Profile for Slarty
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Slarty |
| Member number | 261 |
| Title | Raven v. Writing Desk |
| Postcount | 3560 |
| Homepage | http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/slartyvsdesk/ |
| Registered | Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Custom starting party not always best in Avernum 4 | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 23 2006 09:44
Profile
Homepage
*nod* Normally, I would never advocate such a tactic. However, it is actually pretty useful as a singleton on Torment. As a singleton, coming up with the gold to train is no problem whatsoever. And as a singleton on Torment, every skill point you get is critical -- there are basically none to spare. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Xylgham udwlnit skretcko!1!! in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 23 2006 09:09
Profile
Homepage
I request that Dikiyoba stop paying attention to requests. Or at least, low quality ones. Which Dikiyoba presumably does anyway... -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Character builds in Geneforge Series | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 23 2006 09:04
Profile
Homepage
Magma, the ONLY differences between the classes are the cost to train in different skills, the base skills you start with, and slightly different formulas for HP, energy, and essence. A guardian with 8 battle magic and an agent with 8 battle magic will cast exactly the same strength battle magic spells. But it will take way more skill points to get the guardian there. Therefore, magic-reliant guardians are worse than magic-reliant agents. Using the editor ignores almost all distinctions between classes. Do you understand why your comments about a character you created by breaking the rules of the game are not relevant in a discussion about characters that follow the rules of the game? If not, allow me to quote myself: quote: [ Tuesday, May 23, 2006 09:06: Message edited by: 84,000 Stupas ] -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Character builds in Geneforge Series | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 23 2006 07:55
Profile
Homepage
This time, it really is me you're thinking of. ;) Agents aren't actually better at melee skills. (They are better at missile skills, which is silly, but hey.) They are nearly as good at melee. What makes them better for a melee build is the truly horrific number of skill points a guardian has to plunk down in order to access the good pump spells, which are key for any good melee fighter. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Custom starting party not always best in Avernum 4 | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 23 2006 07:47
Profile
Homepage
If you are an aggressive min-maxer, custom is still the way to go; but even then it's a close call. Certainly, few of the preset templates are actually bad. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Character builds in Geneforge Series | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 23 2006 05:04
Profile
Homepage
A guardian who focuses on magic is significantly worse than a melee agent in a number of ways. It's just not a good build. Unfortunately, I'm also reconsidering the shaping agent. I did some more math, and things aren't as pretty as I'd hoped. I forgot that G2 and G3 still implement 10- and 20- caps on shaping skill effects. This means that, given reasonable skill point investment, a shaper will use 34 skill points to reach 10 in magic shaping, versus an agent using 70 skill points. The problem is that Create Vlish typically becomes available before you've accrued much more than 70 skill points, yet without points into Intelligence, an agent can basically make one vlish at that point. The agent can put more points into Intelligence, but subsequent vlish lose out on levels gained through experience. Meanwhile, the comparable shaper is done on this front and gets ~20 skill points while the agent is catching up, making up for the shaper's more critical lags in magic skills. So the shaper gets extra essence forever and slightly better vlish (averaging 1-3 levels better, depending on how many you make), whereas the agent gets slightly better stats in a few random places. And I had such a good name, too -- Sss-Vlish. [ Tuesday, May 23, 2006 05:05: Message edited by: 84,000 Stupas ] -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Character builds in Geneforge Series | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 22 2006 21:21
Profile
Homepage
Vlish and others have posted a number of interesting character builds since the release of G3. Shaper - Deadweight Shaper - blessing/dazing magic user Shaper - Missile Guardian - Missile Guardian - Melee Agent - Melee Agent - all out mental magic Agent - all out battle magic Have I missed any? (Noobs, this is not an invitation to post "I made a guardian with skills X and Y" or whatever. Please.) What else is out there? THE SHAPING AGENT One type of build that hasn't gotten so much investigation is guardians and agents relying on shaping. I was looking into the mechanics of shaped creature stats today, and I think shapers have less of a monopoly there than is commonly assumed. (Certainly less than I've always assumed.) This is because a cheap, weak creation, when levelled up appropriate, is largely indistinguishable from better creations. The