Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paintball/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
That thin gelatin shell...
Talk about whatever. Paintball, guns, tanks, your kitchen sink.
Yay, a paintball Wikiproject...I have been wanting there to be one of these for a long time! I just couldn't figure out how to make a Wikiproject! I'm excited :) I must go write some articles about paintball now...lol Caleb09 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it! We certainly need more members. I have big plans for this category, but I myself have far too little time to carry them out myself. Feel free to add things to the 'Tasks' section, and welcome to the Project! ~ Maximilli, 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay thanks Caleb09 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I come bearing gifts! The following is a userbox that may prove useful to members' senses of loyalty....
Additionally, for us woodsball specialists, I've created this userbox....
Please list proposals here.
I wouldent mind a improvement on the Paintballing article. Anarchyforever 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, what kind of improvements are you talking about? Do you have something specific in mind? Don't forget to sign yourself up for the Project if you're interested. ~ Maximilli, 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk about various articles which should be brought under special consideration of the Project.
I separated Glossary of Paintball terms from the main Paintball article a few months back but now it's getting unruly, with semi-regular vandalism and lots of random, irrelevant slang now included. I'm not sure if I would go as far as to say the article should be deleted, but it definitely needs a major overhaul. --Donutmonger 07:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I gave it a major re-hash. What do you think? --RavenStorm 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The Automag article is actually two articles in one: one about the marker itself, and one about Airgun Designs. AGD should be a separate article, but I've been too lazy to do it myself. --Donutmonger 07:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, AGD should have a separate article. We should try and model it after the Tippmann article. Speaking of which, does anyone here feel up to working on the Empir3 article? I know virtually nothing useful about the company, or I'd work on it myself. ~ Maximilli, 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Spyder Victor II
Sorry about making the Spyder Victor II article messy :X...I create stubs alot and I forgot that you need the little specifications thingimajig...
- Don't worry about it, Caleb09. It's coming along. Thanks for starting it and doing the initial research. One thing you could do, if you're looking for a specific task, is look on PB Review.com and try and find reviews on the gun. Then you could assimilate information from those into the article - remembering, of course, to rewrite everything to avoid copyright infringement. I'll come along later and check it out. ~ Maximilli, 22:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe i'll just kinda be a wikignome for the pb articles... for a while :) Caleb09 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering merging the Spyder Victor articles into one "Spyder Victor series" article. I'm also considering doing the same for the Spyder MR series. In the spirit of consultation, I wanted to ask everyone before I got bold. --Donutmonger 06:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Current articles not reflecting reality
I'm reading through the articles in the paintball wikiproject, and I've got some concerns about the content and viewpoint expressed in most of them. Namely, in my paintball experience, woodsball games are not accurately represented for the average person stepping onto a paintball field. Rather, the current articles about general paintball, and specifically woodsball, sounds like a rehash of what one would expect out of a organized scenereo team. This does not reflect reality, with the wide array of skills and equippment found in walk-on games. This is not to insult skilled woods players, who have a strategy and friends to team up with. I've noticed a majority of players, as they gain experience and become more serious, begin playing in speedball games, pulling talent out of the woods. The most common reason I recieve for this is the concentration of unskilled players in the woods, and moving to speedball removes a large portion of that. Again, I'm not trying to insult or be deragatory to any of the brilliant woods players I've met over the years, as many I've spoken with agree with the observations I've made. - Toastydeath 01:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Toastydeath, I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you on a number of points. First thing. The articles have not been written by 'newbies'. They were not written for newbies. That would be simplification, which, of course, Wikipedia doesn't do, and I'm sure you know that. I'm going to use Woodsball as an example, since I wrote it practically from scratch and I know it best. It's true that I command a woodsball team, but this does not serve to explain why the article is so team-oriented, which is what I think you're talking about by saying "what one would expect out of a organized scenereo team". It is team oriented because that's what woodsball is - indeed, what most paintball is, no matter the game type.
