Important Date Fast Approaching (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


33Vyper -> Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 6:38:36 AM)

Hello,

I seem to recall that someone said that AE would be released and that the date would be something that would be meaningful to the forum.

So I put out April 18th as a good release date :)

Does anyone know why April 18th would be a good day?

I am going to go hide in my secret bunker in Shangri-La [8D]




String -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 7:49:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

Hello,

I seem to recall that someone said that AE would be released and that the date would be something that would be meaningful to the forum.

So I put out April 18th as a good release date :)

Does anyone know why April 18th would be a good day?

I am going to go hide in my secret bunker in Shangri-La [8D]



Nah, it can only be Dec 7th [:D]




JeffroK -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 7:56:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

Hello,

I seem to recall that someone said that AE would be released and that the date would be something that would be meaningful to the forum.

So I put out April 18th as a good release date :)

Does anyone know why April 18th would be a good day?

I am going to go hide in my secret bunker in Shangri-La [8D]


Either the Doolittle raid or the assasination of Yamamato?




Yamato hugger -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 9:58:52 AM)

My moneys on Dec 7th [:D]

Just dont try to pin me down to a year.




rockmedic109 -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 1:05:18 PM)

April 18th is a wonderful day.  My wife and I were married on April 18.  Every time I get to April 18th without forgetting our anniversery, I am allowed to live another year.

So if AE is released on April 18, it will endanger my life.  Please wait till April 19th[:D].




n01487477 -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 1:35:06 PM)

John Lennon released "Stand by me" on April 18, 1975. (not so pertinent considering most of us would sell our mothers to get our hands on the goodies and we've been standing and waiting for some time ... )


OR
1906 SF Great earthquake
The earthquake was followed by a massive fire from overturned wood stoves and broken gas pipes. The fire blazed for three days resulting in the destruction of over 10,000 acres of property and 4,000 lives lost. (Let's not try to go there ... AE a smoldering hulk of a game, that is broken and unfixable)
OR
Grace Kelly has always been held up as a standard of beauty, grace, and style & married Prince Rainier III of Monaco on April 18, 1956. (now that's more like it[;)])
OR
1942The Second World War: In a symbolic rather than strategic attack, 15 American B-52 bombers attack the Japanese mainland. (which I hope doesn't envisage a one sided AFB's wet dreams coined as AE in disguise [;)]) 
---cheers Damian---




Nomad -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 1:39:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

John Lennon released "Stand by me" on April 18, 1975. (not so pertinent considering most of us would sell our mothers to get our hands on the goodies and we've been standing and waiting for some time ... )


OR
1906 SF Great earthquake
The earthquake was followed by a massive fire from overturned wood stoves and broken gas pipes. The fire blazed for three days resulting in the destruction of over 10,000 acres of property and 4,000 lives lost. (Let's not try to go there ... AE a smoldering hulk of a game, that is broken and unfixable)
OR
Grace Kelly has always been held up as a standard of beauty, grace, and style & married Prince Rainier III of Monaco on April 18, 1956. (now that's more like it[;)])
OR
1942The Second World War: In a symbolic rather than strategic attack, 15 American B-52 bombers attack the Japanese mainland. (which I hope doesn't envisage a one sided AFB's wet dreams coined as AE in disguise [;)]) 
---cheers Damian---



Wow Damian, how did they get 15 B-52s onboard? Let alone launching them. [:D]




n01487477 -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 1:45:26 PM)


HA! Serves me right for copying and pasting from a site ... but it does make my point hit with 70000lb of force [;)]

BTW guess where I got this ...

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/this_day_in_history/this_day_April_18.php  (history channel)[:D][:D][:D]






Tophat1815 -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 4:45:39 PM)

quote:

1942The Second World War: In a symbolic rather than strategic attack, 15 American B-52 bombers attack the Japanese mainland. (which I hope doesn't envisage a one sided AFB's wet dreams coined as AE in disguise )
---cheers Damian---


Hmmmn,what loadouts were those 52's carrying? And was the war really over on July 19th 42'?

[sm=tank2-39.gif]

Sorry,couldn't resist.




