If it's an homage keep it. I thought it could be made a bit campier or sillier.
Sorry. I'm under the influence of that Dave Freer book, which includes a demon named Hariseldon. (Yes. Snicker) Once addicted to pickles, the demon goes full psychedelic sixties in a chamber pot. Valuable resource, that.
Hmm. 'Hinkley' should be 'Hinkles' or 'Hinklettes'.
Drop 'unwittingly'. It's one of those dread lyadverbs, and an unnword, all piled on a participle. As Mr. Churchill said, short words are best and the old words, when short, are best of all.
Now his nightmare has the power to destroy reality itself.
LOL! And also, don't let the feminists see those silly princess warrior outfits! They'd get all upset and they're already really so upset they can't make sense.
Oh, but they don't know what's really important. Fortunately, Agatha has some goot pipple to look after her. 
With my legs, I'm not sure I'll be up to a long trip, but let me know when the assignation is planned. I'll see what I can do ...
I may be splitting a hair: If the government and the church are separate, but the government will only allow adherents of the established church, then the separation is a separation of powers, but not independence of church and state. (I'm open to more precise words than 'independence'.)
edit: Charles, surely you know that American education cannot even tell the true story of the first Thanksgiving because it is about the failure of socialism.
Oh, if you heard in the media that the atrocity was committed with an AR-15, you were lied to. The weapon was a Sig-Saur and the "man" who wielded it had a special permit allowing him to possess weapons unavailable to the general public because his employer was a contractor for DHS.
To the press, every rifle with a detachable magazine is an AR-15. This is the same press that doesn't know the difference between full-auto and semi-auto--or else does not care to know.
Yes, though I think it was more a separation of powers than a true separation. IIRC, in Albion's Seed, David Hackett describes a distinct lack of tolerance within each colony. To be fair, these colonies had each been established in part to allow adherents to get away from those adhering differently.
Again, IIRC, the idea of religious toleration found seed in the Peace of Augsburg, and began to blossom in the Peace of Westphalia.
Incidentally, Fascism is a certain kind of government that became popular in the twentieth century and arguably continues today. (Walter Russell Meade asks if today's China may be the first successful fascist government.) To apply the term to a government of the Middle Ages is a category error: the notion of Fascism does not apply, any more than Whiggism or the Summer of Love.
The separation of God and Caesar is a modern idea (though of course it is so named in the Gospels--and Caesar did not agree). And not just in Europe; in the modern Judge Dee stories, van Gulik notes in the introductory matter (of various of the novels) of how, although Buddhism and Taoism were tolerated, the original Judge Dee stories made them the villians and attributed various active moral defects to them.
You're within your right to say that the claims have not been backed, and to say you won't take them seriously until they are. Or to say that you don't want to debate the point here ... but when you've expressed a view, you open the door to contrary views.
Will you take the floor and then deny it to someone else?
It's true the Charles presented a large number of claims without the evidence to support them. But I've engaged him on other issues. (You can find the discussions on the forums here.) His is a formidable and educated intellect, though neither he nor I are used to arguing from the soapbox. Someone arguing from the soapbox doesn't bring in the whole fabric of issues that he sees related, and that his opponents don't. Someone arguing from the soapbox focuses on a single, supportable point and rallies people around it.
You may disagree with Charles, but you should understand already, as a matter of public discourse, that everything in that 'rant' has evidence to support it. You may disagree; you may think the evidence of no account. You may think the conclusions the result of bigotry. But others don't, and the 'of course you don't believe that' argument has been used so often that it marks you as someone who prefers to dismiss evidence rather than examining it, and to dismiss people rather than taking them seriously.
The 'of course you don't believe that' approach keeps us talking past each other. It keeps us from actually examining the evidence the other brings. It confirms our confirmation bias. At best, it is an argument from solidarity: "Be one of us, not one of them." It is inherently polarizing. Can you complain of polarization, when you reject any attempt to meet the minds of the other side?
Wolfgang Pauli could say, "That's not right. It's not even wrong," because he was talking about math and the physical sciences, and had an established and shared understanding that was supported by tens of thousands of experimental results. We don't have that in public policy, and it's near certain that none of us has the skills of a Machiavelli or Metternich that would give us the authority to say, "That's not even wrong." We have contradictory exemplars and cases, and we need to sort through them to find the truth.
Vern, surely you know that a dismissal is not a reasoned argument? It's an admission of defeat in logic, combined with an appeal to like-minded people to simply ignore the child in the room.
On the basis of the reasoned and difficult discussions that CFB and I have had, I can assure you that he is no child. If he is in error, he deserves arguments to convince, not arguments of 'everyone knows' meant to convince. The danger of such arguments is that he might convince you.
As far as the bond goes, it's very equal both directions. Dragons have the upper hand physically, but their partners have the upper hand magically.
(Slight spoilers here...) Dragons are much stronger telepathy-wise, but they cannot communicate with any Human except the one they are bonded with. Through the knowledge of their bond-partner, they understand Human speech, but cannot answer since Humans are not naturally capable of telepathy.
(Bigger spoilers here...) Dragons are a Source of Arcane energy while their bond-partners are Arcanists capable of using said energy. ...
Let's look for metaphors. Think Earth-Mother/Sky-Father. What does the human bring besides the magic? Language, and access to everything expressed in language, including written history and communique's. What kind of sensibility does the human bring?
What wisdom and knowledge does the dragon bring? What about emotive energy and drive? How do you characterize the partnership. Not as Id/Ego, that's clear, but ...
Let's take a different turn. How would the dragon characterize the relationship and the partnership?
I recently read a very campy fantasy novel by Dave Freer. It's called Tom. The premise is that a magician needs a new servant/assistant, a famulus. Since human volunteers are few, he entices a cat with nice fresh fish, then turns the cat into a boy ... mostly. The cat-boy retains a furry tail, so he won't run off. (The populace will call him a demon and kill him.) When Tom wakes up in his new form, the magician must add a spell to connect their languages. At first Tom thinks the wizard is speaking perfect Cat, but realizes that he never knew had words for 'dress yourself', which he now understands perfectly.
Tom's transformation is quick. Dea and Maya will take time to understand each other (and neither will be instructed in housekeeping by the demanding skull of the former housekeeper), but what will each discover in the bond? What will they gain that they didn't think possible?
Sorry, I get a bit logorrheic at times.
Consider the 'action' menu button in the portfolio page. The selections are
Add Chapter
View
Edit
Publish Setup
Invite to Read
Delete
By far the most common selections will be View and Edit. Add Chapter and Delete may be regarded as sub-actions under Edit. Publish Setup is also an edit-type operation, and ought to be represented there.
Only Invite to Read falls outside of View and Edit.
So why not put three buttons per row: View, Invite to Read, and Edit? (Instead of the menu button, which hides further steps as surely as a new web page does.) The master edit page for the work can list the chapters, provide the options for Add Chapter, Delete, and Publish Setup (Setup for Publication?)
Drop-down menus are a problem on certain non-PC devices. There must always be a way to work without using them. If you look at the better e-commerce sites (try mouser.com and digikey.com, both of which are designed for frequent users, and newegg.com, which is designed for everybody) you will see that if you click-hold or double-click on the 'links' that bring up menus, you'll be taken to a link-farm page carrying the same links as the menu.
Indeed, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions. Certainly the road to hell on earth is.
Good intentions are not enough. Good intentions must be supported by practical wisdom (also called the cardinal virtue of prudence) so that the intentions are directed through understandings and actions that will further them, rather than thwarting them and making a travesty of them.
Let me take an example that should be non-political.
Let's say that you or I are standing near the curb in front of the stores of a shopping center, and a driver is on the roadway about to cross in front of us. Let us also stipulate that the traffic is light.
What should the driver do? Should the driver stop to let us pass, or continue at his (presumably) safe speed?
The answer may surprise you. To speed both us and the driver, and to avoid creating needless danger, the driver should continue without slowing. Why?
It will take the driver a certain amount of time to reach our position at his speed, and a little more for his vehicle to pass us. (At 20 mph, or about 29 feet per second, it will take about two-thirds of a second to pass our position once he has reached us.)
But if he chooses to slow to a stop, it will take longer for him to reach us and reach that stop--about twice as long if his deceleration is reasonable. And only after he has stopped can we be sure that he means to stop, and decide to move in front of him.
