text:
Universal Combat

Universal Combat (sometimes abbreviated to UC) is the second video game series by the developer 3000AD and is the successor of the Battlecruiser series of games.

Gameplay
Universal Combat offers the player a very large game world to play in using varying forms of transport and combat. The player can pilot spaceships of varying sizes, as well as land on and explore planets. On land, they can drive varying land craft. The size of the playing area is seen as one of the game's main attractions, where traveling from place to place can take considerable quantities of time as there is no time compression. The game has a high learning curve that is daunting for newer players.

Every crew member aboard the player ship is tracked in location, hunger, AI level, and fatigue. Every system on board the player's starship can be monitored and controlled. In order for the player to fly a shuttle, they must first take time to walk through the ship to the shuttle bay, forcing the player to plan ahead for tactical encounters.

Development
The project began as early as 2000 when Derek Smart announced that he had licensed Croteam's Serious Sam game engine for "Project ABC", for "After Battlecruiser", as replacement for the Battlecruiser Tactical Engagement add-on module intended for Battlecruiser Millennium. The game's scheduled release date was in late 2001, developed for PC and Xbox.

Development started in late 2001 as Battlecruiser Generations, the 5th game in the Battlecruiser series. As part of its design, the upcoming game was intended to make use of newer technology. With a new publisher, DreamCatcher Games, on board and offering more oversight, the direction of the game changed towards more action-based gameplay than the Battlecruiser series had previously been known for. The changes warranted a new title, and the name was changed to Universal Combat.

Universal Combat was not ready in time for the 2003 holidays, despite expectations. It was shipped in early 2004 by the publisher, DreamCatcher Interactive, at half of the originally announced price. Smart pursued legal action against his publisher. A cease and desist letter was issued on behalf of 3000AD to DreamCatcher alleging, among other things, that the price reduction was "clearly calculated to inflict economic harm on 3000AD". In the hearing, DreamCatcher Interactive claimed that the game's quality did not justify a midrange price, citing the graphics as an example of the overall quality of the game. A hearing was held to determine if DreamCatcher would be prevented from shipping the title at the reduced price. The presiding judge denied the injunction, stating that 3000AD "made bold but unsupported assertions regarding the irreparable harm to it", allowing DreamCatcher Interactive to ship the game and 3000AD to proceed with their lawsuit. The matter was later settled out of court under undisclosed terms.

In 2005, 3000AD, Inc. also announced termination of DreamCatcher's publishing right for Universal Combat, but the deal expired on 18 December 2007.

When 3000AD announced they would release the game as freeware, the company reported it had told DreamCatcher to initiate a DIF (Destroy in Field) order to its various retailers so that the remaining copies can no longer be sold, and any unsold copies would be filed as losses in Q4 2007.

Universal Combat Gold
After terminating a publishing deal with DreamCatcher Interactive, Smart released an updated release titled Universal Combat Gold. Starting with this release, Smart has made a policy of releasing games through online resellers.

In 2005, Turner Broadcasting licensed both Battlecruiser Millennium and Universal Combat Gold for their games-on-demand system, GameTap.

Full localization supports Russian, French, Italian, German, and Spanish languages. Additional custom language interfaces are possible.

Universal Combat – A World Apart
Universal Combat – A World Apart is a sequel to the original Universal Combat games.

The game was originally announced on 18 November 2004 as an expansion pack for Universal Combat, which would feature newer and more advanced technologies found in the then-upcoming Universal Combat – Hostile Intent and Galactic Command Online.

DreamCatcher Interactive originally announced the publication of Universal Combat: A World Apart in May 2005, but several issues with the publisher (DreamCatcher) held up the boxed retail release of the title, and led to the termination of the publishing agreement. As a result, the publishing rights reverted to 3000AD Inc.

As a result of the termination, the boxed version of the game was not released, and the developer also removed DreamCatcher-created content from the retail game.

Although the game had switched to DirectX 9, graphics improvements only began in this edition. The audio engine was also based on FMOD, starting in the v1.00.11 patch.

Universal Combat Special Edition
A compilation release that includes all previous Universal Combat games, plus all outstanding updates and fixes.

Terrain rendering engine now uses improved texturing technologies such as high resolution textures support, reflections, volumetric clouds. Multiplayer and audio engine are also improved.

New scenarios include:
 * 1 new 16-mission Advanced Campaign Mode scenario (A World Apart Episode 2) playable from the perspective of the Commander and Elite Force Pilot careers. The scenario storylines are a continuation of the Episode 1 storyline from the original UCAWA game.
 * 8 new Instant Action scenarios featuring several career modes.

Total scenarios now 58 Instant Action scenarios, 5 Campaign Mode scenarios ('A Fragile Hope', playable from the perspective of the Commander career; 'Way of the Titans', playable from the perspective of the Commander and Elite Force Pilot careers; 'A World Apart : Episode 1', playable from the perspective of the Commander and Elite Force Pilot careers; 'A World Apart Episode 2', playable from the perspective of the Commander and Elite Force Pilot careers).

In addition to the standalone title, a version exists as expansion pack to the Universal Combat – A World Apart game, which only works with Direct2Drive version of the game.

Universal Combat Collectors' Edition
In December 2006, Smart announced a collectors' edition consisting of his Battlecruiser and Universal Combat games.

The Collectors' Edition consists of a compilation that includes all previously published Universal Combat and Battlecruiser games running on improved versions of the Universal Combat Special Edition game engine. Unlike previous releases, it is distributed via DVD, and Windows 98 and 2000 are no longer supported.

Universal Combat Collectors' Edition v2.0 is an updated version Collectors' Edition, that uses game engine from Galactic Command: Echo Squad Second Edition. Multiplayer support is no longer functional. A free upgrade to v2.0 was available for existing owners of Collectors' Edition until 1 January 2010.

Cancelled releases

 * Universal Combat – Hostile Intent: Also called Hostile Intent – Planetfall, it is a combat-focused action game based on an improved version of the Universal Combat game engines. It represents the company's intent to split off the Universal Combat brand as an action-focused franchise which takes place in the established game world. On 25 January 2006, 3000AD announced Hostile Intent – Planetfall to be available on Xbox 360, with a projected release of Q1 of 2008. However, during the game's development, it evolved to become part of the Galactic Command series.
 * Universal Combat – Hold the Line: It would be the second Universal Combat game focused on action, but much larger and advanced than Universal Combat – Hostile Intent. It would be sold as expansion to Universal Combat or a boxed title (which would also include the original game).
 * Universal Combat – Edge to Edge: It is an announced standalone space and planetary squad-based multiplayer tactical combat game. The game would feature a much smaller world (2 space regions and 4 planets), with a graphics update. Single player mode would feature a single campaign between the Terran military player and insurgent counterparts.

Reception
The game was reviewed and rated in several print and online game magazines. Metacritic gave it an aggregate review score of 54%. GameSpot scored it 59% and said "This wildly ambitious simulation is torpedoed by an almost incomprehensible interface, the absence of a tutorial, numerous bugs, and many fit and finish issues, including dated production values." Universal Combat was criticized for an unfamiliar interface and voluminous documentation (a manual of over 100 pages, 200-page downloadable appendix, and 80-page downloadable tutorial).

Universal Combat – A World Apart was rated 54% by GameRankings and 48% by Metacritic.

title: Universal Combat


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masquerade (song)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge with The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). There is no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Masquerade (song)
A description of the choreography of a song. Denni ☯ 03:01, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
 * Merge into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) --Xcali 06:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, don't see any reason to delete. Kappa 20:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: phancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is nothing in there but a "hey, 'member when he appeared." No attempt at being encyclopedic, just descriptive and therefore fancruft. Geogre 16:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge --MarSch 14:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Rylands v Fletcher

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.

Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir on his land. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher".

This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to Rylands, English courts had not based their decisions in similar cases on strict liability, and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In contrast, Rylands imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift. The rule in Rylands has both been distinguished with and regarded as a species of the tort of private nuisance. Unlike ordinary cases of private nuisance, the rule in Rylands requires the escape of a thing that arises from a non-natural use rather than the typical interference emanating from unreasonable use of land. It additionally does not require an act to be continuous, which is typically a requirement for nuisance. Academics have criticised the rule both for the economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability.

