Helios 31: A New Hope

**The Sundance Kid** · September 29, 2008, 05:12 PM

The Basement by Freddie
The Coliseum by Elzabar
Political Mudpit by Thanatos
The Athenaeum by The Fuzz
Thema Devia by Macky
The Political Academy by Captain Blackadder
The Ethos, Mores, et Monastica by _Pontifex_
The Vestigia Vetustatis by rez
Editorial by Elrond

Well, well, well, you would not believe the first week I've had as Editor! Not only, folks, did I get around to getting all my reporters their respective quill awards for such quality contributions, I'm also putting out an issue only two days late! What's that, Scorch? You never managed even five days late? Awwwww! (By the way, yes, my high horse does eat a hell of a lot of hay

)

But on a more serious note, welcome! We're now into the Helios Thirties, and as such, we've got an issue bursting with...well, the stuff it usually has, but I'm pretty sure there's some added flare in there somewhere...I think I saw a multicoloured raccoon rummaging through the office waste paper basket...

I digress, and as such, it is probably best to hand you over to that most delightful of technological wizards, the proconsul of processors and the batterer of RAM himself, Freddie!

The Basement

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Barely above par as usual Freddie, thankyou, thankyou. Now, a new arrival! (Who's article I missed out due to it being a PM and not in the preparation thread, so sorry!

It's my first day!) Elzabar has done a top-drawer job of the Coliseum, so we've chained him up in the office and got out the fuzzy handcuffs, so he's here for good!

The Coliseum
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

As I write this, I’m listening to Bob Marley. I find music helps ones creative juices flow. And I need to have my creative juices flowing. Because for this report, I’m going to have to be very creative. You see, I’m reporting on the Coliseum.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Now we move onto the devastating mediocrity of everyone's favourite Chi'ite Thanatos, with his semi-coherent forays into the world of world politics. Fancy a slab of hot, hot, international opinion? Read on....

The Political Mudpit

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Howdy all, I’m here once again to cover the oh-so-blessed innocence of dialogue that is the Political Mudpit.
Let’s get right off the bat with a hot topic, everyone’s current favorite political gal, Sarah Palin, and why she is unqualified to be the VP of America!
Oswald von Wolkenstein started the thread off with a strong opening statement, listing various reasons and causes as to why he believed Alaskan governor Sarah Palin was unfit to be the Vice President of the United States:

Originally Posted by Oswald von Wolkenstein

(This thread came first)

All of the Scandals surrounding Palin:

She used her position to destroy lives to get back at her ex-brother-in-law Wooten,

She's a successionist,

she believes the presidential office is a religiously ordained position,

she's opposed to sex education and condoms and her 17 year old daughter got knocked up,

she served on a city council of city that would, in terms of population, hardly count as nieghborhood in many cities for 4 years (and she wasn't the head of it for more than 2),

They say she studied "political science" but she only took two poli-sci classes and had major in journalism from the University of Idaho. ** (see below for her education -- she switched colleges 6 times just getting the B.A. -- she's going up against people with graduate degrees from the best universities in the world)

She's publicly mocked a political opponent with cancer,

She's initiating a shotgun wedding

she wants mythology taught as science in our schools

she's got no more executive experience than a highschool principle with 7,000 students, who then became an administrator in a district with 600,000 -- (there is hardly anyone in either houses of Congress, and no other governor in the U.S. with less experience than Sarah Palin.)

She didn't even know what the Vice President does

All of that -- can be just summed up:

No matter how you put it, Sarah Palin is woefully incompetent to be Vice President or President.

and

McCain does not have the decision making capabilities to be president, he chose a liability as his running mate -- he broke his promise to choose a running mate who would be ready to be president. In his first choice as possible president, he chose someone obviously inadequate.

*8Fall 1982 - University of Hawaii at Hilo, left after a few weeks because of the weather

Fall 1982 - Hawaii Pacific University, majoring in Business Administration

Spring and Fall 1983 - North Idaho College, two year college, majored in "general studies".

Fall 1984 and Spring 1985 - University of Idaho

Fall 1985 - Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska

Spring 1986, Fall 1986, and Spring 1987 - Back to the University of Idaho to finish her degree.

No transcripts of any of her grades have been released to the public from any of these colleges. Although a journalism major with a focus in broadcasting, there is no record of Palin ever having worked on any college newspaper or radio station.

Others, however, were quick to denounce Oswald’s opening statement:

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

Do you want to divide the list into actual accused scandals and bio info?? For instance -- how is a Journalism degree from Idaho a scandal? Or are you saying that my undegraduate degree from Metropolitan State College of Denver is also something that I should be ashamed of?

You are over the top on this saying scandal and then just listing stuff.

Originally Posted by Evil Maniac From Mars

Not all of that is even true. Some of it is about as reasonable as saying Obama's cousin is Osama Bin Ladin. Am I allowed to link to another forum?

Originally Posted by scheuch13

ehem thats all [IMG]file:///D:/DOCUME%7E1/SCOTT%7E1.KIT/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]propaganda

Oswald shot back with a rebuttal of his own:

Originally Posted by Oswald von Wolkenstein

WHY ARE YOU POSTING THINGS I DID NOT POST ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THE SUBJECT???????????
(because you can't respond to them -- because you know she's woefully incompetent?)

