User talk:SouthWriter



Where's my flag?
Thank you for expediting my gradation.--SouthWriter 22:15, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

My flag is not showing up in the data base. I just tagged it to go there by putting the "flags" category on it. How do I get it over into the data file? --SouthWriter 22:15, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Also, do I have to run related articles (support articles, such as news clips, diary and journal entries, and articles on the people mentioned) through the "Proposal" process? --SouthWriter 22:15, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

i would recommend it. HAD 16:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to speed it up, just ask for your article to be graduated on the main talk page. Mitro 00:23, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Try this man
I made like this awesome forum: Forum:Lovian Communist Party. I hope some people will see it and go and watch the site, Lovia, and join the LCP (communist party) to expand its power and influence. Lovia (wikination) is a fictional wikination which is very active with many users. Go see that forum! Thanks in advance, Dr. Magnus 18:58, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I assure you its a cool site. Go check out the forum, click the link, visit wikination and join the LCP by adding your name in the list of members. Take care and have fun! Dr. Magnus 18:59, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

New Montgomery and bias
how about creating a bio on the white racist in charge of New Montgomery? Also, you can mention things like genocide and atrocities on bio's, just be objective about it. HAD 20:12, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not at all comfortable with the assumption that these racist gangs could rise up and be as effective as the creators of this timeline think it they would. I created the one Black Muslim in response to the already "established" black supremacist city-state in the city of Anderson. In creating a character, I was at liberty to make him as evil as I wanted. However, in creating a bio, I sought to present him in a way as if he were still alive and in control of the information coming out of Anderson. When I switched to the imagined divergent life of a real person, though, I moderated the character to reflect what he is in our own world (where he can't get away with atrocities even if he wanted to).


 * If I create a white supremacist, it will be for the city-state of Toccoa, CSA, a nearby state to my own. I have some knowledge of the area (having graduated from the University of Georgia). But if I had my preferences, I would have desstoyed the separatist and racist regimes long ago, for living in a free state next to them is not a pleasant place to be.SouthWriter 19:52, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout Maps
Hey, South - out of curiousity, where have you gotten the fallout rates for the bombs? Are they just generalized, or are they based on specific facts? Louisiannan 18:53, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * The final "product" assumes the same size bombs, and a generalized radius of about 35 miles. The direction and dispersal on the final maps (the Google maps with the "targets" is based on the Bikini Atoll dispersal (I found it on wikipedia, I think). The result comes close to the original fallout maps on this wiki. I have a lot of time on my hand but not that much!SouthWriter 19:39, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits on Piedmont page
You may want to check out the recent edits on the Piedmont page by an anonymous user. BrianD 01:31, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I made those changes. For some reason I had been knocked offline and did not realize it. I think it was because I left it unattended in edit mode for too long, I decided to change the government back to the way it has always been. In the four counties now in the republic, there are 25 districts that sent Representatives to Columbia, and 12 that sent Senators. Those 37 legislatures, working in the way they always have, is a lot better than changing horses in mid-stream. I had tried to be "too creative."

The other edit, that I finished after realizing I needed to log in. Was something I came up with over the weekend. At first I was just going to have a simple "mining expedition to drain trapped fuel out of the pipes. I then followed a logical train of thought to a frightening conclusion. I may have just killed off a representative and senator in 1988 (right before the primaries, too!) -- a thought worth looking into. I haven't mapped the destruction completely, and that district is a bit jerrymandered if I remember correctly. By the way, it was unmentioned, but assumed "voting irregularities" in that district that put Democratic senator Elizabeth Patterson into the Governor's mansion in 1992. I just love it when the story "writes itself."SouthWriter 03:53, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * So do I. BrianD 04:28, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, any hints on how to find Bob Jones, IV, these days? I haven't seen anything about him later than a mention on him in 2008 as a "writer," who did not become president of the university that bears his name (or the other way around!). He used to write for World Magazine, but he's disappeared from sight (not good for a writer in this information age). I probably still have a few strings I could pull at the university (my daughter is still a respected alumnus at least), but I don't know how far that would get me.SouthWriter 05:07, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * For this, I generally start with Google, then look at more serious sources (newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, etc.) on line. This guy doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Perhaps he wants to be totally out of the public eye? BrianD 05:56, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I could go back through his work with World and build a decent alternate history, but I can't even give him an exact birthday! He was/is a good writer, and even worked as a regional editor for World. But then, he disappeared. I think you are probably right, he got unwanted flack for just being named "Bob Jones" and being a conservative commentator. I wouldn't be surprised if he is not writing under an assumed name somewhere. I think I'll try just "R.R. Jones" and then go with whatever I have so far. I've introduced him in the timeline, so I just now have to build his career.SouthWriter 06:13, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Two Americas
I just wanted to let you know that I have just read your comment on Two Americas. I'm happy that you like the basic idea. Going through your comments, I see what you mean, and now I am puzzled. As the name suggests, I want a timeline where there are two Americas, but now I am getting conflicted from my thoughts and your thoughts. I could simply ignore your comments and continue on with mine, but I can't after hearing your thoughts. Maybe you can help me out more with this. —User:NuclearVacuum


 * I just rewrote the introduction to my timeline. I based it roughly on your idea. Please tell me what you think of it so far. —User:NuclearVacuum


 * I like what you decided about WW2 in Europe, assuming that Britain would not have needed American to beat Hitler's Germany. I don't think that the CSA would necessarily side with Hitler, though, even if remaining "neutral." But then, I don't agree that the CSA would hold on to African slaves into the twentieth century either. There are about as many bigots in the north as the south who have abhorent views of anyone of non-Anglo heritage. And in neither region is it by any means a large enough majority to support the likes of either slavery or the genicide andexpansionism of Hitler.


 * Instead of slavery, perhaps a sort of apartheid -- a two-class system just a little worse than the one in OTL until the 1970's -- developed out of slavery. This would be more in-line with the developing industrial complex in both the north and the south. The really dirty and dangerous jobs would go to the African-Americans, who would also suffer from the same "separate, and not quite equal" standards of the early nineteenth century. The world held South Africa in disdain for the same type of class system.


 * There might even be a butterfly effect in keeping the USA out of WW2 as well. The USA by itself may not have been strong enough in international affairs to provoke the Japanese as they did in OTL. The way I read history, the "Boxer Rebellion" in China involved the USA in the affairs of the region on the strength of its performance in the Phillipines in the war of 1898. What if the USA had enough problems back home and stayed out of the mess in Asia. Then came the first World War, in which empires clashed in Europe and in their colonies around the world. In that war, president Wilson wanted to stay our of it but was pressured by still political powerful Theodore Roosevelt. In the ALT, Roosevelt was the president of the USA while Wilson was president of the CSA. Consequently, the USA would have joined the war far sooner, turning the tide in WW1 to such a degree that perhaps the peace treaty supported by Wilson (in OTL) would have worked.


 * Then, Hitler may have been less of a threat since conditions in Germany may have turned as bad. He was a madman, though, and he would have got Germany in another war anyway! As Japan began to expand, though, the USA may not have been a threat. Japan attacked the US forces precisely because they were moved into positions in Hawai'i and the Phillipines in order to mount a defense of interests in Asia. If FDR had not put the forces there, Japan would probably have left Hawai'i alone. An attack on the Phillipines, also a territory of the USA, may have been enough on it's own to invoke a war. If so, maybe the USA could have collect the favor earned in the Spanish-American War, and made quick work of stopping the Japanese in the Pacific War.


 * Well, enough for now. I hope this helps.SouthWriter 22:21, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Piedmont page
A brand-new user has added some content to the Piedmont page: here's the edit. I didn't want to revert or meddle with it without knowing the situation, so I thought I'd just alert you. Benkarnell 03:38, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

South, this has happened to me before; don't feel obligated to roll with any "suggested" changes to your canon. BrianD 03:42, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Americana Games
I took inspiration from the Europa Games being held in Prussia in October. It is supposed to be a subtle way of acknowleging the fact that every single state was born from the territory of the United States of America.That and the fact that the opening ceremony takes place of the Fourth of July.

Yankovic270 16:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. So perhaps the American expatriots in Mexico will not be invited to participate. Either way, I hope to get a team from Piedmont and Lincoln (n. Idaho) to the games. If you want, also, you are welcome to offer suggestions on this talk page for how history unfolds in the Piedmont Republic. I have gotten distracted reading everybody else's pages that I haven't been very creative here at home. Any suggestions in getting Lincoln through the "warlord" stage would be helpful as well.