The tort of Rylands v Fletcher has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated", and Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd. Within England and Wales, however, Rylands remains valid law, although the decisions in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council make it clear that it is no longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.

Facts
In 1860, Rylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the Ainsworth Mill with water. Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer. While building it, the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely with soil and debris, which joined up with Thomas Fletcher's adjoining mine. Rather than blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them. On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher pumped the water out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst, and the mine again began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered. Fletcher brought a claim against Rylands and the landowner, Jehu Horrocks, on 4 November 1861.

Liverpool Assizes
The tort of trespass was inapplicable, as the flooding was deemed not to be "direct and immediate"; the tort of nuisance was rejected as this was a one-off event. The case was first heard by Judge John Mellor and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpool Assizes; a court order led to an arbitrator from the Exchequer of Pleas being appointed in December 1864. The arbitrator decided that the contractors were liable for negligence, since they had known about the old mine shafts. Rylands, however, had no way of knowing about the mine shafts and so was not.

Exchequer of Pleas
The case then went to the Exchequer of Pleas, where it was heard between 3 and 5 May 1865. It was heard on two points: first, whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors and secondly, whether the defendants were liable for the damage regardless of their lack of negligence. They decided for the first point that the defendants were not liable, but were split on the second point. Baron Channell recused. Chief Baron Pollock and Baron Samuel Martin held that the defendants were not liable, as since a negligence claim could not be brought there was no valid case. Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. He stated that "the general law, wholly independent of contract" should be that the defendants were liable, "on the plain ground that the defendants have caused water to flow into the [claimant]'s mines, which but for their act would not have gone there..."

Court of Exchequer Chamber
Fletcher appealed to the Exchequer Chamber of six judges. The prior decision was overturned in his favour. Mr Justice Colin Blackburn spoke on behalf of all the judges and said that:

LordBlackburn.jpg gave the leading judgment.]] We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the Plaintiff’s default; or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbour's reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbour's alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour who has brought something on his own property (which was not naturally there), harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there, so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequence. And upon authority this we think is established to be the law, whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.

Blackburn's opinion relied on the liability for damages to land available through the tort of chattel trespass and the tort of nuisance, as well as the in scienter action, injury by a domesticated animal known to have a disposition to injure. Rylands appealed.

House of Lords
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the determination for Fletcher. Lord Cairns, in speaking for the House of Lords, stated their agreement of the rule stated above by Mr Justice Blackburn, but added a further limitation on liability, which is that the land from which the escape occurs must have been modified in a way which would be considered non-natural, unusual or inappropriate. The case was then heard by the House of Lords on 6 and 7 July 1868, with a judgment delivered on 17 July. Oddly the court consisted of only two judges, Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth; Lord Colonsay failed to attend. The eventual judgment confirmed Blackburn's decision and general principle, adding a requirement that the use be "non-natural". The judgment of Lord Cairns was as follows.

1st Earl Cairns.jpg My Lords, the principles on which this case must be determined appear to me to be extremely simple. The Defendants, treating them as the owners or occupiers of the close on which the reservoir was constructed, might lawfully have used that close for any purpose for which it might in the ordinary course of the enjoyment of land be used; and if, in what I may term the natural user of that land, there had been any accumulation of water, either on the surface or underground, and if, by the operation of the laws of nature, that accumulation of water had passed off into the close occupied by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not have complained that that result had taken place. If he had desired to guard himself against it, it would have lain upon him to have done so, by leaving, or by interposing, some barrier between his close and the close of the Defendants in order to have prevented that operation of the laws of nature....

On the other hand if the Defendants, not stopping at the natural use of their close, had desired to use it for any purpose which I may term a non-natural use, for the purpose of introducing into the close that which in its natural condition was not in or upon it, for the purpose of introducing water either above or below ground in quantities and in a manner not the result of any work or operation on or under the land, - and if in consequence of their doing so, or in consequence of any imperfection in the mode of their doing so, the water came to escape and to pass off into the close of the Plaintiff, then it appears to me that that which the Defendants were doing they were doing at their own peril; and, if in the course of their doing it, the evil arose to which I have referred, the evil, namely, of the escape of the water and its passing away to the close of the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff, then for the consequence of that, in my opinion, the Defendants would be liable. As the case of Smith v. Kenrick is an illustration of the first principle to which I have referred, so also the second principle to which I have referred is well illustrated by another case in the same Court, the case of Baird v Williamson, which was also cited in the argument at the Bar.

Enjoyment of property
The 'enjoyment of land' was primary in the reasons of Lord Cairns (above). This foundation stone is a recurring theme in the common law throughout the ages, to wit: "It has been well said, that the use of the law consists, first, in preserving men's persons from death and violence; next, in securing to them the free enjoyment of their property." Tindal, CJ: Charge to the Grand Jury at Bristol on the occasion of the 1832 riots over the rejection in the House of Lords of the Reform Bill.

Change to the law
Early English common law had, in many instances, imposed liability on those who had caused harm regardless of wrongful intent or negligence. Trespass was considered a remedy for all tortious wrongs, and sometimes used as a synonym for torts generally. Over the centuries, however, judges focused more on the intent and negligence behind the actions than the nature of the actions themselves, leading to the development of negligence and nuisance and the further development of trespass. At the time of Rylands, the previous case relied upon was Vaughan v Menlove, decided in the Court of Common Pleas in 1837. The case had almost identical facts to Rylands, but strict liability was never even considered. The case is instead thought of as one of the best attempts of early 19th century English judges to build up the law of negligence. The outcome of Rylands meant that judges would again impose strict liability on defendants who accumulated dangerous things on their land without any need to prove negligence or wrongful intent. The decision won support for bringing the law relating to private reservoirs up to standard with the law relating to public reservoirs, which contained similar statutory provisions thanks to a pair of private Acts of Parliament passed in 1853 and 1864.

Assessment
The decision in Rylands initially faced little criticism within England and Wales, although many American scholars and judges of the time felt that judgment was a poor one. Chief Justice Charles Doe of the New Hampshire Supreme Court wrote that it "put a clog upon natural and reasonably necessary uses of matter and tend to embarrass and obstruct much of the work which it seems to be a man's duty carefully to do". The American interpretation was based primarily on the idea that it would cause economic harm. Further American criticism is based on the idea that it is poor law. Firstly, they argue, it is not trespass, since the damage is not direct, and secondly, it is not a nuisance, because there is no continuous action. Glofcheski, writing in the Hong Kong Law Journal, notes that "the doctrine has not flourished... a tort imposing strict liability should be closely interpreted and circumspectly applied". It has been argued that the decision was never entirely accepted by the judiciary as a whole, and that it is difficult to justify. This is for two reasons; firstly, it is a case of very limited applicability, and it has been suggested that it be folded into a general principle of strict liability for "ultra-hazardous" activities. Secondly, subsequent case law in England and Wales, particularly in Rickards v Lothian, has undermined the "non-natural use" element by introducing a cost/benefit analysis which severely limits the decision's usefulness.

Canada
The first article in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights states that "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law" is recognised. However it is difficult to adjudicate on this Bill, especially as the provinces have priority over property rights. A difficulty is encountered with the definition of "property", as remarked by Johansen, which may well be the reason why the matter remains for interpretation by precedent. The 1974 test case for the Bill of Rights, Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, provided an impetus for the 1982 Charter of Rights, which specifically excludes the "enjoyment of property" for reasons described in the Constitutional history of Canada page. Fridman on Torts in Canada has helpful material.

In Ontario, a common law province, Rylands was upheld by a lower court in Smith v. Inco Ltd. a case alleging that a factory in Port Colborne, Ontario had contaminated adjacent lands with nickel. A subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of economic harm, raising the legal burden of proof but not invalidating Rylands as precedent law. However, it has been said that the Court of Appeal erred in law in their adjudication over the words "non-natural". In April 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada chose not to hear the appeal.

