Wanted: New Ideas on the end of the world.
- Thread starter plop101
- Start date
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
Um... Tom
What if your northern neigbour elected a Prime Minister who many Canadians disliked. Who had a cabinet that was activly campaigning for his retirement. Who refused to send you aid or support The US in it's latest.. um.. conflict.
Said neighbours are still ruled (on paper) by a Queen! The absentee Queen is represented by an appointed (not elected!) Governor-General. Their constitution is NOT modeled on that of the US... Wait moment.. they're not really sure if they have constitution some foreign nation seems to have possession of their core legal document.
They constantly argue over tarifs that the US places on it's softwood lumber, complaining that it violates a trade deal both nations have signed. The general populace has moments of resentment against America (though they may like individual Americans) and an estimated 80% of them were against the war in Iraq.
Would you advocate sending US troops to educate and reform these 'barabarians'?
(Also is this common thought among Americans? Especially voting age ones? Just wondering if I should re-up in my local reserve regiment.)
What if your northern neigbour elected a Prime Minister who many Canadians disliked. Who had a cabinet that was activly campaigning for his retirement. Who refused to send you aid or support The US in it's latest.. um.. conflict.
Said neighbours are still ruled (on paper) by a Queen! The absentee Queen is represented by an appointed (not elected!) Governor-General. Their constitution is NOT modeled on that of the US... Wait moment.. they're not really sure if they have constitution some foreign nation seems to have possession of their core legal document.
They constantly argue over tarifs that the US places on it's softwood lumber, complaining that it violates a trade deal both nations have signed. The general populace has moments of resentment against America (though they may like individual Americans) and an estimated 80% of them were against the war in Iraq.
Would you advocate sending US troops to educate and reform these 'barabarians'?
(Also is this common thought among Americans? Especially voting age ones? Just wondering if I should re-up in my local reserve regiment.)
This is kind of a side issue, but the #1 priority of US Foreign Policy is to deal with threats to the United States and democracy to the World whatever the source. The #2 priority is to promote democracy in specific countries. If #2 conflicts with #1 then #1 will be pursued at the expense of #2. If for example a popularly elected government were to actively support terrorism in another democratic country or against Americans because it makes them popular with their people, then I'm all in favor of installing a friendly dictator whose willing to rein in his country's support for terrorism versus a democratically elected politician who's not. If that's bad for the bigoted people of that country who are screaming for the blood of Americans, that's too bad for them. I'm not going to put myself willingly in someone elses crosshairs so as to reelect some foreign politician.
If Canadians want to change that that is their affair. Ironic isn't it, that Canada was founded by people who didn't want to leave the British empire when other American colonists in the lower 13 colonies did. Suppose the Confederate States won the Civil War, but later under international and economic pressure abolished slavery. If history was just a little different the United States would be sandwiched between Canada to the North and the CSA to the South and the original reason for both country's formation would no longer exist. Likewise if Benedict Arnold was more successful during the revolutionary war then their would be no Canada and perhaps 10 or 15 more states. If the CSA succesfully separated during the 19th Century, then the United States would be more like Canada in the absence of southern conservative politicians. Your prime minister seems to oppose the US President in many things, almost as if he wants George Bush's job. You know there is only one way that he could be elected president under the US Constitution, that is if the Canadian Provinces are admitted to the Union as states, then if he could garner the support of the greater American electorate, he could find himself in the White House as President, instead of him criticising our president from the outside all the time. If Canada wants to change the United State it could by joining them. The shift in the proportion of voters by the adition of the Canadians might even push through National HEath Insurance. There would be more liberals in Congress and the White House and fewer George Bush's. One can always dream, so if ever you Canadians get tired if the British Commonwealth, your are welcome to join the United States as far as I'm concerned, but that's your people's decision.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
I think you missed my point. Never mind.
