How to fit every major D&D continent on one world
Ubiquitous
Sarlona, Argonnessen, Xen-drik, Aerenal, Frostfell, Everice, Faerun, the
Flaneass, Ansalon, Taladas, a good chunk of Athas, and Maztica in one
world, the exact same size as Earth, and have it make coherent sense,
without overcrowding with continents:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10135067#post10135067
The map:
http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.flickr.com
/photos/12465156%40N00/277554959
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
J.O. Aho
> I have discovered that when drawn to scale, you can fit Khorvaire,
> Sarlona, Argonnessen, Xen-drik, Aerenal, Frostfell, Everice, Faerun, the
> Flaneass, Ansalon, Taladas, a good chunk of Athas, and Maztica in one
> world, the exact same size as Earth, and have it make coherent sense,
> without overcrowding with continents:
Toril is a earth like seized planet with Faerun, Maztica (west), Shou Lung
(east), Culth (south) and Zakhara (far south), of course if you aren't
satisfied with the official world you can force in other continents into it.
//Aho
Ubiquitous
Ditto for Oerth (the campaign is set on part of one of its continents), but
it is an interesting exercise.
Master Cougar
On Dec 2, 3:22 pm, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.
Wow, such subtle sarcasm, one would almost believe you meant your
word literally.
Marc
Tetsubo
I just think he has a very poor grasp of the phrase "military
victory"...
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
/_|_\
Chris Hayes
The funny (or sad) thing is that he's had that in his .sig for a few
years now.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
> I just think he has a very poor grasp of the phrase "military victory"...
Why don't you ask Saddam Hussein for a second opinion?
--
Malachias Invictus
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:esedne23JpEK5u7Y...@comcast.com...
> In article <X_SdnRz-YPOqFu_Y...@comcast.com>,
> tet...@comcast.net
> wrote:
>
>> I just think he has a very poor grasp of the phrase "military victory"...
>
> Why don't you ask Saddam Hussein for a second opinion?
Pay no attention to the civil war behind the curtain.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Master Cougar
Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <X_SdnRz-YPOqFu_Y...@comcast.com>, tet...@comcast.net
> wrote:
>
> > I just think he has a very poor grasp of the phrase "military victory"...
>
> Why don't you ask Saddam Hussein for a second opinion?
>
Getting rid of the previous government does NOT equate to a military
victory. I'll give you a hint, had the Americans actually won, they
would not be considering sending in more troops.
--
Marc
Aaron F. Bourque
You do realize that the one does not suggest the other?
Besides, Ubi's .sig is talking about the initial march to Baghdad,
anyway.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
alordo...@yahoo.com
Given that we're talking about Ubi, his sig is probably about the
senior Bush's liberation of Kuwait ;-)
Malachias Invictus
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165239791.0...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
That makes absolutely no sense in context. No one ever liked the initial
invasion itself to a "second Vietnam quagmire." The subsequent occupation
certainly quacks like a duck, though.
David Klassen
> > anyway.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense in context. No one ever liked the initial
> invasion itself to a "second Vietnam quagmire." The subsequent occupation
> certainly quacks like a duck, though.
Although there were certainly many who foresaw that it most
likely would lead to one. Basically, anyone who realized that
Iraq was a Sunni minority oppressing a Shiite minority who would
relish the idea of turning the tables. That is, anyone with at
least half a brain.
tussock
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> Besides, Ubi's .sig is talking about the initial march to Baghdad,
>>> anyway.
>> That makes absolutely no sense in context. No one ever liked the initial
>> invasion itself to a "second Vietnam quagmire." The subsequent occupation
>> certainly quacks like a duck, though.
>
> Although there were certainly many who foresaw that it most
> likely would lead to one. Basically, anyone who realized that
> Iraq was a Sunni minority oppressing a Shiite minority who would
> relish the idea of turning the tables. That is, anyone with at
> least half a brain.
You people aren't nearly cynical enough. Iraq's far more split
along ancient tribal lines than along the religious/cultural divisions
being portrayed in western media: that's how the occupiers get away with
destroying the place one city at a time without facing a mass popular
uprising.
The whole Shiite/Sunni thing is what the occupiers like to blame
for the acts of their pet death sqauds (does no one else notice much of
the "sectarian violence" is right next door to the US bases? No one else
read local sources that talk of US forces cordoning off streets before
the "rogue government forces" go through and disappear all the young men?).
Every time the resistance gets a bit organised there's another
Mosque goes up in smoke. The invaders been running a divide and conquer
strategy from the start, used to hide the nessicary dirty jobs amongst
the chaos.
Y'all know the US has a long history of using proxy death squads to
suppress popular uprisings, right? School of the Americas ring a bell?
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Aaron F. Bourque
<Insane>
Yes, that's nice. Here's a cookie. With no sedatives. At all.
The men with white coats are just making a fashion statement.
The net?
Is for show.
Aaron "The mad Whitaker" Bourque
Malachias Invictus
> tussock wrote:
>
> <Insane>
>
> Yes, that's nice. Here's a cookie. With no sedatives. At all.
>
> The men with white coats are just making a fashion statement.
>
> The net?
>
> Is for show.
Are you claiming that his statement "Y'all know the US has a long history of
using proxy death squads to suppress popular uprisings, right?" is false?
Chris Hayes
Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1165379075....@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > tussock wrote:
> >
> > <Insane>
> >
> > Yes, that's nice. Here's a cookie. With no sedatives. At all.
> >
> > The men with white coats are just making a fashion statement.
> >
> > The net?
> >
> > Is for show.
>
> Are you claiming that his statement "Y'all know the US has a long history of
> using proxy death squads to suppress popular uprisings, right?" is false?
>
Didn't you know that the US government is totally honest and forthright
with the public?
Loren...@gmx.de
Puh, I'm glad to hear that. I've been too anxious it seems...
LL
Malachias Invictus
"Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165408213.5...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
I know now, and knowing is half the battle.
Jim Davies
over again:
>It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
>the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
>our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
>for them, it's failing.
Can you please just get rid of this. It's off-topic.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Master Cougar
On Dec 4, 2:23 pm, "David Klassen" <klas...@rowan.edu> wrote:
> likely would lead to one. Basically, anyone who realized that
> Iraq was a Sunni minority oppressing a Shiite minority who would
> relish the idea of turning the tables. That is, anyone with at
> least half a brain.
Which explains why Bush didn't forsee it.
Marc
Master Cougar
On Dec 6, 7:30 am, "Chris Hayes" <haye...@fadmail.com> wrote:
>Didn't you know that the US government is totally honest and forthright
> with the public?
Of course I know that, the U.S.A. government told me so.
Marc
Malachias Invictus
Don't make Ubi cry:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/2006isg_report.pdf
David Klassen
Or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz, or...
What I don't get is Powell... *sigh* The man must have sold
his soul to them at some point.
Keith Davies
I have been told -- but cannot confirm in any way -- that Powell *did*
foresee the mess that was going to happen. And that his initial plans
for invading and holding Iraq took these things into account and made an
effort to limit the chaos caused.
Of course, this would've taken more troops and the initial commitment
(read: resources assigned) would've been much higher. AIUI, *someone*
with greater authority [than Powell at the time] said "aw shucks, it'll
look bad if we do that, us Texans don't need *that* much help" and asked
him to either change the plan or step down. (I'm naming not names, but
I understand he can't pronounce 'nuclear' right either.)
Powell stepped down, rather than be associated with the clusterfuck that
is Iraq.
Hmm. ISTR MSB and I talking about it here (or was it Afghanistan?) and
concluding that it wasn't the initial invasion that was fucked up, but
that the plans for *after* were... insufficient. To use a euphemism of
sorts.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith....@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith....@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
John
Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Chris Hayes" wrote
> > Master Cougar wrote:
> >> Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>
> >> > It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> >> > the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> >> > our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> >> > for them, it's failing.
>
> >> Wow, such subtle sarcasm, one would almost believe you meant your
> >> word literally.
>
> > The funny (or sad) thing is that he's had that in his .sig for a few
> > years now.
>
> Don't make Ubi cry:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
> http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/2006isg_report.pdf
Obvious Angry Left Wing America haters.
john
Malachias Invictus
"John" <jsphi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165511464.3...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
*Especially* Baker and Meese, those Liberal Reaganite bastards.
Master Cougar
On Dec 7, 9:45 am, "David Klassen" <klas...@rowan.edu> wrote:
> Master Cougar wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 2:23 pm, "David Klassen" <klas...@rowan.edu> wrote:
> > > likely would lead to one. Basically, anyone who realized that
> > > Iraq was a Sunni minority oppressing a Shiite minority who would
> > > relish the idea of turning the tables. That is, anyone with at
> > > least half a brain.
>
> > Which explains why Bush didn't forsee it.Or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz, or...
>
> What I don't get is Powell... *sigh* The man must have sold
> his soul to them at some point.
Agreed
Some Guy
Indeed. On the one hand, we have Ubi, whose service credentials and
knowledge of military S&T and political acumen are unknown.
On the other hand, we have everyone else in the world, including Henry
Kissinger and Colin Powell. And look, Powell's re-iterated that we ARE
losing in Iraq. It's not "liberals and leftists" saying we lost the
war, it's respected political and military figures. Only rightwing
kooks think we won or are winning:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/17/ftn/main2274583.shtml
Some Guy
>
> On Dec 2, 3:22 pm, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>
>> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
>> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
>> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
>> for them, it's failing.
>
> Wow, such subtle sarcasm, one would almost believe you meant your
> word literally.
>
>
Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are about
the only ones who do.
Clearly he hasn't read the ISG report, available here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/061206iraqstudygroup.pdf
tussock
And now that's it's an acceptable truth to say the war isn't going
well and withdrawal is the best option left, GWB has decided to withdraw
negative fifty thousand troops.
Someone should tell him that doesn't count.
So, y'all are withdrawing, real soon now, just have to prop up the
local "friendlies" a bit better first, which will require adding more
troops, but only on a temporary basis. Honest.
Right than, nothing like Vietnam at all. Totally not destroying a
defenceless nation and slaughtering it's civilian population to punish
them for having a government that wouldn't do as it was told. Again.
Matt Frisch
<noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid> scribed into the ether:
>Master Cougar wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 2, 3:22 pm, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>>
>>> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
>>> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
>>> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
>>> for them, it's failing.
>>
>> Wow, such subtle sarcasm, one would almost believe you meant your
>> word literally.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>
>Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are about
>the only ones who do.
And Colbert.
Chris Hayes
Colbert is a parody of the right wing.
Sheldon England
>
> Matt Frisch wrote:
>
> > Some Guy wrote:
> >
> > > Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and
> > > Bush are about the only ones who do.
> >
> > And Colbert.
>
> Colbert is a parody of the right wing.
No way! Say it ain't so. I'm reporting you to the Nation.
- Sheldon
Chris Hayes
Sheldon England wrote:
> Chris Hayes wrote:
> >
> > Matt Frisch wrote:
> >
> > > Some Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and
> > > > Bush are about the only ones who do.
> > >
> > > And Colbert.
> >
> > Colbert is a parody of the right wing.
>
> No way! Say it ain't so.
A lot of people take Colbert seriously as a right winger.
Matt Frisch
David Klassen
Interestingly, there is a not-insignificant number of folks who
really think Colbert is on-the-level that it *may* be thought
necessary to point out the fact that he is a parody.
I disagree. I think it just increases the laugh factor when
some right-wing pundit starts quoting Colbert. Sadly, the
number of folks still taking him seriously is dwindling...
John
Which makes the joke even funnier.
John
Chris Hayes
I agree with this.
Ubiquitous
>>> > tet...@comcast.net
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > I just think he has a very poor grasp of the phrase "military
>>> > > victory"...
>>> >
>>> > Why don't you ask Saddam Hussein for a second opinion?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Getting rid of the previous government does NOT equate to a military
>>> victory. I'll give you a hint, had the Americans actually won, they
>>> would not be considering sending in more troops.
>>
>> You do realize that the one does not suggest the other?
>>
>> Besides, Ubi's .sig is talking about the initial march to Baghdad,
>> anyway.
>
>That makes absolutely no sense in context. No one ever liked the initial
>invasion itself to a "second Vietnam quagmire."
Actually, they did, both before and during.
--
Ubiquitous
>"Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote:
>> The funny (or sad) thing is that he's had that in his .sig for a few
>> years now.
>
>Don't make Ubi cry:
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
Why would I be upset about a wishy-washy document that for all practical
purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq? I am, however, amused at their
suggestion that we appease Iran and Syria, who are actively undermining
our efforts to make Iraq a secular democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w77sLtz754
--
Malachias Invictus
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:acOdnSnpQNUP1w_Y...@comcast.com...
> invict...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>"Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The funny (or sad) thing is that he's had that in his .sig for a few
>>> years now.
>>
>>Don't make Ubi cry:
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
>
> Why would I be upset about a wishy-washy document that for all practical
> purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq?
Are you Colbert's understudy?
Malachias Invictus
> invict...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Master Cougar wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> > In article <X_SdnRz-YPOqFu_Y...@comcast.com>,
>>>> > tet...@comcast.net
>>>> > wrote:
>
>>>> > > I just think he has a very poor grasp of the phrase "military
>>>> > > victory"...
>>>> >
>>>> > Why don't you ask Saddam Hussein for a second opinion?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Getting rid of the previous government does NOT equate to a military
>>>> victory. I'll give you a hint, had the Americans actually won, they
>>>> would not be considering sending in more troops.
>>>
>>> You do realize that the one does not suggest the other?
>>>
>>> Besides, Ubi's .sig is talking about the initial march to Baghdad,
>>> anyway.
>>
>>That makes absolutely no sense in context. No one ever liked the initial
>>invasion itself to a "second Vietnam quagmire."
>
> Actually, they did, both before and during.
Prove it.
David Klassen
> invict...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >That makes absolutely no sense in context. No one ever liked the initial
> >invasion itself to a "second Vietnam quagmire."
>
> Actually, they did, both before and during.
No. We *feared* that what W was doing would *become*
the quagmire it has and thus invite the Vietnam analogies.
John
Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Ubiquitous" wrote
> > invictusebay wrote:
> >>"Aaron F. Bourque" wrote:
> >>> Master Cougar wrote:
> >>>> Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>>> > tet...@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >>>> > > I just think he has a very poor grasp of the phrase "military
> >>>> > > victory"...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Why don't you ask Saddam Hussein for a second opinion?
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Getting rid of the previous government does NOT equate to a military
> >>>> victory. I'll give you a hint, had the Americans actually won, they
> >>>> would not be considering sending in more troops.
> >>>
> >>> You do realize that the one does not suggest the other?
> >>>
> >>> Besides, Ubi's .sig is talking about the initial march to Baghdad,
> >>> anyway.
> >>
> >>That makes absolutely no sense in context. No one ever liked the initial
> >>invasion itself to a "second Vietnam quagmire."
> >
> > Actually, they did, both before and during.
>
> Prove it.
>
Prediction #1 "I already did."
Prediction #2 Prediction #1 will not take place for at least 3 weeks.
John
Ubiquitous
How polite of you to acknowledge I was correct!
>Prediction #2 Prediction #1 will not take place for at least 3 weeks.
Oops!
Ubiquitous
No, they declared it as such before the invasion.
Ubiquitous
>Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are about
>the only ones who do.
>
>Clearly he hasn't read the ISG report, available here:
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/061206iraqstudygroup.pdf
The one that for all practical purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq?
Obviously, you're the one who hasn't read it.
--
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid wrote:
>
>>Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are about
>>the only ones who do.
>>
>>Clearly he hasn't read the ISG report, available here:
>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/061206iraqstudygroup.pdf
>
>The one that for all practical purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq?
>Obviously, you're the one who hasn't read it.
Yes, here is a marker of clear support:
Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive
and the situation is deteriorating. The Iraqi government cannot
now govern, sustain, and defend itself without the support of
the United States. Iraqis have not been convinced that they
must take responsibility for their own future. Iraq’s neighbors
and much of the international community have not been persuaded
to play an active and constructive role in supporting
Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing.
Time is running out.
My ears are hurting from the ringing of that endorsement.
Some Guy
> noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid wrote:
>
>> Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are about
>> the only ones who do.
>>
>> Clearly he hasn't read the ISG report, available here:
>> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/061206iraqstudygroup.pdf
>
> The one that for all practical purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq?
Oh really? Then why isn't he following it?
> Obviously, you're the one who hasn't read it.
>
I have, dimbulb. You have not.
Some Guy
Don't forget the part where they say a military solution is no longer
possible, only a political solution. Clearly, those thousands of troops
Bush wants to send must be high-ranking officers who are skilled in
political maneuvering.
As someone's .sig on Usenet says,
"Q: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War." -- Anon.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid wrote:
>>> Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are about
>>> the only ones who do.
>>>
>>> Clearly he hasn't read the ISG report, available here:
>>>
>>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/061206iraqstudygroup.pdf
>>
>> The one that for all practical purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq?
>
>Oh really? Then why isn't he following it?
Re-read what I wrote. The plan supports what he's been doing.
>> Obviously, you're the one who hasn't read it.
>
>I have, dimbulb. You have not.
Unfortunately for you, you have yet to provide any evidence that you have read it.
Furthermore, your use of ad hominums only reinforces my point.
Malachias Invictus
> noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid wrote:
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid wrote:
>
>>>> Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are
>>>> about
>>>> the only ones who do.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly he hasn't read the ISG report, available here:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/061206iraqstudygroup.pdf
>>>
>>> The one that for all practical purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq?
>>
>>Oh really? Then why isn't he following it?
>
> Re-read what I wrote. The plan supports what he's been doing.
No, it really doesn't. Try reading I.C.3. More Troops for Iraq.
Some Guy
> noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid wrote:
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid wrote:
>
>>>> Sadly, Ubi does think that we're winning in Iraq. He and Bush are about
>>>> the only ones who do.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly he hasn't read the ISG report, available here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/061206iraqstudygroup.pdf
>>> The one that for all practical purposes supports Bush's plans for Iraq?
>> Oh really? Then why isn't he following it?
>
> Re-read what I wrote. The plan supports what he's been doing.
Oh, so when did he start engaging Iran and Syria diplomatically, O
Cheese-Headed One?
>>> Obviously, you're the one who hasn't read it.
>> I have, dimbulb. You have not.
>
> Unfortunately for you, you have yet to provide any evidence that you have read it.
I provided the link, which is more than you did.
> Furthermore, your use of ad hominums only reinforces my point.
>
What are you talking about? Do you even know what that is?
Boy, you're lucky I'm feeling pretty relaxed right now or I'd go all MSB
on your ass.