Mineral rights in the subsurface seem to be preferred over the landowner's rights by the Mineral Tenure Act or the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act in British Columbia (also a common law province) so that recourse to Rylands is quite limited, as case law has developed over liability "to compensate the owner of a surface area for loss or damage caused by the entry, occupation or use of that area" (MTA) and "compensation for nuisance and disturbance from the entry, occupation or use" (PNGA). The compensation for "entry, use and occupation of the Property" seems not to "exceed the entire [taxable] value of the land" as written in the registry. This means in effect that the relocation costs (of, say, a farming operation, or an abode) or emotional damage are likely not payable by the expropriator. Even municipalities cannot exclude miners. The powers of an arbitrator include compensation for land, timber and time, but expressly do not include watershed, health and welfare, or lost cattle. Miners avoid environmental review; the province has no discretion to refuse mineral leases; miners need not notify landowners of transactions; the province can exempt mines from review when mining commences; and landowners do not have rights to refuse to negotiate.

The impact of Rylands v Fletcher in Quebec law, which is based for historical reasons on the civil code, was evaluated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1916 case of Vandry et al. v. Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co. The SCC found that a section in the civil code had ample scope to support the liability of the Quebec Power Co.

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher gives support to Ernst v. EnCana Corporation, 2013 ABQB 537.

Developments
The party that can be sued in a Rylands claim is an owner or occupier of land, along with anyone who stores or collects the dangerous material, as in Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd. The party suing was initially one with an interest in land, but Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd confirmed that an interest in land was not necessary to bring a claim. Historically, personal injury claims have been allowed, as in Hale v Jennings. More recent cases, however, such as the House of Lords decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, have confirmed that Rylands is "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land. It must...follow that damages for personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule".

In Cambridge Water Lord Goff opined that the rule in Rylands should not further be developed, and that rather than being an independent tort it should be instead considered a sub-tort of nuisance. Statutory provisions, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990, were a more modern and appropriate way of addressing environmental problems which would previously have been covered by Rylands. Subsequently, Transco disapproved of the Australian decision in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd to absorb Rylands into the general law of negligence, deciding that Rylands should continue to exist but, as Lord Bingham said, as a "sub-species of nuisance...while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and...restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable". It is now a sub-tort, rather than an independent tort; they have confirmed that it will be allowed to remain.

Donal Nolan has argued that to consider Rylands as part of private nuisance is unsound. Private nuisance requires the claimant to have an interest in land, while Rylands does not; although exceptions to this rule have occasionally been made in private nuisance, in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that to make exceptions would transform nuisance from a tort against land to a tort against the person, and should not be permitted. John Murphy, Professor of Common Law at the University of Manchester, agrees with Nolan, and makes the additional point that nuisance is focused on a loss of enjoyment to land, not physical damage as Rylands is. It has also been concerned that the reasonable use test, which appears in nuisance, is not applicable to cases brought under Rylands.

Brings, collects and keeps
The first requirement under Rylands is that the defendant "for his own purposes brings onto land and collects and keeps there". In Rylands, this was the keeping of water in a reservoir; other cases in England and Wales have illustrated what sort of material is considered. In British Celanese v AH Hunt, the accumulation was of metal foil strips. "For his own purpose" is not understood to be "for his benefit", although that was what Blackburn was referring to at the time; in Smeaton v Ilford Corp, Rylands was held to apply to a local authority accumulating sewage on its land, although there was no benefit to the local authority from doing this.

Mischief and escape
The next element of Rylands is that the thing be something "likely to do mischief if it escapes". Before Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council this did not have to be a dangerous item (see below); the risk was instead in its behaviour if it escapes. In Rylands the "thing" was water. Other examples are fire, as in Jones v Festiniog Railway, gas, as in Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Gas Co, fumes, as in West v Bristol Tramways Co, and electricity, as in Hillier v Air Ministry. The extent of the "thing"'s accumulation can also be considered, as in Mason v Levy, where it was not just the type of thing kept but the sheer amount which created the danger. It is essential for a Rylands claim that there be an escape of a dangerous thing "from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control". In Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd, an explosion in a munitions factory killed an inspector on the property. Rylands was held not to apply, because there was no escape. The dangerous thing that escapes does not always have to be the thing which was accumulated, but there must be a causal link. In Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd, explosives stored on the defendant's land led to the escape of rocks in a blast, and the defendant was found liable.

In Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Lord Bingham stated obiter that "I do not think the mischief or danger test should be at all easily satisfied. It must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time, he ought reasonably to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be."

Non-natural use
The requirement of "non-natural use", which was created when the case went to the House of Lords, was described by Lord Moulton, in Rickards v Lothian, as "some special use bringing with it increased danger to others". Because the idea of something being "non-natural" is a subjective one, the interpretation of this principle has varied over the years. In Musgrove v Pandelis, a car filled with petrol was considered "non-natural", while in Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd, so was the operation of a munitions factory during war-time. There is no single concrete test to define what is "non-natural", for reasons given by Lord Bingham in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council; "[non-natural use] is not a test to be inflexibly applied: a use may be extraordinary and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another time or in another place...I also doubt whether a test of reasonable user is helpful, since a user may well be quite out of the ordinary but not unreasonable"...

Defences
There are several defences in England and Wales to a claim under Rylands v Fletcher; act of an unknown third party, contributory negligence, consent and statutory authority. An act of an unknown third party will absolve the defendant of liability, as in Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd. In Northwestern Utilities Ltd v London Guarantee and Accident Co Ltd, the principle was established that if a claimant knows of the unknown third party and their actions, the defendant is additionally likely to be able to deny liability. As Rylands requires strict liability, any contributory negligence voids most of the claim. Initially it was sufficient to offset the case itself; with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, courts instead apportion damages, taking into account how much of the harm was contributed by the claimant. Nevertheless, contributory negligence is still a viable partial defence to a Rylands claim. Other valid defences are where the claimant has consented, expressly or impliedly, to the accumulation of the "thing", and where there is statutory authority for the accumulation.

Scotland
The principles of Rylands v Fletcher were initially applied in Scots law, first in the case of Mackintosh v Mackintosh, where a fire spreading from the defendant's land to the claimant's land caused property damage. Scots lawyers and judges applied Rylands differently from their English counterparts, however. While the rule is interpreted in England and Wales as being distinct from negligence and the rules of duty of care and liability applied there, the principle in Scotland was that "negligence is still the ground of liability. The only difference is that in such cases the proprietor is doing something upon his property which is in its nature dangerous and not necessary (or usual?) in the ordinary management of the particular kind of property, and he is therefore bound to observe a higher degree of diligence to prevent injury to his neighbour". The use of Rylands in Scots law, which was started in Mackintosh, finally came to an end in RHM Bakeries v Strathclyde Regional Council. Lord Fraser, as part of his judgment, stated that the idea of strict liability that was brought into play by Rylands was not a part of Scots law, and the idea that it ever had been valid was "a heresy that ought to be extirpated".

United States
Within the United States, there are many situations in which strict liability is applied to actions, and Rylands is commonly cited as the origin of that rule (particularly where strict liability is based on the defendant's "ultrahazardous activity"); it was first applied in Ball v. Nye, by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The Supreme Court of Minnesota also adopted it in Cahill v. Eastman, while the highest courts of New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey all rejected the principle, in Losee v. Buchanan, Brown v. Collins, and Marshall v. Welwood respectively. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, however, reversed Welwood in 1983 in Department of Environmental Protection v. Ventron Corp. Many courts in the United States have attempted to use Rylands to justify absolute liability, which it was never intended to do; while absolute liability is where no defence is applicable, in Rylands itself Lord Cairns accepted that there were some situations where the case should not be applied.

Australia
In Australia, the principles of Rylands v Fletcher were "killed off" by the High Court of Australia in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd. The High Court's view was that the Rylands principles "should now been seen ... as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence, and not as an independent principle of strict liability". Contrasting this, the principles have escaped destruction in Hong Kong, where the courts are yet to follow the examples set by Australia and England and Wales, and Rylands remains an independent tort.

India
The rule of strict liability famously laid down by Blackburn, in Rylands v. Fletcher, proved to be rather ineffective with the passage of time to counter the dangerous use of one's property or an industry that produced substances or wastes detrimental to public health. The pre-requirements essential for establishing a liability under the principle of strict liability viz., the non-natural use of land, use of a dangerous thing, and the element of escape provided substantial loopholes to the enterprises to escape liability under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule. Moreover, the exceptions provided within the rule (and restated by the Supreme Court of India in MC Mehta v. Union of India) afford ample opportunity to the commercial enterprises to escape liability.

