<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1473</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/9/99 11:15:58 PM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
From:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Reply-to:	traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
To:	traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
Traveller-digest     Friday, December 10 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1473<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.<BR>
All rights reserved.<BR>
<BR>
The following topics are covered in this digest:<BR>
<BR>
Re: One day, one day<BR>
Re: One day, one day....<BR>
Question<BR>
Re: (Almost) Tidally Locked Worlds<BR>
reluctance to kill and natural selection<BR>
Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire...<BR>
There goes our salvage... and car!<BR>
Re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
Re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
Re: Paintball and morality<BR>
Re: Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
Re: There goes our salvage... and car!<BR>
Re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:08:59 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: One day, one day<BR>
<BR>
Mick Bailey <mickb@iinet.net.au> wrote:<BR>
> >What is full time?<BR>
><BR>
> End of the game (end of the 4th quarter)...either that or the time that<BR>
> certain spectators have finally had a stomachfull of the watered down beer<BR>
> on sale at Subiaco Oval and make their way to the dunny to offload dome...<BR>
<BR>
dunny = head (toilet/loo/'fresher)?<BR>
dome = bodily waste (fluid or fluid and solid)?<BR>
<BR>
Reminds me of a quote that came out of WWII (IIRC),<BR>
"The united States, Canada, England and Australia are<BR>
four countries devided by a common language."<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:09:19 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: One day, one day....<BR>
<BR>
Eris reddoch <eris@pcola.gulf.net> wrote:<BR>
> "Jason T. Barnabas" wrote:<BR>
<snip><BR>
> > Confused Yank<BR>
<snip><BR>
> A not-so-confused Rebel<BR>
<BR>
You will notice that I didn't say Yankie.<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 04:14:21 GMT<BR>
From: "Boris Cibic" <kafka47@hotmail.com><BR>
Subject: Question<BR>
<BR>
Loren,<BR>
   There is an interesting article in one of the Traveller Chronicle <10 by <BR>
Andy Slack(?)  dealing with the extension of social standing from A-Z that <BR>
way filling plenty of room for lots of noble ranks.  It is really a first <BR>
class piece of writing.<BR>
    Plus, it would be interesting to explore the powers of the nobility more <BR>
in a functional approach as representives of the Imperial government as <BR>
opposed to that of a world government.  Give new life to the politics rules <BR>
which basically talk about coalition building.  A more interventionist and <BR>
action oriented High Nobility section would be more fun giving players a <BR>
chance to play in the big leagues.  Thus, a solid reading of the Prince and <BR>
Discourses would be in order.  Toghether with a thorough examination of life <BR>
on Capital which I imagine more akin to Trantor than Washington as some <BR>
Traveller literature seems to imply.<BR>
  So I cannot emphasize the TTC article enough...it would need some work to <BR>
GURPize it but the intention is there.<BR>
<BR>
______________________________________________________<BR>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:26:00 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: (Almost) Tidally Locked Worlds<BR>
<BR>
Matthew Bond <mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk> wrote:<BR>
> From: Jason T. Barnabas <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
> >Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:<BR>
> > > > Well, based on the formula you just gave, 273*Kelvin* + 10*Celcius*<BR>
> > > >= 283K<BR>
> > > > * 0.15 = 42.45 Kelvin, or -230.55 Celcius. A tad chillier than<BR>
> yourfirst<BR>
> > > > result... or have I missed something (I don't have WBH of<BR>
GS...yet...<BR>
> to<BR>
> > > > check)<BR>
> ><BR>
> > (273 + 10) * 0.15 = 283 K * 0.15 = 4.245 K<BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Nay, Nay and thrice Nay,<BR>
><BR>
> 283 * 0.15 = 42.45 not 4.245<BR>
><BR>
> 283 * 0.015 = 4.245<BR>
>               ^<BR>
Charles, thanks for correcting that error.  I posted the<BR>
