Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
An assortment of science fiction stories set on Earth.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/or-whats-a-heaven-for
Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
On Sun, 05 Apr 2026 13:21:12 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
I myself thought Franchise was quite a silly story. However, since the
19th Amendment wasn't going anywhere, I simply assumed that Multivac
would calculate how women, as well as men, would vote; it just happened
that male voters were more informative for some reason.
The Dead Past and Someday were my favorite stories in that collection.
Incidentally, while your article has two footnotes, only a reference to
the first appears in the article.
I cannot agree with the second. The world *needs* the United States of America. Badly. It has currently abdicated its function, but this is a temporary condition which presumably will end at the time of the next Presidential election. If not by the mid-term elections, which is not entirely outside the realm of possibility (even though being too sure of
that is still something that smacks of wishful thinking to me).
John Savard
The world *needs* the United States of America. Badly.
On Sun, 05 Apr 2026 13:21:12 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:would
Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
I myself thought Franchise was quite a silly story. However, since the
19th Amendment wasn't going anywhere, I simply assumed that Multivac
calculate how women, as well as men, would vote; it just happened that
male voters were more informative for some reason.
The Dead Past and Someday were my favorite stories in that collection.
Incidentally, while your article has two footnotes, only a reference to
the first appears in the article.
I cannot agree with the second. The world *needs* the United States of >America. Badly. It has currently abdicated its function, but this is a >temporary condition which presumably will end at the time of the next >Presidential election. If not by the mid-term elections, which is not >entirely outside the realm of possibility (even though being too sure of
that is still something that smacks of wishful thinking to me).
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 05:30:43 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
The world *needs* the United States of America. Badly.
At one time, it was thought that the world *needs* the Bitish Empire.
Badly.
And before that others would have felt the same about the Spanish. And
before them, the Ottomans. And the Romans. And Alexander the Great.
And so on and so on and so on.
Empires come and go. The fact that there is no obvious single
superpower to take the place of the USA is, on balance, a Good Thing.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 05:30:43 -0000 (UTC), quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2026 13:21:12 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
I myself thought Franchise was quite a silly story. However, since the
19th Amendment wasn't going anywhere, I simply assumed that Multivac would >> calculate how women, as well as men, would vote; it just happened that
male voters were more informative for some reason.
The Dead Past and Someday were my favorite stories in that collection.
Incidentally, while your article has two footnotes, only a reference to
the first appears in the article.
I cannot agree with the second. The world *needs* the United States of
America. Badly. It has currently abdicated its function, but this is a
temporary condition which presumably will end at the time of the next
Presidential election. If not by the mid-term elections, which is not
entirely outside the realm of possibility (even though being too sure of
that is still something that smacks of wishful thinking to me).
I don't expect to see a recovery for some time.
And, while I doubt that the Republicans can do anything to improve
their position, the Democrats still have seven months to figure out
how to lose the mid-terms. And they are good at that.
Also, if the Democrats win the mid-terms, everything that goes wrong
after that will be blamed on them because they are in charge. For the longer-run good of the country, it would be better to have the
Republicans in charge through 2030 so the blame can be placed where it belongs and Trump will have the opportunity to foul things up so badly
that no amount of Democratic Party effort -- no, not even unleasing
Bernie and Hillary -- will keep them from winning in 2030.
There's a lot of highy-biased nonsense out there on all sides. But one
thing is sure: it would be a lot better for everyone if the
/Republicans/ -- preferably staunch MAGA Republicans -- brought
articles of impeachment against Trump -- and barred him from future
public office as well as convicting him (with help from the
Democrats).
On 4/10/2026 10:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 05:30:43 -0000 (UTC), quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2026 13:21:12 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
I myself thought Franchise was quite a silly story. However, since the
19th Amendment wasn't going anywhere, I simply assumed that Multivac
would
calculate how women, as well as men, would vote; it just happened that
male voters were more informative for some reason.
The Dead Past and Someday were my favorite stories in that collection.
