fun my first demo, after i kill shambler!!!

http://trinca.planetaclix.pt/first_run.dz 

Nice! On Hard it was certainly hectic and the fiend ambush was just evil ... 

I enjoyed your remake, nice carnage.

Though the spawning Knights made it somewhat awkward to get a good demo, there seemed to be always 1-2 kills missing. Would be cool if you made more of those.

Here is a passable 100%:
http://shub-hub.quaddicted.com/files/demos_singleplayer/ssm_sw257.dz 

got your email, had ended up in my junk for some reason :/
I'll reply in a few hours 

The Bush administration sucks donkey balls. 

how that makes it different from all the others?

Headthump's ratings:

Bush 43: terrible
Clinton: mediocre
Bush 41: terrible
Reagan: acceptable, but expensive
Cousin Jimmy: pretty bad, Zbig was cool though
Ford: place holder
Nixon: scary, but entertaining
Johnson: 3rd worse in Modern History
Kennedy: Overrated
Eisenhower: acceptable, great farewell address
Truman: 2nd Worse, #1 war criminal in human history
FDR: worst and still chipping away at our SOL
Hoover: Terrible
Coolidge: awesome, my kind of guy
Harding: best prez evah! 

It has been revealed that HeadThump was actually born in the 1920's. 

It seems that the level wasn't hard enough for Trinca :).
Sielwolf your demo is awesome. I have tried to make a simmilar run but always died while trying to hold your pace. 

More new map reviews:

phantom: Phantom Polly
tpof: E4M4 Quoth Remake

http://underworld.planetquake.gamespy.com/index.html 

 

Court historians rank presidents by the degree to which they have increased the power of the executive and engaged in political messiahism no matter of the long term consequence of their actions, I rank them by how well they 1) left the American alone, 2) did not threaten the general peace, 3) or impede the prosperity.

Here is a quote to chew on:

http://www.mises.org/story/2491

Harding's Teapot Dome affair is but a drop in the ocean compared to the global horrors set in train by Wilson's decision to take the United States into World War I: Allied victory, a harsh Versailles treaty, German resentment, the rise of Nazism, and World War II, not to speak of the rise of Communism, which also followed in World War I's wake. Why do the historians, and following them the public, place on pedestals the leaders responsible for such utter catastrophes?

So to say we could not have had a worse president than Harding is nonsense for the reason that the long term consequences of his presidency were minimal. 

but that quote is bullshit. a harsh Versailles treaty, German resentment, the rise of Nazism, and World War II, not to speak of the rise of Communism, which also followed in World War I's wake were the results of decades of complicated history and the actions of millions. Blaming Woodrow Wilson for not seeing any of that coming is a little myopic, don't you think? 

at me on purpose? I like you too but I would never give an easy means of grandstanding to a debate opponent, but I'll take it if you insist ;)

Yes, Wilson is responsible for those things by getting us involved in the First World War because without our presence the parties involved would have been forced to reach a far more equitable truce. Instead, we tipped the balance to the British and the Germans had to take the enormous strain of the entire war debt which they were only partly responsible for creating in the conflict. As the living standards of the German populous was greatly affected by this economicaly, that certainly lead to the radicalization of the beerhalls in the 20's and 30's.

The caveat I would add is that Communism was already on the rise in Russia at the time and Wilson doesn't bare responsibilaty for that.

Another quote, to answer the one that usualy comes up, regarding the Lusitania:

The well-publicized May, 1915, German sinking of the British ocean liner Lusitania is typically cited as one of a series of outrages to which President Woodrow Wilson reacted with restraint and patience. Eventually, so the story goes, even Wilson, a devout, peace-loving man, was forced to make war upon the Germans in order to protect the people and land of America.

Yet few in America at the time suggested the nation should go to war because of the sinking of "a British ship flying a British flag." In fact, that British ship carried over four million rifle cartridges and 1,250 cases of shrapnel shells � destined for use against German soldiers.

Wilson got us in the war so he could have a say in its outcome. 

Raped ponies.




It's true. 

somebody must have seen Zoo.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0874423/

Calvin was Mr Hand 

lollers... you liked reagan? what about thatcher? are you a neoliberal capitalist? 

That's an oversimplification. (Surely that's why everyone gets involved in wars: at the outset even the eventual 'losers' thought that they would have a say in the outcome?)

In Wilson's case, I think you need to explain why he reversed the initial declaration of US neutrality. Were there somewhat more valid reasons afoot than just "so he could have a say in its outcome"?

Also, what would have been wrong from the US standpoint if the parties had of reached an "equitable truce"?

During the first two years of the war, the US exports increased four-fold as neutrality allowed them to trade with both sides. Why was it important to America to concede this position; one that was having a fairly beneficial effect on the US economy and that would have almost certainly continued after the war had ended?

You say "so he could have a say", but why did both houses give him such overwhelming support to declare war on the German government?

Was the heavily biased media coverage in the US significant in the decision? (Britain and France in particular had the monopoly on transatlantic cables at the time so I expect that coverage would have been a bit one-sided.)

What about the US citizens aboard the Lusitania; what was the mood of the man-in-the-street over that?

And just how significant was the Zimmerman Telegram in all of this? Was the content seen as a genuine threat to US territory?

By the way, Germany did not take on the whole of the war debt. Most of the outstanding loans made to Britain during WW1 were written-off in 1931.

