The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Once more, I find myself reasonably bored. So, in the interests of keeping me sane, I'm going to tell you a story...
This is the story of the Poor Oppressed Victim and the Big Bad Roman Emperor. Just to somewhat confuse matters, they're both the same person. Tiberius (or to give him his full name, Tiberius Claudius Nero; bit of a mouthful...) gets something of a s****y deal in the history books. He's now known (when remembered at all) as an Olympic standard sexual pervert and sadist. And I suppose there's a grain of truth in that, but in the interest of striking a blow (or taking a blow; any offers? Any at all?) for historical fairness and showing off, it seems only right to give the opposing view. And besides, with luck you'll find it entertaining.
So, Tiberius was born in 42 BC to Claudius Nero and Livia, a stultifyingly awful woman and poisoner extraordinaire. In attitude, she wasn't a million miles away from her namesake in The Soprano's. He was born in what would politely be called interesting times, and realistically called incredibly scary times. Three gentlemen named Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had just finished using the Roman Republic as the battleground for settling their long running game of one-upmanship (it was really rather silly;
"Caesar, the noble Pompey has conquered the Greeks and Armenians!"
"Hah! I'll see those countries, and raise him...conquering Gaul and the Britons! How d'you like THEM apples? What say you Crassus? Crassus? Oh...some Syrians seem to have rinsed his mouth out with molten gold...").
Unfortunately, 3 other chaps named Octavian (or Augustus), Lepidus, and Antony enjoyed the game so much that they carried it on. Rome degenerated into a bloodbath, with high society and the foremost Roman Citizens being especially at risk from the mob (it was sort of like the prototype version "I'm a Celebrity; Get Me Out of Here!", with rather more worrying penalties than putting ones hand in a box of centipedes).
Each side attracted supporters, and each side took great pains to cause great pain to the other team. Unsurprisingly, living out the first years of ones life in constant fear of being A: Brutally murdered by the nobles of Rome, B: Brutally murdered by the people of Rome, or C: Being handed over by ones own mother to be brutally murdered instead of her, had rather an adverse effect on the young man. He became quiet, sullen, and surly; think of Kevin the Teenager in a toga and you've got the right idea.
Livia, being wonderfully devious, not only ended up on the winning side of the Roman Civil War, she married the captain of the winning team, the Emperor Augustus (aka. the bad guy from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra). Tiberius was now the Emperors stepson. Huzzah for him, you may think; time to relax, to try (and fail) to build up a wine cellar. However, there's nothing like not knowing whether today will be the last day of your life to put a total dampener on ones celebratory mood. Tiberius wanted a peaceful life out of the public eye and (more importantly) the public lynch mob. He had married a lady named Vipsania, to whom he was devoted, and was spending much of his time studying Greek mythology and literature. If, he reasoned, he made it clear that he had no ambitions beyond academia and raising a family, he'd finally be safe from the assassin's knife.
And if he had a mother who didn't make Margaret Thatcher look like Snow White, he may have been allowed to do so. Livia wasn't satisfied with being the Cherie to Augustus' Tony. She wanted to be the Hilary to his Bill. And she wanted to start a dynasty of Emperors that would guarantee her immortality (literally; she wanted to be made a Goddess in the Roman religion. Not even Thatcher ever went that far...). Guess who her only child was? Yup. So, despite the fact that she and her confidants had used him as the butt of insult after insult during his life, Tiberius found himself being used by his mother as a means to an end for the next 30 years.
Firstly, he was forced to divorce his beloved Vipsania and marry his stepsister Julia (of whom historical records show that she was the first person to have been the subject of the comment "I wouldn't say she was easy, but she had a mattress strapped to her back"). Then he was dragged from his books, and signed up to the army. On the plus side, his elevated status meant he commanded armies rather than fighting in the front line. On the minus side, he had to fight the inhabitants of the Balkans.
In what was an eerie foretaste of every century to come, the people of the Balkans were doing their very best to kill anyone and everyone who wasn't a member of their tribe. Tiberius showed himself to be a superb military commander via the medium of annihilating anyone who crossed them (though curiously, Tiberius' army was once trapped in a valley, and the enemy commander allowed him to withdraw instead of ambushing and destroying the Roman army. I rather thought that was the point of warfare...). However, in deference to the fact that Tiberius did NOT want to be there, he was a strict general who was harsh with his troops. "Let them fear me, so long as they obey me" was his maxim.
Meanwhile, back in Rome, Livia was keeping herself busy. Tiberius' stepbrothers, stepsisters, and anyone else who could be a rival claimant to the Empire succumbed one by one to the numerous cheese and arsenic parties thrown by the evil queen. Thanks to Livia, some were poisoned, some were starved to death, some were exiled, and still others were just plain, old fashioned murdered. The upper classes of Rome were slowly thinned out, and it was all done in the name of making Tiberius the Emperor.
He returned to Rome in the midst of this, where the plots and machinations resembled an Eastenders storyline with additional orgies and murders. He loathed Julia (apparently, he felt that the woman one returns home to shouldn't have vaginal scars and rectal stretchmarks...). He was also afraid for his life; Livia was not the only powerful person who wanted a specific candidate installed as Emperor. With the dark and fearful memories of his childhood still haunting him, the last thing Tiberius wanted was to be put in a position where he was the target for ambitious men.
