9 Hours Left to Support a Troper-Created Project : Personal Space (discuss)

History Headscratchers / TheSalvationWar

17th May '16 8:04:24 PM StevieC
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Which only proves pride really '''is''' the deadliest sin, after all.
9th Dec '15 2:06:22 PM FF32
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** McNamara died after the text was written and was judged by a very cursory "reading of their aura" not by detailed knowledge of their acts on earth. So Macnamara went to the ninth circle because he was judged as being a treacherous, evil betrayer rather than for the enormously long list of dreadful acts he committed on earth. Instead, the 9th circle of Hell 'waiting pits' mentioned are reserved for 'the network executives who cancelled Firefly'.

to:

** McNamara [=McNamara=] died after the text was written and was judged by a very cursory "reading of their aura" not by detailed knowledge of their acts on earth. So Macnamara went to the ninth circle because he was judged as being a treacherous, evil betrayer rather than for the enormously long list of dreadful acts he committed on earth. Instead, the 9th circle of Hell 'waiting pits' mentioned are reserved for 'the network executives who cancelled Firefly'.Series/{{Firefly}}'.
1st Dec '15 8:44:47 AM Berrenta
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** 1939? I do not think the daemons would have stood a chance even then. I have TwoWords for you: chemical warfare. If nerve gas had not yet been invented, phosgene and mustard gas would nonetheless have remained every bit as nasty as they had been in 1918. You'd have to go back further for it to be a fair fight. Even in the Russo-Japanese War of 1907 they had artillery forward observation officers using radio and field telephones to communicate with artillery to coordinate indirect fire, and shells filled with TNT. In the large-scale battles in Iraq it was massed artillery fire that was the real killer (this is what we would expect from Twentieth Century warfare, where, in every major war, artillery inflicts 90%+ of casualties among the infantry) and that most definitely existed on Earth in 1907. European armies were making heavy use of the Maxim gun and other similar designs from Hotchkiss and Vickers--belt-fed heavy machine guns--in 1890, and massed HMGs would have doubtless inflicted a great many casualties on daemons. Before high explosives the state-of-the-art anti-personnel fragmentation artillery round was the UK's Armstrong shell, larger examples of which, despite being filled with black powder, were effective, if inefficient, even by 21st Century standards. Handling large-sized Harpy units without chemical warfare would have been difficult, though. Then again chemical warfare was very rapidly implemented once someone had the idea for it in 1915, and nothing that it required in 1915 would have been impossible in 1890. Indirect artillery fire could have been done using telegraph communication between observers and firing units, too, if someone had thought of it.

to:

*** 1939? I do not think the daemons would have stood a chance even then. I have TwoWords two words for you: chemical warfare. If nerve gas had not yet been invented, phosgene and mustard gas would nonetheless have remained every bit as nasty as they had been in 1918. You'd have to go back further for it to be a fair fight. Even in the Russo-Japanese War of 1907 they had artillery forward observation officers using radio and field telephones to communicate with artillery to coordinate indirect fire, and shells filled with TNT. In the large-scale battles in Iraq it was massed artillery fire that was the real killer (this is what we would expect from Twentieth Century warfare, where, in every major war, artillery inflicts 90%+ of casualties among the infantry) and that most definitely existed on Earth in 1907. European armies were making heavy use of the Maxim gun and other similar designs from Hotchkiss and Vickers--belt-fed heavy machine guns--in 1890, and massed HMGs would have doubtless inflicted a great many casualties on daemons. Before high explosives the state-of-the-art anti-personnel fragmentation artillery round was the UK's Armstrong shell, larger examples of which, despite being filled with black powder, were effective, if inefficient, even by 21st Century standards. Handling large-sized Harpy units without chemical warfare would have been difficult, though. Then again chemical warfare was very rapidly implemented once someone had the idea for it in 1915, and nothing that it required in 1915 would have been impossible in 1890. Indirect artillery fire could have been done using telegraph communication between observers and firing units, too, if someone had thought of it.
29th Nov '15 1:22:21 PM ham-peas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


