> > > it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms, > > > > > To me this is absurd to the extreme. > > To you maybe. This may not be the proper forum for you to be asserting > judgements like that anyway (see alt.politics.*) :-D > ...with cross-posts to alt.save.da.fwuffy.bunny and alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die. :)
> And in case someone didn't read my earlier post, I do not hold this opinion > myself, but I do think that a topical RFC should be posted before any war > related code is committed, even with a configuration flag. This _is_ a hot > button whether anyone thinks it should be or not. > I read the whole post. Really! :) I guess my problem is that I'm totally unable to understand why someone would object to just the _presense_ of munitions code even being present. It completely baffles me. Even as I sit here pondering the why, all I can come up with is pejorative commentary and that's unfortunate. BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :) Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports. g. -- Proud owner of 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one if its kind. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