- Additionally, one can't say that such basic information as this (I presume you're talking about the camouflage and player positions, et cetera) is only to be expected out of some 'leet team. It's true that good teams utilize such organization, but one does not need it to be good. My team and I have run up against some decent woodsballers (note that we distinguish ourselves from scenario players) who don't have player positions, nor even squads or a hierarchy of command any greater than 'do what the commander says'. However, during all my time playing paintball (and I've been playing a very frequently for a couple years now, perhaps once a week at least), most teams do use positions. The interesting detail is that even in unorganized teams, such as those created during a day of open play, player positions are recognized and used. I myself have followed marksman doctrine even when playing solo, and was very successful. My point is, one does not have to be part of a team in order to use the information that has been supplied in the Woodsball article. I've only played speedball maybe a sixth of the time that I've played paintball, and I've never commanded on a speedball field, so my knowledge and experience is pretty much limited to woodsball. Nevertheless, I have seen enough to be sure that what holds true for woodsball almost always holds true for speedball, 'cause in essence they're the same things. ~ Maximilli, 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- What I wrote was was out of a particular personal bias, and I'll readily apologize for that. I take issue with parallels being drawn, in any regard, to paintball and war, i.e. rifleman/gunner. I think it casts paintball in a negative light and gives folks who oppose it more fuel than they already have. I don't feel comparing paintball positions to an infantry position is even accurate from a tactics standpoint. Reality is lost on some people who make too direct comparisons, and they stop developing out of a preconcieved notion of what it means to be playing in a particular regard. I'm not saying YOU, or anyone here does that, and please don't take it that way. But I'm pretty sure you're aware of at least one player who does. I feel talking about angles, lanes, keying, back/front player, etc, is a more productive and viable way to discuss and advance the sport. I'd rather talk about differences between woodsball and speedball in constant terms, and I get hung up on overy-militaristic wording. So that's a bias, and I freely admit it.
- The core problem I was trying to address was that I don't feel the current articles reflect what the average person's experience is, and I feel that should be the focus. In speedball, few people make the consious decision to "play back" or "play front," they just do whatever comes naturally and attempt to work together in the process. I think it's very useful to note what professional teams do so that others can take it into account, but it's hardly the norm. I will be going back to rewrite some of the speedball expansions I did to reflect more of the average experience, because as I left it yesterday, it had a more tournement-centric feel. - Toastydeath 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to (mostly) agree with toasty here. I think he's on the other side of the bias from Maximilli, but there are definitely problems with the way the articles are written. There is way too much 'the way I feel' kind of statements inserted into the articles, and when Maximilli is writing them they have a heavy milsim slant.
- I think anything about paintball 'positions' needs to be canned from the woodsball article entirely. The fact of the matter is, the only difference between what is defined as a 'rifleman' and a 'marksman' and an 'anti-armor' player are in the head of the player. Paintball players are paintball players. Some are players in the woods, and some are players on speedball courses, but a guy with a paintball gun in the woods is just like any other guy with a paintball gun in the woods, and that's the experience of 95% of the people who play paintball. If someone goes to the rec field on the weekend, and rents a gun, they are going to be a paintball player. Period. The people they are going to play with are going to be paintball players. None of them are going to have any idea that some of them are supposed to be 'snipers' or whatever.
- Along those lines, any statements that take the form "Woodsball/Speedball players tend to..." should be editted/deleted. Serious paintball players spend a lot of money on good, reliable equipment. Less serious players spend less money. These kinds of players exist on both sides of the sport. Statements like "Woodsball players favor accuracy" are just silly statements. Do speedball players not care if their guns have no accuracy? Of course not.
- Honestly, I'm not even sure Speedball and Woodsball warrant separate articles. I think the pragraphs explaining the difference in the main article are sufficient. Maybe a Tournaments article (explain the history of paintball tournaments) and a Scenario article (explain common facets of scenario/big game/milsim paintball) would work. But the only really big differences between speedball/woodsball are what the obstacles are made of and the clothing.