The point is that criticism is always negative. Your prime minister would say things like, don't fight terrorism this way, don't do that. I know were in different countries, but in many ways he's like George Bush's political opponent, just like Howard Dean, and Joe Liberman, the only difference is that Joe Liberman can run for the Office of US president and John Critien (correct my spelling if I got it wrong, I'm not very good with French spellings) cannot. The problem was 225 years ago General Benedict Arnold was unable to win the war for Canadian Independence, so therefore John Critien is unable to run for president because he wasn't born here, still that doesn't seem to prevent him from running against George Bush and criticizing many policies that frankly are none of Canada's business such as the Death Penalty for instance. If Canada wants to make it its business, it should seek to join the United States and the position would then become consistent. John Critien would then be able to run for President and tell us how he would fight terrorism, rather than telling us what not to do, he should tell us what we would do and sell it to the American people.
My philosophy is to look for a solution to a problem even if it may be considered politically unacceptable. Interning members of a minority group because a large disproportionate number of them are either terrorists or supporters of terrorism, but not all of them, is politically unacceptable at this time, but it was during World War II, but I haven't heard any alternatives that would work as well. The fact is the culture of the Middle East spawned this current wave of terrorism against the US and many of their important religious leaders have blessed this effort to kill Americans. Now all the liberals who must be so politically correct have no real solution for this. Internment may be an imperfect and at times unjust solution, but it is a solution. So therefore it is a solution that must for now be left on the table until someone comes up with something better. Some people have critcised me for not controlling my thoughts sufficiently, but I find that thought control stifles the imagination. One alternative that come to mind immediately is that the fear of internment in the Muslim community might inspire its members to help root out the terrorist menace before the Government is forced into these extreme measures by a US public that is radicalized by too many terrorist attacks.
montanakennedy
SOC-8
Lieberman is French???
Sorry - couldn't pass this one up...
-Dave
montanakennedy
SOC-8
Sorry - that last was an attempt to lighten the mood...
On a more serious note...
I think we have all strayed more than a bit off-topic over the last month.
We should probably start a little self-censorship and attempt to look more specifically at the end of the world, T2K-style, and avoid these political/religious discussions that don't have direct bearing on our suppositions concerning how everything can go to hell in a handbag. Treating these concepts as a personal affront is probably not a good way to go about it.
Regardless, if you don't like someones concept, don't worry - when will you ever have to play in that person's game?
-Dave
On a more serious note...
I think we have all strayed more than a bit off-topic over the last month.
We should probably start a little self-censorship and attempt to look more specifically at the end of the world, T2K-style, and avoid these political/religious discussions that don't have direct bearing on our suppositions concerning how everything can go to hell in a handbag. Treating these concepts as a personal affront is probably not a good way to go about it.
Regardless, if you don't like someones concept, don't worry - when will you ever have to play in that person's game?
-Dave
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
I haven't gone back through the threads so this might have been brought up. If so fill free to yell. 
By 2005 the European and Middle East nations are tired of the U.S. meddling in their affairs. It doesn’t take long for the controversy to split Europe and push the Middle East nations aside while the big boys argue over what to do. An anti-American coalition is formed with France at the head and Russia joining in. The fence goes up and both sides end up debating/arguing at the UN.
2010 rolls around and the rift has split so wide the US pulls out of the UN completely. The UN imposes sanctions against the US and American assets are seized throughout Europe. The US goes in, supported by a handful of loyal allies, and attempts to take their assets back.
Push comes to shove and in 2015 war breaks out in Europe, the US supporters vs the French/Russian coalition. (Of course, when the shooting starts France seals her borders and doesn’t want to play any more.)
2018 comes around and a few Weapons of Mass Destructions get tossed around the battle field. Suddenly the whole situation goes from bad to much worse and a bunch of WMDs are launched.
June 2020 rolls around and guess who’s stuck in Poland with no where to go?
Thoughts?
By 2005 the European and Middle East nations are tired of the U.S. meddling in their affairs. It doesn’t take long for the controversy to split Europe and push the Middle East nations aside while the big boys argue over what to do. An anti-American coalition is formed with France at the head and Russia joining in. The fence goes up and both sides end up debating/arguing at the UN.
2010 rolls around and the rift has split so wide the US pulls out of the UN completely. The UN imposes sanctions against the US and American assets are seized throughout Europe. The US goes in, supported by a handful of loyal allies, and attempts to take their assets back.
Push comes to shove and in 2015 war breaks out in Europe, the US supporters vs the French/Russian coalition. (Of course, when the shooting starts France seals her borders and doesn’t want to play any more.)
