Unlock Code for Shareware CD
Drc6207
Anyone got the code to unlock all the stuff on the shareware version???
Please E-mail me. I am poor. I will be very grateful. I will try to
find a way to repay you. Thanks, Dave
CReW Dog
alt.cracks, alt.binaries.cracks, and alt.2600.crackz.
<19970730035...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, drc...@aol.com (Drc6207)
wrote for the whole world to see:
'Anyone got the code to unlock all the stuff on the shareware version???
Jeff Smith
dont you think you should repay ID Software, not the person who gave you
the ILLEGAL code?
--
Jeff Smith
Hackman Software
http://members.aol.com/jeffereys/
http://members.aol.com/jeffereys/quake
Drc6207 <drc...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970730035...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Sean Hardiman
On 30 Jul 1997 03:58:29 GMT, drc...@aol.com (Drc6207) wrote:
>Anyone got the code to unlock all the stuff on the shareware version???
>Please E-mail me. I am poor. I will be very grateful. I will try to
>find a way to repay you. Thanks, Dave
>
>
>Drc...@aol.com
Buy it you moron. This is one of the best games I have ever bought,
considering the CTF and TF stuff you can download and use for nothing.
When that is factored in, the $40 you pay is almost nothing!
--
Sean Hardiman - *Se...@Netcom.Ca*
UVic Kinesiology - Victoria, British Columbia
Remove Asterisks To Send E-Mail
Nick Blaha
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 17:01:19 -0500, "Sam D. Thomas" <sdth...@flash.net> wrote:
>Drc6207 wrote:
>>
>> Anyone got the code to unlock all the stuff on the shareware version???
>> Please E-mail me. I am poor. I will be very grateful. I will try to
>> find a way to repay you. Thanks, Dave
>>
>> Drc...@aol.com
>
>Get a job and a life.
You know what I think is neat? How every single Quake player on this ng stands united against
pirating. That's something you don't often see. It's really cool to see something like Quake
universally bind everybody together against those who don't want to undergo the "initiation", if you
will, to join the party.
Kind of gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, don't it?
nb
Change everything after the "tfs." to "net" to reply to email
shaithis
In article <33EB3B...@ersatz.placebo.net>, dk...@ersatz.placebo.net
says...
> Why Software Should Not Have Owners
>
> by Richard Stallman
>
<BLAH BLAH BLAH BITCH BITCH BITCH snipped>
I'm sorry but it's sad to see that people are this easily brainwashed.
Here are a couple of perfectly good reasons why software should, in fact,
have owners. Let's use quake and only quake as an example.
1. John Camrack and the rest of id would've been too busy waiting on
fucking tables to make the damn thing if he hadn't made any money off of
their previous software.
2. Don't give me this bullshit of how it would've been done anyway. It
wouldn't. There's a big difference between dollars and dreams, and sadly,
the former rule this country.
3. How about a little compensation for the people who provide thousands
upon thousands of us with hours of fun? Is it too much for them to ask
that they get something back in return?
4. Piracy is illegal, but it happens. It happens a lot. It happens in the
music industry, the video industry, the software industry, etc etc etc.
Regardless of what the immenent Richard Stallman thinks, it is still
illegal, and it is still unfair. People poured hours and hours of blood,
sweat and tears into these games, onyl to have them ripped off and given
out to hundreds of thousands of people for no better reason than because
they'd rather spend the forty bucks on beer and porn. Listen to what Kai
Krouse says: "If you're just fucking around with my programs, fine.
Pirate them. If you're making any money, or using them seriously in any
way, please pay for them, it's only fair". I consider gaming to be a
"serious use". It is no less serious than going to six flags, which you
pay for, or going to the arcade, which you pay for, or buying a pool
table, which you pay for...see my point?
