Name Game?

mepbmlist
#1

>> Would names from the WWII be considered offensive such as
>"Hitler"?
>
>There is a couple of guys from WWII that I think is potential
>offensive. Hitler is one and Himler is another, there is after
>all a bunch of German players and others too that may feel,
>that those names is to close in history to be good.

I can't believe that churchill and bomber harris are now the

bad guys in the

UK. But thats my opinion.

Who said I was from UK ?
And no one has said a bad word about these guys (in this forum).

not in this forum. But May day saw Churchill's statue got attacked
(something about him being a warmonger), and bomber harris was a bad boy
from years ago when people started protesting a statue the goverment wanted
to put up.

> Personally
>I think those names are stupid and would love to kill Hitler
>or Himler (especially with Morwen or Goldwine Frec).

I remember in an actual M/E game (when I was DS) that I saw

Rommel lead some

free troops into the back door of mordor.

yeah, game 97 northmen right? (No I didnt play NM).

Nah. Oz 2950 g6. Stag (then the northmen) created the person.

After his fun in the invasion of france, Rommel was

responsible for the

death of many allies (and Oz) soldiers in Africa (as he led

the Africa

Corps), he was later given some responsibility for the defense of the
western front (which also resulted in the death of more

allied soldiers). He

ended up taking poison (it was a better option for him than

going to trial

over the bomb plot). But I saw no problems with seeing his

coming back. I

actually said 'boo hiss (or words a bit harsher), knowing

Rommel this army

will have steel/steel HC in his army'.

BTW did you know that Rhudaur won 97 as a FP?

Good to see. the rhudaur is a 'challenging' position, and its a nice reward
for taking such a hard position.

But I'm fine with WWII names.

There is a major difference between Rommel and the other two guys.
Rommel was a soldier and a damn good one!
Himler and Hitler was some of the brains behind the holocaust
(not only eliminating a lot off jews but also many other of
their lesser races).

>
>Religious names?
>Well, one could use Lucifer instead of satan,

Seen that done already. Having the name reversed was also a

fad at one

stage. It allowed us to know that a certain person was

playing, so we didn't

mind him doing it (know you enemy and all that stuff).

Well I prefer to keep a couple of different themes going even
keeping close to tolkiens naming)

> showing at least
>a minor knowledge of his naming theme. But i would not ban
>those names. And what is Sauron if not a fallen angel like
>Lucifer and Mammon?

However some adult might get a 'bit worried' if they see

their little jonny

playing a game which has lucifer leading armies that destroy free pop
centres, or see satan as a emissary that corrupts (ala

doubles) people. Let

alone kill (ala assassinate) people.

One small problem, sauron is not a real person. A lot of

people think that

satan is real (and it isn't Clinton).

If I was GM (ala I hope not), I would never allow names of religious
figures. Too many people take religion seriously for others

to treat it in a

non-serious manner.

I agrre that a lot of people takes religion serious and that
it their right. But i dont think that many of them will be
found playing ME. But I agree that Satan is a bit provocative.

I think if someone takes something serious, then others

should respect that,

and not pick names in that category. I'm sure we can pick

lots of other

names without upseting each other (not that stomping on

their pop centres,

killing his people, and stealing all his money isn't going

to upset them

already - but its a different kind of upset).

Basically I agree, but there is a lot of "good" names in the
different parthenons and demanding that clint and his lot
could remember all of these is unfair to them.

that's right.

···

>
>Using player names?
>Grow up. We may not love each other

I've seen some players, and I think they are sort of cute :slight_smile:

- I REALLY

think we need more women players - or work out why they

avoid playing.
Never seen me :wink:

thanks
m

Henning

---------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Buy Long Distance with your GROUP and SAVE!!!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4123/9//430399//958719959/
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#2

And no one has said a bad word about these guys (in this forum).

not in this forum. But May day saw Churchill's statue got attacked
(something about him being a warmonger),

I'm sure this was reported in an interesting way in Oz. A turf was
stuck on his head to make a "grass Mohican" - in itself fairly amusing.
There is a long and honourable tradition in England, going back to the
antics of one Bertram Wooster Esq., for putting amusing objects on
public statues. The line was crossed however, by the scum who decided
to spray paint him as well (Churchill that is, not Bertie Wooster). Far
worse, they scrawled profanities on the Cenotaph, which is the big war
memorial. It's made of porous limestone, and they have not managed to
properly clean it yet. I strongly suspect that some of these louts
didn't even know who Churchill was, or what they were doing.

and bomber harris was a bad boy
from years ago when people started protesting a statue the goverment wanted
to put up.

Air Chief Marshall Sir Arthur Harris, had his detractors, even during
the war and has done ever since - they increased in the 1960's among the
generation who didn't actually have to go through the war. He was the
figurehead for what was in fact a national policy, which later
governments did not want to take full responsibility for. This accounts
for the fact that it took so long to recognise his achievements as an
individual and finally give him a statue. If you're interested I'd
refer you to "Bomber Command 1939-45" by Richard Overy, pub. Harper
Collins. I gives a fairly balanced view of the bombing campaign, and
sets some things straight - for example, the far greater proportion of
"strategic" bombing missions that were carried out compared to
"saturation" bombing missions, and Harris' own words to explain the
justification behind the strategies used at various stages of the war.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Michael Peters <MPeters@nskomatsu.com.au> wrote