Virtual Reality support?

[Ssnake]

mpdugas, I don't want to "ignore" you, but I'm having doubts as to how useful a continued exchange really would be. We may have misunderstood each other a little at the beginning but I see how my desire to remain accurate with the facts may come across as needlessly argumentative. That's not helped by you giving the impression - intentionally or not - to make bold and inaccurate claims first, and then to dispute that you made them when it's right there a few posts earlier.

I think I have said everything that I have to say about the subject, not just in the last two days, but also earlier in this thread. I sometimes win the impression that you intentionally misunderstand my points, maybe you get the same impression from me, so I suggest that we stop at this point to prevent a completely unnecessary further escalation.

[Grenny]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Arguments in favor of VR that I can see: VR allows a more natural way to look around, which is particularly important for the (unbuttoned) vehicle commander's position. It might also offer tangible benefits to the driver of a vehicle if he's supposed to adhere to traffic regulations, trying to avoid collisions with oncoming traffic at crossroads. Also, it might make navigation easier in situations where a roll-over of a vehicle could occor, or in particularly narrow passages (e.g. in a minefield, on a narrow bridge, etc.).

Using VR, particularly if there was a way to interact with virtual control elements, might largely eliminate "dead training time" where you first have to provide some training to the simulation software itself before you move on with the actual lessons that the simulation is supposed to help teaching. One would then need to analyze a bit more in detail where this interaction with the virtual 3D environment yields a net benefit, considering the danger of negative training (e.g. the tactile element is completely missing in VR), also you need to look at things that you want to manipulate, even if you have some sort of a data glove for interaction.

"We" have looked into this.

And to get a VR system right (so you don't get negative training effects), is a lot more expensive then building an actual cabin trainer.

 

You need to track head, hands, arms legs, torso of the trainee IOT superposition him in the right way with the (virtual) vehicles and its control interfaces....

In short: a cabin trainer works better and is cheaper.

 

For the dismounted TC and dismout section leader, having a domed projektor is also still more effective then using s VR system. They still need to be able to see/touch and operate their hardware...so only a sort of "augmented reality" setup might help. and their solutions are not in a usable state right now.

[mpdugas]

6 hours ago, Jartsev said:

Sooo... Can anybody explain to me, what is the point(read- real benefits) of VR support in AFV-centric simulation, not necessary Steel Beasts? Especially if things like optics and map views(actually primary views for armor simulation gameplay) and current VR technology limitations are taken in to consideration.

Give IL_2 a spin; it has tanks with VR...WWII tanks, for sure, but it is a lot of fun to play...numbers and calculations and ballistic computers aren't everything, but VR multi-crew tanking is more than you are going to find here, ever.

 

Like I said to begin with, I'm not pushing VR.  I like it and the sims I play it in.  The bottom line is that it's just plain fun.

 

Tank Crew will be out and full of PvP and single player VR, including PvP against aerial opponents as well, in the same scenario, with lots of different WWII types to use for armor in a year or so:

 

 

In the meantime, enjoy what they do have , which is a couple of tanks and scenarios, if you want to see it in action.

 

It may not be for you, but who knows until you try?  Here are some samples of where 1C/777 is going with this; all of these are playable in VR.  These are all DirectX 11 games:

 

 

Multiplayer tank combat...

 

 

Take a look at the tank animations and interaction with the environment in an aircraft simulator:

 

 

This last one is an example of multiplayer with human-controlled tanks, human-controlled aircraft, coupled with lots of AI.  Remember, this is a flight simulator.  Both the Stuka and the tanks have more than one crew position.  Compare the richness of the experience, and the graphics (which, in these videos, are from a much earlier version of the sim) to what SBPro offers.  Zetexy, who produced this video, is one of the best videographers on YouTube:

 

 

So far, they are rude, somewhat crude and it is tank warfare, WWII style, fought by mark one eyeball and traditional elements of concealment and surprise.  No numbers crunching, IR warfare here.  It is visceral and demanding, even if the models are still being developed.  If you know this developer, you also know it won't stay this way for long.