same error twice.  If you see it again, I appologize.  My<BR>
point wasn't about the the decimal point, but the scales.<BR>
Let's face it whether you are speaking of -231 or - 269<BR>
deg. C, neither are survivable for long.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, if the 0.15 is a *reduction*, then there is no<BR>
problem with scales.  Could someone post the hot pole<BR>
formula?<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:31:24 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: reluctance to kill and natural selection<BR>
<BR>
Bruce Johnston the Heartless Cynic wrote: <BR>
> <BR>
> BZZZT...thankyew for playing.<BR>
> <BR>
> Exhibit A: H. sapiens. Happily killing each other in<BR>
> numbers large and<BR>
> small for millions of years, constantly inventing<BR>
> more and better ways of <BR>
> doing so. <BR>
<BR>
Yes, but _most_ people neversign up for the army, and<BR>
those that do, most never kill, either because their<BR>
job doesn't require it or they think they can get away<BR>
with it. As for killing in civilian life, well, most<BR>
people _don't_ murder one another for the hell of it,<BR>
or even when they have a pretty good reason. Add<BR>
together all the murders ever, all the people actually<BR>
killing war (whether soldiers, artillerymen, airmen,<BR>
whatever), and you still get less than 1% of the<BR>
population.<BR>
<BR>
Granted, it doesn't take many to cause a lot of<BR>
misery, but the fact that most people never kill shows<BR>
there's some reluctance to do it. I don't mean to say<BR>
that life is a utopia of love-hippies, of course those<BR>
few, those happy few, cause lots of trouble and pain,<BR>
BUT - they're the minority. <BR>
<BR>
If I killed everyone who ever pissed me off, I would<BR>
either run out of friends and acquaintances, or be<BR>
killed myself. And if everybody else had a similar<BR>
lack of inhibitions, I daresay the population of my<BR>
fair city would decline fairly sharply.<BR>
<BR>
That is, the killers would kill each-other off, and<BR>
we'd run out of killers, pretty much. <BR>
<BR>
For these reasons I still contend that any<BR>
technological society will be dominated, numbers-wise,<BR>
by individuals reluctant to kill. Of course, those in<BR>
charge who don't have to shed the blood themselves may<BR>
lack such squeamishness...<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:07:48 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire...<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:51 AM<BR>
Subject: Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> I've known a very few obnoxious female gamers, but they were all obnoxious<BR>
> because their partners had dragged them along and they didn't really want<BR>
> to be there.  They weren't really gamers at all and they drove me nuts<BR>
> because they tended to assume the same of me, except when I RAN the games.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
In the earlier days of roleplaying, I would agree.  A club in Brisbane has a<BR>
couple of female rules lawyers who delight in bouncing off each other<BR>
(supporting each other that is) to make a GM's life hard.  I have not GM'ed<BR>
them myself, but I left the campaign because of the disruption it often<BR>
caused.  And my daughter, not so much a rules lawyer, but a number<BR>
cruncher - "This works best with this kind of character having this level<BR>
Stats using weapons X, Y, and K, but only if you can obtain such and such<BR>
armour..."  Maybe it's an Aussie thing??  Maybe we have more "competent"<BR>
females gamers per capita that they act just like male gamers??<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:20:21 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: There goes our salvage... and car!<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU><BR>
To: 'TML' <traveller@mpgn.com><BR>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 5:10 AM<BR>
Subject: re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Now, how about when two private parties are involved, rather than a<BR>
> bank vs a planetary (or Imperial) government? Sunbeard steals my ship,<BR>
> you capture it when he attacks you, have you seized a prize that is<BR>
> yours free and clear, or have you recovered my stolen property?<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
In the real world Australia, if a conman can sell a stolen vehicle to a<BR>
second hand motor dealer and they fail to determine it was stolen and it is<BR>
sold on to Walter Smith for $7999, and Walt drives the car home, and within<BR>
hours, the original owner sees it and reports it... the vehicle is seised by<BR>
the police, identification confirmed, and it is either returned to the owner<BR>
or the insurance company (if they have paid out on it)... Walt does NOT get<BR>
his $7999 back, nor any part of it.  Walt has no $7999 and no car to show<BR>
for it!  This could quite well be the way these issues on stolen vessels and<BR>
salvage claims work in the Imperium?<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:53:47 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>>From: isteve@outhere.f9.co.uk<BR>
><BR>
>>How do people handle salvage rights?  For that<BR>
>>matter, *how do they work in the real world?*<BR>
><BR>
> Got ideas on that Mars probe, eh?<BR>
><BR>
> Here's a question thats confused me:  How would the 3I<BR>
> characterize the difference between 'salvage rights' and<BR>
> 'prizes'? Do the terms overlap, or are they meant to<BR>
> distiguish between craft recovered by civilians vs. craft<BR>
> recovered by the military?<BR>
<BR>
"Salvage" applies to abandoned vessels, and to crewed vessels in need<BR>
of assistance. Other posts have gone into salvage law extensively.<BR>
<BR>
A "prize" is a vessel belonging to the enemy and taken by force of arms<BR>
by either a military vessel or a licensed privateer. The value of the<BR>
prizedetermined by selling it at auction (though it may be "bought in"<BR>
by the Navy). <BR>
<BR>
Everything below is from practices during the Naploeonic era, since<BR>
taking of prizes pretty much quit after that (and privateers became<BR>
illegal). To the best of my knowledge that last time anyone took a<BR>
prize was during WWII, when Commander Gallery and his men took a German<BR>
submarine as a prize (it's now on display in Chicago). They only did it<BR>
because we needed the codebooks and encryption gear.<BR>
<BR>
The prize money goes 100% to a privateer operating alone. I believe<BR>
there's a standard formula for how the money gets divided between the<BR>
owners, officers and crew.<BR>
<BR>
If a naval vessel made the capture, the admiral of the fleet gets a<BR>
cut. So do any vessels in sight at the time of the capture (it is<BR>
assumed their presence aided in the capture).<BR>
<BR>
Again, there's a formula as to how the captain, officers and crew get<BR>
shares of the money. I think the British used something like 1/4th to<BR>
the captain, another 1/4th split among the officers, and another 1/4th<BR>
split among the crew. The remaining 1/4th was what the admiral and<BR>
"supporting ships" got. <BR>
<BR>
*Don't* use my figures. Look them up. Especially since there may be<BR>
versions that include adjusting shares according to rank and seniority.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 21:06:34 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Black ICE wrote:<BR>
>>>>>>>>>><BR>
> The term "prizes" refers to ships and/or cargo _seized_ through<BR>
> legitimate means.  Thus, military vessels engaged in commerce raiding,<BR>
> privateers, patrol ships performing customs duties, and civilian vessels<BR>
> that defeat would-be pirates all can claim their vanquished foes as<BR>
> "prizes."  Neither the original owner of the prize ship or cargo, nor<BR>
> any creditors of the prize ship's or cargo's owner, have any claim to<BR>
> the prize.<BR>
>>>>>>>>>><BR>
> Wait a minute. If Sunbeard steals my company's Patrol Cruiser, and<BR>
> your merchant crew gets lucky and wins his boarding action against<BR>
> you, you now own my ship outright?<BR>
><BR>
> If the crew of a brand-new, 40-year payments remaining Far Trader<BR>
> mutinies,  spaces the ship owner, then gets themselves killed trying to <BR>
> pirate a supply shuttle, the bank loses their entire interest in the<BR>
> Far Trader?<BR>
<BR>
The insurance company will pay the original owners. After all, once<BR>
word gets out that the ship has been seized by pirates, it's value to<BR>
the bank or to the heirs of the owner is essentially *nil*. For one<BR>
thing, getting it back intact is both unlikely and apt to take a *long*<BR>
time. <BR>
<BR>
The insurance company might have a claim against the ship. But<BR>
government policy could easily be that the insurance company gets to<BR>
"write off" the loss (a tax break) and the people who captured the<BR>
