| Trechery in History |
Sat, 14 December 2002 17:52  |
|
 Apelord |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 99
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
| BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 10:40 |
Part and parcel means - an essential or integral component.
|
Only according to the lackluster Miriam Webster online site. The unabridged version on that old paper stuff also provides the following definitions: 'Comes with the territory', 'referring to the inclusion of negative aspects of an activity', 'drawbacks to', etc.
As far as evolution goes the 'Lord of the Apes' was actually human...or so the literary reference goes.
[Updated on: Sun, 15 December 2002 00:04] by Moderator
"The object of war is not to die
for your country but to make
the other bastard die for his" -George PattonReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 20:14  |
|
|
|
Historical treachery:
Germany made an alliance with the Austro-Hungarians supoprting them in any conflict against an enemy, this alliance later extended to include italy.
Germany made another alliance with the Russians (named the re-insurance treaty) supporting them in any conflict against an enemy.
Austo-Hungary and Russia were in a tense situation over claim to the Balkan states. Germany had worked themselves into the position of being able to pick and choose which side to stick with and which to dump. Austro-hungary knew nothing of the Reinsurance treaty and as such could have been easily stabbed in the back. This was all in the early 1900's.
I don't remember exactly what happened because I did this subject nearly 5 years ago.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sun, 15 December 2002 03:45 |
|
| zoid |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 17:14 |
Austro-hungary knew nothing of the Reinsurance treaty and as such could have been easily stabbed in the back.
|
Well, we gotta know if Germany actually DID in fact backstab the Austro-Hungarians before we can cite it as an example. But speaking of Germany, didn't Hitler ally with Russia in the beginning and later betray them? Many many years ago I read "The Rise And Fall of Adolf Hitler" (author unknown to me now, sorry) and I think that's where I'm getting this vague recollection. I could be wrong (I'm probably as bad in history as I am at playing the AR PRT) but if there's any incidences of betrayel at the state level I can recall, that's it. I suspect to find rampant treachery you'd have to go far back in time to an era when civilization was much less sophisticated, and mankind was far less civilized, and perhaps most importantly, communication much more difficult. That doesn't sound anything like the "Stars!" era to me, though.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math?  Ummm, sure!  I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sun, 15 December 2002 06:46 |
|
|
|
The result of the situation with russia/austro-hungary/germany is irrelevant. I'm almost 100% positive that Germany sided with Austro-hungary. Which means that Germany backstabbed Russia, they made an agrrement that they broke without warning. Germany (I think Bismark was the mastermind behind it) had worked a situation where it HAD to break one alliance without warning.
The problem with mankind is we have this nasty habit of screwing over other people to get the better of someone.
I can't remember who exactly, but the was a pyschology experiment involving a group of people answered a bunch of questions where if they got the answer right they won £100 or they could take £250 from the leader of the group's prize pool. They all answered their questions in isolation. If no-one took any money from anyone else then they ALL kept the money they won. If someone took prize money from someone else then only the person with the most prize money won anything. Everybody took money from everyone else and they all left with nothing. Backstabbing is an attempt to better the self by dragging down those above you. It's in our nature.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sun, 15 December 2002 06:52 |
|
| tech25 |
 | Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 49
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
ZZZm, my recollection is that there was a nonaggression pact between Russia and Germany. But I don't think that they were allied. I believe that both sides ultimately planned to attack the other. The Germans just got to it first. Surprised the hoofs off of ol' Stalin. He felt that the Germans were so busy in Western Europe what with the bombing of England and stuff that he had plenty of time to ready the Soviet Army. So, wasn't a betrayal, just a slight miscalculation.
The time period between the 1870's and the Great War is the one that had all the treaties. Treaty Mania, there was a treaty to cover just about anything you could imagine. I believe that England was the country that ran the closest to the line of betrayal/not betrayal. They used the treaties as diplomatic clubs to keep the various nations from gaining economic or military hemogey in Europe. But, as a group, the nations answered the call of an invoked treaty. No, you have to go to my country to really find a country that has backed out of a treaty when it was invoked. Given the euphemism, "Unilateral Withdrawal," it basically is just getting out of an Nationally inconvenient treaty obligation. 
tech25
Anyone can learn from loosing ...
an excepional individual learns from winning
David Drake
Email me: ---tech25@--yahoo.com---Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sun, 15 December 2002 07:19 |
|
|
|
Like I said - it was sometime ago when i did the subject - i know the theme but not the precision.
Just a side note but I think this is the most off topic discussion I have seen that hasn't been dumped elsewhere.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sun, 15 December 2002 09:16 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
 | Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
| BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 10:40 |
Part and parcel means - an essential or integral component.
|
| Apelord wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 16:52 |
Only according to the lackluster Miriam Webster online site. The unabridged version on that old paper stuff also provides the following definitions: 'Comes with the territory', 'referring to the inclusion of negative aspects of an activity', 'drawbacks to', etc.
|
 Lackluster, eh. Would it that everyone only spoke english from the unabridged paper version of Webster. According to four sources of word definition the common meaning is:
"part and parcel - A basic or essential part"
"Part and parcel, an essential or constituent portion"
"part and parcel - an essential or integral component"
"If you say that something is part and parcel of an experience you mean that it is a necessary feature of it which cannot be avoided."
Can't help but notice that they all mention essential or necessary in the definition. But, then, perhaps apes don't speak the modern form of english, which is yet more proof they haven't evolved fast enough to keep up with the other species.  
| Quote: |
As far as evolution goes the 'Lord of the Apes' was actually human...or so the literary reference goes.
|
This may be true. But I knew Tarzan, and you ain't no Tarzan, Apelord. Having looked at your avatar on SBD, I don't see the resemblence to Greystoke.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
...
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Tue, 17 December 2002 01:36 |
|
| Apelord |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 99
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
The Early Worm deserves the Bird...
[Updated on: Tue, 17 December 2002 01:36]
"The object of war is not to die
for your country but to make
the other bastard die for his" -George PattonReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Trechery in History |
Tue, 17 December 2002 17:48 |
|
|
|
Which ToS board?
I used to love that game... but that was back when I was a student and stayed up till 8 in the morning after a booze bender night out.
I hate work.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Trechery in History |
Wed, 18 December 2002 03:15 |
|
|
|
My area of historical expertise is unfortunately british history in the time of James 1 and Charles 2. More specifically foreign policy and the duke of buckinghamshire.
2) yeah - and lost dramatically. But i'm learning. If it was a challenge though then I'm game. I'm on GMT and if you PM me your e-mail addy I'll mail you a race.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Trechery in History |
Wed, 18 December 2002 14:14 |
|
|
|
Yeah but I suck at TOS on the highest level. If there was a king of sucking at ToS then i'd be it
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