The general idea is this: If you want to pirate, then pirate. No one is
going to stop you, because no one can, but don't post this spam bullshit
that tries to justify an illegal, unfair, and dishonest activity.
thank you
--
shaithis - Immortal Coil
+--- --- --- -- -- -- - - -
|Trax/Art/HTML
|cwb...@traknet.com
|http://www.traknet.com/immortal
|<Insert Lame Quote That Makes
| You Feel Important Here>
+---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Conseula
Why Software Should Not Have Owners
by Richard Stallman
Digital information technology's contributes to the world by making it
easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
easier for all of us.
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's
potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be
the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass
production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
few readers were sued for that.
Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners
to help your friend.
* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
colleagues.
* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are
told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not
accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities
unguarded and failing to censor their use.
All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
from hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: the
motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
to control how we use information:
* Name calling.
Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert
terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a
certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between
programs and physical objects.
Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. They
don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the owners
ask us to apply them anyway.
* Exaggeration.
Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy
programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the
owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who
made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every
one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.
* The law.
Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties
as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many
states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
racists would say sitting there was wrong.
* Natural rights.
Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
else--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more
important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author
myself, call it bunk.
But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
natural rights claims for two reasons.
One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from
eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material
interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest
distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.
The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits*
a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says
that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of
copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright
does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is
intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be
justified for the public's sake.
* Economics.
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
leads to production of more software.
Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of
software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of
something if they are well paid for doing so.
But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the
software has owners or not.
People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or
for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an
owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with
it if you acquire it.
But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
software owners to produce something--but not what society really
needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
all.
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
to its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix,
adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
helping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute our
society's civic spirit.
This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not
price.
The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
than those people write, we need to raise funds.
For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods
of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough
incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.
For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software
development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all
of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from
donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three
employees who handle mail orders.
Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per
cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable
percentage for a software company.
Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog
Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free
GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the
Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this
is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
All these examples are small; the free software movement is still
small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio
in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity
without forcing each user to pay.
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary
program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
this means saying "No" to proprietary software.
You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.
You deserve free software.
Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
alteration is not permitted.
nemo
In article <MPG.e553ac11...@news.emi.com>, cwb...@traknet.com (shaithis) wrote:
> 2. Don't give me this bullshit of how it would've been done anyway. It
> wouldn't. There's a big difference between dollars and dreams, and sadly,
> the former rule this country.
Effort (especially very clever effort) deserves to be rewarded. Absolutely.
> 4. Piracy is illegal, but it happens. It happens a lot. It happens in the
> music industry, the video industry, the software industry, etc etc etc.
> Regardless of what the immenent Richard Stallman thinks, it is still
> illegal, and it is still unfair.
Unfair? I'm not sure. The fact that guys at id can afford 2 (or is it 3 now)
Ferraris shows that they've not only been rewarded, but bloody well rewarded.
Meanwhile, there are a LOT of people (obviously not you, and, coincidentally,
not me) who can't afford the $40-50 for Quake. Yes. Really. So while piracy
needs discouraging, I can't get too wound up about it. And don't tell me about
the poor pitiful starving developer who's been put out of business by piracy. If
a program is worth pirating, it's good enough to make real money -- even with
piracy taken into account.
I think of piracy as a kind of real-world compensation mechanism, and a healthy
one at that. It's like bacteria or cockroaches -- we may find them disgusting
but the ecology would be hosed without them.
I think you'll find that many software developers share this opinion -- but
could never say so publicly. If they did, the system wouldn't work.
----------------------------------------
I'm not as stupid as I used to be...
----------------------------------------
Andy
Conseula wrote in article <33EB3B...@ersatz.placebo.net>...
>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
>
> by Richard Stallman
>
<Snippity doo da>
>Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
>Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
>without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
>alteration is not permitted.
But information needs change etc. etc. Defend copyrighting of print for us
please, Mr. Propoganda.
shaithis
In article <5sl4gb$t...@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, mob...@mobile.com says...
> Effort (especially very clever effort) deserves to be rewarded. Absolutely.
In this, we are in agreement. :)
> Unfair? I'm not sure. The fact that guys at id can afford 2 (or is it 3 now)
> Ferraris shows that they've not only been rewarded, but bloody well rewarded.