RESPOND TO WHAT I POSTED!!!!! -- Don't insert falsehoods here and then respond to those.

I POSTED FACTS NOT RUMORS.

Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America -- the thought that someone so woefully unqualified could become president is the greatest threat facing America today.

_______________

And all of this on the first page! Let’s fast forward forty-six more pages, and see if anything new has cropped up. Here are some quotes:

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

This thread is becoming a bit like a mobius strip. Keep pounding away on Palin's "education" and foreign policy experience. What about Biden's lack of experience with rural Amereica? Or Obama's lack of experience to understand of Industrial workers? Or McCain's Age. Or that Obama is too young. This is all a bit silly and not really to the point.

All of the candidates are qualified to do theor respective jobs if elected. The real issue is what they will do in their positions if elected. Put this debate where it should be.

A good example of what should be discussed would be how each candidate will approach campaign contributions and regulation. They are tied together. Seems that some will disqualify Sen. McCain due to the S&L problem, but see nothing wrong with the piles of cash contributed to the Obama campaign from bankers and wall street traders.

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

I find it amusing that whenever a Republican is asked about Palin's lack of experience, they immediately refuse to answer in any other way except "but what about Obama's"? Immediately jumping to the conclusion that they are equal in every other ability to lead. Which of course is a ludicrous conclusion, and a typical Republican deceptive smokescreen.

Originally Posted by dwringer

As for palin . . . i saw a clip of her as an anchor on some alaskan news channel. I thought it was cute, she was young and had an endearing nervous quality, even though her dialogue was a bit disjointed and undeveloped.

She has lost the endearing nervous quality, but the disjointed and undeveloped things she says have not really changed. She simply says them with enough conviction that people actually seem to believe her.

In my opinion she doesn't even understand what she's saying. She puts emphasis on all the wrong syllables, the way I see it.

Originally Posted by Valiant Champion

I think she is a really good speaker. She doesnt studder like Obama does. Plus she can do well without a teleprompter. The times Obamas teleprompter has cut out on him he has made a fool out of himself.

I think it’s safe to say that this topic is going to continue on, even after the election, regardless of whichever party wins…
Moving onto another serious topic, we have Francisco Montana and a thread expressing his concern over the United States fiscal troubles, especially in the stock market, and business dealings in general.
Francisco linked to several sites, all of which expressed troubling news for the US market:

Originally Posted by Francisco Montana

Ok. I am hardly the alarmist type. Look at my posting history to see for yourself. However, and with that said, I do want to take a short moment to say what the heck is really going on with our financial markets!?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200809...l-7318940.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/...s/15lehman.php

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080914/lehma...ers.html?.v=30

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/...ess/crisis.php[/quote]
Danzig had a few words to say regarding the situation, followed by Francisco’s opinion regarding his answer:

Originally Posted by danzig

In the end Im thinking this is for the best and Im actually glad to see the feds will allow Lehman to fail. Bail out what is vital to get over this rather large hump and let the rest fail if they are going to fail so Wall Street learns its lesson again atleast until the next time.

Originally Posted by Francisco Montana

I couldnt possibly agree more. I have said for a long time that if you have a crappy business model, guess what, youll fail.

That doesnt mean the govt has to completely turn the other way. They do have a roll. But that simply does not include pouring billions of dollars of tax payer money into a company that obviously is too thick with corruption and cronies to remain viable. Let some new up-and-coming maverick fill the void with new innovations and less restricting strings attached (mainly in Washington.)

Other posters gave their insight as well:

Originally Posted by Ramashan

The problem we are having with the investment companies has little to with natural resources and much to do with greed. These companies got greedy, as did the consumer, and began issuing and buying high risk loans. Once these loans began going bad and then snow balling, someone has to take a hit.

I never thought the gov should have bailed out any of the mortgage firms, but the more I learn about Freddie and Fannie, the more I realize that was probably legit. But the whole loan industry needs to take serious hit and suffer a bit in order to learn a lesson. The more painful the better, and this is true for those taking loans they can't afford, the better it is for everyone in the long run.

And someone mentioned developing our own natural resources. Although, yes, it would take a little strain off our national debt the key word is 'little'. Right now the war is costing us 10b in debt a month and local oil would only cover about 7% of our use in the best estimates. What the US needs is a new industrial model and new industry. We need to create stuff the world wants to buy instead of credit.

So, needless to say, it also angers me when I hear about the gov giving money to support the auto industry. As someone else said above. If you have a bad business model then you should fail. If the auto industry can not see the writing on the wall, then they should fail and be replaced by those who can.

Originally Posted by Big War Bird

This is a failure of government. It would not be regulating and rescuing banks like it has been for decades now. Repeated government intervention has taken genuine risk out of the equation.

All kinds of irresponsible behavior is being forgiven. It is as if a casino had a policy that everyone that plays is guaranteed not to lose money. If you go in and lose everything in blackjack the casino will hand you your money back on the way out.

