INCOMING TRASMISSION: THE LAWS OF FIGHTING PROGRAM
I
<ergo>
//***********************************************************************
// The Laws of Fighting Program
// by I...@I.COM
//
// 1. Win
// 2. There is no such thing as "cheap"
// 3. There is no such thing as "honor"
// 4. Master all characters
// 5. "There can be only one"
//
// Note: This program is the logical deduction of the winniest philosophy
// toward playing FIGHTER GAMES. It also settles what a player has to do
// to be SUPREME.
//
// Any corrects of programing syntax as well as a better program are
// apprecicated. This particular code is geared for non-programmers.
//***********************************************************************
N = # //Total number of different opponents
i = # //Loop for player vs opponent match
j,k = # //Loop for character vs character match
C = # //Total number of characters in game
you[C],
opp[C] = //one dimensional array representing all possible characters
//(ie. you[1]=Ryu, opp[1]=Ryu, you[2]=Ken, opp[2]=Ken, etc..)
you_win = 0;
opp_win = 0;
you_one = 0;
X,Y = C;
//main loop - "There can be only one"
For i = 1 to N
//Master all characters - compete using all characters to determine who
//is superior with all possible matchups
{ For j = 1 to X
{ For k = 1 to Y
//Win ("cheap" & "honor" do not exist, if so there would be
//conjuctions - AND, OR, etc.)
{ if you[j] > opp[k] then
you_win=you_win+1;
else
opp_win=opp_win+1;
}
}
if you_win = opp_win then
print "Draw!"
else
{ if you_win > opp_win then
{ print "You are superior than your opponent!"
you_one=you_one+1;
}
else
print "Your opponent is superior than you!"
}
you_win=0;
opp_win=0;
}
if you_one=N then
print "YOU ARE INVINCIBLE!"
else
print "You are ranked", N - you_one;
//
//Remember, the end justifies the means
//
I
=============================================================
T H E I N V I N C I B L E L A W S O F F I G H T I N G
1. Win
2. There is no such thing as "cheap"
3. There is no such thing as "honor"
4. Master all characters
5. "There can be only one"
The Code of "I" v1.0
{ g(?) a(?) y(?) TLOF(12345) c(T$!) ? } [*(*?)]
I_I...@hotmail.com
=============================================================
<transmission ends>
RD
On 29 Jun 1998 22:51:21 GMT, I...@I.COM (I) wrote:
><ergo>
>
>//***********************************************************************
>// The Laws of Fighting Program
It's nice to see some programmers out there =)... too bad i was raised
in dos, much easier graphics, but terribly crude and painful. Maybe
after i adjust to the Win32 enviroment we'll have a fully functional
program with OLE to excel and access =). But that's for the future...
Anthony Jennings
<snip>
Interesting code and logic. But you forgot one key part to the program.
1. Travel.
You see, if you frequent one or two arcades, you become corrupted to one way
of fighting and/or defending. At some arcades, anythings goes. Other
arcades, different restrictions is imposed on the players in an attempt for
the group (not the individual) collectively to improve their fighting style,
hence increasing the level of competition. Mercy rounds is used (in Toronto)
generally to encourage the younger players to gain skills, thus increasing
the challenge level of the arcade. True, pasting them in two proves your
superiority overall, but can make finding players to adequately give you a
challenge difficult. Hence, if you don't travel a lot, it becomes difficult
for your skill to improve (unless you are in a hotbed of SF talent).
This former argument is only valid assuming that players at a particular
arcade play one or two styles. Travelling to different arcades all of the
time and/or tournaments greatly increases your skill level as different
arcades has different playing styles. However, the cost to the pocketbook
might prohibit this from happening
Don't meant to knock you, I, but there is a reason WHY Ryu is a wanderering
fighter. You just forgot to include it in your Laws of Fightings.
Little Mac
I
In article <6navpt$9n6$1...@client2.news.psi.net>, anth...@ticketmaster.ca believes...
>
><snip>
>
>Interesting code and logic. But you forgot one key part to the program.
>
>1. Travel.
>
>You see, if you frequent one or two arcades, you become corrupted to one way
>of fighting and/or defending. At some arcades, anythings goes. Other
>arcades, different restrictions is imposed on the players in an attempt for
>the group (not the individual) collectively to improve their fighting style,
>hence increasing the level of competition. Mercy rounds is used (in Toronto)
>generally to encourage the younger players to gain skills, thus increasing
>the challenge level of the arcade. True, pasting them in two proves your
>superiority overall, but can make finding players to adequately give you a
>challenge difficult. Hence, if you don't travel a lot, it becomes difficult
>for your skill to improve (unless you are in a hotbed of SF talent).
Agreed.
>This former argument is only valid assuming that players at a particular
>arcade play one or two styles. Travelling to different arcades all of the
>time and/or tournaments greatly increases your skill level as different
>arcades has different playing styles. However, the cost to the pocketbook
>might prohibit this from happening
Exactly. Fortunately for me, I do not have this problem. But in the future,
we will see less travel and more network, on-line competitions.
>Don't meant to knock you, I, but there is a reason WHY Ryu is a wanderering
>fighter. You just forgot to include it in your Laws of Fightings.
I agree with you. There are many different players out there with different
styles. There are also many different arcades with different "house rules".
But the Laws of Fighting have one style: use anything *within the boundaries*
of the game to win. "House rules" do not apply as it simply caters to a specific
local arcade and limits a player's overall potential. Therefore there should
be _one_ UNIVERSAL fighting attitude and style - The Laws of Fighting.
In the program, you will see the main loop For i = 1 to N. This means that to
be the best, you will play every player out there(and there are N many). This
follows "there can be only one" cliche. Now since there are N players out there,
who are not centralized in one arcade, there WILL be some travelling. At least
one participant must travel to the other, or both arrange a meeting.
Thus, my program indirectly covers the travelling problem you mention. It was
not forgotten, but encouraged...
I appreciate your input though. It is always refreshing to hear someone *think*
for a change.
Shiva the perpetually busy
Not this thread again. Everyone, just let this thread die, please. It's
one of the worst reoccuring threads, right up there with Aeris revivalists
and software piracy morality. Don't feed the troll!
Tom Cheng
tkc...@icaen.uiowa.edu
http://snow.weeg.uiowa.edu/tomcheng/
----------------------------------------------
Outer Senshi Doom 2: outers.html
Legend of Sailor Galaxia: galaxia/galaxia.html
Project SING: Saturn Is Not Goth: sing.html
Complete guide to Tekken 2 multiparts: tekken2.html
Celes Chere Shrine: celes.html
Larry Miller
Shiva the perpetually busy wrote in message ...
>
>Not this thread again. Everyone, just let this thread die, please. It's
>one of the worst reoccuring threads, right up there with Aeris revivalists
>and software piracy morality. Don't feed the troll!
Nah, actually this thread is quite interesting...
I...@I.COM has been right all along you know.
--Larry--
Jake Lee
*yawn* can't this guy talk about anything else?
Bloody boring,
Jake the Lee Wu-Long
John E Larkspur
I (I...@I.COM) wrote:
: <ergo>
: //***********************************************************************
: // The Laws of Fighting Program
: // by I...@I.COM
[huge snip]
Keep this self-important self-fellatio where it belongs: alt.games.sf2!
Lark
I
In article <6ncllm$slp$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, jl...@hotmail.com believes...
>
>*yawn* can't this guy talk about anything else?
>
>Bloody boring,
For someone who has no comprehension of what hardcore gaming is about...
I
In article <jlarkEv...@netcom.com>, jl...@netcom.com believes...
Your ignorance is magnificent. Obviously you have no tournament or hardcore
competition experience, otherwise you would realize that the Laws of
Fighting gives a player the best oppurtunity to realize his full potential
and play to the best of his abilities. This concept is foreign to you.
Pity, you are a veteran too, what gives?
The Laws of Fighting are not bound to alt.games.sf2 nor CAPCOM alone, but
to ALL fighting games: Tekken, KI, MK, VF, KOF, SS, etc., etc, etc...
Beyond, the laws extend out to the internet with on-line competitions such
as Quake, Starcraft, and Myth. We see the laws in sports, wars, and everyday
life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
This newsgroup, rec.games.video.arcade is a huge incubator of little chicks
chirping "CHEAP" at every oppurtunity. Snivelling, whimpering, whining players
complaining and crying for characters/moves/tactics which they consider
"unfair".
Thus, when someone comes along and celebrates it, of course there will be some
"feathers ruffled" as you demonstrate, Lurk.
Do me a favor, next time you feel so inclined to respond to me, at least *try*
to come up will a rebuttal on why you disagree with me. Just try.
[sprinkles chicken seed]
Food for thought.
JaMun
some "I" wrote this:
>Your ignorance is magnificent. Obviously you have no tournament or hardcore
>competition experience, otherwise you would realize that the Laws of
>Fighting gives a player the best oppurtunity to realize his full potential
>and play to the best of his abilities. This concept is foreign to you.
>Pity, you are a veteran too, what gives?
>
>The Laws of Fighting are not bound to alt.games.sf2 nor CAPCOM alone, but
>to ALL fighting games: Tekken, KI, MK, VF, KOF, SS, etc., etc, etc...
>Beyond, the laws extend out to the internet with on-line competitions such
>as Quake, Starcraft, and Myth. We see the laws in sports, wars, and everyday
>life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
>
>This newsgroup, rec.games.video.arcade is a huge incubator of little chicks
>chirping "CHEAP" at every oppurtunity. Snivelling, whimpering, whining
>players
>complaining and crying for characters/moves/tactics which they consider
>"unfair".
>Thus, when someone comes along and celebrates it, of course there will be
>some
>"feathers ruffled" as you demonstrate, Lurk.