> Meanwhile, there are a LOT of people (obviously not you, and, coincidentally,
> not me) who can't afford the $40-50 for Quake. Yes. Really. So while piracy
> needs discouraging, I can't get too wound up about it. And don't tell me about
> the poor pitiful starving developer who's been put out of business by piracy. If
> a program is worth pirating, it's good enough to make real money -- even with
> piracy taken into account.
I agree with this, for the most part. id, and many others, have proven
that shareware is a completely plausible source of income. Obviously,
commercial software is as well, or computers would probably still be in
use only in government institutions. :) I understand that there are those
who can't afford the 40 or 50 bucks for quake, but on the other hand how
did they afford to pay for the bare-minimum p75 w/16m ram that is
required to run it?
The id guys are fortunate to be driving ferraris, but I can't think of
another batch of designers who deserve it more. No one else, that I'm
aware of, has consitently produced so many enjoyable, revolutionary and
(the most important part) customizeable games. It is very difficult for
me to deny them their right to their ferraris when they've provided me
with a game which, when I get bored of it, I can convert into something
entirely new (not to undermine all you quakec/mappers/modelers out there.
It's not quite that easy).
> I think of piracy as a kind of real-world compensation mechanism, and a healthy
> one at that. It's like bacteria or cockroaches -- we may find them disgusting
> but the ecology would be hosed without them.
I think I agree with this as well (and also find it to be an extremely
interesting take on the subject). I've been working with computers for
almost 13 years now, and I realize that without piracy, they probably
would not have taken off like they have. If everyone paid for every piece
of software they owned, no one would own very much at all, selection
would be horribly limited, and prices would be whatever the developers
felt like charging. I accept the fact that people pirate software. In
thirteen years you can be damn certain I've done it myself. But I don't
try to justify it (what I was originally objecting to), and I pay for the
stuff I use more than a couple times (This is why I love 30-day trial-
ware. Usually I don't need/use a program for more than that).
> I think you'll find that many software developers share this opinion -- but
> could never say so publicly. If they did, the system wouldn't work.
Kai Krouse has stated it publicly, and metatools (oops, metacreations now
that they merged with Fractal Design) software continues to sell through
the roof. His philosophy is one I've adopted as my own, because it just
makes sense. It is, in a nutshell: "I don't mind people pirating my
software, or other software. What I mind is when these people use the
software on a daily basis, or make money off of it, and still don't have
the courtesy to buy a copy".
I think that's the most sensible thing I've ever heard said on the
subject of software piracy in my life. Most people who play quake play it
daily, and as such they have no reason not to buy it. People will spend
10 bucks in a day at the arcade. Four days worth would buy you a copy of
Quake.
The other thing that bothers me about piracy, is when people try to
justify what they're doing as not only legal, but a good thing. The
letter I initially replied to stated quite emphatically that all software
should be free, and the only thing coders should get paid for is
customizing your version of the software. I found it a bit ridiculous,
and replied. :)
Cheers,
--
shaithis - Immortal Coil
+--- --- --- -- -- -- - - -
|Trax/Art/HTML
|cwb...@nospam.traknet.com
|http://www.traknet.com/immortal
|Guess what part of my address
|to remove if you wanna mail me.
+---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
pAuL
Sean Hardiman wrote:
> On 30 Jul 1997 03:58:29 GMT, drc...@aol.com (Drc6207) wrote:
>
> >Anyone got the code to unlock all the stuff on the shareware
> version???
> >Please E-mail me. I am poor. I will be very grateful. I will try
> to
> >find a way to repay you. Thanks, Dave
> >
> >
> >Drc...@aol.com
>
> Buy it you moron. This is one of the best games I have ever bought,
> considering the CTF and TF stuff you can download and use for nothing.
>
> When that is factored in, the $40 you pay is almost nothing!