Outer Banks
I didn't really work on that article. I'd suggest bringing up the population figures on that article's talk page or the main TL talk page. Mitro 22:59, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Jackson
How do you know that Jackson isn't a dictatorship? You don't, because not a word has been written on them so far. When it is written, it'll be my version of events. Face it. When it comes to the former southern United States. Kentucky and Virginia have the lion's share of the power.

Yankovic270 21:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, history is written by the winner. :-) However, as I have shown in my dealing with the history of Anderson, we need not have a biased account just to show how "great" we are. History does, indeed, have more than one point of view.


 * I am just not sure I like the way you have taken my neighbors to the north. I am pretty sure I am going to have to push for an alliance among the weaker nations to demonstrate to the ANZC that the former US states are not a danger to world peace as we know it. My next segment of the Piedmont article, I think, will be their finding the ruins of what had been a "promising" survivor community in southeast South Carolina. Having fought a war with a neighbor, the hope to find friendlier neighbors to the southeast, only to find ruins left by a Category 5 hurricane in 1989. Some communities face dictators, others something a lot worse! SouthWriter 22:20, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the history books are always written with a bias. The winners want their story told, not the loser's. And the history books never stay unbiased when it comes to dictatorships, especially losing dictatorships. Yankovic270 22:28, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. "History" books are going to pick and choose. News reports are the same way a lot of times. However, that does not preclude an honest researcher from presenting both sides. In fact, that's what makes investigative reporting intreresting - even though the reporter's own bias usually gets in the way anyway. Though this wiki is not strictly "wikipedia," as a co-operative work it must at least attempt to show some semblance of balance in its reporting. If you haven't already, check out what I wrote on the main talk page. I think I found a sequence of events that could have arisen to a dictatorship in Jackson. SouthWriter 23:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Retroactive changes to the timeline
South, I've been thinking about the points you've made in the past several weeks, regarding rewriting portions of the timeline to make things more realistic. I resisted at first (as I'm sure you could tell!) but I was reminded recently that it's good to not dismiss such proposals out of hand. If an idea is good, and plausible, and workable, then the editors here should at least hear it out, and be open to new proposals and/or changes to older ones.

That said, I'm not opposed to reworking canon, specifically rewriting Blue Ridge/Tennessee/WCRB articles to retroactively reflect Piedmont, perhaps going back as far back as the late 1980s (we could talk about that more on our respective talk pages; that would have to be approved by the editors here, in so far as it affects the rest of the timeline, but I wouldn't see approval as a problem). As far as other issues you've raised in regards to the timeline: if it was I making these proposals, I would start the conversation by raising my points on the main 1983:Doomsday talk page, and explain what I think needs to be changed, and why. Once I did so, then see where the conversation goes....and, because of the collaborative nature of the wiki, be prepared for the probability that not all of my proposals will stick, and be willing to give and take on some of them. BrianD 19:12, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thompson
If you had had the sense to actually read the article, you would know that the figure I used was James E. Thompson, the commander of the 101st Airborne at the time. He is not some guy I made up off the top of my head. Please do more research before you critizize my work again. (Especially my crowning achievement the Virginian Republic.) And if you make it more constructive I would actually listen to you.

Yankovic270 23:18, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity=">I apologize for doubting you. The problem is, the picture that you chose is NOT the James E. Thomspon to which the link on the 101st Airborne's wikipedia article leads. The editors of that page apparently made an internal link to wikipedia article to a man by that name. When I researched "James Thompson" the list of names was quite long, so I did a search for James E. Thompson and got to the only article in wikipedia about a "James E. Thompson." If you had read that article, you would have at least not used his picture. That was what threw me off. It was your attitude that made me look up James E. Thomspon, and when I saw the very picture that you posted, I naturally read the article. I would have looked further for a general Thompson if I had not seen that picture. I should have known you wouldn't make up someone. SouthWriter 02:06, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Wanna help?
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I have been very busy for the past few weeks, and all my attention is centered around my other timeline. I was wondering if you would be interested in being an "admin" for the TwoAm timeline. I have confidence that you will be a perfect writer for it. Are you interested? —NuclearVacuum 20:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Sure, I can work on it a little. I will start by finishing my suggestions for presidents of the CS. I appreciate your adoption of my nominees so far. I'm thinking, though, that we might want to go with multiple parties in the CSA, especially in the period since WW2.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Choices of the lineup of presidents, though, will certainly effect world politics to an extent. I think that our present course of two Americas marching in agreement internationally should continue, however. It makes it easier to judge the direction of the ALT if we stick close to OTL whenever possible.SouthWriter 23:30, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">State College
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">South your my population expert, what do you think would be a reasonable population level for State College PA? --GOPZACK 19:28, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Hard to say. In OTL the town is one of the safest places in the USA. Being in the center of PA, it is significantly far enough from major targets to neither be damaged or in danger of being over-run by refugees. Additionally, in the middle of Amish and Minnonite country, the locals would learn how to cope from the experts in 19th century living. The city and Centre County of which it is a seat probably together had a little over 100,000 people at Doomsday.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">The student population would have been largely stranded at Penn State -- at least until they knew what had happened. Some would have tried to get home, but most would have become part of the community. As they learned the simple ways of the Amish, they would settle down and have families. For some reason the growth rate of PA was only about 0.25% per anum in OTL, but that was for the whole state. The Amish and Minnonites most likely saw a little bit better than this. College students, seeing themselves suddenly "grown up" and not having access to birth control, would probably end up following the ways of the "locals" and have big families.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">And so, let's say a 2% per anum increase which gives a populatiion of about what it is now -- rounded down -- at 140,000. Central Pennsylvania shows promise as a good survivor community. If we assume the storm system of tropical storm Dean blowing lingering dust clouds from the east coast inward, the fallout might cause some problems. However, by the time the winds shifted to the northwest, most of the fallout would have settled on New England.SouthWriter 03:18, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

LoN Virginia
You have been very critical of Virginia in the League of Nations talkpage. What I want to know is why? What makes you want to rip my masterpiece to shreds? I think the Virginian Republic has earned the right to full membership in the LoN. I have worked very hard on the Virginians! Do you think I am going to just sit arround while you badmouth my greatest creation? Your criticism has been said before. Many, many times. I have given explainations every single time, and yet '''no one listens! '''And do you think that GOPZACK is going to like you calling Kentucky a Virginian "puppet state?" I think not! But seriously, what was it that turned you into a AltHist Simon Cowell?

Yankovic270 01:13, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * <All I did was point out the agression of the Republic's military government. I do see inconsistencies in the viability of the rise of the Republic as you presented it, but I also see big holes in the thesis of the dysopia under which we are all working. However, I have chose, for the most part, to work within it. The only portions I now "control" are Piedmont and the remaining survivors of South Carolina. I have to deal with two rogue states "created" by another that I have adopted. One I have chosen to "soften" into a peaceful "state," the other to develop into a present danger.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I address membership of the LoN over at that talkpage. And we are listening. We just don't happen to agree. As for Kentucky being a "puppet" state, that is not what I said. I referred to Portland as a puppet state. And yes, that is what the city-state is. It was created as a small self-contained government early on in this project. Other larger states were created that naturally would need to interact with it. But basically it is just a city, looking for a place to fit in.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">As for being an AltHist Simon Cowell? I guess it is the "perfectionist" in me. But I chose to be part of a group, so I am only one vote among many. SouthWriter 18:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Help
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Hi Southwriter could you help me expanding my article call South American World http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/South_American_World, invite more people for help and let's create something big, we could start with a news page.

Thank you please answer me, VENEZUELA 03:29, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I have other time lines I am working on, but I am here for advice. Here are a few things I do.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I make extensive use of Wikipedia. I use Google Earth to get an idea of distances and towns in the areas involved. I try to make my story as close to reality as possible. I am what we call a "perfectionist," which is a drawback at times. Science Fiction is a lot easier (you can get away with a lot by using vague terms and undeveloped theories).