>
>Do me a favor, next time you feel so inclined to respond to me, at least
>*try*
>to come up will a rebuttal on why you disagree with me. Just try.
>
>[sprinkles chicken seed]
>
>Food for thought.
I personally feel your laws of fighting are redundant...I personally have one
law of fightng.
1. Win.
Anything else is just rambling...
Dr. DVS 1
Aeris WILL return!!! She appeared to me and told me she shall show ALL her
TRUE disciples what love REALLY is...
Larry Miller <lmil...@usa.net> wrote in article
<6nc6tc$kgm$1...@supernews.com>...
Jeff-Maru
I do not mind if you make an opinion, but at least try to make it an
informed one.
We see the laws in sports, wars, and everyday
>life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
There are Laws of War and they do not correspond to your ideology. If you
don't agree, go do some research or take a class on it like I have.
Harvard's "Crime, Genocide, and Justice" could be quite educating.
Jeff-Maru
http://voxel.net/acpgaming
RD
> We see the laws in sports, wars, and everyday
>>life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
>
>There are Laws of War and they do not correspond to your ideology. If you
>don't agree, go do some research or take a class on it like I have.
>Harvard's "Crime, Genocide, and Justice" could be quite educating.
Someone can write laws, but i like to go with "All's fair in love and
war". In fact i'd think war would be the ultimate example... if you
blow up everything, who's excatly going to sit there and be the
smartass-"But you didn't REALLY win". Same in games, if it says KO, i
win... except the other players are still around to argue (if he's got
some more change)
Aren't you saying to him that in order to successful he should learn
mor. Sounds like your backing him up.
I don't have much problem with the 'survival of the fittest', having
fun is fine, but i find when things pretty much designed for
competition are not played that way, you lose intrest quickly (if
there was any in the first place). There always seems to be some kind
of competition going on. Winning is the obvious one. But seeing who
can attract the most people, have the most impressive combos, use the
most characters, play with the most absurd style, etc... you rarely
see anything that cannot be associated with competition. In fact isn't
this thread one in itself =).
John E Larkspur
: some "I" wrote this:
: >The Laws of Fighting are not bound to alt.games.sf2 nor CAPCOM alone, but
: >to ALL fighting games: Tekken, KI, MK, VF, KOF, SS, etc., etc, etc...
They belong only in the Capcom group, for that is the only realm where
they will get a majority (or even sizeable minority) support. I doubt
there is a single true VFer in the entire world who would subscribe to
your philosophy, and I do not exaggerate. I call upon any Senbon Master to
step forward and refute this if it is not so.
: >Do me a favor, next time you feel so inclined to respond to me, at least
: >*try* to come up will a rebuttal on why you disagree with me. Just try.
It may come as some surprise to you that I did not save a copy of your
program for future reference. No, you need not bother reposting it. I too
once spoke that language, but I abandoned programming for the black art it
is, rife with conventionalized illogic. X can never possibly equal X + 1,
and it represents the fallacious twists in your own reasoning.
But if there must be verbal fencing, I select narration as my foil to
your programming. To this end, I cite "Fist of Legend", featuring an
exchange between Mr. Funakoshi, an elder japanese learned in chinese
martial arts, and Chen Zhen, a young chinese who has travelled the world
mastering all martial arts. They fight, and Funakoshi is victorious.
The dialogue, translated from Mandarin Chinese:
Chen: ... I've lost.
Funakoshi: I just adopted your fighting style. Chinese martial arts
always emphasize on personal well-being, not the battles. Your
performance was actually a surprise for me [coming from a chinese].
Chen: The objective of matching is to beat down the opponent!
Funakoshi: Wrong, kid, the best way to beat the opponent is to use a gun.
The goal of studying martial arts is to maximize one's "energy". If you
want to achieve that goal, you must understand life and the universe.
I therefore submit, "I@I", that to follow your philosophy to the
fullest at your next tournament, you should pull out a pistol at the word
"Fight!" and blow your competitor's brains out. Victory is then guaranteed.
To be honest, I was reluctant to share this strategy with you, but then I
figured that in the worst case scenario, there'd probably be one less Ryu
player infesting the face of the Earth. Indeed, it does this embittered
heart glad to imagine hardcore Street Fighter tournaments everywhere in
which the players take turns systematically executing one another, the
bloody gore creating channels down the face of the SF2 cabinet, causing the
controller to stick and the buttons to short out. Life and the universe
would be better for it.
Meditate on this.
Lark
I
>: >to ALL fighting games: Tekken, KI, MK, VF, KOF, SS, etc., etc, etc...
>
>They belong only in the Capcom group, for that is the only realm where
>they will get a majority (or even sizeable minority) support. I doubt
>there is a single true VFer in the entire world who would subscribe to
>your philosophy, and I do not exaggerate. I call upon any Senbon Master to
>step forward and refute this if it is not so.
Why? Pray tell me. If you believe that Capcom is the only domain where
my Laws reside, then you have to provide *evidence* to support your claim.
"They don't apply because I say they don't apply" crap does not work with me...
In ALL fighting games there is a presence of winning/losing, "cheap",
"honor", character versatility, and tournaments to decide who is the best.
The popularity of the Laws will differentiate with game to game, but this
is dependent on the players who play it and where. Each arcade has their
own "house rules". Who are you to say that they apply *only* to one
type of game? As I mentioned before, your ignorance is magnificent.
>: >Do me a favor, next time you feel so inclined to respond to me, at least
>: >*try* to come up will a rebuttal on why you disagree with me. Just try.
>
> It may come as some surprise to you that I did not save a copy of your
>program for future reference. No, you need not bother reposting it. I too
>once spoke that language, but I abandoned programming for the black art it
>is, rife with conventionalized illogic. X can never possibly equal X + 1,
>and it represents the fallacious twists in your own reasoning.
Once again, NO evidence to back this up. Explain to me the illogic. Your
futile attempt to steer away from my program will not work. It is the topic
of this thread and the foundation of my Laws.
If you cannot refute it, then don't waste my time with some petty vendetta
you now have against me.
> But if there must be verbal fencing, I select narration as my foil to
>your programming. To this end, I cite "Fist of Legend", featuring an
[snip]
A fictitious martial arts flick? You know, I hate to tell you this, but martial
artists cannot really fly around. As a martial artist practitioner, I know.
I digress...your Mr. Funakoshi is correct in the assertion that a gun is a better
way to defeat someone. This gun represents a move/tactic/character in a
fighter game which is considered "cheap" or overpowered. Your narration
only supports my claim that NOT believing in "cheap" or "honor" will reveal
a "gun" which a player and his opponent are both at liberty to use to play
to their full potential.
You want narration? I give you "A Book of Five Rings" (Go Rin No Sho)
by Miyamoto Musashi. http://www.samurai.com/5rings. I'm sure you are
familiar with Samurai Shodown and Haohmaru. Here you will read a short
biography on a real life Ryu/Akuma and follower of The Laws of Fighting,
Miyamoto Musashi.
> I therefore submit, "I@I", that to follow your philosophy to the
>fullest at your next tournament, you should pull out a pistol at the word
[snip emotional jargon]
I too wield a sword...
THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!!!!!!
[SSSSSLLLLLIIIIICCCCCEEEEE]
[stops an inch in front of Lurk's throat]
There was a time when your head would have been lopped off and placed on
stick as a warning for all that oppose me. By you drawing first blood by your
hasty response to my original post, my cut would almost be justified. But that
sort of immatuirty is not the path I wish to take. Your little pistol suggestion
should not be yours either.
The Laws of Fighting provides a player the winniest strategy toward fighting
games *within the boundaries* of the game. A proof of the Laws is represented
by a program. Obeying all the laws is not realistic, but with discipline,
dedication, desire, and destiny one can *strive* to be the best they can
be...and may achieve near invincibilty.
So far you have NOT provided me with any evidence or sound rebuttal to my
philosophy. Since you instigated this discussion, I suggest you push aside
your emotions and swallow your pride and think a little harder. Your back
is against the wall since you have already committed yourself, and now,
you have but a few options:
1. Don't respond - accept defeat
2. Take this to e-mail - saving face
3. Refute - eat crow
4. Apologize, and have an open mind to what I believe in - an out for you
Hrmmm...?
I
PS. If this is our last discussion, then at least take this advise: change your
britches, you pissed in your pants...
I
In article <6nhhpo$5rm$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, jeff...@singnet.com.sg believes...
>
>I do not mind if you make an opinion, but at least try to make it an
>informed one.
>
>>life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
>
Amen
I
I
In article <359c727f...@news.psu.edu>, kali...@hotmail.com believes...
>>>life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
>>
>>don't agree, go do some research or take a class on it like I have.
>>Harvard's "Crime, Genocide, and Justice" could be quite educating.
>
>Someone can write laws, but i like to go with "All's fair in love and
>war". In fact i'd think war would be the ultimate example... if you
>blow up everything, who's excatly going to sit there and be the
>smartass-"But you didn't REALLY win". Same in games, if it says KO, i
>win... except the other players are still around to argue (if he's got
>some more change)
Excellent. You got it. This is idea behind the Laws.
>
>Aren't you saying to him that in order to successful he should learn
>mor. Sounds like your backing him up.
>
>I don't have much problem with the 'survival of the fittest', having
>fun is fine, but i find when things pretty much designed for
>competition are not played that way, you lose intrest quickly (if
>there was any in the first place). There always seems to be some kind
>of competition going on. Winning is the obvious one. But seeing who
>can attract the most people, have the most impressive combos, use the
>most characters, play with the most absurd style, etc... you rarely
>see anything that cannot be associated with competition. In fact isn't
>this thread one in itself =).
Exactly. Humans are competitive by nature.