JP226, however, held a more optimistic approach:

Originally Posted by JP226

What is pissing me off is this damn fear mongering. I like Glenn Beck for the most part but he's saying this financial problem here and now is the verge of a financial collapse. Does no one remeber '87? Does no one remember the seventies? Does no one recall historically the massive financial based booms and busts of the pre monetary system throughout the 19th century? Financial woes are as American as Apple pie and each and everyone of them goes away. Like I said earlier, hell like McCain even said, the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Because the makeup of wealth has all the peices and parts in place.

Here’s hoping the US market can regain its lost vigor!
But enough doom and gloom. You didn’t really think I would hang you all out to dry on the pessimist train, did you?

Let’s have a happier topic, specifically that of Sean Combs’s remarks about Alaska.
Legionnaire X displayed the video for all to see:

Originally Posted by LegionnaireX

Has anyone else seen this?

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5701173

Hmm.

I used to think that Sean Combs was an educated and clear thinking man. Now he has proven that he has the political knowledge of an 8 year old. Some celebs need to understand that when it comes to politics they don't no

.

Alaska Mother

er!!!!

People were quick to express their condemnation. So guys, what do you think of Combs’s viewpoint?

Originally Posted by Markas

Babbling twerp.

Originally Posted by danzig

Evidently Combs believes the only race that matters in the US are blacks by his comments. He should be embarrassed that he put such a piece of crap video like that out there.

Originally Posted by morteduzionism

I agree. What has Puffy ever done to suggest that he could/would have an intelligent thing to say about Politics?

If you've got money, people think your opinion matters...I have no idea why.

Originally Posted by Oswald von Wolkenstein

I, have now, and always have, not only thought or believed, but known with certainty, that Sean Combs is one the world's greatest living morons. A self-involved arrogant nitwit, who thinks just because he rode Biggie's corpse to the bank that he's something special. There are few living people that disgust me more than Sean Combs.

Combs is also a racist against blacks -- he said "there's no crackheads, no crime, no black people [in Alaska]" (2:04 in the video)-- I mean can you imagine if someone else said that!!!????? So blacks are crackheads and criminals, Mr Combs? --

There are 27,141 black people in Alaska according to the last census. The population of Alaska is 670,053 -- about 4% of Alaska is black but non Hispanic blacks in the U.S. are at about 15% total. So Alaska is 11% under the average. But the percentages blow "Diddy"'s argument -- if Palin is unqualified because her State doesn't reflect America on race -- then Obama's out too -- his 15% isn't very strong. -- Palin is unqualified and by choosing her McCain did insult America -- but this stupid stupid man, has it all wrong. Sean Combs makes Sarah Palin look like George Washington. Horrible.

________________

Milos98, however, probably had the best response of all:

Originally Posted by Milos98

Who the

is Sean Combs?

Atta boy, Milos, atta boy, that’s the spirit!
That’s all from the Mudpit for now! If you’ll excuse me, I think I need to take a three-hour long shower.
Preferably hot.

"Thanatos' writing flows seemlessly from sentence to sentence; a real joy to read -- and check out those abs" -- Uzbekistan Mail. Now onto Pierre Le Fooz, who is waiting to take you on a journey through space and time...

The Athenaeum

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Sweet, sciencey goodness, part of your five a day, kids! Now onto Macky, who has suffered a freak case of brain-melting-into-a-sub-sentient-pool-of-slime-itosis and thus reports on the Thema Devia.

Thema Devia

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

With Hollywood in a current stagnation (at least for two weeks), Andre Massena, aka The Film Dood, has taken a break this week and therefore returns next issue. We subsequently move onto Captain Blackadder's Political Academy, which just oozes promise of things I can't be bothered to read. READ IT FOR ME, SLAVES!

The Political Academy

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

I kid, I kid, I read it, and it was good! Better than that bloody Freddie's, or Thanatos...psh, you just can't get the staff. Coincidentally, if anyone wants to invent a new article and put it in the Helios, just PM me and I'll ~~crush your dreams horribly~~ give it a whirl! Next up, Pontifex, who only has this job because he's going out with the boss!

Ethos, Mores and Monastica

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Pontifex here, bringing you the action from the EMM forum. In the course of the past couple weeks, some truly captivating threads have sprung up and real debate has occurred. Inevitably, many of these threads simply progress, and, inevitably, become a classic argument about the existence of God.

I wanted to take a moment and remind everyone that there is a sticky for that. If the debate leans that way, take it to the existence of God thread.

Moving headlong into our first topic, Yorkshireman brings us a report regarding the church of England apologizing to Darwin for dismissing Darwin’s ideas and theories.

My initial thoughts? Why the hell are the British apologizing to a corpse? Instead of apologizing, why not just admit that Darwin could have been correct? Perhaps this is just a way for the British officials to inadvertently denounce creationism? An interesting concept to think of, and an issue for hot debate!

Artorius Maximus, a EMM regular renown for his intelligent, crusader-like devotion to his faith expressed his views:

I'm not sure on this particular church's position on the evolution theory/related theories, but for the purpose of this post, I'm going to make the assumption that most Anglicans don't believe it completely (most likely not 100%, is all I'm saying). I'm also guessing that the motivation behind the apology was to attract advocates of evolution.

