Kyle H on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:14:18 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [eia] Nelson/Napoleon

    Well put.  Does that mean you are voting with me?  If so, that makes a
majority in favor of my position, right?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nate Ellefson" <nellefson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'public list for an Empires in Arms game'" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [eia] Nelson/Napoleon

> > Thus spake "Nate Ellefson":
> > > How to put this: I think the rule that Joel cited is the
> > controlling
> > > one, so I'd have to vote that Turkey does get 2PP.  That
> > being said, I
> > > don't think it *should* be that way...
> >
> > Why do you think it shouldn't be that way?
> Bottom line, the sentence "Wow, that really speaks well of the Portugese
> that the British have an admiral such as Nelson." seems unlikely to me.
> I think a more likely statement is "Wow, the Portugese sure are lucky to
> have fought under an admiral such as Nelson; they wouldn't have stood a
> chance otherwise."  Political points are fundamentally representative of
> national prestiege, and I can't think of cases where a nation ever
> derives prestiege in the person of a commander from another country,
> even if they served under that commander.
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list