Posts made by 221B Baker Street

I definitely think it depends on your age. My wife told me I had a year to figure out if I wanted to marry her or not when we started dating. I figured it out in less time than that…we got engaged 7 months after we started dating and got married 7 months after that.

Having said that, we are both in our 30’s. I really think the older you are, the more you know yourself and the less time it takes to know whether you are making the right decision.

My wife thinks noone under 25 should get married. She’s seen too many friends and relatives get married young, then separate or divorce within 2 years. She thinks they barely know who they are at that age, how can they make a lifetime committment.

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/09/05/germans_designed_exploding_chocolate_bar/

Wow - if they’d only used it!!

:lol:

Falk

But the investigation must come - afterwards. Only an investigation can show wether someone was criminally negligent, not the other way 'round as you worded it (although i doubt that you meant it that way).

Agreed. Once past the rescue and recovery of New Orleans, an investigation should be started.

Falk:

Well, yes if someone was criminally negligent (which I strongly doubt) then this should be investigated and justice should be served. If someone simply had other priorities, or budget limitations, the the appropriateness of that will have to be debated in the court of public opinion - and IMO should only be debated once emotions have been cooled, all the facts are known, and we can all look at this subjectively.

But my point is that all of this can and should wait in lieu of assisting the victims. Lets not make a bad situation worse by spending energy in useless fighting rather than in assisting those in need.

My wife made a good point about this last night - the real disaster is the flooding of NO. Had this not happened, there wouldn’t be this disaster at all. This didn’t occur until 2 days after the hurricane struck. This delay makes the response seem 2 days slower than it actually is.

I think everything that can be done is being done, but its no doubt extremely difficult in that the destruction is so widespread.

As far as the levee repair money being reduced, diverted etc. I really can’t call anyone being negligent here (as some pundits in the media seem to be doing). With our budget deficits, money is tight and hard decisions have to be made everyday. Its not clear that if the money had been present a difference would have been made. Or that this was the wrong decision given that the budget deficits themselves pose a certain threat to society - hindsight is always 20/20. What is important is to help the people in need at this time as soon as possible. This is a huge disaster and fingerpointing will not help the victims.

The answer to your question is dependant on the circumstances.

In a no-bid game, yes UK can buy an IC in India and the Allies should still win. However, in a standard Kill Germany First (KGF) game, this isn’t optimal play, and if there are bids the Allies could well lose the game because of this alone.

Alternatively, if you want to try a KJF strategy (also not optimal play, but can be fun) you might want a UK IC in India as it can be used in this capacity.

However, Falk is correct with his hint - in almost all games, it is best for both the UK and the Allies for the UK to establish domination over the N. Sea as the first priority and the way he describes is a good way to do this.

Avin,

Yes, I read your entire post - I thought it was excellent. I just didn’t respond because I really didn’t have anything to add. Also, as you say, the thread seemed to morph into a debate about teaching this in school which is something I don’t have a strong opinion about either way. Whether or not ID is taught in the public schools is less important to me than whether or not the teacher is willing to be objective and respectful regarding the opinions of the students (i.e. allow for disagreement and perhaps even have a useful debate on this subject). I would rather our students learn to think for themselves than simply regurgitate their lessons. This is something that no law can really address, nor should our politicians try to do so IMO.

CC: After re-reading the article, I believe you are correct that there is an underlying bias in the author. I hadn’t noticed that before.

Still, I believe that nobody should be afraid of the truth regarding this topic. The facts (at least as we know them now) do not contradict in a fundamental manner Christianity and probably never will since the Bible is not meant as a science book. They do contradict what some people beleive should be Christianity (such as earth being created in exactly 6 days - which is not quite what the Bible says. I have heard the original Hebrew word for day in Genesis should be translated to “some unspecified period of time”). Nor should the facts regarding problems with evolution (or other science theories) because that is what science does - study the facts. From either position, I see no need to argue about these points. As the saying goes, the truth shall set you free.

I agree with what CC said regarding that faith and science can exist in harmony together.

This is slightly off-topic, but a Physicist has put together a site regarding how science actually supports Christianity:

http://www.reasons.org/

Interestingly, the site is actually somewhat critical of ID:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id

This is well worth reading IMO.

Falk:

Quote:
You seem perfectly willing to believe in non-carbon based life just to avoid the conclusion of the argument.

I have read somewhere that silicon based life could be possible. Well, chemically there is not too much difference between carbon and silicium.