I believe that some of the development patterns represented in evolution could even be found in the first few verses of Genesis in the Bible, just need to carefully analyze it to notice the similarities. But I don't completely believe it either, not in the way modern scientists do, anyway. When I study evolution and it's related theories, I try to look at it in a religious perspective, mostly to see how much of it could be compatible with Christianity/Judaism.

Whether or not allusions in the bible to evolution exist or not, the fact remains that evolution is a hard concept for many people of faith to come to terms with. The process of the faithful to make sense of it and incorporate these scientific findings into their faith is an important part of the evolution (as it were) of religion itself.

Whether by divine inspiration or predestination,
My attention was absorbed in Voltaire’s most recent contribution to debate. The argument centers around atheism and theism, of course, but how it relates to historically tyrannical figures such as Hitler and Stalin.

In this beautifully constructed argument refuting the argument that these evil men were godless, Voltaire points out that other ideologies and beliefs were the causes of genocide and mass murders that occurred under these leaders.

I am tired to hear Theists, generally Christians, repeating their old vitriol that the Holocaust and the tons of crimes committed by modern authoritarian regimes, mostly Communist ones, were made in the name of "Atheism".

The difference between the Genocide committed by theists and atheists is the main essence of the business that unfortunately most don't get. St. Bartholemy's Night in XVI century France was made in the name of Catholicism. The Khmer Rouge Massacre was made in the name of Communism, not "Atheism".

Any man can be an Atheist and commit murder in the name of the Catholic Church or some nutty religious denomination. In this particular case, the blame will still go for the Theists because the atheist fellow was merely a tool of their intent and purpose. Similarly, the fact that Communism is an atheistic ideology does not mean that crimes committed under its banner were made primarily for "Atheism". "Atheism", being essentially the lack of belief and without any dogma or militant teaching apart from the principle of the non-existence of divine, ethereal or metaphysical beings, is nothing but a negative, a denial. Killing for "Atheism" would be the same as murdering for the "non-existence of dwarfs".

The primary intent beyond Stalinist and other Communist crimes was the paranoid attitude that lead to a ruthless break on all dissent, mainly from political sources. Religion was also affected because it was thought to go against Communist principle, not "Atheism". Beware because Communist views on the Universe, despite being influenced by Materialistic and Atheistic views, are not necessarily equal to "Atheism", which can often be too diverse to fall into a single, concrete definition other than the very basic denial of God and Gods. Many "atheists" can have different views from other "atheists" depending on personal choice and belief.

This might just be one of the best posts in TWC history.

And, just for the sake of my curiosity, Vote in this poll. I’m interested to see if the majority of TWC users are atheists still!

Pull up a cushion and pass the peace pipe, it’s tine for Quetzalcoatl’s thread of the month!

This one is a bit stale, but still inspirational and worth a read!

Is the universe infinite?

the infiniverse

· i often ponder how there can only be a ‘bubble’ of existence we call reality or the universe. consider that infinity must be all things and in being all things it has to arrive at things one by one, this we refer to as time and progress, and it must have already ‘found’ all things too. that is, if we extend the notion of ‘all-time’ to its infinite version, then all occurrences of all possible things must already be present.

· we could say that the universe contains all events, this though is not possible on an infinite scale. all events would equate as ‘everything that can be is’. the sphere of all-events would also necessarily contain infinite differentiation and within that infinite sets. our universe then may simply be one of infinite sets of events or infinite universes.

· now let us include a logical rule; all possible things belong to their set and no other.

· the other sets as compared to the set of our universe would have to be non finite/quantum. given then that upon this model there must be other sets ~ enough to fill infinity, i wonder at what other possible universes there may be, and if there is an infinite version of this universe in some way. what is the whole of reality as viewed on this scale...

· i will jump straight to the idea that there is one finite set of infinite sets [the universe], and one infinity of sets. any others would be drawn into one or the other sets [if there were any]. so we have three basic natures of reality, the quantum sets [the universe], the infinity of sets and infinity proper [statelessness].

we must now see what form and nature the infinity of sets has...

· if you threw a dice in infinity what number would come up? the answer must be that all 6 numbers would show, because all relative operations would occur in no time. we can use this metaphor to understand how all things exist at once in the infiniverse. as with the dice all possible events are ‘there’ as if like the dice in their shaker.

· this begs the question; must all possible dice and rolls of the dice be in the shaker, the sum of which is the universe. how then can there be another universe to follow [as with cyclic universe theories] after this one?

· equally so, we must ask what happens when time’s arrow hits the ground - so to say? i.e. when the universe ends. the contents of the shaker must remain as it is not part of time until rolled. thereafter we have a situation where all the ingredients exist yet have no means of finite expression, the only other means available to them is infinite expression!

· so lets put the two fields together and what do we have; there are both finite and infinite expressions of every possible thing. one expression mirrors its counterpart of differing dimension mapping each other reflectively.

