The first several times it crashed, it opened a blank, smallish window
which was exactly the same size as a window opened by Outlook for
a user profile. I don't remember now if "user" was the exact term.
It was definitely a Something-or-other Profile. Apparently a web page
can request the profile from the computer via the browser. Wikipedia
might use the profile instead of a cookie. I never had a profile set up
on this computer, and may have foolishly deleted some required file
when I first acquired the computer second-hand. I'm still using the
OS that the manufacturer put on it.

I did install the newest version of IE (ooops!) that this OS can handle,
and I do want a newer operating system for other reasons.

However, I should be getting a whole new desktop system RSN....

And you can put the date on your list when it finally happens.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

You are obfuscating my point with facts.

Julius Caesar was appointed dictator for life and most of the dictators who followed where called imperator.

The Plebian council made laws (had to go back and look this up - I forgot about them)

The point: "Caesars" were autocrats and the republic was mainly ceremonial.

The title of imperator -- "emperor" -- already existed in the Roman Republic. At first it was a sort of military rank, but after Caesar converted his military power into political power, emperors became dictators for life. It was essentially Caesar and his successor Octavian, better known by his title of Augustus, who made the conversion from the Roman Republic (which was a sort of oligarchy, in modern terms) into the Empire (which was basically a monarchy).

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

I didn't really want to open this rather sticky matter again, but I feel that I should clearify my opinion as stated earlier in the thread. My appologies for not responding on Friday, but I left here early and I generally don't post on the weekends.

I agree with you Disinfo, that Christianity was indeed becoming popular in the Mediterranean Region for some time before Constantine; however, there was not much common agreement between the various Christian factions as to the theology of Christianity.

Before Constantine, the Emperor Diocletian ordered the greatest organized persecution of Christians thruout all areas of the Roman World. Christian Churches were burned down, books destroyed, and followers were killed. At this time, Constantine was one of four rulers, under Diocletian, who basically controlled the area in Europe known as Gaul. Constantine found reasons to ignore orders to persecute Christians, and most Christians under his sphere of influence fared much better than in other regions. After Diocletian left office, the great persecutions were generally broken up, by the spread of war between the four rulers who ruled over the four main divisions of the Roman Empire.

As the four rulers battled for control of the Empire, it was Constantine and his armies(now fighting under the Christian banner) who won the war and gained sole control, as the new Roman Emperor. Constantine supported his version of the Christian Church which was Trinitarian in nature. By weilding his political power, he brought together many of the competing Christian factions into what became the official Roman Religion. Other forms of Christianity, such as Gnosticism and Arianism, which were widespread at the time, were outlawed and persecuted.

It is true that Paganism was in decline thuout the Empire and was going to be replaced by some other beliefs. It was Constantine who had the power to dictate what was to come after Paganism was gone. He build many new churches and spread his version of Christinity far and wide. He gave the Christian Church much power by puting it's leaders in high political positions and after his death, his religious legacy continued, and is still with us today. I do not believe that without Contantine the Christian Church would be as powerful as they are today. Christianity in some form probably would have survived without him, but it probably would not resemble the basic Trinitarian form that is prevelent now.

Hi Veeger, In your list, you might have made an honorable mention of the
catastrophic explosion of thera.....a mere 600 years prior, but an extraordinary event , certainly.

Dan

Hi, Trantor. I don't disagree substantially with what you've written. I would just make a couple of remarks:

1. As far as I can tell from what I've read, it's very, very difficult to be sure about how popular each branch/sect of Christianity was in those days. Still, it stands to reason that the variant promoted by Constantine and (most of) the emperors that followed him would be the one with greatest popular support -- or at least the one with greatest support within the church hierarchy.

2. It's true that Constantine was the one who promoted the First Council of Nicaea, where Arianism was condemned as a heresy, so he did have a hand in the rejection of Arianism. But other varieties of early Christianity, particularly the Gnostic ones, seemed to have already been rejected by mainstream Christianity by then. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in 180, over a century before Constantine came to power. Did divergent, competing strands of Christianity exist in those early centuries? Yes. Were they all regarded as equally legitimate by most Christians? Apparently not. This, Constantine did not invent; it was already there.

Did Constantine and his successors redesign the Christian Church? Possibly to some extent, but I think that in large part they also gave in to the trends within Christendom itself. In all the examples I can recall of emperors trying to meddle with Christian doctrine, they invariably failed. If anything, I suspect that it was the new element of political power, more than the personality of any particular emperor, which reshaped the Church.

3. Constantine was only one of the many players in the long evolution of the Church. Most of his sucessors had some role in it as well, from Theodosius (who finally banned paganism altogether, a century after Constantine came to power) to Julian (who tried to undo what Constantine had done and create a sort of pagan anti-Church), including such later actors as Justinian or Irene.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Yes, I agree with what you wrote. He was one of many players, but because of his position as the first Christian Roman Emperor, I believe he delivered the early impact, that defined what Christianity was to be, and gave them the power that they needed, in order to eventually become what it is today. Yes, Julian tried to undo Constantine's work, but by then, the Christian Church was just too powerful. Justinian was truly Constantine's successor; these two leaders really got Christianity out of the gate, and running full speed ahead.

Thanks for the nice discussion Disinfo.

Some theorize, that a dynasty in China collapsed due to the climatic impact of the eruption.

Trantor,
Just out of curiosity, which event would drop in favor of Constantine?

-V

5 March 1951 Release of "Rocket 88" changing the world forever.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

I don't understand your question exactly. I think you asking which important event had to do with Constantine. Since this thread is about important events, in the last 3000 years, I offered the date of 324, when Constantine won military victory against the Pagans; thereby becoming the first Christian Emperor, which led to Christianity becoming official religion of the Roman Empire.

Sorry Trantor, I have this bad habit of thinking faster than I can type. I meant, since the list is limited to 20, I would need to remove one entry to squeeze in, Constantine. Which event do you think should be removed?

Put it back in that hat!

Edited afterthought - Oh, and I think you'll find that was the British Empire, not English.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Nah, not really. Here's just one, considerably older, example.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Hi, Yes, and I wonder if there is any evidence in the ice record of perhaps
a "little ice age" following that calamity.

Best regards, Dan

Hi Dan,
As I said, some think Thera had a long lasting and global impact but the idea is not universally accepted. For example, ice core studies have fairly recently redated the eruption to approximately 1645BC which forced some redating of what was known about Minoan civilization. The study cited here disputes the ice core correlation based on recent calculations of the volume and type of elements ejected.

-V

Don't believe the hype. The Althing was hardly what we'd call democratic.

It was clearly an oligarchic, if not aristocratic, institution. The problem is that people sometimes have the wrong idea that anything which isn't a stereotypical hereditary absolute monarchy must be a democracy. Not so.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Edit - comments removed. It's pointless, we've been here before.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.