Overmoderation

[errant sperm]

Doc says, "I didn't bother reading the post on the Roman Republic"

Once I read this then I stopped reading the rest of your post. If you aren't reading what I have to say then there is no point in debating with you any further.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

Well then, clearly you want what you want regardless of the impact on the greater community. There is no point in arguing with someone who has a bubble and wants to impose it on all others.

Sorry to break it to you, but what you want will not happen. Have fun playing!

[errant sperm]

We will see. I will check back here every once in a while to see if anything changes. It seems that the rules are being modified and tweaked sometimes so I'm hopeful that some of the changes I have proposed will be adopted. I don't control the rules so I can't impose anything on anyone, and I wouldn't want to do anything detrimental to the game. I feel that some loosening of the restrictions would make things better. I might be in the minority but I am not the only one with this opinion.

[Doc]

Doc says, "I didn't bother reading the post on the Roman Republic"

Once I read this then I stopped reading the rest of your post. If you aren't reading what I have to say then there is no point in debating with you any further.

Right on. I offered to call the debate over before then, but I am glad you decided to agree with me at last that this debate was over. But to be fair, you posted the wikipedia page about the ENTIRE ROMAN REPUBLIC to reference some little tiny part of it. You expect me to read that whole thing and waste my time trying to find the information that may or may not even support YOUR argument? You've gotta be out of your mind.

[errant sperm]

You're right. I'm out of my mind for posting the source of my research and because you didn't bother to read my post. I concede. You won the debate Doc.

[Doc]

You're right. I'm out of my mind for posting the source of my research and because you didn't bother to read my post. I concede. You won the debate Doc.

Well, I didn't say that- I said you have got to be out of your mind if you expect me to read an entire wikipedia entry to find one tiny piece of information that may or may not even support a point you are making. Why don't you excerpt it for me, the part you were specifically referring to, so I am much more inclined to read it. It would be like me demonstrating my point by paraphrasing: "Well the Bible says that God tells us to not be afraid because he is with me, God will help me. See? I am right, you are wrong, what you say is absolutely false, and The prophet Isaiah agrees with me: The King James Bible" And then challenging you to go find that passage which I paraphrased to see if I 1) paraphrased it properly, and 2) to see if the actuall Bible supports my claim the way I said it does.

And if I did that to you to make my point, and then complained when you said "Well, naturally, I am not going to read the WHOLE Bible just to find out whether you accurately used it to make your point! You have got to be out of your mind." you would be entirely justified in saying that I was nuts, or saying that my demand that you search through a long document just so I can make my point was completely unreasonable, especially since you didn't stand to gain anything from the debate, and had long ago stated that you really had no stake in the debate. I used hyperbole to illustrate my point above, but the difference in length between the Wikipedia page and the Bible is made up by the lack of credibility found in a crowd sourced history. For basic facts Wikipedia is fine- for interpretation of historical events, Wikipedia is as good as some discussion you have with your drunk friend at a party. But the fact remains that the page was super long and the info you referred to was buried somewhere on that page, and you got pissed off when I told you that I didn't care to waste my time helping you make your point.

But at any rate- thank you for conceding. Not like the wikipedia piece would have changed my mind- I think you are wrong, and I don't think that administrative reforms are the same as regime change or revolution. Cancelling the Republic is regime change. Administrative reforms, while sweeping, leave the basic mechanisms in place. So thank you for conceding to that.