BSE Digest v195 #139

From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison)

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0000

BSE Digest                 Friday, 14 April 1995       Volume 195 : Number 139

In this issue:

+       Re: BSE: The DTR question?
+       Re: BSE: DTR Space, Revisited & Clarified
+       Re: BSE: dead computer (fwd)
+       Re: BSE: The DTR question?
+       Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities
+       Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities
+       BSE: AFFs and Aliens
+       Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities
+       Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities -Reply
+       Re: BSE: AFFs and Aliens
+       Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities
+       BSE: Trinkets (BOUNCED MESSAGE)

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list
or bse-digest mailing lists.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Christopher Allen <gtt-pd@consensus.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 21:58:51 -0700
Subject: Re: BSE: The DTR question?

At 9:19 PM 4/13/95, PROTHORAX@aol.com wrote re "BSE: The DTR question?":
>(ooc) Just checking here?! [Stefan Carlson speaker of the house] didn't you
>play a QSN position? Hmmmm and the GTT sold the DTR a colony?! I might point
>out also that the newly appointed QSN warlox is ex GTT PD?! I'm sure I have
>made a mistake here, just curious here with the GTT colony Viking going to
>the QSN seems rather strange!<g>

Even though Peter was in a previous incarnation the GTT-PD, he was not
involved at all in the QSN-GTT negotiations for GTT Viking. I suspect that
if he was still PD that he would not have sold it.

And, BTW, GTT is getting alot more than trinkets.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Marshall Whispers, Chairman & CEO            aka Christopher Allen ..
... Galactic Transport & Trade                   4104-24th Street #391 ..
... GTT HQ, GTT Colony Gaspree (#1656)               SF, CA 94114-3615 ..
... Petroom (#2713) in Newbian System (#2)          home 415/647-6401  ..
... <GTT-PD@consensus.com>                     (call before 9 Pacific) ..

------------------------------

From: Cojran Michael <cojran@ucsub.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 23:47:13 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: DTR Space, Revisited & Clarified

AFT ships will be notified.  I haven't spoken to Mikel Lloyd recently,
but I intend to get his side of this story.  Only because I don't seem to
remember our negotiator posting a message resembling the one you spoke
of.  Maybe he sent you a personal note?

Anyways, I hope this matter gets resolved, I hate to see AFT ships banned
from anywhere.  Especially over what seems to be a misunderstanding.  No
matter, I will try to inform all of our members to stay clear of the area
you mentioned until this works itself out....

Zed Thunder
AFT Sgt. at Arms

------------------------------

From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:34:31 EDT
Subject: Re: BSE: dead computer (fwd)

Vickie,

Yeah, I was offline for a few days when my Kaypro-15 went t*ts up.

Of course, that was in '82.

Be seeing you,

Brad Braun
btb4@lehigh.edu
///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
                            Brad's Sig. File Here
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

------------------------------

From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 04:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: The DTR question?

On Thu, 13 Apr 1995 Jackmyster@aol.com wrote:

> David:
>
> It is no surprise to any of us to see "QSNer's" infiltrate other groups...how
> else do you suppose they got half of their "stuff"
> while never winning a war?
>
> Bests-
> J.
>

Hmm.

I seem to remember many a FGZ colony once being SSL.  Hey, weren't you in
the SSL Jack.

------------------------------

From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 05:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities

On Fri, 14 Apr 1995 StephMarte@aol.com wrote:

>
> >Excuse me?  What QSN fleet in WCE space?
> >We had duly informed the WCE up to that point.
> >While you did not believe that you needed to inform us of
> >your upcoming attack on the gate, you did violate our
> >non-agression pact.  Governments can act in whatever
> >manner they please, but they need to realize unless
> >they have the support of the people then power is the
> >only pillar that its support rests on.
>
>   There was no need to inform the QSN of a FGZ attack
> on an SMS stargate.  Only the Qumans telegraph their
> moves.  We theorize it has something to do with the
> tendrils on your temples.
>    We violated no pacts.  The FGZ America & FGZ Germania
> attacked the SMS gate, the QSN Lian-Chaa & AFT cutter
> defended the SMS stargate, and the WCE supported our
> TH Council ally the FGZ.

Whatever the scenario you set up it changes the fact very little.  We
were informed by the WCE that they would not be defending FGZ ships in
WCE territory anyway.  Also, the end of the last war between our two
affliations was concluded with a non-agression pact.  By attacking QSN
ships the pact is technically broken.  If the WCE were planning on
defending FGZ ships in WCE space or need the FGZ to enforce WCE policy,
due notice would have helped in the cause of good relations if nothing
else.