The Supreme Court of India in MC Mehta v. Union of India evolved a more stringent rule of strict liability than the Rylands v. Fletcher rule. In this case, which involved the leakage of and the harm caused by Oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram industries in Delhi, the court held that keeping in mind the needs and demands of a modern society with highly advanced scientific knowledge and technology where for the sake of development programme, it was necessary to carry out inherently dangerous or hazardous industry, a new rule had to be laid down to adequately deal with the problems arising in a highly industrialised economy. This new rule had to be based on the English rule of strict liability, but had to be even more stringent, as a result of which no firm carrying out an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity might escape from liability, irrespective of whether there was any negligence involved on the part of the firm or not.

The court also pointed out that the duty owed by such an enterprise to the society is “absolute and non-delegable” and that the enterprise cannot escape liability by showing that it had taken all reasonable care and there was no negligence on its part. The bases of the new rule as indicated by the Supreme Court are two:

 * 1) If an enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident (including indemnification of all those who suffer harm in the accident) arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads; and
 * 2) The enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or danger and to provide warning against potential hazards.

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher requires non-natural use of land by the defendant and escape of the thing from his land, which causes damage. But the rule in MC Mehta v. Union of India is not dependent upon any such condition. The necessary requirements for applicability of the new rule of absolute liability are that the defendant is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and that harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher will not cover cases of harm to persons within the premises where the inherently dangerous activity is carried out, for the rule requires escape of the thing which causes harm from the premises. The new rule makes no distinction between the persons within the premises where the enterprise is operating and persons outside the premises because escape of the thing causing harm from the premises is not a necessary condition for the applicability of the rule. Further, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, though strict in the sense that it is not dependent on any negligence on the part of the defendant and in this respect similar to the new rule, is not absolute as it is subject to many exceptions but the new rule in Mehta's case is not only strict but absolute and is subject to no exception.

Another important point of distinction between the two rules is in the matter of award of damages. Damages awardable where the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher applies will be ordinary or compensatory; but in cases where the rule applicable is the one laid down in MC Mehta's case the court can allow exemplary damages, and the bigger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater can be the amount of compensation payable by it. A small bump in the road was encountered in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and doubts were expressed as to the quantum of damages payable. But the Supreme Court set all doubts aside in another landmark decision in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India where, it was held that the rule laid down in Mehta's case was not obiter and was appropriate and suited to the conditions prevailing in the country.

title: Rylands v Fletcher


text:
Viger

Viger may refer to:

People

 * André Viger (1952–2006), wheelchair marathoner and Paralympic

 * Denis Viger (1741–1805), merchant and politician
 * Denis-Benjamin Viger (1774–1861), one of the Joint Premiers of the Province of Canada, son of Denis
 * Jacques Viger (Member of the Assembly) (1735–1798), member of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada
 * Jacques Viger (mayor) (1787–1858), first mayor of Montreal
 * Joseph Viger (1739–1803), businessman and political figure in Lower Canada
 * Louis-Michel Viger (1785–1855), lawyer, politician and businessman
 * Viger (Surrey cricketer), English professional cricketer

Places

 * Viger, Hautes-Pyrénées, a commune of the Hautes-Pyrénées département, in southwestern France
 * Viger (electoral district), a former Quebec provincial electoral district
 * Place Viger, both a grand hotel and railway station in Montreal
 * Viger Square, a public square in Montreal

title: Viger


text:
Talk:Tarek Shawki

VfD debate  -- Scott  eiπ  03:04, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Was + Former
It is written on the article page that Tarek Shawki was the former minister of education. I suggest it be edited to is the former... or was the.... NINJAHSTERco (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tarek Shawki


text:
David Eckstein

David Mark Eckstein (born January 20, 1975) is an American former professional baseball player. He was an infielder in Major League Baseball (MLB) for ten seasons. He played college baseball for the University of Florida and played professionally for the Anaheim Angels, St. Louis Cardinals, Toronto Blue Jays, Arizona Diamondbacks, and San Diego Padres. Eckstein won the 2006 World Series Most Valuable Player Award. After retiring from professional baseball, he briefly served as a special assistant in the Pittsburgh Pirates operations department. Eckstein stood at 5' 6" during his playing career, which made him the shortest active player for the years he played.

High school
Eckstein played baseball all four years at Seminole High School in Sanford, Florida. He was a two-time all-state selection, and a prominent member of a state championship team. He was also a member of the National Honor Society and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Eckstein was voted "Most Helpful" in the Class of 1993.

In addition, Eckstein played American Legion Baseball for Post 53.

College
At the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, Eckstein was a walk-on player for coach Joe Arnold's Florida Gators baseball team in the fall of 1994; he later earned an athletic scholarship. A standout in the Southeastern Conference (SEC), he was a first-team All-SEC selection in 1995 and 1996, a first-team All-American in 1996, a three-time SEC Academic Honor Roll selection (1995–1997), and the first two-time Academic All-American in Gators baseball history. Eckstein was a member of the 1996 Gators squad that finished third in the College World Series. He was inducted into the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame as a "Gator Great" in 2007.

Eckstein also played for the Harrisonburg Turks of the Valley Baseball League in Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Anaheim Angels
Eckstein was drafted by the Boston Red Sox in the 19th round of the 1997 MLB draft, and spent 4 years in the Red Sox minor league system, reaching Triple-A during the 2000 season, before being designated for assignment by Boston on August 14. Two days later, Eckstein was selected off waivers by the Anaheim Angels. Eckstein spent the rest of the 2000 season with the Angels Triple-A affiliate, the Edmonton Trappers, where he hit .346 with 3 home runs and 8 RBIs in just 15 games.

Entering the 2001 season, Eckstein earned a spring training call-up, and eventually earning a spot on the Angels' Opening Day roster. He made his major league debut on April 3, 2001, against the Texas Rangers, where he was the starter at second base and went 1 for 3, with his first hit coming against Kenny Rogers. Through his first month in the MLB, Eckstein appeared in 28 of the Angels' 31 games, and batted .318 with 1 home run, which eventually earned him the full-time starting job at shortstop, which he held for the remainder of the season. Eckstein finished his rookie campaign with a .285 batting average with 4 home runs and 41 RBIs in 153 games. He finished fourth in American League (AL) Rookie of the Year Award voting, behind Ichiro Suzuki, C.C. Sabathia, and Alfonso Soriano.

During the Angels' championship year, he led the major leagues with three grand slams, including grand slams in back-to-back games against the Toronto Blue Jays, one of which was a game-winning grand slam leading the Angels to complete the sweep over Toronto, at a time when the Angels were 7–14. After the sweep of the Jays, the Angels went on to win 20 of their next 23 games. For the 2002 season, Eckstein hit .293 with 8 home runs and 63 RBIs in 152 games, he also led all of Major league baseball in hit by pitches (27) and sacrifice hits (14). He earned 24 votes in American League (AL) MVP voting, finishing in a tie with Nomar Garciaparra for eleventh place.

The 2003 season was a down season for Eckstein as he hit just .252 with 3 home runs and 31 RBIs as the Angels failed to qualify for the postseason and defend their title. 2004 was much of the same for Eckstein as he hit .272 with only 2 home runs and 35 RBIs, however the Angels were able to win the AL West and qualify for the postseason, where they were swept in 3 games by the Boston Red Sox in the 2004 ALDS, with Eckstein batting .333 in 12 at-bats.

St. Louis Cardinals
At the end of the 2004 season, Eckstein was part of a "shortstop merry-go-round," in which three free agent shortstops swapped teams: Édgar Rentería went from the Cardinals to the Boston Red Sox, Orlando Cabrera went from the Red Sox to the Angels, and Eckstein went from the Angels to the Cardinals. Eckstein signed a three-year, $10.25 million contract with the Cardinals on December 23, 2004. In his first seven seasons, he amassed 1,079 hits while batting .286. He was voted to the National League All-Star team in 2005, along with teammates Chris Carpenter, Albert Pujols, Jason Isringhausen, and Jim Edmonds. He was a late addition to the 2006 All-Star team. In 3,772 regular season at-bats, Eckstein struck out only 305 times, with a total of 22 in 2007.

