Gunwounds v2.0

aw youko you didnt have to butter me up by calling me legendary..... i would have come back to kick your azz without the unnecessary flattery. p.s. - why do Brazilians have to write 50 posts with gigantic run-on paragraphs that make me question my sobriety..... to express something that can be summed up in one sentence? -Gunwounds

i know its been around for a bit.... but man i really love the video and song, beautifully done... thought i would share with those who havent heard it.

missile tanks are a nice in a hark mix if sprinkled in sparingly. Add 1-2 missile tanks to a hark force camping spice and the harvesters will vaporize 10 times faster. Another good use of the missile tank is to defend your spice from enemy advanced carryalls attempting to steal and airlift your harvesters from your spicefield. The missile tank is the cheapest method of instantly stopping the carryall before it actually lands and steals a harv. A devastator can defend against that as well.... but costs 750 credits more. 4 Elite sardukars can stop a carryall in mid-flight instantly but their combined worth is 500 credits more. AA troopers cannot stop harvesters from being stolen by carryalls. Maybe once in a blue moon if the adv carryall gets tangled by something and the troopers gets a lucky shot. But in this case a missile truck is definitely the way to go. Missile trucks are great at killing minos and kobras. A missile truck can sneak in and kill a mino and sneak out while only sustaining half armor damage. The trick is to make sure you clear a path with your buzz so that the missile truck has a clear shot. So in summary: 1.) Missile trucks are good for killing low #'s of minos and kobras 2.) great for base defense vs devastator drops 3.) great to mix in 1-2 for extra harv/carryall killing power 4.) best way to stop adv carryall harvester stealing 5.) when enemy is hiding in base you can siege their turrets with missile tanks CONS: very important.... missile tanks in large groups will WASTE their ammo. Do not drive 6 missile tanks together in a pack to 1 mino and fire. All 6 missile tanks will fire all their missiles into the ONE mino. Thereby wasting 5 loads of missiles. That is probably the main reason missile tanks are to be used sparingly... due to their high degree of overkill. If they were designed like sardukar units which actually spread their fire out evenly....then missile tanks would probably be the most badass unit. Can you imagine 50 missile tanks spreading out all their missiles? Crap just flying in all directions! ! ! Guns

The hawkstrike uses involuntary quantum hormone therapy, which elevates estrogen levels in the affected enemy troops causing hypogonadism and menstration. The affected units immediately run to the nearest black exit zone to buy tampons and douche, and to shop at the GAP until their credit cards max out. Use this power wisely.

Best way to save emp? ...... easy...... USE THE FRIGGIN EMPBOT! It makes you appear as if you are online and yet it uses basically ZERO resources from your CPU. So surf the web.... work on a report.... whatever... but keep empbot logged in , so that ppl will know you're interested in playing. EMPBOT is the key to saving emperor. Becuz its useless to stay logged in on the server due to it bumping you off or freezing after 20 minutes. Repeat after me.... EMPBOT is the key to saving emperor. now say it like you mean it. E---M---P---B----O---T is the key to saving emperor. Link to empbot ---> http://betta.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/empbot.exe instructions --> http://betta.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/empbot.doc so lets see more ppl using it !!!!!!!!

come online its 10:30 pm !!

you sound like you would learn very fast with a bit of mentoring .... what is your time zone? I am EST Guns

i used auto-login all those years....

goodevil1 , voodoodaddy is right. you have alot of misconceptions... many of which are speed related and unit ability related. I can sense from your words that you dont exactly understand the power and stats of certain units and their abilities to stop a rush. And i can see that you certainly are unaware of the criticality of having 2 refs early to keep constant flow of cash to primary defense, while planning the 3rd and 4th refinery for advanced production. You shouldnt even be making hangar related items until after your 3rd refinery has been placed. And to keep from being out-produced in the late game you need a 4th refinery or you need to pump out a few harvs from your factory (which similates building a refinery). I can definitely see that you are unaware of your inbalance of buildings/units to cash ratio. Plain and simple you are building a tier 1 base off of 1 refinery, and its slowing you down big time. You need to have a tier 3 base on 3-4 refineries, going at max production. Instead of having 1 refinery feeding 1 barracks, 1 factory, 1 hangar, 1 sardukar barracks, and 1 fedaykin hut. You should have 3-4 refineries feeding 3 barracks, 3 factories, 3 hangars, 3 sardukar barracks, 3 fedaykin huts, and 3 superweapons. And you should have a constant non-stop producing stream of infantry, ground vehicles, aircraft, sardukar, fremen, and superweapons....as well as constant advanced unit orders from your starport. That is the definition of MAX PRODUCTION. If you cannot achieve that you will never win a game against an elite player. Now phase 2 is actually using all the crap you bought to go and kill the other person. That you'll learn from experience and observation. Ingame nick = Guns / Gunwounds

