Another happy evening of multiplaying Part II

[War4ever]

Alexander i sympathize with your plight.... for instance tonite i was supposed to play with more than one individual and after waiting over an hour two different times.... now i might play for a bit but basically my night is pretty lame unless this proposed game i am about to enter is worth it.....

As for Deity.... its been along time since we played and i have the utmost respect for him as a player and confident....

I am not taking sides just trying to salvage what seems to be a cry for help from your gaming circle. Ultimately you four or five will have to make the decisions which best fit your needs......

As you stated you have the experience of wargaming , much more so than myself.... yes there are players who try to push their rules...... but look in the mirror.... do you see some of deity in yourself?

The two of you are squabbling over minor personal points..... meanwhile the rest of your mates are the ones who really suffer.... it reminds me of a tit for tat relationship...... i think its time to let these squabbles go and for the sake of finishing this game.... just move on....

Next time you have a new game..... or agree to another session.... just be assertive in your desires to make all rules and or settings known in advance..... if you play by democratic vote you may not like what you hear.... the other alternative is to not play and we all know that is the last one of the choices you or i would pick.......

looking forward to playing you guyz... i am sure we can iron out our preferences

[Atomic Dogg]

I'll use every dirty trick in the book against the ai.......death to the infidel!! Jihad on their unworthy asses!!

as far as i knew, unit bribing was out...if only because nobody had done it to me for all the time i have played in this group (which hasn't been a very long time.)

Perhaps we should carve the house rules into a couple of stone tablets for future refference....only then can we truly seperate the sinners from the rightious...

------------
-Atomic Dogg is Lowang
-Where did i leave my bible?

[Alexander's Horse]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Atomic Dogg on 02-08-2001 12:11 AM</font>

as far as i knew, unit bribing was out...

------------
-Atomic Dogg is Lowang
-Where did i leave my bible?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Thank you Lowang.

Next witnesss! The prosecution calls Hydey!



------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Guest]

I can honsetly say that, like finbar, I thought the only two rules agreed on that deviate from the normal game were No Alliance and No City Bribe of humans.

To get the Aussie group up again we need a vote to set rules for all our games in progress.

I vote for the above rules. They are standard throughout much of 1x1x civland.

As for SIMUL, well ALL our current games were started before we knew about SIMUL. I was the one that saved the TBS saves as SIMUL saves so that we could speed up our games. I have strssed all along that SIMUL during war is absurd and you miss out on all the fun by trying to cover so many areas of activity. So, as for ground rules ALL our current games that I am in were set up as TBS!

But, for the sake of the group I'll accept the vote on all these points.
Thanks for your efforts War4

If diplo-bribing of units is dis-allowed by this vote I'm happy in that particular game to go back a turn and disband the caras I lost if they still exist.
And allow AH to attack with that Chariot if he so desires.

Can't say fairer than that eh?

I guess the 5 regular Aussies are the ones to vote:
finbar
AHorse
Lowang
Hydey
deity

Also, I must suggest that this is a vote for what YOU want, not what you thought you were told was the rule.

As for scared AH, hmmmmm, try getting out of this

You are trying to avoid playing me now but I really want to keep playing you.... no matter what

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by deity (edited February 08, 2001).]</font>

[Guest]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 02-08-2001 12:57 AM</font>
Thank you Lowang.

Next witnesss! The prosecution calls Hydey!

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Lowang was new to the group and was TOLD by SOMEONE that unit bribing was out.

Let's have a fresh democratic vote to clear the confusion as per my above post.

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[Guest]

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum2/HT...tml?date=08:36

This the link to the last post in the preceedimg thread on these issues....

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[Hydey]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by SuperSneak on 02-08-2001 12:15 PM</font>
What a bunch of maroons!

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Nice try Uncle Sneak but Dad is so mad it will take more than calling us maroons to bring this group together . Keep trying we all know the best way to bring us Aussie together is on the battlefield.



------------------
I'm Australia's nuclear cop
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy

[SuperSneak]

I'd be glad to verbally abuse your mothers in order to attract hostility toward me.
What a bunch of girly men.


------------------
Bring it!

"How ridiculous and how strange, to be surprised by anything that happens in life." Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)
Chief Revealer of Personal Foibles

[finbar]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by SuperSneak on 02-08-2001 07:42 PM</font>
to verbally abuse

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Only ******* idiots split infinitives.

How's that for hostility?



------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[SuperSneak]

What a bunch of maroons!

BTW...I'll be free this weekend in your crazy hours...let me know.

------------------
Bring it!

"How ridiculous and how strange, to be surprised by anything that happens in life." Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)
Chief Revealer of Personal Foibles

[SuperSneak]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by finbar on 02-08-2001 07:46 PM</font>
Only ******* idiots split infinitives.

