a show on the history channel", such as approximate airdate, the nature of<BR>
>the show, the name of the program itself (especially if it was one of their<BR>
>regular shows such as History's Mysteries / In Search of History, Modern<BR>
>Marvels, etc.). Alternately, the name of the PA person would be extremely<BR>
>helpful.<BR>
<BR>
Since I don't make a habit of writing down pithy bits from TV shows... It<BR>
has re-aired in the past 60 days, it was about automobiles, and was made<BR>
within the past 3 years. (It referenced 1996 models). It wasn't In Search<BR>
of nor History's Mysteries. It mentioned ONLY the Mexican market with a<BR>
name change (not the rest of the spanish speaking markets). It aired in<BR>
prime time. It may have been Modern Marvels. It was one of the regular<BR>
series of shows.<BR>
<BR>
If I see it again, I will jot the citation down.<BR>
<BR>
Also note: some of the debunkers have overzealously labeled some things as<BR>
"Fakes" when they did occur. Many of them "debunk" a slightly exagerated or<BR>
mis-labeled bit, without knowing that the majority IS true, and without<BR>
trying to find the whole truth and debunk only those parts untrue. Net<BR>
Hoaxes have been going since the 80's, and debunkers have been making<BR>
mistakes on occasion since the 80's. I give the debunking sites no more<BR>
credit than I do any other sites on the web... unless they are part of a<BR>
major media organization, I give them little to none outside their own<BR>
company's lore.<BR>
<BR>
William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click<BR>
interface!"<BR>
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-<BR>
533<BR>
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis mailto:wilh@alaska.com<BR>
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+<BR>
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls<BR>
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:03:14 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: healyzh@aracnet.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...<BR>
<BR>
> Nope, it's bloody consumerism, that's all.  As soon as the clock ticks over<BR>
> and the money is all spent, BOOM, the advertisers will start blasting us<BR>
> with "Now for the REAL millennium party!"  Mark my words.<BR>
> <BR>
> -Crusty<BR>
<BR>
Rather cynical, but undoubtably correct.  Look at the bright side of things,<BR>
all of us that are on "Y2K Disaster Watches" thanks to our jobs will be able<BR>
to enjoy the real party :^)<BR>
<BR>
				Zane<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:22:13 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
From: Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> When I first saw it my friends (not ex-military) had to physically shut<BR>
> me up in the theatre. They were just _so_ incompentent. Next time I saw<BR>
> it I looked upon it as a comedy - much better that way.<BR>
<BR>
I don't mean to be rude, but did you consider the fact that it was *meant*<BR>
to be a black comedy in the first place? I mean, this was not a surprising<BR>
concept. Paul Verhoeven has built a career around extremely violent,<BR>
action-packed science-fiction black comedies. I'm utterly confused by anyone<BR>
who expected this movie to be serious or in any way accurate.<BR>
<BR>
This is not somebody who fumbled the ball here, this *is* the same guy who<BR>
did Total Recall and RoboCop, after all.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:20:38 -0700<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
>An evil genius in the grad student dorm council here shows a brace of<BR>
>movies every Sunday night; last night's picks were South Park: The Movie<BR>
>and Starship Troopers: The Movie.<BR>
><BR>
>The merits of the film per se have been discussed already here.  I<BR>
>actually liked the film more the second time I saw it; maybe it's all the<BR>
>lead in the drinking water around here.  But the interesting part was the<BR>
>audience reaction to it.  The elite young minds of America and several<BR>
>European countries, our world's future leaders, scientists, analysts,<BR>
>financial whizzes, and military brass, thought it was a "really realistic"<BR>
>(sic.) movie with a great plot, although they thought the acting was a bit<BR>
>weak.  They were peevish with me for cheering on the bugs and consistently<BR>
>referring to our heros as "the Nazi pigdogs".  They thought that the<BR>
>future world order in the film was "really pretty reasonable" and "I'd<BR>
>sure go for that!" (direct quotes).<BR>
<BR>