I read somewhere that it could not be possible - silicone just doesn’t have sufficient flexibility from a chemical standpoint to form RNA or DNA (life as we know it). I guess it might be possible for a lifeform as we do not know, perhaps a different coding technique than DNA/RNA.

But this is really an unimportant point - there is plenty of carbon in the universe.

221B Baker Street wrote:
I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.

And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?

Lots of things in science (as in religion) cannot be proven or disproven, for example string theory or what is past the event horizon of a black hole. That doesn’t mean its not worthwhile, both scientifically or theologically, to speculate. And you never know that someday it might become possible to scientifically test for it (wouldn’t an experiment that proves God be interesting :D ?).

I voted ID, but only because it BEST fits my beliefs. I really could have voted for any of these.

I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.

As far as creationism, I take this to mean the origin of life rather than the universe. Again, if God directed certain molecules to form a DNA strand, how would/could science detect this? Again, science would merely note that these molecules combined in a way that created DNA.

In other words, I don’t beleive there must be a conflict between evolution, creation, intelligent design, etc. Certainly God is capable of creating the current diversity of live through a process such as evolution.

What is important to you about playing? For me, I don’t really care if I win or lose (since I rarely play with bids, its pretty obvious who will win). What is important is that I have fun while playing.

Of course if you are playing with the house rule of paratroopers, then it would be worthwhile to picket all territories within range of the bombers to prevent the quick +/- 2 or 3 ipcs that can change hands. IMO this is a better choice than strategic bombing because there is no risk of the bomber being shot down but you still gain a 4 to 6 ipc change (or more if you can keep the territory for more than one turn).

Edit: Also, you would most definitely picket your capitals (imagine E. US falling to a single German paratrooper because Germany got LR and could land perhaps on a Japanese held territory like Alaska :lol: ). Also, if you play with Kamikazee rules, then definitely E. US would be in range of the German (and Japanese for a 1-2 punch) bombers.

You know its funny, I didn’t think his Iowa defeat primary Yee-Haw was really as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. I think he was trying to put a positive spin to his backers on his loss by becoming excited about New Hampshire (in anticipation of a victory there) and following primaries (hoping his steam-roller would take off again after a NH win). He just overdid it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050608/ap_on_re_us/dean_gop

While I am conservative on many issues, I do not consider myself a Republican - I’m an independent voter and will chose whichever candidate best represents my interests.

But I cannot understand why Dean says the things he does. Does he realize how bad he makes his party look? And why are all the democrats who have to defend their party from his comments continue to say he is doing a good job? What’s going on here?

Note: Please keep all comments civil - CC has enough to do without locking threads.

Panda wrote:

there are people in the clubs who purposely make uncharacteristic moves just so that in the rematch they can throw someone off. IMO that’s a really bs way to play.

Why is this a BS way to play? I will usually try to mix things up a bit when I play. What I do not want is for someone to be able to predict what I will do. I will not play to deliberately lose or to make stupid moves,(if you mean this then I agree) but just different things and depending on the game and my opponent perhaps even not the most optimal winning strategy. And if someone is able to throw me off in this manner, then I think I deserve it, not being able to forsee a different possible move from my opponent.

Heres the scenario: You have your opponent beaten, but they are on an island (either Japan or UK) and have built it up with lots of infantry along with some fighters. They refuse to concede and assuming a house rule that victories can’t be economic. Whats the quickest, best, and/or most fun way to finish the game? Generally I go for either the tank only assualt to soften them up, or for the beer assualt :D . Depends on who I am playing with.

Hbombers are far more powerful than any defensive naval unit you could add including loaded Carriers which are actually weak as they risk not just the navy but also a nations defensive airforce as well. 4-5 HBs can destroy just about any navy from my experience. It may cost a lot in terms of lost bombers, but these can be rebuilt lost bbs, Carriers, ftrs cannot.

I agree that the HB would severely restrict the movement of this Allied Navy, my only point being that it could be built without being sunk.

But how did the issue of HB come up? I guess you are assuming thats how the Allied (or Japanese) Navy is eliminated. HB (along with IT IMO) is almost always a sure win in the game for whichever nation has it.

Agent Smith,

Ok, I better see your reasoning behind why you think Germany is the strongest. I’m not sure if I agree or not, but I will think about some more.

Regarding the HB threat to building a Navy, its not really a problem for the US as I can build off Texas, out of range of any Axis aircraft (unless they also get LR). But that assumes the Axis will try to tech and will get HB (and LR) and also will quickly build sufficient bombers. I bet I’ll have my Navy built before they can do this.