John E Larkspur
I (I...@I.COM) wrote:
: In article <jlarkEv...@netcom.com>, jl...@netcom.com believes...
: > But if there must be verbal fencing, I select narration as my foil to
: [snip]
: A fictitious martial arts flick??
This cheapens the words? Perhaps you are under some sort of delusion
concerning our mutual hobby and its authenticity?
: I digress...your Mr. Funakoshi is correct in the assertion that a gun
: is a better
: way to defeat someone. This gun represents a move/tactic/character in a
: fighter game which is considered "cheap" or overpowered. Your narration
: only supports my claim that NOT believing in "cheap" or "honor" will reveal
: a "gun" which a player and his opponent are both at liberty to use to play
: to their full potential.
Wrong, this gun represents "victory" in your sense of the word. Not
only may both opponents use it, but also any maid, child, or monkey.
Cheap? Honorable? Who cares? All that matters is that it is not "art",
and proves nothing about the wielder's worth.
: You want narration? I give you "A Book of Five Rings" (Go Rin No Sho)
: by Miyamoto Musashi. http://www.samurai.com/5rings. I'm sure you are
: familiar with Samurai Shodown and Haohmaru. Here you will read a short
: biography on a real life Ryu/Akuma and follower of The Laws of Fighting,
: Miyamoto Musashi.
I've always felt sorry for poor Musashi. His ability to find
existential meaning within the pitiful confines of a samurai's life is a
testament to humankind's capacities for self-denial. He was a grimey
little man, and I've always thought it the greatest injustice that one
with so little to live for should find such proficiency in ending the
lives of others. A poetic butcher.
: There was a time when your head would have been lopped off and placed on
: stick as a warning for all that oppose me. By you drawing first blood by your
: hasty response to my original post, my cut would almost be justified.
Your original post was an affront to all that is decent in gaming.
I've made it my policy not to interfere with whatever inbreeding goes on
in the squirmy little pool of a.g.sf2, but by taking it to r.g.v.a. it is
you who invoke me. It does admittedly dampen my enthusiasm now that I
realize that this was your goal all along (to invoke others), but I am
heartened by the fact that it is your newsgroup which will experience the
most aggravation from the continuation of this thread, having had to
endure it previously. From now on, I shall simply remove the r.g.v.a.
header.
Posing is fun, hmm?
: The Laws of Fighting provides a player the winniest strategy toward fighting
: games *within the boundaries* of the game.
Now there's a naive statement. "Within the boundaries of the game."
Do you really think you've conquered all the variables with your little
program on matching? Do you really believe that all joysticks are equal,
for example? That it is of no consequence whether a very large human
opponent squeezes you out of your accustomed playing stance? That the
infernal brain-piercing strains of "DAAAAYTOOOONAAAAAA!" to the left
player's side might not present the same ideal conditions for strategic
play compared to the Mozart of Wolfgang Krauser's stage to the right
player's side? It ALL influences the game, and certainly is capable of
tipping the balance in an evenly matched fight. To truly know who is the
best (which seems to be your raison d'etre), I think you need to take my
suggestion of playing a round at gunpoint seriously. Perhaps my Ryu is
better than your Ken when we're both under extrordinary pressure.
Although I must admit a weakness in that I must forfeit matches against
people who I find embarassing to be standing with.
: So far you have NOT provided me with any evidence or sound rebuttal to my
: philosophy.
Evidence? What evidence do you want? Your philosophy is an
impossibility. One can never truly "win". Fighting games (that is,
fighting games discussed in other newsgroups) continually change and evolve.
The combatants continually change and evolve. Victory lasts for but the
few short seconds it takes for someone to insert another quarter. Only
the "art" is eternal. Your "wins" will join you in your grave.
With destination predetermined, there can only be the journey.
: Your back
: is against the wall since you have already committed yourself, and now,
: you have but a few options:
: 1. Don't respond - accept defeat
: 2. Take this to e-mail - saving face
: 3. Refute - eat crow
: 4. Apologize, and have an open mind to what I believe in - an out for you
Why I@I, this is quite embarassing. You need not beg me to continue
this correspondence with you, which is the real "out" you've left. Those
who know me will tell you that I take perverse pleasure in precisely
this sort of behavior, with the added luxury that I don't have to hang
around a.g.sf2 once I'm done with this annoying pimple of a thread.
Now go run along to your mirror and practice your poses, prince of the
universe.
Lark
Mark Oyama
> There are Laws of War and they do not correspond to your ideology. If
you
> don't agree, go do some research or take a class on it like I have.
> Harvard's "Crime, Genocide, and Justice" could be quite educating.
I scoff at classes from Harvard on such things.
They may certainly teach something, and may even teach it well...in all
likelihood it has zip to do with what "I" is trying to talk about. I
wouldn't
trust them to be even close to "right".....look at the dumb people
like psychologists and stuff....probably they come from classes like
those (on more varied topics).
Mark Oyama
> If one has to resort to a nonexistant word as 'winniest' then I
> question your 'laws.'
Smart people define their own words, because the useful
notions that correspond to many things don't have words
to describe them. This happens extremely often in English,
perhaps not so much in other languages but it surely
happens also.
Given how disorganized the English language is...it may
even not be possible to define a certain word or notion
in terms of other English words. In the end u have to just
have some "inner concepts"....by saying "winniest"
this 'I' person is trying to call up on them.
Jeff-Maru
My point was simple. This "I" person believes that the only rule to sports,
games, war, etc. is to win at all costs. Well that is simply not true.
Even in something as inherently savage as war, there are Laws to limit the
extent of measures one can take to win. Obviously, I's ideology does not
correspond to everything.
Jeff-Maru
>But this is immaterial, if you extrapolate the *principles* of Musashi's
fights,
>you will note that he was on a mission of perfecting his skills and
challenging the
>best opponents. He adopted different weapons and continued to challenge
until
>he was the one. And yes, he used "cheap" tactics to win. He retired
undefeated.
>This is the Laws of Fighting.
No he wasn't. Legend had it he lost to some young kid who did not know
any martial arts. If you haven't heard of this tale you obviously haven't
read enough.
>Think! The program is a *philosophy*, a mentality on playing the game
>to your full potential. The Laws of Fighting apply only *within the
boundaries*
>of the game. The prerequisites of the Laws are conditions *outside the
game*
>which are mutually satisfied for both players. This means both joysticks
and buttons
>are working perfectly, both maintain respectable physical distances from
another,
>both sit on comfy stools, etc..
*GASP* So are you saying that if somebody wins because he or she has
the better joystick then the win is "dishonorable" and violating your Laws
of Fighting???
Jeff-Maru
I wrote in message <6nkdua$deq$3...@excalibur.flash.net>...
>In article <6nhhpo$5rm$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, jeff...@singnet.com.sg
believes...
>>
>>I do not mind if you make an opinion, but at least try to make it an
>>informed one.
>>
>> We see the laws in sports, wars, and everyday
>>>life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
>>
>>These are Laws of War ...
>
>
>Amen
Maybe you should study the subject more, Laws of War. I'm sure you'll
find it very interesting and contradictory to your "Laws of Fighting."
Jeff-Maru
>Depending how u define honor, I guess. Try not to do irrelevant
>'honorable' things.....but knifing your opponent in the back as
>he plays isn't so good either. Video games is pretty foolish
>as it is now...they need to be fixed up. Separate the players
>farther away physically is better. Enhance the frame rate to
>be at least 200 frames per second (60 interlaced is a poor
>substitute for real life...which is what your senses are designed
>to work in) and make the resolution 1280x1024 or something.
Your eyes can't detect the difference beyond 60 frames per second.
I
In article <6nps0j$br6$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, jeff...@singnet.com.sg believes...
>
>>But this is immaterial, if you extrapolate the *principles* of Musashi's
>fights,
>>you will note that he was on a mission of perfecting his skills and
>challenging the
>>best opponents. He adopted different weapons and continued to challenge
>until
>>he was the one. And yes, he used "cheap" tactics to win. He retired
>undefeated.
>>This is the Laws of Fighting.
>
>
> No he wasn't. Legend had it he lost to some young kid who did not know
>any martial arts. If you haven't heard of this tale you obviously haven't
>read enough.
Please. This nitty-picky crap is insignificant. The point of then matter is
that Musashi's fighting principles parallel The Laws of Fighting. If he was
not undefeated...so be it, but he was on mission to become the best he can be
and was *striving* to be the "one".
But if you insist, read http://www.samurai.com/5rings/transintro/life.html,
here you will find a passage stating "He was invincible". Since this was
supposedly translated from the book itself, one cannot assume that the
translator's creditability is genuine. But one cannot also assume that it
is false. Nonetheless, here's my source....where's yours?
>>Think! The program is a *philosophy*, a mentality on playing the game
>>to your full potential. The Laws of Fighting apply only *within the
>boundaries*
>>of the game. The prerequisites of the Laws are conditions *outside the
>game*
>>which are mutually satisfied for both players. This means both joysticks
>and buttons
>>are working perfectly, both maintain respectable physical distances from
>another,
>>both sit on comfy stools, etc..
>
>
> *GASP* So are you saying that if somebody wins because he or she has
>the better joystick then the win is "dishonorable" and violating your Laws
>of Fighting???
No, the Laws of Fighting were never applied in this example, so there was no
violation. As I mentioned before, the prerequisites are conditions *outside the
boundaries* of the game must be mutually acceptable to both players. If these
conditions are not satisfied, such as broken joysticks, then the game is simply
biased and has no meaning. For example, if you fail your "Crime and Art of War"
course, *ahem*, then you obviously cannot take "Crime and Art of War II" until
you pass its prerequisite.