[12Alfa]

mpdugas , if I may ask (with no hidden meanings or otherwise) Do you use the Sim? I don't think I have ever seen you online, or on TS. I've been here from the start, although I'm having a hard time to remember seeing your Name.

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by 12Alfa

[ssidiver]

In my humble opinion, this has gotten out of control.

 

I like VR and I like Steel Beasts Pro PE; that does not mean I want to use Steel Beasts Pro PE in VR. In fact I don't, I don't think that the technology is is available to do Steel Beasts Pro PE justice in VR. There are many more important things to incorporated into Steel Beasts Pro PE in future than VR.

 

I wonder how many Steel Beasts Pro PE users really want VR before other features.

 

[mpdugas]

On 5/27/2018 at 3:26 PM, Ssnake said:

mpdugas, I don't want to "ignore" you, but I'm having doubts as to how useful a continued exchange really would be. We may have misunderstood each other a little at the beginning but I see how my desire to remain accurate with the facts may come across as needlessly argumentative. That's not helped by you giving the impression - intentionally or not - to make bold and inaccurate claims first, and then to dispute that you made them when it's right there a few posts earlier.

I think I have said everything that I have to say about the subject, not just in the last two days, but also earlier in this thread. I sometimes win the impression that you intentionally misunderstand my points, maybe you get the same impression from me, so I suggest that we stop at this point to prevent a completely unnecessary further escalation.

Well, I cannot agree with your summary, since your  "taking the high ground" at the moment of being shown quite convincingly that you hold an intractable position is disingenuous.  Too, it's unmanly of you to take a few parting personal shots as you abandon the field, but that is your choice.

 

Nonetheless, I will say this:  I no longer have the original SB disc to install the game from, so I cannot do more than try to recall what was so some 19 years ago.  In 1996, or there-abouts, W95 was still going through its infancy.  1996 would have been about the right time for Al to have begun his four-year stretch at producing his game.  Whether he wrote it for the predominate Windows 3.11 platform (which would have been a safer choice for his first video game) or for the newer, and buggier, W95, I do not know.  My guess would be for the former as more stable, safer and know-able.  Maybe he was adventurous, and struck out for W95 from the start.  I doubt that.  But I do not know his circumstances.  A Windows 3 game is easily ported to W95, but not vice versa.

 

In any case, if he wrote it for Windows 3, then it would have been considered a DOS game, because that platform was a DOS shell.  However, W95 was an entirely different beast (no pun intended), and if he took a chance on it and wrote SB for that platform alone, it would have been a Windows game, since W95 was the first complete break from MS-DOS by Microsoft.

 

So, depending on whether SB would run on W3.11, then it would be a DOS game; if it only ran on W95, then it was not a DOS game.  If it ran on both, it was a DOS game ported to W95.  If that is the narrow case, i.e. it was only able to run on W95, and only  Al can say so, then I must admit my error in calling it a DOS game.

 

So that is my admission of error, if those particular circumstances are true.  I told you I would accept my fault if it was shown, even if I had to make the case to expose my potential error myself.  Would that you would have done me the courtesy of the same.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by mpdugas
technical correction

[mpdugas]

36 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

mpdugas , if I may ask (with no hidden meanings or otherwise) Do you use the Sim? I don't think I have ever seen you online, or on TS. I've been here from the start, although I'm having a hard time to remember seeing your Name.

 

An odd challenge, your question.  Would this being my first post ever, make a difference to the topics chosen and logic of it?  Would it make anything less accurate?  Your question seems to infer a certain inauthenticity to my presence here, your disclaimer notwithstanding.

 

I do not play on-line cooperative multiplayer or PvP; I get enough of that when I step outside my front door.

 

I have posted on this forum before, over many years. I own two copies of SBPro 3.0.  I'm a combat veteran, honorably discharged from my time in the USN and USA.  Do you require more info to vet me?

 

A search for previous posts will show you that I have addressed some of these issues before, but I certainly did not intend to get into this donnybrook.  My OP was not directed at proselytizing for VR at all.  It was a simple post whose conclusion still rings true.

 

That said, I learned a lot about the genesis of SB from being forced to substantiate my positions in this "tempest-in-a-teapot" debate. 

 

Back at you, though: have you read my posts entirely?  Not scintillating stuff, I admit, but grindingly correct and effective.

Edited May 28, 2018 by mpdugas
spelling correction

[12Alfa]

Just now, mpdugas said:

An odd challenge, your question.

 

I do not play on-line PvP or cooperative multiplayer; I get enough of that when I step outside my front door.  I play computer games to avoid that.  I have posted on this forum before, I own two copies of SBPro 3.o; do you require more info to vet me?

Was my question meant to vet/challenge, did not format in that way see ()? You seem to be mad, or having a hard time, maybe its me. Very combative. If one can't handle simple  quires, then the the hard stuff won't go well.

I think I see why one would stay inside, and best not to join us .

 

Just my observation, nothing personal mind ya.

 

So you do play, thanks for the answer.

[mpdugas]

15 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

Was my question meant to vet/challenge, did not format in that way see ()? You seem to be mad, or having a hard time, maybe its me. Very combative. If one can't handle simple  quires, then the the hard stuff won't go well.

I think I see why one would stay inside, and best not to join us .

 

Just my observation, nothing personal mind ya.

 

So you do play, thanks for the answer.

Given the personal hammering I've been put through for a simple post, I must admit I am a bit touchy about it just now.  I prefer a computer opponent; I get plenty of human PvP everyday.

 

The "hard stuff", however, went just fine, and I am very satisfied with the final outcome.  Criticism is not accepted well here, and the fanboi reaction to my OP was a bit "over-the-top".  Like I said, bruised but unshaken.

 

Sorry if I was brusque, but you seemed to suggest that I was not entitled to post if I weren't a regular, on-line player.  Thanks for the gentlemanly post, a first.

[mpdugas]

21 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

Was my question meant to vet/challenge, did not format in that way see ()? You seem to be mad, or having a hard time, maybe its me. Very combative. If one can't handle simple  quires, then the the hard stuff won't go well.

I think I see why one would stay inside, and best not to join us .

 

Just my observation, nothing personal mind ya.

 

So you do play, thanks for the answer.

Odd double post, don't know why, sorry.

[Azure Lion]

Mr. mpdugas,

 

  As you may already know, a company needs to be flexible to the needs of the market they are catering to. What once may have been a goal is liable to change through the years to meet the ever changing needs of the market. To stay stagnant in one's visions for the company is suicide in many cases and does not allow for growth in many more. Nokia for instance has gone through several reinventions since its paper mill and rubber manufacturing beginnings and has since let go of those two divisions. Considering its history, I highly doubt their vision is still centered on paper and rubber manufacturing. Why should eSim Games be any different? What once held true for a company may not now. Times change and plans don't usually go as planned. I feel that you are being a bit critical of eSim Games. As far as much of what Sir Nils is saying, if you recall in your research of this forum, many of the points concerning the company have already been addressed in other posts. The reason Sir Nils brings up these points is due to various constraints that prevent the company from being able to tackle every and all challenges dealt the company at once. As you know, there are many things to take into consideration, especially when it comes to new technology. Though VR has been around a while, it is still quite new and untried as far as the commercial market is concerned and is still in very niche applications. Also, having been in the military, you know how slow the government can be when it comes to adapting any new technology.

 

  I am somewhat surprised that you mentioned open-sourcing the code however. If you will also recall in your research of eSim Games, they are catering to government organizations and are bound by contractual secrecy not to divulge most of the information they are privy to, even to their own team. There is a good reason why the source code is not available and why it is so heavily secured.

 

   Will VR become a viable market for eSim Games to adapt? Perhaps, at the rate technology is advancing we may have holo'-decks before VR takes much of a hold in the market, so who truly knows.

 

   In conclusion, I cordially ask that you allow the eSim Games team to follow their adapted vision for itself as I am sure Sir Nils has already steeled himself to take responsibility for any repercussions his decisions have on the company.

