Reveilled

Okay, I put a table of the previous years up at the front. Since Supply centres only change hands in Fall, I removed the Spring turns, and tried to make it look as congruous with the rest of the post as possible.

I'll be sure to do that before I put it in. I don't think I'll add any Kaftan-blinding colours, but I'll make some changes and put it at the front.

Mets, if you're going to put words in my mouth, ignore what I say, and then set up strawman arguments to knock down, then I don't see that we have anything more to talk about.

This is probably my favourite:

I think the guy on the right was in Centipede. You can see the Centipede in the middle of his hair above his forehead.

I suppose that wraps things up for Austria then. Now the only question left is whether I should recolour the remaining red provinces. Oh, and thatnks all for your patience while I watched the new episode of Battlestar Galactica. " :D

NOOOOOO! Stupid AOL mailbox. PM it to me someone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it is in the first post. You could just look there. " Apparently, AOL is no longer delivering messages that contain imageshack URLs in them.

Done. Check the first post or your inboxes. We start the new schedule as of now, so you have...about 23 hours to submit your builds. Oh, and Jags, somethings up with your mail. I got a "message undelivered" email from an auto mailer when I sent out the email adjudication. I'll try again, though.

Right, it'll be ready in a few minutes.

Hmm... NWN 2 and Civ IV I s'pose. I can't afford to buy a console right now, and few PC games interest me at the moment.

The Adjudication might be a little late this time as I might unfortunately be otherwise occupied sometime in the next hour and a half. But if it's not there at the usual time, it'll only be an hour later maximum. But that doesn't mean the deadline is extended. That's still in half an hour, whether I'm here or not.

I agree about the subtitle thing. Is it really necessary? I mean, nobody ever felt the need to put a subtitle on Civilization II or III, so why put one on KotOR 2? Not that it bothers me all that much. In fact, I hardly even think about it. "

How on earth does my argument have you believe that? I truly cannot fathom how you would come to such a ludicrous conclusion! If this is how you wish to play it, your argument would have us believe that it technically isn't Italian for Black, because almost every Italian speaker on the planet, speaking both formally and colloquially uses the word "Nero" to mean "very, very, very dark grey"! Tell me, mets, what does the word "cleave" technically mean? Does it technically mean "To split with or as if with a sharp instrument" or " To adhere, cling, or stick fast"? Or could it maybe be that both are valid and correct definitions? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Listen, I mentioned that there wasn't a true "Black" colour merely for your edification, and after this aside I continued, thus: Hence why I stated that "Irrespective of historical chomatics, however, you are trying to insist that because there is a general meaning for the word black, that there is not a specific technical meaning for the word, as well. Which is patently nonsensical." BLACK is technically, not idiomatically (as in the clothing industry), the absence of colour. If you want to bastardize "technically" to include the clothing indutry, then that is your perogative. But then you are just playing semantics with "technically", instead of "Black". I can do that too, but it is pointless. Technically, as in in science, the term BLACK is not a colour but the absence of colour. It was Launch's statement, that I backed up, that explained the specific semantic definition of "BLACK", and used the terminology "technically". It was your exclusive definition that precludes this specific definition on principle. You are not going to convince anyone that there is not a technical term, called BLACK, that is defined as THE ABSENCE OF COLOUR. Hence "Black Holes": or are you suggesting that these are just the same colour as your tee-shirt ? FOR ****'S SAKE I'M NOT SAYING THERE'S NO TECHNICAL DEFINITION OF BLACK! I'M SAYING THERE'S TWO. How about instead of reading the first two words of every sentence I write and imagining what i might have said, you actually read what I'm saying and think about it? No. tech

See, that strikes me as a rather strange position to take. Of course, seeing as I believe the creator of the universe is none of those O's, and would think we were rather missing the point of it all if we blindly followed her rules, I doubt we'd agree on this. All I'll say is that you're wrong about the nature of God. " I always thought one of the most positive views of the relation between man and god was this Nietzsche quote: "Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." Would a creator give us all this intelligence and knowledge of good and evil if s/he didn't expect us to come up with our own definition of morality? We're getting a bit off topic here, though...

Okay, just one final question, then: Why do you assume that just because God has an opinion on this subject, that his is correct? If you're not a sheep blindly following a book, as you say, don't you ever think that he might be wrong?

Well, that's not how I define "natural". And you can't say that human beings aren't meant for any of those things. It's natural for humans to develop technologies to better themselves and ensure their suvival. That is one of our instincts of self-preservation and species-preservation (that is also granting we don't destroy the planet in the process). Sexual relations is a different thing. Instead of saying "it's not natural" I should have said that it is not an agreeable mindset, in my opinion. And I am not going to stop homosexuals from living their lives. I merely stated in the first place that I disagreed with it. Is that a crime? This is not much different than, say, if I disagreed with someone's politics. I am merely disagreeing with what some see as acceptable and others don't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But why do you care what one man chooses to do with another constenting man? If you aren't involved in it, and no one's rights are being violated, why do you feel the need to have an opinion on whether it is right or not?

