Sir Eric

Uh - oh... here we go. This war WAS authorized by congress. I hate to tell ya... but it was voted on and approved. Senate approves Iraq war resolution Administration applauds vote Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT) "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133." ( http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/1.../10/11/iraq.us/ ) So explain again how this flies in the face of the constitution? Both the senate and the house APPROVED this war. So far, they haven't done didly-squat of much to stop it... even after the overwhelming shift back to the democratic party after the recent elections. If it's so unconstitutional, then why hasn't it been ended? Heck... a gay marraige can't last three years in this country without being declared unconstituional by somebody, and legal action taken against it. So why is this war still going on? Apparently because it's LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL. Now, I ain't sayin' that makes it right. I'm against it myself... but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that this war was voted on and approved. I think it's horrible... but the fact remains that as far as the law of this nation is concerned, it is a proper military action with the documented support of ALL THREE branches of government. I'll entertain any primary evidence to the contrary. It amazes me how you folks on these boards can argue the finest point when it comes to the exact number of buttons on a shirt three hundred years ago, and yet you allow propoganda to blind you to what has happened in the last five years of your own nation's history.

Belief is the most powerful force in the universe. Just ask Yoda.

There have been some really great points made, and it's been a fun conversation to engage in, that's for sure. Good point about what constitutes a "legitamate" religion. I must conceede that what seems like bunk to me could easily be the answer somebody else is seeking. If you wanna worship a rubber duck, worship a rubber duck. Do what ya gotta do. And in retrospect, I can see the point. But, I find it far too ironic to confirm "legitimate" status on a "religion" specifically created to poke fun at other peoples idea of religion.

It's not about the distraction. Remember, the kid was asked several times to remove the eye-patch. Had he simply removed it, there would be NO ISSUE here. I agree that not being in the room means none of us know what really happened. The kid may have simply been sitting there, minding his own business, trying earnestly to learn like a good student, and the teacher may have been a grumpy, funless and sour person with a thing against youthfull expression. The kid still defied the accepted authority. Yes, we teach kids about all the great rebels who changed the world while expecting them to conform, but surprise surprise, that's how our society works. We do have freedom, but we're expected to abide by certain laws, regulations and social structures. When we don't, there's a punishment. Kids should learn that as well. I was going to avoid this, but if claiming religious faith to an entity that was invented to prove a point about the Kansas Board of Education's Science Standards is a legitamate platform, then kids should also be allowed to eat ice-cream in class because the Great Vanilla God wishes it so, wear gorilla suits and throw feces because it follows the tenants of Father Darwin, and pull their pants down in order to honor the Moon Goddess. I know I've just riled up all the Pastafarians, but please... let's keep the argument of religious freedom centered on legitimate religion, not on kitchky fads, otherwise the meaning of the phrase is completely debased.

I'm sorry folks, but the real issue here is NOT what he wore. No, an eye patch is no big deal, and yes, lot's of people need them for medical reasons. There is no medical reason here, and the kid was asked to remove the patch four times. It doesn't matter why the teacher found it disruptive. Believe me, if you work with kids, you'll find they do some irritating things that are otherwise insignificant, except they cause other kids to loose focus. When your class looses focus, forget it. Just the ripple effect on other kids alone could easily become a classroom distraction. The teacher has every right to try to control the atmosphere of a classroom. I'm willing to bet the first two requests were pleasant enough, the third one a warning, the fourth an ultimatum, and when the child STILL REFUSED TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS, disciplinary measures were called for. Anybody got kids of their own? How many times do you ask a kid to do something before you become frustrated and find a way to "encourage" the behavior you want to see? This isn't about a kid who dressed like a pirate, it's about a kid who decided to go push his teacher's buttons and wound up pressing the wrong one. When he got in trouble, he started spouting catch-phrases. Freedom of expression does not cover creating civil disorder, nor does freedom of religion. Sounds to me like the kid was looking to stir the mud in the first place.

RumbaRue... It may be prompting you to enter a domain name that will be "your" page on the server... something like "rumba.renspace.com" This might be what it meant when it was asking for a domain name, and if you aren't entering one, may be the cause of the error message. For anyone intersted, I'm at twentylashings.renspace.com

Some of you may not want to hear this... it may cut to the very core of your piratical passion... but it's true and you'll just have to accept it: Some people LIKE to perpetrate the hollywood, mythical, historically inacurate and wildly stereotypical image of pirates. Some people couldn't give two squirts about what pirates were "really" like. Some folks just want to dress in stripey red black and gold outfits with fishnet stockings, plastic hooks and run around saying "arrr hearty!" For these people, the book is exactly what they want. When people want something, somebody else will market it to them. That's kinda the way our capitalist society works. We capitalize on such things. You want a pirate in a pimp hat? Fine with me as long as the check cashes. You all know how much I respect the historical research and hard work that the school of re-enactment/re-creation puts in to provide educational presentations, and I know it stings to see a publication that is less than accurate on the shelves... but just consider it a "gateway" drug... something that gets them interested, whets their appitites and turns them on to the "hard" stuff.