[Grenny]

11 hours ago, mpdugas said:

I missed the part about "friendly" and about also "advice".  Strawman?

 

Your posts appear to me to be very antagonistic, do you intend to be that way?

Just experience from previous discussions with your person: flamboyant claims that upon checking turn out to be greatly exaggerated or simply plain untrue, no direct answers to clear questions etc etc.

As in this thread, you right from the start followed that same pattern, it is hard to be supportive to your posts.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Grenny

[mpdugas]

20 hours ago, Azure Lion said:

Mr. mpdugas,

 

  As you may already know, a company needs to be flexible to the needs of the market they are catering to. What once may have been a goal is liable to change through the years to meet the ever changing needs of the market. To stay stagnant in one's visions for the company is suicide in many cases and does not allow for growth in many more. Nokia for instance has gone through several reinventions since its paper mill and rubber manufacturing beginnings and has since let go of those two divisions. Considering its history, I highly doubt their vision is still centered on paper and rubber manufacturing. Why should eSim Games be any different? What once held true for a company may not now. Times change and plans don't usually go as planned. I feel that you are being a bit critical of eSim Games. As far as much of what Sir Nils is saying, if you recall in your research of this forum, many of the points concerning the company have already been addressed in other posts. The reason Sir Nils brings up these points is due to various constraints that prevent the company from being able to tackle every and all challenges dealt the company at once. As you know, there are many things to take into consideration, especially when it comes to new technology. Though VR has been around a while, it is still quite new and untried as far as the commercial market is concerned and is still in very niche applications. Also, having been in the military, you know how slow the government can be when it comes to adapting any new technology.

 

  I am somewhat surprised that you mentioned open-sourcing the code however. If you will also recall in your research of eSim Games, they are catering to government organizations and are bound by contractual secrecy not to divulge most of the information they are privy to, even to their own team. There is a good reason why the source code is not available and why it is so heavily secured.

Your post is polite.

 

I implore, you, however, to make your reasoned judgements based on what I have actually written, not what you seem to project upon me.  Very little of your introduction has any factual basis in my writings, and I will not take up your time by covering each point you make in an effort to show you your own error.  You seem an intelligent person, and I believe that you have the capacity for yourself, within yourself, if you take the time to read what I have written, to see where you err.  Please start with the first, most uncomplicated posting, and note where the subject that I initially raised was departed from by whomever this "Sir Nils" is, as the conversation unfolded from the first reply.

 

As for the source code issue, I doubt very seriously if the version we are so "privileged" to pay for has any secure code content.  Again, and as always, fact is mightier than conjecture, and I stand ready to accept my fault openly, as I have already done when I might have been wrong, which is more willingness to openly admit mistakes or errors than anyone else in this small debate has shown.

20 hours ago, Azure Lion said:

 

   Will VR become a viable market for eSim Games to adapt? Perhaps, at the rate technology is advancing we may have holo'-decks before VR takes much of a hold in the market, so who truly knows.

 

   In conclusion, I cordially ask that you allow the eSim Games team to follow their adapted vision for itself as I am sure Sir Nils has already steeled himself to take responsibility for any repercussions his decisions have on the company.

Of all the products that were introduced on the personal computer simulation market at or around the turn of the century, several, even though some were abandoned by their creators, have flourished and blossomed under the tender care of those admirers who voluntarily and freely gave of their time, and yes, of their genius, to make the orphaned simulators rise to heights of quality unimagined by their original creators.  Of these Falcon 4.0 and Grand Prix Legends are two particularly sterling examples.

 

Additionally, some original properties were steadfastly developed and nourished by their creators, and show that, with care and courage, even relatively pedestrian beginnings can result in wonderful products through caring evolutionary development; of these, the original IL-2 Sturmovik has passed through successive iterations, to emerge as one of the most outstanding titles on the PC marketplace today.

 

It is particularly remarkable that one of the variants of that product, foundering when the original creator/developer lost hope, was resurrected from the grave by a devoted user group, much like those people whose efforts who gave rise to the first mentioned products, (i.e. F4 and GPL) but in this case, with the care, consent and cooperation of the creator agency itself, which is absolutely stunning.  If you don't know the story of the simulation called the "Cliffs of Dover", I beg you to study it as a shining example of what courage, determination and talent can achieve.

