<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1540</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/20/99 10:47:07 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     Tuesday, December 21 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1540<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: San Francisco Trav game<BR>
Re: War of 1812<BR>
RE: the north american union<BR>
Re: War of 1812 <BR>
Re: War of 1812: correction<BR>
[none]<BR>
Re: England<BR>
Re: searching ships, etc.<BR>
re: Way off topic on the War of 1812<BR>
Re: Marooned (MegaT)<BR>
Re: England<BR>
Re: [OT] Politically Correct Season's Greetings...<BR>
Re: objectives<BR>
Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
Re: United States Territory<BR>
Re: War of 1812<BR>
Re: War of 1812: correction<BR>
Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
RE: AGREED!! Gun Control - KNOCK IT OFF!<BR>
RE: SF Traveller<BR>
RE: SF Trav game<BR>
Re: The War of 1812 (not off topic at all really)<BR>
RE: Wild Geese, a mercenary ticket<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:30:12 -0800<BR>
From: "Kiri Aradia Morgan" <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
Subject: Re: San Francisco Trav game<BR>
<BR>
Guys, I had a hell of a grant proposal to finish today, I came home to find<BR>
out that the cat has had lots of fun in my absence, and I haven't finished<BR>
making the masters for my nengajo (New Year's Cards)!<BR>
<BR>
Pleeeeeeeeeeeease have another get together at the pub, I can't make it<BR>
tonight!  I am too tired and Hiroshi wants to talk...<BR>
<BR>
Kiri =)<BR>
<BR>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR>
Kiri Aradia Morgan      93!    Thou Art God...<BR>
tiamat@tsoft.com<BR>
<BR>
"That wickedness weltering around inside of you, inside of everyone, is<BR>
sacred somewhere.  There's<BR>
a deity out here who digs it.  You can respect and love your darkest side,<BR>
disposing of only what is obsolete or impractical.  It's all about giving<BR>
yourself permission."<BR>
                                     -- Jack Darkhand<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Date: Monday, December 20, 1999 12:26 PM<BR>
Subject: Re: San Francisco Trav game<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>>From: Keith Johnson <keithalanjohnson@home.com><BR>
><BR>
>>From: Evyn MacDude <wmacdude@worldnet.att.net>><BR>
>>Ok then a quick nose count then...><BR>
><BR>
>>Funny you should mention this... Ross and I are going<BR>
><BR>
>>to an Irish pub in  San Francisco (Pat O'Sheas on the<BR>
><BR>
>>corner of Geary and 3rd Avenue) to talk about this<BR>
>>very thing tonight.  If anyone swings by between 8<BR>
>>and 10pm, I'll drink some Guinness with you.  I'll be<BR>
><BR>
>>wearing my GURPS Traveller shirt.<BR>
><BR>
>I don't think I'll be able to join you, but I may stop<BR>
>by after a dinner meeting and see if you're still<BR>
>there.  I'll be wearing a blue overcoat, yellow/brown<BR>
>sport jacket, black jeans -- and, if I have it with<BR>
>me, a black beret with a bronze garuda insignia.<BR>
>(Otherwise, look for a male caucasian, 6', 175#, blue<BR>
>eyes, hair and beard dark brown with a lot of gray.)<BR>
><BR>
>Anyway, further to my off-list email to Evan, I'm<BR>
>generally available for one session a month, and<BR>
>location is not too much of an issue.<BR>
><BR>
>--Glenn<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>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:43:47 -0800<BR>
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
Subject: Re: War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
>From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
>Subject: Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
><BR>
>Who won, everybody's debating. Well, by Clausewitz's<BR>
>definition of victory as "making the enemy do your<BR>
>will," a sensible government will have a set of goals,<BR>
>presumably some more important than others. Since the<BR>
>USA invaded Canada, Canada's goal was simple: survive as a nation.<BR>
<BR>
 Well, actually as a cluster of British possessions, but we get your drift :)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:43:53 -0800<BR>
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
Subject: RE: the north american union<BR>
<BR>
>From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
>Subject: RE: the north american union<BR>
><BR>
>> After two wars, the score is tied at:<BR>
>> US: 1<BR>
>> UK: 1<BR>
><BR>
>Hehe, best out of three?<BR>
<BR>
  We scheduled that for NE France in `17; they didn't show :><BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:54:34 -0800<BR>
From: "Bruce Macintosh" <bruce.macintosh@worldnet.att.net><BR>
Subject: Re: War of 1812 <BR>
<BR>
>And, again unlike an earlier post, the American navy did not have a limited<BR>
>impact. The new American frigates inflicted so much damage that the British<BR>
>navy was under orders to flee unless the American ships were outnumbered.<BR>
>there were three occasions when American ships destroyed three british ships<BR>
>in one day and a single American ship captured 10 British ships in one<BR>