However, Britain did, in 2007, finally pay-off the US and Canadian loans for WW2, so that was nice. 

Reagan was acceptable, he had the qualities of being a gentleman, and at least rhetoricaly, saying many of the right things, and also suceeding in getting some tax relief from the oppressive disensintives towards being a productive human being that our tax system grew into from FDR to Ford.

Though his administration did nothing in the way of reducing spending (despite claims to the contrary by his critics who still to this day harp on phantom budget cuts that never occurred).

Also, the drug war which originaly started with Nixon got a boost during the Reagan administration. This is pretty much a welfare scheme for the bully asshole types who go into
law enforcement(as a personal note, the only person who has ever shot me so far in my life is now an officer in the NYPD, then he was a punk teenager with a pellet gun).

So that is a big negative on his record.

Neolib, nope. That ideology is basicaly a mercantilist varient. I'm a paleolibertarian in politics and a Rothbardian in economics.

The political philosphy really has its origins in Lao Tsu, who stated: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished�. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

I doubt if there is really a similar ideology in England. Here, Senator Taft, Barry Goldwater, H L Mencken, discordian Robert Anton Wilson and Clint Eastwood fit the mold. The French had Frederic Bastiat who also fits us to a T., but Briton libertarians tend to be utilitarians too, and that is an entirely different spirit. 

Anarcho-capitalism is a vile philosophy, it sickens me in a visceral way.

I don't recall any economics graphs with an axis labeled "aggregate human suffering."

Perhaps such an addition would clarify things a little bit. 

Are you aware of Lunaran's latest Q4 release ?

http://www.lunaran.com/page.php?id=165

I saw it on PlanetQuake, and it looks so cool that it is a shame I don't have Q4 on my Pc to test it.... 

please, I beg you on hands and knees, stop using the term 'oversimplification' as a rhetorical device. You know me by now, I'm as multiplex as the human condition gets within one particular nodal point.

This condition implied in this statement is not exactly accurate though you raise a good question During the first two years of the war, the US exports increased four-fold as neutrality allowed them to trade with both sides. Why was it important to America to concede this position; one that was having a fairly beneficial effect on the US economy and that would have almost certainly continued after the war had ended?

Here from historian Thomas Fleming in The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I "Wilson talked � and talked and talked � about neutrality and apparently convinced himself that he was neutral. But the United States he was supposedly running was not neutral, in thought, word or deed, thanks to Wellington House (the engine of British government propaganda) � and the international banking firm of J. P. Morgan in New York."

American corporate interest favored the British well before the Lusitania --

The war began for corporate America long before it started for the common man. Within two months of the conflict�s August 1914 beginning, Charles Schwab, president of Bethlehem Steel, one of the world�s largest arms merchants, took a profitable trip to London. There, he secured orders from the British government for millions of artillery shells, as well as ten 500-ton submarines. Though the construction of such foreign vessels broke the law, Bethlehem proceeded with it and the Wilson administration did not stop them. The company earned $61 million in 1916, more than its combined gross revenues for the previous eight years. -- from a summary article -- I don't have my copy at hand.

As Fleming puts it: "The Bethlehem story is a pithy summary of the evolution of the United States into a branch of the British armament industry during the thirty-two months of its neutrality,"

As for Also, what would have been wrong from the US standpoint if the parties had of reached an "equitable truce"? what would have been right is 1000,000 fewer American dead which is the thrust of my argument that Harding was a better president than Wilson.

I'm a bit tired from lacking sleep. Note, I'm not anti-British by any means. Half of my ancestory is merry old England (the other half being Spaniards and a few Frenchy creoles), and I think our siding with you in WW2 was the right thing to do given the circumstances. 

Basically I know shit about this Harding fellow, but I looked at his Wikipedia entry to see how he may have been worse than Bush, and aside from having a corrupt administration and possibly sleeping around a bit it doesn't seem like he was that bad...

I mean come on, worse than Bush? 

I don't recall any economics graphs with an axis labeled "aggregate human suffering."

There is nothing in anarcho-capitalism that says you cannot devote your time and resources to charity work, but don't call it 'philanthropy' when you insist your will be done with someone else's money taken at the point of a gun.

What is sick is how many people still believe the redistributionist model is an effective means of human orginization when it is the prime contributer to the increase of crime, dependency and the breakdown of the family.

What is sick is how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to create urban blight and political cronyism, all in the name of 'doing good.'

What is sick is the mentality of dependence that tells you to wait around for your mayor to tell you what to do instead of getting out of the way of a fucking hurricane (in case you are wondering about the creole remark in an earlier post -- yes it is personal). 

? 

I promise not to use the word 'oversimplification' if you promise not to... (I haven't got a clue as to what your second sentence is supposed to convey)

The problem was that what was looking quite an interesting set of posts ended with a statement that had no explanation attached to it. Clearly you knew what you meant but as I pointed out, the statemnent could apply to anyone who goes to war. I am interested to know what you meant by this statement that specifically relates to Wilson, hence my questions.

So, are you saying that it was not economically viable for the US to stay neutral and that is why the official line changed?

I am not understanding the point about "1000,000 fewer American dead". Surely that would apply if America did not go to war and remained neutral: "without our presence the parties involved would have been forced to reach a far more equitable truce".

I wasn't interested in the comparison between Presidents, only your comments relating to Wilson.

I'm still interested.