first hurdle is essence: guardians and agents get 75% the essence of shapers, plus shapers get a bonus to Intelligence. This cramps shaping early on, but if you aren't a shaper, you can just use usual guardian or agent tactics to survive early. Later, this may make it impractical to deploy Eyebeasts or other overpriced creations, but there's nothing stopping you from using, say, a bunch of Vlish. The other hurdle is creation strength. Agents especially won't be pumping their shaping stats too high. This, too, can be compensated for by relying on weak creations, making them early, and allowing them to level up with you. They won't be as strong as pimped out shaper creations, but they'll be perfectly usable. This is, admittedly, a more strategically demanding build than a pure shaper is. There are potential advantages, though. Let's look at an agent using vlish. The agent will be 3-5 skill levels behind the shaper in Magic Shaping, for any given point investment. That skill, however, is only relevant when you first make the creations, so you can push it early and then ignore it. OTOH, the agent will be 3-4 levels ahead in missile ability (missiles + dex) for the same investment. The agent will also be 2-3 levels ahead in mental magic and 1-2 levels ahead in blessing magic, plus 1-2 points ahead in spellcraft. There are some other differences on both sides (quick action, battle magic, healing craft, etc) but those can be worked around. The main reason to go through all that is that (unlike previous games) mental magic requires dedicated attention for it to be effective throughout the game. With Daze and other spells at full effectiveness, you end up with a team of creations that basically use agent tactics to survive. The vlish can incapacitate several creatures easily; the agent, with some points in Quick Action, can pre-emptively daze anything that's fast or close enough to threaten the safety of the vlish, as well as using missile and wands in tough spots. Your creations will be weaker, but you end up with more tactical options. My plan is to complete the first island spending as few skill points as possible -- probably using items to help it along. As soon as I get to Harmony, make a beeline for San Ru and pick up Create Vlish. Dump the skill points into some appropriate combination of Intelligence and Magic Shaping, and make a squadron of vlish. Fill them out a little over the next few levels, then start putting points where they belong, probably starting with Mental Magic. After a little while, life is good. I'm probably overlooking something, of course. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Native Americans in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 22 2006 14:48
Profile
Homepage
You still have to construct a curriculum. That takes time. Even if the exact specifications of what you have to teach are pre-decided, you have to figure out exactly how you're gonna do it. Granted, you could be a hugely crappy teacher, and not put much time into that, and just read out of a textbook all the time. I hope not. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Taskmaster system in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 22 2006 14:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:And Avernum doesn't already apply the law of diminishing returns? Let's count the ways in which it does. 1, doing the same thing earns drastically less experience at a higher level. 2, training the same skill costs more skill points when it's higher. 3, for many skills the actual return you get for one level of training decreases as your skill gets higher; for all skills, the proportional increase decreases as your skill gets higher. 4, the more armor or elemental protection you have, the less benefit you get from each additional piece of protection. quote:Getting immersed in the details is not the same thing as getting immersed in the story. Also, when those decisions cause you to do things that make no sense in the context of the story/world (i.e., training in archery by shooting at an enemy you'll never hit in the middle of a pitched battle), that has the effect of preventing me from getting immersed in the story/world. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The Bullseye Shaper in Geneforge Series | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 22 2006 00:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:So that's what happened! That makes a lot of sense. Another innovative and interesting build, Vlish. I am actually tempted to go try it. One comment: it's not that Vlish are overpowered, or Reapers, or some of the wands, or whatnot. It's that stunning is (intentionally, I assume) a drastically powerful effect in Geneforge. Stunning is one thing about melee combat that didn't get weakened in G3; my melee agent leveraged it successfully for pretty much the whole game. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Native Americans in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Sunday, May 21 2006 12:57
Profile
Homepage
Dude. It's a California thing. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| The Ultimate Survey in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, May 19 2006 10:06
Profile
Homepage
