Well I can tell you this.
I recently completely ruptured my left bicep. I do not have health insurance. Fortunately it was injured while I was on my trailer (attached to my truck so covered by my auto insurance).
I went to the Emergency room and was given a list of orthopedic surgeons. The first surgeon refused to do it as it was "too ricky". "$200.00 please". He referred me to another surgeon who told me it was "too risky". "$200.00 please" Every other surgeon on the list told me they would not accept my second-party insurance. I'm now stuck with an arm that's 30% weaker.
Health care in America is a wonderful thing!
Cost $400.00 for what they could have told me over the phone in 30 seconds.
So why not just go further away?
I have Agoraphobia. It was hard for me to see the surgeons that were just 80 miles away (round trip).
Stuck!!!
A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
NEO_CrAz3n
- Honorary Leader
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:50 pm
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
"Please accept my resignation. I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." -Groucho Marx
"Any strat that beats me is lame." -CrAz3n
"Quoting yourself is just as bad as speaking about yourself in the third-person." -CrAz3n
"Any strat that beats me is lame." -CrAz3n
"Quoting yourself is just as bad as speaking about yourself in the third-person." -CrAz3n
-
Navarone_Guy
- Honorary Officer
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:02 am
- Location: Over there
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Gotta love healthcare here.
Last edited by Navarone_Guy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Groovy.
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""IndyBrit""]Health care is one of our wonderful, big, hairy, intractable problems. Among the issues (no particular order):
1) Health care is a "necessity", but much of the consumption of health care resources is in fact "voluntary"; how do you control consumption under those circumstances?
2) Health care is a service performed by someone, not a product that can be dispensed like surplus cheese
3) Health care requires research for continuous improvement, and the research requires enormous capital expenditure with huge lead times
4) Intellectual property systems are ill-equipped for health care technologies, due to said lead times and expense (one example - it makes little economic sense to have two companies spend 10 years and $5 BB and have only one get a patent because they file a day earlier than their competitor)
5) Some people consume very few health care resources where others can have procedures that consume many lifetimes of income
6) Some aspects of a person's health are entirely externally driven (e.g. bad genes)
7) Some aspects of a person's health have a large voluntary component (e.g. smokers, obesity, etc.)
8 ) In the spectrum of health care, one system is generally expected to cover mundane expected daily expenses (e.g. standard medications, visits for the flu, vaccines), seemingly random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. a quadruple bypass or reattachment of a lost hand), and even seemingly expected fantastically huge expenses (e.g. having a child), plus seemingly expected yet random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. said child is a preemie requiring 3 weeks in ICU). No other system that comes to mind that is expected to deal with such diversity - for example your car insurance is not expected to pay for your oil changes or to fill up your gas tank, your home owner's insurance doesn't pay to repaint the baby's room, your life insurance doesn't pay for your insulin (although maybe it should...)
9) Health care costs are largely driven by one growing segment of society (the old) creating automatic tension with the rest
10) entry to the health care field has a multi-year lead time, so the response time to an increase in demand is delayed despite financial incentives
To me, this problem is far more difficult to deal with than energy or global warming. The internal conflicts in the above points (and others I can't think of right now) make it easy to attack any position set forth, if a guy enjoyed playing Devil's Advocate like I do.
[/quote]
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]Indy, that was a fantastic summary of the issues, and yes, they all have "internal conflicts." I tend to overgeneralize in my arguments; I am more a rhetorician (where generalization is necessary) than a technician (where attention to great detail is vital). I get passionate about the health care debate knowing full well that my beliefs really don't make sound economic sense. But they come from my conscience. For example, I use a simple line of reasoning to boil down government's relationship to health care: Government is composed of "units," namely human beings. Human beings are mortal creatures who get sick, just like machine parts that wear down and fail. Government also depends on healthy people to achieve its functions, whether military, economic, administrative or financial. For that reason, government has an interest in keeping the population relatively healthy. After all, the machine can't function without functioning units, and no one benefits when people don't work due to sickness, or worse, when they die. Dead people pay no taxes (well, maybe a one-time estate tax). Government would be wise to subsidize the health of its citizens so as to preserve the very human units that compose it. I think this is a possibility in a free market system, because private individuals could always opt for more expensive health coverage. But working people who happen to have a misfortune should not have to confront a lifetime nightmare of endless bills; they should receive free care from the government if they cannot afford otherwise.