>month. That's pretty impressive.<BR>
<BR>
The British could *afford* to only fight at odds of three to one. (And I'd<BR>
like to<BR>
see a source for that claim, by the way. When HMS Shannon engaged and<BR>
destroyed USS Chesapeake it certainly didn't have any friends along...in fact,<BR>
it deliberately sent off all other ships in the squadron so it could engage<BR>
the<BR>
equivalently-sized Chesapeake one-on-one.<BR>
<BR>
(For those Americans who don't recall the historical details, Shannon wom-<BR>
America didn't win *every* engagement...) (I've just finished re-reading<BR>
Patrick O'Brian's marvellous "The Fortune of War", which includes very<BR>
historical retellings of USS Constitution taking HMS Java and HMS Shannon<BR>
beating USS Chesapeake.)<BR>
<BR>
In any event, the frigate actions - though psychologically impressive - were<BR>
nearly irrelevant strategically. British merchant shipping was<BR>
inconvienienced;<BR>
US merchant shipping was completely shut down at every port on the US.<BR>
The Royal Navy still had effectively complete sea control. The British could<BR>
land troops anywhere they wanted and there wasn't a damn thing the US Navy<BR>
could do about it, which is what sea control is really about.<BR>
<BR>
A good analogy is WWII and the Bismark - the wonderfully advanced, very<BR>
impressive US frigates could indeed beat any single opponent, but were just<BR>
too few and far between to influence the war other than psychologically.<BR>
Not completely off topic, as "commerce raider in individually superior<BR>
cruiser"<BR>
is a good roll for Traveller PCs to play in a war...<BR>
<BR>
>they certainly had the initiative, especially at sea.<BR>
>This may explain why the British were willing<BR>
>to return their strategic gains - if they were winning, why do that?<BR>
"Initiative" is a complicated thing to define. Who took the initiative in<BR>
actually<BR>
landing troops? And, in the end, landing troops and protecting merchant<BR>
shipping<BR>
is what naval power is really about.<BR>
<BR>
Britain had agreed to US terms before the war even started, and had no hope<BR>
of actually holding retaken colonies, so it's not surprisng Britain agreed to<BR>
end the<BR>
war...Definitely a draw.<BR>
<BR>
Bruce<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:56:06 -0800<BR>
From: "Bruce Macintosh" <bruce.macintosh@worldnet.att.net><BR>
Subject: Re: War of 1812: correction<BR>
<BR>
>> (0) Britain is conscripting british (and occasional American) soliders out<BR>
>> of British ships. America doesn't like this. Also, Britain is blocking<BR>
>> American trade with France (more legitimately).<BR>
<BR>
>Well, there _was_ the minor problem that the British Navy was also<BR>
>stopping and searching US-flagged merchants, and pretty much impressing<BR>
>anyone they felt like.<BR>
<BR>
Oops. I meant to write "out of US ships" - apologies. Impressing british and<BR>
american sailors out of US ships was definitely a no-no.<BR>
<BR>
Searching merchants for goods destined for France was more legitimate, one<BR>
would have<BR>
to say (Britain was at war, after all...) but impressing was a no-no.<BR>
<BR>
Bruce<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:55:13 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: [none]<BR>
<BR>
>Well at least this is more fun than filling out nengajo (New Year's cards...<BR>
>one Japanese tradition that makes so much sense... no one is EVER offended<BR>
>by being wished a Happy New Year... not even the staunchest atheist, nor the<BR>
>most orthodox Jew, nor the most fanatical fundamentalist Christian or<BR>
>Muslim, nor the most incredibly out there Wiccan!  Although my Chinese<BR>
>friends so often remind me that we have jumped the gun by about 2 months.<BR>
>Phbbft.)<BR>
<BR>
Not quite true... I've met a few hard-line Jehova's Witnesses who object to<BR>
it, usually with the line "There is no joy except in worship." And let us<BR>
not forget that the Jewish and Islamic calendars also have differing points<BR>
where the new year starts, as do those who use the Celtic Calendar for<BR>
religious purposes (Mostly, now, Wiccans and Psuedo-Druids).<BR>
<BR>
Ob Trav: I envision worlds like Psaydi useing the sidereal year rather than<BR>
the imperial year for record keeping. Religios dictatorships would most<BR>
likely keep time in local units except where such units are either too long<BR>
or too short for useful calculations in manageable numbers (Such as years<BR>
under, say, 60 ImpStdDays). Or days under 6 hours, or over about 40...<BR>
(Days in the 10-15 hour range will probably be useable as "Doubled Days.").<BR>
<BR>
Sidereal Years over about 500 ISD's will probably also not be in favor,<BR>
simply due to the problems of individuals not processing years that long.<BR>
At least not humans....<BR>
<BR>
William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click<BR>
interface!"<BR>
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-<BR>
533<BR>
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis mailto:wilh@alaska.com<BR>
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+<BR>