Q. is it possible then that eternity exists and is equally as real as our universe? as i see it this would not initially be like some version of heaven, as due to infinite cardinality it would be empty or without ‘objects’ as such. it could be though that ‘you’ are mirrored as an infinite set of all that you are.

to this we may add that our universe would seam ‘empty’ in a manner, if we could not see it. the graphics card in our brains produce what we ‘see’ upon information from the senses. it is possible for blind people to see a little bit via hearing, it would appear that the brain just needs info to produce an image and hence see. if our source of info was only from infinity we could produce a vision of the infinite universe and hence ‘see’ eternity. curiously the ancient egyptian had a ceremony in the book of the dead called the opening of the eye’s, perhaps this reflects the act of seeing eternity!

*Takes a long, thoughtful drag*

Personally, my ability to comprehend infinity is terribly lacking, but is it possible that all happenings in our lifetime are mere flickering in the never ending sphere of life? Even if eternity exists, we have no way of proving it or measuring it, correct? Wouldn’t it be hard to prove something that cannot be comprehended or measured? In a purely scientific sense, yes, but the margins for speculation is wide open for musings. I just brought myself to fully attempt to comprehend the original post, despite this thread making landfall in a previous article of mine.

This kind of stuff makes one think, push the limits of their mental capacity. Excuse me, for a moment, I have to take an advil.

How about a world with no God, ethics, morals, law or order? In a shameless, mutual :wub:esque style, I will now advertise the thread of one of my fellow writers, which has surprisingly lead the way in EMM discussion, for the finale of this report (pun intended).

Okay, let us first assume there is No God at all. We are living in a universe created completely naturally and there is no God or higher being.

Based on that assumption, we can also assume that morality is 100% relative to each and every single person. We can also throw in Ethics there. Which, admittedly is more broad than simply "right and wrong" but for arguments sake, let us limit it to that.

So, here we are. Who decides what is right and wrong? Who decides what morality is the best morality to base law upon?

If we are still assuming that morality and ethics is 100% relative, we must then assume that there is no "correct" morality or ethical code.

Following that assumption, we must come to the conclusion that without a superior being, be it God or multiple diety's, there is no Right and there is no Wrong. There is no concept of justice. There is no "good" or "evil".
There [are] only opinions.

Alas, our law system, and very civilization is founded upon principles of justic, law, right. So why are we expected to follow "the rules" or agree to obey the laws set down by mere men? If they have no moral implications why must we obey? Is it fear? Are we merely being 'good' (again, in this scenario there is no good) because we do not want to be punished for....doing nothing wrong? Do we follow the rules then, because we live in a tyranny, and to not is to risk harm unto ourselves?

Hobbes brought the idea of the Social Contract. He said that in a world without order, life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" Therefore we must surrender our freedom to do what we wanted all the time to Strong Central authority in order to avoid this. Sounds good eh? Is it really? Which is better? Freedom or Safety? Do we really have either? And furthermore, is it "wrong" that life be that way? Unpleasant, for sure. But in a world of no absolute morality, who's to say that "the Strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must" is wrong? You cannot argue that from a moral or ethical perspective.

Also, if it is true that we must surrender our freedom to live as we choose in order to sucure secuirity for ourselves, then is this "social" contract applicable to those born after the foundations of our society? I never agreed to surrender my right to murder, or my right to steal, or rape, or attack other people. I don't do these things, due to my moral views, but I never told my Government "protect me, and I won't break your laws." Nor did any of us who weren't around to vote our own countries into existance.
John Locke was also a beleiver in the social contract, yet he beleived that human nature was less brutal and that in the natural state, all humans were equal and independent, but that we still needed to surrender ultimate freedom to form society. My question also applies to Locke's theory.

So, in conclusion...in a world without God, are laws really meaningless? Do our lack of absolute morals and universal ethics, as well as our lack of agreement to surrender rights to our Governments and societies mean that in the end, without God, we are living in slavery, we just don't realize it?

I would like to say that assuming there is no God, that does not automatically lead to the non-existence of morals. Indeed, just assuming that God doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that people will not worship and believe in him anyway (

).

Getting back on topic, while it is easy to ponder these things, we would have no way of knowing whether or not anyone’s arguments are true. But based on thinkers like Plato and Socrates, who stressed an absolutist style of thinking, it can be assumed that morals would exist, but without the commonly heard expression of “Christian” morals.

It is my opinion morals can be secular, as they are not limited to a religion. Morals and ethics are universal. Each individual is endowed (unless afflicted with a mental handicap) with a certain sense of compassion for a fellow human. Does this not lead to moral conduct?

This argument seems to assume that humans are innately evil, which I disagree with. I know plenty of upright atheists and upright Christians. The absence of penalties does not make valid the assumption that humans will act in a certain way.

Anyways, thanks for your time, hopefully too much of it hasn’t been wasted. It’s been fun, as always, to bring you the fortnightly report. I would like to stress that why I may disagree with some people, it does not mean I don’t like them. I value all of the EMM posters, however small that number is, and appreciate their contributions to this amazing forum.

Stay tuned for more!

I've just realised we don't have an Arts correspondant. Damn. Well, anyone who wants it, start your engines! Next in the queue (muaha! you must learn my silly english words!) is Rez, reporting on the VV and being sexily Persian about it at the same time.