Last year the doctor told me I had skin cancer on my right temple. At the time, I was working as a consultant with very basic health coverage. The hospital performed a relatively routine operation to remove the bad tissue (it was successful). Afterward, my health plan refused to cover it and I got stuck with a $21,000 bill for an operation that lasted 45 minutes under local anaesthesia. For months I haggled with insensitive hospital "billing staff" who kept on repeating: "So how would you like to pay for this? So how would you like to pay for this?" I told them I didn't have remotely close to that amount saved. They responded: "So how would you like to pay for this?" Eventually I sent enough letters and raised enough of a stink to convince the right hospital bureaucrats that I could not pay the bill, and they wrote it off.
Just imagine what other people go through for more serious operations. It is not an answer to say "buy better health coverage." Even employed people don't get the same coverage they used to, and unemployed people can't afford $450 a month for decent coverage. My mother is a cancer survivor and widow who pays $700 a month for extremely basic coverage. Thankfully she has a little money saved from my Dad's life insurance policy, but if she had a serious illness, she'd be out on the street. As my old evidence professor used to say: "Many Americans are just one illness away from bankruptcy."
This is a shameful state of affairs, and no talk about economic incentives or doctor profitability will shake my beliefs on it. Doctors should not be in the field because they want Mercedes-Benz cars and luxury condos. They should be in the profession because they want to ease others' pain and cure diseases. Government has an interest in those goals, too, and if private people can't cough up the cash to get it done, then the Government should. Even Nazi Germany provided health care to its citizens. We manage to pay incredible amounts every month to sustain a pointless war. Why can't government increase funding for health care? I think more Americans would prefer to know that they will not go bankrupt from illness than to blindly fight insurgents in a war that has nothing to do with the United States. If taxes must increase, let them. At least we will get something for our money, rather than the bodies of slain soldiers.
Now THAT's rhetoric! 8O[/quote]
[quote=""IndyBrit""]Kaiser,
I would note two fundamental disagreements with philosophies expressed in the points you made:
1) you moved from the assumption that government is composed of units, and that in the interest of government those units should operate efficiently. What if your basic assumption was that the units operate independently of government, and that government is only a necessary organizational structure to keep units from killing each other, and that optimal operation of the government is not a worthy goal (at least not worthy enough to wipe out other optimizations such as the liberty of units).
1a) what if I ended all of my questions in a not-question mark.
2) Do you think we should wait and hope that the type of doctors we wish would appear will do so (ie go into the field because they care about others), even if that means that we have fewer total doctors?
I do agree the situation is pretty shameful. I didn't have your specific experience - but I was on my own for health care coverage for two years while having babies 4 and 5. That was definitely some stress, and I definitely experienced firsthand some of the flaws in our system.[/quote]
I was assuming by the quick questions there would be quick answers?
1) Health care is a "necessity", but much of the consumption of health care resources is in fact "voluntary"; how do you control consumption under those circumstances?
2) Health care is a service performed by someone, not a product that can be dispensed like surplus cheese
3) Health care requires research for continuous improvement, and the research requires enormous capital expenditure with huge lead times
4) Intellectual property systems are ill-equipped for health care technologies, due to said lead times and expense (one example - it makes little economic sense to have two companies spend 10 years and $5 BB and have only one get a patent because they file a day earlier than their competitor)
5) Some people consume very few health care resources where others can have procedures that consume many lifetimes of income
6) Some aspects of a person's health are entirely externally driven (e.g. bad genes)
7) Some aspects of a person's health have a large voluntary component (e.g. smokers, obesity, etc.)
8 ) In the spectrum of health care, one system is generally expected to cover mundane expected daily expenses (e.g. standard medications, visits for the flu, vaccines), seemingly random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. a quadruple bypass or reattachment of a lost hand), and even seemingly expected fantastically huge expenses (e.g. having a child), plus seemingly expected yet random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. said child is a preemie requiring 3 weeks in ICU). No other system that comes to mind that is expected to deal with such diversity - for example your car insurance is not expected to pay for your oil changes or to fill up your gas tank, your home owner's insurance doesn't pay to repaint the baby's room, your life insurance doesn't pay for your insulin (although maybe it should...)