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls<BR>
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:13:23 -0800<BR>
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
Subject: Re: England<BR>
<BR>
>From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
>Subject: Re: United States<BR>
...<BR>
>Campaign: The U.S.-Japanese Naval War 1941-1945_.)  England, meanwhile,<BR>
>has not been invaded and conquered since AD 1066, nearly 1000 years ago.<BR>
<BR>
 Unless you count the Glorious Revolution, but it's perhaps a bit impolite :><BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:13:35 -0800<BR>
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
Subject: Re: searching ships, etc.<BR>
<BR>
>From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
...<BR>
>I have to disagree that the US *started* the war. I lay the blame for<BR>
>*that* squarely at the feet of the Briish Royal Navy and its treatment<BR>
>of US vessels. Given the way they were acting, we didn't have a lot of<BR>
>choice if we wished to remain independent and be considered anything<BR>
>other than an odd sort of British colony.<BR>
<BR>
  FWIW, they were doing it to pretty much everyone :)<BR>
<BR>
  I wonder if that sort of high-handedness is how Solomani rule in the<BR>
Autonomous Region started out before getting, well, normal*.<BR>
<BR>
  * by Party & SolSec definitions<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:14:01 -0800<BR>
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
Subject: re: Way off topic on the War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
>From: "Rick Stump" <rick_stump@hotmail.com><BR>
>Subject: Way off topic on the War of 1812<BR>
...<BR>
>ships and crews could beat British ships and crews. While the U.S. had <BR>
>suffered some early losses and embarrassing defeats, they certainly had the <BR>
>initiative, especially at sea. This may explain why the British were willing <BR>
>to return their strategic gains - if they were winning, why do that?<BR>
<BR>
  ISTR that the fledgling USN's victories were all against smaller RN units;<BR>
they knew perfectly well that they couldn't risk combat with the battleships<BR>
that they couldn't match. Describing the US as possessing the initiative at <BR>
sea seems perverse to say the least (the Great Lakes, eventually, OTOH...)<BR>
<BR>
        Steven Hudson<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:13:28 +1100<BR>
From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" <jimpeta@primus.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: Marooned (MegaT)<BR>
<BR>
    I'm sure there's someone on the list that has had experience with RL<BR>
issued survival kits. What's obviously missing? This kit was designed to be<BR>
issued to civilians, (it's from the lifeboat attached to a Liner) if it was<BR>
military I assume you'd be carrying some of this already.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The Imperial Standard Survival Kit (TL12)<BR>
<BR>
1 x Filter/Respirator<BR>
8 x 500ml water containers<BR>
30 x Cold light sticks<BR>
1 x Commlink/Beacon<BR>
4 x Flares<BR>
1 x Tarpaulin<BR>
1 x Cord (2mm x 300m)<BR>
1 x Rope (1cm x 50m)<BR>
1 x Climbing Hammer<BR>
24 x Climbing Spikes<BR>
1 x First Aid Kit<BR>
1 x Machete<BR>
1 x Binoculars<BR>
1 x Sheltersuit<BR>
1 x Heatpump<BR>
1 x Water Purifier<BR>
1 x Raft, Inflatable<BR>
Miscellaneous : Compass, Fishhooks & Line, Matches etc.<BR>
1 x Survival Manual (A microflim reader, very high-tech)<BR>
1 x Survival Rifle (Listed as Rifle -2, I assume it's a 5mm)<BR>
1 x Carrying Case<BR>
<BR>
Total Weight = 23 kg, Total Vol = 2kl.<BR>
<BR>
    You get the feeling that it was something of an ElCheapo (tm) kit, the<BR>
lifeboat it was in was almost out of fuel and the locker contained only five<BR>
kits although there were poaces for 23 kits. (Sounds like our Free Traders,<BR>
"Quick! Sell anything not bolted down! We can't afford life support and<BR>
those guys are going to open their crates soon!")<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:28:15 -0600<BR>
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
Subject: Re: England<BR>
<BR>
Steven Hudson wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> >From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
> >Subject: Re: United States<BR>
> ...<BR>
> >Campaign: The U.S.-Japanese Naval War 1941-1945_.)  England, meanwhile,<BR>
> >has not been invaded and conquered since AD 1066, nearly 1000 years ago.<BR>
> <BR>
>  Unless you count the Glorious Revolution, but it's perhaps a bit impolite :><BR>
<BR>
Assuming that you're referring to Cromwell's revolution:<BR>
<BR>
Citizen Cromwell didn't _invade_ England, he rebelled against the<BR>
rightful King of England.  In the end, the insurrectionists failed to<BR>
displace the institution of the English monarchy.<BR>
<BR>
Admittedly, the monarchy was restored by a claimant from overseas, but<BR>
this was not a conquest in the same sense as, say, Germany's conquest of<BR>
France in AD 1940.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
AuricTech Shipyards Journeyman Gearhead<BR>
