aramike

Babylon 5 was one of the few scifi shows I actually enjoyed. The problem with it, though, was the writing. While the stories were very well thought out, the constant, incessent monologues were more than irritating. It almost seemed as though Strazynski took a know-it-all approach to philosophy and consequentially spent too much time trying to be philosophically insightful. Way too many monologues were done in this style. One of my favorite laughing materials was one of the very worst: "What came first; the word or the thought? Thought cannot exist without the word, and the word cannot exist without thought." If that isn't the craziest bunch of unenlightened, pretentious crap any writer has ever penned I don't know what is. I suppose he doesn't know what a dream is. When the story was "humanized" it worked. When he tried to define the universe and its truths, he just came off and pretentious and the story, ridiculous. Star Trek, on the other hand, was always humanized and has less of a pretense. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not a big Trek fan. I have, however, recently tried watching a few of the Voyager and DS9 shows. The writers constantly used the holodeck and the transporter as a convienient plot device. The ship has to shake for an episode to be an episode. They CONSTANTLY come up with uninventive techno-babble solutions for problems (can anyone say "deflector dish"?). And, there is never a problem where the solution isn't convieniently right under their noses. The biggest problem is that the conflicts seem to mostly be technical rather than character-related. As far as story plot was concerned, B5 was far more advanced. It gave the characters the struggles and real reason for them to consistantly be struggling. With Star Trek, for some reason the characters must be the unluckiest people ever to exist -- no one should so consistantly run into totally unrelated major conflicts.

Thanks for rethinking this. It is a forum based upon those principles. While I don't know what exactly was said I do know that the VERY FIRST GUIDELINE in our rules document prevents flames of anyone whatsoever. So, when that happened, the thread should have been deleted and the poster's abilities revoked. It'll be discussed for certain.

Good topic!

Also an echo of Blades'. ~Mike

Let's put it this way, $ilk: I wouldn't have a family until I got OUT of the military life. I would never considering getting INTO that life with a family. The military doesn't require YOUR services in particular. Your family does. Think about it.

Silk, due to other forum issues I can't carry on any debate. We will pick this up at a later time though.

quote: Would you beleive me if I said I had almost thrown that into my "technicality" post above? I almost did but didn't want to stir the pot or the kettle. LOL! Charles, I believe it.

quote: Originally posted by Cmdr Jeffery Eu: Well said, whatever you intend to do I'm in, even if I am a degenerate mercenary Thanks. I would hope everyone here gets in. It's no big deal -- the landscape's just changing.

Everyone check this thread: http://www.3000ad.com/cgibin/ultimatebb.cg...ic&f=7&t=001642

$ilk, do me a favor and send me an email with everything you compile. I've posted my stance on this issue in that thread, and frankly, I'm not going to allow the community itself to be disbanded. If he wants to get rid of the boards, fine. But a community, by nature, is ALL of us. So, when the boards close I'm going to set up an alternate general gaming and discussion board on my server where everyone is welcome. The code of conduct and rules will be the same. Mods will be the same too. Board will be the same type, although I'm not springing for a UBB license. There are cheaper solutions out there. This board may die, but the community will not.

Alright, enough of this. Derek, that's just wrong, man, and you know it. I have to back Blades on this, because he's right. This community is a huge part of the reason the game is so fun. While this may be just part of a point to make (which is what I'm hoping), I would think that it should be made in private or at least in the relevent thread. Those are the same rules we are all supposed to follow. You own this board and have total control of it. But this is MY community as much as it is yours. It's Jaguar's community as much as it is yours. It's Gallion's community as much as it is yours. $ilk, Rattler, Parias, ShoHashi, EVERYONE. This community would be nothing without it's members. As a friend you know I've always told you that you were wrong when I thought so. But normally I do it in private, not wishing to make a scene about it. You're the leader of the community, and a friend. So I afford you that respect. But there's a funny thing about leadership. It doesn't work unless done by example. If you do something that you don't want others to do, that's hypocrisy. And people don't follow a leader who is a hypocrite. You would have banned ANYONE who said ANYTHING as negatively drastic as you did in this thread. You would ALSO have banned ANYONE who would have called you out the way you did Blades. You've banned people for far less. Hell, *I* have banned people for far less. Blades is stressed and made a few comments that weren't too highly favorable. But instead of leading him from that, you went off and did the SAME THING! We've all been under our own stresses lately, including myself and you know the extent of my stresses. We all know the extent of yours, although we're not experiencing it. If you want to simply destroy our community, one that is BETTER than ANY other gaming community on the Web, one that you should be totally proud of, fine. I won't say another word about it. If you want me gone because of my comments, just say so. I'll leave. If that's what being a friend is, OK. I've stood behind you on EVERYTHING you've done since I've been around, as has Blades, but if that hasn't earned either of us a certain respect, nothing will. We all don't have the luxary of doing this for a job while setting aside our lives. But, in all of that, even though we have often disagreed, we have ALL given you total respect at all times. And not because you demand it, either -- because we SUPPORT your endeavors. We LIKE you. We think you're a good guy. We appreciate your work. What you're doing here is the polar opposite of the respect that Blades has always shown you. Not to mention the rest of the community. Stress makes us all fallible, including you. And what you're doing is not right. I suspect that you know that. ~Mike [ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Good read. To hell with PC. Something like that would be an interesting and effective solution. Wolferz: LOL! Too funny...