Nice review of the South Park movie... but what did you think of Starship<BR>
Troopers?<BR>
<BR>
:-D<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
     Glenn St-Germain  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada <BR>
cos90@powersurfr.com  http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn<BR>
        "There is no longer any normal to be"<BR>
                                 -- Gary Numan<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:30:17 -0700<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
>ObTrav:  I desperately want to run a Trav campaign based on South Park.<BR>
>Suggestions welcomed.<BR>
<BR>
First step is to get something that combines South Park with an outer <BR>
space setting, just to get into the spirit of things:<BR>
<BR>
http://www.infinicorp.com/babylonpark/<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
     Glenn St-Germain  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada <BR>
cos90@powersurfr.com  http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn<BR>
        "There is no longer any normal to be"<BR>
                                 -- Gary Numan<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:17:40 -0700<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Cannon Fodder (Modern Ancients)<BR>
<BR>
>(Anyone remember that in the Star Wars universe, blasters are<BR>
>so ancient a tech that animal-riding barbarians seem to throw<BR>
>them together with bailing wire and rocks?  Droyne tech is that<BR>
>routine to them, too.)<BR>
<BR>
"These are not the Droyne you're looking for."<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
     Glenn St-Germain  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada <BR>
cos90@powersurfr.com  http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn<BR>
        "There is no longer any normal to be"<BR>
                                 -- Gary Numan<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:41:14 -0500<BR>
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
"Douglas E. Berry" <gridlore@pop.mindspring.com> puts forth on the Ether:<BR>
 >At 01:06 PM 12/6/1999 -0600, you wrote:<BR>
 >>>They thought that the<BR>
 >>>future world order in the film was "really pretty reasonable" and "I'd<BR>
 >>>sure go for that!" (direct quotes).<BR>
 >>Fortunately, these are the same worthys that will encircle the bugs with<BR>
 >>automatic weapons and start firing.<BR>
 >With a Sergeant who will see movement on a ridge and not alert his<BR>
 >formation!!  Aiigghh!!  That movie was so BAD!!  Must.. control.. fist..<BR>
 >of...Death...<BR>
 >I saw it at a con, and when they had finally reached Fort Zindernuef, and<BR>
 >found that the Bugs ate brains, about three peole yelled "They're going to<BR>
 >starve on this bunch!"  All of us were infantry.  Two Army, one Marine.<BR>
<BR>
The bad Civil War era military tactics were bloody horrible.  I also lost <BR>
it when the huge fleet transport vessel in the middle of open space <BR>
couldn't spot a monstrously huge (i.e. much larger than the giant space <BR>
ship) rock coming at them until they were almost run over by the damn thing.<BR>
<BR>
The few redeeming features of the film were almost verbatim quotes from the <BR>
book.  The "Moral Philosophy" stuff I was almost certain they wouldn't dare <BR>
put it.  But then, it was a Verhoven film and he pretty much doesn't give a <BR>
flying rat fornication about much.<BR>
<BR>
I rented the DVD version in order to hear the Directory/Writer commentary <BR>
soundtrack.  It was a busy weekend, so I didn't get through the whole <BR>
thing, but I got the impression that while the film's writer had actually <BR>
read the book (ok, so he actually came out and said he did), I'm still not <BR>
convinced the director did.  He had plenty of his own axes to grind in this <BR>
film.<BR>
<BR>
Another redeaming feature was Clancy Brown was Sergeant Zim.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.<BR>
A well-educated electorate being necessary to the prosperity of a free<BR>
state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be<BR>
infringed.  -- http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/<BR>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:57:51 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: <BR>
<BR>
From: William F. Hostman <aramis@gci.net><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Since I don't make a habit of writing down pithy bits from TV<BR>
>shows...<BR>
<BR>
With all due respect, maybe you should if you're going to cite them. I have<BR>