What does whether it's natural or not have to do with anything? Man was not meant to wear synthetic fibers, fly, or invent the internal conbustion engine; none of them are natural. Monogamy arguably isn't natural, either. Divinely Inspired books certainly aren't natural (since they're of supernatural origin in part). Personally, I find the idea of homosexual sex extremely disgusting, but just because I think it's disgusting doesn't mean I think it's wrong. I think black coffee's disgusting too. I certainly don't disagree with the way a homosexual person chooses to live their life.

There is no way to control the internet. Not even the most meglomaniacal can achieve the impossible (King Canute and the tide springs to mind as an example). Not even China, Singapore, Iraq under Saddam, nor Iran can stop it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True, I guess. Where there's a willy there's a way. Sorry, I couldn't resist saying it. :D

I hope everyone will actually respond to diplomatic correspondence, unlike certain people I could mention in OBS-2. " I can now speak from experience that recieving no replies to email when you're playing Austria is a pants-soiling ordeal.

Well, I misinterpreted your question. Granted, the child is not always unwilling, (although the vast majority is) I've read about a 12 year old girl who routinely had sex with older men (before she was tragically killed) The point I'm making is if something supposedly unnatural is okay, where do you draw the line? How do you know what's okay and what's not? You can't always say love justifies everything, because Michael Jackson apparently loved those young boys yet it would still be considered unacceptable, regardless if they were willing or not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, the line is quite easy. Consent. If two or more people consent to performing an activity, then that is no one's business but their own. Children are not capable of making an informed decision with regard to sexual activity, so they cannot consent to it. Therefore any sexual activity performed with them is a form of rape. I don't see the slippery slope. Look at something else Children can't do. Voting for instance. Where do you draw the line? How do you know who should be allowed to vote? I mean, if you start letting the poor or the women vote, how do you know that letting kids vote is a bad idea? Yet which countries that accepted universal sufferage ended up letting the kids vote? Historically, we seem to have had no trouble at all defining children as special cases under the law. They have different protections and diferent rights. The same holds true here for sexual consent.

Since I'm sure you had me in mind, I'll answer this for you. Well, when you believe a 2000 year-old book is divinely inspired, then yes you do tend to obey what it says. Besides, if it's okay for a man to love a man (and I mean passion love, not brotherly love), then would you say it's okay for a man (or woman) of mature age to love a young boy or girl? Michael Jackson would certainly agree. Are you seriously comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia? Are you aware of the difference between two adults having consensual sex, and one adult having sex with someone who does not have the ability to consent? If it's okay for a man to love (and in this case I mean love in the having sex sense) a woman, then would you say it's okay for a man (or woman) to love another man or woman against their will? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Many gay people end up going straight. Some people might think they're gay or straight, only to turn out not being that way. Granted, it's not that way for all of them. Of course it's not okay for someone to love someone against their will, but in this case, but in this case, it's choosing the path that is more gratifying. @ Lucius: Well, of course I'm not a sheep! The Bible speaks metaphorically when it refers to human as sheep. And if you believe in God and that God is eternal and that the Bible is his/her/its word, then of course you would obey the entity that created the Earth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does choosing a path have to do with whether men having sex with men being okay makes people having sex with children okay?

Since I'm sure you had me in mind, I'll answer this for you. Well, when you believe a 2000 year-old book is divinely inspired, then yes you do tend to obey what it says. Besides, if it's okay for a man to love a man (and I mean passion love, not brotherly love), then would you say it's okay for a man (or woman) of mature age to love a young boy or girl? Michael Jackson would certainly agree. Are you seriously comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia? Are you aware of the difference between two adults having consensual sex, and one adult having sex with someone who does not have the ability to consent? If it's okay for a man to love (and in this case I mean love in the having sex sense) a woman, then would you say it's okay for a man (or woman) to love another man or woman against their will?

Oh! The smell of the smoke you get when you blow out a match. I love that smell. And the smell of Petroleum. But not together, because that could indicate mortal danger.

Ah, that reminds me. I like the smell of Brio, that old jigsaw like wooden train set I used to have. It smelled a lot like wood.

I suppose I should also mention The Fantastical Bestiary, if only because it is as yet the only part of Furry "culture" that I've actually liked, or indeed, been able to look at without hitting myself repeatedly in an attempt to expel what I have just seen.