 

Somewhere in these examples is a path that I have suggested that SBPro follow, recently and before, but only as a sidebar to my original premise about the viability of VR within SBPro.  As Charles Morse once said, in a very famous movie called "The Edge", "what one man can do, another can do."

[mpdugas]

On 5/28/2018 at 12:09 AM, Grenny said:

Just experience from previous discussions with your person: flamboyant claims that upon checking turn out to be greatly exaggerated or simply plain untrue, no direct answers to clear questions etc etc.

As in this thread, you right from the start followed that same pattern, it is hard to be supportive to your posts.

You know, I was concerned that somewhere along the way, I had offended your person somehow, so I took the time to go back and read the posts where I interacted with you.  That was several years ago, and either you have a remarkable memory, or you are somehow otherwise predisposed to dislike me.  Other than what follows, all of our exchanges seemed to be on par for my interactions with other forum users.  Since you don't read what I say, and you accuse me of things never done by me, it is hard to warm-up to conversation with you, but I am always willing to try.

 

The only impression that I have, where friction actually and repeatedly arose between my writing and your posts, were in those earlier instances where you insisted that I do your research or legwork for you.  You really did get annoyed, like the exchange we had above, where I told you that all of your concerns had been addressed elsewhere, and I pointed out to you exactly where your answers could be found.  I mean you really got annoyed because I did not ladle-out the answer to you, and I somehow was unreasonably expecting you to make a few mouse-clicks to see what others were saying about your random remarks.  I still suggest that you do; I treat you better than some others do.  As for your person's accusation of..."flamboyant claims that upon checking turn out to be greatly exaggerated or simply plain untrue, no direct answers to clear questions etc etc.", and after checking the facts myself, I find no supporting evidence for your accusations whatsoever, but that's just me.  Correct me, and I will admit my error.

 

I know you admire and like Herr Nils, to the point of obsequiousness, but that's your choice.  There really is something of a cult of personality here, and it would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

 

Nonetheless, the discussion is over, and Sir Nils has abandoned the field of debate without admitting any mistake or error on his part.

 

/sigh

 

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by mpdugas
spelling correction

[Azure Lion]

On 5/26/2018 at 1:46 PM, mpdugas said:

Virtual Reality, wherever it is enabled, has transformed the experience for me.  Those who throw up a wall of objections about its use most likely have not experienced it themselves.  It does not have to have crystal-clear resolution for such a low resolution game as SBPro; what it offers, whether in Rift or Vive (or even higher resolution HMDs) is adequate for this game.  And game it is, starting out many years ago as nothing more than a DOS simulation with some rather high fidelity aspects regarding tank warfare, but not so much better than, say, M1 Tank Platoon II.  Looking at videos of that title, you can see, even in 1998, Microprose's graphics were better, and so was the game-play in realism.  At least it didn't require a $125 dongle to play.

Am I incorrect in making the assumption that you are arguing your case mostly on how VR 'has transformed the experience' for you then using mostly data that supports your case without also objectively showing data that shows the disadvantages of using of VR in its current state of implementation? My apologies if I took your posts to appear somewhat opinionated as your introduction as well as, what appears to me to be, your own opinion projected upon those that have 'objections about its use' themselves. Alas, I am only human and have been known to make mistakes.

[mpdugas]

1 hour ago, Azure Lion said:

Am I incorrect in making the assumption that you are arguing your case mostly on how VR 'has transformed the experience' for you then using mostly data that supports your case without also objectively showing data that shows the disadvantages of using of VR in its current state of implementation? My apologies if I took your posts to appear somewhat opinionated as your introduction as well as, what appears to me to be, your own opinion projected upon those that have 'objections about its use' themselves. Alas, I am only human and have been known to make mistakes.

Yes, you are incorrect.

 

When you say"...using mostly data that supports your case without also objectively showing data that shows the disadvantages...", you presume your answer in your question.  I only ask that you try to keep an open mind about this, but I cannot require that, of course.

 

The only purpose of my post was to connect the statement made in 2016, by SSnake, about the state of SBPro graphics, which I linked, to the thread about VR possibilities that I put it in.  I reread my OP, and I find nothing more in it than my comments about my personal experience and about VR's adequacy for SBPro.

 

I did that because people were expressing hope that perhaps VR would eventually be included, when SSnake had already foreclosed that possibility himself, two years previously.  Sometimes, it is not possible to connect all the threads of a whole forum in a logical way very easily, and I thought it was useful to put the issue with the state of SBPro graphics, as it related to VR, into a logical perspective by connecting the two posts.  It was just serendipity that I noticed the connection between the two.  You know what they say:  "No good deed goes unpunished."

 

I was not then, nor am I now, proselytizing for VR.  I like it in the games that I use it in, and that includes VR multiplayer and single-player controlled tanks.  It was a transformational  experience for me, and that is why I was searching the SB forums for the current state of VR development in SBPro when I ran across the 2016 post about graphics problems.  I do not care if someone else finds VR clumsy (which it is), or low resolution (which it is for now) or expensive (which it most certainly is).  It makes no difference to my experience, which is simply that VR is something that I had not, until the last year, thought worth investing in, but I can honestly say that it is without doubt the most revolutionary change in PC hardware that I have witnessed in my 31 years of experience in PCs.  I cannot put words to the intensity of the feeling I had when I sat down in the virtual cockpit of my favorite plane.

 

Sadly, every point I made, and every opinion I expressed, I later substantiated and supported as the "discussion" evolved.  I have tried to be, even when personally assailed, polite and kind.  For that, I have endured some truly insulting and childlike behavior in return.

 

From what you suggest, I have to say that I believe you did not read my posts on this matter completely.  It is not my business to tell you to do so, but when you veil your criticism of me, even as polite as you are, in innuendo like that above, you do me a disservice.  In my personal opinion, the 'discussion" revealed more than was intended.  Read all of it for yourself, carefully and thoughtfully.

 

I spoke in probabilities and possibilities, not certainties, which leaves the door open for objection to all those people who are the exceptions to some of my broad statements.  I find no absolute statements in my post, just generalities and likelihoods.  It is sad indeed, but every point I asserted in my OP, I backed up with evidence to support it.  It is not my place, nor my obligation, to state an opposing position.

 

Would you be kind enough to tell me what sort of VR hardware you use and in what games?

[Azure Lion]

On 5/28/2018 at 12:00 PM, mpdugas said:

An odd challenge, your question.  Would this being my first post ever, make a difference to the topics chosen and logic of it?  Would it make anything less accurate?  Your question seems to infer a certain inauthenticity to my presence here, your disclaimer notwithstanding.

 

[Ssnake]

I'd like to point out that my handle is Ssnake, specifically not SSnake. It may appear picky, but it could be easily misconstrued as admiration or support for a rather horrible organization of Germany's darkest years. Thank you.

 

Also, I'm not Sir Nils, or Herr Nils - just Ssnake. That's all.

[Homer]

I have received a complaint.

 

I just read through the entire thread for the first time.  I will deal with it tonight when I will have more time.

 

[mpdugas]

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'd like to point out that my handle is Ssnake, specifically not SSnake. It may appear picky, but it could be easily misconstrued as admiration or support for a rather horrible organization of Germany's darkest years. Thank you.

 

Also, I'm not Sir Nils, or Herr Nils - just Ssnake. That's all.

"Sir Nils" and "Herr Nils" are names first attributed to your identity by a user named Azure Lion in his posts to me;  please refer this matter to him for clarification and correction.  (I note no correction by you of his use of those terms.)

 

As for the rest of your request, please refer to these posts:

This is but a small sampling of a search for the spelling "SSnake" on this forum; I stopped after the fourth page of over 100 results.