Incidentally, while your article has two footnotes, only a reference to
the first appears in the article.
I cannot agree with the second. The world *needs* the United States of
America. Badly. It has currently abdicated its function, but this is a
temporary condition which presumably will end at the time of the next
Presidential election. If not by the mid-term elections, which is not
entirely outside the realm of possibility (even though being too sure of >>> that is still something that smacks of wishful thinking to me).
I don't expect to see a recovery for some time.
And, while I doubt that the Republicans can do anything to improve
their position, the Democrats still have seven months to figure out
how to lose the mid-terms. And they are good at that.
Also, if the Democrats win the mid-terms, everything that goes wrong
after that will be blamed on them because they are in charge. For the
longer-run good of the country, it would be better to have the
Republicans in charge through 2030 so the blame can be placed where it
belongs and Trump will have the opportunity to foul things up so badly
that no amount of Democratic Party effort -- no, not even unleasing
Bernie and Hillary -- will keep them from winning in 2030.
There's a lot of highy-biased nonsense out there on all sides. But one
thing is sure: it would be a lot better for everyone if the
/Republicans/ -- preferably staunch MAGA Republicans -- brought
articles of impeachment against Trump -- and barred him from future
public office as well as convicting him (with help from the
Democrats).
You know, the Repuglicans did that once to Richard Nixon.ÿ They will
never do it again.ÿ The dumbrocrats modern day version of Jimmy Carter
would be Newscum, or AOC "shudder", and everyone knows this.
Lynn
On 4/10/2026 10:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 05:30:43 -0000 (UTC), quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2026 13:21:12 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
I myself thought Franchise was quite a silly story. However, since the
19th Amendment wasn't going anywhere, I simply assumed that Multivac would >>> calculate how women, as well as men, would vote; it just happened that
male voters were more informative for some reason.
The Dead Past and Someday were my favorite stories in that collection.
Incidentally, while your article has two footnotes, only a reference to
the first appears in the article.
I cannot agree with the second. The world *needs* the United States of
America. Badly. It has currently abdicated its function, but this is a
temporary condition which presumably will end at the time of the next
Presidential election. If not by the mid-term elections, which is not
entirely outside the realm of possibility (even though being too sure of >>> that is still something that smacks of wishful thinking to me).
I don't expect to see a recovery for some time.
And, while I doubt that the Republicans can do anything to improve
their position, the Democrats still have seven months to figure out
how to lose the mid-terms. And they are good at that.
Also, if the Democrats win the mid-terms, everything that goes wrong
after that will be blamed on them because they are in charge. For the
longer-run good of the country, it would be better to have the
Republicans in charge through 2030 so the blame can be placed where it
belongs and Trump will have the opportunity to foul things up so badly
that no amount of Democratic Party effort -- no, not even unleasing
Bernie and Hillary -- will keep them from winning in 2030.
There's a lot of highy-biased nonsense out there on all sides. But one
thing is sure: it would be a lot better for everyone if the
/Republicans/ -- preferably staunch MAGA Republicans -- brought
articles of impeachment against Trump -- and barred him from future
public office as well as convicting him (with help from the
Democrats).
You know, the Repuglicans did that once to Richard Nixon. They will
never do it again. The dumbrocrats modern day version of Jimmy Carter
would be Newscum, or AOC "shudder", and everyone knows this.
On 4/10/2026 10:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
There's a lot of highy-biased nonsense out there on all sides. But one
thing is sure: it would be a lot better for everyone if the
/Republicans/ -- preferably staunch MAGA Republicans -- brought
articles of impeachment against Trump -- and barred him from future
public office as well as convicting him (with help from the
Democrats).
You know, the Repuglicans did that once to Richard Nixon. They will
never do it again. The dumbrocrats modern day version of Jimmy Carter
would be Newscum, or AOC "shudder", and everyone knows this.
On Sun, 05 Apr 2026 13:21:12 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Earth Is Room Enough by Isaac Asimov
I myself thought Franchise was quite a silly story. However, since the
19th Amendment wasn't going anywhere, I simply assumed that Multivac would calculate how women, as well as men, would vote; it just happened that
male voters were more informative for some reason.
