Roundhall 2010

Professor Phillip Bobbit in his war on terror lecture, that he shared in England, expresses an understanding that we've entered a fourth modern age.     Drawing from the knowledge he found to write his book The shield of Achilles, he shares that he believes we're entering a fourth modern era.     Or more accurately he describes the issues which defined the offices of four presidents of the United States of America. Beginning with the cold war, he professes that political differences were the moving force behind world change but when Russia collapsed, the reason for the cold war was replaced.     Monetary concerns took over as a motivational force, and the president made commerce more free. Then terrorism, and the period we're in now, after terrorism.     He describes a modern terrorist who is about self promotion and outcomes, who uses inter-net to gain access to resources that enable them to create effective weapons of mass destruction.     Who would deploy those weapons and who is not interested in political discourse.     Unlike the terrorists that we became used to in the twentieth century who might kill people but who would easily prefer not to if their message was heard.     Of course that's not true the I.R.A. Or E.T.A. Who Professor Bobbit referenced in regard to that claim had to make kills for their terror attacks to be effective. Cells like the I.R.A. Or E.T.A. Are not trying to send a message they're trying to manipulate democratically elected governments by force.     The Professor claims that this sort of terrorism, that took place in the twentieth century, was small scale and as a nation that gives us no affinity with a terrorism of the future.     I'm thirty one almost, and I can remember a time when everyone was aware that a bomb could go off at any time and in any place and often did at least twice a year.     Professor Bobbit, eluded toward the terror suspect torture issue by suggesting it might be legitimised by the potential risk for weapons of mass destruction being employed, being reduced.     The Irish were oppressed by my people in the nineteenth and twentieth century for the same reason because they might cause some harm.     It doesn't legitimise torture.     If the United States of America continues to utilise torture techniques then they have broken international law.     International law demands economic sanctions when human rights violations are taking place and the scale of the atrocity does not matter if it's engineered by a state.     Terrorism was small before and now it's massive, is Professor Bobbit's belief which he shares with a belief that if the United States of America breaks international law in a small amount with a few violations of human rights then it doesn't matter.     Law is not law by definition if it does not apply to all of who subscribe to it voluntarily or otherwise, it becomes a weapon for social control instead and loses all legitimacy, it can no longer be said to represent ideals.     We have entered a new political climate, it's the United States of America's imperialist period.     Professor Phillip Bobbit's war on terror lecture was televised by the B.B.C. 2009-05-06 while 2009-04-29 I invoked a prayer for the solution in Story VII: Law online:

Here I invoke a prayer for the solution.

God save the Queen and give us work so that those who have become bastardised don't lead. Give us leaders who will make us a strong nation, off the Yankee collar and let us wear red and have the right to police ourselves with our own laws whatever they might be and have the need for an Americanised USA international law cast aside but give us international law that represents emotion not need or greed. Give us all that so people can love again and let me live free as a subject of red and white England. Give us one world and cast down borders and strip us of national pride. Make us human and let us understand that aliens are not coming from beyond the stars, then let us take it easy as buddies with grub, vehicle, screens and the things we love. Give us vigour to work for our fellow men and let us share the shit stuff that needs to be done so no lives are lost in the haze menial work requires. Give us leaders that will give us that and you'll have a godless, godly world and we'll have it all.

This is my last entry in this story series now until there's an outcome that leads to the fifth climate.     That law is no longer legitimate and states once again try to legitimise or replace it while concerns over climate change stimulate social change and economic growth, as a new age of heroes begins.

I heard during my obligatory education that women were better than me, that they would achieve more and do better.     However now I don't see women who are doing better than me, I see a game.     I see I highly developed collusive personality that seems developed to confuse.     That's not an impressive outcome.     I see claws biting into the backs of people who are moving on, making their flesh a trail that can be followed by those who might finish them.     While I see people who accept a fate before they're thirty years old and feel content with a mesh of flesh and lost hopes, come from those they've hurt, sat beneath them.     The same people who take titles and admiration but perform none of the duties that their titles require because they claim that above all they are women.     A man was frustrated online and sent negative feedback, that is measured and represented by a percentage figure drawn of three outcomes that are trash talk, un-sporting behaviour and player skill, called rep.     The woman that he sent it to assumed his penis was small and wrote that his penis was small on the official XBOX forum.     The people who I have been told will do better than me were women before but now, if they try to control the outcomes of my life by presenting barriers that limit my life chances, perhaps because they feel pressured, then they're not behaving like women but they are trying to prevent me from achieving.     Perhaps before I knew women they behaved like that and that was how women behaved but they are not just women now, they are also people who I have heard will do better than me.     If mistakes have been made then they are done and if things have been said that will make things difficult from now on, those words are also done.     In England we carry equal status as human now and while class is vile and promotes people to behave in a vile manner as people we carry equal status.

I've heard that I am immature and that I have not grown as a man should but I know that I am quite independent and that I am a man.     That statement is a technique drawn from the command pool of the collusive personality I mentioned.     Drawn by women who are more sexually driven than me with salacious intent and driven by a hatred that they carry for themselves.     Perhaps they feel that if I will not sleep with them or offer placation to their vanity then I should not be allowed any happiness.     Do not apply reason or measure to that statement because it carries none and the imbalance of harm there-in can-not be measured.     If I start in the street and I am called immature and I climb up a building to a height that is immature, as I pass each floor I am told I am immature by the women within it until I am on the roof alone.     Then I look down and see women as a whole and see that they must be immature, collusive or infernal and I note that they fear each other more than they wonder at the harm they cause.     The harm they cause is an outcome forced because should they refuse to do it they will be cast out by their own lot and given to face the harm that they will not do.     Women must turn away from harming each other and achieve all that they can without fear and without working to prevent others from achieving.

Social traits manifest in players illustrated list.
Bitch.	Boiler.
Demanding & domineering.	Subversive & demanding.
Wants to control the outcomes of other peoples lives by subversive means	Wants people to take interest in their lives.
Will try to endear themselves with the opposition after a match.	Might be upset after loosing a match, will want the opposition to recognise their effort.
Is less interested in the game rules than they are interested in the people they play with.	Might understand the game rules but be more vocal about the parts they don't understand.
Is not interested in being a good player unless it'd required for them to have influence.	Is capable of being a good player if the players on their team support them.
Tries not to influence team morale.	Talks for a reaction and then becomes indignant unless shown an amount of respect they think is appropriate, lowers morale or does not influence it.

I might have mentioned it before; the wheel of life has stopped turning.     There are arguably a few exceptions, that men can become footballers and women super-models or certain individuals despite their background might strive to become entrepreneurs.     Now mostly though, people will maintain their status and the relative wealth that goes along with it.     So if a man's father is blue collar then his son after inheriting the mannerisms that have become associated with blue collar work will quickly be accepted and adopted into the blue collar and rejected as unsuitable for white collar work regardless of skill.     That's been said before and I'd like to reference it but I don't have the energy to research it so just accept that I've said nothing new there, almost.     I'm the first to draw comparison with Boethius' wheel of life and the first to provide readers with a picture that represents a growing problem.

The wheel of life has ladders against it that represent the routes we take into careers.     For an academic career that ladder would begin at school pass through college and could end with a degree.     For a vocational career it might end at college.     The individual chooses their course and plots it to their career but there are individuals who are unable to plot a course or make it through.     Because the wheel of life cannot turn because people acknowledge routes as the only way to begin careers, those who do not make it, can not make it.     The wheel of life could turn and place them at the top if it wasn't blocked.     The natural order is in question while the people who do not get a career are entirely failed by this robust system.     We can't separate ourselves from our natures while we harness nature but legislators are trying to promote that separation.     But I question the basis for the assumption that we'd be better suited to that separation when it can't be achieved, and if it could, when the last to achieve it would be those who the system has failed.     Law feels like it wants me brought down, as though it wants me to accept that bastardisation is a desired nature, which is like the nature of those who are bastardised.     It's the way bastardised people behave.     I hear people claim, and I feel that it happens, that the law represents each of us differently but if that's true it's not law it's just a bigger box filled with more roles that are chosen for us.     If the law applies differently to each of us, changed by individual needs, then it functions by controlling what a person understands as acceptable, to funnel them into a role or at least guide them to it.     That can't be acceptable, here in England, when what role a person performs is linked to the quantity of resources that will be allocated to them.     Because the goal is to amass wealth, those at the top of a ladder who are able to do so grow more wealthy while those who cannot have a ladder, now, cannot buy a house or have a family.     The problem will grow, the wealth gap will continue to grow and house prices will rise, and they're already too expensive.     They are too expensive because people who work forty hours week on minimum wage cannot afford to buy them.     The wheel turns, a King can be fallen and a peasant rise up on the same stroke.     The Earth can be broken and deposit required elements on a barren planet.     A man might die and his blood be taken to help a victim.     But the wheel of life has stopped turning and if the ladders keep going up then a fallen class is chosen, if the law is not applied as it should be then those who have been failed by England's economic system that is re-enforced through the collusion of bastardised people and comfortable people, working to ensure they maintain their status or feel sexually dominant, will never get a chance.     If you find that easy to accept then I assume you're up a ladder.