Hey its me guns... forgot my password to my forum name so i made this. Anyways.... i do play online... its just that you never challenge me. After i beat you a few times you quit and log off. Or you take so long to join that i go afk. Anyways if any one is up for a game use empbot. Empbot is very useful and lets you know when there is a game. Look in the stickied threads to see where to download it.

Come online now !!!!!!!!

Phony phrases: "The Way Forward" "Stay the course" "Cut & Run" "Stay & Die" "A better America" "A true American" "Unpatriotic" "Making Progress" "Backwards Policies" "Big Brother" "The common man" "grassroots candidate" "Dream of a better tomorrow" "I'm proud to be black" "I'm proud to be a woman" "This tax policy will help the poor and cannot be evaded by the rich" "I will balance the budget" "Together we can make this work/happen" "we support the troops" Halo

Yes, I'm glad we've come to the agreement that you cannot use science to counter-argue a religion. My point all along is that the Bible is only erroneous if God is assumed to not exist. But since that debate is inconclusive, it appears we're stuck. You cannot scrutinize the Bible without first disproving God (which is what allows for all of the extraordinary events). If God is assumed to exist then nothing in the Bible can be seriously scrutinized by science as science cannot calculate or quantify a Deity ... or even more importantly, the deeds of a Deity. There is no physical science that can forsee what is possible with a Deity's power and there is no psychological or sociological science that can predict how a Deity's thought process will go. Are we at the mercy of having to believe the statements of ancient prophets and leaders in an ancient text? Unfortunately "yes", as this causes uncertainty, but Fortunately "yes" as this uncertainty gives freedom to our belief system. The fact that you can sit there and honestly believe in your mind that God does not exist means that we are truly free from the mind control that a Deity most certainly could have implemented if He had chosen to. Furthermore it all goes back to philosophy, I think treating others with love and respect is the most important thing, and while you certainly dont have to be a believer in God to do that or to achieve "Good", I agree with Caid that Religion and Morality can serve as advanced "tools" to help one acheive the "Good", which is why many choose to stay religious despite having an educated intellect that understands atheism. Also, many see no problem holding two contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time, and i believe F. Scott Fitzgerald stated that that was the true test of a first rate mind. There is nothing wrong with someone being educated and understanding the geological/astronomical records of the Earth, and yet understand that if a Deity were to exist that the record could be changed at Its will and have no problem with that. Also as stated before, if God would go through the trouble of hiding Moses' body to prevent mindless worship of a prophet's corpse, i see no reason why God wouldnt remove evidence of an event that would also infringe on one's belief system freedom. Halo

True, perhaps there are many different ways God could have held the Sun in the sky supernaturally without it effecting other civilizations, or perhaps he did hold the orbit and there was 24 hours of darkness in other lands. Either way it makes no difference as both would have been supernatural by today's lingo. I dont see describing it as "holding earth's orbit" as mixing concepts... i see it as using what i know about the universe to imagine what God might have done. For instance where the Bible claims that God turned a sundial backwards momentarily, i could imagine the Earth's orbit going in reverse, or perhaps simply He manipulated the shadow right there on the sundial, but whatever i decide on in my own mind how can you criticize me for that?. I agree that God's Will is independent of Science and that Science doesnt need God's Will to explain things, however if something was done in God's Will yet is explainable by science, i dont see that as a mixing of concepts. For if God wills you to die, your death could have an obvious scientific explaination. If the sky opened up and God's voiced boomed and said " I will you to die" and then the coroner walks over and examines you and says "yep he died of cardiac arrest" ....well then your death has divine and scientific explainations now doesnt it? Halo

The Bible also refers to God burying Moses. So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. God did this for a reason, which I'm sure you're familiar with. He hid physical evidence of Moses. Yet text which details Moses' life is in millions of people's homes. So basically God removes obvious physical evidence of Bible History yet leaves the text, (much better than the mere instinct you chalk it up to), just enough information to leave it to faith and a person's heart. I fail to see how a flood would be any different. Halo