Raehl 00:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My second concern is an overall tone of disdain for speedball and speedball players throughout the articles. Again, my experience has been that the concentration of skill tends towards speedball, with a minority of skilled players preferring to play in the woods. This is backed up at all the walk-on fields I've attended, where the speedballers playing in the woods are divided first, before dividing the rest of the players up. Even with bright jerseys and flashy guns, a skilled pair or trio of speedball players will frequently dominate a woods game with the tactics and skills developed on the speedball field.
I play both woods and speedball. I'm not trying to make an arguement for one over the other, but rather, make some observations about what the average player can expect out of a walk-on woodsball game, which I feel is misrepresented in the current articles. I also feel the skill distribution in players is misrepresented. The biggest thing I can point to that illustrates that is team-level games - there are enough highly skilled players playing speedball tournements to warrant EPSN coverage. Scenerio players of the same skill level are far rarer - not because people who play woods or scenerio are worse, but instead, because serious recreational players tend to move to speedball as they develop. - Toastydeath 01:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Here is my second point of disagreement. I don't think that speedball is spoken about with disdain in the articles. I have a great respect for speedball, and to my knowledge, so does everyone else here. However, it is quite clear to me that speedball isn't getting its fair share of attention here. What you may be seeing isn't quite 'disdain' for speedball, but simply too much concentration on the woodsball side of things. Since I'm so preoccupied with woodsball, I've never thought myself to be a very good candidate to overhaul the articles and do more work on speedball, 'cause my woodsballer slant would mangle things which are purely speedball - such as snake tactics, for example, which I've never quite mastered thanks to my preoccupation with a generally 'larger' view of tactics, which is characteristic of woodsball (from the larger fields, of course).
- My third point of disagreement is that the majority of skilled players play speedball. I think this is entirely incorrect. It is true that woodsball is more the 'newbies' sport' but that is because it is easier to play when one is a beginner. You wrote something like this in the Speed paintball article, if I recall correctly, and I agree with you on that. However, the difference there is that while woodsball does not require skilled movement from every player, it does require skilled movement from many of its players. Of course, the better the hardcore players, the fewer need be the skilled players. This can be illustrated in that out of the seventy-odd guys on my team in a recent Big Game, my hand-picked squad of the five best players in my home team were able to carry the entire team behind them. For example, there was one instance in which my single squad stormed the entire enemy side of the field single-handedly, which meant we wiped out forty guys and a tank. We only lost two people. Seriously. Indeed, in all truth it is possible that my side won the game only because there were five of us, and there were only two elite players on the other side.
- To further illustrate my point, a good fourth of the players there were speedballers with high-end guns and top-of-the-line equipment. I will refer to these players in a moment when I discuss the markers. These thirty-odd speedballers were all very arrogant, and were eager to show off their markers and their high rates of fire. I spoke with a couple, and our conversation terminated with their saying, "We'll wipe the field with you". I will remind you at this point that this was a woodsball field. My squad and I met nine of those speedballers on the field, and we obliterated them in less than a minute with no casualties. Our secret? Superior accuracy on my part, and speedy flanking maneuvers on the part of my squad-mates. Every time we met speedballers on the field, we wiped them out almost effortlessly, especially since they were totally confused due to the lack of large trees and the presence of open spaces with very little cover.
- This is consistent with many other such games in which I have played against speedballers. When up against newbies (there may be no doubt that there were many of them) they dominated, but up against woodsballers of their own calibre, they fared about the same.
- As to ESPN coverage, my answer is simple. Woodsball is most often played over a very large area relative to speedball fields, and stealth is often an essential factor. Not to mention that visibility frequently is very poor from a distance of thirty-plus feet, due to underbrush. All these factors, and a number of others, compound to provide an environment very difficult to film well. ~ Maximilli, 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- The good speedball guys I know have entirely stopped playing non-tournement paintball, so at least for me, that makes it difficult to differentiate your experience from being punk kids with money out in the woods versus good players. I misspoke when I said "went on to play speedball." I should have said, "went on to play tournement paintball." They crave drills, and want a rock solid team that doesn't let them down with unknowns. They develop strategy, and can eye up a field in short order to tell you exactly where the other team is going to go. They also did this when I could get them in the woods.