Eckstein was a fan favorite in St. Louis, who considered him to be a "pesky" hitter (he choked-up on the bat about two inches ). On Mother's Day, May 14, 2006, Eckstein was one of more than 50 hitters who brandished a pink bat to benefit the Breast Cancer Foundation.

A member of the 2006 World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals, Eckstein was named the World Series MVP. Following a 0-for-11 start in the first two games of the World Series, Eckstein went 8-for-22 with four RBI and scored three runs in the series, including going 4-for-5 with three doubles in Game 4. The World Series victory with the Cardinals made Eckstein one of few starting shortstops who have won a World Series in both the American and National Leagues.

Eckstein was brought back in front of over 47,000 fans to throw out the first pitch of Game 6 of the World Series in St. Louis on October 27, 2011.

Toronto Blue Jays
On October 30, 2007, Eckstein became a free agent along with Kip Wells, Troy Percival, and Miguel Cairo. On December 13, 2007, he signed a one-year, $4.5 million contract with the Toronto Blue Jays.

Arizona Diamondbacks
On August 31, 2008, Eckstein was traded to the Arizona Diamondbacks for minor league pitcher Chad Beck.

San Diego Padres
On January 15, 2009, he signed a discounted one-year contract with the San Diego Padres on the condition that he would play primarily second base. On August 22, 2009, the San Diego Padres extended Eckstein's contract through 2010.

Eckstein did not join a team for the 2011 season. In June, it was reported that he received offers from the Padres and other teams, but opted to not play baseball. He officially retired on January 22, 2012.

Career statistics
In 1,311 games over 10 seasons, Eckstein posted a .280 batting average (1,414–5,041) with 701 runs, 232 doubles, 20 triples, 35 home runs, 392 RBI, 123 stolen bases, 376 bases on balls, .345 on-base percentage and .355 slugging percentage. He finished his career with a .982 fielding percentage playing at shortstop and second base. In 44 postseason games, he hit .278 (49–176) with 26 runs, four doubles, two home runs, 18 RBI, seven stolen bases and 12 walks.

Post-playing career
Eckstein became a candidate for induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum for the first time on November 9, 2015. He received two votes.

Personal life
Eckstein was born in Sanford, Florida. He married actress Ashley Drane on November 26, 2005, at his family church in Sanford, followed by a reception at Walt Disney World. He is a fan of professional wrestling, having made public appearances with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling during the 2006 World Series and on February 11, 2007, he co-managed (along with Tampa Bay Rays outfielder Johnny Damon) TNA wrestler Lance Hoyt for his match with current White Sox conditioning coach Dale Torborg, managed by Sox catcher A. J. Pierzynski at TNA's Against All Odds pay-per-view.

After his older brother, Rick, was hired after the 2018 season as the hitting coach for the Pittsburgh Pirates, David was hired in February as a special assistant in their baseball operations department. He left the position before the 2021 season.

Career highlights

 * Holiday Inn Look Again Player of the Year (2006)
 * 2-time World Series Champion (2002 Anaheim Angels, 2006 St. Louis Cardinals)
 * World Series MVP (2006)
 * 2-time All-Star (2005, 2006)
 * Babe Ruth Award winner (2006)
 * Inaugural winner of the Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association's Heart & Hustle Award (2005)
 * Number retired by the Trenton Thunder

title: David Eckstein


text:
Portal:Physics/News

 * November 29, 2013. Trying to determine the nature of dark energy and dark matter from intensive South Pole Telescope data collections. See: Smithsonian online.

 * November 26, 2013. The 2nd Bangkok International Conference on Biological Engineering & Natural Science scheduled for January 18, 2014 to January 20, 2014. See: Nature events directory.

 * November 26, 2013. Chang'e 3 is a lunar exploration mission operated by China National Space Administration, incorporating a robotic lander and a rover. During this second phase of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program, Chang'e 3 is scheduled for launch 1 December 2013. See: Nature News

 * October 9, 2013. With an online academic journal to be made available Spring 2014, Nature Publishing Group will fill a noted weak area of research - data sets that are often not published or only partially published will be published in this new journal. See: Nature Editorial.

 * October 8, 2013. Peter Higgs and François Englert, win the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. Nobelprize.org

title: Portal:Physics/News


text:
Talk:Alois Senefelder

Prague was not imperial city of Holy Roman Empire. Imperial city was used from the fifteenth century to denote a self-ruling city that had a certain amount of autonomy and was represented in the imperial diet. Prague, a capital of the Kingdom of Bohemia, was not among them, viz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_imperial_city.

Image
I replaced the heading image with a lithograph since I thought it was more appropriate. Saving the old image here... Eliot 03:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of first name
There appears to be confusion over the spelling of his name:

 * 1) "A History of Graphic Design," 1998 by Philip B. Meggs lists his name as "Aloys"
 * 2) "Typographic Design: Form and Communication," 2002 by Rob Carter, Ben Day and Philip Meggs lists his name as "Aloys"
 * 3) The article itself says he was born "Aloys"

What evidence is there that he actually went by "Alois?" --Parhamr 04:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anecdote about the discovery of the stone's capability
The 1911 Britannica article contains a charming anecdote about his realization that the stone could be easily used for etching: it's to do with his mother and a washerwoman's bill. I'm not sure that even its inclusion in Britannica validates its authenticity, so that's why I included only a poster reference to the article. David Brooks (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alois Senefelder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050216040435/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/ne2420xs475/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/NE2420xS475/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051020100932/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/NE2420xS475/1f/invention_of_lithography.pdf to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/NE2420xS475/1f/invention_of_lithography.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alois Senefelder


text: User talk:68.69.157.38

title: User talk:68.69.157.38


text: File:Simple visualization of transcription.gif


text:
Elmer Roper

Elmer Ernest Roper (June 4, 1893 – November 12, 1994) was a Canadian businessman, trade unionist and politician. He was a Alberta Co-operative Commonwealth Federation member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 1942-1955, and mayor of Edmonton 1959-1963.

Early life
Roper was born in Ingonish, Nova Scotia, the son of a sea captain. He was educated in Sydney, and moved west to Calgary, Alberta in 1907. There he apprenticed as a printer and found work in the Calgary Herald's press room. On June 15, 1914, he married Goldie C. Bell, with whom he had three daughters and one son and who predeceased him by weeks.

He became involved in the labour movement as a young man. He joined the Pressman's Union. He was president of the Calgary Trades & Labour Council by 1916. His tenure in this position was short-lived, as he moved to Edmonton the following year to become the head of the Edmonton Bulletin's press room. There he took a position of leadership in running the Edmonton District Labour Council (later the Edmonton Trades & Labour Council). Although not a backer of the One Big Union, he was involved in Edmonton's 1919 general strike (a sympathy strike with the Winnipeg General Strike).

In 1921 he left the Bulletin to found his own printing business, which he operated until his retirement. The same year, he made his first bid for elected office.

Early political career
In the 1921 provincial election, Roper ran as a Labour candidate in Edmonton. He finished thirteenth of twenty-six candidates.

In 1922, Roper became secretary-treasurer of the Alberta Federation of Labour. He held the position for a decade. Roper edited the AF of L's official organ Alberta Labour News from 1921 to 1935when he changed the newspaper's name to People's Weekly and made it the de facto house organ of the new Alberta Co-operative Commonwealth Federation with William Irvine as co-editor.

Roper ran for school trustee in Edmonton's 1924 municipal election. He finished fourth of seven candidates, in an election in which the top three candidates were elected. He tried again the next year's election, and again finished fourth of seven candidates; however, the board's staggered electoral system meant that, though only three of the board's seven trustees had been elected in 1924, four were up for election in 1924 and Roper was elected. He was re-elected in 1927 but did not seek re-election at the expiration of his second term.

He continued to seek office at other levels. In the 1926 provincial election, he was again a Labour candidate in Edmonton. He was less successful on this occasion, finishing sixteenth of eighteen candidates on the first ballot. He tried again in a 1931 by-election resulting from the death of Charles Weaver; he finished second of four candidates as Conservative Frederick C. Jamieson reclaimed the seat for Weaver's party.

Roper's lone attempt at federal office took place in the 1935 election, when he ran for the newly formed Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Edmonton East; he finished fourth of six candidates as William Samuel Hall took the riding for the Social Credit Party of Canada.

Roper had joined the CCF at the provincial level as well and ran under its banner in the 1940 election, finishing seventh of nineteen candidates on the first ballot and being defeated once again. No CCF members were elected during that election but that was about to change.

CCF leader and MLA
On May 4, 1942 Conservative leader David Duggan died, and his Edmonton seat became vacant. Roper was nominated as the CCF's candidate in the ensuing by-election. The by-election was conducted using Alternative Voting and Roper came out on top of a five-person field. CCF leader Chester Ronning, who had been elected in 1932, quickly stepped aside to hand the leadership to the party's sole MLA.

Roper was leader of the CCF for thirteen years, but he did not have to sit as its lone MLA that long: after the 1944 election, he was joined in the legislature by Aylmer Liesemer of Calgary. Two seats were as large a caucus as the CCF had during Roper's tenure as its leader.

Both Liesemer and Roper were re-elected in the 1948 election. The party's share of the vote fell from 25% to 19%, but it was still due more than 10 MLAs. Roper did not add any new MLAs to his tiny caucus as Social Credit's stranglehold over the province remained intact. The CCF did elect a new MLA in the 1952 election - Willingdon's Nick Dushenski - but this gain was cancelled by Liesemer's defeat in the same election. Worse, the CCF's vote fell further, to 14%, and the Alberta Liberal Party doubled its seat count to four, making it the Official Opposition and leaving the CCF as the third party.

Things then got worse for the CCF. In the 1955 election, the CCF's share of the vote was only 8% and the previously dormant Conservatives passed it in the seat count. Moreover, Roper himself lost his seat in Edmonton (although two other CCF MLAs were elected - Dushenki in Whitford) and Stanley Ruzycki in Vegreville). Roper placed third of thirty candidates on the first ballot in the election held using Single transferable voting, but as Premier Ernest Manning's large number of surplus votes was redistributed to the city's other Social Credit candidates (and James Harper Prowse's only slightly smaller surplus was redistributed mostly to other Liberal candidates, Roper fell out of the top seven, where he needed to remain in order to be re-elected.

Following the election, Roper relinquished the CCF leadership. He never again sought provincial office. In part this was due to the Manning government switching to First Past the post from the combined STV/Alternative Voting system it had been using. Roper later said he thought that Manning had abolished the STV system in Edmonton to keep Roper from ever getting a seat again. Certainly it worked to the degree that no CCF or NDP again took an Edmonton seat until 1982 - and the change to First Past The Post was likely the main cause of that pattern.

Municipal politics
Roper served as mayor of Edmonton, 1959-1963.

In advance of the 1959 municipal election, the city's mayoralty was up for grabs. William Hawrelak had resigned in scandal, and the man that the Edmonton City Council had chosen to replace him, Frederick John Mitchell, had decided to return to his aldermanic post rather than contest the mayoral election. Roper chose to contest it, and defeated three candidates (most notably his former legislature colleague James Prowse).

He was re-elected in the 1961 election, handily defeating alderman Ed Leger. He did not seek re-election at the conclusion of his second term. At the age of seventy, he was finished with politics.

Later life, death, and legacy
Elmer Roper retired to Victoria, British Columbia in 1975, and died there November 12, 1994, aged 101. His wife had died in August, just after the couple's eightieth anniversary, and he was survived by two daughters and a son, former Edmonton alderman G Lyall Roper.

He had been made an honorary life member of the Rotary Club in 1928, and had received an honorary doctorate in laws from the University of Alberta in 1959. Additionally, Roper Road and Roper Industrial, an Edmonton road and neighbourhood respectively, are named in his honour.

title: Elmer Roper


text:
Functionalism–intentionalism debate

The functionalism–intentionalism debate is a historiographical debate about the reasons for the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. It essentially centres on two questions:

 * Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not.
 * Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy? Although neither side disputes the reality of the Holocaust, nor is there serious dispute over the premise that Hitler (as Führer) was personally responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism that allowed the Holocaust to take place, intentionalists argue the initiative came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

The terms were coined in a 1981 essay by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason. Notable functionalists have included Timothy Mason, Raul Hilberg, Karl Schleunes, Christopher Browning, Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, Götz Aly, Christian Gerlach, Zygmunt Bauman, Timothy Snyder and David Cesarani. Notable intentionalists have included William Shirer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Alan Bullock, Karl Bracher, Andreas Hillgruber, Klaus Hildebrand, Eberhard Jäckel, Leni Yahil, Israel Gutman, Gerhard Weinberg, Walter Laqueur, Saul Friedländer, Richard Breitman, Lucy Dawidowicz and Daniel Goldhagen.

Origin
The search for the causes of the Holocaust began almost as soon as World War II ended. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of 1945–46, the "Final Solution" was represented by the prosecution as part of the long-term plan on the part of the Nazi leadership going back to the foundations of the Nazi Party in 1919. Subsequently, most historians subscribed to what would be nowadays considered to be the extreme intentionalist interpretation. Books such as Karl Schleunes' The Twisted Road to Auschwitz which was published in 1970 influenced a number of historians to challenge the prevailing interpretation and suggested there was no master plan for the Holocaust. In the 1970s, advocates of the intentionalist school of thought were known as "the straight road to Auschwitz" camp or as the "programmists", because they insisted that Hitler was fulfilling a programme. Advocates of the functionalist school were known as "the twisted road to Auschwitz" camp or as the "structuralists", because of their insistence that it was the internal power structures of the Third Reich that led to the Holocaust.

In 1981, the British historian Timothy Mason published an essay entitled "Intention and Explanation" that was in part an attack on the scholarship of Karl Dietrich Bracher and Klaus Hildebrand, both of whom Mason accused of focusing too much on Adolf Hitler as an explanation of the Holocaust. In this essay, Mason called the followers of "the twisted road to Auschwitz"/structuralist school "functionalists" because of their belief that the Holocaust arose as part of the functioning of the Nazi state, while the followers of "the straight road to Auschwitz"/programmist school were called "intentionalists" because of their belief that it was Hitler's intentions alone that explained the Holocaust. The terms "intentionalist" and "functionalist" have largely replaced the previous terms used to signify the conflicting schools of thought.

Arguments
Those historians who take an intentionalist line, like Andreas Hillgruber, argue that everything that happened after Operation Barbarossa was part of a master plan he credited Hitler with developing in the 1920s. Hillgruber wrote in his 1967 book Germany and the Two World Wars that the "...the conquest of European Russia, the cornerstone of the continental European phase of his program, was thus for Hitler inextricably linked with the extermination of these "bacilli", the Jews. In his conception they had gained dominance over Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia thereby became the center from which a global danger radiated, particularly threatening to the Aryan race and its German core. To Hitler, Bolshevism meant the consummate rule of Jewry, while democracy – as it had developed in Western Europe and Weimar Germany – represented a preliminary stage of Bolshevism, since the Jews there won a leading, if not yet a dominant, influence. This racist component of Hitler's thought was so closely interwoven with the central political element of his program, the conquest of European Russia, that Russia's defeat and the extermination of the Jews were – in theory as later in practice – inseparable for him. To the aim of expansion per se, however, Hitler gave not racial, but political, strategic, economic and demographic underpinnings"."

The German historian Helmut Krausnick argued that: "What is certain is that the nearer Hitler's plan to overthrow Russia as the last possible enemy on the continent of Europe approached maturity, the more he became obsessed with an idea—with which he had been toying as a "final solution" for a long time—of wiping out the Jews in the territories under his control. It cannot have been later than March 1941, when he openly declared his intention of having the political commissars of the Red Army shot, that he issued his secret decree—which never appeared in writing though it was mentioned verbally on several occasions—that the Jews should be eliminated."