RevRick -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 6:09:07 PM)

Since I have just about had enough of the History Channel's seemingly rapid slip into irrelevance, disrepute, and inanity... I sent the following to them on their feedback email... Probably about as effect as flatulence in a hurricane, but...

quote:

Greetings;

I just found this on the "This Day in History" part of your home page for April 18th. I don't think this was possible, but I can guarantee you that if the USAAC had B52s in 1942, let alone the capacity to operate them from an aircraft carrier, this would not have been a "symbolic" strike. I also doubt if the war in the Pacific would have lasted very long, depending on how many cargo ships of bombs would have made it to Pearl Harbor.

*
1942
* The Second World War: In a symbolic rather than strategic attack, 15 American B-52 bombers attack the Japanese mainland.

I hate to say it, but I feel that the History Channel needs to stick to history, and not become the Monster/UFO/Ghost/Wierd occupations channel. And, I know that the productions cost money, by the inaccuracies in production value (wrong pictures with narration, inaccurate/incomplete information about events, is ruining your reputation. There is precious little accurate information being taught about history to the present school generation as it is. Please do not add to the abysmally inadequate teaching with programming which is also shallow and inadequate in itself.




Yamato hugger -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 6:51:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Since I have just about had enough of the History Channel's seemingly rapid slip into irrelevance, disrepute, and inanity... I sent the following to them on their feedback email... Probably about as effect as flatulence in a hurricane, but...

quote:

Greetings;

I just found this on the "This Day in History" part of your home page for April 18th. I don't think this was possible, but I can guarantee you that if the USAAC had B52s in 1942, let alone the capacity to operate them from an aircraft carrier, this would not have been a "symbolic" strike. I also doubt if the war in the Pacific would have lasted very long, depending on how many cargo ships of bombs would have made it to Pearl Harbor.

*
1942
* The Second World War: In a symbolic rather than strategic attack, 15 American B-52 bombers attack the Japanese mainland.

I hate to say it, but I feel that the History Channel needs to stick to history, and not become the Monster/UFO/Ghost/Wierd occupations channel. And, I know that the productions cost money, by the inaccuracies in production value (wrong pictures with narration, inaccurate/incomplete information about events, is ruining your reputation. There is precious little accurate information being taught about history to the present school generation as it is. Please do not add to the abysmally inadequate teaching with programming which is also shallow and inadequate in itself.



Hope you included pictures. I am beginning to think no one there can read.




witpqs -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 7:11:43 PM)

They don't need to read. They have psychics and ghost-hunters for that.




m10bob -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 11:06:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They don't need to read. They have psychics and ghost-hunters for that.

[:D]




rjopel -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/14/2009 11:18:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Since I have just about had enough of the History Channel's seemingly rapid slip into irrelevance, disrepute, and inanity... I sent the following to them on their feedback email... Probably about as effect as flatulence in a hurricane, but...

quote:

Greetings;

I just found this on the "This Day in History" part of your home page for April 18th. I don't think this was possible, but I can guarantee you that if the USAAC had B52s in 1942, let alone the capacity to operate them from an aircraft carrier, this would not have been a "symbolic" strike. I also doubt if the war in the Pacific would have lasted very long, depending on how many cargo ships of bombs would have made it to Pearl Harbor.

*
1942
* The Second World War: In a symbolic rather than strategic attack, 15 American B-52 bombers attack the Japanese mainland.

I hate to say it, but I feel that the History Channel needs to stick to history, and not become the Monster/UFO/Ghost/Wierd occupations channel. And, I know that the productions cost money, by the inaccuracies in production value (wrong pictures with narration, inaccurate/incomplete information about events, is ruining your reputation. There is precious little accurate information being taught about history to the present school generation as it is. Please do not add to the abysmally inadequate teaching with programming which is also shallow and inadequate in itself.




Amen RevRick. I don't even want to think what my nephew is getting taught in Jr Hi history class.




rogueusmc -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 12:04:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Since I have just about had enough of the History Channel's seemingly rapid slip into irrelevance, disrepute, and inanity... I sent the following to them on their feedback email... Probably about as effect as flatulence in a hurricane, but...

quote:

Greetings;

I just found this on the "This Day in History" part of your home page for April 18th. I don't think this was possible, but I can guarantee you that if the USAAC had B52s in 1942, let alone the capacity to operate them from an aircraft carrier, this would not have been a "symbolic" strike. I also doubt if the war in the Pacific would have lasted very long, depending on how many cargo ships of bombs would have made it to Pearl Harbor.

