----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > > > 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. Same here -- I deleted the post before sending it -- tolerance and understanding of others ideas is what makes a community -- I've tried to do that by consenting to add code for strictly non-combat simulations -- I hope for the same from the non-combat folks about the combat code -- I'll leave it at that > > 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. > Lets make their day !!! _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