The bastardised player is sexually motivated, he wants to feel dominant in any situation.     He understands that the best way to achieve this is to make other people have less desire to achieve and become lackluster.     Then the bastardised player understands that his victim will become more likely to to accept his dominance because the victim no longer has a desire to become dominant.     Bastardised players quite often aren't good players but when playing with friends often achieve good scores, though they soon loose composure in open rooms and sometimes leave the room if they feel they haven't been offered and amount of admiration that they feel they should be offered.     The bastardised player demands victory for themselves while victory for their team is a secondary concern for them.     They would rather lose a game but log the highest score because they understand that further demoralises their team mates.     The bastardised player will shoot your shields down when you engage the opposition.     The roaster has similar motivation, to be the best player but they want their team mates to succeed too.     They are subversive but they are not seeking to undermine peoples' confidence, they're looking for bastardised players.     Although there are quite a few reasons why a player might become this way the motivation is singular.     To prevent the bastardised, who try to lower the confidence of other players, from winning in that way.

Social traits manifest in players illustrated list, (bastardised player and roaster).
Subversive.	Intent.
Demands attention, happy when winning.	Pleasant (competitive players and bastardised players are sometimes frustrated by this).
Might create an excuse to leave a losing match.	Isn't concerned with winning video games.
Wants to brag after winning a match but sometimes refrains.	Rarely brags.
Understands the game rules and tries to manipulate them.	Isn't really concerned with video game rules.
Is capable of being a great player if everyone supports them.	Is capable of being a great player if they have a reason to become one.
Lowers team morale while aiming to become the best player in the team.	Isn't a team player but is looking for those who do wrong.

Sainsbury's security is moderated by Sainbury's PLC, that must be a joke!     Templar Boe kills peasants is moderated by Templar Boe.     Of course he doesn't because there aren't any in Roundhall or abroad.     England is free.     Well I thought it was but it is not because we have a law that is not concerned with justice.     Law in England is concerned with law alone and the propagation of law throughout the lives of all the subjects of the land.     Copyright law is another bugger, if you rip me off then I could lose a copyright infringement case because I published to the web so a lawyer might argue that I am not adequately protecting my own interests.     So should we all choose to protect ourselves adequately?     Then virtuous endeavour is dropped from our royal subjects' collective social understanding of what it is to be a good subject.     Why would law protect a thief who steals copyright material?     Because it protects us all, almost, it won't protect me because I'm weak.     The police and other legal officials are drawn from a populace who are coming to understand that to succeed they must follow a route to an occupation or become entrepreneurial, they are institutionalised.     It doesn't matter if after earning a position an English subject isn't good enough to do it because most aren't the radial ignorance blanket goes down while those who might be good in a field but who rightly will not follow a route to it are driven into despair by that ignorance.     I can't be a thief or a merciless sales person or even a sex worker so I will not succeed here whatever my endeavour and the law will not protect me so why do I need the law?     I'm on benefits and outside the route to work system and beneath the clamour for citizenship and with purpose and attractive and strong, a clear target for the bastardised who frustrate people and manipulate them to do wrong.     Wealth makes a better person in England, the rich get the best women and are allocated more of our resources and given more respect by most.     I feel like I'm quite a good prospect but I'm not because my income is less than twenty thousand pounds per year.     Okay, that's true but it's also true that wealth is an outcome earned through leadership, prospecting on the stock market or gambling so perhaps I have earned my status but some people are born better than me!     I don't believe that but by measurement it's true, they're allocated more resources because they're allowed to spend and inherit what their parents have earned.     I cannot be the best person in this free society, I cannot amass enough wealth to be allocated more resources than some people are born with the right to take.     England is not free and the law is working to ensure it never is, perhaps they don't know that.     They work to ensure it every-time they work to dilute English attitude by implementing and defending laws designed to support capitalism that are not concerned with justice and they are able to dilute English attitude because we are law abiding mostly.     They have influence and should respect their host.