The Dead Past and Someday were my favorite stories in that collection.
Incidentally, while your article has two footnotes, only a reference to
the first appears in the article.
I cannot agree with the second. The world *needs* the United States of America.
On 4/10/2026 10:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
There's a lot of highy-biased nonsense out there on all sides. But one
thing is sure: it would be a lot better for everyone if the
/Republicans/ -- preferably staunch MAGA Republicans -- brought
articles of impeachment against Trump -- and barred him from future
public office as well as convicting him (with help from the
Democrats).
You know, the Repuglicans did that once to Richard Nixon. They will
never do it again. The dumbrocrats modern day version of Jimmy Carter
would be Newscum, or AOC "shudder", and everyone knows this.
On 4/10/2026 3:37 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Empires come and go. The fact that there is no obvious single
superpower to take the place of the USA is, on balance, a Good Thing.
It would be a death match between China and ... China.
Empires come and go. The fact that there is no obvious single superpower
to take the place of the USA is, on balance, a Good Thing.
You know, the Repuglicans did that once to Richard Nixon. They will
never do it again. The dumbrocrats modern day version of Jimmy Carter
would be Newscum, or AOC "shudder", and everyone knows this.
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries.
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
There are dictators in some foreign countries? So what? There have been >dictatorial governments since the beginning of civilization. But a >government with slogans like "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing >to lose but your chains!" - well, _that's_ an existential threat to >businessmen wealthy enough to make significant donations to political >parties.
So the U.S. lost interest in being the "world's policeman" as soon as the >bad guys weren't on the left.
What the world needs isn't an empire that bosses everyone else around. It >needs free men to be stronger than the tyrants who would crush freedom.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:18:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:extreme
On the other hand, I'll definitely admit, unlike some of the more
Democrats, that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, and several others
of that ilk definitely are worse than Trump, and by a good margin aswell.
So far. But with the antics of his ICE agents, to suspect that the clock
is ticking towards the time when he might join their league... is not as
insane as it no doubt seems to you.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:46:16 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries.
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
South Korea was a UN-sanctioned operation. Israel is not.
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage.
quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> wrote:
What the world needs isn't an empire that bosses everyone else around.
It needs free men to be stronger than the tyrants who would crush
freedom.
This is ostensibly what America has meant to promote, even if it has
sadly never worked out that way.
They were/are worse because they were/are /competent leaders/.
Trump's incompetence is holding him back. And I don't expect that to
change.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:47:04 -0700, BCFD 36 wrote:
Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage.
There is no honor in abandoning free people to tyranny, simply in order to abide by an agreement made with a tyrant.
So if the PRC didn't have nukes, carrying out regime change there would
have been entirely right and proper. It would have been good for the
people of Tibet and the Uyghurs as well as the Chinese people.
The 99 year lease which expired was only on the "New Territories", but without them, the rest of Hong Kong couldn't really have managed on its
own. That, though, is just a detail.
John Savard
On 4/12/26 23:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:46:16 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries.
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
South Korea was a UN-sanctioned operation. Israel is not.
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
If I remember correctly, Hong Kong was basically leased to the Brits for
99 years.
honored their contract and went home. Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage. The current US regime has no such honor.
The 99 year lease which expired was only on the "New Territories", but without them, the rest of Hong Kong couldn't really have managed on its
own. That, though, is just a detail.
John Savard
quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> wrote:
So the U.S. lost interest in being the "world's policeman" as soon
as the bad guys weren't on the left.
Not at all, we just picked "terrorism" and "drugs" as our reasons
for it, rather than "communism."
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:46:16 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries.
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
South Korea was a UN-sanctioned operation. Israel is not.
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
On 4/12/26 23:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:46:16 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries.
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
South Korea was a UN-sanctioned operation. Israel is not.