Once the extracurricular conditions are satisfied, then The Laws of Fighting may
be applied. Players will know that they WILL NOT have any excuse for a loss
and must take FULL responsibility upon themselves. Their opponent is never to
blame.
Remember, the Laws of Fighting will not guarantee victory, but it will give you
the best shot at becoming the best you can be.
I
I
In article <6nprec$gnl$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, jeff...@singnet.com.sg believes...
>
>My point was simple. This "I" person believes that the only rule to sports,
>games, war, etc. is to win at all costs. Well that is simply not true.
You totally misunderstand my meaning. I appreciate your inquisition, but don't
assume...
To be the best that you can be and realize your full potential, you will
utilize your faculties to their fullest (ie. win at all costs).
>Even in something as inherently savage as war, there are Laws to limit the
>extent of measures one can take to win. Obviously, I's ideology does not
>correspond to everything.
Elaborate and back-up your claims.
In War, there are no rules or limitations. Either you win or lose. The particulars
are irrelevant because the end justifies the means. Take for example, nuclear weapons.
There are no rules where the missiles may strike.
The only difference between my Laws and war is that war has NO prerequisties
and NO boundaries. But if the battle field of video games is *within the boundaries*
of the game and anything outside does not exist, then indeed, this is war.
Michael Powers
On 6 Jul 1998 05:53:43 GMT, "Mark Oyama" <oy...@cco.caltech.edu>
wrote:
>> If one has to resort to a nonexistant word as 'winniest' then I
>> question your 'laws.'
>
>Smart people define their own words, because the useful
>notions that correspond to many things don't have words
>to describe them.
To paraphrase George Carlin, "Zeep nop noarney flinkety floo!"
There's an entire dictionary full of words that _already_ exist, and
if you'd go and look in one you'd more than likely find one to express
your concept. There's no need to resort to such childish techniques
as grafting inappropriate prefixes and suffixes onto some hapless root
in order to make yourself seem smart.
(And besides, that way lies "e1i7e k3wL spE@cH, u no? me 2")
Mike Powers
DoublePlusGood!
RD
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 18:13:27 GMT, mpo...@vt.edu (Michael Powers)
wrote:
>To paraphrase George Carlin, "Zeep nop noarney flinkety floo!"
>
>There's an entire dictionary full of words that _already_ exist, and
>if you'd go and look in one you'd more than likely find one to express
>your concept. There's no need to resort to such childish techniques
>as grafting inappropriate prefixes and suffixes onto some hapless root
>in order to make yourself seem smart.
So if i can write in perfect german, does that mean my point is more
valid than any less-than-perfect english message even tho you cannot
read it? tho isn't a word so i guess i'm wrong eh? =)
There are plently of abstract films/art out there, and to discount
those because they are not the perfect image of reality would be to
deny their meaning. Since you responded as if you understood what he
meant.. does it matter?
I
In article <6nr2sp$epb$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, jeff...@singnet.com.sg believes...
>>But if you insist, read http://www.samurai.com/5rings/transintro/life.html,
>>here you will find a passage stating "He was invincible". Since this was
>>supposedly translated from the book itself, one cannot assume that the
>>translator's creditability is genuine. But one cannot also assume that it
>>is false. Nonetheless, here's my source....where's yours?
>
>
>Gee, all your knowledge about Musashi came from a site? Well, to be honest
>with you, I can't remember where I read it from
(sigh)
The use of my on-line reference is an act courtesy for the reader so we can
share a common reference...unlike some people. If you are going to contest
with me, you must support your claims before you shoot your mouth...
>- one of those older
>biographies with admittedly low circulation. But it is a common enough
>tale - for those that are willing to accept it that is. Obviously, a person
>who loves Musashi enough to dedicate a section of a site would be hard
>pressed to admit that he wasn't the invincible, awe-inspiring hero legends
>would make him out to be. In fact, he was a dirty man who never took a
>bath, used two swords, and was very big and tall for a Japanese, giving him
>extroadinary reach. So he had a physical advantage over his opponents.
>Oops wouldn't this advantage be considered "outside the boundaries" of
>battle?
More assumptions. You don't know the web author and you don't know Musashi...
Ever played a boss character? They have advantages and are *within the
boundaries* of the game right? Whoops!
>>> *GASP* So are you saying that if somebody wins because he or she has
>>>the better joystick then the win is "dishonorable" and violating your Laws
>>>of Fighting???
>>
>>
>>No, the Laws of Fighting were never applied in this example, so there was
>no
>>violation. As I mentioned before, the prerequisites are conditions *outside
>the
>>boundaries* of the game must be mutually acceptable to both players.
>
>If this is even possible!
Possible.
>>For example, if you fail your "Crime and Art of War"
>>course, *ahem*, then you obviously cannot take "Crime and Art of War II"
>>until you pass its prerequisite.
>
>
>My, what linear thinking. OK then, what about this. Player using a
>bottom-tier character plays another guy using a top-tier character.
>Top-tier guy wins. Is this top-tier guy better? Please explain how yoru
>Laws fit into this example and this example alone. (for example I'm not
>interested in these two people sparring again. Just that match and that
>match alone please).
Very well, because you said "please"...
Assumptions:
1. Player A and Player B are both mutually satisfied with the conditions
*outside the boundaries* of the game.
2. Player A and Player B are the only players on the planet
Player A is using a top-tier characater - Akuma
Player B is using a bottom-tier character - Elena
Now, following the Laws of Fighting program and following your inquiry...
The player matchup loop - main loop in the program, has but one iteration
to determine the "one".
The character matchup loops - (the inner two loops) have one iteration each.
Therefore, Player A[Akuma] > Player B[Elena]. Player A's win counter is added one.
The program then *suspends*...
There are no other character match-ups at this time. Statistically at this
moment, Player A's counter = 1 and Player B's counter = 0
But this is irrelevant. The inner two loops must complete with both players
matching *every* character with every character in order to determine who is
truely the superior player.
Since this is SF32i, the matrix looks like this:
\DINEAYUHARK
D...........
I...........
N...........
E........A..
A...........
Y...........
U...........
H...........
A...........
R...........
K...........
Since there are 11 characters, a player has to win 11*11 = 121/2 = 60.5 = 61 times
or more to be officially superior than his opponent.
Thus, INSUFFICIENT DATA to declare Player A is superior than Player B and also
to determine the "one".
=====
If there is only one rule, WIN, as you suggest, the vagueness in itself cannot
define superiority, full potential, and becoming the best of the best.
Different players have different definitions of WIN. Some believe if you beat
a player like in the example above, you are better. Some believe if you beat
someone with "cheap" or "dishonorable" tactics, then it is not counted as a win.
Different strokes for different folks. The problem is that WIN is not a
universal word...there must be a system or common guidlines to better define the
superiority and the best player.
Preferably a logical one which no one can refute...The Laws of Fighting
I
Fuzzy
Don't you even think about forcing your ill-conceived philosophy on
people here again.
Jeff-Maru
>Please. This nitty-picky crap is insignificant.
Hey, you made it sound like undeniable fact. I merely pointed out it may
not be entirely accurate.
The point of then matter is
>that Musashi's fighting principles parallel The Laws of Fighting. If he
was
>not undefeated...so be it, but he was on mission to become the best he can
be
>and was *striving* to be the "one".
>
>But if you insist, read http://www.samurai.com/5rings/transintro/life.html,
>here you will find a passage stating "He was invincible". Since this was
>supposedly translated from the book itself, one cannot assume that the
>translator's creditability is genuine. But one cannot also assume that it
>is false. Nonetheless, here's my source....where's yours?
Gee, all your knowledge about Musashi came from a site? Well, to be honest
with you, I can't remember where I read it from - one of those older
biographies with admittedly low circulation. But it is a common enough
tale - for those that are willing to accept it that is. Obviously, a person
who loves Musashi enough to dedicate a section of a site would be hard
pressed to admit that he wasn't the invincible, awe-inspiring hero legends
would make him out to be. In fact, he was a dirty man who never took a
bath, used two swords, and was very big and tall for a Japanese, giving him
extroadinary reach. So he had a physical advantage over his opponents.
Oops wouldn't this advantage be considered "outside the boundaries" of
battle?
>> *GASP* So are you saying that if somebody wins because he or she has
>>the better joystick then the win is "dishonorable" and violating your Laws
>>of Fighting???
>
>
>No, the Laws of Fighting were never applied in this example, so there was
no
>violation. As I mentioned before, the prerequisites are conditions *outside
the
>boundaries* of the game must be mutually acceptable to both players.
If this is even possible!
If these
>conditions are not satisfied, such as broken joysticks, then the game is
simply
>biased and has no meaning.
Well then, your exceptions really narrows and waters down the scope of your
Laws. Not quite the Machivallian philosophy you originally hoped it would
be eh?
For example, if you fail your "Crime and Art of War"
>course, *ahem*, then you obviously cannot take "Crime and Art of War II"
until
>you pass its prerequisite.
My, what linear thinking. OK then, what about this. Player using a
bottom-tier character plays another guy using a top-tier character.
Top-tier guy wins. Is this top-tier guy better? Please explain how yoru
Laws fit into this example and this example alone. (for example I'm not
interested in these two people sparring again. Just that match and that
match alone please).
>Once the extracurricular conditions are satisfied, then The Laws of
Fighting may
>be applied. Players will know that they WILL NOT have any excuse for a
loss
>and must take FULL responsibility upon themselves. Their opponent is never
to
>blame.
IMO, you cheapen the meaning of victory by putting attempting to define it
with these ridiculous Laws and goading people to abide by it. Winning by
its very nature is inherently benefitting and a natural, basic goal for
every player. Why bother stating it? Or do you have nothing else to do.
