BSE Digest V1 #10

From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison)

Date: Tue, 08 Nov 1994 00:07:14 +0000

BSE Digest                Monday, 7 November 1994      Volume 01 : Number 010

In this issue:

+       Re: BSE: Thoughts on Ship Limits
+       BSE: FGZ Space
+       BSE: Rumors
+       BSE: Rumors (again)
+       Re: BSE: Mediator Offer
+       Re: BSE: Rumors
+       Re: BSE: Thoughts on Ship Limits
+       Re: BSE: Bad Ships
+       Re: BSE: Bad Ships
+       BOUNCED Re: BSE: Bad Ships

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

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

From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 1994 09:36:52 EST
Subject: Re: BSE: Thoughts on Ship Limits

Steve,

If I take you up on the offer, do you have synth-wool dashboard covers and
fuzzy dice on your market, or will I have to fly in my own?  Also, do you do
custom modifications, or do I do that elsewhere?  In the Merchantmans they're
building for me, the WCE have agreed to put a leather & velcro equipped shearing
salon and body piercing studio, along with pens affording various degrees of
restraints, in the captain's quarters.  They drew the line at the "lamb in the
park" simulacrum, though....

Oh yeah, when's your retirement party?

Be seeing you,

Brad Braun
btb4@lehigh.edu
///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil
    shampoo and lipstick overlords!"
    -Nietzsche
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

From: Jackmyster@aol.com
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 09:47:37 -0500
Subject: BSE: FGZ Space

*This  statement is not sanctioned by the Republic of the  TH FGZ Ataman*

The following systems are claimed by Lord Den of Earth of NeverWhere. Any
non-FGZ positions/possessions within these systems should be reported to Den
of Earth so that a "deal" or "treaty" may be worked out...any positions not
reported after 195.1.1 will be considered FGZ property and will be "disposed
of" as Den of Earth deems fit.

Harter (95)                Mace (96)
Trapose (97)             Merolla (98)
Latexia(99) joint        Raspody(100)
Baldridge(101)

Let it also be known that travel threw these systems without permission from
Den of Earth, (not the Ataman!) is a "postable" offense.

Due to recent events (QSN/FGZ) many may have the impression that the FGZ have
become "lacks" in their enforcement of their borders, this is most certainly
not the case.

With Honor,

Lord Den of Earth

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

From: Jackmyster@aol.com
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 16:45:59 -0500
Subject: BSE: Rumors

I would like to take a few moments to dispel a few rumors I've seen floating
around out there.

First and foremost, there is NO civil war going on between the two FGZ
positions. Mike Keane is the Ataman and I am a "lowly" gov.: (who happens to
control the HQ and several systems) It is not my intention or desire to see
the FGZ split into two different Republics, nor will they. Along these lines,
let it be understood that whatever mess Mike may find himself in..they're his
worries: and likewise for myself. The situation about the QSN was created by
Mike, and not me. The only "role" I played was to try to get back the BSs.

Also, the FGZ are still closed to new players. Unlike some groups in the TH
who will accept just about anyone <g> we have no need to "open the FGZ". What
ten players can do in one AFF, the FGZ can do with two. If we "notice" a
player, we will invite them...please do not contact Mike or myself asking to
join. (Also, I am the only player that can even build BSs, asking Mike for
them will not do any good!)

As for the QSN/FGZ situation: Much has been said by Den of Earth. The loss of
these ships it quite unnerving and rather embarrassing. I would like to ask
that someone (from another AFF) who both the QSN and FGZ trust will step in
and try to help moderate a peaceful resolution. <Walt, please pass that info.
along to Barry. I can recommend a few players that I am comfortable w/ if the
QSN is interested.>

If there are any questions in regards to these, or my previous statements,
please do so via private mail.

Bests-
J.
a/k/a Lord Den of Earth
Speaking for the Rada....

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

From: Jackmyster@aol.com
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 19:06:34 -0500
Subject: BSE: Rumors (again)

Oh, one more thing.

It is very important to state that although the events leading to the capture
of those two BSs by the QSN are a little "questionable", (ie. two BSs, in two
different battles) the Ataman has assured me that it was never the intent of
the FGZ to "allow" those ships to be captured.

I'd just like to "quell" the concerns of any of our IMP friends. (and any
other AFFs that may be considering that possibility.)

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

From: RIPLord@aol.com
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 20:00:47 -0500
Subject: Re: BSE: Mediator Offer

The RIP offer their services as mediator...

(But who can trust a pirate?)

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

From: Nyghtt@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 10:04:23 -0500
Subject: Re: BSE: Rumors

The ISS PD is willing to act as mediator for the FGZ/QSN dispute.  If
interested contact me directly at Nyghtt@aol.com or on CIS at 74512,1441.

Jeff

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

From: RTGames@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 10:36:14 -0500
Subject: Re: BSE: Thoughts on Ship Limits

Alan,

I am working on increasing the # of ship classes in the database, and it
looks like it won't be too hard to do, so there is an excellent chance that
we won't have to throw out any old ship classes.

Pete

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

From: ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 94 03:26:40 CST
Subject: Re: BSE: Bad Ships

Brad,

What? You expect an AFT ship to come looking for a fight?  I don't think
so. :)  My point is that this is not a problem that has 'suddenly' come up.
Nothing comes up suddenly in BSE, and I think there's no problem in waiting
for a better solution than doing away with several types of ships.

Alan

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

From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 1994 10:13:12 EST
Subject: Re: BSE: Bad Ships

Alan,

Actually, the situation has arisen suddenly.  The reason for the concern over
ship limits is due to the new RTG rank system.  Once the rank system is
implemented, many captains will be "frozen" in one of two situations:  They
will be in a small, but good, ship and be of a sub-capital ship rank, or they
will be in a capital, or some other too-large for their rank ship.  The former
captains will play a sit and wait strategy - they won't want to move to a
slightly larger, inferior, ship, and so will cool their heels until they reach
a rank where they can command a worthwhile ship.  The stacaptains in the
second situation(*) won't be able to consider changing ships because THEN rank
considerations would be imposed, and it'd be some time until they could get
their old stuff back.

Personally, I don't care how this problem is solved.  With a 30 ship limit,
and Pete (originally) indicating that he wasn't sure how/if/when the limit
could be expanded, then eliminating certain ships is perhaps the only way to
work aroung the two conflicting limiting factors.  If Pete can bring the
changes on line within a reasonable period of time after the rank system is
implemented, then fine, too.

(*)  Some English major-weanie type help me out here.  I initially intended to
use the usual former/latter system in my description of the two situations.
However, I realized that using "latter" after describing the problem with the
"former" situation would be ambiguous.  Any thoughts on this?  I have of
course seen similar situations, and the ambiguity did not bother me then, so
am I just getting anal in my old age?

Be seeing you,

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

From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 18:00:32 -0600 (CST)
Subject: BOUNCED Re: BSE: Bad Ships

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 13:16:17 -0500
From: fk490@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul D. Postak)
Subject: Re: BSE: Bad Ships

On Nov 7 1994, B T Braun (btb4@lehigh.edu) wrote:

- -snip-
>
>(*)  Some English major-weanie type help me out here.  I initially intended to
>use the usual former/latter system in my description of the two situations.
>However, I realized that using "latter" after describing the problem with the
>"former" situation would be ambiguous.  Any thoughts on this?  I have of
>course seen similar situations, and the ambiguity did not bother me then, so
>am I just getting anal in my old age?
>
- -snip-

I'm was not born in the UK, but I do consider myself (penile grandiose).
Therefore, I will reply with my opinion.
"Ambiguity is the spice of textual life."
What I am confused by is what you mean my "getting" anal.

pdp

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

End of BSE Digest V1 #10
************************

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".