Let me point out some of your inconsistencies.  The first post concerning
the stargate was that it was attacked for WCE policy.  This last post
says that the WCE was only defending its ally and that the FGZ were
attacking the gate.  So, is the FGZ enforcing WCE policy now?

I would recommend going back to your earlier posts and getting the story
straight.  If WCE positions engage QSN positions then you are the
agressor and therefore have broken our non-agression pact.  It is that
simple.  You are welcome to do whatever you want and we will do the same,
but I point out to you that if you had informed us, we could have avoided
this further stress to our relationship.  I would recommend that if the
WCE are really interested in the cause of peace that they open more
communication channels to the QSN and make your policy clear and consistent.

>    The WCE & FGZ already have offered to assist the SMS
> in rebuilding the stargate when hostilities cease.
>    That's a fact.  A fact Lord Croft accepts and is willing to
> work with.
>    You've duly informed the WCE about what?  What exactly?
>    But let's be real clear about this.  IF the QSNavy moves into
> WCE space a state of war will exist between the people of
> the Transhole and the oDuds of Drell.

We understand that.  Lord Treyder was informed of our intentions orally.
He was told that he would be informed if we intended to enter WCE with
our fleet, but that no such plans existed at the current time.  If the
WCE did not want such a fleet in their space, a declaration to that
effect or some communication to that effect to our government would have
been helpful.  Such "cowboy" actions as an attack on the SMS stargate can
be seen as decisive policy making, but such policy has a way of
increasing tensions in a situation which, if your posts are truthful, you
want to decrease tensions in the region.

Lord Anton Qutroh
Minister of Propaganda

------------------------------

From: Jackmyster@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 09:04:24 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities

Just my two cents...

Richard, what difference does it make to the QSN what the FGZ does to a SMS
position? If you were not planning on using the gate to bring your "Shock
Fleet" thru, who cares?

The SMS and FGZ/WCE have worked this out...the QSN were not privy to this
information because it's not the QSN's business. (Last time I checked, Comte
didn't call up Odudus for their "marching orders"...)

------------------------------

From: Jackmyster@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 09:04:25 -0400
Subject: BSE: AFFs and Aliens

Why...yes, I was. So Richard, when's the last time you saw an SSL Baseship???
Your refering to Sumar...which I paid good stellars for...Just like ex-New
Hong Kong...

Unlike the QSN whose "flunky's" *give* them CC....Oh, please Richard...get
into this one with me!!!

------------------------------

From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 06:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities

On Fri, 14 Apr 1995 Jackmyster@aol.com wrote:

> <Such "cowboy" actions as an attack on the SMS stargate can
> be seen as decisive policy making, but such policy has a way of
> increasing tensions in a situation which, if your posts are truthful, you
> want to decrease tensions in the region.>
>
> Just my two cents...
>
> Richard, what difference does it make to the QSN what the FGZ does to a SMS
> position? If you were not planning on using the gate to bring your "Shock
> Fleet" thru, who cares?

Good question.  One, a QSN position got caught in the crossfire.  Second,
the QSN has always supported stargates in the name of saving TU's and for
free trade.  A more selfish reason is that the QSN assets are far flung
and stargates help to make life easier to reach our assets.

>
> The SMS and FGZ/WCE have worked this out...the QSN were not privy to this
> information because it's not the QSN's business. (Last time I checked, Comte
> didn't call up Odudus for their "marching orders"...)

They don't except that the SMS requested the QSN station ships to help
protect the stargate when the attacks on random stargates started back at
the end of last year.  We did so a while back ago (even before our
current hostilties).  We just had a problem with the WCE who technically
violated a non-agression pact.  If the WCE had informed us of their
intention, we could have at least moved our ship (although we seem to be
kinda slow doing that too) and avoid any further laddering of hostilities.

Hope that helps,

Richard

------------------------------

From: pkrauskopf@FALCON.AL.WPAFB.AF.MIL
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 09:24:22 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities -Reply

There is, and has never been, a non-agression pact between the WCE
and the QSN.  At the conclusion of hostilities last year, the QSN offered
the WCE a "non-agression pact" that included the WCE handing over one
of its systems to the QSN.  Anyone care to take odds on the WCE
accepting something like that?  Can the QSN produce a signed treaty?  I
think not.

As for informing me of your intentions: yes, at one point you did say
that your intention was to take out one or two lesser FGZ colonies (after
the stargate incident, by the way).  However, in the next breath you
asked me if the WCE wouldn't like to move into Merolla, if the FGZ were
gone from the Transhole.  How should I interpret this?

Why should the WCE notify anyone about their intentions in their own
territory?  The SMS were asked to deactivate the stargate and did not.
Period.

WCE policy is to protect WCE interests, in any way she sees fit.

