Greetings all,

Victory may be achieved by moving LARGE armies around. Large Armies are created

by Gathering Comms. Gathering Comms is best achieved by being immune to all

interferance (Pacifism). Ergo, More Pacifists equals bigger armies.

Not much imaginative play required, but effective (QED)

Alternative, Victory is achieved by fighting and being sharper with ones Macros than

your opponent. Armies are not in the equation, nor are pacifists.

Once again, unimaginative.

Surely there is a balance that we, as reasoning and thinking people, can come up

with which may be better than the current system? After all, why would someone

labelled as a 'Pacifist' (Opposed to ALL violence) work to support and build

armies for massed invasions? On the other hand, no army can march without leaders

and support industries? Is there some way we can look at real world models, replete

with Heroes and Villans emerging from opposing battle lines to urge their troops on

into battle? Should Pacifists be allowed to have ANYTHING to do with warfare?

Once again I say, we are ALL reasonable and intelligent people, and the argument of

Pacifism Vs Fighting is almost as pointless as sexism, racism or any other 'ism!'

Work it out. No one likes it, lets change it.

Written by my hand on the 7th of Hindyear, in the year 977.