*
1942
* The Second World War: In a symbolic rather than strategic attack, 15 American B-52 bombers attack the Japanese mainland.

I hate to say it, but I feel that the History Channel needs to stick to history, and not become the Monster/UFO/Ghost/Wierd occupations channel. And, I know that the productions cost money, by the inaccuracies in production value (wrong pictures with narration, inaccurate/incomplete information about events, is ruining your reputation. There is precious little accurate information being taught about history to the present school generation as it is. Please do not add to the abysmally inadequate teaching with programming which is also shallow and inadequate in itself.


In the same write up about the Doolittle raid, it is stated that he received the 'Congressional' Medal of Honor. This error happens ALL THE TIME everywhere...the word 'Congressional' is not a part of the medal's title. Congress (made up , for the most part, of men who have never served and would never serve) happens to be the governing body that approves the recipients...and that's another thing...they receive it, they are NOT awarded it. Most MoH recipients (the one I knew did) will correct you up front if you state that they were 'awarded' the medal.




witpqs -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 12:16:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

In the same write up about the Doolittle raid, it is stated that he received the 'Congressional' Medal of Honor. This error happens ALL THE TIME everywhere...the word 'Congressional' is not a part of the medal's title. Congress (made up , for the most part, of men who have never served and would never serve) happens to be the governing body that approves the recipients...and that's another thing...they receive it, they are NOT awarded it. Most MoH recipients (the one I knew did) will correct you up front if you state that they were 'awarded' the medal.


Honestly, this is the first I've heard of what you wrote and I'm glad to have the correction. I have always heard/seen it referred to as the Congressional MoH and I had no idea that was incorrect.

I am puzzled - why the aversion to 'awarded'? Of course the person 'received' it, but it seems that whoever issued the final approval that certainly meant it was then 'awarded' to that individual. What is at the root of that particular fuss over the terminology? There's obviously more to this than I ever realized.




Shark7 -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 12:17:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

April 18th is a wonderful day.  My wife and I were married on April 18.  Every time I get to April 18th without forgetting our anniversery, I am allowed to live another year.

So if AE is released on April 18, it will endanger my life.  Please wait till April 19th[:D].


T minus four days and counting....either remember the flowers or your flak jacket. [;)]




rogueusmc -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 3:36:49 AM)

Awarded is not so much of a big deal as to say that they 'won' it...most will tell you it's not something they strive for...




witpqs -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 4:10:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Awarded is not so much of a big deal as to say that they 'won' it...most will tell you it's not something they strive for...


Indeed, most of the interviews I've seen or read the recipients have been pretty adamant that it could have been anyone else, or that the powers that be could have picked anyone else who did as much that day, and so on. That very facet of their characters probably says as much as anything about why they did what they did. [&o]

A very far cry from some well known figures.




Yamato hugger -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 7:00:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am puzzled - why the aversion to 'awarded'? Of course the person 'received' it, but it seems that whoever issued the final approval that certainly meant it was then 'awarded' to that individual. What is at the root of that particular fuss over the terminology? There's obviously more to this than I ever realized.



There was a really good NCSI that had a lot of subtleties in it that most "common people" wouldnt understand. I refer to the one where the marine that received the medal on Iwo wanted to turn himself in for murder. For those that missed some, allow me to point them out.

If memory serves, one of the agents called it the congressional medal of honor, Gibbs corrected him.

At one point a female officer came to take the man into custody unknowing he was a MoH recipient. When his jacket opened and the medal was displayed, both marine guards snapped to attention and presented arms. EVERYONE salutes a MoH recipient even generals. Most people dont know this and that part wouldnt have been understood as to what they were doing. Likewise, most non-military people would not know that a soldier at attention with his weapon positioned vertically in front of him is the proper salute with a weapon.

And for most of the living men who received it, it brings back the memory of those lost so they might live and they feel unworthy of that. To them the "real heros" are the ones that didnt come back.




berto -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 8:16:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Since I have just about had enough of the History Channel's seemingly rapid slip into irrelevance, disrepute, and inanity...