 

All of these users shown above have previously referred to you by the same spelling/capitalization style as I did, without any remark by you concerning the possibility that "...it could be easily misconstrued as admiration or support for a rather horrible organization of Germany's darkest years."  Lovely innuendo, that, and certainly inflammatory in its self-righteous implications.

 

If you want to censor, or ban me, from making public, by posting on this forum, certain verifiable and factual  information which are critical of various matters that reflect adversely upon this forum, this product or you, then of course you may resort to such methods.  I am but the miner's canary in all of this.

 

Alex Jones remarked, on April 7th, 2018, that "Censorship is a tool of fascism, not freedom."  If you want to avoid being associated with that dark period in time of German fascism, which I can certainly understand, then censoring me is not a particularly good way to go about it.  But only time will tell what you intend.

 

However, nothing I have said in this whole posting is defamatory, rude, or personally insulting, unlike certain remarks that you addressed to me.  I have substantiated or supported every premise I made by specific factual references to the works of those responsible for the attributions I have researched.

 

As an example of such, I offer the following quote by you: August 2010: ssnake said, in a SimHQ interview, "Steel Beasts is more of a training simulation for various militaries around the free world than an actual computer game. Sure it was released and sold as such, (emphasis added) but the heart of the product has always been a training tool."  Of course, that is referring to my initial premise that SB was represented to be a game, which premise you have steadfastly denied heretofore.

 

Where I  have made a mistake,  I owned up to it, publicly and openly.  I even openly admitted to the possibility of a mistake.   In every instance that I showed you to be in error, you refused to accept any responsibility whatsoever.  This inability of you, personally, to accept criticism and acknowledge your errors has brought this whole debate to a sad, unfortunate, feverish pitch, and you are personally responsible for that inflammation.  What is happening here and now, on this forum, is an example of social psychosis at its absolute worst.  This whole discussion was an opportunity for you to demonstrate some considerable personal growth, but you have steadfastly avoided it.  There is but one, last, meager opportunity before you to bring this "witch hunt" to a close, will you take it?

 

If, and I emphasize the term "if",  different rules apply to my conduct here, as opposed to the conduct of others, for the purpose of silencing my critical remarks, then those whose personal moral corruption permits that form of censorship will have to atone for it in due course.  Do what you will with my speech; censoring or banning me will not permit you to escape your responsibility for your actions...karma is a brutal and relentless master.

Edited May 29, 2018 by mpdugas
spelling correction

[DrHat]

1 hour ago, mpdugas said:

"Sir Nils" and "Herr Nils" are names first attributed to your identity by a user named Azure Lion in his posts to me;  please refer this matter to him for clarification and correction.  (I note no correction by you of his use of those terms.)

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. 

I mean this in the nicest of ways mate: Go outside, get some fresh air. You are more wound up than a clock-spring dealing with its first erection.

Edited May 29, 2018 by DrHat

[MAJ_Fubar]

2 hours ago, DrHat said:

You are more wound up than a clock-spring dealing with its first erection.

I'll have to remember this one for future use.

[dpabrams]

I have self-locked this thread. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by dpabrams

[Skybird03]

Like a tank that lost its tracks, this thread is doomed to not get far.

[Homer]

mpdugas,

You need to adjust your writing style if you want to continue posting here long term.  You do not seem to be interested in having a discussion.  Instead, you seem to be interested in a debate because you appear to have a need to be the one who is always right. To illustrate, you often end a post by (re)stating you are correct and then issuing a challenge to everyone to prove you wrong. This aspect often overwhelms everything else you are trying to say.  Your posts are very adversarial and condescending in tone. That is what got you in trouble this time. You earned a 1 week ban for a personal attack:  "I know you admire and like Herr Nils, to the point of obsequiousness, but that's your choice."  I am being generous in noting only one instance.

 

As for your last post, the forum is my responsibility.  This action is my decision alone.  I do not take orders from Ssnake nor has he ever attempted to give me any.  I am stating this for the record so there is no misunderstanding.  Having said that... (In context) Holy fuck! Are you serious?! You are actually suggesting that a ban equates to martyring yourself for speaking truth to a fascism?  NO, dude.  It's the consequence for ACTING like a dick.