Lord Secretary Treyder

Hail Dread Sovereign!

------------------------------

From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 06:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: AFFs and Aliens

On Fri, 14 Apr 1995 Jackmyster@aol.com wrote:

> <I seem to remember many a FGZ colony once being SSL.  Hey, weren't you in
> the SSL Jack.>
>
>
> Why...yes, I was. So Richard, when's the last time you saw an SSL Baseship???
> Your refering to Sumar...which I paid good stellars for...Just like ex-New
> Hong Kong...
>
> Unlike the QSN whose "flunky's" *give* them CC....Oh, please Richard...get
> into this one with me!!!
>

Jack I did not accuse you of getting assets for free.  I was merely
pointing out that you also could be seen as getting assets for your
former affliation.  As I do not know the story behind the trade, I do not
comment on it.  I would recommend you do the same.  I would say though
that the QSN pays for everything it gets and pays well.  Ask our trading
partners and see if we are more than fair in our dealings.  Unless you
know something about a CC that I don't know then you aren't really
speaking from a postion of knowledge.

The fact that the FGZ are driving around Devastators does not necessarily
mean that the FOE are a FGZ flunky.  As far as I can tell the FGZ were
uniquely lucky to get them and I have no problem with that.  You don't
hear me accusing you of using flunkies to loot other affliations.  And I
am not.  If you really believe the QSN have grown in this fashion then
feel free, but be left in the dust as we outgrow you.

Richard

------------------------------

From: Patrick McLaughlin <pmcl@cts.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 08:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: QSN - FGZ Hostilities

The QSN ought to be bloody thrilled to be dealing with the new generation
of WCE officials and officers.  In my day, we didn't discuss the right of
war fleets to be in WCE space at all.

And powderpuffs like Propaganda Minister Qutroh were collected for the
fleet lads with peculiar tastes and shipped to Ye Bitten Dog.

Francisco Buboe, Cdr., WCE, ret.
(for the record, Cdr. Buboe was the First WCE Defence Coordinator)

------------------------------

From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 10:33:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: BSE: Trinkets (BOUNCED MESSAGE)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 05:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Trinkets

OOC

As the chief negoiator for the QSN, I can tell you the GTT is getting a
lot more than trinkets although if they were willing to trade Viking for
trinkets I might be able to help them.

I find the attitude of some of the commentors on this subject very
hypocritical.  I think most of the affliations (companies and IMP's
aside) were built with gifts from the GMs or raiding of assets that
should never have happened if true role playing had occured.  I respect
affliations like the SAM who if my understanding was correct were given
very little and built up most of their assets on their own.  Other
affliations not to be named were often given colonies by players who
promptly exited their old affliation to join the new.

I am not so sure what all this talk about the QSN is all about.  I
investigated the QSN before rejoining in the affliation and I admire the
growth pattern the QSN have taken.  Looking down our colony list I can
not find one example of a colony that was given to us and then the gift
giving player turning into a QSN or being a former QSN.  There may be one
or two examples but the vast majority was bought for cold stellars and
other trade items (primarily ships if I can tell).  Not many affliations
can say the same.  If you want to find a reason for the QSN success,
instead of whining about look at this or that example, but look at the
ships running around the BSE universe.  We have basically supplied
several non-ship building affliations with most of their ships/upgrades.
That is how we got so successful.  And of course we sold trinkets too (eg
Luxury Goods).  I would also point out that very few of our trades would
be returned if there was a chance to do so (which in economic terms the
true measure of a good trade).

One last point.  Before you comment on this again, please expect me to
point out some examples in your past or affliation's past of similar
asset raiding (which to make perfectly clear I do not approve of).  While
I do not claim to know the whole truth and you obviously would have
justified your actions to yourself by now, be clear that your information
on our situation would likely be as sketchy as mine on yours.

I started playing BSE in high school and admired many of the players I
see on the list today.  Now in graduate school and on the list and seeing
many of the petty attacks, I have lost respect for many of them.  Many of
the useless innuendos etc are just a plain waste of bandwidth.  Now I
participate in the nonsense by responding to it as I don't have the
patience to listen the the BS.  But if you notice carefully I hardly ever
initate a trivial post.  I would recommend you do the same.  The governor
of Werth wastes bandwidth on announcing some Quman game that started a
lot of this thread.  It was a petty attack and a total waste of
bandwidth.

Richard Chiang

------------------------------

End of BSE Digest V195 #139
***************************

To subscribe to bse-digest, send the command:

subscribe bse-digest

in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com".  If you want to
subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-bse-list":

subscribe bse-digest local-bse-list@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "bse-digest"
in the commands above with "bse-list".