>
> --
> Sean Hardiman - *Se...@Netcom.Ca*
> UVic Kinesiology - Victoria, British Columbia
> Remove Asterisks To Send E-Mail
Listen... there is a crack out there somewhere for the shareware cd.. go
look for it
Tom Wilson
"I don't mind people pirating my
software, or other software. What I mind is when these people use the
software on a daily basis, or make money off of it, and still don't have
the courtesy to buy a copy".
There's my guiding light. If I EVER make money off a piece of software, I
buy it! If I use it more than once in a blue moon, I BUY it. If I don't
like it, it's *GONE*!
--
Tom Wilson
System Admin: the McMillin Companies - http://www.mcmillin.com
tom...@mad.scientist.com - http://tom.mcmillin.com
Chris Funk
anyone who steals quake should be condemned to hell. those id guys work
their arses off to make us great games, the least we can do is give them
$40 or $50. get a life, and a job!!!!
Mt. Dew
cf...@novanet1.com
pAuL <san...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<33F2880E...@hotmail.com>...
Powermonger
cwb...@nospam.traknet.com (shaithis) wrote:
>Either way it doesn't answer the initial question. Assume a dx/66 then.
>If you can afford that, you can afford the 40 bucks for a copy of quake.
>That was the only point I was trying to make, and as you said
>yourself...you went out and bought it. :)
OK
Point taken. Sorry!
POWER
MONGER
-------------------------------------------------------
In the words of A.A.Milne
Get out of my chair...Dillhole!
Powermonger
cwb...@nospam.traknet.com (shaithis) wrote:
I understand that there are those
>who can't afford the 40 or 50 bucks for quake, but on the other hand how
>did they afford to pay for the bare-minimum p75 w/16m ram that is
>required to run it?
When I first got quake, I got it pirated, but I bought it 'cos it was
so damn good and couldn't bear losing it if the machine went down. But
I was still running it on a 486 DX2-66 with 8Mb RAM and it ran
perfectly well. Of course, all that's changed now, but I still runs
satisfactoraly so I'll have none of this bare-minimun P75 with 16Mb
RAM crap okay?
POWER
MONGER
-------------------------------------------------------
If the Devil had meant for us to go to Hell
He wouldn't have invented God
shaithis
In article <5t07po$8bm$1...@irk.zetnet.co.uk>, b...@indigo4.com says...
> cwb...@nospam.traknet.com (shaithis) wrote:
>
> When I first got quake, I got it pirated, but I bought it 'cos it was
> so damn good and couldn't bear losing it if the machine went down. But
> I was still running it on a 486 DX2-66 with 8Mb RAM and it ran
> perfectly well. Of course, all that's changed now, but I still runs
> satisfactoraly so I'll have none of this bare-minimun P75 with 16Mb
> RAM crap okay?
Your definition of satisfactorily is apparantly different than mine. I
don't play quake on my computer, because I too am running a 486-dx2/66
(altho with 12mb ram). The 10-12 fps rate just doesn't do it for me (not
when I've seen glquake run at 40fps on a 166 with a monster 3d, anb
regular quake run at 60fps on a 133). Sorry if I offended you by
suggesting that the minimum recommended system is the one id wrote on the
fucking box.
Either way it doesn't answer the initial question. Assume a dx/66 then.
If you can afford that, you can afford the 40 bucks for a copy of quake.
That was the only point I was trying to make, and as you said
yourself...you went out and bought it. :)
Cheers
Powermonger
*Se...@Netcom.Ca* (Sean Hardiman) wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:22:39 -0400, pAuL <san...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Listen... there is a crack out there somewhere for the shareware cd.. go
>>look for it
>>
>Yeah pAuL, I guess you're one of those leet d00dz who hangs out in
>WaRez land and thinks that Pir8iNg ROX.
>Get a life, and don't propogate this sort of garbage.
Hardly fair!!!
The guy only said that there's a crack out there SOMEWHERE! He didn't
tell him where and therefore IMO didn't get involved. He might even
have been lying; maybe there isn't a crack and he was just giving the
guy a hard time.
I don't know...
...more to the point, NEITHER DO YOU!
facts staright b4 flaming!!
