The "Good" Peeps

runsforcelery wrote:Don't know if it'll be in a future book or not and I am now late for supper, so this will be VERY brief.

-=SNIP=-

That was brief!
RFC has just proven he can post less than 500 words!
In fact, that was barely over 280!
If we can get him to keep his posts short, that will hopefully mean that he can spend more time writing the books needed to feed our insatiable literary appetites.

Thanks, RFC!

Michael Everett wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Don't know if it'll be in a future book or not and I am now late for supper, so this will be VERY brief.

-=SNIP=-

That was brief!
RFC has just proven he can post less than 500 words!
In fact, that was barely over 280!
If we can get him to keep his posts short, that will hopefully mean that he can spend more time writing the books needed to feed our insatiable literary appetites.

Thanks, RFC!

Of course it would be the one post I was hoping would hit at least 1k words. Of course it would be.

*pout*

*lip wobble*



...on the other hand, given that I turn into a waterfall every time I think about Javier for too long, it's probably safer that way...

Michael Everett wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Don't know if it'll be in a future book or not and I am now late for supper, so this will be VERY brief.

-=SNIP=-

That was brief!
RFC has just proven he can post less than 500 words!
In fact, that was barely over 280!
If we can get him to keep his posts short, that will hopefully mean that he can spend more time writing the books needed to feed our insatiable literary appetites.

Thanks, RFC!

That's

Michael Everett wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Don't know if it'll be in a future book or not and I am now late for supper, so this will be VERY brief.

-=SNIP=-

That was brief!
RFC has just proven he can post less than 500 words!
In fact, that was barely over 280!
If we can get him to keep his posts short, that will hopefully mean that he can spend more time writing the books needed to feed our insatiable literary appetites.

Thanks, RFC!

silly,

Michael Everett wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Don't know if it'll be in a future book or not and I am now late for supper, so this will be VERY brief.

-=SNIP=-

That was brief!
RFC has just proven he can post less than 500 words!
In fact, that was barely over 280!
If we can get him to keep his posts short, that will hopefully mean that he can spend more time writing the books needed to feed our insatiable literary appetites.

Thanks, RFC!

Michael.

runsforcelery wrote:...snip...

Michael.

Why do I get the impression someone is trying to qualify for Prime Minister.



Thanks for the laugh,
T2M

Haven's conquest seem to be more humane than conquests of the ancient world.

One gets the impression that systems conquered by Haven suffer a severe decrease in living standards and their political leadership tends to die or disappear. However; the vast majority of the people survive.

In contrast, people conquered by the Romans, the Egyptians, Asyrians, Babylonians, Chinese, and Aztecs could expect their men to suffer a near 100% fatality rate from being killed outright or subjected to harsh slavery. Male children might survive longer but with limited prospects of procreating. The women of the conquered people usually faired somewhat better as slaves and generally were allowed to procreate, but with the conquerers as sires.

Ancient conquests were unrestrained, Darwinian competitions for the survival of the fittest. What we would consider war crimes was perfectly normal, expected and grudgingly accepted.

The same dynamic applies to modern conquests but it is more subtle. The conquerers might not kill or enslave the men, but they do take liberties with the conquered women. WW-2 saw an entire cohort of French sired first by Germans then Americans. Quite a few Germans were sired by Americans and Russians at the conclusion of the war. A rather large percentage of
reproductive age, German women became war brides during the immediate aftermath of the war and subsequent occupation.

runsforcelery wrote:

isaac_newton wrote: SNIP

I have to say that I have some sympathy with Dr A, even given what RFC has said.

I'd point toward Amos Parnell and Eloise P in particular.

SNIP

I don't think that you can put Parnell and Pritchart in the same basket, for several reasons.

Let's look at Parnell first. Parnell was the senior uniformed officer of the Peoples Navy, a... SNIP

I trust you can see why I don't think that Parnell and Pritchart fit in the same pigeonhole either in their own lives or in the fashion in which they are regarded by their previous enemies.

Thanks for that RFC - most informative!

I hadn't meant to equate the two P's - so perhaps my original comment was not well worded - but on the other had, it got a good & interesting answer, so not too bad a mistake either

runsforcelery wrote:That's

runsforcelery wrote:silly,

runsforcelery wrote:Michael.

.
..
...
I've just been trolled by RFC...
...
..
.



My day has been made.
Thanks.

Michael Everett wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:That's

runsforcelery wrote:silly,

runsforcelery wrote:Michael.

.
..
...
I've just been trolled by RFC...
...
..
.



My day has been made.
Thanks.

Welcome to our very exclusive club!!