rohirwine
-
Posts
2.853 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rohirwine
-
-
Tim, hold on.
I hope that you got some more clues about how resolving your problem.
-
edit: I`d say we all flight down to Germany, kicks the dentists a***s and tell them to leave Timbos mother alone NO ONE messes with our Timbo
lol, htis sounds much like a mafia action...
-
Indeed, it meddles much with "traditions" we are used to think as genuine... ...but i do not want to spoil your lectures by telling you all the story
-
Moreover, the developement of a "chivalry code" was a direct emanation of the downfall (it's the case of using this word, this time
) of Cavalry on the battlefields, stripping the aristocracy from their preminence and military importance. Nobles, not being able to boast out for their victories over other social sectors, wanted to find a way to distinguish themselves from the "people". Hence the invention of Chivalry.btw, i counsail to read "The invention of tradition" by Eric Hobsbawm. It is a not so new but enlighting collection of essays about this argument (invention of traditions for a political aim).
For a brief review:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...3473504-0011012
-
So, uh, in Italy it is legal to take testimony from eyewitnesses who may or MAY NOT remember what was said, but illegal to use taped recordings?!?!?! I'm speechless. LOL
It is not illegal, but they are not counted as legal proofs.
There is a privacy issue here, that was introduced some years ago, that requests an approval from people being recorded. But i dunno if this applies also to crimes or illegal things (as harassment prolly is).
Anyway, taped recordings may be easily manipulated (and it happened in clamorous cases, see the Ustica Airplane Disaster), and it may be quite difficult to prove this, and above all to restore lost information.
Moreover, even if it's true that people may not remember exactly what was said, they easily remember the sense and tone of facts...
So, no recording is a legal proof. This means that it is not accepted when it is the only way to prove something, but it may be accepted if there are other clues...
But i'm no lawyer, so things can be different from what i've said... ...and we're getting OT without helping much Tim
-
I voted Umbar: man i would like those tropical sandy shores!
-
FotR was the one closest to my vision of the books. And was an example on how PJ could have get through without a flaw... ...sadly he didn't.
-
I was very disappointed by TTT and RotK, movies.
Do not misundrstand me: they were impressive, but way too distant from JRRT vision of Arda, imho.
So i voted Star Wars (IV-V-VI), at least it was an original scenario...
-
Tim, as said by Cat, harassment is not an acceptable thing.
As for recording conversations, the problem is if German law accepts them as legal proof when done without the agreement of the people involved (here in Italy the are not a legal proof). You should clear this, before doing anything that could result in a "double edged" weapon, if you know what i mean...
...the best thing would be to arrange someone to be present at one of the episodes (the culprits not being aware of) so that there is a witness to be called in a legal action (but i think that someone outside the family would be much more valuable in front of a judge).
Do not mind to send me a mail, or a PM, if you need some more advice.
Matteo
-
The weak individuals mind destroys empires.
Please, explain to us what are you thinking about...
-
I just wanted to point out that a "Chivalry" code of demeanor existed far after the medieval period and not during the middle ages. And it resembled more to a "good manners" code of demeanor than to real respect for the womn (who continued to be at the disposal of the family chief for lucrative or political marriages).
-
Tim, no comments on this?
-
Then we'd have a special unit ability called "Target Area" or something like that, and the player would select a group of archers, click this ability button, and then he would click a center location and the archers would continue to rain down fire upon this area (as long as their power lasts? or perpetually? or only once and then the player would have to instruct them again?)
As long there are enemy units in that area, imho. No need to waste those expensive black feathered arrows, no Sir!
-
Now now, let's get back on topic people
this discussion as prolly no end...Maybe, maybe not. If you want to discuss it, I encourage you to start a new thread
Tonto, please, i could even get offended
I was just stating that the discussion about History Ages among historians has no end and so that it would be unwise for us to start this discussion inside another thread.
Basically i agreed on getting on topic again.
To return on topic, i think that talking about "downfalls" is misleading. This term has a negative connotation, prolly because it comes from a vision of history, where civilizations struggle one against each other to survive. I think that, even if the human history is full of wars, destructions and atrocities, very rarely those were the causes of "downfalls" of nations, but only a mere effect triggered by more deep reasons.
I prefer to think that nations do not fall down, but gently get asleep, untill they pass out.
-
I forgot about that and you're right, but then what about their fall when they were "attacked" by the river near Rivendell? I was more thinking about that event.
But in that situation they were not killed, but only spoilt from theyr mantles and steads...
-
Yes, we're going far OT.
Just for curiosity: the most Longobard influenced part of Italy was not Lombrady, but Friuli. Even after Charlesmagne victory, Longobard dukes from Friuli retained power (and influence) whil the Lombard ones (who backed much more their king) were all stripped from power.
Anyway, i cannot refrain from polemize with those historians that tend to cancel Middle ages or Modern History (Le Goff is one of them): i agree that long term influences are always at work, but we should also stress out the discontinuities. Anyway, this is OT and this discussion as prolly no end...
-
I agree with you, a part that i doubt that servin any army is necessarily an issue for altruism. Very often, serving in an army is the only way some people have to escape from unemployement. Moreover, too often armies are used not in an altuist way or for humanitarian reasons.
-
Locomotive breath-Jethro Tull
Since i've been loving you-Led Zeppelin
Can't decide
-
Happy birthday!
-
Since the other "Happy birthday Kapone" thread was declared the official one, i ask the moderators for a threadlock, thanks
-
I think that the most deadly weapon that Nazugl have is sheer terror. Elves (especially those that had been in Valinor) did not fear them and were able to drive them away with their "aura of power". So it can be correct to say that Nazguls feared the elven Lords. The depiction of their power of the films is a little bit misleading here.
-
Curufinwe, just a brief reply (gotta go in a few mins).
I agree that France has been deeply influenced by the Latin civ, especially in his language (as Italy, Portugal, Spain and Romania).
Th eproblem is that not all the things you have listed are a direct influence of the latin world. The effect of this (Reinassance: with a "rediscovery" of the classical world) was a rielaboration "post mortem" (after death) of the latin culture. Since many centuries had passed between the roman Republic and the Reinassance, all that latin revival was necessarily an interpretation way beyond what a Latin would have recognized as "his" culture.
So, none of us "neolatins" can claim a direct cultural lineage, imho, nor this has much sense (even if i can agree with you on many things you said...)
-
Just a technical note: the farther it is the target the more the bowman has to shoot near a 45° angle of elevation: it's simply ballistics. At 45° angle you have the maximum range (not counting wind or other atmosferic conditions of course).
Pic n.1 depicts this situation, pic. 2 likely depicts a close range shot: no need to raise elevation.
-
Sid Meyer's Civilization: it started all we are bringing on!
Same-sex Marriage Bill
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
@Klaas: i'm strongly with you on this.
STD is not a specific problem of Homosexuals (nor drug addicted people and so on), STD are only a problem related to people who do not take any care in their sexual relations (i.e. not using a condom).
Moreover, if someone do not approves same sex marriage, tha only thing he needs to do is not to marry a person of the same gender!
Seriously: why should it be a problem if two gays marry? Homosexuality will not spread from that, the only result will be two people who love each other, granted to legally take care of themselves. It comes in my mind of heritage issues, and other unpleasant things: why oblige them to suffer more than other people in case such a tragic fact would happen?
Why should a man (or a woman) be denied to support his beloved one after his death?
I make myself more clear.
Here in Italy, if you are married and, say, your husband (or wife) dies, you're granted to recieve a fraction of his monthly income (and later his/her old-age pension). This applies only if you are an employee, of course. On a slightly different side, if you are married, there are some laws that define with accuracy your right about inheriting issues.
If you are not married, you are much less granted or not granted at all, of course.
Please pay attention that this is not a venial issue. I'm married and i know for sure that the idea that if something should happen to me, my wife will be sheltered from economic problems is a great relief for me, and actually was one of the reasons (even if not the most important) that mede me marry my beloved one.
So, why should i want to deprive other people of this relief that counted so much to me? Only because i think (and i do not) that gays are not "normal"? And even if this came out to be true (and i strongly underline that i'm against this ipothesis), isn't it true that almost all societies grant other "unnormal" people tha right to marry (a part from Nazism, but this is the past, i hope)?
So, there's no reason to prohibit same-sex marriages.
Matteo