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
If I remember correctly, Hong Kong was basically leased to the Brits for
99 years. The lease was up and wasn't being renewed, so the Brits
honored their contract and went home. Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage. The current US regime has no such honor.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 09:23:18 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> wrote:
So the U.S. lost interest in being the "world's policeman" as soon
as the bad guys weren't on the left.
Not at all, we just picked "terrorism" and "drugs" as our reasons
for it, rather than "communism."
Notice the drugs, in particular, are all coming from countries which
receive a steady flood of smuggled weapons from the USA. The Americans
insist on going into those countries to tell them how to run
drug-enforcement operations, but will not accept any advice on how to
put a stop to its own role as the source of the guns.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:47:04 -0700, BCFD 36 wrote:to
Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage.
There is no honor in abandoning free people to tyranny, simply in order
abide by an agreement made with a tyrant.
So if the PRC didn't have nukes, carrying out regime change there would
have been entirely right and proper. It would have been good for the
people of Tibet and the Uyghurs as well as the Chinese people.
The 99 year lease which expired was only on the "New Territories", but >without them, the rest of Hong Kong couldn't really have managed on its
own. That, though, is just a detail.
On 4/12/26 23:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:46:16 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries.
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
South Korea was a UN-sanctioned operation. Israel is not.
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
If I remember correctly, Hong Kong was basically leased to the Brits for
99 years. The lease was up and wasn't being renewed, so the Brits
honored their contract and went home. Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage. The
current US regime has no such honor.
On 4/13/2026 10:47 AM, BCFD 36 wrote:for
On 4/12/26 23:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:46:16 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries.
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
South Korea was a UN-sanctioned operation. Israel is not.
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
If I remember correctly, Hong Kong was basically leased to the Brits
of99 years. The lease was up and wasn't being renewed, so the Brits
honored their contract and went home. Not really good for the people
TheHong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage.
current US regime has no such honor.And the terms of the turnover included that Hong Kong would keep its
local government and a large degree of autonomy.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 22:42:14 -0000 (UTC), quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:47:04 -0700, BCFD 36 wrote:
Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage.
There is no honor in abandoning free people to tyranny, simply in order to >> abide by an agreement made with a tyrant.
So if the PRC didn't have nukes, carrying out regime change there would
have been entirely right and proper. It would have been good for the
people of Tibet and the Uyghurs as well as the Chinese people.
The 99 year lease which expired was only on the "New Territories", but
without them, the rest of Hong Kong couldn't really have managed on its
own. That, though, is just a detail.
Why, quadi, I have long known that you are wierd, but I never dreamed
you were MAGA.
And were the dreaded commies running China in 1900? Which is when a 99
year lease ending in 1999 would have begun.
Didn't think so.
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 06:36:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 4/13/2026 10:47 AM, BCFD 36 wrote:
On 4/12/26 23:07, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:And the terms of the turnover included that Hong Kong would keep its
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:46:16 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
Russia and the People's Republic of China. Both are tyrannies with
no objection to intimidation and aggression against other countries. >>>>>
It is a Bad Thing that there is no one around to stop them.
The United States had been the defender of threatened small
democracies, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel.
South Korea was a UN-sanctioned operation. Israel is not.
As for Taiwan ... where was the US when Hong Kong lost its autonomy?
If I remember correctly, Hong Kong was basically leased to the Brits for >>> 99 years. The lease was up and wasn't being renewed, so the Brits
honored their contract and went home. Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage. The >>> current US regime has no such honor.
local government and a large degree of autonomy.
Which they did ... for a while.
Totalitarianism always reveals itself. It has no honor.
Ya, everyone knew China would crack down. Hence the UK welcoming as
many fleeing as they could. The only questions were how quickly and >violently the crack down would be.
But the United States still has a free press ...
On 4/14/2026 1:03 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Notice the drugs, in particular, are all coming from countries
which receive a steady flood of smuggled weapons from the USA. The
Americans insist on going into those countries to tell them how to
run drug-enforcement operations, but will not accept any advice on
how to put a stop to its own role as the source of the guns.