So he asked Augustus for permission to retire from public life to Rhodes, where he intended to devote the rest of his life to books and studies. Augustus, who had never really like his grim-faced stepson (he used to make jokes about Tiberius' slow chewing movement; I suppose if the Emperor makes a joke then everyone finds it funny) was only too happy to send him away from Rome. Livia, naturally, was furious at this uncharacteristic show of defiance. As a petty revenge, she spread stories about Tiberius' supposed sexual perversions (just how bad does one have to behave to be considered a pervert in a society where orgies were a social occasion?!).
Rhodes didn't provide the sanctuary the Tiberius had hoped. He still feared for his life; now that he was out of the public eye he could be easily disposed of. And he found that the Greeks poked fun at him and his dour manner. After a few years of unhappy retirement, he returned to Rome and public life, a rather more bitter man than he had been when he left.
By this time, Tiberius was the only realistic heir to Augustus. Sensing this, Livia poisoned Augustus (he was ready for her and only ate food he prepared himself; she however was ready for him and poisoned some figs whilst they were still on the tree. What a cow, eh?) and had Tiberius installed as Emperor. He became the one of the few people to receive supreme power who didn't want it. However, he had spent a lifetime acquiring grudges against those who made fun of him, those who questioned his intellect, and those who had looked at him in a bit of a funny way. He was to be Emperor for 23 years, and by the time he died, not one of those people whom he bore a grudge against had died of natural causes.
At first, he was a slave to Livia's will. He was Emperor, but she ruled. Gradually however, he weaned himself away from her control, and by the time of her death he was pretty much his own man. Although he never felt entirely safe at Rome, he began to appreciate the benefits of power. He also developed a rather fun sense of humour. He delivered every speech and every statement in a deadpan manner, but would intersperse them with surreal and bizarre jokes. No one was ever sure whether he was joking or serious, and people were afraid to do laugh in case it was the latter. . I always imagine him to be a bit like Jack Dee at this point. Well, Jack Dee with the power of life and death over millions anyway. Okay...so maybe it's just me that appreciates his sense of humour! He, however, found their uncertainty and subsequent insecurity hilarious .
In all of this time, the Empire remained secure and stable. He was a fair Emperor to the people (he castigated any governors who set their taxes too high), though the whispers and rumours started by Livia et al never really died away. After 12 years of his reign, he decided to go on a little holiday to the island of Capri. He never came back to Rome for the remaining 11 years he was Emperor. He felt completely secure on his island, and so in the lap of luxury and with absolute power at his disposal, he began to enjoy himself.
I don't doubt that some of the enjoyment was gained from shagging anything with a pulse. By this time, Vipsania had died and he felt no need to restrain himself. He also harboured a hatred of the Empire itself. He never wanted it, and it had ruined his life. But by the same token, it allowed him to get revenge on those who had wronged him (you wouldn't have liked to have been the Greek scholar who had insulted Tiberius back in Rhodes...) and it afforded him a measure of security.
That said, his paranoia was still ever present; a fisherman surprised him on Caprii with a huge fish that he had caught and wanted to present to the Emperor. Tiberius had him beaten with it (inspiration for Monty Python's 'Fish Dance'?), jabbed and poked with crab claws, then threw him off a cliff. All in all, he was not a man to get on the wrong side of.
When he died in 37 AD, he was a mess of contradictions. The paranoia that haunted him from his childhood was now being inflicted on others in the form of treason trials, which saw many innocent people die. He wanted desperately to be a good person, but the disappointments of his life led him to become bitter and twisted; he cheerfully had his own son starved to death, allowed two thugs (Sejanus and Macro) to rule on his behalf. Above all, he hated Rome and it's people. By this time his maxim was "Let them hate me, so long as they obey me". His final revenge on Rome was to adopt the fiercely insane Gaius Caligula as his heir. He said that he was nursing a viper for the bosom of Rome. Caligula's time as Emperor is legendary for it's cruelty and barbarity.
But still, I find myself pitying Tiberius. He wanted a quiet life and because he didn't get it, he made damn sure that no one else did either. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make him a beast. It makes him endearingly human.
And thus concludes probably the most whistle-stop treatment that the life of Tiberius has ever been treated too. Now what do I do to stave off boredom?!
This is the story of the Poor Oppressed Victim and the Big Bad Roman Emperor. Just to somewhat confuse matters, they're both the same person. Tiberius (or to give him his full name, Tiberius Claudius Nero; bit of a mouthful...) gets something of a s****y deal in the history books. He's now known (when remembered at all) as an Olympic standard sexual pervert and sadist. And I suppose there's a grain of truth in that, but in the interest of striking a blow (or taking a blow; any offers? Any at all?) for historical fairness and showing off, it seems only right to give the opposing view. And besides, with luck you'll find it entertaining.
So, Tiberius was born in 42 BC to Claudius Nero and Livia, a stultifyingly awful woman and poisoner extraordinaire. In attitude, she wasn't a million miles away from her namesake in The Soprano's. He was born in what would politely be called interesting times, and realistically called incredibly scary times. Three gentlemen named Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had just finished using the Roman Republic as the battleground for settling their long running game of one-upmanship (it was really rather silly;
"Caesar, the noble Pompey has conquered the Greeks and Armenians!"
"Hah! I'll see those countries, and raise him...conquering Gaul and the Britons! How d'you like THEM apples? What say you Crassus? Crassus? Oh...some Syrians seem to have rinsed his mouth out with molten gold...").
Unfortunately, 3 other chaps named Octavian (or Augustus), Lepidus, and Antony enjoyed the game so much that they carried it on. Rome degenerated into a bloodbath, with high society and the foremost Roman Citizens being especially at risk from the mob (it was sort of like the prototype version "I'm a Celebrity; Get Me Out of Here!", with rather more worrying penalties than putting ones hand in a box of centipedes).
Each side attracted supporters, and each side took great pains to cause great pain to the other team. Unsurprisingly, living out the first years of ones life in constant fear of being A: Brutally murdered by the nobles of Rome, B: Brutally murdered by the people of Rome, or C: Being handed over by ones own mother to be brutally murdered instead of her, had rather an adverse effect on the young man. He became quiet, sullen, and surly; think of Kevin the Teenager in a toga and you've got the right idea.
Livia, being wonderfully devious, not only ended up on the winning side of the Roman Civil War, she married the captain of the winning team, the Emperor Augustus (aka. the bad guy from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra). Tiberius was now the Emperors stepson. Huzzah for him, you may think; time to relax, to try (and fail) to build up a wine cellar. However, there's nothing like not knowing whether today will be the last day of your life to put a total dampener on ones celebratory mood. Tiberius wanted a peaceful life out of the public eye and (more importantly) the public lynch mob. He had married a lady named Vipsania, to whom he was devoted, and was spending much of his time studying Greek mythology and literature. If, he reasoned, he made it clear that he had no ambitions beyond academia and raising a family, he'd finally be safe from the assassin's knife.
And if he had a mother who didn't make Margaret Thatcher look like Snow White, he may have been allowed to do so. Livia wasn't satisfied with being the Cherie to Augustus' Tony. She wanted to be the Hilary to his Bill. And she wanted to start a dynasty of Emperors that would guarantee her immortality (literally; she wanted to be made a Goddess in the Roman religion. Not even Thatcher ever went that far...). Guess who her only child was? Yup. So, despite the fact that she and her confidants had used him as the butt of insult after insult during his life, Tiberius found himself being used by his mother as a means to an end for the next 30 years.
Firstly, he was forced to divorce his beloved Vipsania and marry his stepsister Julia (of whom historical records show that she was the first person to have been the subject of the comment "I wouldn't say she was easy, but she had a mattress strapped to her back"). Then he was dragged from his books, and signed up to the army. On the plus side, his elevated status meant he commanded armies rather than fighting in the front line. On the minus side, he had to fight the inhabitants of the Balkans.
In what was an eerie foretaste of every century to come, the people of the Balkans were doing their very best to kill anyone and everyone who wasn't a member of their tribe. Tiberius showed himself to be a superb military commander via the medium of annihilating anyone who crossed them (though curiously, Tiberius' army was once trapped in a valley, and the enemy commander allowed him to withdraw instead of ambushing and destroying the Roman army. I rather thought that was the point of warfare...). However, in deference to the fact that Tiberius did NOT want to be there, he was a strict general who was harsh with his troops. "Let them fear me, so long as they obey me" was his maxim.
Meanwhile, back in Rome, Livia was keeping herself busy. Tiberius' stepbrothers, stepsisters, and anyone else who could be a rival claimant to the Empire succumbed one by one to the numerous cheese and arsenic parties thrown by the evil queen. Thanks to Livia, some were poisoned, some were starved to death, some were exiled, and still others were just plain, old fashioned murdered. The upper classes of Rome were slowly thinned out, and it was all done in the name of making Tiberius the Emperor.
He returned to Rome in the midst of this, where the plots and machinations resembled an Eastenders storyline with additional orgies and murders. He loathed Julia (apparently, he felt that the woman one returns home to shouldn't have vaginal scars and rectal stretchmarks...). He was also afraid for his life; Livia was not the only powerful person who wanted a specific candidate installed as Emperor. With the dark and fearful memories of his childhood still haunting him, the last thing Tiberius wanted was to be put in a position where he was the target for ambitious men.
So he asked Augustus for permission to retire from public life to Rhodes, where he intended to devote the rest of his life to books and studies. Augustus, who had never really like his grim-faced stepson (he used to make jokes about Tiberius' slow chewing movement; I suppose if the Emperor makes a joke then everyone finds it funny) was only too happy to send him away from Rome. Livia, naturally, was furious at this uncharacteristic show of defiance. As a petty revenge, she spread stories about Tiberius' supposed sexual perversions (just how bad does one have to behave to be considered a pervert in a society where orgies were a social occasion?!).
Rhodes didn't provide the sanctuary the Tiberius had hoped. He still feared for his life; now that he was out of the public eye he could be easily disposed of. And he found that the Greeks poked fun at him and his dour manner. After a few years of unhappy retirement, he returned to Rome and public life, a rather more bitter man than he had been when he left.
By this time, Tiberius was the only realistic heir to Augustus. Sensing this, Livia poisoned Augustus (he was ready for her and only ate food he prepared himself; she however was ready for him and poisoned some figs whilst they were still on the tree. What a cow, eh?) and had Tiberius installed as Emperor. He became the one of the few people to receive supreme power who didn't want it. However, he had spent a lifetime acquiring grudges against those who made fun of him, those who questioned his intellect, and those who had looked at him in a bit of a funny way. He was to be Emperor for 23 years, and by the time he died, not one of those people whom he bore a grudge against had died of natural causes.
At first, he was a slave to Livia's will. He was Emperor, but she ruled. Gradually however, he weaned himself away from her control, and by the time of her death he was pretty much his own man. Although he never felt entirely safe at Rome, he began to appreciate the benefits of power. He also developed a rather fun sense of humour. He delivered every speech and every statement in a deadpan manner, but would intersperse them with surreal and bizarre jokes. No one was ever sure whether he was joking or serious, and people were afraid to do laugh in case it was the latter. . I always imagine him to be a bit like Jack Dee at this point. Well, Jack Dee with the power of life and death over millions anyway. Okay...so maybe it's just me that appreciates his sense of humour! He, however, found their uncertainty and subsequent insecurity hilarious .
In all of this time, the Empire remained secure and stable. He was a fair Emperor to the people (he castigated any governors who set their taxes too high), though the whispers and rumours started by Livia et al never really died away. After 12 years of his reign, he decided to go on a little holiday to the island of Capri. He never came back to Rome for the remaining 11 years he was Emperor. He felt completely secure on his island, and so in the lap of luxury and with absolute power at his disposal, he began to enjoy himself.
I don't doubt that some of the enjoyment was gained from shagging anything with a pulse. By this time, Vipsania had died and he felt no need to restrain himself. He also harboured a hatred of the Empire itself. He never wanted it, and it had ruined his life. But by the same token, it allowed him to get revenge on those who had wronged him (you wouldn't have liked to have been the Greek scholar who had insulted Tiberius back in Rhodes...) and it afforded him a measure of security.
That said, his paranoia was still ever present; a fisherman surprised him on Caprii with a huge fish that he had caught and wanted to present to the Emperor. Tiberius had him beaten with it (inspiration for Monty Python's 'Fish Dance'?), jabbed and poked with crab claws, then threw him off a cliff. All in all, he was not a man to get on the wrong side of.
When he died in 37 AD, he was a mess of contradictions. The paranoia that haunted him from his childhood was now being inflicted on others in the form of treason trials, which saw many innocent people die. He wanted desperately to be a good person, but the disappointments of his life led him to become bitter and twisted; he cheerfully had his own son starved to death, allowed two thugs (Sejanus and Macro) to rule on his behalf. Above all, he hated Rome and it's people. By this time his maxim was "Let them hate me, so long as they obey me". His final revenge on Rome was to adopt the fiercely insane Gaius Caligula as his heir. He said that he was nursing a viper for the bosom of Rome. Caligula's time as Emperor is legendary for it's cruelty and barbarity.
But still, I find myself pitying Tiberius. He wanted a quiet life and because he didn't get it, he made damn sure that no one else did either. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make him a beast. It makes him endearingly human.
And thus concludes probably the most whistle-stop treatment that the life of Tiberius has ever been treated too. Now what do I do to stave off boredom?!
Page:
Light wrote:
> Not nice is it? When someone belittles your beliefs? You might want to
> remember that the next time you start off on your one man "I want
> to kiss and lick the cheesy flakes from George W's wrinkled,
> off-purple helmet" diatribe.
>
> Now, do I really need to point out the irony of Belldandy mewling
> about somebody else being "overbearing, talking down, etc"?
>
>
> Maybe I should stop making those posts that answer your rather
> infantile reasoning with troublesome things like facts, eh? You
> clearly don't like it when someone refuses to argue on your level (ie.
> clamping ones hands over ones ears and bellowing your dogmatic dirge
> like a mantra).
>
> Grow up little boy. I disagree with what you say and I'm calling you
> on it. I had hoped you would respond with something enlarging on the
> reasons for your beliefs. But it appears that you can't stomach a
> debate if you're going to get pinned down on some of the more
> blinkered of your assertions. If your best response is to pick up your
> ball and stomp off in a huff, then you're pretty much proving every
> assumption made about you; that you're an immature and shallow little
> bully who can dish it out, but sure can't take it.
And again, post without the assumption that you're the greatest living thing on the forums and you'll get decent reply. You're ideas are crap, and have you noticed how other people got replies from me, who also challenge what I said ? But you don't ? Strange eh?
You're grasp of the star wars program is, at best, based on on your own ideas and not fact.
*3 of 8 tests have succeeded.
*It is only ground based missiles in the first phase roll out - a previous test has shown that a laser can be used against a stationary/pre launch vehicle. Eventually it encompasses ground, sea borne, satellite, mobile bases all in one network.
*At the end of the day this is a system which gives a fighting chance of stopping a nuclear exchange, but you're against it ?
*It protects not just America, but her allies, because the first phase ground stations need to be located not just in America, but elsewhere, thuoght the initial base will be Alaska, then another mainlaind America site, then the UK, Europe, to form a network, which is kind of the whole point. Those countries which let bases be located in them will have its benefits, but protection against missiles is only part of the answer to WMDs, it won't stop a suitcase nuke, and it's a far better bet that the next WMD we see will be biological/chemical based because it's harder to source it back.
So yeha, type what you want Light, but go throw your anger at someone who cares. To me you're a jumped up school kid shouting at the top of his voice in a fit of rage hoping for attention.
Tally ho,
~~Belldandy~~
> Not nice is it? When someone belittles your beliefs? You might want to
> remember that the next time you start off on your one man "I want
> to kiss and lick the cheesy flakes from George W's wrinkled,
> off-purple helmet" diatribe.
>
> Now, do I really need to point out the irony of Belldandy mewling
> about somebody else being "overbearing, talking down, etc"?
>
>
> Maybe I should stop making those posts that answer your rather
> infantile reasoning with troublesome things like facts, eh? You
> clearly don't like it when someone refuses to argue on your level (ie.
> clamping ones hands over ones ears and bellowing your dogmatic dirge
> like a mantra).
>
> Grow up little boy. I disagree with what you say and I'm calling you
> on it. I had hoped you would respond with something enlarging on the
> reasons for your beliefs. But it appears that you can't stomach a
> debate if you're going to get pinned down on some of the more
> blinkered of your assertions. If your best response is to pick up your
> ball and stomp off in a huff, then you're pretty much proving every
> assumption made about you; that you're an immature and shallow little
> bully who can dish it out, but sure can't take it.
And again, post without the assumption that you're the greatest living thing on the forums and you'll get decent reply. You're ideas are crap, and have you noticed how other people got replies from me, who also challenge what I said ? But you don't ? Strange eh?
You're grasp of the star wars program is, at best, based on on your own ideas and not fact.
*3 of 8 tests have succeeded.
*It is only ground based missiles in the first phase roll out - a previous test has shown that a laser can be used against a stationary/pre launch vehicle. Eventually it encompasses ground, sea borne, satellite, mobile bases all in one network.
*At the end of the day this is a system which gives a fighting chance of stopping a nuclear exchange, but you're against it ?
*It protects not just America, but her allies, because the first phase ground stations need to be located not just in America, but elsewhere, thuoght the initial base will be Alaska, then another mainlaind America site, then the UK, Europe, to form a network, which is kind of the whole point. Those countries which let bases be located in them will have its benefits, but protection against missiles is only part of the answer to WMDs, it won't stop a suitcase nuke, and it's a far better bet that the next WMD we see will be biological/chemical based because it's harder to source it back.
So yeha, type what you want Light, but go throw your anger at someone who cares. To me you're a jumped up school kid shouting at the top of his voice in a fit of rage hoping for attention.
Tally ho,
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> And PS;
>
> Light, I didn't repsond to your post because I ignore those with ego's
> the size of continents who think they are always correct. You're
> overbearing, talk down to people, and a general pain in the neck. Make
> a post that isn't laden with sarcasm and stupid assumptions like,
> "George bush is a texan" = he likes missiles, and I'll
> listen, otherwise I can't be ar$ed what you think of me.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Bwah ha ha ha...
Not nice is it? When someone belittles your beliefs? You might want to remember that the next time you start off on your one man "I want to kiss and lick the cheesy flakes from George W's wrinkled, off-purple helmet" diatribe.
Now, do I really need to point out the irony of Belldandy mewling about somebody else being "overbearing, talking down, etc"?
Maybe I should stop making those posts that answer your rather infantile reasoning with troublesome things like facts, eh? You clearly don't like it when someone refuses to argue on your level (ie. clamping ones hands over ones ears and bellowing your dogmatic dirge like a mantra).
Grow up little boy. I disagree with what you say and I'm calling you on it. I had hoped you would respond with something enlarging on the reasons for your beliefs. But it appears that you can't stomach a debate if you're going to get pinned down on some of the more blinkered of your assertions. If your best response is to pick up your ball and stomp off in a huff, then you're pretty much proving every assumption made about you; that you're an immature and shallow little bully who can dish it out, but sure can't take it.
> And PS;
>
> Light, I didn't repsond to your post because I ignore those with ego's
> the size of continents who think they are always correct. You're
> overbearing, talk down to people, and a general pain in the neck. Make
> a post that isn't laden with sarcasm and stupid assumptions like,
> "George bush is a texan" = he likes missiles, and I'll
> listen, otherwise I can't be ar$ed what you think of me.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Bwah ha ha ha...
Not nice is it? When someone belittles your beliefs? You might want to remember that the next time you start off on your one man "I want to kiss and lick the cheesy flakes from George W's wrinkled, off-purple helmet" diatribe.
Now, do I really need to point out the irony of Belldandy mewling about somebody else being "overbearing, talking down, etc"?
Maybe I should stop making those posts that answer your rather infantile reasoning with troublesome things like facts, eh? You clearly don't like it when someone refuses to argue on your level (ie. clamping ones hands over ones ears and bellowing your dogmatic dirge like a mantra).
Grow up little boy. I disagree with what you say and I'm calling you on it. I had hoped you would respond with something enlarging on the reasons for your beliefs. But it appears that you can't stomach a debate if you're going to get pinned down on some of the more blinkered of your assertions. If your best response is to pick up your ball and stomp off in a huff, then you're pretty much proving every assumption made about you; that you're an immature and shallow little bully who can dish it out, but sure can't take it.
And PS;
Light, I didn't repsond to your post because I ignore those with ego's the size of continents who think they are always correct. You're overbearing, talk down to people, and a general pain in the neck. Make a post that isn't laden with sarcasm and stupid assumptions like, "George bush is a texan" = he likes missiles, and I'll listen, otherwise I can't be ar$ed what you think of me.
~~Belldandy~~
Light, I didn't repsond to your post because I ignore those with ego's the size of continents who think they are always correct. You're overbearing, talk down to people, and a general pain in the neck. Make a post that isn't laden with sarcasm and stupid assumptions like, "George bush is a texan" = he likes missiles, and I'll listen, otherwise I can't be ar$ed what you think of me.
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Anyway, kudos for keeping him to the point. If only he'd actually
> think about what America does instead of blindly and rather stupidly
> agreeing with it and *then* thinking about how he can fit the
> justification for it into his rather limited worldview.
All you can do is seek to disagree with everything America does, and also fit its actions into your own views. You're points are themselves debateable, and even the good ones mired by your own self righteousness and blind conviction that you yourself know better than others, that your views are the "right" ones. You're not much more than another PC bod, seeking attention through opposition, and claiming the moral highground as your defence.
I believe terrorism should be rooted out, destroyed, at all costs. And if that means conflict, then so be it, it is better than living in a shadow and waiting for the next attack. And if doing so means more terrorists are created, then the problem is with them, and we'll take them down as well. America and the UK will not surrender, we will get them, or die trying.
Unknown kernel I do respect for his views, you I do not, and never will. Same goes for Goatboy, I respect, but rarely agree, with him, but you Light I do not.
Anyway, must go do something productive rather than waste time on you Light,
~~Belldandy~~
> Anyway, kudos for keeping him to the point. If only he'd actually
> think about what America does instead of blindly and rather stupidly
> agreeing with it and *then* thinking about how he can fit the
> justification for it into his rather limited worldview.
All you can do is seek to disagree with everything America does, and also fit its actions into your own views. You're points are themselves debateable, and even the good ones mired by your own self righteousness and blind conviction that you yourself know better than others, that your views are the "right" ones. You're not much more than another PC bod, seeking attention through opposition, and claiming the moral highground as your defence.
I believe terrorism should be rooted out, destroyed, at all costs. And if that means conflict, then so be it, it is better than living in a shadow and waiting for the next attack. And if doing so means more terrorists are created, then the problem is with them, and we'll take them down as well. America and the UK will not surrender, we will get them, or die trying.
Unknown kernel I do respect for his views, you I do not, and never will. Same goes for Goatboy, I respect, but rarely agree, with him, but you Light I do not.
Anyway, must go do something productive rather than waste time on you Light,
~~Belldandy~~
Mine is Martin Luther King Jr
One of the world's best known advocates of non-violent social change strategies, Martin Luther King, Jr., synthesized ideas drawn from many different cultural traditions. Born in Atlanta on January 15, 1929, King's roots were in the African-American Baptist church. He was the grandson of the Rev. A. D. Williams, pastor of Ebenezer Baptist church and a founder of Atlanta's NAACP chapter, and the son of Martin Luther King, Sr., who succeeded Williams as Ebenezer's pastor and also became a civil rights leader. Although, from an early age, King resented religious emotionalism and questioned literal interpretations of scripture, he nevertheless greatly admired black social gospel proponents such as his father who saw the church as a instrument for improving the lives of African Americans. Morehouse College president Benjamin Mays and other proponents of Christian social activism influenced King's decision after his junior year at Morehouse to become a minister and thereby serve society. His continued skepticism, however, shaped his subsequent theological studies at Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, and at Boston University, where he received a doctorate in systematic theology in 1955. Rejecting offers for academic positions, King decided while completing his Ph. D. requirements to return to the South and accepted the pastorate of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.
On December 5, 1955, five days after Montgomery civil rights activist Rosa Parks refused to obey the city's rules mandating segregation on buses, black residents launched a bus boycott and elected King as president of the newly-formed Montgomery Improvement Association. As the boycott continued during 1956, King gained national prominence as a result of his exceptional oratorical skills and personal courage. His house was bombed and he was convicted along with other boycott leaders on charges of conspiring to interfere with the bus company's operations. Despite these attempts to suppress the movement, Montgomery bus were desegregated in December, 1956, after the United States Supreme Court declared Alabama's segregation laws unconstitutional.
In 1957, seeking to build upon the success of the Montgomery boycott movement, King and other southern black ministers founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). As SCLC's president, King emphasized the goal of black voting rights when he spoke at the Lincoln Memorial during the 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom. During 1958, he published his first book, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. The following year, he toured India, increased his understanding of Gandhian non-violent strategies. At the end of 1959, he resigned from Dexter and returned to Atlanta where the SCLC headquarters was located and where he also could assist his father as pastor of Ebenezer.
Although increasingly portrayed as the pre-eminent black spokesperson, King did not mobilize mass protest activity during the first five years after the Montgomery boycott ended. While King moved cautiously, southern black college students took the initiative, launching a wave of sit-in protests during the winter and spring of 1960. King sympathized with the student movement and spoke at the founding meeting of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in April 1960, but he soon became the target of criticisms from SNCC activists determined to assert their independence. Even King's decision in October, 1960, to join a student sit-in in Atlanta did not allay the tensions, although presidential candidate John F. Kennedy's sympathetic telephone call to King's wife, Coretta Scott King, helped attract crucial black support for Kennedy's successful campaign. The 1961 "Freedom Rides," which sought to integrate southern transportation facilities, demonstrated that neither King nor Kennedy could control the expanding protest movement spearheaded by students. Conflicts between King and younger militants were also evident when both SCLC and SNCC assisted the Albany (Georgia) Movement's campaign of mass protests during December of 1961 and the summer of 1962.
After achieving few of his objectives in Albany, King recognized the need to organize a successful protest campaign free of conflicts with SNCC. During the spring of 1963, he and his staff guided mass demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama, where local white police officials were known from their anti-black attitudes. Clashes between black demonstrators and police using police dogs and fire hoses generated newspaper headlines through the world. In June, President Kennedy reacted to the Birmingham protests and the obstinacy of segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace by agreeing to submit broad civil rights legislation to Congress (which eventually passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Subsequent mass demonstrations in many communities culminated in a march on August 28, 1963, that attracted more than 250,000 protesters to Washington, D. C. Addressing the marchers from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, King delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" oration.
During the year following the March, King's renown grew as he became Time magazine's Man of the Year and, in December 1964, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite fame and accolades, however, King faced many challenges to his leadership. Malcolm X's (1927-1965) message of self-defense and black nationalism expressed the discontent and anger of northern, urban blacks more effectively than did King's moderation. During the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march, King and his lieutenants were able to keep intra-movement conflicts sufficiently under control to bring about passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but while participating in a 1966 march through Mississippi, King encountered strong criticism from "Black Power" proponent Stokely Carmichael. Shortly afterward white counter-protesters in the Chicago area physically assaulted King in the Chicago area during an unsuccessful effort to transfer non-violent protest techniques to the urban North. Despite these leadership conflicts, King remained committed to the use of non-violent techniques. Early in 1968, he initiated a Poor Peoples campaign designed to confront economic problems that had not been addressed by early civil rights reforms.
King's effectiveness in achieving his objectives was limited not merely by divisions among blacks, however, but also by the increasing resistance he encountered from national political leaders. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover's already extensive efforts to undermine King's leadership were intensified during 1967 as urban racial violence escalated and King criticized American intervention in the Vietnam war. King had lost the support of many white liberals, and his relations with the Lyndon Johnson administration were at a low point when he was assassinated on April 4, 1968, while seeking to assist a garbage workers' strike in Memphis. After his death, King remained a controversial symbol of the African-American civil rights struggle, revered by many for his martyrdom on behalf of non-violence and condemned by others for his militancy and insurgent views.
One of the world's best known advocates of non-violent social change strategies, Martin Luther King, Jr., synthesized ideas drawn from many different cultural traditions. Born in Atlanta on January 15, 1929, King's roots were in the African-American Baptist church. He was the grandson of the Rev. A. D. Williams, pastor of Ebenezer Baptist church and a founder of Atlanta's NAACP chapter, and the son of Martin Luther King, Sr., who succeeded Williams as Ebenezer's pastor and also became a civil rights leader. Although, from an early age, King resented religious emotionalism and questioned literal interpretations of scripture, he nevertheless greatly admired black social gospel proponents such as his father who saw the church as a instrument for improving the lives of African Americans. Morehouse College president Benjamin Mays and other proponents of Christian social activism influenced King's decision after his junior year at Morehouse to become a minister and thereby serve society. His continued skepticism, however, shaped his subsequent theological studies at Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, and at Boston University, where he received a doctorate in systematic theology in 1955. Rejecting offers for academic positions, King decided while completing his Ph. D. requirements to return to the South and accepted the pastorate of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.
On December 5, 1955, five days after Montgomery civil rights activist Rosa Parks refused to obey the city's rules mandating segregation on buses, black residents launched a bus boycott and elected King as president of the newly-formed Montgomery Improvement Association. As the boycott continued during 1956, King gained national prominence as a result of his exceptional oratorical skills and personal courage. His house was bombed and he was convicted along with other boycott leaders on charges of conspiring to interfere with the bus company's operations. Despite these attempts to suppress the movement, Montgomery bus were desegregated in December, 1956, after the United States Supreme Court declared Alabama's segregation laws unconstitutional.
In 1957, seeking to build upon the success of the Montgomery boycott movement, King and other southern black ministers founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). As SCLC's president, King emphasized the goal of black voting rights when he spoke at the Lincoln Memorial during the 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom. During 1958, he published his first book, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. The following year, he toured India, increased his understanding of Gandhian non-violent strategies. At the end of 1959, he resigned from Dexter and returned to Atlanta where the SCLC headquarters was located and where he also could assist his father as pastor of Ebenezer.
Although increasingly portrayed as the pre-eminent black spokesperson, King did not mobilize mass protest activity during the first five years after the Montgomery boycott ended. While King moved cautiously, southern black college students took the initiative, launching a wave of sit-in protests during the winter and spring of 1960. King sympathized with the student movement and spoke at the founding meeting of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in April 1960, but he soon became the target of criticisms from SNCC activists determined to assert their independence. Even King's decision in October, 1960, to join a student sit-in in Atlanta did not allay the tensions, although presidential candidate John F. Kennedy's sympathetic telephone call to King's wife, Coretta Scott King, helped attract crucial black support for Kennedy's successful campaign. The 1961 "Freedom Rides," which sought to integrate southern transportation facilities, demonstrated that neither King nor Kennedy could control the expanding protest movement spearheaded by students. Conflicts between King and younger militants were also evident when both SCLC and SNCC assisted the Albany (Georgia) Movement's campaign of mass protests during December of 1961 and the summer of 1962.