9) Health care costs are largely driven by one growing segment of society (the old) creating automatic tension with the rest
10) entry to the health care field has a multi-year lead time, so the response time to an increase in demand is delayed despite financial incentives
To me, this problem is far more difficult to deal with than energy or global warming. The internal conflicts in the above points (and others I can't think of right now) make it easy to attack any position set forth, if a guy enjoyed playing Devil's Advocate like I do.
[/quote][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]Indy, that was a fantastic summary of the issues, and yes, they all have "internal conflicts." I tend to overgeneralize in my arguments; I am more a rhetorician (where generalization is necessary) than a technician (where attention to great detail is vital). I get passionate about the health care debate knowing full well that my beliefs really don't make sound economic sense. But they come from my conscience. For example, I use a simple line of reasoning to boil down government's relationship to health care: Government is composed of "units," namely human beings. Human beings are mortal creatures who get sick, just like machine parts that wear down and fail. Government also depends on healthy people to achieve its functions, whether military, economic, administrative or financial. For that reason, government has an interest in keeping the population relatively healthy. After all, the machine can't function without functioning units, and no one benefits when people don't work due to sickness, or worse, when they die. Dead people pay no taxes (well, maybe a one-time estate tax). Government would be wise to subsidize the health of its citizens so as to preserve the very human units that compose it. I think this is a possibility in a free market system, because private individuals could always opt for more expensive health coverage. But working people who happen to have a misfortune should not have to confront a lifetime nightmare of endless bills; they should receive free care from the government if they cannot afford otherwise.
Last year the doctor told me I had skin cancer on my right temple. At the time, I was working as a consultant with very basic health coverage. The hospital performed a relatively routine operation to remove the bad tissue (it was successful). Afterward, my health plan refused to cover it and I got stuck with a $21,000 bill for an operation that lasted 45 minutes under local anaesthesia. For months I haggled with insensitive hospital "billing staff" who kept on repeating: "So how would you like to pay for this? So how would you like to pay for this?" I told them I didn't have remotely close to that amount saved. They responded: "So how would you like to pay for this?" Eventually I sent enough letters and raised enough of a stink to convince the right hospital bureaucrats that I could not pay the bill, and they wrote it off.
Just imagine what other people go through for more serious operations. It is not an answer to say "buy better health coverage." Even employed people don't get the same coverage they used to, and unemployed people can't afford $450 a month for decent coverage. My mother is a cancer survivor and widow who pays $700 a month for extremely basic coverage. Thankfully she has a little money saved from my Dad's life insurance policy, but if she had a serious illness, she'd be out on the street. As my old evidence professor used to say: "Many Americans are just one illness away from bankruptcy."
This is a shameful state of affairs, and no talk about economic incentives or doctor profitability will shake my beliefs on it. Doctors should not be in the field because they want Mercedes-Benz cars and luxury condos. They should be in the profession because they want to ease others' pain and cure diseases. Government has an interest in those goals, too, and if private people can't cough up the cash to get it done, then the Government should. Even Nazi Germany provided health care to its citizens. We manage to pay incredible amounts every month to sustain a pointless war. Why can't government increase funding for health care? I think more Americans would prefer to know that they will not go bankrupt from illness than to blindly fight insurgents in a war that has nothing to do with the United States. If taxes must increase, let them. At least we will get something for our money, rather than the bodies of slain soldiers.
Now THAT's rhetoric! 8O[/quote]
[quote=""IndyBrit""]Kaiser,
I would note two fundamental disagreements with philosophies expressed in the points you made:
1) you moved from the assumption that government is composed of units, and that in the interest of government those units should operate efficiently. What if your basic assumption was that the units operate independently of government, and that government is only a necessary organizational structure to keep units from killing each other, and that optimal operation of the government is not a worthy goal (at least not worthy enough to wipe out other optimizations such as the liberty of units).
1a) what if I ended all of my questions in a not-question mark.
