[Discuss] Inaleignable rights; rule 2.

[James]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I read the whole email. It was all based on the fact that you used to
> have to obey the general and now you don't, which is something I've
> never heard of before. There was no point replying to the whole thing
> when it's all null and void if the initial assumption is wrong. He
> insists in his reply that there is a new rule about not punishing
> disobedience, so perhaps I've missed something, but an email being
> wrong doesn't make it spam.
>
>
Yes, because now the system is set up with your lord in charge of you.  
He sends his army where he wants to.  It's no longer the general 
commanding you everywhere.