There are people who embrace the capitalist aspect of the dilute mixed economy we've grown to and things are better in real life now than they have been in the past.     And a few, losers, like me who won't or haven't embraced it.     Those who embrace the system are often competitive online and sometimes employ all sorts of tactics that exists outside of the game mechanic to win.     If you're offended by that don't be, they don't need your help and you cannot change the outcomes of a game or that person.     They are probably mostly happy in life but perhaps lack something they require to succeed in the way they really want to.     Again, maybe they have succeeded because citizens and subjects in Eurasia and the U.S.A. are required to be competitive to succeed, mostly.     Play the game and don't be influenced by jibes and then you'll be in control of the outcome because then who-ever wins, wins by virtue of their ability.     Unless of course game cheats are used but there's nothing that can be done about that.     Don't pity the cheater though, he's just having a laugh and may be competitive or a loser but is not interested enough in the game to be pitied.

Social traits manifest in players illustrated list:
Competitive player.	Loser.
Aggressive.	Lackluster.
Verbally abusive.	Pleasant (competitive players are sometimes frustrated by this).
Might quit a losing match.	Often loses despite his efforts.
Might brag after winning a match.	Never brags.
Understands the game rules.	Often doesn't engage with the rules.
Is capable of being a great player by virtue of effort and restraint.	Is capable of being a great player by virtue of their demeanour if they make a great effort.
Is capable of winning a game with a team of less able players.	Is capable of loosing a game with a team of more able players.

A couple of nights back I watched a dark scene in a dream.     The scene was black and orange, the sky was black and the land was black and lit in orange.     Soldiers or militia danced around in some kind of action and a figure was bound sat, close to my point of view.     A soldier came up to him and pressed something against his face and I wondered what it was but he recoiled and I saw his nose was molten.     He didn't scream, I thought the pain was too much he just pulled back as though gasping for a breath, then fell forward as his attacker cut away his guts, that part of his face fell away; his nose to his jaw.     I don't know what the scene was or why I dreamed it but there is a dance craze spreading.     Couples used to walk around me, one each side, so often that I noticed it to be the case.     Rather than by chance I assumed it must be deliberate, they chose to walk around me, and wondered why and I suppose there are reasons.     Perhaps the couple have a dislike for each other and like to distance themselves or maybe they have few friends so they are close for most of the time and so putting a stranger between them even briefly is a relief for them.     Perhaps the couple haven't had children and the sense of loss manifests itself in that behaviour or perhaps the woman is menopausal and has noticed my dislike of imposing behaviours.     Perhaps the two are insecure and want assert themselves and have seen menopausal women or thugs imposing themselves in that way.     There are many reasons why a person might behave in that way and without stopping to ask why someone would separate from their partner to walk around me in that way I can guess why, so it doesn't matter.     Their choice of behaviour is their own and it doesn't bother me now but recently two small boys did it.     Has that hatred spread so far or could they have a different motivation altogether.     They might have been insecure but one of them was very aggressive, actually walking into my path to ensure that he and his friend could walk one either side of me and when I stopped still he asked if I was okay, aggressively.     Video game tactics are so prevalent now that all youngsters who play them must understand the flanking manoeuvre.     Could it be that having seen that behaviour in adults and perhaps disempowered by it they've adopted it and been motivated to do so because they've seen it in video games and it has helped them to succeed there.     It's unlikely they would adopt the behaviour because they have been hurt by it so however else it must also help them to succeed.

Flanking tactic.
Three quarters of your team must attack the enemy head on while the remaining players flank on one side to catch the enemy in a forty five degree crossfire.

Buddy tactic.Team divides into pairs and attack blase holding a static distance suitable for the game and map between them.     The trailing player follows the leading player's path.     The leading player will take fire and the trailing player should neutralise the attacker.

Defensive tactic.Form a defence in a suitable position. Ensure the position is defensible.     Ensure there is no way an opposing player can get into your position without having to kill a defender. In open maps use a corner of the map and in complex maps defend the middle areas.     To ensure your are not only in a defensible position but to ensure you also have targets.