If you're not going to '''READ THE STORY''' (your loss, it's quite good) then at least [[http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4555 READ THE FAQ]]. If you ask a question here that's long since been answered there, don't be surprised if you come back later to find a response that's somewhat snippy in tone, or no response at all.

to:

If you're not going to '''READ THE STORY''' (your loss, it's quite good) then at least [[http://www.'''[[http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4555 READ THE FAQ]].FAQ]]'''. If you ask a question here that's long since been answered there, don't be surprised if you come back later to find a response that's somewhat snippy in tone, or no response at all.
29th Nov '15 1:22:11 PM ham-peas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


If you're not going to '''READ THE STORY''' (your loss, it's quite good) then at least '''[[www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4555 READ THE FAQ]]'''. If you ask a question here that's long since been answered there, don't be surprised if you come back later to find a response that's somewhat snippy in tone, or no response at all.

to:

If you're not going to '''READ THE STORY''' (your loss, it's quite good) then at least '''[[www.[[http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4555 READ THE FAQ]]'''.FAQ]]. If you ask a question here that's long since been answered there, don't be surprised if you come back later to find a response that's somewhat snippy in tone, or no response at all.
29th Nov '15 1:21:42 PM ham-peas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Before you post something here, it is best that you actually '''READ THE STORY'''. This is a JustBugsMe page, not a place for you to Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike.

to:

Before you post something here, it is best that you actually '''READ THE STORY'''. This is a JustBugsMe page, not a place for Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike.

If you're not going to '''READ THE STORY''' (your loss, it's quite good) then at least '''[[www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4555 READ THE FAQ]]'''. If
you ask a question here that's long since been answered there, don't be surprised if you come back later to Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike.find a response that's somewhat snippy in tone, or no response at all.
29th Nov '15 1:14:33 PM ham-peas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** According to Isaiah, "the angel of the Lord", but he refuses to be drawn on exactly which one that was. Perhaps he didn't know; perhaps Appoloin was in error regarding the details of Uriel's last action on Earth.



** No. The attempts to rationalize succubus telepathy via quantum mechanics are an example of EarlyInstallmentWeirdness, and the MST3KMantra applies. It is very likely that, in a published version, the whole rationale would've been edited out and {{HandWave}}d over, as was done with (for example) angels and demons having the ability to fly, even on Earth, despite the manifest physical impossibility of any such thing.



** It has a glowing diffuse light source powered by the contraction of the universe of which it is a part and that light source waxes and wanes on a set schedule just like a variable star

to:

** It has a glowing diffuse light source powered by the contraction of the universe of which it is a part part, and that light source waxes and wanes on a set schedule just like periodically in similar fashion to a variable star
star.




* Not sure if someone will read this or even respond to it, but what are the sizes of the big players of the novels -Yahweh, Michael, Uriel, Satan... (at most I can imagine that Dumah, in order to ride the Scarlet Beast (height of 200') as if it was a horse, must have a height on the order of 100')-?. How look them (ie: does Uriel have black wings and black hair?)?.

to:

\n* Not sure if someone will read this or even respond to it, but what are the sizes of the big players of the novels -Yahweh, Michael, Uriel, Satan... (at most I can imagine that Dumah, in order to ride the Scarlet Beast (height of 200') as if ** If you sent a rocket up, it was a horse, must have a height would come down somewhere. Where, precisely, would depend largely on the order specific impulse of 100')-?. its motor(s) and the azimuth and elevation of its launch. If you dug down far enough, you'd surface somewhere else in Hell. Where, precisely, would depend on details of its topology which haven't been described in the text. How look them (ie: does Uriel have black wings gravity works in Heaven, Hell, and black hair?)?.other such universes hasn't been described, either.