"Gold-Plated [tm] solutions for copper-plated problems!" (r)<BR>
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:43:05 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] Politically Correct Season's Greetings...<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 6:10 AM<BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] Politically Correct Season's Greetings...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> >    Don't quote me on this, but I have heard that the<BR>
><BR>
> >average male who is out christmas shopping suffers<BR>
> >stress equal in intensity to a fighter pilot in<BR>
> >combat.<BR>
><BR>
> Oh, I'd love to see a source for that. It would<BR>
> support my decision to opt out of the holiday scene<BR>
> very well.  (Last year I went to Thailand; maybe next<BR>
> year I'll go to Iran.)<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
I read it myself a few years ago, a sidebar in a newspaper, one of those<BR>
trivia things from international news services.<BR>
<BR>
However, I have never felt myself under such stresses personally  :^)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:38:18 -0800<BR>
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
Subject: Re: objectives<BR>
<BR>
>From: ehenry@newberlin.org (Eric Henry)<BR>
>Subject: Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
...<BR>
>Back to Traveller, one should remember that not all scenarios have mutually<BR>
>exclusive winners and losers.<BR>
>Perhaps better stated as not all scenarios are zero sum.<BR>
<BR>
  Or, what are the Zho's _really_ trying to achieve? :)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:49:00 +1300<BR>
From: "Frank Pitt" <frankie@mundens.gen.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
> Victory is determined by the objectives of the combatants.  As Bruce has<BR>
> already pointed out, America resolved resolved its issues to its<BR>
> satisfaction and won the largest land battle.<BR>
<BR>
Actually, as Bruce has pointed out, the United States had resolved it's<BR>
issues before the war began.<BR>
<BR>
The real reason for the US launching the war was that they thought the<BR>
Canadian colonies would be an easy mark with Britain busy on the continent.<BR>
<BR>
The thing about impressing sailors was just something for the plebs to lap<BR>
up. Britain, and every other navy, ( including the US Navy),  had been<BR>
pressing  _everybody's_ merchant sailors for centuries, it was standard<BR>
practice.<BR>
<BR>
> Britain succeeded in demonstrating its global reach, if not its staying<BR>
> power<BR>
<BR>
Pardon ?<BR>
<BR>
What makes you think it didn't demonstrate "Staying power"<BR>
<BR>
>and in not losing Canada.<BR>
<BR>
>Instead of calling it a draw one might accurately state that both<BR>
> sides were victorious in that they got what they wanted.<BR>
<BR>
The British got what they wanted, an end to the war without any further<BR>
concessions, but the US definitely did not get what it wanted, which was<BR>
possession of the Canadian colonies<BR>
<BR>
By your own standards, therefore, the US lost.<BR>
<BR>
Frankie<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:48:00 EST<BR>
From: JFZeigler@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: United States Territory<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/20/99 11:28:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>
estar@toolcity.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
> In the year 1100 (57th century) what is the contineal US like and how it got<BR>
>  that way. I know the few canon references to terra but using that as a<BR>
>  framework what would region formerly inhabited by the US look like? By<BR>
>  speculating on this we can also develop other nation-regions as well.<BR>
<BR>
I've got North and Central America with a population of about 3.5 billion<BR>
(working from the CT population figures, rather than the 40-billion figure<BR>
for overall Terran population that appeared in the _Solomani_ supplement<BR>
or _Rats & Cats_).  Over half of that is in the mega-cities of Central<BR>
America and the Caribbean, although there's a fair amount along the<BR>
East and West Coasts of North America.  Of course, there's Phoenix<BR>
Starport in old Arizona.<BR>
<BR>
My take on the overall Terran population is that there's been a lot<BR>
of ethnic intermixing and loss of local cultural distinctiveness.  In short,<BR>
almost everyone is light brown in color and speaks the Terran dialect<BR>
of Galanglic (possibly with a local dialect as a second language).<BR>
<BR>
- ----------<BR>
Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, computer geek, amateur historian, freelance<BR>
writer, occasional scribbler of bad poetry<BR>
"For any statement, no matter how innocuous, there exists a nonempty<BR>
set of people who will take offense at it."<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:55:27 EST<BR>
From: Tascelt@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/20/1999 8:56:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
bruce.macintosh@worldnet.att.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< (1) Therefore, the US starts the war, invading Canada, expecting an<BR>
