The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Kucinich
Violence is. Nonviolence is not.
Violence is only "ineffective" when you aren't capable of delivering enough.
Sava, He's right. Escalating to the point of genocide would solve Israel's terrorism problem. It would also be a totally unacceptable solution as well as cause a myriad of other problems.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
The only way such protest is ineffective is if no one sees the protest, or if no one relays information pertaining to the protest.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Sava, He's right. Escalating to the point of genocide would solve Israel's terrorism problem. It would also be a totally unacceptable solution as well as cause a myriad of other problems.
Yeah, he's right in a neo-nazi kind of way.
"Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
"I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
"Stuie is right...." - Guynemer
A rule, not backed up by force, is only a suggestion. Anyone who does not want to take the suggestion is completely capable of doing so. Thus, nonviolence ONLY works in those cases where no one just doesn't take your suggestion.
Had the British wanted too, they could have stayed in India forever if Ghandi continued.
Sava, He's right. Escalating to the point of genocide would solve Israel's terrorism problem. It would also be a totally unacceptable solution as well as cause a myriad of other problems.
Yeah, he's right in a neo-nazi kind of way.
What do Nazis have to do with it?
Again: a rule not backed up by force is only a suggestion.
Force is the only definate way of enforcing a rule. Would it really be a law, if the police did not have the ability to physically force you to go to jail?
Originally posted by Kucinich
I wasn't endorsing it. Just pointing out that violence is the only guaranteed effective solution
I know.
Facts are facts folks. Kucinich's statement is correct. Endorsing the use of violence to this degree would be wrong. That should be obvious.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
Great story. Too bad it didn't really happen. To understand why we don't think so, we're going to have to give a little lesson on medieval history and why it's so hard to do. We think we can summarize the problems in a few brief points:
1.It's really damn old. Stuff got destroyed or lost. Literacy was not common in the thirteenth century either, so accounts are rare.
2. People were gullible. Recall that these folks were still four hundred years from Isaac Newton and three quarters of a millenium from antibiotics.
3. Paucity of material can be mighty tempting to speculate about and, well, it's easy to make stuff up to embellish a scarce account.
4. The accounts were copied frequently. This means it was easy to "modify" them.
So if local chronicles are so unreliable, how do we decide what really happened? The ones written soon after the event were tiny little snippets. There are three contemporary accounts of the French movement, and these pretty much say a large group of vagabonds were roaming the countryside. Whole narratives of what actually went down didn't show up until at least fifty years later, time enough for imaginations to get active. The account by Alberic of Troisfontaines, by far the most complete, was actually written by two guys over the span of sixty years, starting in 1232 and ending in 1295. The work covers all kinds of things; lots of them have nothing to do with this story. Was the Children's Crusade part written by the first guy or the second? Was it written soon after or years later? Nobody really knows.
What does seem to be true is that there was a large group of folks in France wandering the countryside the summer of 1212, possibly with banners and such so as to appear as a Crusade. But none of the contemporary chroniclers wanted to call it one, so maybe it wasn't. Alberic called it one, but should we believe him? Historian D.C. Munro noted no chroniclers in northern France say anything about an expedition headed towards Marseilles, and none south of the Loire saw anybody at all. Could it be that 30,000 people wandered around down there unnoticed? Was it really a crusade? Did they actually make it to Marseilles? As nobody seems to have seen them in Marseilles until Alberic got around to writing about it decades later, we don't think so.
"Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
"I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
"Stuie is right...." - Guynemer
You're young and impressionable, once you reach college age and learn to think critically, you might understand things better.
That was insulting. Okay. Apparently you can't read very well.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
Tweet
Comment