POWER
MONGER
--------------------------------------------------------------
When the only colour is black, the only sound, the broken bell
Then talk to me about why.
Sean Hardiman
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:22:39 -0400, pAuL <san...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Listen... there is a crack out there somewhere for the shareware cd.. go
>look for it
>
Yeah pAuL, I guess you're one of those leet d00dz who hangs out in
WaRez land and thinks that Pir8iNg ROX.
Get a life, and don't propogate this sort of garbage.
Chris Maass
This crack was posted in one of the cracks newsgroups.
Start Quake, then bring down the console by hitting the ~ (tilde) key.
Then type in:
gotot heda mns tore andpa yfor itl iket heres tofu syo ulam ebast ard
Hit Enter
Hit the ~ again to withdraw the console
Quit the game and then reload Quake
It's that simple!
> > On 30 Jul 1997 03:58:29 GMT, drc...@aol.com (Drc6207) wrote:
> >
> > >Anyone got the code to unlock all the stuff on the shareware
> > version???
> > >Please E-mail me. I am poor. I will be very grateful. I will try
> > to
> > >find a way to repay you. Thanks, Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >Drc...@aol.com
>
> Listen... there is a crack out there somewhere for the shareware cd.. go
> look for it
--
cma...@ix.netcom.com | What if there were no hypothetical questions?
cma...@calstatela.edu |
Christian Friis
hehehe
Francis Percival C. Favoreal (du...@skyinet.net) wrote:
> Chris Maass wrote:
> > This crack was posted in one of the cracks newsgroups.
> >
> What newsgroup was it in ?
> > Start Quake, then bring down the console by hitting the ~ (tilde) key.
> >
> > Then type in:
> >
> > gotot heda mns tore andpa yfor itl iket heres tofu syo ulam ebast ard
> >
> > Hit Enter
> > Hit the ~ again to withdraw the console
> > Quit the game and then reload Quake
> >
> > It's that simple!
> >
> Would this also work with the demo/shareware versions downloaded over
> the net?
> --
> rick
--
Christian Friis
Comp. Sci. III - Software
Carleton University
Jay C. Parangalan
Francis Percival C. Favoreal wrote:
> > Then type in:
> >
> > gotot heda mns tore andpa yfor itl iket heres tofu syo ulam ebast
> ard
>
> Would this also work with the demo/shareware versions downloaded over
> the net?
I was having a bad day, but this made it a little bit better. -:)
--
Jay C. Parangalan, http://members.aol.com/firefly0/html/
aka "Stellar Firefly" of future Sucking Chest Wound Clan
aka "Jaenathan AzureRose" of River's Rest, Elanthia
Michael L. King
In article <33F97AA1...@skyinet.net>, du...@skyinet.net says...
> Chris Maass wrote:
> > Start Quake, then bring down the console by hitting the ~ (tilde) key.
> >
> >
> > gotot heda mns tore andpa yfor itl iket heres tofu syo ulam ebast ard
> >
> > Hit the ~ again to withdraw the console
> > Quit the game and then reload Quake
> >
> > It's that simple!
> >
>
> the net?
Oh jesus, this is the funniest thing I've ever read on Usenet in 4 years
of reading newsgroups. Hehe, some people are just plain
stooooooooppppiiiiid!
Michael L. King
------------------------------------------------------
mic...@innova.net
"Raining blood/ From a lacerated sky
Bleeding its horror/ Creating my structure
Now I shall REIGN IN BLOOD!"
-- Slayer
Francis Percival C. Favoreal
Chris Maass wrote:
> This crack was posted in one of the cracks newsgroups.
>
What newsgroup was it in ?
> Start Quake, then bring down the console by hitting the ~ (tilde) key.
>
> Then type in:
>
> gotot heda mns tore andpa yfor itl iket heres tofu syo ulam ebast ard
>
> Hit Enter
> Hit the ~ again to withdraw the console
> Quit the game and then reload Quake
>
> It's that simple!
>
Would this also work with the demo/shareware versions downloaded over
the net?
--
rick