We like to export our 2nd Amendment....
On 4/14/26 08:17, Paul S Person wrote:order to
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 22:42:14 -0000 (UTC), quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:47:04 -0700, BCFD 36 wrote:
Not really good for the people of
Hong Kong, but the Brits acted honorably on the international stage.
There is no honor in abandoning free people to tyranny, simply in
wouldabide by an agreement made with a tyrant.
So if the PRC didn't have nukes, carrying out regime change there
buthave been entirely right and proper. It would have been good for the
people of Tibet and the Uyghurs as well as the Chinese people.
The 99 year lease which expired was only on the "New Territories",
itswithout them, the rest of Hong Kong couldn't really have managed on
own. That, though, is just a detail.
Why, quadi, I have long known that you are wierd, but I never dreamed
you were MAGA.
And were the dreaded commies running China in 1900? Which is when a 99
year lease ending in 1999 would have begun.
Didn't think so.
The lease would have been with the last Imperial Chinese Govenment.
They were the same sort of Tyranny that the British Empire imposed on
its colonies.
Of course over the nets 50 years things would change. China was finally
industrialising in a painful way over the next 44 years.
Then when the Lease ran out a fresh regime had taken over.
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 06:37:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 4/14/2026 1:03 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Notice the drugs, in particular, are all coming from countries
which receive a steady flood of smuggled weapons from the USA. The
Americans insist on going into those countries to tell them how to
run drug-enforcement operations, but will not accept any advice on
how to put a stop to its own role as the source of the guns.
We like to export our 2nd Amendment....
Killing your children is your own affair. But looking the other way
while weapons are illegally crossing your borders means you are no
longer being a good neighbour to those around you who didn?t ask for
this.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 23:02:34 -0000 (UTC), quadi wrote:
But the United States still has a free press ...
Other countries do it better. There is too much self-censorship in
American media.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:15:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/10/2026 3:37 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Empires come and go. The fact that there is no obvious single
superpower to take the place of the USA is, on balance, a Good Thing.
It would be a death match between China and ... China.
Without the United States, Taiwan really has no hope of successfully defending itself against a determined attack by the PRC.
John Savard
There is more than one mainland China. To think that mainland China
is a unified society is naive.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:53:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
There is more than one mainland China. To think that mainland China
is a unified society is naive.
It's been a unified nation for longer than any other surviving society
on Earth.
On 4/13/2026 12:30 AM, quadi wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:15:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/10/2026 3:37 AM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Empires come and go. The fact that there is no obvious single
superpower to take the place of the USA is, on balance, a Good Thing.
It would be a death match between China and ... China.
Without the United States, Taiwan really has no hope of successfully
defending itself against a determined attack by the PRC.
John Savard
There is more than one mainland China.ÿ To think that mainland China is
a unified society is naive.ÿ Many people in China are not happy with the communist party running everything.ÿ Will they ever rise up, who knows ?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:53:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
There is more than one mainland China. To think that mainland China
is a unified society is naive.
It?s been a unified nation for longer than any other surviving society
on Earth.
On 4/15/2026 7:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:53:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
There is more than one mainland China. To think that mainland China
is a unified society is naive.
It?s been a unified nation for longer than any other surviving society
on Earth.
No, it hasn't.
Its been unified and broken up again several times.
The most recent reunification was in 1949, and that's still
incomplete.
Since the initial unification in 220 BC, we've had:
Three Kingdoms period: 220 AD - 280 AD
16 Kingdoms: 304 - 439
Northern & Southern Kingdoms: 420 - 589
Five Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms 907 - 960
Taiping Rebellion 1851 - 1864
Chinese Civil War 1927 - 1949 (arguably still ongoing)
pt
On 4/15/2026 7:23 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:53:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
There is more than one mainland China. To think that mainland
China is a unified society is naive.
It?s been a unified nation for longer than any other surviving
society on Earth.
No, it hasn't.
Its been unified and broken up again several times.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 109:25:14 |
| Calls: | 212 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,704 |