Vestigia Vetustatis

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Hello again history lovers! This week our new editor has warned us that our families will pay if our articles weren't turned in on time. After a few days of consideration i decided it would probably be easier to write an article instead of paying the funeral expenses. So here we are again.

First up Signiferone has very kindly started a new thread dedicated to Roman sculptures. With masterpieces such as this

Its certainly worth a browse to admire some fine art. Or even better to contribute some images that you might think are particularly nice.

The thread itself can be found here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=194972

Second on the roster is Hand of Nergal with what he proclaims as a refreshingly original question. "Who was the worst Roman Emperor?"

Nergal believes that Caligula was the worst of all Roman emperors and he lays down 9 reasons why he thinks this is so. To my mind the 9th reason being quite clearly the most convincing one.

Originally Posted by Hand of Nergal

Height: tall

Originally Posted by Hand of Nergal

Complexion: pallid

Body: hairy and badly built

Neck: thin

Legs: spindling

Eyes and temples: hollow

Forehead: broad and forbidding

Scalp: almost hairless, especially at the top

Andrew Murphy brings in quite a strong counter to the claim that Caligula was a sadist although he doesn't offer a replacement for the worst emperor.

Originally Posted by Andrew.Murphy

As an emperor, he is considered as 'one of the worst'. But why would the Romans have put up with him for so long? Truth be told, on ground level, his regime was pretty stable, the economy was thriving and the army was well-maintained and strong. Interestingly, his fate was sealed when he extended his list of people to aggrovate and sufficiently irritated an Upper Army Official of the Praetorian Guard. His 'tantrums' only really affected the upper classes and they hated him for it... and guess who got to write the history books in those days? yup. sucks doesn't it...

So far we're mainly hearing a lot of votes for Nero and Caligula and a lot of reasoned rebuttals to those ideas. Get down to the thread and have your say!

Kiljan Arslan is bringing up the rear of this edition with his question on whether or not Christianity retarded Europe. Apparently Kiljan is a little peeved at the idea that some people, the so called rationalists, all believe that Christianity is the sole reason for the supposed dark ages or fall of Europe, whatever that's supposed to be.

Ironblood was the first to really take the bait and list several apparent acts of book burning by Christian authorities. Although Thuidereiks Gunthigg has again happened by and debunked almost every one of the examples on the list.

And a nice summation to finish -

Originally Posted by TG

(i) Literacy, especially in Greek, was already declining in the West well before the Empire fell.

Originally Posted by TG

(ii) Books are fragile and, in a pre-printing age, there are very few of them. It doesn't take many copies to be destroyed for a whole work to disappear. And yes, actually, the barbarians did burn libraries while they were burning many other things.

(iii) When you are worried about the next invasion or where your next meal is coming from you tend not to take the time to copy a book in a language that you can't read. And unless ancient books were regularly re-copied they were not preserved.

Now, how about you explain why, if it was Christianity that caused the loss of this pagan literature, why don't we see a similar loss in the Eastern Empire? No barbarian invasions there, but plenty of Christianity. Yet no loss.

Think about it.

However it just wasn't enough to stop my favourite post of the thread from arising

Proof Christianity

ed up Europe

Bc Roman Empire, Christs coming, Fall of the roam empire. Dark Ages.

If you want to get in on the action then here's the place to go - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=194990

Thats all from me this week. I'm off to bar my windows and dig a moat around my house so the Sundance Kid can't destroy me when my work is late again.

Like I would do anything like that, dear Rezothy...Ponti! Go and get Freddie and Massena. They need to pay our friend Rez a visit...oh wait. I'm writing this all in the published edition...crap. No, I'm too lazy to omit it. Hmm...probably should....stop typing.....EDITORIAL TIME!

EditorialsWe have just one editorial this week, from the delightful Elrond, Curial Extremist, Chief Opposition to Anagennese but an all-round cracking chap. This editorial carries an "R" warning for "Risqué" but has been approved wholeheartedly by his Holiness the Sundance. Enjoy it...I certainly did!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Apparently my last editorial was good and the new editor Sundance has let me take his editorial slot. I decided after I did my last editorial that I would talk about Freshers Week, for those of you that don’t know, it’s the name for the first week of University in England, I thought it would be a great idea to write about all the drunken stuff that went on and give my opinion on what university life was like. Some of you might be aware that my plans for Helios stuff have a habit of falling apart, this one didn’t fall apart it just got delayed. Sundance decided to be more of slave driver than his predecessor Scorch – He used to be lax about the Helios release dates, instead of releasing an issue every two weeks it averaged an issue a month, which is good for us but not for Helios readers. Anyway the release date chosen for Helios 31 was 27th September – the day I leave for Uni, so I had to delay Freshers week editorial until Helios 32 and find something else to write about. I chose nationalism at TWC because it really annoys me when hard line nationalist ruin debates by refusing to accept there country is ever wrong while insulting every country which disagrees with theirs. Apparently I am not alone in being annoyed by this so I decided that my editorial for Helios 31 would be about nationalism and its effect on TWC.