What did you do last night? — Wasted time surfeitedly The last thing you downloaded onto your computer? — Let's just say pictures Have you ever licked a 9 volt battery? — Um, no. Type of music you dislike most? — Whiny pop songs Are you registered to vote? — No, I refuse to Ever made a prank phone call? — Yes Would you go bungee jumping or sky diving? — No Furthest place you ever traveled? — Greece What's your favorite comic strip? — Calvin and Hobbes, of course Best movie you've seen in the past month? — I haven't seen any good movie in the past month. Favorite chocolate bar? — Heath bar Have you ever won a trophy? — I used to win math prizes way back in the day Favorite arcade game? — Street Fighter II Ever thrown up in public? — Yes. Well, it was in a dorm hallway; that's kind of public Would you prefer being a millionaire or finding true love? — Finding true love, I suppose, but only if it was actually going to last :P If you had to spend a romantic evening with any sw member, who would you pick? — Hmm... let's say Alec. Do you believe in love at first sight? — Well, not quite first sight, but basically, yes. I never believed in it until I experienced it Who do you think about most? — Probably me, at this point in my life Which celebrity do you think is hot, both female and male? — Let's go with Eliza Dushku and Doug Savant What's the worst medical problem you've ever had? — I'm not clear on the details, but apparently I had a temperature of 106 once when I was 1 What's your favorite sitcom? — Absolutely Fabulous (I know, I know, I know...) Hottest sw male — Salmon. Smokin' Salmon. No question! Last computer/video game you played — Eye of the Beholder Last movie you rented — Geez, I haven't rented a movie in ages. Uh, I think it was some French film that ended up being pretty bad. This was a few years ago. Would you rather dump someone or be dumped? — Dump, dump, dump. Much better than getting dumped. Which sw member has the dirtiest mind? — I certainly am one of the least restrained with airing the contents of my dirty mind, but I think others are dirtier, and just keep more of a lid on it. So my answer is Tyranicus. Yup, no doubt about it, it's Tyro. Have you ever kissed someone and regretted it? — Yes, definitely. And what a sad question to end on. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Xylgham udwlnit skretcko!1!! in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, May 19 2006 09:40
Profile
Homepage
For Bovine Thud, I was thinking more along the lines of a giant Cave Cow bouncing onto the battlefield and squishing things. Kind of like the Fat Chocobo summon in FF5. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Alorael have finally get a Custom Title? in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, May 19 2006 09:39
Profile
Homepage
Actually, my custom title took me very much by surprise. I credit the ablutions I have always performed in honor of His and Her Heavenly Biftec. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Post Chat Snippets Completely Out Of Context in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 20:38
Profile
Homepage
Alec: I am probably better with my hands than I am with my mouth. Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Xylgham udwlnit skretcko!1!! in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 18:11
Profile
Homepage
Cattle Rage would obviously cause berserk status. Bovine Thud is a take off on Divine Thud, for those of you who don't know -- basically the Exile equivalent of Arcane Blow, except it was for priests. Sticks to Steaks would be the Bovingelical equivalent of Jesus turning water into wine. And using magic crap for divination is an old and respected practice. Pfffft. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| United 93 in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 16:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, one of us definitely misunderstood the essay. It really sounded to me like it was using kinder words to describe the Crusaders than it was those involved in Islamic conquest. I will admit (as I mentioned in my original comments on the essay) that I was rather put off by the first couple of paragraphs, so I may have been inclined to seek out further inequity on its part. But I really don't think I was making it up. --- I don't know why I've been spending so much time arguing about this today. Some kind of expiation of testosterone on my part, maybe. Anyway, I'm going to bow out now. I think we are at as much agreement as is ever going to happen, and I don't really want to go digging unanswered arguments out of the muck right now. --t -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| United 93 in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 15:41
Profile
Homepage
First off, I never accused anyone of racism -- are you thinking of TM's post? You're right, though, that my paraphrasing of the essay's thesis was overgeneralized in one respect. What I should have said: "Islam always tried to impose its will by force and the Crusaders didn't." However, if the author spoke harshly about the Crusaders, I must have missed that part. The impression I got from the essay was one of a severely biased view. I dunno what else to say. My arguments to Fatman have been repeated because he hasn't addressed mine. When I challenge his assertion A on grounds of B, he reformulates his assertion in a way that sidesteps the grounds I challenged it with, rather than addressing them. I don't really know how to deal with that other than asking for my challenge to be addressed. Let's get one thing straight. I NEVER demanded sources. What I demanded was that assertions should be somehow substantiated. Generally, for this kind of topic, that means using sources to explain things. Citing a source is very useful, but it has to be done in the context of a coherent and logical argument; also, it has to be a good source, and that may be the subject of debate. I'm sorry if my initial requests for citations were not so explicit. But I have never held otherwise. I am, frankly, somewhat offended that you suggest I would drastically change my standards of what constitutes a legitimate argument when it suits my case. --- Fatman: "Look at these two books" is not a citation. If I'm going to take the time to go find a book, the least you can do is give me a page number. If you wanted to quote a few relevant sentences, that would be even better. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Alorael have finally get a Custom Title? in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 13:17
Profile
Homepage
Sooner can a Fatman pass through the eye of a needle than can... -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| United 93 in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 13:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:I didn't say the West had never been attacked by Islamic empires. What I said is that it launched an offensive against territorities that were not attacking it, and had not been recently. The crux of our disagreement seems to be that I classify a strategic military action involving sending troops to another country, which was motivated partly by defensive needs, as an attack, whereas you classify it as defensive. Is that fair? quote:Yes, and I explained to you why I am not willing to take a speech made by the Pope as direct historical fact, particularly when it is contradicted by the historical record. If you disagree with my logic on that one, then I think we have little hope of ever agreeing on anything with regard to history. quote:"Don't be lazy, Slarty, spend days embarking on a research project just to satisfy Fatman." I read all of your texts that are easily available online, and the most recent one was patently ridiculous. I've already explained why. quote:Thank you for explaining that. However, I'd like to ask -- for a THIRD time -- for a reference to the sources you got that from. I'd like to read more about it and see where they got their information from. I'm still skeptical on the figures. quote:So, this paragraph pretty much COMPLETELY IGNORES my last post. I think I'm done here. quote:There is no way in hell that that last text of yours has been "rigorously tested by academics." quote:You haven't quoted Riley-Smith. I don't reject his qualifications, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept anything he says without examining it critically. And if he is in fact a respectable historian, I imagine he wouldn't have it any other way. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| United 93 in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 11:30
Profile
Homepage
*facepalm* Fatman, the pejoratives are really unnecessary. Look. This is very simple. Sources are one way to substantiate an argument. Logic is another. Sources DO NOT supercede logic... EVER. You keep responding to my critical questions by changing the subject to something else: either a different part of the topic, or something you think is wrong with my argument that has nothing to do with the questions I am asking... or you quote a source that says the same thing you did in different words. QUOTING A SOURCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE SOMETHING TRUE. It doesn't matter if it's the Pope, or a university professor, or Kelandon. Critical questions need to be answered on their own merits. Often, it is useful to quote a source for this purpose; you may be able to quote a source which has the answer to such a question. But such a source needs to explain how it came to its conclusion, and obviously, it needs to have done so with valid reasoning. If you want to have this debate, you need to be willing to answer logical questions with logic, not with appeals to authority which are used to dodge criticism. quote:What are the unsubstantiated claims I have made? I want an answer to this one! Actually, I have made very few claims at all; mostly I have just questioned the claims that you have made. If you assert something, you are the one with the burden of proof. quote:At no point in time has "the Middle east" ever been wholly Christian territory. Parts of it have been, but the whole thing? Please. (And you're telling me to read a history book? Sheesh.) Given that pretty much all of Europe was Christian, and aside from parts of Spain, none of it was conquered by Muslims, I'm curious how part of Turkey, part of the Middle East, parts of North Africa, and part of Spain end up counting for TWICE as much territory as all the rest of Europe -- which I would think would be bigger in terms of geography and certainly in terms of population. I could be wrong about that -- I am no expert -- but it's certainly not half as much territory as all that. Again, I ask for a citation on the 70% figure. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| Xylgham udwlnit skretcko!1!! in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 10:27
Profile
Homepage
Correction: you are dressed like a Buddhist monk. You're still the same old undead-hating druid. I'm contemplating doing some more strips, but now I'm actually starting to be pressed for time, what with moving across the country in a month. Hmm. I should probably spend less time on these boards. But there are so many spells to research. Colt of Fire. Cattle Rage. Sticks to Steaks. Bovine Thud. And, of course, the divination spell of Magic Crap. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| United 93 in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 08:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:That's exactly my point. I wasn't using this to justify my argument: I was using it to debunk your argument that the Pope's (apparent) opinion could be taken as the truth. I'm glad you agree with me. quote:Any legitimate reading involves taking things in context AND taking things for what they are. I'm not discounting the fact that this passage was obviously full of rhetoric intended to stir up an army -- I pointed that out above -- but the fact that it is full of hateful language is hardly irrelevant, either. quote:So is your answer, then, that you don't think it was an invasion at all? quote:I don't know anything about the 11th century demographisc of Palestine, but I'm pretty skeptical about that statement. Can you point me to anything to back that up? quote:Prove the first sentence. Prove that conquering lands was not part of what the troops set out to do. I want military orders -- a papal proclamation to the people of Europe ain't gonna cut it. And I don't care if most of the soldiers went home. Most soldiers go home (well, or die) in any conflict. Lands were conquered, crusader states were set up, and that happened pretty much wherever the Europeans went. Most lands were conquered. quote:If it's not too much trouble, would you mind pointing me to those? I'm having a really hard time swallowing that figure. quote:Right, and if you want to characterize the crusades as ambiguous, I'll support that all the way. This whole discussion began because I brought them up as an example of Europeans attacking Muslims. That's a statement of fact; Europeans did attack Muslims. You jumped on top of it, saying the crusades were defensive. That's opinion. (Other facts include that many lands got conquered, and that when it began (and no doubt in the middle as well) the Pope spoke many pretty words about the nobility of the battles.) quote:Extra large load of horse manure! I became skeptical at the beginning of this essay, when the author defined "jihad" using a definition that is absurdly slanted and unquestionably unscholarly. Even if you want to make a case that the lesser jihad is the significant one, to not even mention the existence of different categories of greater jihad when you are explaining what the term "jihad" means is intentionally misleading. The essay's thesis, that Islam always tried to impose its will by force and Christianity never has, is laughable. And what a surprise -- it is an essay coming from a Catholic institution! Citing sources responsibly means checking for source bias and, if any seems likely, mentioning it. Calling the author just "another historian" is omitting some relevant information! -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| United 93 in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 18 2006 06:11
Profile
Homepage
Thanks for the account; that was interesting. However, you have got to be kidding me. quote:Have you ever heard of propaganda? Politics? The fact that something is explained as being defensive doesn't mean it is. And how the heck is a call to "destroy that vile race" defensive? Regardless, you have not addressed my point about the fact that an invasion is an offense, period. I'm not arguing this point any more until you explain to me how Mexico attacking Texas could possibly be defensive. It's the same damn thing. The fact that the Pope utters pretty words about it is irrelevant. quote:The core of the Christian world was not the Holy Land in terms of geography or population, only in terms of religious significance. Well, guess what? The Holy Land is also the religious core of the Jewish and Muslim worlds! :eek: Oh, yeah, and where the heck did you get that 70% figure? It makes no sense. quote:And in the Iraq war, there was no stated goal to obtain oil resources for the U.S.. There is clear evidence that this was one of the purposes of the war (note the italics, please), but the fact that a political leader didn't explicitly say so means that it can't be right. :rolleyes: quote:NOT similar. First of all, this was in the course of a war that lasting several years. They were not reconquering lands that the enemies had lived in for 400 years. Second of all, the U.S. wasn't reconquering anything at all! The U.S. didn't get ANY land as a result of that military action. Comparing WW2 with the First Crusade is absurd. Fatman, I don't think there's anything else I can say to convince you. You're twisting words. Unless you want to rebutt my main point, which you've ignored, I'm done debating this. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
| UN to Send Troops to Darfur in General | |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, May 17 2006 11:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:That, sir, is an insult. Not the breeding part, the English major part. *ptooie* -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |