Hamar WAS talking about Classic. And his analysis, builds and all, were quite accurate. Much more so than your overview which selectively ignores units or strategies that aren’t convenient to the point you are trying to make.
Posts made by Avin
-
RE: What is biding and is it neccasary.
-
RE: What is biding and is it neccasary.
What was your R1? An attack on Ukr?
I’ve been wondering for a while now how I’d deal with a 24 bid of 6 Ukr 2 EEU. That’s got to be the best PE bid I’ve ever seen. Fortunately the time someone at DAAK bid that against me I underbid him, but the fact that he bid that meant that he may actually get it on occasion and he was at least prepared for any 23 bid.
-
RE: Playing with standard 2nd edition rules
rjclayton: You can’t blitz through a neutral territory on the turn that you violate it on. That’s the entire point of this discussion. Japan normally has to stop dead at Mongolia if they violate themselves. But if Germany violates, it allows Japan to get through easily.
Bashir: I do see how it can be useful, but I think it’s a rare situation. Not as much as the comment I posted of course, which is why I conceded the point.
-
RE: Playing with standard 2nd edition rules
Ok, good point, that does work pretty well, and the chances of a situation like that occuring is not insignificant. But it’s probably not going to be too often, still.
-
RE: Playing with standard 2nd edition rules
While you’re at it, Russia should violate neutrality in Argentina as well.
-
RE: What is biding and is it neccasary.
Jennifer, the things you stated above had nothing to do why I surrendered. The reason I surrendered was because with one transport you killed two fighters, at least one of which was needed to defend my navy. There is no coming back from losing 60+ IPCs in a single battle (24 IPCs for the two fighters, plus 42 IPCs for the 3 transports and AC which was easy pickings on your next turn) without anything but maybe a fighter of yours to show for it. It’s as though I gave you a bid of 80 IPCs, not 21.
-
RE: Math thread
Well, here’s a useful Wikipedia article about Algebra that somewhat relates to the previous thread.
Note that what most people learn in high school is only considered “Elementary algebra”. I remember as an undergraduate in the Math department being surprised to see that some of the graduate level mathematics classes used textbooks like “Introduction to Algebra” or something like that. The algebra you learn in high school is really only a specific case of an algebra, but the study of algebra involves a lot more interesting things.
By the way, note how in the examples of Algebras listed in the Wikipedia article how the examples given are specifically stated that multiplication EXCLUDES Zero. This is because as we discussed before, for none of those examples is division by zero defined within that algebraic system. In fact, in most “standard” algebraic systems, the term zero is given for an element which is an additive identity, which often ends up meaning that it will end up being an exception for multiplication, if addition and multiplication correspond at all to their intuitive meanings. There are exceptions of course, but they are usually more bizarre (such as systems where there is more than one zero).
-
Math thread
Where did that Math thread go?
Math is one of my biggest interests, and I love talking about it. I didn’t get online much yesterday and it seems to be gone. Did it get deleted? Admins if it got deleted because of any sort of flamewar that developed, feel free to delete this thread and PM me what happened. Otherwise, maybe we could continue the discussion here if it’s gone.
-
RE: Evolution Poll
Gideon’s Bibles ARE KJV Bibles. Gideon’s didn’t do their own translation.
Of course they do different translations for Bibles in different languages. And according to their website, they also now offer the New King James Version, which is similar to the KJV in more modern English.
-
RE: Evolution Poll
kwazy wabbit.
Maddogg, I think you win this thread. Everyone else is just talking over each other and being stubborn.
-
RE: Evolution Poll
We know his name was Saul; we also know he also went by “Paul”.
If that’s your stance, then I have no issue with you. However I do take issue with Jennifer who seems to think that there was a man named Saul who deliberately changed his name to Paul as a way of indicating his newfound Christianity. Particularly in her last post she clearly espouses this view. This has no precedent in the Bible, and I take issue with her when she is supposedly defending the Bible yet seems to fall prey to basic fallacies regarding it. I am convinced that what I called her on in the other thread, her idea that the Bible endorses the theology that “God provides for those who provide for themselves” (which I do not think is a Biblical doctrine) is of the same sort. It makes me think she has not read and understood the Bible on her own own, but relies on the teaching of others for her theology and often does not check it back to the Bible herself. Some of the other disputes in this thread (such as the concept of original sin) may fall into that category as well, but given that orginal sin is a lot more complex of an issue, I am not picking on her for her stance on that, especially since there are some Christian denominations which either reject the concept or downplay it. But Paul being somehow a “new name” is pretty basic and follows straightforward from a few specific passages and is easily demonstratable from the Bible directly.
Wasn’t it here: (…)
I was wondering if anyone would actually find that. You will notice I referenced Acts 13 before; I was wondering if Jennifer would actually read it for herself. As you see, that confirms my position, not the “renaming” idea. Paul (Paulos) and Saul (Shaul) were two alternate names that Paul was known by. The verse does NOT say Saul decided to change his name to Paul, it said that he was also called by a different name. The implication consistent with the way Jews were named in the Bible and in that time, as I pointed out in my last post, was that Paul was the Greek name and Saul was the Hebrew name.
-
RE: Evolution Poll
Okay, well then why do you think Saul did it?
Because that was common practice at the time. Many people in the Bible who lived in different cultures took two different names: one Hebrew name and one foreign name. Prominent examples include:
Esther (Esther 2:7) whose Persian name was Hadassah.
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, (Daniel 1:7) who were given the Babylonian names Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego respectively.The Apostle Peter (Greek: Petros) is often referred to alternately in the New Testament as Cephas (Hebrew), both of which simply mean Rock. (for instance, see Gal 1:18-2:14)
Those examples are simply taken directly from the Bible. I was not using any sort of website to look up anything, they are just from memory. I am certain that more exist, however that ought to be enough to dispel your notion that people did not change their names - they quite frequently went under two names depending on the cultural context, when there was a mingling of cultures, as is the situation with Paul.
Perhaps you just desire that to be the case so you can have a “flaw” in Christianity and their beliefs.
What makes you think I am looking for a flaw? Personallly I don’t see how this is a flaw in Christianity. I am simply claiming that you don’t know your Bible well enough to bother defending it.
He renamed from Saul to Paul. Anyone not trying to read more into the Bible then is written there will see this as the case. I think you’re just over thinking the situation.
Actually I think you’re reading something that is clearly not there. Show me where it is written that he renamed. I have cited several verses from the Bible, you have yet to cite one. The only time you have attempted to cite any specific verses to me, it was in the other thread where it was clear that the passage meant the opposite of what you were trying to make it say. Somehow this gives me little confidence you will be able to prove your point. All I have from you are assertions. If you say it often enough, it will not magically appear when you open your Bible.
He changed his identity when his religion changed, to reflect that his name changed as well.
Again, SHOW ME WHERE. You can claim this as often as you like, but you have yet to back this up. I have given you several specific verses that seem to counter your claim, including when he is called Saul AFTER becoming a Christian, but you have not given one.
-
RE: Evolution Poll
I ask you to read the Bible. Look at the verses I quoted. Saul was called Saul while he self-identified as a Christian according to Acts. I used absolutely no sources for my previous post other than the Bible itself. Don’t think that anyone who argues against you is using some sort of anti-Christian source. As I recall, you still have yet to give me a satisfactory answer to your claim that “God provides for those who provide for themselves” is a Biblical concept in the other Evolution thread after repeatedly ignoring me after I called you out for using a passage that actually demonstrates the opposite. I am not too impressed with your knowledge of the Bible at all and I am rather baffled therefore as to what is motivating you at all.
Furthermore your recent post seems to be even less based in historical reality. Saul was a Roman Citizen, true, but he certainly did not renounce this fact after becoming a Christian. In fact he was much more accomodating to the Roman empire once becoming a Christian than before. Prior to his encounter with Jesus, he was not only a Pharisee but one who would later self-describe himself as being zealous for his Judaism, echoing to Phinehas the former high priest (Numbers 25) or the Maccabees in that he was willing to kill deviant Jews (the Christians) in order to cleanse God’s people. As such, he would have despised the rule of the Romans, and his persecution of Christians would have been done as a way of bringing about God’s intervention to free the Jews from the Romans once and for all, via his messianic expectations.
However, after he became a Christian he continued to use his position as a Roman citizen (Acts 22 and onward), which was a far cry from renouncing the ways of a Roman Citizen as you suggest he did.
-
RE: Evolution Poll
Well MauserBob, Shining Bowie, or Jennifer, if you are confident you can find that in the book of Acts, please enlighten me where it states that Saul was renamed Paul.
I guarantee that you won’t find it.
Saul continues to be called Saul after his encounter with Jesus… see all of Acts chapter 9. No mention of renaming to Paul.
Furthermore, Saul continues to be called Saul when he is sent on his first missionary Journey: see Acts 13:2.
Saul is called Paul for the rest of the book of Acts, and Paul refers to himself by that name in his letters, with no mention of being renamed, even though he recounts his history a couple times.
If you find a reference to him being renamed, I will concede the point but it looks to me like the Bible makes absolutely no reference to Saul being renamed at any point.
Rather the names Saul and Paul are really the same name: the Hebrew form is “Sha-ul”, which is Romanized to Saul, and the Greek form is “Paulos” which is Romanized to Paul. When you first meet him in Acts it is in the Hebrew context, but the bulk of his life he is seen in a Greek context. He is still both Saul and Paul. No renaming takes place.
I have a hard time reading this thread when defenders of the Bible get Biblical facts wrong.
-
RE: Evolution Poll
After all, Saul, who also persecuted the Jews resulting in the torture and death of many was given redemption and became an evangelist himself (renamed Paul.)
Where do you get this from (the renamed Paul bit specifically)?
-
RE: Evolution Poll
What’s the difference between “No evolution + Genesis” and “No evolution period” ?
There are a lot of ideas out there that fit in the “No evolution” category.
- There’s FSM, which I don’t think anyone seriously believes.
- There’s Young Earth Creation, which believes in 24-hour days and an Earth that was created roughly ~6000 years ago with its chronology corresponding to the Bible.
- There’s Progressive Creation, which believes in the Big Bang and chronology according to the geological column, but that God directly created every single species, and then they would die off every now and then for God to re-create them later.
- There’s Gap Theory Creation, which is that God created the universe directly billions of years ago and that Satan was the leader of the people, and he led a rebellion and God destroyed the world and started over about 6000 years ago with Adam & Eve.
And various other inbetween positions.
-
RE: Exodus Decoded program
Yes, I am sure. Consider the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject. No, I am not Catholic. I lived next door to a Catholic school called Immaculate Conception however… it was quite amusing that there was a sign next to their dumpsters that boldly proclaimed:
“Dumpsters are for Immaculate Conception only.”
-
RE: Exodus Decoded program
No one in this thread has been using the term “Immaculate Conception” correctly (at least according to the official Catholic doctrine) …
The term Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of MARY, not of Jesus. It states that Mary was born without original sin. It was made into an official Catholic dogma on December 8, 1854. Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus!
-
RE: Hey
We need more classic gamers! :/
I understand being busy, but I hope you don’t intend to swear off games permanently - I’m sure you’d have some occasion sometime down the line when you’d be free enough to play again and I hope to see you back again then!