Nationalism is common at TWC – debates often degenerate into ‘my country is better than yours’ and sometimes it gets hilarious, one example (which I swear is true) was when a Russian nationalist recently claimed that if there was a war between NATO and Russia, then Russia would reach the Atlantic within a month. He failed to notice things such as NATO having six times the population of Russia as well as NATO spending $800 billion per year on its military compared with Russia spending an estimated $80 billion. That example is far from uncommon as some people will post absolutely anything in order to make there country seem better than their opponents. The thing which I don’t really understand is that members of certain nationalities always seem to say the same thing on a set of issues - its like there is a party line which much be followed. I have never seen a Greek on TWC argue that its fine for Macedonia to keep its current name or a Serbian argue that its fine for Kosovo to be independent, its probably happened but in the numerous mudpit debates on the issues that I have seen it hasn’t happened. I will talk about these to examples later but first I would like to talk about the example of nationalism that I believe is most relevant – Russian nationalism.

Before I begin what is probably the most controversial paragraph of the editorial I feel the need to state that I don’t have a problem with Russians or any other peoples, I do however have a problem with hard line Russian nationalists. There are nationalists representing most countries on TWC – however they are usually in a minority compared with slightly patriotic users from that country. My own country (the UK) is a good example – most brits on the site have a fair amount of patriotism and we have good reason – Britain has a great history but that’s what it is – History – most Brits on TWC know that Britain is not going to surpass or even match its past and we are generally content with being one of several medium sized powers in the world. Even Americans with arguably the best geopolitical position in the world atm don’t metaphorically wave the stars and stripes all the time – many for instance regularly post against the Iraq war. There will be a small minority who will support the US government no matter what but generally most Americans like most citizens of democracies accept the fact that their government screws up allot. Almost every Russian on the site that I am aware of differs from this – they always support the government – I could easily name five who I have never seen criticise the Russian government despite making several posts a day in the Mudpit.

While everyone has the right to free speech this attitude makes it incredibly hard to debate Russia related issues – because the most vocal Russians stick to the Kremlin line – and never deviate, nor will they see Russia’s military with any kind of realism – e.g. that in the absence of Nuclear weapons Russia’s army would be crushed by NATOs overwhelming advantage in numbers and technology. This situation generally leads to what is basically a turf war between a large number of Anti Putin members and Russian nationalists – this occurs simply because there is no give or take – even amnesty international articles are often deemed as western propaganda despite the fact that Amnesty regularly attacks western governments for their terrorism laws etc. I debate regularly in the mudpit and when presented with valid sources ie western or independent Russian media I will generally accept that the story shown is true or that the stats are correct – but it is almost never reciprocated. My personal view is that this occurs simply because independent media will not backup the view that Russia is going to become a super power again and that its military is a match for NATO.

My next point is rarely raised in the D&D because it often leads to a warning for off topic posting – Most Russian nationalists on TWC live outside of Russia – usually in English speaking countries. Mods argue that a member’s personal background is irrelevant but I believe it is in this case – there are a small number of members on the site who are the standard bearers for the country that they rarely visit while repeatedly insulting the governments of the countries that they live in. Not only is it a matter of courtesy to their country of residence it raises the question of how much they are aware of life and attitudes in Russia – in order to afford a couple or more flights a year they are probably much wealthier than normal Russians and as they don’t live in Russia they simply wont hear the day to day views in Russia about the Russian government etc. I think the Pro Kremlin attitude is more to do with national pride rather than policies – Russia has been humiliated since the fall of the Soviet Union and many Russians will completely back any policy or any politician that will restore Russia’s national pride. I don’t think I am alone when I say that a more considered and realistic approach towards Russia’s government would greatly help towards being able to have proper civil debates on topics such as Georgia.

I find the Macedonian naming dispute really amusing – two sets of TWC members regularly clash in the mudpit and often flame each other in order to support their country. After world war two Yugoslavia was reorganised and one of the constituent parts of it was named Macedonia. The Greeks argue that Macedonia wants the land in Northern Greece that was once ruled by Alexander and they argue that the Macedonians are descendants of slavs not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. I think this is a bit of a moot point – I am English and England’s language etc descends from the Angles and the Saxons but I still have as much right to be proud of the achievements of English Celts (e.g. Boudica) as any Welshmen. My view is that the current Macedonians while having a largely Slavic culture will also be descendants of ancient Macedonians and therefore have a right to use the name and claim their heritage. I find the Greek arguments particularly odd – firstly the Ancient Macedonians were not Greek in the same way that the Scots are not English – So I don’t think the Greeks have much of a right to claim Macedonia’s heritage. Secondly they argue that the Macedonians want most of Northern Greece because it was ruled by the Ancient Macedonians – there is no official claim and there never could be a feasible claim as the population of the area is almost entirely Greek. Anyway when a thread is started both sides gather together and start attacking each others arguments (and often each other), no one gives in because there is a party line that has to be followed for each side and no westerner can join in because whichever side which they are arguing against claim that they don’t know what they are talking about. In terms of its actual importance it takes up a disproportional amount of the posting in the pit – I don’t really care about it beyond the annoying fact that a Macedonia v Greece thread is often the first thread in the mud pit or academy.