cited my sources in another post. More on that in a second.<BR>
<BR>
>It has re-aired in the past 60 days, it was about automobiles, and<BR>
>was made within the past 3 years. (It referenced 1996 models). It<BR>
>wasn't In Search of nor History's Mysteries.<BR>
<BR>
Not "In Search of...", but "In Search of History," totally different show<BR>
with a totally different theme and context. It is now known as "History's<BR>
Mysteries" with little bits added.<BR>
<BR>
>It mentioned ONLY the Mexican market with a name change (not the<BR>
>rest of the spanish speaking markets). It aired in prime time. It may<BR>
>have been Modern Marvels. It was one of the regular series of<BR>
>shows.<BR>
<BR>
It must have been Modern Marvels.<BR>
<BR>
> If I see it again, I will jot the citation down.<BR>
<BR>
Good deal.<BR>
<BR>
> Also note: some of the debunkers have overzealously labeled some<BR>
>things as "Fakes" when they did occur.<BR>
<BR>
Yes, among them specifically is "the body under the motel room bed." There<BR>
are also grey areas with urban legends, where a proper starting date for a<BR>
legend is tough to come by, or where a similar event may be inspired by a<BR>
legend. The legend of the cement filled car is a perfect example.<BR>
<BR>
>Many of them "debunk" a slightly exagerated or<BR>
> mis-labeled bit, without knowing that the majority IS true, and without<BR>
> trying to find the whole truth and debunk only those parts untrue.<BR>
<BR>
In the case of Barbara Mikkelson, this is quite unlikely. If you want to go<BR>
to the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society's reference webpage and find<BR>
something there which is demonstrably false, be my guest... until then, I'll<BR>
be inclined to trust a scholarly source in my own area of expertise.<BR>
<BR>
Please don't be insulted by this statement. Put yourself in my shoes:<BR>
<BR>
You have a certain amount of knowledge about something. You can cite a<BR>
reference which is well known and well respected in a specific field. This<BR>
is something in a field which you have considerable interest in, and which<BR>
you have done your own independent research on.<BR>
<BR>
Someone tells you, "It's true, I saw it on TV!", while calling into question<BR>
the credibility of the source you're citing, while showing no evidence he's<BR>
read any of the materials in question.<BR>
<BR>
>Net Hoaxes have been going since the 80's, and debunkers have<BR>
>been making mistakes on occasion since the 80's. I give the<BR>
>debunking sites no more credit than I do any other sites on the web...<BR>
>unless they are part of a major media organization, I give them little<BR>
>to none outside their own company's lore.<BR>
<BR>
Fair enough. As I said, if you want to give me something that Barbara<BR>
Mikkelson has written which is demonstrably false, I would love to see it.<BR>
Until that time, I will treat  the SFVFS's Urban Legends Reference Pages as<BR>
I have since I discovered them: a valuable and accurate resource with regard<BR>
to folklore.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:06:45 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> well, our society just isn't too knowledgeable about<BR>
> war and the military. Fair enough, it's not a pleasant<BR>
> topic, the one being horrifying, the other boring.<BR>
> Remember, this is the same western audience who<BR>
> thought, "Saving Private Ryan" was a realistic war movie.<BR>
<BR>
Ah! We have a D-Day veteran on the list!<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:34:48 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
- --- Chris Seamans <semo@pil.net> wrote:<BR>
> From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> > well, our society just isn't too knowledgeable<BR>
> about<BR>
> > war and the military. Fair enough, it's not a<BR>
> pleasant<BR>
> > topic, the one being horrifying, the other boring.<BR>
> > Remember, this is the same western audience who<BR>
> > thought, "Saving Private Ryan" was a realistic war<BR>
> movie.<BR>
> <BR>
> Ah! We have a D-Day veteran on the list!<BR>
> <BR>
Kyle laughs and responds:<BR>
Not quite! But a veteran of fighting... and I know<BR>
that the one thing not shown in that movie, the one<BR>
thing that no movie will _ever_ show because it drives<BR>
a rusty salt-encrusted blad into the heart of all our<BR>
myths of our warrior past, is that most soldiers never<BR>
fire directly at the enemy. They do their damned best<BR>
to avoid it. <BR>
<BR>
Instead of eight guys fighting, you would have had<BR>
maybe two of them firing, another couple "Oh, I'm just<BR>
