Honorverse ramblings and musings

cthia wrote:You mean like when I was the only one who thought there were those who would believe that Theisman was MURDERED, including Elizabeth??? Hmmm?

AND when I argued for pages that Beowulf's actions would be viewed as treasonous?

Faith in my powers of persuasion? Try faith in my common sense.

tlb wrote:snip

Which makes me wonder why you have so much faith in your powers of persuasion; I have not seen anyone in this forum change sides to take your part.

daryl wrote:I honestly believe that there is only one person who believes that in this fictional story, the fictional heroine acted unfairly by not saying "Hey, remember I'm a genie with slightly quicker reflexes and slightly more strength than my weight suggests, plus that I'm not sure but lately I seem to have a sixth sense about what others are feeling? So why not be a good lad and just wait for the hangman?"

The problem with everyone copying off the same person in class is that everyone is going to get a failing grade if that person is an idiot! I march to the beat of my own drum.

tlb wrote:If you insist on quoting me, then you temporarily draw me back in.

First the simple mistake: you meant to say that Theisman was a murderer, not murdered. Actually you went so far as to say that the new government should try him for treason.

Second the more complex mistake: it is not that you were arguing Beowulf's actions would be regarded as treasonous that was the source of the disagreement; most people would agree with that statement (I know I did, as you can see in the thread). The disagreements were over your two additional points:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.
2. Because of that actual treason, Beowulf had accumulated (bad) karma that was going to cause the League to wreck vengeance on the planet.

PS.I do believe that you read the books and see no problem with checking the Wiki.

OOPs, must have been my excitement and shock over the manna! Meant to say Theisman was a murderer. Or Saint-Just was murdered. Thanks for correction.

Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous. The first three pages alone . . .

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&hilit=karma&start=05

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&hilit=karma&start=11

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&hilit=karma&start=14

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&hilit=karma&start=16

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&hilit=karma&start=18

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&hilit=karma&start=26

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&hilit=karma&start=28

Actually I argued it pretty much the entire thread.

Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied. . .

1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

We won't get into 2 again just yet until I've read UH, slated for a Christmas read by several of us.

cthia wrote:Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous. The first three pages alone . . .

-- snip --

Actually I argued it pretty much the entire thread.

Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied. . .

1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

We won't get into 2 again just yet until I've read UH, slated for a Christmas read by several of us.

No, #1 does not have to be implied; that was a main part of our disagreement. I was arguing that the Mandarins would paint Beowulf as treasonous in order to get a declaration of war against Manticore; which Beowulf could otherwise block.
Here is where we have gotten behind the "Beowulf could be viewed as treasonous" to the "Beowulf was guilty of actual treason":
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&start=450

[quote="tlb"][quote="cthia"]Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous. The first three pages alone . . .

-- snip --

Actually I argued it pretty much the entire thread.

Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied. . .

1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

We won't get into 2 again just yet until I've read UH, slated for a Christmas read by several of us.

No, #1 does not have to be implied; that was a main part of our disagreement. I was arguing that the Mandarins would paint Beowulf as treasonous in order to get a declaration of war against Manticore; which Beowulf could otherwise block.
Here is where we have gotten behind the "Beowulf could be viewed as treasonous" to the "Beowulf was guilty of actual treason":
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&start=450


Before we go to fisticuffs, I think the point is NOT that what Beowulf did was treasonous but that it could be portrayed as such. It made a lovely excuse for failure.

Actually, Beowulf's going along with letting the fleet through the wormhole would simply have led to large casualties. As we have noted, there were a limited number of ships that could go through at any time and there were quite a few forts waiting.

I would also quote Sam Goldwyn that "a verbal agreement is worth the paper it's printed on."

ldwechsler wrote:Before we go to fisticuffs, I think the point is NOT that what Beowulf did was treasonous but that it could be portrayed as such.

That is the impetus behind my entire argument. Along with . . .

ldwechsler wrote:I would also quote Sam Goldwyn that "a verbal agreement is worth the paper it's printed on."

. . . broken verbal agreements have been the catalyst for many a crime of passion. And being stabbed 99 times long after you're dead won't be the last time that crime is fueled.

cthia wrote:Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous.

Rather than a repetition of the entire discussion, the way I read the first half of that thread was as variations on the following paraphrased statements and responses:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason".
Someone else writes "What Beowulf did was legal and not treason at all".
Cthia writes "But Beowulf will have to consider the reaction of the Solarian League to its treason".
Someone else writes "Beowulf did what it needed to do and that was not treason".

About midway through the thread, we finally got you to expound and discovered that there was unspoken clause to your main statement. So it really went like this in your mind:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason (,because Beowuf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking)".

You just restated that hidden clause in the post above:

cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied.

Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

In my opinion, A does not imply B; but if B were true, then it would justify A.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous.

Rather than a repetition of the entire discussion, the way I read the first half of that thread was as variations on the following paraphrased statements and responses:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason".
Someone else writes "What Beowulf did was legal and not treason at all".
Cthia writes "But Beowulf will have to consider the reaction of the Solarian League to its treason".
Someone else writes "Beowulf did what it needed to do and that was not treason".

About midway through the thread, we finally got you to expound and discovered that there was unspoken clause to your main statement. So it really went like this in your mind:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason (,because Beowuf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking)".

You just restated that hidden clause in the post above:

cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied.

Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

In my opinion, A does not imply B; but if B were true, then it would justify A.

****** *

Your post is really confusing. Your closing argument uses numbers (#1 and #2) then switches to letters (A and B) that either aren't related or the logic is orphaned. Additionally, you cannot argue "paraphrased statements," instead of the actual statements. Paraphrased statements are your interpretation of what was actually stated and meant.

Remember everyone's - and I do mean every single person besides myself - erroneous interpretation of John Harington's quote? Every subsequent paraphrase erroneously bastardized it to their own intent.

That is the problem with hearsay. A teacher of mine way back in grade school conducted an experiment where she whispered a paragraph in a student's ear that went around the room in whispers (gossip). By the time the last student got the gossip, is was severely distorted.

Please argue actual posts, not paraphrases. Paraphrases sre simply gossip. I have a difficult enough time hoping everyone will properly digest what's actually written.

Let's take this discussion to the ring where it belongs. LOL

Response moved to Beowulf & Karma thread.

Fox2! wrote:

Daryl wrote:At this point in this fictional novel, the villain has noticed that the heroine is female (therefore by his culture weaker and softer), wounded, and exhausted. He also knows that he has practiced for years at this martial art, and attained a high rank, while she has only had a few months in a busy schedule to "play" with the sword. I'd be putting money on the villain. Mind you I imagine that if he had won this, his life would have been short anyway, as he would be known as a killer of children, plus someone who took advantage of a potentially breeding female and killed her while she was injured and exhausted. Not a fair test.

Burdette would have out-lived Honor only by the time required for Nimitz to launch a disemboweling attack on him. Even if every Armsman in the Chamber fired at him, Nimitz would succeed in killing Burdette before dying himself.

This has been an interesting discussion in my group. Would Nimitz have survived a decapitation of Honor and the rush of emotions surging through him long enough to kill Burdette? Some in my group say no, that Nimitz would have curled up in a ball and immediately self-destructed because of his intense bond with Honor that is one of a kind. Some say Nimitz would have been temporarily protected by the sheer adrenaline from the raw anger and hatred.

cthia wrote:

My miffed Niece's Rebuttal

I'll have you know that Nimitz has had plenty of practice holding his breath. You of all people should know that!

<Honor! How am I supposed to refrain from slitting Pavel Young's throat!>

"How?"

<HOW! Honor!>

"Take a deep breath. Go on!"

<I . . . N . . . H . . . A . . . L . . . E>

"Now hold it! . . . Hold it! . . . Hold it! . . ."

Nimitz had PLENTY of practice!

My niece is still up in arms over this can-o-worms . . .

"Burdette was headed to hell, Honor was the Devil's Advocate."

Over the holiday, a couple of friends brought up the fact that Honor's duel with Burdette featured a search for the "crease" and a "war of wills."

They posit that the real war of wills was fought during the intermission of what they've come to call "halftime" in which Burdette was waiting for his sword. I never even considered the battle of wills, the psychology of mannerisms and such at play. Honor would also have been privy to Burdette's emotions much as she was privy to Summervale's and Young's emotions of fear before they died. Knowing your opponent is frightened may be an advantage in itself. Although frightened life forms can be deadly.

It would be nice to know the elapsed time it took to retrieve his sword. Interesting notion.