- I think speedball is pretty much split right now between kids with a bad attitude, and good players. But I have to stand by my observation of more skilled people coming out of the woods and rec-ball altogether than those who stay around.
- I quit tourney ball, and went back to the woods a few more times before selling my gun, and the difference in average skill was night and day.
- That being said, I'll do my best to keep that aspect out of anything I write. If you see me slip, take it out or drop me a note and I'll take a shot at fixing it. - Toastydeath 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a mistake to equate television coverage with popularity/significance. Television coverage is based on how well something can be televised. Obviously a speedball field is easier to televise than a woods field. IT's also based on who is willing to pay for it - the industry, run mostly by speedball players, seems more interested in spending money on speedball television.
Raehl 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Differences in Markers
Even though the section on paintball guns themselves is rather small, I think more needs to be done to differentiate high-level electropneumatic guns from the more basic consumer markers. It is not apparent at all why someone would pay $1000 for an autococker or intimidator when a A-5 can be had for $200. A major concern I have is the overinflation of performance in beginner guns in respect to both marksmanship and rate of fire. Both exaggerations are very common and very false, made by persons who have never used an economy gun to it's limits, and then switched to a more serious tool. Any good electo should drop paint in a 5 inch or less circle @ 70 feet almost out of the box, while firing in a fully automatic mode on a 10-14" barrel. Yet, this is out to be a feat requiring a customized gun with specific "marksman" equippment. The other concern is the balls-per-second advertised. On economy markers, it simply is not the case. The cost of the electronics, logic, and pneumatics to ensure proper feeding and firing at 20 balls per second is far above the price point of all but the most expensive electronic guns. A gun being able to cycle and make noise at 20-25 cycles per second is a far cry from a gun actually loading paint and operating at 25 balls per second. - Toastydeath 01:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you on one point here - more does need to be done to differentiate between high-end guns and low-end guns. However, I do not agree with you about the so-called "overinflation of performance in beginner guns in respect to marksmanship and rate of fire". Not only is this statement incorrect, but then you go on to try and discount the people who maintain these "overinflations" about their 'economy' markers. This includes me. I have had the opportunity to use a lot of markers over the years, and a lot of them have been high-end. In the last three or four months, I've used an '06 Proto Matrix, an '06 Alias Intimidator, an '06 Infamous Intimidator, and an '05 Karnivor, all of which are very excellent markers. I would have a very hard time picking my favorite. Each one had out-of-the-box configurations except the Karnivor, which had a 14" Dye Ultralite barrel. They were all accurate, especially the Karnivor with the Dye, but none of them were as consistently accurate as my dinky little M98C. Why? I have no clue. The biggest difference I can find is that I've got a 14" Stiffi, which has been superior to every single barrel that I've used and seen used. Other than that...what? I've got a scope. Big deal. That's for ease in combat, and doesn't do anything for the gun's accuracy when compared with other guns in the calm of a shooting range or chrony or something. The guns were all at the same velocity (as close as they could be - you know how guns are when they're at the chrony) and were all using HPA. Yet mine was the most accurate. I dunno if it'd be proper to call it an economy gun, since I've spent almot four hundred dollars on upgrades for it, but it definitely gave me an edge on the speedballers that day.
- That takes care of your marksmanship concern. As for the RPS rate, it is possible for a Tippmann A-5 to fire 25 RPS. You will of course note that the Tippmann A-5 is the classic economy marker after the M98C. One of my team's members has an A-5 with the APE system and a Q-loader, that does fire that fast. By the way, just a little note - it's not the gun that loads 20-25 RPS, but the loader. You take a Matrix or something and give it a gravity loader, you're going to be "cycling and making noise" too. ~ Maximilli, 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for sounding far more deragatory than I intended. So, hopefully I'll be able to re-explain myself. In paintball, I feel the gun's job is to get out of my way. I should not notice I am firing a paintball gun. I should just be playing paintball. Economy guns have a hard time doing that, and I'm willing to spend money to get away from it.