After achieving few of his objectives in Albany, King recognized the need to organize a successful protest campaign free of conflicts with SNCC. During the spring of 1963, he and his staff guided mass demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama, where local white police officials were known from their anti-black attitudes. Clashes between black demonstrators and police using police dogs and fire hoses generated newspaper headlines through the world. In June, President Kennedy reacted to the Birmingham protests and the obstinacy of segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace by agreeing to submit broad civil rights legislation to Congress (which eventually passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Subsequent mass demonstrations in many communities culminated in a march on August 28, 1963, that attracted more than 250,000 protesters to Washington, D. C. Addressing the marchers from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, King delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" oration.
During the year following the March, King's renown grew as he became Time magazine's Man of the Year and, in December 1964, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite fame and accolades, however, King faced many challenges to his leadership. Malcolm X's (1927-1965) message of self-defense and black nationalism expressed the discontent and anger of northern, urban blacks more effectively than did King's moderation. During the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march, King and his lieutenants were able to keep intra-movement conflicts sufficiently under control to bring about passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but while participating in a 1966 march through Mississippi, King encountered strong criticism from "Black Power" proponent Stokely Carmichael. Shortly afterward white counter-protesters in the Chicago area physically assaulted King in the Chicago area during an unsuccessful effort to transfer non-violent protest techniques to the urban North. Despite these leadership conflicts, King remained committed to the use of non-violent techniques. Early in 1968, he initiated a Poor Peoples campaign designed to confront economic problems that had not been addressed by early civil rights reforms.
King's effectiveness in achieving his objectives was limited not merely by divisions among blacks, however, but also by the increasing resistance he encountered from national political leaders. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover's already extensive efforts to undermine King's leadership were intensified during 1967 as urban racial violence escalated and King criticized American intervention in the Vietnam war. King had lost the support of many white liberals, and his relations with the Lyndon Johnson administration were at a low point when he was assassinated on April 4, 1968, while seeking to assist a garbage workers' strike in Memphis. After his death, King remained a controversial symbol of the African-American civil rights struggle, revered by many for his martyrdom on behalf of non-violence and condemned by others for his militancy and insurgent views.
unknown kernel wrote:
Are you honestly trying to say that I support terrorism?
> Or are you just making hysterical accusations to deflect attention
> from America's bankrupt imperialism?
Of course he is; that's all Belldandy can do when it comes to debate. I've yet to see him make a legitimate point that didn't revolve around doing his best to anger whomever he's debating in the hope that they'll forget about what it was they were arguing about. You'll notice, for example, he's left my last post to him *well* alone.
Anyway, kudos for keeping him to the point. If only he'd actually think about what America does instead of blindly and rather stupidly agreeing with it and *then* thinking about how he can fit the justification for it into his rather limited worldview.
Are you honestly trying to say that I support terrorism?
> Or are you just making hysterical accusations to deflect attention
> from America's bankrupt imperialism?
Of course he is; that's all Belldandy can do when it comes to debate. I've yet to see him make a legitimate point that didn't revolve around doing his best to anger whomever he's debating in the hope that they'll forget about what it was they were arguing about. You'll notice, for example, he's left my last post to him *well* alone.
Anyway, kudos for keeping him to the point. If only he'd actually think about what America does instead of blindly and rather stupidly agreeing with it and *then* thinking about how he can fit the justification for it into his rather limited worldview.
I see. So when you said 'you seek to excuse terrorist actions as justified', what you meant to say was 'you DO NOT seek to excuse terrorist actions as justified'? Is this like when young people say bad meaning good?
Did I say you were supporting terrorism ? No. So obviously I wasn't. I simply make the point that your words could be read in that way.
The days when discussing terrorism e.t.c was simple are over, like development/poverty, and other subjects, wordings now have meanings themselves. You made the assumption that the result of hitting the terrorists would result in more attacks on innocent people because that was the only response you expected from them.
How about they surrender instead ?
~~Belldandy~~
The days when discussing terrorism e.t.c was simple are over, like development/poverty, and other subjects, wordings now have meanings themselves. You made the assumption that the result of hitting the terrorists would result in more attacks on innocent people because that was the only response you expected from them.
How about they surrender instead ?
~~Belldandy~~
Sorry, but how does saying that innocent people died in America, Afghanistan, Bali and Kenya justify terrorism? How does saying that innocent people will be the ones to suffer in the future justify terrorism? Are you honestly trying to say that I support terrorism? Or are you just making hysterical accusations to deflect attention from America's bankrupt imperialism?
"> All I know is that at some point there will be some blowback, and the
ones who bear the brunt of it will be the same ordinary people -
Americans, Afghans, Kenyans, Balinese - who are suffering the
consequences now. The sainted Dubya will be safely ensconsed in his
bunker."
Suggests that taking legal actions will result in retaliation which is somehow justified - you also assume the main casualties will be terrorist targets as a result of taking on the terrorists.
~~Belldandy~~
ones who bear the brunt of it will be the same ordinary people -
Americans, Afghans, Kenyans, Balinese - who are suffering the
consequences now. The sainted Dubya will be safely ensconsed in his
bunker."
Suggests that taking legal actions will result in retaliation which is somehow justified - you also assume the main casualties will be terrorist targets as a result of taking on the terrorists.
~~Belldandy~~
Page: