US Military Dead during Iraq War 1030
Perhaps, but that is what you wrote, and people can only go by what you write. We can't read your mind. for someone who claims to be so open-minded and tolerant, you are remarkably intolerant of any of your readers who don't manage to read your mind.
But, as I wrote before, there is no reason to continue reading after coming across such an error. It is likely that what follows will be equally erroneous.
US Military Dead during Iraq War 1036
bah clearly FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt" and is a "black propoganda" methodology: Basically, a person plants "vicious rumours" (which are utterly false) which create "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" in another...
Nothing is quite as simple as it appears in schoolbooks.
That is a bit of an exaggeration. Sounds like something from a schoolbook.
The same applies to everyone.
The wealth and power of the Roman elite was based on their country estates, not in the city.
It is news to me that the Roman army included many Persians. Since Persia was an enemy of Rome, recruiting them would have been a somewhat odd thing to do.
In fact, Mithraism was popular throughout the army, especially among officers, regardless of national origin. See Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, and Watson, The Roman Soldier.
Which invasion? The Claudian or the Julian?
It can surely be dated not later than the emperor Honorius's 410 letter to the Britons telling them they were on their own.
Most of them would have been out of Britain already. Unusually, the Romans tended to post British soldiers outside Britain. Most other soldiers were posted more or less near their homelands. I don't think the Romans trusted the Britons all that much.
When Magnus Maximus invaded the continent in 383, he took the garrison, or most of it, with him, and when his revolt ended, not all of the troops were sent back. All of the legions left in 407 with Constantine III when he became emperor, and never returned.
US Military Dead during Iraq War 1031
CBFalconer These comments are directed to T.M. in particular... If it appears that the comments don't seem to apply to you, then it might...
But you spoke of 'the Romans' leaving, not of Roman culture leaving or dying out.
Your whole argument here is nothing but a strawman. In fact, many of your posts are attacks on strawmen you have set up.
That is always a theoretical possibility, but the fact that the inhabitants of Roman Britain were Celts, not Germans, is so firmly established that the possibility that what you appeared to be saying was right can be dismissed in this case.
That is a question of definition. Some would disagree with you. Kenneth Clark, for one.
It is silly to apply 21st century standards to the 1st century.
This sounds like another of those schoolbook oversimplifications that you claim to dislike.
What the heck is a "Neo-Roman"? On second thought, don't answer. Your entire anti-Rome rant is just too bizarre.
It's been done often enough.
I display my lack of wisdom by responding to you at all.
Had we but world enough, and time, wasting time reading absolute nonsense were no crime. But at my back I always hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near; and yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity.
In case you can't fathom the above 'poetical device', what I am saying is that if one had infinite time, one could read everything, but our time is finite, so we must be selective, we must filter out rubbish so we don't waste irreplacable time reading it. You are prefectly free to read whatever rubbish you want to read, but don't criticize others for being more selective.
Nobody has any obligation at all to read anything you (or anyone else) writes. If you want people to read what you write, it is up to you, the writer, to tempt them to do so by writing well and truthfully. If someone looks at what you have written and says, "This is rubbish", your response should be to fix what is wrong, not to call the person a narrow-minded bigot, and not to proclaim that rubbish High Art and the salvation of mankind.
You ought to hang out in sci.physics.relativity. There are plenty of kooks and crackpots there to keep you busy for ages.
It is quite ironic that, while condemning others for not reading hundreds of lines of your posts, you don't read two lines of mine. The premise I stated was of a serious claim that 2 + 2 = 5. That excludes a typo, or comic effect, or anything other than a serious claim.
Further, if the beginning of a book contains such a glaring typo, one can only expect other typos in the rest of the book. You could not rely on anything you read, so why read?
Don't be stupid. Or are you really incapable of distinguishing between a factual error in text that purports to be statements of fact, and text that purports to be fiction?
Are you incapable of distinguishing between a particular text, or a particular edition of a text, and the body of knowledge that the text expresses? It is perfectly possible, and even sensible, to dismiss a particular edition of, say, Darwin, as being riddled with errors, while not rejecting evolution. I should have thought that was obvious.
What I see as idiotic and dangerous is allowing factual errors to propagate without correction.
I am sure I have, and I welcome corrections.
No, the difference is that when I am corrected I do not throw a fit, and that claim I am being persecuted by fascists. Beyond that, the real, fundamental, difference is that when I am wrong, I want to know about it, but when you are wrong, you want to remain ignorant.
I have no such notion; it is entirely your invention.
Yet another strawman. Not reading your entire post does not deny your freedom of speech. There is a negative side to freedom of speech, you know: the freedom not to be forced to read something. That is a freedom that you seem to want to restrict.
Those words, or similar words, appeared in S.G. Tallentyre's The Friends of Voltaire (1907):
"The men who had hated the book, and had not particularly loved Helv?tius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the rest your right to say it,' was his atbreastude now."
The book in question was Helv?tius's De l'esprit, which was burned in 1759. Voltaire did, however, apparently write, in a 1770 letter to a M. le Riche, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Tallentyre's formulation sounds better, at least in English.
I have never heard it attributed to de Laclos, and don't see how it would fit in his book, but then I have never read it, so who knows?
And long before the net existed.
Not at all. The quotation is a statement about the mental state of the speaker, so its truth will depend on that state. I can't speak for Scooby Doo, but if the people who burned Helv?tius's book said it, it was patently false.
You certainly implied it.
One cannot know to a certainty, but one can accurately estimate the probability of it being wrong or erroneous from an examination of a part of it.
US Military Dead during Iraq War 1034
Beth Confidence inversely proportional to ego, that's the difference; of course the sound engineers know if they screw up they may as well take that "How to Make a...
No, that is you you are talking about.
Saying that protons have no mbutt, or that Roman Britain was inhabitied by Anglo-Saxons, is not poetry. It is just plain wrong.
'Hate' is the wrong word. I simply have no patience for it.
You said it, not me.
Why are you slandering poor old Geoffrey?
How very civilized of you. Of course, all that stuff about me having blue-blood ways and demanding conformance is just a figment of your fevered imagination.
Oh, I don't know about that. A certain somebody with less intelligence and less common sense is quite annoying.