Slitherine

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

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

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---

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---

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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

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.

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.

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

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.

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.

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...

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

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

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)

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.

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.

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.