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">In your idea of an isolated South America, forced to repopulate the world, I would put together a buffer period following the plague -- time for the world to become mostly depopulated with only pockets of survivors and/or the infected subhuman types. Then you can take the knowledge and technology available to South America and go from there. It could be a reverse of what happened in history. Explorers would have the advantage of accurate maps, but they would be facing an unknown world once they landed on foreign shores. Colonization would follow.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Above all, have fun. If you want to have collaboration, be willing to work with the others. And most importantly, be ready to change your ideas if you have to. --SouthWriter 04:08, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Honorary Citizen
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Have you see this: Honorary Citizens (1983: Doomsday). You might find it interesting, especially after I saw your remark in the archive. Mitro 18:09, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Thanks. I have added myself to the page! SouthWriter 19:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">You're welcome. It was one of those articles that people were excited about at first, but then no one wrote anything and it was forgotten and buried. Your comment in the archive reminded me about it. Mitro 20:05, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">What u said on my talkpage about politics
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I see you are a conservative republican. At least you have an opinion in which you beleive. I wish people would stop giving me funny looks when i express my "Old Liberal" views.HAD 22:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I thought you'd gone to bed, man. I assume you mean that you are a libertarian? In my understanding of the Queen's English, being liberal means being generous -- especially with one's OWN money. We joke over here that the "liberals" are only liberal with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Today's "conservative," on the other hand, often wants to go back to the days of Eisenhower (1950's). That adminstration had largely adopted Roosevelt liberalism (considered by some as "socialism"). I am probably more in line with libertarians than most conservatives who claim to be constitutionalists. I see very little in the way of Jeffersonian federalism in America today. SouthWriter 01:37, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I am a left-winger and I am proud of it! I admitt that my political attitudes are severely Socialist. I'm basically toeing the line between being a Socialist and being a Communist.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Yankovic270 01:56, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">For my political views what I should have said is that I am too socially liberal for the GOP. When it comes to economic issues and foreign policy issues I'm somewhat more in line with the Republicans but I believe my views on most things are too contrarian to be affiliated with any movement or party. --GOPZACK 01:57, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Whoa! True confessions time! Can it be that the creator of a hyper-conservative militaristic (West) Virginia is a flaming liberal?? If so, it explains some of the misconceptions coming out with the use of the military to "control" an anarchistic situation. Of course, I am not up on the views of Canadian "liberals" and "left-wingers."


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Meanwhile, I think I remember that Zack is a Floridian. I can understand libertarian and contrarian economics a lot better than I can liberalism and socialism. However, it appears that many of the survivor states had to begin with socialistic measures just to survive. SouthWriter 02:21, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I basically made the West African Union a big wank of my politics. Economically I'm centrist, free market is the way to go but I'm not against some state owned industry when it comes to things like power and emergency services. And deregulation can be disaterous as proven the last few years. Socially I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but when it comes to political correctness I think its the worst thing to ever happen to society. Free speech is more important than someone's feelings.Oerwinde 07:13, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">I am speaking in the sense of being an "Old Liberal" politically with regards to liberty (Very indiviulist) and an American Libretarian economically. HAD 09:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">The Dakotas
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">South would you like to divide & conquer the Dakotas. I've started the page that has a general over view of South Dakota, I did make a page for which will be an overview of that state but it is currently blank. If you'd like you can start that up. Together we'll define a clear vision for the unknown areas of South Dakota and North Dakota. GOPZACK 21:10, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Sure thing. It looks like we are left with North Dakota sliced up by Lakota and Assinobia right now. There seems to be a little disputed or "no man's land" between those two. The southeast, though, seems "unclaimed." I'm thinking that the Dakotas north and east of the Missouri River and south of Assinobia will have to ban together. SouthWriter 21:38, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Here is the present situation:


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">The Dakotas go from being North and South to being East! North Dakota has less left than does its southern neighbor. SouthWriter 21:59, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">[[File:Proposed_Mid-Am_states.png]]

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Also, you can see that I suggest the Republic of Lincoln split the state of Nebraska north and South rather than east and west. This gives an easy border (a river) to divide them. And what would be a good name for a North Missouri - South Iowa confederation? Being between the rivers, "Mesopotamia" comes readily to mind. :-) SouthWriter 21:59, Appril 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Excellent :-) I suppose we should also lay claim to Fargo and Bismarck, neither were hit on Doomsday and I suppose a story could be made based off of the people in south central and south eastern North Dakota rallying around Allen I. Olson the governor at the time.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">As for the name of a North Missouri - South Iowa confederation I'm not sure but when we've got a name we better start writing up a proposal for that one. --GOPZACK 22:07, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Indeed. I figure the farmers of those small towns would have a great will to live even as the larger cities were falling apart. You'll note I marked the areas around the bombed-out cities of Missouri as "claimed" by the confederation of counties marked in red. It needs fleshing out, and I'm not sure where the whacky "Republic of Lincoln" nearby is headed, but I think there is still hope for America. SouthWriter 00:56, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I can tell you that all three of the nations I created in North America (Lincoln, Virginia and Assiiniboia) have one thing in common. They have absolutely no intention to rejoin the countries they were formerly a part of. None what-so-ever.

Yankovic270 01:24, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree Yank on one nation, Lincoln they are a "swing nation" if you will. They could easily go either way.


 * As for whats up for the future of Lincoln South you should speak with Yank. --GOPZACK 01:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh & South I need to enlist your services as the population "nazi" to determine what a good population would be for the now renamed "Provisional Republic of The Dakotas"

PS something screwy has happened to your page. GOPZACK 01:45, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

OK I fixed part of it. GOPZACK 01:53, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Probably something I did - I left the site in edit mode quite a while before saving it. SouthWriter 04:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

though I may have exagerated on the part of the Lincolnites, but their rejoining the Provisional United States is still unlikely. You see, the hope that the US would rise again has been fading ever since the Governor comitted suicide trying the maintain contact with the US Federal government. Even if I wanted to write a referendum on the matter, it is still unlikely that it would go in favour of joining the PUSA. I have made it my purpose to know the national psychology of my nations, to know what makes each one "tick" as it were.


 * 1) Republic of Lincoln - Originally a nation of devout patriots, the belief that the US would return sharply declined over the years. This leaves the Lincolnites somewhat jaded and dissillusioned. Thus they are resistant to any attempt to resurrrect the dead US of A.
 * 2) Virginian Republic - The Virginians, due to their militaristic society, have a practical way of looking at the return of the United States. They either think it isn't going to happen, or that it will be a strictly regional event that would never reach the Virginian border. Plus the Virginian government (while in militaristic dictatorship mode) indoctrinated a strong sense of patriotism..... to Virginia. Like Robert E. Lee much of the population thinks of themselves as Virginians first, Americans second. A whole generation thinks of themselves as Virginians and nothing else.
 * 3) Assiniboia - The Aissiniboians have a strong independant nature. This was fueled by their unique geographic position. The two Canadian survivor states (the independant one to the east and the one in the NAU) have attempted to get the Assiniboians to join peacefully. They don't join the "official" Canada due to what they see as the Canadian abandonment of the future Assiniboians. It was because of the openly hostile Lakota that they rejected the offer of the NAU Canada. The openly hostile government to the south and the indifferent government to the east caused them to forge a new identity as Assiniboians. Even if the brushfire wars in North Dakota stopped or the territory in between Assiniboia and the rest of Canada wasn't uncontrolled it is still extremely unlikely that the nation would join either nation.

Yankovic270 02:03, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Hi, Yank. I didn't see you come in. :-)

I am starting to get used to your articles. You are a pretty good story teller. Unfortunately, you and I have a totally different philosophy on alternate histories. You write on the premise that if it is possible, let's go with it. I prefer to look at the probable, and build upon it. I jumped in this alternate history a year into it, and have tried to moderate the fantastical claims that early writers were basing their stories upon. Though not accepting some of the premises, I have chosen to work within the framework that has been lain before I got here. If I didn't, I could create my own time line and seek a "following" there.

And about "your" nations, that is another place where we differ. I once got caught up in a discussion where I referred to "my" republic, but was called on it. I repented. In this joint effort, I don't see us "creating" nations out of nothing. Or rather chosing characters more or less from history and using them to manipulate on our own "game board." When I adopted Madagascar, for example, I found only one thing that may have been much different in the developments there prior to December of 2009. I still don't know if a civilian prime minister would have been retained in December with the absence of the military man that came on board. But I didn't know enough about the military to chose another "real" character, so I kept the civilian. I have about a month to rest on that one, because the elections were postponed until May.