Go back to ''Literature/TheSalvationWar''. Don't forget to bring MoreDakka. And '''[[MemeticMutation READ THE STORY]]'''.

to:

Go back to ''Literature/TheSalvationWar''. Don't forget to bring MoreDakka. And '''[[MemeticMutation READ THE STORY]]'''.STORY]]''' -- your questions are almost certainly answered there.
29th Nov '15 1:01:49 PM ham-peas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* My questions are more of a "Just Makes Me Wounder" reather then "Just Bugs Me", but anyway, how comes that the dude who wrote this story hasn't releashed it to the public as in a profitable literature book instead for a online web-story? As excellent as this story is, it wouldn't surprise me if it would become a Hollywood big budget, Academy Award winning movie based on it one year after it would be releashed as a book, so why doesn't the guy see how much money he can earn on releasing it that way?
** The books nearly were released as novels by a mainstream publisher; an agreement had been signed and work on converting the text to a full book was far advanced. The project was destroyed by a Ukrainian who pirated the books, putting them out as an illegal torrent. The torrent rendered both books in the TSW series unpublishable and the publisher (who had already made significant investments in getting them ready for publication) dropped out. With any possibility of financial return from the TSW series destroyed, it's unlikely the third book will be written. This is a perfect example of how internet piracy and copyright violations destroy incentives to produce material.

to:

* My questions are more of a "Just Makes Me Wounder" Wonder" reather then "Just Bugs Me", but anyway, how comes that the dude who wrote this story hasn't releashed it to the public as in a profitable literature book instead for a online web-story? As excellent as this story is, it wouldn't surprise me if it would become a Hollywood big budget, Academy Award winning movie based on it one year after it would be releashed as a book, so why doesn't the guy see how much money he can earn on releasing it that way?
** The books nearly were released as novels by a mainstream publisher; an agreement had been signed and work on converting the text to a full book was far advanced. The project was destroyed by a Ukrainian who pirated the books, putting them out as an illegal torrent. The torrent rendered both books in the TSW series unpublishable and the publisher (who had already made significant investments in getting them ready for publication) dropped out. With any possibility of financial return from the TSW series destroyed, it's unlikely the third book will be written. This is a perfect example of how internet piracy and copyright violations destroy incentives to produce material.



** Because the original posts were not considered to have been distributed; however torrenting something is a form of distribution and therefore constitutes publication. That point was argued at length but the existing publisher was adamament on the issue. To many that may seem a distinction without a difference but it remains the major obstacle to getting TSW out in dead tree form.

to:

** Because the original posts were not considered to have been distributed; however torrenting something is a form of distribution and therefore constitutes publication. That point was argued at length but the existing publisher was adamament adamant on the issue. To many that may seem a distinction without a difference but it remains the major obstacle to getting TSW out in dead tree form.



*** Start buying it because you think wrong. The publisher had already read both the written novels before signing on to publish them so they knew exactly what they were getting before they signed on the dotted line. Indeed, the controversial aspect was something they found appealing because nothing sells books like a good scandal. The fact is that plans to publish the Salvation War were a direct casualty of literary piracy.

to:

