Is this statement true?

[TheEnforcer]

O'Brien: There are rules, even in war Garak!

Garak: Correction, humans have rules in war. Rules that tend to make victory a little harder to achieve in my opinion.

http://www.stinsv.com/DSn/Garak/weinwar.wav



Are there and should there be rules in war?

[Nickatilynx]

Trust you to bring a knife to a gun fight ;-)))

Seriously though....

as money has grown harder to get the rules changed.

Remember when some evil git decided that CONDOM member sites were allowed consoles?
No affiliate program accepted bulk email......
No one sent bulk email (well admited to it.)

Those tricks are positively passe. ;-))))

Watch what some people do in the coming months to maintain profit margins

in the immortsl words of Bachman,Turner,Overdrive
"baby....you ain't seen nothing yet."

:-)))

You know the "morals which we can afford"....well I reckon some of us are a bit skint ;-))))



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Jul 20 2003, 12:35 AM

[Mike AI]

Nick, I fear you are more right then ever....

We are an industry are going to kill the golden goose. It really pisses me off when I think about it.... a group of cockholsters doing shady things to line their own greedy pockets have the ability to destroy an entire industry.

[Almighty Colin]

Two interesting subjects in one thread (or is it one?).

There are definitely rules in war. Different cultures have different rules however. People sure get upset when other cultures don't play by their rules. Witness the US labelling of some of the Iraqi actions as irregular
or "criminal activity". That activity was called for by Saddam however. Many in the Arab world consider such attacks to brave and noble while many of us in the west consider the same acts to be cowardly and weak. No side is correct. It's just culture.

Not all rules of war make it more difficult to achieve victory, however. A vastly outnumbered side should run away to regroup more often. Throughout history the culture of war has often been to show bravery and honor and stand and fight. In the pre-gunpowder age such a rule lead to getting the battle over quicker. The greek hoplites had such rules of honor.

Even the idea of not targetting civilians is a rule that is sometimes in existence and sometimes not. Why should civilians be off limits? That's arbitrary.

At the beginning of World War II, civilian areas were not bombed. By the end of World War II it was so accepted that nuclear weapons were dropped on civilian areas. After the war the rule "don't use nuclear weapons" became a rule and don't sell nuclear weapons became one too.

[Almighty Colin]

On Nick's branch, I find it interesting the way the rules in our business have changed. Search engine spamming used to be very accepted and then it became less accepted over time. Email spam. I spammed 20 million AOL email addresses back in 1996. My host found out about it and didn't even shut it down. Just a warning to have them check any scripts I was going to use because I crashed their server. Whether email spam is accepted or not is completely arbitrary and cultural. I receive junk mail every single day in my post office box. I just throw it away. Same with my my email box. With a slightly different evolution we might find it to be much more accepted.

Should we use the word Lolita or not? There has been a growing number of webmasters that say no. I think it's arbitrary. We could be completely open to use of the word lolita and still not tolerate child porn.

Bestiality? A little more on the fence for most people. Some majpr TGPs list bestiality galleries. Probably adds to the plus column of acceptance.

Many more I'm sure.

[TheEnforcer]

Gotta admit I wasn't thinking of the webmaster world when I posted this but as Nick and Colin pointed out it certainly can apply!

As expected, some very good replies here in both veins of the discussion.

[*KK*]

Rules of war... interesting... I was reading a book about Henry 2 and Eleanor of Aquitaine... Thomas Becket... not long ago.

One of the primary reasons for Henry's creation of the largest empire since the Romans in the 1100s was the fact that he did not make war in the traditional manner.

Where his opponents were slow and deliberate in their actions and reactions, he was quick to horse and most often showed up on their doorsteps well before they'd even had time to grasp that he was coming.

Of course his undoing was the Becket disaster in the end, but his son John went right on doing things his own way for years and ruled.

[Almighty Colin]

KK, that's interesting. Immediately after that was the empire of Genghis Kahn and the Mongols, another great group of innovative horse riders.

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 20 2003, 01:07 PM
KK, that's interesting. Immediately after that was the empire of Genghis Kahn and the Mongols, another great group of innovative horse riders.

I've always been immured of those who choose their own path... spending a Sunday afternoon reading about Seabiscuit today

[Peaches]

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 20 2003, 07:11 PM
I've always been immured of those who choose their own path... spending a Sunday afternoon reading about Seabiscuit today

Great book - read it last year.

I'm still working on finishing Harry Potter. :P

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by *KK*+Jul 20 2003, 06:11 PM-->