The last process time was over 12 minutes ago (at 07:21 PM UTC); the server is not processing games until the cause is found and games are given extra time.
Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker,
then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
"Just a day after he had shot two teenagers dead in his home, Byron Smith spoke with calm precision and polite cooperation as he explained to a sheriff’s sergeant that fear and a series of thefts drove him to fire the fatal shots..." http://www.startribune.com/local/256112661.html
Would that suggest/mean a high blood pressure? If so, does that mean that if I can temporarily see my veins, I temporarily have a high blood pressure?
I might be closing in on something I've been trying to figure out for quite a while here, so I'm just checking seemingly obvious stuff as well to be thorough.
Well the hateful parts of Christianity are indeed being fought with more hate from the left, there's no denying that. Fighting hate with hate obviously has its irony. It doesn't make it wrong in all cases though. You know what else is fighting hate with hate? Loading bullets into a B&E perpetrator. Is that right or wrong? It depends heavily on the circumstances.
y2k - correct - it depends on the circumstances. So, in the circumstance where a man in trying to be removed from his job, which in all accounts he did well (there is no evidence to the contrary in the story), but simply because in a past job he said something (not DID something) that some view disfavorably...is this not pumping a perp full of lead for climbing over your fence?
Free speech that is OK....Al Sharpton calling for riots in teh street. This OK...even though through his speech people are literally incited to violence at times...because his free speech is race baiting, and is a social sacred cow (because everyone is afraid to speak out against any black leader, even when they are blatantly racist).
Free speech that is not acceptable: A pastor in the pulpit of his church speaking out against what he sees as Biblically incorrect, but not calling for any action, except for maybe not purchasing the products of a company. This is unaccetable speech, and apparently should follow a man and destroy his opportunity to work forever.
I agree that the pendulum has swung to the left. I just wanted to make the point that the idiocy is not isolated to one side of the politician spectrum and can be just as repressive no matter where it is instigated.
OK yeah that was a pretty much [rant] [/rant] sorry. Guess I had to make up for lost time.
But no, I don't really distinguish. Since I accept no Gods, the concept that there is anything at all "intended" between God and man is conceptually ridiculous to me. The institution is perverted because the premise of it is flawed.
I think you might be surprised about what secular humanists think about their own morality. I for one, don't accept the idea of a "perfect morality," and so I'd have no expectation to act perfectly, nor would I be able to identify perfect actions were such a thing possible.
The rub with believers is that most of them claim their morality is the one true best morality.
Yes, Krellin, I agree, there are lots of examples of blatant discrimination based on who is talking and what they are saying. I'm not sure there has been an age where that has not been the case or what the cure is, though. I do know that any idealist response will be wrong (any kind of ...-ism) because those have been tried and most fail horribly.
My personal favourite would be a "Bureau of Sabotage", whose job it is to deconstruct things.
Building in a home supply centre belonging to another power
I have a rules query: say I'm playing France, and I want to build in Paris. Paris is unoccupied by any unit, but coloured Purple, because Russia occupied it previously and no one has yet re-occupied it. Can I build in Paris or not?
Continental battle of north America, south America, antartica, oz, vs the rest, that means http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=140870 joinable as a two team game, (Arg, Bra, Fro, OZ, South, USA, West Canada, Que vs the other big mass of continents)
)
The search for understanding?
)
)
)
)