But we shouldn't decide to move in front of his vehicle (still in gear with the engine running, and held only by his foot on the brake) until we have established eye contact. That's a further delay--for us and for him. If we don't establish eye contact, we don't know he was stopping for us. He might have been waiting for something else--and if he doesn't notice us, he could run us over when he decides he wants to go.
In addition to the hazard of walking in front of a vehicle with its engine running and in gear, and to the time lost by everyone involved, there is the waste of fuel and added pollution resulting from bringing a vehicle to a needless stop and then setting it in motion again.
What should practical wisdom counsel? That the driver not stop! But we-the-pedestrian cannot count on it, and too many pedestrians will walk in front of the car assuming the driver will stop for the driver to continue without slowing a little--which may encourage the pedestrian to walk off the curb prematurely.
Apart from making sure that everybody takes high school physics, what can be done about this stupidity? Would making everyone take high school physics even help, in this era of grade inflation and passing students without regard to their performance?
When you figure out how, let me know.
Calling the Crusaders 'radicals' is probably a category error. This isn't to say there was nothing wrong done, or nothing right, but that the category of 'radical' doesn't apply to them, any more than the category of Marxist.
...
The problem with communism, etc. is not that they reject religion, but that they are too much like religion. Mao believed in blind faith and obedience just as religious leaders and followers do. Communism, just as religion, is dogmatic to the core, and may well be looked at as another religion with the leaders being worshiped much like cult religious leaders.So, I contend that organized religion is still responsible for the vast majority of atrocities inflicted on mankind. Atheism guided by tyrants is simply another form of religion. The despots simply replace on god with another, themselves, demanding obedience and what amounts to worship. Take care. Vern
Indeed. And yet the atheists are more deadly, perhaps because they try to redefine humanity. (See C.S.Lewis's The Abolition of Man.) Other religions have operated hospitals, tried to feed the poor, and preserved learning. The Jesuits tried to stop the enslavement of New World peoples. English clerics led the movement to end slavery in England and Europe, and eventually across the Anglosphere.
Living in fear and knowing how to react are two different things.
And organized atheism, in the form of states headed by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, has killed far more people, in the name of 'perfecting humanity'. These hundred-million plus were killed for the crime of having human dignity that would not go away, as the 'New Soviet Man' projects required. As all projects to immanentize the eschaton have so far required. (The link is to an article about Voegelin, but it covers the point. The website is run by WRMeade, who describes himself as a liberal.)
I suggest delaying Maya and Dei, then, even if only by a chapter or two, even if it requires the intervention of Avrae, and maybe a few frustrating attacks against other places. You could use them to hint at some of the issues of undirected Arcane energy. Meanwhile, I will mull the names.
All the discussion of what motivations might be distract us from the fact of what is: A particular belief system is in fact claimed as inspiration for a series of atrocities that is growing more frequent, AND a large number of those who credibly claim to be authorities (of knowledge and the power to speak in the name) of that faith are encouraging or justifying those atrocities. Some are sponsoring or training the people who commit the atrocities.
What might have been and what happened long ago can tell us something about evil, but it does not change the WHO and WHY of NOW. It does not change where we should look NOW, unless you are so wrapped up in the idea of collective guilt that you include the past in your collective.
Collective guilt is the antithesis of both the western notion of justice and the practical measures necessary to defend against the atrocities. The perpetrators and their supporters and co-conspirators are found among a particular group. We look for them among that group. (This includes conducting background checks of people we are hoping to trust.) We punish the individuals we find. (And the costs of the background checks to the people checked are caused not by our right of self-defense, but by those who commit the atrocities.)
If collective guilt is disallowed, what about making war? The recognized laws of war state that if one belligerent uses the territory of a neutral, and the neutral is unable or unwilling to defend that territory, the responding belligerents have the right to use the same territory, and to attack the first belligerent within that territory. Any harm that acrues, including deaths, is charged to the belligerent that invaded the neutral's territory.
When applied to a non-state actor engaging in acts of war, this means that states from which they stage and launch their attacks, and in which they train, have an obligation to resist those actors--and that the victims of their attacks have a right to pursue the aggressors wherever they are based.
Separate item: I left you a clarification of review for your last chapter.
Let me mull the question. What does the bond entail? Who owns whom? What does each bring to the bond? What does each have to learn to trust the other in? What role did the people/dragon pairings play in the past?