2) Do you think we should wait and hope that the type of doctors we wish would appear will do so (ie go into the field because they care about others), even if that means that we have fewer total doctors?
I do agree the situation is pretty shameful. I didn't have your specific experience - but I was on my own for health care coverage for two years while having babies 4 and 5. That was definitely some stress, and I definitely experienced firsthand some of the flaws in our system.[/quote]
I was assuming by the quick questions there would be quick answers?
From the OP maker of the OP Sigs, Cleeduz brings maybe some of his best work yet!
-
Kaiser_von_Nuben
- Honorary Member
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: New York, NY USA
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""GeneralMichael""][quote=""ruminator""][quote=""Soccerman771""]I long for the days when the threads turned to alcohol......
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
I wonder, when Indy and Kaiser are in the lobby waiting for their N30 league match, how long do you think they will discuss philosophy for before going into the game? Will the number of minutes exceed the number of uhlans spammed by Kaiser when the game does eventually commence?[/quote]
Depends on how long it takes to load. Also I'm sure they will be discussing long into the match maybe even after the match is over. So the number of minutes of thier discussion will well exceed the number of uhlans that the Kaiser will spam. Even if he spans over 200 in a game.[/quote]
Hahaha! This is hilarious. However, I can't guarantee that the number of minutes in our discussion will be less than the number of uhlans I spam. After all, even in a 10-minute loss today I managed to spam 50. If it's a long team game... that's one long discussion :-P
I'm glad that Indy and I have long discussions. I really look forward to them! I like the fact that we can have meaningful exchanges that get all the issues out in the open; it doesn't matter who's wrong or right. The important thing is to think about the issues.
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
I wonder, when Indy and Kaiser are in the lobby waiting for their N30 league match, how long do you think they will discuss philosophy for before going into the game? Will the number of minutes exceed the number of uhlans spammed by Kaiser when the game does eventually commence?[/quote]
Depends on how long it takes to load. Also I'm sure they will be discussing long into the match maybe even after the match is over. So the number of minutes of thier discussion will well exceed the number of uhlans that the Kaiser will spam. Even if he spans over 200 in a game.[/quote]
Hahaha! This is hilarious. However, I can't guarantee that the number of minutes in our discussion will be less than the number of uhlans I spam. After all, even in a 10-minute loss today I managed to spam 50. If it's a long team game... that's one long discussion :-P
I'm glad that Indy and I have long discussions. I really look forward to them! I like the fact that we can have meaningful exchanges that get all the issues out in the open; it doesn't matter who's wrong or right. The important thing is to think about the issues.
"The German Army will not stand for it!"
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-
GeneralMichael
- N3O Member
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:26 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Steam: MDSamurai12
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""NEO_CrAz3n""]Well I can tell you this.
I recently completely ruptured my left bicep. I do not have health insurance. Fortunately it was injured while I was on my trailer (attached to my truck so covered by my auto insurance).
[/quote]
As I said in some earlier thread I can just imagine you as a horribly crippled old man in a wheel chair. Though now I see many scars covering you legs, though you still have the eye patch.
I recently completely ruptured my left bicep. I do not have health insurance. Fortunately it was injured while I was on my trailer (attached to my truck so covered by my auto insurance).
[/quote]
As I said in some earlier thread I can just imagine you as a horribly crippled old man in a wheel chair. Though now I see many scars covering you legs, though you still have the eye patch.
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""djdan""][quote=""IndyBrit""]
blah blah blah
some garbage
[/quote]
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
blah blah blah
some response stuff
[/quote]
[quote=""IndyBrit""]
blah blah blah
some further garbage
[/quote]
I was assuming by the quick questions there would be quick answers? [/quote]
Doh! Must have missed that in a footnote.
Does it help if you know that we type our long-winded diatribes quickly? Hot air comes easily to me, and easy come easy go. :neutral:
blah blah blah
some garbage
[/quote]
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
blah blah blah
some response stuff
[/quote]
[quote=""IndyBrit""]
blah blah blah
some further garbage
[/quote]
I was assuming by the quick questions there would be quick answers? [/quote]
Doh! Must have missed that in a footnote.
Does it help if you know that we type our long-winded diatribes quickly? Hot air comes easily to me, and easy come easy go. :neutral:
-
I__CHAOS__I
- N3O Member
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:55 am
- Location: ??