But in a situation where another writer chose to kill a living leader though he lived in real life, I left it alone after my objection was over-ruled with a reasonable explanation. That is like a mini - POD, a personal point of divergence to move the story along in a logical way. In the case of the "outing" of Rockefeller in the Virginian Republic, I would have loved to have seen some intrigue written into his return to politics after twenty years in "exile" (or whatever), but another reasonable general was found, so the story remains much the same.

Well, I've written enough. I think I will go do a little on North Dakota before calling it a night. SouthWriter 04:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree. The nations that existed prior to Doomsday may follow that example, but that doesn't account for the survivor states. The nations that didn't exist prior to Doomsday. These nations don't have OTL equivilents, and as such their history is pretty much up to the user creating them. They are the creations of said users, though it is narurally discouraged from be too "RPG-ish" in creating it. History is commonly manipulated to suit the needs of the historian writing it, and the leaders who pay him to write it. And that is referring to "real" history, let alone alternate history. In cases where there is no source history you write your own. I have attempted to write the articles for my three nations as if they actually existed in real life. I gave them leaders, plausible histories, and even attempted to give each a unique "national psyche". I have done my best to actually breath life into my four masterpieces. Though I have created other nations, only three (Assiniboia, Lincoln, Virginia) originally garnered most of my atention and care. Vietnam is swiftly becoming one of my masterpieces. I am very proud and protective of these articles, though I still welcome ideas for improvement (as long as it fits with the idea of the nation I have in my head constantly). I thank you for the praise of my articles by the way. It is good to know that my work is enjoyed by others as much as I enjoy making it. :)

Yankovic270 01:38, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * You have just illustrated my point. We do not have the same philosophy of writing alternate history. My approach is based on facts that are verifiable or, if not, at least viable. That is as real as possible using real people or basing it on what has happened in the lives of real people in slightly different situations. History that is manipulated is mere propoganda, a story put together to sway opinions. There are numerous points of view in a court of law, for example, but all points must be considered if justice is to be served. In alternate history, or in historical fiction, one should base the story on what could most likely happen. The more you pour on possiblilites the further from reality your story becomes. It may be enjoyable as we suspend disbelief, but it is still close to fantasy when you get to the end.


 * And by the way, Yank, it is far better for others to praise you than for you to praise yourself. SouthWriter 02:12, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Very well. You have a point. We do have differing opinions on alternate history. I believe it's also about how people behave in such a situation. I don't think my philosophy is any better or worse than yours. My contributions may not be satisfactory for a perfectionist like yourself, but someone must like them. After all they are in the canon of 1983: Doomsday. And is it so wrong that I am proud of what I have created? You could tell me how to make my articles better instead of constantly insulting my work. If you would just tell me how to make my articles better I would make the changes necessary (to a certain extent, of course). C'mon man! Could you at least try to "play nice" with the other users? What do you say South? Do you want to bury the hatchet and work together?

Yankovic270 04:11, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Yank. I was about to go to bed and there was this notice in my inbox!


 * Actually Yank, I have mentioned other places that I am resigned to your stories being the way they are. I have made constructive suggestions which you have graciously incorporated. However, I am not he only user/contributer that is uncomfortable with your articles - especially your show piece - the Virginian Republic. I did make a passing disparaging remark about the Republic of Lincoln earlier, but I don't think too much of that article was controversial. [ Well there is the rather odd deification of Abraham Lincoln by over one in five of the population! But other than that...] Assinobia is rather odd in that it intrudes into former US territory -- granted, it's mostly barren land -- on no other authority than an old map you found. And now it's a nation that doesn't want to associate with either of it's "parent" countries!


 * Our philosophies are diametrically opposed, so "working together" may be impossible. However, "working around" each other may be possible. What I mean is that when I see how something is impossible, I must step in and offer a better suggestion (like I did concerning Rockefeller). If I see something that is improbable, I can either let it slide, or quietly point out why I don't think it would work. For exampIe, if I had come on the scene during the discussion of the Virginian Republic, I might have pointed to a more probable Republic of Tennessee. You would have pointed out that the area was unmanagable and still headed east to see if your general and his troops could find some more managable people to save. But at least I would have had my say. Or you might have taken a look at "managable" West Virgina actually contacting Ft. Campbell and asking for help.


 * I have admitted I am a perfectionist. And as long as you don't try to conquer established states in the name of some sort of Alliance, I am happy for you to continue manipulating facts to suit your storyline. What happens in Virginia, stays in Virginia (to borrow a phrase). I will refrain from "insulting" your work, but I can only promise that criticism will not be destructive. My one vote for or against graduating an article remains but one vote. I wish you a very good Thursday. SouthWriter 04:56, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I admit I do what I do because I enjoy it. But I don't think of the timeline as a mere game. I think of it as a sort of thought experiment. I challenge myself to ask myself "What would Virginia/Lincoln/Assiniboia do?" I try to understand the nation's unique group psyche, and how it would affect the decisions of the leaders. You may include all the information you want on your articles, but doesn't change the fact that you you don't instinctively know what the nation would do. But seeing as the three nations I'm talking about don't exist in real life, that means I needed to build the articles from the ground up, without much assistance from the OTL.

Yankovic270 14:13, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Jackson War
South I understand you had a few issues with the Virginia- Jackson war. I was just wondering what they were? --GOPZACK 22:33, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Several things, Zack. First, the very reason for the expedition was to build up the esteem of a tiny city-state that has far less "claim" over a territory than a nation of 20+ subdivisions (counties). And this political entity is not even adjacent to the Virginian Republic. In fact, if anything it should be annexed to Kentucky. I think East Tennessee should have had a voice in what was an act of war against fellow Tennesseeans.


 * Second, the premise for the war was too flimsy. Or at least the response to a discourteous ejection was far greater than warranted. I had suggested that some time for reconnaissance or diplomatic fact-gathering be worked into the story. And even some rudimentary back story as to the rise of some warlord in the city. But what happened was a war of uneven forces, resulting in the deaths of a number of noncombatants.


 * And this all came from an Alliance that wants to be considered respectable on the world stage. I guess it just comes down to a difference in philosophy of history. I believe things happen for a purpose, but it appears that Yank just makes things happen to see what happens next. To me, alternative history is an intellectual excercise, to Yank, it's a game. My stories seek to make others think, his appear to be for entertainment. SouthWriter 02:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you should talk to Yank about the Jackson war & your objections I don't want to speak for him. --GOPZACK 02:57, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been over it with him. I have decided that he is going to tell the story as he wants to tell it. I have but one vote and I have made it heard. The war is not justifiable and IMO should not be promoted to canon. If it can be reworked to be justifiable, then by all means conquer away. In my case, the twenty year stalemate against Toccoa may have to be dealt with more severely in the story of the Piedmont Republic. In that case, at least, we know that a dictatorial government is in place. SouthWriter 03:28, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

How about there was a previous exploration attempt by Portland, and that exposed the nature of the Jackonian dictatorship? What if the Dixie Alliance is getting reports of atrocities being committed by the Jacksonian ruling elite? That would make the expulsion and robbing of the expedition the spark that caused the war, but not the only reason the war was fought.

Yankovic270 04:18, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds plausible. A short paragraph, or even sentence, within the "contacts" section of the Portland article could establish the existence and character of the city-state of Jackson. However, that would make the advance of the Virginian army a show of force to begin with. They would not have walked in looking for negotiations, but rather armed to the teeth and demanding justice for the oppressed townspeople. At that point the politicos in Jackson would have begun serious "negotiations." A war might develop from this, but at least it would not be one "sparked" by dishonor. SouthWriter 05:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Canadian contact with Southern Hemisphere
Responding to your question on my talk page, I'm not quite sure. I wrote that a while ago, and it's possible that I didn't read the article about the Benjamin Franklin as thoroughly as I should have and consequently thought that they had visited Canada before Europe. I suppose '91 would make the most sense. --DarthEinstein 23:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

North Florida
I agree that poor Tallahassee is gone. I reckon that North Florida will be governed from Gainesville, the largest surviving city in the area. I would think that North Florida would become aligned with fellow democratic survivor states in the former American south. South Florida I'm sure will maintain great relations with their fellow americans in the South but I agree they will most likely join the East Caribbean Federation rather than the SAC. (GOPZACK)


 * I can see Lakeland receiving some refugees from Tallahassee, including some of the government staff. A temporary government would be set up until contact was made in Gainesville, where the bureaucracy of the University of Florida would serve well as a framework for a new capital. It would probably assume it was "the Florida" until contact was made with the rest of the state, especially refugees from the south who claim there are survivors near the Everglades. This would probably come to pass within a few years. A decision would be made in the early nineties to set up separate governments to allow more autonomy for the local governments (after all, "he who governs least, governs best").