- For background, I used to be in the hardcore 98 crowd. I was fervant that my gun was great, and I felt it kept up with bigger, badder guns. I started playing in tournements, and got schooled by skilled players. One of the things I saw and learned was how they were using their guns differently, and exploiting all the "minor disadvantages" I had in my 98. Sure, I can pick up any random gun at the sports store and go play speedball. But I'm going to get eliminated a few times as I make compromises around my gun.
- It's true that the gun doesn't make the player. On any given day, plenty of completely unskilled folks have fancy Angels and Matrixes. They are incapable of using the advantages a high end gun yields, or tuning the internals to the highest level of performance. The problem is the minor disadvantages in any platform starts to cost games. This is the core of my complaint. I'm not busy winning when I'm fumbling with my gun. Heck, I'm not even losing. Either is fine, as long as I never have to pay any attention to my gun in-game.
- Accuracy and speed are not the only things that make an electronic marker so expensive. Low/zero kick, no chopped paint, robust internals, compact profile, silence, high gas throughput. If you want to put a Q-loader on a high end electro, you can dial the settings in and fire well over 35 balls a second on most guns, for as long as you have paint and air. No chops, no misfeeds, no shootdown, no failed recock, just paint coming out in ropes. Manufacturers of top notch markers long stopped advertising guns based on BPS, as no one cares anymore. No one pulls the trigger that fast and they all run full tilt all day, so people buy a Halo-B and back the gun down until the hopper can feed it consistantly. Comparing barrels and paint fit is comparing barrels and paint fit. A gun's accuracy is largely the mass that has to move and the consistancy of airflow through the regulators and valve. I can try putting Marballizer in a .691 barrel, and get shots all over the place on any platform. With the right spacer in the barrel, the gun's accuracy matters and is hard to measure on the field, but is rather something you notice over time. How the person set the timers up, the valve, and how the regulators are set all matters. I suppose I am used to different terminology, where "out of the box" means no add-ons to the marker body, and not "stock configuration." Most players I know mess with a gun until it shoots exactly how they want it to. They've had a couple bodies with 'cocker threads, so I don't really think of barrels as an upgrade since everyone had a couple of those barrels lying around to find the right fit for the paint they're shooting.
- It's cool that you dropped 400 into your gun, and are happy with it. I did much the same thing when I switched from my 98 to my autococker - I spent 300 on the gun, and slowly wound up with about 1100 dollars worth of modifications just in the body (before I sold it). It was fully mechanical, but I kept up easily with my friends with electros. Mind you, they wern't the fastest walkers in the west, and other guys with the same guns my friends had had smoked me in BPS. But today my same gun would be entirely antiquated. Now I'm looking at electronically valved and triggered autocockers, to silence the gun and drop kickback even more. The valve recharges even faster, and varies even less shot to shot.
- Again, I'm sorry for being so confrontational in my first post. I certainly don't want the soon-to-be marker article one sided, because there are a lot of ripping, cost-effective guns out there that serve a lot of people very, very well. - Toastydeath 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of you have noticed that a couple of pages (Woodsball and Paintball marksman, mostly) have images that switch sides. This has been accused as random, but actually I've put these images in such layouts as to be most graphically interesting. For those who aren't familiar with that phrase, something is graphically interesting if it draws the eye all across the page, instead of down the center (like most articles do). A page that is graphically interesting more directly involves the reader when viewing the article.
In this spirit, I've realized that many images in paintball articles across the category have players pointing their markers away from the article's main body of text. In a revelation (not really) I realized that if we had the guns pointing inward, the articles would be more properly graphically interesting.