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""IndyBrit""][quote=""djdan""][quote=""IndyBrit""]
blah blah blah
some garbage
[/quote]
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
blah blah blah
some response stuff
[/quote]
[quote=""IndyBrit""]
blah blah blah
some further garbage
[/quote]
I was assuming by the quick questions there would be quick answers? [/quote]
Doh! Must have missed that in a footnote.
Does it help if you know that we type our long-winded diatribes quickly? Hot air comes easily to me, and easy come easy go. :neutral:[/quote]
those long essays are OP, now we don't have to buy books anymore.
Reading the forums has become a part-time job
blah blah blah
some garbage
[/quote]
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
blah blah blah
some response stuff
[/quote]
[quote=""IndyBrit""]
blah blah blah
some further garbage
[/quote]
I was assuming by the quick questions there would be quick answers? [/quote]
Doh! Must have missed that in a footnote.
Does it help if you know that we type our long-winded diatribes quickly? Hot air comes easily to me, and easy come easy go. :neutral:[/quote]
those long essays are OP, now we don't have to buy books anymore.
Reading the forums has become a part-time job
Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness. - Sophocles
Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient. - Aristotle
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
In the spirit of the "Quick Question" thread I have one for you. :-P
Is it proper etiquette to tell an opponent that you will be recording the game?
If it is I did not realize it and my opponent quit right at the start and started flaming me about it. I explained to him that I did not realize, and that I have been getting droptricked a lot lately (happens a lot at my level). He claimed it wasn't "proper" for me to not tell him. Honestly, I didn't even think about it, record was left on by default from a previous match. He refused to play me again, recorded or not. I've beat him a few times in the past and maybe he's just sour, or maybe I'm an inconsiderate and rude jerk. :?:
Is it proper etiquette to tell an opponent that you will be recording the game?
If it is I did not realize it and my opponent quit right at the start and started flaming me about it. I explained to him that I did not realize, and that I have been getting droptricked a lot lately (happens a lot at my level). He claimed it wasn't "proper" for me to not tell him. Honestly, I didn't even think about it, record was left on by default from a previous match. He refused to play me again, recorded or not. I've beat him a few times in the past and maybe he's just sour, or maybe I'm an inconsiderate and rude jerk. :?:
"Nature doesn't like Agra forts." - Sporting Lisbon
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. - Ben Franklin
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. - Ben Franklin
-
hallchr
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Now, I dont see a problem with the current health insurance system. I don't believe I told anyone here but I recently endured a car accident that put me into a coma for two months in which I had to miss a semester of college. Now my medical bills were upwards of around 750,000 and health insurance covered 99% of it.
-
I__CHAOS__I
- N3O Member
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:55 am
- Location: ??
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""cleeduz""]In the spirit of the "Quick Question" thread I have one for you. :-P
Is it proper etiquette to tell an opponent that you will be recording the game?
If it is I did not realize it and my opponent quit right at the start and started flaming me about it. I explained to him that I did not realize, and that I have been getting droptricked a lot lately (happens a lot at my level). He claimed it wasn't "proper" for me to not tell him. Honestly, I didn't even think about it, record was left on by default from a previous match. He refused to play me again, recorded or not. I've beat him a few times in the past and maybe he's just sour, or maybe I'm an inconsiderate and rude jerk. :?:[/quote]
lol, it's not something he couldn't have seen easily and there is no harm in recording games, so you def didn't do anything wrong imho.
Is it proper etiquette to tell an opponent that you will be recording the game?
If it is I did not realize it and my opponent quit right at the start and started flaming me about it. I explained to him that I did not realize, and that I have been getting droptricked a lot lately (happens a lot at my level). He claimed it wasn't "proper" for me to not tell him. Honestly, I didn't even think about it, record was left on by default from a previous match. He refused to play me again, recorded or not. I've beat him a few times in the past and maybe he's just sour, or maybe I'm an inconsiderate and rude jerk. :?:[/quote]
lol, it's not something he couldn't have seen easily and there is no harm in recording games, so you def didn't do anything wrong imho.
Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness. - Sophocles
Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient. - Aristotle
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""I__CHAOS__I""][quote=""cleeduz""]In the spirit of the "Quick Question" thread I have one for you. :-P
Is it proper etiquette to tell an opponent that you will be recording the game?
If it is I did not realize it and my opponent quit right at the start and started flaming me about it. I explained to him that I did not realize, and that I have been getting droptricked a lot lately (happens a lot at my level). He claimed it wasn't "proper" for me to not tell him. Honestly, I didn't even think about it, record was left on by default from a previous match. He refused to play me again, recorded or not. I've beat him a few times in the past and maybe he's just sour, or maybe I'm an inconsiderate and rude jerk. :?:[/quote]
lol, it's not something he couldn't have seen easily and there is no harm in recording games, so you def didn't do anything wrong imho.[/quote]
Always record QS (althought that's 50/50 I guess according to who is the "host"), and he can see the selection. I do usually mention that I'm going to record, but it's not like a sneaky thing so I don't see anything wrong there.
Is it proper etiquette to tell an opponent that you will be recording the game?
If it is I did not realize it and my opponent quit right at the start and started flaming me about it. I explained to him that I did not realize, and that I have been getting droptricked a lot lately (happens a lot at my level). He claimed it wasn't "proper" for me to not tell him. Honestly, I didn't even think about it, record was left on by default from a previous match. He refused to play me again, recorded or not. I've beat him a few times in the past and maybe he's just sour, or maybe I'm an inconsiderate and rude jerk. :?:[/quote]
lol, it's not something he couldn't have seen easily and there is no harm in recording games, so you def didn't do anything wrong imho.[/quote]
Always record QS (althought that's 50/50 I guess according to who is the "host"), and he can see the selection. I do usually mention that I'm going to record, but it's not like a sneaky thing so I don't see anything wrong there.
-
Kaiser_von_Nuben
- Honorary Member
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: New York, NY USA
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""hallchr""]Now, I dont see a problem with the current health insurance system. I don't believe I told anyone here but I recently endured a car accident that put me into a coma for two months in which I had to miss a semester of college. Now my medical bills were upwards of around 750,000 and health insurance covered 99% of it.[/quote]
Sorry to hear about that, Hall. At least you could focus on your recovery and not worry about the bills. There are a lot of Americans who do not have that kind of coverage, unfortunately. Hopefully one day everyone will.
Glad you've recovered from your accident. I have a very good friend who almost died in a car accident. I still care for him almost every day.
Sorry to hear about that, Hall. At least you could focus on your recovery and not worry about the bills. There are a lot of Americans who do not have that kind of coverage, unfortunately. Hopefully one day everyone will.
Glad you've recovered from your accident. I have a very good friend who almost died in a car accident. I still care for him almost every day.
"The German Army will not stand for it!"
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""IndyBrit""][
Always record QS (althought that's 50/50 I guess according to who is the "host"), and he can see the selection. I do usually mention that I'm going to record, but it's not like a sneaky thing so I don't see anything wrong there.[/quote]
Is that why so may of my games don't record? Is one player the host and the record game based on whether they ticked? I think that games should be auto recorded like on say DOW soulstorm - avoids any potential for dispute and you have auto record of hacking etc.
Always record QS (althought that's 50/50 I guess according to who is the "host"), and he can see the selection. I do usually mention that I'm going to record, but it's not like a sneaky thing so I don't see anything wrong there.[/quote]
Is that why so may of my games don't record? Is one player the host and the record game based on whether they ticked? I think that games should be auto recorded like on say DOW soulstorm - avoids any potential for dispute and you have auto record of hacking etc.
"Could you, would you, with a goat? Would you, could you, on a boat?" Doctor Seuss
"Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?"
George Wallace
"Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?"
George Wallace
-
hallchr
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Well, I kind of did die, twice. I'm fine now but moving on to the recorded games section, that is retarded. He should not have done that at all. I mean how hard or how lazy are you that you don't want to look to the bottom of the screen. I would say he just remembered that you beat him a lot and he didn't want to play. I'm too lazy, what rank are you because you said they drop a lot at that level.
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Why are people already scheduling their N3O League games? Am I the only one who just don't have a clue where a can see the matchups?