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
Yeah, and way much easier if it was possible for you to point out such a post
Seriously, you can't see it? All joking and insults aside, can you really not find it?
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Can we really say what is "OK" here? Certainly, as TMM says, "They can try." But, of course, there are consequences to them trying, just as the US would face consequences if they perform assassinations in Iran.
Nut still, iranians killing american workers will be terrorism while US "taking out" iranian scientists isn't - that is just fair killings in an udeclared war.
The problem with terrorism is that it implies a moral stance (this is how the word is used toady). The receiver is not just a victim, but a horribly wronged victim, i.e. innocent bystanders.
Quite true - that could for example be iranan scientists working with nuclear power or for that matter nuclear weapons.
Now one might think that by applying terrorism to all forms of combat they are protecting all victims, but quite the cont
rary. Great pains have been taken to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians, between valid and invalid targets all in an attempt to bring some sort of order to international conflict. But when we start blurring the line between them, then, no matter how horrible the act, civilians and other invalid targets now become just as valid as an armed hostile soldier.
And that has never been the subject of calling something terrorism and haver never been a subject in this thread (if someone accidentally have done such I don't mind if they areshot down at sight).
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Seriously, you can't see it? All joking and insults aside, can you really not find it?
Seriously, jokes and insults aside, I want to ask the same - I really don't understand you.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Nut still, iranians killing american workers will be terrorism while US "taking out" iranian scientists isn't - that is just fair killings in an udeclared war.
Please point out where this is said? Let's keep this reality, afterall.
And that has never been the subject of calling something terrorism and haver never been a subject in this thread (if someone accidentally have done such I don't mind if they areshot down at sight).
This is why I think you can't read, because that (what I posted, not what you think I posted) is exactly what this thread is about whether intentional or not. If you really can read, please reread what I wrote and write a response to that.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Seriously, jokes and insults aside, I want to ask the same - I really don't understand you.
Post #138. I'm sorry for your disability. I'm ignoring you now, because you don't seem capable of communicating with other people. What's worse, you then insult people for your own problems. You're just not worth it.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Please point out where this is said? Let's keep this reality, afterall.
To be fair, you actually wasn't part of that, so you are for the moment not guilty of the accusation ( though, others should call in their lawyers )
This is why I think you can't read, because that (what I posted, not what you think I posted) is exactly what this thread is about whether intentional or not. If you really can read, please reread what I wrote and write a response to that.
This thread is strictly about US kiling iranian scientists and US authority endorsing it wich the OP clearly describes. This is an undisputable act of terrorism since it's about killing a specific group of people - both to prevent their work and to scare others to continue it.
I must admit that I half way through the first 3-4 pages got bored to read Kit and you telling each other that you both are idiots (wich I gladly admit that you both are), so you might have said something sane the, though I doubt). I really only care about what you have said after I joined,
Last edited by BlackCat; November 19, 2011, 23:12.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
This thread is strictly about US kiling iranian scientists and US authority endorsing it wich the OP clearly describes. This is an undisputable act of terrorism since it's about killing a specific group of people - both to prevent their work and to scare others to continue it.
I argue that it is disputable because of how terrorism is used now (see my post above on the dangers of an overly broad definition). I don't believe that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of terrorism, despite it being about killing a specific group of people prevent America from entering World War II. The reason is that those who work in the military-industrial complex can become valid targets, and there is a danger of them not being considered so. Please note, just because I call them valid targets, does not believe that I believe the US or anyone else should kill them.
While I appreciate the substance this post, I'd prefer it if you don't use absolutes where they don't apply. 1. This thread is not strictly about Gingrich's words. Kitchums own use of the word terrorism opens it up to the topic I'm discussing. 2. It is disputable, which I have been disputing, unless you can conclusively prove otherwise. Not because you say so. I hope this is clear.
I must admit that I half way through the first 3-4 pages got bored to read Kit and you telling each other that you both are idiots (wich I gladly admit that you both are), so you might have said something sane the, though I doubt). I really only care about what you have said after I oined,
First, grammar and spelling, ouch.
Second, so bored that you decided to join in the insult-fest. The only person you're convincing here is yourself.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Something that I want to make clear is that, regardless of definition of terrorism, there is a distinct difference between Gingrich's statements (and many of America's less honorable actions, but I can't say all of them) than those acts Americans call terrorism. It is important to distinguish the two as I have stated above in my post on the dangers of an overly broad use of the word terrorism.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
I argue that it is disputable because of how terrorism is used now (see my post above on the dangers of an overly broad definition). I don't believe that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of terrorism, despite it being about killing a specific group of people prevent America from entering World War II. The reason is that those who work in the military-industrial complex can become valid targets, and there is a danger of them not being considered so. Please note, just because I call them valid targets, does not believe that I believe the US or anyone else should kill them.