Acriku should be able to redeem those 10,000 posts for a "Free Date Coupon x 1" with his choice of any Fed2k lady, and be reset to 0 posts. To make up for all the potentially lost women. Halo

Exactly Andrew.... God doesnt want to leave flood evidence behind or geological earth layers that are only 6,000 years old..... because such proof would back up the Bible so hardcore that the Bible would no longer need faith. And thats not what God in the Bible is about. He is about testing, and about seeing what a person's true heart is. By placing us in a world that doesnt make the Bible "obvious", he has created the perfect scenario for conscious creatures to make decisions regarding their own belief systems. To answer your question bluntly acriku.... God doing His divine "cover up" is what allows you to be an atheist. If current science records backed the Bible 100% then you'd have no choice in your belief system, as believing in the God of the Bible would be your only choice, which would eradicate any shred of free will or illusion of free will we would have. The "value" or the "reason" in having a world that has been divinely manipulated and doesnt make the Bible "obvious", is so that you'll never know you're in the Matrix, Neo. Which makes you free. When Jesus returns according to the Bible (or when people simply die), people will lose that freedom. At Jesus's Return, people will wish to do evil but they will not be able to act upon it. In addition, they wont be able to believe that He is non-existent, another piece of freedom lost. So yes this experiment we live in now is full of freedom, when the experiment disappears so does the freedom. Though this shouldnt matter in the end of time, as everyone will have taken their sides. @ Nema --- what i spoke about above in 1st paragraph, regarding Andrew's comments, should really be enough to address your problems, however just to change gears and explore another side, lets discuss another possibility: Perhaps its really not so much a contradiction as it is an omission. The Bible tells us of the flood, yet it doesnt refer to every divine occurence during/after the flood. I would think the God of the Bible would be less concerned with the zoological and geological record's "human interpretation" , than He would be with his moral experiment. The zoological and geological records are as they should be , however since we do not have all the information, our interpretation of those records are flawed. I'm sure God also altered the Astronomical record when he paused the Earth's orbit around the Sun for 24 hours as well. However if this is what He wanted to occur then "that" by default would be the "true" astronomical record, not what we humans would expect in a textbook which disregards any of His actions. The true record interpreted correctly would be [universe age - 1 day (due to divine pause) = Astronomical Record]. If we disregard His existence and His influence then we can never truly interpret records accurately, so saying its a contradiction is a misnomer. If i travelled back in time to talk to Caesar and tell him of how my country destroyed entire cities with millions of people in a matter of seconds, Caesar would think that my record of events was contradictory to what is humanly possible in previous records of war. However, if i neglected to tell him that my country used a nuclear bomb to accomplish this, then his claim of contradiction would be inaccurate. What he perceived to be a contradiction is really just a bad interpretation with insufficient information. If indeed the Holy Spirit exists (God's power) and is able to manipulate our time space continuum , then it actually is not supernatural but rather a natural part of our universe that is impossible to quantify or calculate. Similar to the impossibility to determine the location and direction of an electron simultaneously, or the impossibility of measuring a black hole's density. If spiritual components do exist then the universe could never be fully understood without understanding them. Are we meant to understand everything? Perhaps not, if we understood everything, then it would be the same as exiting God's experiment, (as is thought to happen upon death ..... or return of Christ), which would destroy our freedom. So perhaps the the inability to scientifically understand spiritual components of the universe, which leads to being unable to truly understand the material world, ensures our belief system freedom. Halo

I made several changes to my post above. I dd not mention respecting a faith. I said you can express your opinion that the spaghetti monster is non-existent. But you cannot use science to prove the spaghetti monster is false. You must use your own personal beliefs based off of common sense. Common sense is not scientific. Personal philosophical beliefs are not scientific. You will never find a scientific protocol to prove or disprove the existance of a Spaghetti Monster. The point is that you dont say that the Spaghetti Monster is fake because of X Scientific Data. You simply say its fake because its "obvious a joke". Which is a personal philosophical belief, you simply dont believe that such things exist. Its really not that hard to understand. One must use philosophy to debate philosophy, not science. Halo

1.) If you have an opinion about the existence of God you can express it. You can then use the result of that opinion to decide whether you accept the Bible. These "arguements" are nothing more than opinions based on what people wish to believe, whether they be atheists or believers. By all means express what you believe. Its your right. I'm just saying its pointless to try to criticize a religious story for scientific value when the story is based off of a Deity which science cannot quantify. If a story were secular, such as the description of Marie Curie's protocols, then it would make absolute sense to critique it for scientific value, philosophy would be meaningless here. However, science cannot claim falsehood for the Bible as it claims to be divinely inspired. To claim falsehood for the Bible, one does not use science, one uses subjective personal opinions based off of lifehood experiences, parental influences, and personal wishes. One uses philosophy , not science to debate religion. Thats what I've been trying to get at. 2.) Yes anyone can make something up and claim its true, however science cannot prove their stories false, only your personal beliefs and philosophy will "prove" them "wrong" in your own mind. If someone does believe in God but sees the Flood story as unnatural, then yes they can argue against it being a natural event. Which would mean it would have to be a supernatural event. If that same person doesnt believe it was supernatural then they are claiming their holy book to be fictional in an instance where it is claiming to be fact. This person would have to re-assess their beliefs. If it is not their holy book (i.e. muslim crtiticizing the Bible) then that is just a matter of differing philosophies and not science. The point here is NOT that you are forbidden to express your opinion about something..... its that science should be used to invalidate erroneous secular events (i.e. I claim i am anna nicole smith's baby's father yet thru DNA testing i am not), NOT mysterious religious events (i.e. Jesus rose from the Dead). The only way to "invalidate" a mysterious religious event is through your own personal philosophical belief system. Basing religious beliefs off of science, instead of philosophy, is simply out-of-context and flawed. Halo

Ah you have personal issues then, i thought i sensed some hostility. Its a shame people drilled your head. I'd hate that too. Point is, if you dont believe in God then there is no point in even opening a Bible to read any of the recorded events to even try to dissect or scrutinize. Because the events depend on divine intervention and planning, so the Bible depends heavily on a God existing. Therefore if you dismiss the possibility of God existing, then the Bible isnt even debatable for you. There is no point trying to argue the tiny details of each Bible story if you dont even believe the God that created the events exists. The only reason to debate the details of a Bible story is if you believe in the premise of God and want to figure out if the event was divine intervention natural or divine intervention supernatural. I have no problem with anyone not believing in God or the Bible, or the Flood story. But i think that person should just say, "I dont believe in that story because i dont believe in God" , instead of "I dont believe in that story because of X scientific data". Because if you believe in an all powerful entity, science is irrelevant and is nothing more than man's understanding of the universe at time point X in area Y. Which is pretty limited. Some scientists believe that gravity functions differently in other parts of the universe which could explain some odd celestial behavior. So what you believe to be "Physical Laws which cant be broken" , may very well be breakable (or so flexible that laws are meaningless on the grand scale). Can the laws be broken on earth? Perhaps not here, right now, by us........however if they can be broken elsewhere naturally, then surely if a Deity were to exist, they most certainly could be broken here, right now, by Him. Halo

1.) Why does there need to be Miracles today? Who says Miracles occurring in the past makes the past special? Some would say that having grace today and not needing miracles is a much better world to live in. We don't need proof that God can do anything, because the concept of a God already demands acceptance of the concept of divine intervention. Just like the concept of a unicorn demands the acceptance of a single spiraled magical horn. We don't need proof that unicorns have a spiraled magical horn because that's what they have by definition. God by the Bible's definition tells us that God has supernatural powers that allow Him to commit divine intervention. No proof is needed as the definition is a core part of the entity. If God exists then divine intervention is a real possibility. End of story. 2.) Arguing something that is futile? Smokescreen? What on earth are you on about? I'm simply stating that the Bible includes a God entity in its record, the very concept of a God allows for divine intervention, and the Bible shows numerous examples of it. The only reason that you are even arguing about the validity of the Flood is because the Bible doesn't specifically go into detail about whether God used divine intervention for certain events during/after the flood. I don't see anyone making a thread about Joshua asking God to hold the sun in the sky for a day making the universe pause for 24 hours. Where are the astronomers attacking this scripture? Shouldn't they be attacking it just like the evolutionists are attacking the Flood? No you don't see them doing that because the Bible clearly states that it was Divine Intervention by way of Joshua lobbying God and having the actual request granted. So my point is this, if people wont attack things in the Bible where divine intervention is explicitly referred to, such as Resurrection and Time/space distortion, then what is the point in attacking other events where divine intervention could have occurred. 3.) There are many divine intervention pieces to the Flood story. God told Noah how to build the Ark. This means the Ark was divinely inspired. God closed the door of the Ark, God watched over the Ark. Supernatural protection. What is to say He didn't watch over plants underwater, or cause supernatural regeneration of plant and animal life? The Bible states the Flood was no ordinary flood, it states the wells of the deep broke open. Supernatural Destruction. So you see its silly to take a supernatural event and try to dissect it for scientific value. What's next? Use Quantum Theory to try to extrapolate how Jesus manipulated superstrings to carry out miracles? C'mon. 4.) To reiterate my point, Science scrutinizing a book that states it records events that were put in motion and divinely influenced by.... an all powerful God... is complicated, as divine intervention cannot be quantified or measured by the scientific method. It is like science scrutinizing whether my consciousness is real or whether the color blue that i see is the same color blue that you see. If "God" wasn't an entity mentioned in the Bible, if the Bible were merely a simple nonreligious record of history, then scrutinizing it would be as easy as scrutinizing an erroneous textbook. But unfortunately its not that simple. Divine Intervention overrides scientific inaccuracy. The only real value of scrutinizing the Bible with science is to help us better understand what parts of the Bible had divine intervention and which parts didn't. But even that isn't completely true. Why? because some things like the parting of the Red Sea which is described as divine intervention can also be explained by science as natural events. But this only means that natural events prompted to occur at certain times by supernatural Will is synonymous with divine intervention. What does that mean? It means some events according to the Bible are: [1] divine intervention and supernatural. while other events are: [2]divine intervention and natural. So scrutinizing the Bible scientifically does NOT tell us whether the event is true or false, it only achieves clarification of which type of divine intervention event we are dealing with, natural or supernatural, But that begs the question.... does that really matter? It is worth deciphering between the two? I think that's a personal answer. And for a believer it most likely would not matter if the event was natural or supernatural. The only thing that would matter to them is that God had a hand in the matter. Halo

Why does God have to do things your way Khan? I find it amusing when someone says "why didnt God just do it this way?" , as if your way of doing things is somehow superior. Perhaps God decided there was to be a flood. End of story. There is no "naa naa naa" going on... I'm simply stating that all kinds of wild and amazing things happened in the bible and therefore if the book is *that* supernatural its pretty silly to single out one story and try to dissect it for scientific value. "naaa naaa naa" would also assume that someone is ignoring something. I'm not ignoring anything. I am simply bringing to light what you are ignoring. And that is that God and the Bible cannot be scientifically scrutinized. If "God" wasnt an entity mentioned in the Bible, if the Bible were merely a simple record of history, then yes you could scrutinize it all to hell and back. But due to the fact that the Bible says it records events that were put in motion and divinely influenced by.... an all powerful God... its impossible to dismiss anything in the Bible, as you could never know if divine intervention occurred. Halo

The Bible also says God used a supernatural pillar of fire to hold back the egyptians while the israelites camped by the Red Sea. It also states that God made a Donkey speak in human language. It also states that a man came back to life after being crucified. It also states that a man healed the blind and the diseased, and brought others back from the dead. It also says a man walked on water. God aparently performs supernatural events in history according to the Bible. It appears the Flood Story would require supernatural elements to make it plausible, such as supernatural hibernation, migration, protection, and post flood speciation. This is not necessarily a problem since God appears to have no qualms about exercising supernatural powers when He sees fit. If Elijah can sit on a mountain and have a squad of soldiers approach him to subdue him and he says "Let fire come down and consume you" .... and afterwards the guards are promptly roasted..... then the flood story is not any more supernatural than anything else in the bible. Dissecting the Flood story to make a point to a religious believer is pointless if they believe in deity's with no begining, talking donkeys, people walking on water, coming back from the dead, and pillars of fire. So even if you could make the Flood story seem unscientific/implausible, its fruitless because there are far more unexplainable occurences in the Bible which are impossible to dissect that people will believe forever. The Flood story doesnt have to make scientific sense. Just like talking donkey's, walking on water, coming back from the dead, people dying by touching a mountain, fire raining from heaven on command, pillars of fire, the sun stopping in the sky for a day, etc, etc, dont have to make scientific sense either. God is above science, because in the bible he defys scientific law time and time again. How would science explain Joshua asking God to hold the sun in the sky for a day? Where is that missing day in astronomy? God's power and supernatural events are the Royal Flush of the Great Poker Game that is the Bible Debate. Halo

Waiting for this game is killing me