Each time someone challenges a component of your law you find ways around it
until the concept gets so watered down it's not even worth keeping around
anymore.
If you really want to be Machivallian, just abide by one rule: WIN.
Everything else is just fanciful rambling.
Jeff-Maru
>I scoff at classes from Harvard on such things.
>They may certainly teach something, and may even teach it well...in all
>likelihood it has zip to do with what "I" is trying to talk about. I
>wouldn't
>trust them to be even close to "right".....look at the dumb people
>like psychologists and stuff....probably they come from classes like
>those (on more varied topics).
Mmm-hmm.
RD
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 20:02:38 -0700, Fuzzy <fu...@you-know-where.com>
wrote:
>Don't you even think about forcing your ill-conceived philosophy on
>people here again.
Isn't that what NG's are for?. aren't you forcing your philosiphy that
his philosiphy is ill-concieved and that it's being forced on anyone ?
It was on topic, people responded to it, and i'm sure anyone who'd
like to have an intellegent debate about it should think this threat
is more than inappropriate... no matter which side they're on.
Larry Miller
RD wrote in message <35a15615...@news.psu.edu>...
I agree. As long as you get your point across...that's all that matters.
Usenet isn't a grammer class.
--Larry--
Mark Oyama
know
> any martial arts. If you haven't heard of this tale you obviously
haven't
> read enough.
I never heard this. I think you are the one who hasnt read properly or
enough.
In fact you must have something wrong in the brain too....if he lost to
'some
young kid who did not know any martial arts.' There is no way Musashi
with a sword will lose to an empty weaponed young kid knowing no
martial arts....I dont care how buff that kid is....if he is weaponless hes
in
trouble.
Mark Oyama
http://www.samurai.com/5rings/transintro/life.html,
> >>here you will find a passage stating "He was invincible". Since this
was
> >>supposedly translated from the book itself, one cannot assume that the
> >>translator's creditability is genuine. But one cannot also assume that
it
> >>is false. Nonetheless, here's my source....where's yours?
> >
> >
> >Gee, all your knowledge about Musashi came from a site? Well, to be
honest
> >with you, I can't remember where I read it from
>
> (sigh)
>
> The use of my on-line reference is an act courtesy for the reader so we
can
> share a common reference...unlike some people. If you are going to
contest
> with me, you must support your claims before you shoot your mouth...
Any idiot will know that Musashi is not invincible. You are not invincible
until
you walk around with a permanent glowing Energy Shield surrounding your
person, impervious to any force in existence, and routinely fire out
massive Dragon Ball Z scale fireballs at will.
So it's obvious the translator of the version of the Book of 5 Rings on
that particular site, Victor Harris, must be an idiot. But that doesn't
mean his translation isn't worth reading....just be careful not to take
what he says too literally.
I
>You are not invincible until you walk around with a permanent glowing
>Energy Shield surrounding your person, impervious to any force in existence,
>and routinely fire out massive Dragon Ball Z scale fireballs at will.
Consequently, even this is not invincible. Within your permanent, impervious
force field, you will starve to death. Time itself would beat this example of
invincibilty. Not to mention the exhaustion of air. Invincibility is difficult
to define as it portays or follows perfection. One must account for all
variables to properly proclaim it. *ahem*
>So it's obvious the translator of the version of the Book of 5 Rings on
>that particular site, Victor Harris, must be an idiot. But that doesn't
>mean his translation isn't worth reading....just be careful not to take
>what he says too literally.
Yet, since Musashi was the author of the Book of 5 Rings, he could very
well had said, "I am invincible". So in defense of the translator, his
creditability is "questionable" but not idiotic. A better word would have
been "undefeated".
If some ambitious person would like to browse the web and find a similar
site on Musashi and post it, that would be most beneficial.
I
> You're not leaving much to reply to, I@I. Is this over already?
You tell me. If you find it difficult to respond to me, then that in itself
proves how futile your efforts have been and how thorough, successful, and
dominate I have been. Let this be your lesson in humiliation.
RD has provided a good response and should be addressed in a.g.sf2. My
comments here are just an addendum.
>>The "gun" is a tool to achieve victory. Despite what you think, IT IS
>>an artistic weapon. It takes good eye coordination and dexterity to
>>master it.
> This is mechanics. Point and fire. This is not art. It takes only
>slightly more eye coordination and dexterity to urinate on someone.
Police officers must achieve certification to properly use a gun. Can
you think of any others? Hrmmm...?
> You need to re-read my explanation on the hollow illusion of the "win".
>What has the victor above achieved? What has he "won"? Not enlightenment.
>Pride? The winner would know best the shallowness of his technique. Respect?
>Would you respect him, I@I, knowing that in such a fickle contest it
>could as easily have been anyone? Pleasure? Only if he finds joy in the
>downfall of others. Money? If he's lucky, but if there's only money
>involved he not only cheapens the art but wastes time that could have
>been spent more "profitably" in every sense of the word.
>
> The game of "winning" is not the same as playing <insert game>. One
>with this mentality does not actually play the game at all. The game of
>"winning" transcends all games. The "winner" is never satisfied, he moves
>from game to game in search of his next fix, paying more quarters per
>priviledge. At best, the "winner" is forced by circumstance to limit
>himself only to games he knows he can win. At worst, he makes games of
>that which should never be a game, such as road rage or predatory stalking.
>And if this example sounds absurdly excessive, you don't understand the
>inherit ironic problem here, which is that the game of "winning"...
>can - not - be - WON.
First, "winning" is not a "game". It is a quest of finding self-gratification.
An individual is "winning" if he is *trying* to achieve what he is inspiring for,
therefore there is no game or contest. And if the quest is completed, he
contradicts your "game" because he has WON.
Second, each individual has their own reasons to strive for victory. The
items you mentioned: enlightenment, pride, respect, pleasure, and money are
all but a few. And yes, trying to be the best you can be is a reason too.
There is NOTHING wrong with any of these.
Last, you are falsely making an attempt to generalize what a "winner" is and
what constitutes its worth. You cannot do this. Each person has a different
definition, different reason, and a different destiny. You cannot see into
their souls.
> There is no permanent victory, and temporary wins are easy. I get them
>without trying. Only the art is eternal. To put it less existentially,
>people will remember the player whose Sarah Bryant, her lifebar low and
>time running out, goaded her Akira opponent into an option select
>mid-reversal, lunged into the offsetting Surprise Exchange and, with her
>back now to her opponent, m-motioned a lunging knee (completely useless
>move) right the hell out of the ring to avoid Taiwan Backbreaker (nearly
>automatic response from an Akira in this situation), yet landed a split
>second after her opponent's foot toed the ringout line. There are much
>safer, conservative, and more likely methods of going for the ringout there,
>but nothing of such artistry. Such acts are remembered.
> Nobody will remember 10 minutes later which Ryu's blocked shinku-
>hadouken won the Ryu-vs-Ryu battle at 3pm on Wednesday.
You like eye-candy don't you?
Let me help you define our differences...
You believe that "the means justify the end". The drama and artistry of the
fight as well as "cheap" and "honor" have weight on the victory. This
is therefore the goal of the contest, "to look good" among your peers and
not to break "winning etiquette". But this is inefficient. The belief in
"cheap" and "honor" only hinders and limits an individual's full potential.
In a sense, you are cheating yourself. Therefore, the end is dependent on
the means and this is NOT the "winniest" philosophy. This painting is a fraud.
I believe that "the end justifies the means". There are no limitations
as long as it is *within the boundaries* of the game. One can "look good"
if he wishes, but the goal is to win. How it is achieved is irrelevant,
he is a serious competitor who goes all out, holding nothing back. We
see this type of philosophy in tournaments, especially in sports and the
Olympics. Other areas have the same ideology as well: business, education,
employment, etc. Competition is everywhere and life is basically "survival
of the fittest". Is life unfair? Not in my book, you have to make it fair.
Through blood, sweat, and tears you can accomplish your goals and dreams
and can then sit back and admire your masterpiece that you have built and
earned.
> Not true, his samurai life-style was not the norm, and it is the main
>thing to admire him for. Mr. Jeff-maru has done a better job than I
>further revealing Musashi for what he really was. All I can add to his
>resume is that he once partook in the mass slaughter of at least 10,000
>women and children because they were christians. I wonder what techniques
>he perfected in that foray. But none of this is really on the point.
Typical.
>>But this is immaterial, if you extrapolate the *principles* of Musashi's
>>fights, you will note that he was on a mission of perfecting his skills and
>>challenging the best opponents.
>
> Wrong. He perfected tactics for winning. Even the most flattering
>biography would not refer to him as the most skilled swordsman. Musashi's
>book is not so popular with Japanese businessmen because he had skill,
>but because he was a conniver. He bypassed skill, just like every greasy
>corporate climber is trying to do.
Still, you have some ill delusion that if someone strives to be the
best he can be using all available tools, you consider it "un-skillfull",
cheating, and conniving. How so? Explain yourself.
>>Hahaha...What foolishness! Who made you internet police on r.g.v.a.???
>
> I'm not the rgva internet police. I'm an anti-a.g.sf2 vigilante in
>the Northern Ireland of USENET. I know what you're doing is typical here,
>but don't march your self-fellatio parade through other newsgroups. In
>my experience, the majority doesn't want it, and you mustn't be allowed
>to corrupt the young 'uns. Anyone who actually wants the s-f parade will
>eventually find it at a.g.sf2.
Again, who are you to be the moderator? You should be vanquished for
your tyrannical ideals. EVERYONE is at liberty to express what they want here.
You have no authority to corrupt readers by filtering discussions that *you*
seem unappropiate.
As far as corruption, I would be more concerned about the the blood, gore, and
horrific scenery in games like Mortal Kombat with fatalities and other games
which encourage the "young 'uns" to dismember their opponents. The whole
fighting game arena in general is a controversy in itself. It encourages voilence,
aggression, anti-social behavior, and "attitudes".
Yet you mock at me for revealing a winning philosophy to survive in this fray?
> The philosophy of the "winner" knows no boundaries. Any pretense at
>specifying "rules" is simply a matter of conveniently limiting the
>options to a size he can deal with, since the alternative is, as I said
>above, infinite possibilities. The realm of "winning" is as endless as
>the cosmos... and just as empty.
Winning is not an addiction like gambling. The limit of a "winner" is
when he achieved his pursuit of happiness and gradification. Without a
doubt, you are a pessimist to think someone can never achieve their goals
and dreams.
Don't fret. Here is some encouragement...
[flips a coin to Lurk]
Take this coin and try, just try, to come up with argument on what I
presented in my original post. I have been capitalizing on your apprehension
to refute my Laws of Fighting since you have only been consumed to repair
your fragile ego and reputation by continuing to post insignificant thoughts
consisting of pointless drivel and providing no factual evidence.
As usual, the options remain with some revisions...
1. WALK AWAY - don't respond and accept defeat
2. WATCH - agree with me
3. INSERT COIN - respond and try again
4. Apologize, and have an open mind to what I believe in - an out for you
>See what your philosophy does to you? Consumed with the "win", you are
>damned to pursue this thread eternally. I, of course, could and probably
>should end it, but alas, as I've told you before, I take a perverse
>pleasure in this sort of behavior. A pathological flaw, I'm afraid.
Your suicidal eh?
This is a new sensation for me. I am not beating you...I am destroying you...
But if this is your destiny...so be it. My "cut" is justified.
CONTINUE?
YES NO
9...8...7...
I
Mark Oyama
I'm not going to explain why, I've done that far too often and I
don't care anymore. But I will tell you that that is BULLSHIT.
EVEN IF you could not detect the different with your eyes...it
will make a difference. Whenever you see something and
input a command, the earliest that the game will 'register' your
inputs is 2 frames later (think about this). So, the higher
you make the frame rate, the less the 'lag.'
Mark Oyama
> well had said, "I am invincible". So in defense of the translator, his
> creditability is "questionable" but not idiotic. A better word would have
> been "undefeated".
But Musashi did not say that he was invincible. If the translator had
indeed
tried to 'put those words in Musashi's mouth' he could be in for major
trouble.
So I maintain that the translator was completely idiotic, for stating that
Musashi was 'invincible' in his translator's introduction. 'Undefeated' and
'invincible' are entirely different concepts...the translator CHOSE to say
Musashi was 'invincible' so he deserves all the flak from his statement.
John E Larkspur
: > Your eyes can't detect the difference beyond 60 frames per second.
: I'm not going to explain why, I've done that far too often and I
: don't care anymore. But I will tell you that that is BULLSHIT.
Let me give it a quick shot. The number the OP is thinking of is
actually closer to 30, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. All
that means is that 30 is around the limit where you can pick out
individual frames. Put a 60fps game next to a 30, and everyone can
easily see that the 60 animates much more smoothly than the 30, they just
can't say "see, it has extra frames here and here and here" etc. The
human eye still receives all the images, it's just that the human brain
can't process it all. So it splices everything together and
auto-corrects to give the best sensation of true motion.
For a better explanation, pick up any Psych 101 text and check for
chapters on visual perception. The brain has quite a few tricks to
overcome its deficiencies.
Lark
Orochi MCTek
I'm a regular at alt.games.sf2, I'm really sorry that we've let
I...@I.COM contaminate your newsgroup. Rest assured that everyone is trying to
solve this little problem at our newsgroup. Once again we are sorry for
bothering you.
-Orochi M.C.Tek
"Winning isn't everything, but losing isn't anything."
Jeff-Maru
>(sigh)
>
>The use of my on-line reference is an act courtesy for the reader so we can
>share a common reference...unlike some people. If you are going to contest
>with me, you must support your claims before you shoot your mouth...
Gyuh, I should've read this post earlier. Just this morning I went to a
bookshop and saw the Musashi book. Actually it turns out the book doesn't
have a low circulation....125 million copies sold so the cover claimed.
Next time I go there I'll let you know what it's called so you can buy a
copy and peruse it at your leisure.
>More assumptions. You don't know the web author and you don't know
Musashi...
Yep and yep. But I don't go around claiming facts about the guy either.
He's a legend and there are many interpretations. I was merely citing one.
>Ever played a boss character? They have advantages and are *within the
>boundaries* of the game right? Whoops!
Eh?
>Possible.
Mmm....
>>My, what linear thinking. OK then, what about this. Player using a
>>bottom-tier character plays another guy using a top-tier character.
>>Top-tier guy wins. Is this top-tier guy better? Please explain how yoru
>>Laws fit into this example and this example alone. (for example I'm not
>>interested in these two people sparring again. Just that match and that
>>match alone please).
>
>Very well, because you said "please"...
[snip - stuff about the program\
>
>Thus, INSUFFICIENT DATA to declare Player A is superior than Player B and
also
>to determine the "one".
So your laws can't determine the better player from the example above
eh?
>If there is only one rule, WIN, as you suggest, the vagueness in itself
cannot
>define superiority, full potential, and becoming the best of the best.
>Different players have different definitions of WIN. Some believe if you
beat
>a player like in the example above, you are better. Some believe if you
beat
>someone with "cheap" or "dishonorable" tactics, then it is not counted as a
win.
>Different strokes for different folks. The problem is that WIN is not a
>universal word...there must be a system or common guidlines to better
define the
>superiority and the best player.
And therein lies the fatal weakness of your Laws. After the many
defenses you've put up to uphold your Laws, the tone has definitely changed
from when a person first perceives it. One would think your Laws were
efficient, logical, and all encompassing but in fact after hearing you
explain it one realizes it is just another watered down interpretation of
defining "the best player". Your comment on "different strokes for
different folks" exemplify this weakness. Why bother with a Law that is
weak.
Jeff-Maru
>I never heard this. I think you are the one who hasnt read properly or
>enough.
Yap...mmm-hmmm.
>In fact you must have something wrong in the brain too....if he lost to
>'some
>young kid who did not know any martial arts.' There is no way Musashi
>with a sword will lose to an empty weaponed young kid
(I never said he was empty handed)
knowing no
>martial arts....I dont care how buff that kid is....if he is weaponless hes
>in
>trouble.
Perhaps that is the very reason why Musashi lost? Things aren't always
so straightforward. Big doesn't always defeat small. Adult doesn't always
overpower child. Experience doesn't always triumph over innocence. Goliath
doesn't always win.
Jeff-Maru
Jeff-Maru
>Last, you are falsely making an attempt to generalize what a "winner" is
and
>what constitutes its worth. You cannot do this. Each person has a different
>definition, different reason, and a different destiny. You cannot see into
>their souls.
So what exactly are your laws trying to accomplish if you believe all
this?
>You believe that "the means justify the end". [...] This painting is a
fraud.
What if having fun is the end? And what if the means to achieve that
end is through style, creativity, and artistry? Not everybody plays to win,
and I think this is the fundamental flaw in you and your fellow "I"
compatriots' Laws. (How many of you are there anyway).
>I believe that "the end justifies the means". There are no limitations
>as long as it is *within the boundaries* of the game. One can "look good"
>if he wishes, but the goal is to win.
Now what I'm asking is "why." You stated earlier on that "Each person
has a different definition, different reason, and a different destiny. You
cannot see into their souls." If everything is relevant, than why must
everyone's goal be to "win"? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
How it is achieved is irrelevant,
>he is a serious competitor who goes all out, holding nothing back. We
>see this type of philosophy in tournaments, especially in sports and the
>Olympics.
But games aren't always played in a tournament style setting. Isn't
playing to win a rarer occurence than playing to have a good time? If there
are people playing games solely to achieve self-gratification in their
victories, I say this is petty and look elsewhere for another hobby. Go
take up martial arts or something.
Other areas have the same ideology as well: business, education,
>employment, etc. Competition is everywhere and life is basically "survival
>of the fittest". Is life unfair? Not in my book, you have to make it fair.
>Through blood, sweat, and tears you can accomplish your goals and dreams
>and can then sit back and admire your masterpiece that you have built and
>earned.
Again, does Darwin's ideology really have to apply to gaming? Does only
the "fittest" survive?? So what, a guy who loses more than he wins
shouldn't play games at all? I think we are belying the true nature of
playing games - to have a good time.
[snip Musashi] Let's stop making references to Musashi. No one knows
anything about him anyway so let's just leave it at that.
Jeff-Maru
>I'm not going to explain why, I've done that far too often and I
>don't care anymore. But I will tell you that that is BULLSHIT.
Really. I'm only repeating what textbooks have told me.
>EVEN IF you could not detect the different with your eyes...it
>will make a difference.
Most TVs run at under 30 frames. Movies usually clock at 24 frames.
They still look pretty good to me; better than something like Soul Edge at
least.
Whenever you see something and
>input a command, the earliest that the game will 'register' your
>inputs is 2 frames later (think about this).
This is not true. Virtua Fighter 2-3 has a one frame response.
So, the higher
>you make the frame rate, the less the 'lag.'
I was talking about a visual difference.
Fuzzy
> be your definition of a "winner".
I beg to differ. My definition of a 'winner' is one accomplishing set
goals (whether by self or someone else), and I play to the best of my
abilities all the time.
> My definition of a "winner" has no flaws.
EVERYONE has flaws. Your definition of a 'winner' is a robot. Scratch
that, the COMPUTER.
Shinsei
A useless note on my useless comment on these useless laws: The debate
has waged for a decent while back on agsf2. I have no idea why I'm
replying at all...eh..maybe it's just to vent from work..heh..
On 14 Jul 1998, I wrote:
> In article <6oda2g$1pf$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg>, jeff...@singnet.com.sg believes...
>
> All other definitions and philosophies will not allow you to play to your
> full potential. It is simply logic. I am the message and the messenger.
"Gene Splice!" *LOL* huh...ya don't say...well..I'll be damned..
> > What if having fun is the end? And what if the means to achieve that
> >end is through style, creativity, and artistry? Not everybody plays to win,
> >and I think this is the fundamental flaw in you and your fellow "I"
> >compatriots' Laws. (How many of you are there anyway).
>
> My definition of a "winner" has no flaws.
>
> Those who do not play to win do...and my "winner" will prove it everytime.
Ah, the ol' Computer AI routien, eh I? In case ya didn't know, but I'm
pretty sure you did (I'm just reminding ya), humans in general, or even in
special cases, are never perfect. To achieve such quality, or rather lack
of faults, in a player in order to make him the perfect 'winner' would be
akin to trying to create something as crazy as perpetual motion IMHO.
You attempts at pursuing this fruitless dream of this supposed 'winner',
as flawless as he or she may possibly be in your eyes, is never going to
occur. Sure you could say "But just because something can't be done, does
that mean we shouldn't try?", but really, there are limits to even that
methodology...Sure we can try, but I'm in serious doubt that you can find
someone who would even want to acheive such pinnacle performance in
something so mediocre...It's just not human to do so.
> The shortest path between point A and point B is a straight line. Direct and
> concise. There is no argument. This is my Laws of Fighting.
Actually there are a few arguments..hypotheitcs but argumentative
nonetheless...The hyperspace definition of the shortest distance isn't a
straight line but rather than zero...So...could this be our glimmer of
hope against the oh-so-powerful Laws of Fighting? *shakes head* This is
just getting silly, I.
> Everyone cherishes the money they spend to play these "games" and nobody
> has a good time losing.
BZZT!!! Sorry 'I', but your answer is incorrect! The correct answer is
"people generally dislike losing, but the experience gained through
comradery, exhibition of skill, and various levels of self-gratification
[i.e. performing a difficult maneuver in a particularly dire situation]
can lead to an enjoyable time." Or something like that..but I'm sure you
get the jist that losing can be enjoyable if the game was played well
and/or you learned a useful technique, etc etc.
> The true nature of playing games is to present a competitive stimulis for
> players in order for the arcade vendors and video game companies to make
> money. It's a business and what you are buying is self-gradification.
Sort of...actually the nature of playing games seems to be an attempt at
presenting an *enjoyable* and competetive stimulis for a player. Without
enjoyment arcade vendors and game companies wouldn't have much of an
audience. Remeber 'I', we're human..we like to enjoy our games as much
as we like to compete with them ;-)
Anyway, enjoy your little microcosm 'I'. I'm sure you'll be a 'winner'
there.
Aaron
aka Shinsei
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anakahar/fanfic.html
"Give my regards to oblivion."
Dr. Smith
Lost In Space
I
>
>
>>(sigh)
>>
>>The use of my on-line reference is an act courtesy for the reader so we can
>>share a common reference...unlike some people. If you are going to contest
>>with me, you must support your claims before you shoot your mouth...
>
>
>bookshop and saw the Musashi book. Actually it turns out the book doesn't
>have a low circulation....125 million copies sold so the cover claimed.
>Next time I go there I'll let you know what it's called so you can buy a
>copy and peruse it at your leisure.
Always a good bedtime story...eh?
>>More assumptions. You don't know the web author and you don't know
>Musashi...
>
> Yep and yep. But I don't go around claiming facts about the guy either.
>He's a legend and there are many interpretations. I was merely citing one.
Ah, the question remains...*why* is he a legend? Why?
>>Ever played a boss character? They have advantages and are *within the
>>boundaries* of the game right? Whoops!
>
>
> Eh?
Ever played a boss character? They have advantages and are *within the
boundaries* of the game right? Whoops!
>>>My, what linear thinking. OK then, what about this. Player using a
>>>bottom-tier character plays another guy using a top-tier character.
>>>Top-tier guy wins. Is this top-tier guy better? Please explain how yoru
>>>Laws fit into this example and this example alone. (for example I'm not
>>>interested in these two people sparring again. Just that match and that
>>>match alone please).
>>
>>Very well, because you said "please"...
>
>[snip - stuff about the program\
>>
>>Thus, INSUFFICIENT DATA to declare Player A is superior than Player B and
>also
>>to determine the "one".
>
>
> So your laws can't determine the better player from the example above
>eh?
Correct. A player is not superior than another player until all matchup
permutations are determined. See program.
> And therein lies the fatal weakness of your Laws. After the many
>defenses you've put up to uphold your Laws, the tone has definitely changed
>from when a person first perceives it. One would think your Laws were
>efficient, logical, and all encompassing but in fact after hearing you
>explain it one realizes it is just another watered down interpretation of
>defining "the best player". Your comment on "different strokes for
>different folks" exemplify this weakness. Why bother with a Law that is
>weak.
Skepticism to my Laws is that of immaturity, ignorance, icompotence, and
inexperience. This exemplifies your weakness and others who try to defy them.
You are yet to convince me otherwise.
"Different strokes for different folks" is the major malfunction of competition,
and the reason why we are having this discussion. Once a universal fighting
philosophy is adopted, The Laws of Fighting, consider our conversation in vain.
I
>and
>>what constitutes its worth. You cannot do this. Each person has a different
>>definition, different reason, and a different destiny. You cannot see into
>>their souls.
>
>this?
If you wish to play to the best of your abilities, then the Laws would
be your definition of a "winner".
All other definitions and philosophies will not allow you to play to your
full potential. It is simply logic. I am the message and the messenger.
>>You believe that "the means justify the end". [...] This painting is a
>fraud.
>
> What if having fun is the end? And what if the means to achieve that
>end is through style, creativity, and artistry? Not everybody plays to win,
>and I think this is the fundamental flaw in you and your fellow "I"
>compatriots' Laws. (How many of you are there anyway).
My definition of a "winner" has no flaws.
Those who do not play to win do...and my "winner" will prove it everytime.
>>I believe that "the end justifies the means". There are no limitations
>>as long as it is *within the boundaries* of the game. One can "look good"
>>if he wishes, but the goal is to win.
>
> Now what I'm asking is "why." You stated earlier on that "Each person
>has a different definition, different reason, and a different destiny. You
>cannot see into their souls." If everything is relevant, than why must
>everyone's goal be to "win"? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
No.
What is the shortest path between two points?
The shortest path between point A and point B is a straight line. Direct and
concise. There is no argument. This is my Laws of Fighting.
Other definitions, reasons, and destinies have a different path between point
A and point B, but whether or not it is the shortest is the believer's point
of view.
>How it is achieved is irrelevant,
>>he is a serious competitor who goes all out, holding nothing back. We
>>see this type of philosophy in tournaments, especially in sports and the
>>Olympics.
>
> But games aren't always played in a tournament style setting. Isn't
>playing to win a rarer occurence than playing to have a good time? If there
>are people playing games solely to achieve self-gratification in their
>victories, I say this is petty and look elsewhere for another hobby. Go
>take up martial arts or something.
I am a martial artist.
>
>Other areas have the same ideology as well: business, education,
>>employment, etc. Competition is everywhere and life is basically "survival
>>of the fittest". Is life unfair? Not in my book, you have to make it fair.
>>Through blood, sweat, and tears you can accomplish your goals and dreams
>>and can then sit back and admire your masterpiece that you have built and
>>earned.
>
>
> Again, does Darwin's ideology really have to apply to gaming? Does only
>the "fittest" survive?? So what, a guy who loses more than he wins
>shouldn't play games at all? I think we are belying the true nature of
>playing games - to have a good time.
Everyone cherishes the money they spend to play these "games" and nobody
has a good time losing.
The true nature of playing games is to present a competitive stimulis for
players in order for the arcade vendors and video game companies to make
money. It's a business and what you are buying is self-gradification.
I
>> My definition of a "winner" has no flaws.
>>
>> Those who do not play to win do...and my "winner" will prove it everytime.
>
>Ah, the ol' Computer AI routien, eh I? In case ya didn't know, but I'm
>pretty sure you did (I'm just reminding ya), humans in general, or even in
>special cases, are never perfect. To achieve such quality, or rather lack
>of faults, in a player in order to make him the perfect 'winner' would be
>akin to trying to create something as crazy as perpetual motion IMHO.
IMHO you say, but never factual eh?
The Laws of Fighting is a philosophy of *STRIVING* to be the best you can be.
The harder you strive, the closer you get toward perfection. See program.
>You attempts at pursuing this fruitless dream of this supposed 'winner',
>as flawless as he or she may possibly be in your eyes, is never going to
>occur. Sure you could say "But just because something can't be done, does
>that mean we shouldn't try?", but really, there are limits to even that
>methodology...Sure we can try, but I'm in serious doubt that you can find
>someone who would even want to acheive such pinnacle performance in
>something so mediocre...It's just not human to do so.
Look around you. Sports, business, government, education, etc..etc..etc...
Everyone, everything, *tries* to be good at something. More is better. Yes?
It is the nature of humans to be competitive...
>> The shortest path between point A and point B is a straight line. Direct and
>> concise. There is no argument. This is my Laws of Fighting.
>
>Actually there are a few arguments..hypotheitcs but argumentative
>nonetheless...The hyperspace definition of the shortest distance isn't a
>straight line but rather than zero...So...could this be our glimmer of
>hope against the oh-so-powerful Laws of Fighting? *shakes head* This is
>just getting silly, I.
You are indeed.
The only glimmer of hope is to never travel to point B. If one already
attains the superior philosophy of my Laws of Fighting, then the journey
is already fulfilled.
Now if only I can find a way to implant my program on the foreheads of all
newbies...
>> Everyone cherishes the money they spend to play these "games" and nobody
>> has a good time losing.
>
>BZZT!!! Sorry 'I', but your answer is incorrect! The correct answer is
>"people generally dislike losing, but the experience gained through
>comradery, exhibition of skill, and various levels of self-gratification
>[i.e. performing a difficult maneuver in a particularly dire situation]
>can lead to an enjoyable time." Or something like that..but I'm sure you
>get the jist that losing can be enjoyable if the game was played well
>and/or you learned a useful technique, etc etc.
Again, losing is never enjoyable. Even if a game is fun because it is played
well and your learn...how many lessons does it cost for you to stop visiting
the change machine? Hrmmm...?
>> The true nature of playing games is to present a competitive stimulis for
>> players in order for the arcade vendors and video game companies to make
>> money. It's a business and what you are buying is self-gradification.
>
>Sort of...actually the nature of playing games seems to be an attempt at
>presenting an *enjoyable* and competetive stimulis for a player. Without
>enjoyment arcade vendors and game companies wouldn't have much of an
>audience. Remeber 'I', we're human..we like to enjoy our games as much
>as we like to compete with them ;-)
Humans only enjoy to win in competitive contests ;-)
Mark Oyama
> actually closer to 30, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. All
> that means is that 30 is around the limit where you can pick out
> individual frames. Put a 60fps game next to a 30, and everyone can
> easily see that the 60 animates much more smoothly than the 30, they just
> can't say "see, it has extra frames here and here and here" etc. The
> human eye still receives all the images, it's just that the human brain
> can't process it all. So it splices everything together and
> auto-corrects to give the best sensation of true motion.
> For a better explanation, pick up any Psych 101 text and check for
> chapters on visual perception. The brain has quite a few tricks to
> overcome its deficiencies.
I wasn't planning to reply to any further posts on this topic, but
you have given the details very well....I agree pretty much.
Another thing to think about: it may even be possible to react to
something visual in less than 1/30th of a second. You are right,
you won't be able to cleanly see it...you have to rely on some of
what you call "splicing" to react to it...and it is extremely difficult
to do...but I think it can be done. It's a different kind of seeing, that
you must use to accomplish this. Even if you cannot actually
react in less than 1/30th of a second (maybe no one can)....you
can still gain an increase in your reaction speed (decrease reaction
time by some time less than 1/30th of a second) slightly if you
know how to "see without seeing."
Other details I have learned from experience: 1) that exact number
30 fps may vary from person to person...most people say it is
20-24 fps (some people say 6-10 fps....but that is a different kind
of number refering to some other aspect of vision that is not quite
so important)...I think for most everyone it would be under 30 fps
although I cannot say for sure....2) that exact number 30 fps may
vary depending on overall ambient lighting conditions and the type
of visual signal you are looking at....3) your peripheral vision seems
to have a much much higher number of this type...perhaps going
far above 100 fps..I cannot say the exact number with certainty...
look at a computer monitor from the sides of your eyes and perhaps
you will see what I mean...4) there are strange physical methods
to increase various performance attributes of your eyes and vision
system....at least one of which seems to "pump up" this number
from somewhere under 30 fps, to somewhere unknown possibly
even over 100 fps....one way that I think I do this is it feels like
"pumping up" my eyes...I don't care enough to try to describe it
further and besides my own understanding of this capability is not
very good...note that "pumping up" the eye is not the same as
simply overall "pumping yourself up" nor is it the same as
"concentrating all your power into your first two knuckles to punch
someone" or any of those...but I feel it is possibly related.
And keep in mind that no matter how fast you can react to something,
in a videogame the quickest you can react to anything is 2 or 3
game frames (depending on how game is)...it is because of the
way the games are.
Finally, there are other reasons for wanting an infinite frame rate,
that are not based on reaction/reflex reasons. Don't care enough
to write them.
Mark Oyama
> They still look pretty good to me; better than something like Soul Edge
at
> least.
Ya I don't know what is with Soul Edge. It seems to be running at 15 fps or
something. BTW though I think the Playstation version is running at 30 fps,
interestingly enough.
> >Whenever you see something and
> >input a command, the earliest that the game will 'register' your
> >inputs is 2 frames later (think about this).
>
> This is not true. Virtua Fighter 2-3 has a one frame response.
If the game is well done it probably responds by the next frame after
you have pushed the buttons (one frame response). However, even so,
you can only react to moves that last 3 (sometimes 4) frames long,
at minimum. If a move lasts one frame long, you are hit by the time
you see it. If a move lasts two frames long, by the time you see any
change on the screen...the game is already generating the next frame
graphically and its too late to input any commands. When a move
lasts 3 frames long its possible on some games that you may react
(if the game has single frame response...among other things).
Mark Oyama
Quite true....I noticed this from the start...but you made it sound that
way
so thats why I replied as such (other foolish peoples might misinterpret
what you wrote so I make sure that doesnt happen).
> Perhaps that is the very reason why Musashi lost? Things aren't
always
> so straightforward. Big doesn't always defeat small. Adult doesn't
always
> overpower child. Experience doesn't always triumph over innocence.
Goliath
> doesn't always win.
I don't know...I still haven't confirmed Musashi losing to any kid story,
nor
Musashi ever losing to anyone...although I think its likely he lost to one
person in a semi-serious non-fatal battle but I don't think it was a kid,
and
that person certainly knew a lot of martial arts.
It's possible Musashi lost to someone without lots of FORMAL training in
martial arts....but if he did lose, his opponent must have certainly
trained
himself very well..which is more powerful than most any martial arts
trainings can
give you.
Sometimes big always defeats small, it depends on the type of thing
they compete in. In swordfighting, its possible that smaller defeats
bigger probably, but even so a 4-year old baby will never beat a normal
20-year old adult.
Rik Newman
>Again, losing is never enjoyable. Even if a game is fun because it is played
>well and your learn...how many lessons does it cost for you to stop visiting
>the change machine? Hrmmm...?
What about if you are playing on a home machine and learning defeats
cost you only time (and at most, perhaps pride)?
Loosing only makes me want to play and learn more if I like the game
enough.
>>audience. Remeber 'I', we're human..we like to enjoy our games as much
>>as we like to compete with them ;-)
>Humans only enjoy to win in competitive contests ;-)
You are totally wrong. I have an example:
Two days ago I was playing Zero 1 again. I was playing the CPU on
Level 8, and managed to get to Gouki without loosing a single round. I
had only intended to fight Vega... but I also managed to take a round
off Gouki and came within a single HIT of accomplishing the most
difficult 1P task on Zero1... but sadly Gouki teleported through my
last gasp Sonic Break and kicked me in the back of the head like the
cowardly wimp he is. I realised afterwards I'd also pulled off a 12
hit combo during my game (this is with Nash, who's maximum combo is 13
hits as far as I know)... but I had LOST and had nothing to show for
my efforts.
But like HECK did I enjoy it!!! I've not come off a 1P video game
heart pounding and hands shaking like that in some time. I recounted
the story with glee to my friends.
And the fact I came so close will surely inspire me to try and do it
again one day.
So there you go, a wholly enjoyable defeat for me!
(Now alright, I would have been much happier had I WON, but this does
not detract that fact that the loosing was still enjoyable).
I'd say it could be the same vs. a human opponent. In any case, things
are not usually so clear cut vs. a human. You might only win 1 fight
in 10. But that win could mean a lot more if you know you are fighting
someone a lot better than you.
-Rik "Basara"
Steve Brown
> I do not mind if you make an opinion, but at least try to make it an
> informed one.
> We see the laws in sports, wars, and everyday
> >life. There are all around you. It's called "survival of the fitest".
> There are Laws of War and they do not correspond to your ideology. If you
> don't agree, go do some research or take a class on it like I have.
> Harvard's "Crime, Genocide, and Justice" could be quite educating.
> Jeff-Maru
> http://voxel.net/acpgaming
The great fraud that the French were no longer expecing !
The Duclert report is a disinformation operation: shameful, cowardly, repugnant, unworthy of France.
President Macron set up a commission of historians to deny the French complicity in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. After studying the archives related to the French involvement in the Rwandan pogrom, Vincent Duclert comes to this conclusion: France was not an accomplice in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. While scientists, who have also studied some archives, quickly discover the opposite.
France was an accomplice in the Rwandan genocide. Here is some evidence:
1. active support.
2. informed support. That is, support while the French government was informed about the course of the genocide.
3. support with an effect.
In the middle of a debacle, the evidence of complicity accumulates. The members of the interim government of Rwanda who orchestrated the genocide escaped thanks to the complicity of Paris.
Indeed, the Quai d'Orsay, irritated by the presence of members of the interim government in the Turquoise zone, ordered the soldiers to help them flee to Zaire.
During the genocide, contrary to what had been said, there were a few dozen French soldiers, two teams of mercenaries, that of Paul Barril and that of Bob Denard, as well as an intelligence service, on Rwandan territory.
In english :
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/-archives-show-french-complicity-in-rwandan-genocide-/2116673#
https://globalnews.ca/news/5137073/rwanda-genocide-photos-facts/
In french :
https://survie.org/themes/genocide-des-tutsis-au-rwanda/article/quand-paris-exfiltrait-le-gouvernement-genocidaire-rwandais
https://survie.org/themes/genocide-des-tutsis-au-rwanda/article/nouveau-rapport-rwanda-les-mercenaires-invisibles-les-archives-de-la-dgse