Alfred Streim wrote in response that Krausnick had been taken in by the line invented after the war to reduce the responsibility of the Einsatzgruppen leaders brought to trial. Klaus Hildebrand wrote that: "In qualitative terms, the executions by shooting were no different from the technically more efficient accomplishment of the 'physical final solution' by gassing, of which they were a prelude."

Against the intentionalist interpretation, functionalist historians like Martin Broszat argued that the lower officials of the Nazi state had started exterminating people on their own initiative. Broszat argued that the Holocaust began "bit by bit" as German officials stumbled into genocide. Broszat argued that in the autumn of 1941 German officials had begun "improvised" killing schemes as the "simplest" solution to the "Jewish Question". In Broszat's opinion, Hitler subsequently approved of the measures initiated by the lower officials and allowed the expansion of the Holocaust from Eastern Europe to all of Europe. In this way, Broszat argued that the Shoah was not begun in response to an order, written or unwritten, from Hitler but was rather “a way out of the blind alley into which the Nazis had manoeuvred themselves”. The American historian Christopher Browning has argued that: "Before the invasion, the Einsatzgruppen were not given explicit orders for the total extermination of Jews on Soviet territory. Along with the general incitement to an ideological and racial war, however, they were given the general task of liquidating "potential" enemies. Heydrich's much-debated directive of 2 July 1941 was a minimal list of those who had to be liquidated immediately, including all Jews in state and party positions. It is very likely, moreover, that the Einsatzgruppen leaders were told of the future goal of a Judenfrei [Jew-free] Russia through systematic mass murder."

By contrast, the Swiss historian Philippe Burrin argues that such a decision was not made before August 1941 at the earliest, pointing to orders given by Himmler on 30 July 1941 to the 2nd SS Cavalry Regiment and the SS Cavalry Brigade operating in the Pripet Marshes in the Pripyat Marshes massacres calling for the murder of male Jews only while the Jewish women and children were to be driven into the Marshes. Browning argues that sometime in mid-July 1941 Hitler made the decision to begin general genocide owing to his exhilaration over his victories over the Red Army, whereas Burrin contends that the decision was made in late August 1941 owing to Hitler's frustration over the slowing down of the Wehrmacht. Kershaw argues that the dramatic expansion in both the range of victims and the intensity of the killings after mid-August 1941 indicates that Hitler issued an order to that effect, most probably a verbal order conveyed to the Einsatzgruppen commanders through either Himmler or Heydrich. It remains unclear whether that was a decision made on Hitler's own initiative motivated only by his own anti-Semitic prejudices, or (impressed with the willingness and ability of Einsatzgruppe A to murder Jewish women and children) ordered that the other three Einsatzgruppen emulate Einsatzgruppe A's bloody example.

The Canadian historian Erich Haberer has contended that the "Baltic flashpoint of genocide", as the killings committed by Einsatzgruppe A between July–October 1941 are known to historians, were the key development in the evolution of Nazi anti-Semitic policy that resulted in the Holocaust. The Baltic area witnessed both the most extensive and intense killings of all the Einsatzgruppen with 90,000–100,000 Jews killed between July and October 1941, which led to the almost total destruction of the Jewish communities in that area. Haberer maintains that the "Baltic flashpoint of genocide" occurred at time when the other Nazi plans for a "territorial final solution" such as the Madagascar Plan were unlikely to occur, and thus suggested to the Nazi leadership that genocide was indeed "feasible" as a "final solution to the Jewish Question".

Extreme
Extreme functionalists such as Martin Broszat believe that the Nazi leadership did not consciously initiate the Holocaust and that initiative instead came from the lower ranks of the German bureaucracy. This philosophy is what is known as the bottom-up approach of the Holocaust. Götz Aly has made much of documents from the bureaucracy of the German Government-General of Poland arguing that the population of Poland would have to decrease by 25% to allow the Polish economy to grow. Criticism centers on the idea that this explanation does not really show why the Nazis would deport Jews from France and the Netherlands to death camps in Poland if it was Poland the Nazis were concerned with, and why the Jews of Poland were targeted instead of a random sample of 25% of the Polish population. Additional criticism of functionalism points out that Hitler and other Nazi leaders delayed railcars providing supplies to front line troops in the Soviet Union so that Jews could be deported by rail from the USSR to death camps, thus demonstrating the pursuit of genocidal policies over pragmatic wartime actions. Hans Mommsen was a leading expert on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. He argued that Hitler was a "weak dictator" who rather than acting decisively, reacted to various social pressures. Mommsen believed that Nazi Germany was not a totalitarian state. Together with his friend Broszat, Mommsen developed a structuralist interpretation of the Third Reich, that saw the Nazi state as a chaotic collection of rival bureaucracies engaged in endless power struggles, and the Final Solution as a result of the "cumulative radicalization" of the German state as opposed to a long-term plan on the part of Adolf Hitler.

Moderate
Moderate functionalists, such as Karl Schleunes and Christopher Browning, believe that the rivalry within the unstable Nazi power structure provided the major driving force behind the Holocaust. Moderate functionalists believe that the Nazis aimed to expel all of the Jews from Europe, but only after the failure of these schemes did they resort to genocide. This is sometimes referred to as the "twisted road" to genocide, after a book by Schleunes called The Twisted Road to Auschwitz.

Extreme
Lucy Dawidowicz argued that Hitler already decided upon the Holocaust no later than 1919. To support her interpretation, Dawidowicz pointed to numerous extreme anti-Semitic statements made by Hitler. According to a Reichswehr report from an April 1920 meeting, Hitler said: "We will carry on the struggle until the last Jew is removed from the German Reich". A Bavarian police report reported that according to Hitler, the NSDAP would bring about a revolution that would "thoroughly clean out the Jew-rabble". Hitler directly referenced killing Jews in Mein Kampf, when he states: "If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." However, Dawidowicz's critics contend, given that Mein Kampf is 694 pages long, she makes too much of one sentence. Daniel Goldhagen went further, suggesting that popular opinion in Germany was already sympathetic to a policy of Jewish extermination before the Nazi party came to power. He asserts in his book Hitler's Willing Executioners that Germany enthusiastically welcomed the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime in the period 1933–39. Dawidowicz responded that Hitler resorted to vague terms intentionally, often using esoteric and unclear language when discussing the Jews; she remarks that the esoteric and vague language was an inherent element of National Socialist rhetoric, as Heinrich Himmler repeated Hitler's vague terms from the 1920s as late as on 4th of October, 1943, when addressing the SS-Gruppenführer. Dawidowicz highlights that there was no reason to use vague terms to "that particular audience on that occasion at that late date".

Holocaust scholars such as John J. Michalczyk, Michael S. Bryant and Susan A. Michalczyk agree with Dawidowicz, arguing that Hitler already revealed his "exterminatory mindset" in Mein Kampf, infusing the book with "intimations of genocide". They state that Hitler's autobiography is redolent of calls for mass murder, and argue that "genocide is the inescapable conclusion entailed in Hitler’s premises". In his book, Hitler did argue that the existence of Germany as a country is threatened, portrayed the Jews as a danger to both Germany and the human race, and argued that the right to self-preservation is supreme and cancels all ethical restraint; these premises made the Final Solution a foreseeable conclusion. According to Bryant, Hitler calls for Final Solution in Mein Kampf, but conceals it with vague and esoteric language. This vagueness was caused by the circumstances Hitler faced after the failure of the Beer Putsch - Hitler wanted to obtain parole, avoid deportation to Austria and eventually have the bans that he and his party were facing lifted; this forced Hitler to "walk a legal line". Bryant concludes: "Hitler continued to dissemble his real intentions through the 1930s, falsely assuring the world of his peaceful inclinations toward countries he had rashly threatened in his memoir".

Dawidowicz also points to accounts of 1920s recruits to the National Socialist movement. Kurt Lüdecke, a German nationalist who joined the NSDAP and personally talked to Hitler, noted plans that Hitler expressed: "The hugeness of the task and the absurdity of the hope swept over me. Its execution meant the liquidation of Jewry, of Rome, of liberalism with its tangled capitalistic connections; of Marxism, Bolshevism, Toryism — in short, an abrupt and complete break with the past and an assault on all existing world political forces." Dawidowicz contends that while Hitler's anti-Semitism and related threats "remained geographically limited to Germany, albeit a greater Germany", he began to see Jews as "an international group whose destruction demanded an international policy". This change took place after Hitler met Alfred Rosenberg, who shared genocidal intentions towards Jews and greatly influenced Hitler; as a result, Hitler now discussed "cleaning up" the Jews internationally rather than domestically. Dawidowicz concludes that Hitler conceived his plans long before coming to power, and everything he did from then on was directed toward the achievement of his goal: "There never had been any ideological deviation or wavering determination. In the end only the question of opportunity mattered."

Wolfgang Benz points out that Adolf Hitler had already called for anti-Semitism in a 1919 publication "Gutachten zum Antisemitismus" and declared: "Its ultimate goal, however, must unalterably be the removal of the Jews altogether." That this "removal" meant for him the extermination of the Jews is shown by Hitler in a speech on 6 April 1920: "We do not want to be sentimental anti-Semites who want to create a pogrom mood, but we are animated by the implacable determination to seize the evil at its root and to exterminate it root and branch. In order to achieve our goal, any means must be acceptable to us, even if we have to join forces with the devil." On 3 July 1920 Hitler wrote to Konstantin Hierl: "As much as I cannot reproach a tubercle bacilli for an activity which means destruction for man but life for them, I am also compelled and entitled, for the sake of my personal existence, to wage the fight against tuberculosis by destroying its pathogens. The Jew, however, becomes and has become through thousands of years in his work the racial tuberculosis of the peoples. To fight him is to destroy him."

According to the journalist Josef Hell, Hitler is said to have replied to the question of what he would do against the Jews if he had full freedom of action: In 1924, Hitler further unfolded the racist rationale for it in Mein Kampf, also picking up on the views of Karl Eugen Dühring: ''Without clear recognition of the racial problem, and thus of the Jewish question, a resurgence of the German nation will no longer take place.'

Moderate
Moderate intentionalists such as Richard Breitman and Saul Friedlander believe that Hitler decided upon the Holocaust sometime after coming to power in the 1930s and no later than 1939 or 1941. This school refers to Hitler's "Prophecy Speech" of January 30, 1939 before the Reichstag where Hitler stated "If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once again into a world war, then the result will not be the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!" Yehuda Bauer criticizes the intentionalist reading of this quotation, arguing that though this statement clearly commits Hitler to genocide, Hitler made no effort after delivering this speech to have it carried out. Furthermore, Ian Kershaw has pointed out that there are several diary entries by Joseph Goebbels in late 1941, in which Goebbels writes that "The Führer's prophecy is coming true in a most terrible way." The general impression one gets is that Goebbels is quite surprised that Hitler was serious about carrying out the threat in the "Prophecy Speech". According to Lucy Dawidowicz, if Hitler's allies expressed surprise at the implementation of a systematic genocide, it was not because of "the suddenness with which they had to confront these plans, but because of lack of preparation".

Eberhard Jäckel argues that the genocide of Jews on a systematic and industrial level was already decided at the highest level before 1939. Jäckel notes that Hitler himself had announced the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" in the event of a new war in a public speech on the anniversary of his "seizure of power" on 30 January 1939. Therefore when announcing the "annihilation of Jewish race" in event of war in the 30 January 1939 Reichstag speech in the Kroll Opera House, Hitler had already been preparing for war in advance and was now justifying the genocide that would accompany it. This is supported by the fact that the Nazi leadership started introduced rearming shortly after coming to power in 1933; Richard Overy remarks that for Hitler the "economy was not simply an arena for generating wealth and technical progress; its raison d'etre lay in its ability to provide the material springboard for military conquest". Because of that, the progressing militarisation and rearmanent of the German economy became "economically significant" as early as in 1934, and signalled Hitler's intention to start a war. In this context, intentional historians argue that the Madagascar Plan was ultimately never a serious option for the National Socialist leadership, but merely a consideration presented to the outside world in order to conceal from the public the actual goal that was being pursued.

Evidence used by intentionalist historians such as Kevin Sweeney to support the view that Hitler had decided on the Holocaust by the start of the war includes a statement by Hitler to František Chvalkovský in 1939 that "We are going to destroy the Jews. They are not going to get away with what they did on November 9, 1918. The day of reckoning has come." Sweeney argues that this and other public and private statements by Hitler before and during the war indicate that he had personally premeditated the Holocaust and was responsible for directing the policy.

Synthesis
A number of scholars such as Arno J. Mayer, Yehuda Bauer, Peter Longerich, Ian Kershaw, Michael Burleigh, Frank McDonough and Michael Marrus have developed a synthesis of the functionalist and intentionalist schools. They have suggested the Holocaust was a result of pressures that came from both above and below and that Hitler lacked a master plan, but was the decisive force behind the Holocaust. The phrase 'cumulative radicalisation' is used in this context to sum up the way extreme rhetoric and competition among different Nazi agencies produced increasingly extreme policies, as fanatical bureaucratic underlings put into practice what they believed Hitler would have approved based on his widely disseminated speeches and propaganda. This phenomenon is referred to more generally in social psychology as groupshift.

Given the fact that scholars have written so much in relation to Nazi Germany, Richard Bessel asserts that "The result is a much better informed, much more detailed and more nuanced picture of the Nazi regime, and most serious historians of the Nazi regime now are to some extent both 'intentionalists' and 'functionalists'—insofar as those terms still can be used at all."

title: Functionalism–intentionalism debate


text:
File:SunDogShipRepairs.gif

Screenshot from the Apple II version of SunDog: Frozen Legacy.

title: File:SunDogShipRepairs.gif


text:
Abazins

The Abazin, Abazinians or Abaza (Abaza and Abkhaz: Абаза; Circassian: Абазэхэр; Абазины; Abazalar; أباظة) are an ethnic group of the Northwest Caucasus, closely related to the Abkhaz and Circassian peoples. Now, they live mostly in Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and in Karachay-Cherkessia and Stavropol Krai in the North Caucasus region of Russia. The Tapanta (ru:Тапанта), a branch of the Abaza, lived between the Besleney and Kabardian princedoms on the upper Kuban.

Abaza people historically speak the Abaza language, a Northwest Caucasian language most closely related to Abkhaz, and more distantly related to the Ubykh and Circassian languages. There are two dialects of Abaza spoken in Karachay-Cherkessia: Ashkharua and Tapanta. The culture and traditions of the Abazin are similar to those of the Circassians. On many old maps Abazin territory is marked as part of Circassia (Adygea).

According to the 2010 Russian census, there were 43,341 Abazins in Russia.

Diaspora
An Abazin diaspora exists in Turkey, Egypt and in Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan and Syria, most of which are descendants of muhajirs from the Caucasian War with the Russian Empire.

There is a significant Abazin presence in Turkey. An estimated 150,000 Abaza live in the provinces of Eskişehir, Samsun, Yozgat, Adana, Kayseri, and Sakarya, as well as İzmit and İstanbul.

Most of them belong to Ashkharua clan that fought against the Tsarist army and emigrated to Turkey after losing the battle of Kbaada (Krasnaya Polyana in today's Sochi), whereas the Tapanta clan fought with the Russian forces. A prominent example in Egypt is the Abaza family, a large Egyptian Abazin clan.

Culture
Historically, the Abazin engaged in animal herding and some farming.

The Abazins are dominantly Sunni Muslims. The Abazins first encountered Islam during their migrations to the Abazinia region via contact with the Nogais and other Muslim people. The Abazins adopted Islam via the influence of Muslim merchants and missionaries from the 16th to 19th centuries.

title: Abazins


text: User talk:24.244.196.169

title: User talk:24.244.196.169


text:
User:The Power of Human Reason

I had no idea that it would be such a big deal if I became an editor here, as a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Since that's the case I will not edit articles on Wikipedia again. There are other places where members of our movement are much more welcome, and I will take my energies there instead.

I leave you with the suggestion that you people approach LaRouche with a more open mind next time. It takes a while to understand his work, but it is worth it; he is one of the great minds of our time, if not the greatest, and, for the sake of the future of humanity, must not be dismissed without consideration. The Power of Human Reason 20:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://wlym.com/tiki/tiki-index.php

title: User:The Power of Human Reason