Flanking tactic.	Buddy tactic.	Defensive tactic.
This diagrammatic image shows symbols representing two video game teams each team has five members.     One team is in a forty five degree flanking position and has neutralised two players in the opposing team who are taking cover in and behind a building.	This diagrammatic image shows symbols representing two video game teams.     There are two symbols representing players employing the buddy tactic and a third represents a player from the opposing team.     The leading player emerges from a building corner and draws fire from the opposition player. His buddy returns fire then the two concentrate fire and neutralise the attacker.	This diagrammatic image shows symbols representing one video game team.     The team has deployed in defensive positions in two scenarios.     In the first the team has deployed at the corner of the map.     The image shows that enemies cannot attack from behind or from the right on this occasion and shows the player LoS which are optimised.     They are not obscured and the players have positioned themselves to ensure that as much ground as they could possibly cover between them is visible.     In the second the players have adopted a defensive position in the centre of a complex map and are observing the same considerations.

Pair fire tactic.To ensure that difficult battles are not lost entirely.     Divide into pairs and assign a 'first firer' the second of the pair must concentrate his fire on the first firer' target.     This tactic should help to ensure death-match games are not lost by more than fifty percent within a friendly kills/opposition kills ratio.

Sniper tactic.Works in games with long and narrow maps.     Most of the team attack the enemy head on while one player finds an elevated position at the end of the map and snipes from there.     The team must not push too far forward leaving the sniper exposed.

Heavy ordinance tactic.On small maps learn the enemy spawn position and bombard it with grenades and anything explosive at the start of the game.

Pair fire tactic.	Sniper tactic.	Heavy ordinance tactic.
This diagrammatic image shows symbols representing two video game teams.     There are two symbols representing players adopting the pair fire tactic and three representing three players in the opposition team.     The pair fire team concentrate their fire to take one member of the opposition down and are then both neutralised.	This diagrammatic image shows symbols representing two video game teams.     Each team is represented by five symbols.     Four players in the team that has chosen to adopt the sniper tactic are forward around the centre of the map attacking the opposition and ensuring they stay on their side of the map.     A sniper at the back of the map takes shots at the opposition.	This diagrammatic image shows symbols representing two video game teams.     Each team is represented by five symbols.     Members of both teams throw grenades over a short map to kill the opposition in their spawn point.

England has been offered over to the bastards because there are so many of them and those that will not crow or manipulate themselves up toward another [person] are bereft of opportunity.     The social order creaks but there's comfort enough to keep peace.     Opportunities are so plentiful for the bastardised that soon they will not be so, the meaning of bastardisation will be lost with peoples understanding of it.

*MR DARREN LAWSON STRIKES IN WITH A WORD* We must keep cunt, we must remember cunt and use that instead.

It's true that a person born into a half family may not become bastardised and those that are born into a full one might so justly, for the word to carry true meaning it must be bastardised.     Though to take that word from the past and make it new [so] that it describes nature not circumstance might not be the only recourse to balance, the word could be replaced. Opportunities for the diligent and the industrious are being withheld while that part of earth realm polices itself into a backwash or at best a muddied side current.     Then even the still [people] will not see clearly and the bastard whose head has filled with his unsatisfied desires will hold most influence.     I can provide example to show my assumption and assertion have basis.     Darren Lawson looked out over his garden wall and saw a self employed law enforcement individual parked close against the car owned by the person his client had asked him to serve a warrant upon.     Atop his vehicle sits a camera that can tilt and pan and maybe show an image on some area of the spectrum after light.     And that figure who owns it might be crooked but he is endorsed and contracted by the government to enforce instant justice.     Mr Darren Lawson parked Incredible to block his path because he was parked improperly Darren Lawson decided to fine him but without a barrier the enforcement individual would leave.     The privately contracted individual had a warrant and that gave him opportunity to block the vehicle of the person he was contracted to serve it upon.     So Darren Lawson decided to let him off having decided that to fine a person issuing a fine might set confusing precedent and lead to unreasonable adversarial recourse from the self employed warrant officer.     *MDL*(wtf).

*Mr Darren Lawson* He'll come back whinging instead of just accepting the fine I would issue him with because he was parked badly, I dare say he might try to drive over incredible.     It's probably true though, that he can park to block a vehicle when issuing a warrant which means he'll appeal the fine and I might have to give him the money back.     Plus I haven't got a sign up yet which I think is another loophole.

He did threaten to to take a picture of incredible and send that picture to the local council who would issue a fine because the bike was incorrectly parked but incredible wasn't parked at all it was a barrier and so was parked correctly because it was blocking the self employed warrant officer's vehicle.     And what about the local council's obligation to contact the owner of the car park for permission to issue the fine. You see the bastard is given prerogative on earth realm through all matters of gain.