The Serbia – Kosovo argument is another one of these issues that is over done – lets face it – Kosovo has massive NATO backing and the recognition of the major western states – Serbia isn’t going to rule the area again no matter how much Serbians and their allies complain. I think that this makes it fairly pointless to argue over especially as the vast majority of Kosovans support independence, another thing which I think undermines the nationalist flag waving contest is the fact that the Serbs support the breakaway of the Serbian autonomous republic within Bosnia. My belief about breakaway states is that they will get independence if they have the most important friends and that generally the only reason that Serbians, Bosnians, Georgians, etc oppose their independence is because it harms their national pride. Perhaps the only example were democracy is the most important part is Scotland – like most Englishmen I don’t care if they vote for independence in 2010 but if we were nationalists we would be standing in the mudpit waving Union Jacks arguing that Scotland has been part of the Union for over 300 years and that it must stay that way. I think that there should be independent, free votes in the various breakaway states and if they vote for independence they should get it but that’s never going to happen because it is too sensible and democratic.

While people may argue that the stuff I have written in the past few paragraphs is unimportant, it is because the rampant nationalism in the D&D makes it incredibly hard to debate issues because your consistently arguing against several people who will not admit defeat or change their views no matter what you post – there are many nationalists in the mudpit who post exactly the same views they did a year ago – which shows that they cannot accept any view which is not their own – which makes one wonder why they bother to post if they are not posting to try to draw the arguments to a logical conclusion. If I haven’t been lynched or sacked, my next editorial will be on my first week of Uni – freshers week – I have no idea what will be in it but I hope that I have a great time between now and when I sit down at my desk to write the editorial.

Elrond

Ahh, a much better job than my inane ramblings were doing! On that note, if anyone wants to take over the Ramblings, like usual, just PM me! I rarely bite, and only when Tony83 is around! From everyone here at Helios Central, get lost!

**Pontifex Maximus** · September 29, 2008, 05:23 PM

Well, it appears the old EMM report has taken first prize again!

**Thanatos** · September 29, 2008, 05:24 PM

Huzzah, Helios 31!

**Father Jack** · September 29, 2008, 05:27 PM

ZOMG Helios 31 .....

yeh! Well done guys reps all round (excpet for Ponti

- teaches you for sleeping with Dom * runs off crying*)

**Thanatos** · September 29, 2008, 05:28 PM

Ponti gets no love for his braggin. We all know you're Dom's woman.

**The Sundance Kid** · September 29, 2008, 05:33 PM

Thanatos, your bum links will be fixed in the morning. Sleepy time for Mr. Editor.

**Thanatos** · September 29, 2008, 05:37 PM

Be sure to tuck Ponti into bed first! After all, he's the best writer in the Helios.

**Pontifex Maximus** · September 29, 2008, 05:56 PM

Damn straight he's gonna tuck me in. Probably even bring me a glass of warm milk.

^{Thanny, you better talk to Macky, he's taking this pretty hard...}

**André Masséna** · September 29, 2008, 06:06 PM

Why my article was not added, I don't know.

**~~attilavolciak07~~** · September 29, 2008, 06:25 PM

Elrond, that was the most beautiful essay I ever read. Now, we must hope it gets read by the nationalists.

**Roman Clone** · September 29, 2008, 07:47 PM

Meh, I look so desperate in this Basement edition...

**Elrond** · September 29, 2008, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by attilavolciak07

Elrond, that was the most beautiful essay I ever read. Now, we must hope it gets read by the nationalists.

Thanks, I am really pleased with the reaction from those who have read it, both in the helios team and those in the hidden place that we both can see.

My next editorial will be on freshers week, I am working hard on creating stuff to write about. Todays activity includes 5 bars and allot of group singing.

**Captain Blackadder** · September 29, 2008, 08:58 PM

Great job everyone.

**Scorch** · September 30, 2008, 08:23 AM

What kind of

ed up

is this?

ing hell. I mean,

. You just

ed up the format completely. God-

ing-damnit.

you Sundance.

you to hell. And your

ing horse too.

Jesus Christ ... things were better in the old days.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Thanatos** · September 30, 2008, 11:12 AM

Grumpy frumpy crumbly wumbly Scorchy is back!

**Elzabar** · September 30, 2008, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Scorch

What kind of

ed up

is this?

ing hell. I mean,

. You just

ed up the format completely. God-

ing-damnit.

you Sundance.

you to hell. And your

ing horse too.

Jesus Christ ... things were better in the old days.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Atleast he didn't forget me!

Oh, wait... He did forget me....

**Giovi** · September 30, 2008, 03:52 PM

great work

**The Sundance Kid** · September 30, 2008, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Elzabar

Atleast he didn't forget me!

Oh, wait... He did forget me....

That's it, you're fired.

**Elzabar** · September 30, 2008, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by The Sundance Kid

That's it, you're fired.

D'oh

One more chance, boss?

**The Sundance Kid** · September 30, 2008, 04:44 PM

ONE MORE.

Then you get demoted to Thanatos' job, and he gets fired.

Thread: Helios 31: A New Hope

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Re: Helios 31: A New Hope

Posting Permissions