I cannot for the life of me remember where I came across it... but I do remember reading that heads were often shaved to combat head lice and such... which is (among many other reasons) why wigs and hats were always in vouge. And I'm a little surprised in the previous conversation that nobody mentioned that many sources (please don't make me list them...) mention that pirates were typically hung below the high tide mark as an indication of the Admiralty's jurisdiction over maritime law. I also find it interesting... three tides corresponds to the famous "hung from the neck until you are dead, dead, dead" sentance. Wonder if that's just co-incidence?

I'm with ya! I had a guy ask me if I had ever heard of Cthulhu... I asked him if he had heard of Robert E. Howard. He just looked at me blankly. *sigh* Good reference tho!

a. 20+ b. 3 c. Movie / Fantasy d. Escapism... from debt mostly.

For those interested in seldom-used and largely period correct strange words to add to their armament, I highly reccomend Depraved and Insulting English by Peter Novobatzky and Ammon Shea, published by Harcourt Inc. ( www.HarcourtBooks.com ) Thanks to this book, I'be been able to refer to "gobbits" (pieces of human flesh that wash ashore from shipwrecks) claim to make bold men go "sterky" (loose in the bowels from fear) and pride myself in being a "boodler" (one who happily accepts or offers bribes.) Great book for building a jargon-driven characterization, and REALLY great for the occasional back-handed compliment... *heh heh*

I've been watching the show since it first started airing, and in my mind it keeps getting stronger and stronger. It's not everybody's cup of tea, that's for certain, but what is? Without detailing all the things I love about the show, what I think is best about it is the same thing that made "Star Trek" a fandom legend... the ability to take current day topics and turn them "against" the viewer. I don't want to post any spoilers for those enjoying the series on DVD for the first time, but this show continually questions our modern-day ethics and morality... sometimes the "good guys" are more despicable than the "bad" guys, and just exactly who are the good and bad guys to begin with? (An issue I think is coming to a major crossroads in the current season finale) Great acting, great writing, good camera work, nice direction... easily upholding the long line of sci-fi channel greats. Babylon 5, FarScape, Firefly, even Eureka is fun in a different sort of way. (Oh, and I was an avid watcher of the original series, until they found earth, at which point it got really stupid really fast.)

Now I like this arguement. It makes you think without getting anyone upset. I could believe that sailors didn't like the taste of chille peppers and need lots of valuable water. That is a great arguement against the idea. I wouldn't completely overlook native influence on ships cooks... especially on ships that were bopping all along the coasts from Brazil to Mexico to Cuba to Jamaca. To think that the men on those boats never encountered, tasted or perhaps even came to enjoy things like hot spices doesn't really have the ring of reality to it. It's too bad nobody writes down the little stuff like: "tasted of wot the tribesmen called a ah-bah-nehr-oe, a small wrinkled vegitable, orangeish in color and that is grown in the mountains above the town. Cook put it to the moartar and pestle it and served it in large supply with a brothy meat, of beef or pork I cannot say. I will say that it was a most regrettible experience. It hath seart me tung so that I have had the cook shot today, Capt. Whoosis, dated June 10, 1723." and then we'd know. But, speculation runs all kinds of ways. What about african influences? Spanish influences? Even Egyptian and Medditeranian influences. Think there aren't any connections? There are. I'd bet a typical pirate's galley was a shmorgashborg of regional and cultural influences, probably based mainly on the background of the cook, doing whatever he could with whatever he could get his hands on. Hot spices I am sure were no real stranger. Cook probably dipped into the cans before they sold them off at the next stop.

Great stuff Wages. I wonder if you looked at dye as a pigment instead of paint if you might find some good results?

This is a complete supposition, but would it be reasonable to wonder if impromptu flags would have been made from old or damaged sail material? More currious to me is how they applied emblems... if they were different color material sewn onto a base field or if they were pigmented in some way. BTW Wages... my wife makes banners for renaissance merchants... I'll describe her process in the other thread, (DEFINATELY not period) but I need to ask her for some details first.