 * An alliance with the ECF makes so much more sense than one with the SAC. This keeps the Cubans at bay, keeping them from invading the southeast. SouthWriter 03:29, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, what do you have in mind? --GOPZACK 23:19, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

This messaging between talk pages can get confusing, but at least it keeps others from following along too closely. :-)

As for North Florida, I have mostly just been cleaning up Perry's grammar. I figured you can go in any direction you want with it since he has essentially turned it over to you. I lived in the panhandle when I was young so I don't know much about the area in question apart from what I can gather from Wikipedia. But then, that's the way I build my alternate realities anyway. SouthWriter 00:38, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

PR
Feel free to update the article. Technically its not mine, most of the work was done by an anon, I just helped get it graduated. Mitro 13:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Indiana
Alrighty, I would like to wrap this up and get it cannoned, think you could fix it up alittle, or could you give me some advice?Perryz101 19:43, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can clean up the grammar, if need be. I'll look it over, and see if I see any logical inconsistencies. By Monday, we'll run it by the others on the main talk page and see if there are any objections. SouthWriter 20:12, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Indiana could control a small portion of Ohio, the end of the Wabash River, and even into Illinois, Danville, which is on the banks of Vermilion?Perryz101 21:52, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that the Republic should work towards reunification with the southern half of the state whick has been claimed by Kentucky, especially if you are going to have the Republic of Indiana join the Dixie Alliance. As much as rivers make excellent boundaries, I think that expanding into other states is a bad thing without the express permission.of the survivors in the area. SouthWriter 02:37, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with making Southern Indiana, rejoin..but GOPZACK says they have taken up Kentucky life, which I disagree with..I live in Southern Indiana...and I would never give up being a Hoosier, And about the river Idea..I think I should off till we can get Southern Indiana.Perryz101 03:51, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that Zack means they have "taken up Kentucky life," but rather they have become part of Kentucky. It is still possible that the Commonwealth of Kentucky can have "states" that are part of its "nation." All that may be necessary is that all of Indiana agree to be part of one nation and that nation will include various "states," just as the Virginian Republic has various states. It is just as possible to be both a Kentuckian and a "Hoosier" in TTL as it is to be an American and a Hoosier in OTL. SouthWriter 04:50, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

I see, so is Southern Indiana righfuly part of Indiana. Shouldent it be part of Indiana?


 * When Kentucky expeditions moved above bombed out southern portions of Indiana taht bordered their state, they found struggling city-states that needed assistance. None of them had claimed to be successors of the state, and welcomed the help. If they had continued further north, past the ashes of the capital, they would have seen communities as you have envisioned them, reaching out over and around their demolished capital city. Perhaps they would not then have "claimed" the south as brothers, but only as neighbors. This will take time, as will the Indiana article you are writing. SouthWriter 05:58, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Note to self
This is to test a theory. 98.71.143.59 06:14, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Indiana Revert
All I can say to what you've been doing in the PUSA: Bravo, South, Bravo. Arstarpool 00:48, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things
Nice job on the Presidents.

Anyway, I wanted to update you on two images I have uploaded. First off, I hope you don't mind, but I uploaded a new image of a "Whites only beach." I think I also think those two characters I added to the sign could become semi-mascots for the Confederacy, something like the Ampelmännchen of East Germany.

I have also been thinking about it and I have uploaded a potential new flag for the confederacy. After doing some research, the "Stars and Bars" were becoming less popular during wartime, and a new flag was going to happen (which did). The flag of the CS was changed three times. But if the war ended with them being able to exist as a separate nation, I am sure they would adopt a new flag which had more to do with the Confederacy. So I have uploaded something new and original. It like one of the proposed flags for the CS in 1863, but I decided to make it grey instead of blue (since blue was the Union). What do you think? --NuclearVacuum 01:41, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am only a few sentences from finishing the first bio -- and it was easy since nothing changed but the war turning sour on Lincoln. The rest are going to face interesting twists -- sort of working backwards toward a detailed time line.


 * It looks like you used some sort of art program to make your sign. You mispelled THE in the middle of the sign, though. Though I suppose outlined figures in different colors is appropriate, they seem a bit silly to me. But then, aparteid is silly. [You know, I worked hard getting Destin to work!! ]


 * I dont like the new flag. The gray and white just doesn't stand out. With the full-size cross, the horizonal bar doesn't do well, Confederate_Gray.pngr. Perhaps if we want to incorporate the gray, we could replace the white of the banner of the third national flag with gray. I'm afraid it removes the "purity" (or truth -- Confederate_Gray_2.pngver the white is supposed to mean), but the "blood stripe" is sort of mellowed at the same time as representing the blood stained uniforms that won the armitice. It seems more balanced, or something. But then, when we start adding stars, the cross may need enlarging. Of course, if we go revert to a version of the stars and bars using gray for blue as with the the flag to the left.


 * I am so sorry, I didn't mean to out stage you or anything like that. I just got board and tried something different. As for the flag, wow, I thought it looked amazing. Now I am not too sure. I do like the idea you mentioned with the "blooded stained uniforms," it seems more symbolic. But I may have to read some more history to figure something out. --NuclearVacuum 13:40, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Russian Expansion
Would you take some time to read and give me ideas on how to expand the Russian Expansion Timeline? --Catherine 00:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Catherine. I skimmed over your timeline, and it looks a lot better than many I've seen. Not knowing much about Russia, I can't say how accurate it is to any points of departure you made from our timeline. It's extensive use of maps is something that could be a distraction to anyone who is not used to the Map Game from which you decided to diverge. I can see why that would happen, for that Game was far too unpredictable.

If I were writing the article, I would have fewer maps and and concentrate on decisive moments in history that might go different once you diverge from our time line. For example, in a time line I am working on, the American Civil War ends in a draw. In changing one decisive battle in 1864, I saw that I had to go back in history to 1862 to change another battle so the north could not bounce back. The rules of the time line have the war going on about a year longer, but no definite point of divergence during the war, so I was free to pick and chose. Other time lines have a definite point of divergence, which if changed create a whole new timeline.

If you can, find a friend who has an interest in Russian history. The two of you can work together to bring Russia into the twentieth century as a "New Rome" which Hitler would not have a chance against! I figure, at its current rate it will also be over into North America by the early 19th century as well. I can only hope that there are a few benevolent czars along the way! SouthWriter 03:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

New Montgomery
South, do you have any ideas for a possible revision of New Montgomery? :) I would like to keep the basic premise - white racists breaking away to form their own nation based on their vision of the old Confederacy - and do away with more cartoonish and outlandish details. I definitely plan to write out the "invasion" of Hattiesburg. Basically, in the chaos in south Alabama and Mississippi, racial tensions skyrocketed, leading to an unfortunate war between whites and blacks near Selma. White supremacists who helped bring down Auburn got involved and would lead the eventual "New Montgomery" community. Both sides, unsure that they weren't the only people left alive, ended their long war in a stalemate, believing survival of the species was preferable to mass extinction. This would have occurred in 1984, when communications were still spotty. While the African-Americans settled in Selma, the whites built a new community where New Montgomery is now. The leaders babbled on about Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and destiny, while most people just wanted a halfway decent place to rebuild their lives. The stark racism should be dying off about now, with the people more open to outsiders (but still somewhat suspicious of African Americans, primarily due to stereotypes and exaggerated stories from the Selma War 26 years ago). BrianD 04:10, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * OKay, here's how I see these guys ending up along a river in a national park:


 * First, they are trouble makers in the survivor town of Auburn (which had received an overload of refugees from Columbus, Birmingham and Montgomery. Having such a large flux of people, the provisional government made of a small group of government officials from Montgomery that had fled there. The crisis was too much for the city, and the government.


 * The toughest and meanest of them attempted to take over, only to be run out of town. Even with the trouble makers gone, though, Auburn fails. A small village remains on its own, but most sought to join with survivors in Tuskeegee and other towns nearby. The band of rebels, though, are able to pick up desparate survivors in Notasulga (west on hiway 14) and sack the town for any goods. They move on to Tallassee, a little bit bigger town, where they meet resistance. And so they flee there with no "recruits."


 * Next on Highway 14, though are the abandoned towns of Wetumpka, Robinson Springs, and Prattville (all within about fifteen miles of Montgomery and about 50% destroyed. They are able to pick up supplies left in abandoned stores, and are well prepared to take on the people of Selma, their last stop on Highway 14. They have picked up recruits in small villages along the way, growing to a band of 135 rebels -- one hundred men, twenty women and fifteen children (seven boys and eight girls) -- only a few of the men are married to some of the women, and perhaps ten of the children are of those marriages.


 * In Selma, their "fortunes" turn. They find racial tension high in the city, and they take advangtage of that to attempt a takeover of the city. Claiming to be representatives of the government in Montgomery, the rebels convince enough of the still largely white city government (check that with records if you can) to allow them to set up an emergency government in Selma. In a little while, the white population is being assissted with disproportionate amounts of aid. Favortism was quite clear. The black population begins to rise up in protest only to be ignored. The new emergency police force turns out to be poorly disciplined. Protests build into riots, which are treated harshly. That leads to attempted court house takeovers. Authorities fire upon the crowds, and an all-out race war begins.


 * After three months, battling gangs have caused the city to be segregated, with the southwest portion (formerly the affluent country club area anyway) being exclusively white while the downtown area and the other portions being mostly black. The gangs ruled the portions by intimidation, conscripting able-bodied men to fight for their "rights." Thousands died in the struggle. Eventually the black majority wretched power from the bogas state government, and the "rules" were laid down. Whites were to either submit to serving the black community "as payment for their crimes against humanity (past and present), or leave town altogether. Some agreed, seeing it as easier than making it in the unknown world outside Dallas County. Most, of course, left town -- the majority going with the "state government" they had come to depend upon.


 * This crowd of 20,000 men, women, and children wondered down Highway 22, overwhelming the tiny village of Orrville. Any who wished to joined the "new exodus" in search for greener pastures. Following 22 to Highway 5, the crowd picked up some more "pilgrims" in Pine Hill after picking the town dry of supplies. Next down the road was the town of Thomasville. Though a little bigger, the town was easily overun by the hoard. Tiny Coffevile fell to the 20, 246 men, women and children in search of their next home. It became "base camp" from which the scouts went out to find a "place of our own." That's when they discovered Bladon Springs State Park and adjacent Chocktaw Wildlife Refuge. They had found the "Promised Land"!


 * With the built in facilities and campsites in the state park, and abundant game nearby, New Montgomery was founded. Among those they had run into along the way, the citizens had convinced a hundred or so black men and women that they could take better care of them than any local government could. This resulted in a state of involuntary servitude, otherwise known as "slavery." Rules were made regulating the treatment of "servants," but these amounted to keeping them safe from harm to allow a more fruitful tenure.


 * Over time, the black servants refused to be treated as less than human. Although certain efforts were made to keep blacks from assembling together, the conviction that these "poor souls" needed saving, allowed church services among the servants. Some of the employers would get to called assemblies late, and were slow to see that it was in the churches that rebellion arose. In 1988, the government of New Mongomery "freed" all the servants. A new age arose. SouthWriter 03:30, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can tell you're not a fan of the concept....and this is one of those times when I benefitted from some constructive criticism. I've read through your suggestions once and will do so at least another time, and use them in revising the article. I have to admit that I chuckle at your opening line...."here's how these guys wind up along a river in a national park" :-) But the idea behind that was that these people were looking for a new start, and all of the towns they encountered weren't sufficient enough (in one way or another) to move several thousand people into as was. Why not start their own town? And why not at the state park? They saw water that was drinkable (and not glowing in the dark), there was plenty of game and plenty of trees. Perhaps one day they would grow and multiply enough to build the "New Confederacy" but in the meantime it was enough to start over.BrianD 14:33, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actuallly had fun writing that scenario. These folk were bad eggs -- at least the leaders were -- and I had to make them palatable to pick up enough folk to end up with a large tent city in the state park. I probably had to many migrating from Selma, but the idea of the white population being in the area around the country club (you can see the layout of the golf clubs stretching across the lower left quadrant from ten miles up!) makes a whole lot of since. I've been to the city and I know that it was still very segregated into the nineties. Once the whites were expelled, I just had them going down the road until they found a place, like you say, with water and game and timber.
 * It was the original concept I was playing with -- a bunch of white separatists, preferring to be apart. I thought I remembered that they had a sort of slavery to begin with, so I had the indentured servants worked in. I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Perhaps the nation/state of Neonotia will reach all the way to Mississippi and include them as well. It would be good to reclaim Mobile Bay. SouthWriter 03:30, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for the hard work. They were bad eggs, and still are: part of the whole goofball General Lee scenario that I deleted today was to show that, behind the laughable chain of events, there was the very real possibility that if these guys ever got ahold of serious manpower and weaponry, they would do some damage. That still exists. Maybe New Montgomery is better left alone, whether by Neonotia or anyone else. Speaking of, I'm looking forward to Neonotia!BrianD 03:41, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the original concept I was playing with -- a bunch of white separatists, preferring to be apart. I thought I remembered that they had a sort of slavery to begin with, so I had the indentured servants worked in. I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Perhaps the nation/state of Neonotia will reach all the way to Mississippi and include them as well. It would be good to reclaim Mobile Bay. SouthWriter 03:30, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for the hard work. They were bad eggs, and still are: part of the whole goofball General Lee scenario that I deleted today was to show that, behind the laughable chain of events, there was the very real possibility that if these guys ever got ahold of serious manpower and weaponry, they would do some damage. That still exists. Maybe New Montgomery is better left alone, whether by Neonotia or anyone else. Speaking of, I'm looking forward to Neonotia!BrianD 03:41, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Help on Central World!
Hi, I created a new article call Central World, it's about the Central Powers when they win the Great War and all that world, I have only made 4 articles of that timeline: League of Nations, Mitteleuropa, Central World, and The Treaty of Topkapi. I would like you to help me expand it and to invite more people, and to see my articles and comment on the discussion page, please answer me, VENEZUELA 01:14, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

FD?
Did it really say Richmond was its own entity? Because that is not what I heard? --NuclearVacuum 21:56, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I made an assumption that such would be the case eventually. The Constitution gives them the option, and I have to go with President Beauregard on this one -- it would be better to move the capital than have a blamed "neutral zone" in Virginia. I'm thinking maybe someplace on the South Carolina coast. :-)


 * The Confederate government had too much on there mind to be building cities in the 1860's, but the Constitution clearly states, Article 1, Section 8:


 * (17) To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the . erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;


 * Of course this is OUR time line, so we can move the capital sometime before the Treaty of London. Or let it be part of the negotiations to avoid a DMZ. It would be better if it were more centrally located anyway. SouthWriter 19:34, May 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about moving the capital? --NuclearVacuum 01:32, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

More parties
Sorry, but I have been very busy lately. I remember you mentioning something to me about having presidents after WWII being in different parties. Before it gets out of hand, I have no trouble with that. Provided that the Civil Rights movement begins around this time. --NuclearVacuum 18:38, May 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Civil Rights Movement, what do you think of my paragraph and matching article snub on "Mike King, Jr."? I just thought that the 1930's that King's dad would not have the freedom to travel, nor the money to do so, in a more restrictive CSA. And so, no visit to Germany means no name change. Everything else stays about the same, though. --SouthWriter 19:40, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Nation help
Thanks for telling me. As I am new, I had really no idea of what I was doing. I will fix that. Thanks! Azecreth 11:34, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Co admin
I didn't mean to make it sound so much like the CSA was being reluctant with Germany. I was attempting to make a feel that Hitler attmpted to butter-up to the Confederacy in order to gain some support or even CS neutrality for his inevitable actions. I guess I see no trouble in the CSA declaring to protect Poland along with the UK and France, and becoming a major part in the European war at the start. I will need to rewrite that.

As for me not making any comments, that is for two reasons. First off, I have been quite busy and loosing some interest in alternate history, so I have been coming here more rarely. But when I do check it out, I see your changes and see no real problems or disagreements. But I do have one complainant. Why is Martin Luther King, Jr. page called ? Unless there is a crucial and historical reason for this, I demand that you replace the name to his name in OTL. --NuclearVacuum 16:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the confidence. About "Mike King, Jr. -- Read the page carefully. King was born Michael King, Jr., and his father only changed his name after making a trip to the Holy Land and Germany (Hitler's Germany!) in 1934. As a black citizen in the CSA the senior King most likely would not have been able to make that trip. If he had not been at that conference (a propaganda event for Hitler, by the way) in Germany, he would probably would not have been impressed by Martin Luther. And so, he would not have changed his name to first Michael Luther King and then Martin Luther King. They both were known as "Mike" by friends well into the fifties. And so, Martin Luther King remains Michael "Mike" King in this time line. Unless we concoct a reason why Michael King, Sr., would change his name while a struggling, or even successful, BAPTIST minister in Atlanta, I stand by the change. --SouthWriter 16:53, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Virginian guns/uniforms
I had allready changed the rifle the Virginians use to the M14. And yes, the fiber is a fictional one. It is a blend of Olefin, Polyester and altered fibers obtained from the tobbacco plant. It's about time the damned weed served a practical purpose. I chose the Civil War uniforms, because I wanted something both cheap to make and recognizably a military uniform. I would rather not have the Virginian army look like a big group of hunters.

Yankovic270 17:39, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

It also contains Model, a small amount of Spandex to increase its longevity without making it too rubbery, and Kevlar to protect the wearer from gunfire.

Yankovic270 18:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Great ideas for fabric from the fine men and women at Virginia Tech. I'm betting every one of them was a member of the Corps of Cadets! SouthWriter 18:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You better believe it! Nothing but the best (possible) fabric for the Virginian military's uniforms. The formula basically includes every synthetic fiber used for clothing that was available at the time. Most of the component fibers were invented about 20-30 years before Doomsday.

Yankovic270 13:58, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Yugoslavia in general
Why of course South, I was referencing the date of our signing up to the wiki, not our ages. Actually, most of you probably have me beat, since I'm 19 years old. As for inserting myself into the TL, well, I really don't see myself having a significant role in a post Doomsday world. At least, not yet. As I'd really like to be a translator one day, maybe I'd be one in the TL. But that really won't happen just yet.--Vladivostok 13:36, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply. You had some really good ideas.
Over at Talk:Easternized_World, I finally gave a short response to your long message. Like I say there, if you want to use what you wrote to branch an alternate history from my alternate history, then I'll put a link to yours on mine. You could name yours "Alt Easternized World" or something, or put the year it branched off... Anyway, thanks for being interested in my timeline! --Riction 13:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Friendship
Haha relax South =). I was talking about my friendship with you, or I guess it can only be called an e-friendship =(. I would nominate and vote for you if it came to that, dude. You are smart, I can see that. You have clear insight, and you helped me on my Radioactive Survivors page! Even though it didn't come to something. You most definitely would clear the time lines of any crap and make them as neat as possible =). ProfessorMcG 22:36, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kevin. I was beginning to think I wasn't appreciated. :-)


 * Anyway, I'm always glad to help when I can. I have one other time line I'm helping with (a so-called co-administrator), and a very ambitious (if I should say so myself) effort at a time line of my own. I really need to be doing some "real writitng," but I am suffering from "writer's block" (or maybe just out-and-out FEAR of rejection notices!) right now. I enjoy writing, and knowing that what I write is being read by at least a few people makes me feel better. SouthWriter 16:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I doubt anyone is going to reject what you write. Most of them are going to be jealous, including me. So go ahead, if you tell them they'll be anxious to see what you put out. ProfessorMcG 18:15, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Kevin, I wish I were a high school teacher! It would be a pleasure to have you as a student. SouthWriter 18:59, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually you wouldn't even find out what my voice sounds like, I hardly talk in class. =) ProfessorMcG 19:18, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe I'd just have to make you write some awesome essays! :-)
 * Or maybe just call on you a lot if it were history class! They might get to think you were "teacher's pet"! Seriously though, I was (and am) an introvert myself when I was your age. I played on the football team -- on defense! Interaction was in a physical sort of way. I was very good in math, but only moderately successful in history (my younger brother beat me out there, becoming a history teacher, in fact). I ended up switching to speech and drama (I had some one-act play roles in high school) when college math turned out to be harder than I expected. SouthWriter 19:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am good at math and when people hear me tell them I hate math they always act surprised =). I play soccer, right now I was watching the World Cup (Portugal lost, sadface). I don't know if you looked at my user page, but I hope to go into history as my major, something that mixes languages and history. ProfessorMcG 20:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still like math, but can't get into higher math. I am interested in science and some history. I have studied Spanish (high school), French (College), ancient Latin (HS), Greek and Hebrew (Graduate School), but don't do well in anything but English. However, the study of Greek and Latin helped me to understand English vocabulary a lot better. I started writing once I got out of school, but have never published much. Now I am "semi-retired" watching my grand sons play in their living room. I hope you do well in your studies. But right now, enjoy your summer. --SouthWriter 22:59, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * It kind of sucks when you have soccer practice all morning and then you come home and have to do 5 hours of online summer school ;) ProfessorMcG 01:39, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it gives you the edge next schoo term, it's worth it. If it's makeup from last term, perhaps soccer should not have been as big of a priority then. :-(
 * I know, I'm sounding like a dad. Of course I am a dad, so that stands to reason, huh? My 25 year old son is still in college, so I know how priorities and studies clash sometimes. Hey, I'm a writer, and priorities are a big problem with me, too. SouthWriter 02:00, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that I have a consumer ed requirement in order to graduate, and I'm taking my consumer ed over the summer. ProfessorMcG 02:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, get become an educated consumer - or whatever - and get graduated already! Well, at least enjoy becoming a senior without such a drag of a course. SouthWriter 02:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to be a sophomore next year, I'm probably one of the youngest people on this website. ProfessorMcG 03:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have issues with the formatting of this section! I put indentations and even spaces, but they disappear when you edit!
 * Any way, I wasn't looking at your profile when I wrote that, but I did seem to remember that you were only 15 years old. However, it still follows that you will have an easier senior year when it does come up if you get some of the extra classes out of the way in the summers. I was referencing the fact that the class you're taking was required for graduation.
 * By the way, I am most probably the OLDEST editor on this website. SouthWriter 16:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am sure my age shows too. Honestly, haha =) ProfessorMcG 18:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am sure my age shows too. Honestly, haha =) ProfessorMcG 18:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for editing the Plymouth flag :-)Arstarpool 14:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Arstar. I also posted suggestions to make your new article more accurate. I was tempted to change the "first colony" lines without notice, but I decided to "play nice." (Good advice from Mitro himself). SouthWriter 16:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's something else I want to talk to you about. If you haven't read the events of today, about 6-8 people were admitted to the TSPTF, including myself. The thing is, many of us thought YOU would make a good admin, but since you didn't show any interest, you were rejected. Why don't you ask Ben? Believe me, you are problably one of our best contributors out there.
 * There's something else I want to talk to you about. If you haven't read the events of today, about 6-8 people were admitted to the TSPTF, including myself. The thing is, many of us thought YOU would make a good admin, but since you didn't show any interest, you were rejected. Why don't you ask Ben? Believe me, you are problably one of our best contributors out there.


 * And as for the "first colony" thing, you could've changed that. Arstarpool 18:42, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confidence. Ben, Brian, and even Mitro, have a good relationship with me. I tend to agree with them most of the time. However, administrative duties are a bit more than I want to take on. I'm more of an "advisor" than and adminstrator. SouthWriter 19:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Changes"
I am sorry that I did not notify you of the changes, but to be honest, I have felt a bit insulted by some of your responses lately. Arstarpool 06:39, July 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Honesty is the best policy. Just send me a note any time you feel you need to discuss any of my remarks. SouthWriter 06:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Catherine
She has been banned, I believe. So I think it is up to you to show Xterror that he should at least be respectful of other people's opinions. ProfessorMcG 15:51, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * So she can no longer answer for herself, huh? Would Catherina950 be able to RECEIVE correspondence? XterrorX's objections did show up on HIS page, I believe (It's hard to follow "conversations" that bounce between users), so the post can safely go in context. I posted a request to her for permission to answer on her account, but if she cannot post, I guess it is up to me to "set the atheist" straight. Besides, his objections were posted to Catherina. I copied the objections, though, and I will post them to HIS talk page on her behalf. I will post to her as well, so that she can at least have coherent answers to such objections (she is a confessed Liberal and practical socialist, so I am not sure if she would ever need such answers).