Here's the bottom line: if you can't buy a car, you can't just TAKE it. Why should software be any different? I don't want to see EP5 go, not at all. He's been great for this community. And I applaude his honesty in the matter. But still, even if you admit you stole a car you still have to pay the price. I'm sure this will straighten itself out at some point and he'll be back. Regardless of what you may think, Derek is quite forgiving of people (I hope that wasn't a secret ). I've seen more than one banned individual return.

Will be in my prayers.

The rest of those points I've thoroughly addressed, but I wanna stress this one: quote: No Confederate flag EVER flew over a slave ship. Old Glory DID.Doesn't matter. The Confederates were only created to preserve slavery. They didn't have a navy capable of transporting slaves, and during the war, they hardly had the resources.

OK, let's talk about the cause of secession from the perspective of the people that seceeded. Read the Declaration of Secession from the states that withdrew. First paragraph, State of Mississippi: quote: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. First paragraph, Georgia: quote: The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. Read the parts in bold. Now, you were saying? [ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

More Historical FACTS, on Lincoln. Jaguar said that Lincoln was not against slavery until AFTER the Civil War started. That's quite odd, considering that in 1837 (more than 20 years before the war) Lincoln condemned slavery saying that slavery was "founded on both injustice and bad politics, but the promulgation of abolitionist doctrine tends rather to increase than abate its evil." In 1846 Lincoln also supported the Wilmot Proviso which excluded newly aquired western territories from allowing slavery. Lincoln ALSO put forth a proposal for the complete ABOLISHMENT of slavery at that time, but it never got very far. What he wanted was the emancipation of all children born into slavery after 1850. In 1854, the Kansas-Missouri act prompted Lincoln to become a VOCAL and FORCEFUL anti-slavery leader. In October of that year he said "The Missouri Compromise forbade slavery to go north of 36┬░30'. Our government breaks down that restriction and opens the door for slavery to enter where it could not go. This is practically legislating for slavery, recognizing it, extending it." He ALSO said, "It is said that the slaveholder has the same political right to take his Negroes to Kansas that a freeman has to take his hogs or his horses. This would be true if Negroes were property in the same sense that hogs and horses are. But is this the case? It is notoriously not so." And went on to say: "When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man—that is despotism. If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal,' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another." This was SEVEN YEARS before the war. Oh, and Lincoln didn't win a SINGLE electoral vote in the southern states. Slavery or tariffs? Silly question. In fact, even BEFORE the election, the south was threatening to secede if Lincoln was elected. Yes, during his inaugural address Lincoln stated that he did not intend to abolish slavery because he had no political or legal right to do so. This was his stance from the beginning, however, and the reason why he never worked with extremist abolishonist organizations. He wanted to do everything legally. Jaguar said this: quote: And I will say again, the civil war was not about slavery, it was turned into that by Lincoln, Lincoln promised in his inaugural address that he would not touch that peculiar institution.That's fine that he said he wouldn't do that, but apparantly your time line is totally screwed up. All except one state seceded by February 1st, 1861. Lincoln's inaugural address was made on MARCH 4th, 1861. In other words, his inaugural address had NOTHING to do with the state's decision or reassurances thereof because the state's were already gone. quote: Sorry Aramike, we will never agree on this, I have studied this in depth and most Civil War historians would agree with me.This is interesting because it's apparant that it's untrue. Most historians would look at the facts. Jaguar said that Lincoln only used slavery as a moral justification. Funny, though, how I've just PROVED that slavery was a MAJOR issue for Lincoln LONG before the war. I seriously suggest that you check this issue out a little more. Research never hurts.