loading magazines for him," another couple pointing<BR>
out targets, "quick, shoot him, Joe!", one patching up<BR>
wounds, and another one running messages. But in this<BR>
movie, they were all killers, except for the wimpy<BR>
translator, who only shot an unarmed man, and his not<BR>
killing was depicted as cowardice.<BR>
<BR>
Guys pointing out targets or loading magazines<BR>
obviously are as morally reposnsible for the killing<BR>
as the firer, but it doesn't _feel_ the same. Believe<BR>
me.<BR>
<BR>
It's not cowardice, but that's how audiences would<BR>
view it. Most men never fire, or just fire around the<BR>
enemy, to scare him off. If an officer is standing<BR>
right next to them, shouting, "shoot, damnit!" they<BR>
will, but as soon as he goes away...<BR>
<BR>
This has been true for all armies through history, all<BR>
that we can study at all, or have records for. It's<BR>
just damned hard to look another human being in the<BR>
eyes and kill them. This is the real reason that<BR>
artillery and bombers and mines kill more people than<BR>
bullets: if all you;re doing is firing on a point on a<BR>
map, well, that's easy to live with. This is the real<BR>
reason muskets supplanted the longbow and the sword:<BR>
it's harder for a man to make the psychological<BR>
connection at a gut level between his gun and the<BR>
guy's wounds, than between a sword and his wounds. <BR>
<BR>
This is the real reason bayonet charges still work<BR>
sometimes: the thought that someone really is willing<BR>
to stick several inches of cold steel in your body is<BR>
quite chilling. Bullets and bombs are as deadly, but<BR>
somehow bayonets are more personal and chilling.<BR>
<BR>
It's a very hard thing to do, to kill someone, and<BR>
most men in war do their damnedest to avoid - if<BR>
they're grunts. I've not heard of any non-firers<BR>
amongst artillerymen, or mine-layers. <BR>
<BR>
Since people always ask for references, I refer those<BR>
interested to Col David Grossman's excellent work, "On<BR>
Killing", where he discusses exactly this military<BR>
problem, and how the (US) military has tried to<BR>
overcome it.<BR>
<BR>
My own aussie military has not been so successful, I'd<BR>
say. Bad for the army, good for humanity.<BR>
<BR>
But non-firing will never be depicted in the movies<BR>
except as cowardice. Such men are not cowards, they're<BR>
simply human. They risk their lives to save comrades,<BR>
they just don't want to take other lives. That's<BR>
humanity, not cowardice. But this is rather too fine a<BR>
distinction to make for most film-makers (note I don't<BR>
say, "film-goers", I think makers underestimate the<BR>
intelligence of film-goers.)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:13:51 -0600<BR>
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net><BR>
Subject: Re: No go on Nova<BR>
<BR>
On 12/06/99 at 03:21 PM,  "Jason Kemp" <Jason.Kemp@tdh.state.tx.us> said:<BR>
<BR>
>> Yes, but "decease" doesn't convey the meaning "de-cease (stop stopping)<BR>
>> to English readers.<BR>
<BR>
>I think the situation is more akin to seeing "ItWontGo" ,<BR>
>"WillNotWork" or "DoesNotWork" as an official automobile brand name.<BR>
>Strange, hard to read, but intelligible and not exactly<BR>
>confidence-inspiring.  :)<BR>
<BR>
Hee, hee, actually the best example I can think of is Win CE,<BR>
Microsoft's Windows for the palm top market.  Nothing wrong with Win<BR>
Ce as a name...right?   Not unless it makes you wince. <g><BR>
<BR>
Ob Traveller...does anyone have any good Traveller ancronyms with<BR>
double meanings?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Eris<BR>
- -- <BR>
- -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245<BR>
- -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:29:08 -0500<BR>
From: "Josh W. Spencer" <macmanjws@earthlink.net><BR>
Subject: Re: No go on Nova<BR>
<BR>
Eris Reddoch wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> Hee, hee, actually the best example I can think of is Win CE,<BR>
> Microsoft's Windows for the palm top market.  Nothing wrong with Win<BR>
> Ce as a name...right?   Not unless it makes you wince. <g><BR>
<BR>
Microsoft always makes me WinCE...being a relatively new Palm Piloteer!<BR>
(I have a IIIx).<BR>
:) :)<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Josh<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:22:22 -0800<BR>
From: Richard Hough <corvus@telus.net><BR>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: MTJ4 "Lords of Thunder"<BR>
<BR>
>  >>   They got to their moon using their own tech first, then fought high-<BR>