I'm not suggesting that someone switch all the images around, because that would be a lot of really boring work. Since I was the one who figured this out, I think I should be the one who fixes them all. However, what I am asking is that people who place new images in articles (in Bunker (paintball), or Speed paintball, for example) have the images orienting the gaze toward the text. If you have any questions about a particular image, please go ahead and ask me. My parents are both scientific illustrators, and I myself have a job as assistant researcher in dioramic/mural research, and we work very closely with a number of firms that deal with this sort of thing exclusively, so feel free. :) ~ Maximilli, 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Too Many New Articles!
Guys, I think we need to be wary of article inflation. Not every single microscopic topic needs it's own article. Content should be developed in the current articles, and when there is enough of it to warrant being forked off, then fork it off. Don't be creating articles looking for content - a case in point is teh frontman/midman/backman articles. Woouldn't a 'positions' article be sufficient? They also fall into the trap of 'They tend to....' When you find yourself writing 'They tend to...', you're probably trying to create a 'fact' that doesn't exist. Raehl 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I honestly don't care how many or how few articles we have, as long as all the information is retained. I'm not a fan of making articles, and often just stick whatever information I have wherever I see it already set up. In that vein, having so many articles wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't so much bloody repetition between articles.
- Re: "They tend to..." I've used this to indicate a trend. I do advocate pruning a lot of things out, including stuff I've written (I'm as guilty as anyone else of writing retarded things). Front and back players "tend to" do a lot of things across the board, but a couple exceptions to the rule warrant some sort of note. Some of it was trying to fill out enough stuff for an articles I saw were marked for creation, and I was following the "template" of the marksman article. But other parts are legitimate facts that got lumped in those parts. For instance, the barrel length notes and the paint/air quantity. Barrel length should go; nobody cares. We understand that 6-8 inches of porting is all that affects the accuracy of the barrel in terms of length - anything past that is porting and doesn't mean a damn thing except how loud it is. But back players need, not tend, to carry a ton of paint around and a lot of air; that kind of thing needs to stay.
- Raehl, I agree with some of the stuff you say, mostly all the point of view changes and whatnot that need to occur everywhere. Not just woodsball, but speedball/etc as well. I also know that write in a manner not entirely appropriate for wikipedia, and I understand/encourage revisions as long as the information is retained. But, on the other side, I'm wary with the tone you've taken on. I've got the fear that any modifications you make may be excessively broad, and start a revert war.
- Maximilli, you are truly well-intentioned. However, I feel you are misguided in writing many of the things that are in the woodsball article. You've completely underestimated my experience in woodsball, and have apparently made up your mind that my opposing experience is due to my unfamiliarity with woodsball and favoritism towards speedball play. Woodsball is not poorly known. It's what everyone starts out playing. Some people stay there, some people move on. They may move on to scenario games, or maybe speedball. The point is, people who really want the level of strategy you claim exists in woodsball move into a different area and then drill with a team. You have two people now, who have played plenty of woods games, plenty of speedball, and plenty of tournaments, that woodsball is not what you are making it out to be despite that being your personal interpretation. You have played woods games. That is an atomic aspect of paintball. Without having significant experience playing in other areas for reference, this is apparently giving you a very narrow view of what paintball strategy is and means. More importantly, you are seeing a vast and complex network of strategy and tactics where there are only ad-hoc teams, with the most basic and rudimentary strategy. This is what _recreational_ paintball is: ad-hoc. It is not structured, it is not organized, and it certainly has no strong developed strategy. As speedball is a bunch of people dressed as neon signs frantically running around on what appears to be a circus arena, woodsball is a bunch of people playing gi-joe in camouflage. There is nothing wrong with either, and both are great fun. But they are not complex and subtle beasts.
- I urge you to stand back and look at what you've written in many different articles, and try to see where I am coming from. I certainly did to what I wrote, and I see where you have the impression that I am just another die-hard speedballer. It's what I presented to you through how I wrote in the articles. - Toastydeath 02:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)