Moonlapse

I resized the images for you.

Theres a setting for member groups that defines their maximum file size. If it is set to zero it will disable uploads altogether for that group, even if the forum permissions allow it. I must have looked right past it like 4 times since the wording was off from what I was keen to find.

Yes.... in your brain.

Ahahaa! I found it!!! Silly me, I was trying to find it in the permissions settings... Only took me about 15 minutes of looking through every possible forum setting.

when posting a new message, you will have the option to upload a file from your computer. picture files will show up in the post. regular members are only authorized to upload in the media forum.

I can't find any mods that will be suitable. The Roman media forum has the option of uploading files, though. Once we start upgrading the site I'll definitely keep it in mind.

I shall look into it.

Spartacus, would you say that society, culture, politics and media are the same now as they were 2000 years ago?

We're all losers

When the percentages are nearly balanced on a couple of traits, I wouldn't expect the descriptions to be spot on.

"But I dont see how watching people suffer appeals to you greater than your sense of morals" "Your post does not make any reasonable nor logical sense!" Provoking other members then shutting them down with presumption is not ok on these forums, even if you try to hide it beneath an ambiguous front of friendly discussion. While I do love the occasional heated discussion, it must be done without any hint of insult to any other members. This is only my personal feeling but it seems that you are asking loaded questions and purposely mis-interpreting the answers to suggest the guilt or stupidity of others. I know this is harsh, but I'm seeing it in other topics and it IS affecting other members of the forums.

The appeal is in being able to be a part of history that no one will ever really have a chance to.

I think a big difference is how modern world wide media affects popular opinion. Terms like ethnic cleansing are coined in certain situations that are racially or religiously oriented. While some of this definitely came into play during Roman conquests, my personal feeling is that most Roman conflicts don't exactly fit the criteria of the modern ones mentioned. That's just me though and I'm a biased SOB.

'Ethnic cleasing' for those who resisted. Its a very simple, conditional concept and has come into play in every human conflict. You fight back, we kill you. Theres a difference when a group is irrationally singled out and annihilated.

That means ANYTHING.

Hehe, yep. Your turn!

If I could go back in time, I would want to see anything I possibly could.

http://www.secretgovernmentlabs.com/page/greekroots

They were both founded upon 7 hills. The latin word for the meeting of 3 roads is the root for this modern word...

I didnt want to spoil the game in the first post

Hmmm , perhaps it has to do with the number 7?

I agree that invading Iraq was unfounded without some sort of inital aggression or empirical evidence and that it may simply be for oil, but I don't know because I don't have all the information, only my assumptions. I do think Saddam deserved to be overthrown though, I just don't know about the timing/methods. "were not fighting a phenemenon of the muslim culture, were fighting against an ignorance which has plagued humanity for millenia" ...and will continue to plague humanity for the rest of its existence.

No actually I think this is a good place to keep the discussion, since its a natural progression. I appreciate the fact that you are contributing to an interesting dicussion. Thats why I like this thread, its not small talk. People are expressing strong thoughts and feelings where other people can see them and think about them. Personally, I agree with the US performing some damage control. Unfortunately, I think the US is under the false pretenses of 'liberating' and thus trying to appease world opinion, instead of just doing what they came to do - remove threats. I know it sounds harsh, but I think the preoccupation with appeasement and compassion is undermining everything that is happening and will only prolong the agony and perhaps cause failure. One question. Are you implying that in-action would have defeated Islamic radicals?

On the topic of the 'war on terror', read some Iraqi blogs. The opinions are just as varied as anywhere... When it comes down to it, the question isn't who is right or wrong, because neither is. The question is, which side most supports my interests? Many people in the US would like to see the US defeated, which I see as a horrible contradiction. Ward Churchill for example. He makes a very decent living speaking against the system and taxpayers he collects his paycheck from. If he hates it so much why not take a plane over to Pakistan to hang out with the terrorists he praises? Do they support his interests of having a nice home in beautiful Colorado, an excellent paying job and excercising his civic liberties? They'd cut his head off.

Uh oh. Shall I split the topic? No offense to anyone, but most people make snap judgements on these issues for whatever personal reasons and have no problem finding media 'facts' to back their viewpoints. You can argue endlessly, because all we know is what we've heard. Keep this in mind... Continue!