 * A note to atheists and agnostics, though: Your objections really are very weak, given true science these days. Arguments have to be a lot more sophisticated to get anywhere in an intelligent debate. SouthWriter 16:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Creationism
SouthWriter, I've noticed this small... issue... and I was just wondering. Are you a creationist through-and-through or do you take Genesis to be metaphorical? Fegaxeyl 17:21, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Creationist through and through. The questions that XterrorX presented as "reasons" for abandoning the faith (in his case Jehovah's Witness beliefs) are so easily answered that I can imagine any honest agnostic scientist cringing seeing them in print.


 * By the way, die-hard atheists scoff at Christians that "take Genesis to be metaphorical." To be a "theistic evolutionist" is a HUGE oxymoron! Dawkins has a field day with such arguments! --SouthWriter 17:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe in Theistic Evolution, and it's not an oxymoron. Why do you suppose so? ProfessorMcG 17:58, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only way not to take genesis as metaphorical is to completely reject the overwhelming evidence for evolution, which IMO is ignorant. I'm an atheist myself, but unlike some don't dismiss those of faith as ignorant, we simply looked at the unexplained and one side decided god was unknowable and moved on, and the other decided everything could be explained in time, both are issues of faith, but one is in an unknowable god, the other is in mankind. But dismissing evidence observed in nature, fossil evidence, lab results, etc, just because it doesn't fit the bible is ignorant.Oerwinde 18:09, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * To be "ignorant" is literally to be against knowledge - the KNOWABLE, as you say. And so, you have to produce some of the "overwhelming" evidence to support your point of view.


 * To McG, I respectively submit that atheists are indeed justified in attacking "theistic evolution" as being an oxymoron. In order to "get along" with the science of the atheist, you have to agree that God apparently did everything as if God is not there. This is placing along side each other contradictory statements, the definition of an oxymoron. Dawkins rightfully will point out that without a literal fall into sin, there is no need for a savior from sin.


 * To Oerwinde, in attempting to be moderate, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You give your "opinion" that rejecting what you call "overwhelming" evidence as being "ignorant" and then you say you do not "dismiss those of faith as ignorant." But you assume that "those of faith" do not look at the evidence. On the contrary, we look at the evidence, and consider the "unknown" as truly unknown. In order to "explain" the origin of the unknown a lot of guessing has to go on -- unless of course someone who was there in the beginning informs us of what actually happened. As an atheist, you take your guesses on faith, and as a theist, I take the word of the One Who was there on faith. And THEN we both look at the same evidence and try to make some sense out of it.
 * The evidence from design - that which we CAN observe - is far more convincing to an open mind than the evidence from chaos. The DNA inside of all living things is at heart organized information -- tiny "computers" working along predictable ordered lines. Redundancy abounds, with much of the information being "turned off" until needed. Recombination occurs every time sexual reproduction occurs, producing variations that can run in the millions for some organisms. With asexual reproduction, the variations that appear are actually adaptations made using already existing information in the DNA (a germ that "survives" has turned on DNA that allows it to do so).SouthWriter


 * I look at theistic evolution as say, "Well it has been proven, or at least, there is evidence that suggest that evolution occurred". And then I think, "God is still here even if there wasn't evolution. So evolution must be the way to explain how God created the world." To me it's not oxymoronic it just explains how God did everything. ProfessorMcG 19:02, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * When it comes to the evidence, atheistic science has produced what is called in advertising "bait and switch." The evidence that "suggests" that evolution has occurred is really just generally accepted, and observed, evidence of adaptation to the environment. The finches that Darwin observed, for instance, have been shown to revert back to an earlier form when conditions change! But those animals have adapted over time to be different -- from original parents that had variations within their DNA allowing such change. It was not "random mutations" (which are almost always bad, and ALWAYS result in LOSS of information). That is a long way to say the terms have been "redefined." Change observed over a short time is called "evolution," and thus it is assumed that such changes also changed reptiles to birds, etc.


 * It is oxymoronic to place "evidence" that God is not needed -- and thus practically nonexistent -- while insisting that God exists. "Theistic Evolution" as understood by those in the science community, places the idea of a Creator (Who can do anything) up against the concept of "Self-creation" (coming into being with no plan). I challenge you, as a young theist, to consider whether God would mislead his people over the course of three to four thousand years to believe that he did something one way simply because they "weren't ready for the truth" - a "truth" that rebellious mankind would put forth in denial of His sovereignty over it all. That would, in essence, make God a liar -- or at best, absent from all communication with mankind.
 * If everything we have in the Bible, or the Koran for that matter, concerning God's work in the past is just the imaginations of men, then how are we to take the modern imaginations of men who claim no belief in Him? That is a question the agnostic theist (or deist, believing God is there, but not knowable) must face. Re-examine the evidence, McG, what does it actually show? No guessing allowed! --SouthWriter 19:46, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't you guessing at the existence of God, South? you simply take the evidence at had and interpret it as more evidence for the existence of God. or have you actually seen Him? anyway, the only thing the adaptation of the finches proves is that evolution works both ways. it helps an organism adapt to a new environment, and helps them re-adapt to an old one. i have a friend with a degree in Biology and she states quite emphatically that random mutations are good a significant portion of the time. Destroyanator 20:06, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Des, I have a much better indicator that God exists than "seeing" Him. I have faith! And that faith is only there because He put it there. But to the point, the evidence that does exist fits more to the existence of a Designer than to "random change over a long time." It does not take "guessing" to figure that out. As for the "evolution" working both ways, that opinion is an example of redefining "evolution." If by that term you simply mean "change," then we have to agree. However, the fact that the finches "change back" indicates that no new information made them the way they are. Their genes have "switches" that go both directions -- Information DESIGNED in the genetic code! Your friend, with a "degree in biology" is only parroting what she was taught in evolutionary biology class. A "significant" portion of cases of "beneficial" mutations are those that are engineered by humans -- with a great bit of INTELLIGENCE -- by DESIGN. When a mutation in the wild is beneficial, it is a mutation that turns off a switch in genetic information allowing for survival in a particular environment. Through several generations, the ability of the "new" species becomes unable to survive anywhere else since it looses the "switch" in the process. --SouthWriter 21:05, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think evolution is evidence that God is not needed. ProfessorMcG 20:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you do not think that God is not needed, for you proclaim that God is behind it all. However, to maintain this, you have to disregard evidence to the contrary, i.e., evidence from DESIGN. Also, you cannot take His revealed word seriously if those who are supposed to be trusted, like Jesus and His apostles, are said to believe that same record. You can't have it both ways. I challenge you again, look at the evidence -- what do you see? If you had to explain it only from what you see, what conclusion would you come to? --SouthWriter 21:05, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though the format isn't as easy to work with, I will be moving all this discussion over to the blog entry. There, a give and take, is easier to follow. SouthWriter 21:26, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though the format isn't as easy to work with, I will be moving all this discussion over to the blog entry. There, a give and take, is easier to follow. SouthWriter 21:26, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to but in here but this is a great debate :) GOPZACK 23:44, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Zack. I appreciate your support. I saw your entry on the blog, but only after I reloaded th page. I spent the evening answering earlier posts. When the blog starts repeating itself, I'll "close discussion" and move on to another subject. :-)

SouthWriter 03:54, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought South =)

There is always two sides to a story. And you can never be sure of yourself until you hear the other side. Because when you hear the other side of the story, you know where the other person is coming from. But also, I think that you can never truly know someone. You may think you know what they think and how they think but you never will. The best way to understand someone, I think, is to love them. When you love them you see their faults and yet you don't judge them for it. You take their faults and you are still willing to work with them. This is the best way to show God to someone. God has un-ending love. Even to people who don't believe God, we are all his creations and he loves us for it. So when you try to show someone God you have to show them God's love with your love. This makes the person trust you and gives them confidence to believe in you because they know you have their best interests at heart. ProfessorMcG 17:50, July 6, 2010 (UTC)