>  >>tech sophonts. Per MTJ4 (?), their may have been archeological material<BR>
>>>on Kirur itself to aid them, but that could be argued for any species.<BR>
>><BR>
>>I dug my copy of MTJ4 out to check. The timeline does not go into<BR>
>>detail, but when the Droashav invaded the Kirur system, the K'Kree<BR>
>  >could not have been above TL 7.<BR>
><BR>
>   It looks (pps. 62, 64) as though the K'kree were a lot closer to<BR>
>"sharp stick" tech when they had their guests over to dinner.<BR>
<BR>
The timeline didn't say when the Droashav invaded, but you are <BR>
correct. They were probably TL 1 or even 0 at the time! Thanks for <BR>
the page reference, I missed that.<BR>
<BR>
Your remark about "archeological material" now seems prescient.<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
IMTU t4+ ru ge+ !3i(3i++) jt-- au+ ls- <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 00:53:47 -0600<BR>
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
> With a Sergeant who will see movement on a ridge and not alert his<BR>
> formation!!  Aiigghh!!<BR>
<BR>
Ah yes, that was my favorite.<BR>
<BR>
He looks up, seeing movement, apparently thinks nothing of it, and then<BR>
sends the radioman up to get better reception.<BR>
<BR>
"Son, go up onto that ridge to get a better signal."<BR>
<BR>
Many insane giggles were heard in our little theater at that.<BR>
<BR>
Cripes, I felt violated after seeing that movie -- even moreso than<BR>
_Highlander 2_ or <shudder> _Sky Bandits_.<BR>
<BR>
Ciao,<BR>
<BR>
Joseph R. Dietrich<BR>
yikes@evansville.net<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:57:12 -0800<BR>
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <gridlore@pop.mindspring.com><BR>
 <BR>
> >ObTrav:  I desperately want to run a Trav campaign based on South Park.<BR>
 <BR>
> OhmyGod, they killed Strephon!  You BASTARDS!<BR>
<BR>
I am again glad that I was not drinking while reading the TML.  Rice<BR>
milk through the nose would be unpleasant.<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:55:06 -0800<BR>
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: Farewell<BR>
<BR>
> From: jmaclean@ix.netcom.com<BR>
 <BR>
> Real Life commitments require that I unsubscribe from the TML.  I've been a<BR>
> member almost without interruption since 1991 and I'll miss the hurly-burly<BR>
> of the list.  The List has grown enormously in membership and traffic since<BR>
> I joined, and I just can't keep up with it all anymore.  I can still be<BR>
> found on SJGames Traveller bulletin boards and reached via email.<BR>
> <BR>
> Jim MacLean<BR>
> Economist, Traveller Fan<BR>
> GT: Far Trader co-author<BR>
<BR>
We'll miss you.  Remember, you don't have to read and respond to every<BR>
message -- many of us drop off for long stretches of time and jump back<BR>
in when we have time again.  I myself have deleted countless unread<BR>
digests.<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:56:06 -0800<BR>
From: "Antony Farrell" <Skaran@bigpond.com><BR>
Subject: RE: Re : One of our worlds is missing!<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Robert<BR>
> O'Connor<BR>
> Sent: Sunday, 5 December 1999 1:26 PM<BR>
> To: TML<BR>
> Subject: Re : One of our worlds is missing!<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Steve Bonneville wrote :-<BR>
> > > My copy of Galactic 2.4 has this world down as :-<BR>
> > > Amwold D6583M0-3<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Gov code M?  What the heck is gov code M?<BR>
> ><BR>
> > > I'm not sure what the paper reference is.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Good question.<BR>
><BR>
> Government code 'M' is a 'Tribal Government' if using TNE, or one of the<BR>
> Aslan clan variants if not.<BR>
><BR>
> The UWP appears in a TNE sector data file.<BR>
> Maybe the answer can be found in the Star Vikings sourcebook.<BR>
><BR>
> Robert O'Connor<BR>
> Medico, Gamer<BR>
><BR>
The original government type M goes back to CT and was meant to refer to<BR>
government by the Military, usually following a coup, ie Uganda under Idi<BR>
Amin etc.<BR>
Antony<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:54:36 +0100 (MET)<BR>
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Rupert Boleyn wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>And an officer who shoots his own men, when he could've nailed the bug <BR>
>and gone and recovered his man. And they send their sigs to high ground <BR>
>with no security. Sigs may be a lower form of life, but they do have <BR>
>their uses (carrying heavy radios and soaking sniper fire, for <BR>
>starters).<BR>
><BR>
>When I first saw it my friends (not ex-military) had to physically shut <BR>
>me up in the theatre. They were just _so_ incompentent. Next time I saw <BR>
>it I looked upon it as a comedy - much better that way.<BR>
<BR>
This is exactly the problem I have (or one of the problems) with Star Trek,<BR>
who the hell sends down their main officers to an unsecure planet to <BR>
investigate some unknown phenomena, armed only with a hand phaser.<BR>
<BR>
They just went through showin Space Above and Beyond here and for all<BR>
its shortcoming, I like the fact that these guys/girls go down to<BR>
planets, armed with real guns :-)<BR>
<BR>
>Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
<BR>
Tommy Grav<BR>
- -------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
tommy.grav@astro.uio.no     http://www.uio.no/~tommygr/  <BR>
Institute of Astrophysics, UiO, No  <BR>
IMTU tn++t4+tg+ ru+ge++ !3i jt+au+st+ls hi++dr-so++zh-sy-sw++ <BR>
 <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:03:08 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Terry Mixon <tlmixon@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: GT: Trade routes question<BR>
<BR>
- --- jmaclean@ix.netcom.com wrote:<BR>
 <BR>
> Terry Mixon wrote:<BR>
> > A quick question. I have gotten to the point of doing the minor<BR>
> >trade routes for the entire Spinward Marches subsector, having <BR>
> >mapped out the major and feeder routes. GT: Far Trader says to <BR>
> >use J-2 routes unless a feeder or above would save a jump or more <BR>
> >or if it is along an x-boat route. Would a minor route then be <BR>
> >able to use a higher jump route created by the major and feeder<BR>
> >process? I can't see why it wouldn't but that eventuality was <BR>
> >not mentioned. If the route is already in existance, my guess is <BR>
> >that a minor route could use it but I wanted to ask for opinions.<BR>
> <BR>
> The short answer to your question is "yes, minor routes can<BR>
> 'piggyback' on J-3+ routes if doing so reduces the number of jumps<BR>
> needed to reach their destination."<BR>
> <BR>
> The language on designating routes is rather tortured, I admit.  Part<BR>
> of the problem is that "routes" is used to refer to the amount of<BR>
> trade between two worlds, the path that trade takes, and the total<BR>
> level of traffic between two adjacent worlds.  Inevitably, this leads<BR>
> to confusion.  If there's ever a FT 2e, revamping the vocabulary will<BR>
> be a top priority.<BR>
<BR>
That is what I thought. Thanks for clearing that up for me. The <BR>
project continues...<BR>
 <BR>
> >I sent a message to Jim Maclean but he must be busy and I never <BR>
> >got an answer.<BR>
> <BR>
> Sorry, I got busy and when I checked my email again my "Traveller"<BR>
> mailfolder had over 2000 messages in it.  I'm still digging out.<BR>
<BR>
I know how that is. No problem. Thanks for the help.<BR>
<BR>
Terry Mixon<BR>
<BR>
http://www.ghg.net/tmixon/Trade<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1451<BR>
***********************************<BR>
<BR>
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:<BR>
<BR>
unsubscribe traveller-digest<BR>
<BR>
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".<BR>
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is<BR>
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that<BR>
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe<BR>
"local-traveller":<BR>
<BR>
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net<BR>
<BR>
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to<BR>
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"<BR>
in the commands above with "traveller".<BR>
<BR>
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com<BR>
</XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" BACK="#fffffe" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
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<BR>
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<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id FAA75534;<BR>
	Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:53 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:11 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id FAA75483<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:11 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:03:11 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912071003.FAA75483@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1451<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