I have had quite enough, no "just about" it.

When I got extended cable service, I had such high hopes for the History Channel. No more. What a POS. I never bother watching anymore.




Alikchi2 -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 10:59:53 AM)

I think it's October 4th, 'cause that's my birthday. I know it has a deep and profound meaning to many of you

(ps I expect you to RSVP for my party which I expect you all to pay for)




m10bob -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 12:13:29 PM)

I'll say June 6th..Important dates in ETO and PTO..

On that date, the Japanese forces occupy Kiska, while their main Midway force retreats sans 4 CV's, in 1942..




witpqs -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 3:33:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

I think it's October 4th, 'cause that's my birthday. I know it has a deep and profound meaning to many of you

(ps I expect you to RSVP for my party which I expect you all to pay for)


It's supposed to be a surprise so just don't bring it up again! [:D]




Terminus -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 3:38:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am puzzled - why the aversion to 'awarded'? Of course the person 'received' it, but it seems that whoever issued the final approval that certainly meant it was then 'awarded' to that individual. What is at the root of that particular fuss over the terminology? There's obviously more to this than I ever realized.



There was a really good NCSI that had a lot of subtleties in it that most "common people" wouldnt understand. I refer to the one where the marine that received the medal on Iwo wanted to turn himself in for murder. For those that missed some, allow me to point them out.

If memory serves, one of the agents called it the congressional medal of honor, Gibbs corrected him.

At one point a female officer came to take the man into custody unknowing he was a MoH recipient. When his jacket opened and the medal was displayed, both marine guards snapped to attention and presented arms. EVERYONE salutes a MoH recipient even generals. Most people dont know this and that part wouldnt have been understood as to what they were doing. Likewise, most non-military people would not know that a soldier at attention with his weapon positioned vertically in front of him is the proper salute with a weapon.

And for most of the living men who received it, it brings back the memory of those lost so they might live and they feel unworthy of that. To them the "real heros" are the ones that didnt come back.


Good episode of a good show...




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 5:01:58 PM)

Maybe it will be one of the A Bomb dates. Bad form possibly but after my rugby injury I call my boys Fatman and Little Boy...[8D]




bradfordkay -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 6:51:55 PM)

I'm guessing that you forgot the age old adage: It takes leather balls to play rugby! 




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 7:12:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am puzzled - why the aversion to 'awarded'? Of course the person 'received' it, but it seems that whoever issued the final approval that certainly meant it was then 'awarded' to that individual. What is at the root of that particular fuss over the terminology? There's obviously more to this than I ever realized.


This may be an aside, but "awarded" is used, in military justice terms, to refer to the punishment handed down in a non-judicial punishment (Captain's Mast in the USN) or a court martial. In a civilan court the guilty party is "sentenced" to ten years in prison. In the military they are "awarded ten years" (plus probably a bust to E-1, loss of all pay and allowances, all VA benefits, and a Duck Dinner (Dishonorable Discharge, not to be confused with a Big Chicken Dinner, a Bad Conduct Discharge.) This usage today is somewhat formal, but it's still the proper terminology for a service record entry for NJP, or a CM's verdict sheet.





witpqs -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 7:47:43 PM)

That would sure explain it!




JWE -> RE: Important Date Fast Approaching (4/15/2009 8:23:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am puzzled - why the aversion to 'awarded'? Of course the person 'received' it, but it seems that whoever issued the final approval that certainly meant it was then 'awarded' to that individual. What is at the root of that particular fuss over the terminology? There's obviously more to this than I ever realized.

It’s an odd thing, and has to do with the culture that the military has evolved over these last 250 years. There is a particular “sense” of things that the military feels. It has and holds values that not readily apparent to others. And it is these special values that make and define the American soldier.

One does not win or get the award of the Medal. One does his/her duty, to the detriment of life, for the good of their comrades and their unit/corps. The military serves our nation; the nation chooses to award service, but service does not depend on awards, it depends on ….

Thus, one does not “win” a medal, nor is one “awarded” a medal. One “receives” a decoration for doing ones duty. The degree of the decoration is in the hands of one’s superiors in the profession of arms.

A very fine distinction, to be sure. But a distinction that will always define the effective soldier.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.296875E-02