Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Charles Evans 25's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,106 posts (9,907 including aliases). 16 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 70 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Confirmed by BBC Cricket section, Buttler in as replacement keeper: *Link*
*****
No other changes announced by the EWCB to the squad of thirteen for the third test, so the only question is whether they bring Jordan back and/or try Kerrigan? I can't see the selectors doing either. I think they'll tell themselves that Stokes (the only bowler that to their minds it might be acceptable to drop) is potentially a better batsman than Jordan, and that other than that they want to play as close to the same squad as possible as the ones who lost at Lords, to try and prove some point.
(Plus if Anderson is about to be banned, they may as well get another match out of him, whilst he's available, Plunkett is by English standards 'fast' (and has more Test experience than Jordan), and Broad did well in Australia.)


Regarding the Stoke - Birmingham works:
The national rail enquiries site seems to operate on a 24 hour clock basis, so I believe that's late Sunday morning that they're supposed to be done by.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...you reviewed EVERY LAST COUNTRY in round 2 of the first RPGSuperstar contest.


...you posted in one of the 'Untitled' threads before the forums got way too long.


With regard to selection of bowlers for the England squad, Anderson may shortly be banned from participating in matches as a result of that 'level three' disciplinary business from Trent Bridge, if the official verdict on it goes against him.


Possible disruptions to rail services in/out of Birmingham stations (known of as of the time and date of this post):
Friday, 25th July
Redditch – Birmingham New Street
Currently ongoing engineering works at the Redditch end of the line mean a replacement bus service is expected to run between Redditch and Longbridge.

Saturday, 26th July
Redditch – Birmingham New Street
Currently ongoing engineering works at the Redditch end of the line mean a replacement bus service is expected to run between Redditch and Longbridge.
*****
Bromsgrove/Worcester Shrub Hill/Hereford – Birmingham New Street
Engineering works are expected to take place between Bromsgrove and Droitwich Spa. All trains between Bromsgrove/Worcester Shrub Hill/Hereford and Birmingham New Street will be cancelled. Passengers are ‘advised’ by National Rail Enquiries to use services between these destinations and Birmingham Snow Hill/Moor Street instead.
*****
Stoke-on-Trent – Birmingham New Street
Overnight engineering works are expected to take place between Stoke and Stafford, resulting in diversions of services and/or replacement bus services with regard to trains that would ordinarily use this route to/from Birmingham. Work is expected to commence at 22:40.

Sunday, 27th July
London Euston – Birmingham New Street
Engineering works are expected to take place between Milton Keynes and Rugby, and may result in train diversions, replacement bus services and/or delays. Officially the work is due to finish by 18:30.
*****
Stoke-on-Trent – Birmingham
Overnight engineering works are expected to take place between Stoke and Stafford, resulting in diversions of services and/or replacement bus services between Stoke and Stafford. Officially the work is due to finish by 11:00.
*****
Redditch – Birmingham New Street
Currently ongoing engineering works at the Redditch end of the line mean a replacement bus service is expected to run between Redditch and Barnt Green.
(edit)
London Marylebone – Birmingham Snow Hill
Engineering works are expected to take place between Lapworth and Tyseley, officially between 07:55 and 10:05. A rail replacement bus service is due to run between Birmingham Snow Hill and Banbury.

The actual Future Rail Engineering Works section of the National Rail Enquiries webpage can (at the time of this post) be found *here*.

Edit:
It's likely, since it's the summer holidays, that there will be disruptions above and beyond these, elsewhere on the rail network; these are the ones I've been able to track down actually in the vicinity of Birmingham, however.


As far as batting goes, I'd like to see (Alex) Hales tried out at test level - maybe instead of Bell.


Prior's stood down 'due to injury' now, anyway: *Link*
The BBC article mentions Jos Buttler as a probable replacement.
*****
(edited, rephrasing)
I don't know if Buttler's good as a keeper in the longer format, but bringing him in would presumably leave Cook as captain unless the selectors made other changes too, and I can't see Cook winning the next test, even with Prior replaced. Yes, Cook won a test series in India, but the England men's team and the results of series seem to me to have been steadily deteriorating since then. It's reached the point where England don't win a match on a pitch that they ordered, having won the toss and with 'ideal' bowling conditions (in terms of weather) at the start of play - against a side that practically everyone in the media was touting them as 'favourites' against before the series started.
Maybe with Lords the England men have finally hit rock bottom, and are going to start bouncing back up now, but I'm not optimistic...


I’m not clear what Aston may or may not have said about travel, but supplementary to it, the Highways agency Road Projects map (information for motorways and A roads) at the time of this post can be found here: *Link*
The St. Chad’s and Queensway tunnels in the city centre on the A38 are both closed during this year’s PaizoCon UK (and indeed for the rest of the summer).
‘Brumtunnels’ site
And of course the chaos continues around New Street station with roads and pavements ripped up and/or closed to non-works traffic; pedestrians and wheeled traffic venturing into the vicinity be prepared for potential sanity-tearing horror of a Lovecraftian nature.


(Second Test vs India, Day 5)
England lose by 95 runs.
*****
I have a nasty feeling that India's use of short-pitched bowling to get rid of Moeen, and then the absolutely brainless Prior dismissal will result in further heavy use by England of short-pitched bowling in the next test, on the premise 'well it worked for them'.
To my mind it [short pitched bowling] worked for India because it was used intelligently in the England innings and (in Prior's case) the batsman was gullible and/or arrogant enough to fall for the trap which had been set for him.
*****
It looks like, unless Cook is given the push, he will still be there as captain in the next test.


(Day 4)
Well, Cook wasn't a walking wicket today, but again he failed, and at the close India are now only five regular England wickets plus Prior away from victory, in a test where England won the toss and fielded first in bowler friendly conditions.
And again, it was a day where the last few Indian wickets added a pile of runs.
If/when India win this test Cook, to my mind, ought to go, as at least captain. At the very least the England bowling attack is being repeatedly mishandled, and the captain is the one who has the responsibility for setting fields, choosing who bowls, and surely, giving some kind of directions/'suggestions' to the bowler, such as what sort of lengths to bowl.
(Mind you, the bowlers aren't being helped, either, by a keeper who keeps putting down catches.)


So much for Stokes. :(
Position at close (3rd day): India 140 runs ahead and only four wickets down (although Rahane, their first innings centurion gone).
Anderson was earlier required (again) to get England up to first innings parity.
Situation not good for England. They're going to have to bat last, and the Indian tail (who doubled the Indian score in the first innings) still has yet to be brought to the crease. At least two of England's 'top order' Cook and Bell, seem to be walking wickets recently, and Prior's brain seems still semi-scrambled at times. Which will leave India maybe a day to get seven other wickets, as England try (assuming the eventual Indian total is well beyond England) to bat out the game for a draw.
I'd like to be demonstrated overly pessimistic, but I've seen so little recently to give me any confidence in the England men's side's ability to win games.


Gah! Autocorrect 'fixed' the name Ballance in my previous post.


Daniel Rust wrote:
Oh Alistair. Out for 10. Where did it all go wrong?

I don't suppose the regular changes of partners he's been expected to open with since Strauss has helped.

Balance got a decent score today. Shame about the rest of the top order batsmen.
:(
Edit:
Oooh, six wickets down, but I forgot Stokes still to come. If Prior can hang in there tomorrow, England might avoid at least a first-innings deficit.


Freehold DM wrote:

Harry Potter 8- The Search For More Money!

Yes, Lord Snow. Let the hate flow through you...

Umm, Harry Potter 8 (as far as the film franchise goes) has already been done - it was Deathly Hallows part 2. (They split the last book into two films).

If these things go ahead (although I thought J.K. Rowling was busy ghost-writing detective fiction or something like that these days) they will be the ninth, tenth, and eleventh films.


2nd Test (Lords), India vs 'England', Day 1.
Score at 16:07, India batting, 145 runs for 7 wickets.
Score at 18:28 (close of play), India still batting, 290 runs for 7 wickets.