How's that for hostility?


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
Not hostile at all. Merely antiquated, pedantic and hide-bound.


When discussing the English language, a "split infinitive" is commonly thought of as adverbs placed between the word 'to' and the verb. Thus the infinitive is thought of as the construct 'to' plus a verb. Further, the grammar gurus encourage us to think of "split infinitives" as a bad thing. The reason being that in Latin, the infinitive is a single word, so by definition cannot be split. And English grammar gurus like English grammar to follow Latin rules (hence also another silly rule about not using a preposition to end a sentence with).

There are two problems with this. Firstly, if the "infinitive" should not be split, then surely neither should, say, the future tense. After all, the future tense form of a verb in Latin is one word, while it is two in English --- as it involves the auxiliary verb "will" or "shall". ((I) shall go = (ego) ibo in Latin). Yet I for one have never heard complaints about "I shall boldly go" constituting a "split future" therefore a bad thing.

Secondly, the infinitive does not actually need the 'to'. It is frequently used without the 'to' in standard English, as exemplified in any of these constructs:--

I help build the house.
He can be a star.
God must be omnipotent.
I shall build a house.
I do not build.
where the form of the verb 'be' or 'build' in the above examples is the infinitive. (The future tense is the construct 'shall'/'will' + infinitive.) The word 'to' thus has a similar relationship to the infinitive of a verb, to that of the word 'the' before a noun. But no-one considers the word 'the' to be part of the noun. Sir Ernest Gowers, writing in 1954, is quoted originally in The Complete Plain Words, thus:--

"The well-known [...] rule against splitting an infinitive means that
nothing must come between 'to' and the infinitive. It is a bad name, as was
pointed out by Jespersen [...] 'because we have many infinitives without
_to_, as "I made him go". _To_ therefore is no more an essential part of the
infinitive than the definite article is an essential part of a substantive,
and no one would think of calling _the good man_ a split substantive.' It is
a bad rule too; it increases the difficulty of writing clearly [...]."
...like spurious rules about prepositions not ending sentences. One of the things which annoys me is people clumsily rearranging their sentences to avoid pseudo-errors like "split infinitives". Often the "split infinitive" construct is the most natural and sensible one (eg "to sexually assault her" is more natural than "to assault her sexually" and certainly more natural than "sexually to assault her"), so even if the rule against them was valid, it would still be a bad rule.

Why the misinformation?
I suppose, the grammar gurus got confused about the use of the infinitive with 'to', and the single-word infinitive in Latin (and French and Spanish). 'Amare' often is best translated as 'to like'. But 'possum amare' is 'I can like'. As demonstrated above, the infinitive in English can occur without 'to'.

At the end of the day, the rule against "split infinitives" is a totally artificial rule, invented by some 16th-Century grammar guru who was trying to be clever.

So you see, Fin, a movement toward a more natural language pattern takes priority over your inane picking at trite and hackneyed usage of said language.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, though.
I knew you were good for something.



------------------
Bring it!

"How ridiculous and how strange, to be surprised by anything that happens in life." Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)
Chief Revealer of Personal Foibles

[finbar]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>&lt;font size=1&gt;Originally posted by SuperSneak on 02-09-2001 12:05 PM&lt;/font&gt;
Firstly, if the "infinitive" ...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

"Firstly" is considered inferior to "first" in this context, Sneak, even if you're following it later with a "secondly".

Oh, and it's very poor form - especially for a writer - not to source information you lift.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by finbar (edited February 10, 2001).]</font>

[Alexander's Horse]

Hey Sneak, why do you work in a factory?


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Hydey]

He works in a factory to earn money.

why else would he work

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

[SuperSneak]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by finbar on 02-10-2001 06:15 AM</font>
"Firstly" is considered inferior to "first" in this context, Sneak, even if you're following it later with a "secondly".
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
By whom?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
Oh, and it's very poor form - especially for a writer - not to source information you lift.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Firstly, you don't consider the Internet a viable source.
Second, I didn't have my MLA handbook on me in order to properly site that idiot.
Moreover, I don't care.
Heretofore, you have been a royal pain in the ass, so I was just having some fun. (How's that for ugly word usage? I'll bet it's like fingernails on a chalkboard).


<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
Hey Sneak, why do you work in a factory?

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
The same reason you're a faceless drone for the government: my genius is unappreciated in my time.


<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
He works in a factory to earn money.
why else would he work

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
You guys are just so clever aren't you? Then Hydey waltzes in and proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt that his WISDOM is worth more than your "intelligence" or "cleverness" any day.
Thank you, nephew.



------------------
Bring it!

"How ridiculous and how strange, to be surprised by anything that happens in life." Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)
Chief Revealer of Personal Foibles