Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

post #1 here

Good to see my find is doing the rounds already. I knew I should have added tags to those. 

They could at least have read the tank net post for the source :(

 

 

This was the source

Had they bothered to ask I'd have given it to them

 

Yes, because clearly "finding" something the CIA scanned and put up for public viewing makes it yours and you were the only person to have ever seen a document put up for public view.

 

They have a word for people who try to hide the real credit for something and then slap their "tags"/watermarks to them, they call them plagiarists, though I suppose that hasn't stopped you in the past.

 

The fact you yourself complain about being plagiarized on plagiarized works though and that you "should've tagged them" is just disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't usually reply or post here but your ridiculous reply requires at least a short comment. I'm not going to get drawn into a squabble with you as I only come to SH mainly to keep up with Collimatrix's transmission or the M4 stuff.

You use "" as if finding something was minor, it isn't and it wasn't and if it was so easy to find or out there then everyone would already have had it and not just repasted the cropped screenshots I'd taken. 

There was no point in adding tags as the info was easy enough to find but the purpose IS NOT to claim ownership but simply to ensure credit. It wasn't given as it was due which was the cause of my little irritation. It's redundant now anyway as I posted the source and enough people have now also gone to the CIA declassified docs to find it and other wonderful silliness like Tigers in Syria.

 

It is common practice to add a tag to an image and that is not the same as adding a 'copyright' etc. which is a claim of ownership. I'm sorry you don't get that and felt the need to be so silly.

That's it from me on the subject though I'm sure I can expect another tirade of abuse but I'd point out that as 'forum nobility' you may be seen as holding a position of power or reputation on this forum and thereby reflecting some of the values and openness of this place. As such a reply like your other one will do nothing to dispel the view of some of SH as being a hugbox or being of approachable. If you want people to bring information here you should moderate your attitude or just continue to act as a bully in a position of repute and be seen for what you are.

 

Anyway, I'm glad those were of interest to people although frankly I'm a little surprised they were declassified. Its not that the rough concept had not already been well considered or that enough photos of Abrams from Iraq with damage had not yielded information but there's a difference between an official document details a rough layout (albeit not composition) and information gleamed from photos here and there.

 

I'll continue to follow SH but I will go back to being a passive viewer of content and not an active poster thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't usually reply or post here but your ridiculous reply requires at least a short comment. I'm not going to get drawn into a squabble with you as I only come to SH mainly to keep up with Collimatrix's transmission or the M4 stuff.

You use "" as if finding something was minor, it isn't and it wasn't and if it was so easy to find or out there then everyone would already have had it and not just repasted the cropped screenshots I'd taken. 

There was no point in adding tags as the info was easy enough to find but the purpose IS NOT to claim ownership but simply to ensure credit. It wasn't given as it was due which was the cause of my little irritation. It's redundant now anyway as I posted the source and enough people have now also gone to the CIA declassified docs to find it and other wonderful silliness like Tigers in Syria.

 

Yes, because it's clearly so hard to find being publicly released by the CIA and all fairly recently, ONLY you have seen this or could've ever thought to screencap it and everyone else who uses is just ripping off "your" find.

 

If you think you have any right to be irritated over this, please wake the hell up, because there's only one person here being ridiculous.

 

It is common practice to add a tag to an image and that is not the same as adding a 'copyright' etc. which is a claim of ownership. I'm sorry you don't get that and felt the need to be so silly.

That's it from me on the subject though I'm sure I can expect another tirade of abuse but I'd point out that as 'forum nobility' you may be seen as holding a position of power or reputation on this forum and thereby reflecting some of the values and openness of this place. As such a reply like your other one will do nothing to dispel the view of some of SH as being a hugbox or being of approachable. If you want people to bring information here you should moderate your attitude or just continue to act as a bully in a position of repute and be seen for what you are.

 

Yeah, It's common practice assuming you're the one who actually took the image or at least scanned it, you simply went to the CIA's sight, screencapped some public documents and wanted to tag them, and then wonder why people accuse you of plagiarism when you complain people are using "your" findings. (Though, I'm sure you'd have no trouble claiming it was from some super secret source only you have access to for....reasons or given to you by all knowing moon people as you've done in the past.)

 

Also, I'm afraid I have yet more bad news if you think a forum nobility tag obligates me to moderate my behavior on this website, if anything, shit like this is one of the big reasons SH exists in the first place, no one can abuse connections with moderators when being called out like this. Sorry that me calling out the fact you do this all the time and then cry about when you do get called out makes us a "hugbox", The only retards who seem to hold that opinion are the ones this site was made to get away from in the first place, and also the types who lack the self awareness to realize they themselves never leave their own echo chamber and clearly everyone else who leaves them must be the ones making a hugbox.

 

If you want to be taken seriously, post actual content, many of the users here never touched the WoT forums before coming here and yet are about 1000 times better then any of the posters left there as far as information goes, mostly because they actually show effort and don't pull stunts like this.

 

Anyway, I'm glad those were of interest to people although frankly I'm a little surprised they were declassified. Its not that the rough concept had not already been well considered or that enough photos of Abrams from Iraq with damage had not yielded information but there's a difference between an official document details a rough layout (albeit not composition) and information gleamed from photos here and there.

 

I'll continue to follow SH but I will go back to being a passive viewer of content and not an active poster thank you.

 

Ok bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna have to burst your bubble, buddy, but you don't deserve credit for hyperlinking shit or uploading images to imgur or wherever.

In fact, on this forum, sourcing is considered a duty, something people should be doing all the time without expecting anything in return.

At SH, we don't play at this deviantART "ORIGINAL CONTENT DO NOT STEAL" egostroking bullshit. When providing a document you are, at best, a courier for information, and nobody here cares how special you think you should be made to feel for that. Anyone can go on DTIC or wherever and take screenshots of a scanned doc, upload them to imgur, and post them up here. That takes almost zero effort, and you deserve about as much credit for it as anyone does for saying "please" and "thank you". In other words, expecting us to respect your watermarks is about as mature as a twelve year old kid still expecting to hear praise for being polite.

I don't hate your guts or nothing, some of the other guys do but I hardly know who you are. I just think your behavior surrounding the "credit" you think you deserve is unbecoming of an adult. Get over yourself. If you want real credit, do something that deserves it. Translate something, write up an analysis, dive into a physical archive yourself, whatever. Do some real work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it from me on the subject though I'm sure I can expect another tirade of abuse but I'd point out that as 'forum nobility' you may be seen as holding a position of power or reputation on this forum and thereby reflecting some of the values and openness of this place. As such a reply like your other one will do nothing to dispel the view of some of SH as being a hugbox or being of approachable. If you want people to bring information here you should moderate your attitude or just continue to act as a bully in a position of repute and be seen for what you are.

I'd like to point you to one of SH's 'posting guidelines':

2. No one on this forum is an "untouchable"; not even I am, though as a general rule it's stupid to piss off an admin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find it hard to believe that such a thing would actually be declassified

 

Why would they be so hesistant? aside from the fact not all of the documents are actually written by the CIA but were simply deemed safe to declassify by them, these aren't even close to the latest models of Abrams, the timeline would put them at the very first models in the early 80s back when the cold ward was still a thing, chances are alot has changed since them. And besides, much has been revealed unwittingly regarding the armor layout of many sections of the current models of Abrams by simply looking at battle damaged photos of them in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find it hard to believe that such a thing would actually be declassified

 

Welcome to SH sevich!

 

If you look through this thread, you'll see that basically anyone building a tank these days is using some sort of NERA.  It's not really the world's biggest secret anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By eggs benedict
      hello everyone!
      so i read that the T-90 shares the T-72B turret , thus BDD armor , however this documentary (?) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKGv5JQBTI8 says "aluminums and plastics".
      is this any legit? did they like , keep the t72b cavity design and change the fill?
       
      also , did the combination on new welded towers change?
    • By Collimatrix
      Most historical arms and armor were made of metal, leather and stone.  This is the thread for historical weapons and armor made of weird shit.
       

       
      This is an example of armor made from the Gilbert islands made of thick, woven coconut fiber.  The helmet is made from a pufferfish.
       
      I've seen a set similar to this in another museum.  The woven fiber body armor looked like it would be reasonably effective.  Coconut husk is pretty tough and the vest was very thick.  I wasn't so sure about the helmet.
       
      The Gilbertese were also the foremost users of shark's tooth weapons, although other Polynesians used them as well:
       

       
      Several historical examples I've seen are these strange, branching designs:
       

       

       
       
      Polynesians were not the only ones to use teeth in their arms.  The Mycenian Greeks made helmets out of boars teeth.  One such helmet is described in the Iliad, and there are a few archeological discoveries of such:
       

       

       
      And finally, a club used by Inuits made from the penis-bone of a walrus:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      Too often technology is portrayed a steady, linear series of more or less inevitable improvements.  This is an easier illusion to maintain if you don't know anything about the subject.  In fact, the history of technology is littered with insane, unworkable garbage.  Things that didn't work, barely worked, might-have-beens, things that would perhaps be worth revisiting, things fit only for ridicule, and some things that make no sense whatsoever:
       

       
      Yes!  Terrify your enemies with your new gunspoon!  Note the direction of the trigger and the direction of the muzzle.  What the hell were these even for?
       

       
      Attaching solid fuel rockets to a bicycle!  We totes verified this idea in Kerbal Space Program, it'll be fine.


       
      An external combustion motor that uses ether instead of steam!  Nothing could possibly go wrong with this!
       

       
      A turbine powered by boiling mercury!  There is definitely nothing at all that could go horribly wrong with this!
       
      Douglas Self's Museum of Retrotechnology Site has all of these wondrous devices and more.  Feast your mind on the retardation of the engineers and inventors of yesteryear, and be amazed that anyone is left alive on this planet.  "Steampunk" ain't got shit.
    • By Collimatrix
      This is wonderful.
       
      I learned:
       
      1)  The leo 1 had poor hull armor, but excellent turret armor!
       
      2)  Chieftain's armor was 16 inches thick!
       
      4)  The T-64 was the Soviet's own version of the leopard(?!)
       
       
      Actually, the materials science stuff seems solid, and jives with what I've heard before (but how much of that is people repeating this article?).
×