It must be some very interesting mushrooms that you are chewing. The attack on Pearl Hrbour has absolutely no relevance in this thread. The only mportant that was lost there was tonnage - not people. Comparing that with killing specfic persons in Iran is simply idiotic. Furter, if any vital navy rescearchers was hit, it was probably by accident - not intent. Anyway all this is totally irrelevant.
Are US at war with Iran ? Simply, yes or no. If yes, then destroynig military targets are allowed, if no, then they aren't without any kind of discussion - it's a crime to do such. You can talk up the walls and down again but there are no arguments that in any way can defend killing iranian scientists.
While I appreciate the substance this post, I'd prefer it if you don't use absolutes where they don't apply. 1. This thread is not strictly about Gingrich's words. Kitchums own use of the word terrorism opens it up to the topic I'm discussing. 2. It is disputable, which I have been disputing, unless you can conclusively prove otherwise. Not because you say so. I hope this is clear.
True, it's disputable, but who the hell says that your interpretation is the right ? I would say that the discussion in this thread actually have proven you wrong.
First, grammar and spelling, ouch.
Second, so bored that you decided to join in the insult-fest. The only person you're convincing here is yourself.
If you have some highway in your neighbourhood where people goes at least 110 km/h I may suggest that you take hike on that. Sorry if I have misspelled or made some grammar faults
Second, I got ito this thread at a time where you an Kit had wasted three pages - no way I wil waste time on your drivel - if that had been the case when I started reading I would have dropped it - though at that point, more intelligent poster had said someting, so I joined.
If you can't handle my grammar and spelling I'll suggest that you get the **** out of here.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Something that I want to make clear is that, regardless of definition of terrorism, there is a distinct difference between Gingrich's statements (and many of America's less honorable actions, but I can't say all of them) than those acts Americans call terrorism. It is important to distinguish the two as I have stated above in my post on the dangers of an overly broad use of the word terrorism.
Yep, and that is your problem - what any ordinary american before 9/11 would have called a crime you now claim is a honorable deed
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
It must be some very interesting mushrooms that you are chewing. The attack on Pearl Hrbour has absolutely no relevance in this thread. The only mportant that was lost there was tonnage - not people. Comparing that with killing specfic persons in Iran is simply idiotic. Furter, if any vital navy rescearchers was hit, it was probably by accident - not intent. Anyway all this is totally irrelevant.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you can't process more than one concept at a time. I was using Pearl Harbor as an example because, as I stated clearly before, this thread is not strictly about the US killing Iranian scientists. But since you lost that argument, I guess you need something else to fall back on. Well, you're wrong there too. This thread is not about the US killing Iranian scientists. No scientists were killed, Mr. strict. God, lame mimicking your style.
Are US at war with Iran ? Simply, yes or no. If yes, then destroynig military targets are allowed, if no, then they aren't without any kind of discussion - it's a crime to do such. You can talk up the walls and down again but there are no arguments that in any way can defend killing iranian scientists.
Where did I defend killing Iranian scientists? Seriously, you have no clue what is going on. This thread isn't even that complex, but watching you struggle to figure it out is pathetic.
True, it's disputable, but who the hell says that your interpretation is the right ? I would say that the discussion in this thread actually have proven you wrong.
I supported my interpretation with logic and examples. You simply say that you are right without either, just have you have in that quote.
If you have some highway in your neighbourhood where people goes at least 110 km/h I may suggest that you take hike on that. Sorry if I have misspelled or made some grammar faults
Your grammar and spelling are just further symptoms of your sloppy thinking. A few mistakes are tolerable, but for someone who claims to be a genius, this is pretty sad.
Second, I got ito this thread at a time where you an Kit had wasted three pages - no way I wil waste time on your drivel - if that had been the case when I started reading I would have dropped it - though at that point, more intelligent poster had said someting, so I joined.
Yet you still respond. Not with any facts or reason, just with insults. At least I tried to talk to you.
If you can't handle my grammar and spelling I'll suggest that you get the **** out of here.
Yes, you should be sensitive about it. It's embarrassing.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Yep, and that is your problem - what any ordinary american before 9/11 would have called a crime you now claim is a honorable deed
So now that Ben's gone, you feel you need to take up his mantle? Go ahead.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Tweet
)
Comment