*** Start buying it because you think wrong. The publisher had already read both the written novels -- not the essentially pre-first-draft versions on the Star Destroyer dot Net forums, but the cleaned-up, edited, nearly-ready-for-publication copy -- before signing on to publish them so they knew exactly what they were getting before they signed on the dotted line. Indeed, the controversial aspect was something they found appealing because nothing sells books like a good scandal. The fact is that plans to publish the Salvation War were a direct casualty of literary piracy. (And the unprintable epithet who stole and torrented them actually had the gall to write to Slade and tell him not only that he was the one who'd done so, but that he'd done it precisely to ensure they could never be published.)
29th Nov '15 12:55:14 PM ham-peas
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Or "bankrupt". Escapism likely isn't as much of a growth stock in the [=TSWverse=] as in ours.
29th Nov '15 12:52:02 PM ham-peas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* "[[InsistentTerminology Nukes don't explode, they initiate."]] Except, they '''do''' explode. The dictionary definition of an explosion is "A rapid expansion or bursting out." Note that this doesn't say anything about what causes it. Thus, a sudden release of chemical energy (such as from detonating TNT) is an explosion, a sudden release of pressure (such as an over-pressurized gas tank) is an explosion, and a sudden release of nuclear energy (such as from a nuclear initiation) is an explosion. Yes, nuclear bombs initiate. They also explode as a direct result of that. (They're also bombs, no matter how much you call them "devices.") You'd think that someone would call the Targeter out on his B.S.
** This is a perfect example of why you should never, never use generalized descriptions from dictionaries intended for common use when discussing specialized subjects. Doing so simply betrays ignorance. Every area of expertize has its own language and conventions and to be credible in that field one has to use that jargon. In this case, the dictionary you are quoting is so over-simplified as to be worthless. FYI, yes, TNT going off is an explosion. No, an over-pressurized tank of gas letting go is not an explosion, it is called "bursting". And no, a nuclear initiation is not an explosion. The difference is that explosion is a simple chemical process while an initiation is a complex physical process. This difference is absolutely critical in handling nuclear weapons because an explosion is used to initiate the process (either by powering the gun for a gun configuration device or compressing the pit in an implosion device). A lot of things happen thereafter and it's essential to distiguise between the two. So, a nuclear initiation is a lot more than just an explosion (for example how many electronic effects are created by a boiler bursting? Or how many people die from radiation poisoning following a pound of TNT exploding?). Your comment about bombs is just plain ridiculous. FYI a bomb is a munition. A nuclear device may be configured as the payload of a bomb, it may be configured as the payload of a shell, it may be configured as the payload of the re-entry vehicle of a missile or as the payload of a depthcharge. In each case, the nuclear device itself is quite seperate from the means by which it is delivered. Nobody called the Targeteer out because he was absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. To make dialogue authentic it has to reflect the terminology used by the speaker and this is done accurately.
*** Ok, I see the difference between a nuclear "device" and a nuclear bomb (and nuclear shell, nuclear ICBM, nuclear depth charge, [[IdiotBall nuclear hand grenade]], etc.). I apologize for getting that wrong. However, I stand by my statement that a nuclear initiation results in a nuclear explosion. I'm a computer programmer, which is a field that has plenty of its own jargon (granted, not as much as either the military or nuclear physics, but still plenty). The actual definition of a "computer hacker" is someone who enjoys pushing computers to their limit, to see what they can do; in other words, an extreme enthusiast. However, just because someone is enough of an enthusiast to merit the title of "hacker" doesn't mean that the title "computer enthusiast" ceases to apply. I believe the same is true here. A nuclear initiation is one specific ''type'' of explosion, however, that doesn't mean that the term "explosion" ceases to apply.
*** Sorry, but you are still missing the point and are still completely wrong. You are using a definitition from a very elementary and generalized source source that has no validity when being used to reference a specific technology area. You might as well say that explosions are things that go bang; your dictionary definition is no more useful than that. A nuclear initiation is far more than a simple chemical process. Say again, since when does a pound of TNT going off give somebody (for example) radiation poisoning? Furthermore, the language used in the nuclear weapons business is specific and ccurately represented. It would not be accurate to have somebody from that background not using the correct terminology. So you are wrong on both counts, a nuclear initiation is not an explosion and nobody from the nuclear weapons sectior would call it one.
*** I still disagree about the definition of the word explosion. However, if that's the way real nuclear weapons experts talk (I've never met one, so I don't have any first-hand experience), then the author was correct in putting it in. I withdraw my complaint.\\
So, is there a "[=JustBugsMe/Jargon=]" page or something available that we can take this debate to?
** Except that's the correct terminology in nuclear science for a nuclear detonation, particularly among targeters. Remember, Stuart's ''job'' during the Cold War was to target nuclear devices for maximum effect, and he is ''intimately'' familiar with both their workings and the terminology surrounding them. If he says the correct term is "initiate" then he's correct.

to:

