Some Questions
Lauren McDonald
Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
different?
Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball? Why
not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
football?
Robert Sneddon
Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> writes
>In article <uncc98i...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Lauren McDonald" <laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>> Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
>> weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
>> forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
>
>
>Space is not a vacuum; there's lots of dust there to degrade energy
>beams.
Besides, The Big Dave has said so.
It puzzles me, too. Grasers have an effective range of about 1Mclick.
At that range they are devastating. At 1.01 Mclicks they have all the
effect of a spent match. For the purposes of the books he has turned
them into a beam weapon with the characteristics of a short-ranged
projectile weapon -- something like the carronade of the late 18th
century.
At Cerberus, Honor had an entire planetary defence array to use against
the second Haven fleet which was staying just outside the powered
missile range envelope, at about 7 Mclicks. She could have laid a couple
of thousand fortress-class grasers (bigger and more powerful than a
ship-borne graser) on any ship in that fleet and vaporised it, but she
didn't.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Samuel Fang
<laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the same as
>Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
>different?
Probably. Likely enough, one of the Brits on the ng can clarify that.
>Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
>weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
>forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
Light speed difficulties. At the distances involved, and the speeds
involved, a warship might well be able to evade energy weapons (not by
knowing where they're being shot to, but evasive maneuvers would
work).
Missiles, being autonomous weapons platforms, would be able to adjust
course. They give you a stand-off range weapon, instead of a
knife-fight weapon that energy weapons represent.
>Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball? Why
>not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
>football?
DW probably likes baseball. That, or the anachronisms of baseball
match well with the anachronisms of Grayson.
--
Samuel Fang
sf...@vzavenue.net
George D. Phillies
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Robert Sneddon wrote:
> In article <michelle-74D197...@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> writes
> >In article <uncc98i...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Lauren McDonald" <laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
> >> weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
> >> forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
> >
> >Inverse Square Law.
It is possible to calculate the diffraction limit -- inverse square is not
applicable*, and, yes, I am a physics professor -- on targetting.
It is very large, relative to distances at which HH ships engage.
The serious challenge is non-predictability of target location, given
speed of light limits. If the maximum jerk (time rate of change of
acceleration) of your target is low, this is not so bad a limit. If it is
large, your ability to engage at large distances goes away.
I did numerics for Minutegrrrlz, the novel whose segments I ran through
the slush pile on Baen's Bar.
> >
> >Space is not a vacuum; there's lots of dust there to degrade energy
> >beams.
It is very easy to tell if there is a significant maount of dust. If you
cannot see distant stars, there is dust in the way. If light from stars
gets through, light from your weapons will do just fine, too.
> It puzzles me, too. Grasers have an effective range of about 1Mclick.
> At that range they are devastating. At 1.01 Mclicks they have all the
> effect of a spent match. For the purposes of the books he has turned
> them into a beam weapon with the characteristics of a short-ranged
> projectile weapon -- something like the carronade of the late 18th
> century.
This may have been meant exactly.
> At Cerberus, Honor had an entire planetary defence array to use against
> the second Haven fleet which was staying just outside the powered
> missile range envelope, at about 7 Mclicks. She could have laid a couple
> of thousand fortress-class grasers (bigger and more powerful than a
> ship-borne graser) on any ship in that fleet and vaporised it, but she
> didn't.
Truly excellent point.
George Phillies
3mpub.com for my published SF novel
*You can make it applicable, roughly speaking by defining a suitable
origin point for your laser. This point is physically sternwards of the
laser output head by distances vastly larger than the length of the laser.
Don Sample
> In article <uncc98i...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Lauren McDonald" <laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> > Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
> > weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
> > forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
>
> Inverse Square Law.
>
> Space is not a vacuum; there's lots of dust there to degrade energy
> beams.
And missile battles take place at ranges of several light seconds or
even minutes. At that range it doesn't take much maneuvering to make
it impossible to hit anything with an energy weapon. Your target isn't
where you were aiming anymore.
Don Sample
<sf...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
But football has just as many anachronisms.
"100 yards? What's a yard?"
"It's a little less than a meter."
"So why don't they just use meters?"
Ian Birchenough
>Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the same as
>Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
>different?
>
High Justice is trial of those crimes that are capital - i.e. carry the
Death Sentence
Low Justice is trial of petty offences - drunkenness minor theft etc.
Middle Justice is all the stuff between the two.
I believe they were divided this way as only the King had the right to
order a death sentence, but devolved the right and responsibility to try
lesser cases to his nobles. In turn they devolved the right and
responsibility to try petty crimes to Knights and city authorities.
Lose the SPAMTRAP to reply
--
Ian Birchenough
Samuel Fang
As opposed to a game with no clock? And a baseball diamond isn't in
feet/yards?
From a writing standpoint, baseball simply carries a more
anachronistic "feel" than a sport like football would. Therefore, you
go with baseball to paint the portrait of a society that's a little
backward.
--
Samuel Fang
sf...@vzavenue.net
Chris Nasipak
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:040920021328037763%dsa...@synapse.net...
> In article <g0dcnuclkf5notbqi...@4ax.com>, Samuel Fang
> <sf...@vzavenue.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:13:19 -0600, "Lauren McDonald"
> > <laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the
same as
> > >Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
> > >different?
> >
> > Probably. Likely enough, one of the Brits on the ng can clarify that.
> >
I'm not a Brit, but I'll take a try at it. H, M, and L refer to the severity
of crimes you're allowed to preside over. Thus the line "High Crimes and
Misdemeanors".
High Crimes - Things you can be executed for
Middle - Things you can be imprisoned for
Low - Things you can be fined monetarily for (or sentenced to community
service)
Or something approximately similar thereunto.
W Brian McDonald
it's quite possible that getting the beams focussed at ranges much
over a megaclick is technically difficult. the blasted things do
spread over distance and what may well be devastating at one range
will hardly scorch paint a quarter second farther downrange.
W Brian McDonald
wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:13:19 -0600, "Lauren McDonald"
><laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>>Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the same as
>>Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
>>different?
>
>Probably. Likely enough, one of the Brits on the ng can clarify that.
>
feudal concepts really. low justice for instance would be dealt with
by the local lord or knight whose land the crime took place on.
property crimes like stealing livestock or a broken arm in a fight.
middle justice would have been dealing with townsfolk since it was
fairly common for cities to be independant entities later on and not
subject to a feudal lord.
high justice would have involved crimes against the crown or a noble
such as treason or poaching deer from the kings lands. it would also
have covered the actions of the nobility who strangely had more rights
than the average peon.
low and high i am fairly sure of while middle is more a guess since
it's a concept i haven't run across in the literature.
Andrew Lannon
> Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the same
as
> Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
> different?
Executable, imprisonable, finable, I think. Or Whatasized/Large/Kiddie, if
you prefer (and know about Wendy's fast-food joints).
> Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
> weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few
external
> forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
Targetting difficulties. The target might be manuevering to evade at
significant percentages of light speed, at distances measured in up to
light-minutes, and will be endeavoring to keep their wedges in between you
and them as much as possible. A beam weapon is very hard to tag someone
with in those circumstances; a missile has maneuvering capabilities to deal
with evasion and wedge-rolling.
> Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball? Why
> not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
> football?
Having played football (both American and everyone else's, heretofore called
soccer) and baseball, calling it wussie and boring is pretty small-minded.
It requires far more hand-eye coordination than soccer or football, is at
least as high-impact as football, requires extremely good reaction times and
teamwork, and it's harder to mistake the implementalia of the other sports
for clubs. :-)
Oh, and before you decide "Another well-indoctrinated south-western
American", soccer is my sport of choice. Played for 14 years, until I got
to highschool; much as I like it, I'm too big to compete with smaller, more
maneuverable opponents. I didn't like football much, but I'm set up like a
lineman...which is what I played, and probably would've been good at if I
didn't argue with my coaches so much. ;-) (Yes, all-region band _was_ more
important that the city playoffs...)
Andrew Lannon
Lauren McDonald
"Andrew Lannon" <ALL_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:und2idg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball?
Why
> > not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
> > football?
>
> Having played football (both American and everyone else's, heretofore
called
> soccer) and baseball, calling it wussie and boring is pretty small-minded.
kiddie's game that they play in the States.
Jeffery S. Jones
<laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the same as
>Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
>different?
Kind of -- but in a feudal state, the powers of justice are also
tied to social class.
Low justice is crimes suitable for the lower classes. Any local
magistrate of any sort can carry these out. Punishments are limited,
fines and limited physical punishments are all that can be applied.
A person empowered to enforce low justice alone cannot pass
judgement on any higher classes. The class distinction is rather
significant. If Lord Loxley steals a peasant's pig, he hasn't
committed a crime that the local bailiff can do anything about.
Middle Justice applies to the middle classes, and should cover a lot
of business and related crimes and judgements, as well as some bigger
crimes. Usually, the death penalty isn't available, but imprisonment
can be. A merchant or town worker tends to face this level of
justice. A lord might face some fines, but may have the power to
dismiss such judgements summarily -- requiring a "higher court" to get
results.
High justice includes the death penalty and other severe
punishments, because only the upper class has the right to deprive its
"property" (er, citizens) of life and limb. Crimes committed against
the state, and offenses against other lords by lords, require this
level of justice.
The difference in social classes is the key thing. Since not all
citizens are equal in rights, the laws cannot be applied equally to
all.
>Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
>weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
>forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
There are internal forces, and external. Big internal one is that
the beam, even well focused, will spread with distance. Too much, and
it no longer penetrates sidewalls. That means no damage at all;
failure to penetrate changes the effect to nothing.
Biggest external one is that the chance to hit drops radically as
range increases. This relates to the former, because a hit against
the wedge or only briefly against the sidewall -- even if it could
penetrate if it remained in contact -- again has no effect.
Beams are more like short range cannon shot, able to penetrate the
hull on a sailing ship. Beyond a certain range, they all bounce off.
>Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball? Why
>not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
>football?
Because someone in the colony was a baseball fan. Kind of like
baseball on DS9. Why do people play baseball *now*, if it isn't a
serious challenge?
BTW, have you ever played the game? Baseball is first and foremost
a mental challenge. Unlike many sports, you spend long moments
preparing for action, then in a sudden burst of activity, you attempt
to execute your preparations. The flow isn't rigid, either (base
steals stop that).
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
*Graphic Reflections and Websites* <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/>
Jeremy DuCharme
So Low Justice is misdemeanors (traffic fines, and other 'minor' offenses)
Middle Justice would be Felonies, and High Justice would be Capital
Crimes, like murder and treason?
--
"This is the sort of shit I wrangled my way into the Regiment to avoid,"
Julian snarled, wiggling deeper into the enveloping memory plastic of his
cocoon as the shuttle hit another bump. "If I wanted to make lousy drops
on hostile planets under insane commanders I could've stayed with Sixth
Fleet."
Despreaux laughed. "Oh, Zeus, that's rich! You were in the Sixth?"
"Yep, under Admiral Helmut, Dark Lord of the Sixth." He shook his head in
memory. "Now there was a character. Kill you as soon as look at you."
John Ringo, 'March Upcountry'
========================================================================
Take up the quest. B5: Crusade lives on Sci-Fi Channel starting 4/9/2000
J.B. Moreno
> "Lauren McDonald" <laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> >Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the
> >same as Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they
> >something totally different?
>
> Kind of -- but in a feudal state, the powers of justice are also
> tied to social class.
-snip-
> The difference in social classes is the key thing. Since not all
> citizens are equal in rights, the laws cannot be applied equally to
> all.
First off, you mistakenly imply that someone of high class can't be
tried and found guilty of a "minor" crime; that doesn't follow from
anything else you wrote -- it simply means that you have to have a
someone of a similar class sit in judgement.
Secondly you imply that having a "classless" society /would/ apply the
law equally to all -- which isn't true. The US has a theoretically
classless society, but arresting the President for jay walking can't be
done without committing a more serious crime than jay walking (one of
my complaints against Clinton is that he didn't tell the judge to stuff
it up his ass when told to answer the question about who he had sex
with. I doubt if Congress could hold the President in jail for
contempt, let alone a mere judge).
Finally, you say that because citizens enjoy different rights, laws
can't be applied equally -- and that doesn't follow, because the *laws*
are different. If the law says that left handed people honk their horn
when signaling a right hand turn and right handed people hold up their
left arm, then it's not a crime for a left handed person to make a
right hand turn without holding up their left hand -- the law applies
(has provisions) for them and says it's OK. Just as it says that if a
cop turns on his lights and siren in order to respond to an emergency
or to pursue a fleeing criminal, that's OK.
Pursuit of duties is frequently an exception to laws, and in feudal
societies different classes have different duties, not just different
rights (and those duties are generally 24/7 not just 8 hours a day with
weekends off).
--
J.B. Moreno
pyotr filipivich
alt.books.david-weber , "Chris Nasipak" <cro...@rochester.rr.com> was inspired
to utter:
Other modes of thought:
High Justice get you tried in the "King's" Court.
Low Justice is handled "locally".
"Middle" is somewhere in between.
I.e. You take something from your brother, he wallops you for it. That is
"low" justice".
Mom catches you crying - she wallops your brother for hitting you. THat's
middle Justice.
But then she finds out you took something of your brother's. She tells
Dad. You are now in Deep Trouble - and going up for "High Justice".
Or to put it another way - if i\there isn't an official record, it is "low
justice". If it is a stern talking to and a reprimand, that is "middle, and a
court martial is, of course High Justice.
I'm thinking of the after effects of Wanderman's brawl in the chow hall
(Honor Amongst Enemies). Captain's Mast is "Middle Justice" and Steilman got
the maximum gig for instigating a fight. However, two charges were Serious,
and the Prisoners were to be "held in close confinement" until they could be
tried in a Court martial.
And of course, we are introduced to Harkenss with the note that The Gunny
had "counseled" Harkenss as to the seriousness of his assignment.
tschus
pyotr
P.s. it comes to me that "high, middle & low" are relative terms, too. SO High
Middle & Low Justice for a small organization might be considerably different
than for a larger organization.
>
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and what significance it all has.
pyotr filipivich
alt.books.david-weber , "Lauren McDonald" <laurenm...@sasktel.net> was
inspired to utter:
There is one small minor but ever so important reason why Grayson still
plays Baseball.
Because St Austin _liked_ baseball. Nay, he was possibly even more
fanatical about Baseball than about the Church.
And thus it follows that only the Heathen look down upon baseball, or play
other "games" (which is to be expected of those outside Father Church.)
pax
pyotr
pyotr filipivich.
"I wish you wouldn't use the mind control device - I get
these terrible migranes until it's finished." Jonathon
Margaret Middleton
>>not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
>>football?
>
>DW probably likes baseball. That, or the anachronisms of baseball
>match well with the anachronisms of Grayson.
The anachronism aspect is what I was thinking. They like country music, after
all, and baseball is more tech-efficient than a NASCAR track.
MSMinLR(at)aol.com (Margaret Middleton)
Shameless Plug for our local con: http://www.rockon.org
Help make a Quilted Artifact to sell for Interfilk:
http://members.aol.com/msminlr/ifquilt.htm
charles krin
<laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the same as
>Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they something totally
>different?
High, Middle and Low Justice goes back to the concept that the body
belongs to the King or his rep...
Death Penalties and some forms of Banishment were considered High
Justice, and could only be set by the King or one of his direct reps.
the local Laird may or may not be able to apply those. Ship's Captains
at sea have full privileges thereof...
Middle Justice included both corporal punishment and
incarceration/slavery...less likely to cause the death of the
perpatrator...and more likely to provide sport and or benefit to the
body politic involved. Usually the local Laird can do this without
bothering the King...Ship's Captains in port can do this without
recourse to the Port Captain or Admiral.
Low Justice would be your basic whippings and pillorings...usually
administered by a Sheriff or Petty officer...
ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
Don Sample
> Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball? Why
> not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
> football?
Å‚I just think itÄ…s rather odd, that a nation that prides itself on itÄ…s
virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective
gear just in order to play rugby.Ë›
-- Rupert Giles.
Michael Sandy
> In article <uncc98i...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Lauren McDonald" <laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> > Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
> > weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
> > forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
>
> Inverse Square Law.
>
> Space is not a vacuum; there's lots of dust there to degrade energy
> beams.
More likely the problem is with the target maneuvering at 500g, in
the time it takes for the beam to travel, the target isn't where he
was predicted to be.
Missiles continually track their target, and then fire from
20,000 km or so.
Michael Sandy
Jeffery S. Jones
<pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
>In article <3d76ba45$0$1434$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lauren McDonald" <laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Question #1: What is High, Middle, and Low Justice? Are they the
>> >same as Federal, State/Provincial, and Municipal, or are they
>> >something totally different?
>>
>> Kind of -- but in a feudal state, the powers of justice are also
>> tied to social class.
>-snip-
>> The difference in social classes is the key thing. Since not all
>> citizens are equal in rights, the laws cannot be applied equally to
>> all.
>
>First off, you mistakenly imply that someone of high class can't be
>tried and found guilty of a "minor" crime; that doesn't follow from
>anything else you wrote -- it simply means that you have to have a
>someone of a similar class sit in judgement.
Depending on the class and legal rules in force, what I said could
be true. Once you apply a higher class of judge, the actual terms of
the law may differ considerably, even if the prinicipals are similar.
>Secondly you imply that having a "classless" society /would/ apply the
>law equally to all -- which isn't true. The US has a theoretically
>classless society, but arresting the President for jay walking can't be
>done without committing a more serious crime than jay walking (one of
>my complaints against Clinton is that he didn't tell the judge to stuff
>it up his ass when told to answer the question about who he had sex
>with. I doubt if Congress could hold the President in jail for
>contempt, let alone a mere judge).
The government protection against legal harrassment isn't exactly a
"class" situation. There isn't anything inherent in the person which
offers protection -- it is the role of their job, and that job must be
protected. If an office holder commits a crime which needs punishment
during the term of office, there are provisions to allow the office to
be stripped (allowing government to go on functioning normally
afterward).
In practice the actual policies aren't perfect, but the goal is much
different from class related justice systems. Note that all of the
high placed government employees get no such benefit, nor do rich
corporate leaders. In a true class system, those people *would* have
different legal protections under the law than the common folk.
As soon as the president leaves office, the arrest can be made
without complications. And should the ex-president sit in court,
contempt charges can be applied.
>Finally, you say that because citizens enjoy different rights, laws
>can't be applied equally -- and that doesn't follow, because the *laws*
>are different. If the law says that left handed people honk their horn
>when signaling a right hand turn and right handed people hold up their
>left arm, then it's not a crime for a left handed person to make a
>right hand turn without holding up their left hand -- the law applies
>(has provisions) for them and says it's OK. Just as it says that if a
>cop turns on his lights and siren in order to respond to an emergency
>or to pursue a fleeing criminal, that's OK.
The difference is that in a feudal state, the "cop" has the right to
do so almost at whim, isn't elected to the position, can't normally be
fired, and in fact probably inherited it. The status in fact comes
along with any position of social power, not limited solely to those
specifically appointed, trained, or elected to deal justice.
Obviously, those citizens of feudal states in any form, including of
course the Honorverse nations like Anderman, Grayson, and Manticore,
don't find this situation too terrible. Constitutional systems of
some form tend to limit the abuses of a pure feudal state.
But some of the special protections of higher class are still
totally special, unassailable by any lesser court. While I don't
think that any of the three truly give the commoners *no* real rights
against the decisions of their feudal lord, there is a lot of room for
abuses of power without checks.
>Pursuit of duties is frequently an exception to laws, and in feudal
>societies different classes have different duties, not just different
>rights (and those duties are generally 24/7 not just 8 hours a day with
>weekends off).
True -- but the system may not have much if any recource when those
in power abuse it. Manticore, it seems, does have a fair amount of
constitutional structures, so much so that the power of the nobility
per se doesn't seem overwhelming. Grayson seems far less democratic,
but its current leadership and overall social forms make it hard to
unfairly exploit the positions of power as much as often happened in
Earth's history.
Power can be abused in any system, but it is harder when there are
methods for the people to redress problems legally, and for *any*
position of power to be only temporary.
Loren Pechtel
<laurenm...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>Question #2: Why missiles? Why not just duke it out with just energy
>weapons, since the battles take place in space, there are very few external
>forces to degrade the effectiveness of the weapons, such as gravity.
Because missiles are effective at far greater ranges than energy
weapons.
Gravity is not a serious effect on energy weapons. However,
range is. No matter how good your lenses you still will get some beam
divergence. Also, all of their energy weapons are lightspeed weapons.
Your target can move.
J.B. Moreno
Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
> "J.B. Moreno" <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
-snip-
> >Finally, you say that because citizens enjoy different rights, laws
> >can't be applied equally -- and that doesn't follow, because the *laws*
> >are different. If the law says that left handed people honk their horn
> >when signaling a right hand turn and right handed people hold up their
> >left arm, then it's not a crime for a left handed person to make a
> >right hand turn without holding up their left hand -- the law applies
> >(has provisions) for them and says it's OK. Just as it says that if a
> >cop turns on his lights and siren in order to respond to an emergency
> >or to pursue a fleeing criminal, that's OK.
>
> The difference is that in a feudal state, the "cop" has the right to
> do so almost at whim, isn't elected to the position, can't normally be
> fired, and in fact probably inherited it.
What difference does any of that make? It's still their job, whether
they do it well or not (and they can so be "fired", social mobility
goes both ways).
> The status in fact comes along with any position of social power, not
> limited solely to those specifically appointed, trained, or elected
> to deal justice.
And while they aren't necessarily the ones to deal out justice, in a
feudal society they most definitely normally have a job and duties --
it's vary seldom that you a title is just handed out with no
responsibilities to go along with it.
--
J.B. Moreno
Bernard Peek
<jef...@execpc.com> writes
> The difference is that in a feudal state, the "cop" has the right to
>do so almost at whim, isn't elected to the position, can't normally be
>fired, and in fact probably inherited it.
In real feudal systems the only person that can't be fired is the
monarch. Everyone else only has authority delegated to them by the
crown. Theoretically a nobleman can be stripped of their title and tried
or executed at the whim of the monarch. This situation changed with
Magna Carta in England.
Quite often the nobles had money and the monarch had the power to
allocate well-paid jobs. That resulted in some sort of balance-of-power
between the monarchy and the nobility. In this situation a single
complaint by a commoner about a noble is unlikely to result in any real
action. If there are enough complaints to suggest that some form of
rebellion is possible then the monarch may intervene. Rebellions hinder
the collection of taxes and the monarch appoints nobles to collect
taxes.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
www.diversebooks.com: SF & Computing book reviews and more.....
In search of cognoscenti
J.B. Moreno
> Obviously, those citizens of feudal states in any form, including of
> course the Honorverse nations like Anderman, Grayson, and Manticore,
> don't find this situation too terrible. Constitutional systems of
> some form tend to limit the abuses of a pure feudal state.
On thinking about this (after previously replying and ignoring this
bit), I'd like to say that as far as I'm aware there is no textev for
supporting Anderman and Manticore being feudal states -- they have some
of the same nomenclature (duke, count, baron), but there's nothing
indicating that (ignoring the royal family) these titles indicate
anything much beyond how much property someone has.
Grayson is a bit different -- it's certainly the case that
Steaderholder is something other than an empty title, but a feudal
system with 3 "ranks" (Protector, Steadholder, other) is pretty skimpy
and I don't think we've seen anything to indicate that's not the case.
--
J.B. Moreno
You mean Mircosoft style ("Just upgrade to the next version. This won't
fix your problems, but you will have a lot more features then.") or
something more practical? -- Michael Koenig <miko...@web.de>
Garth Dighton
news:060920021358115807%pl...@newsreaders.com:
> In article <3d779afa$0$1432$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, those citizens of feudal states in any form, including of
>> course the Honorverse nations like Anderman, Grayson, and Manticore,
>> don't find this situation too terrible. Constitutional systems of
>> some form tend to limit the abuses of a pure feudal state.
>
> On thinking about this (after previously replying and ignoring this
> bit), I'd like to say that as far as I'm aware there is no textev for
> supporting Anderman and Manticore being feudal states -- they have some
> of the same nomenclature (duke, count, baron), but there's nothing
> indicating that (ignoring the royal family) these titles indicate
> anything much beyond how much property someone has.
The titles _do_ have meaning. All (or most) titled persons are members of
the House of Lords, for instance. Also titles have nothing to do with
property. It's mentioned (Ashes) that there are some nobles whose "lands"
are not physical property, but portions of the broadcast spectrum, so
titles have nothing to do with real estate. Nor does wealth have anything
to do with ennoblement -- otherwise, Hauptmann would be a noble.
>
> Grayson is a bit different -- it's certainly the case that
> Steaderholder is something other than an empty title, but a feudal
> system with 3 "ranks" (Protector, Steadholder, other) is pretty skimpy
> and I don't think we've seen anything to indicate that's not the case.
>
--
Garth Dighton
gdig...@yahoo.com
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
J.B. Moreno
Garth Dighton <gdig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "J.B. Moreno" <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote in
>
> > Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Obviously, those citizens of feudal states in any form, including of
> >> course the Honorverse nations like Anderman, Grayson, and Manticore,
> >> don't find this situation too terrible. Constitutional systems of
> >> some form tend to limit the abuses of a pure feudal state.
> >
> > On thinking about this (after previously replying and ignoring this
> > bit), I'd like to say that as far as I'm aware there is no textev for
> > supporting Anderman and Manticore being feudal states -- they have some
> > of the same nomenclature (duke, count, baron), but there's nothing
> > indicating that (ignoring the royal family) these titles indicate
> > anything much beyond how much property someone has.
>
> The titles _do_ have meaning. All (or most) titled persons are members of
> the House of Lords, for instance.
Yes, which is why I said "much beyond" -- there was also mention of
forms of address, but that's not really that important either.
> Also titles have nothing to do with property. It's mentioned (Ashes)
> that there are some nobles whose "lands" are not physical property,
> but portions of the broadcast spectrum, so titles have nothing to do
> with real estate. Nor does wealth have anything to do with
> ennoblement -- otherwise, Hauptmann would be a noble.
He takes pride in not being one, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that
he has refused to become one.
What I'm getting at is that in a feudal culture those titles come with
duties, specifically dependents -- people you are at least nominally
responsible for and to; who are required to obey you, pay you taxes,
look to you for laws and justice, and protection, aide and comfort.
A Count is in charge of a country, a Baron of a Barony, a Duke of a
duchy -- and in his duchy the Duke will have various Counts and Barons
who are responsible to him and for which he is also responsible. They
can appeal to him in time of need and he is required by his oaths to
give it (they give him oaths of fealty in exchange for exactly that, if
he doesn't live up to it he'll soon find that they either banded
together or switched allegiance to someone else).
Manticore has titles and some minor privileges, but nothing that really
means a hill of beans.
--
J. B. Moreno
Jeffery S. Jones
<pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
>In article <3d779afa$0$1432$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, those citizens of feudal states in any form, including of
>> course the Honorverse nations like Anderman, Grayson, and Manticore,
>> don't find this situation too terrible. Constitutional systems of
>> some form tend to limit the abuses of a pure feudal state.
>
>On thinking about this (after previously replying and ignoring this
>bit), I'd like to say that as far as I'm aware there is no textev for
>supporting Anderman and Manticore being feudal states -- they have some
>of the same nomenclature (duke, count, baron), but there's nothing
>indicating that (ignoring the royal family) these titles indicate
>anything much beyond how much property someone has.
I don't think so -- the titles are inheritable and possibly
transferable, there is a government structure which gives those people
holding such titles political power in government (whereas mere money
is *NOT* enough, many merchants do not have it at all -- and a lot of
lords are rather poor).
Anderman and Manticore are however "constitutional" Monarchies,
which means that there are a lot of limitations on the feudal powers.
Whether such a monarchy remains 'feudal' or not is a matter of opinion
- but the basis of it is just as feudal as the modern UK. Moreso, I
think, because the power of Manticore's Lords is still very
respectable.
>Grayson is a bit different -- it's certainly the case that
>Steaderholder is something other than an empty title, but a feudal
>system with 3 "ranks" (Protector, Steadholder, other) is pretty skimpy
>and I don't think we've seen anything to indicate that's not the case.
Grayson is a "flat pyramid" sort of feudal structure. The agents of
the steadholder might be property holders with some political powers
themselves, but I'm not sure if that is the case.
Anyway, I think that a true classic style of feudalism just isn't
going to make it out into the stars, anymore than you're likely to see
one anywhere on Earth. At least, not without a *horrid* crash in
technology and other disasters.
Feudalism at its heart is a cheap way to organize a government by
creating a network of alliances between separate states. Slow
communications and the need for rapid local responses makes giving
power to the local lord, rather than some central government,
sensible.
As communications improved, feudalism died. When the king or prime
minister can effectively deliver justice anywhere in the empire, there
is no need for a local independent command.
At least, not for humans. I could see some other species eschewing
the advent of democracy, but humans seem to have got pretty stuck on
the benefits of representative governments.
J.B. Moreno
> "J.B. Moreno" <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
>
> > Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Obviously, those citizens of feudal states in any form,
> >> including of >> course the Honorverse nations like Anderman,
> >> Grayson, and Manticore, >> don't find this situation too
> >> terrible. Constitutional systems of >> some form tend to limit
> >> the abuses of a pure feudal state.
> >
> >On thinking about this (after previously replying and ignoring this
> >bit), I'd like to say that as far as I'm aware there is no textev
> >for supporting Anderman and Manticore being feudal states -- they
> >have some of the same nomenclature (duke, count, baron), but there's
> >nothing indicating that (ignoring the royal family) these titles
> >indicate anything much beyond how much property someone has.
>
> I don't think so -- the titles are inheritable and possibly
> transferable, there is a government structure which gives those
> people holding such titles political power in government (whereas
> mere money is *NOT* enough, many merchants do not have it at all --
> and a lot of lords are rather poor).
They don't seem to be given any real individual power -- the lords as a
political group have power, but there's no indication that there's more
power in being "Duchess" Harrington instead of "Countess" Harrington.
Lords within their political group have power based not upon rank, but
rather standard democratic practice (i.e. favors, blackmail,
quid-pro-quid, etc).
Which means that what they have is a strong class-structure, not
feudalism -- look at India for a good example of a strong (practically
rigid) class-structure which wasn't feudal.
-snip-
> Anyway, I think that a true classic style of feudalism just isn't
> going to make it out into the stars, anymore than you're likely to
> see one anywhere on Earth. At least, not without a *horrid* crash in
> technology and other disasters.
I don't think it requires a crash in technology...
> Feudalism at its heart is a cheap way to organize a government by
> creating a network of alliances between separate states. Slow
> communications and the need for rapid local responses makes giving
> power to the local lord, rather than some central government,
> sensible.
I don't think it's communication *or* rapid response that produces it,
but rather the relative amount of power between groups and individuals
(of course that is in part determined by response time and speed of
communication).
> As communications improved, feudalism died. When the king or prime
> minister can effectively deliver justice anywhere in the empire, there
> is no need for a local independent command.
It's not justice that matters, but rather the ability to smack the
locals down without having to call in favors or weakening borders.
Thus a technological *increase* would do just as well as a crash (as
would a Stasheff-style colony).
That increase doesn't have to be that sufficient -- I could see a
semi-feudal organization appearing today if various nations banded
together in order to be able to stand up to a greater power (say the
US).
--
J. B. Moreno
regu...@bellsouth.net
"J.B. Moreno" wrote:
>
> In article <3d7940c5$0$1421$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> > "J.B. Moreno" <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Obviously, those citizens of feudal states in any form,
> > >> including of >> course the Honorverse nations like Anderman,
> > >> Grayson, and Manticore, >> don't find this situation too
> > >> terrible. Constitutional systems of >> some form tend to limit
> > >> the abuses of a pure feudal state.
> > >
> > >On thinking about this (after previously replying and ignoring this
> > >bit), I'd like to say that as far as I'm aware there is no textev
> > >for supporting Anderman and Manticore being feudal states -- they
> > >have some of the same nomenclature (duke, count, baron), but there's
> > >nothing indicating that (ignoring the royal family) these titles
> > >indicate anything much beyond how much property someone has.
> >
> > I don't think so -- the titles are inheritable and possibly
> > transferable, there is a government structure which gives those
> > people holding such titles political power in government (whereas
> > mere money is *NOT* enough, many merchants do not have it at all --
> > and a lot of lords are rather poor).
>
> They don't seem to be given any real individual power -- the lords as a
> political group have power, but there's no indication that there's more
> power in being "Duchess" Harrington instead of "Countess" Harrington.
>
OH??? What about the discussion betwenn Honor and her Manticorian
Accounytant about the need to set up the judicial system in her new
holdings? That discussion implies that She is responsible for the
judicial system.
Richard Gurley/DeepWalker
pyotr filipivich
alt.books.david-weber , Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> was inspired to
utter:
> Feudalism at its heart is a cheap way to organize a government by
>creating a network of alliances between separate states. Slow
>communications and the need for rapid local responses makes giving
>power to the local lord, rather than some central government,
>sensible.
"Feudalism" is a series of relationships, with the "king" at the top, and
the lesser vassals and powers linked under him. At the base it rests on the
obligation of warriors to protect farmers and their crops.
>
> As communications improved, feudalism died. When the king or prime
>minister can effectively deliver justice anywhere in the empire, there
>is no need for a local independent command.
More of a situation where the far off king is able to impose his will at a
distance. E.g. (and possibly tangential) - the "vice roy" systems of both
Spanish and English empires. Someone is sent from the Royal Court to make
decisions in the Name of the King. (The English Commonwealth has hold overs;
the Governor General.)
> At least, not for humans. I could see some other species eschewing
>the advent of democracy, but humans seem to have got pretty stuck on
>the benefits of representative governments.
As long as it works.
Remember, Grayson has been for millennia in a crisis of survival.
Steadholders "held" the steading, and were responsible before God for the
survival of their steaders.
It wasn't "the urge for democracy" which had caused the Council to hem in
the Protector over all those years, it was the urge to be a Power.
tschus
pyotr
pyotr filipivich
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. George Orwell.
Jeffery S. Jones
They also have a domain which they exercise authority over, and
though we don't see a *lot* of that for Honor, other than on Grayson,
there are pretty good hints that the power is *more* than mere rank
within the government as a powerful voter. Moreso than the modern UK,
whose lords have long had their power bases stripped down (maybe not
away entirely).
>Which means that what they have is a strong class-structure, not
>feudalism -- look at India for a good example of a strong (practically
>rigid) class-structure which wasn't feudal.
The political structure seems based on feudal levels, the higher
ranks have some authority over the lower. This is different from
simply a class level structure, and at its heart, its origin is
feudal.
>-snip-
>
>> Anyway, I think that a true classic style of feudalism just isn't
>> going to make it out into the stars, anymore than you're likely to
>> see one anywhere on Earth. At least, not without a *horrid* crash in
>> technology and other disasters.
>
>I don't think it requires a crash in technology...
Or some other disaster. Classic monarchies seem to be deceased as
well; it would be difficult to form one as the government of any
modern state.
You may get elements of it, but the differences in technology are
likely to change a lot of the particulars.
>> Feudalism at its heart is a cheap way to organize a government by
>> creating a network of alliances between separate states. Slow
>> communications and the need for rapid local responses makes giving
>> power to the local lord, rather than some central government,
>> sensible.
>
>I don't think it's communication *or* rapid response that produces it,
>but rather the relative amount of power between groups and individuals
>(of course that is in part determined by response time and speed of
>communication).
Relative power is very much related to communications. One of the
big problems in creating nations in the past was communications. By
giving the outlying regions considerable autonomy, you undermined
their need for association with the greater state. Historically, this
led to separatist movements of various sorts, and empires where the
"barons" really ran things however they wanted, regardless of what the
king or emperor wants.
This is harder to manage with better communications.
>> As communications improved, feudalism died. When the king or prime
>> minister can effectively deliver justice anywhere in the empire, there
>> is no need for a local independent command.
>
>It's not justice that matters, but rather the ability to smack the
>locals down without having to call in favors or weakening borders.
>Thus a technological *increase* would do just as well as a crash (as
>would a Stasheff-style colony).
If you retain an authoritarian state, maybe. But if you have a
democratic movement at all, I don't see that increasing technology is
going to slow that down.
You'd have to have a very strong anti-democratic authoritarian sort
of entity with a lot of power to kill off the anti-feudal properties
of a democratic state.
>That increase doesn't have to be that sufficient -- I could see a
>semi-feudal organization appearing today if various nations banded
>together in order to be able to stand up to a greater power (say the
>US).
Unlikely to work, I think. The various alliances in the 20th
century never really came close to resembling feudal ties. The
"vassal states" acted independently, and no one really expected them
to obey the alliance "leaders". Most especially, if the "vassal
states" are themselves democracies, the natural inclination towards
self-interest would tend to collapse the trend to obey the higher
authority.
David G. Bell
<3d7ac4da$0$1433$272e...@news.execpc.com> jef...@execpc.com
"Jeffery S. Jones" wrote:
[House of Lords in the SKM]
> They also have a domain which they exercise authority over, and
> though we don't see a *lot* of that for Honor, other than on Grayson,
> there are pretty good hints that the power is *more* than mere rank
> within the government as a powerful voter. Moreso than the modern UK,
> whose lords have long had their power bases stripped down (maybe not
> away entirely).
>
> >Which means that what they have is a strong class-structure, not
> >feudalism -- look at India for a good example of a strong (practically
> >rigid) class-structure which wasn't feudal.
>
> The political structure seems based on feudal levels, the higher
> ranks have some authority over the lower. This is different from
> simply a class level structure, and at its heart, its origin is
> feudal.
The labels have a feudal origin, but I don't think we know enough about
the early history of the Star Kingdom to be sure of whether or not there
was ever a feudal system. Since the wealth of the Lords originates in
many forms, not just land tenure, and there always seem to have been
corporations, I'm doubtful that the SKM ever had a feudal element in the
proper sense.
To take the example of Duchess Harrington, in judicial affairs she may
be a sub-contractor to the Crown, rather than a feudal overlord. I
don't think her authority even comes close to that allowed a US state in
legal affairs.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
Jeffery S. Jones
It does seem to like that now. But we haven't seen enough of the
structure to say that it is so. OTOH, the UK evolved from a feudal
state to one governed essentially by parliament, a democracy, with
little direct power retained by the lords. Manticore might have begun
from that model, rather than the classic feudal state. The three
planets probably have some indpendence, but whether this is held in
the power of the Duchy as a personal fief, or a local democratic
state, it isn't entirely clear.
But I'd bet that as constituted, the personal political power and
responsibilities are much like modern UK, not even the degree of
independent power of 19th century lords.
Ed Reppert
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> To take the example of Duchess Harrington, in judicial affairs she may
> be a sub-contractor to the Crown, rather than a feudal overlord. I
> don't think her authority even comes close to that allowed a US state in
> legal affairs.
Somewhere (WoH snippets?) I read the comment in conversation between a
couple of Manticorans that Honor's authority over her Duchy and its
people is nowhere near what she has over Harrington Steading and its
people, which is very nearly absolute. Perhaps Grayson is closer to the
original feudal model than is the Star Kingdom.
--
Regards,
Ed
J.B. Moreno
> "J.B. Moreno" <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
>
> > Jeffery S. Jones <jef...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think so -- the titles are inheritable and possibly
> >> transferable, there is a government structure which gives those
> >> people holding such titles political power in government (whereas
> >> mere money is *NOT* enough, many merchants do not have it at all --
> >> and a lot of lords are rather poor).
> >
> >They don't seem to be given any real individual power -- the lords as a
> >political group have power, but there's no indication that there's more
> >power in being "Duchess" Harrington instead of "Countess" Harrington.
-snip-
> They also have a domain which they exercise authority over, and
> though we don't see a *lot* of that for Honor, other than on Grayson,
> there are pretty good hints that the power is *more* than mere rank
> within the government as a powerful voter. Moreso than the modern UK,
> whose lords have long had their power bases stripped down (maybe not
> away entirely).
I haven't reread any of the books recently, but I can't recall an any
indications that Manticore lords have any individual power -- there's
been indications of land size, but not that those weren't simple land
grants which the family manage to keep title to (or at least I can't
think of any, if you've got cites showing they exercise taxation or
other extra powers over their domains I'd be glad to hear it).
--
J.B. Moreno
Mark Browne
<pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
>A Count is in charge of a country, a Baron of a Barony, a Duke of a
I suspect that a Count is in charge of a County, rather than a
country. In fact the UK does not have Counts. They are (I think) of
the same rank as Dukes
--
Mark Browne
David G. Bell
<3d7c7b9...@news.europe.nokia.com>
nos...@nospam.demon.co.uk "Mark Browne" wrote:
The English equivalent is an Earl, whose wife will be a Countess. At
least one recent Earldom can be inherited in the female line: Earl
Mountbatten of Burma had no sons and so his daughter became a Countess
in her own right, and had a seat in the House of Lords until the recent
regrettable reforms.
In 1996 there were five such Countesses in the British Peerage; Dysart,
Londoun, Mar, Mountbatten of Burma, and Sutherland. The heirs to Dysart
and Mar were also female.
Jeffery S. Jones
I can't think of any. We have the planetary dukes, whose domains
include an entire planet, and yet I don't recall any examples putting
them as "head of state" of that planet, nor having any special powers
over its government.
OTOH, we don't really see much of local governments at all. Honor
deals with the royal level primarily, the central government. How the
various regions are managed, I don't know.
John Andrew Fairhurst
says...
> At Cerberus, Honor had an entire planetary defence array to use against
> the second Haven fleet which was staying just outside the powered
> missile range envelope, at about 7 Mclicks. She could have laid a couple
> of thousand fortress-class grasers (bigger and more powerful than a
> ship-borne graser) on any ship in that fleet and vaporised it
>
Wasn't she still collecting as many ships as she could there? Regardless
of any issues about being able to hit them.
--
John Fairhurst
In Association with Amazon worldwide:
http://www.johnsbooks.co.uk/Books/Weber/
The Honorverse
John Andrew Fairhurst
pl...@newsreaders.com says...
> Nor does wealth have anything to do with
> > ennoblement -- otherwise, Hauptmann would be a noble.
>
> He takes pride in not being one, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that
> he has refused to become one.
>
I think this is explicitly stated in either _On Basilisk Station_ or
_Honor Amongst Enemies_
> Manticore has titles and some minor privileges, but nothing that really
> means a hill of beans.
>
Tell it to the Gryphon yeomanry :-)
Stephen Taylor
Andrew Lannon wrote in message ...
In brief:
+ADwAPA-SNIP+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Question +ACM-3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball? Why
+AD4APg- not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
+AD4APg- football?
+AD4-
+AD4-Having played football (both American and everyone else's, heretofore
called
+AD4-soccer) and baseball, calling it wussie and boring is pretty small-minded.
+AD4-It requires far more hand-eye coordination than soccer or football, is at
+AD4-least as high-impact as football, requires extremely good reaction times
and
+AD4-teamwork, and it's harder to mistake the implementalia of the other sports
+AD4-for clubs. :-)
+AD4-
+AD4-Oh, and before you decide +ACI-Another well-indoctrinated south-western
+AD4-American+ACI-, soccer is my sport of choice. Played for 14 years, until I got
+AD4-to highschool+ADs- much as I like it, I'm too big to compete with smaller, more
+AD4-maneuverable opponents. I didn't like football much, but I'm set up like a
+AD4-lineman...which is what I played, and probably would've been good at if I
+AD4-didn't argue with my coaches so much. +ADs--) (Yes, all-region band +AF8-was+AF8-
more
+AD4-important that the city playoffs...)
I am afraid that +ACI-football+ACI- is more than just either American and everyone
else's, heretofore called soccer.
In New Zealand, +ACI-football+ACI- generally refers to the game of Rugby Union
(which we also refer to as Rugby), and we call Soccer +ACI-soccer+ACI-. And in
Australia, +ACI-football+ACI- depends a bit upon which state you are in. For NSW,
football generally is +ACI-Rugby League+ACI- (which is a different game to Rugby
Union, and which is known as League in New Zealand), in Victoria and South
Australia, football is +ACI-Australian Rules+ACI- which is really played only in
Australia (much like American football is really only played in America -
and also called Gridiron football in NZ). Then there are games such as Rugby
sevens and Touch rugby which are also called +ACI-football+ACI- by their players.
Regards, Stephen Taylor
+AD4-
+AD4-Andrew Lannon
Mark Browne
<step...@tbsl.co.nz> wrote:
>In New Zealand, +ACI-football+ACI- generally refers to the game of Rugby Union
>(which we also refer to as Rugby), and we call Soccer +ACI-soccer+ACI-. And in
>Australia, +ACI-football+ACI- depends a bit upon which state you are in. For NSW,
You seem to be posting with a non-plain text mail reader. To make it
easier to read, would it be possible for you switch to to only send
plain text.
Sorry to be picky.
--
Mark Browne
Don Sample
Fairhurst <jo...@johnsbooks.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <060920021853522855%pl...@newsreaders.com>,
> pl...@newsreaders.com says...
>
> > Manticore has titles and some minor privileges, but nothing that really
> > means a hill of beans.
> >
>
> Tell it to the Gryphon yeomanry :-)
Very minor _War of Honor_ spoiler...nothing really to do with the plot:
In chapter 6 Honor has a meeting with her lawyer about the state of her
new duchy, and one of the things that comes up is the judiciary:
"The Duchess holds the powers of judicial review and
commutation," Maxwell pointed out in turn. "And, like a
governor, she's effectively the chief magistrate of her
duchy. Which means she needs a functioning system of courts
and law enforcement in place."
So at least a Duchess has some responsabilities to go with her
privileges.
W Brian McDonald
>
>Very minor _War of Honor_ spoiler...nothing really to do with the plot:
>
>
>In chapter 6 Honor has a meeting with her lawyer about the state of her
>new duchy, and one of the things that comes up is the judiciary:
>
> "The Duchess holds the powers of judicial review and
> commutation," Maxwell pointed out in turn. "And, like a
> governor, she's effectively the chief magistrate of her
> duchy. Which means she needs a functioning system of courts
> and law enforcement in place."
>
>So at least a Duchess has some responsabilities to go with her
>privileges.
this would seem to pretty clearly state that she has some hairy
responsibilities indeed. she may not dictate the law but she
apparently has a great deal to do with the administration of law and
probably picks the judges etc. even if she is "merely" enforcing the
kingdom's laws in her duchy the ability to stack the courts is pretty
huge. this would indicate that her powers inside her duchy are
similar to that of a state inside the us federal system for instance.
Ed Reppert
<nos...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I suspect that a Count is in charge of a County, rather than a
> country. In fact the UK does not have Counts. They are (I think) of
> the same rank as Dukes
"Count" is a European title. The English structure developed a little
differently. The English equivalent is "Earl", from Old English "eorl",
meaning "warrior". The wife of an Earl is a Countess.
Earls rank below Dukes, at least in England, and I think in the Star
Kingdom. ISTR some discussion about how after Honor "returned from the
dead", the problem of her County have devolved on her cousin was solved
by making her a Duchess, with a comment about how that was a higher
status than Countess.
--
Regards,
Ed
John Palmer
Your post is nearly unreadable.
"Stephen Taylor" <step...@tbsl.co.nz> wrote:
--
John Palmer
jh...@hotmail.com
(change numeric 1 for alphabetic one)
Ronald Stepp
news:und804n...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Andrew Lannon" <ALL_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:und2idg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball?
> Why
> > > not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
> >
> > Having played football (both American and everyone else's, heretofore
> called
small-minded.
> kiddie's game that they play in the States.
I'll meet you for a duel tommorrow suh! Canadians are so clumsy all they
can master is Hockey and then they bill it as a mans sport.. grin.. the fact
is they had to label the canadians stumbling around on those sissy skates as
some kind of contact sport when they hit each other..
Heheh
Ronald Stepp
news:20020905061202...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> >>Question #3: Why play such a wussie and boring sport as baseball?
Why
> >>not play something that challenges the mind and body such as hockey or
> >>football?
> >
> >match well with the anachronisms of Grayson.
> >>->Samuel Fang
>
> The anachronism aspect is what I was thinking. They like country music,
after
> all, and baseball is more tech-efficient than a NASCAR track.
But, MAN!, when kids break windows on Grayson, its a heck of a lot more
serious.. grin
Mommie! Bobbie depressurized the Steading AGAIN!
Dan Neely
> But, MAN!, when kids break windows on Grayson, its a heck of a lot more
> serious.. grin
I imagine Grayson building codes require some form of safety glass.