India doubled their score in the last two and a half hours for the loss of only two wickets.
On a pitch supposedly providing something for the bowlers.

England currently looking to me favourite to continue their non-winning streak.
[deadpan] Would it be immoral to go into a bookmakers and put money on England not winning if a bookmaker was foolish enough to offer that as an option? [/deadpan]


Nicos wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Well, yes, not sure why. And even then, other threads with far more inflammatory titles have been renamed instead of just locked.

If it's really bothering you, you could always give (politely) emailing the staff-member in question (via the Paizo Contact Us page) a go.

I suppose, But I do not feel like I have been rude or something here.

Well the only person, who can explain to you one hundred percent authoritatively what was going through the mind of the staff member who locked the thread is the staff member who *did* lock the thread*. All anyone else can do is mindlessly speculate, which may not be entirely productive.

* Unless of course, to wear a tin-foil hat for a moment, Paizo have developed a universal mind, shared by all Paizo staff members. Although actually, given that at least Vic and Erik are Doctor Who fans... And if they've seen Shada...
<shivers and pulls down tin-foil hat around ears a bit tighter>
;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:


Well, yes, not sure why. And even then, other threads with far more inflammatory titles have been renamed instead of just locked.

If it's really bothering you, you could always give (politely) emailing the staff-member in question (via the Paizo Contact Us page) a go.


Nicos wrote:

I'm not sure to understand the reasons to lock this thread

The last post on your thread (which you have linked to) appears to be by a Paizo staff-member, who (as far as I understand) seemed to think that the thread-title was potentially inflammatory: *Link*


I vaguely recall it being mentioned in previous series that some of the Indian players were dubious about 'predictive' technology such as Hawkeye, but is it an all-or-nothing thing, with no option to have, say, the slow motion replays but not the Hawkeye?


I gather Prior may have got a dubious decision (edit: over his own wicket). Are there no reviews in this series because India don't like them?
Edit:
England are usually fairly good now about using their reviews appropriately (when available), and if Prior's 'out' was that dodgy, I'm surprised he didn't have any reviews left to use (if reviews were available, that is).


Although I suppose if the ball travels more slowly, but over a shorter distance, you have fewer clues as to the trajectory...
The first day, I tuned in mid-afternoon in the fourth wicket stand of the India innings, listened for five minutes and heard a catch fall short because the slips weren't standing close enough, thought 'typical Cook and England', and switched back off for the rest of that day.


GeraintElberion wrote:

TMS had a lot of sympathy for Prior.

The ball never carried so the wicketkeeper and slips had to be up high and have no time to react or hang back and get no catches.

I thought the ball was supposed to be going through more slowly, so if they're standing closer, they should still have the same time to react?


Well, I suppose that's one way to get a draw. Play on a pitch so flat and slow that even after your top order fold, as usual, your tenth wicket stand can break records left, right and centre and five complete days of play end up not being long enough to get a result.
England dropping catches, Prior having a mediocre match... still, Anderson managed his Maiden test fifty, and Cook took a wicket in something like only his third ever over of bowling at test level. (I think the statistician on TMS said Cook had bowled one over at test level before today.)
Maybe if there are many more pitches like this in this India series Anderson should open the batting and Cook should open the bowling!
Edit:
Translation: My impression is India had rather the better of this match, England needing a pitch-assisted Root/Anderson stand to get them out of jail in the first innings, and India sucking the life out of the England bowlers in their second innings, to the point where Cook and Ballance had to bowl the last few overs. It might have gone the other way, maybe, if England had won the toss, I concede, with England having the upper hand, but I have doubts that five days would have been long enough to finish the match either way.


Meh. India won toss, and England (men) heading for another thrashing, at Trent Bridge this time. India 259-4 at the close with one of the batsmen at the crease on well over a hundred, and the other having just reached 50. I can't see this England team getting anywhere close to India's eventual first innings total unless Plunkett bounces in tomorrow morning and blows India away or Robson and Moeen score big runs when England bat.
I'm not sure why England rewarded the failures in the Sri Lankan second innings at Headingly of Broad and Anderson by retaining their services but dropping the new boy, Jordan, to bring Stokes back in. I don't question Stokes, a prospect for the future, being tried out again now he's over his most recent injury; I do with Jordan being given the heave-ho to bring him back when there are bigger failures (one of whom has possibly passed his 'best by' date in the case of Anderson), who could be cleared out to make way instead. Unless I missed Jordan picking up an injury or something in the past few days, which required his omission from this test.
The problem with Cook clinging on as captain, instead of resigning the captaincy and trying to fix his batting, is that the more tests he loses and/or needs intervention by rain delays to save his team from a thumping loss, the more likely it is that when he goes he's going to be gone completely - not just as captain, but out of the squad altogether, possibly forever.
I'll leave off further comment on this match for now until it's all over.


But anyway, best wishes to Necromancer in this latest entrepreneurial endeavour!


It seems to me a bit premature to be fund-raising if the licensing isn't (as of 7th July, 2014) nailed down yet. I have a feeling Necromancer said that they were going to get behind 4E, but the plans fell through in the end - mainly on account of holdups in dissemination of rules material to third party publishers and difficulties over what finally showed up in the 4E licenses.

I may be in error in my recollection of the 4E debacle though, and if Necromancer are lining up writers who (at least in my mind) ought to have connections and influence at Hasbro - such as Ed Greenwood - maybe Necromancer are privy to inside information which gives them solid grounds for optimism that this time things will go more smoothly and favourably.

Edit:
:)


Hmmm. MCC beat 'rest of world' by 7 wickets. I'm not sure why Warne (rest of the world captain) didn't bowl himself unless he picked up some sort of injury; surely he's a better bowler than Kevin Pietersen (whose two overs went for twenty nine runs)?
Awesome batting by Aaron Finch, by the look of the scorecard. Looking forward to the match reports.

Edit:
Ah! Match reports say Brett Lee broke Shane Warne's hand. Bit sad for Warne, but impressive that Lee still has the pace.


Birmingham's flagship games store, 'Wayland's Forge' completed its relocation last month, and is now on the 'Lower Ground Floor' at 'The Custard Factory' in Digbeth. (Any 'Google Maps' information placing Wayland's Forge in Paradise Circus is out of date; it's possible, if Paizo's store locator places Wayland's Forge at the old Paradise Circus address, that Wayland's forge may not yet have got around to updating their information on Paizo, either.)
The lower ground floor is most conveniently reached by coming off Digbeth High Street/Deritend, into the Custard Factory along Gibb Street, and heading left through a large gateway only a short way down Gibb Street. Inside, besides some businesses, are stairs going down to a lower level with more businesses. The 'Lower Ground Floor' is down those stairs.
(Those arriving at the Custard Factory, but having trouble with navigation, could always follow signs to the 'reception' of the complex, and ask there for directions to Wayland's Forge.)


If you can get hold of it (either the TV series or accompanying book) one of the 'Seven Wonders of the Industrial World' was the Pacific Railroad.
From what I recall of that documentary they started building the line from both east and west, and the pacific coast end of it certainly used a lot of Chinese labour.

Edit:
I don't recall what was said about labour used on the other side of the line though...


GeraintElberion wrote:

And who takes Cook's place?

The only remaining senior batsmen are Bell and Prior.

Bell is the team prankster so he's out.

Prior then, wicket-keeper captain?

Or are you calling for the misfiring Anderson to captain?

I don't really see any experienced players waiting in the wings for a return to captaincy either.

I'm sympathetic to your general lack of gruntlement, just not sure of a decent solution.

I'd be tempted to give Prior a rest and bring Read in as wicket-keeper/captain. Notts have been doing quite well in the county championship thus far this year, and apparently Read's good enough a player to have been selected as the keeper for the MCC in the 50 over MCC vs Rest of World shindig at Lords next month.


And I'm fairly sure that in the nineties Atherton was prepared to step down as captain once it became apparent his leadership was insufficient against the good sides...


Ever since the India tour, the England men's squad have plumbed ever greater depths of incompetence. The recent Headingly test should have been over in three days all the pundits in the radio commentary box who knew the players and ground were saying - but then the England bowlers wasted not one but *TWO* new balls in the Sri Lanka second innings by bowling the wrong length (despite the fact that the Sri Lankan bowlers had demonstrated exactly where to put the ball in the England first innings) and they let Angelo Matthews pile on a ridiculous number of runs with the tail by not only stopping trying to get him out but letting him smack boundaries too. (Matthews scored almost as many boundaries in the Sri Lanka second innings as the entire England batting line up did in their second innings.) The commentators on TMS have been going on and on about how England are led by two world-class bowlers, Anderson and Broad, whereas Sri Lanka's bowling lineup is about as good as a decent county side. If a visiting team makes better use of the conditions than an ostensibly superior class home-side, then something is very, very wrong somewhere - either the management (coach and captain) of the home side are useless, or someone in the setup's more crooked than a corkscrew.
Flower and Giles (responsible on the coaching side for the Australia debacle and the world cup fiasco) are gone; the only obvious common denominator left to explain the increasingly pathetic performances, if one doesn't want to assume some seriously criminal match-throwing is going on, is the captain. Thus Cook needs to go (at least as captain).


With luck Cook will go now. Unfortunately I'm rather afraid that Moeen Ali's fine second innings rearguard will be used to somehow excuse Cook and to pretend that things are better than they are.


Ouch.
I am embarrassed that the Australian men's team are apparently going to be touring England again in 2015. I can only hope that some of the counties with overseas players give them a contest. Or maybe one of the universities or public schools could host an exhibition match in some of the days spare the Australian men's team are going to have from test cricket.
It's going to seriously suck to be a test ground administrator, with matches over in two or three days; possibly in only one, if Australia declare a first innings and go for a record speed win...


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:


I suspect that most authors are more interested in entertaining sufficient readers to guarantee themselves a regular pay-cheque than in trying to make any kind of point.

Well, that's certainly a theory, although given the economics of book publishing in the 1920s and, in particular, the amount of money that Scott Fitzgerald had between himself and Zelda (the royalties from This Side of Paradise alone were enough to put him in the top 2% of US tax returns), I'm not sure that this applies to Fitzgerald, and particularly Fitzgerald in 1925, five years after Paradise.

Similarly, I'd be very skeptical of the notion that J.K. Rowling tried to publish The Cuckoo's Calling because she needed to give herself a regular stipend.

In my experience, most authors don't write to make money. The ones who are already successful don't need to, and the ones who aren't successful know that it's extremely unlikely they will become so. But if you have any specific work by any specific author in mind, I'd be happy to look at the evidence you choose to present.

Well, Winston Churchill for a start. I quote Wikipedia:

So, you base your analysis of F. Scott Fitzgerald on the basis of a Wikipedia article about Winston Churchill that makes unsourced statements about his income. Great scholarship there.

Or are you basing an analysis of Winston Churchill on the basis of unsourced secondary scholarship in the form of a Wikipedia article?

I wasn't commenting on F. Scott Fitzgerald. I was supplying the name of a well-known writer for whom making money was a primary consideration in writing. In addition to Wikipedia, I've also found a book review of a biography of Churchill which review mentions Churchill being in financial difficulties and writing to extract himself from it: *Link*

However, since I don't have a copy of said biography immediately to hand, and I rather suspect that you're looking for extensive quotes from such a work, I'll bow out of this discussion.


I find the Wikipedia article on Charles Dickens a bit unclear, but it appears to me possible he may have come to writing fiction as an aspect of a day-job as a journalist.


Jeffrey Archer (another politician!) may well have embarked on his literary career with Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less, as far as I can determine, because he was in something of a financial hole in the wake of being amongst the victims of a fraud scheme.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:


I suspect that most authors are more interested in entertaining sufficient readers to guarantee themselves a regular pay-cheque than in trying to make any kind of point.

Well, that's certainly a theory, although given the economics of book publishing in the 1920s and, in particular, the amount of money that Scott Fitzgerald had between himself and Zelda (the royalties from This Side of Paradise alone were enough to put him in the top 2% of US tax returns), I'm not sure that this applies to Fitzgerald, and particularly Fitzgerald in 1925, five years after Paradise.

Similarly, I'd be very skeptical of the notion that J.K. Rowling tried to publish The Cuckoo's Calling because she needed to give herself a regular stipend.

In my experience, most authors don't write to make money. The ones who are already successful don't need to, and the ones who aren't successful know that it's extremely unlikely they will become so. But if you have any specific work by any specific author in mind, I'd be happy to look at the evidence you choose to present.

Well, Winston Churchill for a start. I quote Wikipedia:

"...Despite his lifelong fame and upper-class origins, Churchill always struggled to keep his income at a level which would fund his extravagant lifestyle. MPs before 1946 received only a nominal salary (and in fact did not receive anything at all until the Parliament Act 1911) so many had secondary professions from which to earn a living. From his first book in 1898 until his second stint as Prime Minister, Churchill's income was almost entirely made from writing books and opinion pieces for newspapers and magazines. The most famous of his newspaper articles are those that appeared in the Evening Standard from 1936 warning of the rise of Hitler and the danger of the policy of appeasement..."


Orfamay Quest wrote:


The author has put a set of words on the page that create a particular implication or reaction in the reader's mind. The key question for most high-level literature discussion is what those implications/reactions are, and to what extent they're intended by the author -- or merely inferred by the reader.

Did Fitzgerald intend us to read Gatsby as a novel about race and "passing"? (I say no, but you may have a different opinion?) That's a question about Fitzgerald's mind.

If you force such a reading on the book, what are its implications? That's a question about the reader's mind.

What are the elements supporting such a reading? That's a question jointly about the book and about the reader -- the reader can, for example, interpret "yellow" as "a great signifier in Afro-American discourse to suggest miscegenation and racial passing" (signifiers themselves are real things; they're an aspect of culture), which in turn enables them to interpret a description of a car as " a rich cream colour" appropriately. The words "a rich cream colour" are of course part of the book, but the interpretation again is the reader's.

I suspect that most authors are more interested in entertaining sufficient readers to guarantee themselves a regular pay-cheque than in trying to make any kind of point. For example see the publishers 'Mills & Boon' and most of their output (one of the UK's market leaders in 'romance and fiction').


Mind you, I'm not sure to what extent it matters whether a practitioner in the field of literature is more interested in what they're studying or in the act of giving their opinion - either way they end up saying something about what they've been looking at.


Lord Snow wrote:
...There's no way around it, really. Literature is about books first and everything else second. That's basically the whole point. And, as a field that mostly concerns itself with the creations of other humans, unlike most other academic fields, I say there might be a difference between literature and it's fellow schools of thought. might. The idea is worth consideration, because like it or not, there's at least a grain of truth in the idea that studying something completely man-made is not exactly the same as figuring out the workings of our natural surroundings.

Is Literature always about books though? It seems to me that with regard to at least some practitioners in the field, Literature is more about them giving their own opinions and analysis than about what they profess to study. It doesn't matter to such practitioners what the works that they study are, because as far as they're concerned propounding their own opinions is the most important thing about the subject. They might as well critique an office health & safety code as a seventeenth century play or a nineteenth century novel.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

...Another famous example is Ruth Benedict's wartime study of Japanese culture, done at the invitation of the War Department to understand and predict the behavior of the Japanese. Because there was a war on, it was an example of a "culture at a distance" study, focusing almost exclusively on things that people created such as stories, literature, newspaper clippings, films and recordings. (This work, by the way, also illustrates the practical importance of the humanities. It was Benedict's recommendation, based on the cultural role of the Emperor, that the Americans should back down on their demand for unconditional surrender and allow the Emperor to retain his throne. Roosevelt accepted this recommendation and adjusted the surrender terms appropriately. As a result, Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands, never happened, which saved roughly a million US casualties -- that number coming from General Curtis LaMay. Secretary of State Stimson's staff suggested closer to 4 million US casualties and seven million Japanese.)

I recommend it, by the way. The US State Department still issued this book in the 1990s as required reading for people being sent to Japan. It's called The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.

Regarding any impact Ruth Benedict may or may not have had on Roosevelt, it was of limited effect because Roosevelt died on April 12th, 1945 (and was succeeded by Truman), and the Japanese surrender terms were finalised at the Potsdam conference in July, 1945. The current version (22nd June, 2014) of the Wikipedia article on the Surrender of Japan says that in fact at Potsdam the Amercian government took a line that they wanted to get rid of the Emperor and it was the British who wanted the Emperor retained. If Wikipedia is correct, at Potsdam the Americans went into the conference with a position the opposite of what you say Ruth Benedict had recommended to Roosevelt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

So, this might be slightly tangential to the whole subject of the thread, but reading through it did get me thinking on something that I think is interesting.

The academic study of literature is unique.

I believe it is the only occupation that is considered academic that is focused on researching something that is entirely a human creation. Science is perhaps the most deserving to be an academic field - so far it's the best way we have to study our universe. Philosophy deals with some of the less tangible aspects of the same thing. Then there's a host of "sciences" (more like research fields, really) that focus on humans - archaeology, sociology, psychology, etc. What's common to all of those is that they research humans, and human behavior, as a natural phenomena. Even in the academic study of music a lot of attention is dedicated to how sounds work or something.

But in literature, it's a group of people reacting to what amounts to the creations of another group of people. "Research" is maybe not the best word to describe the process of studying a book - given that it's a man made creation.

I wonder how this fact reflects on literature studies. I have no idea, as I'd never even consider walking into a literature course, let alone get a degree in it. Still, I'm curious.

There are various courses available in being an art critic, a film critic, a sports pundit, etc, etc. Literature is by no means the only field of human creation or endeavour that has experts who endlessly pick over other people's achievements and give forth their own opinions on.


Andrew Turner wrote:

I think I lurked for around a year, then made my first post December 2005 (about one of the Dungeon adventures).

I once posted a dozen and more times a day, but over the last couple years, not so much--sometimes a dozen times over several months :-(

I [qualia] feel/believe [/qualia] we used to have such discussions here. Maybe we still do; maybe I'm just getting (am already) too old.

My own feeling is that novelty value may make threads seem interesting and exciting; but after the first couple of thousand posts of seeing the same arguments on the same topics repeated over and over again, on thread after thread after thread the novelty value wears off – and interest and excitement go with them.

Of course, if memory fades, interest may return...


James Jacobs wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Questions on a thread in another forum on the Paizo boards about the susceptibility (or otherwise) of outsiders to diseases: *link*

If they want answers from me, they can come here. That said, the div version of the succubus is all about STDs, so if you want to play with those tropes in your game, use asuras.

I put a link to this thread, over there, so if the Original Poster wants to drop by, it's up to them now...

Thanks!


If the Original Poster is looking for some sort of semi-official Paizo point of view, any questions could be directed to one of Paizo's creature gurus on the Ask James Jacobs all your questions here thread.


Questions on a thread in another forum on the Paizo boards about the susceptibility (or otherwise) of outsiders to diseases: *link*


British comedian, Rik Mayall - who amongst other parts played 'Lord Flashheart' in two series of the British TV show Blackadder - has died.
*Link*


I would ask what Australia are doing playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but I suppose they offer more of a challenge than England did over the winter. The clown squad have just managed to lose a home one-day series to Sri Lanka, here in England. New faces, same old story of inconsistent and incompetent batting and a mistaken belief that four and a bit bowlers are good enough for a fifty over game. The only time the England bowling attack have done a good job overall was in the one game where they managed to bowl Sri Lanka out in 24 overs without needing to use the 'fifth bowler'. (Have to wonder if Sri Lanka threw that match, since being all out for 67 seems otherwise improbable.)

Edit:
Thoroughly depressed by the state of England's mens' cricket, and by the lack of games featuring their correspondingly Quite Good Actually female counterparts.

1 to 50 of 7,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.