* "[[InsistentTerminology Nukes don't explode, they initiate."]] Except, they '''do''' explode. The dictionary definition of an explosion is "A rapid expansion or bursting out." Note that this "
** The dictionary probably
doesn't say anything about what causes it. Thus, a sudden release of chemical energy (such as from detonating TNT) is an explosion, a sudden release of pressure (such as an over-pressurized gas tank) is an explosion, and a sudden release of nuclear energy (such as from a nuclear initiation) is an explosion. Yes, nuclear bombs initiate. They also explode as a direct result of that. (They're also bombs, no matter how much you call them "devices.") You'd think that someone would call delve into the Targeter out on his B.S.
** This is a perfect example of why you should never, never use generalized descriptions from dictionaries intended for common use when discussing specialized subjects. Doing so simply betrays ignorance. Every area of expertize has its own language and conventions and to be credible in that field one has to use that jargon. In this case, the dictionary you are quoting is so over-simplified as to be worthless. FYI, yes, TNT going off is an explosion. No, an over-pressurized tank of gas letting go is not an explosion, it is called "bursting". And no, a nuclear initiation is not an explosion. The difference is that explosion is a simple chemical process while an initiation is a complex physical process. This difference is absolutely critical in handling nuclear weapons because an explosion is used to initiate the process (either by powering the gun for a gun configuration device or compressing the pit in an implosion device). A lot of things happen thereafter and it's essential to distiguise between the two. So, a nuclear initiation is a lot more than just an explosion (for example how many electronic effects are created by a boiler bursting? Or how many people die from radiation poisoning following a pound of TNT exploding?). Your comment about bombs is just plain ridiculous. FYI a bomb is a munition. A nuclear device may be configured as the payload of a bomb, it may be configured as the payload of a shell, it may be configured as the payload of the re-entry vehicle of a missile or as the payload of a depthcharge. In each case, the nuclear device itself is quite seperate from the means by which it is delivered. Nobody called the Targeteer out because he was absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. To make dialogue authentic it has to reflect the terminology used by the speaker and this is done accurately.
*** Ok, I see the difference
distinction between a nuclear "device" variable and a nuclear bomb (and nuclear shell, nuclear ICBM, nuclear depth charge, [[IdiotBall nuclear hand grenade]], etc.). I apologize for getting that wrong. However, I stand by my statement that a nuclear initiation results in a nuclear explosion. I'm a computer programmer, which is a field that has plenty of its own jargon (granted, not as much as either value with the military or nuclear physics, but still plenty). The actual definition of a "computer hacker" is someone who enjoys pushing computers to their limit, to see what they can do; same specificity that's commonplace in other words, an extreme enthusiast. However, just because someone is enough of an enthusiast to merit the title of "hacker" computing science. That doesn't mean that the title "computer enthusiast" ceases to apply. I believe the same former is true here. A nuclear initiation is one specific ''type'' of explosion, however, that doesn't mean that the term "explosion" ceases to apply.
*** Sorry, but you are still missing the point and are still completely wrong. You are using a definitition from a very elementary and generalized source source that has no validity when being used to reference a specific technology area. You might as well say that explosions are things that go bang; your dictionary definition is no more useful than that. A nuclear initiation is far more than a simple chemical process. Say again, since when does a pound of TNT going off give somebody (for example) radiation poisoning? Furthermore, the language used in the nuclear weapons business is specific and ccurately represented. It would not be accurate to have somebody from that background not using the
correct terminology. So you are wrong on both counts, a nuclear initiation is not an explosion and nobody from the nuclear weapons sectior would call it one.
*** I still disagree about the definition of the word explosion. However, if that's the way real nuclear weapons experts talk (I've never met one, so I don't have any first-hand experience), then the author was correct in putting it in. I withdraw my complaint.\\
So, is there a "[=JustBugsMe/Jargon=]" page or something available that we can take this debate to?
** Except that's the correct terminology in nuclear science for a nuclear detonation, particularly among targeters. Remember, Stuart's ''job'' during the Cold War was to target nuclear devices for maximum effect, and he is ''intimately'' familiar with both their workings
and the terminology surrounding them. If he says latter isn't; quite the correct term is opposite. The same goes for "initiate" then he's correct.
vs. "explode"; given Mr. Slade's extensive professional experience in the field, if anyone were ever going to use the correct term, it'd be he.
This list shows the last 10 events of 156. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheSalvationWar