30-08-2002 20:39									#151
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Athe time maybe. I don't think there's many that are bothered anymore

I dunno about that...you guys sure seemed to get touchy about it when "The Patriot" came out...

	30-08-2002 20:43									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I dunno about that...you guys sure seemed to get touchy about it when "The Patriot" came out...

That was being touchy about being portrayed as Nazi's.

Also the Patriot came out at roughly the same time as the film which depicted americans getting their hands on the enigma machine which was of course total bollocks.

It just added to a sense that it was ok to mess around with history when Britain was involved

	30-08-2002 22:53									#153
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Imran: Both you and Doc have no sense of humor about this.

Seeing how both of us sought fit to correct you, perhaps you are the one who needs to work on the humor?

	31-08-2002 06:57									#154
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: On a sidenote, I always like to gleefully point out that it could only be the British who would think it proper military tactics to march into battle using big, densely-packed block formations while wearing astoundingly-bright red uniforms with giant, pointy black hats on top... Boris, Boris, Boris... I can't believe you actually said this. The 'block' formation was actually a VERY efficient formation. It is refered to as the 'square' however. Where the front line (on their knees) fired, the line behind them got ready to fire, and the line in the back was loading their rifles. Once the first line fired, they ran to the back of the line and the lines switched. By using this formation they were able to fired 3 times as many shots in a certain period than any other army. By being in a square, they covered all sides. It was this way that they could defeat armies when they were vastly outnumbered (Plessy rings a bell here)

Incorrect.

a) Boris was referring to column formation, used by some armies to advance (it provided a human shield so that most of column would reach enemy lines before being shot to pieces, hopefully)

b) Square formations were used to receive cavalry. Most were only two rows deep, and did not do much in the way of frantic firing; their main utility was to prevent cavalry from breaking the formation (individual cavalry against individual infantry was no contest). In the entire peninsular campaign (1809-1814?) there is only one recorded instance of a French cavalry charge breaking a British square

c) The formation you are most entirely describing is line formation. Used by the British both on defense and offense, and by everybody else mainly on defense, it provides the maximum fire output per meter of front. Your reasoning for this part is correct, however the lines did not usually physically move; they fired over each others shoulders. Only during an ordered retreat would the lines move behind each other (fire once, move 20 yards back, reload while 2nd rank is firing, fire again, etc.)

	31-08-2002 07:00									#155
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi "How so?" We're wasting our time with him David. Sava is just a plain stupid person. He obviously has no grasp of logic, otherwise he would see the inconsistency in saying that insulting FDR is insulting WWII vets but insulting GWB is not insulting people fighting the war on terror. Because he sucks at arguing, he tries to make up for it with insults. But he isn't evem good at that. Personally, I really sorry for this man.

Feel sorry for yourself. WW2 is not the same as the war on terror in any way. Since your idiocy is too great for you to grasp this, I'm not going to bother to argue with you. It would be like teaching astro-physics to a cat.

	31-08-2002 08:37									#156
	Support Apolyton

quote: Feel sorry for yourself. WW2 is not the same as the war on terror in any way. Since your idiocy is too great for you to grasp this, I'm not going to bother to argue with you. It would be like teaching astro-physics to a cat.

Look. Simple concept. We aren't talking about the war. We're talking about the concept that if you insult a sitting President, you are also insulting troops fighting at the time. That's it. You claim that an insult to FDR is the same as an insult to the WW2 vets. Fine, by the exact same ****ing logic, an insult to Bush is the same as an insult to soldiers in Afghanistan.

I don't give it **** that WW2 was different from the War on Terror - we aren't talking about that. It's irrelevant.

	31-08-2002 08:52									#157
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Out of the list, I'd say it's probably Truman, for dropping the atomic bomb on civilians. To me, though, the worst presidents - not necessarily evil, but worst - were FDR, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt,

Why do you consider these presidents to be the worst? Is it because of the amount of executive power they used? In my opion the worst president was James Buchanan. He was in the position to at least try and prevent the catastrophe that was the Civil War, yet he did basically nothing. Franklin Pierce comes next, for the same reasons.

	31-08-2002 08:53									#158
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yes, worst because of their abuses of the Constitution and the office of the president.

	31-08-2002 08:57									#159
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Yes, worst because of their abuses of the Constitution and the office of the president.

Lincoln and FDR did what had to be done, especially Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt didn't go nearly as far as those two in respect to the power he wielded. I'd rather have a Lincoln or Roosevelt as President who took charge when the country needed them to than a Buchanan or a Hoover who sat on their hands as their country fell apart.

	31-08-2002 08:59									#160
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Lincoln and FDR did what had to be done, especially Lincoln.

Did what had to be done in order to maintain authoritarianism, yes. In Lincoln's case, the South legally seceded, and as separate sovereign entities chose to form a confederacy of their own. In FDR's case, he abused his power in threatening the Judicial Branch - basically violated separation of powers in order to push through bills he knew would be found unconstitutional.

	31-08-2002 09:18									#161
	Support Apolyton

Its a stretch to view either situation as propping up authoritarian regimes. The legality of secession is debatable, as the states as sovereign entities was in question as earl as the Nullification crises of 1832. Court packing is harder to justify, but it isn't quite as black and white as it is oftentimes made out to be, The battle between FDR and the surpreme court was an ideological battle between economic liberals and conservatives, and a battle that wasn't as important as the shape the country was in at the time. Something more than laissez-faire was needed, so FDR believed. The surpreme court didn't, and used their power to support their ideology rather than uphold the constitution. Other judges might have used the elastic clause to justify FDR's actions. These justices wouldn't. FDR didn't violate the constitution by trying to pack the court, but he may have violated the spirit of the Constitution by trying to do so.