 easy victory<BR>
 (2) To the US' surprise, they get their tails kicked >><BR>
<BR>
You say the british started by conscripting (funny, we yanks called it <BR>
kidnapping...hhhmmm) people and blocking US shipping (By lethal force force <BR>
at times I might add) but the US starts the war...interesting logic.  <BR>
<BR>
The "occasional" conscription (as you describe it) was a little more than <BR>
occasional.  You said they took american soldiers from british ships?  Was it <BR>
policy then for british ships to have american troops on them?  The british <BR>
would capture foriegn ships, often American, and press the ENTIRE crew (those <BR>
who survived the initial attack) into british service.  The American were the <BR>
first to move into Canada, but the british opened the hostilities, at sea.<BR>
<BR>
As to your second point, the military loss actually wasn't much of a <BR>
surprise, as I said, several of the military leaders of the time for the US <BR>
were shall we say...not working with sharpened swords.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, yes history is still mentioned now and then in school here, but as <BR>
should be obvious it wont be "explained" the same in every <BR>
location...geography tends to put it's own twist on the teaching of it.  You <BR>
should see a professor from Pennsylvania and one from Virginia talk about the <BR>
American Civil War, it would be two different stories.  Oh well, this is off <BR>
topic, maybe I'll subscribe to the history debate news list...<BR>
<BR>
T<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:08:00 EST<BR>
From: Tascelt@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: War of 1812: correction<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/20/1999 8:56:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
bruce.macintosh@worldnet.att.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< Oops. I meant to write "out of US ships" - apologies. Impressing british <BR>
and<BR>
 american sailors out of US ships was definitely a no-no. >><BR>
<BR>
Ah...Then I understand...when I first read it I was like "Wha!??"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:12:19 EST<BR>
From: Tascelt@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/20/1999 9:49:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
frankie@mundens.gen.nz writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< <BR>
 The real reason for the US launching the war was that they thought the<BR>
 Canadian colonies would be an easy mark with Britain busy on the continent.<BR>
  >><BR>
<BR>
OK OK, I have to finnally admit it.  The American invasion of Britain's <BR>
Canadian territories was an evil plot.  America wanted to grab Canada before <BR>
it bacame an independent nation in order to prevent Hockey from being <BR>
invented!!  The plot failed completely, and now the sport has infested even <BR>
the climates of Florida and Los Angles.  OOOOHHHHH history!!!<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:28:30 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: AGREED!! Gun Control - KNOCK IT OFF!<BR>
<BR>
:P<BR>
<BR>
Jesse<BR>
:)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Frank Pitt<BR>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 9:03 PM<BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Re: AGREED!! Gun Control - KNOCK IT OFF!<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> I agree.  We should end the annual 2nd Amendment flame-fest.  I can't<BR>
> imagine how boring (or annoying :) it must be for those of us not in the<BR>
> CONUS (CONtinental United States).<BR>
<BR>
The abbreviation CON US seems so appropriate somehow...<BR>
<grin><BR>
<BR>
Frankie <BR>
goes to Collingwood <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
 <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:33:36 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: SF Traveller<BR>
<BR>
Whoops, late to the thread...<BR>
<BR>
I'm in Milpitas, though I've really not much time for FtF gaming currently.<BR>
My SJG commitments pretty much take up whatever spare time I have (aside<BR>
from airsoft).<BR>
<BR>
Jesse<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Ross Coburn<BR>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 9:38 PM<BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: SF Traveller<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
on 12/19/99 8:27 AM, Traveller-digest at<BR>
owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Ok then a quick nose count then...<BR>
<BR>
> 1. How many of us are there now in the Bay Area?<BR>
<BR>
I am as of recently.  I didn't bring any FSY goodies with me though....<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> 2. Who's looking for a game?<BR>
<BR>
That would be me.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> 3. Availability<BR>
<BR>
Pretty good once the holidays are done.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:33:39 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: SF Trav game<BR>
<BR>
Memorial Day Weekend is BayCon, IIRC, so the game oughta' be there.  Not to<BR>
mention Doug is hosting a Strephon Silver Jubilee party.  Bring armor and<BR>
guns (props of course :) as it should be fun!<BR>
<BR>
Jesse<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of<BR>
Sethkimmel@aol.com<BR>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 11:11 PM<BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Re: SF Trav game<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/19/99 1:22:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,<BR>
eris@pcola.gulf.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< Set up a Traveller only con for next May or June!  How about<BR>
 Memorial Day weekend, May 26 to 29?  Seventy two hours of non-stop<BR>
 Traveller games.  >><BR>
<BR>
Hmm; my new house is starting construction on 1/24; should be done in May or<BR>
June. Maybe I can host?...:-)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:43:21 +1300<BR>
From: "Andrew Moffatt-Vallance" <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: The War of 1812 (not off topic at all really)<BR>
<BR>
From:           	"Rick Stump" <rick_stump@hotmail.com><BR>
Date sent:      	Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:47:31 CST<BR>
<BR>
> > >Remember the War of 1812? The USA _lost_. It will<BR>
> > >again!<BR>
<BR>
Ahh, the great "Who won the War of 1812" debate (seems to come up about<BR>
once a year).<BR>
<BR>
> And, again unlike an earlier post, the American navy did not have a limited <BR>
> impact. The new American frigates inflicted so much damage that the British <BR>
> navy was under orders to flee unless the American ships were outnumbered. <BR>
> there were three occasions when American ships destroyed three british ships <BR>
> in one day and a single American ship captured 10 British ships in one <BR>
> month. That's pretty impressive.<BR>
<BR>
Well, yes and no. The naval portion of the War of 1812 is a text book case<BR>
of a minor navy (the US) following a guerre de corse against a major naval<BR>
power (the UK). The UK had world wide committents and consequently<BR>
forced to protect those interests in the most cost effective manner. Hence<BR>
the standard RN frigate as a 32 or 36 gun 5th rate. The US had no such<BR>
committments to protect and could therefore build ships that were<BR>
individually superior to the RNs, hence the USNs monster 50 gun 4th rates.<BR>
It really is no suprise that these ships defeated their RN counterparts.<BR>
However, despite their sucesses the US frigates really could do no more<BR>
than inflict a string of embarrassing pin pricks on the UKs overall maritime<BR>
position. There simply were not enough US frigates to do any real damage.<BR>
The British on the otherhand, had more than sufficent resources to totally<BR>
shut down US trade with a blockade, it may not have been spectacular<BR>
but it was certainly effective. Also once the RN commissioned their own<BR>
50 gunners, the US frigates were forced to act far more cautiously (as an<BR>
aside, the RNs 50 gunners were not built in response to the US frigates<BR>
as is often claimed, their drafts date from 1810).<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav: The lessons of the War of 1812 are perfectly valid in Traveller and<BR>
very illuminating.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Andrew etc<BR>
Homepage http://users.netaccess.co.nz/amv/<BR>
Traveller http://www.downport.com/amv/<BR>
 "What do you expect from a species who's females are<BR>
 always in heat" Ko of the Ilui clan on Humans and honour<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:38:41 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: Wild Geese, a mercenary ticket<BR>
<BR>
LOL!!!  Great book!<BR>
<BR>
Jesse<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of<BR>
Tascelt@aol.com<BR>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 7:42 AM<BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Wild Geese, a mercenary ticket<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The very best book on mercs has got to be "Phule's Company" by Robert<BR>
Asprin.<BR>
 Plus it's already in a sci-fi setting.<BR>
<BR>
T<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1540<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-zb02.mx.aol.com (rly-zb02.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.2]) by air-zb02.mail.aol.com (v67.6) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:47:07 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (v67.6) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:47:00 1900<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id BAA95189;<BR>
	Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:45:50 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:43:17 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id BAA95123<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:43:17 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:43:17 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912210643.BAA95123@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 #1540<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