vessels back from the pirates get to keep it.<BR>
<BR>
This costs the government little, doesn't really hurt the insurance<BR>
company (and also encourages people to *have* insurance!) and gives<BR>
folks another reason to fight back against pirates, in that if they<BR>
win, they get the value of whatever the pirates had.<BR>
<BR>
> Here's a thought:<BR>
> If the Captain of such a new ship breaks a bad smuggling law and his ship <BR>
> gets seized, does the bank lose all their interest in the ship as well?<BR>
> Or does the mortgage contract have a clause that, if the Captain ever<BR>
> uses his ship in a fashion that will get it seized, he is immediately <BR>
> considered to be in breach of contract, and *no longer* the legitimate<BR>
> owner of the vessel? His possession of it could then be considered<BR>
> illegitimate, and the seized ship ight have to be returned to the rightful<BR>
> owner (the bank) as recovered stolen property used in the commission<BR>
> of a crime, rather than retained by the seizing government. <BR>
<BR>
Nope. Check the way customs laws work. The smuggling vessel is<BR>
*forfeit* if the "owners" were involved. Period. <BR>
<BR>
If the owners weren't involved, then the ship *usually* isn't seized.<BR>
But it's up to the government whose laws wewre violated.<BR>
<BR>
Life isn't fair. If a government "nationalizes" the factories a company<BR>
built, the company is pretty much out of luck. Which is why banks are<BR>
kinda picky about *where* you are building when they go to loan you<BR>
money. <BR>
<BR>
Of course this backfires. Some banks went ahead and loaned money to<BR>
buld factories in country X, reasoning that since they'd made large<BR>
loans to the government of X, they could use that as pressure.<BR>
Sometimes it just meant the country was *more* willing to write off the<BR>
loans, since nationalizing the factories got the bank mad at them<BR>
anyway. <BR>
<BR>
If the bank has the clout to get the country (planet) boycotted, then<BR>
the government will sometimes relent and pay the bank back. If the bank<BR>
can't bring enough pressure to bear, too bad.<BR>
<BR>
> The bank would love this, but I could see some governments claiming that <BR>
> the bank had hired the Captain to do just this kind of thing. Especially<BR>
> if the exact same Far Trader gets snagged two months from now, with<BR>
> a different Captain, and the bank's lawyers primed and ready with the<BR>
> same arguments.<BR>
<BR>
And if they seize the ship, the bank is SOL. <BR>
<BR>
That's life. <BR>
<BR>
*Most* of the time countries don't want to get banks and big companies<BR>
upset at them. But not always.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:48:39 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: Paintball and morality<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
To: traveller mailing list <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 7:19 AM<BR>
Subject: Paintball and morality (was Re: OT/Flamebait ...)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Or water pistols? snowballs? martial arts? archery?<BR>
> playing army?<BR>
><BR>
> We practice hunting and warfare since we're children<BR>
> and always have.  So far as I know, that's true across<BR>
> all cultures.  I don't see the harm.  Not recognizing<BR>
> the difference between play/practice and the real<BR>
> thing is harmful.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
This is one of those oft argumented questions with child psychologists.<BR>
I'll state now I am not qualified and for Chris, I can't provide links,<BR>
bibliographies, etc., but my wife has studied in her childcare work for the<BR>
last several years (always continuing with it!), has brought to light many<BR>
facets of "human nature."<BR>
<BR>
One set of studies revolved about various childplay control by parents over<BR>
several years.  There was no way that mum was going to let little Johnny<BR>
play with guns, swords, etc. until he was over 8-years old (her arbitrary<BR>
setting), nor could he view violent content children shows.  While he was a<BR>
toddler, he was using sticks and his sister's Barbie dolls as knives and<BR>
guns!  By 5, his mother caved and allowed friends to gift him toy guns<BR>
because he played cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, and soldiers, etc.<BR>
off his own back.  The resulting theory was that it is a genetic thing with<BR>
males (and certain females that are born with an abundance of male hormones)<BR>
to learn quickly and accurately, hunting and killing skills for the care and<BR>
protection of their family.<BR>
<BR>
Thus, little Johnny only sees guns in commercials and on the news, yet takes<BR>
instinctively to using them (it was amusing to see him bend Barbies legs and<BR>
arms perpendicular to her body and using it as an SMG... arms and legs as<BR>
pistol- and fore-grips!).  The theory also went on to say that in medieval<BR>
times, warring was natural and men could easily stand toe to toe and hack<BR>
each other down with swords and implements, as it was a more primal urge<BR>
that was propagated by the thinking of the time.  Now days, boys are losing<BR>
out to this because the touted idea is to be more human, and with better and<BR>
widespread education, the warriors of tomorrow are learning it is natural to<BR>
"not kill"... but this is only coming at an age where it can be taught with<BR>
maturity.  In the old days, men didn't have a clue about "their feminine<BR>
side" let alone practicing it.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps it's the times in which we live, with private instincts being<BR>
"unlearned" as we grow, then relearn't by those in military occupations?<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:04:47 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> I knew Postman was out to lunch, but this really confirms my<BR>
>viewpoint...<BR>
<BR>
Well, the only thing I can advise is to read "Amusing Ourselves..." before<BR>
thinking that he's completely out to lunch. On the subject of television, I<BR>
agree with him wholeheartedly. I haven't seen anything else by him, so I<BR>
can't say I agree with him in his views on other forms of technology.<BR>
<BR>
I do think that his point on shows like Sesame Street is dead on. What<BR>
constitutes education should not be chosen based on what is easily<BR>
televisable. This means those things which can be taught in a short segment,<BR>
which is unconnected from other short segments, and which can be distilled<BR>
down to entertainment.<BR>
<BR>
After all, what happens when you get to something like, grammar, or math at<BR>
the level above 2+2=4?<BR>
<BR>
The next question is, of course, who *decided* that education should be in<BR>
that format? Did they put any thought into it at all?<BR>
<BR>
> This does not appear to have happened in Canada... I get the<BR>
>impression that candidates down on your side of the border have to<BR>
>show what good moral character thay have, by showing that they are<BR>
>stable family men.<BR>
<BR>
More importantly they have to *look good on camera*, and they (or their<BR>
speechwriters) have to write soundbites which are full of sound and fury but<BR>
say little or nothing at all.<BR>
<BR>
> Someone who is single, or divorced without being remarried,<BR>
>doesn't stand a chance in many venues. Up here, we don't care. Our<BR>
>second-longest-serving Prime Minister was a skirt-chasing bachelor<BR>
>when we first elected him,  got married while in office, got *divorced*<BR>
>while in office, and we still kept electing him. (Pierre Trudeau.)<BR>
<BR>
Clinton's support dropped little when it was discovered that he performed<BR>
certain transgressions and lied to the public. It's not so much a matter of<BR>
moral character. The man who will most likely be our next president was a<BR>
(semi) admitted cocaine abuser at one time.<BR>
<BR>
> >One can argue, convincingly, that the "game of marbles" style of<BR>
> >politics that has been standard in America since the advent of<BR>
> >television is *not* beneficial to society as a whole, as one<BR>
> >example.<BR>
><BR>
> Perhaps. As I don't understand US politics, I don't feel qualified to<BR>
> comment.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Your example, however informative, was also completely irrelevant<BR>
>to my point. By "appropriately", I did not mean to imply appropriate<BR>
>with the respect to good manners in public. I go to movies a lot, and I<BR>
>have never experienced the kinds of things you wrote about. Then<BR>
>again, Canadians *do* have a reputation for being more polite...<BR>
<BR>
I don't think that it is irrelevant, except in the fact that my examples<BR>
were on a personal level. I admitted that, and then said I wasn't really<BR>
going to speculate what effects things like cellphones might have on a<BR>
population.<BR>
<BR>
> But my point was that the younger set aren't freaked out by<BR>
>advances in technology.<BR>
<BR>
The younger set, at least in America, aren't freaked out by guns either.<BR>
That doesn't mean that many of the younger set don't die as a result of gun<BR>
violence. That's not to say I want to start a gun debate, far from it. The<BR>
point is: Just because a segment isn't freaked out by a certain form of<BR>
technology doesn't mean that they are immune to the effects that technology<BR>
may have on their culture.<BR>
<BR>
Just because you like to drive doesn't mean that you might not be involved<BR>
in an automobile accident, or be run over by a car. You are talking about<BR>
something *completely* different than what Postman talks about in "Amusing<BR>
Ourselves to Death".<BR>
<BR>
>I manage an online bookstore -- I have<BR>
<snip><BR>
>but will never, ever make a deposit that way.<BR>
<BR>
Again, I would maintain that you're talking about something entirely<BR>
different. For Postman the question would be, "What are the effects on<BR>
culture of being able to order anything in the world from anywhere that<BR>
there's a computer and a phone line, without so much as talking to another<BR>
human being?", or "What kind of effects might result when people can get<BR>
their money out, day or night, without so much as talking to a person?" If<BR>
the answers seemed benign, or beneficial, I don't think he'd have a problem<BR>
with it.<BR>
<BR>
> On the other hand, the younger set, and the technophiles among<BR>
>those of us over 30, have no problem following the latest advances,<BR>
>and even anticipating them, and embrace them when they do get<BR>
>there.<BR>
<BR>
See a few paragraphs above. If a technology has an effect on people, it's<BR>
going to have that effect regardless of whether or not you're fond of the<BR>
technology.<BR>
<BR>
> In fact, the casual use of cell phones and laser pointers you mention<BR>
> only proves *my* point, that they embrace it so well that it becomes<BR>
> casual to them. The problem isn't the technology, it's just plain poor<BR>
> manners.<BR>
<BR>
Like I said, the problem isn't whether or not they embrace it, the problem<BR>
is how the technology will impact society, or public life. I'm not saying<BR>
that it's not just poor manners, I'm also not saying that cellphones and<BR>
laser pointers cause people to act like asses. I am saying that the<BR>
introduction of laser pointers and cellphones into my moviegoing experience<BR>
has severely impacted it.<BR>
<BR>
> Any kid who tried that up here would immediately have their<BR>
>telephone confiscated.<BR>
<BR>
Fair enough. It sounds like the Canadian government is combating the effects<BR>
of the technology. In other words, they've considered the option, and set a<BR>
course of action.<BR>
<BR>
That's not really at odds with what Postman is saying.<BR>
<BR>
> That's just the touchy-feely, left-leaning, politically-correct media<BR>
> in control. I don't think it's a technological issue.<BR>
<BR>
No, it's not the *message* itself that I was concerned about, but I didn't<BR>
make myself clear, and I sort of went off into a little rant. The fact is<BR>
you can't teach morality like a commercial.<BR>
<BR>
> (It's strange how many people, seeing that I'm a fan of SF and<BR>
>comics and animation and high-tech stuff, immediately conclude that<BR>
>I'm also an Anime fan. Nope.)<BR>
<BR>
That's funny, I figured that since you're a fan of sci-fi, comics, and<BR>
animation that you'd also be a big fan of anime! ;)<BR>
<BR>
> >Clefable! Clefable!<BR>
><BR>
> "Clefable"???<BR>
<BR>
Sorry, it's the name of one of the Pokemon that local kids run around and<BR>
screech.<BR>
<BR>
> >I notice that you don't deny coming out of the womb with a hockey stick!<BR>
;)<BR>
><BR>
> I don't remember that far back. It was over 37 years ago, after all.<BR>
<BR>
Fair enough.<BR>
<BR>
> >It could be argued that most toys for children, with the exception of<BR>
*some*<BR>
> >action figures (and even then, not the accessories) must be bought by the<BR>
> >parents.<BR>
><BR>
> True. But I always bought my own hockey cards.<BR>
<BR>
Well, I was commenting on the current situation, not the primordial past! ;)<BR>
<BR>
My point was that, in general, a the days of the kid going out and buying<BR>
lots of stuff with his allowance are pretty much over across the board.<BR>
<BR>
> >Ach, then maybe her job wasn't all that secure. One wonders *why* someone<BR>
> >who believed that RPGs were going to go the way of the dodo would take a<BR>
job<BR>
> >on the editorial staff for an RPG.<BR>
><BR>
> I often wondered that myself. And her also being (formerly) one of<BR>
>the high-ups in the Canadian arm of CAR-PGa, the pro-RPG<BR>
>advocacy group. (Formerly, since when she moved out of Canada to<BR>
>the US she had to drop her position within the Canadian arm of the<BR>
>organization, of course.)<BR>
<BR>
That's awfully odd, not that she had to give up her position, but that she<BR>
was involved in such an organization.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:03:24 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: There goes our salvage... and car!<BR>
<BR>
The Roc <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
>Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU><BR>
> > Now, how about when two private parties are involved, rather than a<BR>
> > bank vs a planetary (or Imperial) government? Sunbeard steals my ship,<BR>
> > you capture it when he attacks you, have you seized a prize that is<BR>
> > yours free and clear, or have you recovered my stolen property?<BR>
><BR>
> In the real world Australia, if a conman can sell a stolen vehicle to a<BR>
> second hand motor dealer and they fail to determine it was stolen and it<BR>
is<BR>
> sold on to Walter Smith for $7999, and Walt drives the car home, and<BR>
within<BR>
> hours, the original owner sees it and reports it... the vehicle is seised<BR>
by<BR>
> the police, identification confirmed, and it is either returned to the<BR>
owner<BR>
> or the insurance company (if they have paid out on it)... Walt does NOT<BR>
get<BR>
> his $7999 back, nor any part of it.  Walt has no $7999 and no car to show<BR>
> for it!  This could quite well be the way these issues on stolen vessels<BR>
and<BR>
> salvage claims work in the Imperium?<BR>
<BR>
Can Walt recover his money from the dealer who didn't<BR>
do his homework?<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 21:43:14 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> At 02:56 PM 12/8/99 -0800, you wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>>An insurance company could be a patron, if it's<BR>
>>cheaper to send a few PCs to look for a ship than to<BR>
>>pay the claim. <BR>
>><BR>
>>--Glenn<BR>
><BR>
> Hi, my name is Banachek. <BR>
><BR>
> Sigh. I loved that show.<BR>
<BR>
Me too. Remember the one where a "mail car" disappeared from the<BR>
*middle* of a train at night?<BR>
<BR>
Sohows like that, "Mission: Impossible" and a few others are the sort<BR>
of thing to watch if you want to drive the players nuts. <BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1473<BR>
***********************************<BR>
<BR>
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:<BR>
<BR>
unsubscribe traveller-digest<BR>
<BR>
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".<BR>
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is<BR>
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that<BR>
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe<BR>
"local-traveller":<BR>
<BR>
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net<BR>
<BR>
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to<BR>
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"<BR>
in the commands above with "traveller".<BR>
<BR>
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com<BR>
</XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" BACK="#fffffe" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Received: from  rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (rly-yb02.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.2]) by air-yb03.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:15:58 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (v66.4) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:15:44 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id CAA41704;<BR>
	Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:15:19 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:14:45 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id CAA41518<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:14:44 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:14:44 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912100714.CAA41518@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1473<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