2018 comes around and a few Weapons of Mass Destructions get tossed around the battle field. Suddenly the whole situation goes from bad to much worse and a bunch of WMDs are launched.
June 2020 rolls around and guess who’s stuck in Poland with no where to go?
Thoughts?
Antares Administration
SOC-12
I'll admit that I haven't followed the entire thread either, but I am a longtime fan of Tw:2000, so I thought I'd jump in.Originally posted by Sgt Biggles:
I haven't gone back through the threads so this might have been brought up. If so fill free to yell.
The biggest problem with the Eurocentric view of the apocolypse is that nations have long memories, and that even in 2003, Europe (France, The Netherlands, etc) remembers North America joining their battle for freedom. Europe and N.Am. are too much alike and share too much history, despite what best-selling fiction or the press might have to say. Some European nations might 'opt out' of a conflict, as might the US or Canada, but ending up on opposing sides of an escalating conflict (like WW1) is unlikely, at least until the old memories die.
What assets? Corporate ones? Personal ones? In an age of electronic finance, by the time you get around to seizing my bank account, my funds are gone. (I'm talking about substantial, sophisticated investors, not guys like me
) The corporations are multinational (again, the meaningful ones), so either side would hurt themselves and their voting populations as much as their adversaries.So it's the old guard (France, Germany, maybe Italy, Belgium) vs. the UK, maybe Spain, and the new EU (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc). That is a possibility, if there are no other enemies.
The real fight of the 21st century will involve the rise of China as an economic superpower. It's the proverbial 'East vs. West' dichotomy that has the greatest potential for conflict. Accentuated by religious divide in some of the most resource-rich areas of the world that border on those two spheres (Orthodox Christian vs. Muslim in Central Asian Republics, or Hindu vs. Muslim on the India/Pakistan border), there's potential for numerous brushfire and proxy wars to spring up, fueled by the competition between Euro-America and Asia.
I'll work on a timeline and series of events to post, but in the end it won't be hard to create something that feels like Tw:2000 did the first time.
Paul Nemeth
AA
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
Originally posted by Antares Administration:
Good points all.
France, Germany and Russian have all spoken out very strongly against the US forcing "US policy". America has demonstrated a very stubborn streak and has been supported, most strongly by the UK, in staying the course. In the middle are the “poor countries needing freedom from tyranny”. Current history has shown all the major voices taking very little regard for what the nations in question really need. Each pushing their special needs to the front.
Old memories are quickly changing. (trying not to break down into a deep political discussion, in which I would get my tail cleaned
When sanctions are placed against the US and assets seized I’m thinking of mostly strategic targets. The US military bases in Germany are considered a major factor in world defense. There are also communication points ranging from satellite communications centers to landline and microwave. The host nations take back the ownership and the US is looking at a serious handicap in maintaining national, and world, security. We would want them back.
The old guard comes into play. Yes, China is a real hotspot and in the real world timeline I believe it will be a major factor. For T2k, China may very well be the catalyst behind uniting Russia again.
A group of NATO soldiers, stranded in China, would make for an interesting adventure.
I look forward to seeing your timeline thoughts.
If its China, then WWIII might be a Pacific War like our war with Japan in WWII. China is rapidly building up its military. I don't know whether they'll have air craft carriers in 2020. If the PCs are stranded anywhere it might be a Pacific Island or perhaps Japan, or Taiwan. If there is a Poland in the Pacific for Twilight 2020, it could be one of those countries. Or how about Australia, US G.I.s might be fighting the Chinese in Australia. Afterwards it would be more like Mad Max, Beyond the Thunderdome.
Antares Administration
SOC-12
Just as a point for discussion, I was just reading the transcript of a meeting of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations. The topic was U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics.
The crux of the conversation was related to U.S. 'Silk Road' policy. Apparently various interest groups are now proposing alternative pipeline routes for oil and natural gas out of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, two countries with some of the largest untapped oil reserves in the known world. A pipeline already exists to Russia, the Americans are advocating a route through Turkey to the Mediterranean, avoiding the Bosporus choke point, and the French, Russians and Japanese are interested in a route through Iran. It is also known that the Chinese have dramatically stepped up development aid to the region, and may well support the Iranian option or one of its own.
What if the PC Division was stranded in Kazakhstan....
Russia, threatened by the loss of revenues from a region it traditionally dominates, launches an aggressive attempt to 're-integrate' the Central Asian Republics. The Western Europeans, China, Korea and Japan all oppose the Russian efforts, which escalate over time. A proxy war breaks out between Russia, Iran, and later Turkey. The EU, the Chinese and the US all support one or more sides. Eventually, the US, Chinese and EU all intervene. Someone gets nervous, nukes fly...
Voila, a stranded U.S. division in Kazakhstan, and lots of Chinese, Russian, French, Turkish and other assorted goodness.
Paul Nemeth
AA
The crux of the conversation was related to U.S. 'Silk Road' policy. Apparently various interest groups are now proposing alternative pipeline routes for oil and natural gas out of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, two countries with some of the largest untapped oil reserves in the known world. A pipeline already exists to Russia, the Americans are advocating a route through Turkey to the Mediterranean, avoiding the Bosporus choke point, and the French, Russians and Japanese are interested in a route through Iran. It is also known that the Chinese have dramatically stepped up development aid to the region, and may well support the Iranian option or one of its own.
What if the PC Division was stranded in Kazakhstan....
Russia, threatened by the loss of revenues from a region it traditionally dominates, launches an aggressive attempt to 're-integrate' the Central Asian Republics. The Western Europeans, China, Korea and Japan all oppose the Russian efforts, which escalate over time. A proxy war breaks out between Russia, Iran, and later Turkey. The EU, the Chinese and the US all support one or more sides. Eventually, the US, Chinese and EU all intervene. Someone gets nervous, nukes fly...
Voila, a stranded U.S. division in Kazakhstan, and lots of Chinese, Russian, French, Turkish and other assorted goodness.
Paul Nemeth
AA
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
However, the T20/D20 Twilight 2000 source book is going to maintain a similar course of events to the original, with the PCs starting in Poland. The objective is to allow as much of the original modules and information to still be playable with little to no modification. So....
Antares Administration
SOC-12
I'm not sure that "The big Flanking Counter-Attack across the North German Plain" scenario still applies. Some of the "who's on which side", the tactical deployments and ORBATs will have to change, if only just to keep up with the times.Originally posted by Sgt Biggles:
Yup, I like that one. I use a similar series of events for my home campaigns.
However, the T20/D20 Twilight 2000 source book is going to maintain a similar course of events to the original, with the PCs starting in Poland. The objective is to allow as much of the original modules and information to still be playable with little to no modification. So....
If the formation is still set in Poland, it could be a reinforcing formation that had intended to deploy overland by rail to Central Asia but then all hell broke loose.
Just a comment: T20 changed the focus for Traveller from the Spinward Marches to the Gateway Domain. People still play games set in the Spinward Marches if they want to. Is there any reason that we couldn't have the PCs in a new division elsewhere in the world during the same global conflict?
My assumption would be that WW3 doesn't just happen in Europe.
Paul Nemeth
AA
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
Anything is possible. The revised timeline is just starting to be put together. In the original timeline the 5th was heading south to link with forces moving north from the Czech Republic in an attempt to create stable lines prior to the 2000 winter.
With WWIII in affect across the continent the new 5th, or is it the 4th now, could very well be part of a minor theater hoping to link or reinforce the remains of the main fighting body. The key is to put the 5th in Poland. So why are they there and what led to them being there. You have good thoughts in that area.
This is my own guess. I suspect T20 could change locations because the PHB became the core rules for the source books to follow. While alternate settings like 2300 or T2k are source books designed to be support to the main setting. Being able to keep the basic settings as close to the original would allow players to have instant access to a wide library of adventures and information. The cost in development and publication would be minimized allowing more time and resources to go into T20. Just my thoughts.
Anyway, keep the thoughts coming.
I dont know much about Canadian politics or foreign policy. They seem to keep pretty quiet about things. Yet they have had forces in just about every military action I can think of. I have trained along side of some Canadian Commando’s and these guys are tough. They also have a rather strange sense of humor. They took a great deal of pride in cracking us up just when we had to be the stealthiest.
Anyhow, where would Canada fall in a Twilight scenario? What would their policy be? Do they join in because of treaty obligations? When the world collapses do the various states become separate entities?
With WWIII in affect across the continent the new 5th, or is it the 4th now, could very well be part of a minor theater hoping to link or reinforce the remains of the main fighting body. The key is to put the 5th in Poland. So why are they there and what led to them being there. You have good thoughts in that area.
This is my own guess. I suspect T20 could change locations because the PHB became the core rules for the source books to follow. While alternate settings like 2300 or T2k are source books designed to be support to the main setting. Being able to keep the basic settings as close to the original would allow players to have instant access to a wide library of adventures and information. The cost in development and publication would be minimized allowing more time and resources to go into T20. Just my thoughts.
Anyway, keep the thoughts coming.
I dont know much about Canadian politics or foreign policy. They seem to keep pretty quiet about things. Yet they have had forces in just about every military action I can think of. I have trained along side of some Canadian Commando’s and these guys are tough. They also have a rather strange sense of humor. They took a great deal of pride in cracking us up just when we had to be the stealthiest.
Anyhow, where would Canada fall in a Twilight scenario? What would their policy be? Do they join in because of treaty obligations? When the world collapses do the various states become separate entities?
Antares Administration
SOC-12
My pleasure!Originally posted by Sgt Biggles:
Anyway, keep the thoughts coming.
I'll start by saying that there is canon on this somewhere in the series, but I can't remember in what (they had the ORBATs for practically all of the forces in Europe). I seem to remember them being part of US VII Corps in Czechoslovakia.
I spent 20 years in the Canadian Army, 5 of them with our 4th Mech Brigade Group in Europe and 2 in the Bde HQ of our Special Service Force, our airportable light brigade. I deployed with the Canadian Airborne Regiment as part of the US-led intervention in Somalia in 92/93.
In Europe, 4 Bde was the entire Central Army Group Reserve Formation. We practiced interoperability with both US VII Corps, and GE II Corps.
Yes, Canada follows treaty obligations. The question is which one? NATO or the new land-equivalent of NORAD - Northern Command? A lot depends upon the scenario. Right now, about all that can be managed for an extended period is a Mech Brigade Group or Light Infantry Brigade Group, but this country has done as much as a reinforced corps before (WWII).
Our forces are well trained and starting to get better equipped. We have what is arguably the best combat rifle in NATO, and the LAV was a result Canadian inability to afford a large amount of heavy armour. One of the main concerns up here right now is retention. Too many missions with too few people.
A lot has changed since 1980. Canada doesn't have any army formations deployed fulltime in Europe anymore. Since then, we've deployed to Bosnia, Croatia, Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, the Gulf the first time, Afghanistan, and soon to the Congo. I guess my answer is that if we can figure out who's on which side and who's fighting where (in a global sense), then I could make an educated guess as to where the Canadians would be.
Paul Nemeth
AA
Antares Administration
SOC-12
If you mean the Canadian provinces, then I would say probably not, although there would certainly be a lot of dissention, depending upon how we became involved in the first place.
In the Tw:2000 storyline, what happens in the US? Do any states secede?
Paul Nemeth
AA
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
I kinda thought there might be a military mind in there.
Somalia, that was a tough deployment. I did a tour in Germany and loved it. I was with U.S. Forces Police out of Kaiserslauten. The best assignment in the Air Force, even though the unit was owned by the Army. Ah well, that was a many years ago.
I was thinking of the Canadian Provinces, sorry. I tend to think of the various provinces as more independent than the individual states of the US. Guess I should have listened better in my history classes huh?
Again my own opinion but I think Canada acted wisely in bringing home their troops permanently stationed overseas. I doubt it will happen in my life time but I think the US should adopt the same policy. We have stockpiles of equipment scattered all over the world. We turn over the physical properties to the host nations, leave the rolling stock in place and deploy Reserve and National Guard units in 60 or 90 day tours to train and maintain the equipment. The active duty forces could concentrate on increasing their training and would also participate in short rotations. The host countries would be happier and so would our soldiers I think. Anyhow….
In the Twilight history the US was split by fractions of the military government (milgov) and the civilian government (civgov), though no states seceded that I recall. Milgov was headquartered out of Colorado Springs, CO and had predominant influence in the western states while civgov held the east. Scattered up thought the northwest, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc a new faction called New America. They had cells throughout the US but were strongest there. Milgov was working to get enough manpower together to remove them from the equation. Then you have the southwest. I don’t remember right of the top, but a good hunk of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas had been taken back by Mexico with the help of the Soviets. As the timeline continued civgov and milgov were working together a little better and a least some semblance of order was returning to the states as a whole. Its been awhile since I looked at some of those modules.
My best guess would have the US and England, supported by Poland, Spain as the main ‘NATO’ force with support elements from Australia, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, maybe Belgium or Austria but I don’t know where they would fall if Germany went against the US, and I would place Canada in the mix as well. The opposing forces; France, Germany and Russia being the leaders, Slovakia would most likely side with Russia, and then Belgium or Austria depending. Sweden and Norway would try to stay with in their own boarders, providing Emergency Aid workers (Red Cross and the like) and negotiators. Of course this is predominantly the European theater. If, like you suggested, the central theater of the war is located elsewhere, there would be a slightly different mix of supporters on both sides.
After the nukes fall and the first winter has past most of the countries would be desperate to rebuild their former countries and re-establish economic and political control. Political borders would have changed and it might take a decade to get them back to the 2000 era. France holds a major role in this part. At the end of the Twilight war France is the most complete of all the major nations. This allows them to rebuild quicker than anyone else and 300 years later get a jump into space. And now we are at 2330 AD. (and the new source book which Collin is already hard at work at)
Whew!.........I got rambling there for a bit. Thoughts? Comments? Snide remarks?
Somalia, that was a tough deployment. I did a tour in Germany and loved it. I was with U.S. Forces Police out of Kaiserslauten. The best assignment in the Air Force, even though the unit was owned by the Army. Ah well, that was a many years ago.
I was thinking of the Canadian Provinces, sorry.
I tend to think of the various provinces as more independent than the individual states of the US. Guess I should have listened better in my history classes huh?Again my own opinion but I think Canada acted wisely in bringing home their troops permanently stationed overseas. I doubt it will happen in my life time but I think the US should adopt the same policy. We have stockpiles of equipment scattered all over the world. We turn over the physical properties to the host nations, leave the rolling stock in place and deploy Reserve and National Guard units in 60 or 90 day tours to train and maintain the equipment. The active duty forces could concentrate on increasing their training and would also participate in short rotations. The host countries would be happier and so would our soldiers I think. Anyhow….
In the Twilight history the US was split by fractions of the military government (milgov) and the civilian government (civgov), though no states seceded that I recall. Milgov was headquartered out of Colorado Springs, CO and had predominant influence in the western states while civgov held the east. Scattered up thought the northwest, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc a new faction called New America. They had cells throughout the US but were strongest there. Milgov was working to get enough manpower together to remove them from the equation. Then you have the southwest. I don’t remember right of the top, but a good hunk of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas had been taken back by Mexico with the help of the Soviets. As the timeline continued civgov and milgov were working together a little better and a least some semblance of order was returning to the states as a whole. Its been awhile since I looked at some of those modules.
My best guess would have the US and England, supported by Poland, Spain as the main ‘NATO’ force with support elements from Australia, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, maybe Belgium or Austria but I don’t know where they would fall if Germany went against the US, and I would place Canada in the mix as well. The opposing forces; France, Germany and Russia being the leaders, Slovakia would most likely side with Russia, and then Belgium or Austria depending. Sweden and Norway would try to stay with in their own boarders, providing Emergency Aid workers (Red Cross and the like) and negotiators. Of course this is predominantly the European theater. If, like you suggested, the central theater of the war is located elsewhere, there would be a slightly different mix of supporters on both sides.
After the nukes fall and the first winter has past most of the countries would be desperate to rebuild their former countries and re-establish economic and political control. Political borders would have changed and it might take a decade to get them back to the 2000 era. France holds a major role in this part. At the end of the Twilight war France is the most complete of all the major nations. This allows them to rebuild quicker than anyone else and 300 years later get a jump into space. And now we are at 2330 AD. (and the new source book which Collin is already hard at work at)
Whew!.........I got rambling there for a bit. Thoughts? Comments? Snide remarks?
