SetonHallPirate 0 Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 I was just wondering...for some reason, I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to nail down... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simonvallee 0 Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 It would be a hell of a lot of work. Canadian elections use ridings with about 80 000 to 100 000 people in each, so to do so, you'd have to come up with, oh, about 25000 ridings for the US, each complete with their own initial starting support for every party, names for every candidate, strength of each candidate and its own name. Plus the 308 ridings Canada already has, since the parties have changed. You could consider 1 State= 1 Riding, but that'd be boring. That's in part why PM4E scenarios are more based on real-life scenarios and don't try as many things as P4E scenarios, they represent a lot more work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hardrightconservative 5 Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 I agree Simon Vallee I am having alot of difficulty doing that. It would also be a nightmare to barnstorm certain ridings. Wow thats alot of work! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SetonHallPirate 0 Posted November 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 simon-How about making the US ridings their current Congressional Districts, and instead expanding Canada's ridings to, oh, about 500,000 people per riding... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simonvallee 0 Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 First thing, recommand it to HRC, he's the one who's making it. As to the recommandation, that'd cut the work down, but you'd still have to come up with initial party support for more or less 560 ridings, names for candidates (to avoid generic names like "SocialistCand" that, though a cosmetic thing, can make the game less pleasant). In short, I wouldn't want to have to do it, especially not alone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hardrightconservative 5 Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Yeah its not high on my list of priorities at the moment. I am writing my Masters Thesis and working on a 2008 scenario and revamping my United North America scenario so I have my work cut out for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Swing Voter 1 Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Yeah its not high on my list of priorities at the moment. I am writing my Masters Thesis and working on a 2008 scenario and revamping my United North America scenario so I have my work cut out for me. ILK, thesis, wait til you have to right a dissertation for a docturate, it's hell! If you want a masters thesis in World History with a focus on early 1900's Italian goverment, we could work a deal Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hardrightconservative 5 Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 Yeah its not high on my list of priorities at the moment. I am writing my Masters Thesis and working on a 2008 scenario and revamping my United North America scenario so I have my work cut out for me. ILK, thesis, wait til you have to right a dissertation for a docturate, it's hell! If you want one in World History with a focus on early 1900's Italian goverment, we could work a deal I'm writing on Canadian-American relations in the context of NORAD and missile defense. My PhD thesis will be on the reliogious right as a political movement in the United States and Canada. Have you written your PhD Swing Voter? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Swing Voter 1 Posted November 7, 2004 Report Share Posted November 7, 2004 YEP, I got my Doctoral degree in World History from Cornell 4 years ago, than I got my current job teaching. My PHD thesis was on the affect and Political impact of the crusades on Europe, mainly on Italy and diplomacy and economic relations with Switzerland. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SSVegeta123243 1 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 i guess while studying history hrc skipped the parts on evolution and disregarded the part on the ice age Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mantis 1 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 i guess while studying history hrc skipped the parts on evolution and disregarded the part on the ice age Evolution has nothing to do with history - it is a scientific theory not a historical fact. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simonvallee 0 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 It is a theory based on undisputable facts, the only reason the scientific community doesn't call it fact is because they are historically cautious of anything. If it has no way of studying something perfectly and see how it works, they will not stop calling it a theory, and since evolution is a long processus, they can't study it well. For example, black holes are STILL only a theory, even if our satellites pick some up every now and then. Evolution is not a simple theory like the ones thrown by people when they've taken one drink too many, it is a theory that could be taken as fact because at worst, the truth will not be so far away from it, at best, the truth is it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mantis 1 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 It is a theory based on undisputable facts, the only reason the scientific community doesn't call it fact is because they are historically cautious of anything. If it has no way of studying something perfectly and see how it works, they will not stop calling it a theory, and since evolution is a long processus, they can't study it well. For example, black holes are STILL only a theory, even if our satellites pick some up every now and then.Evolution is not a simple theory like the ones thrown by people when they've taken one drink too many, it is a theory that could be taken as fact because at worst, the truth will not be so far away from it, at best, the truth is it. Actually, it is a theory based on other theories and facts that scientists themselves cannot fully agree on. Black holes are a theory, except we have very strong and very convincing evidence (that is not disputed) that they actually exist. No such evidence of that strength exists to support evolution. Sure there is some evidence, but find a room with 100 scientists and you'll end up with 100 different theories about what that evidence shows. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Swing Voter 1 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 It is a theory, but it is tought uin any decent collage level history cource, the fact is that is that it has had a major impact on our society today if you deny that mantis you truley are a moron. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mantis 1 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 It is a theory, but it is tought uin any decent collage level history cource, the fact is that is that it has had a major impact on our society today if you deny that mantis you truley are a moron. I've taken quite a few university level history courses and none of them covered the creation vs evolution debate. That theory is a matter for scientists to debate, not historians. I won't bother lowering myself to your level of puerile insults. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Swing Voter 1 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 It is a theory, but it is tought uin any decent collage level history cource, the fact is that is that it has had a major impact on our society today if you deny that mantis you truley are a moron. I've taken quite a few university level history courses and none of them covered the creation vs evolution debate. That theory is a matter for scientists to debate, not historians. I won't bother lowering myself to your level of puerile insults. I have several collage degrees and in all of my American History classes at Georgetown they talked about, what the hell do you think the monkey trial was! it was also covered when I was getting my masters and later my docturate from columbia and cornell respectivly, at all three levels it has been talked about, every history text I have used to teach at high school has talked about it, and all other history teachers I know cover it. maybe you where not paying attention in class... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mantis 1 Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 It is a theory, but it is tought uin any decent collage level history cource, the fact is that is that it has had a major impact on our society today if you deny that mantis you truley are a moron. I've taken quite a few university level history courses and none of them covered the creation vs evolution debate. That theory is a matter for scientists to debate, not historians. I won't bother lowering myself to your level of puerile insults. I have several collage degrees and in all of my American History classes at Georgetown they talked about, what the hell do you think the monkey trial was! it was also covered when I was getting my masters and later my docturate from columbia and cornell respectivly, at all three levels it has been talked about, every history text I have used to teach at high school has talked about it, and all other history teachers I know cover it. maybe you where not paying attention in class... The "monkey trial" (The State vs. John Scopes), while interesting does not fall under the realm of Canadian or relevant international history as far as I am concerned and that is probably why none of my courses paid much attention to it. Even if they did, from a historical context, it is only relevant from the point of view of the legal ramifications and not the theological/scientific debate. In other words, historians don't really care about which argument is correct, they are only conerned with the fact that such a trial took place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.