h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Anhaga, you just said they came back next year. They didn't advance through the pass. That huge force of persians had to disperse for the winter, and then re-assemble next year.

This is pointless. You haven't told me anything I didn't know. You haven't changed anything. You just continue to pick at minor details, which I either ommitted or simplified, b/c it wasn't directly relevant to the main arguments.

So zoomer & anhaga have displayed one thing: a desire to be right that outweighs the principle of reporting the truth. Your willingness to throw aside principle in order to "win" makes you as american as apple pie. Welcome to the club, your social security cards are in the mail.

dave

Dave, are you drinking? You really shouldn't at such a tender age, should you?

You've just beautifully described yourself.

zoomer, learn to read. That's why I said welcome to the club...obviously I'm already a member.

dave

Wrong sentence, Dave:

*You haven't told me anything I didn't know. You haven't changed anything. You just continue to pick at minor details, which I either ommitted or simplified, b/c it wasn't directly relevant to the main arguments.*

Now, just for fun, let's see if I can get this straight.

This all started with the question of who won the second world war, right?

Well, the Allies, of course, but that's obvious.

Now, there was an associated question something like "would the Allies have won the war if the Americans hadn't joined in?" right?

Well. Let's phrase it a different way: If the Americans hadn't joined in, the Allies would have won (or lost). This is, of course, a contrary to fact conditional. Such statements are, of course, always true (and meaningless). But they are such a source of amusement and opinion.

Personally, I would argue that (if the Americans had stayed out) the Germans wouldn't take Britain. They lost the Battle of Britain. The Battle of the Atlantic was going against the Germans and would have continued to do so. I suspect that, based on the knowledge gained at Dieppe, an Allied landing would have been succesful at some point. North Africa would have gone in a similar manner to what happened (and so, Italy). The Eastern front would have continued the same as how it did with the continued supplying of the Soviet Union by Canadian and Allied merchant ships making the Murmansk run.
The Americans would, of course, be angry at Japan about Pearl Harbour, and one would assume that they would (along with the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc) have fought the Japanese. Without the distraction of Europe, the Pacific Allies would likely have defeated the Japanese more quickly and likely without the Atomic Bomb. After all, the German scientists who went to the U.S. might have prefered an Allied Britain or Canada to a neutral U.S. and so the British or Canadians might have developed the Atomic Bomb first (it was Canadian uranium, after all). Gee, maybe the firebombing of Dresden (and the American bombing of Switzerland) would never have happened. Maybe there would have been an atomic bombing of Hamburg and/or Frankfurt.

But that's all just opinion. And it's all just off the top of my head.

Oh, and I just read your latest posts, Dave. They advanced into southern Greece after the battle. Did I say, the next year? Sorry, my mistake. It wasn't the next year; it was immediate. I was mixed up for a moment by the direction of B.C. dates. Check your Rostovtzeff. About page 132. It's all 480.

And keep that card: the authorities wouldn't let me across the border. Not that I have any desire to cross the line again.

You getting that snow, Zoomer?

"This is pointless. You haven't told me anything I didn't know. You haven't changed anything. You just continue to pick at minor details, which I either ommitted or simplified, b/c it wasn't directly relevant to the main arguments."

minor details like the Barbary Wars. Yes, if you want to argue that the U.S. wasn't mucking about militarily all over the world two centuries ago, than you better omit all that mucking about two centuries ago.

So, Dave, lets have a duel. You show me the Persians retreating for the winter in August of 480 and I'll show you the Persians fighting at Thermopylae, wandering through the pass, and torching Boeotia and Attica in that same month. Then we'll see who's telling someone something they don't know.

Yes, Anhaga, the snow is falling thick and fast, not the usual winter here.

It won't affect him, you know. He'll ignore or imagine facts as they suit him.

It was really cold here a few days ago: -35 or so. Now it's warmed up, but it's turned windy. I just love that squeeking sound, like styrofoam crunching under my feet.

15 cm here, soon to be 30, so not like that. Only 5 below as well during the day. Not a prairie winter, but enough to confound the locals here. Happy New Year, btw!

looks like Dave is gone. I feel bad about my little error on the dates.

It's looking like another dry winter here. Prairie drought again in 2004. I spent the holiday in Lake Louise. On the drive there and back we saw a remarkable number of cattle in the fields. And for some reason they looked much older than usual. It's looking bad for the Alberta Farmer and Rancher.

do you know, this is at least the third time that someone on this thread has said I was gone. I'm not sure if you were referring to "for the night" or "for good", but either way...

Would anyone be interested in a return to civility in this discourse?

dave

Let me rephrase that...

I've never been civil in this coversation, so would anyone like to attempt civility in the future of this conversation?

dave

We're being very civil, Dave. We're (albeit far) neighbours. Civility needs to be earned by something I believe IMHO.

Sorry, Dave. The little eyes had disappeared from your name so I thought you'd signed off for a while. It was just an observation with an open end.

"I've never been civil in this coversation"

Is that what you meant to say? I thought you were being civil enough.

How's you're weather?

I'm off to eat, so good night to you all.

I did mean to say that I haven't been civil. I've been rude and insulting about zoomer, saturnine, and blicky's arguments. I think that they have made posts that have returned the favor. I don't consider comments like "read a history book" or "learn to read" to be civil. I guess even more importantly, I would like to try to be more open-minded about each other's arguments.

dave

"I don't consider comments like "read a history book" or "learn to read" to be civil."

But I don't claim to be civil. Especially with those that display a profound sense of ignorance, and yet continue to insist they are right, even when they are faced with unavoidable proof that they are otherwise.

I strongly suggest you either spend a few years relearning the key facets of world history...or do some travelling. Because right now, you just end up looking like the fool. And that is nothing to be proud of. I would love to know the origin of your education and exactly how old you are. No need to tell me; I just like to know these things.

Saturnine, please. I admit I have a lot to learn. But aren't you calling the kettle black? You claimed to have a knowledge of early US history, which was actually lacking. I've admitted I have a lot to learn, so why beat a dead horse? Besides, I wasn't asking you to be civil. I was replying to anhaga specifically, and of course zoomer.

dave

If I didn't have to go to work I'd join in (I probably will from work later). Let's all shake hands and leave it all behind us, shall we? All of us wiser in some way.

Watch out for Saturnine, Dave. She eats glass and spits fire, which is why I like her so much.

Saturnine? she's just a big fluffy-wuffy pussy cat.